Modernity and Tradition

I wish to confess to my friends who have a misconception that I am a very knowledgeable person, that it is not true. Whatever I say is probably based forty percent on knowledge and the rest is information. Anything claimed on the basis of information is not true knowledge. My friend Pawanji differentiates between ‘knowing’ and ‘believing/assuming’. It is a fundamental differentiation. We know very little. Mostly it is what we believe in. and yet we claim that we are logical and not superstitious.

I have lived the first twelve years of my life as an independent citizen of an independent country. I have experienced what is independence and sovereignty of a nation. When we came to India in 1959 as refugees, we were told by many that China was able to occupy our country (Tibet) as we were backward, uneducated, and underdeveloped and had failed to modernize ourselves. Listening to all this, for some time, we also started feeling that perhaps we were at fault. At the same time, this also raised two questions in our mind. Firstly, if we were uneducated then all these profound scriptures we have studied till then was futile. Secondly, Tibet since ancient times had economically and militarily mighty countries like China, Russia, Mongolia and India as its neighbour; and though Tibet lacked their economic and military prowess, yet we were self-reliant and no one lacked food and shelter. China always had an eye on Tibet. From time to time it troubled us, had agreements and treaties with us, but there was never any talk of merging Tibet with China. There was a time when the mighty British Empire defeated us militarily, but it never occupied us but entered into treaty, respecting our sovereignty. But with the advent of Mao Tse Tung regime in China, occupation of Tibet acquired a high priority. The question is why so now, in the twentieth century, when we had been living as equals with our powerful neighbours from the eighth to the twentieth century?

After coming to India, I read the autobiography of Mahatma Gandhi. I gathered some new insights from this; especially, how to use non-violence in political struggle. Besides, we also learnt about the distinction between tradition and modernity. This also helped us to understand that the alleged lack of development and education were not responsible for our slavery, as we had been living in this condition since the eighth century. Even the transition of China from monarchy, to the so called democracy, to the current communist regime, must be driven by some fundamental factor. And this factor appeared to be the thinking of the modern civilization and the process unleashed by it. We also understood that if Tibet had become educated and modern earlier then, perhaps Britain would have occupied us; or may be China itself. Because in such a case we would already have had systems in place, suitable to them. As we were not modern, Britain must have found ruling us inconvenient, that’s why they left us to our devices.

When I read Hind-Swaraj of Mahatma Gandhi for the first time about 20-25 years ago, I could not understand it. Although I did not feel that Gandhiji was conveying incorrect things, yet I could not comprehended as to why Gandhiji was rejecting the modern civilization in its entirety. As that time I held different views. While I believed that the western civilization was not beneficial us, yet there was a feeling that we could introduce some elements of modernity in our civilization and this could be beneficial for us. That is why I could not understand Gandhiji’s strong and vociferous opposition to it. After that I had opportunity to visit and study many (so-called) developed countries of the world. I also had direct interface with very backward countries, called the third world. After seeing and evaluating both the worlds, I reached to the conclusion that Gandhiji was right.

Modernity brought major changes in the world, wittingly or unwittingly and directly or indirectly. We also had long spells of violence and war. We did not understand the root causes behind these. People could not understand the flaws of modernity will Mahatma Gandhi exposed them. Even before Gandhiji, there were others also, who rejected modernity; but their rejections were based on cultural or spiritual grounds. They could not comprehended the threat and challenge of modernity to the very life force or lifestyle of entire humanity. Only Gandhiji understood the true nature of modernity. He identified it as an existential threat to the entire humanity and living beings. But very few fully understood the apprehensions of Gandhiji.

Even many well-known scholars, who have written extensively on Gandhiji, have been found expressing that Hind Swaraj should not be under special circumstances, with special objectives for a particular audience. Hence, Hind Swaraj should be understood in a certain context. Even some of his close associates considered it irrelevant. Gandhiji tried over 105 years ago to bring out this truth, but perhaps it could not be understood due to the simplicity of his expressions.

