Everyday the world moves forward, at its own varying pace, justifying the survival of humankind on this planet. Although, ‘progress’ is matter of dispute, there can be no doubt that evolution of the human has been consistent according to his needs and his conditions. The rise and fall of civilizations has continued over the ages but its how varied these cultures have been that have caught attention. Whilst some roamed the forests hunting prey, others marched on the paths of materialistic, spiritual and intellectual growth setting new standards of human life.

This piece is not a discussion on human history or archaeology. I’ll with my own limited vision try to look into basic human instincts and see if there is some underlying isometry. Aeons ago, all human kind did was work exactly on the principle of survival of the fittest. He formed groups and developed organized skills for hunting down food whilst the fair sex stayed behind guarding the caves and watching the children grow up. And, thus began his quest for making order out of chaos. Organizing, procreating and innovating, the human race rapidly inched forward. And thus evolved his brain.

But when this happened in different corners of the world, was the “inching forward” similar? I guess its not easy to answer. Whilst being in his primitive state, his instincts and needs were similar to animals – hunger, sleep, procreation. But, fast forwarding to 21st Century, does this symmetry, more or less, still exist, albeit, in the “more sophisticated human”?

I am neither talking about architecture and political sciences nor am I referring to religion and arts. Its the basic human within. Has he remained unchanged? Although the above factors too can be yardsticks of comparison, but that is very unrealistic and short-sighted. Yet, Salman Rushdie, during his research for ‘The Enchantress of Florence‘, on drawing contrasts between Machiavelli’s Florence and Akbar’s Fatehpur Sikri says,

“This may be a curse on the human race. Not that we are so different from one another, but that we are so alike”

Albeit his comparison hovered around the activities of the court, the personal lives of its rulers and how the social strata was formed and slithered on.

Even Jawaharlal Nehru in his essay ‘Materialism’ (The Discovery of India) in drawing comparisons between Ancient India and Greece says that both are

“so different in many ways, have so much in common that I am led to believe that their background of life was very much similar”.

Speaking of say a typical American and a hardcore Indian, there will be scores of cultural, linguistic, ethnic,intellectual, political and other differences, yet they join hands and stand united against terrorism, against the environment crisis and all that forms a part of the ‘undefined book of human laws’ that stand valid no matter what.

The major public may just be a mute spectator, with not much understanding or a role in moving the world, yet the core ‘uncomplicated’ beliefs are in agreement. The ‘perceived truth’ may be twisted or murdered in the eyes of the public, but if this can be done to the majority, definitely there runs some deep waters of congruence.

After all, what is reality anyway? Nothing but a collective hunch. – Lily Tomlin

The collective hunch is just a perception. And, no matter, how much it is distorted, it straightens out sooner or later. Or so, I think.

> Siddhartha

P.S.: Please post your viewpoints too. I believe this article is flawed with not much thought given over.