Gender Diversity Paradox

Most organisations have come around to the view that Gender Diversity is no longer just “good to have” but that it has to be treated as a “business imperative”. However, in my experience, very few people (let alone organisations) are able to muster any real conviction about it. While the case for Gender Diversity from the point of view of equality, fairness, social justice and even access to a potentially larger talent pool, is indisputable, its linkage with organisational effectiveness remains suspect. Thus in the minds of many people, Gender Diversity is linked more to “lowering of standards” than “enhancement of organisational effectiveness”.

I believe the main difficulty arises from a paradox which is inherent in the Gender Diversity issue- its promotion has required underplaying the differences between the two genders, whereas, its link with organisational effectiveness requires appreciation and celebrating the differences between the two genders. let me elaborate.

One of the most significant  blocks in the road to Gender Diversity is the frozen stereotypes around gender and gender roles. Beliefs around relative attributes/ competencies/ roles of the two genders (e.g. men have greater flair for technology, women are soft-spoken or at least should be, men are more rational and assertive, women are more emotional and caring, men are bread winners, women are home makers, etc.) are quite rampant even if they are not consciously acknowledged.

Thus, promotion of Gender Diversity has necessarily entailed confronting these stereotypes and underplaying the differences between the two genders. Not surprisingly, most advocates of Gender Diversity take a Gender Neutral stance and focus upon the inherent commonality of the two genders and draw attention to the social handicap faced by women. Their essential argument is that women have been deprived of their due, and if given the opportunity they can be as good as men.  There is also an underlying belief (with considerable justification, I think) that highlighting differences between the two genders will necessarily be detrimental to the interest of women.

Ironically, this stance of Gender Neutrality and emphasis on commonality between the two genders becomes a major deterrent to appreciation of benefits of Gender Diversity. If people are seen as Gender Neutral Robots of skills and competencies, then by implication, having people of different genders does not foster any real diversity. All that it can ensure is that the organisation is drawing its talent from a wider and larger pool, but the basic nature of the “talent” remains the same. In such a scenario, any claims of linkage between Diversity and Effectiveness, sound hollow and do not carry any real conviction.

Any meaningful claim of benefits of Gender Diversity for organisational effectiveness can only be made provided it is first recognised that the two genders bring Different sets of orientations/competencies/predispositions etc. to the table and both sets are equally valuable and the resultant tension has immense creative potential.While there is considerable research evidence about both commonalities and differences between the two genders, its applicability and implications has all kinds of problems.

The first problem stems from the fact that these differences are not absolute in nature. Like any comparison between two groups, the intra-group differences are larger than inter-group differences. Thus, on the whole, men may be taller than women, but there are several women who are taller than most men. When a inter-group difference is applied indiscriminately to every individual case, appreciation of difference degenerates into stereotyping.

The second difficulty arises from the multiple meanings and interpretations which can be assigned to these differences. For example, there is research evidence to suggest that in general women are more “empathetic” than men. However, it is difficult to say as to whether this difference is on account of the bio-existential imperatives of their gender or on account of socio-cultural factors. Thus assigning any stability/finality to these differences can become highly problematic.

The third, and I believe, the most important difficulty arises from the power imbalance in gender relations. Whenever two groups are locked in a lop sided power relationship, the attributes of the higher placed group tend to be regarded as “superior” to the attributes of the group which is lower in the power equation. This can be as superficial  as skin colour or as deep as values and beliefs. Given the patriarchal structure, there is a natural over-valuing of masculine attributes as compared to feminine attributes. in such a scenario any hint of differentiating between the attributes and predispositions of men and women, effectively degenerates into discrimination against women.

This differential valuing is even more stark in the organisational context. Since most of our thinking around management and leadership is based upon masculine principle, the picture of an effective leader in the minds of many people is heavily tilted towards masculine attributes such as assertion, ambition, analytical ability, courage etc. While the grip of the “alpha male” over our notions of leadership is reducing, we are still far away from valuing and gracing feminine attributes such as sensitivity, intuition, receptivity, resilience our notions of leadership. Thus the message which gets communicated to women is that in order to succeed they must shed their inhibitions- become more assertive and demanding and net-work better- in other words become more “men like’.

