Theory of Objectivity

Every person at some point wields his pen in an attempt to immortalize his thoughts on a scrap of paper. I would be lying if I said my opinions were only for my personal gratification. Opinions of friends, family and the media have influenced and corrupted my thought process to a great extent and this has instilled a fear and a sense of responsibility in me .From this stems a need to maintain a level of objectivity while penning down a thought fighting the part of me which hopes to influence and even corrupt your mind on some level.

I gravely fear that all I believe in is but an accretion of varied opinions which are not truly mine and what’s worse is that these opinions which have helped build my tower of faith may have been fuelled by selfish thoughts and clouded judgments. This forms the basis of my belief in what I like to call “theory of objectivity” .Do I vote for party “X” because of my father’s constant ranting against party “Y” !!

Matrimony , Religious faith and Sexual Orientation are issues of a greater consequence. The institution of marriage is a sacred one in our country and any aberrant viewpoint is looked upon rather vulgarly. Do we get married to celebrate love ( which I highly doubt in view of living in a society which shuns love marriages) or is it a social norm? This brings to mind a professor at my college, Mr.Murgvel. You could always say there was something different about this man from the way he dashed out at the administration and ridiculed social stigmas. I recollect one of my discussions with him…. (Well actually I was eavesdropping on his conversation with another professor!!) His exact words were “ I don’t believe in the institution of marriage” he said “No one has the right to acknowledge my marriage with someone….It’s very personal”

There is an anecdote attached to the childhood of Napolean Boneaparte which seems to support this theory of objectivity. The authenticity of the story is irrelevant what is of greater consequence is its hidden inference. Legend has it that when Napolean was an infant his parents ensured that they did not infuse any fear of any sort in their son. He was never exposed to infamous stories about the boogeyman nor was he told about heaven or hell. Other children his age were petrified of the dark but of course this was obviously beyond our little war general!! The message here is simple if anyone is conditioned to feel a certain way towards a scenario he reacts the way he has been taught or accustomed to do so.

Another worry of mine is the system of education. Let us take the example of a subject say History…. I firmly believe that texts should only form the parameters on which we make our judgments. Branding leaders as notorious or incompetent is for the students to decide and not the authors’. Pandit Nehru and Gandhiji are two personalities I ve never been able to form a steady opinion on. Like the most of us I worshipped both of them as heroes of our independence struggle the reason of course – My history text book!! When I was introduced to the school of thought that Gandhiji s stand on non-violence was at the expense of the lives of man and about Panditji s stand on China and what it brought us my feelings towards them turned sour. During the course of my experimentation with this theory of objectivity I have come to realize that my new found antagonism was baseless. My opinion was not a product of reasoning but of peer influence. My peers themselves may have based their opinions on the clouded judgment of an external source or misread and misunderstood the facts surrounding these two personalities. Today I stand with an objective viewpoint waiting ever so eagerly to form an opinion based on reason and facts.

Do we practice our respective religious faiths because we have been taught to do so? Are we truly monogamous beings or is it a product social conditioning? How can I guarantee the genuineness in intent of what I have been taught over the years?

You tell me…..