Poetry Offers Pleasure and Solace, and Sensitises You to Pain and Deprivation: Javed Akhtar

‘Is it just a coincidence that fascist ideologies have not been able to produce one major poet? That is because poetry is the language of love/peace/justice and equality.’

Javed Akhtar was given an honorary degree by the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, on September 7. Reproduced below is the full text of his speech.

§

Lord Hastings Chair of the Board of Trustees of SOAS,

President Zeinab Badawi,

Director, Professor Adam Habib and Graduents,

I stand humbled for the honour bestowed on me and thank you for making me a Fellow of SOAS.

When such an award is bestowed, we must not forget that it is the art that is being honoured and not the artist.

There are many people who wonder why poetry should be honoured in the time of science and technology. I think before taking the final call, we should give a thought to what is poetry.

Only rhyme and metre do not make poetry. I am talking of good poetry here.

I believe good poetry is born in a paradox, of complete awareness and complete submergence, complete passion and complete craft.

Good poetry is born in a no man’s land between the conscious and the subconscious. It comes from the depth of the poet’s psyche, consciousness, sense of values, and that is why it holds magic, charm, and connects to the reader’s subconscious, conscience and values.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are living in the era of post-truth where we arrive at conclusions before searching for logic and reason.

Where favourable laws for the powerful corporates are called effort for development.

Where any effort to save the environment is called blocking the development.

Where greed to take over oil resources of some places is called war on terrorism.

Subjugating and stripping a woman of all her rights is called protecting her dignity and chastity.

Where hating the minorities is the ultimate proof of one’s patriotism and nationalism.

We are living in a world where all the means of information and communication are, one after another, falling in the hands of the powerful. We are living in a world where many people are discontent, unhappy and frustrated and that is why they are looking towards religion or its second line of defence – spiritualism and sufism. One must accept these pursuits provide some solace to some people by making them look away from day to day realities. They give you painkillers to relieve your pain, not to heal the injury, they never challenge the status quo.

On the other hand, poetry provides you with the music of language, pleasure and solace. But at the same time sensitises you to the pain and deprivation of the world. Take a look at the poets of the 20th century, from one end of the world to another, you will see poets have turned their pens into swords, to battle the evil forces of the world.

Be it Pablo Neruda of Chile, Mehmoud Darvesh of Palestine, Breyten of South Africa, Nazrul from Bengal, Faiz from Punjab and Majaz from Avadh in the Indian subcontinent.

Is it just a coincidence that fascist ideologies have not been able to produce one major poet?

That is because poetry is the language of love/peace/justice and equality.

Are such poets required today? The answer is a big yes.

Actually with great pride I would like to share that in India, in the late 30s,  a pan-Indian Progressive Writers Movement was started in which authors and poets passed a resolution to undertake the responsibility to write against colonialism, economic exploitation and support women’s empowerment.

This movement created great literature but I have reservations about the word responsibility. Responsibility is most often an imposition. I believe it is not the duty but the right of every writer and poet to raise their voice.

I hope that such patronage and felicitation of poets and writers will encourage them to fully claim their right to speak and write and challenge the status quo to usher in a new social order in the world.

Thank you

Javed Akhtar

The Taliban Mindset Comes in All Shapes and Sizes and We Must Oppose Them All

Javed Akhtar responds to the criticism that a recent interview of his has triggered from the Hindu right-wing.

When I gave an interview to NDTV on September 3, 2021, I had no idea that what I said would generate such sharp reactions

On one hand, there are some people who have expressed their outrage and anger in the strongest language possible, on the other hand there are people from every nook and corner of the country who have given me messages of solidarity and expressed their total agreement with my point of view. I will surely thank them all but first, I want to respond to the allegations and accusations of those who vented against my interview. Since it is not possible to respond to each critic individually, this is my collective response.

My detractors have said that while I am criticizing the Hindu right wing I have never stood against fanatics among the Muslim fold. They have accused me of not saying anything about triple talaq, of not speaking on purdah or any other regressive practice within the Muslim community. I am not surprised at the fact that they are totally unaware of my activities over the years. After all, I am not such an important person that everyone should know what I do or have been doing.

The fact, however, is that, over the past two decades, I have been given police protection twice because of threats to my life from fanatical Muslims: first, because not only had I vociferously opposed triple talaq when the issue was not on the national radar, but I had, along with an organisation named Muslims for Secular Democracy (MSD), toured several cities across India like Hyderabad, Allahabad, Kanpur and Aligarh and from a variety of public platforms spoken out against this retrograde practice. The impact of this can be envisaged from this: I started getting death threats, that were prominently published in one Mumbai-based Urdu newspaper. This was in 2007. A.N. Roy, who was then Commissioner of Police, Mumbai actually summoned the editor and publisher of the publication and warned him that if any violent act were to follow, the Mumbai police would hold the newspaper responsible. 

