Brigadier (Retd) Mir Murtaza Ali, leafed through the old dog-eared album, pointing out different officers to his wife Shobhna. Some places he paused longer, recalling events and occurrences; some places he touched the pictures longer in reverence to the departed officer. Presently tapping a photograph decisively, he said, "Second Lieutenant Arjun Pratap Singh, 1990." Brig. Ali was preparing his wife for the forthcoming meeting. Smiling, he added, "Arjun was the first of a growing breed of young officers who had the confidence to engage with the CO (Commanding Officer) in discussions regarding the strategic intent of doctrines being practiced during training exercises." Col. Singh was the CO of ‘Jangi Paltan' — the same battalion that Brig. Ali had commanded 14 years ago. Then, Arjun had been a young, recently commissioned officer just out of the Indian Military Academy. Today, he was visiting Jabalpur to fix up some training exercise for his paltan. Brig. Ali was delighted that he would be dropping by his home for dinner. "At that time in the paltan," said Brig. Ali, "Arjun reminded me of my own days as a young officer — full of josh but wet behind the ears, ha ha... but a great lad!" More memories followed more pictures as Brig. Ali said, "Remember when we first met, how I was furiously trying to grow a moustache so that I could look older than I was, hoping to be noticed by you, Shobhna?" They both laughed softly, chiding one another and claiming supremacy in the ‘conquest' that was now over 40 years old. Just then the door bell chimed. It was 7 pm Col. Singh had arrived, on the dot. Brig. Ali's residence was elegantly functional, with mementoes of his service lining the walls. Above the grand piano was a neat row of photographs from his younger days, and a framed photograph of the President pinning the Vir Chakra on his uniform, earned for the role played by him and his men in a significant battle during the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict. Col. Singh's eyes took in the walls as if they chronicled his own youth's victories and failures, until his eyes settled on the prominently displayed regimental insignia of the ‘Jangi Paltan'. Singh's heart missed a beat as it always did when he saw the insignia. It was an altar of worship... Just before dinner, Col. Singh's phone rang. It was a call from his adjutant, which he took in the verandah. He came back looking disturbed. Not a twitch missed the Brigadier's keen eyes even now. Their eyes met making it impossible for Singh to pretend. And he wouldn't either. The Brigadier was responsible for his professional upbringing till not very long ago. Col. Singh: We had an unsavoury incident involving one of my junior officers and a young lady officer last week; a case where the consumption of liquor has played a significant role. Brig. Ali: Messy, when we are compelled to sit in judgement over the spirit and not merely the letter of the law. Col. Singh: Based on surround evidence, it is not clear whether it was consensual flirtation or molestation.... Then seeing Brig. Ali's face, Singh added: "I mean, sir, he is a bright officer, just 26… boys will be boys, sir. It would be a shame to lose such a promising youngster to this one incident." Brig. Ali: So your conundrum is: do we condone this as an aberration, or do we use it as an opportunity to strengthen our ‘code of conduct' even if we lose a promising lad in the process? It has been a long time since I retired. How does our Service look at this sort of thing now? Col. Singh: A lot more happens in terms of breaches and indiscipline now. The young are spirited; they do more things sooner than was appropriate 15 years ago, sir. Brig. Ali: Yes, I have a number of young people in my family so I am exposed to changing attitudes. Has the Service, therefore, changed its treatment of this? Col. Singh: Well, maybe not the Service itself, but we who mentor and supervise the young certainly feel — let's say — challenged! Here is an officer, a competent professional, an asset to the unit, and now he goes and gets himself into trouble falling prey to a temporary aberration. Brig. Ali: Temporary aberration? In the olden days, a lot of the Service kept to the straight and narrow. It was the norm. Deviations were few and far between because salutary punishments were swift and fair. Today, it seems that the stigma attached to moral turpitude has reduced. People see it, rather wearily, as something that's become common — misappropriation of funds, misrepresentation of facts, expedient rather than exigent decisions… Yes, a lot has changed. Col. Singh: But, sir. Nothing ever remains the same. Social mores change. What was unacceptable yesterday does not appear non-negotiable today. In any case, the fauj cannot remain insulated from society, can it? Brig. Ali: I agree. I take you back to the time when Mrs Gandhi selected Giani Zail Singh to occupy Rashtrapati Bhavan. There was much surprise. The media was uncharitable and I remember reading a lead editorial that said: It is hoped that in this case, the office shall make the man. So those who have opted for the armed forces have to don the values and mores of the office, leaving behind what they assumed was ‘okay' living in an unrestrained society. Col. Singh: Right, sir. But, sir, the youngsters are drawn from urban centers where dating and all that it leads to is par for the course. I do not mean to sound patronising but women today know what they want and do act accordingly. It appears that this was harmless flirtatious behaviour on the part of this officer, and it, er... led to some, let's say, exhibitionism! var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } Brig. Ali: We must concern ourselves with how a change in social behaviour impacts the effectiveness of our armed forces. For example, is it realistic to believe that inter-personal conduct after office hours will have no bearing on interpersonal professional effectiveness the morning after? Since we have chosen to be a part of the fauj, we must steer clear of emotional minefields that have the potential to degrade our operational effectiveness. This is why the Service does not countenance such aberrant behaviour and, therefore, it is our duty to uphold these tenets. Col. Singh: I value your opinion, sir, yet I am keenly aware that I cannot thrust archaic concepts down the throats of young officers. Brig. Ali: Even if not doing so reduces the effectiveness of our armed forces? Col. Singh: Sir... not easy, sir! The youngsters perceive their seniors to be social ‘dinosaurs'. Brig. Ali: Not easy, but do-able, Colonel. And, it needs to be done for there is a lot at stake here. Like parenting, some things remain non-negotiable, no matter how much the external world changes. You see this incident as a ‘temporary aberration'. While I have no doubt that you will eventually do what is right for the Service, let me offer another perspective. We in the Services know that in the heat of battle, ultimately, to be effective each of us will have to face and, in fact, overcome our fear of death. We have to reconcile to the possibility of walking into the path of a stray bullet, push the fear of death aside and stride forth because this is the life we have chosen for ourselves, this is what we have trained for and this is what is expected from us men of honour! Now, imagine that an officer, while leading an attack during a realistic war-gaming exercise — designed to validate some new concepts — chooses a longer, tactically unsound and ‘safer' routing that ensures he will not have to negotiate a slippery ravine in the dead of the night. He does not inform the chain of command about this departure from an operational, pre-briefed, best practice. The same officer is also known to be a brilliant strategist, adept at finding operational solutions to military situations and does possess the knowledge of variables that affect the outcome of an operational strategy. Should we classify his choice in the war-gaming exercise as a temporary aberration, or see it as a fleeting insight being provided to us about his mind-set affecting