In 1972, my father brought home gifts for my sister and me from his trip.
Two books, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, were written by Chakravarti Rajgopalchari. We were disappointed. At the age of 6/7, our expectations were a box of sweets or some fancy dress, not books on mythology.
By then, we were somewhat exposed to the Ram Laxman Sita Hanuman stories of the Ramayana from various children’s magazines and were naturally attracted to it. I started reading it with gusto and read multiple times after that. Ramayana was easily digestible by our simple, young minds. It was entertaining too. It filled our unformed minds with the ideas of heroes, ideals, and we started picturing people with that lens.
The story of a good king, a bad king, a good mother, a bad mother, a good brother, a bad brother, a good servant, a bad servant. Good and bad, black and white, and as expected, the story ended with good winning over bad. Hundreds of movies were inspired by this epic, and nothing was better than Ramayana to ground your stories on to deliver a linear message to the masses – that good ultimately wins over the bad and truth prevails. It was a story where the heroes agreed to make huge personal sacrifices to uphold the principles and values of that time. It overrode rules and personal and collective interests.
The Mahabharata and the hundreds of stories it held together were unknown to us. Years passed, we grew, and I started reading the Mahabharata much later.
I was amazed. Amazed by all the layers behind the façade of the characters. How relatable they were, how human the characters on the pedestals became. No one could have done a better job than C Rajgopalchari to present this vast and complex epic so scientifically. It’s presented like a fishbone diagram, which we use to describe the different sets of players and when they join, and how the project moves forward. It exposed us to the complex world of the human journey, which is nothing but dealing with the dilemmas a situation offers, challenging you. Relationships, basic human instincts, latent complexes, and how people have landed in their situations because of multiple karmic consequences. All the players were so human with their human characteristics, or call it failings. No one is perfectly white, and no one is black; all are shades of grey. It encouraged pursuing the greater good and dealing with dilemmas, setting aside emotions, and being tactful. To diligently pursue it even if it required bending rules, compromising certain principles and values in certain situations, and accepting its consequences later for the greater good. Because it’s important to discharge one’s responsibility and not get distracted or affected by hundreds of emotional dilemmas.
It took us time to accept that the people we thought of as benevolent, as our ideals and worship them as demi-gods, have shades of grey, fifty or more at times. But because of their situational constraints, to achieve the greater good and larger goals, you have to engage them, deal with them, get your thing done, dump them, forget them, and remove them from your life.
After that, we started observing people in our surroundings, observing people and their secret interests, camouflaged motives, biases, prejudices, compulsions, helplessness, inertia, their attitudes towards themselves, the people around them, and their jobs. Also, their honesty, integrity, and attitude. All of these made each one of us uniquely different.
It made us more practical and wiser. It lowered our expectations of the authorities and those self-appointed paternal figures, without being hopeless. The result? People around us became more human. We stopped hero-worshipping and saw them as our equals and became more accepting, which made us more tolerant and less rebellious.
We became wiser.
We have become wiser through the years of observing people and their behaviour. We could understand the motives and interests, and their personalities, and their responses to their childhood traumas behind their behaviour.
But have we become wiser?
When a conflict, big or small, physical or legal, ensues, it’s presented in the form of news by various media outlets, and depending on the nature of the conflict, may be referred to the legal process for resolution or adjudication. We, as the audience, get to see the event either through the lens of the reportage or the statement of a person affected by it. Both present the story from a point where the action has encroached on someone’s rights and has attracted legal attention. It tells us a side of the story, not the balanced story as we found in the Mahabharata. Here, one can craftily present the incident and create a narrative to suit their agenda.
In Psychology, it is called the Framing Effect.
It’s a cognitive bias where people’s decisions are influenced by how information is presented, even if the underlying facts are the same. This means that the way a choice is framed can significantly influence a person’s decision-making, even if the options are logically identical. A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality in judgment and decision-making. Recognizing the framing effect and consciously evaluating information from multiple perspectives can help mitigate its influence.
Historically speaking, many people in positions of power have liberally used it to influence public opinion and their consequential decision-making. It’s quite easy to create an emotion-stirring incident, plant a narrative, identify a fall guy or a certain vulnerable community, whip up passion, rally people around you for support, brand them as enemies, and set them on fire and silently achieve your goals. We know about these things happening, but we choose not to think or question because we feel that we are far away from getting affected by this design.
Let me ask again.
Are you wise enough to see or sense the things which are not visible to the normal eye, which are carefully covered? Are you not a victim of the Framing Effect?
The reason I am asking this is that we are in a war with our neighbouring country. While we are cheering our army and jeering our enemies and overflowing with patriotic fervour from the comfort of our homes, someone is fighting for us. The ones who are fighting, firing the bullets, and getting killed by the bullets didn’t want to fight and don’t know why they are fighting. They are fighting and getting killed because either they have been asked to fight, or, unfortunately, some bystanders found themselves in the crossfire. The loss is not limited to them only; every country gets affected negatively in a war.
The evil ones who have plotted the war, incited the war, and executed the war will never hear the sound of a bullet. No bullet ever will whiz past their ears, the sound of an exploding bomb will never render them deaf, and a mortal cell will never land in their compound. The innocents will die and lose their properties, and the evil ones will get their agenda fulfilled and coffers filled.
Let’s be wise enough to see incidents not the way or from the point they presented to us, but by observing many unrelated developments that don’t seem related on the surface. And synthesise a new narrative by joining the dots. It’s not difficult if you don’t allow the news reports or the rhetoric to bias your rationality.
And ask yourself the following questions.
- Did the killers of Pahalgam behave as normal terrorists do? What was different and why?
- Did the media report the incidents normally as they should? Or did they have their agenda? Whose agenda were they executing?
- In the event of a war, who stands to benefit and who stands to lose?
- Will this war be decisive? If yes, are you ready to handle the consequences of it?
- If it’s not, then will one more war solve it?
- The last, what is your benefit and loss?
You may not like to answer these questions now, but once you are done with your patriotic duty from your couch, gather enough courage and intellect to face these unpleasant questions. Remember, the country needs wise patriots, not gullible nationalists, who can be easily manipulated, fooled, deceived, or distracted.
(opinions expressed are those of the individual author and not necessarily the company)
