Author: N.S. Rajaram
Publication: The Hindu
Date: December 31, 2002
URL: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/op/stories/2002123100030200.htm
Introduction: Terrorism is not a
clash of civilisations. Vedanta describes a clash of dharmas, which is
closer to reality.
Following the end of the Cold War,
several thinkers proclaimed that the world had entered a new phase in which
there would be no major conflicts; Francis Fukuyama wrote a book proclaiming
that it was the "End of History." The idea was that in a unipolar world,
with no superpower rivalry to fuel them, economic activity would be everyone's
prime concern and any conflicts would be localised and brought under control.
This utopian vision was soon belied by the outbreak of religious and ethnic
conflicts in many parts of the world including Yugoslavia, the Caucasus,
Kashmir, Indonesia and parts of Africa. These, especially the conflict
in Yugoslavia seemed to indicate that old ethnic and religious rivalries
that had been kept in check under superpower dominance were now coming
to the fore. Faced with this reality, some political scientists in the
West tried to explain them in terms of civilisations rather than economic
and political terms or ideologies that dominated the Cold War era. The
most popular of these is Samuel Huntington's clash of civilisations thesis
expounded in his well-known book Clash of Civilizations.
According to Huntington the world
may be seen as being composed of civilisations that overlay nation states.
He identifies several of these civilisations including the Western-Christian,
Eastern-Christian, Islamic, Hindu and others. In the case of nation states
like Germany and France belonging to the same civilisation, there is little
likelihood of conflict. On the other hand, when two or more civilisations
meet on the ground, as in former Yugoslavia, it can give rise to conflict.
The boundary where two or more civilisations meet is to be seen as a `civilisational
fault line.' Yugoslavia furnishes a particularly good example as it is
the meeting ground of three civilisations (as conceived by Huntington)
- Western (Croatia), Eastern (Serbia) and Islamic (Bosnia-Herzegovina).
This seemed to furnish a particularly elegant vindication of Huntington's
thesis when it first appeared. It was assumed that future conflicts would
follow the same model.
Unstated assumption
With the growth of terrorism in
the world, there has been a rush to identify and explain it on the basis
of Huntington's clash of civilisations thesis. The assumption in all this,
though generally unstated, is that terrorism is to be equated with the
Islamic civilisation. (Huntington himself rejected it, but it was too late
to have much effect). There are several problems with this equation. To
begin with, there have been and continue to be conflicts within Islam that
make it difficult to identify it as a monolithic civilisation. Anyone who
has travelled in West Asia can see that countries such as Iran, Egypt and
Syria are worlds apart. In recent history, Bangladesh broke away from Pakistan
and Iran and Iraq were engaged in brutal war that lasted nearly a decade.
Also, with terrorism striking in places as far apart as New York, Kenya,
Moscow, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Bali, there is no discernible `fault line'
where civilisations neatly fall in place. The reality is that terrorism
represents no civilisation and follows no boundaries.
Geopolitical theories like the clash
of civilisations make the facile assumption that human beings everywhere
think and behave the same way and have similar priorities dominated by
economic interests. To scholars in the secular humanist West, it is inconceivable
that people would lay down their lives for religious or cultural beliefs.
So they tend to attribute economic and social motives to acts that lie
beyond the realm of their experience and comprehension. As a result, their
methods and models have a tendency to fail when applied to aberrant behaviour
like terrorism or megalomania. There exist alternatives worth studying.
Alternative visions
The major drawback of geopolitical
theories, like Huntington's clash of civilisations, is their failure to
account for human behaviour, especially aberrant behaviour. Ancient Indian
thinkers on the other hand have made a profound study of this aspect of
conflict. It is surprising that Indian humanities scholars have by and
large failed to take advantage of the vast body of knowledge available
to them in their own tradition. Yoga, Vedanta and many other sources provide
alternative visions based on insights into human behaviour. A study of
Indian sources shows that conflicts like what we are faced with were not
unknown to the ancients who had made a profound study of the causes and
effects that underlie them. They analysed them from the viewpoint of human
tendencies rather than as reflections of geopolitics. They characterised
them as Daivic (divine) and Asuric (demonic) traits and saw conflicts as
resulting from the clash of values (or dharma) deriving from them. In this
context, it is a serious error to interpret dharma as religion or sect.
Seen from this Vedantic perspective, what we are witnessing around us is
no clash of civilisations, but a clash of values or dharmas. This is an
age-old conflict, between the material and the spiritual. Most evil in
the world is due to excessive preoccupation with the material wealth and
power. This tendency is called Asuric by the ancients. The spiritual or
the trait that seeks harmony is called Daivic. Krishna in the Bhagavadgita
describes the Asuric traits as follows:
"The Asuric (demonic) traits are
ignorance, deceitfulness, excessive pride, ego, harshness, and rough speech.
Such people know not when to act and when to desist from action. They believe
in nothing, have neither truth nor purity. ...Driven by desire and unsupported
by beliefs these souls without enlightenment, with their terrible acts
can destroy the world. ...Immersed in endless worries that only death can
end, they know nothing beyond self-indulgence without limit. They think
only of accumulating wealth through wrongful means... In the folly of their
ignorance they think: `I got this today, I have that more to get. I have
so much now but I'll get more. I have killed that enemy, but I have more
to kill'."
It is not hard to see that the world
today is in thrall to Asuric forces, no matter how we look at it. To counter
the Asuric tendencies, what are needed are Daivic qualities, which the
Gita describes as follows: "Fearlessness, purity, courage in seeking knowledge,
generosity, restraint, learning, uprightness, gentleness, honesty, loyalty,
compassion for the living, humility, fortitude and absence of excess pride
- these are the virtues of the Daivic. The Daivic leads to freedom and
the Asuric to bondage."
How are we to account for these
traits, or what they stem from? The Vedantic view is that there are three
fundamental tendencies (or gunas) that control human behaviour; the combined
action of these on the people, especially the leaders, leaves an imprint
on the history of any era. These tendencies are: sattva (light or purity),
rajas (power or aggression) and tamas (darkness or ignorance). Any combination
of these determines the history of an epoch. Particularly dangerous is
the combination of tamas and rajas - aggression driven by ignorance. This
is what we call fanaticism. Tamas sees sattva or light of knowledge as
the enemy. Its goal is to destroy sattva and plunge the world into a Dark
Age. This has happened many times in history. This is what forces of fanaticism
are trying to do to the world today.
Use of force unavoidable
Tamas therefore is the great enemy
of civilisation. This is also what ancient sages of India warned against.
It is important to note that tamas cannot always be conquered by sattva
alone. This means force or rajas must be employed, but employed judiciously.
The ignorance of a child can be cured by education, but not the ignorance
of a hardened fanatic. The use of force may be unavoidable though it always
has to be the last resort. It is a serious error to think that fanatics
bent on plunging the world into darkness will always respond to a gentle
message. When faced with evil, sattva must always be backed by rajas, even
if used only as a last resort. Sattva without rajas can only appease.
Most of us calling ourselves `rational'
do not see the world in Daivic and Asuric terms. With that we have lost
the rational basis for understanding the world that our ancestors possessed.
Some modern sages like Sri Aurobindo had retained a vestige of it. This
allowed them to see the forces of violence and ignorance engulfing the
world. This is what we are seeing today in the war against terror - a combination
of rajas and tamas ranged against civilisation. It is no clash of civilisations
but a clash between Daivic and Asuric forces. For civilisation to survive,
the Daivic forces - sattva and rajas - must combine to defeat the Asuric
combination of tamas and rajas. This is the message of Vedanta.
(The author's latest book is Nostradamus
and Beyond, Visions of Yuga-Sandhi, in which these ideas are explored further.
It is published by Rupa.)
