In Terence’s play Andria, there is a character named Davus who had deep-rooted reluctance to confront difficult questions and who distinguished himself from Oedipus who was credited with solving the riddle of sphinx. This is seen in present India.
Many times dissents and disagreements portray figurative representations of hidden desires… A few months back, writers with vibrant minds vied with each other to rush to the doors of Sahitya Akademi to place wreath by returning their awards as a protest against what they perceived as jerks in the great whole. Then followed their rendezvous with silence.
At times, as I watch, it seems as though my country’s bodyfloats down somewhere on the river…
And each day I keep looking for the light shadows find excuses to keep.
Jayanta Mahapatra in his poem Freedom
Self-indulgence is not always the best way to start a piece of writing but at times a writer might find it agonizingly closer enough to ignore.
Going back to 1969-70, then I was ten years old and used to reside in Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh. Altaf, a Muslim boy of my age lived nearby and we spent some time every day playing Gilli-danda and kancha. I had no problem with Altaf, but my grandmother had with a Muslim family: Her words still do ring in my ears. Early morning she used to caution me, “Altafawa ke ghar mat jaiya, wo sab barka ke gosh khate hain.” (Don’t go to Altaf’s house. They all eat beef.) — A symbol that defined equations of her belief system vis-a-vis a Muslim family.
Fast forward to 2012, I met Pathan, another Muslim working in a butcher’s shop in Gwalior, which I used to visit. And over next two years, we developed a relationship of mutual respect for each other. Once when he invited me to a marriage in his family, he took care to ensure no beef items were served to me.
Now, I not being there, not a single festival goes by, when we don’t wish each other over phone. It is my equation with my belief system vis-à-vis a Muslim human being: Spirit of human relationships which ultimately is shaped more by trust and a sense of oneness than anything else. Humanity requires human beings to have a holistic outlook despite contrasting images enveloping modern societies.
Dissent and disagreement have been a part of our cultural, literary, intellectual and historical inheritance; civilised arguments and equally civilised counter-arguments are the hallmark of dynamics of democratic functioning, for these produce possibility of ideas: New ideas or alternatively these modify and improve ideas in need of some change for the better.
Further, they mar growth of undesirable ideas. Yet another advantage: These cause first perceptions to undergo a change for better acceptance. But there lies the danger: The danger of arguments and dissent acting as maiming agents. Another danger lurks not too far. Placed in wrongly motivated hands not given to play the games democracy dictates, these can cause serious fissures even in most healthy fabric of a nation’s life.
Here what assumes importance is not genuine and elegant point of view being put forth but juvenile, cynical, immature and lopsided considerations driving at diverting attention from more serious issues a society encounters.
Such incidents of dissent are founded on grudging assumptions (for instance: why the ideas already in existence should not continue and why these should not be tempered with) and indicative of not only arrogance but also of ignorance of those trying to usurp illogic having dispensed with logic.
In the first week of May 2014 (then he was not the Prime Minister), I reviewed our Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s book of poetry “A Journey” and sent it to a foreign literary journal whose Chief Editor happened to be a Muslim gentleman and a friend. His initial gusto to publish this review waned within a week and he surrendered to his will (no reasons adduced) not to publish it, perhaps because this literary review did not meet the literary ethos of his journal.
Here is a case of passion taking precedence over reason thereby letting first perceptions stay first perceptions only and it is something that immediately irks and is very worrying as the very possibility of critical evaluation is completely ruled out. Intolerance has many facets and many faces which can be as odd and cabalistic as the debates on similar topics.
History is known for burying within its debris a plethora of questions deep, dense and difficult questions at that. These are the questions that are never dead and these seek definite solutions. Almost the entire history of our nation is replete with questions which require serious debates and discussions not through the weighty and high-pitched monologues on TV channels but through proper assembly, for serious discussion, of really concerned persons some of whom are at least ready to accept, for instance, that Vedas too contain difficult questions.
Intrinsically linked with this, there is an inflow of another issue. In Terence’s play Andria, there is a character named Davus, who had deep-rooted reluctance to confront difficult questions and who distinguished himself from Oedipus who was credited with solving the riddle of sphinx. Samuel Beckett, the playwright, coined a term “Davus complex” to describe those who evade and never like to be confronted with difficult questions.
Confrontation with past is inevitable in any discussion on veritable issues plaguing the present and there is no shying away. In any society, genuine minds would always suspect if those enchanted with the need for discussion on issues like climate of distrust suffer from “Davus complex” as many of them are seen fumbling while confronted with simple questions not to speak of serious ones that keep cropping up as many fragments of history everywhere yearn for reciprocal treatment and respect.
To belabour the point further, I take the liberty of producing three small but crisp excerpts from Beckett’s novel WATT. Think of some of fragments from history and imagine the consequences that would follow if dissenters and debaters, in place of tackling these fragments solemnly, mimic that peculiar but easy to follow way, of argumentative pronouncements from WATT:What rubbish, said the gentleman.What nonsense, said the lady.
