The hideous incidents that have surfaced in the recent past
have, apart from supplying the desperately needed fodder to keep the 24X7 media
up and running, forced us to re-examine and re-assess, our estimation of the
importance of morality and education in particular, and, our idea of
civilisation in general.
Talwars, a dentist couple, Mr. Tejpal, an editor-in-chief of
an eminent national magazine, Justice Ganguly, head of the Human rights commission
(and Asharam Bapu, a so-called God-man): people from different walks of life
with only one thing common—besides their renown, respectability, and competence
in their respective fields— their alleged involvement in some of the basest
crimes known to man.
In all fairness, almost all the cases are sub judice, and
therefore it’d be a little too early to pass a judgement on any of these
matters; my point, however, of writing this is not to pillory any of these individuals.
I think the media have done their job well to that end. One of my intentions of
penning this piece is to actually reflect on this rather entrenched propensity of
ours to pass judgements at others so impetuously.
All of these are people belong to the upper crust of
humanity in terms of their financial and social standing. These are people in
whom hundreds of people have in the past reposed their faith. They are doctors,
top-notch journalists, former judges, and (self-claimed) paragons of all that
is holy. We look up to them, or their likes, in our daily lives. We seek solace
in their counsel in times of physical or emotional distress. Some of us have
taken their words as final words on matters secular or divine. And yet, now we
have been forced to come face to face with a nightmarish dimension of their
personalities.
I should reiterate that I refer to these people only as prototypes
of a larger problem. As I said, since most of the cases are sub judice one
should refrain from jumping to conclusions too soon. However, that caution does
not omit the possibility of their, or people of their stature, having perpetrated
the alleged crimes. There are far too many examples in the history to show
that. And that to my mind is the larger tragedy.
That infallibles exist only in mythology (do they? More on
that soon) is an unsettling thought. What perturbs us more when we read/hear
such news? Is it the occurrences/presence of such malice in our society? Or
that in these cases in particular, the malice can be traced to people who
themselves were apparently torch-bearers of humanity and crusaders of human-rights,
quite literally in one case. I think it’s the latter which is more unhinging
and comes as a sort of a blow.
Believe it or not we have a tendency to push and displace depravity
to the margins, away from the seemingly safe cocoons we’ve spun about ourselves.
We imagine knaves and rogues to come from the other class, community, caste,
country even. That the educated, civilised, and righteous mind can also breed
the basest of thoughts comes as such a shock to us.
But as the recent events have shown, we seem to place undue
importance in our idea of education, morality, urbanity; for the aforesaid are assumed to be the
foundation of the edifice of civilisation. And these incidents have once again
showed us how that foundation is shaky.
Is it, then, only a complacent illusion that civilisation
has managed to temper and curtail the beast that lurks within each of one of
us? Or is this behaviour only human and a proof of our helplessness and impotence
to fight that beastly instinct despite being conditioned and trained to do so?
No, I am not for a moment condoning what these people have
allegedly done. They must be tried lawfully and must face the consequences of
their actions. My concern is not to vilify, justify or condone their actions.
My concern here is more selfish than that.
Imagine these people in their day to day lives. How many
times must have Mrs Talwar winced when she must have seen some gory visuals of
a murdered body on her television screen or in a newspaper report, and must
have pitied the unknown victim. The Supreme Court judge in question must have
censured so many people who must have transgressed legally and socially. The
said God-man must delivered so many sermons warning his followers against the sins
he himself has allegedly committed. The editor must have churned out so many
stories lashing out against people who must be guilty of committing crimes
similar to the one he himself is alleged (and admitted) to have done.
Will it be wise and correct to write off all of their above
stated behaviour as phony and contrived? Is it is safe to assume that none of
their pity, censure, sermons, indignation had even a whiff of genuineness? I doubt it.
And this doubt haunts me. Doesn’t that mean that we who fume
and fret over such matters, and take not even a moment’s time to express our
vexation through social-media, are not exempt from such follies? We are as
vulnerable to that beastly side of us overpowering all the mental conditioning,
and drawing out from within us the kind of behaviour we ourselves would have
never imagined.
One moment of indiscretion induced by agents external (say,
alcohol) or internal (say, anger, lust, or greed) is all it may take to eject
me from the high horse of civility, and make me stand in line with people whom
I was chastising and fuming over minutes, days or months ago; and I may end up
being the object of others vexation and ridicule. But, again, are these ‘others’
immune to the malice that they are fuming over is my larger concern, a
deep-seated fear more so. Can a person be defined in totality by a vice he/she
gives into or a virtue he/she upholds?
“Give me that man,
That is not passion's slave, and
I will wear him
In my heart's core, ay, in my
heart of heart.”
~ Hamlet (3.2)
