365betÓéÀÖ

In discussing the interaction between tradition and modernity it might be useful to examine Tradition in its proper perspective. Etymologically, it is derived from the Latin root ‘Traditionis� literally meaning ‘handing over�, ‘surrender� or ‘transmission�. But how long or how old is this ‘tradition�? Where does it be­gin and where does it end?

The amusing part of it, however, is that almost everyone, who claims to follow tradition, with or without the tonsorial, sartorial accoutrements, seems to understand and implement it in his or her own way. According to one, dowry for a bride, and marriage within the closest family circle (maternal uncle’s son, paternal aunt’s daughter, and the like) are an integral part of this. (Is this not as good as incest, asked a north Indian friend of mine; In any case, have such Hindus any moral right to point a finger at Muslim friends for similar practices).

Forgetting these practices, let us go to the origin of tradition itself in its pri­mordial form. It takes many generations to make a little history, and a lot of history to make a little tradition, said Dr. S. Radhakrishnan. His emphasis is on loyalty to tradition and devotion to truth. No easy task for anyone to perform. Pandit Nehru does not use the same word but talks of ‘culture� instead. He says:

“Every culture has certain values attached to it, limited and conditioned by that culture. The people governed by that culture take these values for granted and attribute a permanent va­lidity to them�.

What are the values that we would cher­ish in our tradition? And are we making any ef­fort to keep them alive in our own time? For the sake of convenience, we can take them, in a rough and ready manner, to be: 1) Equality (es­pecially between men and women); 2) Liberty of the individual, to the extent that it does not militate against the state; and 3) social aware­ness for the common good.

In asserting the first point, most people who are fond of the concept of the golden age, invoke the period of Rigveda and Sama Veda which may be placed two or three millennia before Christ, in which we are told that there was, freedom and education for women and equality. According to the Vedic scholar, Altekar, during this period, � -----a husband and his wife are described as taking equal part in sacrificial rites, which were conducted jointly. There is evidence to show that musical chanting of the  Sama Veda was done by the wife ..... The wife participated with her husband in the preparation of the offering, the consecration of the fire and the offering of oblations. Thus, they were equal participants with men in Vedic sacrifices.

It is also mentioned that in Vedic society widows were not required to perform Sati nor were they subject to other inhuman disabilities and indignities including deformity by tonsure. They could either stay alone if they so chose have children by niyoga (levirate), or remarry like anybody else, with no let or hindrance.

When and how did all this idyllic state change for the worse? Some feel it happened during the Epic and Smriti period (i.e., a couple of centuries before and a few after Christ). The Smritikaras, especially Manu, were not only bra­zenly malechauvinist, but confusingly ambivalent in their attitude to women in general, who were treated as tempting, impure, unreliable, lacking in judgement and deserving of no freedom.

Worse things were to follow, after the Muhammaden invasions in the eleventh and sub­sequent centuries, when child marriages and some kind of purdah began to be practised - the former as a possible mode of protection from abduction; and the latter as an imitation of the powerful predatory hordes, who became the ruling races in due course.

Some kind of relief, in the shape of social stability, with juristic equality among the masses, came in only with the establishment of British power almost all over India, towards the latter part of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nine­teenth century. It was in the middle of the last century that people began to feel the effect of the Rule of Law, when the British established their courts, for administration of justice, not so much on the basis of their Common Law, but guided largely by the principles of Roman juris­prudence.

Against this ground, what are we to understand, when somebody in the south says that it was according to the Hindu / Indian tradi­tion that he had to get his minor daughter mar­ried (disregarding all laws on the age of consent); another orthodox man or woman insists that his or her widowed sister has to be tonsured; and yet another group in Rajasthan celebrates in high and holy style the Sati of the young lady, Roop Kanwar (over a century and half after the revo­lutionary legislation of Lord William Bentinck)?

What tradition are they following - the Vedic, the post - Vedic (Epic and Smriti) or that of the post - Muslim invasion, or their own family practice, not going farther than that of their grandfathers and great grandfathers? It is also a great pity that some Muttheads, wor­shipped as Gods and gurus by certain linguistic, sub - regional sub - castes, bother themselves more about such nitya - naimittika Karmas, as tonsorial and sartorial injunctions for widows and married men than about tackling problems of philosophic doubt, for which they are prob­ably not intellectually equipped by their educa­tion or training. As a result ritual takes the place of religion as a Whole and practised gestures, learnt by rote, are used as mystic symbols stand­ing for the essence of its philosophy.

One question yet remains: does the tradi­tion which many claim to follow have any noticeable effect on their personal character or has it improved their code of conduct? Has it had any worthwhile impact on our social practices ­like dowry, caste system and unplanned fami­lies?

Anyone who has read Sir lames Fraser’s ‘The Golden Bough�, which mentions a variety of fellility rites all over the world, would realise that rituals and ceremonies like the attainment of puberty (“Rajaswala�) or pregnancy at a certain stage of progress (‘Seemantam�) are not only Primitive but altogether out of date and even more out of place in metropolitan cities like Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Delhi. For the life of me, I can’t understand why there should be wedding processions, with the bridegroom on a white charger like Prithvi Raj or Shivaji, along with a few in an open luxury limousine, and the rest on foot, but all in colourful costume, obstructing traf­fic on busy thoroughfares like Radhakrishnan Salai and RK Mutt Road in Mylapore Madras and else where. Is this to be considered a blend of tradition and modernity or a caricature of tra­dition by those who haven’t the foggiest notion of either?

But then, what exactly is modernity? Is it to be identified with the products of modem tech­nology like aeroplanes, air conditioners, com­puters, telex and fax? Or getting a green card in the US, the land of automobiles, dollars and other opportunities? It is common experience for an Indian youth, a doctorate holder in nuclear phys­ics or computer science, settled in Connecticut or California to write to his parents to select a bride for him or what occurs more often, the parents forcing one on him? And that too with a matching dowry, which would come in handy in disposing of his younger sister to a “suitable� boy? Is it tradition or modernity, or a bit of both?

There are, presumably, as many ideas about modernity as there are persons who claim to be modernists. It cannot certainly be equated with Westernisation or industrialisation. Even a typical modernist and avowed humanist like Nehru is obliged to be cautious in defining it or at least explaining it. Referring to the better type of modem mind, he says: “It is governed by a practical idealism for social betterment. The ide­als which move it represent the spirit of the age, the Zeitgeist, the Yugadharma..........Hu­manity is God and social service its religion�.

With his wide learning and well-meant optimism, Jawaharlal Nehru, classifying these ideals under two heads humanism and the sci­entific spirit, saw a growing synthesis between these two, resulting in a kind of “scientific humanism�. But it is more easily said than done, from what we are able to watch of contemporary society, where there is double - think and double - speak in every stratum of society. “Scientific humanism� therefore remains a dream and mirage.

Quite a few conservatives, whose understanding of ‘tradition� is not only uncertain but woefully unreliable, tend to argue that truth is not affected by time. Dr. Radhakrishnan refutes this argument in words which can hardly be improved upon: “Truth may be immutable, but the form in which it is embodied consists of elements, which admit of change. We may take our spirit from the past, - - - - - but the body� and the pulse must be the present. It is forgot­ten that religion, as it is today, is itself the prod­uct of ages of changes and there is no reason why its forms should not undergo fresh changes so long as the spirit demands it. It is possible to remain faithful to the letter and yet pervert the whole spirit�.

As far as India is concerned, our attitude to tradition, covering rituals, ceremonies and social practices, has to change, with the spirit of the age, the inexorable imperatives of time and space. It is atrocious (anti - social because of avoidable burning of enormous quantities of
ghee) for instance, on the part of any govern­ment to allow, if not encourage, putrakameshtiyagas - (i.e. sacrifices to in­duce the birth of sons to childless couples). And yet such things have been done with the muted blessings of the powers that be. It is no less objectionable to give a carte blanche to certain religious groups (for their vote banks) to violate the provisions of IPC, CRPC, and even the Constitution itself on the procreation of childern, with no regard for the principle of family planning.

Now for a word or two about modern­ism: Is it to be identified with new modes of transport and communication, personal dress or interior decoration, handling crockery and cut­lery? One may be up-to-date in all these aids and implements and yet remain primitive in one’s at­titude to social stratification and mating customs and practices. The changes have to be more integral to the human personality. In the words of the great liberal, John Stuart Mill, (in his autobiography): �- - - - - - - - no great im­provements in the lot of mankind are possible until a great change takes place in the fundamen­tal constitution of their modes of thought.....From which it can be argued that mere changes in the country’s political constitution by themselves will not do for the purpose in view.�

It is the duty of thinking citizens to sepa­rate the living tradition from the dead and discard the latter, in the interest of genuine moder­nity. Their endeavour must be to bring the es­sence of religion into line with the spirit of sci­ence. They must also remember that legislation alone will not do to change evil customs and practices (dowry and gender prejudice) that are deep rooted. A Herculean effort in social awareness and collective action is unavoidable to change them towards a happy blend of tradi­tion and modernity for true progress.

‘The man who knows how to split the atom but has no love in his heart� - is a monster
–J¾±»å»å³Ü Krishna Murthy