Lama Meets Mahatma

I FOUND IT VERY SYMBOLIC SEEING The Dalai Lama paying homage to Mahatma's memorial. And, rightly so. Mahatma, who always advocated for equanimity of all religions, was not a Buddhist, yet, without any exaggerations, he was a perfect example of one. Mahatma brought independence to his people through non-violence, and that is what the Lama teaches the world.

[Left: Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama throws rose petals at Raj Ghat, The Memorial to Mahatma Gandhi in New Delhi on March 29, 2008, to attend a public inter-faith prayer meeting for those who lost their lives in Tibet. Hindu, Muslim, Sikh and Jain leaders offered prayers along with The Dalai Lama and hundreds of Tibetans and their supporters at the cremation spot of Mahatma Gandhi. - tiskali.co.uk]

The Dalai Lama is a defacto (though dethroned) King of the Tibetan people. And he is at his Kingly duty while he takes on China with respect to the rights for the Tibetans. In doing so, as always, as Bodhisattva incarnate, he has taken the peaceful (middle) path, and his 'meeting' the Mahatma was more than a statement to this effect.

On the other hand, there is this 'fraction' made up of Tibetan students, who have taken the route of giving the Chinese military a taste of their own medicine - in an equally violent manner. It's rather natural. But they should be under an effective leadership, and should be knowing what they are doing, else they would likely end up damaging the Dalai Lama rather than China. History has it that every peaceful protest or uprising is accompanied by a violent one, and vice versa. After all, not everybody who would want to attain the same aim would consider one path as the only path.

One of the common most dividing range among peoples of all kinds and cultures - An apparent generation gap..!

The twist truly comes in the way the 2008 Olympics games are entwined into this ethnic issue. China could have done without it at any rate, but the Tibetans saw a 'global' opportunity to capture world-attention. It appears that they were also backing upon the by now well-known oppressive nature of the rule that China imposes under its regime. A little provocation by a certain bunch of Tibetan students in Lhasa, and China happily obliged. And when it realised that it was rather a lure to the dragon into the cave, it started calling foul on the Dalai Lama for allegedly 'master-minding' the 'violence'. Too late to figure, I suppose.

[Right: Police pull down a demonstrator along the route of the Olympic torch in London. Protesters advocating Tibet's independence disrupted the torch's path in London, Paris and San Francisco. - time.com]

The bad aspect of Olympics being dragged into this is, as I observed in some online forums, that it has confused as well as divided people world over in terms of their support to the Tibetans, and in doing so, have lost some good souls to the opposite camp. Someone said, "Keep sports out of it, whatever it may be... [Sports] is probably only place left with some spirit...", Someone else, "Olympics does not belong to China, it belongs to the world, are they [Tibetans] boycotting the world?" another said, "Let's boycott USA for its treatment to the Indians, and Russians for this, and German's for that, and Britans for another, and... You would not end up having any place [wealthy enough] to host Olympics... " These people are generally sympathetic with the oppression that the Tibetans have been through, like they do for Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Darfur, or any other place...

On the beneficial part, the Tibetan gained world-stage to put-up their protests, largely peaceful ones, and attracted the attention to their cause. The media, who it appears remained shrewdly divided, have had multiple field-days. While they 'worded' condemnation for the Olympics boycott-calls, at the same time, they gave certain people and nations the arm-twisting opportunity to twist China. That said, it is not for the first time that Olympics face a boycott issue; the world has seen it thrice already. But in all those cases, the issues were international and political rather than ethnic.

[Above: Countries that have boycotted Olympics - Montreal-1976 (yellow), Moscow-1980 (blue) and Los Angeles-1984 (red).]

At the end of the day, however, China would remain unstoppable, and the chances of the Olympics being deferred/called-off and next to nil. And the reason is simple: Economics.

Economics and the numbers involved in this Beijing Olympics event does not favour either deferment or cancellation. Today, Sports is a huge business globally. With all due respect to its international 'community spirit' and all that, Olympics is after all an economic event of the largest scale in sports today. While it requires a huge investment, it also promises to bring in a mountain worth of foreign exchange within a very short run of about a month. Perhaps, the Bird's nest has some golden eggs!

China has a lot at stake, for, along with it's investor 'friends', it has infused billions into infrastructure development in/around Beijing to host this event. China's business plans in terms of first breaking even, expand infrastructure at the cost of tourists' money and hyper-consume it's own products in the process, and then make billions in profit, had not accounted for Tibet - Or might have underestimated Tibet, because that's what it seems now. And I suppose that is where China is at its most vulnerable (numbers are not released by China; for London 2012 the budget is £ 9bn = ~USD 18bn). After all, it's all about Money. Threats to Beijing Olympics were first proclaimed by China (not the Dalai Lama, as some media had first reported, and then corrected. The Dalai Lama has rather favoured the Olympics, calling them a peaceful event.). One of the reasons why China had to sound the bugle could be for all those US/EU investors to help cover the grounds. It is supposed to be a very effective strategy if executed properly - let those 'western' investors resist anti-Olympics (i.e. anti-Chinese) propaganda in their respective home-land for the sake of their own invested money.

The Olympics would go on, on schedule, as planned, and we would get to see everyone falling in line as well.