This approach does not foster diversity, but creates more hegemony. Consequently, the very argument of Diversity for Effectiveness becomes meaningless, because no diversity is being fostered in the first place. All that is being done is that people from different gender (or other backgrounds) are being put into one huge melting pot and then placed into the same mould. Simply put, the argument of Diversity for Effectiveness is sustainable, only if the Differences  are first recognised and then celebrated. For this to happen, it is necessary that the Feminine part of us (irrespective of whether in a Man or in a Woman) finds its legitimate space in our notions of management and leadership. Without that Women may find space in the corporate world, but the doors will remain closed for Femininity. The link between Gender Diversity and Organisational Effectiveness resides not so much in having more women but in integrating the feminine principle in our notions of management and leadership.

The theory of Paradox, tell us that no paradox can be resolved at the level at which it arises. In case of Gender Diversity, the paradox gets created by the conflicting needs of Gender Neutrality and Gender Sensitivity. For promoting Gender Diversity it becomes necessary to emphasise the shared humanity between Men and Women. However, for harnessing the potential of Gender Diversity, it is necessary to be sensitive to the differences between the two genders and celebrate them. If this paradox is to be resolved, then we need to look at issue of Gender Diversity not just as a Man- Woman issue, but also in terms of the Masculine  and Feminine principles- how they are configured within us and in the systems to which we belong. Only then we will be able to appreciate how these principles complement each other and how the tension inherent between them is the source of all human creativity and how they can contribute to organisational effectiveness.

Aryan centric idea of India

I wonder, if Mr. Tarun Vijay of the BJP realises the full import of his statement about South Indians and black skinned people. More than the underlying prejudice, it betrays a certain idea of India and being Indian that is worrisome. When he says that we have “black people around us” and that “we live with them”, one can not help but ask as to who is this WE that Mr. Vijay has in mind.

It would have been an entirely different matter if Mr. Vijay had said the “we are dark skinned people OR that “we have dark skinned people amongst us ” OR that “we are a multi-racial society”. This may sound like nitpicking and it is tempting to forgive him for poor/misleading phrasing  of an honourable intent. It is entirely possible that his intent may have been honourable, but it also suggests a way of defining who an Indian is, which is worth exploring.

The impression that one gets from his statement is that there is a “we” which is different from the dark skinned people who are around this “we” and the two are living amicably but are not quite the same. Further, this picture of “we” is perhaps highly influenced by presumably fair complexioned Aryans.

The issue becomes even more significant in view of the constituency which his party has been traditionally associated with. Its original constituency was the upper caste Hindus of North India . While the “historical facts” may be debatable, the “history as it exists in the minds” of this constituency is that their lineage is Aryan and there country is  Aryavrata, coupled with a presumed notion of Aryan supremacy.  While from an electoral perspective, BJP has extended its reach significantly, Mr. Vijay’s statement indicates that its notions about Indian-ness are still those of its original constituency.

BJP has often claimed that its notion of Hindutva is not a religious construct but based on the notion of cultural nationalism. However their idea of this cultural nationalism is often defined in terms of their mother constituency i.e. upper caste Hindu north Indians which is highly Aryan centric. Further, in order to expand its reach, it seems keen to invite others to join and participate in this project of cultural nationalism, so long as this Aryan hegemony is accepted. From this position, it can at best include those who do not subscribe to this Aryan supremacy, but never become “one with them”.

Personally, I have no quarrel with the idea of cultural nationalism, though I prefer the term Indian-ness. The main reason for this preference is that Culture is often associated with customs and social practices, whereas Indian-ness essentially refers to civilisational quintessence i.e. psychological predispositions and perspectives. I believe ( and I have very good reasons to support this belief) that beyond the differences of caste, creed, language, religion, customs etc., there is an essential Indian-ness which is shared by all of us. This quintessential Indian-ness resides in our perspective on living i.e. what constitutes meaningful life, what is the nature of human relationships, what is the meaning of Individual freedom, what constitutes ethical conduct, what is the nature of relationship between state and society, what is the relationship between humanity and nature, what is the nature of relationship between human beings and technology, what is the role of religion and faith, and host of such questions.

Many of these perspectives or predispositions transcend differences of region, religion or socio-economic categories. No matter whether a person sees his/her lineage as Aryan or non-Aryan, whether he/she is privileged or oppressed, whatever be his/her theological beliefs, whatever be his/her dietary preferences or other living habits, there is a remarkable similarity in how the Indian mind works and how the Indian psyche looks at self and world at large. This to me is the civilisational quintessence which has been handed over to us both genetically and through processes of socialisation and acculturation.

Sadly, the predispositions of the Indian psyche have never figured prominently in our ideas of  development and modernity. Our essential picture of a progressive civilised society are based on how the Western mind works rather than how the Indian mind works. This is not to suggest a binary of India vs. West, but only to suggest that there are definite nuances which are present in different civilisations, even though essentially they deal with the same human imperatives and dilemmas. Unfortunately most of our frames, including our ways of looking at ourselves, have been borrowed from the West without taking into account  the nuances of our own civilisational quintessence. As Rabindranath Tagore put it, ” we have bought our spectacles at the expense of our eye sight”

The idea of cultural nationalism based on the premise of Aryan supremacy is yet another example of the same phenomenon. It has the same disdainful and patronising attitude towards the “non-Aryan” part of ourselves as our colonial masters had towards the native Indian. It may help in ensuring adherence to a uniform set of customs and practices, but in effect, it alienates us from the essence of our being. It merely replaces one kind of oppression with another.

It matters little, whether the oppressor is external or internal and what is the brand of hegemony that is sought to be imposed, the essential process remains the same. I suspect we will keep replacing one set of oppressors with another till such time that we learn to look at ourselves through our own eyes, understand ourselves in our own way and value ourselves at our own terms.

Democratic Condescension

Recently, I came across an interesting term WEIRD- it is an acronym for western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic. The term was used by the psychologist Joseph Heinrich and his associates. Their contention was that it is this small group of statistical outliers that provide us with both the producers and subjects of our contemporary psychological knowledge, which we then go on to happily generalise to the rest of humankind.

Heinrich’s proposition made intuitive sense to me but more importantly, I was struck by the incongruence inherent in the notion of WEIRD- on one hand, it suggests a kind of elitist exclusivity ( western, rich, educated) and on the other an egalitarian inclusivity of democracy. What would be the notion of democracy that such a group will have? A possible answer is suggested by the way election results are analysed by most political commentators, who presumably belong to the WEIRD group.

Elections come and go and each one brings its own set of surprises, but one thing which remains fairly consistent is the reaction of political commentators. If the results are aligned to their preference, then the electorate is commended for its wisdom, and if they are not, then the voter is regarded as a naive recipient of misinformation, false promises or other manipulations. One some times gets the impression that the voter is like a student who is being tested and the commentator is the teacher who is evaluating the performance of the student. If the student has given the right answer then he/she receives a pat on the back for having acted wisely, but if the student gives the wrong answer then the teacher admonishes him/her for having got misled and/or being guided by baser instincts.

For example, if the commentator is a Congress supporter then a congress victory will be interpreted as the intrinsic commitment of the electorate to secular,liberal, pluralistic values; but a congress critic will attribute it to the grip of the feudalistic mai-baap syndrome prevalent in the collectivity. Similarly a BJP supporter will interpret a BJP victory as the voter’s commitment to nationalism and development, but a BJP critic will reprimand the voters for having fallen prey to jingoism and divisive communal polarisation.

