Pearl Philosophy (PeP) and Porcupine Philosophy (PoP)

Pearl Philosophy (PeP)

The birth of a pearl is a miraculous event. They are born from oysters complete with a shimmering iridescence, lustre and soft inner glow unlike any other gem on Earth. A natural pearl begins its life as a foreign object, such as a parasite or piece of shell that accidentally lodges itself in an oyster’s soft inner body where it cannot be expelled. To ease this irritant, the oyster’s body takes defensive action. The oyster begins to secrete a smooth, hard crystalline substance around the irritant in order to protect itself. This substance is called “nacre.” And the result, ultimately, is the lovely and lustrous gem called a pearl. As long as the oyster lives it is a smooth life. I call it “Pearl Philosophy” (PeP).

Porcupine Philosophy (PoP)

Porcupines are lumbering, rotund rodents with needle-like spikes, called quills, covering their back, sides, and tail.  This is defensive mechanism provided by Mother Nature to save themselves from adversaries.  As the perceived adversary approaches, the porcupine turns into a “ball of needles” scaring away the adversary. Thus porcupines always live on anticipation of attack from adversary and are prepared to turn into balls of needles instantly.  I call it “Porcupine Philosophy” (PoP).

In everyday life people of different temperaments interact with one another. Quite often it may happen that the interaction, instead of a pleasing one can become irritating. If an individual faces such a situation what should be her or his reaction?

Should one follow porcupine philosophy and try to ward off the irritant for the time being (for there is no guarantee that it would not recur!)?

Or one adopts pearl philosophy to disarm the irritant and transform it into a harmless entity permanently?

I believe we have to live with dilemma throughout our life.

In 1974 I moved to Mumbai to undergo one year training in a premier research institute to be later appointed as scientific officer. My father had reluctantly agreed for shifting my base to Mumbai. He felt that I could easily get a job within the State. I prevailed upon him. Here is a job which I can do justice to my education and realise my aspirations of a true scientist. With reservations and still being wet behind the ears  I viewed the world with conquering eye as if batting my eye just once is sufficient to bring it to heel and set the things in order!

After the one year training which passed very fast, full-fledged interaction with colleagues in the Division where I was placed started. Even after knowing that I had to “live” with this “motely” crowd, I was still enamoured and unflinchingly attached to my “ideals” of setting the world order!    Such was my abrasiveness that sooner than later people started avoiding me. Initially I cared two hoots and attributed this behavior to their inability to see things in perspective.

First two years went off with myself undergoing in-house practical training and understanding the research activities of different groups. Due to strict adherence to my own set of research “ideals” and deciding to tread a lone path, I found myself nowhere. Out went my dreams of Nobel Prize, or Bhatnagar Award or at least local recognition through the ventilation duct and in rushed the spectacles of defeatism and frustration.

One day as I was passing through the corridor, one of my senior colleagues beckoned me and both of us went for tea. He was a jovial chap senior to me by 5 years and used to get along very well with one and all. I never saw him complaining about anything.  I asked him about the secret of his amiable attitude. He jokingly replied “If at all, anybody is interested in Ramakumar; it is Ramakumar who should be interested and nobody else. This place is no man’s land and at the same time it belongs to all. You have to chart out your own path to move forward.”

That statement incited me quite a bit.  “Is not pursuit of research an individual’s responsibility?” I ruminated; “and why should I be waiting for others to tell me what I should be doing?”

Out went the defeatism and frustration through the ventilation duct and in rushed the determination and enthusiasm. At that time in our Group there was one activity which was taking almost two working days. With concerted efforts I developed a methodology which enabled me to demonstrate that the activity could be completed in 6 hours. I felt it was a tremendous achievement and majority of my colleagues agreed and appreciated. As a left handed compliment, they also observed that their workload now increased because they ended up doing more work as a result of availability of more time!

I prepared a draft document detailing the work I carried out and after going through the text rigorously, I felt it is one of the nice pieces and I should show to my Group Leader (GL) for permission to send it for a Journal publication. I used to take pride in my English language proficiency.  Little I knew the complexities of the working culture in an organization. My GL told me to leave the draft text on his table and he would go through the text in a couple of days.

Even after one week he did not find time. My frustration started building up. Every time I approached the GL, he used to tell the text is not up to the standard of a scientific publication in a journal. He was also not returning the draft with his comments. It has become a daily routine for me to ask him only to receive mild rebuke.

Nearly after one month, I was taking tea alone in office canteen. In walked my senior colleague and sat beside me with his cup of tea. I gave a blank stare. He asked what was wrong and without waiting for my reply repeated the phrase “If at all, anybody is interested in Ramakumar, it is Ramakumar who should be interested and nobody else” and gave a hearty laugh and patted on my back.

I don’t know if it was his statement or his attitude, I decided to work out another strategy to address the problem on hand. Next day I took another print out of the draft document and managed to sneak into my Group Leader’s room. He gave an enquiring look and I blurted out that I was there to revise the draft text under his guidance. He flushed out the draft I gave him previously and I noticed there were no markings! I opened my pen and indicated my readiness to correct the draft text as suggested by him. My GL opened the draft text and first ticked off the title and observed that it should be direct and crisp (whatever it is!). I nodded my head and noted his suggestion. He said Introduction needed thorough re-writing. I immediately expressed my regrets that I did not really do justice and being the first time I did not have any experience. I requested him to dictate the necessary corrections then and there for incorporation. He was visibly pleased.

“Ok, let us start”, he began and very faithfully I opened my pen. “Now strike the first two lines. They are not supposed to be there. Move them to the end of introduction. Bring in the second paragraph upfront. Now wait! It has become discontinuous.” He squirmed in his seat. “No, go back to the original formulation.

“Now move on to the Results and Discussion Part. You see, you wrote Results and Discussion in separate sections. They have to be always together. That’s why I told you the draft is not properly written. There is a spelling mistake; instead of ‘three times’ you wrote ‘there times’. Correct it.”

The exercise continued for another 30 minutes. Very faithfully I jotted down all the corrections suggested by him. At the end he declared that the text is in order and I should bring the corrected draft next day along with a covering letter for journal publication.

I reached my place of work and looked at the “corrections” suggested by him. I replaced “there times” with “three times” and submitted the revised draft text next day to the GL. I profusely thanked him for his time and the corrections suggested by him as now the draft had become more scientifically receptive. I realised that more than correcting the draft, my GL was interested to interact with me to see my approach to “collective” decision making which would be useful in the long run.

I have been following the Pearl Philosophy throughout my life. It is an elixir or ambrosia for a tension-free and congenial life. Happiness and contentment guaranteed. We have to identify the suitable nacre depending on the situation and the individual we come across.