A Business Model of Religion - 1

Dec 31 2001  | Views 7688 |  Comments  (156)
This essay compares the management and business realm with the practices of organized religion. It calls for a paradigm shift in the study of religion.... Expand

Leave a Comment   Flat Nested


  Partha Rajagopal posted 4 yrs ago

Much of the problem comes from the difference between the systems - the Indian and the Semitic. In my opinion, the term "Hindu" is not a religious term. It is a geographic term similar to "American" or a "European". When viewed from afar, every entity looks uniform. To most of us, Africa looks like one big entity of curly haired, dark skinned tribesmen. But a closer look tells otherwise. The whole subcontinent of India was viewed as one entity by the outsiders for ages. The Arabs called the land as "Al Hind", the land of the Hindus. I have heard that in Mecca, sometimes they address the Indian Muslims as "Hindus" (not in a religious sense, but as a geographical reference). Thus in my opinion there is no such thing as Hinduism. One can say Hindu religions which have an innumerable variety of religions and cults that range from animistic traditions to very advanced ways of self realization. I have seen Sikhs and Buddhists argue about being called as Hindus. They are Hindu religions, no doubt, having arisen in the land of the Hindus. Thus to an outsider, it all looks primitive, paganistic and chaotic. Colonizers from yesteryears were not well developed in their perspective. When looked at from today's perspective, their view of the non-western world was very primitive. They attributed their success to their superior culture and religions and believed that the backwardness of the natives was entirely due to a single entity called Hindu religion as they envisioned. Christian missionaries of those days have complained that the Hindus refuse to adopt only Christ as their savior and instead added the image of the Christ to the already existing list of idols and worshipped him as one of the avatars. Some people say the Sanathana Dharma is the true religion of the land. I beg to disagree. It was one of the religions in the subcontinent that retained its diversity in every possible aspect over the centuries. Everyone's belief was respected and no one interefered with others' practises. That is how everything survived there, despite very systematic onslaught by the semitic religions for almost a thousand years. India's advantage derives from its diversity that many tend to ignore. That diversity served as flood barriers to the strong currents of religions from outside. The only way to prevent losing our identities (note the plural) is to improve our economy and lives in the subcontinent. Our religions and faiths have survived over the centuries under much worse onslaught where emperors from other faiths have destroyed our temples and monuments and enforced tax on them. Today India is a free country. Education and awareness will help people think and faith will return. I have been living in the US for almost two decades and every time I return to India for a visit, I see people becoming more religious. I come from a state where atheism was preached by the Dravida movements during my formative years. Yet religion has returned with a vengeance. Walmart like strategies will not work ina mutlifarious system like India. The society needs to be more uniform to be taken over. Our diversity is our strength. People can consider it as an impediment to progress. It might be true in the case of materialistic progress. But definitely not in the case of spiritual progress. India has been drifting away from the influences of colonialism. A new India is emerging that can look at itself with pride. And that will sow the seeds of interest and spiritual quests. Until now it took others to tell us that we were great. That syndrome is fading away. Let us keep our colorful diversity alive and it will help us prosper in the long run.



  ydgrasil posted 6 yrs ago

Interesting viewpoint. Sadly, superficial. The essay does not make a specific point. Several issues are mentioned, but lead nowhere. Eg. it starts off by criticising existing scholars for several paragraphs, which is not the essay subject. Later on, it just seems like a marketing textbook has been fitted on to religion, with hardly any data or research. There is heavy use of jargon without explanation or detailed analysis. The idea is good and worth exploring; the treatment here is not up to the mark. More like an hollow overview of the author's views rather than a logical examination of the subject. Delve deeper, please.



  Ashwini Surpur posted 6 yrs ago

Wow! I have never seen a more beautiful presentation of the facts regarding the business of religions before. Way to go Rajiv! I can't wait till I see your part 2 article. -Ashwini



  ss posted 6 yrs ago

WOW!! Its a wonderful reading. And in a language paradigm the WEST and its followers will be able to understand. Have you thought about publishing it in some Western News daily/magazine? It is indeed "very thought" provoking for anyone - specially in this new awareness post-Sept 11 era.



  Rajiv to #151 posted 6 yrs ago

My business model leads to a free-market "regulated" industry, in the same sense as the US telecom, TV, and consumer marketing fields are. This means healthy debate in open industry forums that are level and not controlled by some of the competitors. It means regulations and self-regulation via various codes of industry standards. This is not about any new player. Rajiv



  Arjoe posted 6 yrs ago

A product that is not designed to capture market of other products is a useless product. It will also fail to inspire and motivate the product designers with such a vague goal. Also, other products will be forced to improve their quality only when threatened for market share. As you can see, your business model directly leads to a conscious development of a new religion that will tend to conquer all others! This is pretty interesting! Arjoe



  Rajiv to #149 posted 6 yrs ago

Good point. The new "product" by a neutral entity could be intended not to capture market share, but to cause the others product suppliers to rethink. It could set new standards of civility towards others. Yes, that could be a nice thing to test market. Rajiv



  Arjoe posted 6 yrs ago

I am not sure of "possessive", but I am very passionate about my ideas and am very proud of it. This is different from being so blind that you miss the ice-berg for its tip or see a mirage where there is nothing. Also, I am not inhibited to anger the markets of existing religions, during the course of a debate. Even if we take a business model, and consider the religions as products with corresponding market shares, a very usual thing is that when you perceive problems with existing products, you introduce a new product. Who introduces that product is debatable. Possibly a statistical institute or something. Arjoe



  Rajiv to #147 posted 6 yrs ago

Yes, indeed I do like new ideas. But it is in the spirit of new ideas that we can disagree respectfully with each other. Only when we get possessive about ideas do we get defensive - and that's a deterrent to new ideas. I just don't happen to agree with state sponsored religion of any kind, no matter how well intended. Instead, states should play the role of market regulator to facilitate a level playing field. This is the difference between the US and India's governmental role in an industry: In the US, for the most part, government is not to provide services itself or to have its own product on the market. It is strictly to regulate other providers to make sure there is fair play. In India, the government became the largest, and often the only, player in many industries. It runs airlines, telecom, railways, steel manufacturing, hotels, etc. and in many cases as the dominant or even the only player. Seen in this context, the suggestion that the government invent a new religion is like the government becoming a supplier. Mine is a different view, in which the government regulates a fair competitive field while others supply. The regulator who is also a supplier cannot be an honest or competent regulator. You can see this from the performance of TRAI, DOE, MTNL, etc in the telecom sector - all sorts of conflicts of interest. Rajiv



  Arjoe posted 6 yrs ago

I thought you welcome new ideas about religion. Arjoe





Leave a comment

Use rich text editor:


Princeton, Male
Member Since Nov 24 2001
© 1998-2008 Copyright Sulekha.com Connecting Indians Worldwide, All Rights Reserved.