Recently, I read a book by AS Dulat on Kashmir politician Farukh Abdullah and related Kashmir issue. And then Abdullah called AS Dulat, the famous Ex-RAW chief as the Ghar ka Bhedi. This allegation is not new to me. The reasons Abdullah cited were not about Falsehood. It was about Truth. Why did he divulge the truth was his problem. Like, one of the facts, that he wanted Article 370 to be removed. Dulat, with his usual composure, said, I said the truth. If truth shall destroy friendships, I hope not, but if yes, let it be. I think I witness this a lot. I will explain.
My Friends had given a very good argument regarding exposing the identity of people around me in the name of theory. I also think it comes in the purview of doxxing. So, hence onwards, and already I am doing it, without exceptions, I will not divulge any names of people and what they do. Henceforth, any names I take, will be made up but the acts they do will not be of course.
However, there is a good observation even in this incident. I was noticing the circumstances when my friends tried to tell me how taking names can harm me in future. I appreciate their concern, it is justified but the intent behind this could be dual.
It's like the Lacanian Symptom. Let me explain.
Suppose there is a husband who is angry at his wife, furious, because she cheated on him. What Lacan says that it will be a matter of psychoanalytic enquiry whether the wife had some issues of mental health or not, cheating is not necessarily always pathological, but Anger is definitely pathological.
So, even if the anger is justified, does not make the anger a normal thing. It is always an imbalance, a symptom of something deeper, something more gruesome, some deeper disease. So, the husband without even enquiry, Lacan says, is not mentally stable and not that he was stable before the cheating, he was never stable. He had always in him the potential, the symptoms just came out after the cheating happened.
Women might cheat because of some systemic repression of their sexuality, but for men, the sexual side is not repressed systemically but the anger is. This will require us to understand how repression happens.
First of all, Repression is not suppression. Simply suppressing emotions is not repression. Repression is a sub-conscious phenomenon that is often triggered either by the social conditioning or the conditioned self itself.
For example, Male inexpressiveness is not a repression phenomenon. It is not pathological. While women sexuality is repressed. How do we know that? We know that because In case of male inexpressiveness, Male mostly does it consciously, the task of inexpression. He is in full awareness that he is not expressing himself. While the women sexuality is repressed from her childhood. Any attempt to somehow get a pleasure is demonized. Women orgasm is highly tabooed and A women wishing for her pleasure is often considered selfish and hence given names like Rand, prostitute and other such names.
A woman, highly skilled is not recognized in the male gaze. Anything that contests male ego, is deemed invisible. For example, a free woman, a lunatic woman, a mentally unstable woman, was never recognized in many conservative societies. As if, women are not allowed to be disturbed mentally. They will be deemed as someone demonized, possessed or something. Some supernatural entity is required to justify the irrational behaviour of woman.
If anything, we understand by any pattern of oppression, be it patriarchy, or be it racism, or casteism, It is the oppressor which is pathologically ill, the oppressed may or may not be. and here comes the concept of social justice. The oppressed has no opportunity to come out of the oppression because the oppressor is a mentally unstable person who thinks he knows what is better for the other person.
Coming to the issue, my friends, they are concerned about me, but deep down, I see a pathology, a defense to protect their ego. A pathology to escape judgement. A pathology to keep themselves as a victim of society.
This symptom is characteristic of under-achieving brilliant people. They are not successful yet, but they are brilliant people. I am included in this category hence I am self-implicating here. People like me, and my friends are like me, often critique the society as it is, but when a certain possibility comes where they could be at fault, they show the typical offense to the criticism as if, at that moment, there is no difference between some village uneducated idiot and this Mathematics honours graduate. This is the pathology that I am talking about.
Education and academic brilliance decide a lot of things except character. Character is the choice of decisions that you take when the stakes are related to you. You can be an agent of change for yourself. Every criticism can be a way to improve. But also, every criticism can be a way to increase your insecurity. Unfortunately, my friends have only increased their insecurities in my presence. Hope someday they achieve success and go for some professional help, some CBT, something, where they realize that I was not treating them as guineapigs, but I was being a friend, someone who assists you in your path to freedom. Freedom, the most beloved entity to mankind, which frees you from yourself, when you start treating yourself like you treat others, the indifference to self, the unbiased equality between you and other.
