Poverty

Found this on facebook, unusually informative for that social network. Will put down my thoughts on this later.

Late last year, two young men decided to live a month of their lives on the income of an average poor Indian. One of them, Tushar, the son of a police officer in Haryana, studied at the University of Pennsylvania and worked for three years as an investment banker in the US and Singapore. The other, Matt, migrated as a teenager to the States with his parents, and studied in MIT. Both decided at different points to return to India, joined the UID Project in Bengaluru, came to share a flat, and became close friends.

The idea suddenly struck them one day. Both had returned to India in the vague hope that they could be of use to their country. But they knew the people of this land so little. Tushar suggested one evening — “Let us try to understand an ‘average Indian', by living on an ‘average income'.” His friend Matt was immediately captured by the idea. They began a journey which would change them forever.

To begin with, what was the average income of an Indian? They calculated that India's Mean National Income was Rs. 4,500 a month, or Rs. 150 a day. Globally people spend about a third of their incomes on rent. Excluding rent, they decided to spend Rs. 100 each a day. They realised that this did not make them poor, only average. Seventy-five per cent Indians live on less than this average.

The young men moved into the tiny apartment of their domestic help, much to her bemusement. What changed for them was that they spent a large part of their day planning and organising their food. Eating out was out of the question; even dhabas were too expensive. Milk and yoghurt were expensive and therefore used sparingly, meat was out of bounds, as were processed food like bread. No ghee or butter, only a little refined oil. Both are passionate cooks with healthy appetites. They found soy nuggets a wonder food — affordable and high on proteins, and worked on many recipes. Parle G biscuits again were cheap: 25 paise for 27 calories! They innovated a dessert of fried banana on biscuits. It was their treat each day.

Restricted life

Living on Rs.100 made the circle of their life much smaller. They found that they could not afford to travel by bus more than five km in a day. If they needed to go further, they could only walk. They could afford electricity only five or six hours a day, therefore sparingly used lights and fans. They needed also to charge their mobiles and computers. One Lifebuoy soap cut into two. They passed by shops, gazing at things they could not buy. They could not afford the movies, and hoped they would not fall ill.

However, the bigger challenge remained. Could they live on Rs. 32, the official poverty line, which had become controversial after India's Planning Commission informed the Supreme Court that this was the poverty line for cities (for villages it was even lower, at Rs. 26 per person per day)?

Harrowing experience

For this, they decided to go to Matt's ancestral village Karucachal in Kerala, and live on Rs. 26. They ate parboiled rice, a tuber and banana and drank black tea: a balanced diet was impossible on the Rs. 18 a day which their briefly adopted ‘poverty' permitted. They found themselves thinking of food the whole day. They walked long distances, and saved money even on soap to wash their clothes. They could not afford communication, by mobile and internet. It would have been a disaster if they fell ill. For the two 26-year-olds, the experience of ‘official poverty' was harrowing.

Yet, when their experiment ended with Deepavali, they wrote to their friends: “Wish we could tell you that we are happy to have our ‘normal' lives back. Wish we could say that our sumptuous celebratory feast two nights ago was as satisfying as we had been hoping for throughout our experiment. It probably was one of the best meals we've ever had, packed with massive amounts of love from our hosts. However, each bite was a sad reminder of the harsh reality that there are 400 million people in our country for whom such a meal will remain a dream for quite some time. That we can move on to our comfortable life, but they remain in the battlefield of survival — a life of tough choices and tall constraints. A life where freedom means little and hunger is plenty...

Plenty of questions

It disturbs us to spend money on most of the things that we now consider excesses. Do we really need that hair product or that branded cologne? Is dining out at expensive restaurants necessary for a happy weekend? At a larger level, do we deserve all the riches we have around us? Is it just plain luck that we were born into circumstances that allowed us to build a life of comfort? What makes the other half any less deserving of many of these material possessions, (which many of us consider essential) or, more importantly, tools for self-development (education) or self-preservation (healthcare)?

We don't know the answers to these questions. But we do know the feeling of guilt that is with us now. Guilt that is compounded by the love and generosity we got from people who live on the other side, despite their tough lives. We may have treated them as strangers all our lives, but they surely didn't treat us as that way...”

So what did these two friends learn from their brief encounter with poverty? That hunger can make you angry. That a food law which guarantees adequate nutrition to all is essential. That poverty does not allow you to realise even modest dreams. And above all — in Matt's words — that empathy is essential for democracy.

Love

Probably one of the most written about things in history.

Some swear about its magical effect in their lives, others swear at how it has destroyed theirs. Some insist that the meaning of life and even life itself is nothing but love, others deny its existence. Millions have wondered about it and a million others insist you are not even supposed to think about it, just feel it.

So what is this strange entity? With so many people doubting it, does it even exist? Is it measurable or has to be taken just on faith? Can it be proven?

About whether love exists - it is statistically impossible that billions of humans have passed on their genes to future generations merely out of an animal impulse. You can think of love as something that merely facilitates that drive or as the primary cause behind that drive. Either way, if even one couple has experienced what we conventionally think of as love or what we might disagree about is love, then logically it exists. And we have countless examples of it happening over centuries. People getting attracted to one another and bringing lasting happiness to one another.

Regardless of the statistics or the dry logic, I believe that love exists.

Biologically, chemically (maybe at the neurotransmitter level), psychologically and perhaps even mystically in ways we haven't understood yet, love exists. It can be a very beautiful emotion, elevating you to such highs as you've never felt before. And it can make you feel crushed and depressed when your expectations are not met. Sometimes, even if nothing goes ‘wrong’ per se, love can be full of a strange agony.

(It might be obvious by now that I'm not talking about the love we feel for our parents and siblings and friends. I'm talking about love for someone we might want to spend our lives with, have sex with, and perhaps even give in to the biological impulse to create little versions of ourselves.)

This love I'm talking about might look something like this. (Try telling them what they feel for each other is not real and doesn't exist.)

Or it may be very silent, insidious - not spoken about for years or acknowledged in public (not a very healthy way to be) but felt and noticed in little everyday things.

Now, to talk about something so 'all over the place' (in more ways than one), we need to define it, so we can wrap our heads around the concept. And this is where we hit the first roadblock.

No one knows how to define it, no one has the apt definition.

But then if something is so pervasive and near universal, is it really possible that no one knows how to define it? What if we flip that idea - maybe everyone knows how to define love. Maybe it's a malleable thing, which has something common at its core that everyone recognizes, but outwardly takes on as many forms as there are people out there experiencing it. Given how little we understand of this idea, I tend to agree with the latter viewpoint.

As such, I found the definition provided by Dr. Robert Peck in 'The Road Less Traveled' as a simple one; yet one that captures the very essence of the whole idea.

But before we go there let's look at some assumptions widely prevalent about love and which in my opinion distort the idea and have probably damaged a lot of people.

1)      Romantic love is the real/true love. More on this later. For now, suffice it to say that this is like saying climbing upto Everest’s base camp is equal to conquering the mountain.

2)      Love happens in a certain universal way (conveniently portrayed by most movies and books) and if it doesn’t happen to me, it doesn't exist. That is an understandably frustrated but nevertheless very childish (or teenage-ish) view of things. When an adult thinks like this, it's usually from a wave of anger and self-pity. They want to defend themselves against disappointment and hurt. The longer this wave persists, the more you can be sure they will entrench themselves deeper in this sorry mentality. And I'm guessing many people do spend their entire lives thinking like this, being bitter. Feeling love for someone is a very intimate process and by extension, it can be very different for everyone. We’re not dealing with a universally true thing like gravity, where it applies equally to everyone (heck, even gravity acts differently on different bodies). If someone has a restricted, uncompromising view (a view thoroughly embedded in society's psyche through popular culture) of how they want love to happen to them then it’s simply their loss when it doesn’t turn out that way. Obviously, they are closing their minds to other possibilities and opportunities. If you can’t process the disappointments and compromises that are almost inevitable with love without letting it poison your attitude to others, then maybe it isn’t for you. Which brings me to …

3)      Everyone falls in love. Maybe. No one knows for sure. But I doubt it. It is far more likely that everyone gets attracted to someone at least once in the course of their lifetime. Maybe everyone feels romantic love for someone. But it is perfectly normal to not feel love or go through the process of falling in love or living with someone as a result of it. There are so many singles who live happily and maybe die happily too without going through that process.

4)      The love portrayed in romantic comedies is fascinating and can (should) happen to me. Yes, it is fascinating. But as I’ve written previously, it is better to look at these kinds of movies for what they are – a cleverly marketed product that is designed to be believable and sell to you a certain warm and reassuring fantasy. For one, they merely focus on the minor idea of romantic love and imagine it to be the real whole thing. If you take them any more seriously than you take science fiction movies, it’s your loss.

