LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Literature and Life

Literature has always been concerned with both man and his inner world, and various aspects of social life and practices.  Religious literature is often concerned with human conduct- social and personal ethics. Even ancient philosophy is about relationship- of man in society, with nature, with God or Truth or the Good or Beauty. These may look like mere ideas or concepts- just woolly thinking, but they were important because of their implications for practical life and conduct. How can you be unfair or mean in your relationship with others  if you believe in the Good or Truth? You don't necessarily have to believe in God or follow a formal religion to bear a good conscience and good character. We have surely met many nonbelievers who are just and fair, while many so called believers in God have been crooked, just using the word or name of God to make a fast buck. Most Indian politicians used the name of Gandhi  for the same purpose. Probably you have heard of 'Gandhi account'?

Modern literature in all its forms is intimately and extensively about human and social relationships, though it is overwhemningly about criticism and disapproval. We have the finest example of this in the English literature in Dickens and Hardy. What or where is literature if it is disconnected from life? 

The religious books give you command: do this, don't do that. The Veda says: Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara = speak the truth, follow the Dharma. The Dharma Sastras discuss the nature of dharma, and truth, endlessly,,without ever agreeing on anything. But our itihasas give accounts of people who lived and followed dharma, in various times and situations. They teach us that there are various aspects, they depend on context,following a dharmic life often involves trials and difficulties but in the end confer happiness and a blessed state. They thus make you aware of the nuances and at the same time steel your resolve and strengthen your mind.

 But a good novelist doesn't teach you.He is not didactic. He simply portrays great characters and situations and makes you desire to emulate them, rather instinctively! They make the good appear desirable! They are persuasive like the loving wife or husband, not stern like the teacher. A Marx took the evils of capitalism head on, and got nowhere. But a Dickens portrayed the same situation through his stories and characters. He stirred the social conscience of a nation, and lot of reforms were made. Is not the novelist more effective than the social philosopher or scientist?

I like to think that in the case of Hardy, it worked differently, in the contrary manner. He wrote about many aspects of the social and personal life and relations, which the society would not openly admit or discuss. Hardy was almost ostracised as a novelist, and he took to poetry. But almost every problem that he wrote about or hinted at has been taken up by psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists. Thus Hardy has proved to be the father of such social science studies!

In India, Munshi Premchand and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay dealt with social themes in their novels. I cannot say how large an impact they had on the nation.

Social sciences and academic studies

But we have a totally different phenomenon too. With the advancement of academics, and spread of education and specialisation, aspects of life have been segregated for specialised investigation and exploration, resulting in a number of disciplines in divisions called humanities and social sciences, quite apart from the hair-splitting specialised subjects in the so called hard sciences. Each one has an ocean of literature. Every new PhD in a foreign university means one more voice of dissent, difference, division in the name of discovery. How can you get  this degree unless you show the old authority to be a fool or at least at fault, and reveal yourself to be better, or at least cleverer, smarter? There is no end to this process.

This is the bane of these sciences. With so much knowledge around, you do not know what is right or wrong! You simply cannot decide which one to follow. You may hold any opinion, but none seems to work in the end in practice. We see this very clearly in the area of economics and politics, leave alone sociology, anthropology,etc.

Take economics. There is no finality about anything, or even precise information. A famous joke used to be that where there are 6 economists, there will be 7 opinions! Yet, every politician and public figure swears by an economist, consciously or other wise. Lord Keynes, the greatest economist of the last century, put it beautifully:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.

          Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of  some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back..

Capitalism and Socialism: difference



Ultimately, the only division in economics is between the so called capitalism and socialism- both in several versions and varieties. But how does this express itself in practice? There is only one measure: whether the means of production are owned by private individuals or groups, or by the 'State'. But what is the state? Finally public ownership means that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats run the show. Public at large is only a participant , not the owner. Even in the so called democracies, their 'democracy' ends with voting. Thereafter, they cannot call the tune.

It is  (was?) believed that capitalism preserves individual freedom, while the socialist state crushes it. Outwardly it may look so. In effect, the individual is only a cog in the machine: unless you fit somewhere, you cannot exist. Only, under capitalism, the process of enslavement is subtle. Socialism is openly oppressive; under capitalism you are made to surrender your freedom and at the same time believe that you are enjoying or exercising it! It is said that in a socialist economy one has no or limited choice, while in a capitalist economy, choice is  wide. But take a practical matter like soap or detergent: when the ingredients are the same, where is real choice, even among 100 brands? Suppose you are convinced, as most ecologists are, that detergents are bad for the environment, what choice do you have? Unless you start your own manufacture, you are bound by the system. Theoretically, you are free, in a capitalist society, to start any venture. But marketing is a problem. You cannot compete with established brands unless you follow their methods. Join the robbers to defeat them? 

There are people in India who say: Look, in the 70s you had just 3 models of cars- the Ambassador, the Premier Padmini, and the Standard, which was discontinued. But see how much variety we have now?  But both in the 70s and now, does the car mean prosperity? How many people can own it? And if every one is given a car, what will happen to the environment? Car is essentially a toy of the rich. If you have a choice here, it only means that the rich have greater fun. Who cares for the common man? Who cares for public transportation? Does the car- owning crowd, causing the pollution, pay for its clearance? And is the economy only about cars and such things?

The idea of freedom in a private capitalist economy is just bunkum. That is why I do not call it free enterprise, but capitalism-its 'true name'! Socialism is bureaucratic-politician capitalism; private enterprise is capitalism by private thugs. As much choice as there is between death by hanging, and death by drowning! Mahatma Gandhi alone gave the formula for real economic freedom: reduce your wants, go by your needs, give up greed, organise production by the masses instead of mass production, treat yourself as trustee of your wealth-not absolute owner, if you take from society more than you need, you are a thief. Any takers?

Economy in any society depends on the enterprise and efforts-labours of the working generation- leaving out the youngsters who are learning, and the seniors-retirees or pensioners. Our old Hindu system recognised this. Valluvar also says that in the Kural: the householder is the basis of all the other orders. (41 and 42)

The only question of practical importance is: how is this sector to be tapped? There are only three ways your income can be dealt with or disposed of:

• spending
• saving
• investing

A capitalist society lets you spend, and runs itself on your spending. Even your investment is tapped by them! A socialist society taxes your income, reduces your ability to spend,and invest, the saving thus forced on you is appropriated by it and spent on social welfare. So, in the end, the question is whether you will part with your income/saving willingly, or it will be forced out of you! Capitalists use persuasion, subterfuge,cunning; socialists use promises and force! Please ponder on this. Economists will only confound you!

In the capitalist order you will spend your money to educate your children, and become broke while your children get a govt certified degree good for nothing. In the socialist system your saving will be taken by govt to educate every one's children, in govt schools, with the same result: a degree or diploma good for nothing! After all, if our education is so good or effective under any system, why is there misery and suffering? In both you are neatly shaved out of our income. In  one, it is smooth, and you are made to enjoy it, with all the fragrance and side show; in the other the process is a little tough- the blade is rough, the surroundings not so clean or pleasant, but we get used to it any way!

In the end, the 'science' of economics has extensive literature, but the economist cannot solve any practical problem. Lord Keynes advised them to be humble, like the dentist!

Politics- what works?

The same situation prevails in the other major social science-politics. We have wonderful theories, fantastic writers. But in the end what works? What is the best, or at least the good form of govt? Is it royalty? aristocracy? oligarchy? democracy? anarchy? return to nature? You have authorities passionately justifying every one of them, and even more vehemently opposing each one.

Popular wisdom believes that democracy is the best form of govt. Ancient Greece is held up as a model of participatory democracy. But it rested on the foundation of slaves. Modern American democracy runs on money- election process is so expensive. People in democracies have become so jaded, disenchanted, they do not even go out to vote. Democracy runs on majority- but in effect majority of those voting. Since many people do not vote, this means ultimately an active minority!

