CONCEPTS, VIEWS, OPINIONS AND IDEALS

The concept of right and wrong are instilled into every person from one's childhood days. These rights and wrongs then get refined by one's perception of things. Over a period of time the perception of these things translate the views into opinions. The opinions then lay the foundation for the pride and prejudices one carries with oneself unto one's grave. Thus, the very basis of these biases lie in our attitude towards each aspect of life and translate into consequential actions formulating reactions as a chain as envisaged in the theory of karma.

Many speak eloquently about the prides and prejudices being instilled by the leaders, the media, the friends et al. It is a common adage that one can be judged by the company he keeps. Similarly, we are adept at creating terms like Gandhian, Hitlerite, Nazi, Nehruvian etc. Let us take a look at history and analyse the same.

We find that Gandhi was an unparalleled leader in the freedom movement of the country. There are many who are cited to be the principal disciples of his movement to such an extent that they would not even venture to question his wisdom on any move. They headed the league which came to be known as Gandhian. What did Gandhi represent? He represented non-violence and he represented a movement which would claim a right by passive resistance. How many of these persons would unflinchingly adhere to these concepts in domestic life as well as under all circumstances? How many of them would at least follow the same in the presence of at least their beloved leader? The analysis would reveal the selective tendencies of these very persons. As long as it was something acceptable to them, they were capable of asking another to adhere to it but if they found the same unpalatable they would flinch from adhering to it. Essentially, it was a matter of convenience for pushing oneself in a direction to take the cover of another popular person. This would to a large extent deter any criticism. They were neither students of the movement nor disciples or devotees. They had a mind of their own. The minds had to be churned in a single direction. Gandhi was able to feel the pulse and channelise the popular pulse in the popular manner for a larger part of his life. This gave him the pre-eminent position among the leaders of the day.

Take a look at Tilak. He also effortlessly channelised the movement with the help of populist diatribes in the Courts as well as blunting the machinery of law by organising celebrations for the popular God Ganesha as well as the local icon Shivaji to turn the tide in his favour. This did not mean the populace meekly took his bait. They followed him as long they felt they would do a similar thing in the given situation. If they felt otherwise, they chose to deferentially differ.

Then does it mean that these leaders were men of no stature. No that's not the case. It takes a person of mettle to identify a cause, an issue of common interest, a string that could bind the mass together to further the cause. This is what made them the leader. It is not that they influenced the mass to behave in a particular manner but found what would be the obvious way in which they would react positively if suggested.

In our school days we would have a common topic of debate as to whether movies were good or bad for the youth. If the same topic were to be tossed to me today, I would state that the movie remains the same. I relate to such views that I relish and cherish. It neither instigates or provokes me. It only binds me to my existing feeling. It cannot even be given the credit of unearthing my emotion. At best, it can only be given the credit for binding all such similar thinking persons.Unless the person has the base instinct to react violently, no movie can instil that thought in him.

There is a story of King Solomon in which he banishes a corrupt official to the seashore with a punishment to count the waves. Any normal person who was misled into this unethical practice would have been adequately humiliated and would have vowed not to resort to such practices. However, the person in question had the base instinct beyond repair. He chose to stop the boats which were sailing through and accuse them of preventing him from discharging the royal duties. Thereafter, this man goes on to seek a consideration for not reporting the "crime" to the monarch. Thus, this person who was neither inspired nor provoked resorted to baser deeds. The relating of this tale may reform a person who resorted to corrupt practices but was by nature against it. The same tale may also encourage a person to go ahead with his corrupt practices since this tale is only an excuse for his premeditated action.

To sign off, yours truly would remind you of certain ads that were placed on the then pristine Doordarshan wherein a drunkard merely finds excuses for his premeditated action of consuming liquor liberally. First its a birthday, then an anniversary, a wedding, a promotion so on that even a demise makes this noble soul hit the bottle. Is it then the crime of the bottle or the crime of the person who would find one anyway?

Folks, we need to understand that we react exactly as per our nature. Let us accept this natural truth rather than foist this upon another. Is it my view? Then please do say whether you agree or disagree !!!!!!