One would recall that Gandhiji in Hind Swaraj had asserted that the modern civilization is so devious that it can neither be easily defined nor fully described. And what was difficult for Gandhiji will not be easy for us. I also have difficulty in relating to or enter into fruitful dialogue with modern people; because I live in the seventh century civilization and think and articulate in the same vein. That is why I find it difficult to communicate and have a dialogue freely. At the same time this does not mean that I have a closed mind; that any fact, argument or example if logical and true is not acceptable to me. Even Buddha had averred that a fact should not be accepted merely because Buddha had said so, but on the merit and understanding of the fact itself. Even then dissimilarity of views makes a dialogue/discussion difficult. Even then, in order to enhance my own understanding, I have attempted differentiation between modernity and tradition in the following six contexts.

Society vs Individual: In tradition, society was considered more important than an individual. In tradition the accepted principles is that if required, in the interest of society, an individual should be willing to make sacrifices. In modern civilization norms, the individual has prime importance. In this world view, society is expected to suffer, if necessary, to protect the rights of individual. For a modern person, several layers of “my interest” and “our interest” are given importance-ranging from the self to the nation. If you look from the nation’s perspective, my nation is always right in any matter and my rivals are always wrong. Our current notion of patriotism considers our nation more righteous than other nations. This evaluation is not based on any just norms. If two nations go to war, who is at fault is of no concern; the other nation is always the guilty party. Whatever the issue, Pakistan will always blame India, and India, Pakistan. This trend is noticeable at various levels of intercourse embracing the family, the society, the town, the district and the states. If two brothers in a family have dispute, they emphasize only their individual interests and never think of making a sacrifice for each other. Personal individual interests and never think of making a sacrifice for each other. Personal individual interests always overrides and come before the interests of the collective.

Duty vs Rights: In tradition, the emphasis is on duty and not on right. In today’s world the priorities have reversed. Everybody talks about rights, not duties. The United Nations has also proclaimed a Charter of Human Rights. There is no declaration of Human Duties. There is no mention of it at any level including the society, laws and the legislations. Even in Constitutions, while there are exclusive chapters of fundamental rights, there are no chapters on fundamental duties, and if at all, only a brief passing reference. Even in the Indian Constitution it was added later and did not exist in the original one. This betrays a failure to understand a basic proposition that if everyone is observing one’s duties sincerely, the question of violation of anybody’s rights simply does not arise. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference between tradition and modernity in determining the priority between duty and rights.

Mind vs Body: Above mentioned two differences are at the level of society. But this difference between mind and body is visible both at the level of society and an individual, a fact which Gandhiji considers significant. At the individual level the difference exists between the mind and the body. While modernity accords greater importance to the physical conveniences, the traditional civilization gives priority to mental peace and purity of thoughts. It is in the nature of living beings to crave for happiness and alleviation of suffering. No one seeks suffering; everybody wants happiness. A human being is considered superior because he is endowed with the faculty of judiciousness. It is this attribute which distinguishes him from other beings- birds and animals. But then what is the nature of the distinction? Like human beings other beings also want, happiness and not suffering; but they cannot comprehend what are the means to happiness and what are the causes of suffering? Like human beings they do not know how to attain happiness or alleviate sorrow or suffering by using reasoning or discretion. However, when (modern) human being attempts to get over the suffering, he starts considering physical inconveniences as the main cause of suffering. In modern society people mostly do not realize that lack of mental peace and equanimity could also be the source or cause of suffering. The modern civilization emphasizes on physical conveniences and pleasures and it ignores the role of mental process in attaining happiness as tradition does.

Natural vs Artificial: Tradition teaches a person to live simply and in accordance with his or her nature. When a person leads a simple life then one is not in conflict but in harmony with others and nature. Modernity has habituated a person to lead an artificial life. His lifestyles does not reflect his real nature but preference is given to appearance- pretence in various forms like hairstyle, attire etc. this artificiality is noticeable inhis physical appearance, articulation and thinking- which a scholar has described as a disconnect between “being (sthiti) and the manifested (gati)”. If the being (sthiti) and the manifested (gati) are in conformity or alignment, there is no place for artificiality or pretence. Behaving as your natural self is simplicity and pretending to be something else is artificiality – a manifestation of modernity.