Thus the content of what the voter is praised or reprimanded for, will vary depending upon the analyst’s preferences, but the process is identical. Virtually all analysts will either praise the voters for their sagacity and wisdom or subtly reprimand them for allowing themselves to be misled. Needless to say, the praises are more direct and upfront, and the reprimands more subtle and indirect and sometimes even cloaked in the garb of understanding (e.g. people are so frustrated,uninformed and neglected that they become easy targets for false propaganda) Simply put, the WEIRD (in this case, the political analyst) puts him/herself on a platform from where he/she passes judgements on the commoner. The WEIRD is democratic but in a condescending sort of way.

This democratic condescension is visible in virtually all spheres of life. Whenever our personal preferences are at variance with the popular, majority trend, we are likely to feel disdainful towards the majority. In fact, the term populist has a definite derogatory association- as though popular appeal necessarily implies pandering to the baser instincts. This disdain for the majority is often expressed through statements like “you know how people are ..” or ” how can people be /do like this.. “If one were to do a simple experiment of collating all the statements one hears about “human nature” or “people in general”, chances are that the derogatory statements will beat the complimentary ones by a huge distance.

I do not have any substantive evidence to support my hypothesis, but I believe that WEIRDs are particularly susceptible to this condescension towards the majority. I say this, because I think WEIRDs are hyper conscious of their separateness and individualised identity. Consequently, it becomes extremely difficult for them to see themselves as a part of the collective. In contrast, the non-WEIRDs find it easier to see themselves as “one of the many” in a community. Not surprisingly, it is relatively easier to mobilise non-WEIRDS into a collective/political force than WEIRDS. The WEIRDS can voice the concerns of a community and even act on its behalf, but it is not easy for them to become a part of the community.

Given the historical split between the elite and the commoner in India, the issue becomes even more complex. However, the recent events suggest that even in the so called “developed” world, there is a huge disconnect between the WEIRD and the majority. I suspect that while the issue has a socio-economic dimension, it also has a psychological dimension. In case of WEIRDs, the “self-image” of the individual is so heavily governed by a certain idea of being progressive and liberal, that it does not allow any space for aspects which do not fit into it. For example, it is very difficult for a WEIRD to acknowledge any religious/racial paranoia,  gender stereotypes or interpersonal dependencies in him/herself. In contrast, the non-WEIRD has no such problem. He/she is often willing to be quite blasé about them, much to the discomfiture of the WEIRD. In fact, the more flak that he/she receives around these issues that more defiant he/she becomes.

In this scenario, it is easy for the WEIRD to take up the role of some sort of moral guardian of a progressive/liberal perspective and look at the majority as vulnerable children who must be protected from the potential regressive influences of vested interests. This only leads to further alienation of the WEIRDs from the majority. If this vicious circle is to be broken, then the WEIRDs will necessary have to step out of their present frozen notions, acknowledge their own vulnerabilities and anxieties and most importantly learn to grace their part hood and ordinariness.















Modi- centricity and Moral ambiguities

One of the inexplicable features of the recent elections was the ease with which parties like Congress, SP and BSP allowed the BJP to make the election Modi-centric, especially in UP and Utrakhand. This helped the party considerably in achieving the impressive tallies in these areas. In contrast, my speculation is that in Punjab, the election was not as Modi-centric. The main reason for this perhaps was the availability of an easier target in the form of Badal &Co- where there is no moral ambiguity involved. Morally ambiguous targets evoke strong emotive reactions and hence attract much greater attention and energy which enables them to acquire a centrality which often works to their advantage.

This Modi-centricity is starkly visible in several aspects of contemporary India. Virtually every academic/literary/artistic event that I have attended in the last few years had direct or indirect reference to the changing socio-political scenario in the post Modi era. Even casual social encounters are not free of it- a large part of humour centres around issues like notebandi, surgical strikes, swatch bharat, ghar wapsi, beef-ban, bharat mata etc. etc. It is reasonable to infer that as a society we are going through a huge emotional churn and beneath the churn are some moral ambiguities pushing and pulling us in two seemingly opposite directions. Thus invariably one finds a clear split between Modi bhakts and Modi bashers. Since the issues involved have a strong emotive/moral dimension, it becomes virtually impossible to have any meaningful dialogue between these two groups.

