On 15 January 1934, the province of Bihar in India suffered a terrible earthquake It killed around 3!!!!

people and caused "idespread da#a$e over an area e%tendin$ up to &epal 'ollo"in$ this disaster (andhi visited the state and re#arked that the earthquake "as a divine chastise#ent for the practice of untouchability )hrou$h this re#ark (andhi linked #oral failure "ith a natural disaster )he victi#s of the earthquake did not suffer for their o"n sin )hey suffered for the all our sins )his *our+ included not only the conte#poraries of the disaster but all those, "ho, do"n the centuries, practiced untouchability )he $reat reverence in "hich (andhi "as held did not prevent his conte#poraries fro# critici,in$ the rationale of his co##ent -abindranath )a$ore, the poet laureate "as one a#on$ the# .e "rote a re/oinder challen$in$ (andhi0s state#ent and sent it to (andhi "ith a coverin$ letter In the letter he "rote1 )he press reports that you in a recent speech referrin$ to the recent earthquake in Bihar spoke as follo"s, 2 I "ant you, to be superstitious enou$h 3sic4 to believe "ith #e that the earthquake is a divine chastise#ent for the $reat sin "e have co##itted a$ainst those "ho# "e describe as .ari/ans 0 I find it difficult to believe it But if this is your real vie" on the #atter, I do not think it should $o unchallen$ed 1 In his re/oinder to (andhi that "as published in Harijan on 14th 'ebruary )a$ore said It has caused us painful surprise to find 5ahat#a (andhi accusin$ those "ho blindly follo" their social custo# of untouchability for havin$ $ot do"n (od0s ven$eance upon certain parts of Bihar, evidently specially selected for his desolatin$ displeasure6 It is all the #ore unfortunate because this unscientific and #aterialistic vie" of thin$s is too readily accepted by lar$e sections of our country#en I keenly feel the indi$nity of it "hen I a# co#pelled to utter the truis# that physical catastrophes have their inevitable and e%clusive ori$in in a certain co#bination of physical facts 7nless "e believe in the ine%orableness of universal la"s in the "orkin$ of "hich (od hi#self never interferes, i#perilin$ thereby the inte$rity of .is o"n creation, "e find it i#possible to /ustify .is "ays on occasion like the one "hich has so sorely stricken us in an over"hel#in$ #anner and scale 8 )a$ore critici,es (andhi for inappropriately linkin$ the casual and #oral orders 9hysical events have their ori$in in other physical events )hey are covered by causal la"s and not by ethical principles (od "ho created the universe and also its la"s does not interfere "ith the causal order )he la" of $ravitation does not respond to #oral callousness :;hen such callousness accu#ulates the #oral foundations and not the terrestrial $round "hich cracks : In fact such tra$ic events happen because $od per#its physical causes to unfold "ithout interferin$ "ith the# Only the ine%orableness of natural la"s e%plains ho" there could be sufferin$ in a "orld that is created by (od < (od "ho intentionally creates such cala#ities and causes the sufferin$ of innocent people in order to $ive us #oral instruction #ust be #orally inferior to hu#an bein$s =ven "e hu#an bein$s do not indul$e in such sadistic #oral peda$o$y >uch e%a#ples only create fear in the #inds of the pupils Our sins cannot brin$ creation do"n to ruins Instead, accordin$ to )a$ore, "e can count on creation )his faith is the $round of our #oral action )a$ore "onders, ho" can (andhi "ho tau$ht us fearlessness resort to such fearso#e #odes of #oral teachin$? (andhi in his response published in Harijan refused to retract his re#ark .e insisted that "hen he spoke about the link bet"een earthquake and untouchability he spoke "ith deliberation and fro# his heart )he connection bet"een the earthquake and sin is not #ere e%a#ple or a thou$ht e%peri#ent proposed for #oral peda$o$y .e believed that if physical pheno#ena produce psychic and spiritual effects then the converse also #ust be true *@isitations like drou$hts, floods, earthquakes and the like, thou$h they see# to have only physical ori$ins, are, for #e, so#eho" connected "ith #an0s #orals+ 3 )he connection bet"een the physical and #oral orders is a #etaphysical one .e instinctively felt that such a connection e%isted thou$h he could not e%plain the *ho"+ of this connection )he earthquake "as no caprice of $od or the result of the #eetin$ of blind forces <ccordin$ to (andhi, "e do not kno" all the la"s $overnin$ such pheno#ena (od is not a separately e%istin$ person "ho "orks "ith

8
these la"s .e is not a slave of the la"s he hi#self has created .e is the la" itself .ence the ine%orableness of the la" )hou$h the earthquake "as a punish#ent of (od, the latter is not a /ud$e dispensin$ retributive /ustice (od is not a cruel teacher "ho resorts to brutal #eans for teachin$ us his o"n la"s .o"ever, (andhi readily accepted the possibility that so#eone could see the earthquake as a punish#ent not for practicin$ untouchability but as a punish#ent for (andhi0s cri#e of preachin$ a$ainst untouchability (andhi affir#ed his total conviction in the e%istence of a la" linkin$ the physical and the #oral .o"ever he ad#itted that the content of the la" could be read in a #anner opposite to that of his o"n readin$ ;e kno" only a tiny part of the divine la", and there too, "e could very "ell be #istaken )he falsity of the belief "ould not #ake it into a superstition )he difference bet"een kno"led$e and superstition does not lie in the truth of our beliefs It lies in the nature of the sub/ective life "ithin "hich such a belief is for#ed and nurtured ;hat are the practical consequences of this indissoluble #arria$e bet"een #atter and spirit? )he idea of punish#ent #akes sense only fro# the stand point of a #oral a$ent "ho is prepared to undertake repentance and self purification 'or (andhi this belief in the link bet"een earthquake and untouchability is a call to repentance and self purification =ven if his belief has turned out to be false it could still have achieved the above ob/ectives >o#e one "ho uses the belief in the connection bet"een cos#ic pheno#ena and sin to /ud$e and casti$ate one0s opponents "ill be de$radin$ their belief into a superstition ;hen used as a criteria this la" beco#es a superstition ;hat about so#eone "ho does not see any link at all? 5issin$ such an opportunity to learn a #oral lesson fro# an event "ould be a *terrible+ thin$ ;e #oderns refuse to see any #etaphysical connection bet"een natural disasters and hu#an #oral conduct &atural science is e%pected to provide us "ith the kno"led$e of the la"s "hich e%plain natural disasters in ter#s of natural causes )he link bet"een natural events and #oral action can only be sy#bolic <$ainst this (andhi insists on a connection that is both #etaphysical and sy#bolic .e insists on a necessary relationship bet"een the earthquake and untouchability >ince this la" links the sufferin$ caused by the earthquake and and a #oral evil it is sy#bolically relation and offers the $round for undertakin$ #oral self purification .o"ever, #odern ethics "hich #aintains a $ap bet"een fact and value refuses to endorse this #ove fro# natural la" to #oral action )o understand 5odernity0s ethical response to natural disaters "e shall consider another earthquake "hich hit Aisbon in 1B55 Interestin$ly at least three #a/or #odern thinkers C @oltaire, -ousseau and Dant C #ade it an e%plicit ob/ect of reflection (andhi0s clai# about the la" like relation bet"een #ind and #atter challen$es the episte#olo$ical and ontolo$ical distinctions bet"een natural and social sciences &atural sciences $ive us causal la"s >ocial >ciences #ake sense of our sy#bolic life (andhi insists that of #ind can affect #atter and #atter can #ind affect #ind too =ven those "ho accept the identity bet"een #ind and #atter have refused to accept the possibility of psychophysical la"s (andhi seeks la" like connections across #atter, #ind and society )hou$h (andhi linked the evil of untouchability "ith the sufferin$ caused by the earthquake, he refused to follo" the social sciences and seek the root of untocuability in the caste syste# .e ur$ed us a$ainst seekin$ deep causes of social evils )his "as one of the points of contention bet"een (andhi and <#bedkar for "ho# untouchability "as established and sustained by a hierarchical caste syste# (andhi0s refusal to undertake an deep interpretation of untouchability has been seen as part of his defense of the caste syste# 9erhaps clarity about the nature of the connection (andhi dra"s b"teen the earthquake and untouchability could enable us to the understand the challen$e he posed to social sciences and also to the relationship bet"een the kno"led$e and action III Aisbon earthquake of 1B55 "as perhaps one of the first #a/or disasters of the #odern "est <part fro# the da#a$e it caused to life and property it #ade an i#pact on the "ay #odern "estern #an looked at natural events It beca#e a topic for philosophical, scientific, #oral, reli$ious and ad#inistrative discussions It is not that, not so lon$ a$o, other disasters of co#parable #a$nitude did not happen outside =urope )hou$h >icily and Ja#aica suffered #a/or earthquakes in 1E93, they did not shake the conscience of =urope Aisbon "as the fourth lar$est city of =urope ne%t only to Aondon, 9aris and &aples It "as a center of business and also of the Inquisition )he earquake hits Aisbon on the #ornin$ of &ove#ber 1st "hen #ost of its inhabitants "ere attendin$ the #ass <round B!,!!! people died and only 3!!! of the 8!,!!! buildin$s survived =ven the royal palace "as destroyed < #a/or fire follo"ed the quake and co#pleted the destruction 4

