Each individual perceives a certain situation in his own particular way. This can sometimes confuse an issue that requires similarity of thought
A TEACHER took a group of 10 intermediate students to the Taxila museum. The curator showed different sections in the museum to the students. He elaborately explained to them the excavated antiquities like household utensils, earthenware, metal and stone implements, weapons, plough, cutlery, huge containers for storing grains, and numerous images of Mahatma Gotama Buddha. Thereafter, the students were asked to go round the museum on their own. The students spent three hours in the museum.
The next day the teacher asked the students to write a two-page essay on the Taxila museum. The result was astonishing. Ten different versions of the Taxila museum were documented by the 10 students.
During the second half of the 20th century, Argosy was a widely circulated monthly literary magazine in English. It was simultaneously published from America and, perhaps, from the UK. Once the publishers evolved a well-defined theme for a short story, they engaged three leading short story writers, and tasked each one of them with developing a story on a given theme. It faintly occurs to me that one of the three writers was William Saroyan, the beloved writer of our beloved short story genius, Shafiqur Rehman. The three stories published in Argosy turned out to be three different stories on the same well defined theme.
Almost two decades ago a few masked men suddenly appeared from nowhere in a narrow by-lane bazaar of Hyderabad crammed with customers, mostly womenfolk and children. They opened indiscriminate fire on the shoppers and the shops. Within seconds they gunned down a disputed number of men, women, and children, and disappeared from the scene. Even today, around 20 years after the day of the incident, no one knows the exact number of the victims killed in the carnage. No one exactly knows who the killers were. The investigating officers interviewed scores of eyewitnesses to the horrible happening, and recorded their statements. Incidentally, no two eyewitness accounts turned out to be identical. Each eyewitness narrated his own story of the incident.
It is an intriguing characteristic stamp of man. Depending upon our emotional intensity we vicariously participate in what we see, what we hear, and what we experience. When we are called upon to give an account of the incident we, without knowing, and without intending it, twist, mould, exaggerate, or understate the facts in our narration. This phenomenon is so enigmatic that the persons who are directly involved in an incident come out with different descriptions of the same occurrence. Some of the war veterans of the First World War and the Second World War have written novels, short stories, and diaries of the two awful wars. Because of individualistic emotional involvement of each soldier/writer in the war, the novels, short stories and personal diaries appear to be absolutely different from one another.
Teachers would testify that 30 or 40 students sitting in a class do not grasp a lecture equally well. Some of the students comprehend the lecture in entirety. Some of them comprehend it partially, and some of the students do not comprehend the lecture at all. A teacher would tell you that all students are not endowed with equal intellect. Some happen to be brilliant, some mediocre, and some students turn out to be dullards. Though ridiculous, let us derive a couple of examples from the animal world for the sake of clarity. Bulls are bulls. But, all bulls are not equally powerful. Leopards run the fastest among the savage animals. But all leopards do not run equally fast. Some leopards run faster than the others.
Each one of us can’t compose poetry. Each of us can’t carve out a sculpture. Each one of us can’t paint. Each one of us can’t sing. But some of us do compose poetry, carve out a sculpture, paint, and sing a song. We are not equally gifted. The capability to comprehend in each one of us differs. Therefore, we do not react to certain events in an identical manner.
On October 12, 1999 passengers leaving for Islamabad from Karachi airport boarded the plane. When seated, they were asked to fasten their seat belts. However, the plane did not budge an inch for proceeding to runway. The passengers, as usual, presumed the flight was delayed for a VIP. After an agonizing half an hour the pilot announced that two passengers who were issued boarding cards had not turned up. He casually said, “Please, remain seated.”
Suddenly an elderly man unfastened his seat belt, rose to his feet, and said, “Who knows the missing passengers might have succeeded in passing on a suitcase loaded with time bombs, or with remote control device in plane’s baggage compartment. Thirty minutes are more than enough to blow up a plane.”
He rushed towards the exit, and was followed by other passengers. Back in the departure lounge, it was rumoured that General Pervez Musharraf had taken over the country. The 300-plus baffled passengers remained dumbfounded for some time.
Thereafter, each one of them gradually comprehended the situation according to his faculties, and commented on the forth marshal law in the country.
