Readers Write In #833: Where the twain shall meet

By Jeeva P

I have always had a fascination with Marxism, its intent and vision of a classless society, devoid of exploitation, hierarchies and social strata. The society Marx had envisioned had no governments, no police, no armies, in other words, no relics of what we call today ‘the modern nation-state’. The utopia had no national boundaries and any human having been born at any corner of this land belonged to the entire world. He was supposed to be schooled based on his natural inclinations or what one calls ‘natural gifts’, do work that suits and satisfies his ‘inner calling’ and be allowed to wander free all over the planet and settle wherever he wishes to. In such a society, I was one hundred percent convinced that man would be able to surmount every single barrier to happiness and succeed in the mission towards living a well-rounded and a completely fulfilling life. 

But as years passed, I was slowly getting exposed to the ideas of Hindu Philosophy, its methods and practices that nurture and develop man’s inner consciousness focussing on his physical and mental well-being. All these practices of ‘the East’ I later understood were critical for the development of ‘an individual’ as opposed to Western Marxism which was bent on addressing the problems of societies and economies and countries at large. Having been diagnosed with a set of mental issues myself, the ideas behind meditation and its emphasis on focussing on the ‘present’ ignoring both the past and the future were in fact making a lot of sense to me. 

During conversations with my friends, I used to prescribe Western ideals of democracy, equality, freedom and of course Marxism for issues related to societal and political illnesses and Eastern ideals of ‘mindfulness’, ‘yoga’,’spirit’ for issues that plague individuals. In other words, if you want to go ‘out’ and address the problems of masses of individuals such as tribes, communities and countries, go ‘West’, read Rousseau, Robespierre and Marx. If you want to go ‘inward’, help a friend or two, read the Buddha, Krishna and Vivekananda. 

But frankly, despite having gulped down reams and reams of non-fiction for years, I barely found both these worlds coming together, even by accident. Those who were weaned on the Marxist schools of thought wasted no time in dismissing Eastern ideas of medicine, philosophy and spirituality as ‘regressive junk’ concocted by selfish priests and upper classes hell-bent on sucking the last drop of blood from the already emaciated proletariat. On the other hand, those who appeared to profess home-grown ideas of spirituality, karma and yoga were only too eager to reject Marxist, feminist and egalitarian ideas as ‘Western imports designed to corrupt and destroy the fabric of the already much-superior Indian culture’.

***

The first time I saw a writer commenting on both schools of thought with competence and authority was when I had the opportunity to leaf through the pages of Jeyamohan’s blog. His commentaries on Hinduism, its six schools of philosophy, their purposes, and how they played a role in the development of our societies and cultures over the years were spell-binding. On the other hand, his essays on his upbringing that happened in Marxist environments, his problems with Indian mainstream Left parties and the ways by which a lot of Indian Marxist intellectuals influenced his literary, political and social ideas offered stunning glimpses into his deep understanding of Marxism, of problems that gnawed the fabric of the now-defunct Soviet society, etc. 

This was one big reason why I keep referring to Jeyamohan on this blog every now and then in many of my essays as he appeared to be the only writer who wanted to address every single issue that troubled mankind by bringing two apparently incompatible philosophies together from both ends of the world. My mind harks back to a phrase in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s speech that he delivered on the midnight of the day of our Independence from the British – ‘to wipe every tear from every eye’ and the impact that such a vision left upon me. A society that had individuals with no issues, no tears, a land where there is no exploitation, where the big government is either largely benign or non-existent, where there are no social and economic ladders to climb or difficult targets to achieve, where people are happy and content just by being themselves!

***

I recently had the opportunity to read Aldous Huxley’s Island. The protagonist is from England if I am not wrong who accidentally is stranded on a distant fictional island called Pala. Soon he is rescued by local people who surprisingly speak two languages – Palanese and English. Pala is situated on the Indian Ocean I guess and there is plenty of oil underneath waiting to be exploited by multinational corporations abroad. Similarly for the protagonist Will Farnaby there is a lot to be unearthed from Pala in terms of the local people’s distinctive culture, their government, their model of society and their economy.