character under stress? Col. Singh: Surely, sir, we have all made mistakes during our service careers…. Brig. Ali: We have indeed. However, the key ingredients here are: one, this was a ‘realistic' war-gaming exercise carried out to train officers, test out specific strategies of engagement in order to calibrate and firm up our operational response in similar situations. Two, the officer did not inform the chain of command about his decision to take the ‘safer' route, thus compromising the surprise element that the original approach would have afforded the attacking force! I see this as a red flag. In this scenario, we should classify the officer's errors of commission and omission as ‘dereliction of duty'. Col. Singh: Even so, sir, how would you explain to the officer that this moment of flirtation is a dereliction of duty? Pardon my seeming flippant or glib, sir… Brig. Ali: The behaviour expected of service officers have always been very clear: Mind Control. There is no peace time or war time, no duty hours or off-duty hours. There is only an officer, and an officer he stays once he takes his oath and dons his uniform. Why is an officer different from the man on the street? A civilian's misbehaviour does not result in compromising national safety or territorial integrity! What is at the heart of this seemingly harsh law? What is at stake here? The loss of alertness — a lowering of the guard! This alertness is invoked even before the commencement of thought! It is the alertness that decides what thoughts to allow! So, did your officer have time between thought and action? He knew the exercise was being run to evolve a new tactic. He departed from pre-briefed procedure and chose not to inform the chain of command. That, in my book is dereliction of duty! Col. Singh: Would that not be too harsh a conclusion, sir? I mean, after all, it was just a war gaming exercise and not war itself! I would argue that he may have chosen the circuitous route so as not to endanger either his own or the lives of his troops while on a mere exercise. I mean, why expend yourself in training? Why not preserve oneself for the ‘real' thing? Just because he took a safer route, it is a bit extreme to conclude that the officer was ‘risk averse' and classify the happening as ‘dereliction of duty'. Brig. Ali: Well, this is quite in line with what I hear from the youth of today. They say: we will deliver when the chips are down; till then, let us be! Okay, I will provide a context to the officer's errors as I see them. Training, you will agree, is how we build our officers and men. By taking a circuitous route, the officer denied himself and his men the training opportunity that the exercise was designed to impart. Also, therefore, the strategy that ought to have been tested during the exercise, remained un-tested. Would you say that these were errors of commission? Next, by failing to inform his superiors about the changed routing adopted, he may have contributed towards something substantially more serious. Won't they, unaware of his altered plans, conclude erroneously that the suggested strategic routing was effective and met the planned objectives? Consequently, this will be recorded by them as the strategy of choice and de-rigueur for missions of this type! This error of omission can potentially endanger the lives of our troops in times of war and worse, contribute towards a failed operational campaign. Military operations are always very precise, dynamic and, battlefield situations tend to evolve rapidly. It is neither practicable nor desirable — due to security of information constraints — to explain the rationale behind every operational order, to everyone. This is why the fauj views departures from pre-briefed procedures so seriously. Exactly why a tendency to depart from norms is nipped before it takes root and gets embedded in the culture of the organisation. When people break norms we have failures-in-waiting, Arjun! And each one of us will need to do our bit in enforcing these norms, howsoever unpleasant or insignificant it may appear at that time, so as to ensure that we do not, by our inaction, contribute to a drop in the level of preparedness of our armed forces. As for why a uniformed officer differs from a civilian, just one word: stakes. Col. Singh: Stakes? Brig. Ali: Yes. If a young corporate honcho screws up, he loses face and his company may end up losing some money. That's all. If a fauji screws up, he compromises the nation's honour; whether by giving away sensitive information, failing to make a headway on an offensive mission or, by failing to repulse the enemy's attack thus exposing a chink in our armour. Col. Singh: Yes, sir. I agree; but, today, society does not seem to mind. Our officers are drawn from this very society, sir. They come differently formatted! A dalliance here, a flirtation there, is not an issue! Brig. Ali: True. I have observed that. The fauji is trained to not have any excesses. Fauj is a discipline-driven organisation; it has a commitment to protect the country and that requires a commitment to discipline. That society has changed, norms are changing, is all very well… but a fauji is not a civilian! His values are what he brings to his job, and he swears by his honour to adhere to those. Therefore, a transgression is a transgression. There is no small transgression and big transgression. There are no half measures! var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } Isn't that why we die for the country? If not wouldn't, we make a deal with the enemy and save our life than the country? Every industry and organisation develops rules and norms that enable its goals. In civilian life, there are social mores and there is the falling foul of the law. Punishments may change in degree, but not the law. Stealing, dishonesty, murder, etc., remain culpable, criminal offences everywhere. Likewise, in the military, there is military etiquette and there is military discipline. The former may vary a bit with time but the latter, never. And, if a departure from military etiquette results in dilution of military discipline, it tantamounts to breach of military discipline. Let's say a senior officer writes to the Chief Secretary asking for a favour — an out-of-turn allotment of a flat. You will agree he ends up compromising himself and is vulnerable to a quid pro quo arrangement with the bureaucrat and may have to return the favour by agreeing to a proposal that he, otherwise, would have been better advised to turn down for security reasons! This is the fundamental difference between a fauji existence and a civilian one. Discipline is the driving force behind the fauj — its state of being. A civilian mostly lives for himself while a fauji lives and oftentimes, dies for the very same civilian — his countryman! Col. Singh looked out the window into the darkness… Brig. Ali's argument was compelling and he himself would agree had it been someone else they were discussing. His ears resounded with Brig. Ali's words…. The officer only knows duty, not his self. Training ensures this, Arjun, and it would seem your young officer's training is incomplete. In his spirited stupor, he has naturally lost his clarity so that he thinks because the lady is a willing partner, the crime is less! Theft is theft whether you steal from home or the neighbour... the crime lies in the act, not in the stature of the victim! That is how civilians think; ‘He slapped his servant, so it's okay....' Not for a fauji. And finally this: This man is a danger to national security — he can allow himself to be compromised! Singh shuddered. Col. Singh: What would you do, sir, in my place? Brig. Ali: As the CO, I would recommend loss of seniority for an officer guilty of inappropriate behaviour with a lady; so, he will have to start again and work his way up with a clean record. Place yourself in the shoes of the errant officer. The moment his alertness suspended, he ceased to be an officer! Error is born in the depths of loss of mental control. That is why mind training is paramount in the military. Of course, there is just no excuse for such behaviour! Col. Singh: He is a darn good officer... Brig. Ali: We don't build darn good officers. We build minds. The man is his mind. At the door, Brig. Ali gave Singh a warm hug, uncharacteristic but sincerely felt. He said, "Through all this, with regard to the lady officer — in the event it is assault, please set her expectations right so she doesn't feel abandoned in this respect. If not, make sure she too gets penalised for moral turpitude. "A breakdown of inner discipline is risky in defence, so it should be taken very seriously. Your officers need to know this. I reiterate: your officer is a security risk and can compromise himself and later, his position, by his un-officer like behaviour." Brigadier (Retd) Mir Murtuza Ali — cerebral, straight and compassionate — never reached the rarefied atmosphere occupied by higher ranks, two- or three-star Generals. There were few like him who made it up the slippery slopes of a steep hierarchy of the armed forces... Yes, they are rare, thought Col. Arjun Pratap Singh. casestudymeera at gmail dot com var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') }
