"Satyameva Jayate": truth shall always prevail. As far as I know, the Indian government is the only one in the world which has used this slogan as its motif, its faith. It behaves as if this phrase is fundamental in all spheres of Indian life, especially in politics. But in fact, the Indian government declares “Satyameva Jayate", and at the same time is its ultimate violator.
Where does the compulsion come from, to make mockery of our national symbol, the Ashoka chakra, by the ultimate lie shown as proclamation under it. It is so ubiquitous that most people don’t even know that it exists everywhere, where they work and transact their day to day business. Surely our conquerors did not compel us, nor did the United Nations. Nobody would blame us if we lied without claiming that we are telling the truth. If we lied and believed that we lied, and accepted that others lie, as an essential component for survival in this environment. Why, then, this ultimate lie?
Because of the synergy between lies and corruption, our country is one of the most rampantly corrupt. We are automatically a country with among the largest number of liars. Where does truth reside, let alone prevail? In a slogan on the wall behind the torso of a politican giving a speech? On our currency notes? In a court of law, in the Parliament, at the police station, in a teaching institution, in the electricity board, water supply, construction, commerce, industry, temples of gods and religions and spirituality, income tax office? Where?
Can this slogan, which presides over pervasive corruption, not be removed? Does it serve any purpose, or is it an irony, a cruelty, a joke? Dishonesty and corruption are endemic to mankind everywhere in the world. Truth has increasingly been at a premium in the evolution of human civilisation, and its purveyors’ travails are countless.
One can say many different things without being contradicted: Hum aage bhadenge; we shall prevail. May truth prevail. Many others can be coined. Should this lie, therefore, not be removed, and therefore the blemish, especially as it is not required by, or believed in, by anyone, in authority or from the public?
***
I received this question: How do you differentiate betwen an ideal and a statement? If "satyameva jayate" is a statement, can you give an example as to how the same statement can be converted to an ideal?
My Answer: Yes indeed I can: "May truth prevail" is an expression of an ideal, and therefore even if not achievable or practical or practiced, people cannot take an exception to it. On the other hand, "Truth always triumphs", being a statement, implying a fact and being therefore factual, if provably not so, can not only be objected to, but be rejected.
***
I also received this question: Which Truth are we talking about here? In this relative world there are only relative truths. A can have A's truth B can have B's. Can there be an absolute Truth? By saying "Satyameva Jayate", which Truth they are talking about? Any thoughts...?
My Answer: The world is not relative; the manner in which we humans interpret it and then conduct ourselves across the length of our sojourn, is relative. Truth is erroneously but conveniently assumed to be absolute,while in reality it not only differs, but is notoriously inconstant and fickle.
When men make announcements on truth, through spoken or written pronouncements as a dogma, they imply and impute the sublimity of the absolute to it, and even if they cannot prove it to be so, they are too frightened to accept the notion and live with it in peace. Satyameva Jayate, truth will ALWAYS triumph, is intrinsically untrue, as an edict, or proclamation,both because it contains the assumption that truth is absolute, but also that it is invincible.
7 comments:
i think it is okay for symbols to stand for the ideal - rather than the real.
so, instead of removing the tagline, how about if we think of removing corruption.
if not removing it - atleast controlling it... atleast in our country?
Idealism is when a notion of a nobler thought, aspiration, even a better idea, exists, even if unattainable and unreachable. Even if there exists an intention to strive for it, but the intention remains unfulfilled, for whatever reasons. A habitual murderer, who is also unfeeling about fatal violence towards other fellow beings, cannot claim that his ideal is non-violence. On the other hand, a non-violent person, driven by enormity of an adverse circumstance towards momentary lapse, can still have, and retain, the ideal of non-violence.
Total contradiction between a notion and action without even a minute chance of impermanence ceases to be idealism.
Truth always triumphs - satyam eva jayate - is not an ideal. It is a statement containing the lofty possibility of fulfilment. Even as a statement it is flawed: The entire history of mankind has not been able to prove that truth ALWAYS triumphs.
Idealism is something which someone at some time can achieve and fulfil, even as in most others it continues to remain notional, because they are incapable of themselves achieving it. If nobody, however, historically and provably can achieve it merely by will and intention and not by chance, then it is not, definitely not, idealism. Call it wishful thinking if you like, which cannot be confused with idealism.
Now, consider this: you are suggesting that there is no harm in its existence. I am not going to struggle very hard to have it removed. It does not matter to me. I am only arousing conscious minds, and those who talk of their own "conscience" to give a thought, and if possible, create a voice towards invalidating that which does not even exist, and is not achievable, and strive for its removal by hundreds of other possible slogans, which may be difficult, even not possible, but attemptable. If you have any doubt, talk to someone in politics or philosophy or psychology: ask them: have they ever thought about it? If they have, what do they think, or if not, which would truthfully be the case, then would they support continuation of a permanent lie to be thoughtlessly imposed as proclamation, merely because it was written at one time without its implications by the highest office and authority in the country; or shouldn't something more plausible replace it to gain more respectability.
At any age, it would not matter to me, because I have not claimed nationality. I have believed that I do not belong, and therefore I am utterly inconsequential to the so-called human civilisation. One way or another, the perpetrators of the falsehood, who never stop reminding you of the opposite being more or less the truth, may continue doing so, especially at the fag end of my life.
I have given an opinion towards what I would assume to be greater understanding of human life and the human condition on which it reposes and travels. From very early childhood, I have abdicated the position of a judge. I am only a giver of opinions.
I hope if someone will, YOU will understand.
"May truth prevail" is an expression of an ideal. "truth always prevails" is a statement of fact and therefore inaccurate.
Which Truth are we talking about here? In this relative world there are only relative truths. A can have A's truth B can have B's. Can there be an absolute Truth? By saying "Satyameva Jayate", which Truth they are talking about? Any thoughts...?
to Pippala Leaf: The world is not relative; the manner in which we humans interpret it and then conduct ourselves across the length of our sojourn, is relative. Truth is erroneously but conveniently assumed to be absolute,while in reality it not only differs, but is notoriously inconstant and fickle.
When men make announcement on truth, through spoken or written pronouncements as a dogma, they imply and impute the sublimity of the absolute to it, and even if they cannot prove it to be so, they are too frightened to accept the notion and live with it in peace. Satyameva Jayate, truth will ALWAYS triumph, is intrinsically untrue, as an edict, or proclamation,both because it contains the assumption that truth is absolute, but also that it is invincible.
Ramesh,
Why did you say the world is not relative ? When I look around everything depends on some other. No one thing seems to be have an independant existence of it's own. A's existence is very much depends upon B and C and vise versa. Except my consciousness (or awareness) everything else is constantly changing. And what is the definition of truth?
The 'truth' here may stand for universal/natural/spiritual law, not necessarily relative truths of what people believe.
And such a Truth always does triumph in the end. No matter how powerful an empire gets, it crumbles. No matter how rich and corrupt a man becomes, he dies, just like the poor one.
Post a Comment