Paisa, paisa, paisa ....

Swami Ramdevji is building a Peace Ashram in Scotland. And media is shouting, "Swamiji to vyaapaar karne lag gaye hain"; Swamiji has started doing business. And allegations of these kind come up whenever Swami Ramdevji, Shri Shri RaviShankar and others open up an ashram, acquire land, start an Ayurvedic company or charge money for their courses. A decade back, I would have sided against the Swamis, with the arguement that not-for-profit organizations should not be making or raising money. But few years of living outside of my native state of West Bengal and observing how our world operates has taught me otherwise.

Let us consider three large immensely successful America based not-for-profit organizations in different sectors: Harvard University, Catholic Church, and Red Cross. If you look at the reasons for their success, the common denominator is money.

Harvard University is a not-for-profit educational institution and is considered the world's best university, not because it has the best professors and students, but because it has a $30 billion trust that allows it to literally "buy" the best profs, students, and research facilities. The reason why Church can open so many school and orphanages, and convert people to their faith (and I am not saying anything against conversions) is because it is the largest owner of land in the entire world, holding property worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Red Cross is present in any disaster area, because they have so much money that they can pay decent salary to their volunteers and their executive leaders. Believe it or not, the annual salary of Marsha Evans, CEO of Red Cross, in 2003 was hold your breath.... half a million dollars (=2.5 crores)!!! But I have never heard anyone say anything against Red Cross.

So in a nutshell, money speaks. And if organizations like Art of Living has to grow and expand, they will need more money, more land, and more ashrams.

Eliteness

So today over tea with Tarun and Sandeep Muley, we had this question about what defines eliteness. Muley's contention was that a person earning 10 lakh annual salary in India (=20000 USD) is elite since he or she is in the top 5% of Indian population. Whereas Tarun says (and Swati agrees with it) that with 10 lakh, he wont feel elite in any big city in India, because 10 lakh salary does not give him the freedom to do what he wants.

I personally agree with both of them. With a salary of 10 lakh, I should indeed feel lucky in India. But people have the natural tendency of comparing themselves with their immediate friends and family members. I know a person in USA living in Martha's Vineyard whose wife had an inferiority complex because they only had a 2 million dollar (=10 crore ruppees) home, whereas others in the neighborhood had 10 million dollar homes. So yes, if you are part of a materialistic society, one should always strive to earn more. But the trick is not to get too feverish or get caught up with the concept of earning money. Furthermore, just having wealth does not imply happiness. I know rich people in India and USA whose life is full of problems and diseases. If you look at our ancient culture, having money indeed meant more pleasureful life, but was also seen as a way for an individual to contribute more to society. One should always remember the following doha from Kabir:

rukha sukha khai ke, thanda paani peev
dekh paraai chupri mat lalchave jeev.

Eat well, drink well; dont get upset over others lifestyle.