Humans in general are attached to some "things" because of race, religion, caste, land, language etc. So when we get attached to these things, we see a sense of winning for us when something ours' wins. For example - one gets thrilled when his country's football team wins a match, when a person of his race becomes a president, when person of his caste wins a beauty pageant competition. So in general we want "our" thing to win. Pretty natural. Pretty humanly like. And this keeps the system running and always tries to produce results - win or lose.
So when "ours" wins, we feel pride, when "ours" lose, we either satisfy ourselves by thinking we will try hard to win next time or we just complain that competition was biased. Irrespective of the outcome, there would be a "next time". Next time happens because either the winner wants to prove that he is the champion of all times or loser wants to win the battle again. More than the intentions of former, the intentions of latter are very strong, the sense of being defeated keeps him/society awake all times, thus certifying the existence of "Law of Imbalance"
Let's talk a bit of history and that of India - Indian history is comprised of dividing the society into castes: Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. For a very long period of Indian history Brahmins and Kshatriyas used to be the top of the ladder in the society. Shudras are generally (in majority) were either treated as untouchables or never entertained to be part of decision making system. So then, Shudras or the bottom of the Varna category were losers. The sense of losing was for many years, in fact centuries. But "Law of Imbalance" always provoked someone from the losing category to fight the existing system. That law provoked a leader B.R.Ambedkar to change the system. People falling under "his side" who were feeling defeated for centuries started winning and system is still undergoing change. Finally a lady, Mayawati, from the same category has become Chief Minister of the most populous state in Republic India, Uttar Pradesh. If a person from 16th or 19th century is woken up from his death grave and told this victory of Shudra, he would faint - as a person hailing from Shudra ruling the society is unimaginable in those times. Now let's get back to big picture again - with Shudra winning the game, who lost? Some are living so poor that Mayawati once declared that she might bring reservations to low income earning Brahmins. Anyways the current existing system has provoked the "Law of Imbalance" again. But new result would come out when the sense of losing vibrates through other society at large - this vibration would see a new hero rising out of the system, someone similar to B.R.Ambedkar.
Let's talk a bit about world history - Greece. Greece once ruled of the world. Alexander the Great conquered majority parts on the planet. In short, Greece ruled for much time of human race existence. Now, in 2013, Greece is facing worst financial crisis where the current government is not capable of funding salaries for all its working citizens. If you wake up Alexander now and tell him the current situation, he would be shocked. So once super power of the world, is now seeing turbulent times ahead. When you are too powerful, you are imbalanced, system tries to go for balance - "going to balance" arises from peoples' minds. That people either might be part of "your" system like within Greece, or might be part of other countries. Again this is a case pointing "Law of Imbalance"
Let's talk the current super power - America, the US. American government involvement in world politics is known to every educated individual breathing air today. And undoubtedly we have to accept America is the super power. But when did the super power start? After second world war and exactly after the cold war era. How long will it rule the world? The sense of superiority is an imbalance of the system. From the "Law of Imbalance" we also have the result, current American deficit is 11 trillion dollars - so huge. I'm not even talking about the other part of world who feel they are defeated by super power. There are already predictions that the super power crown might go to China or some other country in other 100 years or so. Again the case of super power is supporting point for "Law of Imbalance"
Let's talk about US again, until late 20th century, blacks were considered slaves and whites rule makers. There was an imbalance in the system. That imbalance provoked Martin Luther King Jr. Now, we are seeing Obama running the country - this would never be imagined by a person living in 18th or 19th century!!
Why talk about societies made of people always, let's talk about "society of companies" - There are plenty of examples to quote around here - Nokia, once world leader of mobile phone producers, is now facing difficult periods. Microsoft, seeing turbulent times. Apple, shaky future ahead. Kodak, no voice heard recently. Will Google continue it's current dominance? Unsure.
"Law of Imbalance" shifts power from one system to other. Sometimes shift happens in just 20 years, like case of Nokia, sometimes some millenniums, like Indian caste system. But eventually shift happens. But system won't remain balanced after the shift, because system is never perfect. Perfection is an illusion. The little imperfections sum up slowly so big that it starts fighting against the winner.
So, why are we talking about the "Law of Imbalance"?
As we see, whenever the system is imbalanced to it's peak, we always see a new leader being born to make the shift - like Mahatma Gandhi, B.R.Ambedkar, Martin Luther King Jr.,Malala, Mandela etc.
People can be categorized into 3 groups primarily according to this "Law of Imbalance" -
- Leader
- Beneficiary
- Agitator- Or who "agonizes" about imbalance.
Leader would fight for the lost majority. He comes on to road, motivates public, challenges the system and brings up the change.
Agitator is the fuel for the leader. Because of the agitator, leader exists. Once the shift happens, agitators who have top score in the mind of the leader, reap the most benefits. Agitators on the bottom of the list hardly see a big change. But the bottom people would've worried so much about the existing imbalance that they would've stopped working, participated in debates, gave lectures to fellow mates etc. They might have passed so much time and undergone so huge stress that it would've reflected in their work or well being. After the shift happens, this bottom line people gain so little that in spite of gaining from the shift, they would have lost more!!
Yes, the missed category - Beneficiaries or the pure opportunists. These guys see an opportunity out of every problem. When a new country is about to be granted independence, these people start pooling their finances for infrastructure opportunities that might come up, when they see their economy has reached it's peak they start investing in low risk currencies/markets etc.
Among the three : Leader is the hero, Beneficiaries reap profits, Agitators get sympathy. History remembers agitations and forgets the agitators. Bottom agitators would in fact have lost the battle of life in spite of winning the battle of system.
"Law of Imbalance" always exists. What you are and who you want to be?
For my friends, yes this blog has stemmed up from Telangana movement. But, statements hold true for every imbalanced system. And according to "Law of Imbalance", all systems are imbalanced.
"There's a question that arises - "So, shouldn't one agitate? If no one agitates how the imbalance shift happens" ..Yes, agitations should exist. But agitator should maintain a proper balance. He shouldn't undergo so huge stress that he stops thinking like beneficiary !!"
0 comments:
Post a Comment