Being Average

In a great scene in an otherwise forgettable Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu, Kareena Kapoor explains to Imran Khan the advantages of being 'average.' Average, she says, is calm; average is predictable; average is easy to live with. I have the advantage that I was once a very mediocre student; I used to work quite hard but didn't perform that well. Am I happier today than I was then? Professional and academic successes have pushed me to new shores, but are these shores that I am happier on? It is difficult to find an answer, of course, because my 'average' years also coincided with my childhood and, ceteris paribus, childhood is a happier period of one's life. Maybe I can turn around the question and locate the sources of unhappiness in my present situation and link it to the lack of 'averageness.'

I dislike the fact that I have no 'home' to return to; that my 'home' is a room that only I live in. I miss coming back to a family; a place where doors didn't divide the home into personal fiefdoms. I miss having a balcony overlooking the locality, where I could sit and ruminate. I miss the chatter of daily existence; the boisterous kids playing cricket, the older people taking evening walks. It is, unfortunately, the lack of 'above-average' jobs in Kolkata that now prevent me from being at that place I can call home. I had to stay back in Delhi when my parents moved so I could get a better education, then had to stay in Delhi during college because that's where the best economics colleges are; had to work in Delhi because McKinsey has no Kolkata office, and then transplanted to Oxford because that's where 'upward and onward' got me.

I miss my friends. I still form friendships (maybe more numerous) but I'm not sure if I'd be able to fall and have one of those friends catch me in free fall and make me stand up. One of my biggest fears now is that I'll never be in the same city as my good ol' friends ever again - that life will become a continuous cycle of moving on and forming new friendships. A big part of 'above-averageness' in today's world is probably in moving to bigger and better places. The benefits are obvious and immediate. The costs are often more long term, and more subtle. Am I sure that my latent loneliness isn't chipping away at whatever made me click? I don't know.

Don't get me wrong. I have the greatest appreciation for whatever opportunities I have had the fortune of having. The only thing I want to warn myself is to not get carried away in this wave of, and race for, success. I want to keep reminding myself that success is not happiness. That all costs are not internalised immediately. I want to make professional sacrifices for personal happiness; even as I sacrifice personal happiness for professional success. I want to find that spot in this world where I am at my happiest. Where I have a home, however imperfect, to return to. Where I have friends, however annoying, to engage with me. Every day.

The Labour Conundrum

The condition of labourers in India is often used to drive home the image of the exploitative corporate. There is, of course, a modicum of truth to this generalisation. Private enterprise does respond only to profit, and therefore the condition of labour would not be their primary concern. However, what is also undeniable is the ability of private enterprise to stir growth in the economy and hence drive people out of poverty - either directly through employment or through increase in government tax revenue that can then be spent on provision of basic services. Therefore, the question becomes - under what conditions is private incentive incompatible with social good? This will guide us to the answer.

There are nuances, and we must be cognisant of these nuances before making policy recommendations. I am not an expert in this field, and therefore do not claim to have the definitive answer. However, there are a few observations I have that I believe might be useful to put out in the public domain. I worked with a lot of data while working on McKinsey's 'India's Path from Poverty to Empowerment' report. While this wasn't directly a part of my workstream, Chapter 2 of the report is a great summary of what might be wrong with India's economy, and does talk a lot about labour.

My opinion on this question of labour, however, was shaped by the time I spent at a factory in rural Gujarat. Every day over seven months, I interacted with a cross section of employees at this factory and understood the dynamic of unemployment. Two things were most clear - one, that both the contract labourers and the factory wanted to convert contract labourers into permanent employees; and secondly, labour laws designed to 'protect' labour were, in fact, doing them the most harm. Let me elucidate on both.

