Thursday, January 28, 2010

Ushering in change, from a place of love

Article by current Indicorps fellow, Vivake Prasad, currently at the Grassroots Development Laboratory (GDL) in Bagar, Rajasthan

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.

Vevake Prasad

Saturday, January 9, 2010

What are you willing to do to fail?

A key life lesson that I learned during my two years in Indicorps was that of how to fail in life. More precisely, on how to fail, and how to get right back up.

This learning was cemented during our final workshop in Indicorps, where we serendipitously had a session based on JK Rowling's Harvard Commencement address entitled 'The Fringe Benefits of Failure, and the Importance of Imagination'. If I hadn't realized it earlier (its really hard to think about the joys of failure while you are actually failing), this address definitely drilled it home.

Today, I came across an article on Ashoka's Tech blog entitled 'When is failure just an answer to a different question?' It takes a different take on failure - about how we're NOT really wired to "recognize good things in unexpected results", based on research on failures in scientific research.

It also lays out key lessons on How To Learn From Failure:
  1. Check your assumptions. Ask yourself why this result feels like a failure. What theory does it contradict? Maybe the hypothesis failed, not the experiment.
  2. 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.
  3. Encourage diversity. If everyone working on a problem speaks the same language, then everyone has the same set of assumptions.
  4. 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."

One thing I would add to the start of the list: (0.)Recognize, accept and cope with failure. Failing is an emotional stressful time, and you need to step out of self-doubt and stay positive. I know that during my two years (and multiple failures), I wouldn't have kept going without the support of Preeti and Radhika. So yah, find people to help support you through the failure. You WILL get by with a little help from your friends. And then hopefully you'll learn a lot.

There is one obvious question that presents itself, and which Roopal, the executive director of Indicorps, put very well during that session at our closing workshop. If failure is so great, then are we actively trying to put ourselves in situations where we're more likely to fail? It's a tough question, and a tougher thing to do. Good management practices teach us to plan ahead and choose the path of most probable success. To identify risks and how we will mitigate them. To keep our goals SMART (R for realistic).

Life has taught me to learn from failure, and that its a good thing. However, I don't know if I have ever proactively tried to fail - we thought every one of those 20 odd ventures we started would succeed.

Your thoughts?

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

This article sparked something in me enough to write: India's Rich, Open Your Wallets

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

Read:
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

A friend of mine asked me about a reading guide for BoP / using business to serve the poor.