It is therefore important to understand the moral ambiguities that we are confronted with.

For Modi-bashers, Modi is associated with all that is morally repugnant. He is seen as  autocratic, megalomaniac, divisive, intolerant, power hungry, expedient and communal. His success is attributed to his tremendous ability to manipulate and control either through fear and paranoia or through empty promises or through pandering to “baser” instincts of a communal/parochial nature. Not surprisingly, the bashers see him as huge threat to the very idea of a secular, liberal, plural, inclusive, progressive, egalitarian and democratic India i.e. everything that we value and aspire for. They see the Modi bhakts either as gullible fools or as a group of reactionary goons or as self absorbed privileged lot who are completely insensitive to the social inequities in the larger context. Not surprisingly, they fear that if Modi is not checked, we will become a totalitarian, fascist, hegemonic society where there will be no space for dissent and no protection against social/state tyranny.

When I look at Modi through the eyes of his bhakts a very different picture emerges. He becomes a strong, hardworking,honest,selfless, decisive leader who is deeply committed to making India great. He transforms into the torch- bearer of the second independence movement- where we are fighting not against the “white man” but against the “brown sahibs” who have been oppressing this country in all spheres- political, economic and cultural. These brown sahibs have captured all institutions- political parties, corporate houses, government machinery, media, judiciary and academic establishments. Through rhetoric such as secularism, socialism, liberalism etc. they pretend to safeguard the interests of the underprivileged and marginalised but in fact are their biggest exploiters. The bhakts see in Modi as someone of their own who has managed to break the glass ceiling and who will cleanse the system of all accumulated dirt and dismantle the corrupt structure which supports it. Understandably, they see the Modi bashers as people who are either corrupt themselves or at least have a vested interest in the status-quo.

Are these two pictures of Modi irreconcilable with each other? If not, how do we create a dialogue between them. I believe this is a significant question not just from a political and macro point of view but also from a social and personal point of view. The moral ambiguity which is playing out at the macro level is perhaps a reflection of a conflict which resides within ourselves. Talking of myself, one of the things which I hold as very precious is my plurality i.e. the multiple parts of myself. However, this multiplicity also becomes a source of difficulty in experiencing my integrity or wholeness. I am often caught between the pulls and pushes of these different parts of me and then find it difficult to take a stance. It has not been easy for me to recognise that just as my plurality is important, so is the interconnectedness between these multiple parts. Plurality without interconnectedness can only create fragmentation.

Extending this issue to the macro level, I find the same difficulty of co-holding plurality with inter-connectedness. Modi bashers are right in their fear of hegemony and consequent loss of plurality, but the bhakts are equally right in their fear of loss of integrity. Just as dissent and individual freedom suffer under hegemony, so does collective will and strength with loss of interconnectedness. Plurality can be a convenient card for “divide and rule”, just as anti-national can be a convenient card for internal suppression.

Perhaps cliches like “uniformity in diversity” are no longer enough to guide us in this messy path of living with plurality and interconnectedness. This is equally true of other frames like secularism, liberalism, nationalism, cultural heritage and the like. The present churn is a great opportunity for revisiting them and reinterpreting them afresh.This can only be done through   dialogue, which necessitates leaving the comfort zone of moral certitude and entering the messy world of moral ambiguities.





There is a Donald Trump in all of us

This post is not about Donald Trump the person, but about Donald Trump the symbol. Human beings are complex and multi-faceted, but symbols are stereotypical, monochromatic and uni-dimensional. When an individual becomes a symbol, this monolithic picture becomes so overpowering that even the individual concerned becomes its captive. His/her own multiplicity gets lost in this all embracing picture. In such a situation, it is reasonable to assume that the individual is carrying this picture “on behalf of” the collective. In other words, it is the collective’s difficulty in engaging with a certain part of its own psyche which is carried by the person who gets symbolised.

