It is probably a very fundamental mistake, one that has been passed on for centuries now, or maybe it was meant to be; in order to cajole the human mind into thinking and probing- I am referring to one of the most irreplaceable tools of daily life, the COIN. Hold one up, study it. There are two sides or ends or extremes that never face each other; two halves that are joined together all throughout the surface, but at the same time are distinctly apart- it can only fall one way or the other: heads or tails!
Another analogy that reiterates this concept is Robert Frost’s ‘Road not taken’. [For those who do not remember, it is a must read J] It talks about two roads diverging in a yellowed forest, and about how chances are that these paths will never meet; and how life being the way it is will just let you go down one, and if by any chance you want to get to the other, you will have to retrace the entire path.
All through the years, we grow up simply accepting this probable truth. Is there no real middle path, does it always have to be one way or the other?
I like my food with less oil- a very difficult concept to get in most places I eat out at; I don’t want ‘oil-free’ or ‘regular’ I want ‘less oil’ [for those who are grinning, there is a difference :p] I like to drink, I find it very difficult to resist a couple of pegs when in the right mood but don’t necessarily have to get drunk in order to have an enjoyable evening. A concept alien to most people who claim ‘what is the point of drinking if you are not going to get sloshed’!
The path of moderation; taking the best of both worlds and forming a middle ground, why does this seem so difficult?
This is in direct reference to a talk by an eminent expert on the field of ‘Brahminisation & Dalitisation’. A stalwart and scholar with immense years of research and experience; he spoke about the atrocities that the Brahmins inflicted on people of the lower caste, cleverly questioned the very fundamentals of the Hindu religion in which true prayers have to be in Sanskrit and Goddesses are depicted with blood smears and weapons perched on a dead animal. He mentioned that the lower castes enjoyed no privileges, no dignity of labour, no respect in society and were treated worse than animals.
There were a number of questions that clouded my mind, I did not disagree with his views; realized that it was high time that they felt as equal a component of the society as any other sect; that they should be entitled to certain privileges. His words even had me considering if maybe the reservation on basis of caste was actually justified; something that I had earlier taken a very stern stand against; although the nagging doubt of whether resorting to discrimination (albeit of a different kind) yet again in order to overcome the rift caused by prior discrimination still bothered me. His following lecture the next day had a totally different effect.
It emphasized on the dignity of labour, how backward classes did more of the meaningful and manual work only to be treated with derogation. About how society is hypocritical and superficial, rewarding those who do the so-called easier work. His words seemed to reflect an opinion that the entire Brahmin community was a thieving bunch, who did not treat their women right, took undue credit and continued to be a bane to the progress of society. This did not anger me; but I stopped listening without bias, suddenly it seemed like I had taken a defensive stand, mentally criticizing his comments without meaning to do so.
He went on to add that there should be equal wages for the doctor: who cleaned and repaired the human body, and the sanitation worker: who cleaned and repaired roads and buildings! This he declared was dignity of labour, considering no job more menial than the other- idealistic but far from practical. And what about the question of skill- the nuances of surgery, the knowledge of every single vein and organ that constitutes the human anatomy inside out; can it actually be equaled to plumbing a drain, just to prove a point?
In his address, the concluding statements included that the only way at a reformed, equal and progressive society was ‘Dalitisation’. The wave was already in motion he added illustrating that “Dalit women have been smoking for centuries, my mother used to and so did my grandmother… today, the trend is that most women smokers are from Brahmin households; The Dalits have always eaten meat, nowadays it is the Brahmins who eat it and dispose the bones in their backyards- This is in reality Dalitisation, but the Brahmins will never accept it; they refer to it as westernisation!”
This is when I got thinking about the coin; in the name of open-mindedness and reform, this influential scholar chose instead to propagate an extremist outlook, change in a very superficial sense, which would only continue this vicious circle of injustice and revolt, time and again. The simple way to have influenced us aspiring journalists and forced us to look at an equal society in a broader light, would have been to simply promote the path of moderation; emphasizing the need for each individual to contribute to an equal society, to freedom in the true sense of the word.
Maybe the human mind will never understand moderation in the broader sense; maybe life is more challenging this way! It is very easy to say that the middle path is what is ideal, but as an individual at every phase of life I have chosen the extremes; there are 2 sides to a coin BUT what is it that lies in between- will we ever care enough to find out!
