Godonomics has served us very well

It is the tradition of Jaipur Literature Festival (JLF) to conclude it with a debate. This year’s topic was “Has man replaced God?” Effectively, it meant “Does God exist?” The panellists did a wonderful job. More often than not, “knowing the known” is refreshing. They said what we already know. We all know about God’s utility. We all know that the size of God is each man’s head.
Our most distinguished speaker Richard Dawkins’ views about God are so well-known. Had he not spoken even then, we would have known what he said. God’s futility suits Dawkins quite well. He is a well-known authority on the subject. The two-and-a-half minutes allotted to him must have been quite inadequate. The bang announcing the speakers that “your time is up’ was, perhaps, louder than the big bang. Welcome Dawkins to Salman’s land. Our own Javed Akhtar’s God resides in Bollywood (or the B-town if you so like to call it). Akhtar creates or destroys God as per the demands of the greater God, the common man. The last scene Akhtar writes is often the best scene. In this scene, you will find his anti-God hero standing in front of God and telling him with so much élan and confidence (after all he is the hero) which effectively means, “By coming to you (God), I am doing you a great favour. Now, listen I have never asked anything from you. Better you listen to me and give me what I want.” More often than not, God obliges. Who says something can’t be created out of nothing. A 'red rose' arrives from somewhere. It is time for our anti-hero to become a hero. We all love Akhtar for writing such God-fearing scenes. But Akhtar writes such scenes only for films. In intellectual debates, he is anti-God. Aruna Roy too doesn't believe in God, although she says, God is a woman. Fair enough. If there can be one God as well as thirty-three crore Gods, why can’t God be a woman or man or both. Roy rightly says that for a poor woman God is ‘roti’. The poorest of the poor has known this fundamental truth for ages. Who says beggars can’t be choosers? Have you ever seen a beggar inside a temple. The beggars know what they are looking for is not available with the creator. The creator doesn’t believe in keeping hard cash. The hard cash is available with the created. One can’t argue if Swami Agnivesh (the representative of God ‘Agni’) sees God in the truth. As truth changes, his God also changes. He was recently seen in a reality show in the search for truth. What a novel way to find the truth or God if you so like? The multi-dimensional and ever youthful Suhel Seth found God in the debate itself. Being ‘young’ he seemed the most vocal, and rightly so.
While standing there (the tent was jam packed) a new word hit my mind – godonomics. The ‘godonomics’ suits not only Richard, Javed, Aruna, Agnivesh and Suhel, but all of us. God is present (or absent) where we want him/her to be. Often, we want to see God dead as well as alive in the same frame. It seems God is more dependent upon us, than we are dependent on God. We all love talking about God, and our godonomics sets the agenda. Godonomics has served us all very well since time immemorial. Had it not served us well, even Dawkins would agree, the concept would not have survived. No one knows what purpose the universe serves. JLF, don't feel bad if you don’t know what purpose the debate served. God or no God, it is serving our purpose, whatever that be, in our own way.

(The writer is a biotechnologist and ED, Birla Institute of Scientific Research, Jaipur)purnendu.ghosh@mydigitalfc.com