Thinking About Money

We all need money to sustain our life, and many live just to make money! They are the ambitious lot, who want to make as much money they can by whatever means, ethical or otherwise. Many are envious/jealous of such persons. But suppose one is content with leading a modest lifestyle, how much money can be considered sufficient? What is the amount of money that would be sufficient for an individual to live comfortably. Of course the amount will depend on the number of dependents and the location where one chooses to live; nevertheless I think there must be an amount beyond which money may lead to a more uncomfortable social life for a human being living in a particular society. That may lead to yet another question. What is happiness? Is the ability to consume as much as one desires leads to greater happiness, then being a bit more social conscious and helping a few human being around you to overcome the shortage for basic necessities of life? Can a person consciously consuming less is less happy than one who is always striving to have more and more consumable goods and services A very complicated question indeed! In my experience I have found that most people do not seek an absolute, frame independent lifestyle but rather seek a richer lifestyle than their peers. Happiness, to most of us, can be equated to other people's misery. That is why most of us indulge in useless criticizing so much. Other people are always described as greedy, unscruplous, haughty, shallow, stupid, sycophantic, and in our kinder moments, just plain lucky (implying that they do not deserve what they've got)! When I was young I used to believe that in science I would find people who are different but I have learned otherwise. Money is not the only issue, although, if you have enough of it you can stop worrying about it, and that is some kind of bliss. I too have heard that poor people in our country live a happy life. This may very well be so, especially given the fact that Hinduism almost sanctions keeping these people at that level citing their past karma, and perhaps they too believe in it to resign themselves to their fates. I do not

believe that there is anything specific that you can say about temperance that would apply to the masses, unless they are deeply religious, in which case they can be brainwashed into believing anything at all. However, what applies to most may not apply to individuals and I have met several sage like individuals in my life. Some of these people seek absolutes and are therefore unaffected by their peers. A test of such individuals is that they do not condemn extravagant lifestyles since their happiness comes entirely from their own inner being. I am greatly interested in systems that would produce people of this sort. However, our competitive examination system breeds the other kind of individual whose primary goal in life is to do better than the rest, irrespective of how they are actually doing. I have heard about a test where people were asked which one is better 1) You getting Rs 10,000 and your equals getting, let us say, Rs 9000 or 2) you getting Rs 11,000 and your equals getting Rs 12,000, and most people choose the first. Of course, if you change the numbers then answer might be a little different. The marginal cost of losing out to your peers while having an absolute advantage must be some measurable number. The point that I am making is that it is not a small number and therefore my answer to my question is that the amount of money required to make us happy is the amount that compares well with your peers first, and then secondly it should be large in an absolute sense. Just the absolute sense is not enough to decide on this number. Automobile drivers on highways, and in crowded streets, most often youngsters driving on a highway want to overtake others driving in the same direction. It adds to thrill that youth enjoy and also often lead to fatal accidents. On a crowded street, the situation is altogether different. People on foot can often overtake those in a big vehicle, therefore that thrill is missing. In the society too, young people often mistakenly believe that they are on the highway of life, and only if they overtake their peers there is thrill. But, people of the lower strata of society are not too apt for this sort of thrill, and therefore compromise with driving life on a crowded street. One may respond to that as follows: On a crowded street the fun of speeding is indeed missing, but it is not replaced by bliss but by frustration and road rage But in that sense perhaps the analogy is really not far removed from the reality that ghettos of the world are all full of unhappy people. Poverty or lack of resources per force instill sharing, which overall is a good thing. The most generous people I have ever met are from India and Russia, two countries where personal wealth was always limited. Perhaps I should not generalize too much from the limited examples I have but I always had a strong feeling that adversity bonds people. In that sense too your analogy works, after all you win a race alone but the losers are all united in losing . The trick is to somehow make people win all together. If game theory is to be believed (work by John