In 2010, on a TV channel, I had a debate with a prominent Muslim cleric, Maulana Kalbe Jawwad on the regressive practice of purdah which greatly upset the Maulana and in a few days my effigies were burnt in Lucknow and I started getting hate mails and death threats once more. Again, I was provided protection by the Mumbai police. So to accuse me for not standing up against Muslim fundamentalists is totally baseless.

Some have accused me of glorifying the Taliban. Nothing could be more absurd. I have only contempt for people of such a mindset. A little more than a week before my NDTV interview, I had,  on August 24, 2021, tweeted: ‘It is shocking that two members of Muslim Personal law board have expressed their extreme happiness at the take-over of AFG by the barbarian Taliban although the board has distance itself but it is not enough. MSLB must give their POV in the most unambiguous words.’

I am re-iterating my opinions here because I don’t want the supporters of the Hindu right-wing to hide behind the false excuse that I don’t stand up against regressive beliefs and practices within the Muslim community.

They have also accused me of insulting Hinduism and Hindus. There is not an iota of truth in this. Actually, in the recent interview I have said ‘Hindus are the most decent and tolerant majority’ in the world. This I have repeated again and again and have also emphasized that India can never become like Afghanistan because Indians by nature not extremists; it is in their DNA to be moderate, to keep to the middle of the road. Why then, despite these assertions of mine, you will wonder, are some people so upset with me? The answer is because I have clearly condemned the extreme right-wing, the bigots, the fanatics of each and every community. I have emphasized that there is an uncanny resemblance among the right-wing mindsets of every community. 

Yes, in my NDTV interview I have expressed my reservations against organizations affiliated to the Sangh parivar. I am opposed to any school of thought that divides people on the basis of religion, caste and creed and I stand by all those who are against any such discrimination. Perhaps that is why in 2018 one of the most respected temples of India, the ‘Sankat Mochan Mandir’, Varanasi, invited me and gave me an unprecedented never before, title and trophy that called me ‘Shanti Doot’, or messenger of peace. I was also asked to give a talk inside the temple, a rare honor for an atheist like me. 

My critics are also outraged that I find a lot of commonalities between the mindsets of the Taliban and the Hindu right-wing. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of commonality. 

  • The Taliban are forming an Islamic government based on religion, the Hindu right-wing wants a Hindu Rashtra. 
  • The Taliban want to curb women rights and put them on the margin, the Hindu right-wing has also made it clear that they don’t like the freedom of women and girls; from Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat to Karnataka, young men and women have been beaten mercilessly for sitting together in a restaurant or a garden or any public place. 
  • Like Muslim fanatics, the Hindu right-wing too does not accept the right of women to choose their own life partner. Recently, a very important right-wing leader has said that women are not capable of being left on their own or being independent. 
  • Like the Taliban, the Hindu right-wing also claims superiority of faith and astha over any man-made law or court.
  • The Taliban have no love lost for any minority; similarly, what thoughts and feelings the Hindu right-wing nurtures for the minority is evident from their speeches and slogans and – whenever they get an opportunity – by their actions. 

The only difference between the Taliban and these extremist groups is that the Taliban today have unchallenged power in Afghanistan with no one to question them, while in India there is huge resistance against the Indian version of this Talibani ideology which is totally in conflict with the Constitution of India. Our constitution does not discriminate on the basis of religion, community, caste or gender. We have institutions like the judiciary and media too. The key point of departure between the two is that the Taliban have achieved their goal in Afghanistan. The Hindu right-wing is doing its best to get us there. Fortunately, this is India and the Indian people are providing stiff resistance. 

Also read: The World Must Pay Attention to the Violence Against Muslims in India

Some people are also upset that in my interview I have mentioned M.S. Golwalkar’s admiration for Nazi Germany and the Nazi way of handling Germany’s minorities. Golwalkar was the supremo of the Sangh from 1940 to 1973. He authored two books, We, or our Nationhood Defined and A Bunch of Thoughts. These books are easily available on the Internet. Over the past few years, his followers have started disowning the first book by claiming that it was “not written by Guruji”. This distancing is because even the worst bigot is today not able to defend or justify the contents of the book. They say that putting Golwalkar’s name in the book that ran into several editions was just a mistake.

We, or Our Nationhood Defined was published for the first time in 1939. Golwalkar was very much in this world till 1973. Between 1939 and 1973, in other words for 34 years, several editions of this book were published but Golwalkar never disowned this book, so obviously his follower’s denial of his authorship is nothing but political expediency. Here I give you one quote from each of his books.

From We, or Our Nationhood Defined, (pages 34-35; pages 47-48):

“To keep up the purity of the race and its culture, Germany shocked the world by her purging the country of the Semitic races – the Jews. Race pride at its highest has been manifested here. Germany has also shown how well-nigh impossible it is for races and cultures, having differences going to the root, to be assimilated into one united whole, a good lesson for us in Hindusthan [sic] to learn and profit by…

“the foreign races in Hindusthan (Christians and Muslims) must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and hold in reverence the Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but those of the glorification of the Hindu race and culture, i.e., of the Hindu nation….. and must lose their separate existence to merge in the Hindu race, or may stay in the country, wholly subordinated to the Hindu Nation, claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferential treatment, not even citizen’s rights.”

From A Bunch of Thoughts, pages 148-164237-238, Part Two, Chapter VI, The Hindu Nation, Section, The Nation and Its Problems XVI. Internal Threat, 1. THE MUSLIMS & … THE CHRISTIANS:

“Even today, Muslims, whether in high position of the Government or outside, participate openly in rabidly anti-national conferences…….

“…Many leading Christian missionaries have often declared unequivocally that their one single aim is to make this country ‘ a province of the Kingdom of Christ’…

These quotes are self-explanatory. I really do not need to say anything more.

It is interesting that while supporters of the Hindu-right wing are so upset with me, one of their own prominent political leaders has called the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government ‘Talibani’. I am not a member of any of the three parties which, as a coalition, are governing Maharashtra extremely well under the able chief ministership of Uddhav Thackeray. Today, his popularity in Maharashtra rivals that of Mamata Banerjee in Bengal and M.K. Stalin in Tamil Nadu. Not even his worst critics can accuse him of any discrimination or injustice. How and why anyone can call Uddhav Thackeray’s government ‘Talibani’ is beyond my understanding. 

Javed Akhtar is a poet and screenwriter.

Watch | Javed Akhtar Recites His Poem on the Plight of Migrant Labourers

In this video for The Wire, the writer, poet and lyricist recites his original composition on the plight of migrant workers.

Writer, poet, lyricist and scriptwriter of countless hits, Javed Akhtar is a man of many seasons. He is outspoken about public issues, especially about religious fundamentalism, often attracting angry reactions from Hindus and Muslims alike.

In this video for The Wire, he recites his original composition on the plight of migrant workers.

Translated from Hindi to English by Rakshanda Jalil

Boredom Is But a Window to a Sunny Day

Instead of fighting boredom, go along with it, entertain it, make something out of it.

What, exactly, is boredom?

It is a deeply unpleasant state of unmet arousal: we are aroused rather than despondent, but, for one or more reasons, our arousal cannot be met or directed. These reasons can be internal – often a lack of imagination, motivation or concentration – or external, such as an absence of environmental stimuli or opportunities. We want to do something engaging, but find ourselves unable to do so and, more than that, are frustrated by the rising awareness of this inability.

Awareness, or consciousness, is key, and might explain why animals, if they do get bored, generally have higher thresholds for boredom. In the words of the British writer Colin Wilson: ‘most animals dislike boredom, but man is tormented by it’. In both man and animal, boredom is induced or exacerbated by a lack of control or freedom, which is why it is so common in children and adolescents, who, in addition to being chaperoned, lack the mind furnishings – the resources, experience and discipline – to mitigate their boredom.

Let’s look more closely at the anatomy of boredom. Why is it so damned boring to be stuck in a departure lounge while our flight is increasingly delayed? We are in a state of high arousal, anticipating our imminent arrival in a novel and stimulating environment. True, there are plenty of shops, screens and magazines around, but we’re not really interested in them and, by dividing our attention, they serve only to exacerbate our boredom. To make matters worse, the situation is out of our control, unpredictable (the flight could be further delayed, or even cancelled) and inescapable. As we check and re-check the monitor, we become painfully aware of all these factors and more. And so here we are, caught in transit, in a high state of arousal that we can neither engage nor escape.

If we really need to catch our flight, maybe because our livelihood or the love of our life depends on it, we will feel less bored (although more anxious and annoyed) than if it had been a toss-up between travelling and staying at home. In that much, boredom is an inverse function of perceived need or necessity. We might get bored at the funeral of an obscure relative but not at that of a parent or sibling.

