Theory of 'relativity' for commoners!

Really ‘related’ with relatively related relatives?

We have lots of these relatives through family relationships. “Close” relatives sometimes are not that ‘closely’ related. It is relative to situations, as to what ‘relates’ us really!

Oh! It is touchy or sensitive to resolve with relatives directly. Usually, it is the ‘take it for granted’ attitude, that dulls true bonds. Some sort of ‘right’ on the other’s ‘duties’ towards us is essentially what brings a sense of ‘suffocation’. We seek consolation by trying to reassure ourselves that we are ‘bound’ by social rules, customs, traditions, practices etc. Also, as an individual, we feel helpless to bring about any change. And, what kind of change could we think of? Already, ‘joint family’ concepts are a thing of past. Ironically, the word ‘joint-family’ got coined when the ‘recession’ had set into the ‘quality’ of relationships between relatives! Only a crisis would compel us to take a serious look at any issue! This time, it would be an emotional crisis that could perhaps persuade us strongly to take a serious and a deeper look. But once the emotional ‘balance’ is lost, sound judgment is the first victim! Handling emotions better, is an arduous task, given the present situation where there is no structure/institution in place to ‘train’ us. That leaves us with just one choice—an attempt to logically analyze the issue.

Logic helps us to understand that ‘subtle’ difference between ‘commitment’ and ‘accountability’. It is the clever blend of these two that compels us to be ‘duty-bound’ towards our relatives. When a commitment is compelled, using ‘social-accountability’ as a weapon, no rules can come to our rescue. Remaining ‘connected’ to relatives gives us a sense of social security. In ancient days our evolved ancestors resorted to ‘social’ boycott as a ‘refined’ way of punishment for crimes, instead of violent injury-causing, brute, crude punishments. Some where down the line, this got misused by ‘heads’ of clan, family, society etc and then the values got eroded. Today social boycott is not very effective since we are already used to dwelling in the same building, calling it ‘Apart’-ments, not bothering to even get introduced to the next door neighbor for years!

We do have a hazy picture of that subtle difference between commitment and accountability because many a times we are more comfortable in the company of our friends than our relatives. Friends ‘acknowledge’ our commitment more ‘manifestly’ than those ‘accountability’ demanding relatives who blame for not helping and fail to show any response even (leave alone any show of gratitude), because it is their ‘right’ as your ‘relative’. But the picture is still not that clear (non-interlaced-monitor is clearer, and like wise, non-interlaced understanding of commitment and accountability has to be clearer!)
There are that friends with just vested-interest, need based friendships, materialistic friendships etc. Also, there are those meek and humble relatives who do not protest against ‘accountability’ rights! It is therefore, that the debate about better help in times of need, whether from friends or from relatives, remains inconclusive and highly subjective.

We all are having that sense of commitment. But most of it remains latent for lack of adequate social recognition. It is here that emotions matter! For example, during the Nov-2008 Mumbai attack, even the staff of Taj hotel displayed tremendous sense of ‘commitment’ towards guests by risking their lives to save that of the guests! There was no accountability factor at all! Nor were they related as either friends or relatives. Even it did not matter if the guests were not fellow-countrymen! In a normal routine day, they (the very same staff) might perhaps deprive themselves of this tremendous joy, the inner experience, withholding the manifestation of commitment latent in them! They are victims of their own perception. It is the situation and society that victimizes us. Even students of ‘Law’ are required to ritualistically take an ‘oath’ to ‘commit’ themselves to justice! The preamble of every enactment is ample logical proof of limitations of law in fixing that ‘accountability’ through codification!

“Enough is enough” was the popular slogan during the post-analysis of Nov-2008 Mumbai attacks. It called for a deeper look at our sense of commitment beyond just complying with paying taxes, demanding ‘accountability’ from leaders, police, army etc. Our ‘commitment’ towards secularism seemed to need a serious ‘re-look’ when it has become a ‘right’ of some others, to be used indiscriminately, interpreting religion to even justify the taking of lives of innocent, defenseless civilians, women and even children!

Such extreme situation need not be the only reason for us to get our priorities re-aligned! It is quite sensible to avoid confusion about ‘commitment’, duty, response-ability, accountability etc. If and when this sense dawns, then, every body, more so those ‘accomplished’ individuals would invariably also end up as great social performers, offering their very capabilities to their very best, joyously with a deep sense of commitment, evolving and expanding their sphere of relationships from just relatives, to friends, society, country, mankind, and then every living being!

Our culture is very rich. There is a tradition to teach ‘values of commitment’ even at a tender age. Soon after that ‘thread-ceremony’ , a child is taught to accept food as an act out of ‘selfless-love’ by one’s own mother, implying that, it is her ‘commitment’ that provides the child his food and not his ‘right’ to be fed by a ‘duty-bound’ mother! Symbolically, the child utters “Bhavati Bhikshaam Deyhi” and then the mother offers rice grains. Today, the only significance that remains of this ritual is to ‘pose’ prominently enough before a camera or video-handy cam during the occasion!

So, obviously, there is no ‘accountability’ involved for the usual lack of response or feed-back !
Regards,
Psn(29 Dec, 2008)