Happy New Year

Corruption in India (redux)

Here's an article i had written on November 10, 2010:

The Merriam Webster defines corruption as:-
a). impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle;
b). decay, decomposition;
c). inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means;
d). departure from the original or from what is pure or correct.

I keep hearing people in India react feverishly to the subject of corruption all the time... but I still don't get it!

Why are we so quick on the draw to blame someone else for corruption but not our own selves? Why do we find it easy to blame the system for corruption but never our own actions? People argue that rot percolates downwards from the top. My contention is that if the roots are infected, the entire tree gets diseased; or if the foundation is weak, the entire structure starts developing cracks over time.

The leaning tower of Pisa does not lean because the top of the tower is askew; it leans because the weak foundation affords the building its tilt. And as the foundation weakens with time, gravity pulls it further south.


Now let's suppose that only the top floor of the leaning tower of Pisa had been incorrectly placed on the structure to give it its inclination. The job of engineers and architects would then be easy - topple the CHIEF and reconstruct the CROWN. But all that engineers can now do is arrest the slide and leave the structure with a permanent tilt; unless of course, the Italians are willing to have the tower uprooted and reconstructed (however much a loss of revenue the economy may suffer from the decline in the number of tourists flocking to the structure, staring away at it in awe - as if the tower had of its own accord decided to sway).

Politicians, the Judiciary, law enforcement agencies, the fourth estate and, a country's defence establishment are the top of a nation's structure. They do not define the citizen; the citizen defines them. The pillars of our democracy were not forced onto us by some alien civilization eager to destroy us; they are us, we the people of India. The homeowner who fiddles around with his electricity meter to save a few extra bucks; the driver on his scooter, motorcycle, car, auto richshaw, truck or bus, who drives up a one way street, not because he wants to use the money saved on petrol productively on things like his family's health, the neighbourhood's cleanliness or community welfare, but on a new pair of Ray Band San Gelasses to look Kool; the doodh wala (milkman) who adulterates his milk to make a quick buck; MNC employees who almost consistently walk away with company stationery, and not because they need it; the LPG store manager who makes life miserable for people because his wealth is directly proportional to the amount of discomfort he can cause a registered consumer; the shopkeeper who refuses to get rid of goods on his shelves that have passed their expiry date, hides the fact and then argues with the customer when he is found to be cheating because as far as he is concerned, the people who place expiry dates on packages are a bunch of fools who don't know popcrain from ass-cream; these are the people who criticize everyone but themselves for corruption. But it is these same people who had first made up and continue to populate our bureaucracies and all the pillars of the state we are so adept at labeling as corrupt. These people, just like our politicians and bureaucrats, are not from an alien planet called Zoltrag. They are us - we the people who make up our country. The bad news for us is that, contrary to popular belief, corruption hasn't taken root in our country now; the filth has accumulated over millennia.

So will knocking off the top floor of our country help set things in order? Well, for a short time all will be hunky dory; but then corruption will rear its ugly head again with a vengeance. The alternate solution is a mass surgical removal of the corrupt through the length and breadth of our country. But corruption is so deeply entrenched and widespread that no one will be able to repair the damage with finality; and if a figure like Indira Gandhi were to rise again and utilize extreme methodologies to cure the ill, not only will the corrupt revolt en masse (think: millions), but democracy will be snuffed out of our lives.

Fortunately, human societies and communities are not like the leaning tower of Pisa. Therefore, a country's citizens don't have to be uprooted and replaced with a new lot. Even more fortunate for us is the fact that the human brain, although hard wired to succeed at all times, has a tiny cubbyhole tucked away somewhere within its deep recesses - an alcove called the conscience. And although seemingly difficult, our only hope is that each citizen or the majority thereof, introspects and acknowledges their own impairment of integrity, virtue or moral principle, decay, decomposition, inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means and departure from the original or from what is pure or correct as the foundation of the corruption that we so feverishly dislike.

The absence of total corruption is a Utopian ideal. Nevertheless, the degree of corruption dictates the greatness, or the littleness, of a country. Economic success is temporary, the character of a nation however, is permanent. Hopefully, better sense will prevail and India will stop relying on cosmetic surgery and mud slinging, and start looking below the surface for a lasting solution.

