Hindu Religion,Spirituality and Service to Humanity

By PK Siddharth

(Text of the speech  delivered on the occasion of World Confluence of Humanity, Power and Spirituality, 2^nd -5^th Jan, 2010 at Kolkata, India)

There was a man who invented the dynamite. He then became a dealer in explosives and earned a great fortune as a merchant of explosives. He became extremely rich through this trade. His explosives were very effective, and they did what they were expected to do in a large number of countries, abetting bloody battles and wars. The man was very proud of his achievements as an inventor and as a merchant. He thought that his life was very good and successful till one day he asked one of his friends a question: “Tell me how would I be remembered by the posterity?’

“As a merchant of death”, replied his friend.

The man fell from heaven.

In a moment his interpretation of life, universe and self changed. He encountered the moment of truth.

He decided to pool together all his money, and put it in a trust so that the income from its interest would be sufficient to give awards every year to such people as would make a contribution to the preservation and promotion of peace in the world.

Today the award instituted by him inspires thousands of people all over the world to work for peace, and for achievements in sciences, literature and philosophy that would take the humanity farther in its quest for excellence. His name is so honourable today that people feel proud to be associated with his name.

His name was Alfred Nobel, and it is he who instituted the Nobel Prize. Today, most inventors, scientists, economists, writers and social workers find it a matter of pride to be called a Nobel laureate, just because Alfred Nobel dedicated all his wealth to the service of humanity.

Service to humanity is a value that is viewed with approval by nearly every enlightened person, whether he is a theist or an atheist, a believer or a non-believer.

The reasons for turning to service of humanity are different for different people.

Mother Teresa took up service to humanity because she believed in God and thought her service to the poor would endear her to God. There are a vast number of people who render service to humanity in various ways for religious fulfillment and spiritual growth. But today, in the age of reason, there are now a growing number of people all over the world, who do not render human service to please God or to secure for themselves a place in the heaven after death. They do it just because it appeals to their reason that they should plough back into the society what they received from it.  Bill Gates has committed a huge chunk of his personal wealth to the service of humanity. Bill and his wife Melinda keep traveling across continents to find how they and their wealth could be of any service to the suffering humanity anywhere in the world. It does not appear that they have been doing his for – or primarily for - religious reasons. It is perhaps because they like the happiness and profound satisfaction earned through philanthropy.

Therefore, service to humanity is as dear to an enlightened atheist or an agnostic, who does not believe in God, heaven or hell, as it may be to a believer, who either wants to simply win the grace of God, or wishes  to secure for himself an assured place in the heaven. In this article, however, it would be my endeavor to throw some light on the relationship between religion, spirituality and service to humanity, especially as it figures in Hinduism.

There is a clear and strong stream in Hinduism that believes in sanyas as one of the valid and effective ways of attaining God. A sanyasi is one who takes to spiritual practices like Jap, dhyan or meditation and other spiritual kriyas or actions in isolation from ordinary worldly activities. A sanyasi renounces the world and performs only nitya and naimittik karmas or actions like daily ablutions and a selected set of actions that are strictly necessary for spiritual attainment. He shuns all kamya karmas or actions rooted in the worldly domain. Effectively, he is believed to have got a license to do nothing other than his necessary personal cleaning, and mediation, chanting etc., including what we ordinarily think of as human service. He is believed to be able to scale spiritual heights without having to render any service to humanity or the world. It is this notion that Lord Krishna in the BhagawdGita sets out to blast.

Such sanyasi, or renouncer, can be a gyan yogi or a bhakti yogi. ‘Yog’, called ‘yoga’ in English, literally means ‘joining’, ‘adding’ or ‘bonding’ (together). The opposite of ‘yoga’ is ‘viyoga’ or separation. In Hindu philosophy ‘yoga’ signifies a way of life that joins or binds a spiritual aspirant and God together. In other words, ‘yoga’ means a path that leads to attainment of God or Godhood. A person practicing such a way of life is called a ‘yogi’.

The Hindu philosophy recognizes several paths or ‘yogas’ that can lead to attainment of God or Godhood. The three main and well known paths, among so many, are gyan yoga, bhakti yoga and karm yoga. Gyan yoga focuses on contemplation or meditation of God, and is knowledge-oriented, where knowledge does mean worldly knowledge, but knowledge of God and related matters. Bhakti yoga focuses on devotion to God, and is essentially feelings or emotions-oriented, drawing basically on emotions of love and reverence towards God. Karma yoga focuses on actions that pertain to the worldly domain. Though these actions are performed in the worldly domain, which a sanyasi or renouncer would ordinarily shun, the actions are without personal attachment and are dedicated to God. The karma yogis seek to attain God through such detached and dedicated actions.  

