THE DIFFICULTY OF BEING GOOD

In an extremely ruthless world out there filled with some good souls and lots of mean people, there is always the difficulty of being good. That translates to either doing the right thing as approved by the society / law or doing what you think is morally right as approved by your conscience. Where controversies arise is when the latter conflicts with the former and in most cases end up on the unfavorable side of the doer. Recent case in point is the ban on Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan from entering the Wankhede Stadium for five years for allegedly abusing the security guard who was doing his duty of asking the occupants to clear the field. There are always two sides to a coin where the usually humble security guard could have not been polite enough that day (a situation that even commoners face in their lives) or SRK at that time of the uncalled-for incident ceased to be a superstar and fought as a father (like any of our fathers would have fought for us in a similar situation) where his kids were probably on the receiving end of the guard's rude remarks.

The whole incident could've been averted with nobody occupying the field except the authorized team. But given the situation, as silent spectators, we can never say in black and white that the guard being on duty was doing his job in a firm yet respectable way or if a team's franchise co-owner SRK, despite being an idol to many, could've handled the situation way better than that. All of us have our inherent human frailties in certain situations that it's very hard on a person to conclude that the guard was right or SRK was flawed, now that he is seen as guilty by the MCA thwarted with the quick recommendation to BCCI to ban him. Whatever happened to a fair enquiry committee, amiable solutions and tolerance level of these decision-makers towards a man who has entertained this country and the world for over two decades? Going by the logic that strict action will be taken for misbehavior for any individual; all those politicians who throw things including slippers and chairs in the parliament should be banned for life from entering the sacred house ever again. And how I wish the victims of terrorism and corruption in this country were brought to justice as instantly as banning a Bollywood star in the field. Anyway, the point is, bad things happen to good people and vice versa but there will always be the dilemma of what is right and wrong, moral and amoral, who is good and bad depending on whose side you're batting for.

I had picked up a few accessories and clutch bags at a store in Chennai's most happening mall recently. All products sold at this store are made in China (at throw away prices I'm sure) yet dearly priced in UK pounds and sold in Indian rupees by importing them. I was pleasantly surprised to know that two full sections were on a tempting discount and made sense to pick them up at those prices. I selected six items in total from those racks, checked with the sales person if the selected stuff were discounted, billed the purchase, swiped my card and happily went back home. Now only later that evening did I notice that one particular clutch bag was not only billed without the discount (despite the discount tag and staff confirming the same) but was also billed more than the MRP stated in the price tag. Like any customer would do, I called them up and told them about the slip-up from their end. I was expecting an acknowledgement of a human error or at least an assurance that it can be sorted out with a refund or that alternate products can be picked up for the price difference. I was stunned to hear the store manager saying I should've checked the bill before leaving the store (which I did but the bill was so cluttered and confusing that you can never make out unless final prices are mentioned in segregated columns than rows with a run on description for each item) and he was so firm that nothing will be done for the over-billed amount. I was billed just over a thousand rupees more and had he apologized saying that product was not on discount or accepted his staff's folly of not informing me about the bar code reflecting a new price in their computer than what's stated in the MRP, I would've graciously let go of the mistake. But it's not about the money always. It's about the manner in which a customer was dealt with and a businessman's integrity that had temporarily taken a vacation in his value system. And there arises his difficulty of being good in a sticky situation as this.

I didn't go to the store for a face-off and confront an already unreasonable manager. Consumer laws in the US for example are so powerful because they don't file a case for the money involved but fight for the principles and business ethics where emotional damages are fairly compensated for. It's an utter waste of time to approach consumer courts here when the process and time will be so draining on you that you might as well feel cheated by the seller than fight your case for a low value dispute legally. But I also didn't want an encore of this event happening to anybody else and wanted to prove a point that we can't be taken for a ride. So I used my sensibilities to get in touch with the GM sitting in Bombay office, patiently explained the whole incident, got her to speak to the South India regional manager, was contacted by the zonal head in a couple of hours and they profusely apologized with a willingness to refund the money. I went back to the store, got my money back and finally felt relieved after finding a civilized solution to the problem. As my yet another favorite writer, Gurcharan Das, says beautifully in his book whose title I've borrowed for this article: 'Adopt a friendly face to the world but do not allow yourself to be exploited. Turning the other cheek sends a wrong signal to cheats.'

The Tamizh remake of a recent cult film that is under production was supposed to have me in a pivotal role that the director was absolutely convinced about. But the producer interfered in the casting and made the director settle for another artist not being his original choice. If I look at it from my view point, I feel that the director should have had his say in the casting or at least stood up for what he believed in. But if I were to look at it from a larger perspective, the producer is too big for a three film old director to go against him and fight to get his choice of cast on board. So he might as well get on with the producer's choice and complete the film than run the risk of the project being handed over to another director due to creative differences. He would've had to face his own inner conflicts and moral dilemmas about being good as a person and honor his promise of casting me or doing what is good for the film and move on. 'To save the family, abandon the individual' was indeed his final call.

So why be good at all in a world filled with moral haziness? Though human perfection may well be illusory with limits to what moral education can achieve with several cases of deceiving others, ourselves, oppressing fellow human beings and being un-just in our day-to-day lives, it is in our inherent nature to be good and true to our conscience but that is a choice that only we can make that ultimately makes us humans.