Detachment and compassion

From ‘Fruit Gathering’ by Rabindranath Tagore

“Far below flowed the Jumna, swift and clear, above frowned the jutting bank.

Hills dark with the woods and scarred with the torrents were gathered around.

Govinda, the great Sikh teacher, sat on the rock reading scriptures, when 

Raghunath, his disciple, proud of his wealth, came and bowed to him and said, “I have brought my poor present unworthy of your acceptance.”

Thus saying he displayed before the teacher a pair of gold bangles wrought with costly stones.

The master took up one of them, twirling it round his finger, and the diamonds darted shafts of light.

Suddenly it slipped from his hand and rolled down the bank into the water.

”Alas,” screamed Raghunath, and jumped into the stream.

The teacher set his eyes upon his book, and the water held and hid what it stole and went its way.

The daylight faded when Raghunath came back to the teacher tired and dripping.

He panted and said, “I can still get it back if you show me where it fell.”

The teacher took up the remaining bangle and throwing it into the water said, “It is there.”

*****

One would think whether such behaviour is possible.

We read in the life of people like Sri Ramakrishna where money or wealth or any other entanglements were anathema. Jesus cried, ‘either mammon or God’. He again emphasised, ‘the camel could go through the eye of a needle, but the rich cannot reach heaven’. Still, we consider that these are impractical.

In the life of Sri Ramana Maharshi, there is an incident, reported somewhere, I do not remember where.

A person comes to the Maharshi saying that he has brought a walking stick made out of sandal wood, to be given to the Maharshi.

Maharshi says that there was nothing called his in the ashram and hence asks the person to keep it himself.

The person insists that he has brought it for the Maharshi.

The Maharshi once again tells him that he does not keep any belongings there and the person who has brought it for his (Maharshi’s) exclusive use may feel dejected if someone else takes it.

The person does not still understand the import.  He also does not say, no matter whoever uses it he will leave it with the Maharshi. He again insists that he has brought it for the Maharshi.

While reading this I thought that Maharshi will snap at him saying, don’t you understand?

But Maharshi, still says, ‘since you have brought it for me you may feel sorry if someone else takes it.  So please keep it with you’.

Then the person who has brought it makes a request that Maharshi should at least receive it and bless it.

Maharshi takes it in his hand with a smile, smells it, says ‘it is good’ (nanna irukku) and returns it to that person.

What a compassion!

The Human predicament

On the topic of ‘Nationalism and Extremism’, Aurobindo Ghosh wrote in April 1907 thus:

“The Moderate view is that India may eventually be united, self-governing within limits and prosperous, but not free and great.  The Nationalists hold that Indians are capable of freedom as any subject nation can be and their defects are the result of servitude and can only be removed by the struggle for freedom; that they have the strength, and, if they get the will, can create the means to win independence.  They hold that the choice is not between autonomy and provincial Home Rule or between freedom and dependence, but between freedom and national decay and death.”

          Reading it, one is set to think, how far the argument is logical.  Whether doing away with alien rule itself could bring about development of a nation.  Whether the alien rule itself had not been brought about due to weakness of the personality of the nation as such?  Then, without acquiring the necessary skills for self governance, what worth would be the freedom so earned?

          In fact this question dogged the debate between Gandhi and Tagore in subsequent decades too, when Gandhi gave a call for civil disobedience and Tagore wanted some alternatives provided before pulling down available institutions.

          At the turn of every movement in public and social life, this debate continues- whether we should disown or destroy the existing things to earn or create new ones?  Then how far can be one sure that the to-be-created new models would be really fool proof?

“It is only a partial truth”, says Desmond Morris in ‘The Human Zoo’, “to say that power corrupts.  Extreme subjugation can corrupt equally effectively.  When the bio-social pendulum swings away from active cooperation towards tyranny, the whole society becomes corrupt.  It may make great material strides.  It may shift 4,883,000 tons of stone to build a pyramid; but with its deformed social structure its days are numbered. You can dominate just so much, just so long and just so many, but even within the hot-house atmosphere of a super-tribe, there is a limit. If, when that limit is reached, the bio-social pendulum tilts gently back to its balanced mid-point, the society can count itself lucky.  If, as is more likely, it swings wildly back and forth, the blood will flow on a scale our primitive hunting ancestor would never have dreamt of.”

          The essential question that lies below this debate is as to how long one would tolerate injustice. This question is also discussed by the Hisotorian Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, in his book ‘Homo Deus’. He differentiates between animal behavior and human behavior in respect of fighting for equality.  He shows that in the experiment shown on youtube, the monkey refuses to be administered a different deal than that is provided to his neighbor in the next cage.  Youtube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo

In contrast to this sense of fairness of the monkeys, Harari states about the ‘Ultimatum Game’ that is set between two humans with conditions that (1) Whatever is given to the first person is to be shared by him with the second person (2) It is up to the second person to accept whatever is given or not. (3) If the second person rejects it, both of them do not get anything. (4) These conditions are known to both persons.

He goes on to state that it was found that humans did not behave with the same sense of fairness displayed by the monkeys.  Even if the first person gave away to the second person only a small fragment of what he had actually got, the second person had accepted it. He did not reject it, though he knew pretty well that his denial would also deprive the first person of anything at all. 

The intelligent human thinks that by refusing he is going to lose whatever he has got, even if the first person would lose much more.

Thus we see, that the sense of self protection or gain, weighs more against the sense of justice or the instinct to protest against injustice, in the human.

This brings us to the parable in the Bible where Jesus Christ says in a what the Kingdom of heaven is.  Labourers are hired in a vineyard.  In the evening, when they return after work, each of them are paid the same amount, irrespective of whether they had come in the morning itself and worked all day or had come in barely an hour ago only.  When the persons who came first protest the inequality, it is said, “Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go;” (Mathew 20:14 & 15)

Mistaking the above parable as one pertaining to Economic philosophy, Comrades had condemned it.  But it has been qualified as pertaining to the Kingdom of heaven right at the beginning.  In the Hindu mythology, there is the story of Ajaamila, who was delivered even if he came to the ‘path’, at the fag end of his life.  For that matter, Hindu mythology has been gracious in granting ‘moksha’, even to the opponents of God, just because they came into contact with the ‘God’, even by way of antagonism.

What is true for mundane and earthly matters are not true for other planes.  That brings us to the famous poem of Khalil Gibran on the ‘Two Hermits’.

“Upon a lonely mountain, there lived two hermits who worshipped God
and loved one another.

Now these two hermits had one earthen bowl, and this was their only
possession.

One day an evil spirit entered into the heart of the older hermit
and he came to the younger and said, 'It is long that we have
lived together. The time has come for us to part. Let us divide
our possessions.'

Then the younger hermit was saddened and he said, 'It grieves
me, Brother, that thou shouldst leave me. But if thou must needs
go, so be it,' and he brought the earthen bowl and gave it to him
saying, 'We cannot divide it, Brother, let it be thine.'

Then the older hermit said, 'Charity I will not accept. I will
take nothing but mine own. It must be divided.'

And the younger one said, 'If the bowl be broken, of what use would
it be to thee or to me? If it be thy pleasure let us rather cast
a lot.'

But the older hermit said again, 'I will have but justice and mine
own, and I will not trust justice and mine own to vain chance. The
bowl must be divided.'

Then the younger hermit could reason no further and he said, 'If
it be indeed thy will, and if even so thou wouldst have it let us
now break the bowl.'

But the face of the older hermit grew exceedingly dark, and he
cried, 'O thou cursed coward, thou wouldst not fight.'

Thus, it is a human predicament - whether to fight against injustice and inequality, with the same zeal and self-forgetfulness of the animals or whether to continue on a mercantile path considering that what one gets is better than not getting anything at all. 

The most intelligent among men, try to find out someone amidst their lot with strong animal instincts, to fight their battle, so that, they can themselves sit cozily in their assured comfort zone and await any favourable results in the event of the other one wining.  If the attempt misfires, they will remain unfazed and unaffected.

         

 

 

 

 

 

JUDICIARY UNDER THREAT OR JUSTICE IN PERIL?

Every now and then would come a case of #JusticeLoya or the case of #thedelayedverdictinJayalalithacase or a similar issue to generate debate on the independence of the Judiciary in our country.

          Cho Ramasamy had long ago remarked that to get a favorable verdict in the Court, one has to know the Judges than knowing law. 

          Very many times, it has been pointed out that Courts are called Courts of law rather than as Courts of Justice. It is more so in India. And a very famous Chief Justice of India once remarked candidly, 'we are not final because we are necessarily right, but right because we are final'.

          Even the complications in interpretation of the provisions in the Constitution of India have been blamed on the numerous lawyers who were deployed for the purpose, instead of lay men who could have put it in simple terms.

          But experience teaches us that even simple things could be complicated by intelligent minds.

          First the print media, then the visual media and now the social media have created such a polarization among people that a majority have taken sides and want to argue only the side chosen by them, with brazenness, without an iota of guilt or shame and perpetuate their beliefs to endless  measure.  Thus a considerable number of persons involved in these debates have become lawyers themselves, though not necessarily holding any formal degree permitting them to do so.

          While the very concept of taking sides is anathema to arriving at truth, the judicial principles enabled one to put forth all possible angles for proper consideration.

          In this process employment of competent persons became a sine quo non to win one’s argument. Judicial principles started faltering at this very point.  Because, one who has more resources at one's command can get hold of a better lawyer, who can put forth his side in a better manner than the other one and truth became a prisoner of circumstances and submissions and at God's mercy directly.

          The higher judiciary has become more costly with Senior Advocates becoming an essential requirement if arguments have to be even heard.  The cost of the Senior Advocates ranges from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 15 Lahks - per appearance.  It is carefully worded as appearance because it does not mandate that the advocate may have to even stand up or open the mouth.  Mere appearance when the case is called – even if adjourned by the Court itself, or at the request of the other party/parties.  And such appearances could be endless. Also do not miss the number of Judicial forums and procedures, in every single case.  While for the Government, it would mean only the cost of paper on which the decision to litigate is taken, for the common man, it bleeds the life out of him.  It is the same in the case of a common man's litigation against a corporate also, because the corporates have legal eagles empaneled.  

          When considered that famous Senior Advocates appear in 20 cases on an average per day, one could estimate their earning.

          Compared to the salary of the Judges, these fees are several times high. 

          That would point out the basic pit falls in judicial mechanism.

          If judgment process is so costly, what is the cost of justice?

          If judicial process becomes so complicated and costly, it invariably would become corrupt.  A corrupt judiciary will only enable a corrupt investigation system to thrive. 

          A small step towards solution of the above problem would be to allow the parties to present their side in person, if need be with the assistance of the advocates.  Like in the RTI Act, litigants should be allowed to argue their own cases, without restrictions.  Legal formalities should not come in the way.

          That reminds me of the attempt by the Advocate community trying to step into the RTI Proceedings also, some years ago. Luckily that attempt failed.  But the mechanism of RTI itself became whittled down.

          Along with public education and public health care, police/judicial reforms are urgently required for a just state to exist.

          Otherwise, any number of laws enacted would be of no help.

         

For my Communist brethren to think

Ever since the crisis that started in the USSR in the early 90s, Communism has been on a steady decline all the world over.  India is no exception.

The reason was that they failed to keep their ears to the ground.  They failed to apply reason to politics and indulged in empty demagogy.

Just like the proof of the pudding is in the eating, whether the Communists stood for the welfare of the downtrodden was up to the downtrodden to feel.

Whatever media or other influential classes can propagate, the native intelligence of the people can easily see through.  If the real feeling is there, it would percolate.  The hearts have a language, which is universal for all living beings.  The rational minded persons fail to understand that.  Strategies will not substitute real feeling and intention.  What started as a peoples movement had denigrated into a party politics.

As a result what happened is that instead of real feeling for the masses, those who came to power using the ideology to save the exploited, started chalking out strategies to keep their hold on the power.  The continued hold on the power was expected to deliver the results – in the long run.

But in the long run, power only corrupts and more power corrupts all the more.  Hence, by the time they were not yet satisfied with the increasing and widening of their power base, their descend had already started.

Before they could open their doors to the heaven of their own dreams, they had been toppled. That took away in its Tsunamic sweep, even what ever had been built for common good.

Time and tide wait for no man.

Those powers which have gained from the toppling of the Communists have also the same in store for them.  As long as they do not deliver and keep their sight only in conquering new horizons, they will not be able to assess the sand that gets swept away from under their very feet.

The nemesis for every life is embedded within. It does not join enroute.   

Communism as a philosophy will not die.  It stands against exploitation, of all kinds.  It shall re emerge in some other form, in some other name.  If only people can re-invent themselves and be true to that philosophy. 

And when the people who thought that a free economy is free, come to their real senses and understand that nothing is really free.

Till such time let the ideal rest in our hearts.

FEVER, GANDHI AND VIVEKANANDA

             Yesterday night I had terrific fever.  With jitters and cold shivers. Never in memory I had such seizures.  Then after I took some medicines with hot water and went back to bed, even as the fever was raging, some thoughts were reeling in the mind.

          Now, felt that those should be recorded, because, perhaps they came from deep within.

          Though I have had great regards for Gandhi, with passing time, I had felt drawn away from his activism.  It was less spiritual I had felt.

          There is an instance reported in the life of Ramana Maharshi.  Gandhi had come to the foot hills of Arunachala for a Conference.  People around the Maharshi tell him that efforts were on to bring Gandhi to the Maharshi.  Maharshi is said to have stated that ‘I do not think that they will allow him to come here’.  This has been interpreted by some as a reference to Rajaji who was a Vaishnavite and Gandhi also being a Vaishnavite and therefore Rajaji was the person whom Maharshi refered to as ‘They’, because Maharshi was a strong Saivaite.

          But this interpretation does not appear to be plausible because, if Maharshi had decided to draw some one to him, whether Vaishnavite, Muslim or a Christian, he could have done it.  For his stature Rajaji was nothing.  That the interpretation is flawed could be observed from another statement of Maharshi regarding Gandhi wherein he says, ‘he is like the Anchaneya, he is doing his work’.  That puts it in perspective, that Gandhi was destined for Karma yoga and the Jnana Yoga path of the Maharshi was not prescribed for him.

          Maharshi who underwent operations for his Cancer, without anesthesia, is reported to have wept day long hearing the AIR, on assassination of Gandhi.  For whom was he weeping?

          Gandhi, who accomplished a tremendous task by putting to rest riots in Bengal, at the time of declaration of Independence, certified by Mountbatten as a ‘One man army, who achieved what the entire Indian Army could not achieve in the North West Frontier Province’, was on his way to Lahore, when he halted at Delhi. But by then he had already understood that he had become a liability to his own Comrades in the Congress.  In his Delhi Diary, somewhere in January 1948, he writes, ‘I feel I have become a back number’.  For someone who wanted to live upto 125 years, death was being awaited as a relief.   Gandhi was disliked by many.  The Hindhu mahasabha, Muslims, Christians, SC/ST, Communists, and very secretly by the top brass of the Congress itself. The British Government was also wary that he may object to the Partition plan. But with all his collegues, separately agreeing for it, he had already lost his moral strength.

          And Jiddu Krishnamurthy rightly said, ‘we killed him’.

          But assassination of the same person was to continue.  Those who opposed him on ideologies, put the blame for everything on him. At the same time, Congress, which officially subscribed to his views, did every thing possible to annihilate his theories or dreams.

          Now, after decades, when the social fabric of the Country is under great threat, all those who had ideologically opposed Gandhi, now try find his support for the furtherance of their ideologies.  Now the Communist, the Clergy of other communities, and even the right wing of the Hindutva brand, quote him and feel that only from that Co-ordinate they will be able to move further.

                    Gandhi’s heart is poured out not in the ‘Harijan’, or ‘Young India’, they are political and social.  His personal feelings could be seen in his letters to C.F.Andrews.

All those oppose him, have only to think for a single moment, what pains and pangs that person had under gone and whether any one of us will be willing to undertake such an ordeal even to the extent of 1%.

Now, what happened to Gandhi during the Congress rule is about to happen to Vivekananda also. 

There was a young, sharp, extremely intelligent, courageous, logical minded person, who was bound hand and foot by his master and made to toil, with the keys safely kept away secretly, to be given to him, only after the given task was finished.

The youngster who wanted to escape to the Himalayas and spend time in silent meditation, was thrown on the streets.  He had to go like a nomad, city to city, village to village.  Born like a prince, he had to live the life of a pauper. And as in the case of Gandhi, in the case of Vivekananda also, his speeches are motivational, giving courage to the people who had been enslaved for centuries and had lost their moorings.  He asked them, ‘do you realize that descendents of Great Sages and Rishis had become next door neighbors to bruts and scoundrels; does that make you loose your sleep, does it make your blood boil, does it make you go without food, then you are on the first step of Patriotism’.  What a passion he had for the downtrodden?

Yet his feelings were reserved for private letters.

He continued to work, with gnawing pain in his heart.  He was a Communist to the truest sense. It is not that only Marx, Engels, Mao or Fidel Castro are Communists.  A Communist is the one who feels for the lowly and exploited.

But due to his Saffron clad image, he has been taken over by the Hindutva brigade.  However, what he stood for, what he felt, are seldom understood.

He was the co-ordinate prior to Gandhi.  From him flowed people of action like Sri Aurobindo, Nethaji Subash Chandra Bose, Pasum Pon Muthu Ramalingam and even Gandhi to some extent.

From him also the elevation to Sri Ramakrishna, Ramana Maharshi, Himalayan Saints and so on.

But he is distorted, half quoted and portrayed in such a different light that what the ‘once upon a time opponents of Gandhi’ feel now, will be felt of Vivekananda also, much later.