I have read
one book by Pankaj Mishra (I don’t recall the title) about the birth of
national/ international leaders and thinkers in India, China, Afghanistan
etc. I liked the book. The tile of this book resembles the tiles of
Eric Hobsbawm who wrote ‘Age of Extremes, Age of Empire, Age of Revolution
etc. I have read only Age of Extreme.
These kinds of books survey the global history and society. They interest me because they are about
humanity and not about narrow identities of human beings like area, language or nation.
Age of Anger, starts with the
instances when murder, terror and aggression were incorporated in politics by national political activists in their own discourse, particularly those who are not Muslim in
religion or origin. This book contests understanding
often repeated in India that ‘all Muslims are not terrorists but all
terrorists are Muslims’. It also
falsifies the theory of ‘Clash of Civilizations’ not by arguments but by facts
and history. Several historical
incidents have been cited to establish the case that the cult of belief in
violence had been prevalent in the Western thought and action long before the
arrival of Muslim terrorists and ISIS.
He states that the concepts of
‘Liberty, equality and fraternity’ entered the political arena with the french
revolution and has since become part of the understanding of the masses. But masses also imbibed the horrible reality
that these have remained only slogans in the political arena for the last 200
or more years and they may never attain the benefits of such a concepts in real
life.
Pankaj Mishra, brings out the
difference in the approaches of Voltaire, one of the representatives of people
who have earned reputation and wealth etc through the working of the concepts
of Liberty, equality and fraternity’ and who went on to defend these principles
of modernity and Rousseau who contested the benefits of such modern concepts in
real life situations. He tried to establish a balance between older useful
values and modern values.
While modernity has been sold for its dreams
of having modern facilities in life to millions of people, it has not given
even a hint about the unattainable nature of the dreams for vast majority of people because of inherent inequality and modernists who
believe in the so called progress never venture to think the environmental and
other consequences of such progress and development even if such progress is possible for millions of people. The development as represented by the western
societies cannot be sustained forever.
But having sold these dreams, they have to make others believe in these
dreams.
Those who have imbibed these dreams
of progress now have come to realize that progress is very slow and the
benefits of progress do not reach not even majority if not everyone. These frustrations lead to ‘ressentiment’
(angst) which in turn fuels the anger,
the kind of mindless violence, nobody wants, everybody hates but
everybody has to face in their ordinary life.
There is no relationship between a particular religion and violence. Violence is in the nature of politics which were formulated when feudal societies started to change. Reality of lack of progress hits ordinary citizens Unattainable aspirations of millions and millions of citizens spew a few thousand extremist elements who thrive and ultimately pay the price. But societies which are inherently unequal and which do not have the wisdom to distribute wealth among its citizens on the basis of some other ideology or programme pay a heavier price in the form of unparalleled violence in the long run, irrespective of the outcome of that violence..
One of the wonderful books I have
read. Particularly in the context of
false theories of ‘Clash of Civilization’ types. It will open new horizons.
No comments:
Post a Comment