WHEN CHINA RULES THE WORLD : MARTIN JACQUES (2009)

A book on China by Martin Jacques, who feels that China will one day, rule the world.

He sets forth his arguments nicely and thereafter tries to speculate as to how the world will look like - ‘When’ China rules the world.

So will it? It’s a big ‘Maybe’, I think.

Some commentators like Nitin Pai (@acorn on twitter) do not think so. In his ‘Business Standard’  column Nitin says the title should have been “if’ and not ‘When’.

China is a freak of nature.

Else how is it that a nation, the size of a continent, can have so much of puke-worthy uniformity?

How is it that 90% of its citizens call themselves ‘Han Chinese’ and speak the same language?

How do you get 1.2 billion people to think alike?

Like I said, China is a freak of nature. Nowhere in the world will you find conformity of culture in such a large scale. Look at India or Europe and you will know what I mean.

And the secret behind this puke-worthy conformity?

It’s geography. I think.  At least partially.

Terrain friction does not permit an easy land route to China, unlike India.

To the South and South West you have the Himalayas;

To the East and South East you have the South China Sea;

To the North and North West, you have the Steppe’s and Gobi Desert.

So folks in China were left in relative isolation to develop their culture and traditions in peace till the 19^th  century .

The Mongols and Manchus who were the only invaders got sinicized in due course.

In contrast, look at India.

We had friendly neighborhood migrations/invasions throughout our known history.

Nobody’s got a clue as to who the Indus Valley folks were. Dravidians are also migrants. So are the Aryans. Then came the Persians, Greeks, Mohammedans and finally of course the ‘White man’.

We have had a ‘cultural shock treatment’ every other century. Never been left alone. Hence in India we have a mash up of everything.

Not so in China. Such uniformity is rare.

So will China rule the world?

The Chinese say “ Who can stop me?”

As a race who believe in their inherent superiority over other ‘barbarians’ of the world, they think it is just a matter of time.

With a 5000 year history, blessed with oodles of patience, Chinese are waiting in the wings.

 Deng’s comment brings out their world view:

‘Observe developments soberly, maintain our position, meet challenges calmly, hide our capacities and bide our time, remain free of ambition, never claim leadership.’

Chinese conceptions of time are also slightly different. Note former Chinese premier Zhou En Lai’s reported response to Henry Kissinger’s question in 1972 about the consequences of the French Revolution: ‘It is too early to say.’

What if they do rule the world? Should it be a cause of concern?

Some of the Chinese attitudes can be considered to be a  ‘grey’ area.

Handling of ethnic minorities by Chinese is a big negative. Treatment of Tibetans and Uighurs of Xingjiang is well documented.

Oft-repeated process of Han settlement in these areas have changed  the ethnic balance.

In  Xingjiang, Hans are about 50% now, compared with 6 per cent in a 1950s census. A similar process is on in Tibet also.

Root problem is the ingrained sense of racial superiority of Chinese.

Sun Yat Sen of 1911 Revolution fame, amplifies the Chinese racial worldview:

“Mankind is divided into five races. The yellow and white races are relatively strong and intelligent. Because the other races are feeble and stupid, they are being exterminated by the white race. Only the yellow race competes with the white race. This is so-called evolution …. Among the contemporary races that could be called superior, there are only the yellow and white races. China belongs to the yellow races.”

Tibetans, to Chinese, are seen as  backward and primitive, and  should be grateful to Chinese for bringing them civilization and development.

Zhang Qingli, Communist Party secretary of the Tibet, confirms the ‘benevolent’ role of Chinese:

‘The Communist Party is like the parent to the Tibetan people, and it is always considerate about what the children need …. The central party committee is the real Buddha for Tibetans.’

Yuan Qinghai, a Lhasa taxi driver: ‘We don’t have a good impression of them, as they are lazy and they hate us. In their mind taking a bath once or twice in their life is sacred, but to a Han it is filthy and unacceptable.’

Lack of Democracy and a vibrant free press in China is of course another big negative.

So will China change once they get to rule the world? Or will they also mouth pious platitudes like US about freedom and democracy, while carrying on doing what they want with the world?

There are however huge positives also.

In his cult song ‘ Imagine’, John Lennon crooned:

“Imagine there’s no country, and no religion too”

China, being the freak that it is, is the one country in the world where religion is almost a non-issue.

Folks there do have some form of ancestral worship, but it is strictly a private affair.

Imagine such a world!

Where religion is actually a non-issue.

Where religion is relegated to its rightful place in society, i.e confined to one’s four walls, something private and personal.

A world where no one cares about what kind of faith you practice at home.

For this reason alone, I fervently wish China does get to rule the world and tell those religious hate mongers to lump it and just shut up.

In China today people are simply left free to get on with the business of transforming their living standards.

Folks do not talk of politics or religion. They have retreated into a private world of consumption.

Money-making, is the most valued and respected form of social activity.

Is that such a bad thing? I think not. I think it’s perfect.

With just over 20 million plus folks below poverty line, of a population of 1.2 Billion, I think the Chinese have got their priorities right.

And to think that in 1978 they had close to 300 million under poverty line.

Another aspect is the importance given to Confucian precept of filial piety and the central role of family, in contrast to  ‘Individualism’  propagated by Western Societies.

“The individualistic system, with  emphasis on the nuclear family, is in stark contrast to the traditional extended-household, arranged-marriage, kinship-based systems to be found in societies like China and India, whose values and distinctive characteristics persist to this day, notwithstanding urbanization and a dramatic fall in the size of the nuclear family.

Thus, while marriage in the West is essentially a union of two individuals, in Chinese and Indian culture it involves the conjoining of two families.”

Which system is better? The jury is out.

One thing is certain. We live in interesting times. And like the Author, I too also believe that the face of the world will change ‘If’ and ‘When’ China does get to rule the world.

Pakistan- A personal history by Imran Khan

Pakistan- A Personal History

by

Imran Khan(2011)

Imran Khan amazes me. That’s why I picked up this book.

To my mind he had it all - film star looks, oodles of talent, a heart-throb to women, an icon……

Not to forget his ‘minor’ exploits in the cricket field.

Counted amongst the best all-rounder’s the world has ever seen, Imran was one of the few Captains who inspired his team to withstand the West Indies fearsome pace onslaught in the 80’s and lived to tell the tale with pride. And of course the crowning moment was  lifting of the World cup in 1992.

Post retirement a life of leisure and contentment awaited him- writing books, becoming a sought after cricket commentator etc,  having achieved what most folks can only dream of.

But Imran was made of sterner stuff. To quote him:

“I could  never imagine…., just making a living out of cricket journalism. For me that would have been a purposeless existence, I cannot even imagine life without a passion and a purpose”

That is what drew him to politics. Into the world of Pakistani politics.

Pakistan, today, is in a mess. It doesn’t inspire much hope. It has been variously described by  commentators as ‘the nation on the brink’ , ‘failed or failing state’ etc.

Who would want risk getting into the murky world of Pakistani politics? Even Imran initially had come to the same conclusion:

“…like most of the privileged class, I was coming to the conclusion that, since Pakistan’s problems are so many and so insolvable, the best thing to do was to just look after myself. Besides, what could politics possibly give me? I had life that many young people in Pakistan and elsewhere, dreamt about – I was a rich and glamorous cricket star, jet-setting all over the world. Politics was considered a dirty business for those who could do anything else.”

But those were the years when he was immersed in Cricket and had little time to ponder over the state of affairs of the country. As he makes it clear:

“To tell the truth, I had no interest in interest in politics in the 1970s or much of the 1980s………. I had been so single-mindedly and obsessively involved in international cricket that I had no time to think about much else. Anyone who has played professional sport would understand how it completely takes over one’s life. One lives and breathes the sport, so intense is the competition and hence the focus. Over the years, I came to the conclusion that ‘genius’ is being obsessed with what you are doing.”

But in the 90's, in the twilight of his career, Imran’s thoughts turned to politics. However instead of being just being an armchair critic of Pakistani politics, he decided he needed to do something to make a difference. He was contemptuous of those who kept talking about Pakistan’s imminent doom but didn’t seem to want to do anything about it:

“What amazed me was that while almost every dinner-table conversation in the country condemned the politicians for destroying Pakistan’s potential, no one was prepared to do anything about it.  The affluent classes’ response  to the country’s downward spiral was to get Canadian passports or US green cards.  They just did not have the guts or the will to give up their comfortable lives and take on the corrupt political class.  In Islamabad it was quite common to see members of the elite, who denigrated the politicians in private, groveling at their feet at public functions.”

The scenario is pretty similar in India also. We find a lot of arm-chair specialists who give their ‘expert views’ on what ails the nation, but why don’t they get up and do something about it?

This is what prompted me to pick up this book by Imran Khan. What was it that drove Imran? Where does he get his amazing energy from?

One thing that you must not expect from Imran is modesty. Remember that infamous speech of his after Pakistan won the world cup in 1992? He had completely neglected to mention his team-mates contribution in his victory speech. But he is candid about the incident in his book:

“So happy was I for this dream of mine that at the presentation ceremony after the game, I forgot to thank the team for their brilliant performance. I was criticized for it and I must confess the speech was terrible; thinking about it still makes me cringe.  But quite frankly I had other things on my mind than making a speech.  It also has to be said that I was the kind of person who had trouble speaking to a small room of people and suddenly a microphone was thrust in my face without warning and I was expected to address a crowd of 90,000 people and hundreds of millions of television viewers around the world.”

Not very convincing. But so what ?  Imran is not very modest, probably. But that doesn’t take away any of his achievements from him.

Imran definitely feels he is a man of destiny. See how he brings parallels with other legendary figures with his own life:

“All the truly great people in history- Jinnah, Gandhi, Mother Tereas, Nelson Mandela-have had a vision and ambition beyond themselves, often achieving more than others not because of more talent but because they had bigger ambitions and selfless dreams.  The idea of constantly striving towards ever higher goals struck a chord with me, dovetailing with my own philosophy that I had developed through sports-the more you challenge yourself, the more you discover greater reserves of strength within you.  The moment your relax and stop pushing yourself is the moment you start going downhill.”

This aspect of Imran is what most fascinates and inspires me. He doesn’t believe in living on past laurels. He keeps pushing himself. Here’s how he explains his drive and energy:

“I first strove to play cricket for Pakistan, then my goal became to be my country’s best all-rounder, then the best fast bowler.  From there I wanted to become the best all-rounder and the best fast bowler in the world.  When I was  made captain the ambition became turning the team into the best in the world.  And once the cancer hospital I founded in memory of my mother became a success I set about building two more hospitals, one in Karachi and one in Peshawar.  Now my challenge in life is to bring about a socio-economic revolution in Pakistan.  After one goal has been achieved, there are always more to conquer.  As Iqbal says : ‘Other worlds exist beyond the Stars/More tests of love are still to come.”

This passage describes Imran in a nutshell.

Can you ever put him down? He epitomizes the George Bernard Shaw quote:

Life isn't about finding yourself. Life is about creating yourself.

Imran Khan's Idea of pakistan

Ok. Enough eulogizing Imran.

Let’s talk of Imran and what he is doing now. As Imran would agree – why waste time talking of past laurels?

So how does Imran intend to get Pakistan out of the quagmire that it finds itself in? How does he intend to bring about the ‘socio-economic revolution’ in Pakistan?

Firstly, before one looks at the solutions offered by Imran, one aspect which he covers at length in the book, is on how he has become a ‘born again muslim’ and discovered his ‘Faith’:

“Faith answered two of the most important questions, which had always nagged me.  Questions that science could never answer.  What is the purpose of existence? What happens to us after we die?”

No queries there. After all ‘Faith’ is a personal issue.

So what is Imran’s solution to the mess that Pakistan finds itself in?

‘Back to the Quran’ says Imran. He calls for an ‘enlightened Islam’ and a pure Islamic society as envisaged  by Iqbal and Jinnah:

“A true Islamic society would be no different from the democratic welfare states of Europe. Human rights are, after all, at the centre of the Quran. The right to life, justice, respect, freedom of speech and movement, privacy, protection from slander and ridicule, a secure place of residence and a means of living are all enshrined in the Quran.”

And the only difference would be:

“The main difference Islamic sharia has from Western secular society is in the realm of public morality. This protects our family system, one of Pakistan’s greatest strengths.”

So a pure Islamic society is akin to the present western  ‘welfare state’ but with stronger ‘family  and moral values’  

The Two Nation Theory

And partition was necessary because:

“Iqbal and others, …. argued that this vision of an ideal society could never be achieved as long as Muslims remained in a minority in a Hindu-dominated India.

It was not only that India, with its caste system and social inequalities, was the antithesis of everything they wanted. It was also that such a bold experiment of recreating the ideals of Islam could never be achieved in a country where Muslims were in the minority."

So that was the basis of the ‘Two nation theory’.

Does it still hold good after the creation of Bangladesh in 1971?

Imran maintains that, it was because of the fact the Pakistani establishment shifted away from the ideals of  its founding fathers, that East Pakistan broke away.

There is another school of thought doing rounds these days.

That it is not 'Religion' but ‘Geography’ that makes Pakistan a separate state- i.e people of India and Pakistan can be classified into people of the Indus valley and Ganges valley.

Marvi Sirmed, a prominent social activist in Pakistan quotes Aitaz Ahsan in her blog ‘the ideology of Pakistan’ :

“The crux of Mr Ahsan’s study was the inherent difference between the Indus valley and the Ganges civilisations, which he argues, bound all the people living northwest of the Gurdaspur-Kathiwar salient, as one, irrespective of their religion. The southern side of this cultural border constitutes Mr Ahsan’s Ganges man, who considers every intruder from the south or from the central Asia as an invader rather than a hero. He identifies his Indus man more with the Central Asian culture than the Ganges civilisation—a more ‘Indian’ civilization.”

 http://marvisirmed.com/tag/ideology-of-pakistan/

The same idea is propounded by Robert Kaplan in his recent article “What’s wrong with Pakistan?”:

The more one reads this history, the more it becomes apparent that the Indian subcontinent has two principal geographical regions: the Indus Valley with its tributaries, and the Ganges Valley with its tributaries. Pakistani scholar Aitzaz Ahsan identifies the actual geographical fissure within the subcontinent as the "Gurdaspur-Kathiawar salient," a line running from eastern Punjab southwest to the Arabian Sea in Gujarat. This is the watershed, and it matches up almost perfectly with the Pakistan-India border.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/18/whats_wrong_with_pakistan?page=0,0 

I can only respectfully submit to folks who propose the theory that ‘Ganges is India’ that they have no clue of what India is all about.

They have never been to the South or North-East of India. They simply have no idea of the bewildering diversity of India.

Enough said.

Similarly to label Pakistan as simply an ‘Indus valley civilization’ is also a tad bit simplistic.

Punjad and Sind, yes. What about Baluchistan , FATA  and other areas bordering Afghanistan?

The Indian Model for Pakistan?

To my mind even Pakistan is a mini India in terms of its diversities, albeit not on that scale. So to address an ideology of a nation in narrow terms of 'geography' or 'religion' is a recipe for disaster.

I don’t believe either Imran’s ‘Islamic state’ or Marvi Sirmed’s/ Kaplan’s ‘geography of Indus valley’  theory aptly describes the plurality of Pakistan. They need to understand that a nation is much more complex than that.

They could in fact take a leaf out of how India has been nurtured by Nehru, Patel, Ambedkar etc in its formative years and take a clue. It is an apt case study.

Jinnah in 1948, declared ‘Urdu’ as the state language of Pakistan, causing a great deal of resentment amongst Bengali East Pakistani’s, sowing seeds of discontentment which eventually led to the creation of Bangladesh.

Nehru was firmly convinced that ‘Hindi’ had to be the national language of India and he personally felt it was necessary to bond the nation together. But unlike Jinnah, he was far more pragmatic and he understood the diversity and complexity of the nascent nation.

He delayed making a decision for 15 years, and when it came up again for discussion in parliament a decade and a half later, the different langauage lobbies , especially the DMK, were up in arms and the idea of a ‘national language ‘ was quickly scrapped.  

You need to ‘soft sell’ the idea of a nascent nation to its citizen’s over a period of time. You cannot shove it down somebody’s throat. That’s where the Indian leaders showed Statesmanship in the initial years.

Drone Attacks : How Wrong

Similarly it is inconceivable to think of any part in India wherein there is no writ of the central government. 

In  FATA, Baluchistan and other tribal areas, there is no influence of the central establishment whatsoever. Even India has tribal and remote areas, much more than Pakistan in fact. But slowly and steadily over the years the establishment has made inroads, not to subvert the indigenous culture but to subtly make them come to terms with the idea of India. It has all been  about ‘soft selling’ the idea of India.

And that explains the impunity with which the  Pakistani establishment allows drone and gunship attacks on FATA , SWAT valley and parts of Baluchistan, both by own forces as well the US. These regions have never been integrated completely. Will any Pakistani allow such drone attacks on Lahore?

I totally agree with  Imran’s condemnation of drone attacks by US and the use of Pakistani military might, to include helicopter gunships, to quell the dissidence in FATA,Swat valley and Baluchistan.

These actions will only further radicalize the already alienated population. Every innocent civilian killed, will breed a hundred more terrorists. The drone attacks have found favor by some in the Indian media however.

An Alternative to Drone Attacks

@Pragmatic_desi a highly respected commentator on issues of national interest writes in his blog why drones are necessary:

“A major source of angst and anger is over the death of innocent civilians. Some innocents are surely dying in the missiles fired by these drones. But no one has made a cogent case so far that the US is deliberately targeting innocent civilians in tribal areas. They are, to use the unfortunate military term, “collateral damage”.

But all of this still misses the fundamental point of this debate. What is the alternative to these drone strikes? Bombing raids by fighter aircraft, strafing by helicopter gunships, use of missiles or pounding by artillery fire. These are the methods used by Pakistan in Balochistan and in tribal areas against the ‘bad’ jehadis. They have all the disadvantages of drone strikes, and worse. They are far more inaccurate, more visible and would be more violative of Pakistan’s sovereignty than any pilotless aircraft.”

http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2012/02/06/drones-are-the-right-choice/ 

Here again I would point out to the ‘Indian’ way of dealing with insurgents and the ‘Statesmanship' and understanding  shown by the leadership.

Not too long ago we had insurgencies galore in every nook and corner of India, barring the South. We had armed ‘freedom fighters’ in Mizoram, Assam, Tripura, Manipur, Nagaland   as also in Punjab and Kashmir.

Today the so called insurgents in North-Eastern states are simply a bunch of hooligans out to make a quick buck. In Punjab, the 80’s are considered a lost decade and the insurgency is long dead and buried. 

In Kashmir, it simmers on. But consider the facts.

The previous year has been the most peaceful so far in decades of fighting insurgency; and tourism  in the valley is at its peak. 

Why so?

Because the Jehadi’s are busy fighting the US in Afghanistan and the ‘bad Jehadi’s ‘ are targeting the military-ISI complex in Pakistan.

It goes to prove that, left alone, the insurgency in Kashmir would also have died a slow but sure death. It’s Pakistan’s shenanigan’s that is mucking up the waters there.

So how has India been so successful in tackling insurgency? We never used helicopter gunships and obliterated villages in our attempts to quell insurgency. Then how did we bring down violence to tolerable levels?

We did it the hard way. We had Jack boots on the ground and concerted Counter insurgency operations were carried out by our professional army, with the credo ‘no collateral damage’ and ‘no alienation of the indigenous population’.

 Simultaneously a political solution was being offered. A concerted effort of ‘soft selling ‘ the idea of India was on.

And that’s the Indian story. It’s been difficult period for the Indian establishment and the highest levels of statesmanship was displayed by the Indian leaders, which has actually brought us back from the brink. But of course, no one talks of these ‘success stories’. We are too busy highlighting the negative side.

And that is what Pakistan needs to do. With due respect to Pragmatic_desi, the Pakistani Army and the NATO forces should keep its gunships and drones in the hangers and move out of their comfort zone and do some hard soldiering on the ground. The credo should be the same what India has -i.e No collateral damage and No alienation of the locals. And simultaneously find a political solution to the problem.

It’s a long drawn and tougher way out, surely. But it is the only way out.

To conclude I do not believe that Imran’s ‘back to the Quran’ is the way ahead for Pakistan. He is making it too simplistic and his idealism is getting the better of him.

I totally agree with what Omar Ali has written in  ‘three quarks daily’

……And instead of moving away from their dangerous national narrative and learning to live with our actually existing cultures and history, the establishment is doubling down on the effort to create a new culture and a new history out of little more than wishful thinking and pictures of Jinnah and Iqbal. 

To most outsiders (and many insiders) it seems hard to believe that they are serious. But for the supporters of the deep state, the current disorder and economic crisis is entirely due to the corruption and mismanagement of the hapless Zardari regime and of “failed politicians” in general. Believing their own propaganda, these people are convinced that Pakistan's cooperation with the United States in the so-called war on terror and its pro-Western policies in general are to blame for all its internal and external crises; once the current coterie of corrupt and treacherous foreign agents is removed from power and corrupt politicians in general are sidelined or beheaded, the state will magically transform into an Islamic version of the People's Republic of China. 

It will be run by the best and the brightest of the security establishment and its chosen technocrats, cleansed of corruption, economically vibrant, and able to assert its strategic priorities in the region in the face of any and all hostility from India, Iran or NATO. That this is not even remotely close to the real situation of Pakistan is neither here nor there. Unless the corrupt and venal civilian regime is able to assert some level of control, matters may be headed into uncharted territory. Not because everyone in the military high command has gone nuts, but because there is just enough nuttiness around to slip into disaster.   We may be, as columnist Kamran Shafi says, in for a very tall high jump. Not for sure, but certainly “maybe”. And that is a very dangerous maybe. Behind the corruption and the material interests so beloved of leftists there is also a dream. And our “dream of the blue flower” may lead to dangerous places.

http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/06/the-iron-guard-by-omar-ali.html#more 

  

And as @EchoOfindia tweets:

Pakistan is regressing from modernity(Imran Khan is a classic example) while India is (fitfully) embracing it.

I firmly believe that Imran has got the best interest for Pakistan at heart, and that he is a breath of fresh air in the murky land of Pakistani politics. But ‘enlightened Islam’ as the future of Pakistan just does not seem to be the right answer.

He needs  a rethink probably.

About Life, Universe and Everything-III :Does life have any meaning?

Does life have any meaning?

“Deep in the fundamental heart of mind and Universe,” said Slartibartfast, “there is a reason.”

Ford glanced sharply around. He clearly thought this was taking an optimistic view of things.

-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Is there any meaning for human existence?

A Spinoza quote puts things in perspective:

“We are human. We suppose that all events lead up to man and are designed to sub serve his needs. But this is an anthropocentric delusion, like so much of our thinking.

The root of the greatest errors in philosophy lies in projecting our human purposes, criteria and preferences into the objective universe.”

Nietzsche also got it right.

He said: “The value (and meaning) of life cannot be assessed.” Not by any living person because he is an interested party.  

Hence the attempt by metaphysicians galore, to find order and an ultimate meaning to our existence is bound to fail, as they are all an ‘interested party’.

“The world today doesn't make sense, so why should I paint pictures that do?”- Pablo Picasso

But even Nietzsche’s ‘Amor Fati’- (i.e celebration of the moment, and accepting things as they    are, with no past and future also is) is an attempt to find some meaning for it all.

But it is in Man’ nature to try and find meaning to our existence.

Aristotle, for instance, believed in a final cause. That everything is guided in a certain direction from within.

He believed that there is purpose behind everything in nature. It rains so plants can grow; oranges and apple grow so that people can eat them.

Spinoza  believed that greatest good is the knowledge of union which mind has with the whole nature. Our Individual separateness is illusory; we are parts of the great stream of law and cause, parts of God. This is ditto Hindu philosophy.

He also said that there is no free will – necessities of survival determines instinct, instinct determines desire and desire determine thought and action.

Free will is compared to a stone’s thinking  as it falls through space, that it determines its own trajectory and selects the place and time of its fall.

Kant believed in a ‘universal moral law’. Basically saying ‘Do unto  others what you would do unto yourself.’

The moral law is absolute and unalterable, according to Kant.

Sartre, the existentialist, said “Man is condemned to be free.”

He saw freedom as a curse. Sartre said.” Man is condemned because he has not created himself-and is nevertheless free. Because having once been hurled into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

He believed that man must therefore create himself. He must create his own nature or “essence,” because it is not fixed in advance.

Bergson (1859–1941)had an undeniable logic for believing that ‘free will’ exists.   

He found it hard to believe that: “…every line of Shakespeare’s plays, and every suffering of his, soul; so that the somber rhetoric of Hamlet and Othello, of Macbeth and Lear, in every clause and every phrase, was written far off there in the distant skies and the distant eons, by the structure and content of that legendary cloud. What a draft upon credulity!”

“If determinists were right, and every act were the automatic and  mechanical resultant of pre-existent forces, motive would flow into action with lubricated ease. But on the contrary, choice is burdensome and effortful, it requires resolution, a lifting up the power of personality against the spiritual gravitation of impulse or habit or sloth, Choice is creation, and creation is labor.

What about Man himself? What is his true nature?

Schopenhauer (1788 –1860) has presented a not too pleasant but possibly a true picture of what human nature is.

Man was always thought as a rational ,conscious animal.

Schopenhauer says that under the conscious intellect, is a ‘will’ of imperious desire’.

The intellect is only a guide to the master-‘ the will’.

Will is ‘the strong blind man who carries on his shoulder the lame man who can see’.

What does the ‘Will’ make us do?

The primary instinct of man is his ‘Will to Reproduce’. We know that man can’t stop thinking about sex. There is a reason for it.

The will to reproduce is the means by which the ‘will’ can conquer death. Reproduction is the ultimate purpose of every organism.

Reproductive organs are the focus of will and form the opposite pole to the brain, which is the representative of knowledge.

Is there such a thing as love?

Not really. The ‘will to reproduce’ has  two parts:

One part is of course ‘Lust’.

The other part is the instinct of man to rear his children so that the ‘will’ is able to achieve immortality.

So love is essentially the ‘law of sexual attraction’  decided by mutual fitness to procreate. And the love that you feel for your children and near and dear ones is essentially aimed at perpetuation of the species.

Marriage is only for perpetuation of the species and not for pleasure of the individual. Nature does not care if the parents are ‘happy forever afterwards’, as long as reproduction is achieved.

Love is a deception practiced by nature; Marriage is attrition of love, and must be disillusioning.

The deception vanishes, once procreation is done – The individual discovers that he has been the dupe of the species.

“Life,” said Marvin dolefully, “loathe it or ignore it, you can’t like it.”

-Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

My take: Life, Universe and Everything

Let me try to make sense of what I have read so far.

First things first.                                                    

About Reality.

There is some merit in what Descartes, Locke, Kant etc said

That what we see of this world could possibly be only an apparent reality.

What the world is really like could be a matter of speculation. We see the world with the inherent limitations of our sense organs.

So you cannot dispute that.

But does it matter? Not really, I think.

This world as we see it, is our reality. Hence that is all that matters. We need to find ways and means to come to terms with it. Period.

All talks of what the ‘Ultimate reality’ could really be like should be left for idle chat with your drinking  buddies.

About God?

Well, I believe in what Kant  said.

You cannot speculate in a rational manner on the existence of God. It is best left to matters of ‘Faith’.

Theories of Aristotle that  ‘God’ is the ‘Prime Mover’, or Spinoza’s ‘God as ‘substance’, ‘the structure that holds the world together’  or Berkeley’s ‘the world existing only in the mind of God’ (akin to Advaita’s ‘Maya’ or illusion) etc are just that: Theories.

There’s no way of knowing what the truth is. All talk of God are pure speculation.

God of all religions is a matter of ‘Faith’ alone and should not be subject to theological nitpicking.

What about human existence?

“You know,” said Arthur thoughtfully, “all this explains a lot of things. All through my life I’ve had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going in the world, something big, even sinister, and no would tell me what it was.”

            “No,” said the old man, “that’s just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in Universe has that.”

            “Everyone?” said Arthur. “Well, if everyone has that perhaps it means something! Perhaps somewhere outside the Universe we know ….”

            “Maybe. Who cares?” said Slartibartfast before Arthur got too excited. “Perhaps I’m old and tired,” he continued, “but I always think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied.

Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.

Firstly, Man is not the centre of the Universe.

That the world should make any ‘sense’ and that events should lead to some kind of ‘ultimate reality’ is as Spinoza speculated, ‘an anthropocentric delusion’.

So is there any scope of any ‘limited’ meaning to human existence?

Well, what’s  stopping us from speculating?

Let’s start with some facts we know:

Every species on earth has one known common instinct: ‘Instinct for survival’. No dispute there.

Every living being would like to live forever, be immortal.

That’s not possible. So what’s the next best thing?

Immortality for the species? Well, why not?

How does one ensure immortality for the species? By reproduction, of course.

This would explain a lot, with respect to the behavioral pattern of all species on Earth, be it Plants, Animals and finally Humans.

Consider the facts.

The Plant Kingdom.

There’s not much complication here. Of course every Individual plant fights for its survival. And spreads its seeds to ensure immortality of its species.

The Animal Kingdom.

Animals are slightly more complicated than Plants. They can move, right? So their degree of intelligence will be more than plants.

But the primary instinct is still ‘the instinct for survival’. So they copulate and reproduce.

There are two aspects of Animals that are different from plants though.

One, the Animals takes care of their young.

Two, Animals tend to form ‘groups’, such as a ‘pack of wolves’ or ‘pride of lions’ etc.

But ,both ends are towards one aim: Propagation of  their species.

Animals need to care for their young, if their offspring   have to survive.

What about animal species apart from birds and mammals who do not care for their young like worms, squids, insects etc?

Well, they seem to ensure perpetuation of their species by laying more number of eggs, it seems.This will ensure that at least some will survive. Security in numbers.

And why do animals move in packs? Same thing- security in numbers.

What about Human Beings? They appear to be more complicated, of course.

But are they?

Firstly, similar to plants and animals, they have the same instinct for survival.

They copulate, reproduce and tend to their young. No complications there.

Why do we form societies? Simple answer is of course that it is same as animals- security in numbers.

But the wise Spinoza puts in nicely . I will quote him here:

“Fear of solitude is there in all men, as no one in solitude is strong enough to defend himself. Hence man tends towards social organization.”

