HONESTY- NOT A BED OF ROSES

                                         HONESTY- NOT A BED OF ROSES

                                                                                                                               

Preamble:

If there is an item over which the country has to repent, it is the present plight of the honest in sustaining honesty. Slowly, people have succumbed to temptations of materialism in utter disregard to values. I know I am crying in wilderness. If I take shelter under “fear of non-acceptance” I would be dishonest to my conscience as much. Not for disowning dishonesty that I try to dwell on this all-important domain. I am afraid that the honest are fast dwindling in number such that they do not even hold the status of minority. They appear aberrant in the visionless eyes of the society. My calling the society visionless is a genuine rating of our people, who have taken to an imitative culture of material acquisition. Our value system has been deeply eroded with no symptom of stopping anywhere. Besides, the younger generation is bound to deteriorate because, attitudes of materialism nurture corrupt practices. When “want” rules the mind the mind does not want rules. A mind, not kept under self check would rapidly succumb to desire the undesirable; it would try justifying injustice and at last would take solace in the thought that “I am not the lone errant”. It is interesting to note that people of positive virtues prefer to stand taller, distinct and alone. But those of bad traits claim “company of numbers” and at times prefer anonymity. Obviously, materialism does not enjoy the blessings of conscience. This is one instance where people have ‘conquered’ their mind [if conscience is a part of the mind]. Truly, the evil has conquered them and it is the zenith of stupidity to imagine that wealth can command everything. Undeserved wealth can confer vanity - the first step to deterioration of culture and peace of mind.  

Origin:

Indeed it is a funny situation of trying to identify the origin, Origin of what?-Honesty or dishonesty? Honestly, it appears that we should trace dishonesty for its origin and the probable correctives there for. Being honest or otherwise is a product of desire. Desire is a product of judgment. Judgment is a synthesis derived from values. Values are based on preferences of “good”, desirability, neutrality and obeying one’s self conscience. In simple terms, honesty or dishonesty is governed by the mind. To stay honest, all the components leading to judgment should perpetually “regulate” the mind. It is a complex paradox. Honestly no one chooses to be dishonest; but only a few are truly honest.

To recognize the paradox, some analysis is essential. A cluster of processes within the mind determines the overall disposition called attitude. Attitude, in practical terms is an “arrangement” of how to go about one’s activity. It may relate to our work, social interactions, observance of protocols and adherence to codes of conduct in all activities. This “arrangement” helps our assessment of persons as “serious” or ‘relaxed’ in our perception. Based on this, “like-minded” people come together in common acceptance of one another. Much of the conditioning of our minds is seriously influenced by the attitude of “group psychology”. Being in a group, does not imply that everyone is towing the attitude of all the likeminded. Some among them are capable of independent assessment of the views of others, in determining the acceptability of suggestions. Such members “escape” from the prospect of “bad or improper conditioning” of the mind. Others who simply accept others as providing ‘guidance’ may slip into social influence even on matters of functioning in their offices. “Group influence” takes a stranglehold on decision-making and the style of ‘leading one’s life’.   Many subscribe to the concept of moving with the tide, irrespective of “right or wrong”. This attitude of moving with the popular notion implies inability to think critically. Also, they believe that the majority should be right. It is more convenience-based than conviction-guided. Repeated adoption of this methodology slowly suppresses the ability to think and analyze. Even for responding to a Questionnaire on some product assessment, these people elicit information from their “trusted” friends. The irony is, not one of them makes a clear statement on his or her own. Instead, they prefer to sit together for responding to an innocuous product–market survey, ending up in ‘conditioned’ responses that rarely serve the purpose. Such people render themselves easy preys to the whims and fancies of a select few in the garb of “collective thinking” though honestly it is a collection of the thoughtless. In the Indian scenario, the situation gets compounded by such men prevailing on their women folk to tow the particular viewpoint by suggesting that “I have consulted all my colleagues”. The lady ascribes wisdom to her husband and does not for a moment raise the question “how better are your colleagues than you?”    

         TO CONTINUE                    Prof. K. Raman