Mankind devised all higher thoughts with two purposes in mind: first, to solve problems in society; and, next, to stop the savage within us, and prevent the rise of the feral man. This is the basis of all sacred texts and meaningful secular philosophies. Today I am trying to use the same higher thought to connect the ‘Woke Movement.’ to the Myth of Shri Ram.

The day the Ayodhya Ram Mandir was consecrated, 22 January, was also the birthday of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, philosopher, linguist and communist leader (1891-1937). Gramsci wrote a series of essays and books while imprisoned by the Italian fascists in the 1920s and 1930s that are referred to as his Prison Notebooks. The Prison Notebooks are celebrated in left-liberal circles, most extensively in the humanities and liberal arts departments of academia. Gramsci’s followers dominate academia, media and the elite echelons of western society. It would be fair to say that the ideological followers or descendent of Gramsci rule the western cultural and academia.

He is the Father of “The woke movement” Being ‘Woke’ means having a critical conscience, and an ability to see things as they are. They pride themselves in being awake and not asleep, hence ‘woke’.

His teaching is referred to as ‘Identity Marxism’ (To be fair he did not coin this term), where He recommended a strategy that seeks to tear apart and then capture major cultural institutions, including religion, family, education, media, and law, and break the cultural hegemony of that country/society. This will allow one to dictate the new cultural myths and crucially tell people what to think and how to feel.

All great empires from Roman empire to British empire and the communist empire have run on this myth. So, what exactly is the Gramscian myth and how does it differ from the myth of Sri Ram in painting the future?

Left liberalism talks about universal equality and brotherhood, righting of historical wrongs and upliftment of downtrodden as well as equal opportunity for all. Isn’t this a good thing? Isn’t left liberalism that talks of grand values a good thing? Shouldn’t we, uniformly, all join the stream of universal good values? These questions are not special to left liberalism but generic to any imperialism of the past.

 The Roman empire justified itself by the phase ‘Pax Romana’, the Roman peace. Don’t you think peace is a good thing?

The Abbasid caliphate, second of the two great dynasties of the Muslim caliphate empires, formalized and formulated all canons of Islam, promising salaam (peace). Is not peace a good thing?

The British empire was all about white man’s burden to uplift the ethical and living standards of the non-white people everywhere in the world. Lord Curzon proudly proclaimed (1905) in Kolkata, the then-capital of British India, “the ultimate ideal of truth is to a considerable part a Western construct.” Don’t you think that truth is a good thing?

Communism wanted to have a communist world in the interest of equality. Don’t you think that equality is a good thing?

A shift to a “new culture” is what Gramsci holds as the solution to injustices in the world. Any cultivation of this new culture requires the undermining of dominant cultural groups in a society and the sponsoring of the marginal groups. One can see the seeds of the minority appeasement in Gramscian ideology.

What all these grandstanding ideas do is hide the reality of injustice with catchy slogans and group identities, while some shrewd politicians grab power exploiting those group identities. These politicians or groups with vested interest have successfully promoted a sense of isolation among the minorities and thanks to them victimhood has become a way of life in the minorities everywhere. Since, in the Gramscian myth, one needs to belong to some ‘victim’ group for authenticity and prestige, it has become a recurrent theme in the society for everyone. As everyone is looking to become a victim, one needs to find an aggressor necessarily, which increases social unrest and disharmony in society. It is no wonder that intolerance has, gone up everywhere, and right-wing extremist are gaining Favour in Europe and US.

It is obvious that the Gramscian myth holds no good prospect for a sustainably peaceful society. What is the alternative, then? I am boldly proposing the myth of Shri Ram as the way forward for humanity to live in a peaceful and sustainable society. How exactly is the myth of Ram different from that of Gramsci?

Shri Ram’s appeal is vested in his story, the Ramayana epic, which lyrically raises him to a role model worthy of emulation for all eternity. It encompasses the essence of Dharma, that natural order of things which is to be maintained harmoniously. And it offers example after practical example of how one may employ karma, the right thought and right action required to uphold Dharma.

First and foremost, group identity is not important to judge someone, but individualistic work is what one should be proud of. We see Sri Ram not casting any blame on any rakshasa (a group identity) but chose to anoint one from the same family of Ravan as the successor of Ravan after his victory in Lanka.

Ram felt connected with people from all caste and groups because he held their deeds to be more important. Different Vern’s and Jati like kevets (boatmen), Guhaka or Shabari felt close to Ram because of their karma.

Sri Ram was perhaps one of the greatest victims of injustice. He was banished from the kingdom at the moment of his coronation for no fault of his. To add to that when Ram finds his dear wife missing, at that moment of weakness, he was lamenting all these (he was shown to be a human after all), but only to his most-cherished brother, and never to anyone else. He then focused only on his actions-karma and never cursed his misfortune again. This story demonstrates that invocation of victimhood is no solution to problems of social harmony. It is the acceptance of one’s own identity and positive actions that makes society peaceful and prosperous in a sustainable way.

Life, as the story of Ram teaches us, is an endless struggle filled with problems. And the greatest problems are the moral dilemmas, human beings are often forced to face. One of the dilemmas faced by Shri Ram was that of Sugreev and Vali. Shri Ram killed Vali while Sugreev and Vali were wrestling, from the shadow of a tree. On his deathbed Vali dejectedly complained to Ram at the employment of such duplicity. This was not the way of Dharma, Vali rued; there was nothing virtuous in Ram’s act. Then how could Ram do this?

Ram’s reply to Vali encapsulates the essence of Dharma: “Don’t reprimand me, without understanding the social contracts formed by righteousness, justice, and desires [Dharma, Artha, Kama]. In your rage you senselessly placed desire over what is right, and by doing so, you have tainted Dharma”. He goes on to say “Dharma is subtle and difficult to understand. How will you understand that if your soul is not clean? You had intercourse with your brother’s wife after you abducted her, and I have punished you accordingly. If a person acts contrary to worldly conventions, I do not think an act of punishing him is contrary to Dharma”.

Compare this clarity of thought with what postures as liberal thinking today: the false equivalences of postmodernism, their graying of the gap between right and wrong, a loosening of morals, a reckless, feral abjuring of traditions, customs, institutions, and culture, which, leads to a ‘woke’ haste to justify one man’s terrorist as another man’s freedom fighter. One way leads to order in society, and the other, to disorder.

Dare I say so, but the Indian Hindus have trodden the path of Shri Ram in fighting for his temple. We did not claim to be victims but got vilified for our just demand of a temple for Shri Ram. Still, we have worked our way patiently through the legal means for reclaiming the temple.

Even the staunchest critic of Hindu nationalism, will have to concede that we do not want Muslims or other minorities to be excluded. We just want them to nullify separatist tendencies and accept the core of Indic culture, which is theirs as well as ours.

The presence of Iqbal Ansari, a petitioner in the Babri Masjid case, at the inauguration of the Ram Temple shows this attitude of Hindu nationalism that seeks to extend beyond group identities. 

I feel that western social theories offer no solutions to the problem of securing a sustainable peaceful society. It is the idea of dharma that can secure this through the pursuit of satya and ahimsa. The myth of Sri Ram is an ultimate guide to take us in that direction.