2020 Men Of The Year: Galwan Valley Martyrs

# For making the ultimate sacrifice for the Motherland

# For defending the Motherland till their last breath

# For their fearlessness in the face of an evil enemy

# For reminding us that our freedom is not free

The 20 martyrs of the Galwan Valley Battle are 2020's Men Of The Year . . .

Mistakes Are Good

Everybody says "Make mistakes - but don't repeat your mistakes". This advice is well-intentioned, but it is wrong - both logically and practically:

1. Logically - There is no need to say "Don't repeat your mistakes". Who repeats their mistakes? Nobody does - because the human brain is built and programmed to learn from its mistakes. And in case somebody 'repeats' his/her mistake, it only means that the original learning was not enough - because the original mistake was not big enough; so a 'repetition' is needed.

2. Practically - If we keep saying "Don't repeat your mistakes", then people make it as their rule #1. And what is the best way to avoid repeating mistakes? Simple: Don't make any mistakes at all - ie, play safe and don't take any risks. So "Don't repeat your mistakes" practically becomes "Don't make any mistakes".

So instead of saying the well-intentioned but completely wrong "Make mistakes - but don't repeat your mistakes", we should simply say "Mistakes are good".

Obsolete Managers: Flat Vs Hierarchical Organisation

Let:
N = Number of levels in an organisation
a = Entry-level age (years)
A = Retirement age (years)
T = Number of years (on average) to move from one level to the next level
Then T = (A - a)/N
Usually a = 25 and A = 60. So T = 35/N. More generally, T is inversely proportional to N.

Let P(Obs) = Probability of the managers' knowledge about the core-work becoming obsolete. Then P(Obs) is proportional to T. So P(Obs) is inversely proportional to N. In a flat organisation, N is low - so P(Obs) is high. In a hierarchical organisation, N is high - so P(Obs) is low. The conventional view is that a flat organisation is good and a hierarchical organisation is bad. But from the point-of-view of the managers becoming obsolete, hierarchical organisations are superior to flat organisations.

Why Managers Are Obsolete

WHY MANAGERS ARE OBSOLETE

An organisation is like a pyramid:
1. It consists of different levels.
2. People at different levels do different types of work.
Specifically:
3. The people at the bottom do the core-work of the organisation.
4. The job of the people at the top is to help/support the bottom-people.
The top-people have moved to the top from the bottom. That is: earlier they were at the bottom – and were doing the core-work of the organisation.

In a static/unchanging world, this model would be perfect:
1. People start at the bottom doing the core-work.
2. As time passes, they move up to the top-levels.
3. They have experience/knowledge about the core-work.
4. With this experience/knowledge, they help/support the bottom-people.
But the problem is the 21st century world is not a static/unchanging world – it is a dynamic/fast-changing world. And how we do a work is a function of the world/environment. So when the environment changes, how we do a work also changes.

Thus some time after the bottom-people move to the top (and become top-people), the technology/environment changes – and the top-people's knowledge/experience about the core-work becomes obsolete. They know about doing the core-work when the technology/environment was in its previous state. But they do not know anything about doing the core-work NOW – when the technology/environment is in a completely new state. But still, they keep giving orders to the bottom-people – who actually know how to do the core-work NOW (with the technology/environment in its current state).

Therefore managers (top-people) are inherently obsolete. And the traditional management model / organisation structure is also inherently obsolete.

Laws Of System Complexity, Output Quality, Environment Dynamism And Operating Intelligence

LAWS OF SYSTEMS

1. Law of system complexity and operating intelligence:
The intelligence required to run a system is proportional to the system's complexity.

2. Law of system complexity and output quality:
For a given level of intelligence of the people running a system, the quality of the system's output is inversely proportional to the system's complexity.

3. Law of environment dynamism and operating intelligence:
The intelligence required to run a system is proportional to the dynamism of the system's environment.

4. Law of environment dynamism and output quality:
For a given level of intelligence of the people running a system, the quality of the system's output is inversely proportional to the dynamism of the system's environment.

Pranab Mukherjee: The Last Liberal

Which was the defining point of Pranab Mukherjee's long and illustrious political career?
A. 31 Oct 1984 – Congress Party made Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister, pushing aside its senior-most leader Pranab-ji
B. 22 May 2004 – Sonia Gandhi made Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, pushing aside their senior-most leader Pranab-ji
C. 25 Jul 2012 – Pranab-ji became the 13th President of India, the highest office of our Republic
D. 7 Jun 2018 – Pranab-ji attended the valedictory function of RSS's training camp at its Nagpur headquarters
Cynics will say A and B. Most people will say C. But for me, it was D.

Liberals see and treat the RSS as an untouchable Hindu fascist organisation. Yet Pranab Mukherjee, who had occupied the highest office of our Republic and was fully aware of its sanctity, attended the RSS's most important annual event as its Chief Guest. Why? Because he knew that in a society, people will have different viewpoints and the only way to run a society is to be open-minded and try to understand other viewpoints. In that sense, he was a true liberal – an open-minded man who engaged constructively with people he disagreed with. In fact, he was India's last liberal – and the people who call themselves liberals can definitely learn a thing or two from him.

A great son of Mother India has left us. May God give strength to his family . . .

Congress Party And JEE/NEET Exams

Last month, 20+ senior leaders of the Congress Party wrote a detailed letter to Sonia Gandhi demanding a complete revamp of the party – which would end the Nehru dynasty's control of the party. This Monday, the Congress Working Committee held its meeting to discuss the letter. Sonia Gandhi started the meeting by asking the CWC to relieve her of her responsibilities. Immediately, loyalists of the Dynasty denounced the letter and declared their loyalty to the Dynasty. The dissenters were outnumbered and the CWC passed a resolution condemning the letter and praising the Dynasty.

When the letter was written, most of the pro-Congress English media rightly saw it as a possible beginning of the Congress Party's revival – and enthusiastically supported the letter. And when the Congress Working Committee torpedoed the initiative, they were furious and produced a flood of reports and analyses criticising the Dynasty. So this week has been full of negative headlines for the Dynasty. This was unacceptable to Sonia Gandhi – and she had to do something to stop this.

But how? Simple: The JEE/NEET exams are starting on September 1. So she called a meeting of all the Congress Chief Ministers and ordered them to oppose the exams. She also ordered the Congress Party to carry out protests all over the country against the exams. Result: Now everybody has forgotten about the rebellious letter and the CWC meeting farce – so her plan has succeeded brilliantly.

Moral of the story: Modi-Shah may be 'Chanakya' – but they have ruled the country for only 6 years. Remember that Sonia Gandhi ruled the country for 10 years . . .

India's Cities And City-Governments

INDIA'S CITIES AND CITY-GOVERNMENTS

In the 21st century, the most important socio-economic unit of a country is the city. Cities are the centres of wealth-creation and job-creation. So an efficient political system must be based on this fundamental reality. That means a city-based political system - in which city-governments have all the powers necessary to manage their cities efficiently. But currently we have a feudal/medieval political system - in which city-governments are under the control of the state-government. And the inefficiency of this system has been completely exposed by the ongoing Covid-19 crisis.

Every city has its own resources and capabilities on the one hand - and its own problems and challenges on the other hand. So cities must use their resources and capabilities to deal with their problems and challenges. City-governments can do this if:

1. They have full powers

2. They are directly elected by the city's people

3. They are answerable to the city's people.

They cannot do this if:

1. They have limited powers

2. They are indirectly elected by the city's people

3. They are not answerable to the city's people

Which is the case now.

Fully empowered city-governments will manage our cities efficiently, create jobs and remove poverty. As long as we continue with our current 2-level government system (centre + states) we will remain a third world country. To become a superpower, we must change to a 3-level government system (centre + states + cities).

Economic System: Efficiency And Equality

A good economic system has two features: efficiency and equality. How to achieve this?

From Hal Varian's 'Microeconomics' (2010):

The Second Theorem of Welfare Economics asserts that under certain conditions, every Pareto efficient allocation can be achieved as a competitive equilibrium.

What is the meaning of this result? The Second Welfare Theorem implies that the problems of distribution and efficiency can be separated. Whatever Pareto efficient allocation you want can be supported by the market mechanism. The market mechanism is distributionally neutral. Whatever your criteria for a good or a just distribution of welfare, you can use competitive markets to achieve it.