And at that rate, Tibetans seem to lose out; on one hand they could not dislodge Olympics, they might have made enemies out of innocents, and the 'uprising' remains oppressed. (Also, any uprising has to be from within, and not without.)

This is perhaps the toughest time for the Dalai Lama since his exile. And I hope the Mahatma had a word or two of respite for him...

Mind, the Gap - addendum II - "Economics"

WHILE REVIEWING "Mind, the Gap", I felt the need of explaining the usage of term 'economics'. The classical definition of the terms goes somewhat like the following:

economics (ĕk'ə-nŏm'ĭks, ē'kə-)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.

In other words, it is classical trade but in a much advanced and re-defined form. All throughout 1900's, economics remained the force of forces, surfacing in clear sight in forms of capitalism, especially towards the last couple of decades of the century (whilst communism was being defeated by its own self).

In the current century, however, the term has to expand event more that "production, distribution and consumption" to encompass the new dimensions of technological proliferations of the society - namely, Web 2., et al.

In the sense that I would like to use the term economics whilst talking about 'the Gap' should also include not just monetary-economy (though it remains the flagship), but also the "attention economy" (how Google makes money by having you to give attention to all those sponsored contents and ads), and "reputation economy" (how Google 'pressurises' you to improve you hit-count of your online presence - your website, blog, social-networking profile - that should feature among top 20 Google hits when someone fires a relevant query. That, and also Google PageRank.)

Technology is raw. Net is the medium by which technology would interact and interchange information with society. Whilst technology has to prove itself (by turning profitable) economically, it could only do so if (and perhaps the only if) it would get the tune of the psychology of the society.

When the inventors start to really master the tune of psychology of the society their technology is serving, you find that the society is 'hooked' to the given technology. People are so wound up into it that almost no questions are asked. The hook is attached to a line, and the sinker is usually heavy (with right marketing). The spin of the spindle wounding up the line is actually the economy making profit.

Mind, the Gap - addendum I - "Psychology"

In an interesting parallel with the 'Mind Gap' concept, here is a quote from the strategy by a marketing guru to the modern successful IT enterprises, advising the CEO's of the interplay between psychology and economy in making of an effective marketing strategy and selling their systems:

"... the strategy is to focus market development efforts on the end-user community [who you want to use your system], not on the technical community. Specifically you want to enlist the support of the economic buyer, the line executive or manager in the end-user organization who has the profit-and-loss responsibility for the given function your product serves... [Psychologically] you should not expect to secure primary sponsorship from the IT professionals... [A new product and a paradigm shift] is not in the interest of the IT department. It means extra work for them, and it exposes their mission-critical systems to additional risks... [Psychologically] it would not have been in the interest of the end users who report to the economic buyer. From their point of view, the old paradigm is more familiar and secure. In the short term, with the learning curve required to come up to speed on the new one, they are actually going to be less effective. So they may resist you as well. It is only the economic buyer, who has to pay the ongoing cost of the status quo but can no longer afford to do so, who can be counted on to be unequivocally supportive of the change..."

As it happens elsewhere, so is in this example, that the strategy has the psychology and economy components in a direct interplay. Towards the end of the quote it also gives the hint that it is not simply restricted to marketing strategy, but is equally found in change management as well.

Mind, the Gap

AN ANCIENT SANSKRIT SAYING has it:
तुंडे तुंडे मतीः भिन्ना।
(tunde tunde mateehi bhinna)

Which literally means that every head has a differing mind. Less subtly, everyone has a different opinion.

It may remain unsubstantiated at this hour, but I may argue that this difference and diversity is stemming from the ‘Genetic diversity’ as found prevalent as a principle under Biodiversity as a hole. Biodiversity, in a sense, is a science of studying all the various species and their interdependence that gives the significance to the ecology and bio-ecosystem of the Earth. Taken a few logical steps further on the same line, this would translate into the social phenomenon classified as Cultural diversity, and so forth.

It is the Mind, the psychology, that divides and at the same time units all individual aspects under the single ecology of the cultural fabric.

In other words, things are as they are in the world, good or bad, because of this Diversity principle - what may be considered good for one may not be good for someone else... If one applies this theory to the state of one's living, saying that the solution to your given prevailing unfavourable personal condition lies is a certain product or service, one becomes a party to the economy. For this very principle is also an integral part of world economy. (Look around and you would find examples are aplenty.),

It is that Gap, disparity, demand vs. supply, the fundamental logic behind any economy, that gives goals and 'purposes' to individual lives in the contemporary world.

And, as we just argued, that gap, the economy, stems from Mind, the psychology.

Having said that, one may approach psychology through economy and argue that - economy also contributes into framing of an individual psychology. Which is absolutely true as well - for economy is largely responsible for the socio-political environment one lives in. This environment influences one's thought process all the way from childhood - which the psychoanalysts know as conditioning of the 'mind'.

Now, here we have Mind (the psychology) stemming from the gap (the economy).

So, I suppose it is safe to say that both of these are like best buddies, going hand-in-hand, none leading the other, nor one following the another. They are like the two aspects of the duality that is so omnipresent in the world at large.

These two, always co-joined, create what I would want to call a Mind Gap, which is perhaps more significant than all other gaps – generation gap, cultural gap, socio-political gap, et al. And it is this combination of psychology and economy that rather 'rule' and 'runs' the world.

Mind, the Gap.