Probably the biggest disservice that such movies do to people is they help create an insidious mindset of entitlement in those who believe in their ideas. Suddenly, otherwise normal people start believing in the fantastic idea that some vague force called the universe should conspire and bring to them what is rightly owed to them – true love. This is lame and lazy thinking. I wonder if this ‘universe’ also subsequently conspires to bring about divorces or when someone murders their spouse for whatever reason.


No, it need not happen to you:
No one owes you love. To create and experience it with someone, (much as I hate to use the phrase) ‘you have to sell yourself’ and be wanted by the other person.

If you can offer what the other person wants (or thinks they want), and if they have what you desire then love might happen. The key ideas here are creating and making it happen. Go somewhere everyday and meet/ be social with new people. Or do daily things that make you a fascinating person.

Yes, it can and does happen without trying too (the idea portrayed in movies and books of how two people just fall in love irrationally) and if that is what you want, happy waiting to you. My best wishes; it just might happen.  

A much more rewarding experience is to make yourself desirable for yourself, doing things that make you a better person in as many ways as possible in your eyes. (Thinking in a bit detached manner, would you really like to be in a relationship with someone like you?) Understand and evaluate what you are bringing to the table and whether it is something that the other wants. And keep your eyes open for someone you like.The selling part will then happen with less effort, because the product is then pretty good (and trust me, the 'market'/demand is almost always up in this case). When rejection happens as it mostly will, love hasn’t ceased to exist as an entity or idea nor is it that you or the other person has suddenly turned undesirable (assuming of course that either of you did not do something assholey or are jerks by nature). What happened is simply a rejection of what was on offer. Either find a new ‘buyer’ or improve the product (you). Or don't! That's perfectly fine too if you can live peacefully in that manner.

Romantic love could be a great start to creating actual love and is an experience to die for in itself, but it is definitely not the whole thing, nor is it a mandatory step towards feeling love for someone.

Going back to the analogy of climbing used above, you can fly to the Everest base camp and begin your journey from there (I guess that's what happens with arranged marriages!). The thrill of climbing still lies ahead. Arguably, a more fulfilling experience may be to undertake the journey from sea level to the top. But it isn’t the one true path, because there is no such thing as the one true path of love.

Romantic love isn’t the end all and be all of love (which is exactly the opposite of what most romantic comedies portray). It is the business card or résumé that gets you interested in a person. Making the contents of your résumé very attractive (being very romantic because you want someone to fall in love with you) can get you places and lead to some fun times during the interview and early days of the job. But when things start getting real, what matters is whether you deliver on what you've promised. Much better to have a real, admirable résumé that will increase the likelihood of getting you the kind of opportunities that are fit for you. And let romance be the bonus to that.

Now that we've seen what love isn't, let's try to see what love is -

"The will to extend one's self for the purpose of nurturing one's own or another's spiritual growth."

I admire this interpretation because it is simple and intuitively feels true to me. It acknowledges that you have to work to make this come true, there has to be a will, you have to extend yourself. It describes love in the context of the impulse and force that drives all humans - growth. And it isn't about just giving or receiving alone. Love has to be selfish at times as it is selfless. Dr. Peck clubs together all sorts of things into 'spiritual growth' - but for the purpose of this already too long post I interpret it to mean growth as a person. Spiritual, personal, physical, financial, sexual, psychological and all different kinds of -als count towards making a person whole. The more you and your partner fulfill your respective growth potential in these, the stronger will be your love.

So if you truly love someone, you will help them grow as a person (referred to conventionally as bringing out the best in someone) and expect nothing less from them. That is the part that takes hard work.

Once you sit down to write about love, it's hard to stick to a word limit. But I'll stop here for now. Perhaps more words will come later.

What is humility?

Lovely answer by Carl Rex Hubbard II on a forum:

In your opinion, what is humility? Is humility a virtue or a vice? Is it possible to have both humility and pride?

My view is this. Humility is an awareness of one's limitations. It is an honest evaluation of what one is capable of and how one stands in relation to one's circumstances.

Humility is a virtue, though it is a contingent virtue. It is a virtue in most situations but not all. 

It is possible for someone to be both humble and proud. Here is an example. 

A gold medalist can be proud of his achievement. He can proudly claim to be the best in the world at his sport. But at the same time he must admit that it was only with the help of his trainers, family, and friends that he was able to win. He must acknowledge the ability of his opponents and he must admit that he may not be the victor the next time he competes. 

If he has this attitude, then he is both proud and humble. 

We can all be proud of the fact that we are smarter than most. But we must also admit that we are not the smartest, that our intelligence is no guarantee against error, and that intelligence without work ethic means little.

Carl Rex Hubbard II