Nash) such strategies are nearly optimal and stable. A lot of it has to do with how you are educated. In another article the author argues that it would seem that the rich countries are able to deal with cultural diversity better, which may or may not be true, but the reason given might be applicable to the case at hand. He argues that when people are rich they perhaps realize that wealth is more easily created if there is social diversity where your product might succeed better than the other person's. To a true businessman the color of his client is hardly important. Our country is full of new rich who have recently discovered wealth and thus make an ostentatious display of it. Given time such one-up man-ship will surely lose its charm a bit. Plus, may be these people will not wish to be so lonely as they would be if they do not develop the grace of a true winner. But, that's true only for those who are much used to driving in the fast lane, further I am reminded of Shri 420, a classic of Raj Kapoor. The basic needs for living are food, clothing and shelter. In addition one needs money for medical treatment, education and entertainment. Let's consider each of these needs in some detail. The food that we need to consume for living does not have to come from a swanky restaurant or a fast food parlor like McDonals, KFC or Nirulas. In fact one can have much more healthy and satisfying food at a fraction of price. Same is the case with clothing, Does one really need the branded clothes? Shelter, not everyone can live in the centre of the city in prestigious colonies, because of the limited area. If one chooses a slightly less paying job, like teaching etc one can often get subsidized accommodation that is close to the place of work, hence one can save both money and energy required for daily transport. As far as education of the kids is concerned, the money saved from the tution in a prestigious public school can lead to less tension for earning more money leading to more time one can spend with family and saving the medical bills too. A friend once told: My parents were poor and I was educated in government schools with very few books around me. The food we ate was seldom rich (high point used to be paneer but not too often) but quite satisfying and clothes were of minimal quality. As a result even today I can eat from a cheap vadapav to caviar with equanimity and my trousers usually have big holes in them. Health is an important issue and we were covered by the state (so no private hospitals), but I don't recall being sick so much, perhaps because of simple and healthy food. We always had to travel by the public transport, which used to suck a bit, especially all the time wasted in waiting. What we did have was caring parents and a well bonded family. That mattered a bit more than all the things that we did not have. But I do remember that, since all my friends were much better off, I used to feel very ashamed of our house and our clothes and all the goodies they had and we did not. I had not discovered yet the public library so I had to beg my friends for books, which they were not always happy to share. I don't think that my daughter has what we had,

but she has some of those other things, like a large supply of books, a computer to play with and a greater variety of entertainment. Only time will tell if she does better in her life or if she is a happier person (she is quite a happy child though) that I was. But I know one thing, she is a very confident child at the moment. As she grows older she will realize that all the books and computers cannot replace her own hard work, and that is what is going to see her through an unforgiving world around her. So, you are right in saying that these peripheral things do not have a lasting impact on ones life and career, but guidance and intellectual assistance can go a long way. With all this stress on material wealth we are forgetting this basic requirement of human beings. Now a bit about austerity. It can sometimes be a boon, save the occasions when one has to face peers who are much more affluent. I think, the living style of people today is dictated more by peer pressure rather than the influence of parents. Many more middle class people are much more affluent then a generation back and youngsters often fall prey to criminal activities just to show off that they are no less then them. I remember an uncovered case of a doctor who dealt with kidney transplants may serve as an illustration of the fact that young people often succeed in finding loopholes in the social system to make a fast buck. I was wondering what could have been the result if similar ingenuity was employed for the advancement of science in the country. Perhaps we would have many more Nobel laureates in our universities. But, then our education system is such, that a student coming out of the school is, more often then not, of a firm belief that science is just a system of laws anf formulas s/he is taught and there is hardly anything left to discover. I know that the hurdles in the path of an emerging scientist are much more. One of them being our lack of self confidence and over confidence on the words of westerners. We tend to believe that unless what we claim is ratified by a foreigner, it is of no value. Being poor generally makes you stronger but it can also break you down and make you lose your confidence. However, if you are well to do and austere then it is much better since you will have the confidence to say to others that you choose to live that way. Virtue is not in saying no to money for good , but to have it and then not need it. Those who have no choice are not living austerely because they are virtuous. The doctor was, of course, making a fast buck, but you can also say that he was giving life to some people, perhaps that is how he was justifying it to himself. I think we blame the education system too much. It has its problems but it also seems to be working fine for a large number of people. We don't do very well in sports either. Perhaps the reason lies in the way our society is organized. As someone correctly said, "our graduates tend to be job seekers and not job creators". For nearly 40 years entrepreneurs were heavily discouraged by the system and most families (other than business families) would tell their kids to get a nice government jobs and settle down. Our parents do not like our individualism, risk taking is largely discouraged from an early age. In some sense middle class is everywhere like this - conservative, but I think in the west individualism is stronger than here. The system too is stronger so if your risk does not pay off, you can still make a decent living. Good

