Explanation from mythology: Why people voted for Modi, Brexit and Trump – and against Arab Spring

Explanation from mythology: Why people voted for Modi, Brexit and Trump – and against Arab Spring

Modern society works on the philosophy of equality. These verdicts are a vote for diversity.

Modern liberalism believes in equality as well as diversity. And that is the problem, for equality is the very opposite of diversity. When Indian, British and American voters are choosing Narendra Modi, Brexit and Donald Trump, many commentators feel the voters are rejecting the virtue of equality that informs the Idea of India, the European Union and the US Constitution and are seeking to return to old inequalities. But what the voters are simply rejecting is homogeneity, the dark side of equality. The same is true when the Arab Spring fails. For the doctrine of equality in the global village threatens tribal identities. The fight for tribal identity, the right to be either caste Hindu, British national, white heterosexual male, or orthodox Muslim, even a woman, or queer person, invariably unleashes hierarchy, the dark side of diversity.

The only place where equality and diversity coexist is in nature. Nature has no favourites: all animals have to fend for themselves to survive. It is a true meritocracy where the strong and smart thrive and the unfit die. In the process of competing and collaborating for food, nature creates food chains and pecking orders, with their inherent hierarchies. Thus, in nature, there is equality and diversity, but at the same time there is also meritocracy and hierarchy that does not care for the meek. In order to provide for the meek, the not-so-smart and not-so-strong members of the tribe, humans, broke free from nature and created culture.

What binds a tribe together is a story that creates a common worldview. Historian Yuval Harari, author of Sapiens, refers to this story as collective fantasy that enables cultural collaboration. However, these fantasies are true to the believer, and false to the outsider. Historians who are outsiders have the luxury to call them fantasies. These are the mythologies of the world.

Abrahamic mythologies speak of equality – God created man in his own image. They also speak of Chosen People, duty-bound to follow the commandments of the one God. No one is exempted from God’s rule, even the prophet Moses and the king David are punished for transgressions. Thus, there is no hierarchy in the tribe. But there is homogeneity.

The Veda, however, speaks of diversity – society is an organism (purusha) whose body parts are made of different tribes (varna) that follow different vocations. Since we give different values to different body parts, see the head as superior to the feet, tribes linked to the head naturally dominate those linked to the feet. Here there is hierarchy. But there is no homogeneity.

Homegeneity versus hierarchy

Modern society is based on humanist philosophies based on equality and justice. It informs modern left liberalism too with their notions of social justice aimed at battling social inequality. It claims to be secular, hence free of religious affiliation. However, its founders from Europe and America were raised in Christian and former Christian families, in Catholic or Protestant ecosystems. Not surprisingly, humanist philosophy aligns itself to Abrahamic mythology.

It frowns on all kinds of hierarchy and privilege and prejudice based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, even nationalism. It demands that all humans be entitled to equal access to opportunities. Declaration of Human Rights is the commandment here. God is manufactured by the people via representative democracy of nation-states. All nations, developed and developing, are seen as equal. All nations have to provide the same rights to all their citizens. Homogeneity is demanded across nation-states. Failure to provide rights gives the global village the moral right to intervene in the private matters of a nation-state.

But monotheistic Abrahamic mythology, which believes in one God, has always had a problem with what constitutes God, who is the true messenger of God and what constitutes the Chosen People. A thousand years ago, this led to the crusades between Christians and Muslims, both of whom subscribed to the same mythology. Today, it is the battle between secular humanist forces and Muslims radicals, each one, ironically, offering equality and justice to those who submit to their respective commandments. Modern commentators fail to recognise that modern nation-state secularism, by excluding religion, is subscribing to the same Abrahamic mythology as radical Islam that is equally intolerant of heterogeneity. The one God tolerates the worship of no other gods, who are deemed false gods.

European Orientalists of the 19th century and American Orientalists of the 20th century see Hinduism as a doctrine of inequality that for centuries has instituted the caste hierarchy in Indian society. When Hindus argue that the doctrine of atma found in the Bhagavad Gita establishes the equality of all living beings, their arguments are dismissed as upper-caste or savarna apology.

