33rd Hanson: Hypocrisy of morality and morality of hypocrisy

When the fundamental values ​​of democracy are in crisis, an event keeping it at the center has the backdrop of torture, the contemporaneity of cruelty and finally the expectation of conscience. These types of events continue to thrive in societies that have the capacity to think and understand. At the beginning of them, there is an analysis of the ending humanity and finally a call for a new humanity. Actually, it is to walk in a sinking time — in a sea of ​​noises — speaking in the light, recognizing darkness.

Every year the 33rd event of the literary monthly magazine ‘Hans’ held in Delhi on Premchand’s birth anniversary (31 July) this time focused on ‘Ethics of Democracy and Democracy of Morals’. ‘Hans’ editor Sanjay Sahai recalled Rajendra Yadav, former editor of ‘Hans’, saying his death was premature, as he should have lived at least 500 years. Here is a scene in which when the protagonist of a poem of Muktibodh returns home with a bewildered symbol and smiling form, Upmaas comes to the door and tells him that he should live for a hundred years.

No Need Of The Word

However, these days around us people are being killed unnecessarily by their own people. Priyadarshan, the director of this hansijan, while referring to his fellow journalists searching for the meaning of mob lynching in Hindi, said that there is no need to search for Hindi meaning for it, mob lynching should be out of our dictionary as soon as possible.

Social activists recognize the cases of mob lynching that occurred in Harsha Mandar in the years gone by, and the growing hatred of the unknown Muslims among the unknown Hindus. As a collector, he has vast experience of Gujarat riots. He believes that in the meantime, there were more people who were saved than those who killed, but today values ​​like compassion and sympathy have gone far away from our life-behavior.

Remembering Rajendra Yadav in Hansayojana, every speaker considers his primary responsibility, then how can political thinkers and Dalit activists like Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd remain untouched by this. He spoke on the history of persecution in English and in this order Rajendra Yadav was first declared the head of North India and then the greatest Shudra writer of the world.

Krishna Kumar, reputed as an educationist and sociologist, described democracy as part of management science. He admitted that some things are rotting, education is also one of them. He advocated silence and while referring to his friend Apoorvananda said that I have asked him to be silent, he has been resisting for four years, but nothing happened. They should understand that being silent is also a kind of resistance. All the words have lost their meaning now, we should keep quiet to create new words.

Indira Jaising, who was chosen among the 50 most powerful women in the Forbes list, spoke in English as per her profession (advocacy). He referred to his experiences with the Supreme Court, and favored assertiveness, not silence.

Later, Syeda Hameed, who belonged to the family of Altaf Hussain Hali, reminded the statement of Hali of 1879 in which he said that every Urdu person should read Sanskrit and Hindi, and every Hindi one should read Urdu. He narrated Faiz Ahmad Faiz’s famous speech in jail, ‘Nisar main tiri lali ke ai watan ki jah / chali hai ritual koi na sir uth ke chala …’ “with emotion.

In all our activities, the intellectuals around us seem to propose this luminous thing that now we need to rethink everything. This new end is so new that the courage to open it and face it, merges into a glow.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta, the Chancellor of Ashoka University and a well-known columnist, also propagates this type of intellectualism as the last speaker of the Hansayojana. Speaking in Hindi, he talks about freedom, equality, fraternity and constitution becoming words of arms. Previously, these words were weapons in other sense, now in the sense of words, they are in completely different meanings. Possibility of understanding in the language is over. In this way, the scope of literature, public works and democracy is no more.

Pratap Bhanu Mehta seems like a person disillusioned with the activities that make the consents agree. Looking for them — who really should listen to us and believe in us. This type of search ends by going on introspection, while solution is a phenomenon ahead of it. He raises the question, are we really moral people? Is our life really the norm of morality? He himself answers that in fact, we are all hypocrites. Today, the first thing of our morality is to show the hypocrisy of someone. Hypocrisy is a psychological weapon. The game of hypocrisy is the most dangerous game of democracy. It is the easiest to show hypocrisy, no credibility is required, just a little doubt is required.

After going through this type of discussion, it seems that our society is a die-hard person and our intellectuals, their family members who want to take it up on the escalator to somewhere, while he is very afraid to climb the escalator. In this situation, Pratap Bhanu Mehta considers nationalism to be a violation of human rights, saying that he cannot live without an enemy. After this, he slowly builds nationalism with an identity. He considers identity politics as something like nationalism. And finally new personal identity, new human rights and

Need to think afresh on everything

Mahakavi Gulzar of this era has said for similar occasions:

“From where to where?”

This was not news but

Any tip where found

That’s where you’ll meet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *