Yesterday, me with a few friends had a very interesting argument over dinner which brought me to a question about relationships.
There is a friend who doesn't take kindly to Sachin Tendulkar's achievements. There was another person favouring him.
Similarly there was one person on my side.. goes without saying that we were supporting Tendulkar.
Now call it hero worship or pure emotional attachment or plain data in our favour, we were very forthright in our arguments. They, understandably were towing the opposite line. We asked them for data to back their line of argument, they couldn't and we said you cannot.
Typical argument eh!
But wait.. we all were running high on emotions.. whether for or against him. An emotion is still an emotion.
As much as they love to loathe him, no force in the universe can ever make me give into it.. and i will hold the fort.
This brought me to the next question.. is it inbuilt in our DNA to get emotionally connected to a person whom you have grown up watching... does it affect you to such an extent that you will simply dismiss any counter argument against him or her?
If yes, then why is it built?
And why do humans have this tendency of bonding more than any other species? Why the 'tera mera saath rahe' concept... why the 'saat janmon ka bandhan'? Was it a massive attempt by our ancestors just to keep the race together?
or is it actually inbuilt in our genes to live and let live??
I agree there will be exceptions always.. there will be terrorists who dont care .. there will be rebellious kids who dont think the way their last generation thought.
But in the end, peace will prevail.
Why do the most stable relationships have the maximum number of conflicts? I feel its the nature's way of ensuring that the spark is always there.. that it doesnt die because of mundaneness of life.
All the mature dads and moms say... jahan ladayi hoti hai.. wahin pyaar sabse zyaada hota hai...
I dont think they have formed this opinion about the relations.. they have learnt it from the nature.
Just my opinion though...
I have digressed a lot from the topic.. but then you see there is a connect between each of these legs...
The Sachin factor... for and against.. this had to do with emotional attachment that we developed with him over the years.. more importantly the formative years.. and on the contrary.. the other guys saw something they did not like about him and have carried on with that sentiment. He would have proved them wrong a zillion times with his bat.. but that few things that 'the other guys' saw in their childhood.. for whatever reasons.. will be hard to erase.
Same case with us.
Now how is this case linked to the next case about human relationships and making peace?
The atmosphere was charged up... the groups were divided and equally vociferous.. infact i should say voci'ferocious'.
People giving their own arguments.. getting pissed off and pissing people off.
But finally what happens? Nature takes over... calms things down... makes you realize how small you are and these things are in the 'larger scheme of things'.
And suddenly it dawns on you that what you have been doing might have been stupid.. i mean its good for passing time.. but its still stupid in the 'larger scheme of things'.
So what do we do next? As an automatic process without anyone making a genuine attempt.. out of nowhere comes out an olive branch in the form of a smile or a sentence which calms everyone down.
I might be hallucinating.. but I am intrigued by the ways of nature.. if at all what i am hypothesizing is true.
So much for the human brain and we still fight over things like Telangana.