Selective Outrage or Sympathy - A Curious Case of Interesting Contrasts

One of the key trends that we see today in social media are that people are easily outraged by any incident that they associate with, in terms of their own beliefs, values and core ideologies, but remain mute, try to trivialize or just ignore when a similar incident happens with a segment or sub segment or individual that do not conform to their beliefs and values. This is also evident in case of mainstream media where stories are often described, blogs are written and editorials are posted on horrendous and nefarious crimes against humanity when that crime is committed to a selective group, while completely ignoring or downplaying possibly similar or more horrendous atrocities against other groups. There are actions and reactions. When atrocities evoke outrage from a group, the opposite  group tries to divert attention to a more vicious atrocity or similar incident, completely ignoring or forgetting the fact that by the very act they are acting in the same manner as they are accusing their opponents to do. This happens across political and social spectrum but possibly more so at a so called "left liberal intellectual" level. They are more guilty of such omissions because they are more active in fault findings or condemning even slightest misdemeanors. Of course that does not absolve the similar behavior of their arch rivals or opponents. However the above mentioned group  by definition proliferates more effectively and largely outnumber their rivals, thankfully being the "liberal voice" and finding more elite sympathizers. They are also well entrenched in education community and therefore the intellectual tag comes easily to them. Its a curious case that such selective outbursts also find wide publicity, either through active propagation or through stubborn but needless defenses of the crimes by their opponents. Some of the more recent outpourings are w.r.t subhuman treatment of Rohingyas or attack by the so called gang of miscreants & hoodlums popularly referred to as cow vigilantes. However illegal slaughter houses can flourish and any action taken against them is basically acting against the poor, the weaker sections, or are politically motivated, irrespective of the social cost of protecting them and despite the fact they are mostly run by anti socials who possibly use religion as a shield or facade. Honest people, to whichever denomination they may belong, normally do not go against the law of land.

The psychology is not difficult to understand. We strongly identify ourselves with our own narrow limited definition of individuality that would comprise our own notion and ideals and world views and would find it very difficult to accept or adjust to any contrarian view. That is kind of similar to the attitude of fundamentalists and terrorists and possibly what distinguishes the attitude is one of scale rather than of scope. We cannot bring ourselves unto denying us the privilege of thinking ourselves to be highly liberal, highly intellectual, highly compassionate and earn some plaudits thereby and also if possible make some money by displaying the selective outrage through active sponsorship of those who want us to propagate or promote such ideas and ideals. Desire for name, fame & of course fortune is too strong and with it, the impulse to consider ourselves as noble, sincere individuals out to preach or expose the less nobles. We are in short, sincere hypocrites.

Left liberals who are so sympathetic to the plight of Rohingyas and leave no stone unturned to evoke their sufferings and plight have conveniently ignored some of the earlier incidents when they were mere mute spectators or worse still active collaborators through their spirited defense. In 1978 when 60,000 hapless refugee low caste Hindus from Bangladesh were migrating from Dandakaranya where they had been living in sub human conditions not any better than Rohingya Muslims perhaps, and tried to shift to March Jhampi in the Sundarbans region of West Bengal, police of  the longest and most popular Leftist regime, opened fire on them killing many on spot (And we do talk about British police firing on hapless Indians in Jalianwala Bagh and get outraged by it!) and leaving others to die by jumping into crocodile infested rivers. Sadly, there had been no outrage or no media coverage, not sure what was the wrong - their religious identity perhaps! The outrage was missing when a political opponent called Sains were almost entirely wiped out from the face of the earth in West Bengal, including their children, and their womenfolk were pushed to the brink of insanity by being forced to eat rice soaked in blood of their children - a most most abominable crime by any measure, by the party most beloved to the liberals, the communists. The outrage was totally lacking when 18 monks and nuns were burnt alive on a busy bridge in Kolkata by their political opponents, just because they happened  to be "enemies". Of course the outrage is lacking when say Kashmiri Pandits or Chakma refugees or Sri Lankan Tamils are forced to live in sub human conditions. It leads one to conclude, it may just be, that they are possibly wrongly tagged in their socio religious life to be empathized with. Is it any wonder that there is a growing sense of intolerance against selective intolerance and orchestrated outrage which is possibly being politically exploited?