teachers become cynical when they see disinterested students who behave like a cowherd (yes sir, yes mam type) in the class, lacking discipline and initiative. Bad teacher exist in all countries, it is usually one or two good teachers who change your life, Another friend Jasjeet Singh Bagla joined the discussion. He started by saying: Interesting discussion. I think more than the money required to feel happy, there is the issue of the amount of money required to feel secure. In a society with significant inequality, and no assurance of health care and education, opportunities available to people who are not rich enough to be in the top few percent are often limited. This can cause worries even if someone earns just enough to take care of day to day needs. Most people do not wish to act independently and only follow the trends they see in their peer groups. This is the tendency on which capitalists bank when they sell things at exorbitant prices just because of a brand name associated with it. This is also the tendency due to which some truly bizarre traditions survive. If not being able to follow the peer group makes one unhappy then the requirements are often more than what one really needs. It requires considerable (mental) strength to operate outside the peer group, as it can also take away the only support group that you may have. If we were to imagine a society where opportunities, health care, education is available to all without bar. A society where there is no discrimination on the basis of personal wealth at any level. It is only in such a society that people can possibly live with just what they need. But clearly, someone must run the show and no matter how high the level of honesty, corruption and decadence does set in sooner or later. Of course, i have not even discussed that the resources that are required for running the society are finite and there is often competition for that as well. I responded by saying: The point I am trying to make is not that a really poor Indian should not make any effort to improve his/her lot. What i am focusing on is the present generation of university students, who undeniably cannot be termed financially poor in any case. What I am arguing against is the unfettered lust for money that is most often a result of unbridled consumption, rather than a desire for social security. No one can really claim that the present generation is much more socially insecure insecure, at least financially. But, as it has been very rightly observed, people tend to be more often then not get swayed by the peer pressure. Can one resist this pressure?, if yes how? Is it right to be guided by the paradigm of Simple living and high thinking? Bill Allin joined at this point, he said: Wearing my philosopher's hat, I would say that this question either has no answer or it has 6.7 billion answers. The word "comfortably" itself is a descriptor of materialism. In a materialistic society (within a materialistic framework of thought) money is an addiction. The concept of money is an addiction, not just its acquisition, because money becomes the condition or even the parameters around which all other questions are considered. A person is as comfortable or as uncomfortable as he or she wants to be, to allow themselves to be. We

each draw our own lines and boundaries, or we do not and give in to the addictive nature of acquiring and spending money. Most people choose the latter in industrial and post-industrial societies. Within a materialistic framework of thought, it is not possible to have enough money, just as it is not possible for a drug addict to have enough drugs (work with me here because the analogy is not perfect as all addictions are different). Materialistic people always want more. It's not just the nature of materialism, but the line of propaganda that industry preaches and brainwashes people with. We must always want more to prove that we are always getting better. To associate a minimum amount of money with happiness cannot be done. That would suggest that poor people are inherently unhappy and rich people are naturally happy. If anything, the opposite has a better chance of being proven. Happiness is a relatively new human concept/invention. Just as romantic love was a brand new concept when invented by the French (through a new genre of literature) in the early part of the last millennium, happiness has been invented even more recently. My guess would be that its modern meaning is an American invention devised by industry advertising agents. We aren't certain what happiness means. Consequently we find it having an almost endless list of meanings, a characteristic which happiness has in common with love--dictionaries traditionally reserve the most space for the word "love." Advertising attempts (successfully, in my opinion) to make us believe that we will be happy when we buy its products because they will satisfy our needs. These "needs" are often creations of advertisers themselves--such as the need for clear skin or an obsessive desire to never be caught having body odour. Lately, in North America (where I live), we apparently have a need for pearly white teeth. mostly because movie stars have bleached their teeth to attract more attention to themselves in films. Happiness and degree of comfort are matters of individual taste or choice. Those who believe the materialist mantra that more money is always better will never be entirely happy and will never allow themselves to be comfortable. He later added: The amount (and to a lesser extent the nature) of loving touch that a person receives determines how happy they are and how aggressive they are. Touch is a basic human need, as necessary for wellbeing as food. Aggression (including bullying) is exhibited by those who receive too little touch. The happiest people are those who receive an abundant amount of touch from loved ones. Consider the era when England ruled India. The English in India, aristocracy, bureaucrats and military mostly during the Victorian decades, lived in the belief that touch was sinful, morally repugnant. They behaved in ways that Indians found mysterious, not to say unbelievably cruel. In the US today showing people touching on television is considered immoral by some and kissing on the street is offensive to some. Having studied this subject extensively I can say that happiness and aggression are diametric opposites in

