Not bad = Good?
For a while I have kept wondering if the term not bad was tantamount to saying good. I know that world is not in black and white. When you say your condition is not good you mean to say that your conditio is bad. But when you say your condition is not bad, you dont intend to mean good. Why is this?
Now with respect to good people and bad people. There are a few good people and there are a few bad people. and there are a few not bad people. Such are the ones whom we neither consider as harmful nor as useful. They are the grey ones. Infact they are the inactive ones. Like those not-dishonest ministers who do not take the bribe but at the same time are not honest enough to raise their voices against those who do take bribe. They tend to do so for they have to remain in that system. I have been told by many that if you do not tolerate such things it would be very difficult for you to stay in the system. And it is impossible to change the sytem if you are not within the system. What a vicious circle!!! It is the inactivity of the good that is causing more harm than the activity of the bad. Well, I agree to this. But if the good tend to get active are not easily curbed and nipped at the bud? What is the god damn solution to this? Acceptance, complacence or revolution?
Now with respect to good people and bad people. There are a few good people and there are a few bad people. and there are a few not bad people. Such are the ones whom we neither consider as harmful nor as useful. They are the grey ones. Infact they are the inactive ones. Like those not-dishonest ministers who do not take the bribe but at the same time are not honest enough to raise their voices against those who do take bribe. They tend to do so for they have to remain in that system. I have been told by many that if you do not tolerate such things it would be very difficult for you to stay in the system. And it is impossible to change the sytem if you are not within the system. What a vicious circle!!! It is the inactivity of the good that is causing more harm than the activity of the bad. Well, I agree to this. But if the good tend to get active are not easily curbed and nipped at the bud? What is the god damn solution to this? Acceptance, complacence or revolution?
It's all about the priorities - Revolution is a possibility only if "Changing the system" is the topmost priority of a lot of people. I opine that people in this bracket cannot necessarily be called "good". Acceptance is what happens when you have other priorities, and don't have the time to fight for change. The key thing is "time" - you are willing to fight the system IF you don't have other things which need attention. These people are not necessarily "not bad". Complacence is what happens when you have the time, but not the willingness. Again, these people are not necessarily "bad". Are they? Comments? Thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteSorry Pavan, did not visit my blog for a very long time. I understand what you say. That is precisely why I say that we have some bad people, some - not bad people and a few good people. Majority of us are in the not-bad sector. Unfortunately, we think that we are in the good sector because we are not bad. I do not intend to say that people who are complacent or people who accept are bad and people who revolt are good... The only intention of the piece is to clarify that not-bad people should not consider themselves as good people.
ReplyDeletePavan....your comment had repeated itself. So i have deleted it. no offense meant :)
ReplyDeleteAs they say, Dharmo Rakshati Rakshitaha. The best case for the "not-bad" sector is to go along the path of dharma(does that make them 'good' automatically?) - and the system will protect them.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right. But I am confused about what dharma does to those who neither violate it directly nor do they save it. Does the fact that they are not violating it, itself make them good? I question this because one of the tenets of dharma is also to stand up against adharma. Omission of a duty may not be equal to commission of a crime, but it is not good either.
ReplyDelete