Speeches & Articles

Swami Vivekananda Memorial Oration

Calcutta, Wednesday September 24, 2003

SPEECH DELIVERED BY U.S. CONSULL GENERAL GEORGE N. SIBLEY AT THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (IIM)

Sisters and Brothers of India!

These five words convey a marvelous overarching message of fellowship and unity, don't you think? They should, because these are the very words -- addressed to America -- that Swami Vivekananda used to greet the 7,000 delegates at the Parliament of Religions in Chicago one hundred and ten years ago this month. And this being the Swami Vivekananda Memorial Oration I thought it fitting, as a tribute to him, and as an expression of my feeling for all of you, to reprise that unforgettable greeting.

So: Greetings Sisters and Brothers of India!

Now, just for a moment, I would like you all to imagine an enormous funnel.

Why a funnel? Because that is how my speech is going to be structured. I am going to start by speaking in the broadest and most encompassing way about the issues at hand, the issues that relate "values" and "government." Like a funnel I am going to proceed getting incrementally more-and-more specific and detailed, narrowing down just as a funnel does. So I will begin very generally by talking about values and how they define our purpose in living. Then I will narrow it down to talk about how values relate to government - and vice versa. Finally I will discuss what this may mean for all of us as we make choices in our lives about how we are going to participate in the governance of our societies. And at the end… well, at the end it will be over, and we will all go rushing out the exit doors, just as water too comes pouring out of the bottom of a funnel. So that is our image for this talk: a funnel.

But why an ENORMOUS funnel? That too is easy to answer - because this is an enormously long speech. For this, I fear, you have our hosts to blame. For myself, I would have preferred a small funnel, or perhaps a medium-sized one. However, in their invitation they requested 5,000 words - the longest speech I have ever delivered. Perhaps that is because it is not simply a "speech," but rather an "oration." I am surely honored and humbled to have been asked to give it on this auspicious occasion; but if one or two of you slips into slumber along the way, rest easily, I will not hold it against you and there will be no tests at the end.

So let us begin at the top of the funnel…

There are certain basic truths that pertain to all of us, and that hold regardless of our religious persuasion. These are: that we are born, that we live a certain period of time upon this Earth, and that we die. We may have very different beliefs about where we came from and about where we are going to, and we may have different beliefs about the purpose of our endeavor here on Earth, but I cannot imagine that any of you dispute those three simple facts.

Today I am going to leave aside the metaphysical questions about what may exist outside the parentheses of our birth and death and I am going to focus on "how we live our lives." When we deal with "Human Values" this is primarily what we are talking about; the fundamental question of how we are going to live our lives. What are we going to choose to do and how are we going to choose to do it?

The Indian Institute of Management in Calcutta has a well-deserved reputation for excellence as a school of management. But when I think about schools of management, I think of institutions that teach how to accomplish goals. There is a focus on efficiency and effectiveness, on making things happen. Graduates know how to handle personnel issues, how to handle a budget and other financial issues, how to evaluate the effectiveness of a program and how to improve it. These are all tools that are extremely useful in accomplishing goals. However, they do not provide guidance as to what those goals should be.

That is why I find the Management Center for Human Values to be a rather extraordinary institution within the larger institution of the IIM. Human Values dictate our goals from the broadest perspective. To be sure, our choice of tools in achieving those goals are also influenced by our Human Values, but this choice follows after that first one: what are we to do?

This is a fundamental question we must all address: what are we to do in life? It is interesting because we so rarely ask this question and yet we answer it with every single heartbeat. The fact that I am standing here speaking to you, and you are there listening to me, is at this very moment the answer to that question for all of us: what are we to do with our lives? I did not cancel at the last minute, and you did not run off to drink tea with friends and colleagues, and here we are sharing a space and some ideas together. For this moment, this is what we are doing with our lives.

This question has meaning for us at every age, but its meaning changes gradually as we grow older. Those of you enjoying the sweetness of youth foresee a vast panorama ahead of you in which to answer the question. Others, like me, who are in the middle years, have already given many answers to that question, but we believe - or at least we hope - that many years are still left for us to refine and improve our answer. And those in the later years must look back on lives that are nearing completion. If they are fortunate this vista provides them joy and satisfaction; if they are not, then it may occasion bitterness and regret.

So I ask each of you now, regardless of age, to take a minute or two, to set aside my words and look into your heart, and to ask yourself: what have you done so far, and what would you like to do with your life?

------------------------ PAUSE ------------------------

As this is the Swami Vivekananda Memorial Oration, it might be fitting to consider just for a moment how he might have answered this question. In doing so I should warn you that I am no expert in the life and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda, and to those that are, I apologize for what may be a simplistic and cursory analysis.

In examining his life, it seems that he might have suggested different types of answers. One would be a life's goal to pursue a personal spiritual quest for a more elevated consciousness. This is undoubtedly a noble goal, but it is also almost entirely solipsistic. Many have sought it in this fashion, and they have often withdrawn from the world in pursuit of their quest.

But Swami Vivekananda did not withdraw from the world. Indeed, the fact that he did not is the reason we remember him so vividly today. Rather, the Swami reached out to the world with his voice and his ideas. As I alluded in my opening, on September 11, 1893, he was in Chicago, addressing 7,000 persons in the Parliament of Religions. His message conveyed a fundamental theme - expressed in those five words of greeting -- that we are not separated, men and women, Indians and Americans, but that we are united, we are "sisters and brothers." Surely conveying this immensely important message of universality to the world was part of the Swami's answer to the question: "what shall I do with my life?" And I would venture that the reason this was important to the Swami was that a world in which we recognize the fundamental human qualities that we share is a better world than one in which we see only divisions - race, gender, creed, caste or class - that drive us apart. In its simplest form, the Swami was trying to make the world a better place and all of us better people.

Few are born with the insight and abilities of a Swami Vivekananda, but we all share the need to answer that fundamental question: What are we to do with our lives?

As I began writing this speech, I meant to tell you that it was my personal goal to change the world. But as I thought about it more deeply, I realized that each one of us changes the world as a result of our passage, whether that is our goal or not. Our having lived changes every person that we love, or who loves us. Even our enemies are defined in part by our having lived. When we establish a company, write a book, or give birth to a child, we are making a difference and leaving a change in our life's wake. Perhaps even giving an "oration" may have some miniscule effect.

Understood in this fashion, the desire to change the world is trivial, and so I refined it, discovering that it is my goal not only to change the world, but also to improve it. And with that it dawned on me that although I lack most of his abilities, and do not share many of his beliefs, I do share with Swami Vivekananda this fundamental aim. And as you thought about your own lives a moment ago, I hope all of you aspired to nothing less.

Now our funnel begins to get a little bit smaller as we examine how we might change and improve the world. In doing so, we must recognize that there are many different paths to this goal. When the IIM students graduate they may pursue careers in a wide variety of fields, and any one of these paths can become a path toward achieving this goal. Even the sweeper who cleaned out this auditorium before we came in has made a positive contribution. We may take it for granted that we will enjoy a clean environment here, but we do well to remember that it is the labor of others that has allowed us this enjoyment.

In my case, I have chosen to work for the government of the United States of America. How is it that I view this work as fulfilling my life's aim as I described it before? To explain this, I would like briefly to survey how Human Values are expressed in government.

If we view the impact of our lives, it can be seen to spread in concentric circles out from ourselves to the social units of which we form a part. First would be our families - both the ones we are born into and the ones that we help to create later in life. Then may come our ethnic or religious affiliations. At the next level there are a range of social groups - the school we attend, the company we work for, the club we belong to -- the list can be long or short. Then come the units of our political life - the city we live in, the state we inhabit, and the nation which commands our allegiance. Finally we reach the plane that Swami Vivekananda championed so eloquently, our universal sisterhood and brotherhood as human beings inhabiting a common Earth.

The impact that we can have in any one of these spheres can and does affect the others, of course. Far from being isolated, they are closely interwoven. And as we examine the question of values, we can see how our actions may impact the different spheres in different and sometimes contradictory ways.

For example, suppose I want to improve the lives of my family members. This is a common and praiseworthy goal most persons aspire to. Let us imagine that I work at a company and earn a salary and these earnings allow me to buy my family food, and good schooling for my sons, and occasionally a nice piece of jewelry for my wife, and so on and so forth. There is nothing wrong in any of these desires. However, now let us suppose that the company I am working for gives me a promotion and puts me in charge of its accounts. Suddenly I am in a position where by juggling the numbers a little bit I can provide more food for my family, better jewelry for my wife, and a new car for each of my sons. According to the narrow value under discussion - namely that of providing for my family - I should not hesitate to steal from my company.

