LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT
66. RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND PROBLEM SOLVING
It is the ultimate philosophical conviction and prescription that right knowledge is the only solution to the ills of the world. Acharya Sankara identifies the human condition as one of ignorance, and prescribes 'knowledge' or wisdom as the only solution, just as light alone can remove darkness.
Even on a worldly level, all idea of progress hinges on the spread of right knowledge. Education, and literacy are the vehicles to spread this knowledge along. All countries and societies therefore stress education, which has become an article of faith.
However, a look around the world will show us that knowledge or education or literacy has not solved any of the basic problems of life any where in the world. And there is not even certainty as to what is 'knowledge', and 'right' knowledge, at that.
The assumption has all along been that knowledge will translate or reflect in right conduct or correct behaviour. There is found to be no such automatic linkage. Valluvar said long ago: learn faultlessly what is necessary , and conduct yourself accordingly. (Kural:391). We find today that neither is done.
Take simple things. Science operates at least on two levels: the highest theoretical ranges, and the practical applications. We find that both are at odds.
The highest theoretical knowledge of physics shows that there is no matter, only energy. So, the world of concrete things that we see and deal with every day in our ordinary consciousness is not the true or absolute reality; we cannot even truly 'know' this reality, for somehow this is based on our consciousness! This is almost like the philosophical conclusion reached by Sankara: that the reality we deal with is 'relative', (vyavaharika), not absolute. What will happen if everyone realised this 'truth' and tried to behave accordingly? There will either be total inactivity or utter confusion! It seems that for practical life, some amount or form of ignorance or imperfection is necessary! 'On the earth, the broken arcs, in heaven a perfect round', said Robert Browning! It is no wonder that we see the realised sages in a state of self-absorbed inaction. Practical wisdom consists in keeping this ignorance within safe limits or manageable proportions.
Take nuclear physics. The scientists know that nuclear energy is radioactive, whether the use is for military or so called 'peaceful' purposes- all uses are in reality 'harmful'. They also know that there is yet no known or safe or permanent way of removing or neutralising the radioactivity or disposing of the waste. They also know that we do not know for certain the absolute safety limits in exposure, and the threshold gets progressively reduced. They also know both in theory and by experience that no nuclear plant can be made absolutely safe, as no one can predict or deal with all possible contingencies- as the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and recent Japanese disasters have shown. There have also been many unpublicised near-disasters. But the science community pretends as if everything is hunky-dory and goes on building more reactors. And here, disregard of knowledge goes with dastardly hypocrisy: what they do not want in their own country, they advocate and export to others in the name of advancement. So much for knowledge and conduct, and even plain honesty in the highest scientific echelons!
Come to more mundane levels. We now know that plastic is a substance that can never be bio-degraded and so can never be made safe for the earth and environment. Communities are also grappling with the practical, day to day problem of disposing of the daily discards of plastic waste. Yet, there is a big lobby of industrialists, economists and local politicians who do not have the plain sense or courage to ban the manufacture of plastics, which is the only permanent solution.
Or take the liquor and tobacco menace. In spite of the known scientific hazards and risks, which community has come forward to ban their manufacture and use? Some nominal or token restrictions are all they can think of. And the land of Gandhi is the biggest hypocrite- they display Gandhi picture everywhere, including on their currency notes, invoke his name for everything, declare a holiday on his birthday and yet do not enforce prohibition, but shamelessly derive excise revenue on liquor manufacture and sales! And some state govts themselves run the liquor shops, so that even the trade commissions and margins may be enjoyed by them! Our front line newspapers will cry hoarse in the name of 'freedom' if prohibition is promoted or enforced by citizen groups!
Hugh Dalton, former Chancellor of Exchequer in Britain touched on this issue beautifully. He was an economist, and thinker. In the 20s, decades before he became the Chancellor, he developed a theory in public finance. He realised that all schemes of public finance- raising revenue and expenditure- involved transfer of money and resources from some pockets to some other pockets (robbing Peter to pay Paul !) So the finance minister has to choose wisely between different avenues of revenue and schemes of expenditure. He proposed a theory of Maximum Social Advantage, to guide authorities. (see chapter 2 of his book Public Finance) He referred to the condition of 18th century England when ' a man could get drunk for a penny and dead drunk for twopence'. Was it a desirable state of affairs? Would not a tax on liquor which raised the price have the effect of reducing the consumption and thus lead to positive good? The thinker that he was, he had public interest in mind- not the revenue to the govt, by such a taxation! I have followed Indian public finance for 55 years now, and have not found a single minister or public politician endowed with such vision, or sense.