An artificial person claims to be logical in his thinking but is also at the same time superstitious and does not understand the real meaning of being logical. In tradition there are three levels of logic, viz, the fact, the reason and the manifestation. In modern logic only the reason (hetu) is given prominence. The western civilization functions on the basis of partially developed logic/science of reason, which in fact is not contemporary and is based on assumption. In traditional thinking along with reason the fact and the manifestation, also get equal importance.

Diversity vs Uniformity: If we look further we find that modernity stresses uniformity. Modernity does not easily countenance diversity in various fields like languages, culture, dress etc. globalization attempts to promote uniform living pattern in the world over. A child going to school has to wear the same kind of dress, socks, shoes and even hair cut. This ignores that the individuality and unique personality traits. This is described as “uniformalisation”. This formulation suppresses the basic nature of an individual and his personal uniqueness in the effort to make everyone behave and live in a similar manner. Approximately, 700 crore people inhabit this planet and no two persons are similar in all respects. Even twins who look similar are easily identifiable as individuals. Do we not learn from this that these 700 crore people have their separate personalities and they cannot be forced to become similar in behavior and living. Such an effort is not natural; but artificial.

Harmony vs Competition: Analysed thoughtfully one finds that the modern thinking promotes comparison, competition and conflict. In contrast, tradition, mutual cooperation and harmony are given priority. Modern civilization is rooted in conflict and it is natural law that conflict can never lead to a positive outcome. Two stones placed side by side can form a wall, even a house, but if they keep colliding with each other, these would either shatter or diminish. This is the fundamental difference in the vision of the modern and traditional civilizations.

Let us look back a little. Science and industrialization developed about 250 years ago in the western countries. This ushered in a new phenomenon of surplus production of commodities than needed or required by people. Earlier people manually produced what they really needed. In modern times, arose the issue of consumption of surplus production, in which capital had been deployed. Research revealed that the ‘greed’ inherent in human nature could be easily exploited for the purpose, by promoting the cult of “comparison and competition”. To achieve this, it becomes necessary that a person should not understand the real value of things, but get into the habit of always looking at it on the basis of comparison. This habit was to be inculcated through various mediums like education, media, social engineer etc. the idea was to shift the basis of ‘Comparison’ from the inner self to market manufactured external one. Comparison automatically leads to feeling of competition. If I have one pair of shoes, why my neighbour has ten pairs? I am no less than him; therefore, I should also have them. A mindset of comparison and competition was introduced in social discourse. In the process, the phenomenon of production gave birth to the curse of capitalism, which in turn led to exploitation of the farmers and labour. This unabashed exploitation engendered hatred against capitalists. This in turn led to the birth of Marxism or socialism. If there was no capitalism, there would have been no Marxism.

Advent of Marxism was not a result of any research or invention, but of reaction. A search for reality leads one to the truth. If any such inquiry is impelled by jealousy or reaction; then it will only yield erroneous outcomes. Marx’s worldview was based on dialectics and conflict, which according to him, something new. Thus, for Marx everything is neutral or inert. According to Marx, a seed in itself is inert. But when soil, water and fertilizer are introduced then the ensuing process of dialectic or conflict ensures destruction of the original seed and this gives birth to a new shoot. He encapsulated this in expression “thesis, antithesis and synthesis”. Later he described it as ‘class conflict’. His concept of class conflict seems endless, even when Marxism has collapsed and capitalism has triumphed.

Marx erred; the sprouting of the seed in a sapling is the outcome not of ‘dialectic’ or ‘conflict’, but cooperation and harmony. The shoot emerging out of a seed is the harmonious coordination of air, water, sun, fertilizer etc. This is the traditional world view. All Indian philosophical and religious systems would consider it an outcome of harmony, not conflict. Cooperation and harmony always lead to positive results.