Contract labour markets are extremely chaotic and unreliable. To understand this, one should literally imagine a truck leaving the factory in the morning, stopping by in the nearby villages and picking up labourers to work at the factory for the next eight hours. The reality is somewhat more nuanced, but not drastically different. Workers are paid day-by-day, and therefore have no long-term contracts and basic employee protection. They can be barred from work at the whim of the corporate. There is bare minimum protection against accidents at work. That is the nature of such contract employment that is seem to be the most exploitative of employment opportunities. On the other end, corporates are not very happy with this set-up either. Something as trivial as a marriage in the village or rains can cause massive productivity losses in the factory. The worker cannot be trained to improve productivity, since there is no guarantee that he will turn up the next day. Factory owners would prefer to have a greater commitment from the worker but usually isn't able to receive it.

What is the villain in the story? The very same labour laws that were once meant to protect labour. The cost of employment for the factory owner increases dramatically at certain numbers. For example, above 100 employees, the cost of firing employees increases substantially and factories are therefore loathe to increase the number of (permanent) employees unless the benefits are high too. Therefore, Indian manufacturing displays the phenomenon of the 'missing middle' wherein workers are employed either in small - scale enterprises or really large ones; and there is a large number of workers who are in contract employment. For example, employees in large scale enterprises (greater than 200 employees) are 8 times as productive and earn 4.5 times as much as workers in small scale enterprises (less than 49 workers). The following exhibit from the McKinsey report is enlightening:

Labour laws can also easily become a way for corrupt bureaucrats to extract 'quasi - rents' from corporates. Transparent and secular labour laws can dramatically improve employment generation in a state. For example, the share of the organised sector in overall employment is 21 to 22 percent in 'labour-friendly' states such as Gujarat, Karnataka and Maharashtra, as compared to an all - India average of 14 percent. Organised sector workers get many of the benefits that one would believe that workers should have. Moreover, one can see that the relatively less 'pro-employer' states such as Bihar, Assam and West Bengal are also the laggards in economic growth.

In a country at India's stage of development, where there is massive disguised unemployment in agriculture that is waiting to be released, labour protection is extremely important. However, in trying to protect the labour that is already employed, we might fall prey to the typical 'insider-outsider bargaining problem,' where protecting the already employed might harm the interests of those who could be potentially employed. A thorough re-look at labour laws is required if India wants to pull its citizens out of poverty quicker.

Trinity Term, Year 1

My friend Mubashir is my mirror. Nobody has ever analysed my life and its decisions in such depth as this guy has, and nobody has pushed me to think about it so much either. I was forced to think what part of me is really intrinsic and what part of me is just me trying to create a different me. It has therefore been a truly fascinating term, one that was happy and reflective at the same time.

I try to imagine that back in December, had someone told me that by May I would enter one of the most pleasant phases of my life, I would have laughed. Deep scars had just be re-opened, and my confidence lay at an all-time low. It is when man falls in his own eyes that the light at the end of the tunnel seems like an illusion, a consolation to a broken soul. But, in impatience, if one tries to put the weight of mountains on feeble shoulders, those shoulders will crack. I now feel lucky to have found the ground under my feet, to have found the hand with a healing touch, and in the process found myself. I now know that there is always hope; and as long as one keeps the head high, one gets there. 

The entire year has been one of exploration, and that was the point of leaving an overbearing identity to come here and start from scratch again. To run, to fall, to try and get up, to limp, and finally to take flight - that was what I was excited about, and that is where I have finally come. I sit in my room, writing this post, with several empty bottles of wine and cans of red bull lying in front of me, a little pink flower in a soda bottle, A heap of washed clothes that need ironing. The shelves emptied of books resembling a battle field. A pressure cooker with dal and a vessel of pulao. This experience at Oxford has helped me explore bits of me that I didn't know existed.