Read More
It is a fact that the services are besieged by shifting concepts of social values and, therefore, subject to constant moral dilemmas. There is a perception, and repeated stress on the reality that the serviceman is a product of current society, therefore, no different from his civilian counterpart. This is a fallacy. He may well be from the same fabric of society but is, by motivation and training, cut out to be different. His role and function are well-defined and there is no room for ambiguity in his value system. The entire training of a serviceman is premi-sed on this one truth. Therefore, to compromise the integrity and morale, which are the fundamentals of any fighting force, is to compromise its very existence. On the integrity of its leadership rest the invaluable assets of faith, loyalty and an unquestioning obedience. This is bred by tradition, example and by dutifully upholding certain non-negotiable standards. This is the sum and substance of Brig. Ali's persistence that an army man is always a disciplined army man. How do you infuse the kind of spirit and discipline that makes men face extreme hardship and overcome the fear of death? How do you sublimate natural traits like survival and self-preservation? It begins with a noble ideal. An oath taken on day one and repeated annually: "I will bear true allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established, to protect and defend, to go by land, air or sea and carry out the orders of those placed above me, even to the peril of my life." This is the bedrock on which a soldier's loyalty and commitment to his country are built. It could also well be this loyalty and commitment that gnaws at Col. Arjun Pratap Singh's seeming mental conflicts. To romanticise the military, however, is to be far removed from its reality; because it is about the very serious business of warfare. The service is a place where the rules are known and it is known that they are enforced impartially and swiftly. Arjun knew this, but in debating with Brig. Ali, he has tried to validate the fact that this diktat mercifully remains non-negotiable! Thus, within every military unit there exists an institutional acceptance of respect, order, uniformity and accountability — commonly referred to as morale and essential to successful operations. The sharp end, which is also the bulk of the armed forces, assiduously guards the qualities of honour, self-respect and professional capability. However, this ethos can sometimes break down when subjected to the stresses of temptation and opportunity. This happens most often when military service and logistic elements come into direct contact with their civilian counterparts, particularly involving supply and procurement, for example. There have been several cases of fraudulent dealings involving canteen services and material contracts. More worrying, however, are the recent cases involving murky dealings by officers at the highest levels, in collusion with bureaucrats and politicians. Here, again, the army has been quick to react to these disclosures, which, incidentally, emanated from the army itself. Good order and service discipline in the forces is mostly exemplified by the top leadership. However, with greater exposure and interaction with their civilian counterparts, a tendency to emulate and succumb to non-service norms and standards, with a tendency to compromise, can obviously set in. How else does one rationalise failure in a leader who has so much to lose after years of assiduously building his career and reputation? It means that given the greater exposure to allurements and the erosion of ethical standards in political and economic spheres, the Services have to look within. Col. Singh may be tempted to bypass punishing his errant officer but his conscience does not let him be. His outburst with his brother is his battle with his conscience! All said and done, and despite the recent disclosures, there is no cause for alarm. As usual, the Services will act judiciously to safeguard their ethos. Assuredly, there is introspection and analysis going on within to counter the influences of changing social mores. Compulsory military service and conscription have often been suggested to infuse discipline and enhance nation building. This is, however, not practical given the massive resources required. There is another school of thought that advocates insulation of the army from societal influences, which is reflected in government policy debarring the soldier from any form of political activity, even to the extent of discussion. Other instruments, such as the Official Secrets Act, have served to discourage a close relationship between civilian and military institutions. On the other hand, the mutual benefits of civilian-military interaction are undeniable. It would be much more meaningful to remove barriers and foster greater partnership in the interest of the nation we are all committed to protect and dignify. Air Marshal (Retd) Trevor Osman is a fighter pilot who retired as Vice-chief of the Air Staff VCAS in 1997 after 37 years of combat aviation including conflict situations. Subsequently he was senior advisor for CII until 2007 var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 20-12-2010)
Read More
The armed forces of every country are a sub-set of its civil society — the members are drawn from it and for it to function effectively, there have to be many touch points between the two. Ours is no different. Consequently, the fauj and the civil society that it is charged to protect, cannot remain insulated from each other. While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that a symbiotic relationship exists between the two, the relationship certainly allows osmosis. This occurs through the many touch points: namely, procurement of consumables, local purchase of food and consumer items, dependence on public sector entities for equipment, medical and educational requirements of families, etc. It follows then that if corruption and dilution in ethical standards take root and become the ‘state of being' of civil society — as it currently has — in time, our uniformed forces will stand exposed and become ‘infected' with this virus. Given the tight training and discipline control exercised by the Services, this ‘infection' usually occurs through the civil society-fauji touch points. Once begun, it signals the beginning of the end of national security. Those in uniform are as human as those out of it — both in terms of achievement potential and propensity to succumb to human frailties latent in all of us. This comes to the fore when one's mental discipline and sense of purpose weakens and sense of purpose becomes hazy. As such, the fauj is also vulnerable to the pulls and pressures of the environment outside of the Services. The Services have had an enviable record up until now because it has succeeded in creating a community within the larger civic community, which has, largely, been supportive of the