"A
variation between what one says and what one does is the cause of many evils in
the society at large and in politics especially".
The
above accusation is one of the most widely believed statement going around. On
the face of it, there is no doubt it looks 100% correct as it indicates
divergence between words and conduct or deeds. But, to understand it in the
right context it is important to have a thorough analysis of the process
comprising the elements of saying and doing and for that first we have to see
what the words say and do mean.
Say:
Utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or
an instruction.
Do:
Perform (an action, the precise nature of which is often unspecified)
Now
let us concentrate on the word Say.
Keeping
in view the meaning of the word "say" as an example "Saying"
may take place in the following situations:
1
An
elderly person announces that he will celebrate the coming X-mas on Everest.
A
politician announces his decision to make a certain law, on coming to power.
A
person reiterates the statement or point of view of some other person that one
should not work after retirement.
A
person condemns the act of some other person allowing his daughter to marry of
his own choice and declares that if she was her daughter he would have killed
her.
Let
us assume that the following actually happened:
1.
The elderly person could not celebrate X-mas on Everest due to poor health.
2.
The politician who declared the enactment of a law did not do that because of
lack of majority.
3.
The person who reiterated the statement of another person and supported him in
his decision not to work after retirement got re-employed.
4.
The person who condemned the conduct of another allowing his daughter to marry
against father's choice, himself agreed to allow his daughter to do so, having
failed to persuade her even after threatening never to see her again if she
married of her own choice.
Let us see what would have happened
if the person saying something had gone for implementing the same.
In number one he would have either died in the
attempt or forcibly prevented from doing.
In number two the politician would
have been defeated if he had tried to pass the law.
In number three the person and his
family could have suffered due to weak financial condition.
In number 4 the father would have
killed the daughter and got arrested.
If we compare the two scenarios of
doing and not doing what had been declared
we see that not doing appears to be less harmful to the society than
implementing the words spoken.
This might look illogical because in
principle one should do what one says. So, why it is so, for knowing
that let us take a module comprising
saying and doing and make an analyses.
The most simple and commonly
understood module comprising saying and doing is:
Thinking—Saying--- Doing
But, it is not necessarily the
sequence that is followed. Following actions can take place:
1. 1. A person may have a certain belief or thinks
about any matter in a particular way, but that may stay with him without
reaching the stage of saying or doing, due to following reasons:
a. He thinks it will make no difference or it is
of no significance.
b. He lacks proper communication channel.
c. He is afraid.
d. He thinks he cannot carry out the same.
2. There may be many things people
might say casually without thinking or any intention of doing it.
3. Similarly, the act of doing may
be devoid of the element of thinking , saying or both.
As in number one, nothing happened
and it is of no use going in to its details. However, number two
and three needs more probing.
A person’s belief remains enshrined in his
mind all the time, and affects his conduct in many ways. He might say or do something according to
those beliefs without a deliberate process of thinking or might say or do something
on the spur of a moment. If the acts are not covered by the above hypothesis
then the only explanation could be that either he acted due to sudden
provocation and said or did things that he did not believe in or he is a
lunatic or out of his mind.
The above discussion makes it clear
that the acts of saying and doing need
to be qualified for attaining the status of “Saying” and “Doing” in the
context of the principle that one should follow what one says.
Going through each one of the above
four situations individually it is quite
clear that number one and two completely fit
the module earlier narrated as far as saying is concerned. There appears
to be a deliberate expression of intention of doing something after due process
of thinking. But, due to events beyond control whatever was declared to be done
was not done. In number three the person did not do what he declared to do may
be because he said it on the spur of moment or due to the exigency of the
situation at the time of doing. In the number four situation, the father did
not kill the daughter, may be prevailed upon or due to love or compassion or he
too made the statement on the spur of moment and without going through the
process of deliberate thinking.
As an offshoot, it is necessary that
whatever has been said and intended to be done must comply with the following
conditions:
What has been said or planned to be done has
passed through a deliberate thought process and is not merely based on a
person’s general beliefs or occurred on the spur of a moment.
I It is factually doable at the time of being said or at
the time of doing.
I It is within the
capacity and ability of the person saying.
I It is physically, legally, morally and ethically
permissible.
Thus, rationally and objectively it
can be said that only those statements / words that fulfill the above
conditions should be scrutinized for deciding whether there had been any
divergence between words and deeds.
Tasneem Hameed
