Reversal of Values

(A)

Shakespeare’s remark at the beginning of ‘Hamlet’: “Fair is foul and foul is fair”: typically illustrates reversal of values. The guess may be hazarded that this topsy-turvying of values or mores of behaviour is inherent in the very nature of values. Close reflection will elucidate the origin and evolution of values down the ages according as the norms and ideals have suited our purpose. That is to say, the utilitarian aspects of values have to be recognised, willynilly. The concept of universality of values is largely exaggerated in as much as virtues such as honesty, truth and “Ahimsa” were recognised as of universal importance because of their utility in consolidating and stabilising society, in maintaining a moral ethos which was considered as informing the human psyche by virtue of protracted observation of such virtues in the interests of social cohesion. Naturally, therefore, when these high-sounding values failed to deliver the goods, they were treated as Non-values. The human history is witness to this glaring reality, howsoever unsavoury to us, in so far as conceptual thinking is concerned.

It cannot be easily gainsaid that the so-called Universal Values were nursed and nurtured in the laps of religion which has governed the life, the thought and feeling of all civilised communities. Even the tribals have their own faiths in which they are more firmly rooted than we and maintain certain norms of conduct which are “values” in our educated jargon. Let it be brought home very clearly that, values will cease to be values the moment they cease to minister to our purpose, to serve our ends. It is an altogether different proposition that this purpose or end lends itself to variation in proportion as the human kind progresses along the road of enlightenment. Accordingly, Utility has been the corner-stone of the magnificent edifice of values, coming to be raised through the ages.

A paradox in human history has been that while utilitarianism has given rise to principles or Ideals, the latter have, oftener than not, lost their pristine glory in the actual business of living because of their failure to respond to our needs or expectations. Being born of utility, prospering in utility and then falling down from the original illustrious status because of their losing utility - such has been the chequered history of Values in the pragmatic domains of existence. This is not to negate the importance of certain values regarded as universal over the millenia. The only point sought to be made is that while the basic merit of such values remains accepted in theory, in the pragmatic sphere they forfeit their universality. The yawning gulf between precept and practice has characterised our odyssey to the desired haven of peace and prosperity. And, if mankind has recorded mile-stone after mile-stone in its onward march, that illumines another inherent yearning of the human soul that tears to tatters the pall of clouds enveloping it intermittently. When our Vedic Seers uttered the celebrated phrase: “Charaivati, Charaivati” they pinpointed the essentially dynamic ethos of the inner soul.

(B)

Our two national Epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, symbolise conflicts of values. Spectacularly enough, the two Wars were triggered off because of the gross humiliation meted out to Women: to Seeta and to Draupadi. The abduction of the one and the denuding of the other in the public gaze were sought to be avenged by Rama and the Pandavas respectively. Protection of the dignity and honour of the Fair Sex was a paramount value in those times of antiquity, at any rate, among civilised communities. Adoption of arms became an inescapable desideratum to protect and vindicate Feminine Honour.

It is significant to note that Arjuna, the valiant warrior, was totally averse to taking up arms against his own kith and kin, ignoring the gross disgrace to which Draupadi had been subjected. He also endeavoured, consciously or unconsciously, to uphold a familial value, not to kill his own kindred. But Lord Krishna appears on the scene and dilates upon the virtue of “Nishkama karma”, action unattached with any desire for fruits, till then not known in the domain of Indian Philosophy. He propounded a New Value, chiefly out of pragmatic intentions inasmuch as participation of Arjuna, the “Savyasachi”, in the ensuing war against the Kauravas became a necessity. That is to say, a Purpose had to be fulfilled, namely, the avenging of the humiliation meted out to an illustrious lady of a reputed dynasty. This utilitarian aspect motivated Lord Krishna to formulate a whole glorified concept of “Desireless Action”.

But, one has to remember here that the obviously major and more celebrated Value of “Ahimsa” had to be sacrificed because it failed to accomplish the desired end.

The above brief allusion to the Mahabharata context with special reference to the ‘Geeta’, the philosophical treatise, goes to illustrate the thesis that Values cease to be values when they fail to subserve an end in a particular set-up. It is one of the ironies of history that war becomes a Value because an End, regarded as most precious in the existing circumstances, cannot be achieved by taking recourse to the Value of Non­violence. The Lankan War, too, portrayed in the Ramayana by Sage Valmiki, glorifies War as a Value in order to accomplish an End, considered noble and of far-reaching implications.

Significantly, adoption of arms is sanctioned in the ancient Indian thought. In the ‘Geeta’, Lord Krishna has spoken out candidly that whenever “Adharma” preponderates over “Dharma”, He incarnates Himself in order to protect the holy and the pious and to destroy the wicked and the impious. The Upanishads glorify Peace (“Shantih, shantih, shantih”) as the supremest value to be pursued, but this much-desired Peace is contingent in Indian thought upon the destruction of Evil and Impiety which militate against all canons of culture and enlightenment.

Accordingly, the proposition seems fraught with a measure of acceptability that values get reversed in changed circumstances, in communities endowed with divergent mind-sets. And, also, when tall personalities in history, burning with a Vision, no matter, sometimes mainly of a personal character, exercise their genius to formulate a new Concept of Value. Lord Krishna adduced justification for the Mahabharata War under the plea of vindication of “Dharma”, the Cosmic Law, which, translated into actual life, encompasses the entire gamut of human behaviour. The grand old warrior, Bhishma, acknowledged the justice of the cause of the Pandavas. Nonetheless, he elected to side with the Kauravas inasmuch as – as he perceived it – he had “eaten the salt” of Duryodhana. “Kritaghnata” or Ingratitude was considered a heinous sin by him and he elevated Gratitude to the status of a supreme Value. There are many more instances of the kind.

The case of Lord Rama, too, comes pat to our purpose. His is an example as to how values get altered under the pressure of circumstances. Protection of Feminine Dignity had inspired him in invading Lanka and destroying the Demon King, and the same Rama abandons his noble spouse, whose chastity had been established through the Fiery Ordeal, because of his solicitude to protect his personal honour, that is, in order to eradicate the likely blot of calumny on his personal escutcheon in accepting Seeta who had passed a period of time under the aegis of Ravana. The acceptance and then rejection of Seeta by Rama illustrates how values get embroiled in a tangle-wood of perceptions in changed circumstances, entailing the application of the adage “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi”. Will it become too harsh a comment to affirm that Fair became Foul and Foul became Fair in this historical case?

(C)

As suggested just above, Perceptions exercise a major role in the determination of the respective merits of the values. The choosing by Bhishmapitamaha to side with Duryodhan is a case in point. The Women’s Liberation Movement, a direct off-spring of the earlier Movement known as “Feminism”, bids fair to topsy-turvy the entire gamut of relationship between man and woman. Phrases like “male-dominated society” or “male-oriented society” have acquired popularity at the present day. It will tantamount to sheer “philistinism” if women are denied their legitimate status in the social ‘and political’ dispensation. “Man and woman are equal, but not identical”, declared Tennyson in the ‘Princess’. ‘Gender equa1ity’is Value and must be exercised in an possible sphere”. But, whether they will insist upon their total “identicality” with men is a moot question. Is not the institution of Family, no matter, “nuclear family”“ a Vales unto itself? Sex is a delicate issue: Will absolute freedom in matters of sex conduce to family or even social cohesion? In realms of poetry, poetesses like the late Kamladas, writing in English, have advocated rather unbridled freedom in matters of sex. Emotional starvation is one of the causes she has adduced in her poems in her defence. The present writer has come across certain poems of hers in which she blames her sexual liberties upon her insensitive husband. Making all allowance for her especial marital circumstances, the sixty-four dollar question nevertheless arises: Can sexual liberty be assigned the status of a Value in cases both men or women? Libertinage, in any case, will lead to disintegration of the social structure. Accordingly, Liberty, a precious value in itself, will become a “dis-value”, rather a positive threat.

A further question of importance crops up here: Can correspondence between values of life and values of poetry be achieved? The poet, riding the wings of Fancy, enjoys full liberty in creating portraits of sexual abandon, and Creative Liberty will be deemed a positive Value. Even the Sanskrit Poetician belauds creative freedom when he declares: “The poet alone is the Creator (Prajapati) in the world of poetry which he fashions according as he pleases”. Can this poetical liberty be accorded to individuals in actual life? To our knowledge, Shelley tried to “live” his fancy in actual life and he had to be disillusioned and he suffered and bled on “the thorns of life”. This leads us to affirm that values of poetry are likely to turn into “dis-values” in life. In the ultimate analysis, then, a reversal of values takes place in such cases.

Let us allude to the political scenario obtaining today in the country. We often hear of “Value-based politics”. That presupposes the existence of a set of values also in the political domain. Subserviance of national interests, elevating the “have­-nots” to a position of viability, the much ­publicised “social justice”, globalisation of national economy, liberalisation in the sphere of economic entrepreneurship, verging on the concept of “Laissez fairie” etcetera - all these have acquired the complexion of values today. No sane person will take exception to these concepts despite there being sufficient room for disagreement in matters of actual application. This is, however one facet of the problem of national politics.

Another major aspect is linked with the value of Morality which is steadily becoming eroded because of the contending political parties joining to acquire or retain power which is inescapably linked with politics! “Power Politics”. That political parties spring into existence with the sole purpose of capturing power cannot be controverted, much less faulted. What causes concern is the strategems or strategies adopted by these parties. What is called “horse-trading” has become the bane of our politics, and to cap all, the series or chain of multiple Seams and Scandals, instances of, ‘Pay-off’s” and, “Kicks”, has raised question marks: “Is the democratic structure of our polity at all going to pay the desired dividend?” To call a spade, a spade, Politics, the Charming Courtesan, has polluted the very roots of our national psyche.

(D)

Turning to the broader context of modern outlook on life, the Cult of “Consumerism” is assuming anxious magnitude. It is eating into the very vitals of human existence. The basic values are all but wholly invaded by this attractive cult. It, in a way, suggests that our faith in nobler and higher accomplishments is evaporating, yielding room for ministering to the calls of the flesh, ignoring those of the spirit. Is Consumerism poised to acquire the status of a Value? Is it not the baneful consequence of a marriage between commercialism and concupiscence? Leaders of thought have to emerge out of their cosy cocoons of abstract speculations and to confront this alluring but portentous problem.

To conclude, we would like to clarify our stance vis-a-vis Values, regarded as universal. Truth honesty, non-violence and other similar virtues remain Universal Values in the larger and nobler context of human progress and enlightenment although famous ancient writers like the Latin Satirist Juvenal have pronounced their pragmatic verdict: ‘Honesty is praised and starved”. Instances of Christ and Socrates are also frightening. Nevertheless, the universality of such value stands vindicated through the vicissitudes of human history.