Author: Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Publication: The Statesman
Date: October 5, 2002
Our intellectuals often lament the
decline of moral values and the dominance of materialism in the modern
society. But the opposite indeed may be the case. The enslavement of India
by the Mughal and British can be traced to the weakness, not strength,
of materialism in our culture. Our kings were content playing second fiddle
to the foreign rulers. They were given the message that their defeat is
Lord?s will - to be ever satisfied is salvation. the correct formula is
for the people to be materialist and for the intellectuals to guide them.
It is by this mutual friction that both material and spiritual progress
can take place. The real failure of India is that the intellectuals have
failed in discharging their solemn task of providing guidance.
Failed formula
We have successfully combined morality
and materialism in our long history. This was done by an ingenious combination
of the priest and the king. The priest pursued morality and the king pursued
materialism. Together they established a moral and prosperous society.
Chanakya is said to have kept two lamps. The oil for one was purchased
from the state funds and the other was purchased from his personal earning.
He would burn the official lamp only when undertaking official duties.
This was the high level of morality that Chanakya practiced. In the same
breath, however, Chanakya tells the king to ever try to expand his kingdom.
The king, he says, must march against a weak neighbour and annexe his kingdom,
he must use spies to spread false rumours among the people in his opponent?s
kingdoms, he should make alliances with a third king to partition the second,
and so on. The single-pointed focus of the king was on the material aspect
of the world. Together the duo were able to establish a society that was
both moral and prosperous.
The materialism of the king was
circumscribed by the priest. The king was told to expand his kingdom while
upholding dharma. The businessman was told to cam infinite wealth while
upholding dharma. The priest was the check upon them should they practice
adharma. Materialism was given a positive orientation by this teaching
of dharma, which was provided by the priest.
This formula failed at some point
in our history. The intellectuals or priests, it appears, became materialist
and started giving sermons of abstinence and satisfaction to the society.
The system was put upside down. The priest pursued materialism and the
people became stoic. Our kings failed to modernise their armies. Our spears
and arrows failed against the gunpowder of the Mughals. Our guns failed
before the canons of the British. We were enslaved because we failed at
the material level. This was the time when great teachers like Tulsidas,
Mirabai, Kabir and Chaitanya, treaded on this earth. These great teachers
were somehow unable to give adequate attention to the material dimension.
Foundations of materialism
Truly this was a misinterpretation
of our tradition. Sri Krishna explains in the Gita that one must engage
in selfless work. Work here refers to the material dimension. Sri Krishna
asked Arjuna to protect the people with a sense of detachment. But this
is easier said than done. So our tradition split the responsibilities.
The thinker-priest was given the role of establishing morality and the
people were given the role of securing material progress. Chanakya was
the repository of morality while the Mauryan kings had the responsibility
of making material progress.
The material dimension was primary
at the level of the society. It was for the thinker-priest to examine whether
their action was moral or not. The people?s primary responsibility was
to undertake action. Salvation from Adharma is possible but there is no
salvation from inaction. Sage Viswamitra was once wandering in the country.
There was a severe drought. He halted one night in the house of a Chandala.
There was nothing to eat except some dog meat which was entirely prohibited.
Viswamitra partook of that dog meat. He explained to the Chandala that
he could undertake japa and tapa and undertake penance for this admittedly
immoral action and go on ahead in his life. But if he died then there would
be no progress. Therefore it was appropriate for him to eat dog meat. The
material dimension is primary. Spiritual progress is built on the foundations
of materialism.
Our businessmen are today engaged
in a host of immoral practices like stealing power and evading taxes. They
have to compete with cheap Chinese products that are made with inexpensive
power and are supported with export subsidies provided by their government.
Their businesses would fold up if they held to moral action alone. Their
first responsibility is to survive at the material level. Therefore, their
immoral actions are condonable. They would be killed by cheap imports as
our kings were defeated by the Mughal and British. The primary duty of
the businessman is to make money. It is the job of the thinkers to give
a moral direction to their actions like Chanakya did with the Mauryan kings.
It is strange that our intellectuals
lament the lack of morality in the society. They should instead encourage
the society to become strong materially and themselves become strong spiritually
and give a moral direction to their action. The society is doing its job
by pursuing its materialism. There is no need to discredit it. The task
of the thinker is to promote the moral code. It is the businessman?s job
to make money. It is the government?s job to see that he does not steal
power and evade taxes. It is the intellectual?s job to give proper guidance
and direction to the government. It is this friction between different
sections of the society that would beget us both material progress and
morality.
Immoral intellectuals
The great failure of contemporary
India is that the intellectuals, instead of pursuing morality themselves,
lament the lack of morality in the society. Rather, they have adopted immorality
themselves. The professors of the day would scarcely have two separate
lamps in their houses for official and personal work. The result has been
that the society has lost its moral anchor. Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo,
both say that the primary failure of India has been, that of its priest.
What was this creature like? Maybe
an example narrated by Megasthenes will clarify. When Alexander invaded
India he came to know of a Brahmin named Dandamis. He sent his soldiers
to get him. But Dandamis would not go even when threatened with death.
Instead he sent the following message: ?What Alexander offers me, and the
gifts he promises, are all things to me utterly useless; but the things
that 1 prize are these leaves which are my house, these blooming plants
which supply me with dainty food, and the water which is my drink. Let
Alexander, then, terrify with these threats those who wish for gold and
for wealth for against Brahmins these weapons are both alike powerless.
Go, then, and tell Alexander this:
?Dandamis has no need of aught that is yours and therefore he will not
go to you, but if you want anything from Dandamis come you to him?.? Alexander
then conceded that throughout all his travels he had finally met a person
who was more than a match for him.
The challenge before India is to
create such Dandamis in large numbers who provide the moral anchor while
the society pursues its material progress.
(The author is former Professor
of Economics, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.)
