Those elders among you will know that 40 or 50 years ago, only two fruits were available across all of India — jamun and bananas. Everything else came later. Now you have had it since birth, so you don't know the value of those things, and that's why all this seems too little to you. We have seen all of it, so everything seems too much to us — and even saying 'too much' is an understatement.
Let me continue with my point, but let me also say in between that the elders here will know that 60 years ago, after we became independent, we did not have enough food to eat. So American wheat used to come, and it was available at the ration shop — I have taken it myself. And wheat from the ration shop, because we used to eat jowar and bajra, and wheat rotis were rare, so even a festival meal was considered a treat.
Those small bites of semolina used to taste like sweetmeats, because they were not available. And 500 grams — that was called one 'sher' — if more than one sher of sugar came out of our house, the police would catch us. Now, can you believe this? All the elders will know that 50 years ago there was a complete ban on sugar; it all had to be imported.
The government did not have reserves to import it — where would they get it from? For any household, 500 grams — who would give that? Half a sher of sugar per person, supplied by the government through the ration shop — if you took it from the black market, the police would catch you. At weddings and celebrations, today we hold such grand events with a thousand, two thousand, five thousand, ten thousand people.
Back then, with 15 people from the groom's side and 15 from the bride's side, you could only prepare a meal for 30 people at the wedding. And we have seen in our village that if a meal was prepared for 50 or 60 people, half would be kept hidden elsewhere and only that much shown here, because if the inspectors came to check, the police would catch you. If you fed 60 people, the police would catch you.
You have not seen this world, so you have not seen the earlier world, and that is why you do not value what you have now. History is full of generosity, but there is no history of greed anywhere. So we must be generous — but how generous? Not so generous that we burn down the house to make a pilgrimage.
Not charity done for show, not spending money for show. If we have 100 rupees and we spend 10 rupees on philanthropy, that is fine — our family also has a right in it. If you have 100 rupees and you give it all away and become a beggar yourself, that is wrong, because it is not ours alone; the whole family has a right in that capital.
But right now, the government has imposed a 2% CSR levy, and we are getting relief through it. Through adjustments, within that 2% — you give me a cheque, I give you cash, I do this for you — how can society progress in such a pitiful state? At least 10% of the money should be spent.
Swami Swaminarayan Bhagwan wrote 250 years ago that a farmer should give a tenth part — they did not even know what percentage it was, but we have now learned it. So Swaminarayan Bhagwan wrote that one should give a tenth part, but if one's circumstances are extremely bad, one should give a twentieth part. A twentieth part means 5% — so if it comes to 5%, one should give 5%.
This was told to us 250 years ago. Now we feel that... I say that if anyone wants to spend money, they should know where to start — from home. I never refuse money to my sons and daughters, but I do insist on accounts. Brother, you took 100 rupees — give an account of those 100 rupees by evening. Take a thousand — give an account of the thousand. Take ten thousand — give an account of the ten thousand.
Make sure it does not go astray. But look at their condition — we earn, we fill a ladle for them, and for their whole life they drift away from us, and we don't even know. Secondly, everyone sitting here must have people working in their homes. My campaign is this: before you go out and donate elsewhere, start from home — the people in our own home need it greatly.
As an example, brother, we may have a maharaj at home, but not everyone will have one. But many partners will have a maharaj at home — his salary should not be less than 50 or 60 thousand. And perhaps you are paying him less than 50 — from today, make it 50 thousand. If your capital takes a hit, show me the accounts and I will make it up to you.
If there is a driver, his salary should not be less than 40 or 50 thousand. He is our companion, part of our family. He is the one who shapes us — the reins of our entire future are in his hands. And when we sit in the car behind him, he is sitting three feet away from us, so close — he should get 40 or 50 thousand.
If you are not paying him that, or paying him less, then today go and tell him: 'Brother, from today you get 50 thousand.' He may ask, 'Why, Seth? Has your mind gone?' We haven't lost our minds — but if Govind Kaka has gone mad, then I have to pay it. House servants should start at 25 thousand.
Twenty-five thousand — is that not enough work? Explain to me why we keep people at 7,000 or 10,000. When is the price of anything decided? By supply and demand. Just today, a brother was saying that his factory is here, and if he got the same work done in Europe, at 15 euros an hour for two days it would come to 250 euros — and here people work the whole month for that amount.
My point is this: we must understand that here you get an abundant supply of cheap labour, so stop taking advantage of that and pay them double. Right now, most people complain that they train people and then those people leave. They don't leave because you lack sense — they leave because of the salary.
Now, if his worth is 40,000 and you give him 50 — 20% more, 25% more — and then someone takes him away for 51, what loss is it to us? Let him go, it's fine. These are not Govind Kaka's thoughts of today. Thirty years ago, a friend's son — second generation — came to me and said, 'Kaka, I will show that fellow. I took away all four of my managers.'
I listened to everything he said and let him speak for half an hour. After hearing that brother out, I said gently: 'You took away my four managers, right? Today I challenge you — take away my ten managers. Use as much strength as you have. Take my ten managers — you'll be let go. You don't have the sense.' So he took those managers.
My managers will not come to you, nor will they even look at you, because I don't give them only money — I give them money, love, and affection, everything. So they won't leave me. That is why, in our company, for 55 years there has been a rule: talking about salary is forbidden. If any staff member comes to discuss salary, they are dismissed.
The reason is that we must pay 20 to 25 percent more than their worth. Yes, in one or two years we may make a mistake — it's not that we are never wrong. But if you pay them well, then they work, and no one else can take them away. And if they do leave, you should have such goodwill that ten others are waiting in line behind them.
Secondly, we train people, and if others take them away, that is a good thing. When you train one person and put him to work, you have done a lifetime of good for his entire family by giving him a skill. What greater virtuous deed is there than this?
When we do business, where should the margin of profit be? Because we have been created from nothing. There was a time when people took more than a 10% margin, and I felt that was wrong — it was wrong. But if you cannot survive on 10%, then how much profit should we make in business?
The reason we send our boys abroad is that we also have a benefit in it — and so we built an entire system around it. My son went 18 years ago; there is a story about him on YouTube, 'The Value of Money', which appeared in a magazine about 100 times. And when he went to Hyderabad, his story — written by Krishnakant Bhai Unadkat — I read it today, and even 18 years later I still cry when I read that story. It is so emotional. Only I know that my son was there, and I was there, and my situation was such that I could not even go to see him.
I could not even go to see him.