Author's note: This is a series of 7 articles written during the Delhi Rape case period. The focus is on the nature of change, our understanding of the law, the system and how real change happens. It is strongly recommended to read them in serial order starting with the first one here, lest they seem too abstract and philosophical.
- What part of reality am I ignoring, refusing to understand(NOT 'agree' with) - no matter how ugly, or downright wrong it is? If it is REAL, it deserves to be understood. If our understanding is partial, the solution will be partial. The unattended parts will eventually grow and come back to haunt us.
- Does my solution seek to integrate the entire reality, or simply try to 'censor out' the uncomfortable parts - through killing, scaring, intimidating? If it's the latter, I am just deluding myself. It is impossible. It might work for the minority, or in the short term. It's like hiding the ugly sapling under a cloak. But reality keeps growing, regardless of our preferences and will emerge eventually - and will be much stronger by then.
- Before I attempt to change reality, does my solution seek to understand reality as it IS right NOW(considering the people, system, costs, taxes, corruption, leaders, culture, diversity, biases, poverty, lack of education, personal feuds, level of passion, engagement, apathy, interest), or simply state on how it SHOULD BE, no matter how low or minimal these standards are? If the starting point is not in the PRESENT, we can never start. Only scream that we SHOULD.
- Do I ask 'What is right?' or 'What is true?'. Rightness is subjective, conceptual and hence static, unchanging. It is easy to get attached to my own concepts, 'fight' for it. Because if 'I AM Right', being wrong would mean that I dying. The inquiry becomes a battle. If I am seeking the truth, being wrong would mean seeing what I hold as 'false'. I would happily let it die. So that the new me can live. There is no 'threat'. The inquiry becomes a 'team investigation' rather than a contest. This realization is helpful when we challenge and analyze our core beliefs, practices. It allows us to keep asking 'Why?'. To treat 'wrongs' as an outcome, rather than a cause.
- Am I blaming the 'system'? Do I realize that the system is just an ugly concept that I think I can dissociate from? Do I see that the system is not just the government - but the sum total of the people who run it, who created it, who use it, the way in which they use it, who change it, who refuse to change it, who leave it, their actions, their thoughts. MY 'concept' of the system is the RESULT of this complicated inter-relationship. My REACTION to this concept, along with others' is playing a role right now, on what this system will become NEXT. I am both - the cause and the result. I think I can blame it, that I can dissociate from it - because I do not SEE this oneness. My vision is not big enough to see the entire system. But that does not mean I am not a part of it. So what I do right NOW, at THIS moment, every moment becomes supremely important. Suddenly, blame gives way to a sense of great responsibility. An easier way to understand, is the response of young children to their family environment. The world might be much bigger, parents might come in a million shades - but for the children, the parents ARE the only world they have. That is their 'world view'. The responses they cultivate in response to their parents, are the only responses they know in dealing with the world. But since these responses are limited, the world they can create by their actions is also limited. Almost similar, with a little difference. This world they are creating right now, will be the one pass on to their children. They are the cause and the product of the world.
- Do my 'laws' consider the beliefs of the enforcers(whats true vs Whats right)? The swiftness of justice is directly correlated to their degree of belief in the laws.
- Do I ask 'WHO is wrong?' or 'WHAT is wrong?'. It can lead to either an argument or an intelligent discussion
What you are saying is true in idealistic and philosophical stream of thought. But majority of people in any society never have intellectual depth or reflective nature to think deeply at the problems facing the entire society. That will never happen and has never happened. The change is brought about by people who has vision, intellectual depth and leadership along with action to channelize the energy or resentment floating around at the moment.Whenever change has happened in society civil war, american revolution, french revolution, hitler rise (for worse), world war they were brought by group of people who had all the qualities. There is no one at present and there never was in history at least after independence. That truly is sad. I don't think change can be brought by individual thinking deeply and becoming honest. Ideally it should be that way but it won't be.
ReplyDeleteHey JG, Your reply has too many facts in it to just explain away in a comment response. Merits an entire article, because I am sure that's exactly what many people think. "It's true, but not for a society like ours".
ReplyDeleteThe point is: It's TRUE. period. It's a FACT. Has nothing to do with, how many 'agree' with it, or if their interpretations differ. Or if they have the intellectual depth, deep thoughts etc. I might be color blind, thats a sad reality. But does not mean a rose stops being red or grass stops being green.
Until I come back, I would like to request you to go through http://understandnchange.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/changing-the-system-a-metaphorical-story/
Some more food for thought:
- What is 'obvious' for you might not be for many. 'Nuke Pakistan', 'Kill all politicians' is a very REAL and useful solution for MANY people. They think we just don't have the balls to do it. Does that mean you have had to think deeply over that solution, and then conclude that it does not make sense? You have 'seen' certain truths already, or they were always obvious to you. You did not 'graduate' to them.
- If this crowd reaches a critical mass: huge anger, blame, unable to look at themselves, unable to take responsibility...the vacuum allows the rise of an opportunist, not a leader. Hitler, communal politics is about opportunism. There will be a big 'impact' depending on the number of people to whom the idea appeals. But there is nothing 'new' being offered. Just someone who says "Yes, YOU are right. Its not YOUR fault. It's THEIRS. I agree with you. I will help JUSTIFY your blame" What follows is not change, but conformance to another EXISTING idea over the current existing one.
So would the 'intellectually challenged' people have to scale up before true change happens? NO!!! Will try to explain in my next article. But do read the article i suggested. The idea is to 'expand' my meaning of 'we'..and it starts with ME.