Crabs in a Bucket

There is a famous Khasi middle class story about selfishness and it goes something like this. There were a number of crabs in a bucket and they were all destined to become dinner at some point in time. The crabs knew about this and they realised that they needed to escape this horrible fate. The story goes on to tell us about how one of the crabs had somehow managed to get a firm grip on the rim of the bucket and was proceeding to pull himself out to the relative safety of the outside world. However, just as he was about to complete his great escape, the other crabs resorted to pulling him back down to the bottom of the bucket. He was, thus, doomed like the rest. The moral that many Khasi people draw from this is that Khasis are like the crabs in that they are inherently selfish and would rather pull other Khasis down rather than raise them up to greater heights or glory (or as the story goes, to freedom). It is one of those stories that Khasi middle class society has learned off by rote and which comes out often during drinking sessions. I have heard it so many times that I instinctively cringe at it when I happen to hear the familiar lines: “Ki briew jong ngi te ki long kum ki tham…”(our people are like crabs…).

So firstly, this story is about as Khasi as sliced bread or Kentucky Fried Chicken. Many people the world over use the same allegory to voice the same complaints within their own particular contexts. The conclusion is usually the same so there is nothing Khasi about this in a strict purist sense. I have heard Bodo people say it, Mizos tell each the same thing, Bengalis as well as the Assamese. Selfishness it can be argued is a universal human feature. Now the other thing is – and this might shock some of you – crabs are not human beings! We may enjoy our Jataka and Panchatantra tales but they are hardly manuals on human behaviour. What do you think is going to happen?

The story of the crabs in the bucket is actually a philosophical experiment. It is easy for the listener to condemn the apparently selfish act of the crabs in the bucket but is it so straightforward? Who is actually being selfish? The singular individual crab or the clawed throng that pulls him back? The way you look at the story depends on the type of person you are. If you are a person who prides individual achievement over collective interests then you’d side with the lone crab hero. Most people would boo and jeer at the throng for their pettiness. However, the other side of the story is this: our hero is, probably, a real selfish bastard.

It is actually unfair that the story unfolds as it does. Does it tell us how many crab heads our hero stepped on to get to the top? It is a story – like many others – about the sacrosanct virtue of individual achievement. It is a nice story and many of us identify with that crab: triumphant, glorious (and undoubtedly) egotistical. We immediately associate crowds with hysteria, violence and viciousness.

When we turn to politics, we see this very clearly. Our politicians stand over us: unassailable, irreproachable, haughty. Many of them actually come from humble settings and humble locales but you wouldn’t know it based on the way they act. These are the crabs who’ve made it to the top but whom no one dared pull down. We forget that they rose to their current heights because of the belief people have invested in them. Upon climbing up high though they have proceeded to defecate upon the same devotees. Only the businessmen and contractor friends are enjoying themselves. The “common” people have nothing but filth on their faces.

If we are going to compare crabs with humans, perhaps, another version of the ‘crabs in the bucket’ story could be as follows: the crabs organise a ‘great escape’, after many sessions of careful planning and coordination, they come up with the idea of using a distraction to fool the humans while one of their best trained crabs climbs over the wall with the help of some others. The said crab would then drop down an escape line and thus everyone could be saved. This is a nicer scenario because it argues for a better, much happier conclusion. Rather than the original story which pits individual survival against collective doom, in this version of the story everyone is saved! This version lays emphasis on the importance of teams and team-work. That the crab-hero could not be triumphant without the aid of others is understood and accepted by everyone including the hero crab.

An interesting tangent that arises from my version of the tale is this: when the crab-hero gets to the top, it has two choices – to either drop the escape line and help rescue the others or to save only its own skin and run away? Based on these two choices, certain economists, politicians and technocrats say that people – being intrinsically selfish and self-involved – would choose the latter option as it is the one that requires the least amount of work and time. It turns out to be the most “profitable”. This was essentially the situation and conclusion proposed by the mathematician John Nash in a game he helped devise called “Fuck You, Buddy!”. Through it he inferred that humans would always try to fulfill their own selfish desires; so our crab-hero must always – according to his rational logic – desert his comrades and leave them to their fate. However, the actual results of Nash’s game showed that people, in fact, did not behave like that. Most people (empirically) tried to help one another and negotiate with each other in order to achieve a collective goal or desire in the game. Can we not apply this to politics and economics as well? Why must we be drawn into false binaries which do not reflect reality and the experience of living together as a society?

The last interesting thought that I want to extract from this scenario is perhaps the most realistic. Let me repeat the query again: when the crab-hero gets to the top, it has two choices – to rescue the others or to save its own skin. In a political sense, for its own future power, the crab-hero should save the others. Their gratitude and appreciation would guarantee the hero-crab the fruits of a secure and prosperous life. The other crabs would deify him for his apparent selfishness. This is perhaps the most Machiavellian (or Chanakyan if you prefer). It is also the most ‘true-to-life’ scenario which mirrors our political world today.

There is scope for a lot of abuse of power based on this outcome. Individuals could abuse the privilege of their office to gain and accrue wealth as we see it today in Meghalaya. The key to thwarting this must surely lie in the public realising its own power. The public will have to realise that the individual desire for power is real but so too is its own power to shape and control it. Unless this happens, only doom awaits us

Advertisements

Fatalism of the Left

It seems that I must contend myself with some dire facts about the Indian Left through a survey of raiot.in, scroll.in and other similar websites. For one, people who share the items that are found on these websites, seem to be thinking and reacting (this is an important word for politics in India – reaction) as a monolithic, homogenous entity. I am very welcoming of any and all objections to this generalising and reductive statement. A simple perusal will show you what is trending at the moment i.e what is trending everywhere i.e everywhere with similar ideologies.

Sharing does not necessarily mean that a post has been viewed or read. If it were the same thing I would not find the trend so frightening. Firstly, I think it is frightening when so many people share posts without even opening them.  And it is equally frightening that people might actually read something critical and engaging but refuse to share it because it makes them question beliefs and/or staves off their clicking fingers. For example, an informative, well-researched article which discusses the crucially important (and neglected) state of agricultural health in the country (a topic that should be the kernel of the Left’s political foundations) is thus less shared than one that repeats the jaded theme of ‘anti-Modism’. He is not worth your time; prioritise people! Lovers of the Left, please deactivate your Facebook accounts today!

The traffic on social media in the last few months, in the aftermath of the JNU, HCU fiascos has weighed favourably to the side of the persecuted. Maybe social media has actually helped in turning things around; perhaps it is social media that has redeemed the persecuted in the eyes of the middle class. But let us not kid ourselves further beyond that point. This is just a war of visibility. The key feat should be moving towards representation. And I am not talking about a “space” – online or imagined – but a physicality that we should work towards. The Left has always and probably will always be powerful in the realm of ideas. But this is not good enough, not now in this global age of hunger and strife. The ground is overrun with Right wing psychos and their close cousins, the Liberal psychos. Where is the Progressive Left in all of this?

Examples like those of Syriza, the POTUS candidature of Jill Stein, the triumph of Kshama Sawant have helped make us less orthodox across the Left spectrum. The realm of ideas is being slowly reclaimed from the Facebook intellectuals and confined academics. It is now becoming truly more democratic. Revolution will only ever occur when we talk less of it. I think enough time has passed now such that the concept has become part of the ideological foundation of many comrades across the spectrum. However, like a bad preacher – merely quoting verses, by hearting psalms – we keep haranguing on it as though we are the only ones who know it or have heard the blessed word.

Meghalaya/India needs a political intervention by a Progressive front. “Struggles” should perhaps give way to “movements”. Why be so masochistic? The very word “struggle” smacks of pessimism. We cannot and never win so we “struggle”. We struggle when we have no floor-plan, no vision of the future, when we are reacting. We glorify the underdog, and it is a fantastic thing because it keeps us honest and alert. But the basic thing about underdogs is: they always win.