A Srinivas Rao
Ram Rajya Baithe Trailoka
Harshit Bhaye Gaye Sab Shoka
Daihik Daivik bhautik Tapa
Ram Rajya Nahin Kahuhin Vyapa
Bayar Na Kar Kahu San Koi
Ram Pratap Vishamata Khoi
Nahin Daridra, Koi Dukhi Na Deena
Nahin Koi Abudha Na Lakshan Heena
Alpa Mratyu Nahi Kavaneu Peera
Sab Sunder Sab Viruj Sareera.
“When Ram Rajya was established in the three worlds, all were enveloped by happiness and sorrow disappeared. None were afflicted by pain, material, physical, and psychological, and enmity vanished. Under the influence of Ram, there were no differences. There was no poverty, misery, nor indigence, humiliation or ignorance, all were virtuous. They were blessed with longevity and were handsome and healthy.”
Such is the description of utopia (purportedly by Tulsidas-source unknown) which in India is referred to as Ram Rajya. Such a utopia is based on the residual consciousness of an unvarying, settled agrarian society which over the millennia has internalized the rhythms and imagery and their metaphors and idioms. Such a vision is based on a stable environment unperturbed by political, economic, demographic and technological turbulence. In the language of images, old Indian films would end with one huge smiling family cast in the iconic image of Rama and his large extended family marking that ‘they lived happily ever after’ (e.g. Hum Aap Ke Hai Kaun). In the absence of a history of political institutions apart from those of kingship and tribal republicanism, the idea of such a utopia still animates the consciousness of most Indians. In India the joint family is the fundamental unit and basis of institutional analysis. Often we are found to carry these same ideas within the organizations and institutions we populate despite their anachronism. This is especially true in family run businesses, political parties and other such formations. It might be of use to outline the history of this idea and tease out its implications about the values it underscores, its assumed norms of conduct and guidelines for leadership, organizational health or pathologies thereof.
A post pastoral Vedic society saw the economic transformation wrought through the settled territoriality of agriculture. With larger territories under the ploughshare, surpluses created a social stratification and a rudimentary political structure. The Vedic narrative reflected the secular way of territorial claim from the indigenes, which was through kingship and coercive power. The Veda claimed that Indra was anointed king of the Devas, he vanquished the Asuras and led the exultant gods to victory. This struggle against the non-aryans in the acquisition of arable land was the basis of the institution of kingship and was built upon the patriarchal systems already in place. The head of the family structure (kula) was the kulapati. Several kulas comprised a vis and were presided by a visapati; several visas combined to form a jana and were ruled by a janapati. Terms of kingship like raja, maharaja, swarat, bhoja, samrat, indicated levels of power and ritual status. With the king now collecting taxes on surpluses, he needed legitimacy to govern and thus entered into a social contract with the priestly order of Brahmins. The Brahmins who in exchange for maintenance of their position of ritual leadership and custodians of scripture and text imbued the king with divinity and later samhitas claimed that the king is the earthly manifestation of lord Prajapati. The king’s anointment was the ritual bathing of Indra himself “Aindrabhisheka” and the chief witness was the sun or Savitr; he the king was the embodiment of all the gods of the eight directions or lokapalas. He embellished his court with nine gems (ratnins), the general, priest, treasurer, charioteer, tax collector, village head, chamberlain, game manager and the queen. The king held his end of the deal by upholding the varnashrama dharma (caste system) that ensured the privilege of the brahminical order; he was the dhritavrata or the upholder of righteousness as enshrined in the order. The king chief role as described by the Brahmin was the maintenance of this social order. Such a description focused on the roles duties and responsibilities of the king and did not promote a question on the order and its inequity itself. This was critiqued by the Buddha in his famous Agganna Sutta-where the Buddha talks of the origins of private property and the social order. He refers to the rise of kingship from the appointment of a chief elect called Mahasammta who later was promised a share of rice and was called the Khattiya (kshatriya) or lord of the rice field.
Patterned in patriarchy such a kingship was modeled as a great joint family. With the karta or paterfamilias, the head of the family, operating out of a common hearth; the joint family is hierarchically sustained by shraddha (loyalty) of the junior members to their elders and kripa (grace) shown by the karta and elders of the family. Deviations were met with resistance or punishment and conformity to the greater good was the expectation from members. While duty bound roles were fostered by the joint family an alternative narrative of power was also prevalent. Early notions of social order were based on notions of power and penal authority and were developed into an idea of Danda Niti (punitive ethics). Rather uncharacteristically the Chandogya Upanishad says that “power is superior to knowledge…..by power the world stands firm.” The Manu Smriti notes “punishment alone governs all created beings, punishment alone protects them, punishment watches over them while they sleep. The wise men declare punishment to be identical with the law.”
In such a patriarchy two characteristics are significant i.e. duty bound roles and power against which Indians have styled their archetypes. Of these archetypes two merit a closer look i.e. Ram and Indra. I shall follow some of the delineation done by Late Prof Pulin K Garg in the characterization based on some old notes. Organizations are embedded and are creatures of their environment and adaptation to change is their marker of health. Indeed as the cliché suggests “external adaptation and internal integration” is a sign of good health. The anachronism in using the ideal picture of Ram Rajya is that it is silent on many of the important sources of conflict within organizations/institutions. The first of it is that power is not evenly distributed with responsibility as most power is concentrated in the head of the family or Ram. All members are extensions and agents of Ram and not autonomous entities. With the surrender of agency and autonomy members only carry out orders even when contrary to their sense of reason or ethical belief. When an institution’s goals become complex and multidimensional this surrender of agency by individuals tends to overburden the leadership. The good of the whole is Ram Rajya and consequently individualism or alternative goals have no place in the system. Often they are rooted in an image of a golden age (Treta Yuga) and are prisoners of history following time tested routines than generate innovative solutions.
Entrepreneurial firms and family businesses are often modeled on patriarchal lines and the enterprise is one large joint family with the karta as Ram. Large institutions like political parties and governments also assume such metaphorical imaginings (take for example any Indian political party with no internal democracy, or even the RSS with internal democracy). They flourish for a while that the centralized authority is able to manage the external interfaces of organization and environment. Often several family members assume positions of responsibility within such firms. The good of the system is what everyone works towards with a sense of filial responsibility and obligation. Everyone is allotted set of responsibilities and all authority is centralized. These styles of management and leadership do work for a while but as the environments become more complex and turbulent they cause stress within the system. When the tasks of the leadership becomes complex and burdensome, surrogates are sought within the system who fashion themselves in the same mould. When members act with a sense of duty and obligation then ‘must’ and ‘should’ of everyone are clear. In such a system people measure their worth by the sacrifices they make and act out of self righteousness. This develops feelings of guilt and frustration and prolonged denial of authority makes many of them indecisive in times of crisis. The members tend to insinuate themselves and be indispensable for the top management. The patriarchs then make for lifetime appointments and the succession is not a smooth transition. The successors struggle to fill the very large shoes, are stuck in the past and are haunted by the ghosts of their predecessors and their solutions.
The alternative metaphor is around power and is based on Indra, the chief of the gods, the slayer of Vritra (probably a dam on the Saraswati River). This model of leadership is based on centralized power but with the ‘thousand eyes” of Indra who can see everyone and everything. Charisma is often used to great affect. Power is distributed to only a few individuals who use coercive authority and position to sustain performance and accomplishment of organizational goals. The Vajra (thunderbolt)of Indra is used to punish (as against the Kodanda bow of Ram which protects) and instill fear. When environments are simple and stable the model works. Yet what are interesting are the pathologies of such organizations when they begin to fail. Since power is so parsimoniously given, it is jealously guarded and dismisses competence, credibility and influence that are seen to be approaching them. No one is seen to have real merit and a culture of anxiety and distrust prevails. Many are subject to being fitted to the Procrustean bed. Information is seen as power and is released and withheld to secure ones own position. Close supervision and a constant search for alibis or scapegoats keep reinforcing internal myths around failure to perform. At its worst such organizations under extreme cases use power for personal gain and misuse organizational resources for their own self which has no relation to the goals of the institution. Such organizations are averse to feedback and consultants are called in to reinforce their internal beliefs. These models are residues and influences of the joint family system which could provide stability, security and continuity. However its faults lay with how it could not manage differences and accommodate diversity of goals and aspirations; its crushing conformity and killing of initiative.
However there was only one person who gave the idea of Ram Rajya the delineation that eluded the poets and that was Gandhiji. Ram Rajya to Gandhiji was not a simple model based on the joint family. It is a more complex and sophisticated vision that was Indian in orientation tempered by Western liberalism and the Christian notion of ‘agape’ that Gandhi brings in. It was a pluralistic vision based on being synthetic of a diverse range of influence and civilization, decentralized village level society; committed to tolerance self-restraint and universality, founded on moral authority of ones own self. His vision was also called Hind Swaraj a society free from oppression, exploitation and violence; a civilizational enterprise. It meant accommodating the voices of minorities, justice for all and being spiritual than narrowly religious which translated socially as ‘wiping every tear from every eye’. Yet before we could understand how such a transformation could be effected he concluded his epic ministry in our midst with the words “He Ram”.
No comments:
Post a Comment