The price not nice
The 512 mb Ipod Shuffle 512 mb retails for $99 (approx. Rs 4500). But in India, it's being launched at the ridiculous price of Rs 8500 (Rs 12,400 for the 1 gb version).
I'd be surprised if they sell more than a few hundred units. Every iPod desiring young person in India will ask his or her friend/ sister/ uncle to get it from the US or Malaysia or Dubai.
It's the principle of the thing. Maybe the company has to pay heavy imports duties but that's their problem. WHY should we as consumers pay double the global price?
As long as such price differentials continue, sales of tech toys will never really go mass. It's the same story with digital cameras bought from official Sony showrooms in India. There's more than a 50% mark up on the Singapore price.
So yes, one can go to a grey market and buy for a little cheaper but that's something for the hard core enthusiast. To create desire for a product among the aam junta (regular folks) - it has to be seen everywhere. At your neighbourhood electronics walla, the local shopping mall, at dedicated shopping centres.
First, create tech lust
My first experience of a First World electronics bazaar was the Palika Bazaar in Delhi long back in 1994 - shop after multi storeyed shops devoted to computers, peripherals, digital equipment of every shape and size. You could touch and feel and shop around for deals. I was blown away.
Bangalore's Chinese underground IT mall is another mindboggler. And recently I was in Chennai's T Nagar grey market - messier and more chaotic than Bangalore - but equally well stocked and bursting with goodies and gizmos. You spend the first two hours just looking.
Optical mice overflow from wicker baskets, the way you see aloos and gobis in India. There are a hundred brands of bluetooth connectors and RS MMC cards and some mind blowing (and really cheap) life size speakers you can attach to your PC for true 4 channel surround sound.
So you go there with one thing in mind (I was just window shopping) but end up buying two more. I'd only vaguely heard of the product and never thought I needed or wanted one. But seeing it in shop after shop piqued my curiosity. The demo was convincing, and the price a reasonable Rs 2500.
OK, so it wasn't a famous brand (those were abt Rs 4500) but I'm satisfied. The unsung Taiwanese brand works fine - and feels good for the price.
The point is, I'm not a hard core techie. And there are many many more potential customers like me. People who don't actively seek out new technology by reading reviews on cnet or subscribing to Chip/ Digit. But given enough exposure to tech toys and the opportunity to browse through them, to actually see what they can do - we too can start lusting.
Show us the goodies!
It's happened in this country with mobile phones - it can happen with other technologies. But companies and retailers have to invest in growing the market. In educating consumers - not just the geek population. And there must be a range of prices and brands available - for every kind of budget and in many, many locations.
Only then will tech buys rightfully be able to compete with clothing, entertainment and all the other staple purchase decisions in a young person's life.
The Walkman was a necessary accessory for students commuting to and fro from college. It was swept away by inexpensive FM 'stick' radios. But the sticks fell out of favour once every panwallah and chaiwallah bought one too and now cellphones with FM radio function rule.
The age of IPod? Not yet for India. And not ever, unless better marketing sense prevails.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Mobile phones : The not-so silent revolution
A cellphone rings in a crowded place, and a dozen hands reach out for the hip pocket. Hard to believe, but it wasn't always like this.
Just three short years ago, cellphones were still objects of desire for the young. Now, just about every 16 year old seems to have one. What happened? Leave alone the toddlers, practically every Raddi wala, sweeper, peon, chai wala, cycle riksha wala and thela wala et cetra flaunt one these days.
Several things. Phone companies realised that latching onto the youth was the key to growing the subscriber base. Affordable prepaid cards were pushed aggressively, no thanks to competition from Reliance CDMA.
Rs 330 ($7.50) - which is the minimum monthly prepaid card- is no big deal for a working young adult. Or even the student with a part time job. But there's still a large population of teens entirely funded by parents. And Rs 7000 or $ 160 a year (taking into account airtime charges + a basic Rs 3000 handset) is money a middle class Indian householder usually thinks twice about.
So, how did a non essential expense suddenly become so much a part of life?
A conversation between parent and teen a couple of years ago would go something like this:
Teen: Mom, I need a cellphone.
Mom: I don't think so.
Teen: But Aparna has one
Mom: Aparna is a spoilt brat.
Teen: You have an excuse for everything.
Mom: Look I'll think about it, maybe next year.
Then, parent bumps into Aparna's mother at a mandir and there is a conversation about how there is 'so much peace of mind' now that beti (daughter) has a cellphone. "You know, it's so essential these days in case of an emergency. And so many times children get late from tuitions..."
Aha. There is now a perfectly rational reason to buy your kid a cellphone - without seeming like an over-indulgent parent or one who succumbed to peer pressure. It's not a luxury but a necessity.
The paradox of technology
Parents may feel a sense of security in knowing 'where their kids are', but the truth is - they have less idea than ever before. In simpler times, when you went to a friend's house for a sleepover aka night study, you left your friend's telephone number behind.
In the cellphone era there's no way to tell where you really are. And when you don't want to be reached, you can always claim the signal was weak or you are out of network coverage. I'm not saying all teens use the cellphone to deceive their parents but many sure do.
Further, there is unprecedented privacy for the young person - especially girls from less liberal backgrounds. No longer can paranoid pappas vet all incoming calls and ask to know why such and such boy keeps calling.
The balance of power has shifted. Calls can be received after midnight on silent mode, with nobody the wiser for it.
It's happened before
Remember computers? Every parent thought he was investing in an important educational tool for his kid. The 'education' bit is true to the extent that merely being habituated to using a computer is an important skill in the job market today. But beyond that, were kids using the computer for essential school projects? Or was it primarily for internet surfing, email, chat, gaming - even accessing porn.
It took a combination of peer pressure ('everyone has one so my Raju should too') and rational argument (after all it is educational) which led to the computer becoming a fixture in every upper middle class household. And of course the drop in prices of computers/ availability of financing was another welcome factor.
I think this is a pattern now being seen in digicams. The average home user shoots 3-4 rolls a year which costs about Rs 1000 in film and processing charges. It will take a decade to recover the Rs 10,000 invested in the digital camera.
Yet, the purchase is usually justified by saying digicams are 'economical' to use - instead of outright admitting I-want-to-have-it-coz-its-so-cool.
Conclusion: If you're looking at the teen market - don't forget the parent. The right mix of (perceived) utility and value pricing is key to a new technology taking off in a big way.
Once the teen is a young adult with an independent income you can hope to sell the feature-rich, status-heavy stuff. But don't bet on it. There's a calculator of cost vs benefit still ticking away in the average Indian brain...
Just three short years ago, cellphones were still objects of desire for the young. Now, just about every 16 year old seems to have one. What happened? Leave alone the toddlers, practically every Raddi wala, sweeper, peon, chai wala, cycle riksha wala and thela wala et cetra flaunt one these days.
Several things. Phone companies realised that latching onto the youth was the key to growing the subscriber base. Affordable prepaid cards were pushed aggressively, no thanks to competition from Reliance CDMA.
Rs 330 ($7.50) - which is the minimum monthly prepaid card- is no big deal for a working young adult. Or even the student with a part time job. But there's still a large population of teens entirely funded by parents. And Rs 7000 or $ 160 a year (taking into account airtime charges + a basic Rs 3000 handset) is money a middle class Indian householder usually thinks twice about.
So, how did a non essential expense suddenly become so much a part of life?
A conversation between parent and teen a couple of years ago would go something like this:
Teen: Mom, I need a cellphone.
Mom: I don't think so.
Teen: But Aparna has one
Mom: Aparna is a spoilt brat.
Teen: You have an excuse for everything.
Mom: Look I'll think about it, maybe next year.
Then, parent bumps into Aparna's mother at a mandir and there is a conversation about how there is 'so much peace of mind' now that beti (daughter) has a cellphone. "You know, it's so essential these days in case of an emergency. And so many times children get late from tuitions..."
Aha. There is now a perfectly rational reason to buy your kid a cellphone - without seeming like an over-indulgent parent or one who succumbed to peer pressure. It's not a luxury but a necessity.
The paradox of technology
Parents may feel a sense of security in knowing 'where their kids are', but the truth is - they have less idea than ever before. In simpler times, when you went to a friend's house for a sleepover aka night study, you left your friend's telephone number behind.
In the cellphone era there's no way to tell where you really are. And when you don't want to be reached, you can always claim the signal was weak or you are out of network coverage. I'm not saying all teens use the cellphone to deceive their parents but many sure do.
Further, there is unprecedented privacy for the young person - especially girls from less liberal backgrounds. No longer can paranoid pappas vet all incoming calls and ask to know why such and such boy keeps calling.
The balance of power has shifted. Calls can be received after midnight on silent mode, with nobody the wiser for it.
It's happened before
Remember computers? Every parent thought he was investing in an important educational tool for his kid. The 'education' bit is true to the extent that merely being habituated to using a computer is an important skill in the job market today. But beyond that, were kids using the computer for essential school projects? Or was it primarily for internet surfing, email, chat, gaming - even accessing porn.
It took a combination of peer pressure ('everyone has one so my Raju should too') and rational argument (after all it is educational) which led to the computer becoming a fixture in every upper middle class household. And of course the drop in prices of computers/ availability of financing was another welcome factor.
I think this is a pattern now being seen in digicams. The average home user shoots 3-4 rolls a year which costs about Rs 1000 in film and processing charges. It will take a decade to recover the Rs 10,000 invested in the digital camera.
Yet, the purchase is usually justified by saying digicams are 'economical' to use - instead of outright admitting I-want-to-have-it-coz-its-so-cool.
Conclusion: If you're looking at the teen market - don't forget the parent. The right mix of (perceived) utility and value pricing is key to a new technology taking off in a big way.
Once the teen is a young adult with an independent income you can hope to sell the feature-rich, status-heavy stuff. But don't bet on it. There's a calculator of cost vs benefit still ticking away in the average Indian brain...
Life and Death
48 hours after she was found hanging from her ceiling, news channels were still speculating,"Who killed Viveka Babajee???!!!"
Me thinks the frisson of excitement was for two reasons:
* The victim was a model, in fact she was the KS model. So, enough pretty pictures and ramp walking sequences to make bad news look kind of good. Which matters a great deal on television.
Plus, her friends are models, so a chance to beam more pretty faces - all of whom declare she was wonderful and strong and they are shocked. But not shocked enough to appear on TV teary-eyed, or without make-up.
* Dozens of people kill themselves everyday - who cares. But if someone who is beautiful, successful, rich and famous kills themselves... ouch! That means the majority of human beings - average-looking, unknown, living anywhere, with a range of problems and disappointing issues - what hope do they have?
So - accept your Fate. Nobody is happy, samjhe?
The other aspect of this story I find sad is the glee with which anchors and columnists were placing the blame on a 'string of unhappy relationships'. That the break-up with the latest guy in her life was the straw that broke her back.
Okay. This line of thought assumes that people who get married to their boyfriends will definitely be happy and never think about killing themselves.
Let me give you a (completely imaginary but plausible) scenario B.
Ex-model marries stockbroker boyfriend.
They quickly discover, we are not 'made for each other'.
Husband sleeps around (openly).
Wife sleeps around (discreetly).
The two rage and sulk, fight and argue.
Every day, every night...
Two things can happen:
* The couple separates
* The couple sticks on
The second scenario is more likely if a child has been born. You see, the child needs a 'family' (at least in the photo album).
The woman adjusts to the 'benefits' that come with the tag of being Mrs XYZ. Bangla, gaadi, spending money she doesn't have to earn.
The man also enjoys his perks. After all, someone has to manage dhobi, cook, 'bring up' the children and keep elders happy (chalo, finally dikra settle toh ho gaya).
And so Boy and Girl stay together - for reasons of lifestyle, for convenience and for social status. There is no 'love', no real sharing or companionship. But why kill yourself over it?
You are already a part of the 'Living Dead'.
Me thinks the frisson of excitement was for two reasons:
* The victim was a model, in fact she was the KS model. So, enough pretty pictures and ramp walking sequences to make bad news look kind of good. Which matters a great deal on television.
Plus, her friends are models, so a chance to beam more pretty faces - all of whom declare she was wonderful and strong and they are shocked. But not shocked enough to appear on TV teary-eyed, or without make-up.
* Dozens of people kill themselves everyday - who cares. But if someone who is beautiful, successful, rich and famous kills themselves... ouch! That means the majority of human beings - average-looking, unknown, living anywhere, with a range of problems and disappointing issues - what hope do they have?
So - accept your Fate. Nobody is happy, samjhe?
The other aspect of this story I find sad is the glee with which anchors and columnists were placing the blame on a 'string of unhappy relationships'. That the break-up with the latest guy in her life was the straw that broke her back.
Okay. This line of thought assumes that people who get married to their boyfriends will definitely be happy and never think about killing themselves.
Let me give you a (completely imaginary but plausible) scenario B.
Ex-model marries stockbroker boyfriend.
They quickly discover, we are not 'made for each other'.
Husband sleeps around (openly).
Wife sleeps around (discreetly).
The two rage and sulk, fight and argue.
Every day, every night...
Two things can happen:
* The couple separates
* The couple sticks on
The second scenario is more likely if a child has been born. You see, the child needs a 'family' (at least in the photo album).
The woman adjusts to the 'benefits' that come with the tag of being Mrs XYZ. Bangla, gaadi, spending money she doesn't have to earn.
The man also enjoys his perks. After all, someone has to manage dhobi, cook, 'bring up' the children and keep elders happy (chalo, finally dikra settle toh ho gaya).
And so Boy and Girl stay together - for reasons of lifestyle, for convenience and for social status. There is no 'love', no real sharing or companionship. But why kill yourself over it?
You are already a part of the 'Living Dead'.
The new world order
Once upon a time I tried to make sense of my virtual life. I thought 'Linkedin' would take care of my professional networking. And 'Orkut' would be for family and friends.
And yeah, 'Orkut' was for fans and readers of my postings and scraps etc. Coz orkut was THE youth site.
But times change, and with that, so must I. Orkut is dying, LinkedIn has added Facebook features. The fact is, today, FB is king.
One of the reasons I wanted to keep Facebook 'personal' was that, well, I wanted to have some privacy. But the fact is, FB isn't private. The 'friends' I have added are close and personal acquaintances, people with whom I shared oxygen with my whole life till now. Lots of shared memories, closeness and experiences as such.
Well the fact is you can visit people whom you are completely unknown to and of course, people you are known to. Kai to pehchaan mein bhi nahin aatey (minus braces, spectacles and chotis - all for the better :)
If these distant acquaintances can be my friends, so can the folks who have been with me at any given point of time in my life till now.
Of course, I can start a separate 'fanpage'. But managing multiple websites, blogs, accounts, identities - is all very taxing. I know some people employ 'managers' for all this but the reason people want to be your 'friend' is to have a sense of personal contact.
So even if I log in only from time to time, whenever I do reply or respond or update my status... You know it's 'me' speaking.
Its like welcoming all people acquainted and those who are not, in a new world order where we can have a social group of more than 150. Yes, we may not have a deep relationship but the possibility of us getting to know each other better now exists.
And I look forward to it.
Last but not the least, I must mention the character who introduced himself as 'The Great Indian Gigolo' and explained in his message that he 'cannot CUM online very often'.
No, I am not adding him but hey, it's a free world. Everyone is discovering the power of 'social media marketing'. Bet we'll see him quoted by some journalist out there... very soon!
And yeah, 'Orkut' was for fans and readers of my postings and scraps etc. Coz orkut was THE youth site.
But times change, and with that, so must I. Orkut is dying, LinkedIn has added Facebook features. The fact is, today, FB is king.
One of the reasons I wanted to keep Facebook 'personal' was that, well, I wanted to have some privacy. But the fact is, FB isn't private. The 'friends' I have added are close and personal acquaintances, people with whom I shared oxygen with my whole life till now. Lots of shared memories, closeness and experiences as such.
Well the fact is you can visit people whom you are completely unknown to and of course, people you are known to. Kai to pehchaan mein bhi nahin aatey (minus braces, spectacles and chotis - all for the better :)
If these distant acquaintances can be my friends, so can the folks who have been with me at any given point of time in my life till now.
Of course, I can start a separate 'fanpage'. But managing multiple websites, blogs, accounts, identities - is all very taxing. I know some people employ 'managers' for all this but the reason people want to be your 'friend' is to have a sense of personal contact.
So even if I log in only from time to time, whenever I do reply or respond or update my status... You know it's 'me' speaking.
Its like welcoming all people acquainted and those who are not, in a new world order where we can have a social group of more than 150. Yes, we may not have a deep relationship but the possibility of us getting to know each other better now exists.
And I look forward to it.
Last but not the least, I must mention the character who introduced himself as 'The Great Indian Gigolo' and explained in his message that he 'cannot CUM online very often'.
No, I am not adding him but hey, it's a free world. Everyone is discovering the power of 'social media marketing'. Bet we'll see him quoted by some journalist out there... very soon!
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Lipstick jungle
A couple of days ago I caught an article about the show on Zee Studio called '15 Hottest Hollywood Moms'.
The list includes the likes of Julia Roberts, Gwyneth Paltrow and Madonna. All of these women earn between $10 and $20 million a year and manage their mommy lives with a retinue of nannies, cooks, drivers and maids - the best money can buy.
But equally interesting is how they earned their money. By acting in just one or two major films, and committing to a couple of big brand endorsements. The really smart ones continue to earn royalties for work done years ago (like Julia - for Pretty Woman). Or they produce films which earn them a share in the profits.
The common thread running through their lives is this: control over what they do, and when they do it. Their schedule works for them, not against them.
If an actress with young children has to shoot for a film, she takes her kids and nanny along. It's perfectly acceptable; it's the way the industry works. And nobody bats an eyelid.
Let's, for a moment imagine the same scenario in another industry. You can't, can you? Two reasons.
A woman in her 20s or early 30s, with young children, cannot afford the same kind of support staff as a movie star. (Although in the Indian context, that's not strictly true). The second and more important reason, however, is this: "It's just not done".
A star can have it her way, because she is a star. Whereas a junior or mid level executive is... just an employee. Important, but not irreplaceable. The system will not bend to her needs, she must bend to the System.
When she bends upto the breaking point, the employee makes the only choice she can: which is to drop out of the System.
These thoughts come to mind as I read that IIM Kozhikode has achieved a new record by taking in 30% female candidates into its flagship PGP program. That's all very good but ten years from now, when these women are facing the questions of job vs motherhood, career vs family, will the answers be any different?
I really don't think so.
The class of 1993 at IIM Ahmedabad had a record 30 girls (in a batch of 180). Double the number of girls from the year before. At the time, we graduated with stars in our eyes and the conviction that we could conquer the world. But, most of us were conquered by the challenges of motherhood.
A good number of women are working, but few, if any, upto full potential. Or with complete focus. They follow their husbands when they are transferred. Look for part-time jobs even after the baby starts school. Say no to jobs which require too much travel.
Because. It keeps life more simple and manageable.
Oh, so you women have no *ambition*? Well, it's not quite like that. Women do have ambition, they dream of a life where they can have it all.
A stimulating job, which makes the best use of their education and talents.
A wonderful home and a warm, loving family.
Time for exercise, reading, friends and daily schedules.
However, Murphy's laws for mothers decrees that a woman can have any two of the above. At best. So, make a choice - and hurry it up! There's a kid with homework waiting....
If you're a young woman in her 20s or early 30s reading this, I bet you are depressed by now. Well, don't be. My objective is not to just state the obvious, to lament the status quo. There are solutions.
The first thing to accept, very early, is that you will not have the same career path as a man, the linear A to B, B to C, management trainee to CEO.
Let's say you start working at 24, and plan to have your first child by age 32. That gives you 8 years in which to build your *star* value. To become more than just another employee to your company or organisation.
Enter baby.
Now, if you have successfully built up your brand value, one of two things can happen:
* You and your boss sit down together and create an arrangement that works for both of you.
It's possible, though rare, so you need a Plan B to fall back upon. Which is...
* You take your knowledge, expertise and network and use it to become self employed.
Meaning, from an employee you become an independent consultant. Or a 'freelancer'. Or 'a service provider'. Which is as difficult as it sounds. What you're selling is your skill, and that does not require investment.
All you need is *one* person who believes in you. For whom you do the job so well, that they recommend you to another person. And thus the cycle continues.
As you get better - and better known - for the work you do, you will be able to charge more for it. Earn as much or more than in a regular job. And, do it all, on your terms.
If it means taking along your children and their nanny - while you speak at a conference - so be it. That's what Julia Roberts would do, without any hesitation.
Be the star of your own life. Bask in the glow of the spotlight instead of lurking in the shadows of narrowly defined success.
Because you're worth it, and that's not just an advertising slogan.
You truly deserve to have it *all* and the sooner you get on the zig-zag path, the faster you'll get there!
The list includes the likes of Julia Roberts, Gwyneth Paltrow and Madonna. All of these women earn between $10 and $20 million a year and manage their mommy lives with a retinue of nannies, cooks, drivers and maids - the best money can buy.
But equally interesting is how they earned their money. By acting in just one or two major films, and committing to a couple of big brand endorsements. The really smart ones continue to earn royalties for work done years ago (like Julia - for Pretty Woman). Or they produce films which earn them a share in the profits.
The common thread running through their lives is this: control over what they do, and when they do it. Their schedule works for them, not against them.
If an actress with young children has to shoot for a film, she takes her kids and nanny along. It's perfectly acceptable; it's the way the industry works. And nobody bats an eyelid.
Let's, for a moment imagine the same scenario in another industry. You can't, can you? Two reasons.
A woman in her 20s or early 30s, with young children, cannot afford the same kind of support staff as a movie star. (Although in the Indian context, that's not strictly true). The second and more important reason, however, is this: "It's just not done".
A star can have it her way, because she is a star. Whereas a junior or mid level executive is... just an employee. Important, but not irreplaceable. The system will not bend to her needs, she must bend to the System.
When she bends upto the breaking point, the employee makes the only choice she can: which is to drop out of the System.
These thoughts come to mind as I read that IIM Kozhikode has achieved a new record by taking in 30% female candidates into its flagship PGP program. That's all very good but ten years from now, when these women are facing the questions of job vs motherhood, career vs family, will the answers be any different?
I really don't think so.
The class of 1993 at IIM Ahmedabad had a record 30 girls (in a batch of 180). Double the number of girls from the year before. At the time, we graduated with stars in our eyes and the conviction that we could conquer the world. But, most of us were conquered by the challenges of motherhood.
A good number of women are working, but few, if any, upto full potential. Or with complete focus. They follow their husbands when they are transferred. Look for part-time jobs even after the baby starts school. Say no to jobs which require too much travel.
Because. It keeps life more simple and manageable.
Oh, so you women have no *ambition*? Well, it's not quite like that. Women do have ambition, they dream of a life where they can have it all.
A stimulating job, which makes the best use of their education and talents.
A wonderful home and a warm, loving family.
Time for exercise, reading, friends and daily schedules.
However, Murphy's laws for mothers decrees that a woman can have any two of the above. At best. So, make a choice - and hurry it up! There's a kid with homework waiting....
If you're a young woman in her 20s or early 30s reading this, I bet you are depressed by now. Well, don't be. My objective is not to just state the obvious, to lament the status quo. There are solutions.
The first thing to accept, very early, is that you will not have the same career path as a man, the linear A to B, B to C, management trainee to CEO.
Let's say you start working at 24, and plan to have your first child by age 32. That gives you 8 years in which to build your *star* value. To become more than just another employee to your company or organisation.
Enter baby.
Now, if you have successfully built up your brand value, one of two things can happen:
* You and your boss sit down together and create an arrangement that works for both of you.
It's possible, though rare, so you need a Plan B to fall back upon. Which is...
* You take your knowledge, expertise and network and use it to become self employed.
Meaning, from an employee you become an independent consultant. Or a 'freelancer'. Or 'a service provider'. Which is as difficult as it sounds. What you're selling is your skill, and that does not require investment.
All you need is *one* person who believes in you. For whom you do the job so well, that they recommend you to another person. And thus the cycle continues.
As you get better - and better known - for the work you do, you will be able to charge more for it. Earn as much or more than in a regular job. And, do it all, on your terms.
If it means taking along your children and their nanny - while you speak at a conference - so be it. That's what Julia Roberts would do, without any hesitation.
Be the star of your own life. Bask in the glow of the spotlight instead of lurking in the shadows of narrowly defined success.
Because you're worth it, and that's not just an advertising slogan.
You truly deserve to have it *all* and the sooner you get on the zig-zag path, the faster you'll get there!
Gigantic faith
Welcome to Puducherry 2
This is the reception in one of the Achariya colleges - the Achariya Arts & Science College, Villianur (Pondy). Now at the base is a pocket sort of filled with water and fresh flowers as its a welcome symbol to be found everywhere in Pondy. At the center of India is the symbol of the Mother. Now she is a very famous personality in Pondy. As legend says she was Mirra Alfassa who was born in Paris on 21 February, 1878.
At the age of thirty-six the Mother journeyed to Pondicherry, India, to meet Sri Aurobindo. She saw him on 29 March 1914 and at once recognized him as the one who for many years had inwardly been guiding her spiritual development. Staying for eleven months, she was obliged to return to France because of the First World War. She lived in France for about a year and then in Japan for almost four years. On 24 April 1920 she returned to Pondicherry to resume her collaboration with Sri Aurobindo, and remained here for the rest of her life.
At that time a small group of disciples had gathered around Sri Aurobindo. The increase of disciples led to the founding of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram on the 24th Nov, 1926. From the beginning Sri Aurobindo entrusted the Mother with full material and spiritual charge of the Ashram. After almost 50 years of work at every level, the Mother left her body on 17th Nov. 1973, at the age of ninety five.
Invariably every shop, house, firm, factory, school and college sport a photograph of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. They are considered to be the spiritual leaders and path showers to everyone residing in Pondy.
So that was the trivia on them. Will be posting more of that and many more in the future blogs. Keep tuned..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)