Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> WHAT MIGHT BE THE ROLE OF
OLD-FASHIONED ETHICS IN OUR
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS?
WE'LL HAVE SOME INSIGHTS NEXT ON
"GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES."
>> THIS IS
"GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," WITH
PULITZER PRIZE-WINNING
COMMENTATOR JOHN BERSIA.
>> WELCOME TO
"GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES."
ARE WE ALL ENGAGED -- KNOWINGLY
OR NOT -- IN A STRUGGLE BETWEEN
TWO ETHICAL SYSTEMS?
WE ARE USED TO SEEING OBVIOUS
STRUGGLES BETWEEN POLITICAL AND
RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS AROUND THE
WORLD AND THE POLITICAL
GRIDLOCK IN WASHINGTON SPARKED
BY DIFFERING IDEAS OVER THE ROLE
OF GOVERNMENT, BUT MIGHT OUR
DOMESTIC ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND
SLUGGISH ECONOMIC RECOVERY
ACTUALLY BE THE RESULT OF AN
ETHICAL CONFLICT?
OUR GUEST TODAY -- AUTHOR,
WRITER, AND THINKER
PRABHU GUPTARA -- SAYS THERE IS
A FUNDAMENTAL CONFLICT
BETWEEN AN ETHICAL SYSTEM BASED
ON NOTIONS OF FAIRNESS, JUSTICE,
AND HUMANITY AND ONE BASED ON
CONTRARY VALUES OF MONEY, POWER,
AND PLEASURE.
WELCOME TO THE SHOW,
DR. GUPTARA.
TELL US, HOW DID YOU GET INTO
THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ABOUT
ETHICAL SYSTEMS?
YOU'VE BEEN A THINKER ON SO MANY
TOPICS, AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
HOW DID YOU START THAT PROCESS?
WHAT DREW YOU TO THE ETHICAL
ISSUES?
>> MY FATHER WAS A PROFESSOR,
AND HE DIED WHEN I WAS 8.
SO, AS A RESULT OF THAT, I
BECAME AN ATHEIST AND CONTINUED
BEING AN ATHEIST TILL THE AGE
OF ABOUT 13, WHEN, LIKE MOST
TEENAGERS, I STARTED THINKING.
AND IT WAS AT THAT STAGE, I
GUESS, THAT THE QUESTIONS THAT
I'D HAD DEVELOPED BOTH A
SPIRITUAL AND AN ETHICAL
DIMENSION.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME
TO MIND WERE, "WHY IS IT THAT
ONE OF THE MOST RELIGIOUS
COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD -- INDIA
IS NORMALLY RECKONED TO BE THE
MOST RELIGIOUS COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD BY SOCIOLOGISTS -- HOW IS
IT THAT ONE OF THE MOST
RELIGIOUS COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD
IS ALSO ONE OF THE MOST
CORRUPT?"
SO, THAT'S REALLY WHERE MY
THINKING ABOUT ETHICS AND SO ON
STARTED, AND, OF COURSE, THE
QUESTION OF, "HOW IS IT THAT
SUCH A RELIGIOUS COUNTRY SHOULD
NOT BE ONE OF THE MOST ETHICAL,
BUT ALSO, THEREFORE, ONE OF THE
MOST DEVELOPED?"
BECAUSE IF RELIGIOUS VALUES HAVE
ANY VALIDITY, THEY SHOULD
EXPRESS THEMSELVES OR WORK
THEMSELVES OUT IN TERMS OF
ACTUAL PROSPERITY.
BUT HERE WE WERE, NOT WITH
PROSPERITY, BUT WITH POVERTY.
>> TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RELIGION
AND CORRUPTION BECAUSE WE HAVE
LOTS OF COUNTRIES THAT ARE
LABELED AS HIGHLY RELIGIOUS AND
MORAL AND SO FORTH, AND YET,
THERE IS THE PRESENCE OF
CORRUPTION IN EVERY COUNTRY.
>> YES, INDEED.
WELL, ONE OF THE FACTORS IS THAT
ORGANIZED RELIGION IS, OF
COURSE, BY DEFINITION ORGANIZED,
AND ANY SYSTEM THAT IS ORGANIZED
IS GOING TO BE PRONE TO THE
TEMPTATION OF POWER BECAUSE THE
POSITION AT THE TOP IS OBVIOUSLY
THE MOST POWERFUL.
AND AS YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW,
POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, AND IN
RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS, THE PERSON AT
THE TOP OFTEN -- NOT ALWAYS, BUT
OFTEN -- HAS ABSOLUTE POWER, AND
ABSOLUTE POWER, OF COURSE, TENDS
TO CORRUPT ABSOLUTELY.
