What is the greatest gift someone could give you?
The greatest gift involves mutual exchange; receiving demands giving in return. In relationships, whether personal or international, reciprocity is essential. Examples illustrate that treachery leads to isolation, while honesty and goodwill are indispensable. Ultimately, positive interactions require effort and nurturing, highlighting that relationships thrive on collaboration and shared responsibility.
Putting self in perspective, the answer to the question about a gift would probably be everything good and excellent. Why would one want less when the option is open? The thing that matters is what the giver receives in return.
Receiving something as a gift is tantamount to giving something in return. It is a quad pro quo situation. One should expect only when one is ready to give at least an equal number of things in return. The thing is necessarily not a material thing. It may be anything from abstract to concrete or material to immaterial.
In close-knit societies or localities, it was common practice to send some eateries, especially porridge or other sweet things, to neighbours. The neighbour would never return the empty pot. When returning the pot, it was customarily topped up with something of the same quality and quantity. It was treated as a goodwill gesture and an offer of a good relationship as well.
One can’t expect good behaviour or love unilaterally. It is like desiring to have a cordial relationship with a neighbouring country without reciprocating the goodwill gesture from the other side of the border. It is funny and unacceptable.
In the late twenties, the Indian government tried to iron out the differences with its hostile neighbours and started a bus service. Indian Prime Minister took the initiative in 1999 and travelled across the border with some dignitaries in a bus. It was termed as “Bus Diplomacy”. Instead of reciprocating the gesture, the neighbour treacherously backstabbed, trespassed about twenty kilometres inside the line of control and attacked in Kargil of Ladakh. This behaviour received international thrashing and the hostile country was pathetically isolated. Humiliated and demeaned, the foe who had attacked under the disguise of “Mujahideen” faced severe losses and the killing of their men, leaving their corpses unclaimed, and retreated unceremoniously.
Be it international, intranational or any other relationship, it is true for everyone and everywhere. Should one expect a cordial relationship by giving treachery to others? Ideally not, but considering themselves an ideal, a few audacious ones expect the best behaviour from others. If they do not get their desired treatment, they become envious and start becoming green-eyed.
A good relationship is not something that can be obtained simply by a wish. It has to be earned. It is like a seed which, when sowed in fertile soil, germinates, grows and becomes a fruiting tree when properly nurtured and taken care of. The wish for respect, trust and peaceful coexistence requires consistent hard work and readiness to accept the impending challenges that may hamper a good and cordial relationship.
The commonality in both is mutual. It is both-way traffic. In such a situation, one needs to have either a multilane road with proper provision for moving ahead and backward journeys or drive with extreme caution on a single-lane road. High-speed thrills but is dangerous. Compounded with carelessness and a casual approach, it becomes lethal as well. The prudence lies in careful driving with eyes on caution, diversions, damaged roads and rough weather. The analogy applies in daily life while dealing with people.
On the work front or in a relationship, one often encounters such a perjured person. Such person wants everything good for themselves over and above what they already have with them. They want to snatch others rights and shares as well, claiming a lion’s share from others.
VK was a simple rule-abiding employee working in a government office. One of his colleagues became close to each other, and his colleague successfully established close ties with VK. They would go to their office together as the colleague’s residence was in between the office and VK’s. His colleague would leave no opportunity to show closeness with VK, who would pick his colleague up, and both used to go together. VK could not sense the sinister and selfish mindset of his colleague.
Time passed. His colleague used to extract the most but VK was oblivious. Once their boss changed their work, assigning ostensibly less important work. The selfish one gave importance to the work of his choice. For him, work was important and unimportant. The colleague started his sinister plots to defame VK and weaken him from within and outside. The obsequious one, whose only quality was cheating and unfair manners, started adopting every slavish activity, from lodging false, anonymous complaints to traduce VK in front of superiors.
The fall out was obvious. VK was shifted from his place but his superiors knew about him and his colleague. The later faced wreath of anger and dissatisfaction of superiors and exposed thereafter.
The story speaks volumes about give and take. Here, though, the situation is slightly different. VK, the central character, is simple whose mind is not manipulative. He mentally suffered a lot but could do nothing except bear the burden of mental suffering. Later, when things became clear, his wicked colleague received what he deserved. In the meantime, the innocent one suffered for what he did not do.
Persons with dubious characters tame higher ambitions without knowing about their capabilities. They try to snatch by slavish means adopting fishy techniques to get their wish, brutally assaulting and backstabbing anyone. Relationships, friendship, and cordial relationships are mere rhetoric for them. The narcissists expect all the best things for themselves. Unhesitatingly they take a wrong or unfair means to grab things they want.
Does it imply that the phrase “Honesty is the best policy” has lost its sheen and relevance? Does simplicity not pay, and a simple person is considered fool and impractical? Probably not.
Why probably? Does it not sound negative? It does when one sees that falsehood prevails when an innocent is falsely implicated and wrongly punished and also when a simple law-abiding person fails to get his legitimate due. He may get justice but belated, and when the object loses, it’s significant for him.
“Karma” pays. It has been a catchword for ages, but do we have eternal time to wait? If not, then why not have a system which appropriately gives the wrongdoer his due in time? How can a person differentiate between genuine and spurious ones? This is where prudence comes into the picture. Yet, humans are the bundles of errors. Having a foolproof system is a far cry, but the wicked ones must get their due, and as our scriptures also say, a befitting reply to a wicked is necessary.
Before expecting good, it is, thus necessary to part with some good things to others as well. People “exchange” pleasantries, good wishes or moments of happiness. Exchange is participatory. It involves at least two persons who “mutually” take care of each other. Give and take are also mutual. Expecting one-sided good is a futile and not wise idea.
-END-
Leave a Reply