What public figure do you disagree with the most?
The discussion centres on the challenge of identifying an “ideal” public figure in a diverse world, highlighting that no individual can satisfy everyone. It contrasts leaders and followers, noting that the latter are often emotionally attached to their ideologies, leading to blind loyalty. The text critiques godmen who exploit followers’ dissatisfaction without genuinely addressing their spiritual needs. It encourages questioning and critical thinking, as exemplified by Buddha, to seek truth rather than blindly accept authority. Ultimately, it advocates for balanced judgment of public figures, emphasising that both merits and shortcomings should be considered, while acknowledging that absolute ideals are unattainable.
Table of contents
Key Takeaways
- Identifying an ideal public figure is challenging due to diverse opinions and expectations in society.
- Followers often exhibit blind loyalty to leaders and ideologies, hindering critical thinking.
- Godmen often exploit followers’ search for solace without addressing their spiritual needs, accumulating wealth instead.
- Balanced judgment is necessary; individuals should be assessed on both merits and shortcomings.
- The pursuit of an absolute ideal is futile; embracing complexity leads to a more harmonious life.
Searching for an ideal
It is difficult to think of a world free from ailments or anything that one doesn’t like. In a vast world with millions of different people, longing for a person or two as an ideal is daunting and impossible. With such varied and different individuals having different mindsets, likes and dislikes, pinpointing any individual as an ideal who fits everyone’s expectations is impractical. It is like searching for a needle in a haystack. None can satisfy every individual. At the same time, dissatisfied ones grumble and complain.
Leaders and followers
Respect is earned, it is not a prerogative of anyone. Popular or famous people command respect for various reasons. The popularity is like walking on a tight rope. A public figure is always under the watchful eyes of public. Their deeds are always under examin. The people who decide about their qualities.
Leaders
One of the qualities is leadership. It pushes a person to help others in duress. They inharently take lead and come foreward. The latent quality of leadership germinates when it gets a congenial atmosphere and proper guidance.
Followers
Some are, though not good as a leader, but are good followers. They remain loyal to a person, organisation, system, or ideology and stick to them. The emotional attachment to an ideology, group, party or organisation, hinders them from seeing the other aspect of the coin. Followers increase the number and function as the manpower of their leader/ideology they follow, and help their leaders to mould mass opinion.
Ardent admirers
The two broad categories of people discussed above are the basic divisions of society. The people of the latter category are mostly gullible and are easily influenced. Those who are ardent followers (or cult followers) are under the influence, tend to idealise their leaders/ideology or things they believe. The person whom cult followers believe acquires a size larger than life, sometimes akin to God. The cult followers swarm around godmen without application of prudence or logic.
Godmen and cupidity
Despite commanding large fan followings, the godmen generally do not actively join in social causes like the eradication of social evils. For most of them, it becomes a source of earning. Their followers never ask questions, and those who ask are demeaned. The wealth they accumulate generally leads to an unpleasant fight for the seat after their demise. Acrimonious infights that sporadically erupt and hit headlines harm the broader cause of faith. (Outlook)
Craving for solace
The popularity and wealth of godmen are not difficult to understand. One key reason is the dissatisfaction many people feel in their lives, often compounded by the complexities of relationships. In their search for solace, individuals who are ostensibly seeking spiritual guidance often end up surrendering to these godmen. But does this truly fulfil their needs?
The Almighty: “Brahma”
God is invisible but omnipresent and all-powerful. It is impossible to decipher His existence and activities. What one knows or boasts to know about Him is part of what He wants to show. He has not been fully understood. Supreme soul is unseen and unknown. He doesn’t explain Himself. It becomes easy for self-imposed godmen to say in flowery language what they think of Him. In the ancient scriptures, the Supreme soul has been termed as “Brahma”. While describing Him, our scriptures say, “Neti Neti” (“Na Iti”- Not only this).
Misnomer
Someone who claims to know the secrets of the “Supreme soul” and can decipher Brahma is deceiving people. They present themself as a teacher is misleading his followers. No one knows about future happenings. The intricacies of the cosmos are ever-changing. No one can be a preacher because they themselves are seekers. So, preaching about life and death, the cycle of birth and rebirth, et cetera, is nothing more than presenting half-truths or even falsehoods. It creates a miasma of ignorance and misinformation.
Inquisitiveness, not dogma
Contrary to it, what our sagacious primogenitors taught us was not something based on imagination. Their concise and crisp thought process gave rise to principles that laid the cornerstone of philosophy. Their perception was based on logic and reasoning, tested over time. The sweetness of knowledge is due to their persistent hard work, dedication and missionary zeal. It is quite different from the “preachings” of modern-day godmen. As Bertrand Russell said, we must entertain our ideas with some measure of doubt instead of dogmatically believing one thing or another.
