The Creation of Man by Tarun Patnaik

[The society and the individual are such utopian lovers, who having manufactured each other are exactly worthy of each other.]

Man is created through his social induction. His personality is created by the interplay and dynamics of circumstance, genetic inclinations, the choices he makes of free will and Reason he develops as he grows up. The free will whether a product of the chance of movements of neurons or because of the unconscious instinctive tendencies is an important factor in determining the individual’s personality. But Reason throughout the life plays an active role with the knowledge that man keeps on acquiring, in consciously shaping the personality. So man is never completely made. He keeps on learning and changing.

During man’s induction to society, the major “nature” that he learns or acquires are his tendencies, his likes and his dislikes.

What to like and what not to like is a question, man spends his life time in subconsciously answering. If to seek happiness, to tend to be pleased, to follow his will is man’s character, what his will is, what pleases him, and what gives him happiness is a major component of his personality, in fact it is the central core of his personality.

Society consciously contributes in the making of this personality through the process of education. Thus true education should tell man what his will/desire should be. And true learning should be to internalize an ideal will and desire. Learning continues throughout the life and Reason is the active shaper of this learning.

A child initially has only tendencies, no will, through the process of growing up, he moves through the confusion and crowd of options and choices and finally a fully developed personality has a well perceived and known will. Then man knows what gives him happiness. But this state is in a constant and slow flux for Reason acts on personality to make it ever changing and what gives one happiness also changes, as long as man is open to learning.

Much that we do not want man to be unhappy, we should teach a man to find his happiness in such a way that he does not make some one else unhappy while striving to attain his own happiness. For collective happiness the above becomes the first principle. So one should not find happiness in the other’s displeasure! When two happiness contest or compete, justice and sometimes negotiation should be resorted to, to find a meeting point.

Competition the most dear method for man’s progress in modern society creates few successes with many failures. Should not one then want to win or should there not be contests? Well, no, there should be both but one should place one’s happiness not on successes and failures but on self improvement. The competition should always be with one’s own self. And when there are competitions, when one looses and misses the prize, he should react with mild emotion and not despair. Since lack of ethics creates much unhappiness, we should seek happiness in a ethical way.

There is a good deal of literature on what happiness is, and how man finds it. According to David T. Lyken, 50% of one’s happiness depends on one’s genes. About 10-15% is the result of various measurable life circumstances, such as socio-economic status, marital status, health, income, sex and others. Remaining 40% is result of actions that individuals deliberately engage in to become happier. Extroverts may find happiness in human interaction, while philosophers may find happiness in intellectual contemplation.

Stefan Klein in his book The Science Of Happiness links the dynamics of neurobiological systems to the concepts and findings of positive psychology and social psychology. Human relations are consistently found to be the most important correlation with human happiness.

It is found that happiness can be contagious i.e. it can spread from one to another like a virus.

There are three traditional theories of happiness – hedonism theory, desire theory, and the objective list theory.

Hedonism holds that happiness is a matter of raw subjective feeling. This theory has its modern conceptual roots in Bentham’s utilitarianism, its contagion in Hollywood entertainment, its grossest manifestation in American consumerism.

Danny Kahneman a Nobel laureate in economics distinguishes between two assessments of life one by the experienced and second by the retrospective judge of pleasure. If at the end of one’s life one thinks life was great as by Wittgenstein’s last words: “Tell him it (life) was wonderful” uttered even after a life of negative emotion and even downright misery, can we really say such life was good when the person who experienced throughout his life did not feel much pleasure?

This takes us to the next theory – the desire theory, which holds that happiness is a matter of getting what one wants, irrespective of what it is that is wanted. A person living a most austere life or a person who sacrifices some of his most dear things, or one who struggles all his life for whatever, can be said to be happy since it is what they wanted to do with their life.

Objective list theory lodges happiness outside of feeling and onto a list of “truly valuable” things in the real world. It holds that happiness consists of a human life that achieves certain things from a list of worthwhile pursuits e.g. career accomplishments, freedom from disease and pain, material comforts, friendship, civic spirit, beauty, education, love, knowledge, fame, good conscience etc..

Consider the thousands of abandoned children living on the streets of the Angolan capital of Luanda. As the New York Times tells us, “dressed in rags, they spend nights in the sandy strip along the bay, and their days foraging for food through mounds of garbage.” It seems conceivable that their existence, consumed with meeting momentary needs, adventurous roving in gangs, casual sex, with little thought for tomorrow, might actually be subjectively “happy” from either the Hedonism or Desire theory perspective. But we may be reluctant to classify such an existence as “happy” and the Objective List theory tells us why. These children are deprived of many or most things that would go on anybody’s list of what is worthwhile in life.

Although we find Objective List’s shift to the objectively valuable a positive move, our principal objection to this theory is that some big part of how happy we judge a life to be must take feelings and desires (however shortsighted) into account.

Happiness is not a singular state of mind; through different processes we find different pleasant emotions or forms of happiness’ which is colorful with different shades of colors. For a rich and high quality of life, man should have enjoyed happiness as per all the three theories described above.

Some religions put this life as having significance only up to the extent that it is a preparation for an “After life.” But life is never a preparation for the “After life.” No present is or should be lived only for the alluring future. No future’s heaven has a right to make hell of the present. Present should be lived for its own self. No doubt present contributes to the future, but present of its own merit deserves attention. At the same time no present has a right to spoil the future. So we should look for balance, for harmony, for the co-existence of present and the future.

If victory promises glory and joy may the battle too promise sufficient entertainment! And our will and desire has a role to play in this. Because desire determines what should give us pleasure. Thus a harmony between the present and the future! If the end is glorious and worthy, the path should be no less intoxicating.

Is today’s man really happy? With the progress of science man has achieved much material comfort and possession. But has he become happier? In spite of physical comfort, modern world offers much mental stress and tension. How many people live life purposefully? And how many live because they have not died!

Man’s life can be assessed from the view point of two observers.

1. through his own eyes.

2. through the eyes of the society.

The verdict may coincide, it may also differ. A man posthumously famous for his social contribution may or may not have found happiness in his own life. Can we say he has lived a good life, worthy though it was!

While to seek happiness is the character or preference (through seeking self interest) of man, it is not his purpose and reason acts on this tendency to result in a motivation, that gives meaning or purpose to life. Purpose gives life meaning and motivation. A motivated life is also one which man finds much livable.

We find there are three main purposes of life worthy of man.

1. To find personal happiness

2. To contribute to the collective wellbeing or happiness

3. To contribute to the civilizational progress.

As we had noted earlier, through the process of education, man learns what to like and the teacher undertakes to educate the man. The first school is of course the home, and mother, the first teacher.

The teacher has great responsibilities, he is a representative of the society, manufacturing his pupil, he is also the path maker for his pupil, teaching him the ways of society. He teaches how to succeed, what to aim for and prepares his pupil for the struggle of life. For life is no less than a struggle for existence. The teacher in this dual role may find conflict. If he makes his pupil capable but lacking in virtue, the student may come out to become unworthy of the society.

Hitler’s teachers must be having this regret, that they could not teach him enough character for which Hitler made a name but a notorious one in history.

That to be free and happy man must internalize the civic virtues inside his character, the process of education while creating the citizen for the country, must make sure that the student learns the civic virtues. If man has not learned the civic virtues, he will be an unhappy citizen in his country. So the state which regulates education, must install such curriculum, faculty and educational institutions, such that man internalizes the requisite civic virtues.

But the individual while being manufactured by the society (State) has also the responsibility to manufacture the society through his creative, intellectual, and organizational powers. Thus education has also to make strong and wise individuals, who are capable of changing and reforming the systems for to change and evolve and get reformed is the basic character of any system.

The state while ensuring protection of rights of individuals must also ensure such basic conditions where a man can pursue his happiness. Freedom is a necessary condition but not sufficient for a happy life. One must have minimum living standards and the state has a responsibility to ensure that enough opportunities exist for all its citizens. The economic environment and the cultural environment are equally important along with the political environment. Culture where sports, art, music, public celebrations are promoted and encouraged will be more conducive for individual happiness. The economy should have sufficient job opportunities, a well to do wage rate, enough mobility along the income hierarchy and healthy working conditions. There should be freedom of enterprise. With all the difficulties with capitalism, even China and Russia have recognized freedom of enterprise.

The recent financial crisis started in the US; spread all over the world shows the risks and dangers of the connected globalized world. No nation in today’s world is isolated and can have the freedom of determining its economic policies without affecting the other nations. So each has a stake in the other! Thus it is only natural that each will demand a right to have a say in another’s internal economic policy. How to find a balance between national freedom and international obligation is a question for which world’s politicians are searching for answer.

The world today has many common and pressing issues which are in need of urgent and immediate solution. The education process should be geared up to create such individuals, who will save humanity from imminent destruction. May the individual find purpose in life that he will ensure shared happiness and eradicate poverty, make the world secure from current and future threats.



[Mr. Tarun Patnaik is an engineer by qualification passed out in 1993 from IIT Kharagpur, after a short stint in corporate for three odd years, resigned to study social science varying from philosophy and psychology to economics and management. Currently he is a resident in Rayagada, Orissa and engaged in free lance research.]

