Usually, the word 'honest' is associated for people who always speak the truth no matter what consequences it leads to. And the word 'diplomatic' is usually used for people who always try to be saccharine. But both these ideas are an oversimplification. Honesty is a very complicated concept and diplomacy is not about being sweet as sugar. One of the definitions of 'diplomacy' is that it is the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and tactful way. Now whats wrong with that? Absolutely nothing. In fact, in order to have meaningful lives, we must learn to talk to people without hurting them and at the same time, without being dishonest. So, what is required is a seamless combination of honesty (i.e. truth) and diplomacy (i.e. sensitivity+tact).
Honesty by itself is just a sharp sword or like fire. It will cut and burn anything that comes in its way without any discretion. Diplomacy by itself is a shallow thing and only ends up in pleasing all around. These two concepts are like a man and a woman, quite incomplete without one another, and their union finally generates TRUST (TRUth+Sensitivity+Tact). And whats life without trust? It might not be obvious how honesty+diplomacy leads to trust, but there is indeed a deep connection. One might think that an honest undiplomatic person might be more trustworthy, but will such a person ever be trusted with any serious responsibility? It is also very important to note that truth comes in many flavours. What one considers as true might be false for another person. One simple example is the standard question a woman asks her husband or boyfriend, "How am I looking today?" Now, who knows what the truth is! :P
In an event organised yesterday by Vivekananda Study Circle of IIT Delhi, Mr. Asish Raha (ex-IRS officer) spoke on this very topic of "Honesty and Diplomacy". If I understand him correctly, the most important point to keep in mind is that truth has several levels and one has to always choose the higher truth over the lower truth. Its this act of choosing higher truth over lower truth that constitutes diplomacy. Sometimes one may also have to choose between two higher truths or two lower truths. Thats a much more difficult problem to solve but such situations don't arise very often in life. This principle of choosing the higher truth over the lower truth can be very helpful in dealing with people on a daily basis. Now one may ask : how does one segregate truths into higher and lower levels? Usually, its a question of priorities. The most important point is that one should be sensitive without being dishonest.
Lets get back to the simple situation (actually very complex) most men face on a daily basis when their wife/girlfriend asks them, "How do I look today?". The only person in India who probably doesn't have problem in answering this is Abhishek Bachchan. For the rest of us, its very important to remember that there is definitely something about every woman that is worth appreciating. Every person is unique in their own way and even the most ordinary people have something very good about them. If we can remember this at all times, we will have no difficulty in answering this or other such questions in an honest and sensitive manner. This same principle can be applied in general also while dealing with situations which tempt us towards dishonesty or insensitivity. In most situations, there is always a version of truth which is both honest and sensitive. We just need to think hard enough. Initially it might take lot of effort but if we can do it regularly, it slowly becomes very natural to one's personality.
Dr. Kushal,
ReplyDeleteYou have put following two interesting posers in your thoughtful analysis of 'Honesty & Diplomacy':
1) How can one segregate truth into higher & lower?
2) How should one truthfully respond to the question of his wife or girlfriend - 'How do I look today'?
As to the first poser, the answer in the light of Sri krishna's explanation which I recounted during my talk, is that higher truth concerns larger community. To be more precise, truth that concerns an individual is lower than the one that concerns family, and then we go on rising from family to village, village to country, country to the world and finally to the soul, for the sake of which even the whole world can be renounced.
Your second poser is certainly much tougher as your love for truth may not be of much help here. My take on this is that look is relative as 'beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder'. Therefore, if you are in love with your wife or girlfriend, it would stand to logic to think that she would look beautiful to you all the while. If you are not in love, and a mere pretender, then become a diplomat to buy peace. I can anticipate your next question: if one is in love with both wife & girlfriend how both can be tackled at the same time. Here again, Krishna provides a solution.
