Is it rolling?
He’s there.
Should we start?
I hope he’s nice.
Hi, can you see me?
Yes, it’s clear.
Bill Gates also feels hungry right?
He also has to eat in the morning, go to the washroom and has to take care of kids.
Children will disappoint you.
Just because you are rich, it doesn’t mean that your children will be smarter than you.
And the horror that without you, life can carry on.
There’s nothing, you have no value.
That is why coronavirus has taught everyone a lesson.
That is where religion really comes from.
The horror of death.
You are very anarchic that way in your thought process.
Like, break the system.
I don’t want to play by your rules.
Because you are playing games.
I know you aren’t genuinely interested.
One day come as Devdutt Pattanaik.
I do make money out of Ramayana and Mahabharata. Can you do it?
I have published four books, 100 articles every year for the past 20 years.
That is how much my productivity is. 
Do it and show!
I remember a person was speaking very rudely to me and I asked why are you always so rude?
He said do you want me to only be silent?
I said between rude speech and silence there is something else.
My way on the highway. 
I have the right.
First thing, what should I call you?
What would you be comfortable with?
Devdutt.
Devdutt, I’ll just introduce you to the show before we start.
The show’s name is…
Actually there’s no name right now.
We’ll add the name in the space later.
My name is Avalok Langer and the channel’s name is ScoopWhoop Unscripted.
The idea of the show is to ask seemingly dumb and meta questions to intelligent people.
How do you pronounce your name again?
Avalok. A-v-a-l-o-k.
Cool.
Should we start?
Yes.
You meet a lot of liberal intellectuals who I can see irritate you
or get on your nerves because of what I’d say, a lack of understanding of your area of specialization.
What do you think about that?
When you have a large section of our country which has very limited to
no understanding of religion, culture, things like that.
But we have very strong opinions and we all want to talk about it.
How do you feel?
Many people don’t understand the complexity because they don’t have that much RAM.
Some people understand physics very easily, some people understand music very nicely.
I can’t understand music, I can’t understand cooking, I can’t understand how to make business.
Some people can make business decisions for 10 to 30 years. I don’t get that.
I know what I am good at and I am very good at it.
I get irritated with the assumption that they understand.
You will never say that you understand physics in front of a physics professor.
Mythology everyone thinks they understand.
That is the problem.
So sometimes I lose my temper but nowadays, I have managed to have fun at the cost of people.
Now I torture them in exchange.
I have embraced patriarchy.
But in what way have you embraced patriarchy?
What do you mean by that?
Whatever I do, I say, “look, I am a Savarana”.
I can’t change that.
By saying that, I liberate myself.
I have no desire to be just or equal.
I don’t want to play by your rules.
Because you are playing games.
I know you aren’t genuinely interested.
People who are genuinely interested in making a difference are curious, kind and generous.
Everyone else is a liar.
So if they aren’t curious or kind or generous, I know they are frauds.
If you are an atheist or a believer, religion is central to your life.
You can’t escape a conversation on religion and that is what I wanted to discuss with you.
When it comes to this conversation, there’s religion, faith, myth and mythology and they are used interchangeably.
How are they different, how are they interrelated and how do they lean on each other?
Religion, faith and myth.
You did not have the concept of history before 200 years.
200 years ago science emerged and people said we should look at our past
and they realized that when people talk about their past, there are some things which are evidence-based.
So they said, this is what we call history.
But there are many things in the past that are not based on evidence.
We just believe it saying that it exists. 
We call those legends.
Then we realize that there are certain ideas which do not deal with scientific ideas and are dealing with something supernatural.
That was soul, God and Prophet. So that we call myth.
When it comes to belief, we put it under faith.
So I believe…
Once you say you believe…
For example, justice.
Justice is not a real concept, it’s a social construct.
Will you put that under faith, religion or myth?
I will put it under the myth.
These three are human constructs.
When human beings come together and start imagining the world.
And once you start imagining the world, then mythology comes in which is subjective truth.
My truth.
I feel the Gods exist.
I believe in them, so that becomes faith.
Then I will create a club, which is religion.
And like memberships when you join a club, there are rules to be followed,
if you don’t follow those rules, you can be excommunicated.
Ultimately we are trying to make sense of our lives.
We want to make our life meaningful.
Otherwise, what are you?
An animal only.
An animal eats, sleeps, lives and dies.
What else does it do?
Now I don’t want to be that right?
Imagine telling the richest man in the world that you are just an animal.
The horror that you don’t matter. You really don’t matter.
If they disappear, what will happen? Nothing will happen.
That horror is what you have to deal with.
That’s why your construct becomes important.
So that is what life is about.
When you see around yourself, there’s religion. 
It is giving meaning to people.
Only the rich and affluent start imagining a world without constructs.
You and my grandmother are similar in one aspect.
When you talk about religion, Hinduism or when I read your books and when my grandmother talks about Sikhism and Islam, it’s fun to hear.
It paints a very utopian world and it is very positive.
When you talk about Hinduism, it was a very plural, open construct I guess?
That’s what my childhood was like when my grandmother told me these stories.
Then I grew up and saw the real world and it did not play out on the ground.
So could you just explain a little about that? What used to happen earlier and what is our understanding now.
It is organic. 
There’s no one Hinduism, there are many Hinduisms.
But what happened broadly was that if you went to a village in India, you suddenly found people with different vocations.
And everybody had specialized vocations and there were very strict rules about who would eat with who.
And who will marry who.
And there were very clear hierarchies.
Economic hierarchy, political hierarchies and spiritual hierarchies.
That is how the village was constructed.
There was a kind of hierarchy created in the system.
That you can’t marry as per your choice.
You basically did not have a choice.
You will do what your father did.
If you come from a rich family, you had the benefits of coming from a rich family.
And if I come from a poor family, I can’t get the benefits of that education or access to those resources.
So it was a very static feudal society.
And now a new idea comes up that we are all equal, we can all go to school, we can get any job that we want.
This means that the hierarchy is now disrupted.
So now, conflict takes place.
We’re all equals, suddenly you can also come to school and I can also go to school.
Earlier you would stand at the back and now you’re standing beside me.
That is not acceptable.
So what happens is that these new doctrines create major conflicts for people with power and wealth.
You brought conflict where it wasn’t present earlier.
And those at the bottom of the pyramid will say that it was suppressed conflict.
People’s anger, desire and curiosity hasn’t been given value.
And once you let that lion out of the cage, violence occurs. We are seeing violence.
So the battle for equality creates violence against the rich and the battle for inequality
creates violence against the poor.
But both ways, there is violence.
Because the process of creating culture is violent.
Violence and punishment is the outcome of culture.
Nature is violent and culture is also violent.
And the process of domestication is violent.
If you don’t accept that…
I always tell people that when you make a bullock cart, you castrate the bull right?
That is violence right? To make the bullock cart.
You can’t escape that.
The question is, who will become the bull?
Whose bullock cart will it be?
That is the whole conversation.
In equality, we all are bulls and we all are drivers, there is no bull.
And if we all are bulls, there is no driver.
That’s where the conflict is. 
It is a resource conflict, a universal conflict, nothing else.
Hinduism is based on plurality and the new world order is based on equality.
Equality and diversity never get along with each other.
Never.
I want to ask you that since school we’ve been told that the Church and the Crown should be separate.
That’s a part of democracy and it's a part of the secular idea of a nation-state.
But it is not true.
Historically, it has never been separate.
Religion plays a central role in attaining and keeping power.
So what I want to ask you is what’s the difference between religion and the state vs religion and the individual?
See, you have to ask, who has the authority to kill you.
If I ask this wonderment question, who has the authority to kill you, that is when the state comes in.
The state has the authority to kill you. It can legally tell that you can be killed.
How does the state get this power and where does it come from?
In a democracy, we give this power through people.
But if now someone says that I get this power from God, you have one person that gets power from people and the other who gets it from God.
There will obviously be a fight between these two,
And that is where the conflict starts.
Because for a long time, authority came from God.
“Why is this right?” “Oh because God has said this.”
Now people are saying, “No, someone else is the authority. We will discuss it rationally...
and decide whether it is wrong or right.”
So, for example, if a Muslim goes to Europe and says I need asylum and he settles there.
Then he tells them that his kid is homosexual and Europe laws allow homosexuality.
Then he says that my religion doesn’t allow.
Now the atmosphere is tensed.
The land that kid lives in, he has got rights from that land because he moved to Europe.
But his family is a Muslim family who says Shariya doesn’t allow it.
Now, which of the two should apply?