The essay was already published in the Radical Humanist.published here with permission from Mr Tarun

ANNA AND HIS CRITICS -- BY Bagwat Prasad

Anna and his team are great crusaders against corruption. Maoists want systemic change. Anna’s team aims at intensifying Indian democracy in tune with the spirit of the constitution, reflected in the preamble. ‘The Hindu’ in its editorial (29.08.2011) writes, “In India, unlike in Britain, Parliament is not supreme. Constitution is.” Maoists want to over throw the constitution. Jan Lokapal bill of team Anna serves the cause of democratic decentralization and vigilance by suggesting many steps including the institutions of Lokayuts in states. These are steps in consonance with the constitution.

Anna’s critics like Arundhati Ray have great intellectual stature. They have often earnestly taken up the issues of the under- privileged. The critics of Anna are serving democracy by raising important issues. The final bill will take shape after discussions in the standing committee. Anna’s, team has shown sufficient flexibility in accommodating the views of differing parliamentarians. They have rightly stuck to the core issues.

Both Maoists and Gandhians are pro-people, but a world separates their attitudes. A Maoist says, “I am certain. So, you have to die because I hate you as the enemy of my cause”. A Gandhian says, “I am certain. So, I am ready to die with love for you in my heart.” Both Gandhi and Marx were fanatics and liberals by turn. Voltaire was the greatest European liberal, but he made a fanatical statement when he said “My views are different from yours, but I am prepared to die to uphold your right to independence of opinion”.

Before Anna’s fast, people were feeling frustrated. They had given up hopes of changing the set up. The constitution has been subverted to serve the interests of parties and individuals. What we are witnessing today is a sort of constitutional fascism. Political parties are devoid of democratic structures. The high command decides everything including the choosing of the state chiefs. The high command may be constituted of an individual, a group or a family. Communalism and casteism, money power and muscle power play key roles in many constituencies. Feudal tendencies like blind loyalty to an individual, a family or a party, guide the voters in elections. But, on occasions, even Indian rural voters have shown sufficient maturity and vigilance in some important decisive elections and have made powerful heads roll in the dust. We owe a heavy debt of gratitude to Jaya Prakash Narayan who enthused the people to over throw the emergency despots.

Elections take place generally after an interval of five years. Have the voters no role during the interval?. The parliament, being dominated by Crorepatis; should the people watch with helplessness the rising tides of corruption, boosted by Neta- police-raj leading to the militarization of society.

Maoists have one answer; the Gandhians, another.

India, in the twentieth century, had the unique privilege, of having produced a galaxy of great leaders; some of them Gandhians, and others, of a different hue. Though they lacked state power, J.P and Lohia, Ambedkar and M. N. Ray were great – leaders of people of whom any nation can be proud.

A colossus like Gandhi may adorn the stage of history once in a millennium. We are fortunate to have mini- Gandhis like Anna amongst us. Anna is not an intellectual, but he has a big heart. He is ably assisted by a team of legal experts and non-sectarian democrats. Rural India’s imagination does not get fired by a gun- handling Che or Mao. The whole of India dotes on a scantily clad, fasting pilgrims of peace and non-violence preaching to people. Who can forget the Buddha, Mahavira and their disciples? They are the products of a unique culture.
European and Indian civilizations developed in two different routes. While European civilization stressed rationality, India’s stress on right reason was preceded by the prior stress on right emotion. India’s pursuance of right emotion led its sages to the holy regions of non-violence and Aparigraha (Minimizing one’s wants). While Europe’s philosophers reveled in just wars, Indian philosophers emphasized the unity of the whole living world (Gita 18-20) and condemned every sort of violence. Un-like the Greeks and Palestinians, India’s leading thinkers generally abhorred the eating of meat. Charvak lost his life as he condemned the meat-loving Vedic-Aryan priests. India’s dominating sects of the first millennium, (the Buddists, the Jains and the Ajivakas) accepted non-violence truth, and Apourgraha as the greatest values in life.

Another trend that goes against Indian’s great traditions is the own- group-love craze. Only members belonging to that particular community are qualified to speak on behalf of that community. A non-Dalit, a non-Adivasi or a non-proletarian conscientious fighter for their causes is generally a suspect. Ancient India gave the highest honour to Rajarshees (Tribe -Chief -Mahayogis) like Rishavnath, Janaka, the Buddha and the Tirthankaras. Mahavir and the Buddha belonged to the leading families of their own communities who voluntarily relinquished their privileges and accepted poverty. Today’s leaders even belonging to the poorer communities greedily welcome riches, power and honour as if to compensate for their past destitution. The middle class in India is no doubt over whelmingly steeped in corruption. But there are occasions when they stake their wealth and liberty for the right cause. A Prashant Bhasan, a Kiran Vedi or a Kejriwal are risking much when they defy the powers that be, through plain speaking. The middle class is definitely consumerist but their support for Anna need not be belittled or ridiculed.

There are many good committed people working in many fields. Irom Sharmila’s sacrifice is undoubtedly of the greatest nobility and courage. The sufferings of farmers, the harassment of Dalits and women, the exploitation of Adivasis are each a shame. Every issue is of tremendous importance. Corruption feeds all issues in India and raises the suffering of different sections of harassed people to unbearable heights. Corruption affects every Indian, be he rich or poor. Anna, with all his faults has become a symbol of hope for the frustrated commoners. He has touched a chord, unexplored since the days of Jaya Prakash. In her essay ( The Hindu 21.08.2011), Arundhati Ray points out the errors made by Anna on different occasions. She is right. Mercifully, Anna’s team is free from these community-centered errors. Anna may learn as Gandhiji learnt in his later days that it was wrong of him to support Varna Ashrama system earlier.

Prabhat Patnayak in an essay in ‘The Hindu’ points out the danger involved in Messiah worship. Tagore accused Gandhi of the same fault and warned him of moral fascism (Gandhi- devotion cult) that may develop in India Gandhi assured Tagore that he was aware of the danger and was taking steps to educate his followers properly so that such an abuse of personality cult would not plague his countrymen. Ancient India of the first millennium BC was free from any sort of Messiahism. The Buddha exhorted his followers to have a critical attitude even towards the Buddha’s words. He refused to name a successor when Anand approached him.

Prof. Thoral in an essay in ‘The Hindu’ compares Ambedkar’s methods of struggle with those of Anna. He praises Ambedkar for his espousal of the constitutional path. Anna has taken up an issue that needs instant attention and the delay involved in following the constitutional path may prove fatal to the people’s cause of abolishing corruption.

Unlike in many other civilizations and cultures, critics of popular heroes, conscientious individual dissenters ready to face humiliation by defying popular conceptions, attitudes and customs are held as ideal men and women in ancient India.

Mahabharata is clear about this. ‘A wise man should always welcome dishonour and insult like nectar. He should treat honour and praise as poison’.
Santi Parva (Canto- 229 sloka -21)

The Buddha in Dharmapada warns his followers to shed the ambition of becoming respectable and popular.

(Dhammapada canto 5…. Sloka -74).

Anna’s critics have not hesitated to write unpopular essays. Democracy blooms in such circumstances.

Both Anna’s team and his critics are worthy citizens of India.

Neither Maoism nor the present type of Parliamentarism can solve the problems of modem India. Maoists, as Bal Gopal said, have made Adivasis conscious of their exploitation and have led successful struggles for their rights. The parliament in combination with the judiciary has succeeded in preserving the democratic structure to a certain extent. Gandhi mentioned the defects of the Parliamentary system in his book (Hind Swaraj). What we need is a third force; the civil society in satyagraha- based creative tension with the authorities. Social, political, cultural and economic justice within a democratic structure should be pursued by the leaders of the civil society. We need the support of the middle class for strengthening the civil society. The middle class is more sinned against than being a sinner. A faulty global culture and unhealthy institutions and ideas are choking its justice –based democratic spirit.

Our Crorepati authorities are bent upon destroying the civil society by hook or crook. They welcome a brutalized militarized society where the civil society is non-existent. Maoist violence concentrated in certain belts does not shake their thrones. Even a long stalemate does not affect them much. It helps them to divert the attention of the public. The way Anna’s team mates are harassed speaks much about an insidious strategy of ‘Truth Hunt’ using imperialist techniques to harass their opponents. Individuals in high position and hallowed institutions that sustain democracy, claiming immunity from criticism are likely to become corrupt and Fascistic. Anna with his team has struck a strong blow for democracy. They deserve the support of all citizens.


Bagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
06856-235092
E. mail- bagwat_prashad@rediffmail.com
www.samalochana1.blogspot.com
www.samalochana.blogsome.com

EVOLUTIONARY SOCIALISM AND LOHIA IN THE 20TH CENTURY

BHAGWAT PRASAD

The renowned Prof. S. H. Alatas in his inauguration lecture in Multiversity’s Penang –II conference made a good speech on ‘The captive Mind’, particularly in the context of the knowledge available amongst the scholars of the erstwhile colonial countries. He referred to ‘…. this tendency of our people to imitate the thinking of the West and the ideas introduced by the colonial powers.”

In the third world Gandhi and Lohia were original thinkers. No wonder, they were sidelined by the mainstream thinkers who were either the votaries of capitalism, communism, a semitized Hinduism or an aggressive Islam. To quote Prof. Alatas, “……in the university of Amsterdam, I remember being continuously bombarded with the idea of neutrality and the theory of relativity in social sciences. There is no such thing as objectivity without morality. Research must be based on objectivity, but it cannot be without morality….If a cancer expert studies cancer cells objectively, he does not bring his private bias into the study. But having done that, he has to ask himself the question – does he want to promote cancer? The answer is- no”.