Krishna brought Parijata plant from Indra's heavenly garden at the request of his dear wife Sayabhama who wanted it to be planted in her garden. His dear wife Rukmini also desired to have Parijata flowers in her garden and Krishna was to oblige both with a single plant. What he did was unique. He planted Parijata near the fence of Satyabhama's garden in such a manner that half of the flowers drop on the garden of Rukmini. Thus you will appreciate, be it honesty or diplomacy, you can draw inspiration from one character in history - Sri Krishna.
Dear Mr. Asish, thanks a lot for the wonderful talk and for the very interesting comments above! :)
ReplyDelete> To be more precise, truth that concerns an individual is lower
> than the one that concerns family, and then we go on rising
> from family to village, village to country, country to the world
> and finally to the soul, for the sake of which even the whole world can be renounced.
Thats surely a good zeroth order approximation but I hope you will agree that real life relationships can become nonlinear very quickly. For example, one person may value the family more than the village or even the country as might have happened during India's partition or for people who decide to settle in a foreign country. Or another person may value the individual more than the family, specially if the family's expectations are not in line with one's own ambitions (most business families would never willingly allow their kids to take up abstract research).
> Therefore, if you are in love with your wife or girlfriend, it would stand
> to logic to think that she would look beautiful to you all the while.
Very interesting point! :) But I think it depends on how we define 'love'. A man might love his wife's personality but might not find her body to be beautiful. Or a woman might find find her husband to be very handsome but may not like his nature. So when a woman asks, "How do I look?", the man might answer "Absolutely beautiful!" but the catch is that the man&woman might be referring to entirely different things. Thats how usually diplomacy catches up with honesty very fast! :)
Thanks,
Kushal.
Dr. Kushal,
ReplyDeleteClash between higher truth & lower truth is a recurring phenomenon in one's life and the choice is of the individual concerned, according to his best judgment.in your given example of family's expectation vis-a-vis one's own ambition,where does the truth come in? Let's put it little differently. Let's assume that one's mother is seriously ill & both parents are entirely dependent on the only child who has got a scholarship for higher studies in US, the completion of which would make him well established in life & career. Here the higher truth for him would be to sacrifice his career for the sake of the parents who are entirely dependent on him. Let's change the situation a bit. The boy intends to study medicine abroad with the sole objective to do research to fight & prevent incurable diseases for the good of humanity & his family circumstances stand on the way of his overseas study. It's undoubtedly a tough call for the boy, & his decision shd depend upon his family circumstances & his higher objective to acquire knowledge to serve the humanity. In this we shd make a distinction between self-centric ambition and the objective to serve the humanity.
As for love, I, being an old-timer, thought that it was always blind. You say that it could also be logical. In the circumstances, it's best for you to experiment with your beloved wife/ girl friend by speaking out the truth and apprising me of the consequences.
> In this we shd make a distinction between self-centric ambition
ReplyDelete> and the objective to serve the humanity.
As you said yesterday, I too believe that we should not consider one profession to be better than others. Many top mathematicians do their work purely for the love of their subject and often have little concern for the world at large or even for people around them. One could call this self-centric ambition but modern science could not have made progress without their contributions. Also, many leading philanthropists today were once pursuing their career goals with highly selfish means. So, can we really say that it's bad to pursue our personal ambitions if it doesn't directly serve humanity?
Ambitions can be self-centric, as also idealistic, essentially selfless. By self-centric I mean where self-gratification, self-propagation or self-projection is the main objective. Say for example, one may be an outstanding scholar driven the ambition of winning a nobel prize in physics. In the process, he may be able to contribute to science. But the same person making the same contribution in physics may be driven by selfless ambition of doing something great for humanity. There is a third dimension to it. The same person may love his subject and driven by his passion or love for the subject, sans ambition, he may make the same contribution like the other two. In these three situations, though the result achieved is the same, the third instance is the most idealistic, while the first is the least. Particularly when all of us agree, one's action stands on its merits and should not be judged by the result it may ar may not achieve. That's my humble opinion.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very interesting point and I totally agree with this! But what makes real life situations so complex is that usually the same person has all the above three tendencies in varying amounts. I just finished reading a book on Dirac's life by Graham Farmello and am totally amazed by his personality and that of his fellow scientists. Someone has rightly said that the line dividing genius and craziness is rather thin!