In practical terms, democracy works on the party system. It is only a coterie which controls the party- in any country. In England, R.A.Butler, the conservative party leader was prevented from becoming PM twice! In a war situation, it was the personality cult of one leader-Churchill- which prevailed. It is of course a tribute to the maturity of the electorate that they threw him out in the very next election!. America had to legislate to ensure that  a President can hold office only for two terms! But once he is elected President, he is a virtual monarch! It is again the genius of the people that they invented the system of checks and balances to keep every wing - legislature, executive,judiciary-in check!

Britain is officially a limited constitutional monarchy, though it is the best functioning democracy in the world. The Prime Minister there is powerful, but he is bound by the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. He is described merely as 'primus inter pares' ie first among equals! This is the genius of the British people. There simply is no second democracy like that. No donkey ever became a horse by aping.

But in the modern day, it is the economic interest that dictates the ultimate policies, not legislature. In the US, the most powerful democracy, the Federal Reserve is the virtual monarch. For the lesser democracies of the world like India, it is the international institutions like IMF,World Bank and WTO that dictate the terms. In the end political democracy does not involve economic independence.

Every form of govt has worked somewhere! Every form has failed too. There have been benevolent dictators, and monsters in the guise of democratic leaders. The mere form of govt does not matter.That is why the poet Alexander Pope  sang:

For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.

Unmanageable Economies, Unhelpful Economics 

The real problem is that most factors determining world economy are today invisible, ununderstandable and hence uncontrollable. It is said that the world economy is influenced more by financial rather than real economic factors. Of the more than 3 trillion dollars of  daily foreign exchange transactions  in the markets of the world, 98% are related to speculation, not real or actual transactions. Virtually every commodity is subject to speculation in forms like futures.Every  monetary system and financial market is over run by derivatives. Most people do not care, do not know but they have the blind confidence that 'experts ' know and they are in charge. The plain fact is that there is no expert in such matters. There is no regulatory or control mechanism: how can you control something you do not see, do not understand? The volume of daily foreign exchange transaction in the world markets is several times the volume of the foreign exchange reserves of all the Central Banks of the world. Today no Central Bank or govt can control these transactions. When there is a problem with Yen or Dollar, the solution does not lie with Japan or USA. At least  a dozen countries have to meet and decide- that they cannot do anything! They only decide to issue statements.

There is such a vast technical, academic literature, but in the end they do not help for policy.

The reason is simple. In the hard sciences, there are definite theories which work in practice. Sound, light, heat, electricity , gravitation etc are subject to known laws and patterns of behaviour, which can be studied, understood, measured and controlled. This in fact is the trump card of the so called exact sciences- measurement and control, predictability and repeatability of the experiment: the same cause leading to the same effect under similar circumstances. And this is exactly what does NOT work in the social sciences.Economics may tell you that demand should increase when the price falls, or the demand should fall when the price rises. But this is not always true in real life. If the price of an art item increases, it may lead to a greater demand. Or the demand for the product with a rising price may increase, in anticipation of a further rise in price!  A generation ago, economists knew this and so admitted that the so called economic laws were not exact like the laws of physics, but merely generalisation of tendencies! No one knows or can predict exactly how the market would behave!  But in their anxiety to make things look like the exact sciences, economists resorted to econometrics and mathematical models. They do not deal with real factors any more.

There is a vast range of fine literature in all the social sciences. There is no doubt that much of it is truly scholarly, fascinating. But in the end, they are all speculation. You may get some ideas, but no guides to practical action. You certainly get to know a lot of things say about inflation when you read 5 economists. But did any one of them succeed in controlling it anywhere in the world? Did any one ever cross a river by measuring its average depth?

These theories in the social sciences are fine- as theories. You can admire them- as you can admire snakes in a glass case. Let loose, they have only harmed society. Every theory is retired at the end-just as every working person has to retire some time. Nothing works for ever. Or everywhere. 

LITERATURE- LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 66. RIGHT KNOWLEDGE AND PROBLEM SOLVING

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.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 55. LITERACY AND EDUCATION.

