Climate Change Calls for a Long-Range Vision

Queen Elizabeth II in her message to COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow made a moral appeal to the world leaders: “…none of us will live forever. But we are doing this not for ourselves but for our children and our children’s children, and those who will follow in their footsteps.” This message perfectly fits to the argument that the ‘long shadow of future’ is falling on all of us, and if we do not work together now the future generations will suffer. That approach chimes well with what Mary Robinson, former President of Ireland and former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote, “We want to build forward with equality and justice and sustainability, sustainability with nature and with our need to have a livable world for our children and grandchildren.”

The Queen in her speech made a very relevant distinction between politician and statesman. Politicians work for their states and think in narrow terms of relative gains, maximization of national interest and power, but they do not take long range perspectives. They do not foresee what will happen in the future. In the Queen’s words, “It has sometimes been observed that what leaders do for their people today is government and politics. But what they do for the people of tomorrow — that is statesmanship. I, for one, hope that this conference will be one of those rare occasions where everyone will have the chance to rise above the politics of the moment, and achieve true statesmanship.” One rarely comes across such statesmanship from the leaders of the world today. President Harry Truman’s address in San Francisco at the closing session of the United Nations Conference in San Francisco in 1945 reflected such a long-range vision, which prioritized humanity over narrow concerns of a particular state. Truman said, “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it – millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die.”

Though Truman used these words in the context of international peace, they could be applicable in the context of climate change which has in recent decades assumed a devastating proportion, which provoked organizations like Extinction Rebellion to make a radical appeal, “Life on Earth is in crisis. Our climate is changing faster than scientists predicted and the stakes are high. Biodiversity loss. Crop failure. Social and ecological collapse. Mass extinction. We are running out of time, and our governments have failed to act…We have a moral duty to take action — whatever our politics.” But as the deliberations at the climate change summit and the final agreement after the conference revealed, the world leaders lacked the courage and vision to emerge as statesmen as they prioritized their national goals over global concerns for a sustainable climate. This lackadaisical approach on part of the world leaders prompted climate change activist Greta Thunberg calling the deliberations, “blah, blah, blah.”

A report titled, “Welcome to Miami, Massachusetts” argued that if the greenhouse gas emission continues at the current rate, “… by 2100 Boston’s average summer-high temperatures will likely be more than 10 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than they are now, ‘making it feel as steamy as North Miami Beach is today’.” According to another report, “global warming has pushed temperatures up to 5 degrees higher in the region since the 1950s and could increase up to 7 degrees more by the end of the century, putting more stress on the ice.” Tony de Brum, the former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister, nominated for Nobel Peace Prize for his role in Paris Climate agreement, witnessed the ‘Bravo shot,’ the thermonuclear test at Bikini Atoll when he was 9 years old. He became a champion of nuclear disarmament and environment protection. Brum, whose island home went under waters due to rising ocean, argued, “The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us…We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual.”

Like the Queen, Mahatma Gandhi in the 20th century made a moral argument for climate change. His famous exhortation “Nature has enough for everyone’s need but not for everyone’s greed” provides a powerful message in this context. Gandhi’s famous talisman is also useful in this context: “I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”

The leaders in the Climate Change conference despite days of deliberations failed to develop a consensus on many contentious issues, leading to a very weak agreement. One of the contentious issues was the use of fossil fuel. Fast growing countries like China and India, who still depend on fossil fuel, insisted on changing the words ‘phase out’ and replace them with ‘phase down’ in the final agreement. The developed countries displayed reluctance to share the burden of climate change with developing countries and provide funding to support the efforts to curb carbon emission. The global concerns such as climate change transcend state borders. Isolation as a foreign policy strategy might have worked in the past, but in the contemporary world isolation implies invitation to more problems. A small happening in one corner of the globe can shape international developments. When we have blatantly messed up with Nature, how would we ensure the survival of human race in the decades and centuries to come? The Queen’s message is certainly instructive in this context as it makes an appeal, or rather a moral call, to the world leaders to rise above petty nationalistic thinking and adopt a long-range vision on climate change.

(This article was published in Infinite Discoveries: https://infinitediscoveries.org/climate-change-calls-for-a-long-range-vision/)

Mandir and Mathematics: Reflections on Kejriwal's Speech

Early this month, while inaugurating the signature bridge in Delhi, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made a case that temples and statutes impede scientific progress and temper. He appealed to the people attending the event not to vote the electoral candidates who build statues and temples, but to the candidates who build mohalla clinics, schools, bridges, etc. I support this idea – voting the candidates to power who talk about science and technology, who build hospitals and bridges – but the idea that temples or religious places are detrimental to science needs deeper exploration.

Did/does building religious shrines, statues, memorials, etc. contribute to India’s poverty and underdevelopment? Is it corruption or temple building? It will be a good idea to make an audit of how much money is invested in temple building in independent India and how much money is involved in corruption? How many temples were built in independent India in comparison to pre-independent India? We know the great temples of India were not built in the last 60 or 70 years. But was India poor and underdeveloped during those periods?

According to Angus Maddison, the British economic historian, in the 16th and 17th centuries, India’s share of world GDP was more than 20 per cent, which gradually declined to 16.1 per cent in 1820 and 12.2 per cent in 1870. In 2017, this share was below 8 per cent. We know many temples in India were built hundreds of years ago. It was India’s riches and wealth, not only material but also cultural and spiritual, that attracted traders and travelers from all over the world.

One of the ideal examples of the blend of religious spirit and scientific inquiry that comes to my mind is Srinivasa Ramanujan, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20^th century. Ramanujan was religious, and for him, ‘an equation has no meaning unless it is an expression of thought of God’. Ramanujan was scribbling mathematics on the temple floor. He believed that the Goddess was coming to him in dreams and revealing mathematical formulas. The Hollywood movie, ‘The Man Who Knew Infinity’ beautifully depicts his life including his religious beliefs and vegetarianism.

One of the greatest scientists, Isaac Newton, was both theologian and scientist. Though Newton was famous for bringing a new revolution to the field of science, his contributions to theology were not minimal. Newton was a devout Christian and wrote in Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture, “In human affairs the father of a family or house is frequently taken for the common father of a kindred: here the whole creation is considered as one kindred or family so named from God, the common father of all.” In a letter he wrote, “When I wrote my treatise (Principia Mathematica) about our system I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.” According to Steven E. Jones, a professor emeritus of physics at Brigham Young University, Newton hoped his scientific writings would lead people to think about and believe in God. Jones argues that for the great scientist there was a natural meshing of science and belief in God.  

A religious person is insensitive to science or scientific inquiry is foreign to Indian thinking. When Madan Mohan Malaviya established Banaras Hindu University in 1916 on the day of Vasant Panchami, he had the vision that the new institute would promote scientific inquiry. He elaborated his vision in 1911: “The millions mired in poverty here can only get rid (of it) when science is used in their interest. Such maximum application of science is only possible when scientific knowledge is available to Indians in their own country.” One would come across Shri Vishwanath temple in the university campus. Banaras Hindu University was one of the best universities attracting bright minds, but later corruption and nepotism, and petty and party politics eroded its academic standards.

In universities in the USA and Europe, one would come across religious shrines within the campus. Top universities like Harvard, Yale and Oxford have churches. But that did not stop the university or its students to excel in diverse fields, and becoming world leaders.

True for the progress of a nation, the spirit of scientific inquiry is necessary. But it is naive to argue that to have scientific inquiry one must relinquish religious faith, or demolish or undermine religious institutions or achievements. Religion does not defy rationality. In order to establish institutions like Indian Institute of Technology or Indian Institute of Science or Defense Research and Development Organization, it is not necessary to break away from the old wisdom, or faith in God. One of the modern scientists in this context who comes to my mind is A. P. J. Abdul Kalam, who gave India’s defense a new direction. Kalam was reading Gita, while at the same time experimenting new technologies. Reading Gita, or going to temples, does not make an individual anti-scientific.

