Category: REFLECTIONS

Empire: A Data-Driven Thought Experiment

This didn’t begin as a project . Just idle curiosity and a vague question— the kind that gets you going – if you’re both a history nerd and newly curious about the capabilities of Generative AI.The question was simply this:  How do you compare the achievements of history’s great empires, fairly? Not just by size or fame, but by what they accomplished given their time, tools, and constraints.
So I teamed up with ChatGPT — as assistant, not author — and began building a framework.
This post outlines that framework, the metrics we used, the rankings that emerged, and the questions it raises about both past power and present perspectives. It’s  structured curiosity, not a sweeping claim. A little nerdy, hopefully thoughtful, and definitely open to debate.Also , this is no way romanticizes or condones imperialism and the undesirable consequences that imperialism has had on various peoples over the centuries. I do think it belongs to a dark chapter of our collective history.

1. Choosing Empires

I used two simple criteria to shortlist empires . Choose empires post 1 BCE and choose empires which spanned at least two continents.

Here is the list:

EmpireContinental SpreadTime Period
Roman
British
Ottoman
Mongol
Russian
Umayyad
Alexander

Sources: Britannica, World History Atlas. Criterion: Continental spread at peak, post-1 BC

The first question sounded deceptively simplistic :

Who expanded the fastest? However ,  consider two empires A and B . If A conquered a million sq. kms in 10 years but only had horses at their disposal vs B which also conquered a million sq. kms in the same period of time but had railways at their disposal – A ranks higher. I think that is only fair.

Now you could add on further nuance to it. What if both A and B conquer x sq.kms and A does it faster with horses and B does it slower with railways. A needs to get a further bump.

Means of transport also dictate speed of communication. And communication becomes important not only during war and for conquering territories but also to maintain conquered territories. You can come up with several such combinations. And clearly we need a metric that can normalize for this. And the below is what we came up with:

Key MetricRationale
Achievement per Unit of Speed

Sources: Comparative history frameworks, e.g. Ferguson, Diamond, Toynbee.

We also examined each empire’s fastest available transport and communication systems — from Roman roads and Mongol Yam relays to British steamships and then ranked them on a relative , simple 1-10 scale.

Refer to the table below. The Romans had great roads , yet they were amongst the slowest. Alexander and the Russians rank slightly above the Romans. The British had the best speeds.

EmpirePrimary TransportRelative Speed (1–10)
RomanRoad Network5
BritishSteamships/Rail9
OttomanCaravan + Sea6
MongolHorse Relay (Yam)8
RussianSledges, Rail (late)6
UmayyadCamel Caravan5
AlexanderHorse, Foot6

Sources: UNESCO Silk Road Programme, Transport History encyclopedias

2.. Expansion Efficiency

Now it was important to evaluate expansion efficiencies. Like I said above , one cannot take the area conquered as the sole reliable indicator. One needs to look at this in the context of the both the fastest means of transport available as also the time it took to reach the peak conquered area. We calculated a metric based on land area × continental spread ÷ years to peak. This revealed which empires expanded quickly and widely given their constraints.Refer to the table below to see this in action. Alexander scores the best. At his peak he had conquered almost a similar area like the Ottomans in 10th the time it took the Ottomans . And in relative speed , the ottomans and Alexander rank the same.

The Mongols are second . The Russians and the Ottomans fare the worst here.

EmpireArea at Peak (sq km)Years to PeakExpansion Index
Ottoman5.2M1300.40
British35.5M1800.54
Roman5.0M2000.25
Mongol24.0M541.00
Umayyad11.1M890.69
Alexander5.2M131.15
Russian22.8M2000.34

Sources: Historical atlases, peer-reviewed geography datasets.

3. Geographic & Cultural Adaptability

Then we ranked empires on their ‘adaptability’. How many different climates did they have to operate in? What levels of cultural and religious variability did they to contend with? And how well did they integrate ? Empires were scored on how well they adapted to unfamiliar climates, languages, and cultures. Homogeneity wasn’t rewarded; integration was.

Interestingly , the Russians again score the lowest – they were a vast empire – but perhaps not much diversity. The Ottomans score the best , followed by the Romans.

EmpireAdaptability Score (1–10)
Ottoman8
British6
Roman7
Mongol5
Umayyad6
Russian4
Alexander6

Sources: Scored based on geographic variance + cultural integration ability.

4. Diversity in Governance

The next natural question was , how did they integrate the new peoples into their governing mechanisms.? How tolerant were they? Did they suppress or did they integrate? Measured. Ottoman millet system scored well — but devshirme was penalized.

The Ottomans and the Romans come out on top here too.

EmpireDiversity Governance Score (1–10)
Ottoman7
British6
Roman7
Mongol5
Umayyad6
Russian4
Alexander5

Sources: Cambridge History of Islam, Roman legal systems, colonial records.

5. Benevolence Index

Next we looked at ‘Benevolence’. How exploitative were each of the empires? Did they persecute? Did they give local autonomy? Were their taxations systems draconian?

Please note that there is a lot of subjectivity involved in this question. Interestingly , the Ottomans and the Romans come out on top again.

This heavily weighted metric penalized extractive, brutal rule.

EmpireBenevolence Score (1–10)
Ottoman7
British5
Roman6
Mongol3
Umayyad5
Russian3
Alexander4

Sources: Evaluated based on taxation, persecution, local autonomy.

6. Legacy Index

Then we evaluated ‘legacy’- what lasting achievements did each of these empires leave? In law , education and government? These results should not be very suprising.

EmpireLegacy Score (1–10)
Roman9
British8
Ottoman7
Mongol4
Umayyad6
Russian5
Alexander5

Sources: Measured legal, educational, and cultural contributions.

7. Decline Dynamics

Then we assessed decline dynamics. If an empire declined over a longer period of time – we considered it to be more robust. We also took into account the preventability of the decline factors. For example , freedom movements are not preventable , where as corruption and lack of reform are.

Interestingly enough , the Ottomans score the highest in preventability score. Both them and the Romans had a very long , very painful decline.

EmpireYears from Peak to FallPreventability Score (1–10)
Ottoman2507
British606
Roman3005
Mongol1003
Umayyad893
Russian754
Alexander101

Sources: Reform readiness and internal dynamics literature.

8. Composite Ranking

All individual metrics were normalized (0–1 scale), with higher weights on benevolence and legacy.

Finally each of these metrics were normalized on a 0-1 scale and then weighted with benevolence and legacy together accounting for 60% of the weightages.

Here is the final table. I have always been fascinated with the Ottomans -not really sure why. I was surprised though to see them topping the chart.

EmpireComposite ScoreRankConfidence Band
Ottoman0.89🥇 1stHigh
British0.84🥈 2ndMedium-High
Roman0.80🥉 3rdMedium
Umayyad0.754thMedium
Alexander0.725thMedium-Low
Mongol0.686thMedium-Low
Russian0.657thLow

Confidence band reflects documentation consistency and metric stability.

Final thoughts: This is no way an acedamecially rigorus work . There are error margins and the confidence levels are not uniformly high.

However , I do think it is an interesting exercise – not only in terms of taking a fresh lens to empires , but also how do we use powerful tools to ask the right questions.

Would love your thoughts.

APPEALING TO BETTER NATURE

The years 1940 and 1941. It was ,in many senses , Hitler’s world. He had almost the entire of continental Europe under his boot. A couple of years earlier , Austria was annexed. Then came Czechoslovakia’s turn. Poland was next in 1939- the year we usually associate with the beginning of the second world war. Denmark and Norway fell soon afterwards to German aggression , followed by France. Hitler achieved all of these feats with surprising ease and felicity. Then there was the battle of Dunkirk in 1941. For all the courage and fortitude that the British troops displayed – they had received a drubbing and a bad one at that. It is said that had Hitler pressed his advantage at this stage-he could have achieved further gains. The reasons as to why he did not are not very clear. Germany had a pact with Soviet Union – albeit an uneasy one. The two powers and the two dictators didn’t really trust each other. The United States was determined to be neutral.

The point is , again , it was Hitler’s world. Only one European country openly stood against Germany – the United Kingdom. While boasting of great airpower and a navy , they had no army to speak of and the battle of Dunkirk had further depleted them. Compared to the German war machine – at that stage of the war – the Britishers were savages with spears.

Yet the UK chose to stand against Germany. Hitler was ready to sign a pact with the Britishers. Defending and feeding a small island nation in peace time is an achievement. The island nation had always depended on its mercantile routes to feed itself. Doing so in a hostile world is monumental. Choosing to do so , when there were easier options available was courageous (or foolhardy as was also one of the prevalent opinions in those days). The UK could have played a part in truly making it Hitler’s world. It chose not to.

And one of the key driving figures behind this was Winston Churchill. I balk at the “Great Man/Woman theory of history”. There are many complex forces that shape history for us to attribute it’s course to a few men/women. However, leaders do play a part in shaping events. And Churchill was a key player.

Imagine yourself to be the leader of a beleaguered nation. Your people are suffering privations because of the war. You don’t have the military wherewithal (yet) to face the enemy. You have no help forthcoming. Your allies have surrendered. Your friends are neutral. You could have taken the peace pact. You do have an easy way out. Yet you chose not to. And you convince your people why you should not. You convince them why you should fight this out and not capitulate. You ride it out. And as times get better and circumstances start favoring you , you play a key part in winning the war.

More than winning the war – it is the holding out that is impressive. This was truly the ‘darkest hour’ as Churchill himself says. That you chose to take a stand when you had an easy way out  is impressive. Needs conviction. And moral courage. And in many ways Churchill had that. To be sure Churchill had many faults. He was an imperialist and we today would term him racist. He was deeply flawed. We would be right in judging him harshly for them -but we will also do well to remember that they were also the flaws of his times. Leaders, even Statesmen are flawed and deeply so. We should make our peace with that. We will also be naïve to ignore the practical reasons behind this stand. But neither the flaws nor the reasons take away the sheen form his stewardship in those troubled times.

And Churchill’s stewardship stands in stark contrast to Hitler’s , despite ‘surfacy’ similarities. Hitler also had conviction. He stood alone in the initial days of the war in his pursuit of world conquering superiority. It was only the surprisingly easy initial successes that rallied his Generals around him. And he did convert an entire German people to his cause. He also appealed to their national pride. Both Churchill and Hitler were great orators. If we remember only Churchill’s perorations now, it is perhaps because of the dominance of English in the modern world order. But the similarities end here.

Hitler appealed to the ‘basest’ instincts of his people. He reminded them of previous humiliations. He told them they were ‘superior’ to every race. In doing so he appealed to their inferiority complex. He inspired a fear of the other and told them they needed to hate in order to win. That everybody was out to get them. He did rally the German people but may be the average German citizen’s psyche at that time was not particularly healthy. They were motivated and fully behind Hitler (with a few honorable exceptions) , but their base instincts ruled.

In contrast , Churchill perhaps appealed to the better nature of the Britishers. He did appeal to national pride. He did tell them how they stood alone in a world that was increasingly turning bleaker and darker. Yet he also appealed to their love of freedom and of liberty. He did tell them they had to save the world , but for better reasons. He didn’t tell his people , unlike Hitler , that they were a long suffering race. He didn’t tell them they were superior to everyone else , appeals to national pride notwithstanding. He didn’t tell them they need to conquer the world to feel better.

It is an interesting contrast. Particularly if we remember that Germans were almost victorious and for all practical purposes looking at a bright future. and the Britishers were beleaguered and looking to a rather uncertain future.

And Churchill achieved this in a democracy. Hitler was a dictator (despite the show of democracy).

Events could have very well turned out differently. Hitler could have achieved his ambitions. And I would have been writing this in German glorifying Hitler’s leadership. Historical progress is far too complex to be pinned down to a few people and few events.

Yet there is merit in taking a note of this.

It is a very interesting contrast of what leaders chose to appeal to in their people. Appealing to base instincts is easier and gives quick dividends.

Appealing to their better nature is definitely more difficult.

But there is something definitely worthwhile about it.

SMOKING HOPE

I pack my pipe tight and light it up and watch meditatively as the smoke spirals upwards , 

Bone weary and brain dead , I ask myself a thousandth time , "Am I addicted to this stuff?" 

I know I am. I have been smoking too much Hope these days. 

“It is worse than Opium” , someone had told me. And they were right. 

My sea legs aching, I get up wearily and survey my surroundings , 

I have rowed for another year now. I look around , trying to get my bearings.

“The shore doesn’t seem very far away” , I think to myself , “or wait is that where I started from?”  , I can not tell anymore. 

I take another drag of my pipe. May be the compass will help

I take out my compass . It is broken . I shake it vigorously. Still broken. I guess it was always broken. I don’t remember anymore. 

I take another drag of my pipe. May be the Lighthouse? 

But wait , am I supposed to go toward it or away from it . I cant tell anymore. 

I take another deep drag in panic. Let me look for other boats , I tell myself. And I look around

Everything is obscured by mist and fog. When was the last time I actually saw another boat, I ask myself. I cant tell anymore. 

I am panicking now. Has it been a year now? I think it has been five? Or ten? I cant tell anymore. 

With shaking hands , I pack my pipe with more Hope. And take another drag. 

And then I see them – the sharks in the water. 

They have been with me for as long as I can remember – following me silently , just waiting for me to drop dead one day.  

They can smell fear and panic. And they are circling closer today. 

I sigh. I take up my oars again with my calloused hands. 

Wincing I start rowing again. 

Am I not bound for anywhere? Have I been just rowing to stay ahead of the sharks? I cant tell anymore. 

I take another drag of my pipe. 

Smoking Hope is what keeps me going. That’s the only thing I can tell.

LIE TO ME

Lie to me , beautiful Muse , Lie to me ,

Lie to me , as we walk together in your pristine woods

Lie to me , as I watch you speak , only half listening as I marvel at your ethereal beauty

Lie to me as we lay together , looking up at the stars

I know the Truth already ,  I only seek Lies from you

Don’t show me a mirror , O Muse , and don’t tell me I am ugly ,  I know that already

Instead paint me a portrait , a portrait of a handsome prince .Make me believe I am that Prince

Don’t laugh at my life , O Muse , and call it pointless , I know that already

Instead tell me tales , where I slay Dragons and save the townsfolk .Make me believe I am that Hero

Don’t call me names , O Muse , and tell me I am unlovable , I know that already

Instead spin me a yarn , tell me how easy it is to fall in love with me. Make me believe I am that Lover.

Don’t be cross with me , O Muse , and tell me I am vindictive , I know that already

Instead , tell me a story , where I have grace enough to forgive my enemies. Make me believe I am that Saint.

Don’t ridicule me , O Muse , and call me short sighted , I know that already

Instead give me a false account , where I have wisdom and foresight beyond my years. Make me believe I am that Prophet

Don’t look down upon me , O Muse , and call me a coward , I know that already

Instead tell me a fib , where I face down entire armies alone. Make me believe I am that Brave -Heart

Of what use the Truth , when it only paralyzes. Of what use is it , when it only ties you down

Instead , beautiful Muse , let me soar . Tell me Lies and ignite my mind .

Free my imagination , O Muse , it is now held hostage by the Truth

The Truth is arrogant , she thinks she owns Reality

Make me believe your Lies , beautiful Muse , and give them power ,And together let us watch these Lies remake Reality

Lie to me at Dawn , beautiful Muse , then again at Dusk

Lie to me in cruel Winter , then again in sweet summer.

Lie to me till I find Beauty . Lie to me till I find Purpose

Lie to me and watch me find Love. Lie to me and marvel at me finding Grace

Lie to me so you can bask in my Wisdom. Lie to me so you can take strength in my Courage.

Lie to me beautiful Muse , till you no longer need to Lie to me.

DEMONS

We live together , the creatures and I , we have always lived together

They are vile , these creatures , and hateful .They make for really bad company

I hate them and they hate me , but I doubt if they will ever leave

We now have a bond that is forged from hatred ,which sometimes is stronger than the bonds of love

Let me tell you about these creatures

First there is The Scaly One , he is the ugliest of them all and the sneakiest

Creeps upon me , when I am least expecting him ,when I am happy , when I am laughing

He throws a  hard punch and runs away

As I am reeling , my head spinning , I can still hear his maniacal laughter

I call this one Self Doubt

Then there are the Twins , they are dwarves really , they are small but they are heavy  

And they like to climb on my shoulders , one on each side

I can barely take a step forward ,

And the more they sit , the heavier they get and once they get on I just cant shake them off

I call them Guilt and Regret

Then there is the Magician , he transports me at will

To a cold place where it is always twilight

I have walked here for miles in all directions, but there is never a soul in sight ,

Just a vast misty landscape, that goes on forever and ever and ever

I call this one Loneliness

Also , there is the Hypnotist , he looks disgusting

His body covered in bright red sores , yellow fluid leaking from the pustules on his body

Bloodshot eyes and always shivering

He gives me his disease whenever I pass him by

My body burning , there are pustules on my body and my sores are festering , I am crying in pain and misery

I call this one Self Pity

And finally there is the Woman , the most beautiful I have ever seen ,

Long lustrous hair , and always dressed in green

Everything is brighter when she visits, Everything is lighter

And all the vile creatures run away skulking , looking for corners to hide in

But don’t be fooled , she is the worst Demon of them all

For she doesn’t stay very long , and when she leaves , the vile creatures come back

They are stronger , They are meaner , They are viler

I hate her the most , for she mocks me , by showing me what could be but what perhaps will never be

I call this one Hope.

OUR WORST INSTINCTS

For the rich, national borders are irrelevant and for the poor they are inconsequential. To both these classes, they are but imaginary lines on a map, albeit for different reasons. Hence, a lot of store is set by the middle class. The rich have vested interests and the poor are desperate. It is the middle class who is to be level headed and set the right political and social narrative. It is also the educated middle classes that lend ‘legitimacy’ to any ruling class or leader. Every leader realizes that mere popularity won’t do without legitimacy – that veneer of acceptance and respectability. In our country too, it has been the educated middle classes that have proudly held aloft the flag of legitimacy for the current central ruling dispensation. It is not an exaggeration to say that no leader in recent Indian political history has enjoyed the levels of popularity and legitimacy as does the Supreme Leader.

In the context of the pandemic, some questions, however, have begun to emerge. The horrible human tragedy that continues to unfold, is perhaps forcing some to reevaluate. Questions have begun to emerge on inefficiency, on how science was ignored, on how things were not thought through and the like. The one thing that perhaps is being given the short shrift is that the ruling dispensation was always like this. The tragedy of the pandemic has just brought this starkly into view.

The Supreme Leader had taken a short cut to our hearts and gained legitimacy by sufficiently reflecting our worst instincts and hypocrisies and giving them legitimacy. To that extent it is a recursive, reciprocal process, a virtuous cycle of reinforcement if you will. Here I attempt to recount some of those worse instincts that we are possessed of. I am a constituent myself of the educated middle classes and some of the things that I am recounting are stuff that I observed growing up in a tier 3 town and that I continue to observe. These are not scholarly or analytical observations, just anecdotal ones. And they are not blanket observations, just general ones. Many honorable exceptions exist. Also the list is neither complete nor comprehensive.

So in no particular order, some of our worst instincts are:

  1. A ‘Father knows Best’ Attitude: Right from the beginning and through the entire arc of our life –as we grow up , in school , college and to some extent in our jobs-we are not exactly encouraged to ask questions. If anything, we are either subtly or even overtly discouraged. True , lip service , is paid in schools to the importance of asking and clarifying ‘doubts’ ,but God forbid we ask uncomfortable questions and questions that the teachers can’t answer. There is always a right and wrong set of questions. The authority figures know best – be it your parents, your teachers and then your bosses. We essentially engage in a life –long search for and submission to authority figures, hoping that one day we become authority figures ourselves. And then we perpetuate the cycle. Not rocking the boat and not asking ‘too many’ or ‘too uncomfortable’ questions become internalized behaviors and the norm. Free discourse be damned. Perhaps that is why you hear the common refrain “India needs a dictator”, particularly among many in the middle class. You are not particularly afraid of or worried about dictatorships, when your entire life has been about living under a series of dictators with the eventual hope that you will become one yourself. So when along comes a leader who is able to elevate himself to the status of the ‘Supreme Patriarch’ and promptly proceeds to behave like a dictator – it doesn’t feel frustrating, it feels familiar.
  2. Technology literate but unscientific in temper: We are ‘tool’ obsessed. We are good at employing tools and the tools become ends in themselves. We are not particularly bothered about what the tool means. We are perfectly comfortable in situations that would otherwise have been considered paradoxical. For instance, we find no contradiction in being adept at using a laptop as also worshiping it on a few occasions. We know that the Sun is but an inanimate star but have no problem paying obeisance to it should the occasion so demand. Our education seems to do little to change our practices. It is a scathing indictment of our education system –in that education has become a ‘tool’ and seems to do little for either our outlooks or our belief systems. We love technology, without setting much store by the scientific temper that created it in the first place. Confusing myth for history, not asking enough questions, not revaluating beliefs are all byproducts of this. Combine this with an enduring belief that we are THE greatest civilizations on earth, and you have some unsavory results. So, when a leader claims that plastic surgery and unmanned flight always existed in India and cites Ganesa and the Pushpaka Vimana , we don’t find it ridiculous – we say “of course”.
  3.  ‘Casually’ Bigoted: Casual Bigotry abounds. Stereotypes rule. We don’t think much about it. The very many artificial divisions in our society only add to our bigotry. The trouble is we are quite casual about it and don’t think of ourselves as being bigoted for holding on to certain stereotypes. We perhaps don’t even think along those lines. The number of times I would have heard statements like ‘He is of so and so religion, but he is a god guy’ is not funny. It is a matter, of course, that people of certain religions and castes find it difficult to rent houses. It is matter, of course, that people of only certain castes get to buy or rent houses in certain localities. These things don’t even register, let alone cause any outrage. We don’t realize our own bigotry. People belonging to certain religions and castes are ‘aggressive’, some are ‘soft’. These stereotypes and attitudes are symptoms of a deeper problem, a deeper rot. A rot whose full stench stays hidden in normal times, but takes only a few determined scratches on the surface for it to start manifesting itself. So when a leader deliberately and cleverly stokes divisions by appealing to our innate bigotry – it doesn’t cause outrage but occasions agreement.
  4. Oversimplification and lack of nuance: May be because the problems facing us are so complex, we have a tendency to oversimplify. Solve xx and everything else will be solved, is a common refrain. Replace xx with corruption, population –take your pick. And our solutions are also quite simplistic. Popular cinema has been exploiting this attitude of ours for a long time to reap rewards at the box office. Murdering the corrupt is a popular theme. So is the theme of a strong willed leader. We set much store by intent and will than expertise. I have written about it elsewhere. We assume that there are simple, straightforward solutions to mind bogglingly complex problems and we also conveniently forget that any solution could have several downstream implications and these also need to be accounted for. This disdain for expertise and an overreliance on ‘intent’ and ‘will’ combine with a condescension for the social sciences- the realm of solutions for many problems that face us. The ‘arch problems’ that we identify like population for instance, also are pressed into the service of justifying the ruler’s failures. “Oh, but we are a 130 crore people, not like Europe”. Well, it did not so happen that the population exploded overnight, because people suddenly decided to do it like bunnies. Instead of demanding from our rulers that they build solutions that scale for our size, we let them offer up it up as an excuse and even join in the chorus. Many movies, unfortunately, have also taught us that getting 15 lacs into the bank account of every citizen is not only possible but also very straightforward. So when a leader displays disdain for expertise and steamrolls on ahead with simplistic solutions even when they threaten widespread hardships, we don’t feel worried, we feel vindicated.
  5. Privilege unconscious: We have the uncanny ability to recognize everyone else’s privilege, but our own. A martyr/victim complex lurks just beneath the surface. This typically translates into 1) a self-imposed feeling that each one is on their own 2) a shameful lack of compassion. When the migrant crisis had struck last year, I heard many who are close to me ask “if the migrants were stupid”. “But where are they going? Shouldn’t they just stay where they are? This is just stupid baba”. That a young man -who is away from his family, who just lost his livelihood and who is hearing of a deadly pandemic – would want to be near his family and would crave a support system , did not occur to these people. Interestingly, many employees moved bases back to their hometown when indefinite WFH was announced by many companies last year. They moved for very valid reasons. Trouble is, we are unable to see the parallels between the two –that this is just a difference of economic means and not intentions.  So when our leaders conveniently ignore these tragedies that affect those that are less fortunate than us, we do not flinch, because we had ignored those tragedies long before the leaders did.

We could go on. But the larger point is our leaders reflect who we are. As the philosopher Joseph De Maistre said – In a democracy, people get the leaders that they deserve. The tragedy of the pandemic has been personal to many of us. The bigger tragedy is that it takes a tragedy of these proportions for us to start demanding accountability and start asking questions. The biggest tragedy of them all is that, it is quite likely that we will forget all of this and slip back to our old ways.

We need better leaders. But for that we need to be better ourselves. We will do well to remember that.

WANTED : ‘WEAK’ LEADERS

I have written elsewhere about our obsession with ‘Strong’ leaders. As a people we seem to deliberately seek out certain qualities in our leaders. Perhaps it is an unconscious expression of the desire for a ‘parent figure’. And when we do find such a leader who conforms to our image of being ‘strong’ , our devotion to such a figure is almost religious and our adoration borders on the mystical. We seem to be in possession of a huge capacity to give up our own agency, in a sense, to follow said leader. We attribute superhuman qualities to the leader. He /she attains omnipotence in our collective psyche. In that respect, this reflects the worst aspects of religious experience because this seems to parallel how many of us look to God.

When everything is fine and things are going smooth, such an attitude towards leaders-while not ideal, may be doesn’t do much harm. The trouble begins when trouble begins (pun intended). Because even in a crisis, we find it difficult to criticize someone whom we had put on a pedestal and worshiped. We find it difficult to ask questions, because so far, we never asked questions. The entire basis for our adoration was the omnipotence of said leader. In the process of following the leader and raising him/her to superhuman status, we gave up our rationality and agency. This person was our panacea to everything and our final hope. This person was supposed to lead us into utopia and we had all packed our bags to follow him there to take up permanent residence. But when all this person does is lead us from crisis to crisis, what do we do? We cannot start questioning, because that muscle atrophied hopelessly a long time back. How do we criticize someone we had raised to the status of a ‘God’? I guess we cannot, short of admitting that we have been worshiping a false god till now. That our superhero turned out to have feet of clay. The trouble with such an admission – it is more an indictment of ourselves than it is of the leader. We are admitting to a horrible error in judgement, which a lot of us are loath to do.

The second problem to such an admission – a God/hero has to be replaced by another God/hero-surely humans can’t seat themselves on the vacated throne. So before admitting to have been worshiping a false God, we have to identify a new God to take that place. And gods of course are hard to find. It may have something to do with the fact that they don’t exist. So in the absence of a new hero/God we continue worshiping the old God. True, we are a bit cross with said God and not happy, but it is God after all and whatever God does, it is always for our good.

