The ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’

                   The ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’

Our times have witnessed some expressions that have been accepted as ‘welcome’ was reference features. One such accepted term has been the ‘haves’ as against the ‘have-nots’. The phrase ‘haves’ implies those who are economically prosperous or financially well off; so, logically the ‘have-nots’ are economically weak and financially poor.  Such a definition slowly resulted in a neo-order in the social context. Thus, the ‘haves’ have been viewed as dominant, imposing and depriving all others of their legitimate share in education, employment , opportunities and other social processes of wedding , business partnerships and so on. Parallel changes resulted in ‘have-nots’ receiving greater care and instant attention, whenever they came under distress from disorders of climate or loss of life from any form of apathy. Political pundits deem the ‘have-nots’ as potential volcanoes which can explode, setting off electoral debacle for those in power; the ‘haves’ cannot bring down a political dispensation, as they do not cause a ripple to any political arrangement. On the contrary, all political outfits   carry their begging bowls on and off to the ‘haves’ and the latter merely oblige, lest should come under harassment and humiliation of different dimensions. I do not wish to portray the ‘haves’ as a body of the virtuous. But, they cannot carry any fight against the establishment. Thus, the ‘have-nots’ and ‘haves’ are truly different in achieving their ends. Truly we notice occasions turning   ‘have-nots’ into ‘haves’ in being vociferous for dealing with the authorities.

Another expression that frequently floats from speeches is “Be positive” and “don’t be negative”. It is easy to tender such verbal advice with utter disregard to the other man’s true predicament. But many take delight offering vague and hollow expressions of advice – as above. How often staying positive helps is a matter for genuine concern. Also people wish to be ‘negative’ and not ‘positive’ under the Covid pandemic.  Equally, corona demands our being ‘have-nots’ instead of ‘haves’. Who would prefer + state for self for corona? So, all expressions need to be carefully weighed for the context of their utterance.              Prof. K. Raman