THERE'S ONE SIDE OF IT.
THE OTHER SIDE OF IT IS THAT
THERE IS CORRUPTION IN EACH
HUMAN HEART, AND THIS CORRUPTION
NEEDS TO FIND SOME SALVE, SOME
KIND OF OINTMENT, FOR THE RESULT
WHICH IS, OF COURSE, A BAD
CONSCIENCE.
AND SO RELIGION BECOMES THE WAY
OF SALVING OR ANOINTING OR
REDUCING THE IMPACT OF BAD
CONSCIENCE.
SO THERE COMES A KIND OF
INCESTUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CORRUPTION AND RELIGION.
POSITIVELY, OF COURSE, RELIGION
SHOULD BE WHAT HELPS YOU TO FREE
YOURSELF FROM YOUR CORRUPT
STATE.
THAT HAPPENS, OF COURSE, VERY
OFTEN.
VERY OFTEN, IT DOES NOT.
AND SO, THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF
THINGS THAT I WAS ALSO
INTERESTED IN INVESTIGATING.
WHERE IS IT THAT RELIGION AND
ETHICAL PURITY OR CLEANNESS OR
WHATEVER WORD YOU WANT TO USE GO
TOGETHER, AND WHERE IS IT THAT
THEY DON'T AND WHY?
>> WHY DON'T WE ADD ANOTHER
LAYER, SINCE YOU'RE ALSO
SKILLED IN MATTERS RELATED TO
THE ECONOMY AND GLOBALIZATION?
>> INDEED.
>> IF YOU PUT THE ECONOMY INTO
THIS MIX OF RELIGION AND
CORRUPTION, WHAT IS THE OUTCOME?
THERE SEEMS TO BE A PATTERN OF
IMPROVEMENT IN THE STATE OF
CORRUPTION AS A GOVERNMENT, AS A
STATE DEVELOPS ECONOMICALLY AND
BECOMES MORE SUCCESSFUL OVER
TIME, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS
PRACTICING A MORE OPEN SYSTEM.
>> I WOULD PUT IT THE OTHER WAY
AROUND, THAT WHERE YOU HAVE AN
ETHICAL SYSTEM WHICH DOES IMPACT
SOCIETY, THEN PROGRESS TAKES
PLACE.
>> OKAY.
>> AND WHERE YOU HAVE A SOCIETY
WHERE ETHICS DOES NOT MAKE THE
KIND OF IMPACT IT SHOULD, THEN
THAT SOCIETY'S PARALYZED.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTRAST THE
UNITED STATES WITH INDIA -- WE
ARE HERE IN THE U.S., AND, OF
COURSE, I AM FROM INDIA --
THEN YOU CAN SEE EXAMPLES OF
COUNTRIES WHERE, IN ONE CASE,
THE U.S., WHICH IS CERTAINLY NOT
PERFECT BY ANY MEANS AS I THINK
WE WOULD BOTH AGREE, BUT YET ITS
PUBLIC LIFE IS RELATIVELY,
COMPARED TO INDIA, CLEAN.
AND THE IMPACT OF THAT IS THAT
WHEN AN INDIAN COMES TO AMERICA,
THAT INDIAN TENDS TO FLOURISH
AND NOT JUST SURVIVE, EVEN
THOUGH IN INDIA ITSELF, HE MIGHT
NOT HAVE, NOT ONLY NOT
FLOURISHED, BUT EVEN PERHAPS NOT
SURVIVED.
SO, THE IMPACT OF ETHICS IN
TERMS OF THE KINDS OF LAWS AND
RULES AND REGULATIONS YOU
HAVE -- LAWS YOU HAVE -- AND
PARTICULARLY IN THE WAY THOSE
LAWS ARE IMPLEMENTED, MAKES ALL
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHETHER
HUMAN BEINGS CAN FLOURISH OR
NOT.
>> IS THE DIVISION BETWEEN THESE
TWO SYSTEMS OR ARE THERE OTHER
VERSIONS OF SYSTEMS THAT SHOULD
BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION?
>> YOU COULD GO AS FAR AS SAYING
THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX OF THEM.
SO, YOU COULD LOOK AT TRIBAL
RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS AND THEIR
ETHICS.
YOU COULD LOOK AT WHAT I CALL
"BLACK" -- I CALL THESE TRIBAL
KIND OF SYSTEMS "BLACK"
RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS.
THAT'S JUST MY TERMINOLOGY.
THERE'S NO KIND OF PEJORATIVE
MEANING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH
IT.