Our govt-run schools use govt-made textbooks and promote the slogan of public cleanliness. Yet, what do the govts which run the administration, or local authorities which run the municipalities and corporations actually do to promote or ensure cleanliness? Come and see a 'city' called Bengaluru: you will find garbage piles everywhere, blocked gutters and drains, sewage overflowing on the road, eateries in unhygienic conditions operating out of handcarts on the footpaths, getting away by paying regular 'hafta', while established eateries are harassed in the name of 'licensing' requirements, drainage water mixing with drinking water ( in the lucky event of the municipal taps carrying water), stagnant pools of rainwater breeding mosquitoes, street dogs breeding merrily while we read of dog-bites, pigs roaming freely in some localities while some authorities warn of dengue and brain fever,etc.Different centuries overlap here! But where is the sign of knowledge resulting in action? The only action taken was that the corporation imposed a new cess on citizens for collecting dry garbage; the cess is regularly collected, while the garbage heaps are allowed to grow and multiply, as regularly! Now, today's (21 January 2015) papers carry the news that our Modi sarkar will also impose a cess on our telephone and Internet connections for the 'swachcha Bharat' scheme. At this rate one result is sure: Whether Bharat becomes clean or not, our pockets will be cleaned out!
If you look at the so called 'developed' countries, the picture is equally dismal. Science is supposed to have eradicated plague, small pox, malaira, T.B., polio, etc. But there is a rise in depression, hypertension, diabetes, accidents, heart disease, obesity, stress- all called 'lifestyle' illnesses- a lifestyle enabled and promoted by the very science. And now T.B., malaria are making a comeback in a more virulent, drug-resistant version. And we are told that most viruses have developed resistance to antibiotics! Then take into account all the social ills: the mugging on the streets, violence on the campus, teen-age pregnancy, drug gangs in schools, guns carried into schools, etc. So, what exactly is right knowledge? Where is it found in action?
The electric pump set, and later the bore-well were scientific breakthroughs. Our agriculturists took to them on a large scale; our agriculture-friendly sarkar encouraged it by supplying free or subsidised power. Bore wells were also thought to be the solution for the drinking water shortage in urban areas. Now, it is found that the net result has been an alarming drop in the level of ground water, that most of the ground water is found polluted and unfit for consumption. In the areas adjacent to sea, there is danger of sea water seeping in (in some places this has already taken place). One arm of science makes some invention, to render life easy, while another arm finds such invention to be harmful in the end. Which is right knowledge, and who is to enforce it?
The science community has taken the (un)ethical stand that it is neutral in regard to the use made of its discoveries; thus, if a high-school student can assemble an atom bomb, with the knowledge gained through high-school level text-books , supplemented by library reading ( as an article in the Readers Digest showed some years ago), the scientist is not responsible. If it should fall into the hands of some militant fundamentalists, the scientist is not responsible. If some wily politician should drop it on some hapless people to settle political conflicts among leaders, again the scientist is not responsible. If 'Teflon' coating should result in health issues, neither the scientist who invented it, nor the company which promoted it, suppressing its side effects is responsible! French sociologist-philosopher Jacques Ellul pointed out (in the Technological Society) how it has become difficult in a modern technological society to fix accountability for anything.
Indeed, most drugs have side effects. But most doctors are not aware of them, as they do not read the literature. Once, when I was hospitalised and some medicine was to be given intravenously, the nurse was fixing the bottle. I took the carton and read the instructions; they said that the bottle should not be exposed to any light and that it should be wrapped to protect it against light. Yet the nurse was fixing it, discarding the wrapper, and the room was brightly lit. Here, how does 'instruction' turn into knowledge, and knowledge into action?
