SOME PEOPLE -III

 Some people -III

The nagging brand:

People of this version are basically duty-conscious and demanding that their duty-conscience be recognized and acknowledged by all. Being conscious of their duties they are also thorough with the provisions of rules governing the work. They do their jobs well with a self-styled notion that others are not as good. There is a clear degree of self aggrandizement in them. Their state of awareness for the provisions of law is simultaneously good and bad. Such people are fond of “officializing” issues by serving a notice on the authority through proper channel, calling for an official solution to a problem that is neither official nor permanent, like a tentative change of venue. They would all the time keep telling the authority that “I do not mind the dislocation while,

“I still prefer “your” committed statement on this”. They would try to establish their credentials for perfection, recalling how they gave a similar letter on 23-09-1988, to the then authority, still awaiting a reply. Obviously, their intention is not to get a solution but to reiterate their claims of perfection and unfading memory. They are mothers- in -law in their own right [irrespective of their gender] to use an Indian expression for vividity. People who generally nag any one should remember they are rated as casual nuisance.

The versions of characters presented are not the only ones in our ambience. There are more forms and varieties. Another brand is the “Petitioner-Anonymous” to be called PA for brevity. Very rarely they achieve anything. Yet, they take upon themselves a mission of making petitions. Too often, authorities “know” the author. If not, the author’s confidants make it clear to the authorities. If someone desires setting anything right, the best course open is to meet the authorities and apprise them of why a specific solution is sought. I am more than confident that agencies do respond to sensible suggestions, if they are convinced of the honesty behind a suggestion.  PAs create the impression of their being cowards and spineless, taking shelter under anonymity. Even if the utterance has truth, anonymity is the easiest technique of tarnishing the veracity of the statement. On the contrary, any statement owned by a person suggests both honesty and conviction. Except on matters of bomb scare and malpractices in examinations, all anonymous petitions and their authors [or at least the suspected authors] evoke a permanent sense of contempt, quickly ending up in the dust bin. The content of such letters, the references to sequences of events on an issue faithfully betray the anonymity. Besides, the author[s] can be easily “spotted” from the way they go about suggesting the “arrival” of the petition. How can an unconnected person ‘detect’ from unopened mails the floated petition, except by very authorship? Quite often they have been unfailingly spotted. All of them [detected] have received only scant respect from the powers that be as mere scandal mongers. Even some issues have been neglected because of the authorship suspected or detected. Anonymous petitioners are not anonymous as their identity is clear from the sides they take on an issue, the instances quoted and the characteristic defects in usages in the petition. The authorities to whom they ‘claim’ to have posted letters literally “expose” the author[s]. Such authors do not avoid the temptation of verifying the fate of the petition which confirms the authorship.

Other than sensation, anonymous petition [ers] do not to bring about any correction. Once known for making anonymous petition, a person has to carry the tag of a ‘third rate character’ for the rest of the life. In the larger interests of any system, such persons should not be shown any importance.

Each human character is educative in value, so long as we stay free from their influence and learn to “read” them. Yet, we have to sustain equanimity and avoid ill-treating them. To read a “character” one has to detach self from the emotional perceptions that associate with an issue. Besides, neutral disposition helps us to gather differing views on a subject for the sheer necessity of “total information”. Without total information, it is not ideal to arrive at conclusions. At least for the sake of our taking honest decisions, we should cultivate tolerance of all “characters” irrespective of their [f]utility..

To continue                                Prof K. Raman