Friday, 11 November 2016

SECULARISM; a peep into its origin, and present distortions

If we look at the inception-history of Secularism,all confusions about its real sense will end; it was a stand adopted by the political 'Nation-States', to show-down their arch enemy, the Church ! These Nation states wanted to create a new image of man, a new identity,other than as a church member or a citizen in God's empire. Only this kind of an image of man could have plucked out church followers and believers to the new empire of State !

The printing technology enabled every Christian to possess a Bible, and thus establish his direct relation with God. The pull of the Church was thus already bit down. Here, exceptionally smart heads of Nation-States, quoting the famous Biblical verses;  "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God, the things that are God's", insisted on the legitimacy of States, separated and independent of God/Church !

Minds of people were under the hegemony of Church, for many centuries.The Secular man was induced to liberate the mind from this hegemony, and think free and independent. What was demanded by the Nation states was a total separation of the realms of Church and State,or even a totally liberated human community from the catch of Church. They knew clearly that,for establishing State hegemony over human communities,every hold of the old masters needed to end.

In short,secularism was only a ploy of the Nation states,to keep away citizens from the Church's fold. It was not introduced with any genuine intention to groom man and his mind, in the true Renaissance spirit of open inquiry,scientific spirit etc. What was their gain in liberating human minds this way? It is foolishness to assume that, those Nation-States would have ever wanted mankind to take such an intellectual direction forever! Citizens and slaves might have had undergone such sacrifices for the King and masters,but never heard an opposite story ever in history, ie,a state sacrificing herself for the citizens !

Author Karen Armstrong, in her 'The Guardian' article, stated;( 25th Sept,2014) " When the new word “secularization” was coined in the late 16th century, it originally referred to “the transfer of goods from the possession of the church into that of the world”. This was a wholly new experiment. It was not a question of the west discovering a natural law; rather, secularization was a contingent development. It took root in Europe in large part because it mirrored the new structures of power that were pushing the churches out of government."

Yes, that was the crux; secularism 'mirrored the new structure of power' !

But secularism had its root meaning, related to 'values' of science

The chief reason why the Princes of the time stood in favor of secularism was, that it had a powerful appeal for freeing the minds of men from orthodox-tendency of Church. This was basically a VALUE,contemporary science had introduced. It was her ways and values that directly clashed with that of Science of the time.

 Mind was bound by the beliefs of Church.She did not mind even to persecute those who defied her beliefs and ways,in thought or deed. So, when Princes spoke about secularism, they meant allowing the minds to go free,without bounds,the way Science had wanted it.

We know, this unprecedented freeing of the mind of men was responsible for all the  scientific discoveries of that time period. Nation-States stood as patrons of this intellectual transition,while thoroughly enjoying the gradual fall of Church on this account!

Thus, the central VALUE that secularism stood for was that of an individual with a free mind,independent of all external influences or coercion for his its unbound journey,its free-will and open conclusions. It was the birth of a new model of the man in the world,totally different from the model when he was a slave of the Church dogmas.

As American revolutionists claimed, this new man was 'free to pursue his own happiness' the way he desired. State was the machinery constituted by the community of men, with the exclusive responsibility towards overseeing and ensuring that, this freedom of man was always protected.

Thus, secularism was not exclusively about matters of State absolutely  separated from that of Church or religion; it was more about, as said earlier, the model of a new man of Science. Liberal State, a ready patron for the Science,was only happy to promote all her Values, as it served their purpose very well, to show Church in the bad light.

How this central fact about secularism ( around the new model of free and liberated man) had got defined differently in due course ?

The new  power structure ( that under the new State) had got set in society very soon. Industry, that got a big boost under new discoveries like rail and steam engine,had readily partnered with the new masters in Society, the princely states, for achieving the new mantra of''economic' development. Both State, as well as private players, took part in the enterprise of Colonization, that boosted the wealth of State,as well as that of industry.

Though revived doctrine of Democracy had set in by then,especially in USA, and it had flourished during her initial around 150 years in the history,soon both state and industry had aligned into an unhealthy nexus, for a new mastery over the citizenry. It was an alignment for meeting mutual needs; while industry needed State for favorable laws and licenses for free use of land,labor, and capital, States needed industry to show overall 'economic development' of people and the country! This nexus had soon set-in, under the negative phenomenon of 'neo-liberalism'.

States were compelled to twist the meaning of 'Secularism' for her special needs !

Though religion was totally separated in State matters,State found it almost impossible to present an anti-religion stand, as she needed people's support to run the state.Secularism soon developed an 'atheist' face, thanks to her rather 'rational' life-view.Science could not associate herself with any religious belief, as it was against her new 'empirical' methods, a total discarding of 'beliefs' that had no rational or empirical support of 'evidence' !

So, States, who wanted to play a neutral stand here, reinterpreted the meaning of 'secularism' as 'non-intervention' in religious opinion, or personal beliefs' of citizens! She interpreted it as part of new 'freedom' of citizens ! Citizens were free to believe or not to believe in religions and their beliefs, but States, in her policies and laws, will not consider these beliefs or practices for any special treatment or discrimination.

Take the present great and interesting disputes over religious freedom in the world, to understand State's difficulties vs her special interest, about in keeping citizens freedom. While USA,UK etc allow citizens to keep their religious beliefs and practices as a sign of their SECULAR policy, France stick on with her original 'secular' stand, that State can not and will not permit any sign of religious practice or belief  in public, especially in the way they dress, or carry themselves in public. Muslim women in France face the ire of the State in wearing 'hijab' like dresses in public, and men, for keeping 'beard' like personal grooming style !

In India, where dozens of major religions and its followers co-exist,her present Hinduism's ideology following Govt who rules at the center, face serious difficulties with 'secular' principles in the constitution.She finds it extremely uncomfortable,that the original, 'freely inquiring,open and modern' image of 'secular citizen' is remaining popular in the country; she earnestly want a majoritarian-hegemony State, in the style of Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan,but the secular constitution of the country stand on her way to implement it.So, she is now engaged in an exercise of re-writing history,educational books etc, to make, at least th future generation go for a full-Hindu Nation. She now think,that previous history books were written by either British stooges, or the Leftist intellectuals,showing India's contributions to Science,literature poor light. Now she wants her future generations to grow up with proud sentiments about their father land's rich heritages,scientific and other achievements. 

Once the entire nation,(read the 80% Hindus)  give support to end the 'pseudo-secularism*' now under practice, this government might show the audacity to declare the country, a 'Hindu' nation !
( *present regime alleges that, in the name of secularism, what previous regimes of other political parties were actually engaged in was  'appeasing' minorities like Muslims, Christians etc for vote bank benefits !) 

Present Indian, Hinduism-lenient political party ruled govt have succeeded in implementing citizen sentiments over practices like 'cow-protection', ban on eating cow-meat etc, defeating the secularism principles. She claims, that secularism should mean 'right' of each religion to practice their beliefs, myths, food and other practices. Being in majority ( almost 80%), the entire country should respect these Hindu ways, or the ways of the majority religion, by following the same 'democratic' principles, ie, 'ruling' by the whims of the 'majority'!

She also claim, that Hindu ways are just 'culture' of the land, hence typical secular principle that applies  only to 'religion' should not apply here; each citizen is obliged to follow diligently, the ways of the 'father-land', while keeping the 'glory' of such 'culture' by the entire nation!

Just observe the wild directions the 'secular' principles have traveled, at different parts of the globe !

The ideal of free and open minded,rational man,without any prejudice was indeed an extremely imitable one ! 

We know, how the Catholics and Protestants fought each other in history and persecuted each other for their different beliefs, loyalties, and world-view. There were also many,many wars between Christians and Muslims, called 'crusades' in history. Within the Church also, there was severe punishment, including torture, for defying various laws, beliefs, and practices. We know,Galileo was asked to refute his discovery, that Earth was not at the center of the Universe, as taught by the Church till his time. 

Unlike in science, there was no means or method in religions,to decide, whose side was correct or truthful. So, mutual fight till the elimination of the opposite religious sect was the only possible way. 

So, the ideal of man that Science indirectly proposed was that of an ever-inquiring man, without settling for any theory or belief, till adequate evidence available to support it. He was a rational man, open to receive anything when presented with evidence. He did not have any prejudice, as he believed in collecting evidence, and then believe. He was always open to new ideas, always curious to find new knowledge, new places, new animals and people.

American revolutionists enhanced this vision, adding to the idea that, such a man is destined by Nature to have the 'inalienable liberty' to pursue his ways of finding happiness!

The notion of 'secular' man that our Princely States guaranteed to protect and upkeep was the above model, and she, its proud patron!

Present reality about 'secular' man 

Can any modern State, though it be Democratic that is based on equal rights to all, and the govt run by people themselves, or the  industry, who make life-saving medicines and equipment, to rockets that travels across distant planets, accept such a model of freemen, and their community ?The plain answer is, a big NO !

While modern governments,democratic or non-democratic,in essence, are POWER -STATES. Their laws on 'sedition' etc.are similar. They expect citizens to be loyal to the state,her ideologies,especially to that of the leadership. If she finds,someone or some group go too independent,and too criticizing her leaders and policies, she will have no hesitation to get them booked,charging them as 'enemy' of the establishment.
Many of these modern states are,even if democratic, ruled by special interest by economic or religious group. Citizens who find it difficult to abide by the beliefs or world-view of such States will always find themselves at the receiving end of the laws. So, liberal and secular mind-set is not appreciated in any of the modern state. It is looked at, rather as a threat to the security and sovereignty of the State.

Same is the case with the modern partners of the States, the Industry . Industry management finds no benefit in having their employees 'liberal or secular' in their worldview. They simply want the employees, fit for the position or work they have been assigned, keeping loyalty to the management. Here too, someone who is fussy about principles of liberal or secular ethos will find themselves in trouble,as it might send wrong signals into the mind of the management .

Here, liberal and secular values need to be taken in the same old meaning that Science had spelled it out;a man with open and unprejudiced disposition, very tolerant about other persons' ways and beliefs. When he believes in his absolute freedom, he will expect the other also enjoying it similarly ! Not a fanatic follower of any religion or culture. Believe only in leading happy and successful life !

So, the conclusion this deliberation has tried to arrive at is here; 

Though the ideal of the free,liberal,secular and independent man was an absolutely imitable one, none of our existing collective institution finds such an 'ideal' individual worth to be groomed!! He is nothing but a burden, or botheration for these modern institutions, though they are compelled by the existing collective morals and principles, to be 'pretentious' patrons and champions of such ideal!!

So, modern States, industry etc are playing a double-game with regard to secularism, and liberated human being; while they dislike such individuals, they are bound by their respective State constitution and its clauses to 'show-off', that they stand with such ideal!!

But, without any doubt and hesitation, every right thinking man would agree, that having all men secular,liberal,rational and independent is the need of the world and her future. Such men and women are found keeping compassion and understanding of the other person and their neighbors, as their Reason is exercised by themselves,NOT by any external agency like Church or State. 

He is usually unorthodox in his beliefs. He has no issue in living in a pluralistic and multicultural society, though such societies were basically devised to serve the ends of industrialists, to find Global markets for their products,

Till man find a set of different truth to live a life of depth and meaning,this SECULAR model is the best bet for the world. Love to share with all, my dedicated blog-post on the necessity of such a new path, at:

Authored by: Abraham J.Palakudy,
Independent researcher and seeker in philosophy, mind, polity and related subjects
Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1

Thursday, 8 September 2016

The great task of understanding what is true human-freedom !

The great task of understanding what is true human-freedom !

Probably, the most frequently used 'word' in public sphere today is 'human-freedom'.The entire energy and effort of humanity, both at individual and collective level,was for ensuring that,man enjoys his unhindered freedom in life, and in society/Nation. But,sad fact is that, no one knows, what kind of freedom is true freedom !

Man always aspires for TWO domains of freedom;one, as he an individual,as an integral part or unit in existence under the sky, and two, he as a part of the collective. His urges for expressing, or utilizing both kinds of freedom is equal; he can not ignore one at the cost of other.

We might need examples to illustrate above two kinds of call within man,for existential freedom:

1) He might be enjoying his civil freedom of every kind in some kind of societies, or some kind of political system. For example, the Singapore under her erstwhile founder President Lee Kuan. Excellent external environment for leading a modern civic life was arranged by this man, which was admired by every leader in the world !Many, though secretly, wished to emulate him. There was job for all, excellent civic-amenity in cities and villages,cleanliness everywhere, excellent transport and communication systems,water,air and electricity.Singapore was a real model for a modern-nation !

But,what about individual freedom of citizens to express himself as a unique person? Such a dimension of human-individual was perhaps,not in recognition in his country ! Man is part in the mythical human-community. Individual citizen, as some part of, or a unit of a different organization, whether it is the mother nature/existence, or life as  great natural pool independent of his political-belonging-ness to any country, was not a recognized factor in such a system of collective world-view ! Can man write poetry, philosophy,literature etc.that often might go beyond the definition of man simply as a State-subject ? Can he indulge in sculpture,painting or other form of pure Art, that at times goes beyond the State's definition of a citizen? He could perhaps do such things, but such a State has no slot for recognizing and accepting role of such citizens. We remember, whenever a tyrant comes to power, he used to target such men of mind first, for elimination !
Can he go out to beach with his wife or girl-friend, in unorthodox clothing and bathe in nude ? Probably not! Such aspects of freedom, if allowed among citizens, will cause a threat to the common definition and dimension of State-subjects, the classical 'social-order' in society, as devised in such collective system.

2) Freedom as a unique individual was the one West had recognized first. Society,or its utmost organized form, the State, is not allowed to interfere in the matter of such freedom of individual ! State, they said, is the institution or means, should exist, simply to ensure that, such unique freedom of individual is not violated by any one, or especially, the collective agency of State herself.

This kind of freedom of individual was what had been most clearly defined and expressed in the 'American declaration of independence' document:

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"  

It may not be false if we assume that, Capitalism as an economic system had derived from the above tenet of unbridled  freedom of man. The freedom to 'pursue own happiness'forms the essence of creating wealth.Non-interference from State( laissez-faire) in this activity, forms the 2nd part of Capitalism, both indicating conditions for freedom.

West, and almost every corner of world have already,very distinctly experienced the outcome of such freedom; it produced a handful of excessively rich, those who had sought own happiness, ignoring everything rest around, ie. other people, the environment etc.This world view was based on the belief that,everyone is endowed by Nature to look-after himself, and pursue his way of happiness ! 

These men who sought unbridled freedom have acquired it, but it converted 99% of world population its dependents and even accessories ! More than half of the wealth and resources of the world had got accumulated into pockets of these men, who are less than 1% of world population. It  created unprecedented inequality in society, increased crimes,suicides, deteriorated -environment ( social and physical) caused new diseases, disturbed traditional-social institutions like marriage, family-tie etc.

Millions of people got side-lined from active life sphere, being non-productive, or not at all needed in the commercial-production arena, by these masterly class of men.( Entrepreneurs) and the institution of industrial-production they had established.

If freedom of man is 'self-evident' in Nature,why it is always available only as a gift, a concession or a mercy from State-Players, or some or other 'collectives' of man ? 

When we take-up 'human-freedom' , with an aim to understand it at close angles, first question that arise would be, why it is always remain a matter of mercy, or concession from a State-actor ? For freedom, the story is always that of 'great struggles' for it from a seat of Authority, often an institutionalized State-player.Why it has happened this way ? How this particular 'inalienable' and 'self-evident' nature ( feature) of man turned something to be obtained from a third-party State-player ? American revolutionists distinctly and clearly stated that, the one and only, or the primary job of State is to safe-guard and protect this particular natural propensity, and feature of human-creature, or man in existence! Indeed the most sensible explanation, as to why organized society is essential for enjoying human-freedom ! In jungle atmosphere, it could never happen, as it will be always one against other, or many against one, to eliminate the enemy.

Central feature of this inalienable freedom is the aversion of man towards any form of hegemony,or authority, as authority is the enemy of freedom. Authority always desires compliance,unquestioned submission and meekness of those under it, as otherwise, it suffers from existential paradoxes. The only institutional authority that is acceptable to human reason is that has been constituted with the free-will of those who constituted it. But, even if it was constituted with free-will and sense of reason of people, if such State fall back to the only one,known archaic shape of old coercive State,such forms of free-willed States too turns enemy of society. This is what is prevalent in modern-world;democratic govts are elected govts, but, the state institution she forms is the same old archaic,coercive model, leaving the State same as in Kings time. It was this sad State of affairs that prompted this very attempt, to define freedom afresh ! 

State has no business of ascertaining or establishing it's own entity,independent of the people who constitute her.If that happens, what is the difference between it, and the old time 3rd party States, wherein it was imposed on people with coercion & might of the oppressor ?

This ( freedom, needing a 'freedom giver') should be the greatest paradox of our times, but today it is NOT considered to be, by any strata of our society,its intellectual and mind leader as a great issue ! For them, it seems, State is like the sky above, a permanent feature of human existence,(State, not in the sense that American revolutionists had visualized,but State as the traditional controller/master over human-communities) similar to a state of, or a wide-spread evil of slavery in human society. Suppose the state of slavery is the absolute norm of the day. Here, talk of Freedom will be limited to concessions like the hours a day the slaves' fetters are loosened, restricting the number of slaps he daily receives from the master, or fixing maximum number of times a month/year the women-slaves could be sexually assaulted by a master etc.

It simply means, the well declared ( unprecedented !) American declaration of the freedom and liberty of man, could not be sustained ever after ! Institution of State refused to fall into the noble-mold, that the revolutionists had visualized.The industrial bosses, who controlled the economy of the State, did not want such unbridled freedom for man, as it was rather a menace to their kind of activities in the area of industrial-production, than some kind of a blessing. What industrialists needed was rather 'orders from up-carrying and executing docile 'workers', who formed the 'human-resource' in the industrial-production sphere !

Why then the gradual disappearance of FREEDOM was not NOTICED by mankind ?

Even the citizens who actually do not enjoy essential human-freedom had not complained. What they wanted was freedom from torture in jails, if fired on crowds of people, even if Police baton-charge on them, or fire at them, hitting only beneath the hip, or freedom to take out huge demonstrations on streets against cruel govts etc only ! He too has accepted State as his lawful violator of rights,dignity and humanness !The old myth and tradition of Kings and their likes was viciously alive in the mind of people. They never could imagine that, they could be 'free' in any sense, independent of a State actor at the top ! Modern man is yet to realize, how free he could be, under his own political-system called democracy. The more they behave like old,docile state-subjects under Kings, the more would democratic States-players ACT and BEHAVE like their predecessors. 

To emancipate SLAVES from slave owners, world needed an Abraham Lincoln, not a slave among the slaves ! If it were today, modern psychologists would have declared the great man as psychic, suffering from conditions that fails to accept hard-core REALITY in the immediate world around ! 

This author feels, above acceptance of the existence of the violator of freedom as  status-quo is the worst, or most laughable aspect of modern age !Such talks of freedom or basic human-liberty is meaningless when tradition of rights and freedom violator is also an equally accepted feature of modern-world. It is great absurdity, and a ridiculous joke !!

Even when the political-system of the day is called DEMOCRACY, the governmental system of equal-men, State in its old,archaic role now handled by elected representatives of People, is like holding primitive rituals and superstitions in this computer and space-travel age ! It is absolutely incompatible in every sense known to man, as democracy is supposed to be the last of political-systems for mankind. It is supposed to be by his ultimate human-wisdom,sense of Reason and every tenet f common-sense, for him, and of him. 

What might be freedom in the ultimate sense, as Nature must have schemed for man, and why ?

For answering the above question, better we look within into our most deep urges and aspirations,instead of looking for support of existing academic-literature. NO known bomb system might be equal to the explosive power of a human-mind ! It is a replica of universe, and the very existence itself, in the matter of its creative urge, and undefined directions it desires to take. Its path is unknown to itself, unlike a Bomb, that is directed towards one singular aim, ie,causing maximum destruction. In the matter of unbridled human-freedom, it aims at destruction, only when it faces obstructions to its above explained unbridled path of dynamism and growth, it should be believed, when tested from our own hearts; when someone creates unreasonable obstruction to one's natural path of fulfilling inherent DRIVES ( please see more about these inherent DRIVES, at: man turns simply destructive !