Or another excerpt from the same novel:
And sometimes Watt understood all, and sometimes he understood much, and sometimes he understood little, and sometimes he understood nothing.
Wisdom is on decline. Isn’t itIJ There is every possibility that a dialogue based on concealment of ambivalent feelings would result in a dialogue like the one between the gentleman and the lady above and will land the two arguers in a situation where both of them like Watt “understood nothing.” A complete impasse awaits both. As in WATT:Officer, he cried, as God is my witness, he had his hand upon it.
God is a witness that cannot be sworn.
That’s the tragic end. What transpires from a reading of these three excerpts that I have selected in order to make an effort to account for current scenario in many places is the neglect of reasoning and consequentially it’s being undermined.
Reasoned arguments were and continue to be the sine quo non for public understanding, harmony and discussion. Absence of these leads to turmoil and chaos. And also absurdity as in WATT.
Analysts have taken much trouble to delve into causes of failure of reasoned cultivation of understanding and persuasive techniques in such dialogues.
On one level, there seems to be some consensus among such analysts: They point out the difficulty people engaged in dialogues and discussions face. It is their inability to accept the authenticity of the version of self the other person puts forth.
Even though what is put forward is a true reflection of the other person’s inner reality, distortions creep in through the medium of language which filters the inner reality of the other person. To cope with this, the first person creates subjective version of the personality of the other person. It has one distinct advantage: If the assumed personality of the other person is found to be flawed, it can be modified but even then it will not be authentic.
The first person has the same option open to him for himself. This way inner self of both the persons get revised to reach newness which will be superior to the earlier version. The problem of bizarreness as faced in WATT is a resolvable problem in the context of situations underway.
Above analysis by analysts has great relevance for contemporary happenings and it is time for some to learn lessons from literary geniuses like Beckett. Ignorance of history or drawing wrong inferences having no justification from it will fill what is normal with what really is bizarre. The need is to confront questions not addressed or not addressed properly thus far and seek a resolution for a better, wholesome and a matured society to emerge.
Many times dissents and disagreements portray figurative representations of hidden desires. This is the most inimical to the concept of dissent itself. To cite an example, there are dashing, demanding and flamboyant persons who very fondly assign to themselves sagacious task of hurling pearls of wisdom by certifying in public places, including on soil foreign, others’ moral integrity and intentions, oblivious of the fact there are eyes with stronger grip on reality, watching such gentlemen’s magnificently crafted hidden desires which, inter alia, might include their eyeing, if calculations don’t go haywire, rosy and cozy positions later on, which in turn would ensure continuance of their unbridled hunger to stay in limelight.
Societies never lack such noble souls who would go any length in exhibiting their very raw versions to invoke issues like unclear intensions, lack of morality and disrespect for counter points of views. Present scenario in many societies where a new order is shaping up seems to be conforming to this.
Trust: History has taught us is a great but intriguing word capable of destroying many myths about those who enjoin upon themselves the freedom of gauging the widening spread of trust guised as distrust in a society.
Trust entails fear of detection. Is fear of detection not embedded into the idea of trust itselfIJ Did not Glaucon and Socrates endlessly debate if trust depended on fear of detectionIJ A few months back, writers with vibrant minds vied with each other to rush to the doors of Sahitya Akademi to place wreath by returning their awards as a protest against what they perceived as jerks in the great whole. Then followed their rendezvous with silence. In these kinds of manic reinforcements and ensuing silence, descriptions of realties and fear of facing an outer reality are lodged, in which some individuals find no validation of their trusts and beliefs that need be detected and dissected.
Much to our chagrin, we have come to a pass when some people get swayed by a set of perceptions they have or formed for them and cannot see forms other than what is determined by them or for them a prime example of a situation which experimental psychologists describe as “blinding effect”. This blind alley has to be overcome.
Hinduism as a philosophy and a way of life has all along been growing through arguments, absorption, and assimilation. It tolerated many onslaughts during its long, vast, varied and peaceful existence, particularly during medieval and modern periods, and while keeping its homogeneity intact, it continues to flourish amidst the heterodoxy of co-existence the greatest symbol of its grandeur. When societies are likely to shift from one layer to another by undergoing significant changes, sporadic episodes of noises by some are common and may have to be interpreted in terms of case studies of a few having hegemony of imagined fears and obscured inner tensions requiring much deeper and more explicit self-examination than anything else.
The crux of reasoning and arguments lies more in answering the questions than in asking these, also in ruminating over the vigour and range of issues involved: that is how rational debates and discourses strengthen foundations of pluralist democracy, multitude of traditions and peaceful co-existence making prospects of reasoned humanism bright and vivid. “Davus sum, non Oedipus” attitude will not do much good to those ever avid to act as jewels among the beads.
(KK Srivastava is Principal Accountant General, Kerala and an acclaimed poet and literary reviewer. The views expressed here are his own.)