Gross generalizations about a country, a people, and a culture are humourous when done in the lighter vein. In most other cases, they are appalling. If you wonder why Westerners/foreigners are so ill-educated about India, articles like this is the answer. The article and its byline both are courageous because of their absolutely misplaced confidence in the correctness of what follows. I mean, what worse generalization can you have than labelling the people of an entire country this way:
Why Indians don’t give back to society …Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism
If you’re an avid observer of the steady dumbing down of the collective Indian consciousness, you’d have probably guessed what the piece boils down to: Hindu/India-bashing. You can also find a hint of proof for this dumbing down in the comments section of that article.
The Old Villain: Lack of Historical Sense
So this Aakar Patel eminence tosses words like “culture” and “religion” like personal property. Naturally, he gets it all wrong. But wait. According to him, Indians don’t give back to society because their religion isn’t something like Protestantism.
Max Weber explained the success of capitalism in the US, Germany and Britain as coming from their populations’ Protestant faith. This ethic, or culture, was missing from the Catholic populations of South America, Italy and Spain. Protestants, Weber said, extended Christianity’s message of doing good deeds, to doing work well. Industry and enterprise had an ultimate motive: public good. That explains the philanthropists of the US, from John D. Rockefeller to Andrew Carnegie to Bill Gates.
And then waxes at length on why:
-
Indians have such lousy road sense
-
Indians crowd to board a flight despite having confirmed, allotted seats
-
Thailand’s loos are cleaner and better-maintained than our own
-
Indians are tax-evaders, and steal from the state, and
-
In essence, Indians are born corrupt, compulsive litterers, and habitual rule-breakers
For the record, we aren’t the only ones with lousy traffic manners. Perhaps Mr.Patel would like to check out the choicest epithets showered here on the road scene in Belgium, South Africa, Russia, Italy and Portugal among other countries. But am I condoning all this ugliness? Sure, we’re uncouth, our social manners aren’t very good, etcetra but I’m on a different point. Aakar Patel presents the classic case of confusing the forest for the trees. Because some advanced countries are sparkling clean, people are generally well-behaved in public, etc doesn’t make them exemplary societies.
Every country and culture has history and cultural heritage handed to them over several centuries. In a way, these are their defining characteristics. One defining characteristic of the Western world is its emphasis on society-first, individual-next principle. This is reflected in their amazing efficiency of building almost fail-proof systems but the flipside is individual loneliness, inability to sustain marriages/relationships and aggressive individualism. Also, having a society-centric system helps you conveniently blame society for wrongs individuals commit.
India has always emphasized on the individual-first philosophy. This is why you don’t see “society changers” and prophets and messiahs here. Every saint or philosopher has always stressed on the need to improve oneself thereby spreading this improvement across the society. This doctrine is reflected in every facet of the Indian life: from the mundane as performing householder duties all the way up to self-realization (note, we call it self-realization).
What we have here is what I always moan about: a lack of historical sense that characterizes such “opinion” pieces. So what were these Protestant societies like, back in history? Has Mr.Patel ever heard of Robber Barons and wondered why we never had them in India? Or why, 20th Century American industrialists were called Robber Barons? Surprise! Some luminaries in Mr. Patel’s list are named as Robber Barons: Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller among others.
The reason is because India’s backbone was (and to an extent, still is) Dharma. While we celebrated earning wealth, it was never at the cost of righteousness. This is not to discount the philantrophy of Andrew Carnegie et al but does “giving back to society” redeem questionable ethics?
It’s anybody’s guess why the India that abided by Dharma has come to such a pass. A country that contributed to almost one-fifth of world commerce has now transformed into a chaotic mass of an exploding population divided against itself, bereft of its ancient values, looted repeatedly, and currently impoverished. How does Aakar Patel expect a people with such a traumatic history to behave? And Indians do not steal from the state. It’s the other way round. The Nehruvian State is designed to steal from its own people because it inherited an exploitative system, retained it intact, and his daughter added several layers of exploitation on top of it. I recall reading long ago that at one time, Indians had to pay up to 97% (I’m open for correction on the exact number) income tax. What this means is that Indians merely try to protect their money from a plundering government.
Anyway, Mr. Patel boils it down to exactly one word: opportunism, a trait which supposedly unites a country of more than 1000000000 people. And, further, says opportunists are
…necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else’s rules well, even if we can’t enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless at the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, which in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent for adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.