IN CONTRAST TO THAT, THERE ARE
WHAT I CALL "WHITE" CULTURES,
AND THESE WHITE CULTURES ARE
OTHERWORLDLY CULTURES.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CULTURE'S A VERY
GOOD EXAMPLE OF OTHERWORLDLY
CULTURES.
HINDU AND BUDDHIST CULTURES ARE
VERY GOOD EXAMPLES OF
OTHERWORLDLY CULTURES.
THEN, THERE ARE WHAT I CALL THE
"YELLOW" CULTURES.
THE YELLOW CULTURES TEND TO BE
TOP-DOWN, DOMINANT, WITH A
DOMINANT ELITE.
SO, THE CHINESE SOCIETY TODAY IS
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A TOP-DOWN
KIND OF STATE -- RUN BY THE
MILITARY, RUN, OF COURSE, BY THE
GOVERNMENT'S PARTY.
SO, THESE YELLOW EMPIRE-STYLE
SYSTEMS ARE ANOTHER KIND OF WAY
OF ORGANIZING SOCIETY.
THEN YOU HAVE WHAT I CALL
"GREEN" SOCIETIES, AND THESE
GREEN SOCIETIES ARE BEST
REPRESENTED BY PERHAPS THE
ANABAPTISTS OR THE OTHER RADICAL
PROTESTANT GROUPS, WHICH WERE
QUITE STRONGLY ETHICAL, QUITE
STRONGLY ENVIRONMENTAL, VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT ETHICAL ISSUES,
AND SO ON.
AND THEN YOU HAVE WHAT I CALL
"RED" SORT OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS,
AND THESE RED ETHICAL SYSTEMS IS
WHAT YOU DESCRIBED AS BEING
ETHICAL SYSTEMS DRIVEN BY MONEY,
POWER, GREED, AND ALL THE REST
OF IT.
>> MM-HMM.
IS IT YOUR EXPERIENCE THAT
SOME PEOPLE ARE TRAPPED BETWEEN
THE TWO SYSTEMS OR DOES EVERYONE
FIT COMFORTABLY INTO ONE OR THE
OTHER OF THE TWO MAJOR ONES THAT
YOU MENTIONED?
>> OF THE TWO MAJOR ONES, I
THINK EVERY HUMAN BEING, IN
CERTAINLY MODERN CIVILIZATION,
IS, IN SOME DEGREE, CAUGHT
BETWEEN THEM, UNLESS, OF COURSE,
YOU'RE AN ASCETIC.
THEN IT'S DIFFERENT.
AND I'M SURE THERE ARE PEOPLE
WHO ARE KIND OF TOTALLY
COMMITTED TO POWER, GREED,
MONEY, AND ALL THAT -- "TOTALLY"
MEANING PERHAPS 99% OR 98% --
BUT I THINK IT'S VERY DIFFICULT
TO BE 100% COMMITTED, EVEN TO
THAT VALUE SYSTEM IF YOU'RE A
HUMAN BEING BECAUSE YOUR OWN
HUMANITY WILL DRAG YOU BACK FROM
IT.
SO, YES, EVERY HUMAN BEING IS
CAUGHT IN THAT TENSION BETWEEN
WANTING GOOD FOR EVERYBODY AND
YET IN THE MIDDLE OF A SYSTEM
WHICH MEANS THAT THE WINNER
TAKES ALL AND THE LOSER HAS
NOTHING.
>> WHAT IS YOUR VIEW OF THE U.S.
SYSTEM TODAY IN TERMS OF THESE
TWO MAJOR CATEGORIES?
WHICH HAS THE GREATER INFLUENCE
AND HOW DOES IT AFFECT POLITICS?
>> I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING
OUT THAT THE U.S. HAS HAD A
TRANSITION IN ITS VALUES.
THE U.S. STARTED WITH DOMINANT
VALUES BEING PROTESTANT VALUES.
IT THEN MOVED FROM HAVING
DOMINANTLY PROTESTANT VALUES TO
HAVING DOMINANTLY CHRISTIAN
VALUES -- NOT PROTESTANT VALUES,
BUT SO-CALLED CHRISTIAN VALUES
WHEN, OF COURSE,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM CAME IN AND
EASTERN ORTHODOXY CAME IN.
AND THE UNITED STATES THEN MOVED
FROM THESE CHRISTIAN VALUES TO
JUDEO-CHRISTIAN VALUES, WHEN, OF
COURSE, JEWISH INFLUENCE CAME
IN -- PARTICULARLY FIRST WORLD
WAR, SECOND WORLD WAR.
