World Peace 101

EXTENT

If the extent of the human being – not only in terms of physical dimensions, but also in philosophical scope – is determined and agreed-upon, the world’s problems will no longer exist. The loose definition of the individual’s jurisdiction, open to interpretation and debate, splits us into liberals and conservatives, jihadis and atheists, capitalists and socialists, cow-protectors and beef-eaters, haves and have-nots.

All issues are first fought in the mind, and then in the physical world. Laws govern what we, as individuals, are allowed to control and what we aren't. Citizens who have problems with existing laws campaign for reforms - this is the constitutional route - or work outside the purview of the law. What the individual perceives as his or her jurisdiction ultimately shapes all major debates in the world today.

The niche Western twin-solutions – liberalism and individualism – oversimplify the debate, but give us the most conventionally accepted definition of the individual’s jurisdiction.

OWNERSHIP

If it is agreed that the human being extends from the toes up to the head, and from the back up to the tips of the fingers, then rights and duties can be determined for this definition of the individual. Laws can be tailored to suit this requirement; any violation of the human body could then be termed a crime. If you get mugged at the street-corner, your personal space has been violated; this is a crime. Similarly, rape is a crime as it is forcible encroachment of personal space. Murder is then the highest crime possible under this system, as it deprives the body of life itself.

The individual’s limit can be extended, with some difficulty, to human-possessions as well. This would then cover issues such as theft, arson and cross-border infiltration. The complications in this extrapolation arise out of the concept of shared ownership. Does a house belong to the tenant or the owner? Do you – the owner – have a right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed into the house? Is it reasonable to enforce a No Smoking policy in the house, even though you – the owner – don’t currently live there? If you are a vegetarian opposed to animal slaughter, is it reasonable to ask your tenant to refrain from cooking meat in the kitchen?

Marriage can be seen as a contract wherein two individuals devolve certain strictly private rights in order to gain other rights over each other. Again, we ask ourselves: “Where do I end? Where do you begin?” We struggle to define these boundaries with children as well, because they are inseparable from the parents. Is it a good thing if a child is being forced to do his or her homework? At what age do we start respecting the child’s liberty? This is only the tip of a vast grey-zone, which even individualism and liberalism – which have worked well so far – struggle to pierce.

COMMUNITY

Drawing the boundaries with greater precision or defining rules with firmer bases do not help in tackling this grey jurisdiction. No matter how well you draw these lines, there will always be conflict. There will be conflict even if everybody agrees with a common definition of the limits of a human being.

Because an individual is created by a community, and a community, in turn, is created by a cluster of individuals, it is impossible to separate them from one-another. The society as a whole often carries powerful opinions, and these deserve certain respect. A blind shift towards individuality disrupts a system of shared communal-values. The individual's struggle against societal values must be acknowledged; it must not be opposed. But it also should not be glorified.

““I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

— "The Friends of Voltaire", Evelyn Beatrice Hall [1906]

IDEAS

In the light of Charlie Hebdo and the rise of Islamism, it has often been said that people have rights, but ideas do not have rights. Saying this repeatedly does not bring us any closer to a planet where this is true. Much has been said about the contagious nature of ideas, how they are bulletproof, how they cannot be destroyed by bombs and bullets… All these sayings are, interestingly, said about ideas which are considered positive. They are nevertheless true for all kinds of ideas. Shooting Parisians does destroy the idea of liberté-égalité-fraternité.  Similarly, bombing ISIS does not destroy the idea of a Caliphate.

The earlier quote (by Evelyn Beatrice Hall) about the Freedom of Speech and Expression is an important step towards liberty, but it takes a myopic view of society. In fact, it fails to consider the Idea as a serious force - more serious, perhaps, than the individual. This is because the idea does not ever exist alone, independent of actions and feelings. By denying the idea certain intrinsic rights, and by simply disapproving it and letting it be, we only create a more confusing, agitated world.

Ideas are shared possessions of humanity. The concepts we use to deal with them are far too limited in their scope, and thus yield statements such as “ideas do not have rights”. Of course, ideas have rights! The moment such a statement is made, it becomes true. We can choose not to acknowledge them, at our own peril.

Ideas usually lie in this grey-zone; they are neither mine nor yours. Yet, we expect one of them to be more correct than the other. Terrorism is an idea, counter-terrorism is another. Capitalism is an idea, communism is another. Science is an idea, not-Science is another. One of these sides can gain temporary ground over another; that is all what such a victory will ever be: temporary.

CONFLICT

It does not matter how strongly you believe in Science or, for that matter, Allah. There will be another side that does not agree. At this point, we have a choice. First choice: we can draw idea-borders (we can disapprove of each other), march to the frontlines and train our weapons at people on the other side. This is what we have been historically doing. According to modern sensibility, ideological wars are wonderful as long as there is no physical violation of another’s space. Since ideas do not have rights, it is perfectly acceptable (and sometimes, glorified) to decimate them. This, however, does little to settle a conflict. This constant violation of the individual’s space – in a realm that is abstract, but very real – is left unacknowledged until a physical action takes place.

The other choice is to create a world of shared possessions. Everything belongs to everyone, with varying degrees of influence. Boundaries, if they must exist, need to be fluid. In such a world, ideas can be acknowledged. Dialogue will not mean debate. Different viewpoints will coexist; the urge to unite viewpoints will give way to the urge to understand differences.

Not only will we allow for the existence of foreign ideas, but we will also understand them. We will respect ideas for being what they are: ideas. “So you believe that God created our world over seven days? I think we evolved from a Spaghetti monster. What do you think about that?”

The definition of the individual needs to be extended and softened. The world could then be a better place.

A Strange Surge

Like the arm of the beam balance that swings upwards when the vendor lifts the one kg stone, my heart feels an odd upward surge. I can feel years of meditation and self-control melt into a thin jelly; I must yield to this strange release.

A voice from all around me, perhaps vibrating from within, says that all will be well. Like all the years behind me, the present, too, will pass. These years could even be filled with exhilarating joy - an unparalleled excitement that smashes existence in tiny, glittering pieces.

But I am afraid. I don't know such a life. It has always escaped me, often at the final moment, slipping through the gap between the tips of my fingers. I am not sure what I fear more - joy or sorrow.

The Coward Who Sought Middle Ground

Once upon a time, there was a society which had normal problems. Its fault-lines were apparent, and they never went away; sometimes, people would grow apart, and at other times, they would come together. There were several divisions: rich and poor, educated and uneducated, forward caste and backward caste, employed and unemployed, male and female, capitalists and socialists.

This society, like many others, was subject to empirical laws that governed most other realms. People carried a variety of opinions on every single issue, usually forming a spectrum. There were few people at the extremes - visionaries and lunatics - but a vast majority didn't hold such radical views. The distribution of their opinions on any particular topic (agreement-disagreement plotted on the X-axis) formed a typical bell-curve.

With the passage of time, and the advent of magazines and social media, these opinions became louder and larger in number. It then became possible to gain not only fame but also wealth through neatly phrased sentences, which mimicked an ideology. At this stage, the curve became "taller" (it grew in amplitude) but did not change its shape.

Soon, when the noise of opinions was deafening, it became important to stand apart from the crowd to be heard. Extreme positions, bordering on the illogical, were incentivised. Magazines were willing to pay for extreme rights and savage lefts. There was less interest in the middle; after all, it was mainstream.

So the distribution was changed.

More people were drawn away from the middle, towards the extremes. Soon, the convergence of opinions - a consensus - was no longer an outcome of discussion; it was an anomaly. The bell curve was ripped apart, and the extremes grew in power. People in the middle were now left without support.

When such blocks of opinions were formed, with seemingly no angle of reconciliation, people were incentivised to join these blocks. It became impossible to stand one's ground in the middle; neither was it safe, nor was it brave. The loud voices on the brink became crusaders of change; they existed on either side. The middle was for the weak.

The bell curve lies inverted. Compromise is an ugly word. No moderate ever got many Facebook likes.

Warmth

Gusts and squalls, hail and storms,
You cyclonic vortices of wind
That chill and drench, try and wrench
Open hands that surround the flame!

Skin is scarred, and dry cuts bleed
And hairs stand up on their end.
Wind through fingers; the flame flutters
And threatens to die out on me.

Know that I shan't, know that we won't
Give up on this tender glow.
'Cause when you are gone, and you will be gone
I will be left with the warmth of the flame.

On Writing

The Beginning

I started writing a long time ago; I don't remember when. The past, so often, gets crushed together making space for a massive present, until the difference between yesterday and today is as significant as that between 2010 and 2011. However, I remember I started writing fantasy.

My first story was an amalgamation of the Smurfs and the Mahabharata. Much later, after I read my first Potter book, the same work included a Hogwarts-esque world as well. In fact, for the best part of a year, I was hell-bent on improving J.K. Rowling's literature; it didn't live up to my expectations, and in a mad childish whim, I tried to do better. My protagonist - shamelessly given a European name 'Peter' and white skin - thus journeyed into a terrifying world through a nightmare.

Over time, I imagine my writing developed a slight flavour, as I experimented with Indian myth; most prominently with a Bheema-like figure called 'Veera'. What I read - mostly European and American fiction - still shaped my works strongly. I never completed any of these tales. They held my attention for a while, and during this period, I was devoted to them; then they slipped away.

The Steadfast Tin Soldier?

Ashwin's story began as a blog-post that became longer than anticipated. I promised myself it would end as a 10,000-word short-story; I later found it transforming into a novella, and finally into a 70,000-word novel. I never wished to publish the work. But when the story ended, leaving me friendless for a short while, I decided - why not?

'The Steadfast Tin Soldier?' is not as autobiographical as people say it is, but it isn't independent of its author. I put a considerable portion of myself into that book, and sold it to the market. At first, it felt strange that something as intensely personal as a story was being read by other people. Soon, like many others before me, I learned to distance myself from the tale. In a strange way, imagination shaped reality.

My first foray into a longer form of writing was thoroughly satisfying. I was happy inside that bubble of imagination, untroubled by the world outside. I could live the life of Ashwin - my protagonist - and struggle his struggles, but in a world created by me. So the struggles always had purpose; I found purpose through writing.

MR19

Here, I write about the book I never got published. Not yet, anyway. MR19 - which only my closest friends have read - is the story of a man who tries to understand the world as it changes. The story, a work in mythology and science-fiction, happens in the future - in a homogenized planet. I wrote MR19 in order to understand the world, to accept the changing zeitgeist. I found enlightenment in writing.

Writing is more about listening to a story, than about telling one. I imagine that I write better than I converse; that is only because, when I write, I am listening to the story alongside you. The story plays out with a mind of its own. I cannot begin to describe - this paradox is unintentional - the beauty of a scene unravelling itself to you for the first time.

Nobody Remembers Ram

I wrote my latest book in two months. I was possessed by the story; it did not let me sleep. I wrote from bed, at work, in the metro, at bars, in coffee-shops, when I was friends, when I was on a family-vacation, in trains, inside planes, while eating... I found peace in writing.

This is a story of a successful man who goes missing. People search for him. They discover a narrative of his experiences. By elevating the pleasures and torments of a fictional character, I have been able to placate my own self.

There is too much turbulence in the world outside. Frankly, I don't care much about people and places any more. Why should I be part of something I cannot control? Give me a paper and a pen.

Is India Hindu or Muslim?

Kumbalgarh, Rajasthan: This proud legacy of the Mewar Rajputs - once the stronghold of Maharana Pratap - earned its fame through conflict. The evil Mughal emperor attacked; the noble king defended his people from destruction. Rana Pratap protected his women and children from loot and rape. He perished in the course of this great struggle, but not before enshrining himself forever in Indian folklore.

Srinagar, Kashmir: Here, there is a majestic fort atop a lone hill popularly known as Hari Parbat. According to legend, the mountain is an oversized pebble which was thrown by Goddess Shakti to slay a demon who terrorised the people. Or so the Hindus tell you. According to the Muslims, there is no Hari Parbat; there is only Koh-e-Maran, and a fort that Akbar built.

Patna, Bihar: As India took on Pakistan in a high-octane clash in the 2011 World Cup - the match was happening in Mohali - an entire mohalla was draped in green with Pakistani crescents. People cheered when Sachin fell; they prayed for Misbah to take them home. Neither of those things happened. India won that game.

Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh: People from all around the country were mobilised with minimal effort to destroy a historic mosque in Ram Janmabhoomi, so that Ram's empire of dharma could be reestablished. Thousands died; the place - even after being split in three parts - remains in dispute.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

A man was killed for eating beef. The matter has been thoroughly minced by the Media. "India has become intolerant" under Narendra Modi, they say. News articles proclaim that saffron terror is on the rise. "We are a culture of diversity and debate" is our fall-back line. When all else fails, we will repeat this line, like a broken tape recorder, and hope to feel better.

It is untrue that our country is proud of its unity in diversity. That is a line written for fifth grade Social Sciences textbooks. We are a country of peace, but we don't know what diversity means. Since we didn't have to understand diversity all these years, it did not matter. We all lived in our comfortable little niches, interacting with people similar to us, never venturing too far from home.

Diversity necessitates the existence of dissent. One cannot be different if expected to conform to a majority; there will always be a majority, no matter how small the sample-space. There are as many Indias as there are stories in our country. Each narrative gives us a different picture, and each of these is as true (or as false) as the other.

Can Maharana Pratap be elevated to his Godlike status without vilifying the Mughals? Can we simultaneously celebrate Chhatrapati Shivaji and Aurangzeb? How can Ramjanmabhoomi coexist with Babri Masjid, when they debatably occupy the same spatial coordinates? We are often forced to choose narratives, and therefore forced to choose a particular India.

INDIA IS LIKE BUBBLES

We were, until recently, invisible to each other. We all had our little comfortable bubble, which encompassed our world. Everything we needed was within. Faced with globalisation - national integration is a small step in the grander scheme - we are forced to look outside our bubbles.

Of course, it doesn't please us. If it pleased us, we'd have ventured out a long time ago. Over time, some bubbles will coalesce and become super-bubbles. Super-bubbles will throw their weight around, for a while, until there are many such super-bubbles.

Ultimately, there is only one bubble, and that is the world. In my vision of such a mega-super-bubble, it is a place where people thrive on dissimilarities. Our ideas of liberals and conservatives are far too narrow to enter such a world. But I think we will get there.

Citations:

Picture of children praying for peace between Hindus and Muslims in India "http://www.haaretz.com/"