The liars and the outliers

As we march along the 21st Century, the same age-old question crops up. Is there more evil today than there was years ago, or decades, or even centuries ago? Difficult to answer but we are told that the world has become a much better place today than it was earlier. And this, we learn, is a researched opinion. By the famed researchers of even more famous so-called world-class centres of research. The only problem is what this world class is all about? What are its qualities? And most importantly, who decides this world class? That is the greatest mystery. But yes, somebody at some time, somewhere becomes world-class. Rather, is proclaimed as world class. Whether they are liars or outliers is the question that begs an answer. Particularly, because once upon a time we were told there was a big bad country, devil’s own country, that was branded as evil empire. With the evil empire no more in existence, the evil in the world should have become extinct. But it persists, statistics trying to debunk this truth, notwithstanding. Statistics, yes, statistics is what camouflages the truth. Rather, displaces the truth, with numbers, with figures, with arguments, with logic, and lies. Disraeli had a point when he described three kinds of lies — lies, damn lies, and statistics. Because statistics does not show what is there. It shows what you want to see.

And sometimes what someone else wants to show you. So the same things are being seen differently. This is the fallacy of over-indulgence in ‘statisfaction’, my coinage to describe the feigned prosperity, the feigned happiness, the feigned development. Psychologist William James was right in stating that part of what we perceive comes from outside, but a significant part always comes from within, our own mind. When this mind is trained to think in a particular way, it is constrained to see objectively and becomes a victim of unconscious bias. Coming back to the question of evil in this world, can we come to a conclusion? Has there been a change, because everyone is saying these days that change is the only certainty in this otherwise uncertain world? Not easy to arrive at, but we need an objective rather than optimistic outlook. There lies the rub. While the objective outlook would suggest that cow dung is cow dung, the optimistic outlook would suggest that it is fertiliser. And if you don’t see fertiliser in cow dung, you are cynical.

That is what branding does. That is what suggestion is all about. No one wants to be branded as a cynic, so everyone sees the fertiliser and not the cow dung. Suggestion leads to auto suggestion and that is the cause of placebo effect. But while placebo effects can be useful in curing headaches, to expect that they can be a panacea for social ills like poverty is rather silly. But that is what is shaping ideas, concepts, and practices in the world today. Faking has become the new normal and truth has taken a back seat. The result is that death — the one certainty of this mortal world — is being denied, and life — the dubious illusion — is being overemphasised. Social media is playing the pivotal role in creating this mindset. So even an obituary post on Facebook can only get a ‘like’. So, falsehoods become truth, and truth is the outlier.

Understanding Rajdharma

Rajdharma or the duty of the king has been a much talked about subject in ancient historical and scriptural texts of India. However, it has often been found missing in the character of many kings from the ancient times to the present ones. Usually, there is much of sermonising about the duty of the praja or the subjects who are supposed to observe the laws laid down by the kings. From ancient Indian kingdoms to the modern state, the story has not changed much and the rulers tend to lose track of what their duty is. In the Indian philosophical thought, the kings were supposed to be representatives of God in this world and had a very obligatory role to play in the well-being of their subjects. Legendary kings from history like Vikramaditya or Bhoj have proved what a king was supposed to do for his subjects. Our ancient Indian accounts of the polity of those times were rich treatise on basic principles of statecraft that aimed at good governance.

The clichéd jargon Minimum Government, Maximum governance was actually the avowed principle those days which the kings practised. In Manusmriti, there is elaborate discussion on relationship between dharma or righteousness and ruler of the State. The execution of right duties was the king’s basic responsibility and his duties were defined under the concept of Rajdharma. According to Manu, the law giver, God created the king to protect the subjects from anarchy and exploitation of the powerful people. Thus, it was the king’s duty to protect the weak from the strong who broke the law. If the verdict of a king is unjust it would be a great sin. A king should be very careful while executing the laws which were supposed to be based on dharma. It was to be correlated with morals and ethics. Ideally, the king was seen as a person who would always speak the truth, be a realist, and be well versed in duty and work.

If a king is abusing and violating the law, he is punishable. He is supposed to be transparent, duty bound and must follow the code of the Shastras, the book of dharma. Humility was supposed to be a desired skill. Manu held that the king should behave like a father towards all citizens and keep them happy. He was repulsive to the idea of king imposing his will on the subjects unscrupulously and ruthlessly. In the Ramayana, the essentials of Rajdharma are also imparted to Bharat, the younger brother of Rama when the former goes to meet him during the early period of exile. The discussions between the brothers in the “Ayodhya Kanda” is an enriched discourse on how the king should rule. It details all aspects of a king’s duty towards the subjects as well as the State. But the best example of Rajdharma is the story of king Rantideva as narrated in the Mahabharata. He was so responsive that anybody with any problem would run to him for help and the king would happily serve him. His belief was that by serving his subjects, he was serving Shri Vishnu, the Lord. Legend goes that he became a favourite with God because of the service he rendered to his subjects. In ancient India, Rajdharma was the welfare of the people or moral duty. Its spirit was to ensure peace, justice and prosperity to the people. The modern day rulers need to take a leaf or two out of the chapter on Rajdharma.