3
<s e%pected #any read this event as a #essa$e, lesson or punishe#ent 'or the Jansenists it "as $od0s punishe#ents to the /esuits 9rotestants sa" this as $od0s "rath a$ainst continuin$ the Inquisition in 9ortu$al >o#e sa" it as a "arnin$ a$ainst the underpreparednes of the city in #eetin$ disaters and as a call for e%plorin$ the causes "hich could be co#patibale "ith the idea of $od as the first cause Aisbon disaster "as perhaps first disaster "here the state took the responsibility for the postFquake reconstruction5 In the 1Gth century =urope "as already under$oin$ several seis#ic chan$es in its intellectual, cultural and politcal spheres =nli$hten#ent had already started challen$in$ traditional kno"le$de and values )he birth of e%peri#ental science and an open public sphere for rational deliberation had be$an to chan$e the self i#a$e of "estern #an )he earthquake posed a challen$e to this i#a$e and attracted responses fro# the three #ost i#portant thinkers of =uropean enli$hten#ent C @oltaire, -ousseau and Dant )he preFenli$hten#ent #an thou$ht that he could $et a $li#pse into the plans of (od Out of the #any possible "orlds (od created this one because it is $ood and this "orld is $ood because it is created by a $od "ho co#bines "isdo# "ith $oodness .o" is evil possible in this best of all "orlds? 5an contracted evil by succu#bin$ to the ori$inal sin =vil visits us in the sufferin$ caused by natural disaters and also the sinful acts of #en <s Aiebni, said HH One single Caligula, one Nero has caused more evil than an earthquake''6. However, this evil does not violate gods design nor should it challenge our faith. &atural disaters do not violate the la"s of nature laid do"n by (od )hey only indicate the li#its of our knol"ed$e )he evil too does not violate $od0s plans It indicates our finiteness =nli$hten#ent reason, ho"ever, $ave up the clai# to kno" (od and affir#ed a #ore radical version of hu#an finitude It clai#ed that "e can affir# our finiteness "ithout takin$ $od0s infiniteness as a #easure )he opti#is# of #an cannot be founded on any prior $uarantee about the $ood nature of the "orld )his "as the basis of voltaire0s a$$ressive ca#pai$n a$ainst the theolo$ically founded opti#is# of european #an In 1B5E @olatire published Poem On The Lisbon Disaster; Or An Examination Of The Axiom. "All is Well". 7. In 1759 Voltaire published Candide, which takes up the question of disasters in general and the Lisbon earthquake in particular. Candide travels around the world and witnesses the hopeless suffering of mankind. Earthquake hits Lisbon the day he reaches the city. Voltaire makes him wonder, 'If this is the best of all possible worlds, what are the others?' 8 Voltaire questioned the prevalent optimism and insisted on the ungrounded necessity of suffering. His first poem on Lisbon earthquake was sent to Rousseau. Rousseau did not share Voltaires lack of faith and optimism and wrote him a reply9. Rousseau believed that man has a role to play even in natural disasters. Disasters are a function of our knowledge and not ignorance. We construct thickly populated cities and invite disasters. Had we lived close to nature without high-rises, earthquakes would not have been so damaging. Man makes himself vulnerable to disasters. When earthquakes occur much damage is caused by the greed and selfishness of people who wouldnt leave their possessions to take shelter. Rousseau shared Voltaires rejection of the use of religious explanations to make sense of the absurdities of human life. However for him this very groundlessness contains the seed of optimism. He found hope in our ability to be shocked by the earthquake and the bonds of solidarity formed in the aftermath of the disaster. Kant too was shaken by the news of the Lisbon earthquake. He published three essays on this topic. In these essays we find the first efforts towards a scientific understanding of earthquake. He undertook meticulous examination of empirical data and proposed casual explanations. He tried to explain earthquakes in terms of the vapor bubbles that pass through the subterranean tunnels. hese explanations turned to be false. However! he inaugurated a scientific turn in thinking about disasters by proposing a material force behind the aging of the world. "isasters happen as discontinuities with in this teleology. Kant undertook the exploration of an earthquake because he contemplation of such dreadful events is edifying # lehrreich$. It humbles man by showing him that he has no right! or at least that he has lost it! to expect convenient consequences only from the laws of nature! which %od has ordered! and he also perhaps learns in this manner to perspect # einsehen$& that this arena #tummelplatz$ of his desires ought not equitably to contain the aim of all his views'(. "isasters speak to men. hey symboli)e human finitude. hey compel man to see nature as an

4
interconnected unity. Knowledge of the laws of nature can give us the illusion that we could predict and control the entire nature. *atural disasters puncture this confidence by introducing an irreducible gap between knowledge and desire. +ome see natural disasters as %od,s punishment for the sin of men. his -udgment is of .blamable audacity/ because it hopes to gain an insight into %od,s design and tries to interpret nature from %od,s stand point. *o such insight is available to man. 0an is infatuated so much with himself that he considers only himself as the sole ob-ect of the institutions of %od! -ust as if these had no other aim than him alone! in order to regulate accordingly the measures in the government of the world. *ature is worthy of being an ob-ect of divine wisdom. However! we should not delude ourselves by thinking that nature is prefabricated to suit our purposes or its events are meant to be directed as god,s acts of vengeance or retribution. *atural events have a message to be interpreted by men. 1ut it cannot be directly read off either from the stand point of man or from that of %od. It demands a more complex hermeneutic enterprise. Innocents and faithful suffer at the hand of god whereas villains flourish. 2arthquake indicates to us that 3man is not born to build everlasting cottages upon this stage of vanity,. 0an has a nobler aim and all these devastations and disasters are beautifully attuned to this aim. hey teach man the lesson that the goods of nature can furnish no satisfactions for our inclination for happiness. he kingdom of man is not to be built upon this nature. 4ur world is that of freedom. hat is our second nature and also our proper nature. In this sense these disasters constitute the indirect symbols of our moral destination. Human efforts to prevent disasters are meaningful! but their success cannot be measured on a human scale. 5 prince who is moved by the calamities of his people and tries to undertake measures to avert their miseries is a gift of god 6 a gift whose value is beyond all human measure. 0an,s apprenticeship with nature receives a more positive characteri)ation in 8udgment. Here Kant deals with the delight in terror that is seriously entertained. the 7ritique of

.1old! overhanging! and! as it were! threatening rocks! thunderclouds piled up the vault of heaven! borne along with flashes and peals! volcanoes in all their violence of destruction! hurricanes leaving desolation in their track! the boundless ocean rising with rebellious force! the high waterfall of some mighty river! and the like! make our power of resistance of trifling moment in comparison with their might. 1ut! provided our own position is secure! their aspect is all the more attractive for its fearfulness9 and we readily call these ob-ects sublime! because they raise the forces of the soul above the height of vulgar commonplace! and discover within us a power of resistance of quite another kind! which gives us courage to be able to measure ourselves against the seeming omnipotence of nature/ ''. In these cases! we look upon nature as something fearful without being afraid of it. :e derive a negative pleasure in them provided we are secure from their danger. :e can represent them with all their fury! provided! in reality! we are not threatened by them. ;aced with earthquakes and hurricanes we can represent them to ourselves as if we wish to resist them! though in reality our resistance may be futile. he sublime ob-ect raises the forces of our soul above the heights of the vulgar commonplace! and we discover within us the power of resistance against the seeming omnipotence of nature. his power of resistance is not a blind faith in the ability of science and technology to control the universe. his stirs our own humanity whose powers listen to forces higher than that of a desire which reduces nature to a mere ob-ect of our happiness. his feeling of pleasure<in<terror under security points out to us a non<sensuous standard within us which has 3infinity as one of its units in comparison with which everything in nature is small,. his makes us aware about our own faculty of estimating ourselves independent of nature. 3 his saves humanity in our person from humiliation! even though as mortal men we have to submit to external violence,. In front of the sublime ob-ect of terror! the mind makes itself sensible of the appropriate sublimity of the sphere of its own being! which is above nature. his is supra<sensible nature is the ontological ground of social sciences. IV Aet us return to (andhiHs response to the earthquake -a#achandra (andhi, (andhi0s $rand son and a philosopher tried to e%plain (andhi0s re#ark in the conte%t of the theory of kar#a 18 5any interpret Dar#a as a #echanis# of retributive /ustice "hich ensures that every one suffers the consequences of their action Iou reap as you so" Iou suffer in your old a$e because you hurt an old #an "hen you

5
"ere youn$ .o"ever, "e see that, in the "orld around us, $ood people suffer and bad ones flourish )his can be e%plained by attachin$ a theory of rebirth to the theory of kar#a In any of our lives "e could be sufferin$ the consequences of our action in previous births )his popular version for kar#a can be used to e%hort people into action and also to counsel the# not to "orry about the consequences of action It is also e%pected to render our #oral life intelli$ible <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi, (andhi0s re#ark about the link bet"een the sufferin$ caused by the earthquake and untouchability cannot be #ade sense "ithin this popular conception of the kar#a In the rest of the paper I shall first e%plicate -a#achandra (andhiHs interpretation of the )heory of Dar#a )hen I shall try to e%pand this interpretation in the li$ht of the conte#porary discussions on the nature of the natural la" ;hat is the nature of the la"F like connection (andhi de#ands bet"een #ind and #atter and bet"een the earthquake and untouchability? <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi the sufferin$ caused by events like earthquake hits us not because of its enor#ity alone but of their sheer #eanin$lessness or unintelli$ibility ;hat people suffer appears to us as hu$ely disproportionate to "hat they could possibly deserve under any i#a$inable notion of /ustice .ence, our blanket ascription of innocence to victi#s >uch sufferin$ #akes us "onder if there is any fairness in this "orld -a#achandra (andhi calls such faithFannihilatin$ sufferin$ He#barrassin$ sufferin$H )he arbitrariness and absurdity of sufferin$ #ore than its intensity that #ake it e#barrassin$ )he e#barrass#ent unnaturally e%ceeds the pain caused by this sufferin$ )he theory of kar#a is e%pected to address and not to destroy, fill up or conceal this faith destroyin$ disproportionality bet"een "ron$ doin$ and sufferin$ It is not that as a child I co##itted so#e sin and thereby $ot a $etF#eFinFthe end causal #echanis# started "hich "ill eventually $et hold of #e in #y old a$e and re"ard #e "ith the punish#ent )heory of kar#a establishes a link bet"een arbitrariness and absurdity of sufferin$ on the one hand, and, on the other, the absoluteness of evil =vil is absolute even if it is trivial *I invite+ this connection bet"een e#barrassin$ sufferin$ and "ron$ doin$ 5any untouchables too suffered due to the earthquake 5any "ho practiced untouchability #i$ht have escaped unscathed )his unintelli$ible e%cess of sufferin$ calls upon the evil as an e%planation )his is the terrain of theodicy 5odern reason does not allo" us to entertain the idea of evil as a causal a$ent 9ractice of untouachability is a hu#an "ron$ doin$ )a$ore clai#ed that #oral "ron$ doin$ can only cause #oral sufferin$ like $uilt and not earthquakes .o"ever, (andhi sa" a causal connection bet"een "ron$ doin$ and the sufferin$ caused by the natural event It is the unintelli$ibility of the sufferin$ F absence of rational e%planation F "hich confer causal po"ers on the "ron$ doin$ )o invite this connection one need not have practiced untouchability It is enou$h if one lives in a society "hich practices untouchability and is capable of e%periencin$ the irrationality of certain kinds of sufferin$ Justice can be done to e#barrassin$ and helplessness sufferin$ only by linkin$ the latter "ith a "ron$ doin$ "hich is trivial or crude < #ore palatable or serious cause could be seen as under#inin$ or trivialisin$ the $ravity of #y e#barrassin$ sufferin$ )he proposal that 7ntoucuhability is a cause of earthquake sounds crude )his crudeness is essential for the causal link "hich is #eant to initiate #oral "ork In a fa#ous story a sa$e is burnt in the hell as a punish#ent for hi# as a child torturin$ a fly < child torturin$ a fly is too trivial a cause for burnin$ so#eone in hell )he child #i$ht have indul$ed in torture as part of innocent play .ere the "ron$ doin$ is not a sufficient cause of sufferin$ .o"ever it is a sufficient e%planation of the a"k"ard and foundationless despair caused by e#barassin$ sufferin$ )his despair invites the link bet"een sufferin$ and "ron$ doin$ )his e%planation does not #ake sufferin$ intelli$ible )he e#barrassin$ connection does not e%plain the de$ree and scale of sufferin$ It calls our attention to the foundationlessness of sufferin$ It does not undo the despair &or does it furnish us "ith counterfactuals like Hhad "e been not practicin$ untouchablity, the earthquake "ould not have happenedH <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi, the link (andhi dra"s e%plores and elaborates our e#barrass#ent and prepares the $round for self purification Our #oral "ork on ourselves has to be undertaken in a "orld in "hich stron$ connections bet"een arbitrary and e#barrassin$ sufferin$, and, crude and absolute evil e%ists >uch a "orld supplies the #aterial for our ethical acts ;e cannot #ake sense of our #oral actions in ter#s of the deep causes of sufferin$ ;e need to follo" the real, non arbitrary but :superficial: connections bet"een sufferin$ and evil 7nlike #any other social refor#ers, (andhi did not search for the deeper causes of untouchability in

E
.indu reli$ion, te%ts or in the socio econo#ic conditions (andhi refused to link untouchability to the caste syste# )his "as one of the points of contention bet"een (andhi and <#bedkar 'or the latter, untouchability had its deep roots in the caste hierarchy 7ntouchability cannot be eradicated unless "e abolish the caste syste# (andhi did not favour the total abolition of caste syste# nor did he find such an abolition a necessary condition for re#ovin$ untouchability Aet us for the #o#ent keep aside (andhi0s reasons for continuin$ "ith the caste syste# ;hat is i#portant is that he did not find any necessary connection bet"een untouchability and the caste syste# 7nlike the orthodo% .indu, (andhi did not /ustify untouchability in any #anner nor did he see it as an aberration fro# the ideals "hich sustained the caste syste# )he stron$ la"F like connection he dre" bet"een "ron$ doin$ and sufferin$ did not per#it any such account of untouchability in ter#s of an avoidable $ap bet"een the ideal and the actual .e insisted that this heinous practice has no support in .indu reli$ion or .indu philosophy .ere (andhi #ade a radical #ove 'or hi# untouchability had no deep root or hidden cause < #oral pro/ect a$ainst untouchability needed no support fro# an account of such deep level causes >uch a pro/ect "ould benefit #ore fro# trackin$ the surface level causal link bet"een untouchability and natural disasters <cceptance of this link i##ediately contracts us into undertakin$ the labor of self purification =%planations of "ron$ doin$ in ter#s of its roots and deep causes have no such enablin$ potential By $ivin$ $ravity to the sin it diverts our attention to issues of retributive /ustice and punish#ent and thereby delay the co##ence#ent of actin$ on ourselves -a#achandra (andhi insists on the foundationlessness of the connection bet"een "ron$ doin$ and sufferin$ ;ron$ doin$ is not a sufficient cause for sufferin$ But the for#er is a sufficient e%planation of the latter Hin a $eneral "ay: )he instantiation of "ron$ doin$ : #ay not be vast but is absolute and sufficient to $round this deep disturbin$ #isery in reality: 13 )he #oral person is called upon to reco$nise the $roundless link bet"een absoluteness of even trivial evil and the $roundlessness of sufferin$ )his connection is both sy#bolic and #etaphysical It is sy#bolic in the sense that each of the relata illustrates the other It is #etaphysical in the sense that it is a necessary connection )he connection illustrates a Hnecessity of its o"n kindH 9eople "ho dra" these connections :do not speak about subtle and lon$ causal processJ they si#ply insist on hard connections : )his hard connection insists on necessity but this necessity does not deny the $roundlessness of e#barrassin$ sufferin$ "hich illustrates the absoluteness of even trivial "ron$ doin$ )he la" affir#s the necessity of the $roundlessness of such links -a#achandra (andhiHs interpretation of the theory of kar#a de#ands a ne" understandin$ of the ideas of la" and nature 'or (andhi/i, nature included both #atter and #ind )he la" of nature ran$es over both #ind and #atter -a#achandra (andhi proposes that such a la" "hich connects sufferin$ "ith "ron$ doin$ does not e%plain a"ay the $roundlessness of sufferin$ )his episte#olo$ical clai# about a $roundless psychoFphysical la" calls for a radical revision of the naturalist ontolo$y of nature -a#achndra (andhi offers so#e pro#isin$ but preli#inary su$$estions to"ards an understandin$ of the la" of nature "hich does not accept the naturalist ontolo$y of nature as a sea#less totality <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi, the a"k"ardness "e feel about sufferin$ has its root in our i$norance or inability to #ake sense of the event )his is not #erely an episte#olo$ical deficiency )his inability has its source in our finite nature >ufferin$ #akes us question the naturalness of nature =#barrassin$ sufferin$ is not natural It does not follo" :naturally: fro# anythin$ <lso, the e#barrass#ent of sufferin$ could :unnaturally: e%ceed the pain >ufferin$ involves selfFdoubt )he question H"hy #e?H acco#panies sufferin$ >elf Cdoubtin$ is a #anifestation of our ontolo$ical finitude Koubt is not a te#porary interlude "hich thinkin$ "ill $et over in its #arch to"ards certainty >kepticis# uses doubt as a fortunate occurrence upon "hich "e can elaborate a positive practice of thinkin$ ;e should ask an ontolo$ical question here1 ho" could there be a doubtin$, e#barrassin$, sufferin$ bein$ in the order of Bein$? >elf doubt is destructive < nature that harbors self doubt cannot be i##utable, li#itless or infinite <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi, the e%tre#e concentration of bein$ or sin$ularity for#ed in self doubt is a hole in the ever outpourin$, productive and e%pandin$ nature )his hole F inFpourin$ of bein$ F into "hich "e "ithdra" in our a"k"ard #o#ents sho"s that nature is not as sea#less as the naturalists "ould think .o"ever this ontolo$ical insi$ht does not yield any roo# for the selfFconfidence of the non naturalist in the reality of the infinite non corporeal soul <s the doubt harborin$ part of nature, our nonFcorporeality is finite 'or -a#achandra (andhi this a"k"ard co#bination of finiteness and nonFcorporeality is at the heart of the proble# of evil and e#barrassin$ sufferin$

