A building is judged by its structural integrity; the architect is generally praised for the fulfillment of his obligation, but is subjected to overwhelming adulation if he manages to conjure up a majestic monument of awe and beauty by fusing futuristic technologies with traditional methods. A player is judged not just by his occasional outstanding prowess, but by the critical regime that he employs in sustaining a hard earned record. A soldier on the border is judged by his endurance and his acknowledgment of the fact that his physical and mental attributes would be tested against the capacity of resilience. A farmer is judged by his attention to nature’s fury, the conscious and informed response in harsh times and his reception to modern techniques and studies with relevant statistical information. A fisher is judged by his foresight and careful planning; by fishing in far off lands when weather is conducive and saving coastal areas for ruff times. A mechanic is judged by his attention to detail and his eye to make informed conjectures as to the fault in a machine.
What is a nation that holds up all these people together judged against? Is it the financial capability, is it the standard of living, or is it the freedom of expression. There could be other derivatives of these questions, but on a whole, it is generally accepted that the "progress of a nation" is judged by the later of the three (freedom of expression) and the former two follows suit. But, what is about this component –freedom of expression that makes it so complex in action? What is so uncompromising about this component?
It might be rather too disconcerting to many determined men and women, who have made up their mind to be a part of a "paradigm shift" in terms of freedom of expression, because a common man is just too indifferent to the idealistic goals of these revolutionaries. What is even more frustrating is the fact that educated populace (education as defined by systematic institutions; schools) is unapproachable to the statements of urgency; the heat of urgency is annihilated frequently by the intransigent network that the educated men have built around them. The exchange of acquired knowledge is crippled with the educated man’s preoccupation, and the intellectual curiosity subsides as he grows up, if there was any to begin with (for the systematic institutions that have crowned him with the status of education are run firmly on non negotiable regimes of study that are targeted at snubbing curiosity and emphasizing the benefits accrued out of discipline
For an individual to be able to define a holistic term such as "freedom of expression", he must be able to break it into the components which bring about the integrity that the term possesses. But can an individual churned out of an institution that is reluctant to dynamically revise its regimes be trusted? What can be done? For starters, an individual’s ability to decide or his adhering to a dogma can be weighed against his rationality, not merely rationality, but the degree of rationality. What this means is, it is not a tight ropewalk, an individual should show flexibility in revising his approach and his belief systems. Now, that is an individual that can be trusted.
Coming back to the question of the yardsticks to measure a nation’s progress, the trust worthy individual identified hitherto is quick enough to further his reasoned mind in the support of a historical supported axiom –arts, literature and science. A nation’s primary adjudicate (freedom of expression) is defined by the populace’s artistic fervor, literary pursuits and scientific vigor. For throughout the recorded history, civilizations have progressed on concrete grounds with the support of artistic endeavors which have expanded their horizons and exposed them to new territories in an attempt to communicate on artistic grounds. Progress of civilizations also relied on literature by providing access to every man and woman of the civilization to the realms of thought and expression. Furthermore, civilizations have been noticed to take "giant leaps" by the scientific pursuits, which ceaselessly focused in erasing the painful prejudices and replacing them with rationale and reason.
Unless a nation is focused in its approach to progress on concrete grounds (arts, literature and science), unless a nation acknowledges the fact that progress by any other means is fairly ephemeral, and unless a nation appreciates the beauty of positioning itself on concrete grounds, it can be rightly said that the nation is descending into regression.
Now let us revisit the three main parameters that a nation is judged against; Financial capability, standard of living and freedom of expression. Too often nations are seen treading on the roads of ephemeral modes. These nations focus on the short term "certain stand" of progress by focusing on financial capability which also uplifts its immediate partner standard of living, along with it, but sadly freedom of expression is not accrued out of this top-down approach, while the purely ephemeral progress is enriched day by day, it floats above the concrete ground and never settles down, for the chief adjudicate (freedom of expression) is missing. As it so happens, these nations blissfully enjoy and spend time merrily while the gap between the concrete ground and the progress achieved accentuates; all the time deluding that they have in fact achieved progress and show futile proofs of improvement in standard of living.
It’s the old school method (the bottom-up approach) that could in practice be painfully slow and agonizing, but it has the benefit of concrete ground on which it settles and is so unique in its character that once it is settled, it stays there forever. The progress achieved in this process will be revisited every now and then; footnotes will be added to this progress (by expanding the horizons of arts, literature and science) by posterity and the term "freedom of expression" will be fortified further. This concrete progress easily transpires into the improvements of other two parameters (financial capability, standard of living).
Comments