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

55. LITERACY AND EDUCATION

Literacy reigns as the chief mark of education today. And education itself is taken as the equivalent of a teaching-learning process, in a formal, institutional environment, involving systematic study of some subjects , culminating in a formally conferred qualification, diploma or degree, taken as valid or essential for employment. In India the whole process is tightly (but ineffectively) controlled by the govt. bureaucracy at all stages. Currently, computer literacy is the only thing that counts.

However, the net result seems to be not only pretty poor but mighty ridiculous. We learn that over 50% of our engineering graduates are "not employable". This is serious, because only the top mark earners at the secondary school level (after 12 years of controlled instruction) gain admission to the engineering stream. No such survey seems to be available in respect of our medical graduates and other fields. But we can guess. Visit any govt. office or bank (even some new private banks)or other such establishment, the chances are your work will not be done at the first instance, if at all! Not only is the functionary unhelpful and unsympathetic, he is himself often helpless, with or without his computer or mobile phone. Most of them do not know what they are for, except that they somehow constitute a barrier beyond which the citizen of this vast country and big democracy should not be allowed to proceed. The spirit of colonialism is still alive and kicking! 

I need not talk much about the medical profession- again a "highly educated" segment. The newspapers are full of reports about how 50% of the surgeries are unnecessary but wantonly performed, the nexus between the profession and the drug manufacturers, the fleecing of patients under the insurance schemes. And the medical professionals, like Brutus, are all honourable, educated men, often with post-graduate qualification!

Or take another situation. Watch any traffic junction in a big city or metropolis, as the traffic signals falter and fail- which they often do, and when there is no traffic policeman around. See the chaos, confusion, road-rage, horn-blowing, one upmanship, etc. And most of the participants in this show are well-dressed, well-heeled and well-educated cream of the society, in their nice, international branded sedans, SUVs, etc.

When I used to travel by air, I invariably used to witness an amusing scene: as the plane was preparing to land, an announcement would be made requesting passengers to remain seated and not to open the overhead lockers before the plane came to a complete halt, in order to avoid causing injury to fellow passengers. But in over 25 years of plane travel in India, I did not observe a single occasion when this was followed! And you would suppose that most of the travellers were "educated"!

Situations like this make us wonder about the meaning of education, after all!

All old societies associated certain virtues and conduct with education- not just literacy or literary skill. The highest point was about man's place in the universe- his relation to the rest of the creatures. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom- the great Bible put it so simply and straight. This was echoed by our Valluvar: "What is the purpose of education if it does not lead one to adorn the Feet of Him who is the repository of Wisdom?" (Kural,2). Sanskrit sources go a step further and say learning should induce humility ( Vidya dadhati vinayam). The branches of a tree bend low, when they are heavy with fruit! Talk like this to our convent or English medium churned out youngsters today and they would call you sissy.

In college over 57 years ago, my Maths professor, then an already superannuated venerable old figure gave an anecdote from his own student days of over 50 years earlier! He was studying in a college in Madras ( then called Patnam) and had come home to his small town for holidays. One day he was engaged in some arguments with some others and he happened to utter something uncivil in the vernacular. Now, in an adjacent room his mother was receiving curds from their regular vendor woman from the village. (Those days most households in small towns used to buy curds and milk in this manner). This curd-woman from the countryside heard his words, and exclaimed spontaneously: "Why sami, I thought you had gone to Patnam to get 'educated' but you talk so bad, like we do!" . The prof. said this opened his eyes to the real meaning of education!

Put quite simply, real education gives us a new perspective, a deeper, philosophical perspective on life. It is in this sense that no education can be taken as complete without a little exposure to philosophy! Philosophical attitude need not mean mastery of empty dogmas and slogans. More than 2400 years ago, even in the Classical Western tradition, the greatest of Western philosophers said precisely this, as the meaning and purpose of life.Platonism ultimately meant:

....about the soul and its immortality; the nature of human happiness and its dependence on the perfection of mind and character that comes through the virtues of wisdom, justice,temperance,and courage; the eternal and unaltering Forms whose natures structure our physical world and the world of decent human relations within it; the nature of love and the subservience of love in its genuine form to a vision of that eternal realm.

