A take on Ganesh Pyne's paintings...

Like every artist, Ganesh Pyne must have painted numerous works, I haven’t seen all. My opinion below are for the major ones I have seen , either as prints or in original.

Ganesh Pyne for quite some time has been my favorite painter from Bengal. To me he is one of the world foremost painter, for any generation. How do I categorize his works? there isn’t any categories that he can fall into. After a hundred years, how shall his paintings will touch a viewer? I believe in the same way as today, enveloping the watcher with deep sense of elegant silence.

Ganesh Pyne’s paintings are abstract in the sense that he does not directly reconstruct the reality as it is. He is always layering and would smash your thought with the deep felt silence of his narrative. Pyne always told a story through his paintings, it is the story that you can reconstruct as you go on peeling the different layers of the archetypal patterns of situation, thought and feeling presented in the act of ritual or perceiving the central image of the painting. He almost always had a central character (look at his paintings: “The Creature”, “The Masks”, “Crown”, “Aarti”,”The Baul”, “Before the Lamp”, “The Monkey” , “ The Wooden Horse” and so on.) This central image/character encompass, both myth and ritual, and are not symbolic in nature but are also codependent. His characters are mythical image associated with a symbolic ritual to be seen as a part of a total pattern of meaning. We know that myth is not merely a story told, but a reality lived that gets transformed through human imagination and the associated ritual also embodies the same reality of human experience symbolizing the creative synchronization between the living being (organism) and the rhythms of the cosmos. Pyne’s artistry adroitly publishes this mythical symbol implying an all-pervasive and all-inclusive expanse in which all the divine forces co-exist and coordinate, epitomizing the whole eternal cosmic process.

Yet again the world the he showed through his works is always crumbling and piercing in a very personal way. He almost always used dark colors like black, yellow and blue and motifs suggesting pain and solitude. These remained consistent themes in his work. I wouldn’t say he portrayed death, death I would imagine, from my understanding of his paintings would be liberation from the pain. He would rather focus on the twilight zones that exist, using symbolism whenever it suits him to focus on the meeting point of day and night, of life and death, of pain and pleasure, of life and agony. In his own words

"Artists of our generation painted for the love of art.
I feel one should have an unwavering affair with ones creativity.
Otherwise, you are swept away by the tide"

– Ganesh Pyne

Not going to the history of his life or what he did or how did he came about doing it , just by looking at his works one can certainly say that Ganesh Pyne’s paintings were very personal expressions. His signature style is a conscious attempt to construct a mythical narrative shaped from his own experiences of solitude, alienation, pain, horror, moods of tenderness, serenity and so on. I would argue, they are not subconscious or surreal as many would put rather his images are offshoots of a conscious idea that may have passed through his mind.

So why will his paintings never be just wall beautiful decorations that will get buried in multiple layers of passing time. It is because of the deep silence that emanates from all of his works , forever changing the soul of the viewer. If somebody did not see these works then they will not exist for him forever, on the contrary, if you ever see them once it will start inhabiting the same world as the viewer.  One will start experiencing oneself as seen through the eyes of the main character of the paintings. Appreciating the fact that human life is incomplete and not fully satisfying because of the lack of perfection, power, and control one has over their life. Nonetheless it has a connotation, that is the meaning the works point to and requesting the viewer not to search any more (for true self and personal meaning of life) but rather articulate in words what is said through silence. Let the world know of its existence and truth.

Are they beautiful? Yes they are, because they are the truth. It is the bottomless truth that exists in those works gives it the essence of beauty. Some onlookers (like the dreamers) might see disenchantment in these paintings and mistake them for truth. They are not disenchantments, they are borne out of circumstances of history¸ creating situations that can be expressed or transcended only through poetry. As if they are exploding into an eternal fragile human narrative of we do not know what we want and yet we are responsible for what we want. The viewer must interpret and re-interpret, conjecturing at meanings, putting the discrete parts of the puzzle together. Yet one is forced to re-create oneself into an authentic whole, almost by being aware of himself as seen by the characters of those paintings with piercing eyes.

                                                     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeG39ohNSZo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6gvf9CgGE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT1UADwlHOg

Some Ideas that profoundly influenced my life (for the better or worse)

