I think it was Lenin who had asked “what is to be done” and “how is it to
be done?” And the answer led to a revolution 100 years ago. It not only changed
Europe but also started the project of making a new world. I do not know
how much currency Lenin’s answer has to the situation of ‘India that is
Bharat’ but I do believe that the two questions are important for us as well.
We must ponder over them in our private and public conversations. And this manthan
is likely to have greater value if it would be in the bhāśā of our ancestors;
in the categories of the civilization.
What work is worth doing in these times? A revered friend said, “to spend
the whole life planting trees”. Another friend said, “to tell good stories of
good people” is what is needed to be done. Another possible answer can be to
work towards reestablishing the ordinary way of life. The term loka-vidyā amongst its
multiple meaningful interpretations would include the celebration of wisdom of
ordinary people in our surroundings. The marriage of loka (a priori conditions)
with vidyā perhaps needs the sacred fire (tapas)
of ordinariness! I am attempting
to share an English re-narration of the earlier post in Hindi on our ordinariness
and bonhomie with respected seniors of Lokavidyā Andolan.
To
Establish Dharma in Contemporary Situations
Mahatma
Gandhi was one of those Indian political leaders who understood India
independent of the European view of life. According to him, India’s problem was
(and is) that it had wandered away from the path of dharma. I
believe his entire spectrum of political activity emerged from this concern. All
his actions- call for swadeshi, promotion of charkhā, taking up fasts,
non-cooperation with British rule etc. were intended for “धर्म संस्थापनार्थाय” or to work towards re-establishing
dharma. I think, this maybe the most significant aspect of his unrealized legacy
and any recalling of Mahatma Gandhi must be in this light.
From an aitisāsic
point of view, man’s concern has always been for establishment of
dharma.
All our cultural stories tell us that since time immemorial man’s primary quest
has been this. And so is this true for our times as well. We too need to work
with the primal concern.
The
civilizational view has been that it is the concern for dharma which
fundamentally distinguishes man from animal. Only man worries about dharma, animals
don’t. An animal’s concern is limited to food, rest and reproduction. And that
is why the primary concern behind any animal gathering is protection and
security. But humans are different. If humans too gather for the purpose of protection
and security, then it would not be possible to distinguish between the two. Our
civilization saw a human gathering distinct from animal gathering; the former
is called samāja and the latter is called samaja.
Birth of
Modern Society in Europe
In modern
times, societies were born in Europe with the concern of protecting property.
The few who owned properties formed societies and started influencing the Kings
and the Queens to ensure protection of their property. The justification for it
was provided by a view which considered property to be an extension of human
body. Just like clothes were mere extension of one’s body, so were the assets
and property. And protecting them was akin to protecting one’s body. The same
view when extended, encouraged those without property to go out in the world
and acquire it; a useful justification for colonial conquest of the world. As
time passed, monarchies gave way to democratic states, but this view continued
unchanged. So much so, today the primary responsibility and occupation of the
state is to protect property (and facilitate those without to it).
Perhaps in
these times, the most important goal of modern states is to ensure everyone
becomes a property owner. American thinker Hannah Arendt called modern states
to be institutions of “mass housekeeping”.
Such has been the dominance of societies over the modern state, that the
concerns of a household i.e. food, clothing and shelter, have now become the
primary concern of the state. As a result, the modern man has willingly given
up this responsibility to the state. In India, the state is often called “माई-बाप” which tends to
infantilize its population by (forcibly) becoming parent like.
Today, even if some families intend to come together and aspire to re-establish
their sovereignty over material fulfillment, it is not possible to do so.
Although one can find a few such well-intentioned efforts and experiments,
however their success has only been limited. The modern society has
fundamentally weakened the households by usurping all the conditions of
material fulfillment. The most recent example in India perhaps is the (near)
complete control over kitchen fuel and defecation space.
I think it
is important to re-claim the civilizational view of human gathering; the samāja.
And it is necessary to clearly distinguish between the imagination of society
and that of samāja. Translations have often resulted in serious mistakes. For
example, the modern society has no interest in the issues of dharma-adharma. In
these times, the concern for dharma has been pushed out of public
contemplation. For the self-preservation of society, it was deemed necessary to
make dharma a private matter or else the society risks falling apart. Whereas
the imagination of samāja has been completely different from this. At its core
lies the concern for dharma-adharma and all of samājiktā (bonhomie) finds
purpose in establishing dharma. I think, at least in the Indian context, those
friends who are making efforts towards creating a space for samājiktā in
contemporary society would find it useful to collectively contemplate on the
civilizational imagination of it.
Civilizational
Imagination of Samāja
According
to Hannah Arendt, the modern society was built in direct contradiction to how
the civilizational Greeks constructed the polis (the space of political). For
the Greeks, the household (private realm) was concerned with food security and
health. The private space was a space of well-being of life; a space for rest,
recuperation and parenting. On the other hand, the public space of political
was concerned with those issues that are at play on the margins of life- issues
of death, immortality, birth, re-birth, purpose of life etc. The political was
not concerned about well-being of life. Or at least, that was not its primary
concern, and nor did it restrict itself to such issues. For Arendt, the
beginning of modernity is marked by obfuscating the distinction between the
public (political) and the private (household). Modern times saw the “rise of
social” between the political and the household and it has gobbled up the two.
Such powerful was this assertion by Arendt that it ruffled many feathers in the
contemporary world, including of those who otherwise were appreciative of her.
Her criticism of rise of social is an important critique of Marx and the project
of making the world.
Much like the
development of polis in Greece, India witnessed development of samāja; also,
completely distinct from the modern society. Probably the first use of the word
samāja is found in Bharat Muni’s nāttyaśātra; the treatise on drama.
In nāttyaśātra, the word samājik is used for the spectators of drama.
Classically, the nāttya (drama) has been considered to be
mother of all art forms. And the purpose of art is considered to re-orient
human interest in issues of dharma-adharma. The story of origin of drama in the
introduction of nāttyaśātra presents this beautifully.
The
change of times from kriti-yuga (sat-yuga) to
treta-yuga is marked by a fallacy that developed in human behavior. The gods
noticed that human beings have lost interest in issues of dharma-adharma and
have begun chasing sukha (happiness) and shunning dukha (unhappiness). Worried,
the gods took a procession under the leadership of Indra to the Creator Brahmā.
They requested Brahmā to create a fifth Veda which would on one hand be a
summary of the four Veda-s and on the other be “सर्ववार्णिक” or that which is accessible to all.
And so, the nāttyaśātra was created which is also known as the fifth Veda.
Brahma gave the “सर्ववार्णिक पंचम वेद” to Bharat Muni along with 100 sons and 1 daughter (who later came to be
known as नट or nata-s).
There are two important things to note here. First, the
purpose of drama (art) is to re-orient man’s interest towards issues of
dharma-adharma. And second, art is expected to be accessible to all men.
Those who gather to witness the drama and collectively contemplate
on the dharma-sankata-s raised in it constitute spectatorship. In nāttyaśātra
they are referred as samājik. In other words, samāja is born when men gather to
collectively contemplate on issues of dharma-adharma. Further, when collective
action is taken up for establishing dharma then samājiktā (bonhomie) finds
purpose. Other than this, all actions- food security, material wealth, marriage
and parenting, issues of relationships etc. are all addressing this primary
concern. This is our civilizational imagination of samāja.
This civilizational
imagination is completely different from the popular historical view we
hold today, that when man graduated from being a hunter-gatherer to producer of
food, then he felt the need to come together with other men. Agriculture on one
hand ensured that ample food was produced but on the other hand needed
collective effort. As a consequence, for the first-time issues of storage of
excess food and distribution amongst individuals gained currency. However, such
an imagination of human gathering is fundamentally not very different from an
animal gathering. Here, the concern for food security is placed at the core of
all gatherings.
In one
imagination of human gathering, the concern for food security is placed at the
core and in another the concern for धर्म-स्थापना or establishing dharma is placed at the core. It is
clear that the two imaginations originate from two different sources or
paradigms. For us and our friends, it is perhaps both important and necessary
to appreciate this distinction to understand our own collective situation.
The imagination of society falls short of appreciating both the Greek polis and
Indic samāja.
Sādhāranikaran (Immersion) and Samājiktā
(Bonhomie)
In order
to be samājik one is required to be engrossed in issues of dharma-adharma. One
needs to be engrossed in the dharma-sankata presented in the drama. And one
needs to be engrossed in the solution of those dharma-sankata presented in the
drama. The everyday life presents numerous challenges to us for the needed long
and deep contemplation. For example, if I am not sure about my next meal or if
my roof demands urgent repair, then I cannot afford to contemplate on the
dharma-sankata which Rāma faced about Sitā or the efficacy of Lakshmana-rekhā
in contemporary times.
The
success of drama depends on the affordance of spectatorship i.e. the
quality of contemplation. For this it is necessary that one’s living is sahaja
(simple) and one feels assured about the future. A complex living where arrangement
of two square meals takes the effort of life or when entire life is spent in
converting the home into museum-like will leave not much scope for drama in
life. If I am unsure about the future, I cannot be expected to contemplate on
issues of dharma-adharma. Only when the living is sahaja and assured does drama
finds a place in life.
Such a
condition of life is called sādhāranikaran in nāttyaśātra.
This becomes the cause of deep and long contemplative ability. And this
condition is considered a necessary requirement for one to be samājik.
It is said that sādhāranikaran achieves sah-hridaya (oneness?) between the
spectator and the performer. Manmohan Ghosh translates sādhāranikaran as immersion.
Navjyoti Singh linked the condition of sādhāranikaran with denuded man; what he called the bare human
being. When an individual temporarily suspends all his adjectives; like the
adjective of man-woman, adjective of King-folk, various adjectives from ideologies,
adjectives of potter-farmer-weaver-iron smith-leather worker-scholar etc., then
what is left is the bare core of man. Spectatorship requires one to access the
core and only then the contemplation on dharma-adharma reveals something
worthwhile. In such a contemplation there is the possibility of getting a
glimpse of Truth. Navjyoti ji considered this to be the source of aesthetic
beauty in art. And gathering of spectators to be samāja.
One
important point to remember here is that the storyteller never suspends his
adjective. A storyteller does not get immersed in the drama. He is every moment
aware of the distinction between drama and the natural world. His storytelling
performance needs him to follow the laws of material realm. It is the
responsibility of the storyteller to first immerse the spectator into drama and
then at its conclusion bring the spectators back to their reality.
For
serious contemplation on issues of dharma-adharma the spectators need to be
immersed. However, in order to act for establishing dharma, they need to return
back to the reality with the respective adjectives. A potter needs to be a
potter again, a weaver needs to weave again, a King needs to be King again. For
one to do action, one needs to be present in material realm. I think samāja has
simultaneous presence in “realm of drama” (we call it parloka) and in realm of
material. Parloka is the realm of contemplation; it is composed of impressions,
judgements, images, ideas etc. And persona is born in parloka.
And material realm is where action is performed. Samāja exists in both the
loka-s (a priori conditions).
Civilizational
Village
For immersion to happen, nāttyaśātra
calls for construction of a play-house. The play-house is expected to remove
all the obstacles which prevent or break immersion. For example, if in middle of the
performance it rains, the immersion will break. Or if the performer is not
audible the immersion will not happen. That is why a well-constructed
auditorium adds to our experience of spectatorship.
It is
interesting that nāttyaśātra mentions certain obstacles which do not seem to
have any relation with the play-house. It talks about “fear of famine”, “fear
of political unrest”, “fear of war” as obstacles that a play-house is expected
the protect the drama from. We can understand that such fears will prevent one
to be immersed in drama, but we cannot imagine a play-house to cater to them.
After all, how can a play-house remove the fear of famine or war?
It is here
that it may be useful to develop interest in the traditional village
structures. Ravindra Sharma of Adilabad was one such person who understood the
traditional village.
Although he only spoke of villages in Adilabad, however the listeners could
relate the description to their own villages in other parts of the country.
According to Sharma ji, every village fulfilled two basic requirements- assured
livelihood and dignity of labor for all families. Each individual in the
village felt assured about the future. And it will be accurate to give credit
for this to the traditional jajmāni system.
Besides
these, there was one other equally important aspect of jajmāni villages. They
also provided patronage to families of bhikśā vritti (artist communities).
These families belonged to different artistic professions- puppeteers,
storytellers, singers and musicians, jāti-purāna performers, genealogists,
medicine men etc. Jayadhir Thirumal Rao of Hyderabad (former director of AP
archives) has compiled a list of 74 such distinct communities in the
Andhra-Telangana region.
In my
view, the bhikśā vritti families played the crucial role in functioning of the
traditional villages. Their primary contribution was development of samājiktā
(bonhomie) amongst the families in the village. Through continuous performances
of stories; year after year, generation after generation, they created a rich
culture of collective contemplation on issues of dharma-adharma in villages.
For example, it can be said that for thousands of years every village in India
has contemplated on the dharma-santaka faced by Rāma.
Our villages
were not stable units because of economic inter-dependency. But, the foundation
to economic inter-dependency was provided by the collective contemplation on
dharma and the collective effort towards its establishment. According to
Ravindra Sharma, it is our “common interest in dharma” which is the source of
unity amongst our diversity. Such an assertion may interest those friends who
are interested to explore the challenges of diversity in human realm. The west
has experimented with the project of multi culturalism in last 40 years with
very limited success.
Our
ancestors saw a village as a unit of prosperity, not family nor individual. And
the purpose of prosperity was to ensure that each family gets to afford spectatorship.
Universal prosperity by itself was not considered to be the goal. Moreover, any
activity of wealth generation which adversely impacted the samājiktā
(collective effort towards dharma) was not considered worthwhile. Today we are
all aware of dangers of wealth generation which is indifferent to the concerns
of dharma.
Conclusion
On looking
back, we can see that at the core of village lies samājiktā (bonhomie) i.e.
collective effort towards dharma. And samājiktā is reached only when there is
ample collective interest in issues of dharma. And for that to happen, families
need to feel assured about future and life could be lived in sahaja manner. In
the past this was achieved by the jajmāni system.
Assured
families can afford to be spectators of drama. And such families constitute samāja.
And the primary motivation behind samāja is to establish dharma.
In
contrast to this, we see the modern society today. Here security of wealth
(property) is a goal in itself. The popular tendency in contemporary drama is
to be uninterested in dharma and most have become mere tools of entertainment.
Imaginations around wealth acquisition and multiplication and the sensory
pleasure obtained from it have become the dominant concerns. As a result, life
in society has become complex and increasingly immaterial (purposeless). A
respected friend described complex living to be symptomatic of kal-yuga.
What is to
be done for bonhomie in future and how is it to be done? Perhaps it would be
useful to look back at classical concerns once. And for that we may have to
reclaim classical imagination and bhāśā.
- Harsh Satya, 30th July 2020
