HONESTY NOT A ..... II

 Honesty not a bed of Roses   II

The suggestion looks a little far fetched in the sense that the man should have prima-facie assessed it himself. Instead, he considers his friends wise, though they are otherwise. There is more conceding than considering judgments. Unfounded notions get planted in the minds of people who can not think. Much of the communal disharmony can be traced to this “succumbing to notions”. Yet another fall out of this behaviour is the inability of persons to cross the geographical boundaries of a region. For many, seeking jobs in other regions of the country looks a formidable task because, for daily living they require a circle of friends for counseling. Ironically they arrive at a decision by a common understanding than by analysis. This is quite evident from the voting pattern in elections of any magnitude. What I intend looking at is, the way people get guided by someone else’s thought. In the process several inadequacies come into play.            

Inadequacies:

The most fundamental component of inadequacy is the lack of genuine enthusiasm to think and analyze issues on the strength of facts. Consequently, taking opinion from others looks an easier and convenient proposition. So long as consultations are with better thinkers, the idea is healthy. But, often the counseling is among the equally competent, with no prospect of any superior opinion emerging. Most of them believe that it is wiser to take a collective opinion for a decision. Such of those who are not confident of analytical thinking, imagine that they can ‘jointly’ think. A general observation in all such sessions is most of them are silent in the belief that silence signifies thinking. A few of them invariably identify a common enemy. Then they suggest a “Safe Strategy” that would keep the enemy at bay. None ever raises the veracity of the claim, because they are under the grip of “conditioned thinking”. The purported enemy and the strategy have no logical link. Yet, all agree to the suggestion, because all are gripped by the thought of the enemy. With so many on their ranks, they need not fear the enemy. They are mentally overwhelmed by the “faith” that the enemy can think. This is the line they adopt for their strategy of survival. Is it necessary at all in a democracy? For the ones who can think, it all looks childish. Except in trade union situations, collective working does not help much, since it will be hard to extricate one’s self from group psychology.  Some who have a slightly different preference have real tough time, not being able to sail or segregate by an open deviation.   

Outcome:

Having been brought under “conditioned” thinking, they compare their position as against those of their “opponents”. Truly there are no opponents. Yet, the prospect looms large, effectively keeping them together. They function as a group, having forfeited their individuality. Over a time, they fall to a set pattern of activity, meeting in a common place, discussing their financial positions and varied options of borrowing and such other items relating to personal prosperity. This is about the time that, they realize the apparent prosperity of corrupt officials and their bosses. They come to believe that given the conditions of work and pay, prosperity is a distant dream. Conditioned thinking results in the popular belief that prosperity means property. As a clan, they have lost sight of values, good, bad and the prospect of nemesis. Unwilling to analyze, they tend to assess things based on appearance of persons and their glossy life in comfort. They go only by desire and not the desirability. Honesty and adherence to values can not help material comfort. Honesty involves hard labour with only mental rewards. These are the common notions which favour tendencies of dishonesty. People who have taken to the deviant path of material acquisition would not admit of their being dishonest. Instead, they cite examples of others who are prosperous. They would raise the funny bogey of argument that “we are not earning without working”. Strictly speaking, for the “work” that any person does in official capacity, wages are given as required by provisions of law. The contention of “earning for the work done” can not hold water. But, the commonality of this errant behaviour has come in handy for defending the social malady.  The irony is the very same people feel cheated if some other public servant seeks gratification for obliging their urgency. Now, the philosophy of “earning by working” is not applicable to others. Any corrupt practice has a chain reaction. It tends to percolate down, water down the quality, besides harassing the economically weaker. All the theory of social justice and the concern for the downtrodden has no place while seeking gratification. Cruelty and humiliation are heaped on those who are ‘unable’ to oblige. Look at the shambles we are in, causing misery to our own people by blind efforts of material acquisition.

TO CONTINUE                    Prof. K. Raman