The Empire strikes back! This is an often heard statement. It signifies that when small chieftains rebel and disobey the dictates of the empire, the larger ruling body, sooner or later, strikes back. This is an act of revenge, of punishment and of re-establishing who has the power.
What significance is the statement to our present times? We live in an era of change, continuous change. We have recognized that change does not come easily and often with much heartburn. While we speak about the need for change and how fighting change is not a wise position to take, it is equally true that we are not able to support change, or participate in it in an intelligent manner.
Why is this so? Welcoming change on the one hand, however shakily, why do we find it difficult to accept the new?
When we build a castle on the beach, a sand castle, very soon the wind and the waves reduce it, make it one with the background.
Practices which are unsustainable by reason are sustained by people, almost despite all reason and opposition. To bring about change in these practices has been often the work of centuries. Slavery was not abolished in a day. Untouchability to this day can be seen in India. Legislative action has not been able to change much. Attitudes change with difficulty, if at all.
One can understand that human beings who have been practicing a way of living, get accustomed to it. The pain of change is understandable. It is one thing to say "Sorry, I find it difficult to change. I see that this is the sensible direction. But, please pardon me, in my lifetime I am unable to change."
However it is quite another thing to say, "Why do you say slavery is wrong, or untouchability?" This is almost like saying "There is nothing wrong. People have been practicing this for centuries. Why are you coming along now and wanting to make a change?"
The first position does not obstruct movement and change. The second one actively engages in sustaining the status quo. The second one raises philosophical questions. Is it really wrong to do what our forefathers have been doing? What makes us think that the experience of centuries is to be ignored? And often in an unstated undertones, "What about my privileges - won't change makes my life more difficult? Nobody wants to lose privileges - neither do I."
The Empire strikes back in interesting ways. But the process followed is the same as with civilizational ruins. A big building or a temple first has to be abandoned. People stopped coming to it because a River changes course, there is a famine, a conquest or a pestilence. Under these circumstances people leave and the building, the artifacts of their living, are left empty. Therefore this use is the first criteria.
Once disuse has been brought about, geographical and natural processes do the rest. The building settles, and dust settles. Dust and moisture, if available to the rest -- it decays either by sand or by sand and plant life.
It is also a paradox that when we want to improve something, we find that the improved practice, actually strengthens the older practice. It is almost a way of saying "Thank you, but no thank you". Therefore it seems that when change takes place it is not due to the support of interventions all human beings, but despite all the opposition that the idea has received. It is extremely difficult to support a new idea. All actions of support, use, modification bring about greater and greater resistance.
Therefore a new idea seems to grow, much like the sprouting of the seed -- it bursts to plant when it is time has come.
No comments:
Post a Comment