It is important to note that not only gyan margis or knowledge-yogis can be sanyasis or renouncers of the world. Even staunch bhakti margis can be sanyasis. The famous bhaktas like Tulasidas, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans, Bhaktivedant Swami Prabhupad were all bhakts or bhakti-yogis, and they were all renouncers of the world. They spent all their time chanting the name of God, and reading, writing, thinking and talking about God and His deeds, with little interest in actions pertaining to the worldly domain.

The popular understanding in Hinduism is that the gyan-margis and the sanyasi bhaktas are under no obligation to perform any kamya Karma or worldly actions, which apparently include, among others, service of other humans. This was the point in issue between Swami Vivekananda and the other disciples of Ramkrishna, when Swami Vivekananda set out to set up Ramkrishna Mission for service to humanity in ways other than mere preaching and blessing. Vivekananda’s gurubhayis or co-disciples of Ramkrishna were of the opinion that as sanyasi bhaktas their prime duty was to chant the names of the Mother Goddess with full devotion and to keep remembering her all the time without being interrupted by ‘worldly’ thoughts and actions. It took Swami Viviekanand quite a bit of effort to convince his peers that service to humanity was as much a part of their spiritual quest as bhajan-kirtan and other puja chores.

Not that this was Swami Vivekananda’s own view on spirituality and religion. What he was saying was only a re-affirmation of what is strongly advocated in the main scriptures of Hinduism including the BhagwadGita and the Rmayana – the two principal sources of Hindu religion and spiritual practice. The BhagwadGita is the only religious scripture that deals in great detail with the issue and philosophy of how to attain God through action without renouncing the world.

The idea of Hindu sanyas is put in the right perspective by Sri Krishna, whose BhagwadGita is considered the most authentic commentary on Hinduism. In the Gita he talks about the Sankhya Yogi-Sanyasis hailing them as genuine spiritual aspirants. However, at the end, he clarifies that genuine Sankhya yogis are the ones that work for the welfare of all creatures, and not only the humans – ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मामेव सर्वभूत हिते रताः. – ‘those who work for the service of others reach me’. In other words, the path to God lies through service to humanity and the world. In the Ram Charit Manas Lord Ram says – परहित सरिस धर्म नहिं भाई, पर पीरा सम नहीं अधमाई – ‘there is no holy duty or dharma like doing good to others, and nothing worse than doing ill to others’. It is not only thus spake Rama; it is also thus acted Rama. The entire life of Lord Rama is a long drawn act of philanthropy and service to people in spite of being a king.

The Hindu faith, at a certain stage of evolution, came to believe in the varna and ashram order. Not all varnas and all ashramas were needed to do everything, and there was a division of duties. Sanyasis, as explained earlier, were not expected to engage in day-to-day worldly affairs, and were expected to renounce the world. But Lord Krishna clarified in the Gita that none – no ashram or varna – was exempt from these three duties -   tapa (penance), yagna and daan (giving or charity), because these three are universal purifiers, and purify all their practitioners. Sri Krishna gives unusual – better than popular - meanings to tapa and daan, and leaves daan unexplained. How could a poor shudra give daan? How could a poor Brahmin give daan? How could the sanyasi give daan? The import is clear. Daan does not only mean giving of money. Those who do not have surplus money to give must give their time for human improvement, their knowledge or skills (vidya) for human service, treating service to humanity as service to God. Unlike in other faiths or semitik origin, in the Hindu faith and metaphysics, all is God, all humans are God (falsely believing themselves not be God under the spell of maya or delusion), and all creatures are God (वासुदेवः सर्वं इति सः महात्मा सुदुर्लभः – गीता). Therefore service to human beings and to other creatures is literally service to God in Hindusim. Swami Viviekanand was deeply aware of this fact, and therefore he roped in his sanyasi friends for service of humanity in more ways than preaching and blessing. Thus service to humanity and the world is inextricably built into Hinduism at the normative level. If it has failed to percolate to the grassroots from time to time, it is the failure of the religious and spiritual leadership of Hinduism, just as straying of a large number of Islamic groups into terrorism is a failure of Islamic religious leadership and not of Islam as such.