So far so good, but why exactly is boredom so unpleasant? The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer argued that, if life were intrinsically meaningful or fulfilling, there could be no such thing as boredom. Boredom, then, is evidence of the meaninglessness of life, opening the shutters on some very uncomfortable feelings that we normally block out with a flurry of activity or with the opposite feelings. This is the essence of the manic defence, which consists in preventing feelings of helplessness and despair from entering the conscious mind by occupying it with opposite feelings of euphoria, purposeful activity and omnipotent control – or, failing that, any feelings at all.

In Albert Camus’s novel The Fall (1956), Clamence reflects to a stranger:

I knew a man who gave 20 years of his life to a scatterbrained woman, sacrificing everything to her, his friendships, his work, the very respectability of his life, and who one evening recognised that he had never loved her. He had been bored, that’s all, bored like most people. Hence he had made himself out of whole cloth a life full of complications and drama. Something must happen – and that explains most human commitments. Something must happen, even loveless slavery, even war or death.

People who suffer from chronic boredom are at higher risk of developing psychological problems such as depression, overeating, and alcohol and drug misuse. A study found that, when confronted with boredom in an experimental setting, many people chose to give themselves unpleasant electric shocks simply to distract from their own thoughts, or lack thereof.

Out in the real world, we expend considerable resources on combatting boredom. The value of the global entertainment and media market is set to reach $2.6 trillion by 2023, and entertainers and athletes are afforded ludicrously high levels of pay and status. The technological advances of recent years have put an eternity of entertainment at our fingertips, but this has made matters only worse – in part, by removing us further from our here and now. Instead of feeling sated and satisfied, we are desensitised and in need of ever more stimulation – ever more war, ever more gore, and ever more hardcore.


Also read: Here’s Why I Don’t Mind Being ‘Unproductive’


The good news is that boredom can also have upsides.

Boredom can be our way of telling ourselves that we are not spending our time as well as we could, that we should be doing something more enjoyable, more useful, or more fulfilling. From this point of view, boredom is an agent of change and progress, a driver of ambition, shepherding us out into larger, greener pastures.

But even if we are one of those rare people who feels fulfilled, it is worth cultivating some degree of boredom, insofar as it provides us with the preconditions to delve more deeply into ourselves, reconnect with the rhythms of nature, and begin and complete highly focused, long and difficult work. As the British philosopher Bertrand Russell put it in The Conquest of Happiness (1930):

A generation that cannot endure boredom will be a generation of little men, of men unduly divorced from the slow processes of nature, of men in whom every vital impulse slowly withers as though they were cut flowers in a vase.

In 1918, Russell spent four and a half months in Brixton prison for ‘pacifist propaganda’, but found the bare conditions congenial and conducive to creativity:

I found prison in many ways quite agreeable … I had no engagements, no difficult decisions to make, no fear of callers, no interruptions to my work. I read enormously; I wrote a book, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy … and began the work for Analysis of Mind … One time, when I was reading Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, I laughed so loud that the warder came round to stop me, saying I must remember that prison was a place of punishment.

Of course, not everyone is a Bertrand Russell. How might we, mere mortals, best cope with boredom? If it is, as we have established, an awareness of unmet arousal, we can minimise boredom by: avoiding situations over which we have little control; eliminating distractions; motivating ourselves; expecting less; putting things into their proper perspective (realising how lucky we really are); and so on.

But rather than fighting a constant battle against boredom, it is easier and much more productive to actually embrace it. If boredom is a window on to the fundamental nature of reality and, by extension, on to the human condition, then fighting boredom amounts to pulling back the curtains. Yes, the night is pitch-black, but the stars shine all the more brightly for it.

For just these reasons, many Eastern traditions encourage boredom, seeing it as the path to a higher consciousness. Here’s one of my favourite Zen jokes:

A Zen student asked how long it would take to gain enlightenment if he joined the temple.
‘Ten years,’ said the Zen master.
‘Well, how about if I work really hard and double my effort?’
‘Twenty years.’

So instead of fighting boredom, go along with it, entertain it, make something out of it. In short, be yourself less boring. Schopenhauer said that boredom is but the reverse side of fascination, since both depend on being outside rather than inside a situation, and one leads to the other.

Next time you find yourself in a boring situation, throw yourself fully into it – instead of doing what we normally do, which is to step further and further back. If this feels like too much of an ask, the Zen master Thich Nhat Hanh advocates simply appending the word ‘meditation’ to whatever activity it is that you find boring, for example, ‘standing-in-line meditation’.