One night, as I walked back with Mubashir, I took a stroll down memory lane to the Subhashish of Class VIII - the one who worked very hard, and yet didn't perform very well academically. I reminisced about the Subhashish of Class XI who went to quiz after quiz, and never won any of them, but kept going back because he believed that he began a journey with someone and didn't want to let her down. The one who began to memorise every word of the dictionary because he wanted to speak better English. The one who begged the 'powers that be' at school to give him the opportunity to excel. The one who stayed alone for a year, without television or internet, because that was the price that was asked of him. My life took a very dramatic turn on May 22, 2009 - and it is very hard for me to remember life before that. Everything since then has been dramatic, like a movie. I have felt so blessed, as if this was the accumulated karma of all those years. The point is not that there was an upward trajectory, but that there existed something before that. Something that was perhaps more mellow, and something I might have tended to look down upon. But something that is as integral a part of my as everything since then. Something that shapes who I am. I found a new respect for my past.

And that night, while talking about those days before May 22, I rediscovered the joy of failure. Because I remembered that the success I had seen of late just didn't compare with the years and years of failures I had seen before that. And I felt the fear of failure melting away. Things came to a head during the examinations, as the stress levels began to rise. But I found myself much better equipped to deal with it. The fear of failure, of course, will never completely go away. But I have finally begun to internalise how this is all a part of what I am, of what the human experience is about. If I could have come from that little room in DSOI, Dhaula Kuan, to this little room on Rose Lane, Oxford, then I can do that again. Failure will set me back, but failure will give me the tools to build something new.

But failures exist everywhere. Mubashir, my dearest friend, is as blunt and honest as they come, and one day he proclaimed 'Subhashish, you have succeeded at everything in life except love.' I often pass that spot where, back in December, the fear of another failure in love had crippled me. I played the tape of failure in my mind constantly. I made myself believe that I was incapable of this thing called love. Maybe I am. But what I do know now is that I do much better in life without that additional pressure. I learnt to value what I did right. That I did not let bitterness fill my life; that I continued to care, continued to love. That the spirit of sacrifice wasn't gone. That I had made myself immune to public ridicule because I knew that my heart was in the right place. Because I believed, and continue to believe, that at the end of all this, there will be redemption. When the weight of my actions will finally be balanced by the truth that I loved, and loved unconditionally. That one night, several months later, I could stand with my head held high and profess my love once again. And yet know that the love was noxious; that it was never meant to be. And then, for the first time in life, leave it behind and move on to something new. This, of course, isn't love as I once knew it, but it is something so refreshingly different that it makes me feel really happy within every single time. Things may, and probably will, go wrong. But there's no fear any more. In fact, there's a dead end waiting for me round the corner, but there's both hope that this isn't a dead end, and strength that even if it is, life will carry on.

Through all of this, I am grateful for the kindness I have been showered with. For all the times my friends have been annoyed with me; because that is when I have had the opportunity to stop and reflect. For my friends back home who have supported me so much over the last year; for all their encouragement and their love. For those who tell me what they like about me, and what they dislike. For those who tell me how I can be a better person. I had forgotten that life is a never-ending adventure. It took me a few hard knows to remember. And now I wait, with baited breaths, for the next adventure to begin. So I can run, fall and get up once again. 

A response to this article that was circulated on the Rhodes Scholars google group:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/city-corporates-destroy-best-minds

---------------------------------------------

Thanks for sending this article, Vivek, and for recently encouraging me to reply on this thread. As someone who already worked at McKinseybefore getting the scholarship, I have been amused at how the firm has, within the Rhodes community here, come to represent a particular kind of corporate culture. We are supposed to 'fight the world's fight', and that might explain our discomfort with these firms.

I believe, however, that if we end up believing that there is a set path to create a better world, and that these jobs are far removed from that path, then we risk falling prey to the kind of dogma that will prevent us from reaching that aim. There are different ways and approaches to improving the world, and people can and should be free to contribute in ways they want to. When we stop making sweeping generalisations and look within these firms to find individuals, I think we will realise that it is the individual who decides what to do with their life, and finds the best way to do it. 