Nature of true leadership

The leadership question has always been debated. More so in present times as means and mediums of discussion have grown manifold. From village gossip to print media to electronic media to the now all-pervasive social media, leadership seems to be one of the most talked about subjects in society. But still there is little clarity as to what is true leadership. There is often the issue of strong versus weak leadership that occupies centrestage. However, what is a strong leader, who is a weak leader, and which is better are all questions that still do not get best answers. The simple reason is the definition and the related attributes. However, a recent book, The Myth of the Strong Leader by Archie Brown offers valuable clues to this riddle of strong versus weak leader. A comprehensive book, rather voluminous, has largely taken into consideration political leadership, but can be a useful reference for leadership per se, across the board. The greatest myth that the author has shattered is the widespread belief that ‘strong leaders’, dominant individual wielders of power, are the most successful and admirable. The basis of this analysis has been a careful examination of top leaders of the world, ranging from Roosevelt, to Gorbachev to Deng Xiaoping, to Thatcher among many. The book overturns the popular notion of strong leader and forces readers to rethink preconceptions about what it means to lead. The author himself claims that he wishes to expose the notion that strong leaders — in the conventional sense of the term, that is those who push their way, dominate their colleagues, and concentrate decision making in their hands — are most successful and admirable. The basic assumption behind this premise is that huge power usurped by the individual leader paves way for errors in judgement and may also lead to disaster and bloodshed at times. He seems to be correct when we consider leaders like Hitler and Mussolini and what they did. Though the term ‘strong leader’ can have different connotations, it generally means one who has a tendency to concentrate too much or rather all power in his hands. It is this power that then creates the illusion of invincibility and the leader thus emboldened acquires the demonic tendencies of egotism, which promotes cravings, and arbitrariness becomes the norm. But gradually this arbitrariness degenerates into a totalitarian regime which the people start detesting. The same people who were nursing the illusion of equating the strong leader as a messiah. The biggest difficulty is in the thin line that creates the strong-weak dichotomy. Strong does not denote exploitative autocrat and weak is not about laissez-faire. Leadership is best that respects the system and its institutions that keep the system running. Thus, this whole idea of strong and weak leadership is illusory. Rather it should be about righteousness and duty consciousness. The nature of true leadership is not about the ability to concentrate all power in one’s hand but to let the system function smoothly. Humility should not be construed as weakness and arrogance as strength. It is this arrogance that ultimately leads to ruins. Interestingly for those who nurse the illusion of invulnerable status, the following words from Yoga Vashistha may do some mellowing: “I am time; and I have destroyed countless beings, even the Gods who preside over this universe. I am the consumer and you are our food. This relationship is not based on mutual likes or dislikes.”

Why cricket isn’t enough

With the recent victory in Test and One-day matches, Team India has broken a seven-decade jinx. Wining against Australia in Australia is something to rejoice for a country having large number of cricket lovers. This has come as a welcome reprieve in these chaotic times, given the global and the local cues the environment is sending. From Yellow Vests in France to the shutdown in the United States, to the Chinese expansionist designs, things around the globe gave little to cheer for in the recent past. Not that the world is going to end any day soon. But it certainly is giving a lot of anxious moments, forcing us to keep our fingers crossed. More so because France, the US, and China are not just stray cases. They seem like ominous pointers of the shape of things to come. With a rider, that is, if they persist. Nearer home, the picture is equally hazy, and noisy too. The present year being an election year, we will witness the pyrotechnics of competitive politics when all stakeholders will let loose all their arsenals and go whole hog for a no-holds barred. After all, it is winning at every cost that people want. The casualties in such a situation can be many, involving the populace, the institutions, and even the economy. Already the signals are there with Foreign Portfolio Investors withdrawing from the Indian Capital market in a big way. The backdrop is threatening, if not dreadful, and definitely chaotic. Naturally, what Team India has done Down Under gives reasons to smile. It was some five decades ago that on the Caribbean tour, Ajit Wadekar and his team had accomplished a similar feat when India recorded its first ever Test series win in West Indies, the then king of cricket. Sunil Gavaskar, of course, was the find of the series. In the same year, India had also recorded a first ever Test series win in England. The performance of Virat Kohli’s team then gives us the much needed boost when things do not appear to be all hunky dory. Even otherwise, the history of Indian cricket overseas has been mostly a case of so-near-yet-so-far. Till then, we had won against New Zealand only, that too in 1968 under MAK Pataudi. But cricket, perhaps, may not be enough as there are other pressing concerns that need to be addressed. And at several fronts — political, social, and economic. The situation reminds me of an old incident. It was 1977 and the Parliamentary elections were announced after the Emergency was revoked. We were gathered outside the Banaras Hindu University gate on the main road of Lanka to hear Chandrasekhar, then popularly known as the Young Turk of Indian politics who had the guts to defy the all-powerful Indira Gandhi. Chandrasekhar narrated how he had come to join politics. He was a PhD scholar registered under Acharya Narendra Dev, who happened to be the Vice-Chancellor of the university. Chandrasekhar recounted how his guide had told him that the country was more important than the PhD as what would one do with a PhD if the country is in a chaos? Chandrasekhar took the plunge. As we inch towards the D-day, a similar predicament awaits us.