ReplyDeleteThanks once again for the wonderful talk and the deep insights in the comments above! :)
Ashish Ji has posted a situation where a boy has to tough call between parents care versus his ambition that serves humanity. As he said this is a tough call for the boy. How the boy should handle this dilemma ?
ReplyDeleteIf the "bhav" (intention) is honest, the karma will be automatic. The "bhav" is more close to soul and is always supreme (It can be called as third dimension in thinking). The example of Krishna handling the situation with Parijata flowers is a good example.
Such difficult situation demands diplomatic solution coupled with honest 'intentions'. The boy should take care of parents. He will also be able to pursue his ambition (serving humanity) together with parents care or later, if and only if his intention is honest and intact.
Amitji & Kuhalji, let's assume a range of choice in our examples, keeping the1st parameter constant, viz. duty to look after ailing & dependent parent, and the 2nd parameter variable, and determine which alternative in each example (in your opinion) would fit the higher ideal.
ReplyDeletevariable alternatives:
Situation 1: pursuit of ambition through higher study abroad / foreign job
Situation 2: Joining war as army commander to defend country against aggression
Situation 3: Joining war as army commander to fight war where your country is the aggressor
Situation 4: Got a posting as govt. servant away from home where ailing & dependent parents are not in a position to accompany you
Situation 5: called as a doctor to attend patients in an epidemic-hit district away from home for indefinite period
Shall be thankful for your reasoned opinion in each case.
Duties pertaining to national interest should definitely be given higher priority in front of individual duties. No Question about it.
ReplyDeleteBut the decision that a individual will take will depend upon his/her way of thinking. The thinking he/she develops depends on his/her upbringing/situations faced in life.
Let us take the case of war. We all know that war is not a solution to anything and sufficient efforts should be done to prevent war like situation. If an individual feels that no efforts were done at the higher level to prevent war at the first place, and it is happening because of some cynical decision maker, then he may take a decision not to join the war.
The decision is always individual based on his thinking/experiences/situation. It cannot be universally correct/incorrect.
Amitji,
ReplyDeleteU've correctly observed that the decision is subjective as there is interaction & clash of several considerations at the back of the mind when a decision is taken by an individual. Even after a decision is taken, there is introspection, course correction and reversal of the decision earlier taken. There is no standard formula for taking a decision in a tricky practical situation like the ones I posed.
In the above context, we shd appreciate what Swami Vivekananda said: the whole idea is to reconcile the ideal to the real. Take the Swami's own example. One of the cardinal principles of monastic life is not to keep any contact with the relations from pre-monastic life. But the Swami's mother and brothers were fully dependent on him when he joined monastic life. He reconciled his monastic ideal to his duty as the son to a widowed mother by providing her necessary financial support from his personal earnings.
In my humble opinion, the correct approach to life is not the either-or approach but the approach of reconciliation in a logical manner, subordinating self to selfless consideration.
Asishji, people like Vivekananda can break all rules of their community and still be considered great. But lesser mortals don't have that luxury. If a monk of RK Mission now wants to support his family, will he be allowed? Also, if a person is supporting his family, should he be really called a monk (going by the technical definition)?
ReplyDeleteI agree with Asish Ji that the approach of reconciliation is the solution.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kushal's comment about the danger in relating actions of great people to decide our course of action. We should not be too attached to the actions of the great philosophers. Their teaching/philosophy or clarity in understanding should be our main interest. Taking example from their life actions can sometimes lead to wrong precedents. Someone will do something, and say that i am just following the actions of great philosophers and how it can be wrong. But it may be counteractive to the situation he/she may be facing.