Correspondence with Martin: Wittgenstein, Sen and thereon [2]

This page follows this one.

Kushagra responded on 18th Oct 2014:

Aron's assessment and implications arising out of it are cold but true. Whichever way one tries to understand the current situation, one is finally led to the fact (with the obvious benefit of hind-sight) that this was meant to be given the way human societies are expected to work once industrialisation set in and what were the conditions when the industrialisation set in. I guess the only difference between India & China and some of the developing countries with Europe and Northern America would be in the starting conditions. Most of these countries started on industrialisation coming out of imperialism (which in turn was an effect of late mercantile and industrial age). Each of these countries was left behind by an imprint of the respective imperial rulers.

Ambedkar argued, unlike the Marxists do, that any material progress is [or needs to be] preceeded by religious and social reformation. Of course, economic, religious and social factors are always mutually re-enforcing in practice; still, this line of argument seems to make sense. Before the age of industrialisation in Europe, was the age of science which, in turn, was preceeded by a cultural reformation accompanied by a strong religious reformation (and in some countries: a revolution). Sadly, India simply did not undergo a religious and social cleansing in any reformative sense. It simply tacked on industrialisation under the seductive garb of democracy. Indeed, it can be argued, as Aron might, that democracy has been more detrimental to India than anything else. Because the notion of democracy is romantic, it spell-binds people and stultifies their sense. It is, like religion, an "opiate of the masses" if not understood properly.

I am a strong supporter of a constitutional method of working. And indeed the Indian Constitution is one of its kind. But at the end of the day it seems that the idea of a "liberal secular republic" is something that Indians had lost touch quite sometime ago. It seems highly intoxicating to intellectuals, and, for the masses, it seems a noble idea to be worshipped in a compartmentalized way. Just as you visit a temple to cleanse your sins, and once you exit a temple you give yourself full liberties to do what you wish. Constitution is only invoked selectively by the public today. It is not invoked during the Gujarat riots of 2002. It is invoked during the hysteria of election to say how India is a democracy.

From what I gather, India will be what it is because it simply refuses to acknowledge the need for a thorough educational, social and moral cleansing through some kind of a major religious reformation. Indeed, it is not being completely wrong if one were to venture to say that Hinduism (as understood today) is the only 'religion' in the world with no laid down code of 'moral conduct'. One can imagine a billion people raised on a diet which they believe to be religious but which institutionalizes discrimination across race, gender, caste, language, ethnicity and more. I feel the European nations are what they are today, inspite of whatever drawbacks they may have, is because they are still feeling the repurcussions of the wave that swept them from the 12th to the 18th century. One can argue that that particular wave led to some very disastrous outcomes. But then one has to accept that human mind and societies will have to change. It is not in their control. And if the change follows the order of religious, socio-cultural, intellectual, and material progress it is far better than one that follows imperialism, deprivation and materialism with democracy a substitute for real religion --- which is cleansing of the humand mind and heart.

In that sense, the work that we do today and the people we meet as a result of that work does us good. At least we can step outside and say that India is completely in thralls of materialism. Much like a man with a bottle of alcohol in his hand. For an alcoholic to recognize that he is high (and that being high in this manner is not advisable) is the first step towards redemption. The next question is: will someone else take the bottle away from the alcoholic or will he have enough will power to throw it away on his own? Sadly, the answer is no. Will the USA, which has enticed the present Indian imagination take away the bottle when it was the one to keep filling it at least over the past several decades. Of course not. And will the present generation of Indians have the wherewithal to throw it off and start anew? Again is no: because for them to start anew means throwing not just this bottle of materialism, but a lot of the other bottles that they have inherited for the past two millenia and which are kept in the deepest recessesof their mind, ready to come forth when the flow of materialism has run its course.

With all things Indian, we must leave it to 'divine intervention'. Finally, there are always so many gods that Indians have invented precisely to ensure that the steady supply of opiate is always there. It must be the only country in the world today where there are largest number of female gods and one of the highest incidence of gender discrimination.

One can say this is a very bleak picture. It is. But a picture being bleak does not mean that the picture will not survive. Indeed, Indians and Chinese have the greatest survival instincts. But it is this very survival instinct which make them so mediocre in so many other respects. To rebel, you have to leave aside the desire for life and survival. Indians, as a collective, will never. And I can guarantee that if there is a third world war, the Europeans and Americans, and for that matter the Japanese may perish. But if there is a last man standing there would be two of them: one Indian and one Chinese. And it will be symbolic of the fact that a very long history is actually not good: because you accumulate so much dirt in your 'national unconscious' that it is next to impossible to remove it. This is not an indictment of the Indians and Chinese. It is a recognition of the fact that human minds, cultures, and societies are 'accumulating machines'. The longer you allow them to accumulate without a conscious understanding of what is harmful and what is not, they will tend towards the harmful and that too in the most sophisticated and complex way.

So from an analysis of industrialisation we are back to the human mind. And Aron is right that the West did not bother to look at the consequences of industrialisation. Because finally, the West is no different from the East. It fast-tracked its 'accumulation process' due to industrialisation. Luckily, it had the Church, the feudal-lords, the nation-states, the Enlightenment thinkers who did catch popular imagination, and with Martin Luther in the mix. So, the 'accumulation' was more comlex than it otherwise could have been. In India, we just had our business houses, the Indian National Congress, our mis-placed pride in our greatness and that thing we call democracy but believe that it is meant only for the High Courts and Supreme Court to manage the national conscience with. While the rest of us can make hay while the sun shines.

Those who wish well for India, should actually wish for only one thing: not removal of poverty but a real and substantive religious reformation which is grounded in reason and intellect and independence of the human mind. Today if you see those who do wish for such a change are very few. I am not sure if even Sen looks at India from this lens, however idealistic and unpractical it may sound. But I still believe that there is a program of re-education possible, provided it is designed in a most viral way and given enough time. If you will see all of my observations are fundamentally grounded in only one assumption: that it is the mind of the individual which creates every other structure. Be it community, village, nation-state and the global world order. It needs only enough critical minds to change themselves at the right time to re-orient the world order. Indeed, in case of Marxism, we did see initial glimpse of that. It need only the rhetoric from Mark "Workers of the World Unite" to unleash a frenzy. Unfortunately, it actually was just a frenzy. If instead, it could have been a systematic [and sustained] conditioning of a critical set of minds, it is arguable we would be in a different world-order and, for all you know, possibly worse than the current one. Nonetheless, the theme of a "virtuous and intelligent conditioning of a mind" is the most powerful cure that the human mind can conjure for itself. Only if more people would first understand what is "virtuous" and what really constitutes "intelligent".

That is the why it is fun to work with people that we do. Their understanding of the meanings of these terms is far closer to reality (not necessarily exhaustive or even true) than the ones with fancy degrees. And that is why, inspite of all the bleakness that I write about, our life and work has a purpose. The purpose of association with such people, helping them sustain their efforts, preserve it, and in the process ensure that a marker is left behind for the next generation in the hope that if not now, then in the future, enough minds will notice these efforts and make a change once again. Because a change, however bad, is better than leading the stultifying life of an alcoholic.

To which an excerpt from Martin's response was on 21st October, 2014:

...

Another observation which of course is not limited to India, but is valid for our world in general: In these modern times it is all about instant gratification. You will agree with me that this obsession with instant gratification has led to a severe loss of character traits such as decency, discipline, or dignity. Now one would think that anything which is scarce becomes more valuable, that there will be a natural scramble to possess them. Those who possess scarce commodities are rich. But not in our modern times. The reason being that these commodities [decency, discipline, dignity] are not in short supply because they are in high demand, but because we have come incapable of creating them.

To this paragraph Kushagra responded on 22nd October, 2014:

If I had to generalize this still further I would say that, fundamentally, as individuals and collectively, we have lost the ability to think "in terms of" consequences. What today we are taught as consequences are not real consequences but sensory effects. A consequence is about understanding the effects of an action and ability to see the second and third and further order effects of the base effect. For if the mind can see everything "in terms of" consequences with a certain persistence it will result in it (the mind) being more sensitive. A mind which is sensitive will, after a point, result in a mind that takes the "right" actions, i.e., actions that are not harmful to itself or to others. I guess that is one of the reasons that when we read writings of the Enlightenment and older periods our minds are more stable and less stressful because we seem to see writers thinking in terms of far-reaching consequences. I guess the milieu of those periods offered them that scope. Nonetheless, the milieu can only be an accelerator. It cannot be an excuse to not think that way.

If there is one categorical capability that, in my opinion, makes most practical sense, it is the capability to "think and conduct oneself in terms of consequences" coupled with the right training to know "what is harmful and what is not harmful". If the education system were to inculcate these two fundamental abilities, then the consequences on our society would be wonderful. Indeed, this is also the base framework that can form our approach in building organizations, [working with] individuals and making investments. Previously, I used to be irritated with the fact that investors could not see the obvious. I, of course, did not see the more obvious fact that what I was indeed hoping for was for them see long-term consequences of their actions. It is only recently that I am able to formally express the appropriate way of thinking. And it has taken me a lot of effort to figure out the right mode of thinking for myself and capture it in a basic framework that can be applied consistently. However, it hardly stops there. It is a very frustrating experience to apply it skillfully in real-life situations.

At one point, I recollect having mentioned to you in an email that, in my opinion, the most vital knowledge is the knowledge of how our thoughts and conceptions are 'constructured'. I have continued to pursue this opinion and in the end I have reached the conclusion that if you can see the train of thought as it is "being constructed" you have a chance to "break it". Having broken it, you are at liberty to select only the most necessary pieces and re-construct it in the most right way. And when you pursue this approach, you are led to the fact that the only fruitful mode of thinking is thinking "in terms of" consequences. Not visioning, not ideation, not creativity --- at least for the purpose of happiness in day to day life.

Anway, I got encouragement that this line of thinking makese sense from a most unusual quarter. There is a book called "Earth in the Balance" by Al Gore. I recently picked it up and on the first page I was surprised to see a US Congressman and Vice-President think in the most enlightened terms, a feat you would not expect from a modern day high-profile American Politician. The fact that it related to the question of environment was not that important for me. But for him, the environmental issue had led him to the same conclusion that the critical ability missing is not seeing the consequences of our actions. And importantly, somewhere towards the second half of his introdution, he had to admit that this ability is linked to a personal crisis in our lives, a crisis that for a lack of a better word he termed "spiritual". He in the next sentence admitted that it is a little foolish for a politician to use the word "spiritual" but he admitted the impossibility of describing it in any other way.

This book was published in 1992, presumably to position him strategically for Vice-Presidentship. Nonetheless, it seems a book of mature reflection. It is 22 years since then and the way we are going even today, seems that kind of advise still has not found a critical mass of listeners, even in America. But am sure that the number of followers have surely swelled then what was the case in the 80's and 90's. Scepticism, at least in the context of the Western World is being replaced by reflection and in some cases positive action. In India and China we still have to see for ourselves the deadly effects of our own versions of DD, Agent Orange and possibly our own Vietnam for us to produce a politician who has the maturity and strength to take a 'spiritual' agenda to a political domain. The current dispensation, one would have to say, seems to be pushing us back to a pre-independence mind-set. It [the current situation] is equivalent to the worse nightmare of a subject of an imperialist order: your own countrymen masquerading as nationalists but in reality are one of the most lethal practitioners of imperialism, more imperialist in fact than any outsider.

I hope I am wrong on this count. But at a personal level, one can draw a comfort that one can see things 'this' way when many others can't or, as is more likely the case, don't wish to. The only thing one has to guard against is falling into the mode of 'sceptical' thinking. And the anti-dote to that is very clear: think in terms of consequences of the choice available to one as an individual. There is where the pursuit of Reason is helpful. This comes back to the starting point. Indeed, the start and the finish lines are the same. And it is a relief, because it keeps things extremely simple. As a result of this simplicity: of being persistently mindful in pursuit of reason to see the right consequences: the chances of success are far higher. After all you cannot fail if all you have to do is keep only one profound statement in mind. Difficult initially, but very simple afterwards.