Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err.
It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so
experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings
of that precious gift. (Mahatma Gandhi). Another take on this topic from
Gandhi reads: Freedom is not worth having if it does not include
freedom to make mistakes.
The profundity of these statements is undeniably thought-provoking and inspiring. Its deceptive simplicity and brevity, however, belies a poignant ethical question that stares at us: do we, Knananites, measure up to being a free people?
I am afraid the answer is a resounding NO.
We are not free, for before we can “err”, we do not even allow for
what precedes it: “choice”. It should not be hard to see that the
freedom to “choose” is much higher on the rung of the ladder (of freedom) than the one to “err”. This means we have already stumbled from a higher rung itself with an “F” grade (in “freedom”). “Choice” is as fundamental to
humans as oxygen is to water and photosynthesis is to chlorophyll. It
is the right hemisphere of the brain to that of the left. Deny one, and
you have destroyed the whole. This is what we do to our youth. We deny them the “choice” before they can even “err” to begin with! Choice with conditions becomes an act of conformance; an act of appeasement. This makes the individual secondary to the society. The cost to the individual-self is hailed as “allegiance” and the deprivation of the “self” is
mischaracterized as the virtue of “selflessness”. Community tells you
to be proud of this.
Thus, we have the makings of a cultish, brainwashed group of robotic individuals who are only fit to take orders in the service of the elders.
If being born a Knananite becomes a liability that can jeopardize one’s standing in the community when making one of the most significant decisions in life – choosing a life-partner - then our birth is not unlike that of a slave born into the shackles awaiting him/her even prior to birth. The false argument presented in this regard is that endogamy is not “forced”. True, but the “unforced” is not without consequence. The counter claim to this is that the volitional act is undertaken by the transgressor with full knowledge of the consequences.
This distorted logic leads the community to believe that it is gleefully indemnified of what befalls the transgressor by way of consequences.
Is this not like saying that the massacre at the Tiananmen Square
was predictable or avoidable? Or, that San Suu Kyi of Myanmar (The Iron Lady of Burma) should have known her fate when disobeying the Junta? Or, that Cassius Clay (Ali) should have complied with conscription (against his
will) so as not to lose his heavyweight title? Or, that Obama could have opted out of the campaign to avoid the rise in Neo-Nazi and racist rumblings? Or, that Mathew Sheppard could have hidden his gay orientation to avoid being impaled (to death) on a barb-wired fence?
What is the common-thread binding all these instances? It is the cry
and the impetus of the human spirit to stand for it believes in and aspires for, to reach its full potential by exercising the exhilarating freedom to be all that it can be, in the face of adversity, threat and even death. How can this indomitable human spirit be any different in a Knananite?
This is the very life-force that has seen man survive the early years of primordial hostility of the natural elements, and the pain exacted by evil in men in the Roman gladiatorial arenas, the Spanish Inquisitions, and
the Holocaust. After all, this human spirit knows no colour or creed, or artificial boundaries that seek to contain it.
Endogamy in and of itself is blamefree, but the consequences to those who do not conform are not without stain. There was a time and context when it mattered; when it made perfect sense. When the survival of a community with its faith-based way of life and social norms was besieged in Masada, and its sustentation against domination by opposing regimes and competing ideologies necessitated strength in numbers and group cohesiveness, endogamy proved to be an effective tool.
But today the invocation of the spirit of Masada is as relevant as expecting to catch a matinee of the murderous blood-bath at a gladiatorial arena when visiting Vatican. And so is today, the hold of the religious prescriptions that is essentially perfunctory based on the evolution of our own understanding of such matters.
Ironically, the threat here in this day and age emanates not so much from
any outside faith group as much as it does from the Church’s own failings
and its primitive ideologies. If endogamy sought to preserve, what has it preserved? Our lineage was not tamper-proof. Our unique culture is 100% Keralite. Our unique tradition comprises a couple of enactments at
weddings. We speak Malayalam and not Hebrew or Syrian or whatever it was
when we left the shores of Edessa. All other renowned endogamous
communities still retain their original tongue – the Parses, the Jews and the Arab communities.They have norms and traditions that are more substantive than the pretend show-and-tell posturing of the Knananites.
Yet, while those communities, with a lot more going for them, have come up with creative solutions to ensure the growth of their communities, we, despite our weak credentials, continue to be unrelenting in this respect. Why? Those of us in the West, enjoying its libertarian values and associated rights, should feel truly humbled by the privileges we have come to inherit without toil. Yet, what we bring to the table is our dusty baggage from the boat still docked at Kondungalloor.
Intellectually, we present the oxymoronic picture of arriving at a
western nightclub wearing a burqua: what we preach is untenable and out
of context and totally awkward. When we look into the future, the
present is but less than a nanosecond of our time in history. All we need to do is step out of our pretend mud houses and side-step the pretend camel
parked in the front (perhaps blocking our view) to see the time warp we are
caught in. Or, we can continue being as irrelevant as the Iranian clerics and their laughable proclamations. Those among us, who do not tire of making the claim that Knananites persevered over the past 1600 years, risk themselves being seen as having a very poor understanding of history itself.
While the “preservation” per se lies in audacious imagination than
anything factual for most of circa 345 CE to 1600 CE, whatever preserved was more circumstantial than anything that came out of some Akhashic wisdom. Those circumstantial conditions are simply vanishing.
Our youth are contending with realities that are totally out of sync
with the world their parents inhabited. You can make them relevant for the
times by empowering them to be in step and tune with the world around
them. Allow them to be their true selves – as defined by them and not
for them. To know that a healthy “self” is the most precious gift we can give our children - and not the burden of some sketchy entitlements that are best presumed and often artificial, impractical and unsustainable – is
the very first step in our own evolution.
Let us not continue to deprive our youth anymore. The future is what we create and pave for today: it is not something that we accidentally walk into or awaits us. Visionaries provide for it; enable it. Myopia sets us on a collision course with the brick wall that we chose to build for us.
We have the power to create a safe passage through that very wall, or we can witness the fait accompli of the Berlin Wall that tried to uphold far
more powerful ideologies.
Now, we have the freedom to choose. This choice is made in the present;
its legacy will be what the future sees in its rearview mirror. This will
be our gift to our future-selves, and we shall bear no more the ignominy of repressing the human spirit that we never ever owned, nor will we, ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment