Follow the Greats

17th Nov. 2010

We always tell- Follow the Greats! Is a common one-liner heavily laden with
both moral and social responsibility? Mainly, for commoners as it's believed
they don't or can't distinguish but prefer to follow Greats' footsteps. In
our epics, that to in any culture there are Greats as if purposefully carved
out for these commoners. Commoners also so piously agree with these Greats.
Inafact, from childhood they are so told. If you see, practically this is
a workable thumbs rule. Possibly, for that the rule was being followed.

Always, each culture (now, aproximately synonym to country) seeks to add
new Greats to the list of Greats. Like, we have added M.K.Gandhi etc.
This is done, to make the list compatible to the present time. Reasonably,
well thought action. Isn't it?

As the time passes, seems the definition of Greatness changes. Particularly,
in current time. Let's narrow down the scope to our country. On asking,
kids to spell out name of Greats of today, they get thoroughly confused.
May be in this contemporary world, a word like 'Purushotam' well let me
not be gender biased 'Narotam'has no meaning. We don't think our (political)
leaders great, not acharyas (teachers), not dhanatwaris (doctors), not
litterateurs not not .... I have not talked of commoners as we see them
not entities - just dumb followers. In haste, I should mention that atleast
for vote sake we don't do that being a functional democracy / anarchy.

Coming back to Greats' greatness, we now-a-days resort to a technique
of refinement. We say he/she's good in so and so but not so in this.
He's a good doctor but not good parent. He's a good professional but
not so in politics. This makes me believe a person is like a composition
of many distinctly different elements and to be great in each dimension
is not possible. Then judging a wholesome Greatness is an outdated quest?
You will, atleast I will agree to consider this scheme of evaluation is
too hard like judging the difference between 'erring' and 'wrong-doing'.
I will prefer to leave it to a linguist. Well, it is a dichotomy to look
into slices of a person when for convenience we look for globalisation.
Still, for a meaning of Greatness, I agree to narrow down the scope to
the field of operation. Like, I will say a minister is great if he is
doing his ministerial portfolio in a great way, so for a doctor,
teacher or for anybody in his/her profession. But, can we say a
doctor great if he's inhuman? Can you say minister great if he/she's a
liar even if is a great performer. That's a big question. Isn't it?
That's the confusion.

Here, I remember an episode happened to me. In school my father asked,
'how did you do in today's Math exam?' I replied, 'Did well in Geometry
and algebra.' Father understood what it meant. Similarly, like me, many
in this country understand what and who is Great to be followed.
Not getting anybody? It's perfectly OK if you are following media
everyday. Neither done wrong nor erred. Scratch your head for semantics;
and the best use of semantics is to serve for the self.
Then you are the Great, found a Great - that's the moral of today's
world but not to be followed by commoners for better life and bright
tomorrow.

Hrushikesha Mohanty