What public figure do you disagree with the most?
The text discusses the challenges of finding an “ideal” public figure in a diverse world, emphasising that no individual can meet everyone’s expectations. It categorises people into leaders and followers, noting that followers often become emotionally attached to their ideologies, sometimes leading to blind imitation. The text critically examines the role of godmen, who profit from people’s dissatisfaction without truly addressing their spiritual needs. It promotes the idea of questioning and seeking truth, as exemplified by Buddha, and argues against hasty judgment of public figures, advocating for a balanced perspective that considers both strengths and weaknesses.
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. Those who are not satisfied start grumbling and complaining.
Some people command respect because of their strong leadership qualities. The latent quality of leadership germinates when it gets a congenial atmosphere and proper guidance. Some are, though not good as a leader, but are good followers. They are dedicated to a person, organisation, system, or ideology and stick to them. They are glued firmly for a long time, sometimes for lifelong. They, for the simple reason of being emotionally attached to an ideology, group, party or organisation, become handicapped and don’t see the other aspect of the coin. People of such quality increase the number and also the manpower of the person whom they follow and help him mould mass opinion.
The two broad categories of people discussed above are the basic divisions of society. The people of the latter category are mostly gullible and have weak emotional tolerance. They can easily be influenced. This tends to idealise a person to an extent that they become larger than life, sometimes akin to God. This type is generally seen in a swarm around godmen.
Despite commanding large fan followings, the godmen generally do not actively join in social causes like the eradication of social evils. They are seen minting money and grabbing large chunks of land. The wealth they accumulate generally does not come as a welfare fund but as a corpus of a private limited company. This leads to an unpleasant fight for the throne after their demise.
The popularity and wealth of godmen are easy to explain. 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? It needs to be explored in a little detail.
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. No one can fully explain Him, nor has He been fully explained. 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). If someone claims to be the one who can decipher Brahma and presents himself as a teacher or “Guru”, he is keeping his followers in the dark, which is an act of fooling them. He who claims to be a preacher doesn’t know what is in the offing for him a moment later. So, preaching about life and death, the cycle of birth and rebirth, et cetera, is nothing more than a misnomer. It creates a miasma of ignorance and misinformation.
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 honey of their sweet knowledge is due to their persistent hard work, dedication and missionary zeal. This should not be equated with the preachings of modern-day godmen. We must, as Bertrand Russell has said, entertain our ideas with some measure of doubt instead of dogmatically believing one thing or another.
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. It is disheartening that a heretic is viewed with disdain and treated superciliously by most people. When Buddha says Appa Deepo Bhavah (Be your own light), he intends to make people inquisitive and encourages people to ask logical questions and search for the truth differently that 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.
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 not possible; 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.
Society, as has been mentioned earlier, is a complex mix of different individuals and varieties. This is the diversification of life that gives rise to, as Dr Radhakrishnan puts it, mental pugilism in a human context. Humans have been bestowed with highly developed brains and the power of articulate speech to convey their thought processes. They are, thus, the unique creation of Nature. They need a different perspective and approach to their issues.
Thus, an ideal individual must be impossible. It is not unbiased. It is comparative and subjective. Any individual is good in comparison to others. Everyone is put to the test, and they are tested on certain predetermined criteria. Even Lord Ram and Krishna have been questioned many a time.
A public figure is more susceptible to questioning, which is always put into question. Politicians are an easier target than those who are not. A politician is considered fairly thick-skinned 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, and 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 him or her.
People judge very often. 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.
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.
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.
Liking or disliking someone due to ideological differences is natural, but it should not lead to envy, as this can also impair judgments.
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.
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 that which page we are on. 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 Donald Trump. One can hate them or love them, but can’t ignore them.
A good vibe reciprocates, and so do bad ones. 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.
-END-
Leave a Reply