I read this very interesting article written by Aakar Patel - Why indians don't give back to society? Most of the points made are valid (though linking them to custom or religion is wrong) and before extreme right wing fanatics take a pot shot at me - will ask them to really read this and fault the points made, rather than at me.
However I feel the main point that the author misses is this - the growth of population that has made Indians as opportunists and scrambling for the "goods" or "space". In earlier times, foreign invaders were amazed to see peace, prosperity and wealth in India. Why things have changed ? Ask this - Can a 900% growth of Islamic population create any semblance of peace and prosperity when neither the land mass, nor the productivity of land is increasing? Where 60% of Indian Muslims are against assimilation and are openly hostile? And where the Prime Minister of India states MUSLIMS MUST HAVE FIRST CLAIM ON RESOURCES.
Also the author fails to see similar linkages in a developing economy whether it is in Laos, Pakistan or Bangladesh. Far worse conditions exist in countries worshipping other Gods too and having age old customs. In the end, by writing in a simplistic manner the author contorts some "truths" by giving it as a function of custom and / or religion.. Herein lies the main story which the author misses out. However, read the article for other "home truths".
Why don't we worship Brahma? We know he's part of the Hindu trinity as the creator, but we worship Vishnu, manager of the cosmos, and Shiva, its eventual destroyer. The answer lies not in religion, but in culture. But in what way does our religion shape our culture?
What explains the behaviour of Indians? What explains the anarchy of our cities? To find out, we must ask how our behaviour is different..
Some characteristics unite Indians. The most visible is our opportunism. One good way to judge a society is to see it in motion. On the road, we observe the opportunism in the behaviour of the Indian driver. Where traffic halts on one side of the road in India, motorists will encroach the oncoming side because there is space available there.. If that leads to both sides being blocked, that is fine, as long as we maintain our advantage over people behind us or next to us. This is because the other man cannot be trusted to stay in his place.
The Indian's instinct is to jump the traffic light if he is convinced that the signal is not policed. If he gets flagged down by the police, his instinct is to bolt. In an accident, his instinct is to flee. Fatal motoring cases in India are a grim record of how the driver ran over people and drove away.
We show the pattern of what is called a Hobbesian society: one in which there is low trust between people. This instinct of me-versus-the-world leads to irrational behaviour, demonstrated when Indians board flights. We form a mob at the entrance, and as the flight is announced, scramble for the plane even though all tickets are numbered. Airlines modify their boarding announcements for Indians taking international flights. (And most of you will notice, as soon as the plane touches down - the Indians stand up to collect the bags and stand in a aisle even as the plane is taxiing, and you will notice "other nationalities" cooly sitting down and getting up, only when the door of the plane is opened).
Our opportunism necessarily means that we do not understand collective good. Indians will litter if they are not policed. Someone else will always pick up the rubbish we throw. Thailand's toilets are used by as many people as India's toilets are, but they are likely to be not just clean but spotless. This is because that's how the users leave them, not the cleaners.
The Indian's reluctance to embrace collective good hurts his state. A study of income-tax compliance between 1965 and 1993 in India (Elsevier Science/Das-Gupta, Lahiri and Mookherjee) concluded that "declining assessment intensity had a significant negative effect" on compliance, while "traditional enforcement tools (searches, penalties and prosecution activity) had only a limited effect" on Indians. The authors puzzled over the fact that "India's income tax performance (was) below the average of countries with similar GDP per capita".
We do not think stealing from the state is a bad thing, and our ambiguity extends to corruption, which also we do not view in absolute terms. Political parties in India understand this and corruption is not an issue in Indian politics. Politicians who are demonstrably corrupt, recorded on camera taking a bribe or saying appalling things, or convicted by a court, can hold legitimate hope of a comeback-unthinkable in the West.
The opportunist is necessarily good at adapting, and that explains the success of Indians abroad. We can follow someone else's rules well, even if we can't enforce them at home ourselves. The Indian in the US is peerless at the Spelling Bee because the formula of committing things to memory, which in India passes for knowledge, comes naturally to him. But this talent for adapting and memorizing is not the same as a talent for creation.
The question is: Why are we opportunists?
In his great work Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti observed that the rewards religions promised their faithful were all far off, in the afterlife. This is because a short goal would demand demonstration from god and create sceptics instead of believers. There is an exception to this in Hinduism. Hinduism is not about the other world. There is no afterlife in Hinduism and rebirth is always on earth. The goal is to be released entirely and our death rites and beliefs-funeral in Kashi-seek freedom from rebirth. Christianity and Islam are about how to enter heaven; Hinduism is about how not to return to earth, because it's a rotten place. Naipaul opens his finest novel with the words "The world is what it is", and Wittgenstein ( "The world is all that is the case") opens his Tractatus similarly.
Hinduism recognizes that the world is irredeemable: It is what it is. Perhaps this is where the Hindu gets his world view-which is zero-sum-from. We might say that he takes the pessimistic view of society and of his fellow man. But why?
The Hindu devotee's relationship with god is transactional: I give you this, you give me that. God must be petitioned and placated to swing the universe's blessings towards you. God gives you something not through the miracle, and this is what makes Hinduism different, but by swinging that something away from someone else. This is the primary lesson of the Vedic fire sacrifice. There is no benefit to one without loss to another. Religion is about bending god's influence towards you through
pleas, and appeasement, through offerings.
Society has no role in your advancement and there is no reason to give back to it (in any way, including leaving the toilets clean behind you) because it hasn't given you anything in the first place. That is why Indian industrialists are not philanthropists. Rockefeller always gave a tenth of his earnings to the Church, and then donated hundreds of millions, fighting hookworm and educating black women. Bill Gates gave $25 billion (around Rs1.2 trillion), and his cause is fighting malaria, which does not even affect Americans. Warren Buffett gave away $30 billion, almost his entire fortune. Andrew Carnegie built 2,500 libraries. Dhirubhai Ambani International School has annual fees starting at Rs47,500 (with a Rs24,000 admission fee) and Mukesh Ambani's daughter was made head girl.
An interesting thing to know is this: Has our culture shaped our faith or has our faith shaped our culture? I cannot say. To return to the question we started with: Why is Brahma not worshipped? The answer is obvious: He has nothing to offer us. What he could do for us, create the universe, he already has. There is no gain in petitioning him now.