Disappearances - of Social Media Reactivists?

Before the recent elections, the country seemed to have built a strong understanding of the system and politics. At least they expressed how they felt about certain characters in the political arena. However, the entire show is put to an end somehow and political observations have restricted themselves to the minds of a few.

It seems a little strange, seeing all the political reactivism on the social media sites settling down, almost like weightless dust particles that float everywhere only when stirred or disturbed. Such social media reactivism has taken all by storm before elections. Most of the reactivists defended this phenomena of quick reaction by calling it political awareness and social media activism, and convincingly attributed it to one of the major political actors in the view right now. However, the major actor probably could not inspire people for a long time and right after the first few months of constant defense, there has been a drastic decrease in the expression of "political opinions" floating in the news feed, comments and/or replies on different platforms. The reactivists do not showcase any particular trait of activism anyways, but things have gotten worse. The reaction, too, has reduced to a few and that too has become an occasional thing. They react to the content that is different than what they would have endorsed (if the were active).

Gone are the days when these political reactivists would send inbox messages to people of the "other opinion" to satisfy the little pseudo-patriot in their hearts. Back then the thirst was great and the need to quench their thirst even greater. There have been events where if one would ignore these inbox messages, he/she would receive threatening messages and abusive content, reason would be their least or no reaction to these politically aware people so vested in the thoughts and worries of their country's future.

Another observation is that a difference of opinion in real life, is still a trigger to these people. And irrespective of how much is it supported by data and numbers, if it is different than what they once endorsed they would defend it to their worst. But on social media, people have learnt to be as insensitive as they had been all this while. And since they were devoted practitioners of cyber-bully and are well-aware of the trauma and pain of being cyber-bullied by masses, they don't want to take any risks online.

The question is if these social media reactivist are still around, and they still react once or twice to a thing or two, where are they most of the time? Some people argue that the accounts have been hacked by anti-state elements and every once in a while, when they are recovered, we stumble upon a reactive tweet, post or comment, but the anti-state elements seem to be after these accounts, hence no reaction most of the time.

A popular theory, however, is that these people have lost interest in the political game as there is no "entertainment" left to inspire them to be reactive.

Another theory, not very convincing though, is that humans tend to go in their metaphoric cocoons when they realize they have a role in messing things up, because most of the time confessing our idiocy and accepting that we have been fooled for long is a bitter sip we can't gulp down. Hence we hide the glass of regrets in a closet, and hide ourselves with it.

The truth, however, is yet to be discovered. And this piece of trigger is only an attempt to find old pals.

The Change

I was recently having a discussion with my professor on social media about change. According to her the problem with us is that “We take on change as a catch word without clear conceptualisation. Hence it becomes a very attractive word to cut a discourse for intellectualism that is actually directionless and has no clue of what exactly does it imply.” She also said that while we are so fond of using words like “system” or “change” they derive from a theory or an ideology which most of us seem to have never understood. Both of these points are valid. Hence it got me into thinking. I am not a learned human, wouldn’t even count myself in the reader community of the globe.  I have no idea which philosopher said what about what. But still I’m driven by the need and the desire of change. I’d even cast a vote for someone who will promise me some change. And after I saw no change that I expected, while the claims of the big change echoed, I was left to think about what then actually changed? And there I think I realized that the kind of change that I wanted to see, was supposed to start with me. Starting with me thinking about how it was going to come into being, rather than just wanting an end product.

As I already mentioned that I know nothing about theories and philosophies of change, but I still think of it, desire it and even sometimes make it by taking out that garbage, the smell of which has got on everyone’s nerves but is too heavy for others to move, so I thought I’d write about my layman notion of change, system and the change in the system. I think “change” is easier to deal with because no matter what I write as my definition of this word, it will be different than the next person’s, who comes across it. Still I will start with “system”.

While Google defines it as “a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole” and “a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method”, these are too flowered for me to understand. In my understanding, a system is a process or a processing body or the individuals networking in a processing body or the way those individuals work to get the process going. Also I believe there is more to the word.

A change in the system then would be a slight difference made, by replacing (or changing) an action or even an actor, in an ongoing system. If the entire system renews itself or is renewed somehow, it will not be a change in the system. Rather, it will be a system changed. And while this might sound confusing to highly intellectual people, this is simple and understandable for a layman like myself.

An illustration of me being a component of an ongoing system might help those who are still confused. For example if I am a student of a college where there is a tradition of teachers not coming to the class on time, and I want it changed, I can daydream about the authorities getting raged because my personal little self is in trouble but this might never really happen unless I go and report. Now that still doesn’t mean the authorities will take a notice but for someone who tries after me would surely know one of the many ways that wouldn’t work, which to me is still a contribution to the desire of the long term change of teachers coming to the class in time.  Here the authorities, the staff, the students are all part of a system, including the processes like hiring the teachers, maintenance of discipline, exams, results and other such things. Then my demand of teachers coming to the class on time would be the desired end product or the change that I want to see. And me taking an action that aims at that particular desired change (here the teachers coming to the class on time) would be me trying to contribute to make the change happen. The change in the system would be if teachers start coming to the class on time. And if this eventually becomes the new tradition and every teacher is on time, then it would be the system changed.

My narrow mind could not get out of the student life I live and so I had to make it about some problem students would face in a college. But it goes the same for other “changes” and “systems”. And while I think I should make it clear again that it is the wrong use of such words that result in endless and directionless discussions, (since almost everyone is attracted to these terms), the only thing that can sort an end out of such an intense discourse is the understanding that words like these can be relative and personal.

