Flying Away

It has been more than six months since I had flown to United States of America. I thought I will become sentimental about India, the moment I leave it. But it didn't happen. I became numb for a long time. May be Will Durant's philosophy has killed all primeval emotions in me :-) (that's just to show that I am a cool philosopher now :-P). I stopped over for a few hours in China, but did not feel that curiosity that I felt while reading about it in Nehru's letters to Indira. Somehow everything looks very mechanical, according to the script, according to Will Durant's script :-).

Will Durant, I have been reading his Story of Civilization for a few months now. I used to think that the most interesting story is the story of man, the rise and fall, the evolution from nothing to something and then to everything. Someday I will cross 7 oceans to see his grave and thank him for all the enlightenment, just like Robespierre did when he made a secret visit to ailing philosopher 200 years ago.

The more, time passes by, the more I feel an unexplainable unrest in me. I feel a philosophical emptiness in this foreign land.

Secularism

Everybody claim to be secular in India, according to their definition of course. The unfortunate thing about democracy is that there is no easy way of telling who is right and who is wrong. Modern idea of secularism in India is a complex outcome of fusion of western idea of completely neutral state and an old culture of assimilation and acceptance. And Indian secularism is the most visible outcome of India's independence movement. Communalism was identified as the cause for some of the most regretted events in 20th century in India. So strong was this feeling that, there was a near unanimous agreement among intellectuals and politicians to suppress the currents of communalism with iron fist.

Being secular is a cultural concept where as secularism is a political prescription to guide the state's attitudes towards people for its continued existence. It is interesting to observe the history of secularism. Secularism has two distinct connotations. On the one hand, according to principles that guide most European governments it means that the state has no religion. It is as if the state doesn't even acknowledge the existence of religion. On the other hand, according to many developing multi-religious nations(like India), it means that the state respects all religions equally. European prescription on secularism is a passive one, recommending ignorance of religion. Where as, Indian prescription for secularism is a recommendation to actively treat all religions equally. The difference is so subtle, it represents the difference in evolution of nation states in the west and the east. Western nation states emerged fighting the autocratic monarchies and the illogical restrictions imposed by god and his representatives. Inquisition and the role of church had been identified as the major forces that kept humanity in dark age before the renaissance and the age of enlightenment. Widespread violence accompanied the Wars that were fought over religions. So weary were Europeans of the violence and suppression of ideas by church that they gradually sidelined it completely in their laws. Today in the west, one can mock a God, make fun of a religion and yet can claim it to be part of their right to freedom of speech.

But, the Indians didn't have that much religious violence for that long time. Religions, being moderate have coexisted with little or no violence and religion was not identified as the sole reason for stagnation in the society. On the contrary intellectuals tended to identify an Indian's soul in his religion. That's why Indian state couldn't remove religion from public life, despite so many godless men having been ruled it.

Nirvana

"A first sign of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die. "
--Franz Kafka


In school days, doordarshan TV serials and a generation old movies always depicted an unforgettable theme, that of a yogi doing prayers in the woods or in the rocks and getting Moksha. Even text books talked about how puranas, itihasas and the mighty upanishads talked about getting Moskha as the ultimate aim of any individual. Buddhas's nirvana was another word, that I heard so many times but never once understood what it means (other than that it is a cool word to use once in a while :-)).

The essence behind all these catch words is the concept of transmigration, as an immortal soul migrating from one body to another after death, and the highest aim of an individual should be to get out of this cycle of rebirth. Why do we think soul migrates from one body to another, I still haven't figured out. But I now realize the idea behind avoiding cycle of rebirth. I now see why learned men have no sympathies for human life and day to day toil for existence. After all, one cannot miss the reality of our struggles in a soulless world. And after gaining certain knowledge of history and causes of events around us, seeing the inevitable in front of our eyes, one cannot fail to realize our meaningless existence in this meaningless world.

To counter this skepticism and hopeless existence some learned men have offered religion as hope giver to the ignorant. More than everything, religion gives a man a reason to live, something to aspire for, something to look forward in the future. But what of irreligious men like me, I sense no God to protect me, to bless me, to guide me, to bring good days for me. I am alone to fight a tearful battle in a heartless world. Now I see why ignorance is a bliss, and why that religious fundamentalist in a remote village enjoys his life more than these so called modern people like me, struggling to find out a reason for their existence.

With this background, the whole concept of suicide now becomes as significant as death itself. I now see a raison d'être for the philosphy of suicide and I think it's the right time to find out what Camus had said on suicide.

