“When I reflect on what constitutes the subject-matter of this Chapter, my mind wells up with a host of ideas which I cannot express under the constraints of this Memoir. But before I end this Chapter, I intend to submit a piece of advice to all those crafting their trap to enmesh our democracy and smother our values. I would advise them to study our oriental culture to learn what is not taught in the American or the British institutions.
Of all the lessons which military science imparts, the most important is to understand the target well. Someone must tell those who lead the corporate imperium that in their strategy to pursue their imperius goal, they must know the countries and their people before they conspire against their interests. In World War II, Hitler had surrendered, but Japan went on carrying on war with undiminising zeal. The U.S. strategists were driven to the point of desperation, and decided to break Japan’s power using nuclear weapons. The purpose was to make that country surrender. Before taking such steps, they studied the sociopsychology and the cultural values of the Japanese people. They had feared that, if the War went on in its normal track, Japan was not likely to surrender till their last man was alive. They (mainly the U.S. War Office) commissioned “a study of the Japanese in order fully to understand what the nation was – and was not –capable of, how it might react and behave in certain circumstances. (In particular, of course – though no one was allowed to say this – the military authorities wanted to know how Japan would behave when faced with an atomic bomb, should one be prepared.” One such a study had been conducted by Ruth Benedict which was published as The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture (1946). She highlighted with perspicacity the inherent contradictions in the character of the Japanese people”:
“both aggressive and unaggressive, both militaristic and aesthetic, both insolent and polite, rigid and adaptable, submissive and resentful of being pushed around, loyal and treacherous, brave and timid, conservative and hospitable to new ways.”
They could die by the sword for a cause, but had the rich aesthetic sense to enjoy the beauty of the chrysanthemum. Highlighting Benedict’s greatest contribution, Peter Watson says:
“Her greatest contribution was to identify Japanese life as a system of interlocking obligations, from which all else stemmed. In Japanese society, she found, there is a strict hierarchy of such obligations, each with its associated way of behaving. On is the name for the obligations one receives from the world around – from the emperor, from one’s parents, from one’s teacher, all contacts in the course of a lifetime. These obligations impose on the individual a series of reciprocal duties: chu is the duty to the emperor, ko to one’s parents – and these are subsets of Gimu, debts that can only be repaid partially but for which there is no time limit.”
Assessing the bond that the Japanese had with their Emperor, the Americans felt that if the Emperor surrendered, and complied with the terms imposed, that nation would accept whatever the Emperor did. I think it was this thinking that led the U.S. to recognize the continuance of the Emperor.
Will the neoliberals study the values and the mores of our oriental societies to realize that these societies would never accept the triumph of darkness, rather they would carry on their dharmayuddha or jehad against the sinister operations of the Instruments of Darkness.”
Shiva Kant Jha, ON THE LOOM OF TIME, Portrait of My Life and Times pp. 438- 439