From: Introduction, p.xxv, Plato- Complete Works, Edited by John M.Cooper.Hackett Publishing Company, 1997. 

If true education does not mean an open-ended enquiry into such a state, what can it possibly be? Mere preparation for the rat race? To convert us to mere consuming morons?

BRAHMINS IN SANGAM LITERTURE-11. PURANANOORU

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

BRAHMINS IN SANGAM LITERATURE-11
                Purananooru

Understanding depends upon the depth of the reader's knowledge. Valluvar says 'thottanaitthu voorum manarkeni'- the well in a sandy place yields water as it is deepened. Indirectly it implies too that the deeper you go, you get not only more but better water. Likewise, 'katranaitthu voorum arivu'- the more you learn, the more you understand. That is why the really learned people are humble.

Correct  understanding and interpretation of ancient literature depends upon how much the interpreter knows already. We see how careful the ancient interpreters are; for almost every word, they quote even more ancient authorities for they knew that every word was used in a precise sense. In modern times, this is seen in the editions of Dr.U.Ve.S.Iyer.

Does it mean that scope for interpretation of ancient literature is limited? Precisely! We can write whatever we want today and make words mean anything we like,  as Humpty Dumpty said. But for the ancients, words were sacred, and were but counters to reckon things by.

We should always remember that literature arises in a particular cultural milieu and things are said and understood in context. So many things are implied or just understood as meant, without explicit words. That is why in the olden days people always approached a learned man for understanding- not just reading.

The ancient Hindus stressed charity and giving gifts-dharma and dana.  Why? Because they knew wealth (like youth and the body) was not permanent, this wealth would not accompany one on his death and only the merit acquired by charity would help on that jouney. Pattinatthar said: even a broken needle will not accompany one on that last journey. Master Arunagirinathar said:share at least a little, like the broken rice grain; for just as your own shadow will not offer you shade from the sun, your own wealth will not help you on your last journey. Sankara reminded us: do not get proud of your wealth (or youth or reitnue); time snatches away everything in a trice. This is a sentiment running deep in our culture.  Sangam poet Vuraiyoor Mudukann Sathanaar sings of Chola King Nalangkilli. (This king fought his own brother ruling from another place. May be the poet wanted to teach him restraint)

BECOME CHARITABLE! (27)

Thaeidal vunmaiyum, perugal vunmaiyum

Maaidal vunmaiyum, pirattal vunmaiyum

Ariyaadoraiyum ariyakkaatti

Thingal puttezh teritarum vulagatthu

Vallar aayinum vallunar aayinum

Varundi vandor marungu nokki

Arula vallai aagumati.

Whatever may be the level of enlightenment of those who approach you- whether they are not aware of the truth that wealth is unsteady (it may decrease and disappear, or grow more) , that death is certain and is followed by rebirth, or they are so learned as to make people understand these truths and ascend the heavenly world adorned by the moon, or in any other state-  become compassionate and extend charity to them all.

We generally make a distinction between dana and dharma- specific giving and general charity. Dana is given to a fit person ie qualified in something, while general charity is extended without regard to the qualification of the recipient- like giving food. Here the poet is asking the king to become compassionate to all- "arula vallai aagu"! And he is subtly reminding him of his own ultimate vulnerability- inconstancy of wealth and life- whatever may be his present state of glory! He does this without causing any offence! Satyam bhruyat, priyam bhruyat- speak even truth in a pleasant way-said Manu. Tiruvalluvar is a master teacher and he can afford to be blunt:

Kooththaattu avaik kuzhaatthatrey perum chelvam

Pokkum adu vilindantru.   332.

Big crowd gathers to witness the village  magic show. And the crowd disperses as fast after the show. Riches are also like that.

Orupozhudum vaazhvadu ariyaar; karuduba

Kodiyum alla pala.          337

Man does not know whether he will live the next moment. But he entertains crores of thoughts!