Believer or heretic
A heretic is closer to God than a blindfolded believer. He asks questions. The probing questions lead to conclusive and well-thought-out answers to many queries. Ironically, termed as non believer, a heretic is viewed with disdain and treated superciliously. Buddha says Appa Deepo Bhavah (Be your own light), he intends to make people inquisitive and encourages them to ask logical questions and search for the truth differently, which can apply to them. Asking questions needs to be constructive, not for the sake of questioning. In that case, it becomes haughty and a means to create the hegemony of the individual.
Cogitation in serenity
Thinking out loud can help in different ways. It suggests different perspectives on looking at a thing. Yet, this needs a salubrious and serene atmosphere to concentrate and deep dive into the sea of thoughts. Our forefathers chose a life of seclusion in the jungle near Nature. In today’s world, it is impractical. Yet, people used to visit isolated places in hills, near the bank of a river, among the clumps of trees and swinging flowers. Besides soothing the agitated mind, they give solace and food for thought necessary for understanding and finding solutions to different tricky questions. It also leads to solutions for pressing problems and ways to navigate the complexities of life.
Human cogitation
Society is a complex mix of different individuals and varieties. This is the diversification of life and thoughts that gives rise to, as Dr Radhakrishnan puts it, mental pugilism in a human context. Humans can convey their thoughts using complex brain and cognitive power. They are, thus, the unique creation of Nature. They have different and multidimensional perspectives and approaches to their issues.
Absolute is impossible
Thus, searching for an absolute ideal individual is impossible. It is not unbiased, but rather comparative and subjective. Subjectivity allows choice by comparing. Drawing a parallel line of a different length can denote the length of a previous line. It is true from a human point of view too. Individuals are tested on preset criteria. They even try to grill Lord Ram sobriquet “Maryฤdฤ Purushottam” and Lord Krishna as “Pลซrna Purushottam”.
Always under scanner
A public figure is more prone to questioning. They are always in public glare. People wish to have an ideal character but in absence of it they try to idealise a person or abstract. Politicians are an easier target than those who are not. A politician is fairly thick-skin and sometimes stubborn. It can be true to a certain extent, but not always. The politician arouses expectations with his promises. Some are met with, but most are not. This is the cause of resentment among the people who rightly scathe him. It is necessary to keep up the promises, and only possible things should be promised. Even those who work hard are subjected to crucible tests and are judged by a section of people who do not like them.
Judgemental attitude
People judge very often It is the natural outcome of the wish of having an ideal person. Though criticisers never look at them. It is intrinsic. They jump to a conclusion based on their perception and start judging a person without considering the other side of the coin. The unholy haste in judging a person is also a cause of disliking a leader, a celebrity or anyone for that matter. People draw pleasure in being critical and captious. It leads to lopsided judgment.
Scale of prudence
It is, thus, clear that an ideal person is not possible, nor is a completely bad person a possibility. Judgment needs to be balanced, considering the merits and demerits of the individual along with their qualities and ineptitude. It must be weighed on a scale of prudence before deciding about a person’s virtues or vices.
Whimsical judgements
An opinion is a personal belief and does not show the overall personality of an individual. Nevertheless, like or dislike can’t be whimsical, nor should it be based on orthodox belief. Hitler’s severe negative perception of Jews was beyond hatred, so much so that he planned and carried out the holocaust. It is absolutely unacceptable and must be rebuked in the strongest words.
Ideological difference
Liking or disliking someone due to ideological differences is natural, but it should not lead to envy, as this can also impair judgments.
Unilateral and unjustified
An example can illustrate this point. The recent unfortunate incident of carnage at Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir (India) and the stubborn perpetrator of a hostile enemy nation have brought both nations to the brink of war. Any nation has the right to retaliate in self-defence. India launched a surgical offensive on the terror outfits operating from across the borders. Instead of accepting their fault and taking measures to control it, the enemy has taken to creating a war-like situation and howling to set their narrative. This type of behaviour, whether on an individual level, collective or international level, is unilateral and not worthy of sympathetic consideration.
Liking or disliking
Agreement and disagreement are the two faces of a coin. Similarly, liking or disliking is a two-way communication of vibes. It is subjective and depends on the factor on which page we are. Two people on the same page like each other, as the saying goes, birds of the same feathers flock together. Many across the world do not like PM Narendra Modi or President Donald Trump. One can hate them or love them, but can’t ignore them.
In the end
A good vibe reciprocates, and so do bad ones. Searching an ideal or absolute is a futile and fake idea. The good ones are stronger than the bad ones, which have the fewest takers. It is like a mathematical operation: plus and plus add while plus and minus subtract. Applying this, human beings can have a harmonious life.
Some other interesting reads:
-END-
Kamal Kishore Srivastava
A retired government officer turned writer and photographer, Kamal Kishore Srivastava is a regular blogger and essayist who explores lifeโs deeper meanings through immersive reflections on nature, impermanence, and happiness. On his blog Natureโs Narrative, he blends philosophical storytelling with practical insights. Writing 1200โ1500 or more words regularly, Kamal is committed to refining his craft, expanding his audience, and building a sustainable space where thought and feeling meet.
Leave a Reply