Theory of Relativity in Politics

Though the theory of relativity is known as a theory in science it can be applied to politics. When I say relativity, it implies that in politics there is a tendency to consider certain ways absolute, but they are not so. What is the rationale behind this argument? 

Politics is broadly defined, to use David Easton’s words, allocation of resources in society in an authoritative way as people have different expectations from the state and it is not possible for the state to meet all the needs of all the people. Relativity in politics implies that people disagree, or rather they agree to disagree, and representatives of people, the political leaders, must keep this relativity principle in mind while making policies. In mathematics when you add two and two it makes four. It is certain and it does not matter where you are making that addition. To give another example if you add hydrogen and oxygen it gives you water. But that certainty principle is not there in social science because social science is a science about society, about human beings. Politics is not about insentient objects or numbers, but about social beings who shape and are shaped by divergent ideas and values. It is about the people who are conditioned by events and who live, to use the words of Auguste Comte, dead men’s lives. 

Relativity as a social principle can be traced to the ancient period. Ekam sat vipra bahudha vadanti (Truth is one but the wise express it in many voices) or Anekantavada (many sided truth) affirm this relativity principle in life and society. The story is that some blind people went to describe an elephant. One of them touched the elephant’s tail and described that the elephant is like a rope. Another touched the elephant’s leg and described that the elephant is like a pole. The point is that all of them described the elephant, but not the whole elephant, the absolute truth. 

We in society are like these blind men and like these men argue that our truth is the absolute truth and the truth of the other side is not the truth. This blindness extends further with horrifying consequences. Once I claim my truth is the only truth and your truth is not truth, I try to give my truth a life, a concrete shape and deny your truth and do everything to deny it life. In sum, you are morally excluded from my world. That is the extreme manifestation of absolutism. There are ample examples of such moral exclusions in history, and we can see this happening in our society today. 

Political labeling – either you are a nationalist or anti-nationalist, a patriot or a traitor – is the trend nowadays worldwide. This has led to the shrinking of the middle ground, or the loss of sensitivity to diverse voices. The point is that one individual can be a nationalist at one point of time by supporting one state policy and he can be the same nationalist by criticizing another policy. To give an example, I support India’s policy of abrogation of Article 370, which was a temporary and transitional provision of the constitution. The Article, contrary to its objectives, distanced Jammu and Kashmir from India. But at the same time, I was skeptical of the policy of demonetization. I doubt whether it realized its intended objectives. Does supporting one policy and critiquing another make one nationalist or anti-nationalist? One can apply this logic not only to Indian politics but to politics elsewhere. Rigid political labeling has apparently become the norm. The middle space has shrunk. Appreciation of differences and diverse views is a rare commodity now. Decency has almost become pariah in political debates. Even one’s family tragedy is ascribed to his or her disagreement with dominant political views.

While I understand that idealism is not appreciated in politics and a politician, howsoever well-intentioned, has to tread through the minefields of crude realism, that does not imply a shirking of moral responsibility. After all, Aristotle, the father of political science, called political science master science and politics a noble profession. Plato too is relevant here. He recommended rigorous education and training for political leaders. Perhaps the time has come for politicians to go through rigorous training and education in moral character and statesmanship. It is not that we do not have examples. Abraham Lincoln comes to mind and also Mahatma Gandhi. Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” King talked about color, but one can also think of religion, nationality, race, caste, language and other such distinct markers. 

I doubt whether politicians of today would be enamored by Gandhi’s talisman: “Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, try the following expedient: Recall the face of the poorest and the most helpless man whom you may have seen and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him. Will he be able to gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny?”

In the new year I wish genuine attempts are made towards understanding and appreciation of divergent views. Politics should not be that ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish’ in which fellow human beings are used as objects, morally excluded and humiliated.

(This article was published in Times of India blogs: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/periscope/theory-of-relativity-in-politics/)

Some Reflections on Perfection

What is perfection, what are its elements, is there something called perfection, which are perfect, and can the transient things and beings be perfect? And lastly, can human being be perfect? If we analyze Plato’s Idea then we come to know that the idea is perfect, which lives in idea, which is not visible to us, but which exists, and all other things and beings are imperfect imitation of idea. There are many examples to illustrate this theory. One famous is, not this horse or that horse is the ideal horse, not perfect horse, but the idea of horse is the perfect, which must be the subject of equine science. The same argument goes further. It is an abstract thought, perhaps not amenable to empirical analysis. Then the argument goes, not everything is subject to empirical analysis, even the idea of perfection as well. The idea lives in the sphere of ideas, but It is, and It exists. Then comes the idea of agnosticism, which says that we cannot say whether there is something called perfect or something called God or not, we do not know is the answer.

Veda’s theory, or also in a different way propounded by Spinoza and Hegel is that every determination is a negation, and the Vedic equivalent is ‘Neti Neti,’ not this, not this. When we talk about something, or when we elaborate something, then we leave so many other things as well. As the Jainas say in their theory of Anekantavada, that the Truth, the Perfect is many sided reality, and we human beings with our limited knowledge and perception see only one aspect, and take it as the whole. But that is not the truth. It is like in Shankara’s language to perceive in rope the snake in dark, but that is not the reality. But, then can we see something perfect, something called perfection? But, then, perhaps we will need not limited knowledge, but a knowledge, a perception which has 360 degree vision of the things and beings, or the kind of humility what Socrates says, ‘I know that I do not know.’

The ontological proof of God says that God is perfect, and it is self-evident, a priori like three angles of a triangle equals to 180 degree, and for which we do not need proof. The existence of God is a self-evident axiom, which does not need any proof. The idea of God emanates in our mind shows itself there must be something or somebody, which is called God, which is perfect, the best, the beautiful, the knowledgeable, the wise, and so on.

Coming back to this idea of perfection, which various theories about God attempt to prove that God is perfect, the question emerges can human beings attain perfection? We have seen spurt of genius around us and in history, that there are great scientists, philosophers, who have unraveled many mysteries of the universe. But how far they have attained perfection? Is it possible for human beings to attain perfection, or is it something called chimera, or something too idealistic and abstract, which is an impossible chase for the ordinary, brittle human beings, who take birth, grow old and then die, like any other animal?

I read somewhere the famous philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote that mediation is where there is no meditator, implying that meditation is something so deep, and so immense and enthralling, that individual doing meditation loses the sense of self-identity or loses himself in universal identity. A person having this realization can vouch it, otherwise like A. J. Ayer call it non-sense, as it is not verifiable to logical analysis and empirical observation. But, when we study the lives of great people, we come to know that there are many things which are beyond empirical, or what Kant says transcendental, which are beyond the reach of both realist and empiricist paradigms.

I believe in the saying that all life is a movement towards higher goal. I read, ‘no human will can conquer against Divine’s will, let us put ourselves exclusively on the side of the Divine and the victory is ultimately certain.’ If we study it from its face value, it may appear as a call to sheer dogmatism and orthodoxy. But a deeper analysis completely changes its meaning. When it says Divine will, it is not the will of the narrow thinking of an individual, but an elevated thinking of an individual who identifies his will with the universal will. It moves the human animal to rise towards perfection, for that one needs a constant aspiration. This is not pure mysticism, or something pure tantric, or something old and outdated. This is amenable to practice. A person who has done meditation for 10 or 15 minutes with a composed mind and realized its power can obviously find the real sense of this argument and its kernel.