Perhaps such is the dilemma that many ‘Bhakts’ find themselves in. Despite finding ourselves in the midst of a horrible, avoidable human tragedy –may be that is why many supporters of the current ruling dispensation, find it difficult to criticize and withdraw their support. Now I am not talking about the people and institutions with a vested interest who support the administration for obvious, self-serving reasons. I am talking about ordinary supporters, as ordinary as you and me. We are afraid of losing hope and the vacuum that a vacated throne creates. And perhaps this is what is behind refrains like –“but what is the alternative” and “whatever is being done, must have been fully thought through”.

In a sense, the problem is not the leader per se, but us. And the qualities that we seek from leaders. And this desire for a strong leader and the willingness to give up our own agency is not limited to the political realm. I have seen it multiple times in the relatively boring environs of the corporate world also. We have very specific definitions for ‘Strength’ as well. We typically look for charisma, decisiveness and the ability to brook no dissent. In that sense we seem to revel in being steamrolled ourselves. We also end up making certain assumptions – that this person can solve all problems and as an extension solving for problems requires only a strong will. We typically tend to underestimate complexity of the problems being solved and conveniently ignore the fact that the problems facing us are far too complex and have far too many implications for one person with a strong will to satisfactorily solve for. The ancient shibboleth – Where there is a will –there is a way- needs revisiting. Having a will is a necessary condition but not always a sufficient one.

In our search for strength, we also unconsciously define a ‘negative’ list. We don’t say or admit to this openly or even consciously but it is tacit. We frown upon a consultative leader. We frown upon anyone who displays even an iota of self-doubt. We neither look for empathy nor set too much store by kindness. We elevate our search for strength to such heights that ‘Will’ replaces expertise. We perversely revel in ‘one person’ shows and do not give too much thought to what it does to the culture of the organization or society. We enjoy ‘displays of strength’ – the no brooking of any dissent and the active discouragement of ‘questioning’. Everything becomes ad- hominem. And when questioning dies- with it die scientific temper and rationality.

By defining leadership so narrowly and by elevating our leaders to such stratospheric heights, we do ourselves disservice. Despite being disappointed we keep setting store by this. In fact disappointments seem to strengthen this behavior further.

May be what we need today across the corporate and political realms are ‘weak’ leaders. Leaders who understand that the problems they are solving are far too complex for any one person to solve. Leaders who set store by expertise, who consult widely and who, once in a while, display self-doubt. Leaders who encourage questioning and see that as a sign of their strength. Leaders who are human.

We need such ‘weak’ leaders who can build strong institutions and processes. We hanker after ‘strong’ leaders and weak institutions.

To get there we need to give up seeking certain qualities in our leaders to the exclusion of everything else and take back the agency that we have so willingly given up.

 In a sense, it is like giving up religion. Difficult at first, but liberating once done.

SISYPHUS ,CLICHES AND LIFE

I wrote this piece a long time back -close to a decade ago–NOT A CHILD , NOT YET AN OLD MAN . I was going through my old posts and saw this. And it started a series of reflections. I was particularly struck by the hopeful tone of this post. It was so optimistic about the future . I thought it would be interesting to reflect on the last decade ,about my place in life and how do I feel now about the future.

As I reflect upon my life – one singular feeling stands out – that of disappointment. Disappointment in myself. I feel like I have singularly failed at many endeavors of my life. I have never lived up to the promises that I made to msyelf or to others -implicitly expected or explicitly made. I have always been an indifferent employee . I have been an uncaring friend. I am a bad husband and a rather mediocre son. True , I am materially comfortable and there are the visible trappings of success. I do count that among my blessings but somehow that doesnt console me because I am not living the way I want to or thought I would be.

Ironically ,at the same time I feel disappointed with the world ,the souls peopling it  and life in general. I wonder at it’s vagaries and cringe at it’s indifference. I have known pain and struggle and loss. I have known bitter disappointment and I have been a bitter disappointment to others. I have been depressed more than I care to admit. I have never been suicidal but I have wondered if there isnt a quick painless end. In short , in general life sucks and is sucked out of you -literally and metaphorically.

And as I wonder about all of this , I cant help thinking if there is a better attitude to life? I feel like I am stuck in the same place as I was a decade back. Searching , hoping  and getting disappointed. Have other people handled it better? Is there any one I can look up to for guidance? My thoughts turn to my mother. She got married when she was 18 ,small town , orthodox set up . She had me when she was 19. Her husband , my father deserted us when she was 23. So she had me , no job , no clue of her husband’s whereabouts and an education that was incomplete. Thankfully , my grandfather, her father , took us in. So she had shelter. So she lands a job , completes her education and raises me -all by herself and no she didnt remarry. I owe a lot to her.

Anyways , as I reflect upon this – I feel amazed. I see her strength and am awed. She faced the usual struggles of a single woman raising a kid by herself . I am her only offspring. My grandfather passed away more than two decades ago. I am what she got but apart from that she has no else to share her life with. She is lonely and severely weathered by life. I have disappointed her more than I would care to admit to myself . I have not been a great son.

And I see her attitude to life. There is no bitterness. No cynicism. The world has disappointed her but she hasnt turned away from it. She is strong yet retains vulnerability. She is realistic yet devoid of cyisicims. She is life weary yet hopeful. She had her disappointments ,yet not given to bitterness. She is devout. I would have turned away from God and religion in her place. I marvel at this attitude and I am thinking to msyelf that is the attitude I want.