This Euro-American construction and deconstruction of Hinduism is based on the equality templates of Abrahamic mythology. They did not, and still do not, see how Hindus are able to worship different gods (diversity) while favouring one as per need and context (hierarchy), while still insisting they are all manifestations of the same divine (equality). This complexity is dismissed as jugglery to get away with brahminical hegemony.

The Western understanding of India remains firmly through the lens of equality established by Abrahamic mythology. It refuses to appreciate Hindu mythology as a worldview seeking to make room for diverse categories (tribes/caste/communities/gods) and balancing the consequent hierarchy with the Upanishadic doctrine of atma. One cannot help but wonder if this is Western prejudice, what Hindu supremacists describe as Hinduphobia.

German philosophers saw the conflict between Hindus and Buddhists as mirroring the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, as revealed by Vishwa Adluri and Joydeep Bagchee in their book, The Nay Science. This continues even today as American academicians point out how Brahmins have “othered” Muslims and Dalits, curiously similar to the way the West has been accused of othering the East, as argued by Edward Said in his book, Orientalism. Thus the Brahmins are equated with Catholics (Germans and Americans tilt towards Protestantism).

An explanation of Hinduism’s caste system is not a justification for atrocities on Dalits. However, it is always seen as such for the doctrine of equality is essentially intolerant of ideas that are different, hence is continuously arguing against everything dissimilar.

Which story is better?

The Idea of India, the European Union, the American Constitution, even the Arab Spring, are based on equality, hence drift towards homogeneity, since social justice challenges all social inequality. This drift towards homogeneity threatens privileged powerful religious, caste, ethnic, racial and gender groups, be it the Patels, Jats, Marathas and the various tribal communities of the North East in India, to the British, the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant heterosexual male, and the orthodox Muslim man. Abrahamic mythologies glamorise shaming the guilty and the powerful – as everyone is expected to be humble before God and God’s law. So we find activists, missionaries of humanist or rather left liberal philosophies, doing the same to those who do not align with the Declaration of Human Rights and corner a larger share of the resource pie (just as the God of Abraham got angry with the Chosen People when they took more than a fistful of manna during the Exodus).

Mythology of equality demands homogeneity of thought to prevent the rise of hierarchy. It is therefore against difference, which is a cornerstone of diversity. Those who protest against Modi, Brexit and Trump, and for the Arab Spring want to be part of the liberal global village where everyone is equalled by a homogenising process. Those who vote for Modi, Brexit and Trump, and against the Arab Spring, however, seek the very opposite – the desire to be unique, different, and hopefully privileged, in a diverse global village. Hierarchy, or inequality, is a natural consequence of this pursuit. You cannot have one without the other

Gods-Of-Plurality

In 2011, the Harvard University dropped two economics courses taught by Indian MP Subramanian Swamy after he wrote two articles that “demonise” Islam. This was done allegedly to protect the plural nature of one of the most respected Universities in the world.

In 2016, America voted as its president, Donald Trump, a man who in public forums repeatedly demonised Islam to cheering crowds. Does that mean America is no longer plural and tolerant? Does it mean America is now a land of bigotry and intolerance?

Academicians and scholars often speak of how we should be wary of simplistic binaries. Yet, most academicians and scholars succumb to this simplistic binary.

Plurality is described as respecting each other’s faith. But what if there is something unworthy of respect in the other’s faith. Indians have long noticed that Left Liberals of America, while free in their criticism of religion, tend to be overly protective of Islam, as compared to their criticism of Christianity, specially Catholicism, and Hinduism. It must be kept in mind that America was built by Protestant Christians.

Thus, there is a display of selective prejudiced plurality, where professors writing inconvenient articles — outside the University — professing their private beliefs, are persecuted. This is how universities become less about academics and more about activism.

Words like ‘diversity’ and ‘plurality’ are glamorous in public forums but modern society is not equipped to deal with it, especially since it is rather technocratic, reducing all problems and solutions to a binary: yes/no, one/zero. Our vote ultimately is a binary: you vote one, which means you reject all others. Democracy does not know how to deal with nuance, gradation, weightage or context.

Harvard University, in excluding Subramanian Swamy, submits to the idea of exclusion, which is the cornerstone of Abrahamic mythology. It declares some ideas as false gods, and justifies their rejection. Now, America’s electoral college has rejected the true god propagated by Harvard University. So, a new true god has emerged, one who uses the same language that Harvard, the great American University, considers inappropriate.

Wisdom is appreciating how the world is. However, most universities around the world have their roots in the Catholic faith. And so see knowledge as a tool of control, to determine how the world should be. Harvard and many American universities are more bothered with how plurality should be, rather than appreciating how plurality functions in diverse societies like India, where despite riots, Hindus and Muslims live together, and there are more temple to mosque ratios in India than in America.

But, American academicians are conditioned to see Hinduism as a religion of injustice that institutionalises the caste system. So, they cannot imagine that plurality can be learned from India. They cannot see that India worships even Shitala mata, the goddess associated with measles and cholera. Even one who causes epidemics is no false god. In India’s temple, all gods, even the inconvenient ones are welcomed, or at least tolerated, despite great misgivings. That is the Indian version of plurality that needs to be learned, and taught, before we all fall into the delusion that there is one true god for all.

Sorrow is the mother of worship - चीरहरण

बिन काज आज महाराज लाज गयी मेरी ,

दुख हरौ द्वारकानाथ शरण मैं तेरी ।

जब सब राज - अराज ,लाभ-अलाभ , व्यर्थ के वचनों -रीतियों के मान - अमान के गुणा-गणित में मनुष्यता की आन को बेपरदा कर रहे थे ,तब वो ग्वाला जड़ मर्यादा को लाठी मार कर सड़ी हुई सामंती मानसिकता को उसकी औकात दिखाता है - द्रौपदी का मान बचाता है। 
क्या चीर-वर्धन का चमत्कार हुआ होगा ? 
वो ग्वाला राजसभा को रौंद कर द्रौपदी को अपनी कमली ओढ़ा गया होगा - असहाय का सहाय होने की हिम्मत तब आती है ,जब कुछ खोने का भय न हो ।

कृष्ण-कथा में दो प्रसंग मुझे अत्यंत मार्मिक लगते हैं-- एक द्रौपदी का चीर-हरण और दूसरा कृष्ण-सुदामा की मित्रता। सभी सभाषदों, पतियों एवं बृद्धजनों से निराश द्रौपदी का आर्तनाद मुझे अंदर तक हिला देता है। इस प्रसंग को जितनी बार पड़ता हूँ, आँखे गीली हो जाती हैं। गहन पीड़ा के क्षणों में आपकी पुकार सुनने वाला ही तो ईश्वर बन जाता है। चीर-वर्द्धन का जो भी मिथक रहा होगा,किन्तु अशरण का शरण बनने वाला ही ईश्वर उपनाम ग्रहण करता है। एक नारी का अपमान कितना विनाशक हो सकता है,इस प्रतीक कथा से ज्ञात होता है।

कालाधन पर वर्तमान राजनीति पर कटाक्ष (गुप्तधन !गुप्त है न ! )

गुप्तधन !गुप्त है न !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
गुप्तधन कहां है ? किस जगह है ? किस रूप में है ?
यह कौन बतला सकता है ? गुप्त है न !
यदि यह प्रकट हो जाय तो वह गुप्त ही किस बात का ?
फिर भी यह सच है कि वह गुप्त है !
उसकी चाल ,उसकी गतिविधियां भी उसी प्रकार से गुप्त ही हैं ।

गुप्तधन के विरुद्ध जो अभियान चला .उसका मुहूर्त किसने निकाला ?
क्यों निकाला ? यह दूसरा कौन बतला सकता है ? गुप्त है न !

इस अभियान का मूल कारण क्या है ? गुप्त है न !

इस अभियान का इतना बड़ा फैसला किस मन:स्थिति में और किस परिस्थिति के दबाव में किया गया ,यह रहस्य उनके सिवा कौन जानें ?गुप्त है न !

इस अभियान के समर्थन और विरोध में कौन किसलिये है ?
किस रूप में है ?गुप्त है न !

निश्चित-रूप से यह भी गुप्त रहस्य ही है !

अन्दर ही अन्दर गुप्त-संघर्ष चल रहा है !
और हरजगह हरस्तर पर चल रहा है !गुप्त है न !

पक्ष और विपक्ष से जो भी कुछ बाहर प्रकट किया जा रहा है ,
बात उतनी ही नहीं है ! गुप्त है न !

इस अभियान का मूल- प्रयोजन क्या है ? यह तो व्यक्ति या कुछ व्यक्ति अवश्य जानते हैं किन्तु

इसका परिणाम क्या होगा ? यह तो भविष्य ही बतलायेगा ?

जो भी हो ,यह ऐतिहासिक अभियान है , परिवर्तन का अभियान है ! कितनी दूर तक पंहुचेगा ? कौन जाने ?
गुप्त है न !

Difference between working for a startup versus a corporate job

Humans are a complicated, curious, and utterly confused. We are always looking at our neighbours, and constantly fighting the “what if I could…” dilemma. While people working for corporates are constantly eyeing and feeling jealous of their folks at startups, the startup folks are complaining about how the corporates have it easier! In all honesty, no one has it easy and you’re going to find fresh complaints even on the other side of the bridge!

The startup culture does attract a lot of attention and envy for being fresh, relaxed, accommodating, energetic, young, and hence quite cool overall! But all that glitters is not gold. While none of these points are false or pretentious, the hardships startup employees face is not spoken about nearly enough!

Here are a few glaring differences  which could help you choose between working for a startup versus a corporate job.

1. Jack of all trades or master of one – all your life you have learned to master at your area of expertise. If you’re a marketing genius, you look after your job and targets, and you let the others look after theirs – that’s how corporates roll. They depend on individual productivity for collective results. A startup cannot afford doing that. Here, you have to be the leader and the team. You come up with the idea and you see it through right till the end. There’s little or no delegation, and that’s the beauty of the startup experience!
2. Better culture or higher salaries – what a startup can’t match in terms of corporate salaries, it tries compensating through its free-spirited and collaborative environment. You’re also at the constant risk of losing your job if the product doesn’t succeed and the startup has to shut doors. But you still choose to work for them because you believe in the product and you believe in yourself. Here you get a chance to build a fresh product from scratch. It’s all you, and when you see that succeed, it’ll be worth more than a million (okay, maybe not a million, but enough)!
3. Team player or authority – you’re a team leader at a big MNC. You have your own office and a team that reports to you on a daily basis. You’re the boss! You have to get that out of your mind if you want to be a part of a startup. There’s no hierarchy here, not on paper and not at work. When you’re an office of 20 folks, you can’t afford hierarchies. In turn, you learn to be a better team player, you excel from collective showmanship, and you develop deep and meaningful beyond-work relations with your colleagues.
4. Psychological bond or job responsibility – you should keep in mind that when you sign-up to work for a startup, you need to enter a psychological contract with them to shoulder their vision. You are them now. If they succeed, you succeed. But if they fail, you fail too. Taking the responsibility for someone else’s dream and vision is not an easy task. In a corporate, more of your focus is directed to ensuring the continued success of an already established product/concept. The level of responsibility is the same on both sides but the psychological belonging is very different.
5. Self-satisfaction versus social status – if you’re someone who actually cares about what people think about you, more than what satisfies you and fulfills your professional thirst, then you might be better off at a corporate. Startups don’t come with a social status served on a platter – you’ve got to work with them and help them achieve it!
We’re not taking any sides here, and we’re not telling you what to do. We’re just trying to make you aware that the grass is equally green on both sides! Your happiness or success will depend on how you face your battles in that particular environment. So if you’re unhappy in your current workplace, do a bit of research and measure all possible alternatives before you blindly join the herd!