Plato's Utopia

My personal impressions on readings about Plato’s Utopian ideology. This post only skims through the periphery of the ideology outlining a basic understanding and its relevance today. This post is a continuation of my earlier posts on Socrates and Greek political environment in 5th century BC. So, Athenian democratic system is not elaborated again here.

All of us would know Socrates; and most of us would know Plato was his brightest disciple. In my earlier posts, I had elucidated how Socrates was against the then prevailing form of democracy in Athens. As a result, he ended up in the wrong books of the rulers and was sentenced to death.

After Socrates' demise, Plato realized his life could also be at risk - there was suspicion that Plato being from an aristocratic family would share Socrates' reservations against democracy. To escape prosecution, he set out of Athens to explore the world. Egypt and Italy were among the countries he visited. He was awed by the relative development of economical and political system of Egypt. Egypt, then under the Pharaoh's rule, was a primarily agricultural economy ruled by a theocratic class (priesthood). It is common in all older kingdoms for rulers and priests to have a close nexus. In Italy, he observed the idea of a small group of learned scholars trained to live simple lives with no materialistic interests but exercise command over the country. There are also some indications that he might have also traveled East to India.

After 12 years, he returned to Athens, matured and wise by his travels and experiences and started teaching philosophy. Known for his poetic verbose, he put knowledge into poetry; science into art, ideology into daily practice. He wrote a series of books on various ideas on ethics, truth, justice, morality, governance, etc - the most important among being The Republic, a treatise on what should be the order and state of a country. Here, he paints his idealistic view of a just, noble and ideal society; what we have now come to associate with Utopia.

Plato (and Socrates) had reservations on the democratic system of Athens. He opined that ruling a country is not everybody's cup of tea; and hence should be reserved for only the capable (discussed in detail in earlier post on Socrates). But again, this should not be seen as an endorsement of aristocracy. His idea of Utopia revolves around the notion that every person has a specialized skill or trait and that trait should be identified and honed up towards excellence. He wished to build an ideal city where social classes are built around skill specializations created around people’s traits (In today's capitalistic world, this idea may sound too primitive and obvious, but we are talking about 4th century BC here).

Let's dive in a bit to see the finer points of his Utopian idea. This is where it gets dreamy and impractical; but towards the end of this writing, we'll see these ideas were in vogue to certain degrees in few countries (and continue to be so).

Utopia envisages 4 classes of society - the guardians (rulers and policy makers), the soldiers (peace keepers), the merchants (who conduct trade with outside world), the masses (produce food and commodities). This, as we can see, is similar to the Indian societal classification of Brahmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Sudras. But the similarity stops there.

Utopia’s premise is equality of education and trait-based profession. To implement Utopia, the basic prerequisite is Communism - equality of choice with no regard for emotions/partiality. The purest of human bonding is the mother-child relation; but it's also the most emotional and partial. A mother (and father) would always prefer the best for their child, and tend to promote them in spite of their limitations. For the success of Utopia, this bonding and partiality had to be cut off.

In Utopia, one's profession is determined by his traits. Every child will be separated from their parents, and put through the rigor of physical and mental education. Education will be physical for 10 years (games, gym, warfare, etc). Once the body is strengthened, mental and skill based  education (science, philosophy, trade, agriculture, etc) is imparted for the next 10 years. So, by the age of 20, every child would have received basic education. They are then rigorously evaluated; and based on capability, their profession is determined, and further specialized education is provided before they start practicing their profession. This process ensures education for all and communism of choice. A ruler's child and a cobbler's child would go through the same education; and if so be their talents, the cobbler's child would end up a ruler and ruler's child a cobbler. This is the grind-stone of Utopia's equality - equality of education, gender and opportunity.

So, by the age of 20, a youth chosen for guardian class enters the ruling council, gets trained and becomes part of the ruling council. The council devices policies and ideologies to govern the country. The soldiers support the council in maintaining peace and tranquility. The merchants trade with outside world and bring in the riches. The masses do farming and produce food. There will be utmost equality and democracy within the professions so that there is no complacency and that only the best hold the top notches. Since profession is chosen based on a person's passion/ inclination, every one is expected to perform at their best, contributing to the overall well-being of the country.

Education may give one his profession; but will it stop greed? Man's prime vice is greed; he aspires to acquire more than what he needs. A merchant will look to bend the policy of the rulers to evade taxes. A soldier being the strongest will attempt to take control of the country (we see it in today's military coups). A guardian may try to extend his control over the ruling council and influence policies to further his plans. So, how does one save Utopia from the rivalry between the classes and from Man's greed?

This is where Plato invented his 'royal lies' - the dogmas of theocracy, the belief in an omnipresent super-natural power. Plato proposed that the guardians should be void of any materialistic or carnal (sexual) desires to reach heaven. The soldiers should consider themselves at the service of the nation; any desire to subvert power would throw them in hell. And so, will the merchants if they violate rules of trade profession. The masses were the easiest to be indoctrinated as their agricultural profession is very much at the mercy of the elements. So indoctrination that violation of their profession's guidelines would enrage the Gods and thereby bring in famine/flood was sufficient enough to keep the masses in check.

So, even in an Utopian society, we see there is a need for indoctrination to keep Man's greed and desire in check. This, I see, as the beginning of orthodox religion in European society.

As we can see, Plato's Utopia is too ideal to be practical. Greed and carnal pleasures are primitive traits of humans. It's next to impossible to expect guardians/ theologians to get over basic instincts. Today, the scandals involving religious heads show the tussle of man's spiritual question with his basic instincts. It's also impractical to expect, at least a ruler to give up his child soon after birth, and not worry about what he may turn out to be; this world has seen very few philosopher kings. Hence, we rarely see true democracies in the world; and some autocracies ruled by able dictators faring better than democracies. As much as I know, China seems to follow a governing model similar to the ruling council proposed by Plato.

I would say the merchant class and general masses at least have taken some strides towards utopia. Today's capitalism can be seen as an extension of the freedom of trade and economic policies envisaged in Utopia; however, it could become overkill without proper moderation by the political class.

The general masses have achieved more liberation towards Utopia in Industrial age.

Europe is the best example to demonstrate here. In the middle ages up to the 16th century, the Roman Catholic Church (theologians/ guardians) had absolute sway over politics of most of Europe; even warring countries (soldiers) would kneel down in front of Pope and obey his orders. This was due to the total reliance of their economies on agriculture. Agriculture's dependence on the elements, and the perceived notion of the Church influencing or enabling the elements through God's intervention kept the continent subservient to the Church. But with the arrival of Industrial Revolution, and man being able to control nature or at least predict nature through science, the control of the Church slowly whittled off in Europe. As more and more third world countries turn to modernization from traditional agriculture, we can see indoctrination and religious control easing away. Utopia as a whole continues to be a dream, more due to man's own limitations than the ideology's fallacies.

So, what became of Plato? Well, he almost fell prey to the fallacies of his own ideology. Dionysius, the ruler of an Italian state Syracuse, invited Plato to set up an Utopian society in his country. But when Plato suggested the change should start from the palace alluding that the king should give up dynastic autocracy, he was imprisoned and sold into slavery. He was then bought back by his followers and taken to Athens. He later died peacefully within the safety of his home city at the age of 80.

Crows - The Mythical Food Tasters

Observing your brain at work is like living in a room with glass walls - fun for a while, but freaks you out sooner. The human brain, no doubt, is the most complex and thereby the most perplexing of human organs. Most of us, naive or not, would have amused at the way our brains act on stimuli; how our thought process non-linearly shifts across planes seamlessly (sometimes meaninglessly) and attempts to connect the dots of our life events. Many a time, I mindlessly wander, and return to sense with some idea or thought; the thought process of which would seem so bizarre. This post is a small anecdote of one such bizarre line of thought, that traveled from Europe to Akbar to pre-historic Indian tribes all of which started with an innocuous article.

The article was innocuous; but not the person it was about - Hitler. The other day, I came across a news article about the last surviving food tasters of Hitler passing away. For the uninitiated, men in power all around the world - Kings, dictators, leaders, pariahs - induct food tasters (testers) to test the food they are served; if the food tasters did not exhibit untoward behavior/symptoms, the food is signaled safe for consumption. This is to thwart attempts to poison the leader (remember Castro?). Hitler, understandably, had employed 12 German girls as his food tasters. As I was reading this news bit, my crazy brain kicked up its non-linear rendezvous into the realms of my memory pulp; thoughts flickered, sparks flew, and the scene of the article transformed into a royal court house. In the middle of the house was Aishwarya Rai - as radiant as ever (L'Oreal?) adoring a regal golden robe, eating food of a large plate. The setup was Akbar's palace; it dawned on me that my mind, in its characteristic style, has linked the food taster image, to the scene from Jodha Akbar movie, where Akbar's step mom (or was it nanny?) doubting Jodha's (Aishwarya Rai's) intentions, forces her to taste the food before passing it on to Akbar. In a jiffy, my brain has seamlessly and subconsciously connected my reading about food tasters to the movie I saw years ago, thereby plotting yet another path on my memory graph. Bravo Brain Bravo!! 

Hold on! The best is yet to come! Jodha wins over the taste buds and tummies of the courtiers; and Akbar wins over Jodha's heart by eating off her plate, and they break into another of Rahman's romantic tunes. Before I could relish in the rhythm of the moment, my crazy brain was back at work, this time, it transformed the locale into the backyard of my home, and Aishwarya Rai transformed into - a crow! For a moment, I thought the fuses have gone off my brains (and have given my wife more the excuse to pack me off to an asylum). How else would my brain relate Aishwarya Rai to the hideous and generally detested crow. But then the correlation slowly dawned as I saw my mom serving food to the crow after pujas (prayers). After the crow had its full and blessed us with its gory 'kaw', my family feasted on the prayer servings. My conscious brain couldn't relate to my subconscious! What made my brain map the food taster idea to the common crow? I couldn't recollect any prior knowledge or memory of observing crows (except for the one musing I once had that crows born in England are also equally dark in color as Indian crows). May be, it's my constant indignation for Indian customs and attempts to dig out scientific rationale behind customs that is metaphorically drawing a path here. Hey, I don't intend to subvert or mock religious beliefs - the idea that food served to crows fortnightly implies serving daily meals to our ancestors in heavenly abode - though a bit out-reaching - yet reinforces the scientifically proven theory of relativity of time with respect to space, which ancient Indians seem to have mastered long before Einstein. 

But still, from an anthro-zoological point, I couldn't stop thinking of the possibility that the idea of serving food to crows (or other animals) was more of an ancient custom of testing the food we foraged from the wild, and making sure it's fit for human consumption. Wild fruits and shrubs foraged in the wild may have been tested on animals we domesticated or lived around with, and the practice evolved into a symbiotic relationship (with dogs, cows, birds and other cattle) and further on taken a philosophical edge and got absorbed into the religious customs of Indians. Stressing the possibility more is the fact that, most of Hindu gods are mythical Kings and food served to Kings/ Gods are tested before being consumed!

This could be just me day-dreaming, with my brain spinning yet another crazy maze of semi-fiction around history and Indian traditions. Crazy as it may sound; but the more I think of it, the more it sounds plausible!!

- Arun Krishnan

Viswaroopam - It's Kamal's fault all along

William Dalrymple (famous for his books on world history) recently in an interview pointed out the whole world is portraying Islam as a violent religion which is totally opposite to historical facts. The US and Europe have screwed up the whole Middle East to meet/ suit their energy security.

Having said that, my impression of Viswaroopam (based on comments from contacts in Malaysia and US) is that the movie pivots around the very topic - paints a balanced picture of what's happening/happened in Afghanistan in the name of War against Terror. One of the movie goers (non-Muslim) commented that at one point during the movie, he could even sympathize with the terrorists.