So, basically, rote memory + reproduction = success. Thus, butfor this talent, Indians abroad are opportunistic but successful, spelling-spitting idiots. Wish more people in the world followed Aakar Patel’s Magic Formula (TM). Also, all the knowledge that India has given to the world–in Mathematics, metallurgy, astronomy, architecture, philosophy, language, construction, and medicine–is merely memory, not knowledge. Mr. Patel’s assertion about “talent for creation” is also another sample of his genius. What exactly is talent for creation? Creation of what: Buildings? Technology? Roads? Toys? Plants? Whales? People?
A Pile of Stupidity
Having “proved” that Indians are opportunistic, he dwells upon the momentous question of why we are opportunists. The answer (yess!) is religion, specifically Hinduism (double yess!).
In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewards religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. This is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create sceptics instead of believers.
Elias Canetti wrote about religion in the sense of the Christian religion because Hinduism doesn’t promise any reward to anybody whether here or in an afterlife. But because Aakar Patel considers it a “great work” (with due respect to Canetti or whoever he is), and because his knowledge about Hinduism is sub-zero, he includes Hinduism in the “religion” club. Additionally, it gives him enough ground to launch an ignorant bluster about Hinduism.
There is an exception to this in Hinduism. Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism and rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our death rites and beliefs—funeral in Kashi—seek freedom from rebirth. Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about how not to return to earth, because it’s a rotten place. Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is. Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view—which is zero-sum—from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of his fellow man. I need to urgently take a Hinduism Crash Course by serving at Aakar Patel’s feet. His confidence is mindblowing in all its stupidity.
-
Which tenet of Hinduism says the earth is a rotten place?
-
If the world is irredeemable, how does the Hindu’s worldview become zero-sum?
-
How does pessimism flow from the previous premise of zero-sum?
A precondition for a zero-sum game is the gains and losses in the game which when added and subtracted respectively, should always give us a Zero, pretty much like Aakar Patel’s piece. If this braindead eminence had read even an iota of Hindu philosophy, he’d know that there’s no other religion as life-affirming and as brimming with spirit as Hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita presents the most concrete example of this. It is centered around man’s primary problems of frailty, suspicion, ethical doubt, and pessimism. Oh but now I recall: Aakar Patel has cut-pasted this fake caricature of the Hindu worldview-as-pessimistic from 18th century Western “scholars” studying Hindu society. Oh and did he say that Indians are phenomenal playback instruments?
The Hindu Worldview
And then he asks why Hindus have a pessimistic worldview, and answers with the same, formidable stupidity.
The Hindu devotee’s relationship with god is transactional: I give you this, you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the universe’s blessings towards you. God gives you something not through the miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedic fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religion is about bending god’s influence towards you through pleas, and appeasement, through offerings.
This is so trashy that it’s beyond deconstruction. The Vedic fire sacrifice or Yagna has nothing to do with this. In fact, the whole purpose of Yagna is precisely the opposite of what this clueless columnist says: that Indians don’t give back to society. More on that in just a bit after looking at the next ounce of ignorance, which deduces that
Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give back to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) because it hasn’t given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth of his earnings to the Church…Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around Rs1.2 trillion),.. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion…Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs24,000 admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani’s daughter was made head girl.
Needless, this conclusion is squint-eyed because he turns the concept of Yagna over its head. Which is again the product of cut-and-paste from the West. When you take Yagna to only mean sacrifice, you cannot rescue yourself from the problems such a restrictive meaning traps you in. Among other meanings, Yagna also means sharing for the common good of all–people, cattle, nature, and the entire Cosmos. Sharing enriches that which is shared as well as enriches the sharer, or the performer of the Yagna. As “sacrifice,” you sacrifice your ego, and life-negating activities. Personally, I regard the Jnana Yagna portion of the Mahanarayana Upanishad as perhaps the best treatise on the concept of Yagna, where the individual’s:
-
body=the wood for the sacrifice
-
[his] devotion/steadfastness (Shraddha)= his wife
-
heart=the post to which the sacrifical animal is tied
-
desires=the ghee that’s poured into the sacrificial fire
-
anger=the animal to be sacrificed
Put these together to understand the true significance of Yagna. Indeed, when Aakar says “there is no benefit to one without loss to another,” he piles another rock on his mountain of stupidity. The Brahma Yagna ritual that Brahmacharins perform daily has a superb verse:
O Agni, if somebody tries to unjustly take the portion that rightfully belongs to me, snatch even the portion that belongs to him and make it mine .
Do you need a stronger, more affirming statement of the Hindu value system?
Most Yagna mantras repeatedly call for strength, prosperity, peace, and harmony with the entire universe, which includes even non-living beings. What does that convey about India’s concept of society: a repeated stress on co-operation–not competition, which characterizes most facets of modern (largely derived from the Western) life–as the path to social well-being.
Daana
The other aspect of Yagna is Daana: charity, good deeds, social/community service or giving back. Actually, this concept is alone sufficient to demolish Aakar Patel’s vacuous non-column starting with its title.
No other culture or religion has defined, listed, explained, and reasoned out the types of daana as much as Sanatana Dharma. The Western concept of “giving back” is pretty hazy and pale in comparison. Every householder is encouraged to “earn in ten hands and give back in a hundred.” Some schools recommend setting aside 1/10th of your earning towards charity.
Also, I guess Mr.Patel was granted exemption from studying Indian History in school. Every lesson on Hindu kings and ministers and eminent people talks about inscriptions that proclaimed the charity and public works these people had undertaken. But then it’s hard to expect this luminary to know at least these types of charity: food, land, education, and marriage (Kanya daana). P.V. Kane’s encyclopaedic History of Dharmashastras deals with this subject in a few hundred pages. But to Aakar Patel, Kane might be synonymous with a new brand of alcohol.
It’s also curious how this dunce chooses the Ambanis to “prove” that Indians are a selfish lot. Out of a few thousand wealthy folks in India, this excellence found exactly ONE wealthy, and (supposedly) non-charitable family in his own country, but managed to find at least three wealthy, saint-like philanthropists in the U.S! Now, one characteristic, especially of the US guys is their penchant for flamboyance, for hype designed precisely for the consumption of people like Mr.Patel. Does Aakar Patel seriously assert that all our businessmen are greedy, and opportunistic cut-throats who have zero redeeming qualities? What about the silent, working-behind-the-scenes types who donate to projects like charitable hospitals, old age homes, orphanages, blood banks, eye banks, water projects, rural sanitation, tribal upliftment, and schools for the poor? Has Mr. Patel heard of Shankar Nethralaya and similar institutions?
If a filthy-rich American philanthropist has donated money to a Church, we have millionaires here who stand by the roadside, serving pilgrims on pilgrimages like Amarnath Yatra. These millionaires also sponsor poor pilgrims from their home town by providing free meals, transport, and accommodation. Oh but Amarnath Yatra/Hindu pilgrimages aren’t as glamorous as a Church and all its attendant stageshows designed to impress (and convert).
Conclusion
And then like the proverbial son who returns home, Aakar Patel boldly confronts us with the same question that he asks in the beginning. Only, this time, he answers it:
Has our culture shaped our faith or has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question we started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He has nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.
This is amazing. Mr. Patel takes a few hundred words to say “I cannot say.” But he still says. Pure crap. Yet again. So we don’t worship Brahma simply because he gives us nothing? Does this lunk even have a clue what the concept of Brahma stands for? Or for that matter, that Brahma is worshipped in the idol form in Pushkar (yes, Mr.Patel, Pushkar is in India) and at least three other places? Besides, does it occur to him that we don’t “petition (sic)” Gods for always getting some material benefit? We do it to derive strength, to pray for a loved one; sometimes we do it for its own sake, we do it for fun, and sometimes, for no reason at all. Now what are the reasons devout/staunch Christians and Islamists pray: let’s start with fear as a reason…
Aakar Patel almost convinces us that stupidity is rewarding.
Tags: Aakar Patel, Charity, Commentary, Culture, Daana, Dharma, Dharmashastras, Generalizations, Half-baked Knowledge, Hinduism, India, India vs West, Indian Philosophy, Live Mint Article by Aakar Patel, Money-making, Philantrophy, Pseudosecularism Hall of Shame, Society, Society & Culture, Wealth
Z, there are two extremes in your post.
1. Exaggerated sense of “honor killings”. What are these killings, btw?
2. The hope that diverse cultures can come together on some platform of a nebulous “Indian” society.
I would readily agree that each culture is sufficiently conservative and traditional.
However they stand on distinct cultures and traditions that will need to be given up if this chimera of an “Indian” culture should be realized.
This dream is shared by the liberal and necessarily starts with dismantling Hindu society.
A nightmare which will be fought every step of the way by self respecting Hindus.
This Aakar patel as the name aptly goes is just Aakar (form) and no substance inside. Looks like this low-esteem guy has taken the jokes and stereotypical remarks about his surname too seriously and went on to write a long dumb article trying to blame India and its culture to cover up his personal ineptitude. Its India where nothing is impossible (literally), its India that has always been the true land of opportunities for all men of the planet and it is in India echelons of optimism can be seen in the midst of hunger, poverty and filth.
to whomsoever it may concern
GOD HELPfrom such crap..have we not had enough of such rubbish gushing through such seemingly cheap and utterly detestable characters.pardon for all the inappropriate words and hopeless english because such is the fury that any rationale human, indian or not, will go through that it is practicallyy impossible to maintain any form of decorum.such shameless beings with least self esteem are still being tolerated by their own society out of decency for all their opportunistic ways with life since these people would like to hide behind their frustrations due to their failure to cope up with life that they utter such nonsense sitting behind four walls well concealed from the outside world.
well coming to the point the gentleman(if i may say so) in question has asked about indians not worshipping the god brahma the creator .such is his ignorance of the society that he comfortably ignores the fact that it is only in the indian society that the parents continue to be looked after by their off springs.(i do not know if this character does in real life).are they not our immediate creators if i may use the word.
as for religion without going into the nitty gritties let me remind this character that hinduism unlike other religions is not a religion but a way of life which is mistakenly understood as religion.the various vedas and scriptures through their different styles of narration tells as to what in their perspective is good and what is not good.different people have different perceptions about how to go about it and they practice that which they consider the best under the given circumstance.
talking about opportunism india, if this person is aware,is one of the few that never practiced racism in any form and whatever societal divisions have taken place have been entirely a matter the life style pursued. we never perpetuated any war(remember first or second world wars).we might have fought battles but never full fledged wars to occupy neighbours territory.does this person know that it is in the interest of these so called developed countries to maintain the ongoing tensions between different countries in various parts of this world so that their arms sale and their interests are served.does he think that it is out of love that these developed countries interfere in the matters of middle east.can anyone imagine such interest had it not been for the oil.what is the presence of these countries as in africa or in Pan America.if it was the British,French spain and germany colonising others it is a different form of colonisation.so much for wholesale opportunism of the developed countries.
speaking of charitable disposition of men and matters with due respects to persons and personalities referred by this person,let him know that Bill gates (the richest individual) owns the grandest of mansions costing $113 million and that is some way to live .well it may be that mr.gates spends quite a bulk of his fortune in charities.without casting any sort of aspersions on his laudable actions let us accept that it is after providing sufficiently for his self like we all do when we extend our own helping hand to some causes that are dear to us again within our own means.the same goes for rockfeller and andrew carnegie who were richest and second richest in their times.what this person needs to understand is that charity begins at home (to quote an english phrase).as for ambani charging fees for his international institution does he expect ambanis to run such schools for free so that our friend or his kith and kin pursue studies there and leave for some khushi job somewhere in his land of opprtunity (so much for opportunism).and what does he know about the various trusts run by ambanis or similar other corporates.regarding the ethics of life i would ask this person to read the biggest frauds commited by CEOs across and see how many are indians in that.
i am not here to say that all that is happening in india is right but then the present conditions are created by the present day lifestyles where it amounts to the survival of the fittest. again not by an indian of course.the rate at which our family orientation is falling apart is of great concern.the greed for more and more(ramalingarajus) is quite frightening with all the prevailing inequalities such changes are bound to bring anarchy and put our already suffering people to suffer further,
we as indians have to start thinking the root causes for this and see what can be done to stop further disintegration instead of gloating over its maladies.india/indian baiting has become the fashion of our youth particularly ones that have comfortably deserted it through hook or by crook.and when they have decided to stay away why show such concern without meaning to do anything about it.the least they can do is to keep their mouths shut and for others by not propagating such things around. try such things with a german a Japanese or Chinese or any other but an indian you will see what you get back
enough man enough of this nonsense.drive some sense into yourself
sincerely
someone concerned about your disintegrating self
Excellent blog! Really appreciate your patient effort in countering the crap of Mr Aakar Patel.
