Thursday, December 16, 2010
Vignettes of the देस (country)
Friday, August 13, 2010
Inflection Point
Monday, March 15, 2010
En Vino Veritas
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Ushering in change, from a place of love
Indicorps Fellow Vevake Prasad shares his experience of working in India [ Images ] on the Indicorps public service fellowship.
These days, it seems, more than a few of us are worked up over 'change'.
As the national debate continues to swing back and forth on every possible angle regarding change, we are relearning a lesson we probably already knew -- change is slow, and at best, difficult. Over the last few years, I too, have become infatuated with the idea of change. In search of change, I found my way to rural Rajasthan [ Images ], India, this past August for a year-long fellowship in service and development. I came with hopes of making an impact on rural unemployment, and in the process, making some inner changes as well. I've worked on both fronts at a furious pace with passion and dedication. The results, though, are yet to come in, and are likely to remain elusive during the duration of my fellowship.
If results manifest themselves, it'll probably be long after I've left. It's an incredibly exciting proposition on one hand, and an incredibly frustrating one on the other. For those of us in pursuit of change, it seems like we're doomed to a lifetime of frustration, unless we can find a way to deal with it.
So how do we sweat it out? How do we cope with the pace of change? It turns out that we don't have to. There is an alternative to coping with the pace of change, a surefire way to foster almost instantaneous change. It's not too good to be true, but it will require you to put away any skepticism and embrace it with an open mind.
In August of this year, before embarking for our project sites, me and the 26 other Indicorps Fellows met an incredible man named Jayeshbhai, the leader of a Gandhian NGO called Manav Sadhna in Ahmedabad [ Images ], India. During his talk, Jayeshbhai challenged us to follow the principle of always coming from a place of genuine love when interacting with others. It's easy to be skeptical or dismissive of cheesy maxims like this, but Jayeshbhai's absolute practice of the ideal makes you realise its power.
When he speaks to you, you become absolutely paralysed by the pure, unadulterated love in the air. You can't stop grinning from ear to ear. Inspired by Jayeshbhai, I decided to try and implement the principle in my daily life. Over time, however, I found myself failing miserably, with less-than-loving thoughts often getting the better of me. I became skeptical, thinking that "coming from a place of love" was a nice way to treat people, but impractical as a strategy in bringing about meaningful change.
A few weeks ago, I was in Ahmedabad again. While there, I participated in an activity in which we were to go out into the city and convince sellers at roadside stalls to quit using plastic bags. I didn't think that the men manning those stalls -- who are at times treated rudely, robbed, work hard but barely make enough money to scrape by -- would react warmly to a random outsider asking them to change how they run their business. It seemed like the perfect chance to test the idea and to redeem myself -- to give a really genuine try at having my head, heart, and hand (as Jayeshbhai says) aligned in the spirit of love, and to see what happens.
As I walked out onto Ashram Road, I tried to imagine the lives of the men I was about to approach. I tried to come from a place of understanding, remembering that if they responded guardedly, skeptically or negatively, there would be perfectly good reasons behind it. And so I went for it. I approached each man one by one, with humility, as if he was my older brother. I walked to each stall with a friendly smile, greeting the men respectfully, introducing myself and asking for their name. I insisted on standing if they asked me to sit, and I sat on the street below them if they were sitting. Most were stunned. One asked me, "Are you some kind of Gandhi?" I laughed at the ridiculousness of the question, and asked him if he knew the problems associated with plastic bags, explaining why I was there.
I asked the men if they would accept my pyaar bhari tofa (love filled gift) of a few bags I had made out of newspaper, and hand them out to customers instead of plastic bags. I told them it would mean the world to me, and I meant it. Every single person I spoke to pledged to no longer hand out plastic bags unless a customer demanded one, and agreed to use the newspaper. A few of the men even invited me to their homes for dinner.
More than anything that day, I feel as though I made friends. Two hours later, a colleague of mine was walking down the same street, and overheard some of the men I had spoken to calmly explaining to customers why they wouldn't hand out plastic bags anymore.
This was change.
If you're fed up with the pace of change -- here's your chance to challenge it. It's not easy, but all you have to do is wholeheartedly come from a place of love in your interactions with others. You might be skeptical today, but if you try it tomorrow, you might just become a change-maker forever.
Born and raised in New Jersey, Vevake recently graduated from Carnegie Mellon University with a double major in Policy & Management and Political Science. He is now fulfilling long-held dreams to spend time in India doing service and development related work and becoming a cricketer.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
What are you willing to do to fail?
- Check your assumptions. Ask yourself why this result feels like a failure. What theory does it contradict? Maybe the hypothesis failed, not the experiment.
- Seek out the ignorant. Talk to people who are unfamiliar with your experiment. Explaining your work in simple terms may help you see it in a new light.
- Encourage diversity. If everyone working on a problem speaks the same language, then everyone has the same set of assumptions.
- Beware of failure-blindness. It’s normal to filter out information that contradicts our preconceptions. The only way to avoid that bias is to be aware of it."
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Not Home, Alone
There’s just so much to write.
To provide the context – in the most densely populated city in the world in the most densely populated country in the world, today I feel very alone.
And I am very conscious of the fact that this is by my choice. I chose to come out here and work part time. Trying to support training of paraprofessionals to deliver healthcare in remote areas where it simply wasn’t available before.
Sure, professionally it’s very satisfying. Its been actually a fantastic year in that regards. Forget about year, its been a fantastic week professionally. More on this later (I sense a Practice Gratitude post coming up).
What’s lacking, and what I realized at the soul shaking indicorps reunion, was that while Indicorps has permanently and profusely (much to the dismay of my parents probably) completely changed the professional track, I have not let the process, the spirit of seva, the zest of the Indicorps community, seep into my personal life.
Because if anything those two years in India have done is make me tough. And taught me to not look at life as a series of ups and downs, but rather a series of points of inflection. I’d like to think that this is one such point, because it begets choice. I get to choose where I go from here. Up or down or the same trajectory. And if next year is anything like this year, it still won’t be a bad thing J
This is the start of the ruminations. More to come
Friday, October 9, 2009
LGT Venture Philanthrophy - iCATS fellowship
iCats Program
LGT Venture Philanthropy is proud to announce the launch of the iCats Program: The iCats Program is an answer to the need for professional know-how and resources in many philanthropic organizations and social enterprises. LGT Venture Philanthropy created a web-based platform to match experienced professionals with specific positions in selected philanthropic organizations.
The fellow positions for 2010 are now online on www.icatsprogram.com ! Application deadline is 26th October 2009.
A fellow works 11 months on-site with a portfolio organization from February to December 2010 and receives regular mentoring from the LGT Venture Philanthropy team. In addition, a 4-day induction workshop brings all fellows together in the Swiss mountains. Go to www.icatsprogram.com to find out more and to apply.
More here:
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
On giving in India
It goes into how Bill Gates received the Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development on behalf of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which has poured a $1bn into India. Clearly, not ALL of this money has been put to the best use (see How Bill Gates Blew $258 million in India's HIV Corridor). There are clearly many many things that I could comment on based on my own experience in rural India. I know there are friends of mine who work in global HIV/AIDS from the public health angle, and they too have quite a bit of criticism.
However, my point today is simply the scale of the spending, and the main point that the first article tries to drive home: India's rich need to open their wallets more
While Bill Gates IS super rich and he DOES have a lot of disposable income, there are many billionaires and multi-millionaires in the new 'shining' India. Adjusting for Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), which roughly stands around 4 times the official exchange rate, these people have significant levels of income at their disposal.
Which begets the question - why don't India's wealthy give back more?
The article does an excellent job of presenting many different reasons and opinions on why this is the case. Personally, I have to agree with Tarun Das that there aren't enough outlets for giving. It makes sense that the rich, many of them corporate titans who have made their fortunes by driving hard bargains and results-at-all-costs, would want the same value-for-money and concrete results in their philanthropy. PR at a large scale is not enough simply because it's not NEEDED. Unlike the US, where a corporation's social commitment and community outreach genuinely factor into how well communities accept and support them, and if top talent chooses to work with them, this is really not the case in India. A new middle class is being minted in India, and the only bottomline for talented youth is the financial one at this point. There is no judgement here - it simply is. It makes sense. There is limited choice. The generation before us, my parent's generation, still teaches us the 'conservative', risk-averse way, and reminds us of our 'responsibilities' to the family.
Another favorite line in India is echoed in this article: "Charity begins at home". The typical argument from parents is that yes, it's a good thing to serve and give back, but why don't you serve and give back your immediate family? It's a strong argument, and perhaps relevant to families rising in the socio-economic totem pole. However, for MANY of the families I have encountered, the rest of the nuclear & extended family is doing a good enough job by themselves. Secondly, this is EXACTLY the mindset that we as Indians need to move beyond. It is a question of identity, and how generous you are in your definition of it. Is it enough to be just a particular family from a particular town? Or a particular sub-caste from a particular region? Or a particular caste from a particular state? Or 'high society' vs. 'low society'? Clearly, if you draw this argument out, the only universal truth is to consider yourself as a being of the larger universal, with responsibility towards all, living or human or not. However, the journey from the intellectual answer to spiritual realization is vast, and for most will span multiple lifetimes. Perhaps due to my upbringing, and definitely due to the Indicorps, I choose to look at my identity as that of an Indian, and choose to revel in the idiosyncrasies of all the sub-identities within that. What's not OK to me, and this is gut not intellect speaking, is to limit charity to home. That's the cop-out answer.
For the wealthy to start their charity at an individual/local level, however, makes sense to me. My experience has taught me that we will only climb over brick walls for things that matter to us, that which we personally identify with, where we have 'skin-in-the-game'. And if I choose to be forgiving and be OK with the fact that everyone is at a different point the spectrum of identity, then that's where they should start. For example, the Piramal Foundation, who funded the Grassroots Development Laboratory (GDL), chose to begin its activities in their ancestral home of Bagar, Rajasthan. It's a great place to start, because there is goodwill in the community, people trust your intentions, and you have room to learn from your mistakes. But many a foundations tend to limit themselves to only their ancestral homes, or where they have factories. Foundations that can afford to have massive scale need to step beyond their places of start. I applaud the Piramal Foundation in learning from their experience in Bagar and working towards spreading their work beyond, and I will be keenly following their expansion over the next few years.
There is one 'gap' in my argument here. Beyond the debate of whether charity is good or bad, I see the 'operational' roles of foundations as one of two. First, they can either try to tackle one particular problem or issue e.g. clean water or AIDS or education etc. In this case, once they figure out the solution, they should expand geographically to the greatest extent possible and spread that benefit (yes, greed is good). The other option is that they 'adopt' a particular region. In this case, they should take a holistic view of development in this region, and try to solve EVERY problem that arises. Again, all of this is a theoretical extrapolation, and I completely understand the complexities and ground realities of scaling organizations, particularly those that are mission-based. Looking at it from a business perspective, we can transpose these two options as (1) Producers of goods / services (2) Distributors of goods/services. Piramal Foundation has taken the role of the first, and are thus pushing market-bases / sustainable solutions to particular issues, great example being the expansion of Sarvajal into different territories. I had a chance to visit a foundation in Hyderabad this past April, and I recommended the latter option to them - their 'identity' and 'mission' was much more to help the people where their factories were located, as well as a couple of adopted districts of Andhra Pradesh. But I did push them to think beyond 'good enough' - Yes, 10 free pyaaus (free water stations during India's blistering summer) are great, but why not a 100 or a 1000 to cover all of your area? And also to think holistically about the needs of that area, beyond the projects that were sparked largely by the inspiration of the foundation's team and chairwoman.
All things aside, I strongly believe that India needs its rich to identify with the poor, and open not just their wallets, but also their influence and tenacity to help those in need. Some of the complacency comes from the hangover of the bygone socialist era - 'it's the government's job'. And as much as I applaud Bill Gates generosity, some of it comes from the money being poured in by international aid organizations.
I have a radical thought for India. Why don't we work towards stopping all international aid? And instead find a way, a call-to-action for our own rich? Perhaps one man in India won't part with $1bn, but 10 Indians together can. Will India's rich rise to the occasion if the national identity and self-reliance was called into question? Would ads reminding us of India's 'beggar bowl' image from back in the early 60s do the trick?
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
A brief history of c-sections
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/exhibition/cesarean/part4.html
Legend of Caesar's birth
Very interesting read on how c-sections came to become prevalent around the world. It is interesting to note that the c-section rate in the US is a above 31%. The WHO mandates that the optimal levels of c-sections in any country should be between 5-15%. This makes logical sense. It is a known fact that 85% of all deliveries are completely normal. That is someone has to just stand there and catch the baby (preferably with clean hands).
I would never discount the pain that women have to go through childbirth (apparently ranked as the most painful human experience, followed at number 2 by testicular torsion). However, undergoing a surgery that has no health benefits for mother or child, and instead a longer recovery period, more chances of infection, and all around increase in cost just doesn’t seem like that good of an idea.
True testament to why public health is such a socio-religio-politico-technologico-economic(o?) probem with no easy solutions.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
BoP reading guide
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Why maternal mortality is not easy to solve
Of hummingbirds and mangoes
Friday, May 15, 2009
TO DO: Regain childlike wonder
Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows - then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, - then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
- The Prophet by Khalil Gibran
Monday, May 11, 2009
First day of ultrasound training!
Yup - we got trained on GE's very cool LogiqI line of portable ultrasound machines today. Here's some videos from our first day of training! Note - these are taken by the two "students", as well as the teacher. a longitudanal spinal one is hard to get.
5/13/09 Update: To clarify, this is NOT my baby (thank you for the confused congratulatory notes, however). These are photos from volunteers who came to the ultrasound training.
31 weeks - baby "sucking"
31 weeks - foetus wagging tongue
20 weeks - face:
20 weeks - mouth open:
20 weeks - head and spine
20 weeks - hand
20 weeks - yawning baby
20 weeks - baby moving
20 weeks - beating heart (wait for it)
Tackling maternal mortality
As you may know, my WDI internship this summer is with GE Healthcare. I will be supporting GE healthcare's maternal and child health initiative for rural areas. Our goal is to serve the world’s rural poor by providing them access to low cost technologies that improve diagnostic accuracy & public health outcomes. Specifically, I will be working on the maternal and child health initiative, initially focusing on using diagnostic technologies (ultrasound and more) to reduce the maternal mortality rate (MMR). Maternal mortality is the one health outcome that has the most inequality in the world, with 99% of maternal mortality occurring in the developing world. Furthermore, reduction of maternal mortality (Millenium Development Goal 5) has been the most difficult Millenium Development Goal globally to tackle, with only around a 1% improvement on average worldwide.
With ultrasound technology becoming portable and less expensive, there is a definite opportunity to provide Obstetric screening to the last mile i.e. in rural villages of developing countries. To achieve this, GE is currently partnering with MCH groups around the world who have successfully "task shifted" to midwives, nurses & community health workers in order to improve access to maternal healthcare in rural areas. Our partners include Partners In Health (PIH) in Haiti, ISCISA in Mozambique (who started the award-winning midwife-surgeon program), and our flagship partnership is with Grameen Kalyan in Bangladesh.
Personally, it is truly an exciting opportunity to be able to conduct trials with these world-class partners around the world, and to work at a scale that only a corporate like GE can enable. Our approach is that of a social enterprise: we are exploring this opportunity both as directly affecting global health outcomes, as well as becoming a viable business for GE. There are many challenges to overcome: designing a viable technology platform, successfully task-shifting to midwives, nurses etc, completing the "value chain" by providing treatment options after diagnosis etc. I am confident that with a sincere effort from GE and their partners, this problem can be surmounted towards a very worthwhile social outcome.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Fearing death
Is the fear of death a good thing?
At a dinner today, a colleague of mine at the MAP was talking about how scared she was of flying, and how that fear has developed over time because of some bad experiences with flying. A random thought went through my mind: is it because she's afraid of dying?
And then I thought: if I died today, I'd be completely OK with it. I've had a good life. I've had interesting experiences. I've seen some of the world. I've met many different people with very different thoughts.
Is that a good thing though? It just doesn't sound normal to be sitting here in my twenties thinking about how I'm OK with dying. Is it because I have nothing to lose? That's true to certain extent - my friend, she is engaged, has dreams and ambitions. I on the other hand have lived a happy-go-lucky life. Net net, I've definitely taken more from the world than I have given back, and if you do a NPV analysis considering the time value of money, or any sort of input for that matter, I am very very much in the red.
Is it because I have no ambition? The words of a former boss went through my mind, who said he's impatient because he doesn't want to die without making a big difference in this world, and that's what gives him his ferocious drive.
Or is it because I know now that life is a process, and how you've lived it is all that matters.
Hmm, perhaps its time to crack open that copy of Bhagavad Gita I purchased last week and see if any ideas pop into my head.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
B-school and the spirit of service
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
I would like to build things
By all accounts, Obama delivered a sterling speech today. While many expected him to strike a balance between 'celebration' & 'difficult task ahead', he focused a lot on the enormity of the responsibility in our hands, and the legacy to uphold.
"...know that your people will judge you on what you can build,
not what you destroy"
- US President Barack Obama, Inauguration Speech
The quote above was the one that resonated with me. In many accounts, it reminded of a change in my viewpoint over the last two years. Indicorps has a wonderful philosophy of working for things, not against things. It is something that we all lived by in the one or two years in the fellowship. It is a crucial distinction to remember when we immerse ourselves in the community, and choose to dedicate ourselves towards a singular issue from a myriad of complex problems that face the community. It is just functionally necessary for a grassroots fellowship.
My last two years at some point lifted me beyond the stage of a grassroots development worker. We built an organization. We became an institution. We stood for something. And we built programs for the long-run, focusing on areas of livelihood & healthcare, areas where we identified the most need & where we could deliver the most value.
We encountered many roadblocks along the way, and we overcame many of them. It made me realize one thing though: on a long-term basis, you will have to work against something. It is almost by definition of being a community worker. By trying to assist the disadvantaged, you are disrupting the source of power & relative status of the advantaged. The status quo rigidly follows Newton's first law of inertia, and will actively work in the interest of self-preservation.
I realized that societal change comes both from offering a carrot and wielding a stick. The people will remember what you changed, and the future will remember what you built, but behind the scenes, you will have to be prepared to destroy that which holds the people back.
I will always choose to work towards something, building things, leaving something behind. But my time in India has taught me to recognize and respect those who choose to work against today's problems.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Skill Fit vs. Culture Fit: Tallent challenges for social ventures
In this article on nextbillion.net, Univ of Michigan's own Moses Lee presents a common dilemma for social enterprises facing a talent crunch: For a job opening, you have to choose between two candidates. One that fits the job profile, but not the culture, and the other that gets the culture and has the will/passion for change, but does not have the right skillset. Who do you pick?
During the last two years, I helped found the Grassroots Development Laboratory (www.gdl.org.in) in Rajasthan, India. We finally gained momentum and started growing at the year and a half mark, and the talent shortage was our single biggest impediment to growth.
A few things that I've come to realize:
- NGOs/Social Ventures start because of the passion of a few individuals. It is important to stoke this early on. At this point, it is KEY to find someone who 'gets' the culture
- There IS a transition point where you have to grow out of your comfort zone, and become 'professional'. It is where the ideas and passion are no longer enough for the founders, the community you serve, or the donors who serve you, and they demand hard results. You will need people to execute the right things, the right way, and thus the skillset becomes important.
I think it is possible to misjudge this transition point too early. Organizational culture, and not financial viability, may be critical to surviving beyond the nascent stage, and stories of many NGOs would support this notion at least anecdotally. Understanding what stage you're in, and sticking to your priorities, is very difficult for any startup organization, especially when there is a talent shortage.
From early missteps (and subsequent right steps) we figured out what worked for us: the founders need to have a clear understanding of which stage they are in, what their priority is, what they want their organization's values to be, and orient prospective/new employees VERY clearly about these values. In a startup environment this seems so redundant, because everybody "knows" the values anyways, but the exercises can sometime stir up a hornet's nest. It is fruitful to be able to commit to something in writing, as well as define the limits/relative importance of these values by defining the extent to which we will demonstrate/practice/cultivate the values. For example: Does simple living come at the expense of efficient delivery? In what way? To what extent?
Of course, throughout this continuously transformative phase, the tough question may sometime not be what, but who: who are the founders, and thus, who defines the values of this organization.