1. Is consulting 'pointless', 'destructive', 'soul sucker' and 'useless': These are some of the adjectives Monbiot uses for jobs such as management consulting. Many Rhodes scholars have also expressed such apprehensions, albeit in more polite ways. Now, there are things that one would universally consider 'useful' or 'constructive', and then there are things that would may find useful depending on their values. I worked for several months on a report* that advised the government, among other things, to have a re-look at the abysmally low official poverty numbers, to increase spending on basic services such as healthcare and sanitation, to keep a strong role for the public sector and to improve governance to enable the poor to participate more fully. I also remember the days I spent in one of the poorest districts of India, working on a project that would bring electricity to a fraction of the ~ 400 million people in India living without any access to electricity. I fail to see what is 'pointless' or 'destructive' in what I did. Working in a plant to increase output might not seem like it contributes to making the world a better place, but then when I interacted with the (contracted) labourers, it was most obvious to me that what the economically weaker sections want is growth and jobs and all of that. Management consulting firms, therefore, are a pareto improvement over status quo.
   
   
2. We have but one life. However much money we make, we cannot buy it back: Firstly, I might not agree with someone who seeks to make lots of money, but that doesn't in any way make me right and him wrong. Just makes us different. Simple. The good thing about places like McKinsey is that they are secular. For thousands of people in countries such as India, they provide us an opportunity to live the life that we could never dream of. For example, it might be easy for scholars from first-world countries to imagine just packing their bags and leaving for foreign shores, but for me, McKinsey was the first time I stepped outside India. The entry barriers (visa procedures) set up for us are rather high, and take a lot of money (and time) to scale. And to be honest, I probably wouldn't be a Rhodes Scholar if it wasn't for my time at McKinsey. Because the lavish settings in which the Rhodes interviews are conducted intimidate anyone who isn't born into a modicum of privilege. We need to reflect on how many of our institutions, including our scholarship, are truly secular in the way a McKinsey is. Like those organisations, do we create opportunities based purely on merit (however it may be defined), or do we reward privilege with even more privilege? One needs only to go to Gurgaon, once a dusty suburb of Delhi but today the richest district in India, to witness this story of hope. Hope that isn't restricted to the corridors of privilege.
   
   
3. Is consulting a 'cult': Monbiot starts with saying that the purposes of humankind is to seek enlightenment, intellectual or spiritual; to do good; to love and be loved and to teach. I completely agree, but I fail to see what about management consulting prevents one from doing that. I found lots of love from people at McKinsey when I was there; some of them have, in fact, contributed to making me whatever I am today (for good or for bad). When I had typed out the email withdrawing my Rhodes Application after clearing the first round, it was a McKinsey Associate who prevented me from doing so by writing to the Partner on the study who convinced me over the next several interactions to give this experience a chance over the private equity offer I had. An Engagement Manager at McKinsey taught me to stand up for what I believe in, and to not mince words, in the face of disagreement from those 'senior' to me. These are skills one can also learn outside McKinsey - which is my point. These firms are reflections of the world. One will find the good, the bad and the ugly. Just need to learn how to deal with it. It isn't a 'cult' and certainly didn't trap me, neither did it try to.
   
   

The point around recruitment practices is one, as Natalya pointed out, something that is the most worthwhile to discuss. Some of it is justified because these occupations are unknown commodities and hence these firms need to make an effort to make themselves visible in a way academia or civil services don't need to. Where do we draw the line? How do we redistribute resources? And if we make an effort to level the playing field at university recruitment, what about later in life? Certainly those willing to 'sell out' to these firms after University would also tend to 'sell out' to them later in life? Brings me to my final question - are these students really our best graduates?