Let us first look at the nature of this symbol in case of Donald Trump and then examine why it is becoming problematic in the present day world. For many people, Donald Trump has come to symbolise all that is antithetical to our notions of civilised decent behaviour. He is seen as a crude, domineering, intolerant, opinionated, self-centred creature with insatiable appetites and one who  generates considerable repulsion and disgust in us. However, there must be something attractive about his raw energy and indomitable spirit which has propelled so many people to place him in arguably the most powerful position in the world. In fact,It has often been suggested that it is his “bull in the china shop” image which has made the electorate prefer him over the more sober, suave, articulate and reasonable Clinton, who would merely preserve the status-quo. In many ways, one can see the presidential election as a contest between our primal and civilised selves.

There is a part in each of us which neither listens to the voice of reason, nor easily submits to social and moral conventions. It carries the seeds of both our heroic potential and our destructive villainy. Through the process of socialisation we learn to tame and control this part, but rarely do we learn how to integrate it with the rest of us and how to actualise its heroic potential. In my book, Child Man, I had speculated that the prevalent conditions of human existence are such that this part of ourselves is being simultaneously awakened and suppressed. The end result is that we encounter only its negative side and hence push it  into our psycho-social underbelly.

Through Donald Trump, our primal and primitive side seems to have moved out of the dungeons and occupied the centre stage. Sadly, what we are seeing is only the negative and ugly side of this primal self. I believe this is so because we have never graced our primal self and only scoffed at it in the name of being mature and civilised. Take for example, our notion of being a “global citizen”. It is primarily based on the notion of a liberal, inclusive, broad minded, secular individual who is primarily governed by what Ayn Rand would call “enlightened self interest”. Any thing which does not fit into this is dismissed as narrow, communal, parochial, reactionary and host of such invectives.

The question which needs to be asked is, what are we doing with those parts of ourselves which do not fit into this pretty but sanitised picture? Where does the anxiety of living in a world with increasingly fluid boundaries go? What happens to our need to feel protected in a safe haven? What happens to our need to belong to a community of familiar people who are not just faceless/nameless entities? It is sometimes assumed that these needs belong only to the relatively backward and lower/middle strata of the society. It is further assumed that people like Donald Trump are able to manipulate the “masses” by pandering to these sentiments. Perhaps the reality is more complex than that. Perhaps the elite are able to take care of their “clannish” needs as also anxieties  in a more subtle manner and are hence able to maintain the facade of being open and liberal. It is for this reason that people like Clinton come through as pretty but fake, which in turn leaves the space open for likes of Donald Trump to take the counter location of being ugly but real.

Perhaps both  Clinton and Trump are products of this split between “pretty but fake” and “ugly but real”. It is not that Trump is any more real and authentic than Clinton, but it is the certainty of Clinton’s falsity that enables Trump to claim authenticity for himself. Similarly it is the certainty of Trump’s ugliness which entitles Clinton to claim the tag of being nice and pretty.

If this split is to be healed, we will need to revisit some of our notions around being backward and progressive. So long as we hold certain aspects of being human (e.g. need for community) with disdain, we will continue to awaken and simultaneously suppress Donald Trump within us both individually and collectively. Sometimes he will break free from the chains which shackle  him and ruthlessly destroy everything which comes in his way and leave us wondering as to how could we have let this happen.

The healing of this split will also entail rediscovering the virtues of  the “householder” whose reach is bounded, whose vision is limited, whose concerns are petty and who is content in his small world pursuing his small wishes, desires and dreams. The more we look down upon the ordinary and the mundane, the more we will be engulfed by the megalomania of the grandiose . Not knowing what to do with the energy which has got unleashed within us, we will then look for an external symbol like Donald Trump to act on our behalf.




