Debilitating Dilemma

           During my school days the first session of Monday schedule of classes was invariably slotted for Moral Science and it was generally liked by all students; not because we were all budding moralists aspiring to be righteous citizens but simply because we could afford not to pay any attention to it and relax. Unlike other subjects, there was no formal test for Moral Science that could affect us academically. Simple stories espousing values like truthfulness, love, discipline, sacrifice, dedication, focus, compassion hard work and team spirit we're in read by the teacher to us in those classes.

Our innocent minds did not realize that though the school was not evaluating us on this subject, life would be constantly and harshly judging us later. In our immaturity we believed that there were two baskets of values to choose from- one, that required an effort, had the positive values mentioned before and the other, that was a default choice, had their opposites like falsehood, hatred, laziness, selfishness, carelessness and so on. It never occurred to us that life does not dish out issues in black and white that can be recognized easily. We regularly face confusing shades of grey and taking a stand in any situation can be quite difficult at times. In fact, the conflict between the contents of the two baskets can be less confounding than the rift among the very values that are considered as positive.

      In Mahabharat, Bhishma was the revered father figure equally respected by the two warring factions for his valor and wisdom. However, after the episode of Draupadi’s public disrobing in the presence of Bhishma, he was questioned as to why he did not object to such a heinous act. His justification for his absolute silence, despite his prowess and influence, in the face of an immoral action against a woman emphasizes the point I have made in the beginning. Bhishma admitted, “I kept quiet because I was tied by my loyalty to the throne.” From Bhishma’s perspective his ‘loyalty to the throne’ was not a convenient excuse for personal aggrandizement because he had taken a vow never to be a king himself and there was no need for him to curry favour. Though he did not put it very candidly, he must had been torn between two values- chivalry, and patriotism to the empire. In the said episode, chivalry just took a backseat.

        It is not that we come across such conflicts among positive values only once in a while. I was reminded of the Bhishma story, probably because of a similar undercurrent, on reading about a recent protest by Indian wrestlers against Wrestling Federation Chief for sexual harassment. The protesting wrestlers have accused that they have been manhandled by police at Jantar Mantar during their peaceful demonstration. Supreme Court also has now closed further proceedings on their petition. The truth of the accusation in this case is yet to be ascertained but in the initial days of the controversy P T Usha found fault with the protestors, justifying her position by remarking that the public protest sullied the country’s image internationally. This naturally left the ‘victims’ fuming about her insensitivity and they decried that such a remark from the doyen of Indian athletics was heart breaking. Being a female athlete, she was expected to extend a more sympathetic support to their cause. Later, P T Usha did change her stand, probably after mulling over her dilemma.

           Psychologists talk of stress that emerges in people because of internal dissonance or role conflict. All of us play different roles in our life and many times one role, holding on to one belief, is in conflict with another role, serving a different value system. This leads to uneasiness and health problems because of tension.          

      Like everyone else I too faced situations where it was difficult to choose between two competing positive values. I was Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Vigilance) in Kerala Forest Department. One day I was called by Head of Forest Force in his chamber as he wanted my presence to listen to a grievance of more than half a dozen forest personnel in uniform- from range officers down to forest guards. I learnt from the meeting that sometime back a sandalwood smuggler had been apprehended by the range staff. That area was under heavy pressure of sandalwood smuggling and the staff had to really work day and night under difficult circumstances to protect the forest wealth - so much so that there was even a specially trained dog to assist them in detection of offenders and the stolen goods.

          The apprehended accused had been taken in custody and questioned rigorously by the staff about the illegal sandalwood in his possession. To elicit the required information, the accused must had been beaten by the staff. Unfortunately, the accused died in their custody and the postmortem revealed that he was hit by a blunt object on his head that resulted in his death. The involved forest staff were not arrested earlier because the police investigation was ongoing. After some lapse of time the investigation was completed and the indication was that all of them would be arrested and charged by police for custodial death and it prompted them to seek support from the department for which they had come together to represent their case to Head of Forest Force where I also happened to be present.

        Custodial death is considered as the most cruel form of human right violation. The Constitution of India, Human Rights Commission and United Nations speak in unison urging all governments to take necessary steps to prevent such offences by enforcing strict guidelines and to bring the errant law enforcement personnel to justice in case such an offence does happen. Social scientists argue that custody should not only connote detention after arrest but it also means supervision and care. Looking at it in isolation, no one can justify any custodial death. However, sitting there in the chamber of Head of Forest Force and listening to the fear and insecurity of the junior staff, I was put in a quandary: should the senior officers in the department abide by the values of team spirit and loyalty, and support the staff financially, legally and morally? Or, should the department scrupulously adhere to the numerous circulars and guidelines issued for the protection of human rights with regard to custodial death? It was a tooth and nail fight between the two positive values of the same basket.

The problem was that either option- without attendant right or wrong qualification- had long lasting implications. One option could lead to more such cases in future if the staff had no fear of the consequences of their actions. The other option would result in lowering of staff morale that would naturally lead to increased smuggling of forest produce. One had an equal likelihood of emerging as a hero or as a villain in either case, no matter which option was chosen. Even without the fear of the outcome, the internal dissonance after sitting through the hearing of the staff’s grievance that day was quite uncomfortable. The school Moral Science classes offered no clue at all in that situation.

        Yet, life can be funny when you come across people who have a knack for handling role conflicts with zero internal dissonance. While I was on deputation in Bhopal, we had a Secretary to Government of India as Chairman of our institute’s Governing Board. Many times in Board meetings presided by him in the institute, decisions were taken and referred to Government of India for ratification. Interestingly, many such decisions were reversed later by the Ministry headed by the same gentleman. On being questioned inquisitively about his change of stand on such issues, the Secretary would sombrely reply without blinking, “The first decision was taken in my capacity as the Chairman of the Board. The later decision of not ratifying the Board decision was taken in my capacity as Secretary to Government of India!”

This rare trait of not suffering any dilemma could possibly be the hallmark of politicians too - when they nimble footedly switch from one party to another with an altogether different ideology.