The Case for Systemic Change

(written in parts over several months in 2006)

I have been a lifelong believer in the premise that mythology often serves as a symbolic form of prophecy, and it represents far more than mere bedtime stories. I hold that the ancients wished to spread information gleaned in their lifetimes to the general populace, which was invariably not as academic or verbose as these seers, and in so doing, chose mythology as a tool. Most of the people in the so-called “West” are already familiar with biblical parables, and the Greek fables. In India our sources have been, for aeons, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. Within these epics we find much more than mere legend, and generations of Indians, irrespective of their chosen vocations, have taken the fundamentals of living from them. In the latter epic, the key episode is of course, the battle of Samantapanchaka (often referred to as the battle of (as opposed to for) Kurukshetra). This battle, in the context of the history of the Kuru race, marked the point of systemic change. It was the re-establishment of the clichéd Establishment. The significance of several factors crucial to the process of systemic change can also be understood through a critical study of this history. But perhaps the most crucial aspect is the nature of the new government, or organization or whatever that is set up to replace the incumbent. It’d be gross to imagine one violent dictatorship replacing another, and this has been seen so often in history. In the Mahabharata, we see the adherence to Dharma by the Pandavas and hence the justification of their rule over their cousins.

Recently in India, the reservation issue has created a unique turbulence that has pervaded Indian society unlike any seen in the past decade. However, this protest was unique in that it was conducted largely on the Internet. Before I talk of replacing the incumbents, I first wish to point out the inefficacy of such a protest. It is my firm belief that any form of protest must be conducted at the most visible level; at the level where it is impossible for the people against whom the complaint is directed to ignore it. Any other form of opposition is inherently bound to fail. It has often been remarked in various forms of Mass Media that the government has developed a buffalo’s hide. Such a shell is quite unnecessary in a society where the forms of public response to gubernatorial actions have occurred so far from the government’s notice as to evoke no response.  In a country of people who are individualist in that they would not put themselves to undue trouble just so long as the same task can be done without lifting the proverbial little finger, it is really unsurprising that a mass protest should be as electronic as possible.

How then, do I propose to “awaken” the government to the travails of the populace? Our country has a rich tradition of strikes and other forms of spanner-in-the-works methods of evincing public outrage.  Those methods were supremely efficient in Gandhian times when we were trying to subtly throw the British Economy off its tracks of progress.  But any true patriot should think twice, thrice even before resorting to any form of remonstration that would adversely affect the nation’s economy.  Only an unthinking child would throw away a toy in order that someone else not play with it. The Mahatma devised the most perfect means of irking the British, and if we are to follow his example, it must in being innovative in our ways of opposition to such governmental policy as may be deemed harmful to the general public.  

Nor do I agree with blind violence as a way of clamouring for attention. That is a much older, and much over-hyped method, and is even more ghastly in the way it reflects the protestor’s utter disdain (not to say loathing) for human life (where killing is resorted to) or for the necessities of human existence. As the saying goes, no good ever comes from depriving others of their livelihood, leave alone life.  It is these instances of horrific brutality that bring out the animal in the “social animal”.  As I said earlier, any candidate for power resorting to bloodthirsty means has invalidated his own candidacy. What proof will he/she offer to his countrymen that he will not resort to the same when his/her powers are threatened? Have we not learnt even the tiniest iota from the ravages that History has witnessed? For any human being to call oneself modern, he/she must encompass a thorough understanding of history instead of rote memorizing dates and battles and kings. 

It is just the same in civilized human society as in (uncivilized?) wild nature. The herbivore feeding off plants, triggers in the plant a self-protective mechanism, but soon the herbivore develops a counter to that, and so evolution continues. Modern democracy therefore requires new tools to battle the same old problems. For an absurdly long time, we wandered in pursuit of civilized means of achieving societal peace. During this time we saw “glorious” empires rise and fall. To give them some credit they did show now and then that human beings could be civilized (by their development of the arts, for example) but for the most part, the record is blood-stained. Then came one man, from the East (as it always has been) and a short while later another, also from the East. I am talking first of the Buddha, and second of Mahatma Gandhi. In the entire history of the human civilization, there are no greater epitomes of compassion in the political realm. Although neither of these men were at the helm of governments, their thoughts and ideologies were compelling enough to sustain empires and countries. Yet sadly, we as a civilization have suffered from memory loss yet again.

So, what is the next rung of political evolution? What new form of protest can we use, hoping to make an impact? Democracy herself has shown us the answers. Today’s politicians have learnt to exploit the mandate for their own private profits. All through school I have read of political empowerment, and seen around me abject disempowerment. The one thought, the one question that kept hammering against my temples was this: what would happen if these “masses” were truly made aware of their position in this land; their heterodox motherland? It isn’t as if they are unaware. Those who vote in our country have shown a definite intelligence, even shrewdness. It’d be wrong to say that they are always swayed by election manifestos and caste marks. But given that the basic problems haunting a vast majority have not changed since Independence, what really has gone right? Or equally, what has gone wrong? Have we been too trusting of governments, or have we been too self-centred as a citizenry? I have come full circle back to the questions I raised at the beginning of this article, and haven’t been able to give any indication to the answers. Not yet…