Under The Tree: AUDACITY OF HYPOCRISY

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.