Firstly, there are no nuclear families in Pala. There are Mutual Adoption Clubs with different families clumped together. Children born to a couple must choose deputy fathers and mothers and are allowed to move across families freely. This helps them discover people with different inclinations, mental make-ups and upbringing. People with abnormal childhoods often grow up to be troubled adults and make the mistake of avenging their past by punishing their future children. It is explained that the society of Pala is made up of Adoption Clubs such as these which not only save children from troubled parents but also prepare them to embrace and navigate a variety of individuals as they grow up. 

Those who are acquainted with Marxism might find parallels to this system in Marx’s idea of communes where every kid belongs to every family in the commune and vice-versa.

Secondly, there is no mass production of commodities in Pala and hence no need for large-scale industrialization that pollutes the environment and jeopardises individual health. Individuals are taught as early as their childhood to practise meditation and various mind control techniques so as to derive contentment and happiness from their current financial and social state. No individual is allowed to accumulate fortunes more than at least four or five times the average wealth of an individual in the island and hence there is no reason for individuals to feel jealous or insecure about their place in the economic ladder. This eliminates the need for a competitive mentality and also scotches aspirations towards indiscriminate consumption and accumulation. In such a society of happy and content individuals, there would be no need for capitalist mass production and profiteering at the expense of working masses and precious natural resources. If you think Huxley’s idea of Utopia once again approaches the postulates of Marx, you are not mistaken.

Thirdly, since there is no reason to pursue large-scale industrialization, there is no need for the Palanese to innovate with respect to agriculture and commodity production except when absolutely necessary. There is one line in the book that I would love to quote – “technology is adapted to suit human needs and desires and not the other way round”. When I was reading these lines, I felt like I would have written them had I had Huxley’s opportunity and prowess to write an ambitious novel such as this. Aren’t we humans innovating merely either for innovation’s sake or with the only intention to maximise profits for a particular corporation’s shareholders? Aren’t we in such a pursuit, destroying the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of families who have been weaned on a particular technology or a mode of production for almost all their lives? How many handloom weavers, farmers, carpenters, blacksmiths, painters, clerks, writers and industrial workmen have we sent home on account of their inability to change with the times with utter disregard to the problem of providing them with alternative livelihoods?

Fourthly, there is no big, absolute government for the island as a whole and the whole of Pala is run by small, community based ‘municipality’-like structures that possess almost full autonomy with respect to funding and administration. This idea too comes close to Lenin’s ultimately unrealised idea of Soviets (village councils) with which he had planned to build the large empire from the bottom up. 

Fifthly, Huxley without going too much into detail expounds the Indian idea of yoga of love where men and women are taught practices of Tantric love that helps them fully explore their sexual dimensions. This practice Huxley hints through a pivotal character is fundamental for individuals to remain happy and content not only when it comes to relationships but also for each of them to evolve as well-rounded human beings.

Huxley through the novel also devises a set of methods where children are categorized based on their abilities, their natural inclinations, aspirations and even physical constitution. This categorization helps teachers to provide different types of training for each category measuring their progress without a one-size-fits-all yardstick for all of them.

***

It is pretty obvious that Huxley’s novel Island is not a masterpiece when it comes to the critical aspects of storytelling and characterization. Apart from the psychological arc of the protagonist Will Farnaby, there is absolutely no single, coherent thread that leads us from one event to the other in the whole narrative. Every episode is random and expository and serves primarily to give us a glimpse into Huxley’s idea of a utopian, happy society. There are of course areas where Huxley’s prowess as a prose-writer comes to the fore but overall, he makes no attempt to bring them together in the context of a compelling story. One more grouse for me with Huxley was either his complete ignorance of Marxist ideals or his conscious refusal to acknowledge them despite having written this book almost a century after their birth and widespread dissemination.