This is a deliberately simplistic case. Clearly the social unit of the company is harmed when I do so, giving rise to a conflict of values. In this instance persons of integrity would have little difficulty resolving the conflict between the two values. Few would argue that it is ethical to steal under these circumstances. But there are numerous other examples that I could cite in which the conflict is more ambiguous and the ethical choices are more difficult.

A major role of government is to resolve some of these conflicts of values. Governments set and enforce the rules by which society judges the relative merits of values in opposition. Human Values expressed through government will seek to maximize the welfare of the citizenry. Therefore, by participating in government there is substantial potential to leave the world a better place.

Sadly, however, not all governments improve the lives of their citizenry. In fact, cynicism about government is so widespread, that it has become a common assumption that government usually makes things worse rather than better. This certainly seems to be true of one kind of government: that which relies on the absolute decisions of one person, or a small cabal of persons, to decide what the nation's rules will be and how they will be enforced. Should that person happen to be completely selfless and devoted to the welfare of the citizenry, we might have what is known as a "benevolent dictatorship." Alas, in the real world this ideal is seldom, if ever, seen. Far more frequently the dictator is unjust, capricious, and vastly more interested in his own welfare, and that of his coterie, than that of his suffering subjects. That kind of government certainly tends to make things worse rather than better.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a stellar example of that kind of dictatorship. As the people of Iraq cowered in fear at the whims of the dictator and his brutal sons, Saddam Hussein continued to build pleasure palaces for himself and for his family. The months that have followed his overthrow have shown significant improvement, although substantial challenges certainly remain on the road to a democratic and prosperous Iraq. Despite these obstacles, however, Iraqis can now begin looking to the future with hope rather than with dread. Whatever other reasons there may have been for going to war, this remains a great achievement.

By contrast, we are blessed - Indians and Americans - to live in democracies. This is a strong bond that we share, although one that had received insufficient attention in either of our countries until recently. While we have good reason to be enormously proud of this fact, I am not so naïve as to suggest that democracy equals utopia, either in India or in the United States. Our own governments are frequently viewed skeptically, and sometimes this is deserved. All too often our democratic practice reminds us of Churchill's dictum that "democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others."

However, democracy possesses one redeeming Human Value that causes it to shine as an exemplar: democracy allows the citizens who are affected by the decisions of the government to participate in that government in some meaningful way. As Thomas Jefferson penned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This "consent" gives the actions and decisions of a democracy a legitimacy that a dictatorship can never have. This is also the reason so many dictatorships try to cloak themselves in the mantle of false democracy, with the tyrants claiming that they have the mandate of the people after winning some enormous majority of the vote.

After the last elections in pre-war Iraq, they say that Saddam's minions rushed in to report that he had won with 99.99995% of the vote. Expecting praise, they were surprised to see him with a frown and a wrinkled lip. Thinking that perhaps he had misunderstood, they repeated the news: "You won 99.99995% of the vote, only EIGHT people voted against you!"

"Find them and shoot them," Saddam replied.

This may be only a joke, but it exemplifies the difference between real democracies and the sham impostors that sometimes masquerade as something they are not.

However, since India and the United States are both democracies, I prefer to spend some time discussing values within democracies rather than comparing our form of government with other options.

To begin with, a democracy certainly can be more or less successful depending on a large number of different factors. What do we mean by "successful"? I think the same definitional criterion applies to governments as I suggested earlier might apply to human lives. If a government functions fairly and effectively, it improves the well-being of its citizens. To the extent that any government sets rules that do not maximize the welfare of its people it is not optimal. This can happen when it is either ineffective or corrupt. By "ineffective" I mean that it is genuinely attempting to improve the lives of the people, but for a variety of possible reasons it is not succeeding in this effort. By "corrupt" I mean that the persons holding decision-making power in the government are significantly motivated by incentives other than the welfare of the people.

The same basic two concerns can be raised regarding the implementation of the policies and the enforcement of the laws. If a government develops good policies and laws, but cannot put them into effect, then the issues of incompetence and corruption arise again.

I separate these two functions for a reason. In most democracies, the persons who pass the laws and set the policies are elected officials, chosen by the people through a formal process. However, those who implement the policies and enforce the laws are generally civil servants who are employed by the elected officials, but who are not themselves chosen by the people. And the point I am making is that both must function cleanly and effectively if the welfare of the citizens is to be optimized.

They must also function together effectively. This can be more difficult than it seems. Elected officials are likely to change with some frequency, introducing new faces, new ideas and new policies. The civil servants, however, remain from government to government. They are required to act as servants of the people's will, as expressed through the electoral process. Therefore, whatever their personal political ideologies, they must be ready to act in good faith, implementing the policies and upholding the laws of the elected government - whatever that government might be. For its part the newly elected officials must be able to trust that those civil servants, who the day before were loyally carrying out the policies of the previous government, will now carry out their directives with the same loyalty and effectiveness.

For any government, then, the question is how to ensure that it meets the needs and improves the lives of its citizens. And I should point out, incidentally, that democracy cannot be merely the tyranny of the majority. A successful government reflects the will of the majority while preserving the rights of the minority. Only in this way can the welfare of the whole society be improved.

Unfortunately, cynicism about governments and their working seem to be a global phenomenon. In the United States there is a phrase that goes "Good enough for government work." This is used to describe an effort that is shabby or half-hearted, producing just the bare minimum to get by. The underlying assumption is that government workers have no pride in the quality of their performance. I fear that in India, in some cases at least, the assumed norm for government workers is not laziness and ineptitude, but worse - corruption and venality.

Like all stereotypes, both of these are grossly unfair. Certainly as I look around at most of my colleagues in the government, I see persons who work hard and who care deeply about the quality of their work. By the same token, I have no doubt that most Indian government workers are honest and upright.

But these stereotypes do present a disturbing new element to our discussion of values and rules, and that is the existence of social norms that may be extremely difficult for government to change. The best example in the United States would be our experiment with Prohibition. In 1920, alcohol was outlawed in the United States. This came about not through the passage of an ordinary law, either. It was brought about by the passage of the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The logic behind the rule was clear enough: the consumption of alcohol had led to a panoply of social ills - lost productivity, increased violence within the family, public health costs, and so on. Those who argued that Prohibition fulfilled the government's objective by improving the welfare of the people certainly could muster powerful arguments for their cause.

What they did not account for, however, was how deep a social norm the consumption of alcohol had become. It became clear over the next 13 years that Prohibition was not the panacea that some had hoped. Instead, a range of new problems emerged, not least the rise of organized crime to cater to what was now an illegal activity - having a drink. In 1933, Prohibition was repealed. Unfortunately, having been enacted by a Constitutional Amendment, another Amendment - the 21st - was required to repeal it.

Let me give another example, where Human Values and social norms may come into conflict: cheating. If asked whether cheating were a positive or a negative Human Value, I suspect the overwhelming reply would be that it is negative. For this reason, governing academic bodies the world over have outlawed cheating. Now in some societies, cheating is a rare event, and widely scorned. But in other societies, it is accepted and widespread, just as drinking was widespread and acceptable in the United States during Prohibition. I suspect that the cheaters may be uncomfortable with their own behavior. But when the social norm exists, it leaves the impression that most others are breaking the rules. In this situation the individual feels considerable social pressure. On the one hand, one person's virtue highlights the lack of it in all his peers to their discomfiture; they seek partners in crime. On the other hand, by refraining from cheating, he may begin to feel foolish for having disadvantaged himself by being the only one not breaking the rules.

I suspect the same calculus may come into play in some cases of bribery. If a fundamentally honest government official perceives that all those around him are enriching themselves, it will become more-and-more difficult to resist joining their ranks. The pressure of the social norm exerts itself and the little voice inside his head begins to whisper: "You are not going to change the system, so why not benefit by it like everyone else?"

The same applies to the bribe-payers. They may be uncomfortable perpetuating the system, but they think "this is how things get done," as they pay and move on. To change the system, the norm must change. And to change the norm, persons of courage and integrity must refuse to go along. They have to see a better path and then be brave enough to follow it. Once a few leaders make a different choice, others will follow and the norm will shift. This is not easy, not at all, but it is another important way that we can improve our society.

As you can see, we have gradually gone from the broad principles that govern the expression of values in government to the practical question of a specific action, whether or not to give - or to take - a bribe. In this way we narrow down still further within our funnel, to the level of individual action expressing value in government. After all, the generalizations are simply the aggregate of thousands of individual decisions and actions.

One way you can express your values and seek to improve your society is through direct participation in the government, either through involvement in the political process -- perhaps even seeking elected office -- or as a civil servant, carrying out the work of those elected officials. This will be true at any level, be it local government, or state government, or national government. When an individual has a positive impact in carrying out this role, then he or she will have made the world a better place in which to live. It is on that basis that I can say that government service is a viable method for giving meaning to a life.

As you sat in your moment of silence earlier, I wonder how many of the young people here contemplated a career in government service as you thought about what you might like to do. I hope it was a goodly number of you, but I tend to suspect it may have been very few. Perhaps some of you may think again about that option.

On my arrival in Calcutta, I assembled all of my staff in my home for drinks and some snacks. I did this to introduce myself and to begin to get to know them a little bit. I also wanted to convey to them just what my expectations were and how I envisioned our common role. This is what I told them:

"We represent the point of connection between the government and the people of the United States and the government and the people of Calcutta, of West Bengal, and of all of Eastern India. When we perform well, the Embassy in New Delhi, the government in Washington, and the people of the United States will have a deeper and clearer understanding of the goals and aspirations, of the policies and the problems, of the governments and the peoples of Eastern India. When we perform well, the governments and the peoples of this region will also have a deeper and a clearer understanding of the policies and the people of the United States. Understanding does not always mean agreement, not at all, but it does breed respect even when there are differences, and it very, very frequently leads to friendship. This is our common mission. It is a noble one, and one that we can take great pride in."

I further clarified that we were all a part of that mission, from the senior supervisors to the sweepers, from the drivers to the political and economic analysts, each of us playing a role in advancing this understanding and in creating this friendship.

Let me be clear, I was sent to India by the U.S. Government and I am paid by the U.S. taxpayer. There is no question that my allegiance and my duty are given firmly to U.S. interests and values. However, as a diplomat, I am proud that many of our programs benefit the people of India as well. For example, the U.S. Government is actively involved in helping India's efforts to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic and to eradicate polio. I take enormous pride in being associated with both of these efforts - efforts that, if successful, will improve not only our respective nations, but indeed our entire world. In this way, serving a national government in the international arena, there is an opportunity to effect positive change that transcends borders.

That is how I have personally answered the question of what to do with my life, and more generally how we may express our values through government service. It also brings us very near to the bottom of the funnel I described at the outset. I would make just one more point:

Even if you have decided not to become directly involved in government service, I am afraid that you cannot abdicate your impact on the government and its role in influencing the quality of life of the people. You see, you live in a democracy, and the hallmark of this system of government is participation.

I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's, and I recall a poster that was quite common back then. When I first saw it, its meaning puzzled me a bit, but over the years it has become clear what it meant. The poster read: "Not to decide is to decide." In a democracy we might paraphrase it to read: "Not to participate is to participate." In other words, even the decision not to get involved in your government means that you have an impact. Your voice going unheard means that the voices of others - with whom you may perhaps disagree - will be heard instead of yours.

In its simplest form, this means that you must vote. In a more sophisticated form it means you must become more deeply involved. If you are dissatisfied with your government, then work to change it! Perhaps this might be through an environmental NGO that lobbies the government for better pollution standards. Perhaps it is through efforts to eliminate corruption, maybe as a journalist calling attention to the flaws in the system. Perhaps it is as a business executive giving advice to the government on policies to stimulate the economy. The options are diverse and only limited by your passion, your commitment, and your imagination.

Perhaps you also participate in a different way, one that is invariably unpopular. I refer to the financial contribution that you make to your government. But your decision whether or not to pay your taxes, or to conceal what you really owe, is also a decision about your participation in governing your society. Because when you do not pay your share, one of two things must happen: either one of your fellow citizens must lift the burden that was rightfully yours, or one of your fellow citizens must suffer the loss of service that your taxes could have funded.

Now, I cannot allow the subject of taxes to conclude this oration, no matter how near to the bottom of the funnel we may have reached. Instead, let me finish by pointing out that your choice about the conduct of your lives is a very serious and important decision. But that certainly does not mean that your life has to be lived seriously! A smile brings more light to the world than a frown, and laughter can be a tonic for you and for those around you. Improving the world can and should be a joyous undertaking.

Therefore, Sisters and Brothers of India, live life well, appreciate each precious moment, and make a difference!

Thank you.