Regards,

SB

----------------------------------
* India's Path from Poverty to Empowerment: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/asia-pacific/indias_path_from_poverty_to_empowerment

Gandhi Must Fall

On 13 April this year, a statue of Gandhi in Johannesberg was defaced and protesters raised placards reading 'Gandhi must fall.'  I see around me an attempt to discredit the Mahatma due to the racism he displayed towards black South Africans. Yet, in ignoring Gandhi's journey from Man to Mahatma, these 'activists' display a violence of thought that would make their quest for equality more difficult.*

For an Indian citizen, I am embarrassingly ignorant about Gandhi. I never needed to know more about him than I already knew. After all, those who seek to discredit Gandhi within India have had to resort to the most banal of arguments - the muslim-appeasing, weak, megalomaniacal Mahatma; the one who caused the partition, the one who left us with the Nehru-Gandhi family et al. A few months after I came to Oxford, I was jolted out of this complacence by a Rhodes Scholar, who called the Mahatma a 'nappy-wearing racist' on facebook. This was my first incentive to know more about Gandhi, and I picked up his autobiography. The next was another Rhodes Scholar who said 'but he beat his wife!' I kept reading, because I cannot talk about something I do not know. Most recently, when I quoted what Gandhi wrote about Israel in 1939, a Rhodes Scholar commented 'given how problematic Gandhi's remarks on apartheid in South Africa were (often full of anti-black sentiment), I don't see how his view is at all relevant.' I was hurt, not because I believe Gandhi was the perfect human being, but because I view this as symptomatic of a tendency to discredit all of Gandhi because of sensitivities around racism. Putting my reading on hold for a moment, I am compelled to put together my thoughts on this issue. For the record, I disagree vehemently with him, but more on that later.

• General disdain for blacks or 'Kaffirs' (1894 - 1911): Gandhi's writings from the time he spent in South Africa reflect a desire to, rather than attain equality with the whites, distinguish the Indians or Asiatics from the natives or 'Kaffirs' as he called them. Click here for a collection of quotes attributed to Gandhi. It is difficult for me to comment on the issue without having read precisely the texts that are quoted here**, but a few comments are in order. Firstly, Gandhi's thoughts and actions underwent a transformation over his life, and it seems that they began to distil into 'Gandhiism' only by the late 1910s. For example, Gandhi in the 1920s himself regretted his behaviour with his wife during their time in South Africa. If there is any truth in the allegations against Gandhi here, I am certain that he would have regretted them later in life***. Secondly, the complexity of this relationship is borne by this quote - "We may entertain no aversion to Kaffirs, but we cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us in the daily affairs of life." Evidently, Gandhi believed that there is no intinsic reason to distinguish between the natives and Indians. He refers to the cultural differences that make assimilation untenable. Where Gandhi of this time may be found lacking is in accepting these differences and not wanting to bridge them. Gandhi's later actions in India, w.r.t. the Harijans or untouchables, a class of people who suffered discrimination perhaps unfathomable in any other part of the world, are testimony to his egalitarian nature. Gandhi's vision of India as a united state, where every citizen irrespective of religion, race or gender, had equal rights, is testimony to the fact that (the later) Gandhi can be called anything but racist.

• Participation in the war with the Zulus, 1906: After his participation in the Second Boer War as the leader of the Indian volunteer medics, Gandhi was once again on the side of the British during the Zulu rebellion. Gandhi's willingness to side with the British has not only been used to prove his antipathy towards the native black populations, but also to discredit him as a messiah of peace (click here). A few comments must be made. Firstly, Gandhi in 1906 was a supporter of the British empire; in fact, he envisaged a role for India within this empire and had not even thought of independence. As a faithful subject of the British empire, Gandhi felt duty-bound to come to the assistance of his nation. He said - "It is not for us to say whether the revolt of the Kaffirs is justified or not.. We re in natal by virtue of British power. Our very existence depends upon it. It is therefore our duty to render whatever help we can" Gandhi's repeated participation on the side of the British was driven by his duty towards his 'nation'. The same Gandhi sided with the British during the First World War, this time against 'white' enemies. On the second point, it seems that Gandhi's thoughts around war and violence were yet to fully develop. In any case, (the later) Gandhi would not have approved of a violent struggle for freedom as mounted by the Zulus in 1906, not would he have approved of the brutal British response. One must remember than in 1922, Gandhi called off a successful non-cooperation movement against British rule in India after a single incident of violence.

In conclusion, the sensitivity of the 'activists' towards racism is understandable. However, the hurry in knocking off the Mahatma from the pedestal he currently occupies is unwarranted. We are increasingly a generation of the impatient, and our activism and our ideals are also coloured by this impatience. Our ability to see things in the wider context has consequently suffered. There is certain merit in gradualism and patience. Gandhi needs a careful reading, one that I am still in the process of making. But more importantly, understanding Gandhi needs a clear mind. Trying to think from the Mahatma's perspective is difficult, but an attempt must be made. For me, Gandhi is the Mahatma or the 'Great Soul', not because I agree with him (which I do not), but I agree with how he reached the conclusions he did and what he did once he reached them. Gandhi's life was one big experiment, a continuous learning curve. He made mistakes on the way, as he admits himself. But if the 'activists' use these mistakes to denigrate an icon, I believe it will only do great disservice to their cause. Peace and love are powerful weapons. They may be advised to use them more. 

-------------------------

* - all quotes attributed to Gandhi in this article are from secondary sources. I would request the readers to let me know if any mistakes so that I may correct them.

** - having read his autobiography, there is little reference, derogatory or otherwise, to the black population of South Africa. Gandhi comments intensely on the state of the Indian community and their relationship with the (white) administration

*** - if anyone has come across any comments that Gandhi makes about black Africans post - 1920, would be very grateful if you could send those to me

Comments on the Palestinian issue

I recently visited Israel as part of a trip organised by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) for Rhodes Scholars. Over about a week, we criss-crossed the country and met several people from different walks of life. We did not, however, visit the West Bank. With that in mind, here are my thoughts about the issue.

The Palestinian question has so many connotations that it is difficult for any country to be truly neutral. It has a 'Christianity/Judaism v/s. Islam', 'West V/s. East', 'Capitalism V/s. Socialism/Non-Aligned' and may I say even 'Rich V/s. Poor' tinge to it. Reality is often distorted by fanaticism on both sides. The Middle East is such a unique place that it is often difficult, if not impossible, for someone sitting in the sub continent to grasp fully the issues plaguing the region.

This trip therefore made me think about this festering issue in a way I haven't thought before. The desire of the nation to maintain a semblance of normalcy is commendable; and yet, the manifestations of the conflict are highly visible. Outside of the official program, I met several people who introduced themselves to me in ethnic or religious terms - Arab, Jew or Druze. It is a challenge the like of which would be hard to find elsewhere. Yet, after days of merely listening to speaker after speaker, the contours of the solution became most obvious to me. I believe most of these would be least surprising to anyone who has thought about this previously.

• Forget: The global discourse of the conflict seems to focus on what is 'right.' Is it, for example, right for the Jewish people to return to (or occupy) a land that they last held as a political unit some 2000 years back, and one that has since then been populated by other people, most recently the Muslim Palestinians*? Can that be a basis for other ethno-religious claims of a displaced people, like that of the Zoroastrians on Iran? Was the partition plan feasible? Were the Muslims made to pay the price for a (Christian country's) Holocaust? I believe that answering these questions is futile - firstly, because there never is a 'right' or 'wrong'; akin to the fact that different ways of aggregating utilities yields different results in economics. Secondly, the last sixty-seventy years are also now a part of history. The inescapable truth is that over six million Jewish people now reside in Israel. Any future solution has to start today, with this fact in mind. Even if one believes that the creation of Israel was unfair, one cannot argue in favour of undoing the 'wrong' by removing the state - because that leaves the six million people vulnerable. Discussions about resolving the conflict needs to focus on (a) what is the status quo (b) what is the ideal solution (c) how can we get closest to this solution.