Everywhere, when I see, I see people suffering with some or other mental health. How do you suppose about me to just keep looking at them and not do something about it? I try to help close ones, and I feel the close ones are ones who consider me a traitor of sorts. Some days back, when I criticized a senior of mine, he called me indirectly, Vibhishan. Although, I share a part of my name, Like Vibhat, Vibhishan, seems same only :)
But the deeper lying issue remained unaddressed. A theorist, a thinker never critiques in vengeance, always to help. But unfortunately, people are not willing to change. That's why I am politically not in favour of changing hearts of people.
I see couples around me, Fighting, parents fighting, a man and a woman fighting. They do not realize that the fight is really a sexual fight. Most of the fights of opposite genders, between sons and mothers, between father and daughters, between Husbands and wives, are sexual in nature.
They complain about the behaviour of the other gender, but in somewhere in the sub-conscious, they project some or other sub-conscious sexual urge. Like, the Indian construct of Mamta, what is this but just a Sexual fetish glorified. Let me explain.
So, in patriarchal system, which is a glorified name of savage jungle, relation between a man and a woman, say your father and mother, is mostly ruled by biology and seldom by love. Societal norms facilitate natural evolution and men and women are not individuals but agents of evolution, some objects, gudda gudiya, who are made to copulate. So, after sex, and 1 or two offsprings, the male is mostly unattractive to the female since the body became undesirable. The primal urge to copulate is over. Now, the woman is unattractive as well. And that was all the so called "Love" that was. A sexual copulation. But the women aches for the sexual chemistry which the male cannot provide now, because sex is done. Now he has no incentive to interact with the female. So, she finds a smaller version of her husband, her son, and tries to create circumstances where a conflict occurs. It is well known that conflicts fuel sexual desires. That's why men and women fight, your mother shouts at you, brothers and sisters fight and may be sometimes, a latent homosexuality is there, that's why male friends fight.
I see around me these people I find, this is actually those emotions, human beings are fetishists. They are experts in making different emotions and names to explain the same feeling. The primal feeling is sex, the names, whereas are multitude in numbers, Prem, Vaasna, Vatshalya, Karuna, Daya, mamta, etc.
Sometime back I once said to my friends, that I write, or for that matter, anybody creates something because he is not well. He is pathologically incomplete and unstable. He could not fight completeness in the world of God, so he has to create something of his own to feel complete. And the retaliation that I faced. I sometimes wonder, "are they not observing the way they defend the insecurities? Are you not observant enough the way their egos act out? Are they not aware of the fact that merely by accepting the bizarre thing that I am saying, they can open a possibility to a newer self, but they choose to defend themselves.
I guess, mental instability, when becomes a norm, mentally stable people sound arrogant, sound like Vibhishans. They were born like lunatics, and unfortunately, they will die like ones too.
But, may be, sometime in future, My writings will help someone who will be striving to understand the bizarre world around him, and why people are so retarded. He will get it by reading my writing. I do not claim to be the best doctors, when the Upanishads are present, Astavakra Geeta is present, when Dhammapada is present, Geeta I don't take the name since it was, in my opinion, somewhat pathological too, I will explain this in some next blog, So yes, if these are present, who cares, what some Vibhishan writes. But, I have the answer, someone like me, someone Vibhishan, some Ghar ka bhedi, someone who keeps morals and principles above the parochial visions of selfish friendships and family and kinships, will get a solace in my writings. Someone who has hopes for a better society, where everyone is treated alike regardless of family affiliations, and friendly ties, Where these relations are not fueled by selfish motives but for freedom and freedom sake. Till then, My own mental instability will keep going and I will keep writing. This is the Grand psychoanalytic project, in terms of Freud. Freud must have been a Vibhishan himself. Anyone who values truth above selfish motives has to be a Vibhishan, it is not optional, but imperative.
No comments:
Post a Comment