uniformed services. This is why our military history is replete with instances of great courage and valour shown by our land, air and sea warriors. Our borders have remained inviolable for over six decades, since independence. If we look back at shining examples of human achievement in any field of human endeavour, the differentiator between ‘good' and ‘exceptional' is always motivation. Motivation is the catalyst that ignites, and then sustains the engine of human achievement. Successful managers know that even though motivation largely springs from within the individual, the environment has to be supportive of that individual's inner journey. Higher the motivation levels, more the insulation from external pulls and pressures and so, higher the chances that organisational aims will be met. Lately, we have been witnessing some sorry spectacles that could dilute the security environment: the lowering of the order of precedence of Service chiefs; disgruntlement of veteran soldiers culminating in the return of wartime medals; mala fide fiddling by the bureaucracy with pay commission awards given to serving and retired Service personnel; the alleged formation of a nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and senior Service personnel to secure lucrative personal assets, etc. Each of these examples, individually and, for sure, collectively, lowers the morale and demotivates the rank and file of the uniformed services. To complete the sordid picture are the shameful goings on in civvy street where, it appears, that nothing is sacrosanct anymore. Many of those appointed to ensure the safety of national assets or of national pride are themselves getting caught with their hand in the till! This state of affairs prompts resolute service personnel to wonder: will I, in the future, be called upon, perhaps, to make the supreme sacrifice just to maintain the type of status quo currently on view in our country? In this case study, Arjun Pratap Singh's strong sentiments are nothing but an expression of his angst, disgust, frustration and hopelessness as he battles to retain his own motivation level and sense of purpose. The most worrisome is: hopelessness. It appears as if Arjun knows that even after he succeeds in retaining his focus and motivational levels, he will have to work even harder to keep his flock together since the civil environment, far from being supportive, seems to mock those in uniform who continue to stick to lofty ideals and honour principles, while an increasing number of otherwise respectable citizens feather their nests by unethical means. In this regard, it is incumbent upon society at large to reflect on the trickle down effect of its own code of conduct. Specifically, it must realise that, in the long run, such conduct has a de-motivating effect on our uniformed forces, charged with ensuring national security. Arjun asks: the army will protect the borders and slay the enemy outside. But what about the enemy within? Good question. The enemy within can be likened to a virus that has begun to infect our social fabric and, since this ‘infection' has the hidden potential to compromise national security, it must be recognised and dealt with as a ‘stealth' virus. Jai Hind! Rakesh Sharma (India's first man in space) has retired from active service. He is currently the chairman of Automated Workflow Group, a Bangalore-based IT company. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 20-12-2010)
Read More
Arjun Pratap Singh watched the dentist probe and prod and dig into his brother Abhay's premolar. Looking up from the grim probing, the dentist said, "If you are not flossing daily, then the soft enemy stays on and the rot sets in." Arjun: Rot?! Is it that far gone? Dentist: It is the beginning. That is why I had to drill and clean up. Floss daily to keep the decay-causing fellows away. Decay is caused by allowing food particles to remain between the teeth. They ‘learn' that you won't touch them and thus they stay on to party! As they rode down the lift, Arjun said, "We can be misled by good-looking teeth and believe all is well. But now they have even cost you half a day's work! Abhay: A day's loss of work? My God! At Belkopp, we have lost 17 days, in fact, 6,800 man-days' work since our accounts were frozen pending investigations. Rs 600 crore unaccounted for! Breakdown in quality control, infected syringes in the market. I don't even know what to feel. Daman saab was an icon for me. His attitude to healthcare, commitment to quality... I believed all this. I feel so stupid! Yeah please, drop me off to work, and send Gambhir to pick me up at seven. Going home will waste time. You are not leaving until Saturday, right? Arjun: I will leave tonight, I think. I have some bulls to take by the horns. Abhay: Arre bhai! What problem can a colonel in the army have? You guys are faujis! We corporate folk commit the sins and remain in the headlines; you army folk protect us and stay on the frontlines! Arjun (smiling wryly): No one is an exception it seems! I guess to each according to his own... The meeting with Brigadier (Retd) Mir Murtaza Ali was still fresh in Arjun's mind. Brig. Ali had occupied the very same chair as the CO of the Jangi Paltan that Arjun did today. And thence, the Brigadier had been his guide and mentor — more importantly, his thought leader. Yet, Arjun continued to battle the Brigadier's arguments and ethical viewpoints. An officer in Arjun's battalion had gotten embroiled in a foolish flirtatious moment that now threatened to send him back to start on the snakes 'n' ladder board of his career and some years of hard labour. Nestling in a pained corner of Arjun's heart was the hope of a miracle that would save the 26-year-old, who was a terrific officer, bright and brilliant. The arguments presented by Brigadier Ali, which were difficult to face, came back to him again and again. The Brigadier was not wrong at all, but then the young officer was wrong only this once... people learn through their mistakes, that is how they grow stronger and better... yet how can I afford to lose such a good officer? "Mistakes are neither for forgiving or ruing; they have to be simply penalised and purged. No two ways!" Brigadier Ali had said. Yet, the same Brigadier had felt helpless as an advisor to a quasi-government body, in the face of umpteen situations of organisational sinning that unfolded in front of his eyes. This had made Arjun wonder how it was that crime and punishment were easily managed in the army, but civilian society quailed under its own weighty sins. Worse, the idea of civilian society sinning day after day, yet living in expectation of continuous protection from the army, made him painfully restless. How small was the errant officer's error, when seen in the light of all the match fixing, the depraved indifference of the reality shows and now: Satyam, 2G, Adarsh, and whatnot! Brigadier Ali was unmoving: A fauji cannot indulge in civilian-like carelessness; that will compromise his actions. No two ways about it; he is a risk to national security! Disturbed by the seeming harshness of this verdict yet seeing the civilian society's crass and uncouth conduct, Col. Arjun Pratap Singh allowed "Arjun" expression. Arjun: So a fauji must be pure as driven snow. Abhay: Absolutely. Arjun: And a civilian? Abhay: Guarding over the nation requires a certain dispassion inside, what granddad called vairaagya! Followed by a dedication and devotion. Civilians definitely lack this; if not, wouldn't they all pay taxes 100 per cent to start with? I think the right to the term ‘citizen' can be earned by very few statesmen; but a fauji is always seen as the protector. The protector cannot do harm in thought, word or deed... that is what makes him a respected figure! And when the protector of law — in uniform or as a leader — breaks the law or uses it to protect himself, he is dangerous. Above all, brother, if an adult can harm a child, or the powerful oppresses those dependant, he is in the same class as a terrorist — causing undeserved harm to the innocent and helpless with his power and strength! Corruption