About 10 years ago, my mother in law and father in law came to Bangalore (where we live). They stayed with us for a few weeks, like they do even to this day. As part of their visit, my wife suggested we go to Mysore and do some sight seeing there since my in-laws had not seen the city. We made arrangements and got going. I have a cousin who lives in Mysore and I just mentioned this to her. Her husband, who is ever ready to help anyone, and who doesn't even wait to be asked for help, immediately said that he would arrange a local taxi for sight seeing from a reputed tourist taxi hiring agency in Mysore. He did that, called us over for dinner one day and prepared dinner himself (since my cousin was away from Mysore) and took abundant care of us. My mother in law was surprised to see a person, who is not closely related, helping us so much. He suggested the itinerary and route for visiting a few temples around Mysore too.
This incident made a deep impact on me. Till then, I felt that I needed to help only those people who asked for my help. And here was a man who was going out of the way to help others - even when they didn't ask for it. Pro-active.
I quickly realized that I could not help him back in any way. He was not only independent, but probably because of his nature, he would not "ask" for help. Some introspection was required to know how to give back what I received. So I decided that I would help others.
Now my theory is slightly different from the thinking that most people adopt. If X has helped Y or given her some money, Y needed to return the favour to X either in cash or in kind. If X did not need any help from Y, she would wait for such help to be asked. It works like the debit-credit facility in a bank. You can draw money to the extent you have credit, otherwise maybe overdraft facility will be available, but that would depend on the "kindness" of the manager of the bank.
I decided that as far as I was concerned, if X helps Y, and Y helps Z then the equation is balanced. If each of us practice this theory in our lives, we will see goodness spread.
I told about this theory of mine to an Office Manager in an organisation where I worked briefly. He just laughed and said, "Saheb, sab aapki tarah Gandhi nahi ho sakte" (meaning Sir, all of us cannot be a Gandhi like you). I know it was said more in sarcasm than in good humour.
I want to know, is it so difficult to practice this theory?
This incident made a deep impact on me. Till then, I felt that I needed to help only those people who asked for my help. And here was a man who was going out of the way to help others - even when they didn't ask for it. Pro-active.
I quickly realized that I could not help him back in any way. He was not only independent, but probably because of his nature, he would not "ask" for help. Some introspection was required to know how to give back what I received. So I decided that I would help others.
Now my theory is slightly different from the thinking that most people adopt. If X has helped Y or given her some money, Y needed to return the favour to X either in cash or in kind. If X did not need any help from Y, she would wait for such help to be asked. It works like the debit-credit facility in a bank. You can draw money to the extent you have credit, otherwise maybe overdraft facility will be available, but that would depend on the "kindness" of the manager of the bank.
I decided that as far as I was concerned, if X helps Y, and Y helps Z then the equation is balanced. If each of us practice this theory in our lives, we will see goodness spread.
I told about this theory of mine to an Office Manager in an organisation where I worked briefly. He just laughed and said, "Saheb, sab aapki tarah Gandhi nahi ho sakte" (meaning Sir, all of us cannot be a Gandhi like you). I know it was said more in sarcasm than in good humour.
I want to know, is it so difficult to practice this theory?
but then Y's debt to X one way or another still remains and then finally one day (Y)ou may be called upon to do it.. the favor Y did for Z as long as X is concerned is invalid cause it does not account in his book.. but it may happen that Z knows how to tackle X's favor in case Z is informed of X's requirement through Y but this seldom happens being a complex case of debt transfer somewhere along the line the original favor's impact may be undermined to due involvement of the third party and hence ever refusal may ensue.
ReplyDeleteThanks Badri for your comments. I hope it is only you (Badri) who posts your comments as "Anonymous". ;-)
ReplyDeleteIt is precisely for this reason that I mentioned, "if each of us practices this theory in life...". I understand your concern, though I couldn't unravel the thread of logic in your comment (it seems like the puzzle in Apoorva Raagangal), but if all of us start ignoring the X<->Y transaction but instead see it as X<->Y<->Z, it would be most helpful. Now Y would like to help someone else, which is the whole logic of my argument. Without any loss of generality, Z could be X also (in special cases).
this can and will work.
ReplyDeletethe pay-it-forward model is similar.
it is not just about paying it back, to return favours.
some of the new microfinancing models [milaap, for example] also assume that when you make a contribution, it is not about getting it back, but make it circulate to others, when the first borrower returns the money..