A sentence read nearly a decade ago echoes in mind as I think along these lines-
"Vaiyyaktik prem se Rashtriya Prem mahaan hota hai"
Translated, it becomes-
"Love for the Nation is greater than Love for the Individual"
Several examples for and against the statement comes to mind...examples from sources as diverse as History, Mythology and Fiction..
Akbar forcing Anarkali out of his kingdom and begging her not to return, even though he knew full well she was happiness personified for his beloved son..
Lord Ram ousting his dear wife to continue holding his claim to the tag of 'Maryada Puroshttam'...
Kunti never acknowledging Karna as her son for fear of discredit and disgrace...
Nehru and Lady Mountbatten never acknowledging their affair..
And in direct contrast we have the great King of England who gave up his throne to marry his sweetheart..
How does one analyse these?
Which betwixt the two is greater? Which is braver?
The regent who kills his inner self to show the world the face of a brave monarch?
Or the royalty that accepts the blows of society and his fall from honour to fulfill his heart's one desire?
The answer to this perhaps lies in the secret of what makes a leader..
To present one side of the coin, everyone cannot be a leader. A few have what it takes, only a few amongst these elite recognize their rare ability and still fewer wield this mighty sword correctly..these one-amongst-billions are, needless to say, the need of the day..the staple diet on which a nation, a community or a society feeds...for such a person to give up their position of responsibility for their personal needs will perhaps be seen as destructive..
Come to the other side of the coin...
Being a leader means possessing power...popularity..many a time, affluency...it is quite reasonable to suppose that not the thorns (read responsibilities) but the roses of 'Position' distracts a lover from his path of love...
Which side wins? Am I back to sqaure one? I wonder indeed!
Some pertinent questions that raise their heads...How can a dissatisfied and unhappy leader keep the people he leads happy? Everything said and done about the rarity of leaders, is it impossible to fill an empty social post? Isn't it more impossible to replace the object of love instead?
As I said, I wonder indeed!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
i think.. the statement is pretty atrocious.. killing individualism.. for whatever we name it.. collectivism is not right..
BUT.. if the conflict is between ones individual desires nad his DHARMA i guess.. Dharma should rule.. (dharma as in one's real duty.. not religion)..
And ppl who are capable of Keeing there Dharma are the leaders..
But tell me, do, if doing your real duty kills your heart forever, is it right? I dont think so!
You can see here the same "Is Self-sacrifice a vice or virtue" situation...Duty is a part of life but, Love is Life...and giving up my life cannot be right...
yeah.. right.. but if by doing one's dharma, one is getting higher value, which I happen to think is a universal truth, it wont be killing any part of life...
in any case i have a bit unorthodox opinion ablot love is life thing.. :)
love is life.. love for what/whom?
and how can it be life? how can one's life be dependent on something/someone else?
so i do not think love is life.. its just one small, but highly glorified part of life..
And where did you get the idea from that to love someone means having one's life dependent on someone/something? Love never needs crutches my friend.
And in these days, I believe the having the 'Love is Life' concept is the unorthodox one!
u gave me the idea..
If i life is love for someone/thing, then obviously my life will depend on that someone/thing.. no??
SO yes.. love needs nothing.. and its a beautiful emotion.. able to motivate to extreams.. But it is not all that is there to life.. is it..??
some say so...!
there can be love for duty, giving higher value than love for another human..
Dhrama Wins eventually...as you gorw older you will realize the same...but i feel you know that Dharma triumphs but making a controvrsy for urself
@ viv
u took that idea, i certainly dint give it to u...see if i love a man very much it does not mean my love and my life wil finish off wid him (god forbid)
its more like 'I Love' than 'I Love you' u understand? the act of loving, the emotion, the feeling is immeresed in the object of adoration, and yet not dependent on it...depends on you...your capacity to love :)
@Chirag
its not dharma vs love...its love vs love...more as in wich love is more imp to an individual - personal? social? wich is more satisfying? now this is a matter of personal choice - its my notion that individual satisfaction is of greater importance...only a happy individual wil make a happy society...but yes again, there are ppl who are nt in love wid ne other human being (wonder who such ppl r waise. never seen any) and for them its perhaps as u sed, duty above love...tel me, can there be ppl who are incapable of loving other human beings?
im also trying to point out that there may be so many people who are hypocrites - became martyrs in the public eye but actually enjoyed the fruits of being a social figure...
@ viv
u took that idea, i certainly dint give it to u...see if i love a man very much it does not mean my love and my life wil finish off wid him (god forbid)
its more like 'I Love' than 'I Love you' u understand? the act of loving, the emotion, the feeling is immeresed in the object of adoration, and yet not dependent on it...depends on you...your capacity to love :)
@Chirag
its not dharma vs love...its love vs love...more as in wich love is more imp to an individual - personal? social? wich is more satisfying? now this is a matter of personal choice - its my notion that individual satisfaction is of greater importance...only a happy individual wil make a happy society...but yes again, there are ppl who are nt in love wid ne other human being (wonder who such ppl r waise. never seen any) and for them its perhaps as u sed, duty above love...tel me, can there be ppl who are incapable of loving other human beings?
im also trying to point out that there may be so many people who are hypocrites - became martyrs in the public eye but actually enjoyed the fruits of being a social figure...
love for oneself i guess is the supreme one.. and remaining are a matter of personal choice..
i guess that is the Dharma of every being.. that satisfied.. i think life is well lived..
2.yes there are people not capable of loving oneself.. leave alone others..
my views only.. that is..!!
:D
are we working on economy of words?! I love you was shortened to I Love and then to I...lolz...
there is a saying that goes - He who loves himself has no competition..
elaborate please..
nothing...just a light hearted comment...
May I simply just say what a comfort to find a person that genuinely knows
what they're talking about on the web. You certainly know how to bring a problem to light and make it important. More and more people really need to check this out and understand this side of the story. I was surprised you are not more popular because you surely have the gift.
Feel free to visit my homepage ... webpage
I'd hate to give a simpering thanks :D
I love to write, but really don't know how to become more popular.. :P
Post a Comment