Every new gadget is advertised as a great advance over the old ones; ever new models of everything are introduced. Yet every new 'advance' imposes its own conditions ie limitations, ie makes us less free. Again, our Valluvar said: Whatever things a man renounces, he also liberates himself from the pain associated with it! (Kural, 341)
The greatest irony and saddest part is the lack of coordination between the science of ecology and the pseudo discipline of economics. The ultimate ecological wisdom (not just knowledge) is that there cannot be infinite growth in a finite environment; that reckless exploitation of resources leads to both exhaustion of resources and the difficulty- impossibility- of dealing with and disposing of the waste. Yet the economists reckon growth on the basis of some indices which measure the exhaustion ie waste of resources! So, instead of conserving material and making things last as long as technologically possible., technology is used to make things to use and throw! We are steadily degrading the planet and rendering it less fit to live, but call this economic development!
Here, we have to reckon with another aspect of knowledge or wisdom.What is the responsibility of the present generation for the future ones? Is it right for us to use the river in such a way that the next generation cannot use it? Is it ethical for us to build a project now for our benefit, when in the future it may have to be dismantled by our children or grandchildren, at perhaps ten or even hundred times the present cost, when they have not derived any benefit out of it? Does any one in modern society think of such things? The economist? politician? statesman? scientist? It was the native American tribes which thought of it! They said: we do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we are borrowing it from our grandchildren!
The problem of knowledge versus its application has arisen precisely because knowledge and its upkeep have fallen into wrong hands. Knowledge imposes a burden or responsibility of right use. Our ancients were very careful to whom the knowledge was imparted. The greatest wisdom was reserved for the most fit- made fit by discipline, hardship, adoption of an altruistic motive, and ascertained by appropriate tests. High knowledge was considered great secret. Lord Krishna calls his teaching to Arjuna: guhyam, guhya taram, guhya tamam! And he warned that it should not be imparted to those lacking austerity and devotion! (Gita, 18.67) Almost no one of wisdom used it for personal profit! Today, knowledge is neatly packaged and nicely sold! Any rascal can purchase nuclear knowledge at a price!
Yet, how difficult we have made it for ordinary people to acquire plain literacy and knowledge of simple things by making education so silly and so costly!, and such a deadly formality! Should it be so difficult and costly to learn about our poets and philosophers? Earlier disinterested monks and renunciates were the custodians of high wisdom. Today, the university dons and even the ordinary teachers are merchants of information. Shakespeare mused: 'To be or not to be'. This is free. But some local don speculates on its meaning and puts a price on it. You spend a fortune, get into a university, and spend 3 years to learn what the don says and he says in the end: I do not know what Shakespeare really meant. Well, for all that, the don does not even know or care whether Shakespeare really existed, whether it was Shakespeare or Ben Jonson or some one else writing in his name, whether Shakespeare was one or many persons rolled into one etc . You enter the university to acquire knowledge; you end by doubting your own certainty, or even very sanity! Rightly did the psychiatrist R.D.Laing say ( in The Politics of Experience, 1967) half a century ago: our schooling is more likely to lead us to the mental institution than to the university! Nay, more: the student will likely drop out, but the parent will get into a hospital for heart care with the shock of the expenses or the burden of the debt!
Knowledge is not used to solve problems- in fact, it can't be, it won't be allowed, as I found it out on the job.
In my service, I was entrusted with the personnel function quite early- in my late twenties. I had to deal with labour unions, apart from administering the staff rules. There were 4 unions to deal with: the official leftist union, with its two factions: CPM and CPI; ( there were 4 groups within this: Bengalees, Keralites, Tamilians, and others); the unrecognised Jan Sangh union; the Ambedkarite group- which was indeed a social group but exercised trade-union activities; a large floating segment, which would side with any group on specific issues. I was quite raw, on probation, did not have much exposure to the ground or acquaintance with the rules and regulations. I felt very nervous, and quite unequal to the task. I expressed my reservations and apprehensions to the boss. He was a fine elderly gentleman, with about 2 years for retirement, had risen from the ranks, was just a matriculate, but with excellent language and abundant practical wisdom, withal sterling character.He dismissed my apprehensions and told me: 'We have selected you just because you are raw; you can learn what you do not know; in fact, in this area there is no ready-made knowledge; you learn as you go along. You are not a local fellow, so we expect you to be neutral and fair. People see through you, and in the end respect honesty and sincerity, not cleverness or appearance. Be fair, unprejudiced. Help people where you can, with your power; don't harm any one; don't seek revenge through office for personal issues. We don't expect you to solve all problems! Just deal with the people! We are here behind you'. This is some of the best advice I have had from a boss in 35 years of service.
