There
are things we all see around us and feel that these must be of some weight- yet
I wonder if that is so true. I just wonder. The great thing about reading a
lot, is that you become bloody experiment freaks. So, I don't think I can come
to a conclusion about much stuff quickly, all I can perhaps do, is to
experiment. Great, because when you do so, it is interesting, and you don't
carry the weight of your statement around with you all the time. Gandhiji had
another way of looking at this dillema- he said the complete truth is unknown
to me as well as to everyone- and so we must act firmly upon the half-known
truth if it appeals to meek voice of our conscience. Well now while this turned
out to be great adventure for Mr. Gandhi, theoretically, it turns out to be a
sad approach to follow. So because, most fools act upon the decidednedd of
their half-truths. Infact, a lot of the world suffers, because the wise people
tend to be confused about their judgement, while the unwise( which I will take
the liberty to call them going against the procedure of my own argument above
:P ) are so decidedly sure about the goodness of their deed. That is why, while
the moderate Hindus and Muslims don't know whether hugging their neighbourhood
other-religionist is such a good idea- the radicalists go all the way to
breaking the Babri and bombing Mumbai again and again. I wish I could explain
to any non-Indian the foolishness the associating Bal Thackeray with us normal
Hindus( who are perhaps the most pacifist people in the world after the
Budhhists), yet, he's the one who represents us- believe it or not! People
think Narendra Modi's values reflect the values of normal Gujrati's. They
perhaps do, but I am sure they don't reflect the values of most of us Indians.
Which again bring me to the same point, which approach is right?
Should we speak at the cost of being wrong? Or should we keep mum
at the cost of being over-ridden by the radicalists.
From which I come to another point, why and what inspires our
actions? Now how is it, that the one with a fiery agenda, is able to keep a lot
of inspiration, and keeps up her fire, while the one with the pacifist agenda
tends to have this sort of low level of inspiration to act on a large scale.
These are usually attributed to two reasons- which seem to be logical at once.
It is that the illogical lot, the radical lot, tend to be the ones who are
uneducated too. Thats is why, again and again we hear people say- education is
the key to a pacifist, a healthy non sectarian society. It immediately brings
to fore the idea, that illiterate, uneducated people have less stakes in the
economy, and hence they tend to have an incentive to go around doing useless
stuff, because violence is good incentive for the uncivilised, and plus the
smell of a little bit of money attracts them like rats. This seems very
logical, because it gives this impression that the people indulging in mass
scale violent activities involving a huge exercise of time and money- are
usually the illiterate and unemployed people who haves no stakes in a regular
life. The educated ones are too busy in their regular life, jobs, families etc.
- which inhibits mass scale activity on their part involving loss of time and
money which are just too precious to them. Now, another reason for this could
be attributed to the fact that the people who are of a good thought, are also
good people, who understand the responsibilites of their family etc. and hence,
do not tend to leave all that behind and go into the world doing good at this
large scale.
The second factor attributed by most to this is that the bad have
politics in mind when they are out doing all kinds of nonsense activities in
this world. They have power in mind. Now the poor good fellow has too much to
think about to think of politics, and so the bad tend to dominate. Yet, do all
the people participating have politics in their mind when they do so? Surely
the 100,000 Kar-Sevaks did not have politics in mind while doing all this.
For this, we must talk to a few people who know which kind of
people who had participated in suchlike mass-scale violent activities. Studying
the socio-economic background of these people should surely be of much help in
escertaining the reaons for their actions and their inspiration.
Which brings me to this next question- the environment in which
these violent mobs are built. By environment- I mean their personal
environment, their mental environment. Every person tends to keep a certain
award punishment scheme in mind while doing any action. What award punishment
scheme do the pacifists and the radicals possess? And how can we possibly alter
the award scheme of the pacifists to enable them to arrive at the scene in
politics around the world. Arrive at the scene with the same kind of
'radicalism' wrt pacifism, as the violent mobs have with respect to their
narrow agendas.
I believe that all narrow mobs have this conception of a group-
which instills in them this fervour to go out, rush, kill, wound, injure, rape,
loot, break, smash. This group may be present because of many forms of group
recognition that people possess. This may be religion ( my religion, our
religion), race, tribe, sect, thought, even grouping. The point is, is this
group recognition absent among the pacifists? Well, it usually is, and it is
hard to inspire them similarly.
By which I come to this question? Do even pacifists need some form
of show of violence to get mobs together for their cause? Do they require a
symbol of self- sacrifice? Do they require the symbol of minimalist violence,
like the burning of a flag or even a fast? Because I believe even the buring of
a flag, even the keeping of a fast represts some violence, it may be just
violence with the self or with a symbol one may say. As human beings, have we
failed to finds ways to collect the good in good manners? Can the giving of a
roti to a stray dog not invoke in us the same kind of group mentality, and the
smashing of a temple can in the minds of some hateful religionists. Can the
rising up of the freedom tower not instill in us the kinds of fervour which the
bombing of the twin towers instilled in the minds of suicide bombers?
Through all this mumbo- I arrive at this final question? Do you
not think, that even the show of a teeny weeny act of violence, can actually
lead to the whole mob finally turning sort of religious. Think about it. We go
out to the Ramlila Maidan demanding the LokPal bill- what inspires us to do so
is a sense of sacrifice by Anna Hazare( I by design did not use a salutation
because Anna in itself means). We all get together, the good people, we raise
our voice, but do we not in the fit of our rage against those politicians sort
of become the angry mob. What if there were to be a politician in the crowd who
we know is corrupt- would we not turn into a mob and lynch were it not for the
cameras of the TV, and the guard of the police. But this is small scale
corruption. What tends to become large scale violence in this case, is that
that around that group, develops a dogma, and the affinity to stick to that
dogma, to save that dogma from any danger whatsoever, to be with that dogma
despite lack of reason at times, to die for it even, to kill for it even.
The same perhaps kills the very idea of a revolution- the becoming
of a revolution into a dogma because of the use of violence. Hence, we may see
in history, the more violent a revolution( even a good one) the more dogmatic
its followers become. Even the followers of Marxist revolutions tend to become
dogmatic, sectarian and beauraucratic because of the use of such violence in
most revolutions. And what results from dogma, what results as I see it the
inability of the same 'good' crowd to hear anything adverse and logical about
its own ideas, its dogmas. This crowd then tends to separates the Ayes and
Noes, and to inflict this difference, more violence is used, the police is
used, and are needed a set of officers who can act upon the advice of one group
and not according to the other- because no legislative, executive or media
action must lead to the killing or even the hurt of the dogma itself. This
gives rise to officers who are yes-men, not intelligents beings designed to
take decisions. Is it this reason perhaps that has failed so many uprisings
across the world. Why do you think the French Revolution could not attain
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity? Is it because of such reasons? I would like
to know what you think? What have you read? Is this the reason that the Russian
and Chinese revolutions resulted in basically beauraucratic states? Now the
American revolution- gave America a country- which they went great lengths to
save and protect. Americans went against their very own ideals in other
countries during the cold war, to protect their dogma- free capitalism.
Dictatorship for the saving of free capitalism, very similar to violence for
good, censorship for protection of the dogma. I know too less about all this
perhaps. You tell me, what do you think? What do we think? After all, we cannot
forever be bent upon knowing more, what maatters is what we as a civilisation
know. Single thought matters only minimally, but that is another very ferocious
debate.
Yet, can there really be revolution without violene, even the minimal
form of it? We need it is something I am sure of. Whether we have it or not, I
am not sure. You tell me?
One more question that I would like to pose is the following- the
method of the violent versus the method of the pacifist. I think every nice persons
fights a war each day. A war he fights with his own means. His means of
teaching, giving, loving, caring, kissing. These cannot be carried out on at a
large scale at the kind of connectedness that violence can be. Or can they?
Think about it- when a Hindu kills a Muslim in the heat of an argument- and
another Muslim kills that Hindu and a couple more- a huge reverberation takes
place. Its like the resonace of the community has suddenly been reached. Yet,
when a Hindu child is picked up by a muslim man, and is kissed and given sweets
by him- just for the sake of being good- and the child kisses the man back- why
don't we resonate?
Why is the resonant frequency of the community the good part of
the action spectrum? Why? Or have we not found that good part of the frequency?
What would happen if we could find it? How could we find it? How would the
world be if we find it? Would it be the same? Will the goodness of the good
flood this raw world if we find that? Maybe, and maybe not. Thats the best
part. Thats whats makes me smile even now. Because had I been certain i=of it-
I would have begun to find it like crazy, well the weight of this world is upon
my shoulders eh? But no, we don't know for sure, and hence I must relax. Hence
we must keep of finding it and tying out alternatives till we find it. Then one
day, when we find it- we will perhaps find peace just as easity as we find war.
I would like all of you to answer the above questions, or just
write in to me- because remember, your thoughts are gold. Know one knows
everything. The sum of what we all know makes the world, and hence, the part of
the ocean that you see- I want to see it too. To better understand how the
parts are and how they add up.
Thank You.