Now coming to empathy - One of the friends posted in social media that his heart breaks when he sees the condition of poor Somalians and others in Sub Saharan Africa torn by violence. Great and noble sentiments that have earned him many "likes" and possibly an epithet of being a very noble and compassionate soul whose heart bleeds by seeing suffering. But a little more sober ones may ask the said friend, "Granted that you been affected by the distress seen on media, pray, what are you doing for them? Or, even if you cannot eliminate the sufferings of those in Africa, can you, say try working to ameliorate the sufferings of people closer to you, at home, say on streets of Mumbai or Delhi, by helping them or serving them or donating for their cause? If not, your empathy does not count much! You may be a noble soul in facebook or twitter but when you are not equally moved by seeing plight everywhere irrespective of your own affiliation and individual preferences, your words are empty, hollow, they mean nothing!" That was what Swami Vivekananda, who could see through hypocrisy and hollowness behind such selective reactions, would have told them bluntly.

Another of the friends working for a leading Middle East media giant has time and again narrated the sufferings of Rohingya Muslims and how his heart bleeds for them and how he would like India to be "morally, legally and ethically" responsible for them, which led me to quip, "why not be spiritually responsible as well?" A more devious mind would suspect that behind this sympathy is probably the compulsion of a month end salary in a media house that would possibly encourage or promote such stories to create a favorable reaction, just because the sufferers belong to a certain religious denomination which finds more resonance with the said media house because of similar affiliation.  However again if we apply Swami Vivekananda's logic, we find that much of the empathy is hollow, because a) the said friend would not feel compelled towards working for the betterment of the affected class aside from promoting their distress (which may be driven by a good and kind nature or by the desire to gain fame as a liberal and compassionate soul - I am not discounting either possibilities but I would like to give him benefit of doubt). A more compassionate soul would have felt pressing needs of working among the said affected class and try alleviate their sufferings b) he would not display a similar noble sentiment in case of striking similar circumstances of hapless victims who would happen to belong to other denominations (e.g Yezidis under ISIS or Kurds in Turkey).

Are such selective outbursts going to do any good to the world at large? Why not instead denounce every crime against humanity irrespective of affiliations, beliefs and values in the strongest possible terms, even if that would mean foregoing my established notions or right or wrong, even if that means going against my individual preference, my core beliefs and values? Can such honest courage and conviction be displayed by the above mentioned learned, educated and intellectual class? Why empathize as a lip service when we do not care a fig in reality? Why cry selectively when we are not anguished by similar pains and sufferings elsewhere? If we seriously would like to know what true empathy is, let us consider the story of Swami Akhandananda or Gangadhar Maharaj, direct disciple of Sri Ramakrishna and 3rd President of Belur Math, who was so distressed by seeing and hearing the hapless condition of people in earthquake affected Moonger district of Bihar that he himself lived on boiled leaves for six months to share the sufferings of people who were living on such a diet, apart from working untiringly for improving their conditions. This kind of empathy is the true empathy, driven by the great teachings of Bhagavat Gita  - "Sarva bhuthastha chatmanam , sarva bhutani chatmani, ikhstate yogoyuktatma sarvatra samadarshanah" - one who sees the Self in all and all in Self, that person established in Yoga behaves equally unto all! No more selective empathy, no more prejudice, no outrage, just work for the betterment and feel for the poor and oppressed because they are part of your own self - they are You, the cosmic Self.

Reminds one of the greatest quotes, by John Donne, in sixteenth century which resonates so well with the Advaita Vedantic teachings, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were: any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee."