Drawing on Jerry Rao’s funda of Kipling and Rushdie having a Vaishnavite and Saivite view of India, I think it is good and worthwhile to apply this concept across the board. Especially to governance.
When one realises that everything in the world is basically an interpretation of Puranic mythology, it becomes clear that the two competing ideologies of the world- liberalism and authoritarianism- are merely Saivite and Vaishnavite worldviews brought into the modern age.
The Vaishnavite view of the ideal society is Ram Rajya. As discussed earlier, this subordinates eternal truth to personal morality. In this view of the world, the ruler is responsible for imposing morality and order upon the subjects.
Two things are wrong with such a worldview: when the state assumes responsibility for morality, totalitarianism is the inevitable outcome. Secondly, when the basis for morality is ill-defined and the outcome of an ‘understanding’ between the ruler and the subjects, opportunities for corruption, competitive intolerance, and single-issue lobbying spring up. The Vaishnavite worldview does impose order, but this order is a preservation of status-quo, a status-quo of graft, waste, and suspicion.
The Saivite worldview, by contrast, is based on the detachment of Siva from the trivial details of the world. Instead of micro-managing every outbreak of immoral behaviour, Siva creates the initial conditions for a moral world through the Tandava. The focus is on eternal truths and morality – as reflected in the statement Satyam Shivam Sundaram – rather than on fluctuating demands.
In the temporal world, this is manifested in a regime based on deregulation or light-touch regulation, limited government intrusion into private affairs, and strict separation of powers of the arms of government.
At a nation-level, we can see Vaishnavite states abounding: Singapore, India, and the British nanny state all attempt to bring the state into matters of private morality. There are far too few Saivite states.
At a smaller level, the difference between Saivite and Vaishnavite worldviews can be seen clearly in the ways the SEBI and the RBI operate. The RBI is Vaishnavite – micromanaging everything – capital controls, exchange rate, and inflation. This attempt to preserve order and control results in self-contradictory actions, but the RBI perseveres nonetheless. In matters of morality, too, the RBI proscribes and punishes individual banks by withholding their ATM licenses, or suspending their trading licenses. It demands that it turn over the credit applications of its private borrowers for audit.
The SEBI, by contrast, focused on setting up a framework in which minimal interference would be required. Hence, the focus on driving down delivery times, the move to dematerialisation, and the creation of automated clearinghouses. And yet, when the SEBI does intervene – as it did with P-notes – the resultant destruction is no less than if Siva had opened the third eye.
It now becomes clear that the fuel of capitalism, Schumpeterian creative destruction – the birth and death of firms, as they add value and spread information – is merely a reflection of the Tandava, which creates and destroys the universe anew every instant. The link between Saivism, freedom, capitalism and openness is obvious.
The link between Saivism and freedom, and Vaishnavism and authoritarianism is repeated throughout history. The Vaishnavite bhakti movement, concentrated in North India, emphasised surrender and submission to Ram and Krishna. Devotion to Vishnu, rewarded by his love and compassion, was the foundation of Vaishnavite bhakti- eerily similar to a phrase George Orwell would use five centuries later: Big Brother Loves You. In contrast, Siva-bhakti focused on seeking rather than surrender, and was coupled with a monistic, advaita tradition that encouraged personal responsibility for morality.
It is, therefore, no surprise that North Indian Vaishnavite Bhakti led to existing caste hierarchies being reinforced and hardened, while South India Siva-bhakti led to the creation of the Veera-shaiva and Lingayat movements, which sped up caste mobility – laying the ground for future reformers to mitigate the effects of caste discrimination in the South.
Where the temporal world is concerned, the Saivite worldview ensured that the Saivite Chozhas focused on upholding eternal morality and adherence to the principles of good governance. The Chozhas created public goods like the Grand Anicut, a modernised navy, and gigantic temples that also served as universities, hospitals, granaries, and platforms for the arts. The investment in public goods and infrastructure led to the blossoming of trade, the shattering of piracy and brigandry on the high seas and the highways, and stupendous economic growth. Meanwhile, the Vaishanvite Rajputs, schooled in a meta-context of short-term thinking and tactical warfare, squabbled among themselves, betrayed each other, and so laid North India open to rape and pillage by Moslem invaders.
Of course, this should not be taken to suggest that Vishnu-worship alone leads to Vaishnavite governance, or that Siva-worship automatically leads to an open society. For example, the British monarchs, despite being defenders of the faith of the Church of England have presided over both Saivite and Vaishnavite reigns. The Victorian era, characterised by an obsession over the finer details of morality and sexuality, was distinctively Vaishnavite; while the Edwardian era, which reversed Victorian restrictions on individual freedom and invested in public goods and infrastructure at an unprecedented level, was just as obviously Saivite.
Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a Saivite tradition is correlated with a Saivite worldview, and a Saivite population and leadership lead to greater openness, liberty, and economic progress. The challenge we shall face over the coming decades – especially in India – is to find ways to spread Saivite culture, while counteracting the pernicious effects of Vaishnavism.
This post is based on just your definition of Vaishnavism and Saivism.
Actual history is a little different. The North Indian Vaishnavite Bhakti movement sort of started off from the South. Kabir’s guru Ramdas (or Ramanand) was Ramanuja’s follower. Ramanuja
attempted to remove caste hierarchies much before Basava. Even now in Srirangam there are not Brahmin junta who perform important duties at the temple.
The main problem with all these movements is that all of them start off with an attempt to remove caste, but end up creating newer hierarchies. Like in the case of the Lingayats, they simply created a new caste!
Just because you were ditched by a Vaishnavite girl, does not make Vaishnavism authoritarian.
This is categorised under Divine Arguments. Obviously it’s based on just my definitions.
And at least a new caste of Lingayats was created, which was quite empowered. This did not happen in the North.
And even if it doesn’t make Vaishnavism authoritarian, you can’t deny that her Vaishnavite parents were authoritarian.
All along I thought Vaishnavism and Shaivism were just metaphors to illustrate the styles of governance to people more familiar with the religious styles.
But there WAS some scope of discussion regarding those too!