Every country in the world has its unique geographical and historical features. Traditions and cultures differ. Even in the fields of history and culture, scholars may make perspectival errors. A scholar, having the Marxist or an aggressive religious perspective cannot do justice to the ancient rationalistic, atheistic, materialistic culture of India which Kautilya in ‘Arthasastra’ calls ‘Anwikshiki’ Leading historians and philosophers of India have ignored the evidence contained in the three important books: ‘Arthasastra’, ‘the writings of Megasthenes’ and ‘the Mahabharata (including the Gita)’. Our modern and post modern ideas of human progress and development have been falsified by the latest research in the field of science. To quote from the article ‘Humans becoming more Stupid over Time, Finds Study’ (The New Indian Express Dt.3.01.2011 page-11), “Over the past 20,000 years, the average brain of the human male brain has decreased from 1500 C.C. to 1300CC The female brain has shrunk by the same proportion, the Daily Mail quoted a report in ‘Discovery’ magazine”. Among the few thinkers who question the modern civilizational ideas, Lohia is a prominent one. In his essay ‘A Philosophical Hypothesis’ he writes, ‘…….those who adhere to God, demon or closed philosophies, be they Adam smith or Karl Max, and adhere to them in a rigid classical style, become fanatical and have exclusive faith in their own mistaken notions…….. I wish for our country to have an experimental frame of mind”. Lohia wants revolutionaries who “will at least have tried to remove weapons of fear and hatred from their own armory.” Lohia criticizes modern civilization as it is based on poverty, hatred and war. People who study humanity through the recorded blood- soaked, exploitation – stamped history of the last 5000 years, forget that the advent of Homo sapiens was an event preceded by 3.7 millions years of mainly a monkey- type of non-violent gatherer community. Human mind grew from 500 CC to about 1500 CC within this period. The shrinking of the human brain shows that we are going in the opposite direction to the nature’s process of evolution. Writes Fritjof Capra in his book ‘the hidden connections’. “The design principles of our future social institutions must be consistent with the principles of organization that nature has evolved (deep ecology) to sustain the web of life. A unified conceptual framework for the understanding of material and social structures will be essential for this task.” Capra and scientists like Damasio rightly denounce the idea of the mind-body separation in Descartes’ philosophy. European science and philosophy could not shake up Descartes’ shadow for a long time. The idea of mind-body wholeness is expressed by Lohia in his quest for the integration of economic aims (equality in the field of basic necessities) and general aims (like democracy, freedom and fraternity) for the whole of humanity. To quote Lohia, “the foregoing, examination of general and economic aims reveals that they have both their autonomous existence, but that a doctrine of their integration is possible.” (The Doctrinal Foundation of Socialism). F. Capra has a systemic view of life which no one can dispute; but when there is a search for a solution, he falters. He presents the ideas of Anthony Giddens and Habermass as integrationist theories. Nature uses the process of autopoesis (Self-generation) in its web or net-like process. People as agents draw upon social structures for their actions and behaviours and by their contemplation and activities influence the structures. This structuration theory of A GIDDENS is cyclic like natural cycles. Habermass belonged to Frankfurt school and was influenced by Marxism. He called his theory the theory of communicative action. There is the external world of facts and objects. There is also the inner world of Hermeneutics or the world of meaning. Habermass says that right action refers to factual truth in the material world, to moral rightness in the social world and to sincerity in the inner world. Both the theorists deal mostly with abstractions. In the words of Lohia there is no corresponding concrete action which enables humanity to rise to higher levels. Genetically human beings do not differ much from the Chimpanzees. (The genetic difference is only 1.6%). A Chimpanzee – like –brain –having animal grew to a developed- brain- having (more than three times that of a Chimpanzee) hair -less ape during more than 3.7 million years of its sojourn in this earth. About 40 to 50,000 year back (in the upper Paleolithic or late stone – Age period), Homo sapiens invented killer apparatus that made him a successful hunter. Human brain stopped growing in this period. As violence and cruelty increased in the human world, this was sure to happen because that part of the human brain (the pre-frontal cortex) which grew in size, consisted of neurons (nerve-cells) which were connected with sociability and control of violence. Every revolution based on violence fails because the values needed in sustaining the ideal societies dreamt of by revolutionary thinkers are womanly virtues (values) that were prevalent during the long gathering phase of humanity’s existence on this earth. Even a non-violent revolution is sure to fail in a world where war preparations are common and greed dictates the progress of a nation – state. In such a country, there is no likelihood of a truly socialist society coming into being. The tragedy of humanity started with the hunter society of males gradually overwhelming the previous society of gatherers (females), thus bringing into being a strictly patriarchal society. Among the few thinkers of the world whose views tally with the values of a gathering society the foremost are Gandhi, Lohia and Einstein. Lohia’s stress on spade, vote and prison are the appropriate steps which, if implemented with sincerity and determination by the millions will, by emphasizing the values of a gatherer’s society, solve many of the problems of the suffering humanity. Women are likely to play a leading role in movements based on spade, vote and prison.

In the present war-preparing world, no single country can afford to accept non-violence as its creed by disbanding its army, navy and air force. Nature cannot be partial to any species and the evolution process as a whole as simulated in super- computers by eminent scientists of Santa Fe fame, indicate that all elements are freely taking part in the process of evolution (covering millions of years). They agree that there is no central controller and order evolves out of the free activity of every entity. In the words of Stuart Kaufman, Prof. of Biochemistry, Pennsylvania University, “…… the research program was to find order for free. As it happens, I found it. And it’s profound.” Prof. Brian Godwin says, “… everything in new Biology changes. Instead of the metaphors of conflict, competition, selfish genes, climbing peaks of fitness landscapes; what you get is evolution as a dance.” Collective total freedom is another name for non-violence. That the gatherers’ society and also the hunter’s society in the first phase of its existence were free from violence and greed is confirmed from the study of primitive societies as found out by anthropologists. Human mind’s decline started when women were subdued completely through violence and patriarchy reigned supreme in modern advanced societies. In spite of living in a patriarchal society, Lohia never accepted women as the second sex, and went ahead of his mentor Gandhi in honoring the so-called fallen women who lived by selling their bodies.

Non-violence in action, the principle of Satyagraha, reached great heights in Gandhi’s able disciple Lohia’s writings and actions. The eye reddening at the sight of any injustice and the heart moved by sympathy, combine in the act of Satyagraha which is the true spirit of democracy. All leading thinkers of democracy agree that criticism is the essence of democracy. Lohia conclusively proved that criticism will be ineffective by remaining at the abstract level unless criticism concretized in the form of Satyagraha. Lohia’s idea of Satyagraha becomes relevant in the context of what Noam Chomsky says about modern societies. “In the advanced industrial societies the problem (tension with regard to the locus of power) is typically approached by a variety of measures to deprive democratic political structures of substantive content, while leaving them formally intact. A larger part of this task is assumed by ideological institutions that channel thought and attitudes within acceptable bounds, deflecting any potential challenge to established privilege and authority before it can take form and gather strength …. My personal feeling is that citizens of democratic societies should undertake a course of self-defense to protect themselves from manipulation and control, and to lay the basis for meaningful democracy. (Necessary Illusions).

Gradually evolutionary scientists are realizing that forces of nature work to preserve the entire living world as a whole. Where there is danger of a species dying through internal violence, nature’s defense mechanism controls it. Two wolves fighting each other do not bring it to the finish. The weaker party understands its danger and meekly surrenders to the stronger. Immediately the stronger wolf ceases its struggle and allows its opponent to depart in peace. (Constance Lorenz). As man has become the worst predator in nature and exterminates other species cruelly, nature’s defense mechanism becomes active in taking away the power of the human brain thus making man more stupid or more self- destructive as ages pass.

The bell of human extinction is ringing loud and clear. Climate change is menacing human survival. There is little chance of humanity taking appropriate steps to halt it. The danger of war or preparation for war is devastating human resources and as long as group- selfishness masquerades as patriotism or god –devotion, disaster threatens the human species.
Lohia’s tiny essay ‘ Fundamentals of a World Mind’ is a seminal one that guides an internationalist Very few thinkers have written a better piece on the bankruptcy of human thought in the 20th century, “….thinking has ceased to be creative. Ideas are designed and tested for their value to one or other of the two power blocks. … The question of all questions stridently urging an answer is which shall serve what; shall idea serve force or force, idea?.... both (capitalism and communism) are doctrines of political and economic centralization, of technical and organizational efficiency…..”

Lohia was an ardent votary of a world government. He wrote, “Peace can come only via a world government…. All those who desire a world government must aspire to achieve a worldview of equality and against class, caste or regional inequalities.” Evolutionary Scientist F. Capra wrote, “….I also argued that the philosophical school of deep ecology, which does not separate humans from nature and recognizes the intrinsic values of all living beings, could provide an ideal, philosophical and even spiritual context for the new scientific paradigm. Today, twenty years later, I (still) hold this view”. Capra’s rooted views are those of a gatherer society. Very few countries, philosophies or religions forbade its inhabitants or adherents to shun meat eating and stop any sort of cruelty to animals. The world views of every country are important; amongst them are those that can provide humanity the right path to life and happiness. “…he (Haber Mass) points out that people’s interpretations always rely on a number of implicit assumptions that are embedded in history and tradition ….. social scientist should evaluate different traditions critically, identify ideological distortions and uncover their connections with power relations. Emancipations take place whenever people are able to over come past restrictors that resulted from distorted communication” (the hidden connection). The whole of humanity suffers from distortions of its ideas because of its hunter mentality. Emancipation from it is needed, so that instead of power relations governing human communicative actions, humanity gets guided by sharing and caring relations that prevailed during its million years of existence in a matricentric (woman-centric) gatherer society.

Buddha, Gandhi, Lohia and JP are all products of a culture that was unique in the world. India had the only gatherers’ society in the world which produced advanced city civilizations. The rich fauna and flora of India which nourished the most leisured class of females and males was highly conducive to contemplation and compassion. Archeologists show surprise when they study the artifacts and weapons of pre-Vedic India. Writes the Harvard-trained famous geneticist Spencer Wells in his famous book “The Journey of Man’, “ … India is unusual , since there is very little evidence of the upper Paleolithic there … at least there are abundant tools from the earlier periods”. The upper Paleolithic age was the earliest age of great hunters because of the abundance of killer apparatus among these hunters in this age. Human mind’s innovative tendencies and skills thus led to the first great violation of nature’s design. Man’s journey of killer-ship continued relentlessly from this age. All the animals other than men were subjected to cruel exploitation and slaughter. Men ‘too’ shared the same fate in later periods.



There is abundant literary and archeological evidence to prove that Mahenjodaro Harappa civilization was an egalitarian, atheistic, kingless civilization which was free of wars. The availability of fruits in abundance in India come out in Max Muller’s essay ‘Indian view of life’. “Bhartrihan says,” There is fruit on the trees in every forest, which everyone who like may pluck without trouble. There is cool and sweet water in a river in the pure rivers here and there.”

No hunter’s society can produce a philosophy of praxis like the Yoga where the primary values are nonviolence and non – acquisition of money or materials. Yoga was a discovery of the womenfolk, who had equal rights with males even in the field of sex. So geneticists stress the fecund Draupadi phenomenon is India. We, the Indians, are the descendents of a few females, each impregnated by a number of males. There is ample literary evidence of female sexual freedom available in the Mahabharata which supports what the geneticists say. Human evolution took the right evolutionary road in Pre- Vedic India. Monogamy in later families was also because of female preference for it; but occasional sexual freedom was prevalent in society.

Here, in India, not more and more powerful killer weapons but a healing science like the Ayurveda and the knowledge of public health and measures that made city life pleasant and free from diseases were given importance by the then elites of society, the Yoginis and Yogis (called Gymno-sophists by the Greek travelers to India).

In Killer societies, hunters became warriors whose war – leaders or chiefs morphed into kings. The concepts of in all –powerful super king led to the conception of God whose favourite courtiers were the priests. In hunter” societies, warriors and priests were the elite.

No king or super – kings (God or Gods) evolved among the Yoginis and Yogis. In Mohenjodara Harappa civilization, no such phenomenon took place. The Yoginis and Yogis occupied the highest place in society (as available from the writings of Megasthenes). Max Muller writes, “The greatest conqueror of antiquity (Alexander) stood in silent wonderment before the Gymno-sophists, regretting that he could not communicate with them …..” (Indian View of Life).

Evolution used ‘the pleasure principle’ to direct all the living beings in the planet earth. Sigmund Freud made a great mistake in putting the reality principle above the pleasure principle. Today’s science falsifies Freud’s idea and proves that the culprit is not nature but culture. The knowledge of the absence of killer apparatus in the upper Paleo - lithic age in India and the lack of war weapons and domesticated animals in Mahenjodaro Harappa culture are the discoveries of archeology. Modern science establishes that we are genetically programmed to have a brain that accepts rationality. Scientist Antonio Damasio M.D., Ph.D., the writer of the famous book ‘Descartes’ Error’, examines in the laboratory the brain of a person called Elliot who had a big tumour is his right frontal lobe and comes to the conclusion that emotion and rational decision making are twins in the same areas of the human brain.

Generations of historians and philosophers in India and abroad, the flag bearers of hunter society philosophy and culture of the Greeks and other Europeans and Americans, failed to understand the pre-Vedic culture of a gatherers’ society. The key word used in Buddhism and Jainism, Mahabharata, Samkhya, Yoga and Lokayat was SUKHA which precisely meant the pleasure principle of nature Nature’s ‘pleasure principle’ got associated with ‘hedonism’ because European thinking was deaf to the true meaning of ‘SUKHA’. Had our historians and philosophers studied sincerely at least one book of the Buddha ‘Dhammapada’ and read the Bhagawad Gita in the light of ‘Dhammapada’ and excluded the Gita’s massive scholarly violence- justifying and Brahminic interpolations, (Kosambi), there would have been no necessity for them to ignore Kautilya’s emphasis on ‘Anwikshiki’ in Arthasastra and Megasthenes’ emphatic declaration that Gymno-sophists had the highest rank in India among the seven categories of people who lived in India. Nature abhors the limitless cruelty and predation of humans leading to total extermination of other species. Pre-Vedic India, by making non-violence and APARIGRAHA (minimizing one’s wants) the supreme values, actually followed the dictates of nature.

Since the Upanishads are the philosophies of the hunters (the nomadic Aryans), their stress on SREYA the good, against PREYA (The pleasant) is nothing unusual or unexpected. The Upanishadic seers replaced the philosophy of Anwikshiki by an inferior philosophy. Lohia wrote that the separation of SREYA from PREYA was wrong. Lohia’s stress on SAMA (equality at the level of mind also) and his unique experience of Samadhi in Lahore jail (when time stood still) speaks of his intuitive preference for pre-Vedic Indian culture whose cultural progenies are Budhisim, Jainism and the other philosophies preached by thinkers like P. Katyayana, A. Kesha Kambali and others of their ilk. About Gandhi, Romaine Rolland wrote “…. There can be no genius of action, no leader, who does not incarnate the instincts of his race, satisfy the need of the hour and requite the yearning of the world”. The same words can be used for Lohia. The word ‘Sukha’ is central to ancient Indian culture and its discussion is particularly relevant in these calamitous nature-defying days.



Human brain has three layers. There is the reptilian brain which finds pleasure in indolence (examine the life of a crocodile or a Python). The second layer or the mammalian brain finds please in incessant activity sometimes leading to limitless violence. The third layer or the pre-frontal cortex, almost half of the total brain, restrains the violent tendencies in the other parts of the brain and leads to increase of sociability. India’s Samkhya philosophy expresses these tendencies as the three GUNAS. ‘Not extended indolence, or incessant urge to work but ‘Sukha’ is the primary nature-given quality of the pre-frontal cortex (SATWA GUNA). Discontent or mental tension occurs when human actions that lead to ‘SUKHA’ are not indulged in by the man/woman. Explaining Sukha, Gita says, “The knowledge that all living beings are one, though they lead different lives in this world is known as Satwik knowledge.” (The Gita-18 -20). Love of all living beings must direct every action of a Satwik being . The contentment that lends special charm to the face of a Buddha, Mahavira or Samkara is rarely found in the faces of leading Western philosophers. Scientist Amitabh Chakravarthy in an article published in the Radical Humanist (Feb-2011) establishes the fact that modern science has discovered that human goodness is a gift of nature. Next in importance to the evolutionary approach which guided the pre-Vedic gatherers’ India, and whose legacy was milked by Gandhi and Lohia, there is the humanistic realistic approach of Latin America which is scaling great heights in the search for a new variety of humane Twenty First Century socialism.

At the close of the world social Forum -2005, Chavez declared , “We have to reinvent socialism”. He called it the socialism of the 21st century. Bolivar, Rodriguez and Zamora, Meszarios and Harnecker were some of the thinkers whose ideas gifted Marxian socialism new dimensions. Chavez often quoted them. Zamora had said, “Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy”. Bolivar called equality ‘the law of laws’. He fought for the rights of the indigenous people. His fights led to the abolition of slavery in Latin America much earlier than the U.S. Rodriguez denounced division of labour in industries because it robotized and brutalized the workers. Meszarios stressed the elementary triangle of socialism.
a). Social ownership of production,
b). Social production organized by workers.
c). Production for communal needs.

Lohia’s stress on small units of production satisfied almost all the aims of these great thinkers of Latin America. Lohia was a fighter for the equal rights of the oppressed people of the whole world and was imprisoned in several countries because he defied the unequal laws prevalent in them. Marta Harnecker denounced Vanguardism’, ‘Verticalism’, ‘authoritarianism’, excessive centralism and opposed a ‘narrow workerist view of socialism’. Lohia believed in decentralized power and economy. He concretized his ideas in advocating the formation of maximum power-wielding village councils as the basic foundational part of the Chaukhamba (four - pillared) scheme of economic and political entities. Harnecker aimed at building a society that makes the full development of human beings possible. Lohia’s seven-legged revolution (Sapta – Kranti) is the best way to develop the full potential of every human being.

Kropotkin wrote to Lenin in 1920, “…. Without an organization from below of the peasants and workers themselves, it is impossible to build a new life”. The USSR did not follow this advice, but Chavez followed it to the letter. Thus writes Harnecker “Participation, protagonism in all spaces, is that which allows human beings to grow and increase their self-confidence, that is to say, to develop humanly.” Articles 62 and 70 of the Venezuelan constitution empower people at the lowest level to build self- managing institutions and co-operatives. Really autonomous power – wielding basic organizations called communal councils (generally consisting of 200 to 400 families in urban areas and fifty to one hundred families in rural areas) dotted all the regions of Venezuela. The ideas of Gandhi and Lohia have found a new home in Latin American countries. Leaders are giving a call to learn from indigenous communities the ways to communal solidarity and local empowerment. This new dawn of 21st century socialism can be enriched if the socialists of India and the Latin American countries interact with each other. Gandhi, J.P and Lohia’s ideas will undoubtedly help in the sprouting of healthy shoots of socialism in the lands of Bolivar, Chavez, Castro and Marcos. A great thinker Labowitz says, “Every society has its unique characteristics – its unique histories, traditions (including religious and indigenous ones), its mythologies, its heroes who have struggled for a better world, and the particular capacities that people have developed in the process of struggle”. The only country in the world which can develop evolutionary socialism is India. Evolutionary socialism only can harness the pleasure principle of nature (Sukha) and thus stem the shrinkage of the human brain and the ecological devastations that threaten humanity. Values which developed among the matricentric gatherers which led to the formation of the love – dominated (non-violent) humane societies, can only save mankind from sure destruction. India had heroes like Mahavir, Buddha, Gandhi and Gymno-sophist philosophers who had developed Yogic YAMA values and worked for the welfare of all living beings. Vedic India was a hunter’s land and the lavishly ritualistic caste- untouchability- ridden India of the Gupta age (the age of puranas) has not much to contribute to evolutionary socialism. If evolutionary socialism (ANWIKSHIKI) dies in the land of its birth, it will be the worst calamity that endangers the existence of all the species on this earth. Anthropology tells us that in Amazonian lands, communities still exist which give supreme importance to relationship. “…….towards the end of achieving health, wealth and safety, Amazonian people aim to master not nature, but as many as possible of their personal relationships with other beings, human or otherwise, in the world.” (Rapport and Overing).

Yogis and Yoginis, having plenty of leisure (The original Affluent – Society – by M. Shahlin) developed the techniques of various types of meditations which enhanced their creative mental powers, giving them the capacity to have full control over their negative emotions. They had only loving attitude towards all living beings. They had perfectly tranquil minds which nothing could disturb. They developed all the qualities that make man / woman a uniquely creative individual and also an intensely social being. The Buddha was such a personality. Mahavir was another. There were many lesser personalities whom history did not take into consideration (Gandhi, J.P. & Lohia did not practice meditation but still were the worthy heirs of the most important Yogic values).

India’s rich legacy still awaits deep exploration by the thinkers and historians of the world. This Anwikhikian legacy alone can teach humanity the developed evolutionary path of nature. Many of Latin America’s indigenous people can guide us initially because their communities evolved naturally. But pre-Vedic India, free from the evils of the caste system and that philosophical aberration called ‘karmic rebirth’ proved that the supreme ideal ‘SUKHA’ was based on the twins: universal love for all living beings and tranquility of mind. The action or karma – transcending MOKSHA ideal which haunted all the post – Vedic philosophies of India was, though other –worldly, still culturally attached to the Brahminic rituals ( The Gita- 18th canto). It hypocritically approved violence using the plea that renouncing the fruit of karma is equivalent to karma- lessness (The Gita). It justified the caste system and untouchability. The hunter society thinkers invented it to displace SUKHA. They debased Sukha by throwing the patriarchal dust of ignominy on its matricentric value of equal sexual freedom enjoyed by women (Charbak). Lohia always welcomed matricentric values. He vehemently denounced untouchability and the caste system. He was this- worldly and never bothered about Moksha.

Nature Culture Synchrony Produces a developed women-cenntric society

In this century, a gap has developed between the available scientific knowledge and the mindset of the leading thinkers of the world. This mindset was formed by the three nineteenth century great thinkers Marx, Freud and Darwin.

Nineteenth century science was reductionist, where as twenty first Century Science is synthetic (Prof. Paul Davies). The present theories are open-ended and capable of multiple equally valid interpretations (Nobel winner R. Feynman). Biology, Physics, Anthropology, Brain - Science are the cutting edges of modern science. A paradigm – shift has occurred in these sciences affecting the whole field of culture and different knowledge systems. Fritjof Capra wrote “And since emergence is an integral part of the dynamics of open systems…….(the species) develop and evolve. Life constantly reaches out into novelty. Creativity is a key property of living systems,” 1

A child of Judeo- Christian and Greek culture, the Euro-centric modern knowledge –systems dominating the whole world are unable to cope with the findings of modem sciences. Nor is the Vedic –Culture or Chinese culture in a better position though many Western thinkers are seeking solace in these alien fields.

Buddhism rightly attracts lots of modern scholars and writers. Thus writes Prof Anne Harrington, “On some level, we believe in evil as a basic capacity always lying dormant in us, waiting for the right provocation to come out….. Unlike Buddhism, we generally do not believe that we have the resources within, to purify our selves without help”.2

Exclusivism and hierarchy are the two evils which demonize societies when violence becomes their legitimate favorite weapon. Mercifully, Buddhism is free from the first evil and has propagated compassion based on nonviolence as a creed. Buddha’s stress on celibacy and his dependence on the donations received from the rich and powerful introduced some distortions by legitimizing hierarchy and Patriarchy. Anthropology throws light on societies that were non-hierarchical. (The Amazonian civilization is not hierarchical).

Historians and philosophers have failed to trace out the genealogies of Buddhism and Jainism in India as they have failed to grasp the glories of the Anwikshiki civilization of the pre-Vedic days. The activities of Gandhi and his most illustrious disciples, Lohia and J.P, can not be understood without tracing out their genealogies rooted in the remote past of India.

No more is the controversy regarding the importance of Nature or Culture incapable of solution. Nature is definitely the deciding factor and our present culture which goes against the laws of nature (as discovered by the latest evolutionary – scientists) is slowly reversing the process of human evolution. The bigness of the human brain which is responsible for all the glories of the human family is getting affected and forces of nature are active in reducing the size of the human brain. Within the last 28,000 years, human brain has lost 15 – 20% of its bigness. Thus the question that menaces our mental sky is whether human species is heading towards becoming a monkey like creature.3 (Complex connectivities of neurons also get affected when the number of neurons suffer a steep fall; this affects the capacity of the brain).

In addition to these two unhealthy tendencies of exclusivism and hierarchy, European civilization also nurtures the attitudes of fatalism, hostility and competitiveness. European thinkers made the mistake of considering all these unseemly tendencies as natural and so, universal ones. Not only Christianity (GODISM), Hegelism, Marxism and capitalism all exhibit the intense attachment to the theories of some sort of invisible laws or forces, directing the course of humanity. They are not like Anwikshiki (Yoga, Samkhya and Lokayat), Buddhism and Jainism which give full importance to human will, social values and brain exercises.

Hostility, which the myth of God and Satan illustrates, colours the cultures and philosophies of the West and the East (Iran). Anthropology tells us that there were peaceful civilizations like the Semai which were free from the feeling of hostility.

Similarly competition is not present among the Pueblo Indians (Einstein), whose society has been described in detail by Ruth Benedict in her book ‘Patterns of ‘Culture’. Buddhism and Jainism laid stress on compassion rather than competition. In the book ‘Early India, Ramila Thappar categorically denies the presence of the concept of hostility in early Indian culture. Fatalism was a trait that led to the Karmic theory of rebirth in late Vedic India. This lent justification to the caste system and the system of untouchability. Pre-Vedic India was free from these evils.

Darwin’s ideas had great influence on the culture and philosophy of the world. Freud, Marx and Darwin: all were votaries of violence, strife, and competition. Today, science has rejected the concept of ‘infallibility of its theories’. This automatically excludes the theories of Marx and Freud from the field of science.

Darwin’s theory of competition has been proved to be a partial truth. ‘Not strife and competition, but co-operation and interactions are the prominent factors in the field of evolution’, say the present scientists, exploring the emergences of complex entities like life, brain and consciousness.

Prof. of Biology, Lynn Margulis (the University of Massachusetts) writes, “From where comes the useful variation upon which the (natural) selection acts? - I claim that most significant variation comes from mergers. A merger between microbe and animal cell or microbes and plant cell … mergers result in the emergence of new and more complex beings.”4
She calls this process of merger symbiogenesis. Many of the scientists exploring the theories of evolution are calling it a self – generating process. Somehow, the elements involved in the evolution process spontaneously combine to produce a new entity undreamt of by its creator because the properties possessed by the new entity’s components have absolutely no resemblance to the unpredictable properties (qualities) of the novel product.

A leading scientist of the U.S, a visiting professor of the Santa Fe institute, writes “We let all the organisms interact with one another in the context of a dynamic environment and the selective criteria simply emerge naturally. To any one of these organisms ‘Nature” in the computer, is the collective dynamics of the rest of the computerized organisms there. The world inside a computer can be every bit as wild and wooly as the world outside……………..We created in our computers ‘universes’, that were complex enough to support processes that, with respect to those universes, have to be considered to be alive. These processes behave in their universes, the way living things behave in our universe.”5

J. Doyne Farmer, a physicist, an external professor at the Santa Fe Institute, is another scientist, who has conducted experiments on evolution.