Handling Individual Greatness- from Sachin to Kohli

In the last few years,the cricket world in India has gone through a significant transition – from the Sachin era to a Kohli era. Even die hard Sachin fans (like yours truly) have to admit that in all likelihood,Virat Kohli will surpass Sachin Tendulkar, not merely in terms of individual achievements, but more importantly, in terms of contribution to team’s success. Even as fans go crazy with chants of “Kohli  Kohli”, there is a palpable difference in the kind of adulation and reverence which was given to Sachin as compared to what is offered to Kohli. During the Sachin era, it was not unusual for people to lose all interest in the game, once he was gone, but that does not seem to be the case now. I have as yet not seen Kohli being elevated to “Godhood” as was the case with Sachin. Is it only a matter of time or has something shifted in our handling of “Individual Greatness”? I hope it is the later, but it may be too early to say.

To begin with, let me state the difference, as I see it. During the Sachin era, our collective focus was much more on his personal achievements than on team performance. For many people, his scoring a hundred was more important than India winning the match. Surely, people still enjoy  a Kohli century, but I don’t think his records are being followed as zealously as was the case with Sachin. At that time, people came to see Sachin bat (or bowl or field, for that matter). Today Kohli is a big draw, but the game does not begin or end with him.

How this collective obsession about Sachin Tendulkar affected his teammates can not be said with any certainty, but it is rather unlikely that they would have been oblivious to it. In fact, some of them have talked about being extra careful in ensuring that they don’t run him out and become targets of public wrath. It has also been suggested that the huge gap between Sachin and the rest of team was one of the factors which contributed to his failure as a captain. Contrast that with Kohli, where even relative newcomers like Karun Nair and Kedar Jadhav feel free to express themselves without much inhibition. Thus it would seem that rather than feeling dwarfed in his presence, Kohli’s teammates feel more inspired and empowered by his greatness.

What we are witnessing with Kohli, is perhaps the logical extension of a process which began with several other contemporary greats of Indian cricket, particularly, Dravid, Kumble and Dhoni. Each of them a colossus in his own right, and yet never became larger than the game as seemed to have happened with Sachin. When that happens,  the greatness of an individual becomes more of a  liability than an asset both for the individual and the total collectivity. This is equally applicable to all areas of human endeavour not just cricket and sports.

In any field, there will always be individuals with exceptional talent and capability. How their greatness is handled, depends not merely on them but also on the context to which they belong. In a context of low self-worth, such individuals are either deified or crucified. In either case they are dehumanised and left to carry the burden of their greatness. I suspect, something akin to this happened in case of Sachin. He became a compensation for our low self-worth. He was a “special gift” from the almighty sent to deliver us from our gloom and through him we could feel good about ourselves.

To a much lesser extent, we did the same with Dhoni, but so far at least we have spared Kohli from it. Surely, there are huge expectations from him, but we do not feel as delirious with his successes and as devastated with his failures as we did in case of Sachin. There is a much lesser sense of “everything depends upon him”. And this in spite of the fact that in the current test team, there is no one other than R. Ashwin who comes any where close to his capability and stature. Perhaps we are learning to pin our hopes on collective effort, rather than on brilliance of one individual.

Ironical as it may seen, it is “self-belief” at the collective level, which enables individual greatness to flourish. Take away the self belief from the collective, and the individual greatness becomes more of a liability than an asset. Such collectives can at best revere but not admire, appreciate and assimilate.The real challenge lies in ensuring that the individual greatness becomes a source of inspiration for the collective rather than a source/compensation for its feelings of smallness.


Religion Vs. Religiosity

Some time back, a friend had asked me whether I considered myself a religious person. In my younger days I would have responded with a clear and emphatic No. Today, I am not so sure.  In a conventional sense, I still don’t regard myself as religious. However, it is equally true that places of worship (gurudwaras, temples, dargahs, churches mosques etc.) fill me with a sense of serenity and some of my most favourite songs have a distinct devotional flavour. This apparent contradiction in myself, forced me to think about what it means to be religious?

As a theological construct, religion deals with issues of cosmology /metaphysics such as existence of God, life after death, relationship between body and soul etc. I have no definite opinion on any of these and nor do these questions hold much interest for me. In this sense, I can regard myself as non-religious.

