Two articles on the same page of a leading newspaper caught my eye
because of their interesting and contrasting themes. Manu Joseph’s article was
sarcastic, lambasting all liberals as mediocre except for a handful he graciously
and grudgingly compliments for possessing talents adequate to put forth their
views forcibly. Gurcharan Das on the other hand pleads for cultivating pleasure
by blending Yang(doing energy) with Yin(the joy of being alive and of doing
things for the sake of pleasure and happiness)
Manu Joseph’s hard hitting attack on the liberals- he doesn’t put his
finger only on the current crop of liberals, but derogatorily sweeps away
almost all liberals who, according to him are in the “organized compassion
industry, creating insubstantial news with a moral compass”. The Moral compass,
he says, makes them the darling of the elites who share with these liberals
pseudo empathy for the poor and the marginalized groups of society. While there
is some truth in his criticism of pretentious liberals, that includes young idealists from affluent
families who take to social work in order to be a part of the elites’ league,
Manu betrays a high degree of intolerance towards the Left liberals and Left leaning writers and activists who
champion the cause of the victims of
‘social frailties.’
In an interview after the release of his third novel Ms. Laila, Armed and Dangerous, Manu
Joseph had made a disturbing statement
that “Evil is an equal opportunity
society. Good is actually a society where there’s nepotism, especially in the
JNU crowd, in the Left liberal set up.” Who disputes(this includes the
communists and the Left leaning activists and journalists)the fact that “ equal
opportunity society” is an impractical idea, and this dream wish remains incarcerated within those three words with
zero possibility of becoming a reality. But for Manu, such a society is not
only impractical, it is also evil in contrast to the society that admits nepotism,
patronage and favouritism –which Manu designates as ‘good’. One cannot help reacting,
that this is his own personal ideological bias shorn of ‘empathy’, which he
mockingly credits the liberals as being suffused with. Can any society be fair
when it gives unfair benefits to some and denies the same to a large majority
who are not within the compass of those in power? Can there be a just society where
to talk about equal opportunity is being pro evil and anti-good? In the same interview, Manu hits out at communists
whose professed attempt to save the world moves people and that such extreme
altruism raises a question mark on their mental health. Such altruism according
to Manu appears as seemingly good without anyone realizing that the person rots
inside and is destroyed by his own idealism. “Extreme uprightness in a person”,
says Manu Joseph, “is a psychiatric condition.”
For him truthful presentation of social frailties in literature and
journalism destroys art as it amounts to celebration of weakness. Parallel
cinema, novels that deal with the marginalized and deprived society, according
to him inhibit artistic and aesthetic excellence. Manu seems to prefer creative
falsehood that provides the escape route from the burdens of life. Obviously he
is not aware of George Steiner’s words, “language is the main instrument of man’s
refusal to accept the world as it is.” If portrayal of reality is seen as
negative and false, we shall remain guilty of motivated writing not about things
which are, but about things which might be and which ought to be. It is
disturbing that in today’s world overtaken by consumerism, materialism, money
and selfcentreness, the alternative concepts of enoughism, essentialism, minimalism,
altruism are seen as false, un-pragmatic, unrealistic and unachievable moral
empathy. I wonder if Manu’s pragmatic ‘good’ society is a return to oligarchy
where power is invested with a few or with a small dominant class. Does this
confer happiness on all or it does not matter if a large majority is outside
this compass of happiness? Does this mean the claims of empathy made by the
liberals are false? Can one enjoy undiluted pleasure if all those around are
unhappy and miserable? We have a Tamil saying that we know nothing except doing
good to others.
Art and aesthetics have as much place in our lives as social frailties
around us are a reality. Highlighting one at the expense of the other is being
lopsided. Decrying presentation of unpleasant reality is being fanciful to
believe all is well and beautiful. There is no doubt that in recent times writers
and artists have been applauded only if they made their audience grind their
nose in dirt and filth. Such an effort does not and cannot remove the squalor
unless it is accompanied by a positive attempt to cleanse it. It is one thing
to sensitize people to the ugliness and squalidness around them, but to remain
forever in that state of wretchedness actually has a reverse effect of turning people
insensitive and apathetic to it. In the same way to label liberals as being
pretentiously empathetic and falsely taking umbrage within a moral compass is
similar to calling critics of establishment as anti national. There has to be a
balance and this is what Gurcharan Das speaks of as cultivating pleasure. He
seeks the union of Yin and Yang, which in simple terms is to realize one’s
energy to do that which gives pleasure and happiness. This was what Sartre said
when he spoke of finding meaning for one’s existence by taking responsibility
for one’s actions, factoring in its positive impact on fellow beings. Manu’s
article is a serendipitous affirmation of Gurcharan Das’ title of his
interpretation of the Mahabharata “It is
Difficult to be Good” today as it was during the days of the great Indian
epic. There isa wise old saying in Tamil, “we know nothing more than understanding
and enjoying others’ happiness.”
Gurcharan Das’ positive attitude to life through cultivating pleasure
is in line with Martha Nussbaum’s enjoinment to cultivate humanity. No one can
be happy in isolation. That will make prison houses the most sought after. No
one can be happy if others around are unhappy. No one can be happy if it is not
noticed by others; still worse if others are in misery. Happiness for oneself
is dry happiness- what Victor Hugo says, is like dry bread which we eat, but do not dine. Happiness for self and others is fulfilling and wholesome.
Cultivating happiness is a by- product of cultivating humanity. In doing things
we energize ourselves; in doing things for the pleasure and wellness of fellow
humanity is the simple recipe for cultivating happiness. “ Happiness does not
lie in happiness , but in the achievement of it” (Fyodor Dostoevsky)