terms of human bevaviour, with the location on the scale between the extremes of any one person being determined largely by the amount and nature of touch the person receives (and gives). Giving and receiving of touch are almost the same as we can't give it without receiving it at the same time. But, I tend to disagree with your opinion that happiness is always subjective. I think, most of us are happy/comfortable to enjoy togetherness, are happy to share with those we love and so on. And that's precisely the point i am driving at. If one realizes that the real comfort/happiness lies in sharing and togetherness and the greed to gather more money in search of personal comfort/happiness is reduced quite a bit As with all human values, happiness has some features or characteristics in common among all of us, but other elements that are individual. An ascetic and a BSE trader may both enjoy some kind of happiness, but it would be a stretch to find common elements to their respective happiness. Some degree of self fulfillment, acknowledgement of the value of self and a sense of somehow moving forward might be common elements of happiness.. Unfortunately most people are lazy and tend to follow a herd, after all, there is safety in a herd. If people were a little more individualistic they would choose on the basis of several parameters not just one. Another friend Bill Allin adds: Safety, but also stupidity and lack of life. I wish I could deny the evidence I see every week of how stupid people who have lived their most productive years with a herd mentality have become as they near or pass the age of retirement. The buck-seekers are almost universally bitter about life and how badly fortune has treated them when they"tried so hard!" Other sheep in the herd simply follow the lead goat, never knowing when they will enter the slaughterhouse. But the latter group all take comfort in how safe their lives are. They may no longer be smart enough to think their way past what to do after a big sneeze, but they feel safe. And they detest, vehemently, anyone who challenges their security (or their security blanket). In addition, people often spend a lot of effort for money making, hoping that it will help their sons and daughters get a better education in a prestigious institution, but in the process they are left with little valuable time to spend with them. A large fraction of the science students may have parents who never had a science education or are not perusing a career in science, so they invariably depend on tuitions for success in competitive examinations. But, most often parents learn a bitter lesson when it is too late that their efforts and toiling bore no fruits. Successful people in all walks of life are not those who had very rich parents, but those whose parents had time to guide their wards. I am also reminded of a scene in the film Guru, in which Abhishek Bachchan, playing the role of Guru, said to be on the life of Dhirubhai Ambani, the father of the massive corporate empire now controlled by his two sons Mukesh And Anil (the two richest men in today's India) justifies his unlawful activities in

fron to a commission by taking the example of Mahatma Gandhi, and further adding that he cannot be said to be wrong because his actions had benefited millions of the shareholders of his company. He was just trying to make a place for himself in the society by means recognized by the society, that is by bribing and to blackmail. Despite his almost Midas Touch, Ambani has been known to have flexible values and an unethical streak running through him. His biographer himself has cited some instances of his unethical behavior when he was just an ordinary employee at a petrol pump in Dubai. He has been accused of having manipulated government policies to suit his own needs, and has been known to be a king-maker in government elections . Although most media sources tend to speak out about business-politics nexus, the Ambani house has always enjoyed more protection and shelter from the media storms that sweep across the country. Perhaps Doctor Amit Kumar was just emulating him, and if he was successful for a few years more, who knows he might have established a similar business empire (he still may!) Coming back to my original thoughts, is there a line in the society between unlawful activities and ethically wrong practices. Is it always true Jo jeeta wo Sikandar, Another example that comes to my mind is the fabled Robinhood. Today, i read a very interesting article about money in my morning newspare. It talks about money so perhaps it fits in this thread. Let me quote a small fraction of it. In this a journalist named Santosh Desai TNN wrote: ......money is at once a common language and a shared intensification of desire. Everything is expressed in terms of money and money accesses everything. The closer you get to it, the more incandescent your life, and likelier the possibility of combustion. The Indian view of money is perhaps surprisingly prescient. We have always seen money as something liquid that needed careful watching. In the past, our mental model of money was that of a stagnant pool that always needed to be protected from evaporation, leakage and reckless use. The inflow was limited and the outflow regrettably certain. Except for the trading community, who understood that money generated money, the rest of us saw money as an immobile asset that could only diminish. Our preference for gold is a pointer to the role we saw money playing in our lives. Gold is our hedge against an uncertain tomorrow. Our obsession with bank lockers reveals our strong desire to lock up what little wealth we own. Every month or quarter we go visit the locker to both check if it is all there, as also to bask in the warm glow of the 20 tolas we have hoarded up in some basement of a nationalized bank. We go every month in spite of knowing that the gold is going nowhere because in some irrational corner of our mind, we fear the involuntary leakage of what we have so

painstakingly accumulated. The reason why we resent our bank charging us for specific services is precisely because it confirms this deep-rooted fear of money evaporating by itself. We cannot bear the thought of money declining for whatever reason in a bank. Also, money is believed to possess an inherent power to contaminate. The common belief that relationships sour when money enters the picture is a pointer to the fear of money as a form of acid that eats into all that is healthy and makes everything rancid with greed. Money is seen to possess a hypnotic power that draws people into forsaking things that they otherwise held dear. Think back to any Hindi social film and you find one story told over and over again; of how ideal families get corrupted when the desire for money enters the picture. No hatred exceeds that of families riven by property disputes. And while the Indian relationship with money shushes fascination with fear, it recognizes that money has an inherent nature. The fact that some of the brightest people in the world cannot help but be part of such colossal failures speaks about the potent, almost radioactive force that money is in today's world.... Here's a part of an article that was published in the New Scientist magazine, and fits very well to the subject of this thread Mark Buchanan wrote: .....................................Vohs suggests there is a simple dynamic at work here. "Money makes people feel self-sufficient," she says. "They are more likely to put forth effort to attain personal goals, and they also prefer to be separate from others." The touchy-feely social side of us may disapprove of such behaviour but it is useful for survival. This ability to assess which set of norms applies in a particular situation is important in guiding our behaviour, Ariely says. It allows you to avoid expecting too much trust in the midst of a competitive business negotiation, for example, or making the mistake of offering to pay your mother-in-law after she has cooked you a nice meal. "When we keep social norms and market norms on separate paths, life hums along pretty well," says Ariely. "But when they collide, trouble sets in." The trick is to get the correct balance between these two mindsets. Numerous psychological studies have found a general trade-off between the pursuit of so-called extrinsic aspirations such as wealth, but also fame and image - and intrinsic aspirations, such as building and maintaining strong personal relationships. People who report a focus on the former score low on indicators of mental health, and those strongly motivated by money are also more likely to find their marriage ending in divorce. This is not to say that we shouldn't focus at all on extrinsic aspirations. Everyone needs money for those parts of their lives governed by market norms, and it's well known that financial strain can bring depression, perceived loss of control and reduced life expectancy

Now that the days of easy credit and rampant consumerism appear to be over, for the time being at least, it would be nice to think that we might acquire a more balanced relationship with money. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be that simple. One reason why is exposed by Vohs's latest findings, which reveal another peculiar aspect of our mental relationship with money. In a study to be published soon in the journal Psychological Science, Vohs and psychologists Xinyue Zhou of Sun Yat-Sen University in Guangzhou, China, and Roy Baumeister of Florida State University, Tallahassee, found that people who felt rejected by others, or were subjected to physical pain, were subsequently less likely to give a monetary gift in a game situation. The researchers then went on to show that just handling paper money could reduce the distress associated with social exclusion, and also diminish the physical pain caused by touching very hot water. "Money seems to have symbolic power as a social resource," says Vohs. "It enables people to manipulate the social system to give them what they want, regardless of whether they are liked." Put bluntly, it looks as if money is acting as a surrogate friend. Could that explain why some people focus on extrinsic aspirations at the expense of real social relationships? Psychologists Stephen Lea at the University of Exeter, UK, and Paul Webley at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, have suggested another reason for unhealthy and obsessive attitudes to money. They believe that it acts on our minds rather like an addictive drug, giving it the power to drive some of us to compulsive gambling, overwork or obsessive spending (Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol 29, p 161). "It is an interesting possibility that all these are manifestations of a broader addiction to money," says Lea. Compulsion appears to be a problem for people with several money-related disorders which are increasingly being identified by psychologists (see "Money problems"). ...more Incidentally the article cited above is based on a research report published in the Science magazine published by AAAS. Quote: Kathleen D. Vohs, Nicole L. Mead, and Miranda R. Goode wrote: The Psychological Consequences of Money Money has been said to change people's motivation (mainly for the better) and their behavior toward others (mainly for the worse). The results of nine experiments suggest that money brings about a self-sufficient orientation in which people prefer to be free of dependency and dependents. Reminders of money, relative to non-money reminders, led to reduced requests for help and reduced helpfulness toward others. Relative to participants primed with neutral concepts, participants primed with money preferred to play alone, work alone, and put more physical

