Things Eternal

 The Guru’s face glowed with sweat from the hard work that he always engaged in.  He cast a fierce glance of indignation on the gathered disciples, clenched his fists and hissed, “Yes, I am acutely aware of the ridicule you face from some mischief mongers when you, the faithful, assert that certain things happening today were happening before 2014 too and that there is nothing wrong with them.”

He made a strong deprecating gesture with his hands adorned with expensive accessories, and continued, “These dimwitted and misguided people simply don’t understand that we are here to ensure the continuity of things eternal, Sanatan, and we won’t stop them simply because those in power in the BS (Before Sevak, not BullShit) era inherited those things through our glorious tradition and had the good sense to adhere to them.  Rising prices, strengthening Dollar and controlling machines erroneously proclaimed to be uncontrollable, taxing the middle class are all things eternal and we never had any plans to do away with them. On the contrary, we are working ever hard to preserve and strengthen these traditions and revive many others that the powers in the BS era had deliberately killed because of their deluded western mindset.”

The disciples felt a load being taken off their minds, heaved a sigh of relief and started chanting, “Sevak, sevak!”  The Guru signalled to them to be silent and continued his spirited speech.

The Idea or The Individual

 The Idea Or The Individual

It was probably a couple of years ago that there arose a debate over a remark by BJP leader Mr Raj Nath Singh.  The remark was to the effect that it was not Akbar, often called Akbar the great, who was great but Maharana Pratap Singh instead.

Recently in a Gandhi Jayanti celebration, a speaker said that the debate as to who was great, Gandhi or Subhash or Savarkar, was futile.  Each one of them was great in his own way and the public opinion got swung towards Gandhi through films and cultural events that firmly established him as the Sabarmati ka Sant, while the others were, more or less, ignored.

I am inclined to agree with the speaker, though in a slightly different sense.  Yes, it is futile to consider any individual as 'the great.'  All men are born more or less alike and they go through life being pragmatic, adapting to circumstances and maximising their chances of survival and well being.  Also we hardly know details of the life on an individual who is not part of our immediate family / social circle except through hearsay. Such transmitted knowledge almost always tries to conceal the fact that no man is a hero to his valet (or those closest to him.)  Yet there are individuals who strongly identify with an idea and and on occasions, if not always, ignore their survival and well being to defend those ideas.  Later on the canvas of history such individuals emerge as icons for the ideas and ideals that they so defended.

When we choose to call such an icon great, we are essentially conveying our approval and appreciation of the idea for which that person is an icon.  Those who do not subscribe to that idea but find it inconvenient to admit the fact, often attack the icon and not the idea.  This is the logical fallacy known as "ad hominem."

We always need to remember that the persona of a man is history which gets written and rewritten as regimes change.  But unlike a persona, an idea is something absolute and can only be accepted or rejected.  So the question to be asked is not who is great and who is not, but instead which idea appeals to you and which doesn't.

Do you agree?