Perceptions from the Wallet

Last night, on my way back from work, I took an auto rickshaw. Reaching home, I paid the driver Rs 30 in three notes of 10 each. At the very moment the money changed hands, I realised that I had given him a 50 instead of a 10. I told him as much, in a sort of apologetic manner. His hand was already putting the money inside his shirt pocket. On hearing me, he took the money out, along with the rest of the money in there too. Showing me all of it, which had one 50 note, he insisted that I hadn't given him that one note, that he got it an hour ago from someone else.

I was a bit flummoxed, so I checked my wallet again and was sure that I had indeed given him that note. So conversation ensued, soon in to which he said I had actually paid him only Rs 20, and that I owed him another tenner. Of course, I maintained that he owed me Rs 40 in change, and I was by now a bit incensed at the man's insolence. I mean, I could have considered the fact that it was a mistake wholly on my part. I mean, if I gave him one note instead of another, it is also conceivable that I didn't give him the said note at all. But then, we hardly live in a time where someone selling you a product or service will not count the cash received. And that is precisely what this man was claiming to have done, that he did not count the money I gave him till such time as I pointed it out. Then, when he did count it, must he have taken out all the contents of his pocket instead of simply counting what he was holding in hand, i.e., exactly what I gave him?

Sure enough, it all got a bit ugly and we ended up at a nearby police kiosk (at his insistence, I still don't know why exactly). He launched in to a complaining explanation about how I was not just swindling him for Rs 10, but also about how I was swearing at him, involving his mother, sister and many other female family members in unspeakable acts of profanity. After listening to it all with a weary sympathetic ear, the cop turned to me. I began my defense by saying that I had issued all of one expletive, not so much directed at him but at the fucked up situation in general. And then, I said my part of the story, feeling a little foolish the entire time, simply because I knew fully well that there was naught the cop could do, and that I was there only because it had become a matter of principle from being a matter of money. I was being accused of shortchanging an auto-driver and it didn't sit well with me. Especially when the very same auto-driver had started by asking for Rs 60 for the same journey earlier.

Anyway, the rest of the detail doesn't matter. After the auto-driver left, the cop told me that "those guys are always creating trouble, we are sick of the number of complaints we get". I was busy being incredulous and angry at being accused of trying to keep Rs 10 of someone else's hard-earned money. I was angry not just because I consider myself a mostly honest man (I will be the first to agree about my lapses on this front in certain situations), but also because it was an auto-driver accusing me. Why would my wallet, the proverbial size of which is bigger than his, want to eat in to his wallet? How dare he question my integrity about such money matters when it is he who indulges in unethical behaviour many times a day?

That is when another question cropped up in my mind and I am still working on finding an exact answer. In the event of a financial conflict between individuals, exactly how much of my perception of others' integrity will be defined by the relative sizes of their wallets?

Osama Dies, Obama May Live On

Rather, it might be more accurate to say that the Obama presidency just may live on. Or that it has got a booster shot in the posterior at a time when it could very well use it, what with the economy not really doing any better than when he took office. But conspiracies of political mileage apart, and staying miles away from those theorists who suggest with a conspiratorial smile that bin Laden is actually still alive, there are a couple of other things that I wish to dwell on.

More than anything else, I am struck by the images of celebration. Across the USA, looks like it is Christmas in the summer time. People are rejoicing over images of a man whose face was quite likely molested after he had already been killed by a shot to the head. But as the enemy, I guess he stopped being "human" long ago. He was perhaps even worse than animals, because there are few who would publicly laugh at the execution of even a rabid dog. No, I don't want arguments about how animals, as opposed to humans, do not go around crashing planes in to buildings. And hence, how animals are anyway better than humans. While I agree with that statement for the most part, it uselessly takes this conversation on to an unrelated tangent that I frequent often enough, as it is.

As I was saying, it amuses be greatly, to see a 'civilised' people displaying what I will unhesitatingly term a sort of blood lust. Again, I have not much against violence in general, and I think barbarians were quite cool. But apparently, my point of view is not very popular and hence gives rise to the supposed advocates of peace and liberty the world over. Those who will raise their sword to protect those who don't have a sword, so to speak. Amusing how the use of violence is justified by those in power while telling others exactly why it should not be used. Unless the others happen to be minions. So went Saddam, so has Osama been put out to sea and so will probably go Gaddafi.

Dehumanising the enemy I think is a fundamental principle of war, no matter its scale. Otherwise, it becomes difficult for the soldier not just to take another life, but even to commit other acts of atrocity, such as loot or rape, or for that matter, to desecrate dead bodies. When you fail to dehumanise the enemy, or when the enemy's humanity stares you too starkly in the face, you end up with the heart of darkness.

The other thing is that struck me as curious is this: Why the secrecy surrounding this latest American adventure? No one gets to see anything but those two photographs of Osama's bloodied face. There is a video of his "burial at sea" that is supposed to be released at some point, but who knows what even that will actually show. And what became of the bodies of the others killed when the mansion was invaded? Were they left behind for the vultures or what? Why won't they just display the body of the man whose death everyone in their country is cheering? Why the big rush over everything? What's the big idea behind giving the ultimate face of terror some sort of an ultimate short shrift?