Vuranguvadu polum saakkaadu vurangi

vizhippadu polum piraappu.      339

Death is like going to sleep. And (re)birth is like waking up from sleep. (One follows the other.)

Real charity comes out of a sincere realisation of some fundamental truths of life. This is what the great Sangam poets are teaching the big kings. Here comes our Nakkeerar, who has the reputation of not fearing  even the wrath of Lord Shiva!

WEALTH IS MEANT FOR CHARITY! (189)

Then kadal valaagam podumai inri

Venkudai nizhatriya orumai yorkkum

Nadunaal yaamattum pagalum thunjaan

Kadumaap paarkkum kalla oruvarkum

Vunbadu naazhi vuduppavai irandey

Piravum ellaam verokkummey

Selvatthup payaney eedal

Thuippom eniney thappuna palavey!

Whether it is a great king solely ruling over the whole earth covered by the seas, or he is the illiterate forest dweller hunting day and night, devoid of sleep,- their food consists of a half litre of grains; their clothing consists of a piece of cloth to cover the body from waist down, and another to cover the upper part. Everything else is the same! So, the proper use of wealth is for charity.If any one thinks he alone will enjoy his wealth, he misses many things!

This is a poem of tremendous import. The basic needs of all people are the same: food, clothing and shelter. But society has made it difficult for every one to obtain these basic needs! One important aspect of all religious ethics and morality is to make people charitable. Orthodox Hindu ethics made it the obligation of every one to share his income with five claimants! Tiruvalluvar made it obligatory for every householder to support the three other orders- brahmacharies, vanaprasta, sanyasi (Kural 41).Here, Nakkeerar is advising people in general that wealth beyond meeting one's immediate requirements of food and clothing should be given away in charity.

This takes us straight to the first mantra of the very first Upanishad: Isavasyam!

Isavaasyamidam sarvam yatkincha jagatyaam jagat

Tena tyaktena bhunjitha 

maa gruda: kasya swid danam

Everything in the world- moving and unmoving is pervaded by God. Enjoy (protect yourself) by renunciation. Covet not another's wealth. (Whose indeed is wealth?)

The idea is that everything belongs to God- man cannot claim anything as his own. What is above his immediate needs should be given to others- indeed it belongs to them! Mahatma Gandhi's famous principle of Trusteeship was based on this mantra. How well the Sangam poet reflects the idea!

"Thappuna palavey"- many things will be missed. What are these things? The traditional meaning was that such a person would miss the other purusharthas. Modern writers give any meaning they like. One even says the line means that 'many people do not think in this way' ( ie they do not engage in charity!)

There is another such poem of tremendous import, which has to be studied carefully for the meaning to be understood. This is by Kaniyan Poongkunranaar.Kaniyan indicates that he was well-versed in astronomy-astrology.

ALL ARE RELATED! (192)

Yaadhum oorey yaavarum kaelir

Theedhum nanrum pirar thara vaara

Nodhalum thanidhalum avatror anna

Saadhalum pudhuvadu anrey; vaazhdhal

Inidhena mahindhanrum ilamey, munivin
Innaadhu enralum ilamey; minnodu

Vaanam thann thuli thalaiyi aanaadhu

Kalporudu irangum mallal peryaatru

Neervazhipadoom punaipol aaruyir

Muraivazhip padoom enbadhu thiravor

Kaatchiyir thelindhanam aagalin maatchiyir

Periyorai viyattal ilamey;

Siriyorai igazhthal adhaninum ilamey.

Every place is our own. Everyone is our kinsman.

The good and adverse things we experience- they are not caused by others.

Likewise our illness and its cure are not caused by others. 

Death is not new (it began with life!)

We do not take life to be all pleasant and exult; nor do we curse it as bad,under frustration..

Like the boat which is carried away by the big river which has been flooded by heavy rain accompanied by lightning, making great noise dashing against the rocks, life is carried forward along the course of some order (destiny or fate or karma). This we have understood from realised people.