has got institutionalised, hasn't it? It is a matter of time before the uniformed services also partake in the festivities — behti Ganga syndrome! Arjun: It seems there is an unwritten expectation of discipline from the uniformed services. But I think the same applies also to political parties, because they are vested with power to govern and protect the country's wealth and health. So when that power blinds men into attempting the ridiculous... we will begin to see the ability of civil society to hit back. The CWG largesse was a punch in the solar plexus and even before the shocked tax payer recovered, another harder punch is delivered by the 2G losses! And the janta wants the army to be pure as driven snow! Even so, we are... but what will you do with it? var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } The key is that if one is straight, the system conspires to neutralise such persons before they reach higher ranks... because if they do not play ball, they end up spoiling the politicans' or bureaucrats' party. Everybody in the top echelons seems to close ranks. It is a club whose membership criteria is — you have to be pliable to belong. One cannot generalise but that is the rough trajectory of the moral slide we have been seeing for years now. All the scams unravelling, be it Adarsh or 2G, show that anybody who had the potential to block the diabolical plan was offered a slice of the pie — naturally the size of the pie had to keep growing to feed additional mouths. Abhay: Not very difficult to understand, brother! Examine the ingredients and you will see how if I have you scratch my back, and soon you will want your back scratched too. Long time ago, we had a services department which took care of the repairs to company flats as well as renovations. The senior managers would tell these guys to utilise funds kept for other maintenance works and divert them to make their allotted residences of 5 star-standard! Or, say, there is a Rs 10,000 budget per flat for plumbing repairs. End of the year, the CEO himself would ask for fancy brocade curtains to be bought for his flat and tell the service department officers to ‘produce' bills for repairs instead. Soon, one began to notice much more costs getting padded on, so that the service department blokes got emboldened to approach senior officers with Adarsh-like proposals to have their own backs scratched! See? Arjun: Yet, if one is straight and the world knows about it, he is not much use to scamstering and, hence, this kind of guy will not make it up the ladder. Not just that, he will be the proverbial thorn and will be ousted on grounds of incompetency ...as has happened. Abhay: ...as has happened, yes! Some moments of painful memories later, Abhay said, "I am looking at all the mess hitting the ceiling all over the country; from cheerleader Raju to Raja, it is a grand festival of corruption. Satyam, then CWG, then Adarsh, now 2G, then a land scam... we only have headlines and breaking news these days! Day by day, we become sicker and sicker. We see the social rot and we see the structural rot. Both are breaking out like angry acne right now... at the same time. Arjun: You know what hits me sharply is the utmost that the Army does to stick to its discipline. When I step into the world outside, I am almost shaken by the differences! An officer I know of may be court martialed for a spirited moment of indiscretion. And I am saying: Gosh! What is that in the face of all this? For something like that, which, in the civilian world does not even get noticed, the army will go to town and suspend the fellow, then demote him, then rub his nose in the mud, then punish him even more severely... until he has learnt his lesson. Lesson for what? To be a better officer and a gentleman to protect the country that seems to be in an endless orgy of scams! In your civilian world, rapes happen and the rapist is out on parole; murderers are without remorse; witnesses forget they had seen the crime; the fellow stays in comfort and luxury in 5-star jails! Who are we kidding? A young boy is beaten to death by drunken bullies; drunk through a whole year of ragging? My officer was inebriated too, dammit! But we will correct him, and punish him! His primary fault will be inebriation. Do you see the damn difference? Your 19-year-old boys are inebriated and the court has nothing to say? The law provides for a maximum sentence for the guilty. In Aman Kachroo's murder, the aggressors were proved guilty, yet the judge accords them a lesser sentence and he does not give a reasoned explanation! Civilian life appears to be one big reality show! It comes down to power! A minister denotifies land then allots it to his family, and when the waste hits the ceiling, he nonchalantly says ‘oh-ho... here, let me call the land allotment back, fine?' Can a minister allot anything to his family and not think it is wrong? Can you leave such a person on that seat of power and responsibility without any cognisance of ethical conduct and governance? What about the old word: nepotism? And after all that, are we punishing him? No. We are enjoying the comical display of what he said and what they said, then what he did and then what they may do... like a reality show! Justice has a certain colour and fragrance to it, brother. It presents itself in a certain manner and it is sacred... not for media entertainment! But here the errant minster has become grist for comical headlines and funny innuendos and generally a smart peg to test one's idiomatic proficiency! You recall the time Rohan's school expelled four boys in Class 11 for taking drugs? I recall we protested the move... If there is a dead rat in the room, you don't like it; you throw it. Where? Outside the window. Now your home is clean and protected from infection... but the street outside? Why are we not taking ownership for the world outside our window? Why is an errant CWG/Adarsh/land scamster only being thrown out of the party and post but not criminally impinged and convicted? Haven't they only and merely cleaned the house and party of a toxin, but let the civilian world carry the rot? That's the difference, brother! The army does not easily throw out an errant officer. We keep him, demote him, court martial him within weeks, punish him most severely to ensure the lesson is learnt. There is neither hatred nor dislike. The act is slammed and eradicated and he is made to work his way up all over again! Justice is delivered to him quick! Last week, I was agitated when Brig. Ali told me that an officer who has compromised his ethical army upbringing and yielded to quasi civilian-like behaviour, is a danger to national defence! He refused to file away that flirtatious moment as aberrational. He was clear: it is an evil to be nipped in the bud. I was so agitated; but now, outside my uniform, as I sit here and watch television, I see that my agitation was only within my context; within our limited world of mental control, ethical training, discipline, preparation for effortlessly taking a bullet in my chest, peacefully accepting my CO's verdict, not wheeling-dealing to escape punishment! var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } Civilians could call Brigadier Ali fuddy-duddy... but then we guys can proudly claim that we do our job on the front exactly as it was meant to be, generation after generation after generation! Never a half measure! A thick impenetrable silence followed... Abhay: What dad saw of India was a pristine landscape, people who ran the country were called ministers, not politicians. When Manoj Kumar sang ‘mere desh ki dharti sona ugle...', people shed real tears. All this because the eyes revealed to us daily an India that was a hardworking, and a genuine mother. Don't you think today ‘Incredible India' sounds rather incredible in the face of all this? That these powerfully irresponsible officers behaving like club managers, make Mother India seem like a governess.... Arjun: I will admit I am angry that my organisational values compel me to court martial a young 26-year-old for falling prey to the disease of his times. But I can proudly say this: our system will use correction to turn him out better! But I am angry because all those chaps out there are milking the country dry, taking away far more than our defence budgets, dammit, and will successfully dodge the system. From a minister who does not think he did wrong because others before him had done so, to all those people who do not get punished for rape and bullying, to business folk already buried in millions yet grasping for more, submitting incomplete information, fictitious documents, inflated bank resources to get licences, then selling the ill-gotten licences at five times more to earn funny money — these will get away and will soon be seen in the shade of the Indian banner, shaking the very hands that pretend to penalise! Disgusting! We army folk use the flag to drape a valiant dead soldier's coffin... civilians use it to veil their sinful acts! Abhay: I would hate you to think that we have no clean humans on civvy street. Ratan Tata said to someone who chided him for being unwilling to pay a Rs 15-crore bribe to get permission for a domestic airline: "I just want to go to bed at night... knowing that I haven't got the airline by paying for it. I would have been feeling tremendously shameful had we got the airline and we had paid for it". Arjun: Yes, and now he is paying the price for saying so! Before them the television news was unleashing frame by frame more villainy on the telecom wheels and deals, revealing the underbelly of the governance and bravado statements all round and a country so lost and looted. Abhay (shaking his head): As Dumbledore said to Harry Potter, "It is our choices, Harry, that show us what we truly are, far more than our abilities." When Tara was applying for her medical admission, the rumour was that the dean of her university had paid a whopping Rs 2 crore to become the dean! I believe that is the asking price for getting this ‘office of profit'. Arjun: You pay because you are now ascending into an office where opportunity to make money is huge and because you are ascending into this coveted office, you pay the others who will help you ascend this office, see? Abhay: So many scams, so much money, who says we are a poor nation? Is Rs 1.7 lakh crore even a number? Cops, ministers, teachers, deans, doctors, everyone is taking a dip, abandoning their territory of values. All know it is important, everyone thinks someone else will take care, and finally each one is looking silly. First, it is A. Raja, then the next one will be B. Raja… as one teacher put it. Today, there is no reason not to loot the system! Just look at them. Does he look worried about being found out? Crazy! You may need to pay a small price, but, like match fixing, the zeroes make it worthwhile, he thinks! And soon it will be forgotten. Like you said, you just get thrown out of the window, but the world is such a large place to go infect! Arjun: So when the leadership messes, the people assume chalo, we will get schools to teach values; schools say we must rap parents in PTA and get them to teach values. Parents think, oh no, we must start going to the temple, church, gurudwara, etc. more often... but religion itself is in trouble with its inane definitions of devotion! Everybody is finally in the same party toasting each other for reasons nobody knows or understands... (A snippet of Obama visit is on the television) Oh, so we tell Obama how glorious our culture is, but he has already got the best of Gandhi, humility! He said, "I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world..." and suddenly everybody is delighted that the world's greatest man bowed before the dhoti-clad fakir! Abhay: Naturally, the American subservience to the Father of India seems elevating; people probably feel he is bowing down to them! Arjun: Peace, love, brotherhood, non-violence... Mohandas Gandhi did not reckon with the sorrow of Mother India when her children steal the family wealth. Brother, what is amazing is this: your system has no correction system and you rue that they are going scot free. My system has punitive correction and I grieve that an otherwise good lad will be penalised.... Abhay: Col. Arjun Pratap Singh ko gussa kyon aa raha hai? Arjun: The army will protect the borders and slay the enemy outside. But what about the enemy within? casestudymeera at gmail dot com Classroom Discussion It always seems that the protector delivers duties and the protected demands rights. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') }
Read More
Duleep is right. Sexual harassment (sh) is ugly. The thought that a consulting firm would think of looking at it as a marketing tool is scary to say the least. Why does SH baffle managements such as Arcola, who otherwise devise complex strategies? Why does it not evoke the same response as other less serious forms of misconduct such as corruption or embezzlement?For practitioners supporting and advocating best practices in dealing with SH, it is difficult to comprehend the hesitation in recognising it as a misconduct that needs disciplinary action, and not peace offerings to women. Equally intriguing is the way alleged perpetrators sometimes get ostracised without even an inquiry.SH is unwanted sexual advances in any form with or without the promise of any favours or threat of loss of job. Ideally, it should be construed as a serious violation of code of conduct of employment. Dealing with SH and addressing it appropriately is not a marketing strategy. It is about providing a conducive work environment, reassurance against its violation and a fair hearing. In most cases, as it is based on oral accounts, it depends on the subjectivity of the persons hearing the complaint. This automatically gives room to conjectures and is likely to be decided on the basis of the influence of either side given their standing and access when there is no clarity of the issue and the process.The senior management at Arcola is confused about the scope, repercussions, the purpose of having a policy and finally dealing with SH complaints. Sujoy's initial thoughts on dealing with SH upfront are refreshing as was the process of ensuring that a woman's opinion is taken. But it is dangerous to include all forms of perceived harassment within the scope of SH. It is important for managements to distinguish between harassment, discrimination and SH.Unlike the law in the US, which deals with SH from a discrimination perspective, the Indian law roots it in unwanted sexual advances. Discrimination can only be a consequence of thwarting sexual advances.Our existing law, derived out of two judgements of the Supreme Court, says:* Sexual harassment at workplace is a violation of the Right to Work;* Management has to set up a fair redressal mechanism other than disciplinary action in the form of a complaints committee (CC) headed by a woman, having one outside member experienced in dealing with women's issues and at least 50 per cent woman members;* The details of the CC must be publicised for easy access by everyone; * The proceedings before the CC should be treated as the final disciplinary enquiry;* Due process should be followed with both parties given and assisted in getting a fair hearing.Many establishments have a policy in place but this, unfortunately, in my experience, is a well guarded secret with even senior management not being aware of it. The privileged ones, who have the advantage of education and other options, choose to change jobs. A vast majority, whose economic condition, education and age do not permit free movement in jobs, suffer silently and devise strategies to deal with it, including reluctantly giving in. Managements feel secure and proudly claim there is no sexual harassment in their establishments.It is critical to create a comprehensive process by defining SH, informing about the existence of a CC and the procedure to adapt. This should be in the contract of employment. Women should be given reasonable time to make a complaint impressing upon them to explain the harassment in detail and provide support in understanding SH, the service