Sebastian Noronha
In a protest to any proposal there are multiple parties; there is the proposing party, the opposing party, there are some who are on the fence, and then there is the party that looks at all the aspects and tries to commonly reach a win-win situation.
Not being specifically driven by any particular protest, I find it intriguing how people today protest and oppose various proposals, to the point of bordering on rioting. Often the case is that only a handful of those who form the opposing congregation really know the situation in complete detail. The rest of the majority in the opposing group is oblivious to what exactly is being protested against. They are generally driven by political forces, or by peer-pressure. This results in a half-knowledge driven protests which more-often-than-not derive its strength from a fanatical group or gang of people with half knowledge but full of feverish fanaticism.
On the other hand, the party that puts forth the original proposal which generally comprises of wealthy industrialists and/or large business conglomerates is convinced in its own way that their proposal is the only correct way to go. Again, there exists ambiguity here, since many-a-times project reports are wrongly fudged to favour the proposal and the proposer/s often cut corners and twist certain details to make their proposal appear to be fault-free. These parties mostly have the blessings of the powers-that-be, mainly politicians and highly placed individuals in the system. But not every time is the proposal put forth bad or disadvantageous. There are always the pros and cons.
The people on the fence are not worth mentioning because they choose to be neutral and nobody can impose anything on people with such mindsets. They tend to be the people with a devil-may-care attitude.
Now, enter the mediators; these are the people who generally possess a clear mind, free of any mind-blocks and baggage. Rationally and reasonably thinking individuals are generally at the helm of such groups. One would often find subject matter experts in such groups; people who are educated and qualified enough to understand the topic at hand and/or people who have individually done extensive research on the issue that is being discussed. This group of people rationally analyse the situation with no bias towards any particular outcome. With a clear mind they discuss the pros and cons of the proposal and weigh the advantages against the disadvantages so as to reach an understanding of whether the proposal is viable or not. In most cases there is always a midpoint where the proposer and the opposing party can reach a mutually beneficial decision. These are the people who recognize the fact that any progressive initiative comes with its own set of collateral damage. They evaluate the damage against the progress and try to reach a consensus where the disadvantages are reduced to minimum but employing various proven damage-controlling techniques and methods.
The next stage would logically be a healthy discussion between all the parties where transparency is of paramount importance and mutual acceptance of terms and conditions has to be prevalent.
This is exactly how a protest should work. If we have to progress as a society and as an economy we have to come to such kind of understandings and such kind of win-win solutions rather than blindly opposing anything that comes our way.
However, in recent times, there seems to be a wave of dissent against anything and everything that is being proposed. The word ‘progress’ has somehow become the vessel of the devil. Negativity has become the way of life; and maybe rightly so.
Our elected representatives, authorities, and officials, have led us to be such cynical persons. Whenever there is any progressive proposal put forth, we start-off with a handicap of believing that this proposal is aimed at filling the coffers of our politicians and the industrialists involved. Somehow there are these invisible blinders that come onto our eyes. Mind blocks are formed almost immediately. We have become a lot that has been “once bitten, twice shy”. Resistance to change is become a way of life.
It is our right to oppose what we think is wrong, but as far as possible we have to try to evolve into the rationally thinking group or party. The blinders and mind-blocks have to be shed. Clarity of the mind is the need of the hour. Blind cynicism is slowly corrupting our feeble minds into absorbing only negative energies that are being dispersed by the wide-spread naysayers of today. As laymen we should learn how to choose our battles.
We as mature educated adults have been given at least enough common sense to do our own little research and to try and understand what is actually going on, rather than blindly following somebody else’s belief system. Today we live in such an open society, we have access to experts, and to various tools like the internet where we can look up and get a clear understanding of whether what we are intending to oppose is really an evil or whether we are just looking at it through the opacity of someone else’s blurred vision.
We should also note that lately there has slowly evolved another set of people who form NGOs and activist groups opposing just about anything that comes their way, and finally fade away into the horizon after being paid-off by the proposing party. Those who fall prey to the propaganda by these type people are finally left with nothing but the dangling carrot in front which nobody finally gets to.
Towards the end I would like to quote Theodore Roosevelt where he said, “A great democracy has got to be progressive or it will soon cease to be great or a democracy.”
Let us wake up! Let’s start thinking for ourselves! Let us individually decide what is good for each of us before forming a crazy swarm which chokes the progressiveness of the system. Let us face the world with complete and full knowledge of the happenings rather than with half knowledge which ultimately leads to the collapse of the system. Let us lead ourselves towards progress.