So, we do not wonder at the great people; even less do we look down upon the lowly.

 This is again extraordinary poetry. The first line is quite well known. But ask the people the reason-most will draw a blank. People talk glibly of universal brotherhood. But they do not even share water or shelter. Such conviction cannot come out of mere intellectual idea. It has deeper foundation.

There are two fundamental ideas here: that life follows some unseen order (murai); that the poet has understood it (thelindhanam) from realised persons (thiravor kaatchi). Some comments are in order.

The fundamental Vedic idea is that the universe follows some definite order. It is called "Rta". This translates into destiny or fate (called Oozh in Tamil) in individual lives. Thiruvalluvar has devoted an entire chapter for this subject- kurals 371-380. Behind this is the idea that this individual Oozh is caused by one's own good and bad actions, resulting in good and bad experiences.There is an Ordainer who has so arranged things.So, one cannot blame others for one's good or ill fortune. "Vagutthaan vaguttha vagai"- as the Ordainer has ordered- says Thiruvalluvar.{ One need not be disheartened or frightened by this. Our present life is due to past karma; likewise, the future will be based on present karma; so it is in our hands to shape our future.All dharma is meant for this.)

How does the poet know this? He says he has understood (thelindhanam) from "thiravor kaatchi''. This is a tremendous expression- not at all rendered properly by any one sofar.Thiravor is rendered as great or learned peope-'saanror'. 

But what about kaatchi? Kaatchi is "kaakshi" in Sanskrit- sight. So the question arises: whose sight, what sight!

It is known that in the whole of Hindu lore, we speak of the sight of only one category of people: The Rishis! They are called "Mantra Drushtaas" - they are the ones who have "seen" the mantras. They did not invent it- but saw it as it was- like Newton saw gravity, or Einstein saw relativity, or C.V.Raman saw the "Raman Effect". (Ramanujam got his theorems in dreams.) They did not work in a laboratory or depend on any instruments. So here thiravor kaatchi can only mean the spiritual insight of the Rishis. Unless one has conviction based on spiritual insight, it is difficult to believe in any higher truth. So this poem is based on a great spiritual foundation, which is at the heart of Hindu religion.

Even the great truths of astronomy were understood in this manner. This is hinted at by another poet- Vuraiyoor Mudhukannan Sathanaar, whom we saw earlier.

DISCOVERY OF GREAT TRUTHS! (30)

Sen jnaayitruch  chelavum

An jnaayitrup parippum

Parippuch choozhnda mandilamum

Vali thiritharu dhisaiyum

Varidhu nilaiyiya kaayamum endrivai

Senralarndhu arindor pola enrum

Inaitthu enporum ularey!

The path traversed by the Sun, the way it functions, the realm lighted by it and its movement, the movement of air in that realm, the (ten) directions, the sky which seems to be suspended without any support- there are great  people here who know these things as if they have gone there and measured them!

In Hindu orthodox circles, this science is called Jyotisham- which is an integral part of Vedic discipline, called one of its angas-Vedanga. It is the Rishis who discovered these truths sitting here- as if they went out and measured them there! How nicely the poet has conveyed this! Jyotisha is not just personal predictive astrology  ridiculously displayed these days in all vulgarity by half-baked, self-styled astrologers. Just one instance of the power of ancient Jyotisha will make us marvel at its accuracy: the way the solar and lunar eclipses are predicted years and months in advance by mere mathematical calculation without resort to  any instrument ! 

In fact, our itihasas are full of   astronomical clues as to their dates- but neither our historians nor our scientists have the sense or capacity to understand and interpret them. Nor do they have the simple grace or regard for truth to accept them. But they are roguish enough to criticise what they do not know and cannot understand!

The advocates of Dravidianism belong to this category. They do not know, and do not care to learn. But they go on repeating lies and think , like Dr.Goebbels, that deliberate repetition of lies will make falsehood a truth. 

Those who are interested in truth can easily see how much of Hindu belief-Brahminical belief- is embedded in these great Sangam poems!