distance between themselves and a new acquaintance. People have debated for long the effects of money on human behavior. Some scholars have pointed to its role as an incentive, insofar as people want money in order to trade it for prized goods or services. Others, however, have deplored money for undermining interpersonal harmony. We propose that both outcomes emerge from the same underlying process: Money makes people feel self-sufficient and behave accordingly. In this Report, "money" refers to a distinct entity, a particular economic concept. Consistent with other scholarly uses of the term (1), we use the term money to represent the idea of money, not property or possessions. Our research activates the concept of money through the use of mental priming techniques, which heighten the accessibility of the idea of money but at a level below participants' conscious awareness. Thus, priming acts as a non conscious reminder of the concept of money. We tested whether activating the concept of money leads people to behave self-sufficiently, which we define as an insulated state wherein people put forth effort to attain personal goals and prefer to be separate from others. The term as we define it does not imply a value judgment and encompasses a mixture of desirable and undesirable qualities, which may help explain the positive and negative consequences of money. The self-sufficiency hypothesis encapsulates findings from extant research on money. If money brings about a state of self-sufficiency, then a lack of money should make people feel ineffectual. Previous research indicates that physical and mental illness after financial strain due to job loss is statistically mediated by reduced feelings of personal control . A recent theory by Lea and Webley, which characterizes money as both a tool and a drug, emphasizes that people value money for its instrumentality: Money enables people to achieve goals without aid from others. Therefore, we predicted that reminders of money would lead to changes in behavior that suggest a feeling of self-sufficiency. When reminded of money, people would want to be free from dependency and would also prefer that others not depend on them. I also quoted from an article published in the local news paper and authored by the famed spiritual Guru Si Sri Ravishankar who once said: Money gives one a sense of freedom and ownership. We believe that with money we can own anything, that we can put a price tag on anybodys services. Ownership of something means total control of its existence. When we buy a piece of land, we feel that we own it, although the land continues to exist even after the owner is no more. How can we own something that outlives us? Money also gives the idea that we are powerful and independent, blinding us to the fact that we live in a world of interdependence. We depend on farmers, cooks, drivers and the services of so many people around us. Even an expert surgeon cannot operate by herself. She depends on others. Because we pay for their services, we overlook the fact that we depend on them.

If we look at why most people with money are arrogant we will find it is because of the feeling of independence that money brings. The awareness of dependence on the other hand makes one humble. The basic human quality of humility is taken away by a false feeling of independence. Can money really reflect the worth of a person? We cannot put a value to human life. Wealth can be attained through ones skills, abilities, inheritance, or through corrupt means. The means of attaining wealth brings its own consequences. The very motive for corruption is peace and happiness. Yet peace and happiness remain elusive when the means are corrupt. As possession of money creates the illusion of independence, money is often referred to as maya. A Sanskrit phrase sums it up: Miyate anaya iti maya that which can be measured is maya. On the other hand, some people blame money for all the ills in society. There are others who even consider it an evil. Just as possessing money brings arrogance, rejecting it too makes one arrogant. Some people who renounce money take pride in their poverty to draw attention and sympathy. However, ancient sages honored money or maya as a part of the divine and transcended the grip of its illusion. They knew that when we reject or hate something, we can never transcend it. The world is of change; the Self is of non-change. We have to rely on the non-change and accept the change. This is like perceiving the real as unreal and unreal as real. In fact, all miseries are unreal. A wise man knows that happiness is real, as it is our very nature. Unhappiness is unreal because it is inflicted by memory. When we see everything as a dream, then we abide in our true nature love, joy and peace. We then understand that money is not all-important. Values, sense of belonging, love and care are more important. Rakesh Mohan Hallen