By Patricia Mukhim
The pressure groups suddenly decided to reduce the bandh call on Thursday by 12 hours ostensibly at the request of, “some section of church bodies.” Many were not aware of this concession since they did not read the newspapers today on account of the bandh. And now jumping into the fray is the HNLC which has called a 36 hour bandh beginning October 21. The HNLC is against President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to Hynniewtrep land (not Meghalaya) on 21st to attend the Convocation at North Eastern Hill University (NEHU) on October 22. Mukherjee is also expected to address the legislators on 21st October. While church bodies could negotiate with pressure groups about reducing the bandh hours, can the acting Vice Chancellor of NEHU negotiate with a virtual Sainkupar Nongtraw the HNLC Publicity Secretary who operates via the virtual world of Facebook and emails? And what will Dr Sangma as head of Government do? Would he too have to “appeal” to the HNLC not to cut a sorry figure for him? It would be devastating for the image of the State and the Government if the President of the country were to be told that a function in which he is scheduled to preside as the leading dignitary cannot be held because the city would come to a virtual shut down because of a virtual diktat. The President might ask, “Where is the Government hiding?
Frankly speaking we have no use for a Government that cannot make good its own threats? People are disillusioned and want a platform to air their views. Discordant voices are now asking for President’s Rule as a palliative so that they can experience the rule of law and enjoy their right as citizens. As of today those who can deliver on their threats are holding us hostage. We suffer the ignominy of being rendered physically immobile and mentally numbed.
In a situation where warring parties engage in semantics, each trying to convince the larger silent audience that theirs is the only right way forward, one can only borrow wisdom from the world’s well known lateral thinker Edward de Bono. In the present stalemate between the Government and pressure groups (ILP versus no ILP) the alternative voice is totally missing. In the book, “How to have a beautiful mind,” de Bono says conflicts are resolved when people are open to alternatives. Alternatives are the opposite of rigidity. Being unwilling to look for alternatives suggests a very rigid mind that does not seek a better way of doing things. It is a rigidity based on arrogance and defensiveness.
De Bono also exhorts warring sides to engage in parallel thinking – the anti-thesis of traditional thinking. In traditional thinking each side prepares a case and then seeks to defend their case and to attack the other’s case without exploring the subject matter. Parallel thinking replaces the battle for arguments with a joint exploration of the subject as all parties think “in parallel” at a given moment. De Bono suggests six models of thinking based on (1) Focus on information on an issue – such as what information is available, what information is needed and how to get the information needed to form a correct opinion? (2) Allowing a person full permission to express his/her feelings, emotions and intuitions without being judged. (3) to be cautious of the faults and weaknesses in an issue; about what might go wrong and why something does not ‘fit’ (4) Focusing on values, benefits and how something can be done together and setting aside time, space and expectation for creative effort. Both parties in conflict are expected to make such an effort (6) Organising the thinking. This means setting up the focus and also putting together the outcome. In this exercise, the contending groups make sure that everyone is using his or her thinking fully to explore the subject.
De Bono’s idea of the beautiful mind is at the crux of this ongoing tug of war. A beautiful mind is never rigid, he says. It is always ready to change its opinion after receiving new information or by accepting other values. Different opinions should be laid alongside each other and attempts made to explore the basis of the differences and effect reconciliation. If not, the two parties could at least agree to the points of differences and thrash them out. Very often opinions are formed by one or the other group based on a particular perspective. It is possible that the perspective comes from someone in the group who has an obsession with a particular idea and is able to convince the group to rally round his/her point of view. It is important to remember that the truth has many perspectives and putting out only one perspective is equivalent to telling a lie.
De Bono’s idea on attitude is intuitive. He says self image and attitude usually go together. A person who thinks he/she is clever and always has to be right, tends to be argumentative and intent on showing others how smart he/she is. So the person attacks the tiniest points of disagreement rather than focussing on the main points on which he/she can agree to. Such a person will always challenge information offered by other people and then top it with information of his/her own. That person will never offer a new idea because a new idea is a risk that can be attacked. That person would prefer to confine himself/herself to criticising other people’s ideas because that makes the person feel superior and at the same time does not leave him/her open to criticism. The moment an idea is put forward the person with (bad?) attitude says, “Yes but……” to show that the idea is not great after all. That person will not agree with anyone because agreeing diminishes his/her chances of being superior. Such people tend to make very ordinary statements appear like profound philosophical insights. They enjoy being clever and seek to impress others with their cleverness. The problem is that such person/s are real and exist in our State. They are currently giving their considered views (tunnel ones) and exerting their intellectual clout to win a personal psychological battle of self esteem or the lack of it. It’s a game of one-upmanship. It’s a dangerous game because it seeks to silence 3 million other voices which don’t seem to count.
I totally agree with De Bono when he says, “There is nothing beautiful about the mind that always has to be right and put other people down. The attitude is win, win and win.” Indeed De Bono has done much research to arrive at the conclusion that most wars are caused by ‘arrogance of values’ and ‘arrogance of logic.’ Some people believe they are custodians of ‘true human values’ and that everyone else is just messing around. Since such a people believe they alone hold the right values they prevent any further argument. This attitude of self righteousness is premised on the logic that, “I am right because I have the right values and therefore no one can challenge me but I can challenge everyone else because they hold the wrong values.” All these attitudes sound familiar as we look within and around ourselves.
Truly, as we live through these uncertain times we realise that a lot of our problems have sprung from rigidity of views; from extreme parochialism; from fixed mindsets and organisational arrogance. A few people believe they alone carry the weight of Meghalaya on their shoulders and that all of us are simply messing around. But someone has to speak up and break this deadlock. It is doing us incalculable harm. It has set the State back by a few decades. It has also spread the dystopia.