Monday, November 13, 2006

Agression and Compromise

One of the recent feedbacks I have got from my European colleagues is, I am not that aggressive and that allows others to take additional advantage on me. Too nice is not good enough. Someone can dominate, misuse sometime. But truly speaking I do not want be aggressive because I get arrogant and rough when I am angry. In past, there were innumerous incidents when I lost control in anger and that cost me a lot.

Typical characteristic of a common Indian is to make compromise and I am not exceptional. I have got a fact that India had not invaded any country in last thousand years. We have always defended foreign attacks. This is simply amazing. The perseverance and heritage that Indian Culture has gained in thousands of year is unequivocally appreciated. Being an integral part of that civilization obviously my nature is influenced by it. Compromises give lot of satisfaction and stabilization. It gives me immense pleasure and self satisfaction, when someone is happy for my compromise and some problem is solved for our understandings. Compromise sometime results in devotion and sacrifice, whereas aggression often comes closer to selfishness.

But if one is never aggressive and always compromises he is WRONG sometime. The proper balance of aggression and patience is important. Anger is bad, but if it is in right time, with proper magnitude and well directed, then it is better than anything else. It can drive many things, can solve many issues.

In this regard I want to talk about two Indian personalities whom I do not like. (It’s easy to site an example of my choice, but still I picked up these examples). Mahatma Gandhi (see the explanation in the bottom why I did not like him, but now I admire him for many reasons), who introduced Satyagraha, was an emblem of compromise. He has shown the way of showing aggression in a controlled passion. It’s not always compromising and sacrificing, but also putting up the relevant issues to the British Govt and took necessary actions for Independence.
Another example is Sonia Gandhi. Being a non Indian (in the sense she can’t speak any Indian Language and not exposed to Indian Culture, she left India once after her marriage with Rajeev Gandhi, for not liking the country, may be this is the reason I do not like her) she can never be the Prime minister of the nation. She is aggressive but the devotion she has shown by refusing the post of PrimeMinisterShip was really praiseworthy. She has own the heart of millions and has became an admirable person in India.

Mahatma was by nature a person of sacrifice, has shown how controlled aggression can result in Independence, where as Sonia is an aggressive political leader, has shown how devotions can melt the bitterness of billions of Indians. Thus, it is important to have a proper balance of Aggression and Compromise in order to achieve the equilibrium in all aspect. We can say it as a controlled aggression, which means control over aggression to me.


Mahatma Gandhi – The Father of Indian Nation and the pioneer of Satyagraha.

I did not like him because of the flowing reasons.
· He was not able to solve the problem of division of nation and religious violence at the time of Indian Independence. For the division of nation on the basis of religion, Hindus like us has to immigrate to India from Bangladesh.
· In Indian national Congress Netaji Subhas Chandra Basu was elected as leader and he was bit aggressive and not a true follower of Satyagraha. Gandhi created an ambience to through him out of Congress in order to keep his hold in Congress.
· In 1921, at the time of Violation of Law movement, Gandhiji made a big mistake by his whimsical decision, cancelling the revolution for a small sporadic incident.

But now I admire him for many reasons.

No comments: