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.