I have always been struck by the Myth of Sisyphus. Rolling the boulder up the hill only to see it rolling down again ,KNOWING that it will roll down again. It is a deliberate choice. Life is like that I guess. It is a deliberate choice. A choice to live it or not. A choice to embrace it or not. And hope is important in this choice. And Will.

I suppose one continues get disappointed and one continues to disappoint. But cest la vie ,I guess. Its a deliberate choice one has to make – of going on living and embracing life. What drives this choice? Damned if I know . I guess it just is or isnt. Existentialists tell us its the will to life and that angst is a necessary accompaniment to life. I tend to agree with them.

Sometimes there is solace to be found in cliches. One cliche that comes to mind is from the Gita – Karmanye vadhikaraste.ma phaleshu kadachana. Do your thing and let the results be. Does it mean no expectations ? I am not so sure. Expecting and hoping are the key to the Will to live. I think its more an exhortation to continue living. It is a nice attitude. YOu are sure to be disappointed but you will continue to start rolling the boulder up the hill again.

Courage is important too I guess -to know what makes one happy and struggle for it. To know how to tell the difference between contentment and happiness . TO know the difference between serenity and true euphoria-for serenity and peace are like a stupor. To be willing to make choices- deliberate ones and to be willing to fight for those choices. They are burdens yes but I guess its the choice one makes.

So in that sense , I guess I would like to correct my attitude from before. One should always  be a child because what else but childish naivete can prompt someone to embrace life and one can never be an old man because it is always a choice to make – a deliberate choice to continue living and trying to find happiness – whatever that means for one.

IDENTITY AND LABELS

“So are you an atheist or not?” , some one asked. They sounded exasperated and troubled. As to what occasioned the question – my enthusiasm for the Diwali Pooja and the associated rituals. I have always held myself to be an atheist. I have been open about it –announcing it to friends and family. I love reading the works of the ‘four horsemen’ – Dawkins , Bennett , Harris and Hitchens. I have had vigorous debates on the existence of God with believers. So I guess I can understand why the juxtaposition of my enthusiasm for certain rituals and my avowed atheism can be puzzling and troubling- to the extent of allegations (valid ones) of hypocrisy and ‘drama’. “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”  That is a question that I guess I have to answer –to myself at least. And this started a series of reflections.

Specifically in regards for my enthusiasm for the Diwali rituals – I suppose there is a more mundane explanation. I missed my mother this Diwali. She wasn’t able to join us. I guess I was trying to recapture some of the essence of her presence last time. More importantly , these rituals remind me of my childhood and how Diwali was celebrated back home. When I was younger (than I am now) , I didn’t particularly care about these things. But now ,somehow I want to hold on to some memories and I suppose this is my way of recreating them.

But I think that still does not answer the larger questions- why would I not reject these rituals in light of my atheism? Is the above explanation enough? Am I an atheist then or just a convenient one? What is my stand on religion and God? What does this say about how I identify myself as?

I have always been obsessed with religion and God. I have been born into an orthodox ,religious family. I count temple priests among my ancestors. Religion has been and is a way of life for my family. In my childhood and teenage years I have always see sawed between being an atheist and being a believer. I think it was in my late teens that I finally settled on being an atheist. And I suppose I continue to be one. So what does that mean to me? It means I do not believe in the existence of an all powerful deity or deities. I do not believe that a being is watching over us. I do not believe we will be punished or rewarded for deeds bad or good – either here or in another imaginary world. I see many logical fallacies in the argument for God. My brand of atheism is not that of the disappointed child who blames an absent father – meaning I do not think that a God exists but is indifferent to us. My brand of atheism is not one of the ‘weaker’ versions. I do  not think ‘some power’ or ‘something’ exists. The universe is indifferent to our existence and there is nobody watching over us. I firmly am of the opinion that religion , in general has caused a lot of harm and religious zeal is amongst the worst impulses in the world.

Having said all of this , I also continue to be fascinated by religion- by religions of all kinds. Religion is a human creation and not a divine one. To marvel at it , is to marvel at human creativity. It is to marvel at what the human mind is capable of thinking up. True there is some really demented ,screwed up stuff but there is also lot that is beautiful ,touching and moving. Religious feeling and awe has been the inspiration for some of the greatest works of art, some of the most beautiful poetry and songs. Some of the most moving impulses have their roots in religious awe. To date , my most moving ,calming experience has been a call to prayer by a muezzin in a mosque in Istanbul. It was dusk. The sun was setting. The sky was a dark shade of orangish-red. May be it was the atmosphere. May be it was the place. But that call to prayer was one of the sweetest , most moving things I have ever heard. And I couldn’t help thinking to myself – even God would respond to that. Would one call it a religious experience? The earnestness in the voice , its sweetness were inspired by faith and by religious awe. I may have neither of these , but should that stop me from partaking in the beauty of this and appreciating the impulse that was it’s source? Similarly I appreciate certain rituals and traditions- for what they mean and what they meant to the people creating them. As long as I am mindful of the reasons why I am partaking in them , does that make me any less of an atheist? Some of the nicest people I know are religious I respect their faith ,while I do not share in it. My mother is religious and I don’t mind doing stuff for her , if that makes her happy , as long as she understand my position as well.

Religious awe can create both timeless beauty and mindless zeal. We need to be perhaps mindful that both of these have a human and not divine provenance. I like what some religious traditions have to say about the world , about how they see God . I would love to study them. I would like to know more. I don’t think that makes a person of faith.

I will continue to marvel at , be fascinated with and understand religion more. I will continue to partake in the beauty of the religious impulse . Ultimately , appreciating religion and its related impulses is appreciating humanity- for both the beauty it can create and the ugliness it can engender. And I will not bother about narrow labels.

 

DYING BEFORE DEATH

It is important not be obsessed with labels, particularly those that we give to ourselves. We tell ourselves that we are a certain kind of person. That we would never do certain things that we have seen other do or that we could never like certain kinds of experiences.  These labels could be anything –our ideals , our sense of morality , our idea of how the world is and how it should be , our own self image.. Most of the times these labels stand in our way. The image that we have built for ourselves becomes uncomfortably limiting at best and a prison at the worst. We end up doing things because we want to live up to our own image and not because they make us happy and help us change and grow. There are times when we do things because they are expected of us. That’s fine once in a while , even healthy at times. We want to do them too. But we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we take this too far. And the worst kind of disservice that we can do ourselves is doing things because we expect it of ourselves – when we try to live upto our own self image – and end up limiting our chances of growth, not taking our shot at happiness and undermining positive change and transformation. I know I have made this mistake. These are the perils of telling yourself that you are a certain kind of person – even more dangerous than listening to others tell you that you are a certain kind of person.

I just finished a book which got me thinking along these lines. These thoughts don’t exactly count as epiphanies but they come close. The book is “The fourty rules of Love” by Elfin Shafak. It is not one of the best books I have read – in terms of plot , characters or dialogue , sheer literary merit or even style. But this  is one book that has spoken to me and is bound to stay with me forever. It has opened up many lines of enquiry for me to pursue and shown me new ways of thinking. I suppose that’s what good books do or are supposed to do. And this one did that for me.

The plot switches between the stories of the Sufi poet Rumi and his friendship with Shams of Tabriz and a middle aged housewife Ella and her friendship and love with Aziz ,an itinerant photographer and a convert into Sufism. It has a different style of story telling. Different characters voice their perspectives and stories in each chapter as the novel unfolds. Not the best of styles but interesting. There are several secondary characters ,which to be honest are sometimes convenient stepping stones and don’t add much to the story. Every key character has been given a voice of it’s own , except surprisingly for Aziz. Wonder why the author didn’t find it necessary for the readers to know Aziz’s perspective. But if I am being honest , I think this books is neither about plot nor about characters. And it definitely not about a historical account of either Sufism or of Rumi. I think it is primarily about four things : Transformations , Happiness , Love and Conversations – all of them interrelated.

Transformations: This book is primarily about transformations – notably that of Ella and Rumi. Sometimes Ella appears as a metaphorical Rumi. It may appear on the surface that they are undergoing different kinds of transformations and  towards very different ends. The contexts of the transformations may be different but the journeys are similar. Only by letting go of what each thought was important to them , only by letting go of what they held very dear , only by letting go of their own self image and what they expected themselves to be – do each of them fulfill their journeys. They had to kill their nafs. And only in doing so would they find their true purpose, true happiness and love. They void themselves to achieve fuller lives. Each of them does so with the help of a guide , Aziz in the case of Ella and Shams in the case of Rumi. And each of them tragically lose their true love once they achieve this transformation. I suppose it is not about happy endings or even about endings. The present is all we have. The book talks about true submission as opposed to meek passivity- a subtle and a beautiful concept. We should submit to the music of the universe as we add our own little notes to it , compose as we are being composed , neither hostages to the past nor dreamers of the future ,composing our present as we ‘let life live through us’ , continually voiding ourselves to lead fuller lives. Never letting ourselves held hostage by others expectations of us and more importantly our own self image.

Happiness: This is related. Mostly we trade comfort for happiness , even confuse them both. We choose comfort and contentment over happiness and tell ourselves that we are happy. The path to happiness is not shod with comfort and contentment is a poor second. It is a journey – a perilous one. Even embarking on it takes courage. And there are no guarantees. Happiness perhaps does not always favor the brave nor does it always have to be a forever after ending. We should all pray that we find within ourselves the courage and the strength to ‘die before our deaths’ to embark on this journey when we have chance to with humble submission on our minds. Because , again unless we void ourselves we wont lead fuller lives.

Love: Sufism is primarily about love- the love for God and by an extension a love for the world and all of humanity. In these troubled , intolerant times we may need this more than ever – a simple love and acceptance of differences. That certainly is in short supply these days. Sufism is also about breaking down of barriers. It is a happy philosophy. It is a rejection of rigid rituals and calcified hierarchies. It is a rejection of intermediaries. It celebrates God by dance , song and poetry and does not just venerate. A close parallel is the Bhakti Movement in Hinduism , the tradition of the Alwars and the Nayanars in Tamil Nadu – where barriers of caste and hierarchy break down, the devotee becomes a lover and is elevated to sainthood. This book is about love of all kinds. The love for God , for humanity , the love between two friends , love between two lovers. The last two form the main theme of the book. These loves blossom unexpectedly , unbeknownst to the lovers themselves . The lovers are able to attain this only after transforming themselves and only after having the courage to embark on the path to happiness. It is beautiful.

Conversations: That’s how love blossoms in the first place! Conversations , dialogue ,sharing. That’s what happens between Ella and Aziz and what happens between Rumi and Shams. Ella and Aziz write emails to each other. Rumi and Shams talk. The power of words and the potency of conversations cannot be overstated. My only complaint with the book is that there could have been more of those in there.

All in all , I think I have changed a bit for the better after reading this book. If that is not a sign of a good book , I do not know what is.