To Err is...
Copyright (C), Puneet Gupta, 2015
I don't like getting into arguments. I often do.
Because I have opinions, and oodles of conviction to go with them. But unlike many people I know, my conviction stems more from a sense of morality and ideals rather than hearsay or regurgitated data from newspapers or TV discussions. And that makes these arguments tough. Because its the classic battle of feel versus fact.Most of them are about what is right versus what is wrong, what is ideal versus what is convenient. I argue that its not okay to have a chalta hai attitude about life or about other people. Hordes of people jumping a red-light cannot justify us breaking the rule too. "No one is looking" does not justify throwing trash on the road. I don't compromise on principles - that's how I conduct myself, and that is how I expect others to be.
But I very well know that I myself err - it is not a perfect picture. My need to do the right thing does take an unbecoming back seat sometimes when I think I don't have a choice. Like when the inspector from the cooking gas agency came over and refused to issue an NOC unless I ‘took care’ of him. I had all the right papers, documents to support and no real “objections” he could state. But sans the two hundred rupees he managed to swindle out of me, he would not budge. Long after he had left smiling, handing over the NOC to me, it kept gnawing at me. What could I have done?
Did I have a choice? Yes, I did. An uncomfortable one, but yes.
So when I, with my strong beliefs and principles can take an easy way out, what right do I have to have such and better expectations from others? Does it then come down to the priorities one has in life - what each one of us holds important, dear to oneself?
I don't like getting into arguments. I often do.
Because I have opinions, and oodles of conviction to go with them. But unlike many people I know, my conviction stems more from a sense of morality and ideals rather than hearsay or regurgitated data from newspapers or TV discussions. And that makes these arguments tough. Because its the classic battle of feel versus fact.Most of them are about what is right versus what is wrong, what is ideal versus what is convenient. I argue that its not okay to have a chalta hai attitude about life or about other people. Hordes of people jumping a red-light cannot justify us breaking the rule too. "No one is looking" does not justify throwing trash on the road. I don't compromise on principles - that's how I conduct myself, and that is how I expect others to be.
But I very well know that I myself err - it is not a perfect picture. My need to do the right thing does take an unbecoming back seat sometimes when I think I don't have a choice. Like when the inspector from the cooking gas agency came over and refused to issue an NOC unless I ‘took care’ of him. I had all the right papers, documents to support and no real “objections” he could state. But sans the two hundred rupees he managed to swindle out of me, he would not budge. Long after he had left smiling, handing over the NOC to me, it kept gnawing at me. What could I have done?
Did I have a choice? Yes, I did. An uncomfortable one, but yes.
So when I, with my strong beliefs and principles can take an easy way out, what right do I have to have such and better expectations from others? Does it then come down to the priorities one has in life - what each one of us holds important, dear to oneself?
No comments have been added yet.
