Not a while ago I came across a tweet
from Narendra Modi "From time immemorial India has been the mine of
precious ideas to human society". My purpose to quote this specific
tweet is not to discuss Modi ji or his ideology, which is immaterial in this
context. The meaning hidden in the sentence drew my attention. Statement itself
is not extra ordinary and we come across it several times
From time immemorial India has been the mine of precious
ideas to human society
From time immemorial UK has been the mine of precious ideas
to human society
From time immemorial Egypt has been the mine of precious
ideas to human society
From time immemorial Ethopia has been the mine of precious
ideas to human society
From time immemorial USA has been the mine of precious ideas
to human society
From time immemorial Christanity has been the mine of
precious ideas to human society
:
:
:
From time immemorial Islam has been the mine of precious
ideas to human society
A cursory glimpse at the statement
forced me to think – What is actually India? What is human society and what
ideas are precious? What is special with India or any other countries to claim
to be bearer of humanity?
Each individual serves the mother earth
in his/her own way so do the each country. Evolution of human spawn human
society and hence any place on earth bearing human imprint can claim to be a
mine of ideas for human society. Claiming to be a contributor is not wrong but
when this claim turn into arrogance then there starts the real problem.
This simple statement is the root of “clash
of civilization”.
The base of each problem the world is
facing today which may even be termed as existential threat for human being
belongs to a simple thinking – “My belief is better than yours, my ideology is
better than yours, my religion is better than yours, my god is better than
yours”. It may look too simpleton cause for the problem of humanity but it is
as basic for conflict as the food for life.
Who decides the definition of
civilisation, who decides what is modern and what is traditional and who
decides what is good or bad for the humanity. Constantly bringing new ideas
forward is the basic human tenet and this is what differentiates human from
other mammal. Hence bringing ideas are good but arrogance creeps in when one
assumes inevitability of these ideas to survive.
16th century onward the industrialisation
of western countries brought enormous fortune hence industrialisation become
norm for modernisation. It’s a sacred philosophy which has been accepted
blindly to achieve prosperity. Tenet of
our belief can be summed up as: more machines -> modernistion -> prosperity -> happiness.
The ultimate aim of human life is to
achieve happiness and contentment. Moving forward to achieve happiness is the
ultimate definition of modernisation. Hence it makes me curious how a person with
tons of gadget and adequate technical knowledge (but still unsatisfied) can be
more modern than a happy farmer with small land but ample produce for his/her
family and his/her society. Who decides who is modern and who isn’t? Who
decides the scientific discovery of nuclear war head is more modern than a discovery
of contour farming to sustain farming in hill side. What is more modern?
To
be continued....................