A LOT OF JEWISH PEOPLE CAME IN,
MADE GOOD PROGRESS IN SOCIETY,
CAME, IN FACT, TO DOMINATE A LOT
OF POLITICS, MEDIA,
UNIVERSITIES, AND SO ON.
SO YOU COULDN'T TALK ABOUT
CHRISTIAN VALUES ANYMORE,
OBVIOUSLY, PARTICULARLY THE
GIVEN THE HISTORY OF ANTAGONISM
BETWEEN JUDAISM AND
CHRISTIANITY.
AND THIS, OF COURSE, THEN
TRANSFORMED ITSELF INTO
SECULARISM WHEN LARGE NUMBERS OF
PEOPLE FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE
WORLD START COMING IN WHO ARE
HINDUS, BUDDHISTS, MUSLIMS, OR
WHATEVER ELSE.
SO, THE UNITED STATES HAS MADE A
KIND OF TRANSITION IN ITS VALUES
AS A RESULT OF THAT TO THE
POINT WHERE, TODAY, WE DON'T
EVEN HAVE SECULARISM, BUT WE
HAVE THE, CERTAINLY, POSSIBILITY
OF ANTITHEISM BECOMING THE
DOMINANT RELIGION, IF YOU LIKE,
OR THE VALUE SYSTEM IN THE
UNITED STATES.
NOW, AS A RESULT OF THIS
TRANSITION IN THE UNITED STATES'
VALUES, WE HAVE HAD A TRANSITION
ALSO IN THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL,
AND POLITICAL FORMS OF SOCIETY.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT
ECONOMICS, YOU CAN SEE THAT
THERE WAS NO MORAL OUTRAGE AT
THE TIME THAT THE UNITED STATES
DE-LINKED ITSELF FROM GOLD IN
THE 1970s.
NOW, THAT WAS ACTUALLY AN
IMMORAL ACT, NOT JUST AN
ECONOMIC ACT.
IT WAS ALSO AN IMMORAL ACT
BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF
DE-LINKING FROM GOLD WAS PARTLY
TO PAY FOR THE VIETNAM WAR,
WHICH HAD FOR THE FIRST TIME
PRODUCED A HUGE OVERHANG OF DEBT
ON THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, BUT THE
MORAL ISSUE WAS, OF COURSE, WAS
THIS DEBT GOING TO BE REPAID IN
DOLLARS WORTH WHAT THEY HAD BEEN
WHEN THE DEBT WAS INCURRED OR
WERE THEY GOING TO BE REPAID IN
DOLLARS WORTH LESS?
AND OF COURSE DE-LINKING FROM
GOLD ALLOWED YOU TO PAY THE DEBT
BACK IN DOLLARS WORTH ACTUALLY
LESS THAN THEY HAD BEEN.
SO IT WAS A MORAL ISSUE, BUT
THERE WAS NO MORAL OUTRAGE ABOUT
IT IN THE UNITED STATES, AND
THAT WAS A MARK OF HOW FAR IT
HAD FALLEN FROM THE KIND OF
PROTESTANT VALUES IT HAD HAD.
THAT'S ONLY ONE MARK OF WHAT
HAPPENED, BUT A WHOLE LOT OF
FINANCIAL EXPERIMENTS OF THIS
SORT AND ECONOMIC EXPERIMENTS
WERE LAUNCHED IN THE FULL
KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE WOULD, AT
BEST, LEAD TO VERY GOOD GROWTH
AND, AT WORST, LEAD TO
VOLATILITY AND POSSIBLE
COLLAPSE.
AND IN THE BOOM YEARS, WE ALL
BENEFITED FROM IT, SO, OF
COURSE, NOBODY'S GOING TO RAISE
ANY MORAL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT,
BUT IN THE BUST YEARS -- WE'VE
HAD 17 OR 18 BUSTS SINCE 1970 --
IN THE BUST YEARS, REGULARLY,
THERE HAS BEEN AT LEAST A
GLIMMER OF QUESTIONING OF IT.
IN THE LATEST BUST, WHICH HAS,
OF COURSE, BEEN THE WORST BUST
SINCE 2007, 2008, THAT
QUESTIONING HAS GROWN QUITE
SEVERE, AND THERE ARE QUESTIONS
BEING ASKED SUCH AS, "IS THIS
THE END OF ECONOMICS AS WE'VE
KNOWN IT?" "HOW COME MBA
SCHOOLS ARE TURNING OUT THE KIND
OF PEOPLE THEY ARE?" "HOW COME
WE'RE BEING RUN BY AN ELITE
WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE NOT THE
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENRY AT HEART?" AND SO ON.
I'M NOT SAYING THESE ARE MY
QUESTIONS.
I'M SAYING THESE ARE THE KINDS
OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE BEING
ASKED.
SO, FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE HAVE
A QUESTIONING OF THE DIRECTION
IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS
GONE, AND, OF COURSE, IT REMAINS
TO BE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS IN TERMS
OF THE CHOICES THAT ARE MADE BY
THE UNITED STATES POPULATION
GOING FORWARD -- AND, OF COURSE,
BY THE UNITED STATES VERY
IMPORTANT ELITE GOING FORWARD.
>> MM-HMM.
IF YOU HAD BEEN THE
SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR AT THE
TIME, WOULD YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED
THAT WE NOT DE-LINK FROM GOLD?
>> IF I HAD BEEN, NO, BECAUSE I
WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED IT
IMMORAL.
>> MM-HMM.
>> BUT IMMORALITY'S NOT AN
ECONOMIC ARGUMENT.
AND SO IF YOU HAD SOMEBODY ELSE
IN MY PLACE FOR WHOM MORALITY
WAS LESS IMPORTANT THAN
ECONOMICS OR THE PERSON WAS
PUTTING ON HIS PROFESSIONAL HAT
AND NOT HIS HUMAN, PERSONALIZED
HUMAN BEING, HE WOULD HAVE OR
SHE WOULD HAVE SAID, "YES, OF
COURSE.
ON ECONOMIC GROUNDS, GO AHEAD,"
BECAUSE IT HAS TWO
ADVANTAGES.
YOU REPAY YOUR DEBT IN DOLLARS
WORTH LESS, AND IT HAS A SECOND
ADVANTAGE.
YOU CAN THEN MANIPULATE
THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM MUCH MORE
FLEXIBLY TO ALLOW FOR GROWTH.
AND, OF COURSE, THE PERSON WAS
RIGHT.
THE UNITED STATES DID REPAY ITS
DEBT IN DOLLARS WORTH LESS,
UNITED STATES DID LEAD THE WORLD
IN INCREDIBLE GROWTH OVER THE
LAST 40, 45 YEARS, AND,
UNFORTUNATELY, SINCE 2007, THE
DOWNSIDE HAS AFFECTED US.
>> BUT WHAT IN YOUR MIND ARE THE
WORST EFFECTS, THE WORST RESULTS
OF THIS ETHICAL DIVIDE THAT
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING?
>> THE WORST EFFECT IS, OF
COURSE, THE KIND OF STRANGLEHOLD
THAT HAS BEEN NOW IN THE
UNITED STATES FOR SEVERAL YEARS,
BUT MOST CLEARLY SEEN IN THE
SHUTDOWN OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT
WE HAD ON THE 1st OF OCTOBER.
>> AS LONG AS WE ARE IN THIS
GRIDLOCK, WILL WE CONTINUE TO
HAVE THE SEVERE UPS AND DOWNS IN
THE ECONOMY?
ARE THEY DIRECTLY CONNECTED?
BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW WE COULD HAVE HAD
A DECADE AND A HALF AGO, TWO
DECADES AGO, ONE OF THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE ECONOMIC PERIODS IN
AMERICAN HISTORY...
>> YEAH.
>> ...AND NOW THE GREAT
RECESSION.
>> IF YOU'RE AS OLD AS YOU AND I
ARE, PEOPLE PROBABLY DON'T
UNDERSTAND HOW WITHIN A FEW
YEARS, YOU KNOW, HALF A CENTURY,
WE'VE GONE FROM THE ALMIGHTY
DOLLAR TO A DOLLAR THAT SEEMS TO
HAVE A VERY, VERY POOR FUTURE.
BUT THE FUTURE OF THE DOLLAR MAY
NOT BE AS POOR AS THE WORST
CRITICS SUGGEST, AND I ARGUED
TWO YEARS AGO AT THE
ARIZONA COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC
EDUCATION THAT THE U.S. WAS NOW
IN A POSITION WHERE IT HAD A
GOOD CHANCE OF ACTUALLY
RECOVERING, BUT THAT DEPENDED ON
WHETHER POLITICIANS WOULD NOT
MAKE THINGS WORSE.
UNFORTUNATELY, POLITICIANS HAVE
MADE THINGS WORSE.
>> TO YOU, WHAT SEEMS TO BE THE
REASON FOR THE INTENSITY OF THE
POLITICAL DEBATE, THE SHARP
PARTISANSHIP, THE BIG DIVIDE
BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES?