In the words of the 18th-century English writer Samuel Johnson: ‘It is by studying little things that we attain the great art of having as little misery and as much happiness as possible.’Aeon counter – do not remove

Neel Burton is a psychiatrist and philosopher. He is a fellow of Green Templeton College at the University of Oxford.

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Featured image credit: Unsplash

Aeon counter – do not remove

To Make Laziness Work for You, Put Some Effort Into It

We often confuse laziness with idleness, but idleness – which is to be doing nothing – need not amount to laziness.

We are being lazy if there’s something that we ought to do but are reluctant to do because of the effort involved. We do it badly, or do something less strenuous or less boring, or just remain idle. In other words, we are being lazy if our motivation to spare ourselves effort trumps our motivation to do the right or best or expected thing – assuming, of course, we know what that is.

In the Christian tradition, laziness, or sloth, is one of the seven deadly sins because it undermines society and God’s plan, and invites the other sins. The Bible inveighs against slothfulness, for example, in Ecclesiastes:

By much slothfulness the building decayeth; and through idleness of the hands the house droppeth through. A feast is made for laughter, and wine maketh merry: but money answereth all things.

Today, laziness is so closely connected with poverty and failure that a poor person is often presumed lazy, no matter how hard he or she actually works.

But it could be that laziness is written into our genes. Our nomadic ancestors had to conserve energy to compete for scarce resources, flee predators and fight enemies. Expending effort on anything other than short-term advantage could jeopardise their very survival. In any case, in the absence of conveniences such as antibiotics, banks, roads or refrigeration, it made little sense to think long-term. Today, mere survival has fallen off the agenda, and it is long-term vision and commitment that lead to the best outcomes. Yet our instinct remains to conserve energy, making us averse to abstract projects with distant and uncertain payoffs.

Even so, few people would choose to be lazy. Many so-called ‘lazy’ people haven’t yet found what they want to do, or, for one reason or another, are not able to do it. To make matters worse, the job that pays their bills and fills their best hours might have become so abstract and specialised that they can no longer fully grasp its purpose or product, and, by extension, their part in improving other peoples’ lives. Unlike a doctor or builder, an assistant deputy financial controller in a large multinational corporation cannot be at all certain of the effect or end-product of his or her labour – so why bother?

Other psychological factors that can lead to ‘laziness’ are fear and hopelessness. Some people fear success, or don’t have enough self-esteem to feel comfortable with success, and laziness is their way of sabotaging themselves. William Shakespeare conveyed this idea much more eloquently and succinctly in Antony and Cleopatra: ‘Fortune knows we scorn her most when most she offers blows.’ Other people fear not success but failure, and laziness is preferable to failure because it is at one remove. ‘It’s not that I failed,’ they can tell themselves, ‘it’s that I never tried.’

Some people are ‘lazy’ because they understand their situation as being so hopeless that they cannot even begin to think it through, let alone do something about it. As these people are unable to address their circumstances, it could be argued that they are not truly lazy – which, at least to some extent, can be said of all ‘lazy’ people. The very concept of laziness presupposes the ability to choose not to be lazy, that is, presupposes the existence of free will.

In a few cases, ‘laziness’ is the very opposite of what it appears. We often confuse laziness with idleness, but idleness – which is to be doing nothing – need not amount to laziness. In particular, we might choose to remain idle because we value idleness and its products above whatever else we might be doing. Lord Melbourne, Queen Victoria’s favourite prime minister, extolled the virtues of ‘masterful inactivity’. More recently, Jack Welch, as chairman and CEO of General Electric, spent an hour each day in what he called ‘looking out of the window time’.


Also read: Dear English Language Snobs, ‘Like’ Isn’t a Lazy Linguistic Filler


And the German chemist August Kekulé in 1865 claimed to have discovered the ring structure of the benzene molecule while daydreaming about a snake biting its own tail. Adepts of this kind of strategic idleness use their ‘idle’ moments, among others, to observe life, gather inspiration, maintain perspective, sidestep nonsense and pettiness, reduce inefficiency and half-living, and conserve health and stamina for truly important tasks and problems. Idleness can amount to laziness, but it can also be the most intelligent way of working. Time is a very strange thing, and not at all linear: sometimes, the best way of using it is to waste it.

Idleness is often romanticised, as epitomised by the Italian expression dolce far niente (‘the sweetness of doing nothing’). We tell ourselves that we work hard from a desire for idleness. But in fact, we find even short periods of idleness hard to bear. Research suggests that we make up justifications for keeping busy and feel happier for it, even when busyness is imposed upon us. Faced with a traffic jam, we prefer to make a detour even if the alternative route is likely to take longer than sitting through the traffic.

There’s a contradiction here. We are predisposed to laziness and dream of being idle; at the same time, we always want to be doing something, always need to be distracted. How are we to resolve this paradox? Perhaps what we really want is the right kind of work, and the right balance. In an ideal world, we would do our own work on our own terms, not somebody else’s work on somebody else’s terms. We would work not because we needed to, but because we wanted to, not for money or status, but (at the risk of sounding trite) for peace, justice and love.

On the other side of the equation, it’s all too easy to take idleness for granted. Society prepares us for years and years for being useful as it sees it, but gives us absolutely no training in, and little opportunity for, idleness. But strategic idleness is a high art and hard to pull off – not least because we are programmed to panic the moment we step out of the rat race. There is a very fine divide between idleness and boredom. In the 19th century, Arthur Schopenhauer argued that, if life were intrinsically meaningful or fulfilling, there could be no such thing as boredom. Boredom, then, is evidence of the meaninglessness of life, opening the shutters on some very uncomfortable thoughts and feelings that we normally block out with a flurry of activity or with the opposite thoughts and feelings – or indeed, any feelings at all.

In Albert Camus’s novel The Fall (1956), Clamence reflects to a stranger:

I knew a man who gave 20 years of his life to a scatterbrained woman, sacrificing everything to her, his friendships, his work, the very respectability of his life, and who one evening recognised that he had never loved her. He had been bored, that’s all, bored like most people. Hence he had made himself out of whole cloth a life full of complications and drama. Something must happen – and that explains most human commitments. Something must happen, even loveless slavery, even war or death.

In the essay ‘The Critic as Artist’ (1891), Oscar Wilde wrote that ‘to do nothing at all is the most difficult thing in the world, the most difficult and the most intellectual.’

The world would be a much better place if we could all spend a year looking out of our window.Aeon counter – do not remove

Neel Burton is a psychiatrist and philosopher

This article was originally published at Aeon and has been republished under Creative Commons.

Featured image credit: Unsplash

The Hypersane Are Among Us, if Only We Are Prepared to Look

Unlike other mental disorders, Hypersanity is empowering, liberating and prevails in the modern-day society.

Hypersanity is not a common or accepted term. But neither did I make it up. I first came across the concept while training in psychiatry, in The Politics of Experience and the Bird of Paradise (1967) by R.D. Laing.

In this book, the Scottish psychiatrist presented ‘madness’ as a voyage of discovery that could open out onto a free state of higher consciousness, or hypersanity. For Laing, the descent into madness could lead to a reckoning, to an awakening, to ‘break-through’ rather than ‘breakdown’.

A few months later, I read C.G. Jung’s autobiography, Memories, Dreams, Reflections (1962), which provided a vivid case in point. In 1913, on the eve of the Great War, Jung broke off his close friendship with Sigmund Freud, and spent the next few years in a troubled state of mind that led him to a ‘confrontation with the unconscious’.

As Europe tore itself apart, Jung gained the first-hand experience of psychotic material in which he found ‘the matrix of a mythopoeic imagination which has vanished from our rational age’. Like GilgameshOdysseus, Heracles, Orpheus and Aeneas before him, Jung traveled deep down into an underworld where he conversed with Salome, an attractive young woman and with Philemon, an old man with a white beard, the wings of a kingfisher and the horns of a bull.

Although Salome and Philemon were products of Jung’s unconscious, they had lives of their own and said things that he had not previously thought. In Philemon, Jung had at long last found the father-figure that both Freud and his own father had failed to be. More than that, Philemon was a guru and prefigured what Jung himself was later to become: the wise old man of Zürich. As the war burnt out, Jung re-emerged into sanity, and considered that he had found in his madness ‘the primo material for a lifetime’s work’.


Also Read Here’s What Working With an Invisible Disability is Actually Like


After being exiled from his native Sinope for having defaced its coinage, Diogenes emigrated to Athens, took up the life of a beggar, and made it his mission to deface – metaphorically this time – the coinage of custom and convention that was, he maintained, the false currency of morality. He disdained the need for conventional shelter or any other such ‘dainties’ and elected to live in a tub and survive on a diet of onions.

Diogenes proved to the later satisfaction of the Stoics that happiness has nothing whatsoever to do with a person’s material circumstances, and held that human beings had much to learn from studying the simplicity and artlessness of dogs, which, unlike human beings, had not complicated every simple gift of the gods.


Also Read Sometimes, Conforming Is the Best Way to Deal With Depression


The term ‘cynic’ derives from the Greek kynikos, which is the adjective of kyon or ‘dog’. Once, upon being challenged for masturbating in the marketplace, Diogenes regretted that it was not as easy to relieve hunger by rubbing an empty stomach.

When asked, on another occasion, where he came from, he replied: ‘I am a citizen of the world’ (cosmopolites), a radical claim at the time, and the first recorded use of the term ‘cosmopolitan’. As he approached death, Diogenes asked for his mortal remains to be thrown outside the city walls for wild animals to feast upon. After his death in the city of Corinth, the Corinthians erected to his glory a pillar surmounted by a dog of Parian marble.

Jung and Diogenes came across as insane by the standards of their day. But both men had a depth and acuteness of vision that their contemporaries lacked, and that enabled them to see through their facades of ‘sanity’. Both psychosis and hypersanity place us outside society, making us seem ‘mad’ to the mainstream. Both states attract a heady mixture of fear and fascination. But whereas mental disorder is distressing and disabling, hypersanity is liberating and empowering.

After reading The Politics of Experience, the concept of hypersanity stuck in my mind, not least as something that I might aspire to for myself. But if there is such a thing as hypersanity, the implication is that mere sanity is not all it’s cracked up to be, a state of dormancy and dullness with less vital potential even than madness. This I think is most apparent in people’s frequently suboptimal – if not frankly inappropriate – responses, both verbal and behavioural, to the world around them. As Laing puts it:

The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious, of being out of one’s mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society highly values its normal man. It educates children to lose themselves and to become absurd, and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last 50 years.

Many ‘normal’ people suffer from not being hypersane: they have restricted worldview, confused priorities, and are wracked by stress, anxiety, and self-deception. As a result, they sometimes do dangerous things and become fanatics or fascists or otherwise destructive (not constructive) people. In contrast, hypersane people are calm, contained and constructive.


Also Read Why Calling Public Figures ‘Mentally Ill’ Is a Dangerous Practice


It is not just that the ‘sane’ is irrational but that they lack scope and range, as though they’ve grown into the prisoners of their arbitrary lives, locked up in their own dark and narrow subjectivity. Unable to take leave of their selves, they hardly look around them, barely see beauty and possibility, rarely contemplate the bigger picture – and all, ultimately, for fear of losing their selves, of breaking down, of going mad, using one form of extreme subjectivity to defend against another, as life – mysterious, magical life – slips through their fingers.

We could all go mad, in a way we already are, minus the promise.

But what if there were another route to hypersanity, one that compared with madness was less fearsome, less dangerous and less damaging? What if, as well as a backdoor way, there were also a royal road strewn with sweet-scented petals? After all, Diogenes did not exactly go mad. Neither did other hypersane people such as Socrates and Confucius, although the Buddha did suffer at the beginning with what might today be classed as depression.

Besides Jung, are there any modern examples of hypersanity? Those who escaped from Plato’s cave of shadows were reluctant to crawl back down and involve themselves in the affairs of men, and most hypersane people, rather than courting the limelight, might prefer to hide out in their back gardens.

But a few do rise to prominence for the difference that they felt compelled to make, people such as Nelson Mandela and Temple Grandin. And the hypersane are still among us: from the Dalai Lama to Jane Goodall, there are many candidates.

While hypersane might seem to be living in a world of their own, this is only because they have delved more deeply into the way things are than those ‘sane’ people around them.

This article is republished from Aeon under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Featured image credit: Unsplash

The Current Situation in India Terrifies Me

The Raza Academy has no business issuing a fatwa against Rahman. They issue a statement and it gets called a fatwa

A R Rahman (Photo: acktiv i oslo on Flickr)

A R Rahman (Photo: acktiv i oslo on Flickr)

I must say at the outset that most people, particularly the media, give way too much importance to a fatwa. First of all, they insist upon calling any statement a fatwa. I have no hope that the media will change anytime soon because fatwa, for them, is a sexy term. It’s juicy and interesting and it creates a counterpoint of Muslim communalism. If the Hindus have Bajrang Dal and VHP you also need some hate-mongering Muslim institutions to create a fine balance.

But few people know what fatwa actually means. It’s a tradition where you go to a qazi (judge), and a qualified one at that, with a matter. You have to ask him in writing, ‘Sir, what is your opinion of this particular issue and according to Islam, what is the right thing to do.’ He will give you an answer and in the end, he will write, ‘This is what I think. But God knows better.’ You can then go to another qazi with the same issue and he may offer an entirely different opinion. Why is it that a fatwa nowadays sounds like some kind of an ordinance, a murder or an assassination? So, let us not get so alarmed by fatwas.

