A Tale of Two Books - Mahabharata & Fascism

The Difficulty of Being Good - by Gurucharan Das
Fascism: A Warning - by Madeline Albright

The first one, The Difficulty of Being Good - by Gurucharan Das, is about teachings related to duty and morality from a Sanskrit epic, Mahabharata, that's largely fiction (unless the reader belongs to the school of thought that considers Harry Potter as real, because Potter traveled by Hogwarts Express from London and London is real). The second one, Fascism: A Warning - by Madeline Albright, is about lessons that one can learn from Fascists that ruled several countries in the last few centuries. Though the two books seem to be totally unrelated, I found a striking connection between them, right from the way they were recommended to me.

As both the books have some key takeaways, and in turn are Educational, a bit of caution:

"Education is not memorising that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. Education is understanding how millions of ordinary Germans were convinced that it was required" - Anonymous 

Gurucharan Das, a former CEO of Procter & Gamble India, picks Mahabharata in it's original form in Sanskrit, and spends a significant amount of time reading and discussing it in his study-group. He presents his own interpretation of different characters, their idiosyncrasies, moral dilemmas, their rationale behind their controversial actions, using various events in the story, with a common thread being, how to resolve our dilemmas about what's right and what's wrong.

Madeline Albright, Secretary of State of the US in Bill Clinton's administration, writes about various dictators that the world had seen in the past few centuries, the conditions in which they are born and the situations that elevated them to power, their methods to get there, their actions before and after getting there, and their eventual collapse. The main thread of this book is a warning for all of us, about things that give rise to such Fascists, time and again.

The major connection between the two books is, they are about leaders who pursued their grand vision for the world, with a great sense of duty and morality of theirs and their subjects. They also talk about rights and wrongs in black & white. This applies to Bheeshma, Karna, Yudhishthira, Arjuna, Krishna and Duryodhana of Mahabharata and also to Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, Erdogan, Putin and Trump. However, while the Mahabharata lot gets inspiration from divine virtues like Nishkama Karma - Selfless Action, Raja Dharma - Duty of a Ruler etc., the Real lot often starts with flaring up emotions of masses, citing some injustice done to their country/race/ethnic-group by another, and a promise to avenge it or correct it.

Per me, another major difference between the lots is, the people that look at them, when they themselves face such dilemmas, or when they try to understand actions of the leaders who face such dilemmas today. At least, among the people I interacted with, conservatives tend to look at the former lot and liberals at the latter.

When an aspiring leader tells blatant lies to fool masses, one set of people may refer to Mahabharata and think of great Yudhishthira and his lie about Ashwatthama, to disarm and kill Drona, for the larger good, that is to win the war against vile Duryodhana. Or, they may refer to Krishna's shenanigans in the field of Kurukshetra to bring down Jayadratha, Karna and Duryodhana, to vindicate the objectionable actions of today's leaders. Another set of people may find a similarity between this leader and Fascists like Hitler/Mussolini and get cautious. Which set is right? Probably, only time can tell. But, if history is anything to go by, rather than mythology, answer would be more obvious. Gurucharan Das embraces abstract philosophy and drives people towards the first set, while Madeline Albright talks using concrete data from the recent past, and urges people to join the second set. 

As always, theories get more interesting, when there is a practical application that's verifiable. Here too, the 2 books differ. The mythological one talks about only divine virtues, and the result of actions is also left to divinity and fate. That's as abstract as things can get. Where as, the real one talks about ground reality and consequences in this world itself. Unjust actions of a fascist leader towards a group may sound convincing to another group, considering some historical injustice done to ancestors of the latter group by ancestors of the former. They can draw a parallel between such actions and actions of Krishna, Bhima and Arjuna in Kurukshetra to get rid of their enemies. But, as per Madeline Albright, anything unjust is a recipe for future terrorism. This has happened umpteen number of times in the recent past, and will continue to happen.

(A) The Difficulty of Being Good was recommended to me, when I was sulking a bit, due to the way elections are being fought, of late. (B) Fascism too was recommended for the same reason. That leads to the next question: How different are people who find solace in (A) from people who find solace in (B). Is it same as the difference between pessimists and optimists, or realists and daydreamers, or rational and paranoid!