Anna Hazare, Democracy, Rajguru, Mahatma Gandhi, & Corruption

Would you consider the United States of America*, a Democracy; a Loktantra as we would call it in India? Of course, you would. Now, even though a section of America does not see eye to eye with its President, a bill is still passed by way of a majority of votes within the Senate.

If the citizens of a democracy are not satisfied with a bill that has been passed, they have the right and a duty to approach the elected representative of their constituency, and explain to her why they would like it amended or repealed. The elected representative in turn, if convinced, rallies support in a House of Representatives to effect a change.

The government of a land would never be able to do its job in an efficient and an effective manner if a section of society, and a small one at that, keeps demanding that the government work only as it wants.

A bill, is still passed in America, even if a hundred million, or one-third of Americans are opposed to it, if it has a majority of votes in the Senate; a senate which would be doing its duty by upholding the voice of the remaining two-thirds of the country's population.

Even if Anna Hazare musters up support of, say 50 million citizens, in favour of his version of the Lokpal Bill, the Government's job is to ultimately side with the wishes, expressed via Parliament, of the remaining 1 billion 150 million citizens of India. Each of these 1 billion plus, along with the 50 million that support Anna Hazare, have a point of view on the bill, and the Government must form consensus on it with as large a majority as possible, even if it leaves a small section disappointed.

For Hazare and his team to insist on their version, supported by 50 million people (or even 200 million), and understood by only a few hundred, is ridiculous.

~

* in the context of this essay, you can replace America with any Democracy on the planet you want; the message will be the same.

-----------------

Gandhi would never have subscribed to the idea of sitting outside someone's house in protest. Anna Hazare says his fight is not against any one particular individual or party, and then he says he will agitate outside Sonia Gandhi's residence. This is a clear case of hypocrisy and a bruised ego at work. It is certainly not Gandhian to agitate outside anyone's residence, whether it be Sonia Gandhi, LK Advani, Narendra Modi, Mohandas Pai, or Anna Hazare himself.

Anna Hazare calls himself a Gandhian; and then invokes the memory of Rajguru. Now, it isn't wrong to remember a freedom fighter for his sacrifice; but to invoke the memory of a man who had an ideology that was extremist in nature, while claiming to be a Gandhian yourself, clearly shows that Hazare is a wolf in sheep's clothing. His ideology is more extreme, than it is of Satyagraha. However, I don't think Anna Hazare is a wolf in sheep's clothing. That claim is preposterously far fetched. He is a good man, with a very weak understanding of the philosophy of Gandhi. Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi, on the other hand, are catalysts who add fuel to Hazare's vagueness.

-----------------

I have a question for Anna Hazare, Prashant Bhushan, Arvind Kejriwal and Kiran Bedi. If, as a citizen of India, I allow you to take my country down the road of the Lokpal as you belligerently suggest; and if it results in a worse state of affairs in the next 10 years than what exists now, would you be willing to have your house ghearoed by citizens, however few they may be, who realize your folly and foolishness? And would 5% of the population, which gheraoes you, be justified in asking for your head on the chopping block, without submitting their argument in a court of law?

If you would be okay with it, you're as far away from Gandhian thought, as the north pole is from the south. When Gandhi was asked by an American journalist if he would be willing to give up his life for Indian independence, Gandhi, in his customary style, thought for a moment, and with a smile, softly said, "it is a bad question."

The wise will understand the logic of Gandhi's answer.

-----------------

Disclaimer: I am not a Congress agent. I am not a politician. I am not a bureaucrat. I don't have family or friends in politics or in the government. And neither is this essay a part of any propaganda. I am a citizen of India, who is extremely concerned that a group of self appointed individuals, without properly analyzing in detail the pros and cons of what they suggest, claim to have all the answers, and are aiming to thrust their point of view on the citizens of India, via the oldest tactic in the book - rhetoric and loud argument.

Shazia Ilmi, the Big Fight, and Anna Hazare's movement

...heard Shazia Ilmi in the closing stages of the Big Fight. And here's my response to her argument.

Shazia, contrary to your belief, a group of people pressurizing the government to pass a bill by taking to the streets, is not strengthening democracy; it is strengthening mobocracy. In a democracy, you would lobby with your local MP to take up a cause in parliament. And the MP's job is to voice your opinion if it is echoed by the largest number of people in his constituency.

