The Idea of “COMMON”

The Idea of “COMMON”

Societies are built on ideas, the ideas that were the result of intuition and discussion among groups… Groups; some are small, some big. Some intelligent, some mandabuddhi .We all are part of one or the other group. Various topics are discussed by various groups. Some discuss all that comes under sun; from lady to lakadi , some restrict to serious things. In all (most serious one) discussion, some where in the middle, some one will drop a word “COMMON+ bla bla”. This common+ or common++ (eg. Common sense,”lets talk about something that is common”,common man, common social ideology)are like anti aircraft instrument which will bring any aeroplane down(most of time jo banda bat kata rehat hai uski lag jata hai).I hope people have experienced this. Aur yebhi sach hai ki, in every group there are people who know where to, when to fire the anti aircraft guns. Muje “common+bla bla” se koyi problem nahi hai, problem iss batka hai ki, whether we really understand what “common+ or common++” stand for. Is word “common” is so common to use. Is idea of common, equal to idea of majoritism or democracy. Does individualism hurts common feeling or vice verse. Does idea personal sphere be opened to idea of common or should there be limit to common or personal or both ideas. Or should idea of “COMMON” be imposed or let personal space be absorbed in common. In the oceans of views, mine is small try, people can add their views.

Idea of common, can’t be so common. There has to be something that define the common. For me , Its elements (of subject) that define common. element or elements of comparison define the vastness of the definition of common . While comparing 2 person, elements of comparison may be few and therefore may be common in few, more the common ness more you are common to the compared one. But what, when comparing a group, a colony, a city, a society , a religion or human kind. Vastness of definition depends on the no of elements taken for comparison. Hence when we speak about common man that to with reference to people in India, we better be aware what we are speaking and on whose be-half. Most people have a belief that they represent the common man, his aspiration and need. Its not their mistake, its herd effect. People being the part of group doesn’t venture much or develop much 1-1 relation beyond certain limit. Research say that a person don’t maintain 1-1 relation with not more than 80-90. People make Generalization of the confined group applying the same to the universe.Universe is very vast and diverse to be generalized. Even while solving the problems, assumption and generalization are good for getting answer what is required rather than what it is . Most of discussion tends to have large number of assumption. However world is not sphere of assumption. Assuming and solving problem has its inherent flaws. However every thing cant be taken in real scenario. Assumption if made must be near to reality and sample taken as to variability of the universe. Which people fail to do so. Sampling and its quality is also key thing. Any thing that is to be generalized has to have a subject that is 1) objective 2) quantifiable 3) valid frame work. People make use of pain taking research, carried over period of some years, to come to generalization on social issues. Its this idea, that restrain me from generalizing things using Idea of “COMMON”. So, Is the assumption and generalization of elements of such a small number by people using “idea of common”, be deemed correct? Even if we add information, that person has collected, then what percent of elements of generalization is possible. I am not saying that we cant come to generalization, my point is , generalization need study, a study that involves all the stack holders of the subject and conclusion excepted by majority involved.

Idea of “COMMON” is a feeling that make people one among themselves. It has to be taken in aggregated sense rather than as a presumption of section of people. It is equally true that those who make much noise, will be able to put forward their version when subject feature is anarchy or undefined. Even in democracy minority views are respected or atleast are given chance to be expressed. While in majoritism people know which way to go. There will be no clandestine. Idea of common is like lamb under lion’s skin. Ideas are ideas, but what makes different is proponents of idea.Eg. antisemitism was present well before Hitler was even born but it was orator like him who gave devilish face to anti semitism. Idea of “COMMON” can be glorified by best orator. Its impossible for people not to believe such voice, but point is ; Is it right to accept without scrutinizing? Is it right to except all without voicing decent, when there exist enough content that threatens the idea of being “YOU”.
Sphere of personal or private is an idea that has linear relation with the growth of the society and its commitment to individual freedom. Freedom in conservative society is cusp of Individual freedom and society at large. Sphere of personal or private is element of the Individual freedom. As society mature, freedom will be respected with respect to the personal sphere. People some time ridicule those who distinguish personal sphere from community sphere or who introduce choice in the personal sphere. Personal sphere has grown over years and will continue to grow, adding things present other sphere. These ideas of society cant be made back benchers as these have strong assertive forces. I have seen people taking this idea aboard as on when required or case maybe. Point is simple personal sphere of others much not be encroached.
Personal sphere may be new and worrying concept with respect to community within freedom framework. This expression is protectionism and somewhere linked to the defeatist attitude. Defeatist attitude must not over shadow once broader understanding of society . People have ways to win, which has to be respected at all cost. Defeatist attitude must not venture in the presumptive area and draw vulgarity to the success. And about Protectionism, it doesn’t add value to society or add developmental story to the society, in this respect. Human being by nature are “Self”. It’s the degree of self that defines whether ideology is “Right” or “Left”. Those who think of being champions of community sphere fails to follow basic rule of consultation and ideology of midway. Lack of these lead to a presumption which gives idea of pseudo-moderator or pseudo-leader. World has seen a lot of such leaders, at individual level it effect personal sphere of others and imposition of Idea of “COMMON” on the personal sphere. Those who oppose and try to create awareness are labelled as morally corrupt, dis-illusion ed, ideologically degraded and worst case “Instigator” or infidel or outsider. Point is not, being called like that, but the point is about respecting each others ideology. Ideological tolerance which has to be one of the core element of community sphere , appears to clouded. This has to be revoked . I vow my ideological tolerance to personal sphere concept.

Right to freedom does include Right to individual freedom, however proponents of Idea of “COMMON” fail to respect that. Personal sphere has been back bencher not only in society but even in the policies that we see. India being a jewel of diversity must apply the Idea of “COMMON” with broader perspective. Absorption of personal sphere in the name of community or Idea of “COMMON” is a dangerous precedent. The Idea of “COMMON” represents shallowness of the opinion among some section of the society. It is baffling if it comes from learned one. Deep ignorance of anything that is outside their sphere of influence can provide hyperlink to stunted growth in the Idea of “COMMON”. Ignorance is not confined to lower stratum of society but also percolates the well read section of the society ie so called Elites of the society. Ignorance cant be passed on, as this is not the age of ignorance. Reading of literature related to various aspect of society, who it works, what necessary for its growth, whats necessary for social upliftment etc could help in clearing once view and understanding others. If not Idea of “COMMON” seems to be a primitive response of shrugging your shoulders and saying that some things are beyond once comprehension. Proponents of Idea of “COMMON” are undermining the diversity there by insulting both diversity and the idea itself.

Shivaprakash Yaragal