B
(andhi clai#ed that if #atter can influence #ind then #ind could influence #atter too .e found a la"ful connection bet"een the #ental "orld of #oral considerations and the natural "orld of earthquakes Kavidson ar$ued that la"ful connection bet"een #ental and physical types is untenable 5ental concepts are ine%tricably #eshed "ith other concepts of our #eanin$ful lifeF"orld (andhi circu#vented this difficulty )he la" connects events "hich no lon$er #ake sense to us Lausal relation is established bet"een events described in a certain "ay )he la" of kar#a invites our attention fro# beneath the threshold of #eanin$ 7nnatural sufferin$ indicates the unnaturalness of nature 9resence of sufferin$, self doubt and evil rebels a$ainst the concept of nature as a totality -a#achandra (andhi ar$ues that la" of kar#a presupposes the nonFtotalisability of nature &atural la"s cannot e%plain the "hole nature because the idea of :"hole nature: is untenable &o protophysics that can secure the totality of nature in a priori #anner can e%plicate the #eanin$ of natural la" )he 2self doubtin$ I0 actualises this i#possibility of totalisation .o" can "e e%plicate the #eanin$ of natural la" "hile freein$ nature fro# the transcendental condition of bein$ a "hole? <s Dant ar$ued, it is only a finite bein$ "ho has no i##ediate access to reality in itself, needs to undertake his finite co$nitive activities under the pro/ected totality of the "orld of appearances )he la" of Dar#a by $ivin$ up this totality announces a #ore radical finitude of the kno"in$ sub/ect >elf purification is undertaken by such a radically and e#barrassin$ly finite sub/ect .o" can a finite sub/ect kno" hard connections in a nonFtotalised nature? In "hat sense are these connections necessary? <ccordin$ to .u#e, "e have no rational $rounds for attributin$ necessity to casual connections On observin$ that event < has so far been follo"ed by event B, our #ind, out of habit, for#s a belief in a necessary causal link bet"een < and B ;e have no reason to hold that causal la"s discovered by science "ould continue to operate in future .o"ever, the principle of sufficient reason states that there #ust be a reason for this "orld to be the "ay it is and not other"ise 'or .u#e there is no such reason or "e cannot co#e to kno" about such a reason .u#eHs critic "ould say that "e kno" that these la"s have been valid until date .ad there been no reason "hich $rounds this necessity and these la"s "ere arbitrary then "e "ould have had at least so#e cases "hich violated these la"s If the la"s are arbitrary, it is hi$h ti#e, this arbitrariness sho"ed up Dant0s conditional rebuttal of .u#ean skepticis# "as based on the i#possibility of thinkin$ the necessity of chance .e ar$ued that causality is necessary in so far as "e take the "orld as a totality of facts represented by a consciousness =vents can be represented only in so far as they belon$ to such a totality and stand in causal relationship "ith other events =ven to undertake .u#e0s thou$ht e%peri#ents about the Billiard balls, "e need to hold onto the constancy of balls, tables, surfaces, space etc If you are a realist about these ob/ects then you are already co##itted to the reality of #ore than #ere re$ularities In so far as "e kno" the la"s of nature, "e kno" the# as necessary Of course, "e can kno" chance but as probability Lalculation of probability de#ands that "e kno" all the possible outco#es Out of the #any possible outco#es only so#e are reali,ed ;e can represent chance as probability in so far as "e kno" the totality of all possibilities ;e have seen that accordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi the la" of Dar#a re/ects the idea of nature as a totality Dant, ar$ues that "ithout the idea of totality "e cannot #ake sense of both necessity C understood as constancy of la"s C and also chance C understood as probability )he kar#ic la" "hich connects untouchability and earthquake clai#s necessity "ithout any observable re$ularity Muintin 5eillassou% has sho"n the "ay for radicalisin$ .u#ean scepticis# re$ardin$ causal la"s by thinkin$ throu$h the necessity of chance "hile $ivin$ up the principle of sufficient reason and the idea of totality 5eillassou% distin$uishes bet"een contin$ency and chance Lhance can be calculated as probability 'or e%a#ple "e can calculate the probability of a si%Ffaced dice to land up "ith a certain face up =ach face is the actualisation of an inde%ed set of possibilities )his totalised possible contains only half cooked actualities "hich could all be realised in principle, thou$h only a fe" are actualised in reality Lontin$ency, unlike chance, is not an actulisation of a preFconceived totality of the possible It is =the property of an indexed set of cases >not of a case belonging to an indexed set? of not itself being a case of a set of sets of cases :14 5eillassou% ar$ues that contin$ency cannot be thou$ht "ithin the #etaphysics of the possible It is not a thou$ht about chan$e of beco#in$ ;e cannot think contin$ency by superi#posin$ the thou$ht about "hat actually is upon the thou$ht about the other

G
thin$ it could have been behaviour Lontin$ency is not the relative unpredictability of outco#es or future

5eillassou% ar$ues that to think about contin$ency as distinct fro# chance is to think of the possible "ithout totalisin$ over the allFpossible cases <ccordin$ to hi#, "e have t"o #eans at our disposal for deter#inin$ a universe of all possible cases F e%perience and #athe#atical construction =%perience is no use here because only a Aeibni,ian (od can survey all possible cases .o"ever, #athe#atical construction provide a ne$ative proof a$ainst the totality of all possible cases LantorHs theory sho"s that the infinity is #ultiple It is i#possible to foreclose the #ultiplicity of infinities It establishes the unclosed pluralisation of the infinite quantities ;e can see that both e%perience and #athe#atics furnishes only ne$ative proofs a$ainst the totality of all cases LantorHs theory establishes that conceivable is not necessarily totalisable 'or 5eillassou% only #athe#atics furnishes a positive instance of thinkin$ "ithout totalisation Lan the finite bein$ e%perience the possible as nonFtotalisable? I "ould clai# that the necessary connection bet"een evil and sufferin$ e%perienced by the finite bein$ is one such instance In -a#achandra (andhiHs interpretation, >elf doubt and e#barassin$ sufferin$ are instances of such an e%perience "here one #anifests the hole in the order of bein$ <ccordin$ to -a#achandra (andhi, nature is not :everythin$: in so far as there are e#barrassed or doubtin$ souls )hey are ontolo$ical cracks )hey are the sites "here the $roundlessness of bein$ sho"s up =#barrassed or doubtin$ souls announce the li#it of totality or ontolo$ical closure )he sufferin$ bein$ attests to the ontolo$ical clai# that the nature is not <ll )he natural la" sy#bolically illustrates the #etaphysical absence of such a totality .ere the la" is not a representation of a stable universe In thinkin$ the la" the finite sub/ect, sei,es contin$ency .e inhabit the possibility that la" could have been other"ise .e can sub/ect hi#self to transfor#ations "hich cannot be conceived as a chan$e bet"een representable sta$es )he #ediu# for the chancy occurrence of natural necessity is #atter or force ;hat could be the #ediu# for the necessity of chance? 5atter, ob/ect, states etc are bad candidates for this #ediu# )he only #ediu# I can think of is )ruth <s "e said contin$ency cannot be kno"n by the possible outco#es .o"ever, it is re$istered by the "ay its strikes It is its effect Its causes do not preFe%ist the effect Its causes are co#possible only post facto In this sense contin$ency as effect is absolutely pri#ary It is prior to that "hich is Only truth can clai# such an absolute pri#itivity (andhi0s insistence on the pri#acy of truth C his inversion of the (od as truth to truth as $od C encoura$es us to think in this direction Interestin$ly -a#achandra (andhi dra"s an analo$y bet"een "ron$ doin$ and lo$ical contradiction < contradiction that creeps into a for#al syste# "ill produce an e#barrass#ent so#e"here or other, sooner or later Aike"ise, "ron$ doin$ has to sho" up, so#eti#e or other, by causin$ e#barrassin$ sufferin$ )he analo$y does not lie in the fact that a contradiction "hen uncovered is an e#barrass#ent to the lo$ical syste# Instead, it indicates the si#ilarity bet"een the "ay "ron$ doin$ leads to sufferin$ and the "ay a contradiction is eventually e%posed ;e have ar$ued that the la" like relationship bet"een evil and sufferin$ affir#s the necessity of its contin$ency Koes such a relationship hold bet"een contradiction and its eventual sho"in$ up? Aa" of non contradiction is foundational for classical lo$ic <ny thin$ can be derived fro# a contradiction < sin$le contradiction entails everythin$, includin$ all other contradictions leadin$ to trivialis# If a contradiction is per#itted then no one could deny anythin$ -ational belief is closed under entail#ent and if so#eone believed a contradiction then he ou$ht to believe in everythin$ 15 In lo$ic this is kno"n as e%plosiveness 9araconsistant lo$ic avoids this by stipulatin$ a$ainst e%plosiveness It $rants specific contradictions and does not allo" the# to entail all contradictions )hese lo$icians re/ects the la" of non contradiction but accepts the la" of e%cluded #iddle 9 and notF p are both true but there are no other third possibility )he intersection bet"een true and false is not e#pty )here are three kinds of paraconsistant lo$icians )he "eak paraconsistant position sees the re/ection of the la" of non contradiction only as a tool and does not accept any real possibility of a true contradiction )he stron$ version of paraconsistancy accepts that true contradiction is a real possibility .o"ever it does not $rant that any actual contradiction is true <n e%tre#e version dialetheic C accepts true contradiction in reality )he lo$ical "orld of (andhi could be that of a stron$ paraconsistancy It does not rule out all contradictions )rue contradictions are real possibilities In the actual "orld the contradictions "ill $et e%posed )hese are contin$ent events &othin$ about the $ravity of "ron$ doin$ or the contradiction can apriori deter#ine "hen and "here they $et e%posed .itherto

9
une%a#ined and unreco$ni,ed "ron$ doin$s "ill surface in future holdin$ us $uilty ;hen that happens "e cannot "ri$$le out of the responsibility by clai#in$ that "e "ere not party to the "ron$ doin$ &or "e can reFtrace our involve#ent in the cri#e <t the level of possibility "e are at once absolutely innocent and absolutely $uilty C until the hand of fate strikes us Aet us look at the -a#achandra (andhi analo$y bet"een #eanin$less sufferin$ and the e%posure of contradiction It is not that you canHt hide a contradiction fro# all people for all the ti#e and its lo$ical necessity "ould precipitate it <s "e kno" there is no causal #echanis# "hich necessarily connects "ron$ doin$ "ith sufferin$ )he la" of kar#a can sustain the #oral "ork of a free sub/ect in so far as contin$ency rules over that la" 'or (andhi the la" connects earthquake "ith untouchabilty 'or his opponents the la" connects earthquake "ith the opposition to untouchability In both the pro/ects the respective la" could turn out to be other"ise than it is In both the cases la" is not the representation of a stability "hich e%ists out there in nature >o the possibility of either of the# co#parin$ their la" a$ainst a la" abidin$ "orld or a$ainst each otherHs la" does not arise In other "ords, both of the# "hile doin$ their #oral "ork based on their respective la"s "ouldnHt encounter a "orld in "hich real contradiction e%ists

agore @abindranath! Selecte Letters of !a"in ranath Ta#ore! ed. Krishna "utta and 5ndrew @obinson! 7ambridge Aniversity Bress! 7ambridge! 'CC7! p DED
8

+abyasachi 1hattacharya $ The %ahatma an the Poet& Letters an Debates bet'een (an hi an Ta#ore& )*)+, )*-)$ *ational 1ook rust! *ew "elhi! 'CC7! p 'FG.
3 4

Ibid p 'H(

2dgar +. 1rightman! he Lisbon 2arthquake& 5 +tudy in @eligious Ialuation! The American .ournal of Theolo#/! Iol. JE! *o. D >4ct.! 'C'C?! pp. F((<F'G
5 E

Ibid p D

Leibni)! Theo ic/! rans 2.0. Huggard! 1iblio1a)aar! 7harleston! +outh 7arolina! J((7! p 'D'<'DJ. 5lso quoted in 1rightman! 2dgar +. 5 he Lisbon 2arthquake& 5 +tudy of @eligious Ialuation! 5merican 8ournal of heology! JE&FF(< F'G. 'C'C. B Iolatire! Boem 4n he Lisbon "isaster9 4r 5n 2xamination 4f he 5xiom. =5ll is :ell=. in Toleration an other essa/s b/ 0oltaire$ translate b/ .oseph %c1abe$ http&22en.'i3isource.or#2'i3i2Toleration4an 4other4essa/s2Poem4on4the4Lisbon4Disaster
G

Candide, ou l'Optimisme >'7FC? b/ Ioltaire$ translate b/ obias +mollett$ 1hapter 5$ http&22en.'i3isource.or#2'i3i21an i e$ 9 @ousseauKs Letter to Ioltaire @egarding the Boem on the Lisbon 2arthquake! 5ugust 'G! '7FH! 8.5. Leigh! ed.! 1orrespon ence compl6te e .ean .ac7ues !ousseau! vol. D >%eneva! 'CH7?! pp. E7<F(9 translated by @. +pang. http&LLwww.indiana.eduLMenltnmtLtextsL88@NJ(letter.html
1!

Kant! History 5nd Bhysiography 4f he 0ost @emarkable 7ases 4f he 2arthquake :hich owards he 2nd 4f he Oear '7FF +hook 5 %reat Bart 4f he 2arth! in 8our ne#lecte essa/s& 8ohn @ichardsonKs '7GC<CC translations with 5 sketch of KantKs life and writings! ed. +tephen Balmquist! Bhilopsychy Bress! Hong Kong >'CCD?. http&LLwww.hkbu.edu.hkLMpppLfneLessay'.html
11 18

Kant! 7ritique of 8udgment! tran. 8.7.0eredith! PJG

@amchandra %andhi ! 2arthquake in 1ihar& he ransfiguration of Karma,! in Lan#ua#e$Tra ition an %o ern 1i"ilisation$ ed. @amchandra %andhi! IBQ Bublication F! Aniversity of Boona! Bune! 'CGE! pp. 'JF<'FE.
13 14

Ibid p 'EE

0eillassoux! Botentiality and Iirtuality! in 7ollapse & Speculati"e !ealism. 2ditor& @obin 0ackay! London& Arbanomic! J((7! p 7J
15

Briest %raham! :hat is +o 1ad 5bout 7ontradictionsR! he Law of 7ontradiction& *ew Bhilosophical 2ssays! ed. Briest %raham! 87 1eall! and 1radley 5rmour<%arb! 4xford Aniversity Bress! 4xford! J((D! p JE<EG.