So for two years I handled them. I had to deal with some all-India leaders too, who later became MPs. I tried to be honest in my dealings, and transparent. I learned two things quite early: most problems were caused by management, by their attitude, omissions and commissions; the unions did not want problems solved- they used them to strengthen themselves! No matter what you did, they had their party angle. So, I managed; I thought they also gave me allowance and understanding, because I was raw, and had no axe to grind. But I had trouble with the management, after this boss retired. The new boss had a different approach; he wanted to keep his gun on my shoulders and fire; I had a duty to represent and plead for employees in fit cases, act as their protector and guardian. I refused to yield to management. The new boss found me a thorn in his flesh and shifted me to another area. I could not stand the tension, and proceeded on leave. It seems the unions took up the matter with head office, expressed lack of confidence in the new boss and so I was recalled!
Twenty five years later, I became the boss in another branch, with about 1500 employees. With all my previous experience and knowledge, I set out solving all the outstanding issues: water shortage in the colonies, disciplinary proceedings wrongly instituted ( yes, such things happened), issues related to posting, welfare, promotion, transfer, etc. Within a month, all outstanding issues were solved! I thought the employees were happy. But the labour union was not! The leaders approached me and told me frankly: Sir, don't go so fast! If all issues are solved, how can we function? After all, we need something to fight on, so that our cadres will feel united! Unless they see some action periodically, they would feel the leaders are sleeping and we would find it difficult in the next union elections!
This taught me that in the practical world, knowledge is not meant to solve problems! And, in some cases, it is better to keep some minor issues pending, so that other issues are not made major! If there were no real issues, the leaders would invent some imaginary ones, and these could be even more vexing!
But this certainly does not mean that national issues cannot be solved. In the 60s and 70s, the textile industry was facing problems due to changing technology and taste; the Indian govt was totally unsympathetic, idiotic and was talking indiscriminately of nationalisation, so that the managements were scared of making fresh investments. The leftist unions were active, but also knew that they could not force managements beyond limits. But Datta Samant came along, demanded the moon and totally ruined the industry. This is an area where one party did not care for knowledge, one party could not apply the wisdom they had, and the govt displayed supreme idiocy and shortsightedness. Our textile industry has lost its preeminence since then.
Take the recent case of HMT watch division. This is again an area of govt idiocy. HMT watches have always been popular, tremendously popular. The factory had good engineers and technicians. But it was controlled and run by babus whose remuneration was not related to performance. They could not find ways to overcome shortages, increase production and meet the demand. Titan came along, poached on the good engineers and technicians from HMT, and has grown from strength to strength. Now, the NDA govt has decided to close the watch division, citing the 200-odd cr losses. This again is a stupid decision. If losses were the only criterion, Indian Airlines ( or Air India) should have gone long ago. HMT brand is still popular; (Air India or Indian Airlines had never been popular with the Indians) what they lack is marketing. There are hundred ways of tackling this problem, but the quixotic minister closed the factory and killed a brand which was a national icon. I found out how popular the brand was still on the eve of the closure. Coming to know about the decision, I wanted to buy one or two pieces still available just for nostalgia and found them on line. But within half an hour, when I actually ordered, they were sold out! When I went to the local market, I found they were selling at fancy prices and even these were not available after a day or two. They were so popular yet our minister killed them. We have the knowledge of what was wrong, but did not care to apply.
Our political class or bureaucracy never cared for knowledge or to apply it, in big things and small. When the Ayodhya site was excavated under court orders, the team unearthed lot of material showing the existence of a Hindu temple there; yet the govt suppressed the facts and mispresented before the court. The team of marine archaeologists have discovered the site of the old Dwaraka and photographed many structures under water, but our secular govt is afraid of talking about it openly. The course of the legendary Saraswati river has been mapped by satellites, and hundreds of sites have been discovered on its old banks; yet this knowledge is not presented in our history books.They still talk of Mohenjodaro, as if the world has stood still! Knowledge is growing but we have no courage to admit new facts. Science or Knowledge is supposed to be pursuit of truth, but here truth is subject to political convictions and convenience.
Thus we see that in science or other fields, there is no pursuit of pure truth in the form of knowledge, and that even when it is found, it is not acted upon, not even acknowledged.
