The person was accusing the bouncer of molesting his wife and the bouncer reverted back by hurling abuses. After the husband started shouting on him, bouncer lost his temper and slapped him tightly. Before this point I was not in a mood to take sides since i didn't know the facts, but that hit made me compassionate towards the couple.
Crowd gathered in a perfect round shape encircling the trio. I intervened to stop the bouncer but could not help much. I dialed 100 after the helplessness. I asked my co-spectators why didn't they intervene. One of them laughed and said, as if it was a dabangg-2 screening, why should I? Who is he to me? Then I said the same old dialogue, "Aapke ghar me bhi maa-behen hogi, kal ko aap unke sath aye aur aapke sath aisa ho, tab aap kya karenge..". I thought my dialogue would make him speechless but to my dismay, his reply made me speechless. He said, “We don't bring our women to malls and movies at this time, so we need not worry."
I tried hard to make sense out of his statement. Did that meant anything or did that not? That question made me awake till late. It was then I received a call from a policeman asking "where are you, what’s the scene and where the fight is going on." I was like " sab khatam hogya uncle. Those involved must now be sleeping tight in their respective beds." (Obviously the couple on the same). The policeman asked for my attendance at his station. It was about midnight. After some arguments, I was excused. After thinking for a while on policing, I chose to focus my thoughts on the main issue. What did that guy mean?
Was that really an excuse for not helping? Was that an excuse in his own eyes? Was it the timing or was it the place that was to be blamed, in his eyes? Was he alone or there must be many more like him? Is it because society came into existence much before the institution of police, state and cities? From where did this culture of “not bringing" came up? Then I thought, May be when there was no policing and when the population was scattered, to be home when it was dark was quite good a solution to avoid such nuisances. Since women are physically not that strong when compared to men and have much more to lose relatively. That was a kind of jugaad. Some learned of that time must have suggested that solution and all others must have followed that. This practice might have become a tradition which was followed by the masses. Although the masses might not have understood the underlying assumptions behind such a solution.
But the premises today have changed.(At least those mentioned in the present case) The underlying assumptions behind the practice stand good no more. Population is not that scattered for anybody to notice nuisances, at least in metros and cities. Further the police came into existence, equipped with modern gazettes. But still that tradition continues. More so, those who do not follow that have to suffer by not being helped, even when they could have been. Instead of being helped, they are laughed upon for not following the social norms.
I agree that "To be stubborn against the inevitable is to court failure", but what is evitable should be avoided.
The above case reminds me of a story. Once, when the Zen spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation, the cat that lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them. So the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice. Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session. And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up.Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly papers about the religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Aapke Vichaar, bane saamaj ka aadhaar..