Who Are You?

(The following is something i wrote last year in the month of April. A year has passed and I can say another thing or two about it but this would still be the base. Also this was my first attempt.)

...

"Who are you?", a question differently answered by individuals at different times. We were asked by our Professor in the first lecture, an introductory class rather.
"And you have two years to figure it out, that's the time you will spend with us.", he added.
And then after a pause, "And the rest of your life". That smile on his face though.
That's when my journey began. I listed down all i could think of. Following was the order:
My cast
My name
Gender
Religion
My parents (Father mainly, as in my sense of belonging with them)
Country
A human.
"But all this is so common", I thought. Everybody has an origin and humankind is, well obviously, all humans. So what was special about me? Where was i different? Not that i wanted to be different but where does any of these details describe me as me?
I began to think about my identity, and my originality.
This journey on the self knowledge has been a year long as i keep analyzing the same things about myself over and over again. And i have been changing my answer every now and then. But it has been a month or two that i feel 'settled' about where i have landed.
It was hard not to notice how everyone was almost everything that i was. And i started feeling insignificant. I felt so unimportant in one phase. There was nothing i could wear as my "identity". Nothing I could refer to as "me". Was I nobody? Of course, I was. Technically, I WAS somebody. But did anyone care? Did it make any difference?
Whether I was the youngest, the eldest or the middle child, what was my contribution in that? My name, my features, or in anything that could be referred to as 'me', I saw none of my contribution in it.
More like suddenly, all the badges fell down and all the labels flew away. And I started to look around me. I started identifying myself with everyone in my house, students i would see outside, people at my university, people waiting for the bus on the stops. Not everything would be relative but sometimes this other times that. I began to see bits of myself in such bits of almost everyone.
An infant now appeared equal and equally important to me as any adult including myself. Mistakes of everyone started reminding me of my own. And I rarely felt any anger (that i abundantly practiced before). The only thing that would provoke rage in me would be when people would overlook one's need and rights for someone else. Even if they would overlook themselves, i'd feel disturbed and react.
But that (reaction) too has changed now. I guess I started to understand why they'd do so. I do know that one thing we as humans need the most, and that we lack the most in knowledge. Knowledge about ourselves, awareness rather. We need awareness. And with that might come our tendencies to accept others, other cultures, other religions and others' identities.
This realization changed me in some ways. I now accept, for example, a religiously devoted person of any religion as much as i accept a not-so-devoted person of any origin. By accepting them i mean recognizing them as they are and respecting them (i.e. not resisting or threatening or fearing them) and theirs', however it is.
They are as right as I am, as important as I am and as precious as I am. They are as original as i am. They exist, like I do. So none of us is significant if he/she tries to separate himself/herself from the rest of us. Together, as an entity, we are all significant, important and special. And each one of us is equally significant too, equally worthy.
So I'm either nobody or I am what my fellow beings are, in my own way, but still the same. The labels attached to me, the appearances i carry, the way of life, the faith system and the ideas I have may be different but not better or worse than anyone else's. Rather, they are equally important to be concerned, as any other person's.
'But who is the enemy then?', was next in my head. Am I my own enemy? I thought. If i don't condemn destruction and violence of any/all kinds on any/all levels, then i am my own enemy. Self destruction is still destruction.
If I am OK with suppression of one of us or a group of us by some others among us, the yes i am my own enemy. If i don't allow the rights to others, those rights that i demand for myself, then i am what's wrong with the world.

You have no rights to copy, or plagiarize. Thank you.

Celebrating Everyone

Imagine all the roses

And the flowers and the trees.

Now color them all one,

Any color may it be.

Imagine all the fruits

But give them taste the same.

And if the Earth was all a desert

Or one ocean, or one plain.

Imagine nights without the moon,

And no sun to bring a day.

Or all stars if shone like sun

And all life a melting day.

One flavor and one scent

And one weather uniform.

If the differences do end

Will this world have any Charm?

Diversity

-By Kayenat Hameed Khan

One of my classmates was giving a presentation on William Wordsworth on 3rd of May last year(2016). She referred to  "The Daffodils" as an example of what Wordsworth called "spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings". And meanwhile, I thought what if all the flowers were daffodils or what if all the plants looked alike and had one color, and i wanted to puke. And that's when it struck me. 

At that moment, i was still in trauma of an incident taken in our department. When a group of students with some policemen 'visited' us because the students were playing some sport past the class timings, in the department lawn. The visitors could not cause any trouble but that led me to a very sad realization. Being students, being students of they same university, we were alienated by many groups and they were equally alien to us. And i felt like if we don't celebrate our differences, we will continue to mourn them. If we don't love, we will hate. If we don't accept each other, we will resist each other. If we don't let live, we will kill.

I am not that much of an artist but i have a point to prove. Somebody once argued that God wants us to live in one particular way and that ideal would be the entire Human society believing in one truth, dressing in one particular way, speaking one honorable language etc etc. And since it's a lot to be real, It will be in heaven.

I don't know about heaven. But regarding this world, I am sure God loved differences and so He created them Himself. If God wanted all of us to think alike, dress alike, be alike and live in one same way, He could have just created clones and given us same brain rather than giving each one of us such a different one. God created diversity and Nature supports it. So if I try to hate, resist and/or eliminate everything that is not me or for me, than i am going against nature. And thus, i decided to post it finally.

You have no rights to don't copy or plagiarize. Thank you.