Modern supermen oscillate in controversy. They are either loved and Admired or loathed and despised
WHILE discussing with you the phenomenon of continuity, I had emphasised that whatever is thought of belonging to antiquity, and is discarded, in fact conceptually remains in vogue in every era and in one form or the other. Arrows are no more used in modern warfare and have been replaced by bullets. However, the objective remains the same — to kill your adversary from a distance. Only the form for carrying out the objective has changed.
Modern man, like his ancient ancestors, writes. But, he doesn’t write on clay tablets, he writes on paper. The objective between the man of the modern era and the long-forgotten era remains the same, to write, to communicate. The physical appearance of the devices for writing has undergone a gradual change. The saints, sufis and the teachers, like their ancestors, no more address congregations from mountain slopes, or from atop mounds and hills with a singular objective — to be simultaneously heard and seen by many. The television beams the message of the teachers of today to far larger audiences than in the past. The concepts have remained the same, only the devices for materializing the concepts into reality have undergone gradual changes.
Similarly, the concept of superman is not nonexistent. With asserting prominence, the supermen of today dominate and dictate the social and political setups round the world. One glaring difference between ancient and modern supermen hangs between their popularity and notoriety. Supermen in the distant past, such as Samson and Hercules, were invariably the ones who were popular among the masses, specially the deprived and the wretched of the earth. Otherwise Goliath, too, the Philistine giant, would have assumed the status of a superman.
Modern supermen oscillate in controversy. They are either loved and admired or loathed and despised. Ho Chi Minh, along with his ill-equipped countrymen, fought a dreary and death-defying war against the Americans, and finally succeeded in driving them out from Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh, for the Vietnamese, is a hero and a superman. So is the Cuban guerrilla warrior, Che Guevara, the liberator of Bolivia. For under-privileged people, Che Guevara is a hero, a superman for he had come to the rescue of the down-trodden people of Bolivia, and laid down his life for their emancipation. An analysis of modern supermen leads us to interesting studies.
For a man of potential to rise and assume the status of a hero, a highly volatile socio-political situation is a prerequisite. British imperialism at its peak provided Mahatma Gandhi an appropriate opportunity to emerge as the unarmed warrior against the British. He was already popular with the people of India because of his role in the movement against apartheid in South Africa. He eventually attained the status of a superman who humbled the British.
Had there been peace and tranquillity among the Hindus and the Muslims of India, there wouldn’t have cropped up the question of Partition of the subcontinent, and demand for Pakistan, an independent homeland for the Muslims of India. Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah then would have remained a brilliant lawyer. He would not have risen as an undisputed hero and a superman of the Muslims of India.
It is not up to a man to arrive from nowhere and thrust his leadership on miserable people. It is essential that the hapless people invite a man of potential to come to their rescue. He should have their concurrence to be on their side to fight against the forces of evil and darkness. He just can’t take it upon himself to be on their side. He should prove himself to them. It is then that a man grows into a superman.
After the devastation of the World Trade Centre in New York, President Bush has begun committing blunders. Till 9/11, America was considered a democratic, liberal and an unbiased country that always upheld the freedom of expression, human rights and an individual’s right to dissent. America was the ultimate abode for persecuted thinkers, writers and scholars of the totalitarian, theocratic and undemocratic countries. After 9/11, it is no more. President Bush has gone a long way in damaging the image of the USA. He is the President of the most powerful country in the world. Does that imply that he has a right to invade the weak, shattered and poor countries in Asia? Does he, like caveman, believe that might is right? Or has he taken it upon himself to be the superman of the world at large?
President Bush, after all these years, has yet to convince the world what right he had in attacking the starving country, Afghanistan. He was assured that Iraq did not have lethal nuclear weapons. Even then he launched a savage attack on Iraq. Did he discover any nuclear weapons? No. Well, if he insists he was annihilating terrorists, then he will have to identify a country on earth, including his own, where terrorists do not dwell.
Discontentment that breeds terrorism has multiple contours. In its larger context, discontentment encompasses economic, political, social, ethnic, racial and religious discontentment. Without first tackling discontentment, you can’t deal with terrorism. Can President Bush take it upon himself to become a genuine superman who grapples with the universal discontentment?
