GETTING PHILOSOPHICAL -----IS MY CONSCIENCE DEAD? I know the real world does not run according to the teachings of GEETA, QURAN, BIBLE or GRANTH SAHIB. Moralities encapsulated in spiritual texts or the school textbooks are at variance with the actual contours of human conduct. Both are like the two banks of a river which run side by side but never to meet. The only link between the two banks is the flowing water, which varies its speed according to accompanying environments and geography. Similarly, human conduct flows through the two extremes of the desirability of Idealism and the practicality of Realism. A French Philosopher, Francoise-de-Roche, had said: WE ACT ACCORDING TO OUR FEARS; WE PERFORM ACCORDING TO OUR HOPES. Thus, our conduct is basically a product of our hopes and fears. It oscillates, like the pendulum of a wall clock between absolute rightand absolute wrong. The inner space is the Permissible Limits of our Zone of Conduct(ZOC). This is why I say, Live life as it comes. I am not very sure, if JEAN PAUL SARTRE had this in mind when he propounded EXISTENTIALISM. All the same, I can not and will not advocate that moral teachings be exorcised from the text books because they have no utility in the practical life. In fact, I insist they be taught with more intensity and zeal to ensure the balance in life. More you teach them, more a person is conscious of his acts. Yes, moral inhibition is needed to act as a brake on human mind. Let this be the hobnail on which he swings. I can not swallow the fact that life can be allowed to drift on one track of practical necessity. To checkmate it, the lessons of moral science are required to be stuffed into each child till he comes out of age. Let him follow his path, thereafter, as he likes. But before doing a wrong thing, he would always seek the approval of his conscience. I am of the opinion that it is the fear of wrong -doing, which keeps many under check in all their good, bad and ugly activities. I am peeved at the fact that some of us are advocating shedding of the moralities because of difficulties in following them in practical life. You do not have to be 100 percent on the right side but at least the pendulum must swing to 60 percent level. Even if I am a liar, I can not imagine teaching my son to tell lies. Can you do this? I will always say, speak the truth. It is a different matter; he will observe me telling lies and pick up the nuances of the trade. After all, the education begins at home. The child learns from the practical example of his parents and the company he keeps. Didn’t the old wisdom say that never do a wrong thing in front of a child because in his impressionable age he picks up these traits. If you listen to Thomas Harris, the author of ‘I AM OK, YOU ARE OK’, he advocates that the formative years are the first five years of a child. It is during this period the child adopts one of the four stages and postures advocated by Thomas Harris. It is very difficult to rectify him in the later age. Can you approve of your child indulging in such acts as stealing, kidnapping and murdering? It is a separate issue that you start defending him after he is caught doing this. But suppose, he comes to you and says: PAPA, I AM GOING TO RAPE NEENA, MY CLASSMATE. Are you going to say: GOOD, GO AHEAD? Life does not run according to the contours of Bollywood storyline. However corrupt and a cruel father one might be, one can not give sanction for such ghastly acts—unless he has no conscience. I can tell you even criminals have their conscience. Vast majority of them get involved in the criminal acts due to circumstantial compulsions. There are a very few percentage of people, I reckon amongst the criminals, whose conscience might be dead. They are insane people. But, what worries me is, when sanity is thrown to winds deliberately by some sensible people. Who are these sensible people? They are the ones who advocate passivity, when confronted by wrong doing. Even MK GANDHI, the apostle of NON-VIOLENCE, did not preach this. The other day Sh NARENDER MODI, Prime Minister of India, described this phenomenon in a very clear manner in his Independence address to the nation, on August 15,2014, when he described the psyche of a bureaucrat who keeps his conduct confined to two questions MERA KYA(What is for me) and MUJHE KYA(Why should I bother). I am deeply disappointed when I hear such unconcerned guys saying let my neighbour be kicked in the backside by some miscreants but I will not go there. I am stunned when he preaches SYA (Save You’re A**S*) and let the wrong -doer do what he wants to do. He wants to save his dear life; to live comfortably with his wife and children for ever. He forgets that it might be the neighbour today but it could be his house tomorrow. What would he say to the powerful intruder, “Come dear, my house is at your disposal?” Would he be sitting idle if the intruder starts outraging the modesty of the woman folk? Won’t he shout for help to his neighbour? How would the neighbour come to his help? His inaction and passivity have already destroyed the poor neighbour. To me, such a guy is non-existent if his conscience is dead. So, what is he living for? Such people are living dead. I know practical life demands a large number of compromises with your conscience. Yes, you must compromise. But you ought to draw your permissible limits. You must tell yourself, “THIS FAR I GO. BEYOND THIS, I DON’T.” Your zone of conduct must be within your breathing space where you do not allow your conscience to die of asphyxiation. This is realism. It is to act within your limitations but act all the same. It is not passivity. But, to turn your face is. Judge yourself against this. Ask yourself: IS MY CONSCIENCE DEAD? The answer will tell you whether you are a LIVING DEAD OR DEAD BUT LIVING. Remember, everyone will die one day—now or later. But, for a fistful of materialistic gains or pleasures, do not kill yourself before biological death. Why am I writing this, when I know not even 0.5 percent people would read this? I have no lobbies and I am not even a recognised writer of some standing. Perhaps, I marvel at dishing out only rubbish that my writings get sidelined with a simple jerk of the shoulders. So what? I wrote this because I feel I must express myself even if no one reads or listens to me. I must do duty to my conscience. Am I on a high moral ground? No, certainly not. I am not a saint. I, too, definitely want to avoid inconvenience and discomforts but not at the cost of my honour, self-dignity and self-respect. Certainly, I do not want to be a silent killer of my conscience. Yes, I can compromise with reality and my moral standing within the permissible limits of my zone of conduct. I therefore, must spell out what I find is wrong. Does not GITA says: KARAM KIYE JA, FAL KI CHINTA MAT KAR EH INSAAN”-(Do your duty, Do not bother for the results; O, Man!). I am letting the load off my chest by writing this piece. Sometimes, I go wrong then, I must accept my mistake as a man. I might like to compromise because I feel it is one way of living in reality. But my compromise is according to the rules of my CONSCIENCE—which I won’t like to die.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 03:40:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015