Exciting times for India

It was 2004 general elections, that aroused a sense of political participation in me. Our family has traditionally been strong supporters of Congress, even when the whole region around us was hotbed of communist ideas, during Telangana struggle. The reason was one of the temples of modern India, as Nehru called them. Irrigation water from Nagarjuna Sagar had transformed our region from a semi-arid thorny jungle into a two-crop yielding rice growing area. Often I hear from people referring to the time before the water came and the time after the water came.

So, in 2004, after two drought years without irrigation water, and an apparent neglect of farmer community by CEO chief minister, everybody waited for Congress to win, and I was their messenger translating Hindi news results from DD1 (we didn't have satellite cable tv then).

I have seen the hopes and disappointments of democratic governments since then. I witnessed YSR signing free electricity to farmers bill on the day of swearing in, in front of a jubilant farmers crowd (Free electricity scheme was drastically narrowed down in 2 years, but farmers still love him and cry for him). I witnessed congress passing right to information act, a revolution of its own. But after all the high and low points of congress governments and the neighboring BJP governments, there is only one thing that stuck me, that quintessential Indian thing, that better days are just an illusion. All we see is some change, sometimes good, sometimes bad. The whole thing looks like a cycle of events, like cycle of rebirth without any Nirvana.

Despite this disillusionment, I should say there is something incomprehensible about the recent election results. First thing, I never thought the whole of India would agree on one person such strongly. I never imagined even in my dreams, that India would get rid of coalition governments, at least in the next 20-30 years. I have my fears about cultural propaganda, that is going to come, but it still is a change, and an opportunity to experiment.

Unlike what most people fear, I don't think there is going to be any communalisation of government machinery. There may be incidents here and there but sectarian strife was never welcomed by Indian people in the long term. More importantly, Congress despite its failures had built a strong case for secular India into the minds of Indians, through text books, laws and constitution. Even if the political executive in power tries to impart a color of religious discrimination to government, it will face a hard time in front of a band of secular intelligentsia spread over media, judiciary and civil society.

Delhi

First time to Delhi, didn't start on a high note. After trying hard to avoid taking a cab to airport in Bangalore, I finally decided to go by BMTC bus. Some foreigner shouted at me for not following the queue at food court(I thought I had to pay the bill first and then order, so finally ended up moving opposite to the queue). Finally while going for the interview, I was almost hit by an auto. What was I doing? I walked on the road for some time whether I should walk, or should I take the human drawn riksha to the nearest metro station. I struggled for sometime, between the inhumanness of sitting on a three wheeler with thin tyres and asking the other person to pull it for a kilometre, and the alternative of being a source of livelihood for the puller. There are too many people, than what I expected inside. There was no place to stand on the first train. It felt like Bombay local train. My thoughts drifted to what would Delhi govt do after finding that the much touted metro too is unable to take the ocean of people after a few years. Another thing I observed while waiting outside the UPSC building was the funny caps on the DTC buses.

Officials were too cordial inside the building, to write even a word against them here. CISF guard checked my pockets before taking me to the interview room, so that I am not carrying any cellphones to influence the interviewers inside(Phone call is an infamous instrument of influence in India). I waited for 10 mins outside the interview room, before the final call to come inside came. I could clearly hear my heartbeat. There were five people including an imposing figure of the chairman. I said "May I come in" but I couldn't wish 'Good evening' everyone, it seemed too artificial. The chairman said something about if I am working or not, I couldn't get it properly, made the optimum choice, and replied,
Me: Yes sir, I am working right now
Chairman: Where are you working?
Me: Sir, I am working for Google
Member 4: So, you worked for Microsoft and then shifted to Google?
Me: Yes Sir
Thats all, questions about my background
Chairman: You mentioned, you are interested in reading books especially on history and political science.
Me: Yes Sir
Chairman: What is the book that influenced you most in the last few years.
I took the 'last few years' generously and said
Me: Glimpses of World History.
Chairman: Glimpses of World History? When did you read it?
Me: When I was in 12th class sir.
Chairman: No, No, in the last few years
Me: Fatal Purity
Chairman: What is it about?
Me: Its biography of Maximilian Robespierre, french revolutionary
Member 2: Robespierre? (she spelled it differently)
Me: Yes Ma'am
It seems chairman probably wanted to make sure I am not bluffing
Chairman: Who wrote it?
Me: Ruth Scurr
Chairman: Who??
Me: Sir, Ruth Scurr, it is the author's name
Chairman: Ok. Why did the author called it as fatal purity
Hard to remember what exactly I said there, so writing in my own words (especially, my English was quite bad when I spoke there)
Me: Robespierre, was a strange personality, being called as incorruptible by some and blood thirsty dictator by others. It was all because, he tried to be true to what he believed in till the end, without any compromise at any point of time. Whatever he believed in, he tried to follow it and he was ultimately executed for that same reason.
The above thing I probably didn't say in one go, probably said after he interrupted me to say "No, what is the importance of purity there."
Some member said something about Jacobins.
Chairman: Who are Jacobins?
Me: Jacobins are revolutionaries who participated in french revolution
Chairman: Why are they called as Jacobins?
Me: Because they assembled in St. Jacobin's church for the first time.
Chairman: Now tell me what is the Jacobin's idea of purity?
I said something similar to what I said above. Chairman made it very serious,
Chairman: See, don't give me abstract answers like this. Be serious. This is important for both your career and my job. Now tell me what is the Jacobin's idea of purity. Thats all.
I said something. The chairman didn't look satisfied. He probably expected me to say the phrase 'ideological purity', but I tried to say the same in my own words :(.
In fact he actually looked like completely pissed off and pointed his hand to other member to take over.

The other member had a rough book in front of him, and he said word by word slowly looking from it "FDI....in......higher......education,..........." made some statement, without a clue about what is the question. I had no clue whether he is asking me to support it, or oppose it, or to comment on it. I started with something, but quickly said, I am sorry sir, I didn't get the question, Could you please repeat it. The chairman took over and gave a long talk on how primary education is important, and we cannot divert funds from primary to higher education. So long that I started feeling bad for allowing the interviewer to clarify the question for such long time. I said,
Me: Yes sir, primary education is important, we have invested heavily on primary education in the last few years.....
Interrupting me,
Member 3: But there is nothing there, there is a room and a roof, no board, no teacher, no toilets
Me(continuing from where I was interrupted): Yes sir, but we have reached near universal levels in enrollment in primary education and the students who were enrolled in primary education in last few years will come for higher education in next 5-6 years and there will be huge demand for higher education
Member 3 again interrupted me of course. Even now, neither he have a clue that I am not opposing FDI in Higher Education, nor I have a clue that he thinks I am opposing it.
Member 3: Yes that is why we need more investments in Higher Education
Now, I thought I am supposed to oppose it
Me: But they come for profits, they don't come with a mission to educate us. Also higher education is not just about merely acquiring knowledge, but it is about imparting right national ethos into the students. So, foreign universities who come only for profits......
Member 3(Interrupted again) So what? Let them make profits. Our students are going en mass to other countries, Harvard etc to study. Why not we allow them in our country itself.
By now, I realized I have to make clear my stand
I probably said something else also, but finally said,
Me: Yes sir, I am also in support of FDI in higher education.
Member 3: Ok
In the meantime chairman went to bathroom and as soon as he returned, Member 3 told him, "He finally said he supports it"
I couldn't make out what it means on me. There was lot of confusion, and I really don't know what they expected from me. But whatever it is I should have given a more elaborate justification about why I finally chose to support it.
Member 3 asked some small questions
Member 3: Where does earthquakes occur in the world?
Me: They occur mostly at the plate boundaries, which means mostly around pacific ocean, Himalayas, (about to say alps, but my mind was so much in mess that I doubted whether alps really are in Europe, in which case should I say it or limit at Himalayas, but finally said) and alps chain
Member 3: What is Richter scale?
Me: Sir, It is used to measure intensity of earthquakes.
(I was worried I chose wrong definition out of those of the two scales related to eathquake)
But that was correct.
Member 3: What is the difference between 6 and 7 on it?
Now, this was too easy,
Me: Its a logarithmic scale, so earthquake measuring  7 on Richter scale will be 10 times more effective than that with 6
I don't know why he asked again. He didn't seem like he heard my answer properly
Member 3: How many times?
Me: 10 times sir. Its a logarithmic scale with base 10
By this time, other members were telling Member 3, that "it is 10 times". Everybody know it and they were helping Member 3
Member 3: What is a Tsunami?
Me; Tsunami is a huge sea wave generated by under sea earthquakes or some plate readjustments
I was worried how he would take the 'some plate readjustments' part in the above answer. But he seem to accepted it.
Now, Member1's turn
Member 1: You seem to have read about french revolution(I was happy inside. This should be easy, I thought). Can you tell me some parallels between french revolution and India's struggle for independence.
Me: Sir, it is hard to find parallels between French revolution and India's struggle for independence, because french revolution happened abruptly and it was very violent, but India's independence movement is 'mostly' non-violent, and happened over a long time.
Chairman nodded in agreement and I was more than happy
Me (continuing): But, we can find some parallels, in some of the events, especially events like Civil disobedience movement had witnessed large mass of people coming onto the street protesting in large numbers against government and violating the laws en masse. Other such events like those happened during quit India movement, world war II resembled events in french revolution.

That was bad answer. I should have drawn parallals in ideology. Member 1 was quick.

Member 1: But what about the ideals? Tell me the ideals of French Revolution.
Me: Sir, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
Never been more proud to say something.
Member 1: Now compare with Independence struggle.
I started saying something, but he started to talk about something else. I tried to compete but gave up, and he said something about something else.

Another question,
Member 1: Coming to Indian software industry, Why are Indian companies doing good only in services. Why we don't have good product companies.
Frankly, I don't know a lot about it. I said what came to my mind at that time
Me: Its is mostly because product segment usually need lot of investment at the start and the returns on it takes a long time to come. Our companies, having scarce resources find it hard to make such long term investments. Where as in services, the money invested start giving returns in a very short duration. That is why products' segment is still dominated by MNCs.
Member 1 then said something like '..but why is it so.....', I couldn't make out correctly
But I already answered it :(
Then I made a general statemet about how we have huge market especially in government sector and also in private sector, and there is alot of scope for product companies, we already have some. In  the end added, yeah, as of now, MNCs like Microsoft, Google dominate the market.
Again no idea whether he was satisfied with my answer or, thought I was just trynig to make sweeping generalizations

Then Member 2 took over.
Member 2: Anil, you studied in Kanpur. So, though your institute is located outside it, you must have visited the interior city. So, tell me the most visible thing in Kanpur that needs reform(She probably didn't say reform. I don't remember what exactly she said).
Me: Roads
I was so quick, other members started laughing
Member 2: Roads?
Me: Yes, they are very narrow. Nothing fits into them, even the buses introduced have to be....
Member 2(Interrupting me) What about traffic?
Me: But traffic problem is basically because of Roads
Chairman: Yeah
He was too generous for me
Member 2: What is the role played by Kanpur in freedom struggle.
Me: Kanpur played very important role, especially during the 1857 revolution, and also many grassroots level movements at the time of freedom struggle have their roots in Kanpur and surrounding areas, for example Kisan sabha movement...
Interrupted me again,
I should have been more specific,
But nevertheless they didn't give me that much time
Member 2: name 2 important leaders from Kanpur
Me: I had put a clueless expression
Chairman: You said you read history, tell us two important leaders from kanpur.
I was frank
Me: Specifically from Kanpur, I don't know sir
Chairman gave two names.
First one, I said I don't know
Second one was SM Banerjee
I confused it with Surendranath Banerjee.
Also there were many banerjees in 1880's INC's sessions. So I said I know,
He was to quick to allow me to realize my mistake.
Chairman: Who was He?
Me: Sir He participated in 1885 Indian National Congress session
Chairman: No, that was WC Banerjee. This is 'S' 'M' Banerjee
Me: I don't know sir
That was quite ad
Member 2: What are national awards?
I was confused, whether I am supposed to define 'national awards' or am supposed to list them.
I hesitated for a moment and started,
Me: Padma shri, Padma bhushan..
I was little hesitant and slow.
Member 2 had sensed the opportunity, probably thought I don't know what are the padma awards
Member 2: What are the padma awards
Me: Padma shri, padma bhushan, padma vibhushan and bharata ratna
I was thinking all the time, while answering, about the possible reasons for asking such silly questions. Probably I looked very dumb, I thought
Member 2: What is the highest among them
Me: Bharata ratna
Member 2: Who is given bharat ratha?
Me: People who excel in art, literature, public service or science
they looked ok with the answer, but that was actually wrong. I found later that govt recently modified the criteria.

The last member asked some thing about national knowledge question. Both question and answer were too dumb to reproduce here.
I might have missed few other smaller questions.

In the end Chairman said, 'You may go now'.
I don't know how long it went on. Probably 20-25 mins.
I felt very bad after coming out. I put a forcible smile on my face so as not to dishearten the next and last guy sitting outside the room.

I came to the waiting hall, and the last 2-3 guys sitting there observed me and tried to console me, 'You look very serieous man. Its alright. Don't worry'

Everybody looked calm, coming back from the interview. Only I was sad it seems.

Pondering over it, I don't regret not being able to answer the questions on history of kanpur or some stupid unclear questions from some members, who are themselves not clear of what to ask and merely throwing topics onto me. But I regret something, probably for the rest of my life, that I could not satisfy the chairman on jacobin's idea of purity. It is something I so identify as an insiration, but I still could not say it when I needed to say it. I thought of asking the chairman, what is the jacobin idea of purity, that I failed to answer. But by the time I decided to ask, I was outside the room.

This could very well be a template for all the bad things that could happen in upsc interview. For any prospective candidate reading this,
1. There will be all kinds of men in the panel. People who are admirable scholars whom we have never met outside and also people who just want to ask something and complete their responsibility. Sometimes I felt like out of words to answer some pointless questions from some members.
2. Nobody can remember what exactly they answered in the interview room. Things will be very messy inside with random questions being shooted from all directions. All the transcipts published in blogs/magazines can only be refined versions with clear language and perfect order of expression

Robespierre

"That man will go far, he believes everything he says." ---Comte de Mirabeau

"I doubt that man has the sense to boil an egg" ---Georges Danton

A long time ago when I was much younger and had just started reading books other than text books; I came across Robespierre. What remained in my memory was the name “Incorruptible” given to him. I have rarely heard it being attached to politicians. Yet, I didn’t have enough resources (time and information) to find a biography of the man who appeared to be nothing less than a mystery to me. I read about him in Glimpses of World History and A People’s History of the World. It was a wiki article that I went through many times to understand the character of this individual who made a vain attempt to hold on to his ideals and principles, without any sign of compromise till his end. Politics without compromises is hard to imagine(See this article of  Isaiah Berlin). But how was it possible for a politician who rose to such prominence during such turbulent times of great French revolution, to push through his ideology, without caring for self. Or was he really a politician or some eccentric man charmed by the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau? Why is it that many still call him a blood thirsty dictator? These are the questions that pushed me to read Fatal Purity as soon as I came across it. Also I wanted to find the truth in the way people ridicule the utopian way of living as impractical. The hope that intellectuals of 20^th century had put on the evolution of utopian society has been fading in recent times  due to persistence of corrupt society around us. So it is interesting to see how people two centuries ago tried to build a just society.

Born to estranged parents, he lacked the benefit of proper parentage. Being the eldest among his siblings, he also had the additional burden to take care of his siblings. Attracted at a very young age to the writings of Rousseau, he used to read Rousseau’s banned writings secretly in the college run by Jesuit missionaries(There was a legend that he even undertook a personal visit to the ailing Rousseau). It was this association with Rousseau, whose effect was visible in his every action of in the future. During the course of revolution, almost all the major initiatives of Robespierre have their roots in the ideas espoused by The Social Contract.

A man of high principle, unconstrained by the need for pursuing self-interest and self-preservation, he always believed, “A man of high principle will be ready to sacrifice to the state his wealth, his life, his very nature - everything, indeed, except his honour". He envisaged a close connection between politics and morality. Indeed he always believed that an ideal society is formed only by association of virtuous citizens. Like Rousseau, he laid great emphasis on virtue, as a guiding principle for a happy life. He was intrigued by the idea of a virtuous man, who stands alone supported only by his conscience. He always tried to see himself as one such man. He believed in what Rousseau said, "…the laws of god need no other sanction than the natural consequences he himself has attached to, the audacity of those who infringe them and the fidelity of those who respect them. Virtue produces happiness as sun produces light. Crime results in unhappiness as certainly as filthy issue from the heart of corruption.” 

Robespierre advocated freedom of conscience and unlimited freedom of press. In times, when, even in contemporary democracies, proscribing and banning books was common, this was unprecedented. His views on why a public servant should not be deterred by constraints put by unlimited press freedom are interesting, and are relevant today when higher level of accountability and transparency is demanded from public servants. Thus he says, “Incorruptible men, who have no other passion besides the wellbeing and glory of their country, do not dread the public expression of the sentiments of their fellow citizens. They know only too well that it is not easy to lose their esteem, when one can counter calumny with an irreproachable life and proof of disinterested zeal; if they are sometimes victims of a passing persecution, this is, for them, the badge of their glory, the brilliant testimony of their virtue; they rest assured with gentle confidence in the suffering of a pure conscience and the force of truth which will soon reconcile them with their fellow citizens”. 

He was alone in advocating universal adult franchise in the first National assembly. Even the so called progressive revolutionaries of the time were unwilling to trust the poor and underprivileged people to give them the right to vote. His faith in people was immense, again an idea directly drawn from Rousseau’s social contract. To quote Rousseau, “It is the people that are good, patient and generous; the people ask for nothing but peace, justice and the right to live”. Thus Robespierre says, “It is not enough to have overturned the throne: our concern is to erect upon his remains holy equality and the imprescriptible Rights of Man. It is not in the empty word itself that a republic consists, but in the character of the citizens. The soul of a republic is vertu – that is love of la patrie, and the high-minded devotion that resolves all private interests into the general interest. The enemies of the republic are those dastardly egoists, those ambitious and corrupt men. You have hunted down kings, but have you hunted out the vices that their deadly domination has engendered among you? Taken together, you are the most generous, the most moral of all peoples…but a people that nurtures within itself a multitude of adroit rogues and political charlatans, skilled at usurpation and the betrayal of trust.”

Contrary to the bloodthirsty dictator as some call him, he actually spoke against death penalty before and even during the initial years of the revolution. As the author (of this book Fatal Purity) says, “He opposed it[death penalty] for two reasons: first its injustice; second its ineffectiveness as a deterrent. He thought it unjust because society could not have rights that individuals lacked, and individuals only have the right to kill in cases of self-defense”. But the society, as Robespierre himself says, “..which is capable of holding the culprit in chains, judge him peacefully, and use its limitless authority to chastise him and make it impossible for him to make himself feared in the future”, has no such right to kill a person. Robespierre further adds, “A conqueror that butchers his captives is called barbaric. Someone who butchers a perverse child that he could disarm and punish seems monstrous”. It was not deterrent because, “according to him, pride was the most dominant of human passions, stronger even than the desire to live”. Hence death penalty can hardly be a deterrent to a good citizen.

It is interesting to note that Robespierre was not an atheist (The concept of civil faith as a religion managed by state, as propounded first by Rousseau and later by other revolutionaries like Robespierre is in itself of remarkable interest today, especially when the Reason failed to occupy the vacuum created by the retreat of traditional religions). He recognized the immense social power of religion. He tried to use God as a tool to promote virtue in the society. He supported some kind of state managed civil religion. He quoted Voltaire, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to create one”, in his speeches in National convention. While defending his conception of state managed religion, he said, “The French people pins its faith, not on its priests, nor on any superstition, or any ceremony, but on worship of such – that is to say, upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal”.  While argueing against atheism as state policy, as was proposed by some Jacobins, he said, “Who commissioned you to announce to the people that God does not exist??  Oh you, who are so passionate about this arid doctrine, yet have no passion for your country! How does it help a man if you persuade him that blind force presides over his destiny and strikes at random, now at virtuous, now at criminal? Does it help him to believe that his soul is nothing but a thin vapor that is dissipated at the mouth of the tomb? Will the idea of annihilation inspire him with purer and higher sentiments than that of immortality? Will it give him more respect for himself than his fellow men, more devotion to his country, a braver face against tyranny, or a deeper disdain either for pleasure or for death? No…the dying breath of those poor people who die beneath the blows of an assassin is an appeal to the eternal justice! The innocent on the scaffold make tyrants pale in their triumphal chariots: would they have such ascendency if the tomb made the oppressor and the oppressed equal?...If the existence of god and the immortality of the soul were nothing but dreams, they would still be the most beautiful conceptions of the human spirit”.

More important is his advocacy of use of reason as the guiding principle to solve all the problems of the society. This conception also has its roots in the writings of age of enlightenment and particularly Rousseau’s social contract. To quote Robespierre, “It is not merely patriotism, or enthusiasm, or an ingrained love of freedom that sustains our efforts; it is reason, which will make the republic immortal; where reason reigns, the people is sovereign; and such an empire is indestructible”. When members of national convention accused him of tyranny, Danton got up and said, “M. Robespierre has never used any tyranny in this house, unless it is the tyranny of the reason”. But it is unfortunate to see that even after more than two centuries after the revolution which tried in vain to install ‘reason’ as guiding principle for the realization of a just society, most people still believe in regressive(and dumb) ideas like Astrology, Numerology etc. More importantly, reason failed to fill the vacuum created by the retreat of religion and there seems to be some kind of de-socialization, where members of society no longer respect their responsibility towards the society.

