Midnight Sounds

Its a little after midnight. Can't fall asleep so I sit outside on my balcony. The weathers actually kinda nice. Very breezy on the 11th floor. I look all round absorbing how peaceful the city seems at this time. I peep inside people's windows (the little that I can see from far away!) Nothing interesting. I then close my eyes and listen. I hear the cars whizzing by. Thankfully there's not too many cars so the honking is minimal. I can hear hindi music playing from somewhere across the street. I guess its some wedding or puja (ya even for a puja, the music of choice is Bollywood many times). AND I hear a goat from somewhere below - a goat "meehhhing"

Lists... Lists... Lists...

Forbes recently published the Top 30 social entrepreneurs. I'm not sure about the print version of this issue, but reading the articles online on Forbes.com, I really didn't understand the criteria used for selecting the 30. They are of course doing amazing work - but why those 30?

By biggest reason for wondering that is that I find it surprising that almost all of the organizations on that list have been founded by Americans (though many of them do work globally). They really didn't find any outstanding organization in one of the 100+ developing countries worthy of making it on the list? Maybe they couldn't which is fair. And I'm not suggesting that there needs to be some sort of a "quota" or "reservation" system while creating the list and make sure that at least a certain % of organization listed on it have to be founded by a native of a developing country.

I'm just curious because working in the social sector, there are definitely some organizations that come to mind that I feel should have been on there.

The article can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/impact-30/list.html

Your Posh Office over My Salary

I've been working in the social sector for a couple of years. Right now I'm working at an educational NGO - which I joined about 7 months ago. So far, it's been an amazing place to work. The work is enriching and the people are great. There's a set of people who've been there for 10, 15, 20 years... and have no plans of leaving. There's another set of people who come, work for 1-2 years, and move on. And there is the third set - those that have "worked in the corporate sector, left the cushy jobs and joined an NGO to try to make a difference."

Within a the first 2 months of me joining, 2 people in this third set decided to leave after working at the NGO for less than a year. Dealing with the pay cut was a lot harder than they expected. I understand their point of view. It's just really sad to see them leave - because they were extremely sincere, passionate and qualified. This is what they want to do - but idealism doesn't pay the bills.

These people from the third set don't want huge salaries - they just need a salary that helps them live a good life and be able to save some for the future. There definition of a good life isn't unreasonable.

What I find troublesome is that many of the donors that fund us aren't quite willing to fund overhead costs (which includes management salaries, office space, etc.) - which I guess is fair. BUT if you go into the donor's offices, you'll see that they're located in the most expensive of locations and the interiors of their offices are comparable to any corporate sector office. Maybe if they could just move to a less expensive part of town, the savings from that alone could pay the more reasonable annual salaries for a couple of very passionate (and very much needed) management at NGOs.

Being able to pay higher salaries and getting qualified and professional people definitely makes an impact on the quality of the programs a NGO runs. But I guess that's asking for too much.

White's Only Please!

I was talking to an Australian guy the other day and he mentioned that he was going to play golf with some clients in this place called Ambi Valley, outside Mumbai. So I just asked him if one had to have membership to play there or if anyone could go there. He said that he thinks it's actually only for foreigners. So probed further to ask him if it means that you had to be "white" or just a non-Indian passport holder. He didn't know, but he thought you had to be white. I was aghast and I expressed it and said that was just plain wrong!

Discriminating based on price is fine - that's how companies segment their products/services for different customer segments but based on the color of the skin?! Is this not 2009 or are we in like the 1800s? The Australian guy just kinda looked at me and didn't say anything. Poor guy.

So asked around and found out that thankfully, it was not a 'Whites Only' place. Even Indians (with Indian Passports) are allowed. But for that 5 minutes that I had the conversation with the Australian guy, I was very disturbed. What is the fetish of non-white people (in their own bloody country) to cater so hugely to white people and forget their country-men(/women)?

A few days later I read the an article in the Times of India which reported a story about a Haagen Dazs outlet that opened up in Delhi which had a banner saying "Exclusive Preview for International Travellers. Access restricted only to holders of international passports."
(Article can be found here: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/randomaccess/entry/sorry-indians-not-allowed1)

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!!

I know this isn't just an India phenomena, but more a developing country one. Somewhere, somehow I can understand treating (white) foreigners better, I guess. But completely blocking entry based on color is something that is beyond my understanding. Maybe somebody can explain this to me.

Is it okay to pay a bribe if...

One of the talks at the TED India conference in Mysore was by a woman called Sunitha Krishnan. She basically founded an NGO to fight sexual slavery.

(The link to that talk is below and definitely worth watching.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sunitha_krishnan_tedindia.html?awesm=on.ted.com_252W&utm_medium=on.ted.com-SunithaKrishnan&utm_source=topsy.com&utm_content=site-custom)

When Krishnan’s talk was over, and the standing ovation subsided, a woman in the audience stood up and said that she would donate US$10,000 to Krishnan’s organisation if ten other people would make the same commitment. Within moments, 10 other hands were raised. These weren’t empty promises. Krishnan says in her interview that she has received around US$200,000 so far, but because she “did not bribe an income tax official”, has been asked to pay taxes of around half that amount. Go figure.

But it got me thinking - why doesn't she just pay the bribe? By paying say $10,000 in bribes, she'd have $190,000 for her NGO, versus $100,000 by not paying the bribe. I'm sure that extra $90,000 would go a long way. It may save 10 children from the sex trade.

I know that in principal a bribe is wrong but what's worse: paying a $10,000 bribe and potentially doing 'more good' or losing $90,000 to taxes and potentially doing 'less good'?

What Kind of an Indian are You?

Having lived in the US and India, I've meet quite an array of Indian people.

I've met Indians in the US who were born and brought up there. Some have never visited India. and don't really care for anything Indian. They're happy being as American as they can.

Then there's others who visit India every so often. They love the Indian movies, clothes, etc. but would never move to India. There enjoyment of India stops at visiting and being as Indian as they can outside India.

I've met Indian who've pretty much spent most of their lives in the US but came back to India to work. Some hated it, some liked it. Of the ones who like it, maybe they'll stay, maybe they'll move back a couple of years down the road. But as long as they're living in India, they're enjoying it.

I've met Indians who were born and brought up in India and then went to the US to study or work. Some of them continue to stay there and would never want to come back to live in India - they would just come to visit their family. Some came back to India to live because they wanted to be closer to family or they just like it better back in India.

Then I've met Indians who, for some reason like the recent economic downturn, were forced to come back to India because they got laid off or something. And they absolutely hate being in India. All they want is to figure out how they get back to the US. In the meantime. all they do in India is complain about India and it's many issues (I.e., pollution, population, inefficiency, etc.).

Of all the kinds of Indians, this type of Indian bugs me the most.

A person definitely has the right to not like India and prefer the US or another country . But whether they like it or not, they were born and raised here. And whether they like it or not, they're Indian.They don't have to like it. They don''t even for a second have to pretend that they would even consider living here. But at least respect and accept it.

Improving by Comparing to the Worst

In the apartment I'm living at right now, we have a care-taker who stays there. She old - at least 70. She used to live in one of the rooms in the house. It was a small room, but she had privacy. A couple of months ago our landlord decided to renovate that room and use it for other things. So the old caretaker was given a new place to sleep - the hallway. Her bed was moved there. A divider was put between the door entrance and her new "room" -so she would have some privacy.

Once when a couple of friends were over, I made a comment on the recent shift in her "room" and how it sucked for her.

One of my friends commented "Well she has it better than a lot of other people. She could be sleeping on the streets".

Made sense... but if you only look at the worst as a sign of comparison, then how do you ever improve?