A Calculated Choice

In a few hundred years, when the history of our time is written from a long-term perspective, it is likely that the most important event historians will see will not be technology, internet, or e-commerce. It will be an unprecedented change in the human condition. For the first time — literally — substantial and rapidly growing numbers of people have choices. For the first time, they will have to manage themselves. And society is totally unprepared for it.” Peter Drucker’s famous quote underlines that we’ve lost our ability to
filter what is important and what isn’t. Psychologists call this decision fatigue : the more choices we are forced to make, the more quality of our decisions deteriorates.

This is what’s happening now. Look at ensuing Presidential election scenario in the US. Fiercely raging electoral battle between
Democratic nominee Kamala Harris and Republican nominee Donald Trump , has resulted in extreme polarisation of American society. This has also made a large section of people averse to choices.

In India, a plethora of political parties of all hues and shades and a huge number of candidates have practically baffled and bamboozled voters. One feels that it’s better to stay away from this shambolic charade, and instead, witness proceedings
from a distance.

But can this neutrality be called desirable?

To be neutral doesn’t mean inertia or sluggishness. Nor is it shunning one’s fundamental and moral responsibility. Neutrality
is mindful non-participation. As human beings, we are called to assess, judge and act as moral beings. Once, we have eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, we have no choice but to be active in our moral and political lives, and a big part of this turns on deciding what is right and wrong and who is right and wrong.

Neutrality is treated with significant suspicion in ethics. It is an ambivalent position — a vice more often than a virtue. Neutrality, which is evasive and cowardly, is not a deep human value for which we should always strive. It is understandable, then, that humanitarian organisations have a certain ambivalence about neutrality: that neutrality is mostly wrong but can be right — if pursued in a good enough cause. But we must understand that adopting a stance of neutrality, or choosing not to make a decision, is not a permanent position. To be neutral in order to observe is a good thing. It’s a prudent quality. Remember, making no choice or making a delayed choice will always allow a country, state, party or individual to assess situation and take stock of things. The die is cast when you make a choice in a huff and hurry. At times, no reaction is the biggest and most potent reaction. Whole world is passing through a state of unprecedented chaos because of over-participation of all and sundry. Someone aptly said, “If we all jump into the arena to become gladiators, who’ll become spectators to witness the spectacle?” Neutrality, at times, is a calculated and wise choice.

The Buddha believed neutrality was better than participation leading to conflicts and confusion.

Authored by: Sumit Paul