The very fact of Raza Academy issuing a fatwa against A R Rahman (for giving music to Majid Majidi’s film Muhammad) is absurd. They are not qualified to give a fatwa. They can only give out a statement as an organisation. Even if somebody does issue a fatwa against Rahman then perhaps some other qazi will say something else. How do we take them seriously? Some years ago, a channel conducted a sting operation to expose the so-called fatwas. They shot some qazis who agreed to issue a fatwa for as less as Rs 10,000. Can you imagine anything that can influence the opinion of 18 crore people being sold for Rs 10,000 in the market! It’s a steal, I must say. Jokes apart, let’s not create an aura around fatwa.

Who is Raza Academy?

As far as the Raza Academy is concerned, I have no idea who are the people who run it, where is their office and how many people are its members. I only hear their name whenever some outrageous and controversial statement is released by them and is subsequently lapped up by the media and then called a fatwa. I didn’t bother about Raza Academy’s reaction. It was expected.

The other day, I found myself reading A R Rahman’s response on Facebook. It’s a marvellous piece of literature. I know Rahman personally and he’s a wonderful person. I’m a rationalist and an atheist. But if people are religious in the way Rahman is, I wouldn’t have any problems with religion. For him, faith and religion is a very, very private affair. He prays and goes on pilgrimages. But as a man, music director and artist, he’s secular. Now, why should I bother how he prays and how many times he prays? As long as people keep their religion to themselves and don’t impose on others or create upheaval in society, why should we bother? After all, religion is a personal choice.

Good people remain good, even if they are religious or otherwise. Somebody once said very aptly that there are two kinds of people in the world. Good people and bad people. Good people do good things and bad people do bad things. It’s only religion that can make a good person do bad things. I can vouch that Rahman is incapable of doing anything bad.

Like Rahman, I too have been a target of fundamentalists in the past. I was given police protection only twice and both times, not because of any Hindu fundamentalist group but because of Muslim fundamentalist groups! Muslim fundamentalist groups can tolerate criticism from non-Muslims. But if somebody with a Muslim name criticises them, then that becomes very intolerable for them. They get outraged.

Abuses from everywhere
I must be one of those rare and fortunate people who get abuses from both sides on Twitter. Hindu fundamentalists tell me, ‘You are a jihadi. Go away to Pakistan.’ Some call me a pseudo-secularist. On the other side, Muslim fundamentalists call me a kafir and condemn me, saying I’ll burn in hell. They suggest I change my name to a Hindu one. I believe that as long as both of them are abusing me I must be doing something right.’

The current situation in India terrifies me. Fundamentalists and reactionaries are getting bolder by the day. Look at what’s happening to the rationalists. Three are dead and another is getting death threats. Worse, their deaths and assassinations are celebrated. What kind of a mindset does the Bajrang Dal have that one of their members burns a man and his two small children alive and is honoured by them for doing so? And then, Graham Staines’ widow comes to India and says, ‘I forgive the killer of my husband and children.’ Now, those who are very proud of their culture and heritage should look into their conscience and think for a while about the difference between these people who killed Staines and honoured his killers and the woman who suffered and yet, forgave them.

People always say ancient India was a peaceful society. That’s a myth and a lie. It’s just as much of a lie as when Muslims say Islam has always been a peaceful religion. In known history, only two indigenous religions which came to India, Buddhism and Jainism, preached Ahimsa (non-violence). Just answer a simple question. Where do you sell an umbrella? Where there is rain. Why would two religions come and emphasise on non-violence in an already non-violent society? It doesn’t make sense. India was always a violent society. If you want to maintain the caste system, even today, you have to use violence. If you want to make a huge segment of society untouchable and subhuman, somewhere between human beings and animals, you cannot maintain this system without violence.
Nowadays, the Hindu fundamentalists proudly appropriate Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Ironically, the same Raja Ram Mohan Roy was opposed tooth and nail by the Hindu hardliners in his time. There was tremendous opposition to Mohan Roy and also to Syed Ahmed Khan. At every juncture in history fundamentalists of all communities, without exception, have proved to be anti-progress, anti-reform, anti-liberal thought and anti-enquiry. But the good thing is: in the end, the bigots never win.

(Javed Akhtar is a poet, lyricist and screenwriter. He spoke to Shaikh Ayaz)