State of World today - Part 1

[ashokkhatri]

THE STATE of the world today raises troubling questions about the state of the human consciousness and condition. The world cannot be peaceable, tranquil and in harmony if the human mind, the dominant driving force of the finite universe, is turbulent, violent and in disharmony. One begins to wonder what kind of species we are and where we are headed. Is there evolution or regression since man made fire and tools and harnessed nature. Has man changed or times changed? If man, is it preordained (blame it all on God!) and if it is times, is it the changing nature of time itself. In either case can we absolve ourselves of any responsibility? Is the millennium man the same or intrinsically different from medieval man? What are the wages of modernity? What is the origin of evil? Is it tucked inside the human breast or is it in the human habitat? Indeed, is `evil' in tune with times and the `virtuous' out of step, remains of a bygone era? What is the source of overarching self-righteousness and self-centredness of man that allows us to explain and excuse all our actions? Is it an instinct acquired when primeval man was battling nature and other species for survival or is it an attribute of modern man? What makes human species at once so clannish and so factitious and so self-destructive? When human is the only species capable of manifesting malice, in what way is man superior to other species? What constitutes human consciousness and individual personality? How come in so many cases siblings scarcely resemble each other? Why is exploitation so commonplace to most of us in our daily lives devoid of any pangs or guilt? How is it that the same human experience can encompass scaling the sublime heights of supreme sacrifice and reaching the lowest depths of insensitivity in a single lifetime? Why is compassion so selective when it is so cost-free and so satisfying? Why is violence — of thought, word and deed — so embodied in our consciousness that it requires so much effort to subdue? Are these natural manifestations of our genetic make-up but which have been tempered and sobered in most of us most of the time but always lurking beneath the surface?

Paradoxes


Paradoxes in the human context abound. We are all human; but few are humane. Most of us think we are virtuous; but few are bereft of vice. We are all uniquely blessed with the power to imagine, extrapolate, inquire and to perceive beyond immediacy but so few see beyond the reach of their noses and so much consumed by the grind of daily existence. Many of us feel self-righteous; but few shrink from hurting the weak and vulnerable. To be fallible is to be human but individually we think we are infallible. Why does human intimacy rob mutual respect and interpersonal relationships so hard to sustain when man is so gregarious and craves for human contact? We are endowed with the unique power of reason, viveka (wisdom) and vichakshana (discrimination) but we act so often without them. We are infinitely creative but often mindlessly destructive. Instead of feeling ashamed for our anger and avarice, so many use them as a cover and justification for their actions arising from them. We make daily choices but often avoid facing the consequences.

Great men who changed the tide of history single-handedly walked this earth as well as evil men who brought senseless suffering to so many. What is the measure of great men and great deeds? Are some men greater than their deeds and for some others the other way? Time and again we see that men of great intellect who have left indelible imprints on the sands of history are after all too human in their personal lives. What is the measure of greatness? Indeed, what is the measure of man? Are good and bad, virtue and values elastic terms, relative to the time, place and provocation? What is morality in an age of images and instant satiation? What are the permissible limits of moral transgression in tune with the times? What is the essence of morality? Are satya (truth) and ahimsa (not hurting others) the only guiding stars? Why are they difficult to put into effect? Are the norms of good and bad, virtue and vice specific to each place and time or are they immutable, universal and eternal? Why are we so judgmental when it is so difficult to think like someone else? Can we ascribe everything happening in our lives and in our world to karma, to the doctrine of cause and effect? Why are some people and some communities constantly buffeted by relentless misfortune like mass poverty? Is it due to collective karma, a sort of cosmic fine for past collaborative misdeeds? Is the relationship between God and man that of master and servant or whole and part? What is the interplay between human free but fickle will and omnipotent Divine will?

Looking at what the human hand has wrought one wonders. Has human consciousness itself metamorphosed through meandering millenniums, affecting our deepest recesses of mind? Without Divine will can it happen? In the Divine dispensation is this time for vice to have an upper hand over virtue as a prelude to Pralaya? Have even the conceptual underpinnings of virtue and vice changed? Is what we see and sense simply a manifestation of Yugadharma, natural to Kaliyuga? In other words are we behaving as we are supposed to behave, just playing our doomed parts? If so, where is the room for any remorse or guilt? Do we still have a chance to redeem ourselves, pull away from the precipice?

Laments about the moral state of mankind are nothing new. Prince Arjuna in the epic Mahabharata bemoaned, "When man can possess everything he craves for — artha, kama, moksha — through dharma, why does he follow the path of adharma". One is not sure if this was before or after the cobwebs of his illusion were removed by Lord Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra. But that question still haunts. Why, indeed, why? Much more and many fold now in Kaliyuga when dharma is said to be tottering (of the four legs) on only one leg. Saints, seers and spiritual leaders have strived to steer humanity away from the path of vice and violence. In our lifetime one person believed in the innate goodness of man, experimented with himself and tried to uplift a whole people: Gandhiji. To him truth was God and ahimsa was a creed, an article of faith. Toward the end of his life and on the dawn of our Independence, he agonised over the failure of his faith in ahimsa. While for him it was an absolute, to others it was a political tool, a weapon of the weak and instrument of mass insurrection, by themselves all these were strokes of genius, something the world never saw before. But Gandhiji wanted to change the very heart of man, to summon the noblest impulses. He was disillusioned and in the end even he wavered.

[ashokkhatri]

Violence for what end?


Violence and inequality permeate nature; the world cannot be immune. Violence per se is neither good nor bad. The question is: violence for what end? Who benefits and who loses? Gandhiji, the apostle of ahimsa himself, said between violence and cowardice, he prefers violence. The state selectively kills, ostensibly for social good; a Kshatriya is enjoined to kill on the battlefield. Similarly truth that causes harm to the innocent is not a virtue. Again, the question is untruth for what? There are no absolutes in life except the ultimate and only absolute: God. Violence today however is across-the-board, devoid of discrimination, and an instrument of inequity and aggrandisement, exploitation and fanaticism, settling scores and revenge. Rarely for righteous reasons. It is the most defining metaphor of our times. We justify it as a reaction to others' behaviour, oblivious to our own violence. Many believe that violence is necessary to fight inequity and injustice. For many others it is a way of life, necessary for survival. And for many more it is a short cut to success and subjugation, wealth and power.

Besides violence modern man is characterised by his love affairs with money, ritual religiosity and technological fixation. Money and wealth has always been integral to human aspiration. What is new is its pervasive and corrosive place in the human psyche — so pervasive that it conditions our mindset and so corrosive that without it many feel worthless. It is having a hypnotic effect on human psyche. It is not only the currency of social esteem and political power but also of self-respect. It is the essential means, indeed inseparable from the pursuit of pleasure and good life, an all-consuming, no-holds-barred obsession.

The role of religion


The role of religion in human affairs is fundamentally transformed. In ancient times particularly in India, it was a means to achieve harmony with nature, to understand the meaning and purpose of life and a way to reach God. It was strictly personal and no threat to anyone else. The advent of organised and structured religion, the mix of spiritual and temporal sources of societies and injection of aggression and exclusivity in the medieval times had altered the shape and space of religion in human societies. In the modern age of materialism and mechanisation, ironically a religious activity of some sort or other is integrated into the lives of an overarching majority of mankind. Some turn to it to fill a void in their lives, to cope with obscenity and the turbulence in the world; some as a reaction to the ravages of modernity, as a cry of desperation. Few seek God; most beseech God to come to their aid, to fulfil every wish, regardless of its nature, pious or profane, not only to do good to them but not to do good to others. A prayer, a visit to a place of worship is an add-on to an effort to get something from the mundane world. Religious belief and personal behaviour are disconnected. Many men are ostensibly and ostentatiously religious and inwardly and even subconsciously irreligious. The relationship between God and man is the most private and intimate relationship in life, the most sacred space, none excluded. It is the perversion of this relationship and pollution of this space that may be responsible for many of our ills. Religious fervour and fanaticism is particularly potent and poisonous. A perpetrator truly believes he is acting in the name of his God and to avenge His insult. What more telling motivation does one need to take one's own and others lives!

Technology is not only at the cutting edge of global change; it is also transforming the way man thinks, works, lives, loves and fights. It is the basis of his superiority and conquest of other species and of the havoc he is heaping on nature. Science based technology is the cause of much of man's material prosperity, longevity and conquest of age-old scourges. Technological exclusion is a contributing factor of mass poverty and social injustice. The majority of mankind continues to be marginalised, economically, socially and technologically. It is also the fulcrum of `western civilisation' and the pivot of western domination. Talk is profuse about information economies and knowledge societies. But the potential beneficiaries are those who are already rich and powerful. Thus far man harnessed — for good or bad — technology. Will technology turn man into tomorrow's horse? Technology is now driven largely by its own dynamic momentum, loosening man's control and unleashing unknown forces. It is inculcating in man's mind a culture of dependency, eroding his cognitive and deductive powers. Over-dependence on technology may result in an atrophy of human intellect. Man may be an incidental beneficiary or unintended victim but he is now marginal to the march of technology. He may occasionally exult over his achievements or periodically face the wrath of technology running amok or of misuse by the human mind. Artificial intelligence may create a thinking robot, a synthetic human brain may be created and cloning may create human duplicates. What are moral and ethical implications? Even more, what kind of human persona will emerge? What kind of civilisation will that be? Toynbee warned that the spiritual advancement of man would be in inverse proportion to his technological mastery. A nuclear Armageddon, either through computer malfunctioning, terrorism or a desperate act of a cornered ruler is a real possibility. That it has not happened so far is sheer happenstance and good luck. Will technology — rather man's arrogant misuse — prove to be the catalyst of man's ultimate destruction? Will man `playing God' turn out to be Sisupala's last insult that preceded his beheading by God? Is this the Divine long rope designed to hang him?

On the margin of millennium, we have to ask ourselves, where are we headed? It is said that those that Gods want to destroy they first make them mad. In our case, we will self-destruct, sparing God the bother. In nature nothing however is intrinsically inevitable. Man is not doomed to be evil nor is he effortlessly virtuous. It is a blend of both that constitutes human consciousness. Tagore and Nehru derided Gandhiji for linking Bihar earthquake to unsociability. Anybody's guess, in matters like this, is as good as anyone else's. What is clear is that we cannot also separate the travails of mankind from man's morality. If no man is an island, all men's acts can have a cosmic effect. If God's will is all pervasive, then it is not implausible to attribute all seemingly natural phenomena to Divine fair play. We cannot harbour hatred in our hearts and expect to pay no price for it. We cannot ravage the exquisite bounty and balance of nature without facing the fury of nature. We cannot make warped choices and go scot-free. The sum of all our thoughts, words and actions is what defines our destiny. Our individual behaviour has a collective consequence. That then becomes Divine will.

A crisis of intolerance


What we confront today is, above all, a crisis of intolerance. It is the fountainhead of our problems, for failed marriages, broken homes, social strife, and religious bigotry. Intolerance leads to irritation, irritation to anger and anger to violence and hatred. If hatred is the child of intolerance, self-righteousness is the father of intolerance, an almost visceral feeling that one is always right. Tolerance cannot be transplanted particularly in an adult mind. It has to be germinated, nurtured and nourished from the embryonic stage, from childhood, at home and at school. Our most basic instinct, that we are always right, even more the other man is always wrong has to be tempered and tamed. Conflict and contention are inherent and inseparable from life. They have to be managed without resort to violence and injury to others and turned into a creative force. Education is a key. A child should be taught that there are no absolutes; there are at least two sides to every situation; no one is ever completely right or wrong, good or bad and in life there is always a middle way of compromise and conciliation. Character building and conflict management ought to be the main purpose of education. Stability and tolerance in modern societies are possible only if religion is restored to its original place and intent. Religious leaders of all faiths should take the lead in this endeavour. Technology should be kept on short leash and used to alleviate suffering and to better the lot of the weak and vulnerable.

We cannot talk about human species and human nature in abstract terms. It is but a conglomeration of all of us, no more, no less. In the ultimate reckoning, we have to look inwards for solutions. Buddha said on his deathbed "be a lamp unto yourself". Lord Krishna took pains to educate, instruct and guide Arjuna on where his duty lay. He did not proclaim "I say it; so you do it". A few days before Godse put a bullet into the already broken heart, a distraught Gandhiji said "follow your inner voice". Are we up to it or are we condemned not to listen?

[ashokkhatri]

comments please