And he says that “I don’t want to give up my religion.”
But I also don’t want to give up my citizenship.
I want to take some benefits from religion because I get benefitted from my religion.
I get benefitted from my family and the state.
So, I want a mix and match. But now there’s tension.
Now, who will win?
But who will win in that situation in terms of…
Whoever has the gun.
France will tell you to get out.
France is very clear, they don’t value religion.
You can’t do anything. You can’t wear a Burqa.
Not even the cross around your neck.
If you go to Saudi Arabia, they will say whatever Sharia says is correct.
There is no right and wrong, it depends on where you live.
There is nothing right or wrong in Burqa.
You don’t have to wear a Burqa to believe in Allah.
But some men have decided that you have to wear a Burqa.
But there are many women in the world who believe in Islam but don’t believe in the Burqa.
“You have to wear a Burqa otherwise you won’t belong to the tribe.”
The second part of the questions is exactly this I want to understand.
Religion and the individual, I might not have a deep understanding of Hinduism or religions but
I want to pick and choose. I want something from Sikhism, I want something from Hindusim and I want something from Buddhism as well.
Then that becomes my equation as an individual with religion. Is that possible?
If you have enough money, yes.
If you have enough money you can say I don’t care for anybody.
But if you are poor and you depend on your family, the family will ask you to abide by their rules.
It doesn’t work like that.
But if you have money, then you have enough will power and you can say I will make my house differently.
That’s how families break no?
If you have enough money you will say I want a separate house and I refuse to follow you.
If you are emotionally, psychologically and financially bound, which happens…
in rich business families, you know, the same homosexual guy expresses willingness to live life separately…
They will be like, “Fine, you won’t get anything in patrimony.”
You will marry the girl your father tells you to do, you will produce children when your father tells you to do.
So you are an animal who will breed as the father tells you to do in exchange for millions of dollars.
It is not religion.
But they will tell him that this is how religion works, this is what the god says. This is just packaging.
One of my favourite things about what you talk about is…
I think it is slightly problematic in India right now, that
we don’t talk to others and refuse to listen.
When othering happens we get into our binaries…
Like you say right or wrong.
Then we don’t talk.
Many times when you are trying to engage with the other, some of it is dangerous.
The conversation. Because there are real ramifications for what people say.
It can be the intellectual bullying of liberals.
And it can be the on-ground violence of extremists.
Both of them have a tangible reaction and its dangers.
So what is the line and how do you engage with the other?
Some people like confrontations because it helps them become martyrs.
If you want to become a hero there has to be a fight sequence.
If you want to become a martyr then there has to be a fight.
This whole battle of martyrdom, “We will become martyrs”, Why?
You are giving yourself meaning. Why do you wanna become a martyr?
What’s the big deal? Let it be.
“No, I will die in the name of justice.” Why?
Have you heard about Sabha-chaturya?
How one should talk to people.
How one should manage people or how to deal with people.
Some people can only deal with violence.
Some people can deal with negotiations.
“Saam Daam Dand Bhed”
And you don’t win every battle, you lose many battles.
But you have to have the courage to say no.
Do we have the courage to say no?
This is not about what is right or wrong.
There is no justice. God is out there.
“Kayamat” - there is nothing.
Construct - When we say that the energy goes away immediately right?
It scares the shit out of people.
It’s not easy. Your entire life revolves around these constructs.
Without these constructs, you are nothing.
“Say with pride, we are Hindus.”
What if I say Hindu is a construct?
**Sigh**
If I say justice is a construct, martyrdom is a construct...
Can you imagine telling this to a soldier on the battlefield?
But even if you say secularism is a construct, human right is a construct and the nation-state is a construct…
That is also pretty scary for a totally different audience.
It finishes the argument, it is very nice to say that religion is a construct.
But the moment you say the nation-state is a construct,
then people get very worried.
“What is he saying?”
Am I wrong?
Don’t we have to regularly renegotiate constructs?
Or at least talk about them?
Those binaries are problematic and restrictive, you can’t talk openly.
So how do you create the space for negotiating the constructs?
Most people want to convert others to their construct.
Why do you want to convert others?
You have to survive in the world, you don’t need to convert other people to your point of view.
This need to convert others to your point of view is where misery lies.
Because in effect it is psychological warfare.
If you are born in North Korea you are f****d.
There’s nothing, you will have to carry the flag with Kim’s photo and laugh, sometimes cry.
There’s nothing that can be done.
You either surrender to it or run away from the country or find a way of surviving within that space.
But millions do, millions of North Koreans are living a happy life.
Who are you and me to tell them that they are not living  happy lives?
Maybe they are living a fulfilled life, despite the horror what we think is a horror.
Should it be easier? When we talk of universal human rights…
They are not natural, it’s a construct…
But is it a bad construct?
It is a terrible construct.
Why?
Who are you to decide what are rights?
No, I am not one.
I am saying, we as a community. No one is.
I can go and tell this to the richest man in the world, who are you to decide?
Be it the richest man, a powerful man, it doesn’t matter.
Who are you to decide what are my rights?
How do you decide what I want?
Imagine a tribal person, a Bedia boy living in a village has been told that he has to learn Hindi.
Or Sanskrit or English. When he has to study Beidi.
Why should he work in a factory when all his life or his ancestors have lived as hunter-gatherers maybe in the forests.
“No, I will tell you what a better life is.”
Who are you to tell him that he needs education?
You are domesticating him in your social constructs.
So every human being becomes a territory over which we fight.
Like husband and wife fighting over the child.
And the child finally saying that who are you to decide what my life is supposed to be?
And the father will say that I am the one who will give you property.
And the mother will say I provide you food, you will listen to me.
And then one day you will become an adult...
You should understand it just from a family’s perspective and you will understand the world exactly the same way.
The state demands, “I will take taxes from you.”
The state demands your identity, birth certificate, death certificate exactly how the parents demand.
We are negotiating with the state the way we negotiate with parents.
Some have a good relationship with the parents, some have horrible relationships with their parents.
And that’s how you negotiate with religion and you have to manipulate your way through it.
Sometimes it’s forceful, sometimes it is very clear.
You look at the predator in front of and decide if only talking will do here,
adult to adult conversation. Or will I have to play a game here?
Or the violence will work here?
For some people, the only language they know is violence.
And you cannot tell them to be non-violent.
It won’t work. They won’t understand.
Devdutt, then if someone is violent and doesn’t agree with my construct…
and I can’t engage in conversation with them,
Then their violence and my violence will meet here, riots will break out.
If you are smart and know that they will not understand,
You are capable of understanding then you modify the rules of the game.
Maybe I don’t want to live in their construct. I want my construct.
Exactly, that’s the point no, “I want my construct.”
We call it vanity.
Every heterosexual feels my construct is correct.
Every homosexual feels my construct is correct.
Every woman thinks my construct is correct.
Every man thinks my construct is correct.
So we are all dealing with different people.
Now the question is, this is how things will work in my house.
“Okay, it’s your house. We can’t do anything.”
“It’s not my house, so what can I do? I have no choice.” I have to surrender. For the sake of my bread and butter.
Universal rights is imposing a standard behaviour and it is anti plurality.
It is against plurality because everybody is different.
How do you decide that everybody is right to diss?
Who gives this right? Where does it come from?
It is based on assumptions. The whole idea is based on assumptions.
It gives too much power to the state.
It gives too much power to the third parties.
The state will provide, where did the state come from?
The rights body itself is such a scary idea, it is coming from the code of Hammurabi.
Which was created 4 to 5 thousand years ago in Mesopotamia.
Universal rights is nothing modern.
It is coming from Hammurabi.
Thou shalt, Thou shalt…
Who are you to tell me I shalt, we shalt?
So it comes down to that, who are you?
A lot of what you said, my initial reactions to is discomfort.
I am like, “Oh, how is he saying that?”
Because it doesn’t fit into what you keep saying - the right and wrong.
“This should be said, this is what you should think about.”
See, the politically correct movement is a very clever way of controlling speech.
Freedom of expression is on one side and political correctness is on the other side.
And they keep fighting with each other.
If I say anything I will be told to mind what I say.
“Are you trying to control me?”
“You are gagging me.”
I remember this person was speaking very rudely and kept saying that why are you so rude all the time?
He said, “Do you want me to be only silent?”
And I said between rude speech and silence there’s something else.
But his brain doesn’t work.
“My way or the high way, I have right.”
So I say, “Yes you have rights. And I have the rights to not to call you to my house.”
Those are the questions I had for you.
Thank you so much for your time.
Welcome, Bye.