But all said and done, in practice philanthropy and ‘giving’ have so far remained largely an individual affair in Hinduism, and that too at a much less than satisfactory level. Few Hindus, even of the better-off middle class, set apart any money regularly for giving to the poor, and few among us set apart any fraction of our spare time for serving the needy – the aged and the old, the orphans, the poor, or for transmitting our knowledge to the underprivileged children.

The Hindus have also shown little penchant to serve the humanity in an effectively organized manner. Spiritual leaders like Swami Vivekananda were among the first to carry forward this spirit of service to the humanity through an organized mission. Since then many other missions have sprung up under the umbrella of Hinduism. But it is unfortunate that the instances of the Hindu rich coming forward to donate generously for philanthropic causes have not generally been remarkable, barring exceptions. That the Ram Krishna Mission is still not able to expand its chain of schools essentially meant for the underprivileged beyond half a dozen is a sad commentary on Hindu and Indian philanthropic attitude. The Aurobindo mission seems similarly constrained in the matter due to lack of resources.

A more unfortunate part is that the Hindu rich are more prone to making donations for construction of temples, which would serve the interests of gods and deities, than for construction of schools that would serve the interests of the ordinary humans.  Building of skill-development centers that would facilitate livelihood generation and poverty alleviation would attract even less donations from the rich in India. If Krishna was right in asserting that the path to God lay through service to humanity and the world (ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मामेव...), then contributing for setting up schools, hospitals and skill-development centers for livelihood generation for the poor would secure for the donors a better place in the heart of God than donating for creation of temples for gods and deities who are already well-fed and well-looked after. The message of Swami Vivekananda ‘first bread and then religion’ has found very few buyers among the Hindus. The first need of India of today is not religion but bread. The enlightened Swami, while pleading for regeneration of the Indian society and nation without destroying the religions of the masses of India, expressed his ideas on primacy of addressing the issues of hunger and poverty of India in no uncertain terms:

“Material civilization, nay, even luxury, is necessary to create work for the poor. Bread! Bread! I do not believe in a God who cannot give me bread here, giving me eternal bliss in heaven! Pooh! India is to be raised; the poor are to be fed…”

In fact the Hindu view of philanthropy and service to others goes beyond service to mankind. It extends to all creatures – ‘सर्व भूत हिते’. This difference in service ethics arises from certain distinctive ideas in the Hindu metaphysics. The major religions of semitik origin do not officially believe that animals have souls. They also do not believe that a human can ever be born as an animal or a tree. Hinduism on the other hand believes that all forms of life have souls, which can reincarnate themselves as humans, and humans can also take rebirth as animals or trees. Therefore there is a greater commonality between the human and other forms of life, and that service to other forms of life is also important like service to humans. In Hinduism, therefore, it is common to find votaries of go-sewa or service to the cows which were the most common of all animals working or living with the humans. Even harmful animals like snakes are given milk to drink, and a bird of bad omen like the owl is closely associated with the goddess of wealth Lakshmi as her vahan or vehicle, and worshipped.

That service to humanity and karm-yoga is the highest of all paths and yogas was admitted by one of the greatest sanyasi kriya-yogis of modern times – Yoganandji in his book Autobiography of a Yogi, which is one of the most must-read books for all spiritualists and religious aspirants. In the book he has devoted a chapter to Gandhiji who he wanted to teach kriya-yoga. For this he went to the ashram of Gandhiji and stayed there for two days. The sanyasi-yogi has narrated his observations of Gandhiji who was an avowed karm-yogi, and who never lost an opportunity to state that every moment of his life was dedicated to Sri Krishna and Lord Ram through service to the people. For Gandhi, his participation in the political work and constructive program was a spiritual quest, but Swami Yoganand though Gandhi needed spiritual initiation. After staying with him at his ashram the kriya-yogi realized that the karm-yogi he had sought to teach kriya-yoga was at a higher plane that him. So at the time of departure, the sanyasi touched the feet of the person he had sought to make his disciple. After all a true spiritual person and yogi was expected to be truthful, and Yoganandji stood up to spirituality by confessing that Gandhi, a true servant of humanity, was superior to the kriya-yogi sanyasi Yogandand!

The real test of a religion is not found in what is written in its scriptures and books, but in what the majority of its adherents practice in real life. If this litmus test were to be applied to Hinduism of today, it would most likely fail the test as regards philanthropy in practice. The truth has to be accepted and faced boldly. At the same time truth has to be improved and altered through conscious and concerted action of all Hindus. Let us as Hindus commit today that we would spare part of whatever is there surplus with us – money, time, knowledge, skills – for the poor and the underprivileged, of whichever caste and creed, whichever race or religion. 

Apology

After quitting my job in July, I kept wandering for some time for unavoidable reasons. I am now back in New Delhi, which is going to be my headquarters for some time.  During my travels I hardly had access to the Net. I also had no time to pen down my thoughts. Hence this big gap between August 7, when I posted my last article, and now, November 4, 2010.

I will keep posting my views and my reflections on my blog though I would shortly be creating a separate Hindi BLOG under the title SAMPOORN KRANTI, which means TOTAL REVOLUTION.  The contents of the Hindi blog may often be different from my English blog.

My new website (www.pksiddharth.in), which is under renovation, will contain my writings and reflections in a more organised fashion subject-wise.

I am sorry to discontinue on this blog  the story of The Barber Boy and a Billion Children since the work has acquired the shape of a novel - or a memoir in the form of a novel - a NOVELOIRE, which is proposed to be published in due course.

Politics, Intellection and Emotions

Emotion is a word found in the commonest of English dictionaries. Intellection, on the other hand, is a word that would seldom be found in dictionaries, except in the ones that are the most advanced. Coincidentally, emotion is found in most of our political leaders, but intellection, in few. Intellection is defined as “the act or process of using the intellect; thinking or reasoning.”

The reasons for this are as under.

The first reason is that there are no educational standards set by our law as the minimum eligibility criteria for entering politics, becoming an office bearer of a political party, and entering a legislative assembly or the parliament. There is also no formal educational degree of any sort required for becoming a Minister or even the Prime Minister. Therefore, most people who enter politics have all the emotions, negative as well as positive, which nature gifts freely to everybody on account of being a  human being. However, since they could not find opportunities for higher education, or could not study at the Jawahar Lal Nehru University,  they cannot be faulted for their limitations as regards intellection. The law did not prevent them from contesting elections, and from becoming a Minister. Since they could successfully climb unhindered to the highest ministerial posts in the government, and to very high positions in their political parties, just on the basis of  exhibiting, understanding and manipulating emotions (apart from using money, these days), they could never  appreciate the need for intellection in politics. Also, as legislators, they could not understand the need for a legislation that would prescribe different suitable educational standards for becoming a legislator, a parliamentarian, or a Minister. In fact, they must have though that  if any educational standards were prescribed, it might possibly jeopardize their own positions in politics.

This is the reason for politicians not being intellectuals.

But what is the reason for intellectuals not being being in politics; and, when in politics, not being successful in politics?

This is the question which I consider much more important today, the answer to which needs to be found and understood by those who are intellectuals. With the universities churning out ever larger numbers of post-graduates, scientists, engineers, doctors and MBAs, it is truly a pity that politics is not getting even a fraction of the due share of these highly educated intellectuals in the country, some of whom have returned after receiving education at some of the best educational institutions in the world, and are immensely capable.

There are many reasons why this has been happening, but I would not like to go into all those different reasons at the moment. I would like instead to focus in the current context on the reason that is the most important.

Though politics is about attaining and retaining power, the power is attained through the support of the people. These people are not one or two, like you have in the family. There are lacs of them in a constituency from where you would be elected as a member of a provincial legislative assembly, and a million or more, from where you may be elected to the national parliament. The number may easily be 30 millions or more if you aspire to form a government in a state of India, and more than a billion when you aim at forming a government at the national level, in New Delhi. Leaders, or people’s representatives in other democracies do not have to deal ordinarily with such mind-boggling numbers, yet the principle applies in essence to them too: they have to deal with large numbers of peoples who they would be representing.

Whatever your learning and capability, you have to find a place in their heart in a democracy. It is known that voters and votes are also ‘bought’ these days, yet you would find that, more often than not, those ‘buyers’ were preferred who, or whose parties, had secured a place in the voters’ heart for whatever reason. And when there is a surge of emotions in the people’s heart, no body can buy them and their votes, as we all saw in 1977 and on a number of other occasions.