There is a similarity between Gandhi and him, in their passionate adherence to their principles and what they believed in, without compromise, and use of reason as guiding principle in all their decisions. But there is a fundamental difference between them. It is the same difference that Gandhi came to be identified with. Perhaps it is the same difference that made Gandhi successful in realizing Swaraj, and that killed Robespierre, before the establishment the ideal society envisioned by Rousseau. Robespierre believed that ends justify means, while Gandhi never did so. Robespierre, who, alone, vehemently opposed death penalty during the initial years of revolution, later supported organized state terror as a means to suppress aristocrats and the enemies of revolution. Thus he became part of the age of terror with which (with lot of injustice to him), the world came to identify him. Thus he claimed, “If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is both virtue and terror – virtue without which terror is disastrous, and terror, without which virtue has no power…Terror is merely justice, prompt, severe, and inflexible, It is therefore an emanation of virtue, and results from the application of democracy to the most pressing needs of the country”. As the author of Fatal Purity adds, “In the hands of despots, Robespierre argued, terror was a weapon of oppression. But terror wielded by virtue was the refuge of the poor”. Thus Robespierre didn’t hesitate in using most repressive means to justify the ends he tried to achieve, to establish his vision of France, “…a prim society of patriotic, uncorrupted, serious equals. …and there would be only innocent pleasures, no frivolous distractions, no debauchery. No one would value money above honour, and honour itself would be defined as personal integrity just as Rousseau said it should be long before 1789”. Lot of ideological transformation took place between the days he rejected death penalty and the days when he justified state terror, which I do not wish to dwell on right now.

Finally, for a person like me, who holds Rousseau’s Social Contract in high regard, Robespierre’s idea of his nation is very inspiring. He says, “In our country we want to substitute morality for egoism, honesty for love of honour, principles for conventions, duties for decorum, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, the fear of vice for the dread of unimportance; we want to substitute pride for insolence, magnanimity for vanity, the love of glory for the love of gold: we want to replace good company by good  character, intrigue by merit, wit by genius, brilliance by truth, dull debauchery by the charm of happiness. For the pettiness of the so-called great we would substitute the full stature of humanity; in place of an easy going, frivolous and discontented people we would create one that is happy, powerful and stout hearted, and replace the vices and follies of monarchy by the virtues and astounding achievements of the republic”.

The questions the occupied my mind before reading the book, some of which I mentioned in the first paragraph are still unanswered. But I got a new perspective to look at things after reading the book. I still do not know if it is right to be uncompromising in following what one believes in. But I at least know that it is possible, and it needs strength, a strength that the weak cannot afford, and that often takes one to tomb as Saint-Just a close associate of Robespierre and also a very interesting personality of revolution who achieved so much in just 26 years.

Napoleon

"Our age has produced nothing great. I want to set an example"
                                                                       -Napoleon to Marmont during Italian Campaign

My imagination about Napoleon was fired after reading about him in Nehru's letters to Indira Gandhi(Published as Glimpses of World History) a few years ago. Nehru dedicated two letters completely to Napoleon among his 196 letters that presented an account of the most important phenomena in the history of the world.

 A product of the Revolution, Napoleon was a mixture of a statesman, soldier, scientist, mathematician, and a great lover. Above all he was soldier, the finest of the children of revolution. As a soldier he saved the republic from counter revolutionary forces both from internal and external enemies.

He tried to build a bridge between the old and the new, the old aristocratic tradition (that still had support among vast masses) and the new ideas that were brought about by the Revolution. Revolution presented a sudden break from the old and this friction caused by the sudden break had caused great distress to the people of France. Napoleon tried to smoothen the transition from old to new. In the end, he succumbed to the lure of traditions while trying to be realistic. He betrayed the very revolution that produced and nurtured him. He reintroduced nobility, installed his incompetent brothers as kings, tried to secure matrimonial alliances with old aristocratic families in a vain attempt to legitimize his rule. Instead of deriving the legitimacy of his rule from the people, he tried to create a dynasty of his own.

Hailed as the first modern European he realised the potential of science to change the world and gave complete support as an army general and an emperor, to it. He instituted merit as the sole criteria for positions of authority in public. He started Legion of Honour to encourage men of excellence.

About religion, he understood it as a social system that helps preserve social order. He said "What I see in religion is, not the mystery of the incarnation, but social order. It associates with heaven an idea of equality, which prevents the poor from massacring the rich. Religion has the same sort of value as vaccination. It gratifies our taste for the miraculous, but protects us from quacks; for the priests are worth more than the Cagliostros, the Kants, and all the German dreamers...Society cannot exist without inequality of property; but this latter cannot exist without religion. One who is dying of hunger when the man next to him is feasting on dainties, can only be sustained by a belief in a higher power, and by the conviction that in another world there will be different distribution of goods."

If we remove the veil of Gods, myths, and messiahs, isn't this what religion actually is, a political system consisting of  a set of principles, that make and protect a social system by demanding faithful adherence from its believers?

History and imagination were the two things that fired his confidence. They made him look upon himself as a man of destiny, a man who is destined to conquer the whole world like Alexander. He tried to draw a parallel to his empire with the mighty Roman Empire.

Yet with all the genius he had, he did not believe in ideal motives. As Nehru says, "...he was elemental almost, like a force of nature. Full of ideas and imagination he was, yet blind to the values of ideals and unselfish motives...", he considered self interest in the form of money and glory to be the only motive for everyone's actions. To quote Goethe, a contemporary of Napoleon and also a great admirer of him said, "Napoleon, who lived wholly for ideas, was nevertheless unable to grasp the nature of ideal motives; he repudiated the ideal, denied that there was any such thing, at the very time when he himself was eagerly trying to realise the ideal". He tried to secure the allegiance of his subordinates by the use of money and titles instead of using the ideas of the revolution to create a set of committed people around him. Ultimately he ended up having around him, people whose sole aim was self interest and self glory, who deserted him whenever it appeared like he was on the verge of losing power. They weren't bound by an idea that could endure the ups and downs of his personal glory. Finally it was the treachery of his own people around him that brought him down.

Until his last battle at Waterloo, no single commander could claim to have defeated Napoleon on the battleground. Europe trembled under his feet. But the grand army was completely destroyed in the harsh climatic conditions during the Russian campaign. It was the Russian climate that destroyed his military machine, and not the enemy empires. Coincidentally, though not surprisingly, it was the Russian campaign that spelt doom for Hitler too.

Being a great statesman and diplomat, his ideas on diplomacy where deception and cunning are still part of the game, are interesting. Thus he says, "Tact, and putting all the cards on the table, will do better service in diplomacy than cunning. The tricks of the diplomats of the old school are out of date; all their rogueries have been exposed long since....Nothing betrays weakness more than the attempt to deceive"

Europe saw the revolution and him, with contempt. Kings of other kingdoms did not like the existence of this ‘son of people’ on the throne, for it discredited their own claim to power, as a divine right. They waited for opportunities to dethrone him. They forced him to engage in constant battles to survive. The Kings of Europe forced France to expand beyond the natural boundaries.

The French empire created by him collapsed as soon as he abdicated the throne. But the ideas he had sown on European soil found resonance across the 19th century Europe. He shattered the myth of the divine right of kings. Though not as successful as in the hey-days of the revolution, he did establish a kingdom of Reason. Demands for popular sovereignty, German and Italian nationalism in later years of Europe, all find their origin in the ideas sown by Napoleon in the lands conquered by him. Thus his thoughts after the exile run as.... "There are in Europe more than thirty million Frenchmen, fifteen million Italians, thirty million Germans . . .Out of each of these peoples, I wanted to make a united national whole . . .That would have supplied the best chance of establishing a general unity of laws; a unity of principles and thoughts and feelings, of outlooks and interests. . .Then it would have been possible to think of founding the United States of Europe after the model of the United States of America. . .What perspectives of strength, greatness, and prosperity this opens up! ...... At the same time, I wanted to pave the way for the unification of the great interests of Europe, just as I had unified the parties in France . . . The transient mutterings of the people troubled me little; they would have been reconciled to me by the results . . .Europe would soon have become one nation, and any who traveled in it would always have been in a common fatherland. . .Sooner or later, this union will be brought about by the force of events. The first impetus has been given; and, after the fall and disappearance of my system, it seems to me that the only way in which equilibrium can be achieved in Europe is through a league of nations."

His plans of conquering India and the East are interesting. In his own words "Europe is a mole hill. It is only in the East that, great empires and revolutions are possible, where there are six hundred millions of men". He started Egyptian campaign with a view to contact and form an alliance with Tipu Sultan to overthrow the British rule in India. Had the fort of Acre fallen, had the battle of Nile not occurred, India's history would indeed have been much different.