The time to take to the streets comes when lobbying with your MP yields no results. None of us has ever bothered to approach our MP with the aim of lobbying an idea or a cause. Therefore, none of us has the moral right to take to the streets without exercising our democratic duty.

Anna Hazare's movement, however honest his intentions may be, is completely undemocratic. And as a citizen of India, I for one, will have no part in it.

CBI under the Lokpal

I don't subscribe to the idea of a Lokpal. However, those who herald its requirement, keep making shifting arguments for the need to place the CBI under the control of the newest constituent of a duocracy, which they are creating. On the one hand they say that the Lokpal would be useless without an investigating agency, which can very well be rectified by creating a new investigative body that reports to and is administered solely by the Lokpal; on the other hand, their reason for placing the CBI under the Lokpal is to free it from the clutches of political interference.

But, why just stop at freeing the CBI from the clutches of its political masters? Let's free the Indian Armed Forces, the Indian Police Service, National Security Guard, Railway Protection Force, the Income Tax Department, the Indian Railways, Department of Telecommunications, the Narcotics Control Bureau, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory; and place them all under the ambit of the Lokpal. After all, some of these agencies can, and are sometimes utilised by politicians against the country's citizens. The argument against the need to give these institutions autonomy is that the CBI, if placed under the sole authority of the Lokpal, will be used to investigate irregularities of at least some of the agencies suggested above. Then, will the CBI be used to investigate irregularities that are sure to crop up within the Lokpal itself? But if the Lokpal has administrative control over the CBI, why would the CBI carry out investigation of the Lokpal in an honest, efficient and effective manner? And if an agency outside the Lokpal were to be used to investigate irregularities within it, wouldn't it lead to a status quo, you scratch my back and i'll scratch yours, kind of situation?

All democratic governments around the world have central investigative agencies reporting almost directly to the chief executive of the country. Not every piece of information pertaining to the internal or external security of the country can be shared with its citizens in order to avoid panic. The Lokpal will have to conduct itself in the same manner, or risk throwing the country into anarchy. In fact, by placing the CBI under the ambit of the Lokpal, Kejriwal, Bedi et al, are in effect saying that we don't need a chief executive, whose job, amongst many others, is to monitor the internal security of a country. Then let's just do away with the office of the Prime Minister. However, wouldn't this lead us back to square one, where instead of a Prime Minister and his cabinet, there would be an entity called the Lokpal which would assume the role of the chief executive? What is to guarantee the continued honesty of the director of the Lokpal; after all, isn't it a well known fact that absolute power sometimes corrupts even the most honest of people?

Of course, an argument could be made that no one wants to get rid of the institution of the Prime Minister. In fact, the idea of the Lokpal, amongst many others, is to act as a check and balance to the activities that the chief executive conducts. Well, do we not have a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a Parliament, and a President, already keeping check on the Prime Minister? Yes, there could be a case of collusion between these institutions. However, what guarantee do you have that the Lokpal will not collude as well? And who can guarantee that the director of the Lokpal will not use the CBI for his own personal agenda(s)?

Another approach suggested to this entire episode is that if you provide autonomy to each institution, the chances of collusion and cooptation will reduce. But this approach suggests that the Indian public (and if I can use Mintzbergish jargon - the 'technical core') will be governed not only by one institution, but two; perhaps even four - if the President and the Chief Justice of India are given complete autonomy.

Wait. At this stage, let's rewind ourselves and recall Management class 101. Henri Fayol's fourth principle of management is unity of command. Take a peek at Matrix, Hybrid, Global, and Virtual Network Structures as well. All of them have one chief executive. Experiments with multiple centers of power always fail in the long run.

Kejriwal, Bedi, and Anna Hazare's Lokpal looks like a recipe for creating multiple centers of power, a la another Pakistan; which is an extremely dangerous turn of events indeed.

For the stakeholders of an institution to tie the hands of the chief executive behind his back, and his feet to the table, and then ask him to deliver to their satisfaction, is unworkable. Checks and balances already exist within our constitution, and political and bureaucratic structures. We need to strengthen them, instead of creating a parallel bureaucracy, which in the long run will multiply all our problems. Strengthening checks and balances aside, if the character of a country's citizens, who eventually populate our bureaucracies, is questionable, no structure, checks and balances will ever deliver the country from corruption.