He rightly points out, “More than ever, it’s becoming impossible to contemplate seriously any philosophical or social question without understanding recent developments in science.” 6

Explaining his thoughts on evolution, he writes”, We were interested in the logical possibility for this (evolution) to happens in an artificial world, simulated in side a computer, following chemical laws that were similar to those of the real world….. At first, things were totally chaotic, but, somehow; over the course of time, complex structures began to form. …. We see that there is a general tendency to get things more organized….”. 7

W. Daniel Hills is the co-founder and the chief scientist of ‘Thinking Machines’. He is editor of several scientific journals. He, too, has shown great interest in the process of evolution.

W.D Hills distinguishes between the engineer’s and nature’s way of getting things done. Nature moves from chaos to order spontaneously and automatically.

As C. Langton says there is no central agency, no controller directing nature. All elements, involved in nature’s process, enjoy complete freedom.

Francisco Varela (Professor of Cognitive Science and Epistemology at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris) treads the same path. He says, “This phenomenon (the evolutionary path of Nature) is something so productive that it does not cease creating entirely new realms: life, mind and societies. Yet these emergent selves are based on processes so shifty, so ungrounded, that we have an apparent paradox between the solidity of what appears to show up and its groundlessness”. Mr. Varela confessed that he has dedicated his life to the under standing of this process of Nature.

To come to D Hills, he expresses surprise and excitement when he simulates the process of evolution in his computer, “If you step back a zillion years, you can look at the history of life on Earth as fitting into this pattern (of organization). First, fundamental particles organized themselves into Chemistsy. Then chemistry organized itself into self-re-producing life. Thus life organized itself into societies, bound together by language….”8

To quote D.Hills again “I am trying to reproduce within the computer the process of evolution, with the goal of getting intelligent behaviors out of machines… I think that something is happening now – and will continue to happen over the next few decades – which is incomprehensible to us, and I find that frightening and exciting.” 9

All these scientists are sure about one thing. They are sure about the way the process works, but they are not sure about the future products of evolution.

To summarize the findings of these scientists discussed above in the words of Stuart Kanf man (Professor of Bio-Chemistry, Penny Sylvania University). “We have discovered the fact that in the evolution of life very complex systems can have convergent flow, not divergent flow… the impulse was to find order for free. As it happiness, I found it and it’s profound.”

What are the conditions that guide millions of random elements to form complex entities? It naturally surprises scientists who have found that instead of chaos which we normally expect in such situations, a complex entity emerges.

The first condition is perfect freedom of one and all. There should be no interference in the evolutionary process. But freedom is an individual value. Bertrand Russell Says,” Freedom may be increased either by maximizing power or by minimizing wants.” The proper word that can describe the appropriate condition for evolution to take place can only be described by the word ‘non-violence’. (Freedom of all the constituting elements is possible only when there is the ambience of non-violence).

Brian Godwin, Professor of Biology, Open University (G.K) agrees with the famous philosopher White head when he says that evolution is the ‘creative advance into novelty’. About Darwin he writes”, Darwin stresses conflict and competition which does not square with the evidence.”. He thinks that the Calvinist view influenced Darwin who believed in progress and struggle. He uses the metaphors ‘play’ and ‘dance’ to express what nature does. Brian Godwin makes an insightful remark when he says”, there is too much work in our culture and there is too much accumulation of goods. The whole capitalist trip is an awful treadmill that is extremely destructive. …. This is why indigenous cultures are beginning to be recognized for their values, because they were not accumulating goods…. Nature and Culture then come together.”

When we examine the whole galaxy of findings of these experimenting evolutionary scientists, nature’s method of evolution comes out, loud and clear… For millions of years nature brought about changes in the original species by observing two conditions scrupulously. They are 1). Freedom of all in every situation (Non-violence only can provide such freedom. 2). Absence of greed so that all the components that converged to form a new entity, only use as much material and energy as they need. The inequality in the use of energy by them is only 1:2 (The brain uses twice the energy per volume compared to other human organs).

Primitive societies (which, because of the factors of geography, were of the gathering type rather than the hunting type), were societies where women were having the decisive role (‘Matricentric Societies’ as defined by Erich Fromm).

All the philosophies of pre-Vedic India (Anwikshiki consisting of Samkhya, Yoga and Lokayat), Buddha and Mahavir categorically assert that the two most mind – disturbing tendencies are violence and greed. It is unfortunate that Anwikshiki, the philosophy guiding the people of the Sindh valley, has not received the proper attention of historians and philosophers (Anwikshiki is discussed later).

Human mind stopped growing when the hunters gained prominence in society because of their capacity for violence. The human societies which had their existence in the vast grass lands of different continents survived by domesticating and killing animals. The study of the genetics of the migrating humans and the archeological discoveries of the killer weapons of the late stone age (Upper Paleolithic age) provide us with a picture of the culture of that age, which explains how Patriarchy over came the Matricentric Societies.

Archeology and genetics both inform us that an unusual situation prevailed in the Indian subcontinent, To quote the famed geneticist of Harvard, Spencer Wells, “Even before the current era of globalization, the world had its killer apps… grouped into a common cultural phenomenon, known as the Late Stone Age (the Upper Paleolithic). India is unusual, since there is actually very little evidence of the upper Paleolithic age there… at least there are abundant tools from earlier periods. The supper Paleolithic provides no tell-tale signs until very late in the day….” 10

Ex-Prof. of Archeology (JNU), Shereen Ratnagar, writes in her book ‘The other Indians’ that in India, early agricultural societies predominated and the nomadic communities had little influence in society. Nomadism was a fringe phenomenon in India till the Aryan advent. She rightly says that without a paradigm- shift in thinking, justice cannot be done to the M.H. ( Sindh ) civilization.

That the Mahenjodar - Harappa civilization was without killer weapons indicating the absence of wars is a fact, accepted by the leading archeologists and historians. This was a unique phenomenon in those days of blood soaked murderous empires in other parts of the world. That domestication of animals did not take place in ancient India can be inferred from examining the list of animals available in the seals of the Sindh (M.H.) civilization. Elephants, bulls tigers, water buffaloes, rhinoceros are not capable of domestication.

Archeologists have not found traces of palaces or temples in the Sindh civilization. There is enough evidence to prove that the M.H. Civilization was a Matricentric civilization. Philosophers and historians, Indians and Westerners, have selectively ignored the evidence available regarding the matricentric nature of this civilization. Probably it was the only advanced Matricentric civilization in the world.

Most of the seals of this civilization are of women, not men. Non-violence applied to all species can only become a value in a gatherer – centric society, not in a hunter- centric society. Yoga, Samkhya and Lokayat philosophies known as Anwikshiki were totally against all types of violence. (The Vedic warriors who came to India ate animal flesh with relish and so Charbak denounced them as ghouls and demons). No other country in the world preached non violence with so much zeal in such a big area in all ages. Kings and Gods enjoy prominence only because of their power to reward and punish. No kings and Gods existed in the M.H. civilization because not power, but love and compassion were emphasized by the Yoginis.

Because of their lack of intimate acquaintance with the original non-violence preaching Mahabharata and its kernel, the Bhagawad -Gita most of the thinkers who have analyzed the Mahabharata, failed to do justice to the only non-violence preaching book in the world, embodying the values of a Matricentric Civilization. To quote D.D. Kosambi, “The earliest dated mention that could possibly represent the Gita is by Hsiuen Chuang early in the seventh century, who refers to a Brahmin having forged at the king’s order such a text (supposedly of antiquity) which was then ‘discovered’, in order to foment war” (‘The Historical development of the Bhagwat Gita’ in the book ‘History and Society: Problems of interpretation’). The ‘discovered’ book was evidently Mahabharata containing the Gita. Ramila Thappar, who praised the sanity of the Indian civilization because of the absence of the concept of enmity in Indian culture (in the preface of her, book ‘Early India’) could have found the proper cause in ‘non-violence’ and Maitri (fraternity), being the premier values pervading the Pre-Vedic society, had she utilized her vast knowledge to probe deeper. It was she, who made the pertinent remark that Indian culture is basically not spiritual, but atheistic and the integration of Dharma, Artha and Kama is advocated in the Mahabharata. Amartya Sen, also thinks that ancient Indian culture was atheistic. Thappar ignored the fact that the Mahabharata categorically states that Artha and Karna are only the ancillary products of Dharma and so our duty is to follow Dharma only. Vyasa says ‘I have raised my hands and am shouting again and again that Artha and Kama are the products of Dharma and so, Dharma only has to be served faithfully without fear of the risk of losing property and even life’ (Last Canto of the Swargarohan Parva: Verses 62 and 63). The original Mahabharata known as ‘Jaya’ contained only 8,800 verses (Adi Parva). In those days ‘Jaya’ meant victory over the negative emotions (Jainism). Later 91,200 silokar were added to ‘Jaya’ to convert a book preaching non- violence to a book preaching violence. The famous ancient rhetorician ‘Anand Bardhan’ has described Mahabharata as a book of SANTA RASA, a book of peace (not of BIRA or RAUDRA RASA which glorify ‘war’): Refer Dr. Sukumari Bhattacharya’s essay ‘Mahakavya Mahabharata’ in her book ‘Prachina Bharata’ in Bengali. In the Adi-Parva, the verse No.16 of the first canto states that the aim of the Mahabharata was to acquaint people with Dharma and its meaning. It is said in the Adi-Parba again that Vysa, wrote the Mahabharata from the perspective of Dharma (First Canto: a verse without number between No.29 and No.30 (Gita press Mahabharata). Again in Canto No.62, (Verse No.12) it is written that Mahabharata is written to give advice regarding ‘Artha’ and ‘Dharma’. Artha as explained in the first Canto may mean ‘meaning’ instead of wealth. ‘Meaning’ seems to be the more appropriate word because the Mahabharata as a whole gives the greatest importance to Dharma and its meaning (Non-violence). Again in verse No.23 of Canto 62, it is called Dharma Sastra. The primary Dhaima is explained as ‘non-violence’ (Adi-Parva Canto ‘verses -13, 14 and 15). In the Santi Parva ‘non-violence is stressed in the merchant (Tuladhara) and Jajale story. Gita’s second Canto criticizes the hedonistic sacrifices commended in the Vedas. Archeologists (also Thappar) assert that Hastinapur was not a city but a big village in those days. In the Second Canto, the Gita criticizes the Vedas for their elaborate enjoyment-wealth-aiming ritualistic sacrifices. Hsiuen Chuang is right is saying that a sort of cultural forgery converted a book preaching ‘non-violence’ into a book preaching ‘violence’. There is not enough space in this essay to list even a tiny portion of the nonviolence asserting verses in the Mahabharata.

Pre-Vedic knowledge- system known as Anwikshiki (Lokayat, Samkhya and yoga) is atheistic, materialistic and rationalistic in character. Anwikshiki bears the stamp of its matricentric outlook. The Bhagawad Gita in two verses (Slokas) makes it clear that the Purusha (the male principle) has played no role in evolution. It is Nature only which, in its original and emergent form, created an advanced being like woman / man endowed with complex organs and tendencies like brain and consciousness. Gita uses the words Apara-Prakruti and the Para Prakruti (Here Purusha or the male principle finds no mention) to denote the original matter and emergent entities like mind and consciousness. These two together embody the life principle.11 Only a matricentric society can devise such a nature-based (the female principle only) philosophy.

The greatest mistake made by the famous archeologist John Marshal was in identifying a three headed horn-bearing man in Yogic posture surrounded by animals, with the Rig Vedic God Siva in his Pasupati Posture. Gita makes it clear that ‘Tapaswis’ physically resemble Yogis but they are much inferior to the Yogis (Gita 6th Canto 46th Sloka), Yogis practice the exercises of body and brain, with the supreme aim of achieving a tranquil mind. ‘Tapaswis’ indulge in penance, meditation and worship to enhance their miracle-working powers and to ascend to the celestial regions after death. Power and miracles are taboo for Yogis. Pre-Vedic Yogis were concerned with the life on this earth. They never bothered about their after-life.

Rudra, later known as Siva is a minor Rig Vedic God. As Indra, the premier Rig-Vedic warrior God became unacceptable as the supreme God to the local people due to his nefarious role in raiding local habitations and killing Rishis, the priests elevated two minor Gods, Vishnu and Siva of the Rig-Veda to top places. Prof. Sukumani Bhattacharya writes about Siva. “He is described as Kapardin (with matted hair (RVI:114: 1,5) Babhru (reddish brain in complexion (R.V 11 :33:5, 8). He has a golden necklace round his neck (RV 11:33:10); he is strong –limbed, terrible and tawny (R.V 11: 33: 9).12

She also writes in the articles Rudra – Siva (1) & (2), “…. The bow (Rudra’s) is golden and he kills by the thousands (AV XI:02:12). In the Yajurveda , Satarudriya hymn throws light on his character, “Homage to the cheater, the swindler, to the lord of the burglars……..’, …….he is the cruelest among the Gods (Manu Samhita 1:10:20). Taitariya Brahmin describes him as animal – slayer and Jarasandha offered human sacrifices to Siva. Satapatha Brahmin says “Rudra is hankering after that cow, which is killed here in this hall.” 13

Siva was a great hunter. The Buddha, a true Yogi, in his eight fold Aryan Path proscribes hunting and selling intoxicants as they go against the fifth principle of the Eightfold Aryan Path ‘Right Livelihood’. Siva loved intoxicants. He was compared to Dionysus by the Greeks who came to India. A Yogi’s main creed is ‘non-violence’ (Yama) and he should be thoroughly Apollonian (Temperate) in his temperament. To call the violence and intoxicant loving Siva a Yogi simply because he adopts the Yogic meditative posture is just like calling a murderer another Gandhi, simply because he resembles Gandhi in his appearance and apparel. It is strange that the unconscious use of Orwellian language by a great archeologist (who is not expected to have much knowledge of Indian culture) has been accepted as gospel truth by almost all the historians of India. Parsuram was a mass murderer. He was a Tapaswi, not a Yogi, though he looked like a Yogi. Sri Krushna, called Yogeswara in the Gita, is a successful cunning warrior, not a Yogi. His presence in the Gita is because of a Pandit’s forgery as described by Hsiuen Chuang in his travelogue.

The Sindh civilization was an atheistic one. It had no Gods. The Yogi in the seal was not Siva, the omni-potent, destructive, intoxicant -loving Vedic God. He was kind only to his devotees. A Yogi shuns power and strives for tranquility of mind and is full of compassion for all living beings. God Siva was an animal slayer and a greedy meat eater. He was surely a great warrior of the Patriarchal Vedic -Aryan society. The Yogi in the M. H. seal is a lover of animals, the upholder of the Yogic Yama values (Non- violence, Truth Asteya and Aparigraha which are the values of this matricentric society). Buddha and Mahabir, though they were members of a patriarchal society, were the cultural heirs of this Yogi who exuded loving kindness (Karuna) and (Maitri) (fraternity and solidarity) towards all living beings (Patanjali Yoga Sutras).

Murray Bookchin writes that he agrees with Munford who wrote that it was woman who probably “…..accomplished those masterpieces of selection and fertilization which turned wild species into the prolific and richly nutritious domestic varieties, it was woman who made the first containers, the weaving baskets and coiling the first clay pots.” 14

Again writes Murray Bookchin, “It is she (women) who turned sharing into a hallowed communal imperative, not merely an episodic or marginal feature… Her stake in civilization was greater than that of the predatory male… But ironically… her potentialities have been brutally diminished but ever present as a voice of conscience in the bloody cauldron that men have claimed for their civilization.”

Murray Bookchin continues, “The bearing qualities nurtured in this Neolithic village are perhaps no less significant than its materials and achievements….Judging from the building sites and graves, there is little evidence, if any, that social inequality existed within these communities or that warfare marked the relationship between them”. 15

Occasional sexual relationships with outsiders were not forbidden in this matricentric society. The Mahabharata provides many episodes where this type of sex relationship existed. The happy Uttara-Kuru society mentioned in the Sabha Parba and Anusashan Parba, Swetakeu’s resentment when his mother freely selected a sexual partner other than her husband, Jabala – Satyakama story, the acceptance of different sex partners by king Jajati’s daughter, the seven Ucchaba-Sanket Ganas (Tribes) amongst whom women occasionally enjoyed sexual freedom, as described by Deviprasad Chattopadhya in his book ‘Buddhism : The Marxist Approach: Some problems of Early Buddhism, Bali’s wife’s acceptance of Rishi Dirghatama as her sex partner, king Kalmashapada’s acceptance of Vasista as his wife’s sex mate (Patriarchy becomes partly visible in husbands ordering their wives to have sex with men chosen by him) are instances indicating the fact that Patriarchal values had not taken deep roots in this society.

Unlike Chimpanzees who prefer multi-mating system in copulation, human females prefer monogamy by selecting children- caring males as their life- partners. The freedom they enjoyed in Matricentric societies was occasional mating with a preferred outsider.

‘Once it (concealed ovulation) had evolved, the species switched to a monogamous mating system in which concealed ovulation worked to keep a single male at home. Given the flexibility of human sexual strategies and our ability to fine-tune our behaviour to different circumstances, it may be that women exploit these two benefits (monogamy and concealed ovulation that can confuse paternity) under different circumstances (Jolly-1999) ……” Refer the book, ‘A mind of her own: The Evolutionary Psychology of women: Mothers Matter most: women and Parental investment’ by Prof. Anne Campbell: Psychology Department, Durham University.

Lokayat philosophy was denounced by the Vedic Patriarchal society because they accepted the old practice of equal sexual freedom for women. The value ‘Brahmacharya’ or celibacy was added to other Yama values only after patriarchy became prominent in the social structure of the Indian communities. (The evidence comes from Jainism which did not accept Brahmacharya as a great value till the arrival of Mahavir).


Among Dravidians, Matricentric practices continued functioning in the most prominent community of Kerala, the Nairs, even in the twentieth century. (Leading historians agree that the Sindh civilization was a gift of the Dravidian people). Rationalists denounce Yoga because they don’t know that the original Yoga and Samkhya were totally rational in character (Kautilya). Karmavad, miracles and mysticism had no place in original Yoga. Yoga and Samkhya were against all types of hierarchy, exclusivism, fatalism and the feeling of enmity. The matricentric society of the lower Paleolithic age continued in India and matured into an urban civilization.

Tirukural is a famous book of the Dravidians. Rajgopalachari expresses surprise at Kural; placing non-violence at a higher level than truth. A great scholar Ka Naa Subramaryan, thinks it to be a book of the Jains. He ignores the famous maxim in the Mahabharata Adi-Parva that ‘non-violence is the greatest Dharma’ and Anwikshiki’s (Yoga, Samkhya & Lokayat) emphasis on non-violence as the greatest value. So Tirukural’s stress on non-violence is fully conforming to the important tenets of Hindu religion which is a tapestry of various strands. (Adi-Parva contains a myth where a Tapaswi was penalized by YamaRaja for putting more stress on truth than non-violence).

In the second chapter of ‘Artha Sastia’ Kautilya spares no words to praise ‘Anwikshiki’. Its knowledge is so important that it enables its knower to examine and establish the worth or otherwise of all others systems of knowledge like Vartha, Danda-Niti and even Trayi (the three Vedas Rik, Yaju and Sama). Anwikshiki is thoroughly rationalistic and is far away from miracles and mysticism. S. RadhaKrishnan in ‘Indian Philosophy’ part-II (introduction) writes that Anwikshiki was prevalent in India up to 100 B.C. After 100 B.C., Upanishadic philosophy known as ‘Darsana’ replaced Anwikshiki among the elite. Twenty first century sciences lay great stress on positive emotions rather than reason (Russell and Damasio). Anwikshiki (stressing both positive emotions and reason) was the philosophy of Praxis. Darsanas, embodied in the Upanishads lay tress on abstract entities like Soul and Brahma. They neither emphasize rationality nor positive emotions. They are based on esoteric knowledge, mysticism and miracles because of which Guruvad becomes important. They preach fraternity and equality values in the abstract where as Anwikshiki stresses those values in the concrete. (Refer Lohia’s essay ‘Abstract and Concrete and his remarks on Sankara)’. No wonder, the iniquitous caste system and untouchability were prevalent in the Upanishadic age. The practice of non-violence and non-greed, the essence of Anwikshiki, require no teacher’s assistance. Anwikshiki was against the caste system and untouchability. It preached men -women equality.

In the Matricentric society of the Sindh valley, the stress was on Yama values .This later gave rise to the myth of the Dharma gradually declining, as one age gave way to another age. In the Satya Yuga, Dharma was perfect. There was no system of sacrifice (Santi Parva Canto-232, verse No.32). A Single Value ‘MAITRI’ equivalent to non-violence and non-exploitation (Fraternity for all) was enough for the elite; there was no need to strive for any other value. (Santi Parva Canto -60 verse-12).

The Patriarchal myth prevalent in Palestine is described in the Bible. Here the greatest value is ‘obedience’. ‘Disobedience’ is the greatest sin. (No wonder, the senior students of India indulge in the worst form of ragging to teach the juniors the primary patriarchal value of ‘obedience’). The contrast between the two types of civilizations is obvious. Human tragedy started with the Patriarchal values of violence and greed becoming more and more powerful, ultimately leading to war, genocide and the decimation of innumerable species of plants and animals. Socialism can fructify only in a Matricentric value – based society. (Every violence-based revolution has failure, inbuilt in its hierarchal power structure). Capitalism based as greed and violence is a curse of humanity. Its worst sin is the destruction of the environment.

That the M.H. civilization was an egalitarian civilization, is vouchsafed by the leading anthropologists and historians. Thus writes archeologist Prof. R.S. Vist.

“The argument that literacy was confined to a few people is not correct. The same seals, beads and pottery were found every where in the castle, the middle town and the lower town of the settlement at Dholavira, as if the entire population had wealth… It appears to be an egalitarian society”.16
R. Rajgopalan writes”, Now 350 skeletons from five major sites don’t show any significant differences. There are also no royal tombs. It is possible that the Indus civilization was maintained at an advanced level without social classes, central authority and warfare.” 17

Patriarchal civilizations which were dominated by the hunter group, utilized their brain power to invent newer and fiercer weapons of warfare. Matricentric societies of the Sindh valley utilized their power of intelligence to discover better ways of providing more and more civic amenities to the people. Ayurveda and Yoga were the two systems discovered by women. Yoga was discovering the pleasure principle embedded in the neo- cortex and monitoring the activities of individuals and societies accordingly. Ayurveda was the discovery of the healing principles of plants and processed metals either singly or in combination. Neither was based on the belief in divine help, leading to miracles. Intense rationalist thinking and experiences were their only guides. Kings having powerful armies, with their nobles and priests were the privileged classes in the Patriarchal societies of Egypt and Mesopotamia. In the Sindh valley the highest position in society was enjoyed by Yoginis, and Yogis (Gymno – sophists: Megasthenes). In the Santiparva (Mahabharata), the greatest exponent of Samkhya is a lady known as Sulabha. She seems to be a Yogini who was leading a life free from family cares. She proved to have more knowledge than the greatest philosopher king of those days, Janaka. 18

The discoveries in the field of science show that human brain has three layers: the reptilian Brain, the limbic brain (mammalian) and the pre-frontal cortex (owned only by the human beings). Every layer of brain has its sources of pleasure. The most developed part of the brain, the pre-frontal cortex, controls the violent tendencies of the limbic brain (Particularly the Amygdala).

Both violence and greed lead to the disturbance of the pre-frontal cortex and the present unhappy affluent communities in the developed societies harbour a large percentage of mental patients only because of the widespread prevalence of violence and greed in their societies. Yoga is a system which has developed methods to be rid of these two evils that endanger mental health. The Yogis (Samkhya and Lokayat philosophers are also Yogis) aspire for Sukha i.e. happiness. Anthropologists affirm that the happy societies that existed among indigenous communities were free from one or two of the evils ‘violence’ and ‘greed’. The Yogis aim at achieving natural pleasure connected with the pre -frontal cortex (Sukha) and have succeeded in having tension – free tranquil brains as confirmed through the laboratory tests in the US.
(Read the book ‘Destructive Emotions’).

Buddha and Mohavir’s guides were the women and men of the pre-Vedic societies.

“Each teacher of the ancient period in India, including Buddha and Mahavir stated that he followed in the footsteps of others who went before them.”19



The message of nature is clear. Either we develop a civilization free from violence and greed or face the prospect of reversing the process of evolution. The ominous warning has already come. Human brain has lost 15-20% of its neurons in the past 28,000 years. If brain shrinking crosses the critical point, we may lose our critical and creative abilities.

The M.H. Civilization can show us the right path chalked for us by nature. We need an integration of Western science with the knowledge of values and social systems developed by Anwikshiki culture in India. Neither India nor the West can alone devise a proper plan for the saving of the species. The suicidal - life style of the present leads towards destruction. The elites of the world should shed their arrogance and turn into members of a single caravan. Buddha, Gandhi and Christ are not out-dated thinkers but the torch bearers, though some portions of their teachings have to be shed. We must follow the principles guiding the evolutionary march of nature which brought into being the matricentric societies in the past. Ecological sciences are making us conscious of our mistakes. Sectarian religions, dictatorial ideologies, fanatically – followed, emotionally –integrated collectives like the ethnic groups and state- dominated nations are today destroying the life-saving emotions of love and compassion. If they cannot be reformed or rejected, human species may not live to witness the twenty second century. No country can dismantle its war and greed – based life way, institutions and apparatus unless this becomes a global phenomenon. The whole of humanity must be involved in this venture. Much depends on the understanding and activities of the elite of the developed and developing nations. Can they rise to the occasion and save humanity by shedding their bias of the superiority of their knowledge systems and gain wisdom by studying the only developed matricentric urban society of the world in the Sindh valley. Science is the greatest gift of the West. In the field of human relations we have much to learn from the non-patriotic, world- fraternal India of the pre-Vedic days which was free from all types of superstitions and prejudices present in the primitive egalitarian indigenous societies and also in the later caste / class –ridden patriarchal societies in the whole world (including the vicious untouchability tarnished-Vedic and post-Christ India).










REFERENCE :-

1. The hidden connections (book): The Nature of life (Chapter).
2. Visions of Compassion: A Cross – Cultural Dialogue with Buddhism.
3. (Ancestor shows Human Brain Shrinking: The Times of India 15-09.2010).
4. Gaia is a Tough Bitch.
5. A Dynamic Pattern.
6. The second Law of organization. The Third Culture (Book).
7. The second Law of organization.
8. Close to the Singularity.
9. Close to the Singularity
10. The Journey of Man. --------------- A Book by Spencer Wells
11. The Bhagawad Gita – Verse 4 & 5 – 7th Canto).
12. The Indian Theogony.
13. The Indian Theogony : Rudra- Siva (1 & 2).
14. The Ecology of Freedom: The outlook of Organic Society.
15. The Ecology of Freedom:- The outlook of organic society.
16. The Rise and Rall of a Harappan City : By T.S. Subramaniam (Frontline 18.06.2010).
17. Indus Valley (NBT).
18. Mahabharata (Canto-320).
19. Eternal India by Binoy Kumar Behl (Frontline – Aug.24-2007).


MY ADDRESS:-

Bagwat Prasad Rath,
3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
PIN- 765002, Odisha.
E. mail- bagwat_prashad@rediffmail.com
www.samalochanal.blogspot.com
www.samalochana.blogsome.com



Revised Article