Prices play two roles in the market system: an allocative role and a distributive role. The allocative role of prices is to indicate relative scarcity; the distributive role is to determine how much of different goods different agents can purchase. The Second Welfare Theorem says that these two roles can be separated: we can redistribute endowments of goods to determine how much wealth agents have, and then use prices to indicate relative scarcity.

Policy discussions often become confused on this point. One often hears arguments for intervening in pricing decisions on grounds of distributional equity. However, such intervention is typically misguided. As we have seen above, a convenient way to achieve efficient allocations is for each agent to face the true social costs of his/her actions and to make choices that reflect those costs. Thus in a perfectly competitive market, the marginal decision of whether to consume more or less of some good will depend on the price – which measures how everyone else values this good on the margin. The considerations of efficiency are inherently marginal decisions – each person should face the correct marginal tradeoff in making his/her consumption decisions.

The decision about how much different agents should consume is a totally different issue. In a competitive market, this is determined by the value of the resources that a person has to sell. From the viewpoint of the pure theory, there is no reason why the state can't transfer purchasing power (endowments) among consumers in any way that is seen fit. But the message of the Second Welfare Theorem is important. Prices should be used to reflect scarcity. Lump-sum transfers of wealth should be used to adjust for distributional goals. To a large degree, these two policy decisions can be separated.

People's concern about the distribution of welfare can lead them to advocate various forms of manipulation of prices. It has been argued, for example, that senior citizens should have access to less expensive telephone service, or that small users of electricity should pay lower rates than large users. These are basically attempts to redistribute income through the price system by offering some people lower prices than others. When you think about it, this is a terribly inefficient way to redistribute income. If you want to redistribute income, why don't you simply redistribute income? If you give a person an extra dollar to spend, then he can choose to consume more of any of the goods that he wants to consume – not necessarily just the good being subsidised.

India's Politics And Academics: Chicken/Egg (People/System) Problem

Both Indian politics and Indian academics suffer from the same fundamental problem: the chicken-and-egg problem – or the people-and-system problem. Good people are not there in the field. Why? Because the system is not good. And why is the system not good? Because good people are not there. That is: Good people will enter the field only when the system becomes good – and the system will become good only when good people enter the field.

Of course, this is a fundamental principle of the universe. And as per this principle, there should be no progress in the world at all. But the history of the world is nothing but the story of progress. So how does progress happen – in spite of the chicken-and-egg / people-and-system principle? There are two reasons. The first reason is that the principle is not 100% rigid/watertight. Especially with regard to the egg-to-chicken part – ie, the relationship between the quality of a system and the entry of good people. Some good people (who are fools) enter a field even though the system is not good.

The second reason is that luckily for us, human/social systems are not 'digital' but 'analog'. That is – they are not binary/discrete (bad vs good; 0 vs 1) but continuous (a gradient/spectrum from bad to good; 0 to 10). So a few good people (fools) enter a bad system and make it better – which attracts more good people – who make the system even better – and so on. This is nothing but the upward spiral / virtuous cycle of progress. Of course, the critical factor here is the speed of the process – especially when we are in a dynamic environment / competitive world. We can only hope that both our academics and our politics get on to a self-sustaining path of improvement (good systems + good people) as soon as possible – and move on it as fast as possible. Aum . . .

Job/Work/Career: Strengths Vs Weaknesses

JOB/WORK/CAREER: STRENGTHS VS WEAKNESSES

Conventional career/personality development theory tells us to improve in our areas of weakness. This is nonsense. Because there is no such thing as the perfect/complete worker/all-rounder. Different people have different strengths - and the 21st century is the age of teamwork and specialisation. So your success will be determined by how strong your strengths are. If you work on your weakness, you will improve from poor to average - not more than that. And what will a team do with an average skill? Instead if you work on your strength, you will improve from good to great - and you will be valuable to any team. So forget about your weaknesses - and focus on your strengths. Find out what your strengths are - and develop them. Trying to 'fix'/'repair' your weaknesses is the biggest waste of time in the world.

Capital, Capitalist And Capitalism

Today the word 'capitalism' means "an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned" (as opposed to socialism – in which the means of production are owned by the government). But the original meaning of the word was quite different. The word 'capital' came first – in the 1200s. It meant simply money or wealth. The word 'capitalist' came next – in the 1600s. It meant "an owner of capital/money/wealth" – ie, merchants. Around 1800, the Industrial Revolution began and the word 'capital' acquired today's meaning – not simply money/wealth but the means of production (ie, machines and factories). Consequently, the word 'capitalist' also changed – from "owner of money/wealth" to "owner of machines/factories". Then the word 'capitalism' came in the 1800s – meaning "the economic system consisting of capitalists". This looks like a trivial definition but it is not. Defined this way, capitalism was indeed a revolutionary new economic system. Why?

Since the beginning of civilisation, capital (the means of production) consisted of small simple tools. And these tools were owned by the respective workers. The farmer owned his plough and sickle. The blacksmith owned his anvil and furnace. The carpenter owned his saw and hammer. The potter owned his wheel and the weaver owned his loom. In other words – the workers owned the capital. The Industrial Revolution changed all this – by giving birth to big complex machines (and the buildings that contained them – ie, factories). These were too expensive to be owned by ordinary workers – only rich merchants could afford to own them. So for the first time in history, capital was not owned by workers – but by another group of people: the capitalists. And the new economic system was called 'capitalism'. This was the original meaning of the word 'capitalism'.

India's Systems: Quality Vs Quantity

INDIA'S SYSTEMS: QUALITY VS QUANTITY

Every system has two fundamental aspects: quality and quantity. Which is more important? Both are equally important. That is – a system must ideally maximise both quality and quantity. But given resource constraints, we can increase only one of these two parameters at a time. So to achieve both quality and quantity, a sequential approach is needed. Accordingly, two approaches are available:

	Phase 1	Phase 2
Approach 1	Increase quality Keep quantity low	Increase quantity Maintain quality
Approach 2	Increase quantity Keep quality low	Increase quality Maintain quantity

Which approach is better? The critical part of the process is the second phase. In the first approach, the second phase involves increasing the quantity of a high-quality low-quantity system. In the second approach, the second phase involves increasing the quality of a high-quantity low-quality system. Which of these two processes has a higher probability of success? Once the question is framed this way, it becomes clear that the first approach has a higher probability of success – and is therefore better.

India came under foreign rule around 1000 AD – during the Agricultural Age. It remained under slavery for 1000 years – under the Turks, Mughals and British. During the period of British rule, the Agricultural Age ended and a new age in the history of mankind - the Modern/Industrial Age - started. When India finally became free in 1947, the fundamental challenge before it was to build modern systems that would be both world-class (quality) and big enough for the world's second-biggest country (quantity). And that required choosing between the two approaches described above. Unfortunately, we chose the second approach. That is – we aimed for quantity rather than quality, perhaps hoping to increase the quality later. The result is that today we are stuck with low-quality high-quantity systems whose quality we are now struggling to increase.

Classroom Education Vs Online Education

CLASSROOM EDUCATION VS ONLINE EDUCATION

"The Covid-19 crisis has changed the world forever – especially education. Classroom education is dead, obsolete and Stone Age. Online education will and should replace classroom education." This is now the consensus opinion of almost all experts and ordinary people.

I know people will call me Stone Age. But based on my 18 years experience as a student and 7 years experience as a faculty, I will say this: The classroom + blackboard + chalk is the most effective method for understanding a subject – especially complex concepts. There is no substitute for mentally wrestling with complex concepts with the help of a faculty who has been doing the same for years – along with other students who are currently doing the same.

If online education is better than classroom education because it is more 'efficient', then why stop there? Why not take this idea one step further – to its logical conclusion? Excellent textbooks are available on every subject. So the most 'efficient' option is to simply buy the textbooks, sit at home and read the textbooks. Where is the need for even an online education? To get a degree? It will be more 'efficient' for universities to only conduct exams and award degrees to those who pass the exams.

Since 1947, we have completely neglected quality and focussed only on quantity in our education. This is the #1 reason for India's under-development today. Now this online education will become another excuse to further dilute quality for the sake of quantity in our education. "We have reached X number of students", "We have trained Y number of candidates", "We have produced Z number of graduates", etc. How well have they understood the subjects? Especially complex concepts? Nobody is bothered about this.

India's Debt, Fiscal Deficit And GDP Growth Rate

Let a country's GDP be G and its debt be D. Then its debt-to-GDP ratio is D/G. Let its GDP grow at a rate of g every year (0 < g < 1). Then its GDP next year will be (1 + g) × G. Let its fiscal deficit next year be F. Then its debt next year will be D + F. So its debt-to-GDP ratio next year will be (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]. If the debt-to-GDP ratio is to remain constant, then:
D/G = (D + F)/[(1 + g) × G]
Let us express both debt and fiscal deficit as a fraction of the GDP. Let D/G be d and F/[(1 + g) × G] be f. Then the constant debt-to-GDP ratio condition becomes:
d = d /(1 + g) + f
This gives us:
1. f = d × g / (1 + g)And:
2. g = f / (d - f)
A country starts off with a certain amount of debt (D) – which is expressed as a fraction of its GDP (D/G = d). It wants to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio (d). How to do this? There are two ways of asking and answering this question:
1. If the country's GDP grows at a certain rate g, then it must keep its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) below some level f. Equation 1 gives us this value of f.
2. If the country maintains its fiscal deficit (as a fraction of its GDP) at a certain level f, then its GDP must grow above some rate g. Equation 2 gives us this value of g.

India's debt-to-GDP ratio is 70% – which is the highest among major industrialising countries. How to reduce this? We can use the two equations given above. Accordingly we have:

A. Maximum fiscal deficit (based on the GDP growth rate)

GDP Growth Rate	Maximum Fiscal Deficit
5%	3.3%
6%	4.0%
7%	4.6%
8%	5.2%
9%	5.8%
10%	6.4%

Our average GDP growth rate since 2000 has been 7%.

B. Minimum GDP growth rate (based on the fiscal deficit)

Fiscal Deficit	Minimum GDP Growth Rate
3%	4.5%
4%	6.1%
5%	7.7%
6%	9.4%
7%	11.1%
8%	12.9%
9%	14.8%
10%	16.7%

Our average fiscal deficit since 2000 has been 4.5%.

Note: The 2003 Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act states that the government must reduce the fiscal deficit to 3% of GDP.

Major/Important Finance Ministers Of India

Major/important finance ministers of India:

#	Finance Minister	Period	Prime Minister
1	Shanmukham Chetty	1947–1948	Jawaharlal Nehru
2	John Mathai	1948–1950	Jawaharlal Nehru
3	Chintaman Deshmukh	1950–1956	Jawaharlal Nehru
4	T T Krishnamachari	1956–1958	Jawaharlal Nehru
5	Morarji Desai	1958–1963	Jawaharlal Nehru
6	T T Krishnamachari	1963–1965	Nehru / L B Shastri
7	Sachindra Chaudhuri	1966–1967	Indira Gandhi
8	Morarji Desai	1967–1969	Indira Gandhi
9	Yashwantrao Chavan	1970–1974	Indira Gandhi
10	C Subramaniam	1974–1977	Indira Gandhi
11	Hirubhai Patel	1977–1979	Indira Gandhi
12	Charan Singh	1979–1980	Morarji Desai
13	R Venkataraman	1980–1982	Indira Gandhi
14	Pranab Mukherjee	1982–1984	Indira Gandhi
15	V P Singh	1984–1987	Rajiv Gandhi
16	Narayan Tiwari	1987–1988	Rajiv Gandhi
17	Shankarrao Chavan	1988–1989	Rajiv Gandhi
18	Madhu Dandavate	1989–1990	V P Singh
19	Yashwant Sinha	1990–1991	Chandra Shekhar
20	Manmohan Singh	1991–1996	P V Narasimha Rao
21	P Chidambaram	1996–1998	Deve Gowda / Gujral
22	Yashwant Sinha	1998–2002	Atal Bihari Vajpayee
23	Jaswant Singh	2002–2004	Atal Bihari Vajpayee
24	P Chidambaram	2004–2008	Manmohan Singh
25	Pranab Mukherjee	2009–2012	Manmohan Singh
26	P Chidambaram	2012–2014	Manmohan Singh
27	Arun Jaitley	2014–2019	Narendra Modi
28	Nirmala Sitaraman	2019–	Narendra Modi

Economy, Economics And Economic Literacy

Humans need some things to live – like food, clothes, houses, etc. They obtain these things by making and exchanging them with one another. And this system of people making and exchanging things is nothing but the economic system (or simply – the economy).

Now this economic system or economy does not behave randomly. If I am holding a ball and I let go of it, what will happen? Simple: the ball will fall down. Why? Again simple: due to the law of gravity. So the ball falls down instead of going up because the law of gravity says it must fall down. That is – its behaviour is dictated by the law of gravity. More generally – the behaviour of the physical world is dictated by a set of physical laws. And these physical laws make up a science – the science called physics. Engineers build many physical systems – like machines. When they do so, they must do it on the basis of the laws of physics – for which they must know the science of physics. And we would like to understand how these machines or physical systems work. In order to do that, we must also know the science of physics.

What is true of physical systems is equally true of the economic system (economy). Just as physical systems do not behave randomly but as per certain physical laws, similarly the economy (economic system) does not behave randomly but as per certain laws of human/social behaviour – ie, economic laws. And just as the physical laws make up a science called physics, similarly the economic laws also make up a science – the science called economics. And just as we must know the science of physics to understand how physical systems work, similarly we must know the science of economics to understand how the economic system (economy) works.

Every human gets the things he/she needs to live from the economic system or economy. So the economic system or economy is directly important to every human. Thus every human must understand how the economic system or economy works. That is – every human must know economics (at least the basics). This being the case, it is shocking that we do not teach even basic economics in our schools. We teach economics only in senior high-school (ie, +2) in the Arts and Commerce streams – so the Science stream students miss out on economics completely. We must correct this by teaching at least basic economics in the 10th standard.

We must teach the most fundamental concepts of both micro-economics and macro-economics. Fundamental micro-economic concepts would include:
1. Supply and demand
2. Social surplus/welfare
3. How free-market maximises social welfare
4. How government-controls reduce social welfare
Fundamental macro-economic concepts would include:
1. Taxes and revenue
2. Government spending
3. Fiscal-deficit and debt
4. Subsidies, loan-waivers and welfare-schemes

Economic literacy is also essential for the healthy functioning of a democracy. One of the most important functions of a government is to manage the country's economy properly. If people don't know even basic economics, how will they evaluate the government's performance – and the opposition's criticism? And how will they make the right choice in the election?

ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ / ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ

Secularismಗೆ ಕನ್ನಡದಲ್ಲಿ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎನ್ನುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಈ ಅನುವಾದ ಸರಿಯೇ? Secularism ಎಂದರೇನು? Secularism ಎಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ - ಅಂದರೆ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಮತ್ತು ಹಿಂದು-ಧರ್ಮವನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುವುದು. ಸೆಕ್ಯುಲರವಾದಿಗಳು/ಎಡವಾದಿಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ - ಅಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಜಾತಿಗಳ ಹಿಂದುಗಳನ್ನು ಧ್ವೇಷಿಸುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ಅವರ ಹಿಂದು-ಧ್ವೇಷ ನಿಜವಾಗಿಯೂ ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತ. ಆದುದರಿಂದ secularismಗೆ 'ಜಾತ್ಯತೀತತೆ' ಎಂಬ ಶಬ್ದ ಅತ್ಯಂತ ಸೂಕ್ತವಾಗಿದೆ.

India's Muslims: Non-Fundamentalists Vs Anti-Fundamentalists

India's middle-class Muslims are non-fundamentalists. This is a good thing - but it not enough. Lower-class Muslims are so deeply sunk in fundamentalism that it is not enough for middle-class Muslims to be merely non-fundamentalist. They must do more - they must fight against fundamentalism. That is - they must become anti-fundamentalists.

PS: And needless to say - we Hindus will support them 100% in their war against fundamentalism.

Varna System And Types Of Work

There are four basic types of work:
1. Working with things
2. Working with money
3. Working with people
4. Working with ideas

Accordingly, ancient Indians designed and built a social system (the Varna system) in which different groups of people specialised in each of the four basic types of work:
1. Working with things - Farmers/Workers (Shudras)
2. Working with money - Merchants/Traders (Vaishyas)
3. Working with people - Rulers/Administrators (Kshatriyas)
4. Working with ideas - Scholars/Priests (Brahmanas)