The other side of the coin

The videos and images despatched by Cho Seung-Hui, who killed 32 persons in Virginia Tech in US before turning the gun on his own head, to a TV channel offer vivid insights into his maniacal moorings and morbid mindset. Childhood grievances, medical depression, social isolation and paranoia had joined hands with misplaced religious moralism to create a lethal personality. But none can also ignore the economic vigilantism that was a running theme in his rantings. To quote the killer: ‘You had everything you wanted … your Mercedes wasn’t enough, you brats? Your golden necklaces weren’t enough, you snobs? Your trust fund wasn’t enough? Your Vodka and cognac weren’t enough?’. Clearly, wealth, rather the lack of it, has played its part too.

Crime for gain might make for sensational stuff in the media-moulded world of the present, but the tendency itself is probably as old as the day two primitive homo sapiens in hunger coveted the same apple. Though it has surely evolved with the sophistication of the times, the primeval insticts of survival and greed remain intact. But the trigger- happy Korean killer and several of his ilk were not murdering for gain. Their depraved actions demonstrate a far deeper and a much greater malaise of society: Economic deprivation and widening income gaps. Such murders are not crimes but calamities and the world looks quite fertile for more of them.

While for our distant ancestors, material pursuits were primarily for the sustenance of self and clan, the modern gold rush goes beyond existential issues. Nieither I nor you or our uncles, aunts and in-laws would mind a Mercedes or pass up a necklace, golden or even coverings. In fact many would ‘not mind’ going hungry for that! The pulls and pleasures of the material world are so overpowering that for most of us the horizon ends with the mirror in front, at worst and the family around, at best. Charitable inclinations and concern for the dispossessed often come as belated afterthoughts or random conscience pricks. And very little individual effort at redressal follows because the passing noble thought, well, passes off soon as a more pressing private pursuit beckons.

So, is chasing fortune a sin? Is wealth ugly? Or how much of it is acceptable and how much is ugly? What is the threshold for the rich to be dubbed ‘filthy rich’? And when does that become ‘stinking rich’? Neither a simpleton nor a scientist, or a seer or a sinner can satisfactorily answer these without contradicting his truthful self. But truth be told, wealth is ugly if it is on somebody else’s hands! It gets purified once it comes to yours! And the moment you have it, you don’t look over your shoulder at the plight of those who were your peers in penury till then! For, you may drive the car, but it is the car that accelerates and takes you places. Likewise money.

That forward thrust in life’s lane by itself is not a bad thing. If fortune favours the brave and the bright, it’s fair enough; none should grudge them reaping the material benefits of labour and risk. But here’s were Communism played havoc in the last century. It made even legitimate wealth seem ugly. Communism’s purported fight against exploitation was fine as a social theme and in any case, not just communists, but any human with a heart with pangs for the poor would back the cause. But as a political ideology and State policy, it became untenable for growth and was also incompatible with human nature. After all capitalism and communism are not mutually exclusive, but states of the same mind and stages of the same life. Wealth creation has to precede wealth distribution. Can the socialist lullaby, ‘from each according to his capacity to each according to his need’ be implemented to the letter? Will the comrades spare their extra shirts for the bare-bodied aam aadmi? Rather, Communism kills the impetus for hard work, romanticises laziness and, worse, renders the weak and meek perennial parasites, even as the leftist champions themselves go places.

If the comrades tarnished hard-earned money, the political class by their corrupt ways have soiled all currency, black or white. The poverty stricken common man, the permanent have-not who has been left out of the growth loop, sees no difference between the looted wealth of the politico and the legitimate wealth of the mid-sections. He sees both the political class and the middle class as the beneficiaries of a biased system that sidelined and skipped him, and in any case, both wealths chase properties and pleasures, even as he is roasting for a single meal, square or round.

While during the communist heyday, the rich sought out their passions on the sly for fear of red retribution, today’s neo-rich have no qualms in flaunting their possessions. And thanks to booming economies and technological wonders, wealth too refuses to be confined to bank lockers or those cliched ‘iron boxes’ and is on parade in every nook and cranny. The exclusivity of many so-called elite products and services is gone and what’s on offer is for all to see and consume, ie, if they have the dough. While income hierarchies with wide chasms exist, there is a perfect level playing field as far as temptations and aspirations go. Though it is a fact that much of the promiscuous middle-class consumption is fuelled by borrowed money, even that option is not available to a vast majority whose appetite for a good life is no less. These frustrations are bound to cause friction.

It is difficult to sympathise with the Korean killer for he was a psychopath, or a sociopath, if you prefer the latest lingo. But such instances do bring us down to earth and alert us to the fact that the price for personal prosperity is much more than mere cash, cheque or the swipe of a credit card. Somtimes that price can be too stiff!

e-mail the writer at [email protected]