Do we, Indians, need more temples or hospitals? Hospitals, for sure. Do we need more schools or temples? Schools, for sure. Do we need more bridges or temples? Bridges, for sure. Our temples are our national heritage, and we need to protect them from erosion or destruction. They were architectural marvels, and they were also scientific marvels. As I was looking at the walls of the Meenakshi temple in Madurai during one of my trips, I wondered how could the masons build such a marvelous temple, without the aid of modern science and technology?

Mahatma Gandhi wrote in 1932: “If, on the one hand, hundreds of self-seeking men have misused mosques, temples and churches, on the other, millions have made good use of them. If you wish to test the truth of this statement, use your wonderful gift of imagination and suppose that a reformer razes to the ground in a single day all the churches, temples and mosques. Then picture to yourself the condition of those millions of simple good souls when they discover that the temples and mosques from which they daily derived consolation and support were no more. I see the truth of this every day.” Can we apply this Gandhian logic to thousands of religious places destroyed in India or elsewhere in the past?

What Kejriwal is arguing is not new. The Soviet socialist system ran on such a premise, and it collapsed. It emphasized a rigid divorce between science and religion and imposed a reign of terror on those who professed religion. While I have no problem with the philosophy of socialism and I truly believe that it has many good elements which states need to adopt, but the socialism of the Soviet type did not actually live up to the original promise. While aiming at establishing a higher brotherhood among the people, it, in fact, suffocated the inner fountains that supported this brotherhood. It discouraged individual enterprise and left everything to the totalitarian state. It discouraged religion but transformed itself into a new religion. So, in the Soviet Union, we had the communist party or the symbol, in place of the Orthodox Church, for the masses to worship. The question is not of science or religion. The question should be how to create an equilibrium between the two, the two supporting and strengthening each other instead of negating or suffocating each other.

The mindset is problematic. That if we have religion, there is no science and technology. And if we have science and technology, there is no place of religion. There was ample evidence that ancient India witnessed a synthesis of science and religion. Whether it was Aryabhatta or Brahmagupta, who were pioneers of scientific spirit, or Kautilya, who was an astute diplomat and theoretician of statecraft, or Kalidasa, the renowned poet and dramatist, all of them excelled in an eclectic atmosphere that promoted science and religion. Think of Taxila and Nalanda, the centers of learning, where not only debates concerning science and technology, but also concerning religion and spirituality were undertaken.

As I am writing about religion, let me elaborate on my conception of religion. My religion is not dogmatic, nor is it static. The principles that govern my religion are universal acceptance and toleration – the twin principles proudly proclaimed by Swami Vivekananda at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. The Swami gave examples of sea-frog and well-frog and elaborated how the dogmatic religions, orthodox practices, see them in the fashion of the well-frog and declare them as the only truth, while a universal religion, like the ocean-frog, would see all religions as true. The hymn from Maha Upanishad embodies well the vision of the world as one family (Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam).

The following quote from Sri Aurobindo best summarizes the concept of universal acceptance: “Each religion has helped mankind. Paganism increased in man the light of beauty, the largeness and height of his life, his aim at a many-sided perfection; Christianity gave him some vision of divine love and charity; Buddhism has shown him a noble way to be wiser, gentler, purer; Judaism and Islam how to be religiously faithful in action and zealously devoted to God; Hinduism has opened to him the largest and profoundest spiritual possibilities. A great thing would be done if all these God-visions could embrace and cast themselves into each other; but intellectual dogma and cult-egoism stand in the way.”

One of the hymns of the Vedic times that best defines the Hindu ideal is:

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते

पूर्णस्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

ॐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ॥

Aum Pūrnamadaḥ pūrnamidaṁ

Pūrnāt pūrnamudacyate

Pūrnasya pūrnamādāya

Pūrnamevāvaśiṣyate

Aum Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ Śāntiḥ

It literally means: “That is full. This is full. The full is taken out of the full. Take out the full from the full, the full remains. Om, peace, peace, peace.” It implies: The Creator is both the ‘full’ and the parts that are also ‘full’, which are taken out of the ‘full’. By creating the universe and all the elements in it, the Creator does not limit Him or lose His ‘full’ness. This brings another element. As the whole world is the Creator’s creation out of Himself, the whole world and its elements partake His consciousness. Applying this logic further, we are all divine as we are created by the Supreme Divine. Ramakrishna Paramahansa was one of the foremost examples of this widest possible interpretation of religion. He practiced all religions including Christianity and Islam and concluded that all religions are true, and they all lead to true liberation. Mahatma Gandhi argued that all religions are like beautiful flowers in a garden. He further argued all religions are like rivers flowing to the same ocean, the Truth. Gandhi – a saint among politicians and politician among saints – attended morning prayers every day and listened to Narsinh Mehta and worked tirelessly to promote religious harmony and brotherhood.

Few lines from Narsinh Mehta, the 14^th century Gujarati saint and poet,

Vaishnav jana to tene kahiye, je pid parayi janere…

A person is truly divine, who understands the pain of others…

How can one better summarize the marriage between religion and science, between mandir and mathematics, than this song of Narsinh Mehta. An individual who is scientific can understand the true import of this song, and channelize her or his energy to the service of the others.

I think Arvind Kejriwal would not disagree with me on this interpretation of Hindu religion. My religion teaches the widest possible opening of the spirit, touching upon every aspect of human endeavor – whether it is science and technology, arts or commerce, or even politics. I think when politicians are soaked deep in this widest understanding of religion, I mean any religion, they will not quarrel regarding science and religion, rather an inner harmony will bind them and propel them to work in unison to address multiple crises including economic corruption, moral perversion and spiritual degeneration.  

Trump and Jong-un, USA-North Korea, War and Peace: A Gandhian phase in international politics

During news conference on June 12, 2018, after his talk with North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, the US President, Donald J. Trump, affirmed, ‘Anyone can make war, but only the most courageous can make peace.’ This reminded me Mahatma Gandhi, who called war immoral, and wrote, ‘War, with all its glorification of brute force, is essentially a degrading thing. It demoralizes those who are trained for it.’

Some political analysts may find this pronouncement of the US President paradoxical, but what I am concerned more here is with the historic nature of the talk, and President Trump’s extending a hand of friendship to the North Korean leader. The analyses of the historic talk indicate that not only the talk ended on a positive note, but also it will herald a new phase in international politics, not only for the East Asia, but also for the world. Let us consider these points.

First, the continuation of the peace process and the consequent ceasing of nuclear weapon building activity on part of the North Korea and the US stopping its joint military exercises in East Asia will save enormous resources, which can be diverted to other constructive purposes. President Trump during his electoral campaign had signaled that the US is incurring heavy expenditure in these joint military exercises, and he would take steps to stop it, thus saving billions to the US exchequer. Also, North Korea would tremendously benefit from the ceasing of hostilities. Its poor economy was overburdened with military expenditure. A coolheaded analysis would show that these steps would not only reduce tensions, but would also save huge resources.

Second, during their talk, the North Korean leader pointed out that the history of suspicion had led to such a war like hostile situation – North Korea piling up weapons, and the US adopting strong measures such as economic sanctions and increasing its military presence in the Korean peninsula. President Trump seconded Jong-un. Many agreements had failed. The pressure of sanctions and force had not worked effectively. The net result was building of weapons, including nuclear weapons by North Korea, increasing US investment in the region in terms of military presence. A peace process, started earnestly, will reduce trust gap not only between the US and North Korea, but also between North Korea and South Korea and Japan.

Third, this development is more of an affirmation of liberalism in international politics. Fear and mistrust, the core feature of the cold era, led to production of lethal weapons. Fear as reflected in security dilemma, implying that a state is not sure how much strong its enemy is, and how much it is prepared to wage a war, contributed to this arms accumulation and war preparation. This realist approach actually increased insecurity among nations instead of defusing it, and created more havoc. North Korea threatening to target US mainland and the US threat to display its fire and fury are all the reflections of this realist, egoistic, approach. In place of war, cooperation, trust and economic relations are sure elements to build peaceful relations in this globalized world.

Gandhi wrote a long ago that war ‘brutalizes men of naturally gentle character. It outrages every beautiful canon of morality. Its path of glory is foul with passion and lust, and red with blood of murder. This is not the pathway to our goal.’ He further wrote, ‘…the economic war is no better than an armed conflict. This is like a surgical operation. An economic war is prolonged torture. And its ravages are no less terrible than those depicted in the literature on war.’ Gandhi’s argument that ‘war is not a morally legitimate means of achieving anything permanent’ has become increasingly relevant in the current times.

The coming of the two leaders shows that the world is heralding a new phase in peace and cooperation. The protracted Korean crisis lingering for the last 70 years, embroiled in the Cold War, ideological, politics could perhaps have not been worse. North Korea suffered from economic underdevelopment, while South Korea prospered. North Korea invested huge resources in arms, while its people starved. The US spent billions to provide security to its allies against North Korea. Years wasted. But, better late than never! Who knows, had this saber rattling continued, there could have been a nuclear catastrophe and third world war! We are fortunate that no such thing happened, and President Trump and North Korean leader Jong-un took the step in the right direction.

Mahatma Gandhi must be turning in his grave, smiling. It is the Gandhian spirit that worked a sort of miracle in Singapore! Gandhi rightly said, ‘there is no path to peace, peace is the path.’ It is only in peaceful environment that positive peace can be realized. The more the world leaders realize this, the more they act on this principle, the better for us and for the world! The meeting in Singapore early this week held such a promise! There are better days for the world coming. And it is incumbent on all peace leaders and activists to cherish this moment and work along this line, and call for and engage in peaceful praxis all over the world.

The author’s forthcoming coedited book is Gandhi and the World. For details see: https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781498576406/Gandhi-and-the-World

PM's Independence Day Speech

I listened to Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech on India’s 68^th Independence Day. Here I elaborate some of the points in the speech which I find inspiring for India’s growth. Modi’s emphasis on Shastra instead of Shastra (both words can be written same in English but their pronunciation and meaning in Sanskrit and Hindi – in which Modi delivered his speech – will be different: one is, for the sake of differentiation, Shaastra – meaning broadly book of knowledge and wisdom and the other is Shastra – meaning weapons) is the need of the time. Not only India and other countries in South Asia, but also most parts of the world, are affected by violence. Whether it is militancy and terrorism in India, or the Maoist problem in its east and south, or the problems in Afghanistan, or West Asia, or former Soviet space – all are marked by bloodshed. Geo-strategies and power politics have further contributed to bloodshed. The wisdom from the great books can guide us towards peace. It is time to give up guns and cultivate the inner virtues of human beings.

The replacement of a gun by a plough on the shoulder of a militant will cause much good to India, Modi believes. I believe in this too. We have seen many guns, wars, fear of guns, and their consequences. Guns have not resolved conflicts, not provided food and not brought peace and security to a nation-state or the globe. Now the time is for peace and economic development without the aid of a gun. I hope Modi will follow this principle while making decisions and implementing them.

The prime minister vigorously pitched for a India which has all means for economic development. He specially appealed to the youth of India. Here, it was the pro-business, pro-development, Modi was at his best. Modi is known for using new slogans. For the development of India, for increasing its exports, he gave a two-fold slogan ‘zero-defect, zero effect.’ He called the entrepreneurs, including the young entrepreneurs of India, to bring India’s name to the front not as an importer but as an exporter of qualitative goods. Zero defect implies that goods must be produced without any defect; they should be of best quality. This will ensure India’s global prestige as a quality goods producer. Any defect will bring bad name to India. Similarly, Modi called for production and export of goods which have least negative effect on environment. They should not prove environmental hazards.

As a tech-savvy politician, who uses social media for publicity of his policies and actions, Modi gave the call for transforming India into a ‘digital India.’ A digital India will cure many of the evils from which the Indian political system suffers. The idea of digital India also includes the idea of e-governance, which for the prime minister not only implies easy governance but also good governance. I agree with the prime minister that much of the red-tapism, which haunts India’s governance system, will go away if digital governance is practiced. India has required technological expertise to usher in digital governance. It has perhaps the largest number of IT professionals than any other country in the world. Hence, it is absolutely possible to embark on e-governance, which will cater to the needs of the people without the aid of the middlemen.

To fight the menace of middlemen, the prime minister announced a program under which money from government will directly reach the needy. Without such a provision there is rampant corruption in welfare programs launched by the government. Go to any village and talk to the people below poverty line, they will tell you clearly how they have suffered in the hands of the middlemen. Whether is rural employment guarantee scheme, or old age pension, Indira Awas Yojana (in fact there are many welfare programs, which were certainly initiated with the aim of helping the poor), the hapless victims are the rural poor who have no recourse to justice against corrupt middlemen. Under the new program announced by Modi, a recipient of welfare benefits will have a bank account to which government will send money directly. The recipient will have a debit card to withdraw money easily. The prime minister rightly pointed out an irony that there are people in India who have mobile phones but not bank accounts. The governor of India’s central bank, Reserve Bank of India, has also made a resolve to fight crony capitalism. The new program will help fulfill this resolve.

About gender insensitivity and discrimination against women, the prime minister made a strong pitch for gender equality in all walks of life. Drawing from the tradition, he urged the parents to give moral education to their children. He rightly pointed out the rapist is somebody’s son. I agree with him that moral education by parents can help develop the character of a child and make him a responsible citizen of the country. Modi argued against female feticide and cited the recent Commonwealth Games in UK in which women got a good number of medals. Women and men are equal and there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender, the prime minister appealed to the people of India.

Modi also pointed out other evils that eat into the vitals of an emerging India. The main among them include communalism and casteism. He appealed to the people of India to rise above these evils and fight them collectively. He cited a Sanskrit hymn that we should walk together. It is when we think and work collectively as a nation that many of the problems we confront will wither away. He applied the same yardstick to other evils such as corruption. Selfishness is the main mover of corruption. One should not only think about his ‘self’ but also the ‘self’ of the society, of India as a whole. Here comes to my mind the Gandhian dictum: the nature has for everybody’s need but not for anybody’s greed. The famous Gandhian talisman read: when an individual is in confusion as to whether he should take a particular action, he should think about the most miserable person on the earth he has seen and think whether the action he is confused about will help that person. If the answer is yes, he should initiate that action otherwise not. Perhaps Modi has in his mind this talisman when he urged the people of India to think of India as a whole, as one family. 

Modi also evoked the spirit of Gandhi when he was talking about cleanliness. India is one of the dirty countries in the world. Go to any city, town or public places, or to India’s rivers, the sight says it all. Modi said, we are going to celebrate Gandhi’s 150^th birth anniversary in near future, but we must remember Gandhi’s emphasis on hygiene. He rightly pointed out that government will not be able to carry out this mission without the support of the citizens. He is right in this. Government is of the people and for the people and by the people. Without the support of citizens, the government efforts will be vain. The people must take care of their house and make it clean, and the same logic they need to apply to their neighborhood, and public spaces like parks, markets, tanks and rivers. Unless this happens, India will remain dirty and dispel the investor who wants to invest in India, dispel a person who wants to be an India lover and wants to say India is my home.

Besides Gandhi, Modi also evoked the names of Maharshi Aurobindo and Swami Vivekananda. In his message on India’s first Independence Day in 1947 Maharshi Aurobindo had elaborated his five dreams. Among them included a strong and vibrant India, and emergence of India not only as a developed and harmonious nation-state but also as a teacher (Guru) of the world. Swami Vivekananda gave the call to the youth of India to march ceaselessly till the goal is reached. It may not be an exaggeration to say that Modi drew heavily from India’s rich cultural and spiritual heritage while speaking from the Red Fort. 

Health Insurance for the Planet

An individual has health insurance so that in case of illness or bodily injury he can have insurance benefits. The main concern here is individual security. As individual is not blessed with infinite life without any disease or problem – health insurance in this case guarantees his security. The primary motive behind this security is the idea that individual life is fragile, subject to various vagaries – whether rising from nature or manmade– individual can secure his losses by availing health insurance. Forget health insurance, we have insurance for our vehicles, houses, perhaps any conceivable thing which can be insured. 

Individual lives in a geographic location. Space and time are a priori in human existence. Stretching space in our imagination we can think of our globe – the planet earth – or other planets in the solar system, but space is something which is beyond imagination and spreads across solar systems, galaxies, milk ways and other entities in the universe. My point in narrating all these space structures is to emphasize that among the wide variety of space structures only planet earth has the elements for life survival. Science tells us that – at present we do not know whether other space structures have elements for life survival. 

Here I am trying to make an analogy between individual and our planet. In this analogy I am inspired by the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Christiana Figueres, who argued passionately during her lecture at University Massachusetts Boston and during her radio interview last month that we must think about the health of our planet as we think about health of the individual. Individual life is fragile, so is life of the planet. The analogy may seem metaphorical but is not without its utility. We are concerned about individual and human security and think about means to provide for them but we do not give importance to the surroundings in which individual lives. We do not give importance to the security of our planet. Individual security largely veers around the conduct of the individual. The security of the planet too veers around the conduct of the individual. As individual life can not be sustained without regulations, the same thing can be argued about the planet though in a different way. If individual has health insurance then the planet must have health insurance. 

The argument has a lot of relevance. Earth does not possess infinite resources. The earth has its limit in terms of resources. The more we use non-renewable resources, the less we have of them. Coal is the mineral that takes thousands of years to take shape. But within that time space, we have thousands of human generations come and pass away and exhaust resources of the earth. Hence, the question is not only economic but also ethical. It is ethical because we can not extract resources of the earth as we wish, without thinking about the health of our planet. The greedy use of resources not only deforms the earth, but also cripples its capacities for future generations. Mahatma Gandhi cautioned us, “The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” The rush for economic development has contributed to depletion of resources of the earth, and also polluted our atmosphere. It may not be prudent to argue against economic development, but it certainly makes sense to argue for a prudent use of non-renewable resources earth has for us. How to do this belongs to the realm of actions by individuals and particularly to the states they belong to. 

It is not the issue to be settled between the developed and the developing countries. Such a formulation does not help. It is about individuals and about future generations. Figueres rightly pointed out individual must rise above narrow confines of state and region, and think global. Individual needs to broaden his thinking not as a national citizen but as a global citizen. Similarly, the nations – the agglomeration of individuals – must think in terms of members of a single family of human society. They have to think this way, because there is no alternative way. The problems created in some parts of the world are not confined to that part of the world. The diseases inflicted on the body of earth are not/can not be confined to a particular nation or group of nations. The impact of the rise of the sea level will be global – it will affect all low lying areas in the world. Maldives, which perhaps did not contribute, or contributed a paltry sum, to global warming will submerge under water. The rapid deforestation and its impact on rain pattern will impact countries across the globe. The thinning of Arctic ice or the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas will have devastating impacts transcending national boundaries. Nations have perhaps realized this and the impending catastrophe out of this. We have lot of dialogues, deliberations, and summits about how to address these issues. The optimistic and dynamic leaders like Figueres believe that we must have to work within existing parameters, within existing rigidities, to craft policies to address the issues plaguing the earth.

Earth, hence, needs a health insurance. Who will be, in this case, the provider? The answer is – the individuals and groups of individuals. I use here the word group in a broad sense, implying small groups of organizations to larger collective entities of state or supranational bodies. But, the starting point must be individual. I remember a movement in India which worked on the idea that every individual in the country in her/his life time would plant at least one sapling. An individual may argue that such a step is trivial – how would one sapling planted by him help prevent climate degradation. But this argument is wrong – it is the individual who enjoys the fruits of trees (literally as well as metaphorically) planted by his predecessors. And if every individual plants a tree, one billion people of India can plant at least one billion trees. Tree is an example. When Figueres argued that every individual must think as a global citizen, the message goes to every individual – the individual in the countryside, to city dwelling educated and professional individuals, and their leaders – who are also individuals. There needs to be a fundamental change in the mind of individuals about the earth. We call the earth Mother Earth, but we seldom think about this mother. Individual must cultivate, or be led to cultivate, empathy for the planet. A leaf from Gandhi’s life. When an inmate of his Ashram snapped a small branch of a tree in a careless move, Gandhi was angry and rebuked him saying as you have life as a human being, the tree has also life. 

The question is political, economic as well as ethical. In fact all these dimensions reinforce each other. Nations need to cooperate with each other irrespective of their wealth and cultivate in their citizens empathy for the planet. It is time that we must seriously think about health insurance for our planet and think creatively how to provide this insurance. The cost is individual, and national, commitment to a healthy practice and the benefit is security for us and our future generations.

Boston Marathon

Already a lot has been written about the Boston Marathon and the tragedy that took place on 15 April 2013. Here I will narrate my personal feeling and emotion that I have after I heard the news about the tragedy from one of my friends and watched the TV and interacted with friends and colleagues in the university. My views may not match with the views of the others including experts in the area, but I think as a conscientious individual I should express my views. Though I was not present at the marathon cheering runners up, some of my friends had gone to watch the event but returned back before the blasts. I had come across the news about the preparation of the event, its history, diversity of participating runners, its cultural significance, and its sobering impact on the whole city. Boston is not a very large city, but its cultural depth, its history, its significance in the American life is legendary. Nobody expected that the event would turn into a tragedy with the blasts killing three people including an eight year old boy not far from my residence and a student, and maiming some people, besides injuring more than hundred, in a flash of seconds.

Grief clouded the whole city on the day of the blast and afterwards. Classes and other academic activities were cancelled in my university. Fear pervaded the people with the sigh of relief that they were not killed or maimed by the blasts, but the question still remained – the death could have been theirs. A surreal revisiting of the 9/11 emerged, and a sense of helplessness and frustration was pervading mind. The two flights turned missiles had taken off from Logan airport and many Bostonians could not forget those horrible days when they found their near or dear ones were passengers in those flights. Though in a smaller scale comparison to the 9/11, the blasts in Boston evoked in the people a sense of helplessness and fear, howsoever transitory that feeling was. President Obama during his speech at Cathedral of the Holy Cross infused courage into the minds of the people when he said ‘you will run again.’ It is but futile to think that fear would subsume the human spirit and its resilience. And great cities like Boston known for its harmony and cultural vibrancy would certainly come back, or has come back with many marathoners resolving to run next year. 

One of my colleagues, during conversation, asked ‘why did the individuals commit such heinous acts, killing people?’ The senseless acts are irrational, illogical, emerging out of a mentality, which is sick. I agreed with her. But I wanted to add more in the context of violent acts perpetrated by radical individuals or groups with the sole purpose of killing people and inflicting fear among them. The perpetrator is convinced of the ‘rationale’ of what he or she is going to do, and even readies to sacrifice life for the act. There is the issue of what he thinks and why he thinks what he thinks. From a legal perspective, an act of violence is an act of violence, hence must be subject to law. I do not dispute that. My argument here is – the minds of these perpetrators which are perverted must be changed. I remember here President Obama’s famous speech at Cairo University in 2009, where he emphasized on dialogue among cultures, dialogue among civilizations. 

We need more such dialogues; we need more understanding of the situation. Law and order must carry the needed tasks, at the same time, perhaps at a parallel level there need to be more dialogue to impart values of diversity, pluralism and harmony among people, including would be perpetrators. As I argued at another place, in this drive religious leaders, whether of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism either individually or in tandem, more in tandem, can play an effective role. These values need to be imparted to all, particularly to children. I understand its apparent feasibility in democratic and liberal states, and apparent difficulty in authoritarian, radical states. An authoritarian ruler or a religious leader with an extremist mind and agenda causes more damage than a lone extremist with no political power. The leader can change or brainwash his followers while a lone terrorist may not. Any sick or perverted mind must be changed, whether the motivation behind is religion, or any other thing.

The blasts reminded me of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. I was in Mumbai those days. The whole city of 20 million people, also known as commercial capital of India, came to a grinding halt with public offices closed. The city that is known to be awake always – whether in day or in night – was lifeless for about three days with security forces and ten terrorists fighting at the Taj hotel. The attacks killed about 200 people besides injuring many. The blasts at Boston, and terror attacks at Mumbai are different incidents – but the common elements in both the incidents are that innocent lives were lost and culprits were convinced that they are committing barbaric acts for a cause, howsoever perverted or skewed those causes are. This mentality of the perpetrators must be addressed before they commit these acts. Their fundamental assumptions must be questioned and changed before they commit these acts of violence. They must be convinced the worth of peaceful means to address issues. Mahatma Gandhi rightly pointed out; the peaceful goals must be pursued by peaceful means. For him if truth is the goal, non-violence is the means. Gandhi’s definition of truth is not exclusive, rather it is inclusive. For him religion is a path to spiritual realization and for which all religions have equal value. The would-be culprits and culprits alike must be imparted these values. 

Boston has come back to life with the Bostonians trying to keep pace with movement of life in their daily activities and practices. I am sure the marathon will continue perhaps with more vigor and more participation. I have a desire to take part in the next marathon. As time passes without our noticing it, and we grow more wise with time and events, we must develop peace education to its full magnitude and spread it world wide. The US with its resources and soft power can take the lead in this noble mission. It must protect its cities and people by all means, but it must invest effectively in peace education. It may prove less expensive than to fight a culprit and address the tragedy after the violent act than to transform him into a peaceful, law abiding citizen of the country, or a peaceful, conscientious member of the world.

Mahatma Gandhi's Death Anniversary: Reflections

On 30 January 65 years ago Mahatma Gandhi was shot while attending a prayer in New Delhi. Everyday he used to attend prayers, which served two purposes: to pray God for well being of mankind, and to meet visitors and interact with them. Before closing his eyes eternally he uttered thrice Ram, the Hindu God, considered an ideal to be emulated in practical life. 

Two famous songs Gandhi used to listen during these prayer sessions included: Vaishnav jan to tene kahiye je pid parai jane re (the person is divine, who feels other’s pain); and Raghupati Raghav Rajaram (a prayer to Ram). The first song was written by the 15^th century Gujarati saint-poet Narsinh Mehta, a prayer full of devotion and love, imploring individual not to immerse in self-aggrandizement, but to care for others. The spirit behind the song is: service to mankind is service to God. The second one is a prayer seeking divine grace for the well being of mankind. This song is still popular in India, and sung on many occasions. Gandhi was not only listening to the prayers but also following them in practice. Hypocrisy was foreign to him. A noble thing learnt is meant for practice. For him, there was no separation between thought and practice. A British educated, renowned lawyer in South Africa, Gandhi left the riches except a loin cloth to ‘experiment with truth’ in India.

Religion had impacted Gandhi’s politics. He was influenced by his mother, a pious lady, and listened from her stories of Hindu scriptures. But his religion was not a religion of exclusion. The opposite was true. For him, all religions are paths to God-realization. Religion does not mean ritualism or dogmatism. Gandhi would argue if ritualism or dogmatism is an obstacle against God-realization, better they be shun. They are utilitarian so far they help seeker to move closer to God. He wrote that all religions are like different flowers which make the garden beautiful. While India was burning in communal fire with Hindus and Muslims killing each other after the partition of the subcontinent, Gandhi instead of attending the independence celebrations in Delhi marched to far flung areas to douse the fire. He insisted that new-born Pakistan must have its due share in resources of undivided India. He was killed by a fanatic Hindu, who saw in activities of Gandhi strains of anti-Hinduism.

Gandhi’s religious views influenced his action. When an inmate of his Ashram cut a small branch of a tree in a careless action, Gandhi’s anger was without limit. He saw life in everything, both animate and inanimate things. For him, in an animal or a tree dwells God, as in a human being.  Gandhi’s politics is spiritualized politics. The prayers, readings from scriptures deeply influenced his thought and action. He was called a politician among saints and saint among politicians. His vision of an ideal state is what he termed Ram Rajya (Kingdom of Ram or God), a place in which Truth reigns supreme. Ram, the Hindu God, is considered an ideal king who followed the rules honestly and did not hesitate to be harsh on his family members if the rule demanded. The mythology says, not only human beings, but also animals had the right to seek justice from King Ram.

For Gandhi, the poor must factor first in policy making. He offered an advice to policy makers. In what is famously called Bapu’s talisman, he exhorted policy makers, “Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, apply the following test. Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest 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 gain anything by it? Will it restore him to a control over his own life and destiny? In other words, will it lead to swaraj (freedom) for the hungry and spiritually starving millions? Then you will find your doubts and your self melt away.” Juxtapose this to Rajiv Gandhi (a former prime minister of India), who confessed: one rupee that federal government releases for poor is reduced to 10 paisa (1 rupee = 100 paisa) at destination. Though Indian currency notes display the image of Gandhi, the massive corruption at higher and lower echelons of administration displays a stark contrast. The irony is clear. Though Gandhi is worshiped as father of the nation in India, the real working of Indian polity has sacrificed him in the altar of corruption, communalism and self-aggrandizement. On the question of self-aggrandizement, Gandhi’s views were very clear. He says, earth has for everybody’s need but not for anybody’s greed. He led by example. He led a frugal life. When King George V inquired  during Gandhi’s visit to Buckingham place in 1931, why the Indian leader had put on scant cloth Gandhi’s reply was: The King had enough on for both of us.

In Gandhi’s life philosophy there is no disparity between the inner and the outer. The person who is honest and truthful in his inner core can not be dishonest and corrupt in his activities. Gandhi articulates well that there is no limit to human greed. Greed not only leads to corruption and demoralizes public and private life but also concentrates wealth in the hands of the few at the cost of the many. He argues a different kind of economic arrangement in society in which the rich will not be the possessor of their wealth, but a trustee of it, not for self-indulgence but for the greater well being of society. The Gandhian dream of an ethical India, in which rich and poor have same life-values, has apparently crumbled if one looks at India today.

Gandhi once commented that if women of the world unite they can kick atom bomb like a foot ball. For him, women and men are equal. Women with their power of compassion can make a better world than their male counterparts. He was almost an icon among women. When he visited London suburbs and working class areas in 1931, women flocked in large numbers to meet him. As displayed by media, the old frail man was surrounded by women during his visit to textile workers in suburbs of London. 

He was concerned at arms race that was picking speed during early days of the cold war. At Asia Relations Conference in New Delhi in 1947, he argued for a non-violent, peaceful world, where nations whether in Asia and Africa, or in other continents, would realize their full potentials in the spirit of harmony and brotherhood. As colonialism was still a raging phenomenon those days, Gandhi in this conference raised the pitch to fight against this menace through non-violence. In his words, “I do not want merely to appeal to your head. I want to capture your heart … In this age of democracy, in this age of awakening of the poorest of the poor, you can redeliver this message with the greatest emphasis. You will complete the conquest of the West, not through vengeance, because you have been exploited, but with real understanding. I am sanguine, if all of you put your hearts together–not merely heads–to understand the secret of the message these wise men of the East have left to us, and us if we really become worthy of that great message, the conquest of the West will be completed. This conquest will be loved by the West itself.”

Gandhi’s ideas related to alcohol, animal-killing and Brahmacharya (celibacy, a crude translation) are almost extinct from public debate. His autobiography is full of accounts how he struggled in his inner life to conquer desire. He conquered desire. He was a noble soul. It is apt to quote Einstein, who pays a fitting tribute to Gandhi, “A leader of his people, unsupported by any outward authority; a politician whose success rests not upon craft or mastery of technical devices, but simply on the convincing power of his personality; a victorious fighter who has always scorned the use of force; a man of wisdom and humility, armed with resolve and inflexible consistency, who has devoted all his strength to the uplifting of his people and the betterment of their lot; a man who has confronted the brutality of Europe with the dignity of the simple human being, and thus at all times risen superior. Generations to come, it may be, will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.” 

An Appeal to the Indian Political Class

Protests against corruption in India or other parts of the world are not new. History shows enough evidence of such kinds of protests from time to time. In case of India, there appears a mismatch between concept of public service and political power as a means to realize that goal. Political power when used as a means to itself in collusion with traditional notions of feudalism, then public service emerges a camouflage. This deadly cocktail of power and traditionalism has stymied the vision of public service long cherished by founders of modern India.

I do not blame the political class solely for the mess in Indian political system. When I search root cause of this gangrene, I do not look at the persons who are managing the political business of the country but at somewhere else. These persons are manifestation of a system which discreetly, or maybe openly, encourages greedy harnessing of political power not for public service but for personal gains. It is interesting to examine which factors led to evolution of this corrupt system, and how the political class imbibes those values which work as detriments against the ethos of service to the people and service to the nation.

I identify the following factors which can help explain the degeneration of a system which produced public servants and politicians like Mahatma Gandhi and Lal Bahadur Shastri. Gandhi epitomized in person the unique combination of a saint and a politician, while Shastri epitomized in person honesty with public service as sole guide in actions. The culture of hierarchy and feudalism has contributed to corruption. Though India claims to be an egalitarian society, respect for hierarchy and power goes deep into the Indian psyche. Feudalism in the context of India can be translated as an earlier version of power equation with the sole purpose of aggrandizement. Feudalism reinforces hierarchy, and conforms to a pattern in which the powerful, irrespective of the values and goals, is worshipped. With the onset of Westminster model of democracy after the independence, and with the adoption of a democratic, socialist and secular constitution, this craving for feudal hierarchy did not die but assumed new forms. The political leaders took the place of feudal lords and their election to power by popular vote helped erase the negative varnish of feudalism. The political leaders in the immediate aftermath of the independence belonged to a different breed as they fought the British for freedom, and for them freedom of India was equivalent to freedom of themselves, their families, and the whole of India. I admit there is a qualification even now. I do not argue that all political leaders are corrupt or of feudal mentality, but the number of corrupt politicians has gone up drastically. The miniscule politicians with noble values are marginalized or they deliberately remain coalesced to the corrupt system. Any observer of Indian politics will agree that most of the political leaders are corrupt.

This feudal approach leads to domestication of political parties. Political parties created during colonial India attracted bright and talented young women and men across divides. Dedication to social service, adherence to austerity in personal life and an avid sense of patriotism were the main motivators for the young people to join political parties. Politicians then did not promote their daughters and sons as their successors in politics because they knew that such an exercise would be futile because sense of service requires morality and ethics in personal life, which can not be imposed. Feudalism was existed then, even in a more rigid sense, but that never clouded the vision of national-minded political leaders. For them, not wealth but wisdom, not power but public service, not muscle power but moral strength guided their actions and vision. Later years witnessed the degradation of this framework and the return of feudalism as the successive leaders succumbed to it lure. The veneer of democratic election and the legitimacy it brought upon the leaders created a sense of impunity among the rising breed of political leaders. This process of degeneration was further accelerated due to poverty and illiteracy of the people. The people were no more considered agents of change as leaders manipulated people power for selfish gains. Electors were considered important at the interval of every five years and the disconnect between leaders and people were forced to be bridged by means of money and muscle power and by all kinds ingenuity the shrewd human mind can innovate. The degradation of democratic values accelerated this process.

The concept of babudom created during the British raj contributed to the corruption of the system. Though the concept is related to bureaucracy than to the politics, it contributed to corruption in Indian politics. The British created the formidable bureaucracy not only to carry administration but also to create a shield between the raj and the people. The bureaucracy trained with professionalism to carry the order of their masters and drawn from the Indian masses could be ruthless in their operations. Hence it was the Indian commissioner in most cases who perpetuated the British rule for years. In return, they were paid sumptuously, elevated to a higher prestige as almost a new feudal class and given a free hand to run affairs once they fulfilled the duty to protect the empire and make its machine run. After British departed the politician elected by the people, wielded power over the bureaucrats. They controlled the legislature as elected representatives of people. The politician who campaigned to garner popular votes and ran from village to village in sweltering heat, or cold or rain, and invested a lot of money and muscle in these campaigns gets little remuneration after getting elected to office. In a general sense a minister in the government gets less remuneration than a legislator. Here appears the disconnect, fostered by relative deprivation. The sense of this relative deprivation was lacking in the earlier breed of political class as for them politics is a means for service, not a means for wealth accumulation and power. For the latter breed of leaders, the hard work before election must be compensated by the gains of the political office. What the babus get due to their eligibility by qualifying examinations mostly deemed impartial, many politicians want to get that leverage by means of their newly gained power. The political power opened up for them floodgates to wealth by manipulation and in this venture they were aided by the subordinate bureaucracy.

Poverty and unemployment contribute to political corruption. In the prevalent world most of the young people join politics not for service but for livelihood may not be a farfetched statement. Thousands of young women and men sacrificed their lives during freedom struggle as for them there was no separation of the cause of thier life from the cause of the nation. The political leaders played a significant role to invoke in them the spirit of service. The case is different now. A young man who played an active role during the electoral campaign of his leader seeks remuneration after the election of the leader. That appears ‘legitimate’ as for him politics is a ‘job’ and politician is the job provider. It is no surprise to see the rise of a new breed of young lower rung youth leaders at village or town level, who express loyalty to leaders and get contracts to build roads, schools, primary health centers, etc. This may be called trickling down of corruption, but in this case the two poles – politician at the top and the apprentice at the bottom – reinforce each other. The politician thinks ‘benevolently’ for his followers who have done so much for his success and rewards them with largesse not from his own kitty but from the public kitty of which he is elected custodian. An educated youth with a respectable source of livelihood may not be drawn to this cycle of politics, which not only channelizes his youthful energy and dynamism to suit the purpose of the leader but also creates a long line of recruits behind him. One may not be surprised to see young people flocking to political leaders or roaming around political offices or taking part in college and university student union elections for the sole purpose of recruitment and power. In many Indian colleges and universities, the criminalization of campus politics is the result of politicization of education institutions as these are seen not as temples of scientific inquiry and wisdom but as recruiting grounds for political parties.

The noble values guiding political actions have deteriorated. It is not to say that there are no values in political life and we have not a single political leader who is guided by values but the chasm between values and political actions have never been stark as it is now. There is also the question of priority. For Mahatma Gandhi clear conscience and inner purity is more important than visible success in life. He would rather sacrifice his life than compromise his values. Once this inner core is established, Gandhi would argue, actions in life naturally flow from this core. Once this core is different alloyed with craving for wealth and power then outer actions would be different. Gandhi would never use muscle or money power to win elections because for him political power is not the end rather a means to serve mankind. Shastri’s vision and ideals were deeply embedded by this Gandhian principle. In the current breed of political leaders this inner core is lacking. The quest for power by hook or crook has clouded the inner core. When power becomes the sole aim, the finer human qualities become subservient to this aim. As a result, a political leader will not hesitate to exploit the fault lines in a society whether in terms of differences in caste, religion, ethnic identity, language or region to realize his goal. While Mahatma Gandhi would prefer to rush to dowse the communal fire, a present day politician would rush to stoke communal passion to gain votes. The purpose of human life and the purpose of living daily as a life to live for the good of society have become alien to the political class. The famous Gandhian dictum (paraphrasing) ‘when you are confused as to which policy to adopt then think of the most grieved and confusion will melt away’ has been thrown to trash bin without second thought. A politician may not hesitate to bribe people to vote, to deliver false promises, play tricks and feign innocence, play dangerous games in terms of silencing opponents as these are for him means to gain power and wealth and the ‘prestige’ associated with them.

Hence, when I survey the current protest against political corruption I am not surprised at the lackluster attitude of the political class across spectrum. Many political leaders smirk at these protests and even mock the protesters as if they are lesser mortals. There may be genuine feeling behind these protest movements against corruption but I am skeptic how far they will succeed unless the political class is convinced of the urgency of reform. The political class, the wielder of political power, comprising of master tacticians are adept in using carrot and stick policy. They will use all kinds of policies and machinations to swim over the tide of protests. They will apply all their ingenuity to show the protests in a poor light. They know when to baulk and when to intimidate and when to eliminate the opposition. My central argument in this article is unless political class is convinced of self-transformation; the endeavor to change them from outside will be very difficult. Unless they feel the pinch from inside, unless they feel the urgency to change, unless they want to transform India from a developing to a developed world, all these protests may go in vein or will have little effects. I do not doubt the motives of some of the protesters, but I doubt how far they will be successful in moving this colossal machine, steeped deep in corruption and wielders of power, forward.

I believe political class can change. There can be motivations for political leaders. There can be even higher allurements for them to undertake this adventure. When I appeal to them for change, I note these allurements which they need to take into considerations while thinking about transforming themselves. As on this transformation of the political class depend the present and future of not only them and their immediate families but also the present and past of the nation.

First, it may appear crude but the fact is that most of the political leaders at top will survive few years, or say, about thirty years or maybe less. They must think after they pass away, how they will be remembered in Indian public memory? Will they prefer to be remembered as a corrupt leader who swindled public money and filled his coffers and did nothing constructive for the nation? Will they prefer to be revered as we revere the father of the nation or Shastri, or will they prefer to be remembered as a repugnant soul in the Indian political sky? I do not want to name here the deceased political leaders who are remembered as corruption personified. I understand this may not be an immediate allurement for the political leaders, but it may be a sufficient indication that the posterity may not be kind enough to forgive them for their actions of corruption which blight the Indian nation. It is but natural that once the top political leaders change their course and become transparent; the followers will follow their footprints. I am optimistic. Why can not our political leaders become as great as Mahatma Gandhi? They can be. The clincher is that they must take a long term perspective of life.

Second, Indian people dread politicians because they use power not for the right end. I am reasonably sure when an Indian politician goes to a foreign developed country, there must be a time he must have craved to see India as a developed nation. Many of our political leaders will definitely be happy to conceive India as a developed country and as a super power. They must think and ask themselves – what contributions they have made to make India a rising power? How much their policies have contributed to the growth of India? How do they feel India’s rise as their rise, and India’s growth as their growth? How many of them can claim to be builders of modern India? One spiritual leader of pre-independent India had envisioned a free India as leader of the world. How far these leaders have contributed to such a vision? A political leader’s rise into grace and fall into disgrace are of less consideration than his contribution to the rise of India. A political leader’s worth will not be judged by how much bank balance he has, how much money he has stashed away, how much acreage of land he has, how much money he spent in parties, what was the weight of his birthday cake. None of us ask these questions about Gandhi or Shastri. Gandhi left the lucrative job of lawyer and plunged into politics for the reasons we all know. Let the political leaders learn a lesson or two from Gandhi not only in terms of wearing Gandhi cap or cotton. It may sound bit acerbic but the millions of Indian youth are disappointed by the service of the political class. What we read in textbooks about the life of Gandhi and other great founders of India – we find a huge discrepancy in their life philosophy and the rules guiding the actions of current breed of political leaders.

Third, the political leader must ask – what is the purpose of life? It may sound philosophical but a life devoid of philosophy is no life worth living. Gandhi said (and I am paraphrasing), ‘when I go to bed every night I think my life is coming to an end, and when I get up every morning I think I have a new birth.’ It has a powerful message. It implies when a person goes to bed in night he recapitulates his deeds whole day and find wrong and right he did, what lessons he drew from them and how will not he repeat the same mistakes. It has a moral imperative. Do our politicians think this way and judge themselves by following this Gandhian yardstick. My purpose here is to checkmate the degradation of the political system by appealing to the political class to think in a different way. How moral is it for a political leader to amass enormous wealth and offer largess to his cronies when millions of Indian children are malnourished and many of these children die of starvation? How moral is it to spend millions of rupees in parties organized by political class when millions of their fellow Indians suffer from abject poverty? Poverty tourism by some political leaders is mark of another humiliation to these people. I feel sad when one report in New York Times calculated that if every American family contributes 200 dollars per year, no child will be malnourished in the world. My attention is on India. I think – how will it be if our political leaders use a fragment of their wealth for the poor of India?

Lastly, I do not consider Indian political class insensitive and heartless. We still have political leaders with finer intellect. Once the political leaders think in terms of India and Indian nation and give up the fragmented outlook, India will not only be a developed nation without poverty and malnourished children, the political leaders will themselves realize that they are true inheritors of vision that guided freedom struggle of India and their forefathers in politics.

(Where) Meeting is Parting must be

While watching TV on a Saturday morning, a sudden idea crept into my mind. It is (Where) Meeting is Parting Must Be. This is how human life is. Where there is meeting, there must be parting. Meeting point in human life has its parting point as well. In Hegelian language if Meeting is thesis, then Parting is the inevitable anti-thesis. And the process goes on. Simple examples. Sometimes, while watching a favourite TV programme, we long this programme to continue further so that we can enjoy it but that does not happen. The programme ends in its stipulated time. Another example. When we go to meet somebody, a time comes when we have to say bye. These are some of the simplest examples; I will now proceed to complex examples. Human life is in continuous movement. It cannot remain static. Human being is born, grows up, and dies, whether naturally or unnaturally. It cannot stop this process of nature. Hence, whatever one does in life, I am talking from the point of view of action, it must pass away. Action, the term itself denotes movement. We must do something ‘to do action,’ whether physical, vital or mental. When I am thinking about somebody or something, or when I am writing this column, or when I am tilling the field – all these are actions. And all these actions cannot be permanent. Perhaps here, my argument is similar to that of Buddhist argument of momentariness (Kshanavada). Life is in flux, in continuous flux, and there is nothing permanent, nothing eternal, nothing enduring. If the whole life is in flux, if the life mechanism is in movement, then naturally all things in life, all activities, all meetings, are part of this process of momentariness. They cannot be permanent or eternal. Hence, when I meet a friend on the way to university, I must leave him after moments howsoever engrossing the interaction might be as he must have something to do, as I have to. And the process continues. Usually when a government is formed in a state by a political party, it must be in office for some years, then some other dispensation takes its place. Even in traditional kingdoms ruled by monarchs, the rulers had to cease from the thrones after their death, or old age, or by overthrow. In fact I wanted here to emphasize some aspects of life linked to this central argument of momentariness. My point here is that howsoever precious a thing, a possession, a friendship, or a relationship we value, it must pass away, if not today, then tomorrow, if not tomorrow then day after, if not this year, then after few years. This is the eternal law and no other law can change it, even the supreme science or technology cannot change it. Once we agree or rather once we appreciate this dictum, then there often appears (or will appear) a sense of urgency in our life. We will no longer take a view as the herd takes, rather our approach to life will be that of a spiritual scientist, as that of a Mahatma Gandhi or a Buddha. Gautama realized this at the age of 20, and left his beautiful wife Yshodhara and son Rahul, the position of prince and all wealth a kingdom endowed on him. Later he became Buddha (enlightened). How many of us can really do this? A person who loves his family- wife, children, parents and other relatives- thinks as if things will endure eternally. But that does not really happen. Man behaves as if everything is permanent, but that is not the case. Even so called ‘permanent job’ is not permanent job actually, as one has to retire at the age of superannuation. My point is: Is it possible to take a broader approach to life, an approach by positioning ourselves on the sky, or on a mountain top, and see below towards the life? Is it possible to rise above narrow thinking, and think about the universal, the real, which is really mind boggling as mind often fails to grasp its breadth, than being lost in simple equation of mine and thine, I and you; the life we live is more stuffed with self-attachment, than with real love and sacrifice. Adi Shankara calls this world Maya or illusion and he is right from one point of view. So far we do not comprehend this complex nature of working of things in our life and in the world, we will be submerged in a narrow pond, than in the all flowing, crystal clear river of life. It is like the heaven-sage Narad, who once being curious and fascinated to find and know the human life, turned to an actual man, but later found himself so much submerged in the narrow pond of life that he forgot his sainthood and had to be killed by Vishnu from this bondage. Life is bondage in that sense. It can also be a source of liberation. Once we understand it, it will be easier to free from this bondage. Till we do not understand, we will be in illusion as Shankara says. I did not mean we should denunciate life, and turn into a corner of a cave and lose ourselves in blank meditation. It rather means a life full of activity, full of meaning and responsibility, free from bondage, free from narrowness, and free from submergence in this ‘narrow Naradic pond.’ Once we understand every meeting, means every meeting, howsoever short or long, must end in parting, our look will be changed towards life. A new realization will dawn as we will see everything, our daily activity, daily life, our relations within family and without family, internal as well as external, in a new sense. It will also bring to us that eternal understanding and flow of energy that instead of losing ourselves in trivialities of life, we will find ourselves myriad noble things to do in our life. And in a close analysis we will find that meeting and parting are in fact two faces of the same coin that is life.

Anna Aroused India from Slumber

I was planning to write something about Anna Hazare for the last few days, particularly after his fast in Delhi in mid August that gathered thousands of Indians on streets against rampant corruption. The mass media were so overwhelmed about this movement and so profuse in pouring out information, it was difficult to grapple with all the developments. Without going into details of debates about Anna’s persona, I will focus how his determination to make India corruption free impacted Indian people and strengthened their optimism that India can one day be corruption free. I heard earlier about Anna Hazare, who belonged to Indian state of Maharashtra. Any internet search will generate thousands of items in his name; hence I will not go into details about biography of this great Gandhian of 74 year old. Anna is a crusader against corruption since decades, and his honesty, simplicity, and his lean figure, and cool and innocent demeanor often bring before me the image of Vinoba Bhave, or Baba Amte, or Mahatma Gandhi.

Some people compare and contrast Anna with Gandhi. His detractors criticize Anna that he is masquerading Gandhi. His admirers compare him with Gandhi and call him Gandhi in independent India or Gandhi of modern India. I am not entering into polemics and that is not my purpose here. To me, it seems absurd, and also unnecessary. Anna himself says, as I listened to him in TV, that he has no intention to don the robe of Gandhi but to be his true disciple. He will be very happy to sit at the feet of Gandhi and learn from him and implement his principles of truth and non-violence in his life and in society.

I think it is the cause which is greater now, than the person. Gandhi himself was a great crusader against corruption, and he believed that the rich, molded by the principles of simple living and high thinking, should donate their wealth for greater cause and behave as trustees, not owner or possessor, of their wealth. Anna believes in Gandhi and his principles. It is analysts and intellectuals, some of them so-called, who debate about Anna. They measure his credentials according to their perspectives and make Anna a Mahatma (great soul) or a devil.

The important point here is the cause for which Anna is fighting. It is perhaps true he is the only leader who could galvanize the teeming millions of India to raise their voices against corruption and against government apathy to check the menace. It is a wonder in itself. Any casual observer can observe how millions thronged streets of India and pledged themselves to fight along with Anna against corruption. Anna is not a big politician of a particular political party nor is he a celebrity like a sports star nor a film star, nor is he a magician. But the mass following he could generate within a span of 2/3 months, is no mean achievement for the good of India.

Let me focus a little on corruption. Corruption is gangrene in Indian society, eating into the very vitals of modern India which the great Indians like Gandhi wanted to establish. Any common Indian will affirm that he/she faces corruption in every step of public dealing. Going to public office to make a license, to get a ration card, to be eligible for something deserving, all can be done by means of corruption without going through the process of red tape or official harassment. Rajiv Gandhi, the late Prime Minister of India, had said some 30 years ago that one rupee (Indian national currency) sent by government of India is reduced to 20 paisa (1/5th of rupee) when it reaches the intended target at grassroots level. The recent corruption cases at upper levels such as Commonwealth Games scam, Telecom scam, etc. have further raised apprehension in common Indian mind. Anna caught the public imagination in right time. And his fight is not his personal fight. It is a selfless fight, which is meant for all Indians. Hence, it is not important whether we call him Anna (itself a word of respect) or Mahatma (great soul), but his work, his determination, his fast in Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan brings forth the realization we have still persons built in the image of Gandhi, who can play the role of great catalyst to bring social transformation in India. In that sense, Anna Hazare is an embodiment of India’s anger, frustration, and desperation but in a saintly frame towards achieving a corrupt free society to which the political class seems to be apathetic.

The heated debates in the parliament in the last days of August 2011 could have begun few days, months or years back. Anna demands a kind of Ombudsman which can check corruption at high and low levels. In fact this system of Ombudsman (which we call Lokpal) was already introduced in Indian Parliament several times since 1968, but it was not passed. Who is to blame? I blame the apathy of the political class, the lack of coordination between divergent political parties, and also the lack of political vision and statesmanship. Perhaps, all these point towards India as a nation state is not yet mature, vibrant and fair. Leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar and other builders of modern India could have lamented the present state of India.

Anna rises above all petty debates. He aroused the spirit of India from slumber. Indians irrespective of differences and diversities must support him and his vision.