Thank you: the multiplier effect

The simplest thing you can do to free your country from the clutches of corruption is to refrain from dishonesty yourself. This must be followed up with a simple strategy of applauding and thanking people for doing a good deed, or for following a law.

For instance, if you're trying to cross the road via a zebra crossing while the pedestrian light is green, and there is no let up in the traffic which keeps rolling on by despite the red light, the first motorist who stops to allow you safe passage, must be thanked by as simple a gesture as a smile and a wave of the hand. This reinforces good behaviour more effectively than any other strategy you can think of. Moreover, the motorist who you thanked, is sure to repeat this act with others, and carry on in the same vein in other spheres of his life. Thanking someone for conducting themselves appropriately doesn't need to be restricted to the roads alone. A simple act as someone opening the door for you; a waiter serving you tea; an employee doing a good, honest job at work; or a shopkeeper voluntarily pointing out that the item you want to purchase has expired and apologises for keeping it on his shelf, are just some of the other situations where this strategy can be used effectively to bring about a change.

As concerns corruption in bureaucracies, no amount of structural change can be effective, as long as:

• processes and procedures are not streamlined, and
• the people who populate the bureaucracy come from the same corrupt society as you and me.

How to understand the poor

To understand what a poor man really wants, you need to roll up your pant/pyjama legs, squat on your haunches, share a beedi or a glass of chai with him, and talk on a one on one basis about life in general; and not sit on a charpoy while he sits on the floor, acting as if you are his savior, or exhibiting disgust at the squalor in which he has to live.

The zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism

When you study the various dimensions of national culture for countries around the world, you find that the urban Indian middle and upper classes fall in what i call, the 'Zone of Hypocrisy, Two Facedness, and Opportunism'. Studies have shown that on a scale of 1 to 100, 1 being collectivist, and 100 being individualist, Indians score a 48 - placing them right in the middle of the scale. So you never know where you stand with the Indian middle class, as they very conveniently shift between ideologies, ideas and values to suit their needs; while having very staunch, critical opinions behind closed doors, which is entirely at odds with what they exhibit to the world.

Some would label this trait as 'adaptability and flexibility'; which of course is essential as it helps one change with changing contexts. But this is too self serving an argument to be given any credence, as falling right in the middle of the zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism means:

• a half hearted effort at task completion,
• lack of loyalty to an organization or a cause,
• jumping onto successful bandwagons, and abandoning those that face a roadblock,
• abandoning people who face tough times, or if they no longer serve a purpose,
• firing salvos from other peoples shoulders and taking credit for it when it hits the mark; and pointing a finger at others when things don't go your way,
• playing people against each other,
• pulling the rug from under other peoples' feet,
• trampling on others to get ahead,
• dirty, underhand politics,
• a tendency to constantly grow increasingly frustrated with everything and everyone outside one's own social circle, and
• a lack of acknowledgement of ones own mistakes.

Interestingly, almost all studies in India have been conducted on its middle and upper classes. The poor are very clear where they stand, though - Collectivism; which if measured, would be diametrically opposite to the Australians.

If you correlate and map the subject matter of this post with the happiness surveys conducted by various agencies around the world, you will find that India's level of happiness fluctuates the most, moving from medium-happy to unhappy and back again, changing rapidly year on year, without a trend in any one specific direction. The single most important reason for this is the Indian tendency to attribute the cause of all failures to external factors; for example, Indians attribute the cause of their own personally induced corruption, to their government. The curious thing is that they completely absolve themselves of their faults, while conveniently pointing their finger at others. This tendency arises from the placement of Indians in the middle of the zone of hypocrisy, two facedness, and opportunism; without clarity on where they actually stand.

~

On a lighter note:

Hunger versus wine, scotch and imported cars

The business section of a leading newspaper in India calls subsidies for the poor, or the aam admi (the real common man), who makes up the majority of our population, populist, and labels it as appeasement of the poor. The reduction in import duty of wine, scotch, and cars, which will lead to a lowering of prices of these commodities for the middle and upper classes, on the other hand, is greeted with a cheer.

The poor have no voice.

Whose India is it anyway?

