In my last post (The Blue Movement – let’s make a start), I suggested what could be the first rule of the movement to make this world of ours a nicer place peopled by ‘humane’-beings.
I was talking about the need to make a start, with changes in our individual behaviour, and I narrated a commonplace incident which could make us angry and then zoom into a full fledged domestic upheaval. I had suggested that, in such instances, we examine alternative responses to anger as anger is an alienating force.
Lets now consider some real instances where people could have got angry, but didn’t, but that did not make the world a nicer place or the culprit more humane.
A nearly-blind father – a retired pensioner, a popular professor and a great scholar – has a son. The son, an alcoholic and gambler, in the guise of taking money to meet household expenses, got his father to sign cheques that emptied all the father’s deposits. The father came to know about it only when the creditors came knocking at his door. However, he never confronted his son; only shifted the responsibility of looking after the household to another person he trusted.
The wayward son has not shown any remorse or expressed regret. He continues to live as he has always done, though how he manages to finance his lifestyle now is a mystery to me.
The father isn’t indifferent to his son’s behaviour, though he is not raving, ranting or complaining. He feels that his intervention will be fruitless and that in some way he himself is responsible for how his son has turned out.
Even if the son’s behaviour is indeed a result of his upbringing, the father’s passive attitude is not making the son any better.
How would citizens of our compassionate New World respond to this kind of situation?
Perhaps, with a metarule stating that: While anger vitiates the atmosphere and alternative expressions need to be tried (that’s rule 1 – see previous post), Passivity or Inaction would not be an appropriate response?