FIFA 2022 Final and Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam

Abstract: This post on FIFA 2022 World Cup Final between Argentina and France (or, Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé, respectively) is a continuation of my curiosity on  Pānini’s conflict resolution rule, Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam, beyond Sanskrit grammar, contextualized through the adage, "Let the best one win." We now look forward to Hockey World Cup 2023, and welcome 2023, the International Year of Millets. 

“Let the best one win,” is a powerful adage, a wishful one, as it may not always turn out to be true. However, this adage seems to have been echoed by many football lovers after the final match between Argentina and France in the FIFA World Cup 2022 suggesting that in their view the best team did indeed win.

In this post, in sync with the adage, I will touch upon the ups and downs of that match through the lay reading of Pānini’s celebrated conflict resolution rule “In conflict the stronger (or, better) one prevails,” Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam. This draws from a recent post of mine wherein I had indicated that the lay reading renders the rule for wider application beyond Sanskrit grammar. I had also  indicated there how the lay reading of the rule resonates with Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman, John Rawls’ veil in an original position, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator. In the spirit of that wider application, we now get back to that final match.  

Supporters of Argentina and France would have wanted their teams to win. The fan following of Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappé would have wanted their idols to be in the winning side. There, however, was an undercurrent of support for Messi, as this would perhaps be his last World Cup and that his caliber as a player has been borne out by the fact that till that final match, he had been in the winning squad of all major football tournaments. In the last four years, Mbappé has also created a fan following of his own since his performance in the 2018 edition of the World Cup that France won, and he has been going from strength-to-strength thereafter.

When the 2022 FIFA final match between Argentina and France began many, so-called neutral supporters (perhaps talismanic, in a veil, and impartial spectators), wanted Argentina to win so that Messi can be part of the winning squad and will have in his repertoire the one Cup that is missing, and they also wanted Mbappé to score at least a goal. It was very much possible that Argentina would have won without Mbappé or his team scoring a goal, or for Argentina to have lost. Given the two competing wishes, it is only after the match that one could know which of these got fulfilled and who of the two teams was better and whether the better team won.

As the match progressed, Argentina and Messi were doing well. They were 2-0 up with Messi having scored one and assisted the other. But, Mbappé had not scored. He fulfills  the neutral supporters wish and around the 80^th minute scores a goal. Hold on, within another minute or so, he goes beyond that and scores another goal. With Mbappé’s two back-to-back goals, France was level with Argentina and by the end of regular time the score line read 2-2.

Now, with the match going into extra time, the neutral supporters wanted Messi to show his magic and were all delighted when he does that by scoring another goal with Argentina now leading again at 3-2. With this, our neutral supporters were somewhere feeling a little let down for Mbappé but this does not last long as he scores again, a hat-trick in a Wrold Cup final, and France levels the score again with Argentina at 3-3 at the end of extra time. With no clear winners, the match goes to penalty kicks.

Mbappé and Messi score their respective penalty goals. France misses out the second and third one with a good save by Damián Martínez the Argentine goalkeeper, but scores their fourth, while Argentina players, after Messi, score their subsequent three and go on to win the World Cup 2022 with the penalty kicks score reading 4-2.

Some non-connoisseur's of the game would suggest what was this ado all about, they could have started with the penalty kicks and decided the match. No, that cannot be. The beauty of the game lies in the the laws of the game along with the ups and downs and the upheavals therein. If there is no decision after the regular time of 90 minutes then the match goes to extra time, and if there is still no decision after the extra time of 30 minutes then the match goes to penalty kicks.

The application of the laws of the game for determining the outcome of a match follows  a sequence, which, in a convoluted sense, seems to support Vipratisidhe Param Kāryam. No decision at the end of a stage of the match (that is, end of regular or extra time) indicates that at the end of that stage the two teams continue to be of equal strength (vipratisidhe) and this requires that the progress of the match to the next or subsequent stage (param) be brought into action or invoked (kāryam). Further, as the match progresses to kicks from the penalty mark the penalty kicks can go on ad infinitum till a decision on the winner is reached.  

To get back to our adage, the best team won, Argentina won the Cup in the penalty shoot out. But, our neutral supporters got more, Messi gets the golden ball as the best player of the championship including his goals and assists (see all goals by Argentina in the World Cup), Mbappé gets the golden boot as the maximum goal scorer in the tournament, and Martínez gets the golden glove as the best goalkeeper of the competition.

There was no decision to be made by our neutral supporters, but in their personal emotional space they felt vindicated and it is this that supports our lay reading of Vipratisidhe Parama Kāryam beyond Sanskrit grammar. The feeling by our neutral supporters also seems to resonate Gandhi’s talisman, Rawls’ veil in an original position and Smith’s impartial spectator. What more would they want. The laws of the game to decide a winner in a World Cup final match also seems to, in a convoluted sense, fall in line with Pānini’s conflict resolution rule. It has been a win-win for all. 

Now, we look forward to the Hockey World Cup 2023 that is to take place in Bhubaneswar and Rourkela of Odisha, India in January 2023. Wishing you well-being and happiness for 2023, the International Year of Millets.

[I reiterate of having no knowledge of Sanskrit, as indicated in my pervious post. This is just a continuation of my curiosity of Pānini’s conflict resolution rule, in my lay understanding, beyond Sanskrit grammar. My apologies to Sanskrit grammarians and football aficionados.]

© Srijit Mishra

CC BY-SA

-x-o-x-

Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond

Rishi on Pānini’s Vipratisedhe Param Kāryam and Beyond 

Srijit Mishra

28 December 2022

Abstract

The post provides a generic interpretation and a lay reading of Rishi Rajpopat’s interpretation of Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryam for conflict resolution. This opens up possibilities for the application of this metarule beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy, John Rawls’ veil in the original position as an aid in his political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator in his moral philosophy.

Keywords:   Adam Smith, Aṣṭādhyāyī, John Rawls, Kāryam, Mahatma Gandhi, moral philosophy, Pānini, param, political philosophy,  Sanskrit, social philosophy,  vipratisedhe.

 

The Context 

Rishi Rajpopat’s doctoral thesis In Pāṇini We Trust: Discovering the Algorithm for Rule Conflict Resolution in the Aṣṭādhyāyī  addresses an important problem for conflict resolution. Pānini’s celebrated Aṣṭādhyāyī on Sanskrit grammar has only one metarule for that, 1.4.2, vipratisedhe param kāryam, “if there are two conflicting rules, the subsequent one prevails.” 

Conventional Interpretation

Conventionally, grammarians had suggested different approaches to conflict resolution. First, the stronger rule prevails. 

• Nitya (obligatory) is stronger than its counterpart anitya (not obligatory). An example of the latter is when the sense in a compound word can be equally expressed by the constituent parts). 

• Antaraṅga (internally conditioned), as the rule has the cause of its application embedded in another rule, the bahiraṅga (externally conditioned), making the application of the former a prerequisite for the latter and in that sense the former is the stronger one.

• Apavāda (exception) is a special rule that sets aside utsarga (the general rule) and thereby makes exception rules stronger. 

Second, if rules are of equal strength, the subsequent one in Pānini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī will prevail. However, all these also led to a host of additional metarules for umpteen exceptions. 

Rishi’s Contribution

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution is in three parts. First, it classifies whether the conflict (that is, application of two rules) is for the same operand or for different operands. 

Second, in the case of a single operand, it develops a method to identify the specific rules. This would further aid in the application of the exception rules, as being specific gives greater clarity. 

And, third, in the case of two different operands, it provides a novel interpretation wherein param in the metarule means the rule that should apply to the subsequent one or the next one from the two operands (say, the rule that is applicable to the latter of the two independent words that aid the formation of a new compound word). Here, I use the subsequent one and not the one that will come to the right-hand side, as indicated by Rishi Rajpopat, because the subsequent one is generic and should hold for people who learn Sanskrit in a script where the writing is not from left to right (while recognizing the limits of the usage because of the script) or even for those who learn (or, have learnt)  Sanskrit largely through an oral tradition.  Independent of this generic usage, this novel interpretation has solved a long-standing puzzle and opens up the logical structure of Sanskrit grammar for wider application.  

A Lay Reading

A lay reading of the metarule could imply that “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This presumes that param (or, parama) means the stronger one or the better one or the best. Such a reading is different from the perspective provided by the Sanskrit grammarians and leaves room for interpretation on what one means by ‘the stronger one’. This reading would be counterproductive as it does away with the clarity involved in interpreting param as the subsequent one or the next one (either in the sequence of rules in the conventional interpretation or in the sequence of operands in the novel interpretation). Nevertheless, we go ahead with this usage as, in our view, it subsumes different aspects of the conventional interpretation as also Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution and also opens up the metarule to a wider application.

In the conventional interpretation, by default, the stronger rules such as nitya, antaraṅga, and apavāda prevail over their corresponding weaker rules anitya, bahiraṅga, and utsarga, respectively. Only when the two rules in conflict are of equal strength then the one that comes later in the Aṣṭādhyāyī is considered to prevail. This interpretation draws from an implicit understanding that in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the sequencing of the rules is from the simpler to the complex ones. And, thereby, making the rules that come later in the sequence in the Aṣṭādhyāyī the stronger ones, albeit the exceptions.      

Rishi Rajpopat’s contribution suggests two things. One is the identification and application of specific rules as exceptions in case of the conflict in a single operand. And, the other is the one that applies to the subsequent operand in case of conflict between two operands. Thus, in case of conflict in a single operand the exception rule prevails and is the stronger one while in case of conflict between two operands the one that applies to the subsequent operand prevails and is the stronger one. 

   

Beyond grammar: Gandhi, Rawls and Smith

The lay reading is subjective to what one considers as param or, more specifically in our lay reading to what one considers to be stronger or better.  However, this lay reading opens up the application of the metarule beyond grammar, including for decision-making in other situations of conflict.

For instance, Mahatma Gandhi’s invoking of the talisman, John Rawls’ recourse to be under a veil in an original position, or Adam Smith’s reliance on the impartial spectator are the basis to guide decision-making to resolve some conflict. Gandhi’s is a powerful social philosophy for the individual to rely on thyself to resolve a conflict in one’s own mind when in doubt, Rawls’ is a transcendental political philosophy that requires a democratic ethos with identities under wrap to move forward in a reasonably plural world, and Smith’s is a moral philosophy where an individual falls back on thy conscience by being in the shoes of an impartial spectator.

Getting back to Pānini’s metarule on conflict resolution, one sees that the param kāryam (that is, the stronger one or better one prevails) in Gandhi’s talisman is a reliance on  thyself (one’s own conscience), in Rawls’ veil in an original position is the focus on the democratic ethos with individual identities being under wrap (the free and equal citizens deciding for themselves while being blind to their own identities or self-interest), and in Smith’s impartiality is in identifying thy conscience by putting on the hat of independent and disinterested persons (being open to other perspectives to help visualize propriety in the larger social space).

Conclusion

A novel interpretation of  Pānini’s metarule vipratisedhe param kāryamIn by Rishi Rajpopat  has opened it up for wider application. It is in this spirit that we have suggested a generic interpretation followed by a lay reading of the metarule, “if there are two conflicting rules, the stronger one prevails.” This lay reading is not for usage in Sanskrit grammar. Nevertheless, this lay reading, in our opinion, subsumes the conventional and new contributions on the interpretation of the metarule. It also opens up the lay reading to applications beyond Sanskrit grammar. For instance, in understanding some specific rules that aid decision-making to deal with conflict resolution by thinkers like Mahatma Gandhi’s talisman in his social philosophy for an individual in doubt, John Rawls’ veil in an original position with a set of other fundamental ideas leading to his principles of justice as a political philosophy, and Adam Smith’s impartial spectator that aids his moral philosophy.

Acknowledgements

At the outset, I must state that I have no knowledge of Sanskrit, less so of its grammar. My limited understanding is in having heard some recitation and their interpretation as a proximate illiterate.  This note is out of my curiosity, as I was intrigued by the recent discovery that has aided a long-standing puzzle in Sanskrit grammar. I am thankful to PK Viswanathan and through him Br Achutamrita Chaitanya for helping me in my understanding of the word param (परम्), and how it is different from parama (परम), and the metarule.

© Srijit Mishra

CC BY-SA

-x-o-x-