IS IT TIED TO THIS ETHICAL
QUESTION OR IS IT MORE THAN
THAT?
>> IT IS PARTLY TIED TO THE
ETHICAL QUESTION, BUT IT'S ALSO
TIED TO A MORE FUNDAMENTAL
CIVILIZATIONAL, CULTURAL ISSUE,
WHICH IS, HOW DO WE LIVE WITH
OUR DEEPEST DIFFERENCES?
UNITED STATES HAS ALWAYS BEEN A
COUNTRY OF DIFFERENCES.
EVEN AT THE HEIGHT OF PROTESTANT
VALUE FORMATION IN THIS COUNTRY,
THERE WAS INTENSE COMPETITION
BETWEEN ALL THE PROTESTANT
CHURCHES.
SO, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH
COMPETITION IN A FREE COUNTRY.
THE ISSUE IS, WHEN I'M COMPETING
WITH YOU, DO I COMPETE FAIRLY OR
UNFAIRLY?
AND THE ISSUE IS, DO I TREAT YOU
WITH RESPECT?
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, DO I
RECOGNIZE THAT YOU'RE A HUMAN
BEING WHO HAS A RIGHT TO LIVE?
IF WE DO NOT MANAGE THESE
DIFFERENCES WELL -- AS THE U.S.
HAS TENDED TO DO LESS AND LESS
WELL IN THE RECENT PAST -- THEN
WE ALL END UP IN PAKISTAN OR
AFGHANISTAN, WHERE PEOPLE DO NOT
KNOW HOW TO TREAT EACH OTHER
WITH RESPECT, PEOPLE DO NOT LIVE
DECENTLY WITH THEIR
DIFFERENCES -- BY WHICH I MEAN
THAT IF I DISAGREE WITH YOU, I
STICK A KNIFE IN YOUR BACK OR I
PUT A BOMB ON YOUR FEET OR BOTH.
AND THE UNITED STATES, I'M
AFRAID, IS HEADING IN THAT
DIRECTION, AND THE UNITED STATES
HAS TO THINK CAREFULLY WHETHER
IT WANTS TO CONTINUE GOING DOWN
THIS PATH OR NOT.
SO, WE NEED A RECOVERY OF HUMAN
VALUES, WE NEED A RECOVERY OF
THE KIND OF CIVILIZED DISCOURSE
THAT USED TO MARK THE
UNITED STATES.
>> LET'S GO BACK TO WHAT YOU
WERE DISCUSSING AT THE BEGINNING
OF OUR CONVERSATION -- YOUR OWN
BELIEFS.
WHAT HAPPENED AS YOU ENTERED
YOUR TEENAGE YEARS THAT CAUSED
YOU TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT
DIRECTION?
>> WHEN I STARTED REFLECTING AT
THE AGE OF 13, I VERY QUICKLY
REALIZED THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF
ANY ANSWERS IN THESE KINDS OF
AREAS THAT I WAS EXPLORING WAS
INTIMATELY LINKED TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING A
GOD.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN GOD EXISTS.
IT JUST MEANS THAT IF GOD DOES
NOT EXIST, THEN THERE IS
ACTUALLY NO POSSIBILITY OF
FINDING ANY ANSWERS TO THESE
QUESTIONS THAT MAKE SENSE.
YOU COULD HAVE MANY DIFFERENT
ANSWERS.
EACH OF THEM MIGHT BE TRUE FOR
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS AND SO ON.
AND, SO, FROM AN ACADEMIC POINT
OF VIEW, YOU MIGHT SAY, "I FOUND
THE ANSWER FOR THIS SOCIETY OR
THAT SOCIETY AT THIS TIME OR
THAT TIME."
BUT EACH OF THEM WOULD BE, IN A
SENSE, MEANINGLESS ANSWERS WHEN
IT CAME TO, HOW SHOULD I LIVE?
WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY SHOULD WE
BUILD?
WHAT KIND OF CIVILIZATION SHOULD
WE BUILD?
AND SO I UNDERTOOK A KIND OF
SEARCH TO FIND GOD.
AND, OF COURSE, WHEN YOU'RE A
YOUNGSTER OF 13 OR 14, YOU SAY,
"WELL, IF I WANT TO FIND GOD,
WHERE WOULD I GO?"
WELL, OF COURSE YOU GO TO THE
TEMPLES.
YOU GO TO THE CHURCHES.
YOU GO TO THE GURDWARAS.
YOU GO TO THE MOSQUES.
SO I WENT TO THESE PEOPLE WHO
ARE THE EXPERTS, SO TO SPEAK,
AND I ASKED THEM, BUT, OF
COURSE, NONE OF THEM WAS ABLE TO
ANSWER MY QUESTION.
