I was watching a HBO Sports
report on Camel Racing in UAE, and how children as young as 2 years old are
trained to become camel jockeys. Most of these children owing from Bangladesh and Pakistan,
owing to poverty are sold by parents. Owners
of these jockey stables come from the ruling class of the oil rich kingdom, and
are also the regarded as the moral guardians of the country.
New research on behavioural
psychology states that transgression instituted by one is deemed more ‘fair’
than when others commit the same. Interestingly such transgression seems to be
volitional rather than circumstantial.
From the same perspective one such
big hypocrisy is the concept of ‘democracy’ itself. The philosophy of government
by the people for the people has totally lost its meaning. How many countries
in the world can truly attest to such governance?. But in the name of democracy
much atrocity has been committed from Iraq to Sudan to Vietnam by the very proponents
of democracy.
Abraham Lincoln, much touted as
the president who emancipated slaves in the US, himself had a narrowed perspective
on the concept. Lincoln did not think that blacks should have the same social
and political rights as the whites. In one of his debates in 1858 when
contesting for the US Senate, Lincoln stated, “I will say then that I am not,
nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and
political equality of the white and black races,” and going on to say that he
opposed blacks having the right to vote, to serve on juries, to hold office and
to intermarry with whites. What he did believe was that, like all men, blacks
had the right to improve their condition in society and to enjoy the fruits of
their labor. In this way they were equal to white men, and for this reason
slavery was inherently unjust.
Gandhi has been often branded as
a man of convenience. In his early days
he even wrote to the Viceroy of India to form an Indian Volunteer Corp to help
the British in WW2, although it did not materialize because Gandhi fell sick.
Even his “experiment with the truth” has been ridden with controversy since
Gandhi was supposed to practice celibacy.
Eventually it comes to not so
much on the action of an individual but who the individual is. The audacity of
hypocrisy appears to be louder when the beholder commands power and influence.
The story of Karna comes to my
mind in the Mahabaratha. Karna lived a virtuous life prescribing to the
philosophy of Dharma (act of righteousness and charity).
When Lord Krishna revealed that
the Pandava brothers were actually Karna’s
half- brothers and tried to dissuade
Karna from battling against his brothers, in the war of Kurushetra, Karna refused.
Instead Karna said that he had moral obligation to fight for his friend
Duryodhana of the Kauravas. Respecting Karna’s virtues Lord Krishna withdrew in
disappointment. Again when Karna’s mother Kunti approached him for the same
reason Karna only promised that at the end of the war she would still have 5
sons. He believed that only Arjuna is a worthy adversary to him and he would
keep his battle only with him not the other 4 brothers.
At the end of that battle, when
Lord Krishna appeared before the wounded Karna disguised as a Brahmin, Karna
did not hesitate to transfer his merits of Dharmam (charity) when it was
requested by Lord Krishna. It was Karna’s nature to ‘give’. Upon transferring
of this merit, Karna dies. It was believed that it was Karna’s merit that kept
him alive though he was badly injured, and it was Lord Krishna’s deed to put
Karna out of his misery. Karna, I am
inclined to believe was a character who lived to his last breath without
flinching, to walk the talk.
That was the end of Karna, one of
the greatest warriors of Mahabharata who was also the greatest “Giver”. A man who would never refuse the request for
any gift or donation, howsoever costly that might be, and irrespective of the
consequences to his own well being or security. This I would certainly state is
a character that stood beyond hypocrisy.
I had a chance to visit Mother
Teresa’s Mother House of the Missionary of Charity in Calcutta last year. I was
emotionally awe struck by the humility of Mother Teresa life. Mother Teresa
lead a humble life serving the poor and sick in Calcutta. She herself although
had the opportunity to live a life of comfort within her home, instead lived
like everyone else in the mission.
She once said, “love, begins at
home, and it is not how much we do, but how much of love we put in that action.”
She was a woman who; indeed lived by that virtue. She went on to say “intense love does not
measure, it just gives.” Such was her dedication and commitment in what she
believed and continues to live; in the hearts of many.
Does this mean one has to be a
saint to be a non-hypocrite?
I leave it to the beholder to be
the judge of their own actions.
HYPOCRISY = BELIEF – ACTION
AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY = EGO –
NOTHING
varmman@20140228
