Understanding Villainy - Via Duryodhanization

Villains have always fascinated us. The villain creates the gravitas that the hero needs to bounce off to glory.

Batman needs a Joker to shine.

Lord Rama killed a formidable enemy in Raavan - himself a scholar blessed with a boon by Lord Shiva, a King, and an enlightened being.

In Mahabharat, A baby Krishna dived to the bottom of a river to kill off the great Naag (hooded snake) Aghasur.

The villain in every story embodies the dark side of the human being, race, humanity, does it not? Villains are seen as heroic, nonetheless. They have something that makes them extraordinary. Think Hitler. Think Stalin. Think Osama Bin Laden. Sharp leadership qualities and organisational acumen. They're without a doubt great storytellers, or shall we say, story spinners, masters in propagating their own narrative with a pathos that is matchless.

Heroes inspire us because of how they contrast against the villains. In Duryodhanization, Prof. Nishat Uppal analyses one of the first villains to be recorded in India's ancient history - Duryodhana, the son of Kuru King Dhritarashtra and Queen Gandhari. He was neither the first nor the last, of course. But, there is something about Mahabharat as a story that ceaselessly inspires a re-telling. Every single character here is flawed, one way or another. Even the enlightened being Lord Krishna. The question Prof. Uppal asks is: Are villains born, made, or made up?

[To note, all italicised passages are a direct reproduction-representation of Prof Uppal's writings. Disclaimer - I am acquainted with the author & his lovely family from a distant past but my writing here proceeded without any prior intimation and/or discussion on his work. As such, I urge you to treat it as a completely disjoint exercise motivated merely by my interest in the subject and the matter contained in the book.]

You know the author's penchant for research as he chooses to start with a definition :-) : Villain - A character is defined as villainous if his/her actions or motives are considered evil towards other individuals, nations, societies, environments, or the universe as a whole.

Let me begin with this interesting fact taken from the book:

The origin of the term 'Villain'

The term villain originated from the Latin Villa & Villanus, meaning country mansion & farmland bound to the soil of the mansion respectively, and developed into vilain (or vilein) in French for a person of less-knightly attributes. This was someone who was usually employed as a peasant, a slave, or a farmhand.

How did this peasant, slave, or a farmhand transform into a full-fledged villain?

The answer lies with the French aristocracy during the Middle Ages, when, they propagated these populations as being impolite and unchivalrous... in order to safeguard and monopolize their women.

Some of the old films on slavery and other such underprivileged classes now begin to make sense, right? This is a process of degradation and the term villain saw a steady degradation of its meaning to include 'despicable, shameful, morally corrupt, knave, scoundrel, boor, and finally, criminal'. [The great Mahabharat villian Duryodhana was all of this and more]

An example of this degradation - The Ancient Indian Varna system:

This kind of degradation is not exclusive to words and their meanings. In the Hindi / Sanskrit language, the word ???????? is used to denote this phenomenon. It means 'falling down, downfall', which is consonant with the earlier meaning of degradation. It happened to the ancient Indian Varna system, which was originally a horizontal system of the division of labour. Its verticalisation resulted into the degradation of the status of the Vaishyas & the Shudras, catapulting the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas to the top.

Before we condemn the ancient Indian concept of this Varna system by calling it the horrendous (as it certainly was at one point) caste system, let's get a closer look at this particular Duryodhana. The caste system as we have come to hate & deplore came into being as such with the generous contribution made by the Europeans coming into the subcontinent.

The word 'Casta' comes from the Portuguese language and it is the Iberians (6th BC onwards) who came to Asia and the Americas, and started classifying people by descent. The Iberians had divided their social structure into various groups such as kings, priests, artisans, and slaves. Therefore, if you suppose that this loan-word casta was simply applied to a pre-existing system, that understanding would be inaccurate.

Why was 'descent' so important to the concept of 'casta' or caste to the Iberians? Prof Sumit Guha explains it here. It has things to do with their religio-political situation.

Well anyway, M K Gandhi-ji hated the system of untouchability, which was the most venal aspect of this Caste system but it's surprising to note that he supported the Varna system. He in fact stated that 'Our failure to follow the law of varna is largely responsible both for our economic and spiritual ruin. It is one cause of unemployment and impoverishment, and it is responsible for untouchability and defections from our faith.' Read in full here.

What I can see clearly here is that power was abused by certain sections and this led to an all-round degradation of the realities of life for a much larger population, a phenomenon for which we are still paying the price.

Be it racism, religious persecution, regime change wars, this Duryodhanization is a global phenomenon. He is entitled, he's powerful, and he claims to have been victimised & misunderstood.

Personally, no sooner do I see one feeling superior to another than I see downfall for them both. The superior one will want to attract power, which when handed to him/her, will abuse it, destroying the harmony for the entire system. This holds true for ideology, religions, teachings, and nearly everything else. The question then is this: Is it the power that transforms you and me into Duryodhan? Or is it that the Duryodhan within hungers for power? If this is a chicken & egg, it's a very interesting one.

The Three Steps Towards Degradation:

1. Parochialism - Defined as ignorance of other's ways. An incident of Oprah Winfrey's 2012 visit to India comes to mind, when she was invited to dinner at the home of an extremely well-to-do business family. She expressed her surprise at the fact that 'Indians eat their food with their hands, still'. The same parochialism occurs day in and day out as global media agencies churn out their stories on other countries and their cultures solely catering to the points of view & values native to their countries.
2. Ethnocentrism - The view of things in which one's own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it... Each group nourishes its own pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt on outsiders. It is argued that ethnocentrism is a part of human nature. Upon deep reflection, this latter idea seems to be true, be it family, community, religion, nation etc.
3. Orientalism - The systematic discipline by which European culture was able to manage - and even produce - the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, scientifically, and imaginatively during the Post-Enlightenment period.

My two cents? The Orientalist agenda continues to this day through Parochialism & ethnocentrism. And, when it comes to India in particular, this parochialism takes on another deviant form - the willful ignorance or neglect of traditional Indian ways / customs / traditions / knowledge and appropriation thereof. Take for example, the cognitive coherence breathing, or something we have known for centuries as the Praanayaam.

Why is this pertinent to Duryodhanization? Because for Duryodhanization to take root and propagate itself, degradation must prepare the ground.

Think about it, Oprah with her access to people and research, did not even attempt to understand that eating by hand is a great system of getting 'bio-feedback', making us feel more connected with our foods. She did not even look at how her compatriots eat bagels, hot dogs, and pizzas, before exposing her parochialism for her gracious host's Indian ways.

Hitler should have been called out for his entrenched ethnocentrism at the right time for his supremacist attitude and hateful agenda calling for slaughter of Jews. What are we doing today to call out similar hate propaganda and ideologies that still abound?

Winston Churchill's Orientalism had coloured his view of how he treated Indians during his rule, which was a war-ridden, heart-rending reality for most Indians. His secretary noted his thoughts about Hindus in his diary: 'The PM said the Hindus were a foul race “protected by their mere pullulation from the doom that is their due” and he wished Bert Harris could send some of his surplus bombers to destroy them.' Don't think this was personal hate and was harmless. The British media exaggerated crimes committed by Indians. One such account of Indian rebels having raped 48 British girls in Delhi was published by The Times and refuted as propaganda by Karl Marx, pointing out that the story was written by a clergyman sitting in Bangalore.

Decoding the personality of Duryodhan

So there must be personality traits that enable these behaviours, right? Turns out there are, and they form what is called the 'dark triad' of mental illnesses, namely Machiavellianism, Narcissism, and Psychopathy. Apparently, those with mild forms of these illnesses happen to become really "successful" in our world.

Machiavellianism: Defined as a strategy of social conduct that involves manipulating others for personal gain (Christie & Geis, 1970; Wilson et al, 1996)

Derives from the name of Niccolo Machiavelli, 15th century Florentine diplomat, who wrote The Prince to ingratiate himself with the contemporary ruler. It's a book of advice on how to acquire & retain power and you'll see the truth of the book evidenced in the actions of the world's leaders, regardless of them ever having read it at all.

Listing out a few of Machiavelli's pearls of wisdom that should top the mentions, along with what are in my view their working examples in the contemporary world:

'Everyone sees what you appear to be; few experience what you really are' - Social Media? Facebook's Cambridge Analytica scandal?

It is much safer to be feared than loved because... love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by the dread of punishment which never fails - Certain cults? Mafia? Dictatorships?

He who seeks to deceive, will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived - Politicians in general?

Personally, I'd hate this theory if it didn't work so well. You see, there's Gandhi-ji's My experiments with the truth and there's The Prince. And guess which one will get you more of all the things that you want! It is also my opinion that a lot of early advice on 'How to win friends & influence people' is definitely Machiavellian in practice. So is the practice of so many "purpose-driven" brands that will do anything to hype a minor social evil in order to piggy back their marketing message on it, while avoiding assiduously to pay their taxes through criminal avoidance and/or lobbying. All of that is Machiavellian and affects us all badly. Each one of us, without an exception.

Narcissism: It is known to have the following three basic ingredients:

1. A positive self
2. A relative lack of interest in warm and caring inter-personal relationships
3. A reliance upon self-regulatory strategies.

Narcissists consider themselves superior to others, have an inflated sense of self, have a dysfunctional need for excessive attention and admiration, have a propensity to engage in exploitative acts, and lack empathy, tending towards callousness. This is the narcissistic grandiosity aspect, while a narcissistic vulnerability also exists as another important aspect of this trait. It refers to feelings of helplessness, emptiness, low self-esteem, and shame.

And, yes, there is a correlation between narcissism and childhood experiences, particularly parenting.

When I read this part, I recalled a line I read a long time back and that has touched me ever since: "Let's give our children childhoods that they don't have to recover from". I don't remember where I read it, nor who has written it. But it's imprinted into my mind.

Psychopathy: The term earlier used to mean psychologically damaged, but now it has come to mean socially damaging.

It is defined as a particular constellation of antisocial behaviour and emotions, including shallow affect, low (remorse - fear - empathy), egocentrism, exploitative instinct, manipulativeness, impulsivity, aggression, and criminality.

Now, apart from these mental illnesses, we look at the following two aspects:

Neuroticism: This is a personality characterised by a persistent, often disproportionate worrying and anxiety. Prone to frustration, irritation, and anger as they struggle to cope with the stresses of life. It involves behaviour such as lack of self-acceptance, perfectionism, and not being open to criticism.

Interestingly, Prof Uppal points out that research data shows that individual differences in neuroticism are substantially inheritable (passed on from parent to child).

Everyday Sadism: Everyday sadists are distinguished not by their impulsiveness or manipulativeness, but by their enjoyment of cruelty.

Unlike psychopaths (correlated strongly to criminality, especially violent acts), they rarely use physical force in the commission of crimes. Their aggressiveness is embedded in an interpersonal context and expressed in social settings, such as the family or the workplace.

Did your boss enjoy humiliating you in front of people, especially your clients, knowing you'd lose face? Did you friend's parent/spouse crush his/her sense of well-being with cruelty, neglect, humiliating barbs? Those are everyday sadists, acting out their control freak attitudes and exacting 'disciplinary measures'. Sadists like to inflict pain because they find suffering amusing. They are masters of abuse by proxy and they go to great lengths to hurt others.

Think General Dyer who opened fire on a peaceful gathering of people at the Jallianwala Bagh. Think 9/11. Think also the war on weapons of mass destruction (there were no weapons of MD and world leaders and members of the media supported a bunch of everyday sadists).

People high in the dark triad traits callously use people to their own advantage, seeing them as tools to be exploited in order to get what they want.

I know what you might be thinking - that this would cover a very large number of people around us. Chances are, however, that it largely covers a large number of people who are "known" or "famous". We're biased towards noticing / retaining / recalling something that we find unusual, extraordinary, strange. These are the things that are memorable.

The world teaches us, urges us, to chase these moments, experiences, and lives. Become extraordinary. Without telling us how to do so WithOUT harming others around us.

In analysing these traits through the tapestry of interwoven stories contained in one of the longest epics in the history of humankind, Prof Uppal may have achieved the extraordinary. Albiet, a fundamental understanding of the Mahabharat is necessary for its full appreciation.

But, Prof Uppal also provides context by analysing three historical figures - Dhana Nanda (an Indian king), Aurangzeb (The Mughal king descendent of Shahjahan), and Hitler. In his analysis of these powerful but extremely flawed men, we should conclude they were mentally ill, all that remains is that we ask ourselves how long until we stop the production line for Duryodhanas finding their way into our systems?

My answer is that first & foremost, stop with the flawed practice of #marketing. Glorification of what you achieved should depend upon how you achieved it. Just like the viability of your new factory should factor in the impact it would make on the environment. Our media should be oriented towards understanding, analysing, and presenting only these stories for public appreciation. A standalone comment on how Mark Zuckerberg is raking in millions is to promote and literally market the narcissism and psychopathy inherent in decisions that allow this: Facebook pays teens to let it spy on them.

It's not done and it shouldn't be acceptable. At least not to the power-brokers, leaders, and members of the media. Then and only then can we begin to get a handle on Duryodhanization.

I may have delved into villainy with this book but I see a lot of positivity too. #SocialMedia, yes, the very same social media that I have cited a few times here, is helping counter the one-sided narrative that is driven by media, controlled by those same people who fall in this dark triad.

By the way, here's a great article by Will Little (Prota Ventures) on Why we love to empower Machiavellian Psychopathic Narcissists which I really enjoyed reading.