AND IT DIDN'T MATTER THAT THEY
WERE HINDUS, MUSLIMS,
CHRISTIANS, OR SIKHS, OR WHAT.
SIKHS ARE THE PEOPLE WITH
TURBANS.
AND SO I ACTUALLY ALMOST GAVE
UP.
AND THEN I CAME ACROSS, BY
CHANCE, A YOUNG MAN WHO WAS
QUITE AN EXTRAORDINARY PERSON,
AND I DISCOVERED THAT HE
BELIEVED IN GOD, AND I ASKED
HIM, "YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?"
HE SAID, "YES."
"WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD?"
HE SAID, "IF I ANSWER THAT
QUESTION, WILL YOU START
BELIEVING IN GOD?"
I SAID, "NO."
HE SAID, "WHY NOT?"
"BECAUSE I HAVE OTHER
QUESTIONS."
"WHAT OTHER QUESTIONS?"
WE WENT THROUGH THIS
CONVERSATION WHERE HE GOT OUT OF
ME MY FIVE OR SIX MOST IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS.
THEN I THOUGHT, IF HE ANSWERS
THESE QUESTIONS, I PROBABLY WILL
START BELIEVING IN GOD.
SO I SAID THAT TO HIM.
AT THIS STAGE, HE TURNED AROUND,
PUT HIS ARM ON MY SHOULDER, AND
SAID, "BROTHER, YOU'RE A FAR
MORE INTELLIGENT GUY THAN I AM.
I'VE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THESE
QUESTIONS."
HE SAID, "BUT I CAN INTRODUCE
YOU TO SOMEBODY WHO CAN ANSWER
THESE QUESTIONS."
"OH, OKAY. WHO IS THIS GUY?"
SO, HE SAID, "JESUS."
AND I WAS QUITE SHOCKED.
"YOU CAN INTRODUCE ME TO JESUS?
WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?"
SO, WE WENT THROUGH ANOTHER
CONVERSATION, AND -- I'M A
HINDU, I SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT I'M A HINDU -- AND AS A
RESULT OF THAT CONVERSATION, THE
THINGS THAT FOLLOWED, I BECAME A
HINDU WHO FOLLOWS JESUS.
NOW, THAT STARTED ME ON A
SPIRITUAL JOURNEY, WHICH MADE ME
THINK THAT I WAS A CHRISTIAN,
AND SO I WENT INTO CHRISTIAN
INSTITUTIONS AND SO ON AND SO
FORTH.
AND THEN I VERY QUICKLY REALIZED
THAT CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE
AS CORRUPT AS HINDU INSTITUTIONS
OR SIKH INSTITUTIONS OR MUSLIM
INSTITUTIONS OR THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT OR THE INDIAN
GOVERNMENT.
THESE ARE ALL INSTITUTIONS.
AND SO, I'VE ENDED UP IN A
POSITION WHERE I'M A HINDU
FOLLOWER OF JESUS WHO'S VERY,
TOTALLY CRITICAL OF CHRISTIANITY
BECAUSE I NOW REGARD
CHRISTIANITY AS A SYSTEMATIZED
SUBVERSION OF THE TEACHINGS AND
PERSON OF JESUS.
SO, THAT'S WHERE I AM IN MY
SPIRITUAL JOURNEY.
>> WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE YOU
RELATIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE?
'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW
THIS AS YOU WERE QUICKLY
INDICATING HOW IT HAD DEVELOPED,
AND IT SOUNDS VERY, VERY
COMPLICATED...
>> UM...
>> ...AT ONE LEVEL.
>> YES, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND,
IT MEANS THAT I'M A KIND OF
"INSIDER/OUTSIDER" IN MANY
TRADITIONS, AND BECAUSE OF THAT,
I CAN SYMPATHIZE AND IDENTIFY
WITH MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
>> TELL US ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS
REGARDING THE FUTURE OF THIS
ETHICAL DIVIDE.
WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE DECISIONS THAT
WE CAN MAKE THAT WILL CHANGE OUR
COURSE, BUT ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC
THAT WE WILL EVENTUALLY MOVE IN
A MORE POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE
DIRECTION, OR ARE WE DOOMED TO
THE TENSION AND THE CONFLICT?
>> NO, WE MUST BE OPTIMISTIC
BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE OF OPTIMISM
IS, OF COURSE, FATALISM, AND
WHEN YOU'RE FATALISTIC, YOU STOP
BEING ACTIVE.
AND NOT BEING ACTIVE IS, OF
COURSE, THE WORST THING THAT CAN
HAPPEN TO A HUMAN BEING.
OUR HUMANITY IS DEFINED BY THE
ACTIONS WE TAKE.
THEREFORE, IF WE WANT TO BE
HUMAN BEINGS, WE HAVE TO BE
OPTIMISTIC.
THE GREAT REASON FOR ECONOMIC
PROGRESS IN THE UNITED STATES
WAS HOPE AND OPTIMISM.
AND, OF COURSE, THE REASON WHY
THE PROTESTANTS WON IN THE 16th
CENTURY AGAINST THE MASSED
ARMIES OF ROME AND AGAINST THE
CONCENTRATION OF POWER THAT WAS
REPRESENTED BY THE POPE WAS
BECAUSE THEY HAD HOPE FOR A
BETTER WORLD, AND I SUGGEST THAT
THE SITUATION TODAY IN AMERICA
OR IN THE WHOLE OF THE WORLD IS
NOWHERE NEAR AS BAD AS IT WAS AT
THE TIME THAT THE PROTESTANTS
TRIED TO CREATE A BETTER WORLD
IN THE 16th CENTURY.
BUT THE REASON WHY THEY
SUCCEEDED WAS NOT ONLY BECAUSE
THEY HAD HOPE, IT WAS ALSO
BECAUSE THEY WERE PREPARED TO
LAY DOWN THEIR LIVES IN PURSUIT
OF A BETTER POSSIBILITY.
NOW, WHEN I TALK LIKE THIS AT
VARIOUS PLACES, I AM ASKED,
"WHAT IS, THEN, THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN JIHADI OR SOMEBODY WHO
KILLS HIMSELF IN ORDER TO BRING
IN SOME OTHER OPTION COMPARED TO
SOMEBODY WHO WAS WILLING TO
SACRIFICE HIS LIFE IN ORDER TO
BRING WHAT IS NOW THE MODERN
WORLD INTO BEING?"
THE DIFFERENCE IS VERY SIMPLE,
AND THAT IS, WHAT ARE THE VALUES
THAT WILL BE BROUGHT FORTH BY
YOUR SELF-SACRIFICE?
IF THE VALUES ARE HUMAN, IF THE
VALUES ARE THAT OF JUSTICE,
PEACE, HUMAN FLOURISHING, THEN,
OF COURSE, THAT IS THE RIGHT
KIND OF THING TO BE OPTIMISTIC
ABOUT AND TO BE ACTIVE FOR.
WHAT THAT MEANS IN PRACTICE IS
THAT WE MUST TRY TO BUILD
TOGETHER A GLOBAL CIVILIZATION
NOW, WHICH IS JUST -- HAS
JUSTICE AND IS FREE AND WORKS
FOR THE PROSPERITY OF EVERYBODY.
NOW, THAT MEANS CERTAIN
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE WAY
THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS
ORGANIZED, IT MEANS CERTAIN
FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN THE WAY
POLITICS IS ORGANIZED, AND IT
MEANS A FUNDAMENTAL
TRANSFORMATION OF THE WAY WE
EDUCATE OUR CHILDREN BECAUSE I'M
AFRAID THAT OUR EDUCATION, AT
THE MOMENT, IS PRODUCING, NOT
JUST CHILDREN, BUT EVEN
UNIVERSITY GRADUATES WHO ARE
IMBUED ENTIRELY WITH THE WRONG
ETHICAL SYSTEM.
SO WE ARE INVOLVED IN A
MULTIDIMENSIONAL STRUGGLE FOR
CREATING THE RIGHT KIND OF
CIVILIZATION AT THE MOMENT.
NOT SURPRISING THAT A LOT OF
PEOPLE GIVE UP AND FEEL IT'S
HOPELESS.
BUT THE ANSWER IS THAT EACH OF
US HAS TO FIND OUR OWN PLACE IN
THIS GLOBAL BATTLE FOR A JUST
CIVILIZATION.
A GOOD POLITICIAN -- IF SOMEBODY
IS A GOOD POLITICIAN -- WOULD
NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE WIDER
BATTLE AND THEN CHOOSE WHERE TO
CONCENTRATE HIS OR HER FIRE, SO
TO SPEAK, SO THAT THE RIGHT
KINDS OF LEGISLATION CAN GO
THROUGH.
>> GREAT.
WELL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US
TODAY, DR. GUPTARA.
>> THANK YOU.
>> AND THANK YOU.
FOR "GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES," I'M
JOHN BERSIA AND WE'LL SEE YOU
NEXT TIME.