• Grow and Govern: The Israeli occupation of Palestine is an inescapable truth. Israel as a nation and the Jewish people as a community place a lot of importance on their safety, as exemplified in the motto 'never again.' Israeli occupation of the West Bank is important from a security point of view. If the West Bank goes the Gaza way, or if it becomes a breeding ground for terrorist organisations, that could seriously test the existence of the Jewish state. With the addition of the Yemen conflict, the entire region seems to be in a state of conflict. The military differential between Israel and its antagonistic neighbours is currently substantial, but will probably be blunted over time. Where does that leave us? It seemed to me that the two-nation solution is accepted as the only solution. When the state of Palestine will finally be created, it is in Israel's best interest that the state be strong, and a strong nation needs to have strong institutions. Hence, it is in Israel's best interest that the Palestinian people be guided, encouraged and even forced to have world-class institutions**. Actions such as withholding tax receipts from the Palestinian Authority because the latter joined the ICC do not create much confidence. The basic feature of institutions is that they are stable; Israel cannot have 'institutions' that are provided or withdrawn as per convenience. Israel must help create an independent, efficient and able judiciary, must help empower local governing bodies, and must lay the foundations of economic growth. So that when the day comes to hand over the reins to the Palestinian people, the Israeli state can be at peace.

• Integrate: Finally, something must be said about Israeli Arabs, as distinct from the Palestinians. I was recently reading about communal conflict in India, and Israel's case is eerily similar - a majority religion with about 80% of the population, an Islamic minority and a long history of conflict. With all its flaws, it seems to me that India has done better in addressing this problem. As an example, the Muslim community in India holds a 'political veto' - (with the possible exception of the Modi dispensation,) they are organised politically such that they can block any proposal detrimental to their society. In contract, the Arab parties in Israel are almost political pariahs for any government. I could see that efforts are being made to bridge the gap between Arabs and Jews, and I would like to study that further before making any further comment. Also germane to the discussion is the engagement of Israel with the Islamic world. With nearly half of the global Islamic population, the countries east of Pakistan could serve as Israel's gateway to the Muslim world. Many of these countries, in fact, recognise Israel. Israel, a country this is shrouded in myth and mystery for many of us in this part of the world, can do better to present itself in a different light.

In conclusion, what has happened in the region is a tragedy not just for the Arabs but for Jewish people too. While nobody deserves to live under foreign occupation, nobody deserves to live under existential threats either. Those who think about a solution to the issue need to imbibe a lot of pragmatism and long-term thinking. 

--------------------------------

* - Gandhi for example, sympathised with the Jewish people, before and after the Holocaust. However, he was against the idea of creating Israel by displacing the Palestinians. Click here for Gandhi's opinion about the Jewish people on the eve of the Holocaust.

** - There are two obvious counter - arguments to this. One, why should Israel pay the cost of developing institutions in Palestine? During the trip, the notion of a 'Security Tax' particularly appealed to me. Israel occupies Palestine for the sake of its security, and hence it is obligatory on Israel to pay for this added security (or compensate Palestinians for the lack of agency over their lives) through a (substantial) transfer of resources. The second counter - argument is why the Palestinians shouldn't be the ones building institutions? Of course they should, and they will need to be part of the process. But it would be impractical to imagine that the Palestinian leadership could do this all by itself. As the occupier, Israel will have to be part of the process.

Twins

I have been thinking of writing this post for a long time; and yet, something has been preventing me from doing so. Perhaps the enormity of the emotions I want to express, and my lack of faith in my ability to do so. Or maybe I have just been procrastinating. In either case, I think I must now make an attempt to write down what I feel.

India. 

I have recently been thinking intensely about what the relationship between my country and me is. How did this country impact who I am? And how do I interact with the country? How do I conduct myself as an Indian, both within the country and outside? What is my role in the millennia - old traditions of my nation? What colour do I add to the tapestry of our culture?

Thankfully, I realised that the question is much easier for me than it is for citizens of most other countries. India is an island. For thousands of years, the country has existed in peace with the world around it - never has any kingdom of the country mounted a large-scale and sustained invasion/migration to any other nation. The result being that I can say with some degree of confidence that my ancestors have inhabited this land since time immemorial. My religion, Hinduism, has remained isolated and stubborn in this little patch of land. My culture might have irradiated other parts of Asia and the world at large - but it has had an unbroken tradition going back to the beginning of history. The idea of my nation comes most naturally to me.

Indians.

To try and define Indians as an entity is probably the most difficult aspect of the jigsaw. Not only are there so many of us, but there is often very little similarity between us. We squabble, argue, litigate, riot and disagree in every way possible. What then keeps us Indian? As a Delhi boy, what is my link to someone in rural Kerala who looks very different and doesn't speak the same language as me? How do I associate with someone from Mizoram, a state whose people I have never seen and who also look very different from how I look.

How is it that we kill each other on religious grounds, yet our three top actors are all Muslims? How is it that we demolish mosques, and yet vote to make an Islamic mausoleum one of the wonders of the world? The more I think about Indians, I am amazed at just how well we have organised ourselves as a nation.

To get a sense of just how much we have achieved, we need to look at our neighbourhood. A failed Islamic democracy, a country torn by ethnic conflict, a country still dangling without a constitution, one torn between two chieftains, another still one of the most autocratic regimes, and our biggest neighbour - and rival - constantly criticised for the lack of human rights. Look further into Asia, into the constant upheaval of the middle East, to begin to understand how unique the country is. In every study of freedom and democracy, we are the outliers, the exceptions. I am in awe, so I will not even try to find reasons.t 

I,

Thinking through these various issues, peace finally came to me when I realised the profound impact this culture has had on me. Firstly, by virtue of being part of a millennia-old tradition, I feel rooted. I am well aware of my space in this narrative. The Indian identity comes to my rescue whenever I feel restless. Secondly, my very emotional composition is a reflection of this culture. We are an emotional and petulant people, with a strong moral compass that we are often not aware of ourselves. Our greatest strength is the power of sacrifice. We sacrifice, for our family, for those who we love, for our religion, for our language, for what we believe in. We are in love with the idea of love itself. 

I see myself as an inheritor of a great legacy. I cherish every moment of my life, to an extent that if my life was to be terminated today, I would say that it was the best ever. What makes this feeling most beautiful is that I could not have said this at every moment in life. I have felt despondent, morbid, depressed at so many junctures. But the light and warmth of love has kept me going. The sacrifice of my family and my loved ones has given me strength. I toil to keep going, because I know I am not alone. Because my country, my culture, my religion has taught me that this isn't about me. 

Like Krishna, I attempt to balance between the serious and the trivial, the sensual and the spiritual, the cunning and the generous, the temporary and the ephemeral. I seek to enjoy life, in all its colour, but keep unbroken my sense of a greater purpose.

Of course, none of this suggests that we are perfect, or even superior in any way. We riot, we kill, we rape - obviously not everything is alright. But above all of this, we hope. We hope that one day we will organise ourselves into a society which is better for all of us. I believe it is this hope that not only keeps our country together, but also helps our country grow as rapidly as it has recently. 

I, for one, am very hopeful. We are a lazy bunch. But day-by-day, year-by-year, we are making progress. We will get annoyed, argue, fight, sulk, but then get back together. Chipping away at the layers of ignorance, arrogance, greed, and indifference. I am certain (not just hopeful) that India will continue to shine, and demonstrate that a people can peacefully organise themselves and improve their lot. I end with Tagore - "Where the mind is without fear and head is held high. Where knowledge is free. Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls. Where words come out from the depth of truth. Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection. Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit. Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and action. Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake."