रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुण: परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् |
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेय: परधर्मो भयावह:
śhreyān swa-dharmo viguṇaḥ para-dharmāt sv-anuṣhṭhitāt
swa-dharme nidhanaṁ śhreyaḥ para-dharmo bhayāvahaḥ
( A free-flowing translation for our times)
It is far better to explore and live up to our individual potential than to perform another’s duty, however perfectly we may do it. To follow a path, that is not in accordance with one’s nature, skills and priorities, is always fraught with fear, insecurity, and a sense of unfulfillment.
This is one of the most intriguing and popular verses of the great Indian poem, the Bhagavad Gita. The setting of this poem is mythical but staggering in its conception. Standing in the middle of the battlefield all set to fight to set a bloody battle with one’s own kith and kin, the warrior Arjuna, suddenly trembles in his knees feel spasms of self-doubt coursing through his manly frame, and begins to doubt his pursuit in life. He drops his bow, kneels helplessly before his charioteer, and cries for moral reinforcement from his master, to continue the bloodshed he is about to commit. Amidst this roar of drums and battle cries, Krishna, gives Arjuna a master class on human conduct, work, psychology, and philosophy, that is unparalleled in world religions in its scope, depth, practicality. In chapter 3, verse 35, which is the verse quoted above, he tells Arjuna in unequivocal terms – that continues to reverberate across the ages, touching our hearts and minds even today – that it is better for a human being to follow the path for which one is most suited by emotional temperament, intellectual readiness, and physical strength than to follow a path, however convenient and pleasant it may be, of other vocations. In the modern-day workplace, with billions going to work on a daily basis, how many can claim that they are living out their true potential?
This particular verse has always resonated with me for its stunning relevance to contemporary discussions on work, specialization, and range. One of the biggest problems for man in modern times is to find one’s true vocation in life. What I mean by “ true” here is not some abstract notion of universal truth, but something that is true for me as a unique individual with my own strengths and propensities. To find out what I am good at, and to pursue that interest with all the energy, passion and commitment, should be, in my opinion, the goal of a well-lived life.
In the verse quoted above, there is the word “Svadharma”. Now, Dharma is a pretty untranslatable word in English, just as the Chinese Tao is. Dharma doesn’t mean a specific path, it is not entirely about one’s interest or inner nature alone, it is definitely not about morality or ethics. If anything, it is all this and denotes a strong inner pull towards a certain way of life. Everyone has it. Some find it early, some late in life. But all of us do have an inner needle pulsating within, which given a chance, would find expression in activities entirely different from what we find ourselves doing right now. This is not a justification of the “other side is always greener” adage that we routinely hear, but something else totally. We are talking about a subterranean stream of inner voice well below the daily turbulence of making a living, brutally beaten in submission, barely audible, that tells us our talent lies elsewhere.
In today’s world, the kind of work most of us do rarely reflects our svadharma. With two centuries of capitalism behind us backed by the philosophy of Adam Smith’s Division of Labor, we hoped that mankind will find the freedom to work less for a living and engage more in what we like to do. But, unfortunately, for the majority, that has not really happened. In 1930, John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of the twentieth century and an active advocate of capitalism, prophesized that by end of the century, with advancement in technology, we could all work for less than fifteen hours a week. He was not wrong from what he saw of technology at that time. Cars, railroads, electricity, telephones, gas, and an increased number of labor-saving devices were on the rise. With such adoption of technology, we should have achieved enough leisure time to pursue our visions, ideas, and dreams. But No, instead, in 2021, most of us are working more hours per week, with less and less time to do things we love to do. Hundred years of tremendous material progress have still not given us the scope to exercise our Swadharma, except for a privileged few who earn enough to enjoy a relaxing retirement.
In 2014, the famous anthropologist and social thinker David Graeber wrote a short thousand-word essay in an online magazine called Strike. The title of the essay was “ On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: a work rant”. The essay received millions of hits and was quickly translated into many languages. David later expanded the idea into a full-length book in 2018 “ Bull shit jobs” ( a great read from a masterful thinker) A very insightful and thought-provoking read at the same time. David argued that in the last eighty or ninety years, we have created so many jobs that have nothing about producing any goods or extending meaningful human services. The layers of clerical, services, administrative, and bureaucratic job roles proliferate because automation, as predicted, has indeed automated most of the productive work done in earlier times, and therefore employers, the capitalists, have subtly created and deliberately sustained a slew of job roles that are administrative, clerical, and managerial, which are not at all critical, in the sense that society won’t collapse if those jobs are suddenly taken away one fine day. On the other hand, jobs such as teachers, nurses, firemen, mechanics, construction workers, farmers, trash collectors do critical jobs, and when they go on strike, we blame them for being irresponsible, because society is paralyzed without their work contribution. Now, anything that paralyzes us must surely be important enough, right?. Fire twenty administrators/managers in a corporate building, the facility is still likely to go on with slight adjustments to the way of working; but fire twenty janitors, and it can quickly become difficult to work there. The covid pandemic brought out such anomalies into sharp focus. We were all witness to the plight of essential and frontline during this time, and how valuable, underpaid, and overworked there were in comparison to many other roles.
In short, David Graeber’s thesis is that there are too many people around performing jobs that don’t give them any real pleasure, or real reason to do it, or any excitement, or fulfillment. These jobs exist to keep people busy, and in the process give them a means of livelihood so they don’t use their free time to question the current order of society. David writes “ Hell, in my definition of it, is a collection of individuals who are spending the bulk of their time working on a task they don’t like and are not especially good at” The last part of this statement is important “ Not especially good at”. This is where Swadharma comes in. A society is considered healthy only when people do what they are good at, and find time to exercise their creative energies without the pressure of toiling most part of the week without knowing why or what? The tragedy of most administrative jobs ( i use this term in the broadest sense possible) is that the job itself maybe just 15 to 20 hours per week kind, but the rest of it is structured to go into pointless meetings, seminars, and engaging in activities that have nothing to do with the actual job to done.
The basic argument against the above thesis is: who decides which jobs are really valuable, and which ones are pointless. That can be a tricky question in a complex capitalist arrangement because we have carefully built a case for each job and given it the shine of importance, even if it be a paper-pushing job ( or its modern equivalent of endlessly emailing). In the face of it, no one will readily acknowledge that their jobs aren’t very satisfying, but in a more informal setting, with some of the psychological guard rails down, you can hear many complain about the purposeless of what they are doing. That’s why parties are such important places to know what really goes on. A few drinks and tongues are loosened, real feelings pour out.
Jokes aside, one of the offshoots of this two-year pandemic is that the number of resignations all around the world has gone up. Like the Great Depression of the 1930s. we have christened this period as the Great resignation – a term coined by Anthony Klotz, a professor of management, who predicted such a wave in early May 2021. His prophecy came true. In the US alone, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, nearly 10.9 million resignations happened by end of July. An analysis reveals that resignations are highest among mid-career employees, who have had time to evaluate their priorities in life and opted for a more balanced lifestyle that suited their nature. David Graeber tragically died last year ( not of Covid), and if he were alive, he would have been happy to witness his thesis vindicated to some extent. The work-from-home movement that started with the pandemic has allowed people to take a step back from the rut, and look at the larger picture. The madness of working 60 or 70 hours in the name of productivity and growth suddenly seems meaningless and irrelevant. With so many millions resigning, has the world come to a standstill? Hell No!!. The universe is essentially indifferent to everything we believe is important. What is happening now is that organizations are restructuring themselves to accommodate the new style of working, and this is a revolution in itself. When Historians capture the effect of the Covid 19 Pandemic on Human society, they will write prolifically about the seismic changes it brought to the workplace, and how people realigned themselves to live in tune with their own sense of how much they should work, and how much should they spend on more important things. Sometimes, it needs a catastrophic event to shake the dead weight of accepted ideas and usher in new ways of thinking.
What Krishna advises Arjuna on the battlefield, however mythical the setting may be, hits a true note. In effect what he says is this: Live up to your svadharma, the only skill you possess is that of a warrior, and you have been raised all of your life for this moment of bloodshed. And now you cannot retract from the path. Well, you can withdraw, if you want to, and live a compromised life, as most people generally do, but such a course will psychologically hurt you badly in the long run. A little later in the dialogue, Krishna will emphasize this point by saying ‘You have nothing to lose by living according to your nature. If you win, you get to rule the earth; if you die on the battlefield, you will still have lived out what you knew best to do. So why worry; live according to your nature”
That is a good note to finish this essay.
God bless…
yours in mortality,
Bala