Religion is also a moral/social construct. It lays down ethical values, social obligations, codes of conducts, rituals and ceremonies etc. While I recognise the need for all these, I am extremely uncomfortable when they are made “absolute” through references to “sacred texts” and “religious diktats”. The sociological/ethical sides of human existence have to be governed by prevalent life conditions and hence must be dynamic. The less they are linked to theology (which tends to be absolutistic) the better. In this sense also I have to regard myself as non- religious.

Finally, there is an emotive and psychological side to religion which corresponds to certain imperatives of being human. In order to distinguish it from the theological/sociological side, I will call it Religiosity. Religiosity is a medium (and by no means, the only medium) through which certain imperatives of being human (for example, the need to find meaning  for one’s life, the need to merge and become a part of a larger entity etc.) find expression. The most significant of these imperatives is the need to have faith.

Faith is perhaps one of the most misunderstood and misused concepts. It is often confused with dogma, irrational belief and even confidence. In fact, in many ways it is the exact opposite . Notions such as dogma and confidence rest on the plank of “certainty” whereas, faith rests on the plank of “uncertainty”. A dogmatic person “knows for sure” that his/her beliefs are absolutely true. A person with faith accepts the limitations of his/her knowledge and does not feel destabilised by this lack of knowledge. Similarly, a confident person believes that through competence and effort one can gain mastery over one’s destiny. In contrast the person with faith does not feel a compelling need to control his/her destiny. The person is quite content to give his/her best shot and simultaneously accept that the ultimate outcome will be determined by a host of factors, most of which are beyond his/her control. Competence and effort are necessary prerequisites for success but by no means sufficient. What matters is one’s willingness to embrace the outcome with humility and grace.

For me, Faith is essentially an antidote to Anxiety which is an inevitable consequence of  human limitations. There is no way that human beings can have complete knowledge/control over their own lives. Thus living with the anxiety of having to deal with the unknown and uncontrollable is an integral part of human existence. However, there is a marked difference between Religion and Religiosity in how this anxiety is dealt with.  Religions  deal with this anxiety through providing certainty, either through positing an omniscient and omnipotent God figure or through a definite and absolute theology/unquestionable sacred text. Religiosity on the other hand accepts and graces the uncertainty and limitations of knowledge/control inherent in human existence.Each  religion has its own brand of   theology, morality, social norms etc. but as mediums for expression of emotive/ existential imperatives ,their essence remains the same. Consequently, religions tend to be divisive whereas Religiosity can be inclusive and has the potential of being a unifying force. The beauty of religiosity is that it is so inclusive that it does not even require you to believe in any god or divine order.

It is for this reason that I regard inclusive religiosity as a much more meaningful and potent concept than secularism. In secularism, there is very little space for the emotive imperatives which find expression through religion. The end result is a huge vacuum which is often exploited by the fundamentalist forces to propagate their own theological and sociological certainties. This is particularly applicable in the Indian context.

For various reasons, the Indian psyche is more religiosity centric than religion centric. Further, it has a huge appetite for religiosity. It is not uncommon to find people  in this country flock around a god man irrespective of religious affiliations. It does not matter whether it is a christian saint or  a muslim pir or a budhist monk or a hindu gurumata or a jain muni or a sikh guru, they all act as magnets for virtually all people. In fact so insatiable is our appetite for religiosity that we can make gods out of anything-trees, animals, rivers, planets or anything else that one can think of. There are very few objects/creatures that one can think of, which are not worshipped in some form or another in some part of India.

This almost insatiable appetite for religiosity accompanied by its “open-ended” nature is a huge potential resource which unfortunately is becoming more of a liability. While it is important to be watchful against the divisive forces which are unleashed by religion, it is equally important to ensure that in the process we don’t end up saying good bye to religiosity. In fact, the more we turn away from religiosity, the more divisive religions will become. I suspect, no one understood this better than Gandhi and hence he always emphasised inclusive religiosity rather than secularism. I believe this was also a significant factor which enabled him to mobilise people across the length and breadth of this huge country.