“Men are not by nature meant for mutual forbearance of social order. Men are not born for citizenship, but must be made for it.”

So the immortal song by Pink Floyd:

“We don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control” 

reverberates in our soul, because as Spinoza rightly said  “we are not meant for social forbearance”.

But we must simply lump it and be good members of society, because that is the only way we can survive as a species.

But that’s not all. Men are more complicated than Animals. In what sense?

An animal will eat, breed and sleep throughout its life, without a thought or ambition to do anything more.

Here Man is different. Eating, sleeping and breeding are not enough for man.

He wants more. He gets miserable and bored easily.

Why so? What’s the difference? Plants and animals have only one instinct, i.e ‘Instinct for survival’.

Man has also the same instinct- ‘Instinct for survival’. But he has one thing more, and this is what makes a man different.

He is a ‘Restless spirit’, born with ‘Strife within’.

You can never find ways and means to completely satisfy a man. He is born ‘restless’ and he will die ‘restless’, even if you give him the world and all the power and money.

He will still be bored or unhappy.

To paraphrase Schopenhauer:

“Pain is its basic stimulus and reality(of life), and pleasure is merely a negative cessation of pain”.

‘Restless’ or ‘miserable’. It’s your take. And that is the reality of human nature .

Buddha got it wrong: Desire is not the root cause of misery.

We are ‘miserable’ by nature, and hence we desire to get rid of the ‘misery’ or ‘restlessness’. 

That is human nature. And there is no ‘Nirvana’ or escaping being a ‘restless human’ till the day you die.

Because that is our nature. You can’t escape it.

There is no  ‘Happiness’ or ‘Sadness’ either. It is simply a human condition. Nature does not recognize ‘Happiness’ or ‘Sadness’. Only the ‘Restlessness in you, is the reality.

Nothing either good or bad,but thinking makes it so- Shakespeare

Religions which propagate 'eternal happiness' are talking of a state which is not ‘human’.

For one, it is not possible to be eternally happy (or sad for that matter). Secondly it is not desirable also.

It is not desirable because as Kant says: … (restlessness) is nature’s method of developing hidden capacities of life; Struggle is indispensible to accompaniment of progress.

Kant further says that if it were possible for men to be happy and content with what they have then:

“Men might have led an Arcadian shepherd life in complete harmony, contentment, and mutual love; but in that case all their talents would have forever remained hidden in their germ.”

“… Man wishes concord; but nature knows better what is good for his species; and she wills discord, in order that man may be impelled to a new exertion of his powers, and to the further development of his natural capacities.”

So this is the bad news:

Are you unhappy or bored? Well, fret not!  Because you are now one with nature! You are in sync with your soul!

And nature knows that you will do something , anything to get rid of this ‘restlessness’ or ‘misery’.

Maybe create beautiful music, make great works of art, build bridges, discover religion or give to charity…

Something , anything…As long as you get going and strive.

 “If ease of use were the only requirement, we would all be using tricycles.- Engelbert

And what about, when you are feeling ‘happy and blissful’?

Well, be rest assured that nature is now busy plotting to ruin your day. And get you back on grid. That is, to get you to being  ‘restless’ or ‘miserable’.

So the truth of human existence is:

‘Strife within’ is your true nature. Because that is the only secret of human progress.

You are born ‘restless’ and will die ‘restless’.

No religion can cure you, No money or power will quench your tempestuous soul.

And the day any religion or metaphysician is able to work out a ‘magic formula’ for eternal happiness, be rest assured:

That will be the end of human species as we know it. It will be decay and decadence.

So ‘Internal strife’ or ‘Restlessness’ is natural. Understand that  it is just nature’s way of asking you to move, to just do your thing.

Tendulkar, probably the greatest batsmen the world has known, mentioned about his ‘restlessness’ recently in an interview:

“…..Restlessness brings the best out of me, it’s a healthy sign. At the start of my career, when I used to toss and turn at night, I was fighting that feeling and wanting to go to sleep. Now I know that’s normal, so I’ll just get up and watch TV or something. I know it’s just my subconscious mind getting ready for a game. It’s about knowing yourself, and I know myself better now.

Tendulakar is wiser than we give him credit.

The more restless you are, the more successful you will be in life. Because the fire is within you.

So embrace your restlessness. It should not be a cause of misery anymore.

There has never yet been a man in our history who led a life of ease whose name is worth remembering. - Theodore Roosevelt