Sunday, November 15, 2009

Death of Jallianwala Bagh

April 13, 1919, the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre, ranks amongst the highest events that galvanised India towards being unified. I, like all Indians have grown up feeling goose pimples when the horrific story is narrated about this site. Over 300 people died and 1500 injured. This event then is followed by the heroics of Bhagat Singh, Satguru and Sukhdev, and remains a part of history that has become the pinup story of the freedom movement.


With this imagery in mind, this week I visited the Bagh - 6.5-acre (26,000 m2) garden site of the massacre, located in the vicinity of Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. The path to the garden was narrow as I had imagined and recreated in the movie "Gandhi". Thereafter it was a shocker…

I expected the same mood inside as one experienced in the Holocaust Museum in Washington that moves you out of our convenient zone of comfort.

The entire Bagh has been turned into a park. Yes agreed it was always a park, a “Bagh”, but this is no more just another park. In the centre of the park is a 20 feet tall structure that looks like the menhir of Obelix. Around it fountains that are dry and dysfunctional. The park is dusty and drab. The lawns are patchy and muddy.


Is this the place that effectively stirred the world into action against the tyranny of Brigadier General Dyer? Where are all the tell-tale pieces of the incident?
There are about 3 pieces - 2 walls and a well. Behind these walls, probably sharing the same common walls are shops or offices. If you don’t believe me then have a look at this photograph.

The wall on the left is the bullet ridden one. The one on the right is now replaced by the walls of an office with aluminum frame and windows over looking the park. See the overgrown weedy lawns at this point.

The original bullet ridden walls are open to rain and hail, and are slowly but surely disintegrating and falling part. The well is covered by a concrete roof and does not allow a proper view. There is but a one line writeup of this well, on a stone piece at ankle level.



It is said, “One who does not learn from History is condemned to repeat it”. This is one way of remembering history. This Bagh is not an exception in what we end up doing to our glorious or forgettable past - drive tigers to extinction, monuments to ruins, and rivers to sewers. Why is the Louvre, over 900 years old, still in pristine condition? And every piece of history in Italy?
It was heart rendering and sad. What I saw was the death of Jallianwalla Bagh.

But wait. Just 500 meters away is the golden temple, older. It was such a wonderful experience, the sanctity, holiness, organisation, and cleanliness. It was soul stirring. Why? Why do we keep our heritage in ruins and places of worship (not all) in better shape? Could it be our innate nature of being inward looking, where we tend to keep our homes clean but streets dirty? I can’t say.

This piece is out of place in this Retailing blog, but I see it everywhere. This callousness stands the danger of creeping into the innate character of our workmanship. A certain lack of pride in doing work that shows excellent craftsmanship. It has for ever been held against me that I try for too much perfection, but it is a crime I would willingly confess to and bear without remorse.

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Consumerism and Enoughism

In my previous Blog on The Right and Might of Choice on 10th Oct 2009, I had left it open for good thought, as to what the relationship there is between Consumerism and Enoughism. Consumerism is a concept that is 100 years old and Enoughism 1 years old. I strongly reject this concept of Enoughism that John Naish is propagating.

But it might be good to define what consumerism really is. It is not negative in its literal definition.
     “Consumerism is the equation of personal happiness with consumption” (Source: Wikipedia- not that this is authoritative- it just seemed right). The word was first used by Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929).
The latest thinking is called “ENOUGHISM”- coined by John Naish in 2008. Definition,. "there is a point where consumers possess everything they need and buying more, makes their life worse off”

Consumerism is but a statement of fact that people purchase for their happiness, but Enoughism is a value judgement that transgresses into personal right to be unhappy! I believe that it is difficult for someone else to say what is enough or excess for anyone.

An average shopping bill of Rs3000 will contain 60 to 70 articles. Then why do grocery store carries 8000 to 40,000 articles? This is in recognition that every shopper is different and derives varying levels of satisfaction from their shopping baskets. It is in the area of transgression of ones personal freedom, when someone else other than you yourself, begins to dictate the limits of what is “enough”. Every shopper exhibits a habit that is a translation of sum total of their psychographic profile. It is difficult to determine why one person likes pink and another maroon! Is that not what makes this world colourful and fun?

To me John Naish is stepping on the hallowed zone of personal choices, and right to choose and reject, with his exposition of Enoughism. I can’t deny that personally; I do think there is reason to introspect on the boundaries of “how much is enough”. But the operative word is “personally”, and not prescriptively.
I think Enoughism theory lacks balance and pragmatism. I would put it in a different perspective.

There is always the eternal conflict and debate about the “frugality within” with the “expansive living, without (read external)”. I want to balance this out into 4 sequential non-conflicting buckets of premises.

One - Kama (desire). When we are born, we will have desires, to exist and live (eat , cloth, study, create, etc). No living being can be without wants, not even an ascetic.

Two - Artha (money). If we have desires, we must work to satisfy those wants. Only the “burden on earth” consume without producing. It the life of the wasted who consume without producing. Every human has the obligation to produce for the common good as much as, or more than what they consume.

Three - Nyaya (law). Anyone who works must work within the framework of the law. Ethically and lawfully. Harmonious co-existence is only possible everyone follows the law of the land.

Four - Moksha (self-actualisation). When we have worked hard and productively, gained material wealth and riches, we must be prompted to ask “how much is enough?” There is no limit to amassing wealth unless we have a guiding principle that is beyond the realms of materiality. Moksha pushes us to seek the “sanctuary” within us where there is no use of material wealth, where happiness abounds for free. It is simply a state of mind and in another sphere a reality of some kind. Still there are few takers. Those who have been “there” or visit there often talk of the bliss that is free, and that for which there is no limit. It is unconditional and unfettered. It is in the realms of philosophy (not religion).

So these four together provide for a framework of where there is no conflict or contradiction, where the inner can co-exist with the external. Consumerism and Enoughism explained away. But it is ones personal choice to say how much is Enough.

One of the lives that one might live to admire in this context is that of Warren Buffet; his frugal living that co-exists with his running one of the most successful commercial corporations. He donated, to Bill Gates foundation princely sums of money, for charity, but continues to create wealth for his company and shareholders, whilst he lives his frugal life. Something to admire and emulate.

In retailing terms the dilemma that always confronts Category managers is "how much range is enough"? They are torn between giving the widest range to the consumer, and managing productivity on shelf. Many retailers treat “widest” as a strategic differentiator, and that is also because large retailers tend to return unsold goods to the vendors. But for fledgling retailers this may not be an option.
 Less is sometimes more. But who is the retailer to decide? They must simply provide what the consumer wants, and eventually to balance shareholder's value, get to the best fit. Category managers always walk this tight rope between "enough" and "more".  Having been a category manager for over 10 years, I empathise with them.