Kiran Bedi, Arvind Kejriwal, lokpal bill, the middle class, and the rest of us

Anna Hazare, the Bhushan clan, Arvind Kejriwal, Kiran Bedi, team Anna, and everyone who supports them is patriotic, honest, intelligent, and logical. I, on the other hand, am unpatriotic, corrupt, dumb and illogical because i disagree with them.

The middle class in India is roughly 200 million strong. They make up between 13 and 17% of the population of our country. They have a voice, they make all the money, and therefore they have the right to impose their view on the rest us, who make up only 83% of the rest of the country. We must meekly surrender to their superior intelligence and economic clout; for can't you see, 'they make perfect sense'.

~

Everyone knows how a certain police officer got to the rank she did.

Bhagavad Gita, Russia and Walmart

In my previous post i had said that i'm not very good at hindi. Well, my english isn't any better either. But allow me to construct a few paragraphs in english, nevertheless.

~

There is an email doing the rounds in India, asking people to sign a petition against the purported decision of a Siberian court to ban the Bhagavad Gita. Indians, both in Russia and in our country, want the Indian government to interfere, in what is an internal matter of another sovereign state, and put pressure on the Russians to disallow the ban. Ridiculous!

Aapkey corruption ka kya?

I am a pretty crude guy... i know. And my Hindi isn't very good either. But i'll try to speak as plainly in Hindi as i can.

Ab aap boltey ho kee aap aur chup nahi baith saktey. Aapko change chahiye. Aap corruption ko mita dena chahte ho. Lekin aap, itney saalon ke baad, ab kyon uth rahe ho? Pehle jab koi bhi corruption ke khilaf uthta tha, aapke pitaji aur dadaji chup chaap darwaza bandh karke baith jatey they. Madad to chord dijeye, aapke pitaji aur dadaji un logo pe hastey the jo corruption ke khilaaf awaaz uthathey the. Woh boltey they, "tum paagal ho kya? sab kuch theek hai... koi problem hi nahi hai. karam kar, phal ki na sooch. jaisa hai, bilkul theek hai. aap befaltu mein ladd rahe ho. jab koi problem hi nahi hai, toh aap ladd he kyon rahey ho?" Uskey baad, aapkey pitaji aur dadaji apne kaam pe jaakay apne employers aur doosray logo ko khud loot-tay the.

Uneasy silence

While the middle class and the wealthy have money to amplify their views, 

the poor man must suffer in silence.

Amreeka se aaya mera dost, dost ko salaam karo!

Here's a simple social experiment that can be conducted with the greatest of ease to highlight the hypocrisy of the Indian middle class:

The next time Banta Singh, the proud owner of a mom & pop store at Bakersfield, California, comes a visiting, throw a party and invite a caboodle of middle class folks from your neighbourhood. Bedsides Mr. Singh, do invite Banwari Lal, your local Kirana-wala, to make things a little interesting. As the drinks start flowing freely, you'll suddenly notice something very intriguing. The middle class caboodle will start milling around Banta to hear from him his view on a host of topics of which he himself has no clue, while Mr. Lal will be sidelined to a far corner of your drawing room. Banta Singh of course, will put on quite a show, for his newly, never before formed, club of admirers, and will play to the galleries, his entire range of regalia on full display.

Now it isn't that Banwari Lal doesn't have a point of view on the subject being discussed, nor is it that he has an opinion that is inferior to Banta's; it's just that Mr. Singh has flown in from the states, and that makes all the difference in the eyes of the motley crew at the party. Therefore the large crowd around him, and not Banwari bhaiya. Give them both a chance to speak on equal terms though, and you'll find them both on the same rung of the intellectual order of ape being.

But Banwari Lal doesn't have it as bad as you think he has. To illustrate my point, have a Kabootar Rao, venture into the thick of things. The party you'll find, will end as abruptly as a fly flies off a hot steel plate.

Eventually, it all boils down to a question of brands, you see. For a middle class Indian, it isn't so much about intelligence, as it is about being associated with a reference group or a brand that is perceived, without rational thought, to be superior to the other. In the example above, Banta Singh's 'american' brand has a higher perceived value than poor Banwari Lal could hope to create in a lifetime via his Kirana ka dukaan, even if both of them are in the same business and equipped with the same level of sagacity.


Kabootar Rao, on the other hand, was just plain unlucky.

Greed

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed."

- MK Gandhi

It's funny how former chief economists at the IMF, and economic professors at the Harvards and the Columbias are slowly coming out of their shells and questioning capitalism's sustainability. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know what's up.

I have been ridiculed and rubbished many times in the past by acquaintances when i have spoken about resource depletion and unsustainable development. For an uneducated fool, i think i did pretty well for myself though. Now it'll be amazing to see how people slowly slink their way on to the scarce-resource, unequal income bandwagon, and claim that they have always maintained this line of thought.

Black money and the urban class' parallel economy in India

Reason and logic abandon me whenever the topic of black money comes up. As a matter of fact, this is one of the very few subjects where emotions get the better of me. And a debate on television tonight, got me all riled up.

I have been writing about corruption and black money in India for quite some time now, and have consistently maintained that, contrary to popular belief, there is more black money in the form of a middle-and-upper-class induced parallel economy floating around in our country, than there is big ticket, politician-bureaucrat nexus induced black money, stashed away overseas. And my solution, devoid of any logic, has been pretty consistent too. I don’t want the urban middle and upper classes to get away with their corruption as easy as something like the income tax authorities allowing them to declare their stashed away money and converting it into white. I want a thorough investigation carried out in India of each citizen and his family, starting from August 15th, 1947; and even if a man is found to be honest today, the mere fact that his positive station in life is partly due to corrupt money that was accumulated by his family over the decades, should be enough for his monies to be confiscated.

As far as i am concerned, a man who has had the fortune of a good education, or a family business, real estate, or a large heirloom handed down to him, even if partly due to the fact that his family could afford tuition, business, real estate investment, or vast tranches of wealth because of black, undeclared money, is an unjust state of affairs. Bring that man down on to the same level playing field as all those who didn't indulge in corruption. Nothing else will spell justice to me.

Orthodoxy

"What was acceptable yesterday, is orthodox today. 

What is acceptable today, will be orthodox tomorrow.

What was conservative yesterday, may be progressive tomorrow.

What is progressive tomorrow, may be conservative the day after."

- Jay Sobti

Never trust a girl who says, "I love you because you love me."

In fact, never trust anyone who says that.

Kapil Sibal, censoring the social media, and groupthink

I don't think regulating the social media is a good idea (and i've written about it previously in much detail). But following the frivolous logic that the Indian twitterati has used in defense of the social media, we might as well not have any traffic rules, land laws, and the criminal justice system either. After all, we as a people are mature enough to regulate ourselves without someone having to force rules and regulations down our throats, in the garb of maintaining at least some semblance of order on our chaotic roads, and in our fractured society in general. And why stop there. Let's just do away with all forms of law.

Screening the social media, confidence, inequality, & the US republican primaries

Confidence versus Arrogance
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I will never get tired of saying it till the urban strata of our society are blessed with at least an iota of sapience. Urban Indians do not know the difference between confidence and arrogance. They exhibit arrogance, mistakenly believing it to be confidence.

Stand by me

It really doesn't matter what kind of trash they sing... eventually they all come back to the classics. Here's Lady Gaga singing one of my favourite songs (i'd prefer to play this on my guitar, though)...

Chirp! Chirp! the Ecosystem, Biodiversity, the Market & the Human Civilization

So we're all bothered about GDP growth rates, making heaps of money, building better lifestyles, developing comparative and strategic advantages over each other, collaborating horizontally, managing knowledge, and the whole jing-bang stuff. But if you live in a modern urban city, when and in what quantity did you last see birds (of the feather type) chirping around your home or office?

China & labour unrest

Labour unrest in China?!!

God bless Capitalism?

The UK Public Sector Strike, Nicolas Sarkozy, Globalization, and the Indian Media

Whether there were 2 Million, or Tens of Thousands of people who went on a strike to demand better pensions (to negate the vast inequalities of income) is besides the point. But, why hasn't the Indian media reported the large public sector strike that took place in the United Kingdom on November 30th, 2011?

I, Indian... travel New-jee-land !!

When a westerner travels overseas, if it isn't for business, it is to experience a foreign culture, its people, their customs, the diversity of cuisines (with a mixture of enthusiasm & intestinal trepidation, i must add), the multiplicities of sights and sounds, the flora and fauna, an alternate way of life; and to broaden and enrich their minds.