A place in the people’s heart is not secured by argument or intellection. It is secured through actions and character that exhibit your emotions towards them: whether you love them, whether you understand their agoniesand ecstasies, and empathize with them, whether you hold out any hope for them. Love, agony, ecstasy, empathy, hope are all emotions. The people would not leave you ever if you also had a great policy or program of welfare for them. But that would be seen later. After all people talk a lot about policies and programs, but all policies are forgotten after the elections are over.

The matter can be understood this way too: there are two persons who want to woo and marry a lady; one a true intellectual, and another an ordinary mortal. The true intellectual, tells her a lot about what true love is , the quotes from various writers, and the different aspects of the sociology and psychology of love. He also tells her about his policies and programs that he has for her when they got married. Not to leave anything to God and destiny, he hands her over a CD containing a presentation on his post-marriage programs and policies, and also gifts her a hard copy of the presentation with bullet points.

The ordinary mortal does not know much about psychology and sociology, but he takes her hands in his, and kisses it gently. His eyes exude love, and his demeanor, admiration.

Ideally the girl should have obtained the full bio-data of the two aspirants, got them verified.  She ought to have looked at the various aspects of both individuals that would keep her both loved and comfortable after marriage. At least she should have  once seen the presentation CD, before taking a final decision.

In real life, unfortunately, such a scientific approach is not followed that an intellectual feels must be, or would be.

The girl somehow takes a decision to marry the ordinary mortal, who knew basic emotions and their expressions relevant to the girl, instead of the true intellectual who, in her  perception, was having a lot of intellectual stuff in his mind, most of which might have seemed ‘garbage’ to her due to her stupidity and ignorance. But the intellectual failed to secure a place in the girl’s heart because of surfeit of intellection and lack of rudimentary emotions. In any case, the girl had heard from her mother that all boys made great promises before marriage, and forgot all, once the marriage ceremony was over. Unfortunately, the girl did not know that this learned boy was not of that kind, and that he really had very good  post-marriage plans for her, which he truly intended to implement.

Surely, there are ordinary mortals who show fake emotions to the people and succeed in wooing them; but it would finally be known that they were faking emotions, and would therefore be finally abandoned.

It is a tragedy that owing to the faults in the system of education, those who become intellectuals, tend not only to lose emotions, but also their understanding of emotions.

I was one day narrating to a learned JNU-intellectual friend how Gandhiji started walking barefoot from village to village to stop the Noakhali Hindu-Muslim riots before Independence, and how his feet finally started bleeding, pricked by thorns and prickly pebbles. Not that he always walked barefoot, but on this occasion he chose to.

I still recall vividly the leftist  intellectual smiling with disdain, and asking:

“How could walking or bleeding feet stop the riots?”.

I had promptly changed the topic then, because I had some experience of the levels of emotional intelligence of the true intellectuals.  I could not tell him that the pricks of pebbles in their beloved leader’s feet pierced people’s hearts too, whether it was a Hindu heart or Muslim, and the blood from his frail feet made their hearts bleed as well. It made the people pause for a moment to put their hands on their own hearts in order to feel and remove the thorns that had pierced the Mahatma’s sole, and in that moment daggers had fallen from many hands.

Gandhi’s emotional intelligence was superb, even though he nowhere looks inferior to any other intellectual of his age in erudition, learning or knowledge. In fact he seems to surpass all of them. The collection of his writings runs into 99 volumes that have already been published. And these are a fraction of his writings. I disagree with many views of the Mahatma, which is natural in changed times and circumstances,  but I firmly believe that there is nobody who is in politics, or who wants to be in politics, who could not learn from the Mahatma one lesson: temper your intellection with right emotions and emotional intelligence,which can only develop when you live and identify with those that you wish to represent,  like water identifies with mud. And if the water and mud come together, it signifies that the time is approaching when the adept hands of a sculptor would fashion a Durga out of this mix that  would destroy the demons.

A Word for Aspiring Political Reformers of India

What is the most effective tool for rapid socio-economic transformation of the country?

The answers are many, but the one on which most people tend to agree, ispolitics and governance.

For joining politics and government, unless one happens to be in Pakistan where one can first become a President and then get elected, one has to either himself contest an election, as an independent, or join an existing  political party, or set up a new political outfit.

By one person entering a legislative Assembly,  or the cabinet of ministers, no great change at the macro level can be expected. If he joins an existing political party, it has to be one of the main political parties, that has some proven strength, and some following among the people. All these major political parties have some established leaders, some party culture, and some ideology, partly stated and partly unstated. When an ‘outsider’ enters the party, he is least likely to be given a say, or a formal position, which would threaten the views or positions of the seniors and older veterans. If the new entrant is an extraordinary fellow, like Mohandas was when he entered the Congress party on return from South Africa, he would gradually make a place for himself in the party by cleaning toilets or other such exemplary work without seeking a formal position, which in any case the party will thrust upon him, when it is realized that the party would survive or advance only if this extraordinary fellow led the party. If the fellow is so strange that he wishes to remain away form formal positions of power in the party or government, in order to remain more faithful to God and His people, the party would be left curious, confused and helpless, and may decide to benefit from his presence and guidance, or even to be led informally by him.

It is much easier to join an existing political party and then transform the party, like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did by totally changing its elitist culture, and turning it into a mass platform. Joining an existing party gives one some immediate logistical support, some ready workers and helpers, and, possibly, some financial support, unless the entrant is identified as one who is very rich and therefore would himself support the party financially.

Why don’t the aspiring political activist-reformers, now outside active politics, do what Mohandas did? Or why shouldn’t they do it? Why do they want to create a new political outfit?

For finding an answer to this question, we will have to know a few facts, and understand a few things.

When Mohandas joined the Indian National Congress party, Congress was in a formative and fluid state. Its ideas and ideology were  not firmly shaped. It was a motley group. It had no immediate need for comprehensive programs for governance, and its immediate objective was to win partial or full independence from the British Rule. It was relatively easier to mold the party, if a great visionary entered it backed by a  lifetime commitment and passion to turn the currents of history.

The situation is not the same with the BJP and the Congress of today. BJP cannot sever its umbilical cord with the RSS, and cannot survive without its support. The RSS  has a completely firmed up ideology of having a Hindu Rashtra, and it created a political outfit essentially to achieve the objective. It would be very naive to believe that at this stage of Indian civilization, any leader of either the BJP or the RSS truly believes that a Hindu Rashtra could be really established in India or Bharat. But if they drop this agenda, RSS would get extinct. All their committed workers and Pracharaks have worked all their life nurturing the dream of a Hindu Rashtra. They would all drop out. Clinging to this ideology, therefore, is a  survival need for the RSS.  The RSS, and therefore its political arm the BJP, are an  ideologically highly firmed up party, which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to mold into a new cast.

The Congress party, led essentially by people whose surname resembles that of Mohandas, is not perceived as having a die-hard ideology like the RSS and the communist parties. Accommodating diverse ideologies  and people – leftists and rightists – has been a great strength of Congress party in the past, and before Independence. But it is very rigid in another manner: the leader must be having a surname exactly resembling that of Mohandas. This makes it problematic for a new great visionary reformer leader to enter the Congress party, where, quirks of history permitting,  you can perhaps become the Prime Minister, but not the leader. The party finally remains a family concern. If the family disappears from the scene for some reason, the party would collapse soon because it has no person who could be accepted as the leader by other leaders.This is the firm official culture now of the Congress – united in paying obeisance to a Gandhi, though ‘Gandhi’ does not  signify here Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, or any of his descendants - genetic or ideological.

Thus, at the present juncture, if there is an aspiring political activist-cum-reformer who wants to join politics and government for rebuilding India, or rapidly transforming India, and not just for becoming an MLA  or MP, or a minister, he or she has to set up, or be a part of, a new political outfit.  However, setting up a new political party is very difficult, because politics is an extremely expensive activity today. In addition, there are other apparently unsurmountable problems. Therefore, this is no easy option.

In fact Mohandas, who later became Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, having changed history, could read the future trajectory of the Indian history. He could see where the Indian National Congress would finally end up, and he wanted it to be dismantled soon after Independence. Obviously, he felt the need for a new political outfit. Many political outfits came, but the one that should have come, did not. Let us go into the issue of whether such a political outfit will emerge in India now. The issue, along with many related political issues, which are entangled with each other like links in a chain, may be discussed in my future articles on the subject.

Shaping The Future: Nature of a Political Party and Political Activity...

Shaping The Future: Nature of a Political Party and Political Activity...: "Political parties, in a democracy, aim at capturing power and then retaining power, ideally for the good of the people. In actual practice i..."

Nature of a Political Party and Political Activity

Political parties, in a democracy, aim at capturing power and then retaining power, ideally for the good of the people. In actual practice in India and many other countries, however, a political party aims at capturing and retaining power by any means, not essentially for the good of the people, but for the benefit of the party itself, and, in worse (read most) cases, for some of the individuals that control and lead the political party. The object of a political party in reality is, therefore, not primarily public welfare, but enjoyment of power, and amassing of wealth through power, and enjoying all other benefits that might accrue on account of being in the seat of power, or being close to it.

This is happening irrespective of the fact whether the people, or the leaders, in the political parties are highly educated , semi-educated or unlettered. The things in this regard are not radically different, be it India, Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Reason?

Think. People, who are not very enlightened (being enlightened is different from being educated), are driven essentially by their emotions, and their intelligence is used primarily to fulfill their desires, which are also essentially in the nature of emotions. At the level of fundamental desires, in these countries, whatever be the causes, there is no great difference between and educated and an unlettered person. They all want power primarily for enjoying power, wealth and social status. Earlier, the emotions of humans used to be structured and moderated by some of our holy books, and there was some fear of God, sin and punishment. In the age of reason, these books, whatever their value, have been exiled from our lives, and the system of education has no element built into it to make us understand our emotions, and to provide guidance on how to direct and control them. The families of nearly all of us are propelled by the same emotions, and they propel us towards the goals that match with those blind, crude emotions.  The net result is that we talk great things when we are intelligent and well read, and then, when we are in power, start doing what the uneducated did: enjoying power, enjoying wealth and status.

We talk of team and ideology, but when we find that we are not going to get a share in the pie of power, we find reasons to become rebels, and to form our own parties, and do whatever else is possible.

If we form a political party, and give a call for people who would offer themselves to become MPs and MLAs, and if people have some reason to believe that we may one day, in not so distant a future,  become powerful, they wold quickly offer themselves for the party. When they do not get a party ticket for an MLA or an MP, they would defect in no time to some other party.

If we give a call, on the other hand, to people to join a political party without any claim to a party ticket, a different kind of people, much fewer in number initially, would join the  party. Without men and women who are not driven by greed for power and party posts or tickets, no political party can achieve much in terms of public welfare. They would again, like all other politicians, start enjoying power, wealth and status, for which they actually joined politics. And they wold start fighting with each other for party posts and posts in the government, throwing to winds all their former wisdom and erudition.

What is the solution?

The solution lies in changing the nature of politics and political activity, and therefore of the political party.

A political party has to start engaging in constructive activities, rather than politicking all the time. If the workers are given a constructive program which the top leaders themselves engage in most (and do not only talk about), a new political ethos formation will start. When service will begin in right earnest, the emotion culturing will also start, gradually turning politics into service. Today most parties and most men in active politics are visible to the people only when elections are around. This is just because politics has been accepted essentially as an instrument to acquire and retain power. Since all political parties are the same in this regard, what option the people have in not choosing any one of them? If politics were an instrument equally of service, politicians and political parties would be visible to people not through the TV shows but in their close vicinity.

And when this culture would be embedded in politics, leaders will not land from the skies suddenly. They would grow usually from the grass roots. Even highly educated people trained in MIT and Harvard would start working for the people, right in their midst, without elections being around.

But this change in the political ethos can only be brought about by great leaders who have all the wisdom and erudition to understand international affairs, and yet who have the humility to live and work with the masses, understand their aspirations and problems, and then lead them to economic and social salvation.

Freedom and Leadership

I want complete freedom, though I may not want absolute freedom: I do not want freedom from the dictates of my conscience; I do not want to exercise a freedom that tramples upon the freedom of the less privileged; I do not want freedoms that snatch the bread from the mouths of one billion humans.
When I lead, I want to be fettered by the aspirations of the millions that I lead, but not by their clamors for injustice towards those that are few, and therefore weak; when I follow, I do not want to be completely free from the dictates of my leader, because then that will take me and us no where – after all I chose my leader only when he gratified my conscience.
I want complete freedom, but this freedom I want in order to free millions of people from the bondage of hunger, disease and poverty.
I want to be free, not just for the sake of enjoying my freedom,  but for giving my own and others’ existence a sense and a meaning!