conditions option during the pendency of the complaint, and alternatives if they do not wish to proceed further with the complaint. The alleged perpetrator should be given a fair hearing.A timeline of 24 hours to file a complaint is ridiculous just as it is to terminate the services of an alleged perpetrator without an enquiry. The CC should also inspire confidence by placing a senior person within the company as its chairperson. If the allegation is against a person who is a senior or a peer to the chairperson, the chairperson should be from outside.SH happens at every age. It is not always about power or on provocation, and of only juniors; these are myths. I have dealt with many cases of women in senior positions being harassed by men who are junior to them, docile married women being harassed and a minister harassing an IAS officer.Women facing SH: remember to document, share, condemn and confront. Sharing helps clear ambiguity and creates a support group. Non-performance is a standard defence. But it doesn't hold water if it comes after the complaint.Some men say they would prefer a ‘men only' workplace to avoid allegations of SH. The thought is a problem, not a solution.Aparna Bhat heads Legal Services, a law firm that specialises in addressing human rights issues. She works closely with the government, corporations and the police to address issues of sexual violence besides other areas var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 25-10-2010)
Read More
Sexual Harassment (SH) takes place at many levels: from subtle to gross. Offensive behaviour has to be seen from the point of view of the victim. At a deeper level, SH is a manifestation of the inability to understand diversity.Social conditioning plays a very big role in shaping attitudes towards women. It is necessary for organisations to drop such baggage, since there is a high premium on diversity. Any attempt at gender equality might be confounded by the vast diversity of employees —background, education and culture — all of which define the manner in which people interpret cues or behave in various situations.Women coming from relatively closed environments into non-traditional roles often lack self-confidence — they may either over-react to a SH incident or may be too shocked to react at all. Their sense of isolation can be accentuated. It is the firm's duty to provide an environment that ensures basic human dignity.What a pity it is that the Arcola leaders feel the need to explain clean practices to its employees — shouldn't they know? Is it not about attitude rather than behaviour? Take the example of inappropriate language. Most women are disturbed, not by the words themselves, but by the underlying attitude and mindset.A clear policy that defines unacceptable behaviour is essential. But a policy can never cover all the likely situations, particularly in a delicate area such as SH. There would be gaps, open to interpretation and discretion. Even if the policy is widely known, most people seldom internalise its essence as most employees consider topics such as gender equality or diversity unimportant. Also, the corporate body is likely to give priority to business performance.Given its subtle nature, very few cases of SH are reported. In the case, Amai says that a woman can sense potential violation easily; and yet, she may ask later "did it really happen?", "was it really intentional?" — because of the seniority of the person, his background or a past comfortable working relationship. Can she ever be sure later? Or would the realisation dawn later that she has been victimised?In implementing an SH policy, there are a few broad points that should be followed.Policy can at best serve as a guideline, but it can be made part of the basic code of conduct and reinforced periodically. As in ethics, SH breaches, too, should never be tolerated. Make it easy for women to voice their concerns. In India, it is still socially unacceptable for women to be vocal against men. Further, organisations have evolved around male behaviour patterns. Duleep brings in a woman's perspective (Amai's) much later — as it is across organisations. Clearly, there is a mismatch between the way women might behave and the way they are expected to. As in the case of most culture change, perhaps, there has to be a stage where the benefit of doubt goes to the complainant, which may embolden women to speak up.Train women employees to voice their concerns, as Arcola expects them to. It would also be a good idea to hire a neutral party to hear complaints so that there would be no fear of backlash or being labelled. The complainant could be helped to think through what happened, so that borderline cases are also addressed. This would help the company gather some real data too.The issue of providing a limited redress window can work both ways. It is unfair to file a complaint very late — details blur, recall is hazy and judgement improper. While it compels the victim to report an incident, not postpone it, a woman could well be too shocked to react, especially if the aggressor is well known to her. There are cases of subtle harassment, where it is not a single incident, but rather a series of seemingly insignificant actions. Such situations must also be suitably addressed.Sometimes, awareness of an SH policy can result in men feeling that it is a pain to hire or nurture women. This may result in further imbalance in an already unbalanced environment.Diversity is creating synergy between different points of view and individual strengths. Drawing attention to SH does create awareness about an inclusive environment, but excessive focus can hurt the cause of women. Hiring the right people is crucial. Yet, most managers are not trained to recognise attitudes and find it easier to evaluate on basis of business skills alone.Rather than fear of external recrimination, Arcola needs to recognise that installing an SH policy is an opportunity to delve deeper into attitude and culture, into core values of mutual respect, trust and fearlessness. A gender policy will, in fact, make Arcola a better place to work in, with an environment that would be sensitive, open and welcoming, without fear of expression or experimentation.To Duleep I wish to say, an SH policy is not for regulation but to create a society that is fair, equitable and inclusive.Susheela Venkataraman is managing director of internet business solutions group, Cisco. Her consulting experience has focused on enterprise and community transformation var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 25-10-2010)
Read More
Dear Vaishnavi, Manas and Gobhi,Vaishnavi, you must have had an insight into the nature of choices when you said "those who give bribes are as guilty as those who receive them". And I deeply appreciate your courage to speak the truth. It is all too easy, to keep it to oneself, quelled by our fear, and the laughter of our peers. I am sure you would have read what Obama said recently in Ghana at the slave fortress: "Sometimes we can tolerate and stand by great evil even as we think we are doing good." Why would somebody to get richer something that is not right? We know the answer to that one — it is a bit like cheating to get more marks. And all is well till you get caught. And if one becomes an expert at it, one may never get caught. Is that the game — don't get caught? When Garfield Sobers took a catch, no one knew that the ball had touched the ground. Even though the umpire had declared that Nari Contractor was out, Sobers said, "Not out!" Did Sobers' goodness let down his team?When we want to get ahead quickly, we forget fairness. Even in school, friends are not always fair — books go missing, fouls on games fields, cheating! You probably would have already noticed that older people are no different. Often, they settle into a pattern of corruption.What is wrong if I jump the traffic light at 4 am? It hurts no one. How does it matter if my passport is hurried through? People break rules knowing it is wrong to do so. Vaishnavi, your young eyes saw the excuses we make to sustain this. Take your favourite Michael Jackson: did his doctors prescribe habit drugs? Usually the argument is "others are doing it".Many say that the ends justify the means. However, deeper voices say "take care of the means, the ends will take care of themselves". Does doing the right thing matter? If many have given up right conduct, will you do the same? Is it possible to live with dignity and strength? Many say no. A few say yes. Your life would show what you decide. Without judging people as good or bad, we need to see that there are right actions and there are ‘not right' actions. I wish you the joy and serenity of ‘flowering in goodness'... and pray that your eyes never dim, unable to distinguish right action from wrong.Dear Mr Vaibhav Mehta,Did you read of Manas's distress?...‘crumbling as we grow older?' Did you get such thoughts at 14? I am your age and could be in your situation — bewildered and ashamed. Yes, there is a lot of corruption. What do you wish Manas to learn? "Be successful at any cost!" or "Be good first and last!" Even today, you may find it difficult to say the latter. This is the true tragedy — we don't see the importance of deciding. And the more money and power one has, the easier it is to get away with wrongdoing. People do — they get away with murder. I wish you this strength to return to the fold of men who can own their mistakes, for the sake of your son and his legacy.Dear Bhrigu, Good sense and decency are not too common. I can only imagine how difficult your journey must have been. We have all seen how a person is treated when he or she does not conform to the patterns around. One may wonder why more people do not make this choice in their lives. I am reminded of a poem by San Juan de la Cruz:the signs of the solitary bird are five it points its beak to the sky it flies to the highest point it has no definite colour it does not suffer for want of company, even of its own kind and lastly it sings softly to itself...Your song is precious and strong and our children need to hear it. I would urge you to mingle with students to let them catch a glimpse of another way of living. There are too few whose words are strengthened by their life's choices. The values that are obvious to you may be confusing to many.Dear Mr Tripathi,It is always a challenge to encounter perspectives such as yours: balanced and pragmatic. You have offered enormous support to the school; if your grandchild asks a teacher, "Will it be wrong for me to bribe or will it be right?" What should the teacher say? How should one speak of honesty, and also pay money to get the electricity connection?Also, should schools encourage all intelligences, known and unknown, and offer a dignified space for each and every child or be suitable only for children with logical linguistic intelligences? I struggle with this anomaly, sir as you do!G. Gautama is director of The Chennai Education Centre of KFI. He was Principal of The School (KFI) from 1991-2009. gautama2004 at gmail dot com var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 03-08-2009)
Read More
In India, there is a nexus of the resourceful and the powerful. The nexus creates a set of rules to exclude and discriminate against those who do not have resources or power. Let us see what the resourceful and the powerful do to exclude. First, the group controls information and knowledge. Information about opportunities and knowledge that helps us take decisions regarding life is only accessible to very few people.Second, the resourceful and powerful create procedures; these procedures are like a maze. The maze is supposed to dissuade people who do not have power from challenging those who do. The procedures have many steps. Each step has a gatekeeper. Each gatekeeper is supposed to wield some power. The power is gained by denial of access to the next step of the procedure. Each gatekeeper is encouraged to use the power by those who put the procedure in place. This is not so as to share power with the gatekeepers, but to compound the power available at the top of the pyramid.Third, the resourceful and powerful create a network of people similar to themselves. These networks control all institutions of the society. The individual's power is magnified when it seems to flow from an institutional framework. This framework is protected from outsiders. Some outsiders, who show their dissent or have the ability to use the information and knowledge in a more profitable manner are co-opted into the network. Some gatekeepers join the networks as they build muscle and money by using their role. Mr Thangaiah, more often than not, because of our definition of success, we too have been forced to try and to join the group of resourceful and powerful. We end up interacting with this group of people that works for sustaining its own power. You do it by being the principal of this nice boarding school, which has the luxury of building a large hall for art and music, and I do it by working for a large corporate hospital. We are offered privileges for doing so. We think we have earned our privileges, but essentially, we have only bartered knowledge that we have for the good of the networks of people who exclude. Some people are more courageous; they leave the privileges and seek the right to information or form the voice of dissent about the exclusion. So, are there dichotomous categories of right and wrong or is there a continuum of right through to wrong? The answer, I think, lies in when are you asking the question and what are your definitions of right and wrong. If you are asking the question when five people die because a pillar of the Metro construction collapses, the wrong is easily identifiable, and thus is dichotomous to the right. It is difficult to bring the rationale of pragmatism when the impact is so obvious and visible. But, what if you are asking the question when the procurement process is being slighted, or a design fault is being overlooked, or if a generator, which could have caused a fire in a cinema hall is ‘managed' by giving free tickets for the first show? These are everyday occurrences that are rationalised in the name of pragmatism. While each of these processes can also lead to death, more importantly, these everyday occurrences can lead to an environment where there is a continuum of rationalised wrongs with confusion and vacuum about what is right. Let us see another continuum, you pay less than usual price to buy agricultural land to convert into an art and music hall, and then refuse to pay bribe to the gatekeeper of a procedure to prevent you from buying that land and converting the land use for the same. You may want to assume higher moral ground on this, but the fact is that you bought acres to convert into an art and music hall to use for a thousand students who will contribute to more inequity in a society than your paying bribe to a gatekeeper. In real terms, the dilemma is much greater than the fact of corruption. The questions for me are: how do we teach young people that our rights and entitlements cannot be and should not be more than others? How do we share information and knowledge with those who do not have opportunity? How do we question our own definitions of success, which lead to discrimination? In my view, if one needs a change in environment and society for all, we need dichotomous definitions of right and wrong. I am also aware that such absolute definitions, do not exist today and have not existed for long. But if a few people keep on asking for such definitions it will at least help the students know that one needs to question one self and one's actions, particularly those that discriminate against others. A thought for your pink ‘post-it' Mr Thangaiah: all corruption leads to systematic discrimination and exclusion of people, and all discrimination is nothing but corruption. Dr Achal Bhagat is a consultant psychiatrist and psychotherapist at Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He is also the founder director of Saarthak, a mental health NGO.achalbhagat at yahoo at co dot in var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 03-08-2009)
Read More