I presume the movie if seen with an open mind will really be an eye-opener for those who paint all Muslims as terrorists; and may even try to explore the angst behind their violent means. But what is the need of the hour is tolerance; not just tolerance on the part of the majority to accommodate the insecurities of the minority; but also tolerance from the minority to be open for introspection and criticism which should be countered only through logical reasoning, and not raking up cries and veiled threats of social disharmony

Kamal Haasan is the only actor who is criticized by Muslims for being anti-minority, by Hindus for desecrating Hindu scriptures/religion (Hey ram, Dasavatharam), caste-ists for incorrect representations (Devar Magan, Sandiyar), feminists for being anti-women (Manmadhan Ambu) and movie-goers in general for making movies which are incomprehensible.

But Kamal has to be blamed for all this mess! It’s really stupid on his part to expect us to be rational and open minded. He still hasn’t learnt his lessons from Guna, Anbe Sivam, etc. He doesn’t realize that no matter how much you exhibit rave traits – be it cinematic professionalism, linguistic versatility, cultural modernism and social commitments to the extent of even donating your very body – people will only care about your vices – which actress you kissed in your movies, which lady you’re sleeping with, the controversial premise of your next film – so that they can oil their guns and aim for your head. You know why? Because this is a society which doesn’t want Change. This society hates change and hates those who make them wake up and smell the rot. Any radical thought that questions the established ‘social harmony’ is termed as ‘hurting sentiments’. We are happy with centuries of rotten socio-political systems, and are content to continue stew in our own filth. So, please stop making/ writing movies which question our beliefs. We are just as happy with our feel-good dreamy world of romantic duets by the Alps, tear jerking saas-bahu sentiments and action-packed mass heroisms. So, thank you Kamal Haasan! You may please pack your bags and leave! The flight to Hollywood leaves shortly!!

- Arun Krishnan

Why do Hindus put up Ganesha statues at street corners during Chaturti?

It's that time of the year when clay and pottery are back in vogue in India. If you are wondering whether our middle class Indians have stopped splurging on posh chinaware and Tupperware and gone back to traditional cookery, let me douse your fears right away. We are talking about Ganesha Chaturti - the season when Ganesha comes visiting our homes and puts camp at street corners blessing paupers and posh alike. But why, of all, should we put up Ganesha statues in street corners, when we have temples in his name in every village and town. Let's dig a bit into our history a little bit and understand why.

Socrates believed in God - 2

Continued from Part 1

We earlier saw traders brought wealth and knowledge of the outside world into Athens. As trade expanded, Mathematics and Astronomy grew - the increasing complexity of trade influenced Mathematics; and as traders ventured farther into the seas, they studied stars for their guidance; and astronomy grew. The increasing affluence and thereby security, afforded some of them to study these sciences exclusively. What previously were attributed to supernatural causes and magic; were given scientific explanations and reason. As they mastered these sciences, they began to apply knowledge of the stars to understand and solve life’s problems. This was the birth of philosophy.

Socrates believed in God - 1

Do you believe it! Socrates was no atheist! All my childhood, i was brought up taught (both in and out of school) that Socrates was a great philosopher who did not believe in God; and now someone tells me that it’s only partly true?! Worse still, he advocated aristocracy; seemingly, he did not have great hopes on democracy!! Socrates?? Aristocracy?!  Really?!?!

I got my hands on a  book on the life and theories of famous philosophers; from Socrates down until the contemporaries. It’s about probing beliefs and behaviors, dogmas and doctrines, and bring out real facts of the lives of people; we’re not educated these as kids, or at least not the way they should have been (intentionally or unintentionally - may be we’re too young to understand them then). This post is pretty much a recap of what i read of the life and times of Socrates, and also capture in general, the mood in Greece in 5th century BC, that begot it great philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle; and made Greece the great civilization that it was, going on to redefine European history alongside Romans. This particular post will try to paint a picture of how philosophy blossomed in Greece. 

Who introduced Outsourcing in India?

Ask this to anyone from the current generation and the fingers would most likely point to N.R. Narayana murthy or one of the IT triumvirates. Anybody with a fair knowledge of recent history and economics would be well aware of the economic liberalization in the 90s and how the IT & BP Outsourcing sector rode on its waves to lead India’s economic resurgence in the 21^st century. However, Outsourcing isn't something which entered the Indian lexicon only in the past few decades; the term has had quite a long legacy in India...

Sri Lankan Tamils

I'd invited a few friends in Facebook to the Cause - Sri Lanka's war crimes against Tamils. The response had been good; however one of my friends responded with this message: "Arun, I can understand the war crime and we need to have justice. But did you look into the cause behind the war? Was it fair on immigrants to ask for separate country?"

This post is my attempt to put down a few important mile stones of Sri Lankan history. This is not an in-depth study; and should be viewed only as a handy reference. This article in no ways justifies the violence that the struggle has faced; nor does it support LTTE - this is purely a reflection of history. I do not support the cause for a separate nation but only respect every individual's right to live his identity, and the government's accountability towards establishing an equal and equivocal society.

--

• Sri Lanka's history is as old as India's - it was a part of Indian land mass until 30,000 years ago.
• Iron Age relics of Sri Lanka dates back to 1000 BC very close to that of South India (1200 BC) 
• Sinhalese history started with arrival of Buddhism
• Sinhalese came to Sri Lanka from Kalinga (modern Orissa and part of Bengal) around 3BC. After Ashoka won over Kalinga (his last war) and as Buddhism spread, Prince Vijaya with his followers sailed to Sri Lanka and established their kingdom there.
• Mahavamsa (Dammapada) a Buddhist scripture is used as a reference of Sri Lanka history by Sri Lankan govt; hence the bias towards Buddhism and Sinhalese.
• Sinhalese language is a fusion of Sanskrit, Pali and Tamil
• During Older Chola period, Elara a Chola king established a Tamil Kingdom around 200 BC and ruled the country for over 40 years.
• There had been frequent Chola domination in Sri Lanka since then (the Pandyas supported the Singalese in turn)
• Raja raja Cholan and his son Rajendra Cholan ruled Sri Lanka for close to 100 years until 1070.
• Tamil Kingdom of Jaffna ruled over North and Central Sri Lanka from 1215 to 1624 after which British took over the whole island.
• It's true that some Indian Tamils were migrated to Sri Lanka for tea plantation work by the British. However, India took back 5 lakh Tamils back in 1964 (only the plantation workers). Since then, there has been a stereo-casting that all Tamils in Sri Lanka are migrants which is completely contrary to historical facts. Ethnic Tamils lived in the North and Eastern parts of SL, while the immigrants lived in the central hilly terrain.

Every country has its share of ethnic struggles; and it's the government's duty to allay the apprehensions of the minority.

Post independence:

After Sri Lanka got independence in 1948, both Sinhalese and Tamil were declared official languages. English continued to be the language of the administration. Back then, Tamils were generally more educated than the Sinhalese; and hence were occupying most of the administrative positions. This didn't go well with the conservative Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) which was in power since 1952. They replaced Sinhalese as the sole official language; which made thousands of Tamils jobless. Also, stricter rules were set for Tamil students in education; and in government posts; and the struggle started since then. However, this struggle was purely a political movement until the 1970s; demanding equal rights and opportunities within a single country. This led to a moderate Sinhala govt coming to power in 1965; and for the first time since 1956, Tamils got government jobs. The agitated SLFP joined with the Maoists and formed an alliance, the youth wing of which formed a guerilla group in 1971, Janatha Vimukhti Peramuna ( JVP); often resorting to violent measures to further their desire for a conservative, Sinhala based society as against a moderate, pro-Western society. With economy stagnating, the government relented in 1972; and implemented some pro-Left reforms which also included renaming Ceylon to Sri Lanka. A new constitution of incorporated with more powers to the President and the Governing Council. Sinhalese was retained as the official language; while Tamil became a 'national language'. Government then focused on measures to improve the economy and put the ethnic issue to the back burner. Tamils then contributed to 20% of the Sri Lankan population. The ethnic clashes and the Tamil problem turned violent since then...

Culture, language and religion are the unique identity of a civilization; and it's the government's duty to preserve the identity of every such community in the country. The ground reality is when nationalism turns myopic in the realms of politics and ulterior motives, the minorities suffer the most!!

- Arun