I grew up in a society where these ideas are a part of the vernacular. Nobody thought about them separately, at least not consciously. I do not know, over the years, during the period of my growing up, whether or how they shaped the society as it was then. I would like to believe they should have, given the fact that they lasted for thousands of years. Time tested at their core, these ideas/concepts must have touched the inner light of ultimate truth of all mankind. If they are true, intellectually or spiritually are they strong enough to guide an individual’s life (bring a sense of purpose, giving direction), are they broad enough to influence a whole society and form the backbone of its socio-political structure leading the society to a glorious existence? Given our current historical knowledge, these ideas originated in Indian subcontinent and thrived there for centuries. History, as we know today, tell us that at a point of time Indian society did thrive wondrously but has over the years decayed and fizzled out losing out to European Industrial Revolution and young vigorous geo-political religious fervors that arose in the Middle-East-Arabian Peninsula. Why, How and most important, if these ideas cannot contribute to the betterment of mankind should we even consider them?  These are the questions, nobody has an answer. Not even modern science. Most of my adult professional life, I spent in a society where as a by product of globalization and enlightment of the 20^th century I saw a resurgence of an interest in these ideas, at least in public discourse, and in some significant influential pockets of the society. Yes the general mass is not aware of them, nor do they care, yet I see that they do live a good productive life and in many ways better than the Asian societies (including India) which embraced them. Where is the gap? Is this what Meji realized when he started to transform the Japanese society by borrowing/copying western ideas. He did adopt Western political, social, and economic institutions in a short time but at an individual level he remained true to the centuries old ideas. Is Japan better for that? What about modern China, South Korea, are they not doing similar thing, following the same path. Will they be better off than the western countries in the long run? What about India, why can’t they change, do they need to change or are they too slow to change?  Do they not want a better society where there is no poverty, country is powerful, respected throughout the world ? These and many other similar questions are in my head but let’s not get there. For now, let me try to give a brief, of my understanding (personal interpretation) of these thousands of years old ideas.

Basic Belief: Everything and all existence is connected, cyclical and composed of two things, the soul and the body or matter. The body dies, but not the soul which it assumes to be the eternal reality, indestructible and bliss. This eternal soul called Atman never reincarnates, it does not change and cannot change.

Saṃsāra is the mesh of emotional structures which connect one soul to the other. These emotional structures are created because of your existence in a particular point of time. An example would be the emotional structures by which we are bound to our parents (father-mother), to our friends, colleagues, cousins, to a stranger (as an existentialist will say) and so on. These structures are constantly changing, evolving and are of varying intensities. As we embark on the journey of our soul, some relationship gets cut off, new ones get built, old ones evolve. Samsara exists because multiple souls exist and no individual soul is capable of existing on its own. All souls exist and are connected (be it human or animals or plants) and are ultimately fragments of the eternal soul called Atman, it does not change and cannot change. It is these connections (and their constantly changing evolution during the souls journey) are what I would call Samsara.

Maya: Is the understanding of anything that has real, material form, human or non-human but warped with emotion. It is not the truth, but the understanding of an individual soul of a thing (material..human or non human) based on the emotional state of that soul at that point of time. Since every soul is different and unique fragment of Atman, they see the same thing in multiple ways. Depending on circumstances, Maya can be used in both positive and negative ways. Example would be if somebody dies we can say that ‘everything is maya’ i.e. the person who died is really not dead it just that he discarded his body and moved on. This helps in the healing process of our emotion. On the contrary one can fall in love with a person (without reciprocal love) and act accordingly leading to one’s destruction. In actuality it is maya, the love does not exist. Maya is different from the idealism , where the proposition is that a thing(object) exist because I have seen them ( like an object say Pen exists only when I have seen them). Maya does not doubt the existence or not existence of anything. It simply refers to our understanding of reality as a unique and embellished with only our emotions.

Dharma: The purpose of life is not defined when we are born, it is inherent property of the soul which gets its uniqueness from it. The flowering of that purpose in the context of time when the soul exists on earth is determined later, during the soul’s existence on earth. Whatever maybe, a soul will always do whatever he or she is suppose to do (or gives its uniqueness). This is dharma. If a soul’s purpose of life is to be a criminal then he/she will be one and that is it’s dharma, on the contrary if a soul’s purpose is too do good , he/she will do that. It is the thing that regulates the course of change by not participating in change, but that principle which remains constant. It does not say what is right or wrong. It does not say what should done and what should not be done. It simply says that a one will do what he/she is born to do. That is his/her dharma. A Man born as man should act/live like a man , a woman born as a woman should act/live like a woman. If woman tries to act/live like a man then it is adharma. Connection between souls (Samsara) can survive if every soul acts in dharma (criminal or not criminal) because there exists automatic balancing mechanism. However, the samsara breaks apart when there is too much adharma and thus external forces is necessary to restore order.

Ahimsa: Is to not wish harm to any living creature — not even to any lifeless object. It is an attitude of universal benevolence. To harm anyone in the slightest way, even by disrespect, will harm the person doing the action as well as the one receiving it. The perfect practice of ahimsa, then, is very rare. For though not many people would actually kill their fellows, it is common to find people slashing at one another with angry words, or with contemptuous glances. Ahimsa is not pacifism. The precepts of Ahimsa require that war must be avoided, with sincere and truthful dialogue. Force must be the last resort. If war becomes necessary, its cause must be just, its purpose virtuous, its objective to restrain the wicked, its aim peace, its method lawful. War can only be started and stopped by a legitimate authority. Weapons used must be proportionate to the opponent and the aim of war, not indiscriminate tools of destruction. All strategies and weapons used in the war must be to defeat the opponent, not designed to cause misery to the opponent; for example, use of arrows is allowed, but use of arrows smeared with painful poison is not allowed. Warriors must use judgment in the battlefield. Cruelty to the opponent during war is forbidden. Wounded, unarmed opponent warriors must not be attacked or killed, they must be brought to your realm and given medical treatment. Children, women and civilians must not be injured. While the war is in progress, sincere dialogue for peace must continue. Ahimsa is a multidimensional concept, it is inspired by the premise that all souls are connected to one another is a part of a larger self Atman; therefore, to hurt another being is to hurt oneself.

Shanti: Is inner peace, a state of being spiritually at balance, with enough knowledge and understanding to keep oneself strong and in equilibrium in the face of discord or stress. Shanti is very dynamic, an example would be when one is riding a moving bicycle he/she is at peace, in perfect balance, shanti. As soon as the cycle stops that balance is lost, shanti is broken. Shanti is inner peace. When one leads a life on the path of dharma and is completely at poise with whatever he is doing then he is at shanti. Shanti is not an end state of satisfaction.  If one reaches satisfaction, knows what to do next and sets upon doing it in perfect harmony , then he/she is at shanti. It is state of equilibrium, balance and poise.

Purusha and Prakriti : Literary Purusha means male and Prakirti means nature, mostly associated with female, though not directly. In its purest form it is that which is created. There is no conflict between purusha and prakriti, no dialectics. These ideas exist without any beginning and in duality and encompass the all of our consciousness. They bring the wholeness of the existence. Purusha, pure and distant, is beyond subject and object. One cannot understand purusha, for that would make it an object. Purusha cannot know or understand anything either, for that would make purusha a subject. Purusha simply just is. But, because of the presence of prakriti, purusha gets attracted to nature in the way a man is attracted when he watches a beautiful woman dancing. He cannot help but try to get closer. Then purusha becomes trapped inside prakriti, purusha gets more and more entangled in prakriti. Soon purusha forgets that it was ever separate and ceases to struggle to regain its freedom. Purusha is the soul, the Self, pure consciousness, and the only source of consciousness. Since purusha is pure consciousness, it follows that prakriti is unconscious. Prakriti is everything that is changing. Prakriti is not just the physical aspects of the universe that we can sense; it is our very senses themselves - our thoughts, memories, desires, and even our intelligence. Prakriti is everything that is that isn't conscious. Consciousness resides only in purusha, or more properly, as purusha. Purusha is the principle of pure consciousness, while Prakriti is the principle of matter, where Purusha is the masculine in every living being as consciousness, while Prakriti is the feminine and substrate which accepts the Purusha. Prakriti is the feminine aspect of existence, the personified will and energy of the Supreme (Brahman).  Prakriti is the potency that brings about evolution and change in the empirical universe. It is the "primal motive force". It is the essential constituent of the universe and is at the basis of all the activity of the creation.

Brahman: There is no God , but there is Brahman, or God and Brahman is the same. We can only realize linear time dimension necessitating the existence of start and end of time. Bharman is the start of time and it is also the end of time.

        The description of Brahman: "Not this, not this" (Neti, Neti); for there is no other and more appropriate description than this "Not this."

        Now the designation of Brahman: "The Truth of truth." The vital breath is truth and It (Brahman) is the Truth of that.

          — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.3.6

Brahman cannot be thought of, cannot be seen, doesn’t not have any form, shape or matter. It can only be realized. Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes and is the final end state of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind diversity in all that exists in the universe. Brahman is the Indestructible and Supreme Spirit. It is present in every atom of creation, but remains there as the Viewer, not affected by creation.

Within Vedanta, there are two distinct schools of thought, advaita and dvaita. The advaita, or nondualist, school of thought teaches that the individual soul is Brahman, and that our goal is to realize our oneness with It and merge back into It. It teaches that Brahman is the only reality and that there is no separation between the soul and Brahman. Any apparent separation is illusion.

The dvaita (dualist) school, on the other hand, teaches that the soul and Brahman are separate, distinct beings, and that Brahman has a form and personality, vs. the advaita belief that Brahman is formless Spirit. Dvaita Vedanta acknowledges two principles; however, it holds one of them (the sentient) as being eternally dependent on the other. The individual souls are depicted as reflections, images or shadows of the divine, but never in any way identical with the divine. Moksha(liberation) therefore is described as the realization that all finite reality is essentially dependent on the Supreme.  The first reality is the Brahman and the second reality is that of dependent but equally real universe that exists with its own separate essence. Everything that is composed of the second reality, such as individual soul, matter, and the like exist with their own separate reality. The distinguishing factor of this philosophy, as opposed to monistic Advaita Vedanta, is that God takes on a personal role and is seen as a real eternal entity that governs and controls the universe.

I am a believer in the simplistic idea of Atman(soul) and Brahman as being one and same and existing within us and many (in all living beings) , and whole purpose of our existence is to merge with this Atman as the ultimate reality.

Global Currency a tool to reorganize the society in a new way and save the planet earth.

While on one hand we need an economic system for mankind to progress, on the other hand we need to not allow any individual or entity to control it. This is the paradox for which we need to find a balance, throughout human intellectual history that is one of the main issues thinkers have been trying to solve. Human labor and endeavor is most effective when in a ‘team’ and yet it is the ‘team’ as a whole who needs direction from an individual.

We as a species need to figure out a way to efficiently allocate our resources to meet the final end of progress (as we call it: the betterment of mankind). In the early history it was through the direct control of the assets by individuals (Kings or Chiefs); who through this control have imposed their will and understanding of progress, in the process turning the ‘team’ of human labor towards their perception of the world ( ex: society in which Pharaohs ruled in Egypt) .

Later societies (modern 20^th Century), produced collective thoughts (as opposed to Kings/Chiefs) on what should be the understanding of human progress, they thus needed to push human endeavor in different direction. Since the producer of collective thought was no individual so the control of the assets need not be direct (or individualized), rather indirect, through an intermediary, what we know as money.  Usage of money, also helped, to the extent, that it opened up opportunity for a larger pool of individuals to strive for controlling power and also brought in a new player ‘the organization’ (as opposed to an individual) in the competitive mix.

Over the years, these ideas evolved into today, what we see in a modern economic system. However, the concept of money, the bedrock of modern economic system, turned out to be very addictive. It violated the fundamental principle of economics that applies to food, clothing and other material objects: the more of them we have, the less we value them, for money more we have them , more valuable it becomes to us.

This is the nature of money: “By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.”  Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Money enhances the indirect ability of an individual. That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Over the years, the money became such a powerful idea that it became the definition of our individual’s worth; it gave us the freedom to make our life what we want it to be and also the most valuable thing, that is freedom from having to worry about money itself. From the tool of helping mankind to efficiently allocate our resource, it became the very definition of our free will.

This I think is one of the reasons for rise of current political chaos. At one hand we reverted back to the original order of exploiter-exploited model (did we ever leave it at all? we always dreamt of equality for all but it remained as a dream only.) and on the other hand, more importantly, we are driving environmental collapse. The third parties, whether it is the banks or countries that, regulate how we use our money not only drove vast majority of people into economic desperation, political corruption, and financial instability but also, for the first time in the history of mankind are on the brink of destroying the very planet we live in. They serve mainly the interests of a global financial oligarchy by throttling, controlling the financial system. They have money; they want more and value them even more. Whereas as a society, we confront one simple truth: an economic system based on the false idea that money is wealth—and the false promise that maximizing financial returns to the holders of financial assets will maximize the well-being of all. In actuality, it inevitably does exactly what it is designed to do:

1. Those who have financial assets and benefit from financial games get steadily richer and more powerful.

2. The winners use the power of their financial assets to buy political favor and to hold government hostage by threatening to move jobs and tax revenue to friendlier states and countries.

3. The winners then use this political power to extract public subsidies, avoid taxes, and externalize environmental, labor, health, and safety costs to further increase their financial returns and buy more political power.

This results in a vicious cycle of an ever greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of those who demonstrate the least regard for the health and well-being of others and the living Earth, on which we all depend. Fewer and fewer people have more and more power and society pays the price. Historically this was always true, we thought that in 20^th century,  ‘for the progress of mankind’ we figured out a better system but it seems that, long hand of greed and human nature to control and dominate, figured out a way to bend our modern financial system.

The next avatar/idea is the global currency, which I think we should try for the same objective: progress of mankind. Something that will help in universal valuation of goods and services (i.e. the same haircut should cost same in UK and China) and decentralized, shared book keeping for all monetary transactions (this will take away the throttling power of the 3^rd party financial institutions). Thus, a traditional currency system that depends on the involvement of a third party (bank and central bank) as the settlement body can be replaced. However, the conventional currency system revolved around the central bank and is not designed only for trading and transaction, but is also held responsible for monetary policies such as credit expansion, price stability and flexible money supply – all duties that the new currency system need to fulfill. But How?

Through a decentralized organization, without any national credit endorsement and national monetary policy adjustment power but having global powers with global reach. In fact, studies including commons governance, open source theory and internet socialism have proven that a social group without a powerful management body at its core will not necessarily degenerate into chaos. A seemingly loose organization can still be effectively governed through healthy interactions among its members. This organization, managing global currency, will be composed of countries or if the world is one country, (for all humanity with universal valuation for all labor and products) then of rotating policy making bodies.

Transparency in dealings and distributed book keeping will cut settlement/transaction costs. Global valuation of currency will not need any individual institution for currency issuance and settlement, and will also cut the lurking “moral risks” that is borne by today’s National Central Banks.

Global currency can be deemed (to some extent) as a type of common resource and we can devise new ways to enable credit expansion though novel ideas like smart contract or other transactional innovation. Currency after all is a token, representing valuation and I think should not be anything else. We should devise a 100 % provision system that forbade commercial banks from making profit from cash. Fresh money should not come into existence because of financial profit. Issuance of currency should be directly related to mother earth, real economy, which it was during the gold standard days. Human ingenuity is unlimited but not the resources of mother earth.

I believe that to further human progress and save the earth, along with other things, we need to rethink our global financial system as it is the primary tool for efficient allocation of resources for all humanity. This thinking should at the least include

a)      Global Currency focused on universal valuation only. (same product/service should cost same everywhere on the planet)

b)      Global Currency managed by decentralized global organization.

c)       Efficient, transparent, decentralized and shared book keeping.

d)      Credit expansion through innovation in the transaction system and not by expansion of Money.

e)      No new money issuance due to financial profit.

f)       All currency issuance tied to natural resources of mother earth (directly). Ex: Gold Standard or Bitcoins (which use a large amount of energy to generate a new bitcoin).  

Worldview : A personal Utopia

Worldview is a belief system, a descriptive model of the world, an explanation on questions like what we should do, where we are heading, how we should attain our goals almost always determining our behavior to external forces. It can be at an individual level or the larger self of our individuality i.e. the national level. If we agree with the modern concept of state-nation, then it is how the worldview of each nation-state determine how it will interact with other, this is what many would call geopolitics. Ignoring the early tribal organizations, the statecraft really came into existence when empires (like the early Gupta empire in ancient India) started forming in human civilization, which subsequently morphed into various forms (including American imperialism of 20^th century) at the influence of various ideas, subsequently evolving to the modern civilization, as we know today. Broadly speaking we have the

•        The idea of civilized empire.

•         Islamic view of the world.

•         Vedic view of the world.

•          Christian view of the world  which subsequently led to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty

•          Communism.

•          Globalization and Internationalism.

If we distinguish between the organization structures attempting the implementation of the above philosophies from the thoughts themselves, then what we get is the concept behind those viewpoints. Then again, that said, sometimes and many a times structures (like the senate-emperor structure of the Roman empire or Chandragupta’s empire as a sole sovereign) themselves influence the philosophies.

The idea of Civilized World:  When China rose to height of their power they came to believe (which lasted to the beginning of the 20^th century till its last emperor) that the center of the earth is themselves i.e. the emperor. Every other country has a lower culture and has a lot to learn from them and should pay some tributes as a gesture for their humbleness and lessons learnt from an advance civilization. Similar was the thought of the Persian Emperor or the Roman emperors at the height of their power. As the 4^th Century BCE Indian thinker Chanakya aptly put it, that an emperor’s empires lay in the center of the chakra and every other ones exists in concentric circles around it. Many emperors ( except strangely though not from India) , often always the derived his legitimacy from the ultimate sovereign God, like the King of Japan claimed as a descendant of God, Calligula the Roman Emperor declare d himself as living God, the Persian Emperor Cyrus claimed himself as a son of God.

Islamic View of the world: Islam share many tenets of Christianity, the notion of the existence of an infinite, personal God who created a finite, material world and that reality is both material and spiritual. Time is linear and the universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end. In spite of all those, Islam is a very good example of an aggressive political-religion with regard to cultural transformation as it will not assimilate into other cultures, rather it tries change them through force. Its stated long-term goal is to be the globally dominant religion. Peace to a Muslim becomes a reality when Islam rules the world, until then, there will be a continual global jihad . There is neither neutrality nor compromising with other cultures. Islam is a powerful religion, because as well as being a religion, it is a political ideology with its own legal system.     

Vedic view of the world: It acknowledges a cyclical view of the world with stages of birth-growth-maturity-entropy-annihilation and then again rebirth cycle. Only the spiritual dimension exists. All else is illusion, maya. Spiritual reality, Brahman, is eternal, impersonal, and unknowable. It is possible to say that everything is a part of God, or that God is in everything and everyone. Man is one with ultimate reality. Thus man is spiritual, eternal, and impersonal. Man’s belief that he is an individual is illusion. Truth is an experience of unity with "the oneness" of the universe. Truth is beyond all rational description.  It is in this view that the existence of State as an extension of Man is a maya, its existence is temporary and will get destroyed. No culture is superior and eternal, everyone gets destroyed in this constant cycle of rebirth, history has little meaning. Then why should a state/culture thrive at all ? It exists in the world for a purpose, the purpose of enabling self-empowerment of its citizens. There can be multiple States and all these states can take different paths towards same common goal i.e self-empowerment of its citizens. The ultimate is that, there is no State in the world (or only one State) , free from constant recycling , and all mankind is self-empowered freely self-organizing themselves. ( at best a dream.)

Christian view of the world which subsequently led to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty: 

Here the concept of time is linear. An infinite, personal God exists. He created a finite, material world. Reality is both material and spiritual. The universe as we know it had a beginning and will have an end. For Christians, government happens to be one of the institutions specifically established by God in order to facilitate the accomplishment of his purposes in the world (the other primary institutions being family and church). As such, there truly is a Christian way to look at politics, and Christians need to be engaged in a way that facilitates the work of God in the world through the political process. Orderliness is required in society if it is to function in ways which allow for the accomplishment of God’s purposes. The urge to bring orderliness in a liner concept of time and after walking through the violent Middle ages arose the concept of Westphalia balance system. Here all the nations, whether small or big gets their sovereignty recognized and an equal seat at the table. All of them will need to exist, the smaller nations, checking the power of bigger nations by acting as a buffer to other bigger nations. In this way this balance, is a dance to eternity. The ultimate sovereign is God and not Nation.

Communism: A 19^th -20^th century concept broke through the religious understanding of the world and brought in fresh understanding of the world through the glasses of economics. It is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. Marxist theory holds that pure communism or full communism is a specific stage of historical development that inevitably emerges from the development of the productive forces that leads to a superabundance of material wealth. This allows for distribution based on need and social relations based on freely associated individuals. While Lenin added to Marxism the notion of a vanguard party to lead the proletarian revolution and to secure all political power after the revolution for the working class, for the development of universal class consciousness and worker participation, in a transitional stage between capitalism and socialism. However the goal remained the same, as Trotsky believed, to bring about a stateless social order around the world, ruled by the workers. It remained a utopian dream , probably the first attempt in the human history to bring about all humanity together in a stateless society.

Globalization and Internationalism:  After the colonial era (which was a totally unstable world order based on exploitation and somewhat a bad copy of early Empire System) the Westphalian System of balance of power dominated the world. The western countries, moving away from being colonial masters ( as maintaining a colony was no longer economically viable) transmuted into what we call today as western liberal democracy and adapted this Westphalian System to keep themselves in a stable state and maintain a balance of power amongst themselves. The new countries, in Asia ( and to some extent Africa) , rising out of the colonial experience looked at these mature western democracy, and themselves adapted to a similar Westphalian System of balance of power. State sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation-state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law. As European influence spread across the globe, these principles became central to international law and to the prevailing world order until the economic necessity of the globalization came about . Globalization is an economic force which promised to expand and develop new markets for the goods developed by the western countries. It came into being as every consumer in the western countries had everything they needed ( a step towards capitalist contradictions) i.e. the markets got saturated. Thus to create new markets, the companies had to push money towards other less developed economies i.e. via shifting jobs subsequently jump starting their economies. It is for this reason many Asian economies rose into the world order. It led to international integration ( economically : trade groups like WTO,NAFTA) , and, arguably, the erosion of Westphalian sovereignty. The European Union's concept of shared sovereignty is also somewhat contrary to historical views of Westphalian sovereignty, as it provides for external agents to influence and interfere in the internal affairs of its member countries.

So what's next?

In the long chronology of human history , if we ignore occasional dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Aurangzeb and others power maniacs, we need to think why humanity in general did, did what they did. Why did they absorb certain world view or religion? To better themselves. While as a concept we know that there are only two ways to rule a State, first to distribute power i.e democracy (an idea spawned in early Greece), second concentrate power in the hands of a benevolent dictator. Democracy was tried at a mass( i.e. a country’s citizen directly electing a popular leader) level in modern democracies and limited way for the certain sections of society like the Roman senate and even when the communist politburo elected their leaders via voting. The other, benevolent dictatorship concept  has been instituted indirectly with the concept of a republic  and directly via earlier emperors like Ashoka, Akbar and even today, via Saudi kings and so on.  The issue is not that of organizational formation but what should be the final form of humanity. Should there be multiple nation state completely sovereign following the cycle of rebirth (like erstwhile soviet union, rebirth of Serbia or death of Hapsburg empire) or should there be multiple nation states co-existing, partially surrendering their sovereignty but keeping its own unique ethnicity (as in European Union or India Union) governed by a larger federal state ? Lastly will it be like a one nation in the world where whole humanity, each with its unique individuality is living under common governance.

I do believe that all human beings are linked together by certain universal values like tolerance, freedom of expression and an instinct to survive at any cost. In order to survive we need diversity, multiple cultures bring multiple ideas pertaining to that reality interpreted through their language and cultural paradigm. Human beings are nodes in its cultural reality, a product of social setting constructed by the immediate surroundings that can be a State (which we call nation). All moral values are relative. Each person or culture develops their own moral values. The important question is not "Is it right?" but "What will it do for me? Thus the bottom-line is that a multiple cultural reality needs to exists simultaneously ( it can be in the form of a Nation State or any other group of people renamed as whatever).  The study of history teaches that in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism and chauvinism. The point is that nobody is right or wrong, it is true if you believe it and that goes for anything. Thus the cycle of birth-death-rebirth of nation states will end merging into the universal reality of tolerance , openness and acceptance of all culture co-existing and governed by a universal large federal state or self-organizing and merging themselves into a common state or total humanity sharing power in very decentralized way with self-realization of each individual as the greater motto.

Ramakinkar Baij : Opinion on Art (book published in bengali by MonChasa Publications, Durgapur, West Bengal, India)

Overview 
Translated from Bengali by Pinaki Sarkar

I am a free traveler of a fine but long road

Without meditation, it is impossible to move along this path of art.

Almost all meditation path is same, though meditation path is tough, a fight against forces, like an impostor fog it tries to misdirect free mind in the wrong direction. In order to save from them there is always a thought.

I am seeing you also, my co-traveler, I am not alone.

This puja is going on age after age.

Humanity is a mad nobility.

I thank all of you.

From my childhood I wanted only one thing – wherever road I take I will construct sculptures along those road.

Sunlight, moonlight, under the sky filled with rain those sculptures look very good.

Besides the playful origin of life, upon the rhythmic framework the lively game of life and death looks beautiful. Allow me to see.

What will I draw? What sculpture will I build?

Still I won’t leave, like mad gabbling.

Interview with  Ramakinkar Baij
Translated from Bengali by Pinaki Sarkar 

Q: In your times, what was the main problem that Artists like you faced.

A: None. There was no problem. If I knew how to draw..then there is no problem at all. Oh Yes..there was one …how to draw and another ..Women. Leave that. Problem is to produce more and collect more. Leaving these.. there was none at all.

Q: In today’s world, what is the main problem faced by the artists.

A: Freedom…Freedom to work. Will to work..it came ..it comes. And relationship with people. I have seen great human beings why will accept any lesser.

Q: Why didn’t you marry? Do you want to say something on this topic?

A: I never wanted to marry and have a family life. I only wanted to do my work that’s all. If I married it would not have been possible. I get the pleasure of family life by art. Women…yes there is a need for women. After all men has been created by nature.

Q: Your paintings and sculptures are both wrapped in Nature in a very strange way. ?

A: Well human beings live in nature itself.

Q: Amongst nature you stressed on Trees?

A: Alive. Trees. Trees are alive.

Q: Not just about parts of trees, at the level of beauty the relationship with the branches is more.

A: Branches are the real .They are alive. Leaves will come, flowers will come. The roots are real. The real are the roots.

Q: Once during his exhibition, in an interview Picasso commented that if nature did not exist then artistry do not exist. However in order to recreate nature artists insult the nature.

A: I disagree. They cannot insult. No Insult. An artist cannot insult. Artist do not mimic nature. Nature is ‘maya’..nature is ‘lila’. God created nature, his own creative play. Why wouldn’t he allow us to play? We will also play. In his play there is a rhythm, rules and framework. Play…you can also play. Creation is a play. I play that game with peace in me. Tagore in one of his pomes said that ‘I will say your name , in various ways’…’I will say with smile on my face, I will say with tears on my eyes’..my smiles are also his , my thoughts are also his. Nature…nature. Picasso has some constrictions…that is why he said that. God created ..without any reason. Birth of child also has a reason. Get happiness from what God has created. Do not clash..do not fight…just ‘lila’

Q: How?

A: How …you will get the answer yourself. If I did not get happiness then I would not have worked…no question…we will have to forget everything. We will have to only play. If there is any grudge in the mind then you will understand that you did not forget. Birth takes place for the future. That is how it is .To see, to recognize and at that time is the birth of wisdom. I get happiness, I create. Get more happiness…Buddha…Buddha…Present—birth of a child is one way is rebirth…not without me but within me …maya..maya.

Q: Most of your work is related with the Santal tribes of Birbhum ?

A: Well that’s not true. I did other things also. Yes…in a way. They are manual laborers…they work..they have hands..sun..sunlight…open hair..sweat. They get hungry…they get tired..they feel pain..sad…they are poor. Yet they are very active. I like active people. Pure, active lifestyle. The people who work at the office lead a dull life..they only seat…nobody knows what they write …let them sit. Those businessmen what is their activity..wherever I went …whomever I saw active I drew them . They have lots of beauty within themselves.

Q: Why didn’t you draw a picture of yourself?

A: I drew…when I was at the village..long before I came here at Santiniketan. Maybe I will do again later…it is just a matter of mood…but others drew me. There are pretty good ones.

Q: So will you do a self portrait?

A: Whatever an artist do is self portrait only.

Q: What is most necessary for creation?

A: Free mind. Freedom of mind is absolutely necessary and feelings. Feelings.

Q: For feelings or for expression?

A: Expression. For expression you need more.

Q: Express for what?

A: For your own and then for others. Tagore did for whom? for creation ..there is madness—there is addiction..those who create. I cannot say no.Tagore use to say of himself ‘’addicted and mad”..happiness is first.

Q: with thought and understanding?

A: not without any thought.If you want to know, will anybody understand. Picture is just a picture. Tagore use to say “I don’t care. I don’t care. Whatever way I thought, I drew that way. I don’t want you to understand. Whatever you think of it…you think “

Q: While doing work , when did you get the most happiness ?

A: Every time…every time..from my early childhood ..every time.

Q: You worked on every media?

A: Mood…whatever media was available to me at that time.

Q: Do you always think beforehand about the subject of your work? How do you proceed?

A: Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don’t. Without any thought…I just feel and go on working. Everything comes along automatically…on its own.

Q: Is it possible to complete a work so much that nothing can be added or taken away from it ?

A: No. No work is fully complete. I just go on working on it..working on it. If I get tired then probably I leave. If I get a new idea..I leave. There is always that dissatisfaction. As long as sky is empty …there is satisfaction..else the picture goes on changing. Do it again…finish it …then do it again…just go on doing it…sometimes it changes completely. Do it again…make another one. Tagore wrote five thousand poems, after that he started painting. Why? Why did he do …that wish is always there. This is what he taught us …that is why I learned…I did again…leave the previous one and make another one.

Q: In order to work what do you need most?

A: Feeling for everything. Feeling. If that feeling is weak then what we get is hopelessness. Feel …feel .If meditation is right then feeling will come.

Q: Nowadays, you are occasionally sick, still you go on painting. Don’t you want to rest ?

A: What take rest?  No…No I will have to do something..what do I do ? Sing? Talk with people?...time is very less..where is the time ? I passed seventy years …I don’t know where the time went by.

Q: Work, New Work. New story.

A: Yes. Constant observation…if my eyes are open I can see so many things together.

Q: Did you ever think that for your art what did the country, your society give you ?

A: I am not that kind of beggar. I don’t want anything. I get everything from my work.

Q: Last question, How long would you like to work like this?

A: As long as I can. To my last breadth..when my work will finish …then my meditation will also end …then emptiness will be like the sky . Sky…sky.

Sir, I am an artist of lines and planes, who only observe with my own eyes . 
By Ramakinkar Baij , Translated from Bengali by Pinaki Sarkar

In order to worship the God of life , one will always have to submit one’s complete consciousness. Even after that it is not enough, something more will remain to be needed. I have seen how lightning plays amongst the dark clouds, astoundingly strange. After that the rain, dancing peacock with its glorious feathers spread-out , without any friends , crying out in lonely consonance with the clouds.

In my childhood I traveled far away to get education but ran back to home when I heard the news of my mothers death. I came to understand death a little late. As if I don’t know how to speak. I don’t like just talking. Only one sound ‘Maa’- that’s it, no more words. A deep pain’s mute expression.

I saw Gurudev Robindranath Tagore spending his half-life composing words, tune and sound like a fountain. Overflowing. Later I saw him, for ten years he spent time in silence with lines and beautiful colors.

Speed and friction are separate. Faster the speed more it is hoarse. Where they are in tandem, music appear. A composer ends his analysis with just six syllables. A composer’s analysis technique is ancient. Using the science of these just six syllables they express all our feelings, emotions and thoughts.

What I have seen are Shivlinga, whatever sculptures we get clearly from Mohenjo-Daro-Harappa, that’s all. I don’t get anything beyond that – my eyes are the only way to see them. From nature we get two forms , man and woman. Third is their progeny. This theme has a strange beauty. Upon this is the play of  so much happiness, so much beauty.

The effort is to express this within another form. The name of that form is symbol- that is what I try.

With speed comes friction and from that sound. Where friction is in consonance with speed then it melodious else it is cacophony. A composer, with that melody only, creates and sustains music. That game is what I see everywhere.

This is symbol, that is how it is popular. Do music have these kind of symbols? A musician will be able to say that.

Nowadays it is only words that are trendy. I don’t understand, it doesn’t get into my ears. My ears are rattling. In this age another confusion is from machines. What more do you want? If this age is of machines, then when will the age of silence will come? I wait in the hope of that?

The sound of a sculptor and a painter is minimal. When Tagore use to paint , I have seen he use to keep quiet. Yet he spend most of his life with sound. Artists who work with words, with music, both of them use sound. Visual artistry with lines and planes is quiet. Only meditation. In one place Tagore wrote that ‘the treasure of meditation will have its own tune’. Here sound is used. Without sound, the expression will not have a body. Either voice, or expressive musical instrument is needed.

Sir, I am an artist of lines and planes, who only observe with my own eyes. Not an artist of sound. Anyway, there is beauty in sound also but when there are arguments and quarrels these sound starts rattling. Sound of tram, cars, truck, trains, factory sound, humming sound of the crowd – you listen to all these, yet for more sound you print and publish magazines. I really commend your patience.