In my view these are the six basic distinctions between modernity and tradition. This is my belief and it is not necessary that everyone should agree with this. I am presenting only how I look at these things. In a way it will be appropriate to say that there is nothing new in modernity. Most of the societies had pre-existing systems, beliefs and priorities which, modernity has tried to turn on its head and alter. What was natural in human behavior was altered and presented as something new and defined as modernity.

Prof. A.K. Saran, in his book The Traditional Thought has very concise brought out the characteristics of modernity. In the introduction of the book he writes: ‘Novelty, Self-grounding and Violence are synonymous with Modernity.’ Modernity seeks novelty in everything – in clothes, speech, behavior or anything that we use. It should not only look new and be very different from others, but this novelty should trace its origin only in modernity and not in tradition or nature. Thus, this novelty should be a standalone phenomenon unconnected with any existing process or reality. Because novelty feels threatened by any connections with any source or foundation as it contests its very basis of being or existence as entirely new, unconnected with the past. Therefore, it has to stand on its own which is “Self-grounding” i.e., it does not need any connection or support from any tradition or reality for its existence. A plant needs a combination of inputs and environment to grow, flower and perish. But in modernity its various attributes seem to be born out of nowhere (in sky or atmosphere) and exists on their own. In order to achieve and sustain these two attributes, violence becomes central. This may take the form of violence or exploitation, directly or indirectly. This is what the reality of modernity is.

Education, politics and religion did not have any significant role in the advents of modernity. Partially science and more significantly industrialization have played main roles. It has empowered man to produce commodities far in excess of what is required and his capacity.

For example, a pair of shoes was produced by a person in one day but today the same person with the help of machines is able to produce ten pairs in an hour. In order to ensure the consumption of these excess pairs, efforts were made to tap and enhance the instinct of greed in human beings. Artificially the feelings of fear and hope were aroused simultaneously over availability and one is induced to buy it. One can easily observe the deep research in human psychology behind it to leverage the human greed for maximum exploitation.

It is possible that in early day of modern science, the search for truth behind external objects and phenomena were driven by objectivity and altruism. But today the final outcomes of all researches are predetermined. This does not mean that the modern scientist have not done their work guided by truth and dedication. But what is being done now is driven by the motto of “profit” and this pervades in almost all the fields. In education of oft asked question is whether it will lead to a job. Today we pre-decide that after education we will seek a job and not entrepreneurship or self-employment. Now the targets are fixed. All efforts now culminate in the question, the volume of “profit or gain”.

Today the challenges of the modernity pose existential threat to mankind and earth itself, if not tackled adequately and immediately. The first major challenge is of violence. Its most visible forms are war and terrorism. Then there is the systematic or system generated violence. We are neither able to see it or understand it, but its scope and spread are frightening. The present satiation is such that we have no will to resist violence, unless it directly affects us. This kind of violence is market driven which necessitates perpetuation of war or its possibility. We have seen Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Wars, these days, have no cause and are not concerned with victory or defeat. Even popular agitations are turning violent. There is market/business behind all this and we are unable to see this pervasive/reality of violence. There is a book titled: When Corporates Rule the World, which describes what will be the situation when corporate run the world? Today 10-12 families are running this world. All these so called governments, administrations and political parties are puppets being manipulated by them. These realities are not my imagination but are based on credible research. Republic, democracy, equality and justice have become meaningless clichés. The whole world today is not functioning on the basis of democracy, but on the basis of group/party for whom the group/party interest come before the national or public interest. And these entities are manipulated by the market forces.

In brief the entire world today is being governed by the market forces which are described as consumeristic system. In this system there is no place for values, except profit and money. I cannot forget a sentence written by a teacher in an Australian newspaper: “never mind human right; money matters” it’s true that today human rights have no importance, only dollar. It does not matter even if ten people lose their lives as long as you are earning some money selling bullets. The biggest industrialists today are those producing weapons of mass destruction. It is they who influence the outcome of elections; those who win with their help are duty bound to help in expansion of the arms market. Constant possibilities of war and terrorism are essential ingredients to keep the weapons market vibrant and expanding. I clearly remember that Vietnam War which lasted for 18-19 years could have ended quickly in victory, defeat or surrender. But it was purposely kept going on as victory or defeat was no the objective, war was. Similarly possibilities of war are kept alive in Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Ukraine etc. Terrorism is also now always available to keep the arms bazaar flourishing, even if it means a few thousands or lakhs get killed. It is not considered bad. Life has no value as long as weapons are being sold and market for it is being created. Maintaining this reality also means suppressing those who think positively and talk of values and human rights. They should be convinced that they are all helpless and things are bound to continue like this and it is better to compromise with the obtaining reality. There is also an irresponsible thinking, which is symbolic of modern thinking, that its okay even if the earth is destroyed as long as it does not happen in our life time.

The second challenge is that of ENVIRONMENT: the modern life-style, production methods and thirst for development have brought environment to the brink. Thinkers, researchers and environmentalists forecast dire straits for the earth in the next twenty years.
When we discuss about all this, lot of things seems amiss. But later we forget about all these. There is a Tibetan story about a person who became friends with ghost: the ghost asked him as how he could help. The person asked the ghost to just forewarn him of his death.  The ghost agreed and one day informed him that in a certain village a person of his age had died. The person acknowledged the information without much interest. After some time the ghost informed him that in a particular village a person older than him has died. The person again did not show much interest. After some time the ghost again informed him of a death of a person younger than him, in a particular village. The person got irritated and chided the ghost that he has requested forewarning about his death, then why was he dishing out irrelevant information to him. One day the ghost informed him that he was going to die next day. The person got angry and said he asked him to give him prior information and he was warning him only a day before. The ghost said that he had been hinting about it for some time but you could not comprehend it. That is what is happening to us. The devastating floods in Uttarakhand are a matter of concern for them and mere news for us. Same about Tsunami. We keep quite considering all these as mere information and do not wake up to ask why all this is happening?

The third challenge is that of RELIGION: religion which ought to provide deliverance to mankind does not exist today. Speaking of Buddhism, I can assert that it has declined considerably. Meanwhile institutions set-up in the name of religion have divided mankind. These exploit the sensibilities and sentiments of human beings. Today religion has become a source of divisiveness and violence.

The fourth challenge is that of ECONOMIC DISPARITIES: Today the issue of economic disparities has acquired a psychological dimension. Even if a person rises out of poverty, he is unable to shed the mindset of poverty. Because the market/bazaar has a vested interest in keeping the divide between the rich and the poor alive so that one keeps trying to copy or catch up with one better off than him and in the process keep the business going. Market has created a situation where a human being has been reduced to being an instrument of consumption. Now we do not “use” but we “consume” as a key to success. This psychology of economic disparity today pervades even societies and nations, endangering humanity itself. And all this is result of an organized scheme, to prove which one requires evidence and proof. However, those who are experts in crime are also experts in erasing evidence or foot prints. But we can assert so on the basis of inferences. It is said that 12-13 families, who have huge resources are running this world. They leverage their resources in a manner that it keeps multiplying. They are very powerful and it is averred that any regime or government which tries to free itself from their clutches cannot remain safe. Therefore, to retain power it is prudent to follow the dictates of those powerful entities.

It is difficult to offer concrete proof but if examined closely the truth can be inferred. If one follows the recent wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., it appears that there was more keenness to prolong the war rather than achieve any stated objective. Like World War 2, these could have been ended in a day. Prolonging the war seemed to sustain the armament industry. They seemed least worried. Nearer home in India one has to understand as from where the terrorists are getting arms and resources. In Tibetan struggle many suggest that we fight and they would help. But we understand their real objective. They are not interested in freedom of Tibet but in prolonging the Sino-Tibet conflict to the benefit of arms bazaar. Most of the political leaders understand this danger of globalization but irony is that they are unable to speak up or resist. Thus, one has to conclude that there are forces more powerful than them, who are running the affairs of the world.

However, the question remains that are all these well planned and coordinated or are they also the automatic by products and outcome of the very foundations of modernization? After closely examining, I see both these elements in the development process. People’s mind or thinking accords with existing system or establishment. This is the basic tenet if human nature and that is why people of similar nature bond together easily. To keep this illusion going and not allowing one to think differently is an essential part of a planned scheme. This can be seen in the developments, in the field of education, science and technology, which are taking place in accordance with these plans. New discoveries and inventions are taking place at the behest of governments or corporates. There are very few inventions/discoveries which are truly beneficial for the society or mankind. Corporates invest in pre-targeted researches only and discontinue those which do not fulfill their objectives.

Meanwhile, the votaries of modernity have generated a number of attractive slogans. Such as democracy, secularism and even peace. These constitute part of our education as well. However the discussions around them appear artificial and hollow and there is contradiction between the prescription and the practice or reality. These slogans even have the consent of people. I do not know why people give their consent to these slogans as these have nothing to do with obtaining reality.

In order to face the challenge of modernity, for the last few years we are engaged in understanding the traditions and their relevance now. Particularly in respect of education system there have been many research projects. The outcomes reflect divisions at the international level and particularly in India. There is a need to understand the education system in India before the arrival of the British Empire. The traditional system produced a number of profound scholars. This education system was neither government sponsored or dependent nor fully people supported. It was only “Guru” or teacher centric.

Students voluntarily went to a person who had acquired capability to be called “Guru” and lived up to the age of 25 years with him to acquire education. This education was not compulsory and no one gave grants. One earned and learned simultaneously in guru’s ashram. There was illiteracy among people and there was no legislation like “Right to Education”, yet the system produced an array of learned scholars who authored shastras and produced great literature and philosophy of great scholarship. After the advent of the British system, we need to see if we have produced even one scholar of that caliber. If one takes an over view of education since the intervention of the British system of education in diverse fields of philosophy, art, craft, etc. it will be clear whether education has prospered or declined.

We rightly curse Macaulay, who finished the swaraj of language. With destruction of language we also lost the freedom of imagination and resolve. It feels strange that now we think and express in colonial language and also feel proud of it. I travel a lot and resent and even feel humiliated being welcomed by airline hostesses in foreign language. At times I get into argument over this. This happens only in India and not in airlines of Germany, Italy, and Switzerland etc. they do not speak in English unless spoke to in English. Recently I called for airlines schedule of Lufthansa and received one in German. I was inconvenienced but like their attitude of not responding in foreign language unless a specific request was made. In a recent felicitation function for me in Italy, the address of the Mayor of the city was delayed by half an hour due to late arrival of the interpreter. Even as he commenced his speech the Mayor many times corrected the interpreter. He knew English but preferred to address in his own language. In India we feel elated evenif we were able to speak two sentences of English, underscoring the fact that though we become politically free sixty five years back but have voluntarily accepted the mental and linguistic slavery.

I feel that the linguistic slavery is more harmful that the political slavery. Change of language leads to changes in thinking, change in the categories through which we perceive and think, which in turn ensures destruction of one’s culture. The easiest method to destroy a nation’s culture is to deprive it of its language. This method had been used in ancient times and is now being used by the imperialist powers.
We cannot achieve freedom or swaraj unless we can naturally articulate and think in our own language. Without it our thought process and whole life style will be artificial and not natural. You will wonder why I am talking about language when we are supposed to be discussing about modernity, culture and education system. I consider it essential to talk about language to answer the question as to currently why are we struggling to discover our tradition? The tradition ought to be a natural part of our life style and as it is not so, we are organizing workshops, researches and debates in its search. The search underscores that either we have lost it or abandoned it. All this has happened because we lost our language and consequently our thinking, culture and tradaitions- an inter linked process. That is why we should be necessarily talking about language.

A Tibetan or an Indian can never become a complete Englishman unless he is born of British parents. One can speak English and adopt their attire and mannerisms, but all this will remain artificial and not natural. Aurobindo Gosh is a living example of this. His parents in order to make him complete Englishman, from childhood educated him in English. Two British governesses looked after him and not a word of Bengali reached his ears. He was sent to England at the age of 7 and remained there till the age of 24, to keep him away from Bengali language and culture: yet when he returned he remained an Indian and not hundred percent British. After his returned, he learnt Sanskrit and studied his culture and traditions and lived his life as a great savant and left behind an impressive philosophical legacy. Therefore even after great effort one can only be a poor imitation lacking the natural self.

Simplicity and spontaneity in nature is home of swaraj. We lost swaraj by enslaving our language. As my friend Pawanji has said that presently there are two streams of educational system viz, the modern and traditional. Both the streams have ardent supporters and detractors: The supporters of traditional education system are in great minority and are considered backward, lost and worthy of pity. Efforts are also made to make them join the mainstream. Yet there are a few who have survived this effort and India still has some people who are leading their lives in the traditional way. We should be proud of them. Yet, there are also supporters of tradition who find attraction in the glitter of modernity.

We had organized two meetings on this issue and for five days lively discussions took place. It was attended by many pro-tradition institutions and individuals. Most of the participants emphasized that our tradition can co-exist with modernity as we are no more backward and are equal to the modernity in all respects. They felt that there is no conflict between tradition and modernity. It appeared that many assume that traditional symbols like attire and Tilak etc., constitute tradition. Their thinking apparently has been influenced by modernity. A good number of traditionalists think like this. Due to this it has become difficult in search of tradition to trust even those who observe external manifestations of tradition. One comes across very few, who despite not speaking in English or adopting western attire, have not been influenced in their thinking by modernity and have thus lost their freedom and swaraj- and have no problem with modernity. I am not criticizing individuals. I am judging myself also as to how far neutral can we remain or get influenced by modernity. This is a constant struggle which those living a traditional life face in their daily lives. For some it is not a struggle but coordination (compromise/adjustment) and everything is fine.

At a national conference of Sarvodaya leaders at Patna, few seniors asserted that since we have to live in this environment, some compromises will have to be made. In today’s world they felt one cannot live on one’s own terms. Now question arises that if one has deep respect and faith in one’s principles and traditions, yet has to make compromises to survive, then, what is the compulsion to live? And what is the meaning of living with such compulsions? These questions were asked but there were no satisfactory answers. We have given undue importance to survival in our thought process, hence the need to make compromises. In the circumstances it is pertinent to examine whether there is any need or relevance of tradition, if not, then we should have this courage then it will neither be honest nor truthful conduct to pretend being supporter of tradition. It is much better to get out of this pretension which will make life more natural and less artificial as the thinking and practice would coincide.

The influence of modern civilization and education on our minds is such that we judge all our actions on the touchstone of success and failure. Failure leads to despondency and demoralization. Here Gita’s innovation is pertinent: ‘Work is your duty and result/outcome is not in your hand’. I want to say that if one is too “result” orientated then a good result will increase his vitality and failure would demoralize him: this attachment with results and the consequent greed, hope, fear and despondency detract from our efforts in performance of duties. The modern civilization emphasizes rights and downplays the role of duties and similarity the physical over the mind. In today’s environment and society even the best efforts are unlikely to succeed as long as these are tied to results and rewards. If one concentrates only on performing one’s duties, regardless of the result; he will be rewarded with a spirit of selfless vitality.

It will take long to describe how I see the present situation, but briefly would like to recall that the western civilization which Gandhiji in Hind Swaraj had rejected a hundred years ago seems to have acquired deep influence over a large number of people. Today, forget about anyone opposing that civilization, people feel ashamed to be not associated with it, lest they are called backward. People now wish to walk either ahead of everyone or at least alongside. Barring some saints and seers, even people linked with religious institutions are engaged in trying to modernize themselves. They are doing so to claim that their religion is also modern and not backward.