Indians have to carefully read Gita and go to change the world.
SIN OR PAAP EXPLAINED IN BHAGWAD GEETA
The use of the word “sin” in BG is very interesting. Sin or paap in Geeta appears to be defined as not doing ones Dharma / duty / responsibility. (English Word “duty” may not be appropriate as it connotes binding or attachment or Karma) This is a unique definition that seems to serve me well.
There are lists of things that one shall not do. “ Shall not’s or Do not’s” involve moral absolutes ( Sins of Commission) like greed , anger, killing or murder , adultery, lying, robbery, making fun of others, hoarding, cheating etc … When I started looking deeper into these, I found that it is impossible to come totally clean. Trying to do becomes very rigid and paradoxically, I commit more sins. We can keep adding to the list, pride, abuse, shouting, disturbing, cheating, harming, gossiping, telling white lies etc and these are very common. All of these are daily part of our lives, we some time or other have lied just to make daily interactions slide easily in dealing with people. Many of us have cheated even a little bit some time or other, perhaps without knowing. In some circumstances we even feel these lies are justified, politically correct and appropriate.
As I read in Mahabarata I see Arjuna struggles in defining Sin. One writer puts it “Arjuna also succumbs to this misconception and hence he thinks that fighting against his relatives, teachers and friends and killing them will be like committing the worst sin possible. That is because he thinks fratricide is moral absolute sin.” Arjuna wants to run away from the war and become an “ahimsic” like a vegetarian Sanyasi!
Geeta does not want to define Sin as I would like to think. It is not about committing bad acts such as lying, stealing, etc as I mentioned earlier. Krishna himself did many sinful acts, for example stealing butter when he was a kid and deceitfully killing all the four great enemies Bheeshma, Drona, Karna and Duyyodana. How can we explain such sinful/deceitful/ adharmic actions by the very Lord Krishna? We try to explain that stealing butter was just a cute and mischievous act and his intension of killing was good, in getting rid of evil doers in establishing a “Dharmic” world. We all like to see “evil” people somehow have to be terminated. But stealing and killing however graded are considered sins.
Moral absolutes as listed earlier are sins of commission and no one can be without any trace of moral blemish and Geeta purposely does not define moral absolutes. One can never ultimately define how good a moral code is good enough code or how bad an immorality is bad enough. We are used to more common white lies and we do not think it is bad. One can justify a simple anger, but it is the anger that breeds violence and even murder. One can call the anger a small sin and the killing the worst sin. But both are sins. Perhaps a saintly person may not express his anger but just the thought of anger itself is a sin.
But as human beings it is OK to grade sins, so we can lock up and punish thieves, rapists, and murderers just to keep the society relatively safe. These are good human laws, no different from the traffic rules but Geeta does not talk about these kinds of laws and it goes more deeper.
It appears Geeta is not so much interested in the sins of commission or the moral absolutes. Paradoxically evil adharmic Duryodana gets a seat in Heaven to the surprise of Yudhishtira and this makes the stories in MB paradoxical but equally powerful.
Now, what is the real message of Geeta about SIN or Paap? As I mentioned earlier Sin in Geeta appears to be defined as not doing one’s Dharma or Swadharma. Dharma is defined in many ways. My understanding is Dharma is the non binding action (BG 2:47) but it is usually misunderstood as the English word “duty” which is actually binding and is external. Dharma is something that comes from inside of a person and is unique to each person (Swadharma) it is not externally forced like “paradharma.” Dharma calls each one of us to get into action regardless of the fruit of action. Fruit of action is not factored as it is conditional or binding.
Sin or PAAP is when we know (Jnana) according to each of our unique credentials (swadharma) that we can do something to make a difference but we do not act or do it. Sin or PAAP also mean copying other person’s Dharma (paradharma) just to look good to others (Geeta 3: 35)
Geeta is not about the negative things such as not to steal not to lie etc, (which are defined as sins of omission) but it is about doing something in a positive and in non binding loving way.
Misunderstanding the Geeta is the literal interpretation of the war scene and trying to deal with the so called evil people whom we dislike. Geeta also confuses many people how the ideology of “Ahimsa” or the non violence is applied in the war scene where Krishna clearly tells Arjuna to fight which obviously is a violent act. Some writers argue that Krishna tried diplomatic efforts before the war. It was only when this failed he asked Arjun to fight, so the violence was justified. Didn’t the all knowing God Krishna know evil Duyodana would not yield to any sweet deal? To me it appears this was purposely played and was nothing to do with the human understanding of diplomacy, fighting the war, finishing off the enemy and living happily forever as in fairy tales. Paradoxically Krishna says to Arjuna that he himself has already killed the enemy!! Then what is the purpose for Arjuna to fight? When taken literally it is confusing indeed.
Geeta, when read literally makes us think that we need to be like Kshatriya Arjuna and we have a “moral” duty (Binding) to finish off the people whom we think are evil. We mistakenly think it is all about Good over the Evil. Festivals such as Navaratri and Deepavali are based on the celebration of the victories of Rama and Pandavas. We fail to realize Evil can never be completely destroyed as we observe in several avatars of Vishnu. Don’t get wrong, I too like to see the terrorists completely eliminated so we can live peacefully forever. The way we understand “Peace” is nothing but an illusion.
Geeta is considered universal and it cannot be just for Kshatriyas or warriors. How about for non Kshatriyas? For a Brahmin or a vaishya or a Shudra who do not go and fight in a war? I wish Krishna sat down with each section of the society to give his clear message. But the message was given in a war scene full of sight, sound and vividness. The author of the Geeta has cleverly used the war scenes graphically and metaphorically. A Brahmin is not trained as warrior and he cannot be expected to act like Kshatriya when faced with an enemy. Mahatma Gandhi was not a literal Kshatriya. He mentioned that he was profoundly inspired by Geeta. As we read there is literal violence in Mahabharata. I think Gandhi was able to understand this powerful metaphor and unleashed his weapon of Satyagraha in getting the British out of India. Gandhi’s word Satyagraha is more meaningful than the word nonviolence. We do not see nonviolence in the literal war of Mahabharat. Gandhi appears to have recognized the metaphor; the war scene literally described in MB is about the war each person faces in his/her daily life. Gandhi becomes no less a warrior but a different style of warrior. Perhaps we can call him a peaceful warrior.
Geeta also purposely makes it clear that no guarantee to the fruit of action is given and even the great warrior Arjuna was not guaranteed the victory in the war. It was not the intention of Krishna just to make Arjuna clearly kill all the enemies, guarantee victory in the war, guarantee protection of the people and guarantee in bringing a “Dharma” world forever. As mentioned earlier he even tells Arjuna that these people are already killed by him! In another chapter of BG he tells that he keeps coming back again and again whenever Adharma starts to rule the world. I wonder why as a God he cannot take care of all the evil in one shot. The message is good and evil are always there but Geeta challenges me “What I can do at this moment and at this place given my credentials?” Geeta wants to know how we respond at this time and at this place to needs of the world given our education, training, skills and expertise.
Going back to the moral absolutes, how about actions like murder, rape, child molestation etc? It is not as simple as putting the people who commit such crimes away. As a civilized society it is about how we respond to such crimes. How do we respond to the injustice in this world? Yes, these people must be restrained or punished but far more important are the efforts to break the cycle of systemic injustice. Here Geeta is not clear to me. But it seems it knows that the proportional justice by finishing off the enemy will not bring the healing and it can only multiply the pain. Mahabharata did not end in “finally they all lived happily forever”. Diplomatic efforts were done before the war in vain. I guess all knowing Krishna purposely lets the war to take place and brings the evil into full force to fight. Huge epic like MB story would have ended if the enemy had settled in reconciliation and the most important message of doing what one has to do would not have been known.
“Bad” news and “Bad” people are always there. Earth quakes, famine, poverty, cancer, domestic violence and so many social evils happen every day. We can keep talking about these, blaming about these as Karmas, complaining about these, comparing about these, criticizing these and giving excuses like I am not good enough, it is Kali Yuga etc… . Geeta challenges us to stop these negative attitudes and do something positive with whatever knowledge and skills we individually and uniquely possess. Not doing so is SIN OR PAAP.