While trying to explain
existential choice to some elderly people an ardent fan of Nietzsche got stuck
at a point when a very innocent question was asked: What will you choose
between life and death? The self styled teacher smiled and said, hypothetical
questions should not have radical binaries; obviously one will choose life. If
you choose death any kind and all kinds of knowledge are meaningless. Choice is
for the living and not the dead. All that man has done over the progressive
centuries of civilization are life friendly. Knowledge whether philosophical or
scientific is utilized in better understanding of life; to make living easier, more
comfortable. Death is the negation of everything. But there are difficult
alternatives to choose from. For example life and liberty. Many would argue
that liberty is of primal importance for man. But one may quip- you must live
first to enjoy liberty.
After the abrogation of article 370 and the consequent lockdown of Kashmir many argued along liberal
lines. If India is a secular democracy why should the Kashmir valley be in a
state of lockdown for more than five weeks? Why the Internet, mobile and other
data not available to the people? Why are the shops not open? Such questions
are now asked by the opposition parties in India and Pakistan who has no
business to interfere with our internal problems has gone to the United Nations Human Rights Commission for justice for
the valley people. Living aside the vengeful politics of Pakistan, one may ask:
What is Human Right? What or Which Constitution or Charter of Rights has
guaranteed man the Internet availability, free movement and free protest and
free stone pelting and gunfiring to man? Nature has no guaranty to offer. It is
civilization which offers guarantees of life, liberty and free speech.
But human rights is a confusing
term. When a civilian is killed by a terrorist the Activists question
government of the day over the human rights of the civilian. But a soldier who
guards the borders and protects the human rights of citizens, apparently, has
no human rights. In India particularly, no Activist or political pundit ever
clamours for the rights of the soldier: As if the soldier is a sacrificial lamb
for the activists of human rights. The anomaly apart what disturbs us is the choice between Religion and the
Constitution. If religion prescribes rules and practices, what is the relevance
of the constitution? Nothing is absolute in the world. Free speech does not
mean one can troll expletives or spread false news using the new found art of
fakery. But people exercise their choice of fear mongering in the name of
freedom of expression.
One can choose between a shirt
and a shawl as per his need or choose a particular shade. But choice too is never
absolute. A choice between punishment and pardon may be exercised according to
the architecture of the mind and sense of a nation. But if one refuses to obey
the set patterns of national life it is not tenable or acceptable. Hate and
love are not matters of choice. One cannot choose to kill and destroy as per
his personal whims. Racial hate, gender discrimination are a collective
transgression of the unwritten code of ethics. One can choose a word to express
a particular shade of meaning. The choice may also be whimsical or poetic
licence. Others may not approve of the
choice. Hamlet's "Absent thee from felicity..." has raised many
eyebrows but none have improved the tone and tenor by choosing other words. But
one can always challenge any poetic image or absolutist metaphor to enhance
man's complex enjoyment of life's variety.
All choices are valid for the
particular moment. Those who claim to have
the choice patented are delusional.
When the choice between
disembodied love and love as sexual union arises no one has the last word.
Similarly if a person chooses to waste a
life waiting for someone to say a word of his choice by way of assent, it is
his personal choice. Such choices are
expressions of a psyche that refuses to accept the common practice as his moral
imperative. The question asked in the first paragraph is true about all
binaries. Life and death cancel each other out. But he who chooses is the master of his life and he decides what to do
with it, in the context of his life. No choice therefore is above scrutiny and
no choice is the last one ever exercised by man.
No comments:
Post a Comment