The ultimate question

In the late eighties, the renowned film maker Mani Ratnam released “Nayagan”, a poignant movie with Kamal Hassan in the lead role. It was about a Mumbai based don. The movie received rave reviews and was later made in Hindi too titled “Dayavan” .In the closing scene of Nayagan, the grandson of the don puts him a straight question, “Grandpa, are you a good man or a bad man?” The don is shot dead by his adopted son, whose father was killed by the Don years ago, even as he parries the question. It was indeed a moving scene with Kamal coming out in flying colours in that scene particularly.

When the movie was released, I was in my mid forties with a great zest for life and hardly any serious notion about right and wrong in my mind. At the first viewing of this movie then, this question did not have much impact on me personally. I just passed it off as a clever way to end a movie of this genre which glorified violence from start to finish. I even remember mentioning it as Mani Ratnam’s inimitable touch. The pace of life being quite hectic those days, the movie and the final question just faded from my memory until recently when I saw the movie for a second time. The whole movie appeared insane and contrived save for the last question addressed by the kid to his grandfather. This time I was totally shaken by that question. The intervening two decades have certainly caused a big change in my attitude to life. I realised it from how that question made me restless.

The 8th Century Sufi scholar Sufyan al-Thawri had a very simple solution to this question. He said “If someone remarks ‘what an excellent man you are!’ and this pleases you more than his saying ‘What a bad man you are!’ know that you are still a bad man.”
Such an acid test for a self appraisal would have certainly been meaningful around the time the Sufi scholar lived. There was possibly no sycophancy and perhaps ‘calling a spade a spade’ was the most practised virtue. If someone was really bad, there were possibly many to tell him so. But in the modern context, the test prescribed by the Sufi scholar would appear highly ineffective.

In the modern scenario, people of questionable ways are completely shielded by sycophants whose intense obsequiousness provides an impenetrable shield for such shady characters. It is such sycophancy that shielded someone like Ramalinga Raju for years until he decided to come clean with his misdeeds. There will not be a single person who can break through this shield and tell the man that he is a bad person. Till his end, he will be showered with lavish praise and any voice of dissent will get totally muffled in this din. He will never get a chance to apply the Sufi’s yardstick to judge himself. The irony is that after his death, his sycophants will become louder! So he will never get a chance to hear that he is a bad man to set in motion any kind of introspection in him.

It is a great pity that no one gets to hear that he is a bad person. If he does, he may probably initiate some corrective measures to set right the aberrations in him if he is earnest about it. If at all he gets to hear such a remark, it would be only when he loses his fangs and his being good or bad is only a matter of academic interest. As a child, my parents called me a bad boy from time to time as a part of their conditioning exercise. If I did not eat well, I was a bad boy. If I did not brush my teeth till noon, I was a bad boy. I am sure you know what I mean. As I grew older and the range of my mischief expanded to my neighbourhood, my proud parents rushed to defend me always and consequently the number of occasions of being called a bad boy reduced drastically. My youth kept me far too busy to worry about what others thought of me. It was a time when the philosophy of guys like Alexander Woollcott, namely, “All the things I like to do are either immoral, illegal or fattening” appealed to me immensely. It kind of signified total freedom and a break from the shackles of social restrictions. My professional life was more in the nature of swimming with the current when I requested my conscience to lie low since it was unlikely that it would have any say in the things that I did.

I have now arrived at the evening of my life. My conscience has now become like a bickering mother in law trying to find fault with everything I did in the past. I can’t blame it since there is nothing much in my present that it can become critical about! But I know one thing for sure. If ever I face a situation like Nayagan when my grandchild asks me a similar question, my conscience will never permit me to answer in the affirmative! Probably, I too would parry that question like the Nayagan!

 

Dear Jaya
That's a very interesting classification of 'bad' people! The first two types will always be in the news! I find that the 'sensation hungry' newspapers and TV channels are always engaged in 'breaking news' of such people. I remember when Idi Amin was in the lime light as the worst dictator, newspapers were full of stories about him. When Marcos ruled over the Phillipines, his darling wife Imelda was always hitting the headlines for wrong reasons. Serial killers had their share of popularity. There were newspapers who used guys like Auto Shankar to increase their circulation. When the terrorists were holding Mumbai to ransom, the TV channels were having a whale of a time.

The best that the 'circumstantial' bad can aspire for is a PP sized photo pasted in public places and Police Stations. The innocuous bad hardly make any news. I must say that your assurance indeed makes me feel less guilty!
Sri

 

Dear Shanthi
Nothing changes as rapidly as the parameter for goodness. What was bad yesterday is considered good today. I have heard that when Rajagopalachari was the CM of Tamilnadu, he never hesitated to travel by public transport to his office but today, the CM is accompanied by a convoy of over two dozen cars! This change has come about in just about 60 years and what are sixty years in the time spectrum of human existence? The dilution in our parameter for goodness is far more rapid now than ever before. The values that our parents and grandparents cherished are laughed at now. Among the younger generation, there are many who think that Gandhiji spoiled the future of the country with his outdated values!

Hats off to you for your observation that "What is good in my small sphere of reason need not necessarily be good for others." This is yet another aspect. My perception of goodness may not be entirely in tune with yours. In such circumstances, the person I consider as good may be bad in your eyes. In such an extremely volatile situation, we can only advise our wards to stay tuned to the dictates of their own conscience. There can be no greater platform than one's own conscience for a moral and ethical evaluation of oneself.

I am beholden to you for your concluding words Shanthi. They certainly make me feel good.
Sri

 

Dear Muzna
Those words of Kabir Das quoted by you are indeed very profound.

It is easy to think of every one else as bad but how will we know if everyone thinks of us as bad? It will make more sense to keep looking for goodness in others but when it comes to us, the search should be for our own negative qualities. This is the greatest exercise in humility.

The ability to see the bad qualities in us is a big virtue.
This is what the Sufi Scholar Jalal-uddin-Rumi meant when he said, "If thou hast not seen the devil, look at thine own self"
Sri

 

Dear Mindi
Your writings have always been reflective of your own good nature.
I want to repeat your own assessment:
I think I will answer in the affirmative too at this point of time in my life…
This is a very important point. Even after 50 years, we must strive to be good in terms of today's values. We must never allow the inevitable dilution in values with the efflux of time
to bring down our moral stance. It is absolutely necessary that whatever moral values that we hold dear to our heart today must remain the same decades hence even if there is a further break down in moral values then.
Sri