Today, both in politics and other related public lives, people shamelessly justify and talk aloud about things that are unacceptable to anyone that has commonsense. The only reason for that is that they just look at the end benefit that they would get - after doing all their personal calculations. It's a kind of business mentality. Even businesses are being run more honestly by some people these days. It roots from two things - 1. One's own selfishness, and 2. The confidence that many other selfish people also would support their stands. Having no respect for neutrality and not knowing its importance are the root causes.

Some people say that there is no place for neutrality in politics as politics in itself is about choosing one over the other. Is neutrality good? What is good for democracy? Is being a fanatic supporter of a party and its leader despite all sins that they commit until they do their murders and rapes in my own house good for democracy? Or, is being neutral about everyone and judging them based on their deeds instead of my own love for them good for democracy? No one that has brain under the skull would say that the first one is good for democracy. If that is the case then there would never be any change. Only the leader, his children and grandchildren would own the land forever, right? Is it an attribute of a mature democracy?

Those who advocate the former stand ask - "If everyone becomes neutral, how can you run a political party?". Good question. But, is it something for you to worry? That's the headache of the one that runs the party. If he/she is really interested in doing uninterrupted business, he/she would learn to behave in a way that even neutralists are attracted towards him/her always. But, what would happen if you have only blind supporters? Your leader would never do anything decent. He would only do things that would make us more blind or pluck our eyes. A mature democracy is the one that has more neutralists and not the fanatics.

OK. Next question... "Is neutrality all about scolding both good and bad equally? How would that be neutrality?" It's neither neutral nor fair. Neutrality does not mean equal treatment to both good and bad. It means using the same yardstick to measure both. The law of averages says one should be good when the other is bad. I mean, one is 'more good' when the other is 'more bad'. I mean, better and worse! Both can't be equally good or equally bad. In that case, you should only scold the worse more, right? That is what is a fair practice, right? Yes. But, what happens when someone scolds one person more is that even he/she is branded as a supporter of the other person, i.e. the better of the bad. People accuse him/her of targeting only one person always. That is what puts the neutralists in trouble. So, he/she has to hunt for reasons to criticize the other person also equally. In such times, when the other person (the better of the bad) gives even little room to criticize, these people jump on it and catch hold of them. Their job becomes easier. They get pleased for the reason given by the other person as it would help them to prove their neutrality to the world. Otherwise, there is no doubt that their hatred would always be more for the worse guy only.

OK. What if someone has already done an unforgivable injustice to me? How can I support him/her? It's only natural for me to support his/her enemy, right? Very fair questions. You have to be very careful in such times. Tell aloud that you don't like someone if you don't like that someone. At the same time, don't fail to scold the other person also like others do. In the end, your conclusion could be saying, "In my opinion, this person is the worst!". But, never support your enemy's enemy just because of the hatred you have on your enemy. Don't be adamant about proving the enemy's enemy worse. He/she could also become your enemy some time in future. There is nothing wrong in hating both of them at the same time. You don't have to justify one to criticize the other. You don't have to criticize one to justify the other. This is what most of us have been doing in our political stands.

Those who calculate their own benefits and profits could never be neutral. You can never be neutral if you have dividing things like caste, creed, religion, region, race, etc. in your mind. If you are someone who says, "All of us in our family have been supporting only this party or person for the past 60 years", you can't be neutral. If you have 'obsessive repeat disorder' ("If I have done something once, I would only repeat that forever!") and if you are someone that never likes to change the direction once started, you can't be neutral. Those who like someone by getting deceived by the appearances of that someone can never be neutral. Those who like people for reasons other than the ones for which you should really like them or hate them could never be neutral. Those reasons could be someone's ability to speak, write, act or arrogance (which would be called 'pride' by the supporters) or cunning (which would be called 'shrewdness' by the supporters) or any bad human trait. You may have a reason of your own to justify that, but that could never be acceptable to the world.

OK. If you are someone that asks, "Why should I keep neutrality? Is it not foolishness?", I am very sorry. This is not a place meant for you. We are a bunch of jokers discussing about how to make this planet a little more peaceful to live. We are clowns that believe that the lifetime of this planet (that is expected to be no more in 2012!) would increase as the number of neutralists increases. You have entered a wrong room. Please escape from here. Rather, please get lost.

Post script: Please don't waste your time in asking me unconnected - intelligent questions like if I paid my tax last year, if I voted in the last general election, if I helped the corporation workers in cleaning up the ditch, etc. There is no place here for such new criticism techniques that say "criticism is the easiest thing". Whatever you talk about... there is a group of jokers that come and ask, "How can you talk about this? Who gave you the right to talk about this? How qualified are you to talk about this?" and all that. As if they are the most qualified to talk about them (though they don't talk about anything other than giving these kind of intellectual commentaries about commentaries)... Let me tell you - This post is not for such innovative thinkers!


  1. @Bharatda While reading your post I was wondering 'wait a Anna must have read this article':P Bcoz their stands for congress and bjp go almost on the lines of your framework of 'neutrality'

    Whatever you said,I entirely agree with it. But I don't understand how can 'scolding one(better) more than other(worse)' constitute 'neutrality'? It draws slight hint of confusion there..can't we use better term here which can accommodate this plea as well with more ease than calling it just neutrality?

    Nonetheless your clarity of thoughts is worth appreciation...keep the good work going :)

  2. Thanks for reading this dry post and the comment, Rohan. :)

    Yes. I think, I have confused a bit in between. I meant to say, "Your neutrality will be questioned when you scold one person more than the other even if the one being scolded is worse than the other, because there is no equality in scolding!". But, it's not possible to do that so equally to both when one is better than the other. Let me see if I can rephrase some of those confusing lines.

    Thanks again. :)


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Classical Tamil?

Sama, Dhana, Bedha, Dhanda...

Cricket, Population and Nation