In every usual case, he comes back to his senses the  next moment. But when a general atmosphere of hostility to natural human DRIVES exists in society/State, like children, citizens adopts permanent hostile behavior patterns, often termed as 'anti-social' traits. In such cases,man simply turns 'non-man', or inhuman ! He, in the usual State's legal terminology, will be termed as 'a threat to society'. But, truth is that, these guys never received any patient listening, or empathy from the collective institutions, especially from its representatives, who often are intoxicated with the 'power' of the state, or similar collective agencies. If the victim citizens turn anti-social, representatives of the State, or similar social or religious collectives with moral or even coercive Power,also turns inhuman, and in every sense, ' anti-social' ! For them, the freedom needing citizens are a big-liability,and burden! This becomes a regular recipe for severe, permanent social-conflict !

Here, the way out is simple. It was very sensibly put-in by Nobel writer, Albert Camus; He wrote,' an age can be called 'civilized' only when she starts sending her criminals to mental-asylums, instead of jails' ! State, or the human collectives are required to be well aware of, and must possess INSIGHT into ultimate human-nature.

What lessons modern society and State players had adopted for treating human-beings ( citizens) were the negative notions about man and human-nature taught by political philosophers Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes famously said about life of man; 'short,nasty and brutish'. A power-state, with adequate coercive means at her disposal, becomes necessary to correct this nature, and compel him back into the path of compliance with state-laws and norms.

Judging from the unbroken ( not-broken in the sense, one's sense of natural self-esteem not broken by the gross inequality, gross tenet of coercion etc. from the side of State and her agencies, or by the society that abide by these collective set-up in the world) natural, sense of self-esteem and dignity that every human person possess, every human being born into life,with some or other unique purpose, with special abilities,propensities and realm of special interest. Man is born with untold compulsion within, to find utmost expression to own, such unique special existential purposes and goals.He is simply helpless, but to find maximum expression for these inherent inner calls. Freedom of man simply demands, unbridled expression of own inner calls, as explained in the blog on 'existential DRIVES' referred above.

When he is defined as part of any greater whole, such as a political or community organization, he naturally encounter a restraint.But many of men find ways to align themselves to such collective wholes, and find fullest expressions for their inner energies and calls. But,many find the restrictions unbearable, and they naturally turn anti-social in the eyes of such Collective-wholes. Laws  of the land were basically made to tackle such individuals, as once explained in one of the above paragraphs.

But, one could easily observe from one's immediate world that, those who are treated well, with dignity and acceptance, by every member of society, including those who represent the impersonal -state, ( or any such collective)sense of Reason and good-judgement remain intact, obey rules of the society/community/state with utmost commitment and care. Such well 'valued' and accepted men in society tend to develop a deep sense of self-responsibility towards oneself, and also others ! When impersonal and blindly coercive state and other collective agencies treat him negatively that, citizen-human-beings show tendencies of being anti-social !

This is an important lesson for modern world;if full freedom of man is our goal, it is absolutely necessary that, citizens are accepted,valued, and their sense of dignified self is cared and well-protected by every State player, and other economic, religious and other agents with share in Power !

Complex issues like marital-rape, entry of women into religious places, frequent 'sedition-charges' framed on citizens with frequent tendency to question her, and not complying with her special whims and fancies like 'Nationalism' etc. are direct products of such negative, or apathetic treatment of citizens.People lose their ability to be true, self-respecting individuals, and then every small violation of their silly wishes and whims irritate them, and they turn perpetual agitators! 

In a healthy union of two responsible couple, the question of marital rape could never arise.( Marital-rape is a complex issue of FREEDOM now discussed in India !) Proper respect for individual dignity, as specifically enshrined in constitutions such of India in her 'FRATERNITY' clause if delivered to citizens in letter and spirit, every citizen will be a free-unit, free and happy to use his great sense of Reason and good-sense every time, for himself, others, and in matters of State-Laws. 

State was an old, often archaic tradition. It is high time our age realize this fact, and free-herself from continuing with her most evil laws,anti-people attitudes, fear of people, and every negative dogma about human-nature. Then a new kind of State model would emerge, fit for democracies, and fit for political-system of, self-respecting, EQUAL-MEN.

The ancient origin of the myth of the State was indeed a sinful story. Following blog will expose it, at link:

Keeping man free, the way nature want him to be free, is similar to our latest insight into 'ecology'.Nature proved to man that, if he and his collective bodies do not respect,care and look-after her well, she will turn his enemy no-1, causing self-destruction of our environment. When we painfully learned the valued lesson of looking after and caring for our environment, the OTHER MAN in the immediate vicinity should have been the first and foremost item in our social-environment to be most carefully looked after and cared-for ! If it happens in modern human society, we would have the most free men here, who not only mind his natural environment, but his social environment too,ie, every person next door. ( see blog on this idea, at: 


Human freedom is distinctly pertains to his basic existential nature;ie. the way Nature wants him in life ! Without his Freedom in full-swing, he acts cranky,not able to use his unique sense of Reason, and not able to express his 'self' in creative ways. He is often unaware of his own  existential-nature , like born-slaves are often unaware of the fullest state of freedom,due to their never being in a full state of Freedom.

What caused this very unfortunate state of affairs in world, where,despite the Freedom of man was almost fully defined,explained and documented during American declaration of Independence ? Concept of freedom of man was some what vaguely introduced during an early time period, during Magna-Carta treaty also.

We have clearly seen that, the myth, or tradition of Freedom-givers ( predominantly the State-Players) had over rode, or emerged more strong than plain human-freedom, in the period that followed after its emergence ! In the West, capitalism, followed by its practical execution in the form of Industrial revolution, played her very damaging role in suppressing the concept of universal-human freedom. The need of upholding plain human-freedom eroded into a realm of BURDEN here, as once explained above. What industry was in need of was order-obeying,if possible meek,creativity suppressed semi-robots ! It was the entrepreneur's creative ideas that was central in the best working of the profit-making enterprise. For its proper execution, what needed was rather semi-robotic human-machines than weird creatures, who needs FREEDOM like undesirable essentials ! 

Along with, or almost as a complementary development, Political scene of the post-enlightenment era had also emerged anti to human-freedom. Democracy, though universally celebrated and acclaimed as political-system of EQUAL-MEN, in practical reality, turned out a rare chance for the class of people to play King and Queen ! Blog: will explain every back-ground of this serious issue of modern world.

The above two institutional changes in post-enlightenment era modern world had were enough to throw away human-freedom into the realm of 'discarded' ideals, like she had discarded morals and ethics long-ago. It has got narrowed-down into the realm of empty political rhetoric. Every one talks very high of freedom as well as morals, and laugh silently within. They fully realize that the pressing reality of production, and running huge nations is not practical,complying with and respecting, or giving central relevance to human-freedom.

 So, though freedom might be the most frequently used word in in every discussion, seminar and rhetoric in modern-world, it is the most absent, therefore badly sought-after essential need, or 'value' by every man, at every moment of his wake-life !He suffers from strange pangs of inner-calls to be free, but he often does not know what he suffer from ! So, those who do not achieve it despite best of his individual and then group efforts, he often turn anti-social, either a vagabond criminal, member of an organized criminal or terrorist gang, and fight for his freedom ! State gain her typical rights when she faces such threats from people; she do not hesitate to use sedition laws, criminal laws, anti-state laws etc. to fight these 'enemies' and reinstate her role as the old archaic state model, RULER and MASTER !

Media and intellectuals will jump to defend State in her such fight, as they are by now need her support in being alive successfully. They will go on defending what ever cranky laws she brings in to defend her rights and proverbial power,such as sedition-laws, her cranky laws to impress right seekers such as those who seek temple entry for women in orthodox nations like India, burkini ban in modern-states like France etc.The real enemy of every man is these archaic POWER-STATES.When citizens does not realize this central fact, they will go on compelling states to enact laws to prevent some acts of other citizens and groups,falsely and neurotically hoping that, it will result in receiving for themselves what they ultimately seek !

Freedom is like air man breath. Man can not live without it even for minutes. Its prolonged absence makes him slave-like,dull entities,wanting to just to exist, not LIVE meaningfully and creatively.Today's world is the best example for the above pitiable state;citizens perpetually struggle for freedom, while not knowing that,it is his most natural state,and what cause non-freedom is his own folly of entertaining wrong-models of FREEDOM-GIVERS. More than ordinary citizens, who is most responsible for the sad state is our men of mind, intellectuals, media-institution etc, who are at a mush higher state-of-mind to realize the great folly, and fight to end the paradox.

Authored by Abraham J.Palakudy
Twitter; Voice of Philosophy@jopan1
An independent seeker, researcher and writer on subjects like mind, reason,philosophy, spirituality and polity
His blogs are at:
Contact him at:

Monday, 20 April 2015

Man's aggression and tendency of violence,an outcome of institutional oppression upon individual

Modern world is full of violence, oppression, revolts and uprisings, despite the general claim that it is open,objective, free, individual-centered and transparent ! Though the mainstream world picture these revolts and uprisings mostly as localized terrorist and anti-establishment acts, an attempt to classify all violence and atrocities in the world, whether past or present,would reveal that, atrocities and violence could be only of TWO basic types,transcending regions and nationalities:

(1) that unleashed by the powerful upon those who are under them,

(2) that of the oppressed against their oppressors. ( oppressors are the powerful, or those who talk about the establishment in power, or of the mainstream world as if they own and represent it !)

Both the above groups, or rather 'mind-sets', ( mind-set because, they are not permanent socio-economic groups, but those who adopt the same values and attitude towards other, when one is at one of the sides of the wall at any time in life !) keep very valid reasons for unleashing violence on the other. One thing gets clearly revealed here as the central CAUSE of all the violence; it is the vicious and nasty human tendency and vice of acquiring traditional or institutionalized POWER. It is 'power' of some sort, of many against one, or one's own extra-ordinary physical strength, or one or a group assuming some form of traditional or institutionalized hegemony over the rest of society.

This act of assuming Power of some sort, upon close analysis,reveals that, it was the desire to have absolute Freedom for one-self, one's group. Freedom here means, a plank to have everything one needs coming to him without the need of fight and conflict with others.As this is not the chief subject of this paper, author leaves it here for now. Those interested may refer to our blog-post:  

The rage of the powerful against those who are powerless 

1)  The despise and contempt of the powerful towards those who do not enjoy any share in  power and resources needs no explanation ! One of  the best examples is the atrocities unleashed by the higher caste-men over the lower-caste men in the not so ancient India. Few lower-castes were compulsorily  designated to take-up certain kinds of ugly and lowly jobs, like carrying the 'night-soil' ( feaces or human-bowl-excrement) of the higher caste to distant location for disposal. Lower castes were not allowed to draw water from the common well of the village, and they could be harshly punished with extreme violence and death for breach of the custom.

In the southern states of India, the low-castes were supposed to loudly chant that, 'ugly one' is approaching while on the common path, to warn the higher caste-men approaching from the opposite direction, to keep -away from getting 'polluted' by the former's physical proximity ! Their women were not allowed to cover breasts, because it was considered as a sign of assertion of dignified self-hood and freedom ! Lower caste women were not supposed to deny sex to the Brahmin ( top caste)  men whenever they demand it.Violence and death were very common for breaches of such traditions.

2) Another well evidenced example is the despise and contempt the Colonial nations meted out to the natives. The natives were as powerless as prisoners of war; an absolute property of those who held power and control over them. Every sign of assertion of freedom was brutally suppressed, and the perpetrators hanged, as allowing dissent was like allowing the seeds of freedom to sprout. Freedom-demanding slaves were the most dangerous threat to the unhindered sense of self of the masters !

Every sign of disobedience, or demand of anything resembling freedom and rights was brutally crushed at its very budding. What was most unbearable for the power-wielder was any sign of self-assertion from the part of the victims. So, the rage of the powerful against the power-less was a natural reality since the inception of man's history.

3) In the modern age, the best example of this disdain and contempt against the powerless could be cited to the dens of our Police and military forces. Whether it is in USA or in India, when a Police-man with the fierce power of the entire-state behind him engage with the 'people', the despise and contempt against them comes naturally. It is common knowledge these days that, most of the criminals in the world have acquired their criminal-mind-set from the jails. It is also now known that the seeds of the Islamic State (the ISIS) were born in the Iraqi jails, where native Iraqi men were kept, post US invasion ( more about this relation is taken-up in a below para)

While one man to another man interaction is based on the compulsions of mutual acceptance at equal footing, interactions between a representative of the state, or with any similar impersonal center-of authority with an individual citizen,  makes it fiercely impersonal and unequal, like that between a man and a non-man.

Every institutionalized power-center makes its interactions with single-citizens highly vulnerable to abuse and violations, and such victims of violation and abuse, in turn transform into violators and abusers themselves. This is the basic of every form of rights-violations and atrocity in the world. 

4) The self-hatred of those who are perpetually under compulsion to obey orders, and to please the ones in power: This is a most central aspect of VIOLENCE from the camp of the oppressor. A man, or a group of men under a powerful leader,or an institution/organization fueled by authority or power, loses, or simply abandon his/their rational and independent faculties and even the very SELF-HOOD in sheer desperation, because he/they are never let to use it as their-own! He is supposed to wait for orders from-up for his course of action. This is quite a damaging and dangerous mind-set that most men under absolute power suffer from.

The power source could be anything; say political power, power of the religious heads, power of the gang-leaders in underworld activities, or that of sheer-power of money in the corporate sector. They are often compelled to boot-lick, or show false-alliance and LOYALTY to the leader, fearing for his own life, or at least wishing for his-own special mercy, protection, and benefits from the leader/power-center. SYCOPHANCY is a modern-day ugly disease caused exclusively by the vice of power ! 

A vicious sense of self-hatred is the sure and certain psychological outcome from this situation, and these men will vent this frustration upon those who turn-up under them as 'victims' ! Violence and torture are mostly undertaken by these neurotic men, whether it is in war fields, terrorist camps or in Police stations. It is the extreme self-hatred of the abuser that gets a natural out-let when he/they torture their victims. Any one with some sense of self-esteem will find it very difficult to violate other-human beings !

The rage of the vanquished against the oppressors  

History of man will stand confused and perplexed to decide whose rage was more cruel; that of the traditional powerful over the powerless, or that of the vanquished and oppressed against their oppressors!
Violence is just violence. It has only one language, but two distinct mind-sets, as we have seen above.

But one thing is conspicuous about this 2nd type of violence; it always arise as a natural reaction to the first-type, ie. as a reaction of the oppressed against the acts of the oppressor !  

The best example of the extreme rage of the oppressed over their oppressors in recent history was that of French revolution. Common citizens sat as prosecutors and judges, with Guillotines kept-ready nearby, to execute even their oppressor King and Queen ! Heads rolled every hour of the day,while ordinary men and women of France kept counting them !

In the Indian freedom struggle also, there were many ambushes against the British soldiers enacted by the oppressed Indian citizens. Take the history, and we will find equal number of such uprising by the oppressed men against their oppressors to the oppressive acts of the power-holders.

One thing to be specially noted about the state of mind of the oppressed is that, it takes-away all his sense of humanness from him. Human-mind, though it could be kept under subjugation for long-periods through continued acts of oppression and atrocities, given a chance, it would bounce-back with equal ferocity as that of the oppressor ! Probably, it is because of the learning of this vital lesson that mankind could enact land-mark Declarations and Bills of the Rights of man after the American and French Revolutions. These bills declared and enacted that, Freedom and Liberty are inalienable,natural rights of man that no-one can take it away from him. All further political systems and organizations that man had set-up in the world were specifically meant for, and aimed at restricting the very such governmental forms from meddling with this vital Freedom of man.

But, the central question is, have the world and her vital political and social establishments, systems and institutions really adhering to the above land-mark paradigm shift in the attitude and ideology about respecting and keeping in-tact the above vital finding ?

Answer is, a sad no ! Even today, even in our most acclaimed democratic nations in the world, the freedom, personal liberty and dignity of citizens are kept only in the book ! Basically, the concept of the old POWER-STATE is what runs the show, and hence Power and Rights ( freedom/liberty/individual dignity) are two opposite poles, the status of ordinary citizen is same as its was under any other older,third-party ( rule by Kings and his likes) regimes of the past.

Whether it is in the street, jails or in various government vs. citizen interaction points, common citizens are treated like old 'subjects' !

So, whatever violence and atrocities that we have today from various parts of the world could be directly attributed to the 2nd kind that we have seen in the beginning, that is the acts of violence of the oppressed against the oppressor !

Oppression, and lack of acceptance of the dignified-self of man simply will result in plain violence if not today, at some point in future. The oppressed always gets out of his sense of reason and balance, and social order will be brought-back only after annihilation of the oppressor, or at least the oppressor too made to suffer all the humiliation, disparity and contempt that they once suffered.

A repeat look at each act of major violence  in modern world 

Take for example, the current ISIS, Boko-Haram, or the Yemeni up-rising, to see into what category above, we could classify them
 ? Are they the oppression of the mighty and powerful over those who are under them, or are they the counter-fight of the oppressed and the vanquished, against their oppressors ? A frank clinical analysis of the emotions involved in these fights and violence would enable mankind to find a clear answer.

Let us first closely look at the profile of men who typically join ISIS. Stories from post American occupation Iraqi jails say that, the seeds of ISIS, including the emergence of the so called, self-proclaimed Caliphate of the envisioned Global Islamic state-Al-Baghdadi-had sprouted from there !( We mentioned it once in one of the above paragraphs)

In a recent ( December last week,2014) article by Martin Chulov appeared in the Indian magazine 'The week', one Abu Ahmed,an IS Jihadist he had interviewed said:
IS wouldn't have emerged if US hadn't attacked Iraq, and detained and kept large number of suspects in prisons' .
Al Baghdadi, the current alleged IS leader, was a co-prisoner with the said Abu Ahmed in one of the Iraqi detaining center. The prison life enabled these men to connect with each other regularly ,and give rise to IS !
Another recent story ( in Indian Express newspaper, 15th April,2015) about Maldives, from where about 200 Jihadists had joined ISIS, reports that most of them were from the lower-strata of society,who used to indulge in 'sin'.( drugs,alcohol and street-crimes) Those who are forced to live at the peripherals of modern society anywhere in modern world, suffer from that serious symptom of 'non-belonging'; comfortable life all over the world means life with air-conditioned rooms, well-paid jobs in multinational companies, servants at home, financial capacity to send children to reputed schools, and owning of top-model cars and other house-hold articles etc. Those who cannot afford these standard comforts of modern life starts isolating themselves from the mainstream. They miserably fail to identify themselves with the so called real-world out-side, but experience the natural, existential pressure of identifying themselves with the essential oneness with life that no one can escape from. 
This irrefutable inner-pressure of each human-being to get-integrated with life in some way or other, after failing to do it with anything that exists around them, compels them to seek, first-of all, an identity with whatever they had born into, and grown-up with. Let it be the peculiar cultural-upbringing, language, religious-myths and rituals,food-habits and is a going back to the roots.No open mind can refuse to see the absolute similarity of those who join ISIS and similar other Jihadi organizations and outfits with the above said phenomenon. 

Every human-being wishes to progress, improve-upon what they have been practicing in the past. But, as said above, when they fail to do so, due to the total alien features of whatever is available around, they have nowhere else to go-back except to their roots ! This is exactly what is behind the ISIS and similar 'Islamist' movement world witness today. See the close similarity of this, with what Hindus do in India; they intent to unite together in an unprecedented way, and attain supremacy of their way of life and believes upon every other in the country, if possible, over the entire world !

Once these men go back to their roots, it is mandatory that they get indulged into all its diabolic, primeval acts and practices. If brutal assassination of human-beings was not alien to old Islamic,tribal culture, ensuring purity of blood and culture of the population by eliminating 'outsiders' was also not alien to old Hindu culture. So, assigning the cause of ISIS and other Islamist violence to the teachings and doctrines of Islam might be, to the best logical analysis, erroneous.
The root fact could be the failure of the majority world population to find 'belongingness' with the values,norms, ways, available roles, and practices of the contemporary world. It is a world where only a small  minority feel belongingness.  
One thing is doubtless: the violence and atrocities that the ISIS and other similar outfits exhibit in the modern world do not belong to the first-type of violence that we have seen in the beginning, ie. of the oppressors.These men, perhaps subjectively, perceive a kind of isolation from the mainstream world, that today, predominantly is a Western world, with all its typical symbols of development and advancement !It is well evident from the very recent, reliable statistics and research studies that, such Western-ways of world-development and advancement naturally create exclusive pockets of affluence, resulting in ever increasing accumulation of wealth and resources into fewer and fewer hands. As per latest research results,( Oxfam and Zurich University studies) almost 55% of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of less than 1% affluent families !Please share the emotional catastrophe of such a world of economic and socio-political order at blog-post: . 

With their exclusive claims on science and its fruits, a general abandonment of religion and spiritual-realities of life- but treating life purely in its empirical aspects etc., the western way has become the mainstream way of life in the modern world.It is now well-known that through Colonialism, what Europe had overtly intended was 'civilizing' the rest of the world, though in reality, it was naked conquest.

 Those communities and regions in the world where the above ways of the west have not yet crept-in, tend to consider it a direct,external assault, or threat to their localized beliefs, customs and traditions. For them, it is a kind of cultural assault, and even violence !  
The below paragraph, that talks about the 'subjective' aspects of both the oppression, and also being under-oppression, might throw some additional light to find right answers to the question raised above:
The subjective aspects about both of the 'oppressor', and that of being under-oppression 

  The above assertion was made with the clear awareness and understanding that, many a times, the sense of both the oppression,( from the part of the oppressors) as well as that of insubordination or dissent from the part of those who hold some or other kind of power,( the oppressor)  most often, is purely subjective. Means, the cause behind the violence unleashed by the oppressed against the deemed 'oppressor', ( the power-holder) and that behind the terror and oppression unleashed against the dissenters and trouble-makers by the power-holder or the establishment,might be purely subjective. It is the 'sense' of oppression, and also the sense of insubordination and dissent is what trigger violence and terror acts ! The fear factor, that of the ones in Power about those who are supposed to be 'under' it, concerning their adherence and subordination, and that of the oppressed about the oppressor concerning the fate of his prized liberty is the chief cause behind all the violence in the world ! Hope no one could raise any sensible objection against the above arrived crucial conclusion.

As we have arrived at a very specific classification of all the violence that takes place between two men or two groups of men in the world, now let us attempt to arrive at a similar inference, as to what causes a person or a group to put another man or group under some or other kind of authority or power, and restrict his/their freedom as it was once enjoyed by all at equal footing ? We must understand it first, because, out of the TWO types of violence seen above, it is the FIRST type that always takes place first. The second type always takes place as a reaction to the first !

Why and how early men started treating the 'other' as a threat and botheration ?

When we take-up this important question for analysis, that is, why individual man and human-societies always show tendency to keep other men and other communities under control and submission, the first answer we receive is that, it is the law of nature! There are ample evidences from our old existing jungles that might support the said view; at jungles, the physically, or the number-wise strong always hold the upper-hand in animal societies, whether in the matter of geographical space, food and water resources, or sexual mate.

In human-society also, history has full of stories about powerful warriors,tribes and kingdoms of the past conquering and defeating lesser powerful men,groups and kingdoms.

But at a final analysis, equally valid historical data compel us to discard the above 'natural-law' inference on following grounds:

1) For reasons yet unknown, it was mostly the larger and stronger animals and their species that had already vanished, or in the process of fast extinct from the face of earth. Take the example of the already extinct species of dinosaurs and similar large bodied species and birds, gradually vanishing large and strong bodied species like Lions and Tigers etc. If the hegemony of the strong was the law of nature, she wouldn't have allowed such a breach of law.

Even if we accept that, the criteria of 'survival' was not exactly that of superior physical- strength of the species but that of their capability for 'adaptation' to the always changing physical environment, let us try to see the plain falsehood of this argument: The same author argues at his blog: :

" the individual member, ( of any species) whether an animal, or a plant, is a helpless 'object' of various energies and strategies of nature. The 'member' cannot ever wish, or 'will' to 'mutate', ( to adapt to a changed environment ) so that a more developed offspring could come out of him/her. Hence, the entire responsibility to produce a better adapted offspring rests exclusively with the same NATURE ! 

The species are absolutely BLIND about the possibility of evolution. The hero, or the villain here is, the same 'nature' ! This is serious philosophical dilemma that the evolutionists must address. After all, who is the beneficiary of evolution ? If we believe modern science, the natural immunity of man,animals and plants against diseases is constantly on the down fall ! How would this empirical evidence substantiate evolution if its chief goal was more evolved, and more adapted species ? The question ' into what ultimate state evolution leads to ?' becomes very relevant here"

What adapts to the changed environment is NOT any individual member of the species ( by its 'conscious' will ) but Nature herself, as a temporary strategy to the then changed environment ! The actor or the anti-hero in the game is 'nature' herself ! 

As the subject of this post is not 'evolution' as its is, let us leave it here, and proceed with our chief objective; answering the question of why man and groups show tendency to over-power other men and groups. 

2) If we look at human history too, all the strong-men, tribes and nations of the past have perished absolutely !No reasonable remnant of the old Rome, Ottoman, Napoleon's or German ( Hitler's)  empire exists today. World, if seen at closer and clinical angles, is gradually moving towards a more and more egalitarian and inclusive kind of society in its broad sense and meaning, though it is far-away from a turning a perfect one in any sense.

So, the the hegemony of the 'strong' and powerful is the 'natural-law' argument fails on every count. 

Why then man and communities tend to hold-power and control over other men and other groups ? 

If we very closely analyse the first kind of violence, that we have concluded as that always takes place first, we will find that what tends the oppressor to oppress others is his fear of losing his LIBERTY to do what he likes, if he lets the other person or persons to do what he likes ! Own liberty and freedom is always depended upon the degree of liberty and freedom of others around. My physical space, my mate and my food would, most of the time, be considered as his space, his mate and his food by the other person too. This naturally will lead to unpleasant and even bloody fights. So, if I want to have my unbound freedom and liberty, it is absolutely necessary that I find a way to curtail the liberty and freedom of the other person !

Rousseau had beautifully explained the above existential dilemma of the primeval man, and the solution he found, in his book,' On the origin of inequality': ( p.78, The great books foundation, Chicago,1955)

" the rich man, thus urged by necessity,conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the mind of man: this was to employ in his favour the forces of those who attacked him,to make allies of his adversaries, to inspire them with different maxims, and to give them other institutions as favourable to himself, as the law of nature was unfavourable.....

 "Let us join", said he, " to guard the weak from oppression,to restrain the ambitious, and secure to every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to which all without exception may be obliged to conform......... 

In short, 'such was, or may well have been,  the origin of society and law,which bound new fetters on the poor, and gave new powers to the rich, which irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the law of property and inequality, converted clever usurpation into unalterable right, and for the advantage of a few ambitious individuals, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour,slavery and wretchedness" 

Rousseau had attributed it to the sinful beginning of modern civil society and government.A similar story of this author could be found at blog-post:

In the absence of any better explanation and theory, we have to share the above conclusion that, man started restraining the liberty of other men, and human-society in general, exclusively for the need of ensuring own freedom the most secure and sustainable way ! The liberty of other man in the same degree as that of mine would always be a hindrance to my own liberty and freedom ! As seen and explained in very detail in this author's blog-post referred above, institutions of permanent social divisions ( two permanent class of men,- or two mind-sets- divided between a great wall )  had occurred around the above fundamental selfish motive and emotions of primeval man. 

Our blog;, explains this phenomenon in more detail. 

Instead of excluding the other person and group from having his rights and liberty too in the life-scheme on earth, what got institutionalized in human-society was a great wall of separation between a group that always  talked in first-person about the society and establishment, while about those who are on the other-side of the wall, as 'subjects' under the establishment, or the organized society, with a fundamental obligation and duty to live under the supremacy of the former group.Permanent values and traditions got cemented in human-society of future, about the roles and obligations of whoso ever happened at each side of the wall. Like the cementing of patriarchal traditions in the man-women relation in human-society, the establishment and subject relation also got cemented in human-society permanently ! Though there occurred many loosening-up in the man-woman relation as human-civilization advanced, very little has been changed in the man and establishment tie. 

The yet unknown and unrealized kind of freedom and liberty in human-relations when both parties let each other go absolutely uninhibited and free !

The crux of what we have gathered from the above discussion and the reference materials presented 
( Rousseau's stand, and this authors blog-post)  was that, the first acts of oppression, or the act of isolating the questioning or the freedom seeking 'other' from the group was caused by the reluctance of the primeval man to be 'inclusive' in his behaviour and attitude towards the 'other'. With his animal like primordial mind, nothing other than caring the need and interests of the self was possible for him ! He could only fear, and be apprehensive of the 'other', that if he allows him to be one with the group, he might turn an enemy of his self-interest, and his absolute freedom in future. So, he took maximum precaution, to see the 'other' ousted from the group, or to be trapped under the pretext of social and political laws or norms, so that he always remain a lesser threat to his-own freedom. Simply put, the starting point of despise, contempt and even initiating violence against the 'other' was the result of primordial, animal like fear of human-beings.

When someone treats you with fear and apprehension in his mind, you can not react as if you do not fear, and have apprehension about the other too.  But if one could get-rid of such primitive fears and apprehensions about the other, with own consciously-put intellectual and rational effort, the 'other' too react the same way, the interaction and relation gets into an altogether open, free and unprecedented mode ! Self-expression peaks from both the parties, and the open and receptive mood of both, opens-up an uninhibited and free stream of exchange!
When fear escapes from the mind about the other, a kind of exceptional confidence grips both the parties, and it might be difficult to believe for those who had never experienced such free and open-exchange of minds, each one expresses in such a way that they themselves wonder from whom and where such unprecedented colours and features of own self come from ? This is especially true with intimate relation between opposite sexes; when there is no bound for self-expression, such relations reaches unprecedented and mysterious realms of self-expression ! Such mysterious sense of freedom and liberty must have been the cause behind great work of art, literature and poetry in human-history.

 'Self' is always a kind of tightness of one's nerves, a kind of resistance or armor, kept to ward of the other, or to protect oneself from others !  When one gets free, or gets liberated from the need for such armor and resistance, a free-flow of natural energies occur, and involved parties get an opportunity to experience the real power and possibilities of uninhibited human-interaction and relation. 

Prejudices, dogmas, and practices  that needed to be discarded from society to achieve such free-flowing human-exchange

1)  Pretension of one's superiority under some or other garbs: Exhibition of one's some or other superiority is nothing but a direct form of violence against those who does not share it; let it be the way one is dressed, his high-social status, his economic high-status, or his share in the political or other power-basket. 

Such all-around inequality in the general way of life, share-in the power factor, institutionalized superiority of any-one religion, language or caste, culture etc, without fail, act as disguised form of violence and abuse.

2) superstition or dogma that what one has in the form of personal bodily features, riches and special abilities are his-own make, or achievement attained by his self-effort, or that of his ethnic group/nation 

The existing myths,norms and traditions about SUCCESS in life also equally make some men superior than those who could not achieve success in the same degree. Such permanent features in society also acts as a form of violence and abuse over those who are far below in the ladder of SUCCESS. 

3) Inability to consider and accept whatever is unique about the other person/other community/group, and resistance to share whatever is common in the world as common-right of all persons in the world, or others in the same community.

Present world consider only certain forms of ability or propensity meritorious, say, the entrepreneurship skills. Unlike in the early days of direct barter, the tiller needed to accept and respect the work and profession of the baker  as well as that of the butcher, otherwise life would have become stand-still. But today, the tiller himself can act as baker, butcher and a in a hundred other roles, in his highly acclaimed entrepreneur-ship skill.Those who do not possess that skill in considerable degree are looked-down upon in modern society, in spite of his mastery in many other fields without which the entrepreneur-class can not perform well. Such institutionalized inequality about professions also acts as indirect form of violations in modern world.
4) Contempt towards the 'other' who do not own things in equal quantity with that of mine: This is the confidence and pride of the successful that they are more blessed, more chosen or 'selected' by nature as per Darwin's survival of the fittest' theory ! The other who are deprived and suffer the pains of life, undergo it because they didn't work-hard, and not acted as smartly as the former. So, it is better to leave them at nature's own mercy, while minding own-business in a practical and smart-strategy of detachment ! I mind my business, while letting the other to mind his business, forgetful of what life-situation the other person or other community live-in.

Final answer is that, if any person or community/ institution violate the sense of dignity and self-hood of any other person or group, in any manner, it will definitely result in turning such other person /community a violator and an aggressor some time in future ! 

Some clue into the ultimate principle, or law of nature about man vs man relation 

It was clearly and undoubtedly NOT the plain survival of the fittest in the world, in its physical and Darwinist sense, while judging from the evidences in history that we have once seen above. The strong and mighty always perished earlier than the weak and the meek in history, in its long-term effect. So, such a belief or theory, we will be forced to conclude that, might have been the outcome of a particular remnant of our primeval,animal propensities ! The very goal,task and process of human-civilization was to free man from such jungle values,notions and practices, and mankind had succeeded a lot in the said task. But, the task is still incomplete to a large degree...we may have to identify and realize our subconscious( primeval) urge to keep the other-man subjugated to our will, in order to free-ourselves from this jungle urge !

We could well recognize that, when one is absolutely free, ( free from subjugation to another's will) what he feel about the other, how stranger he might be, would be only a healthy curiosity to know more about him, not any jungle type fear and animosity. Therefore, to help the emergence of a new,more healthy world-order, we must find a way out to end her existing fear of the other, and man's subconscious wish to subjugate him to his will, by some or other pretext. The avenues of developing a new and more healthy, modern attitude towards the 'other' is very much there in human-capacity, and his intelligence sphere.

Recommend the following posts to know more about what has been proposed above:

Authored by : Abraham J.Palakudy
 Author is an independent philosophy, mind,reason,polity and spirituality seeker& researcher
Contact at:
Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1
Blogger page link: