common man or self-proclaimed intellectual?
I always thought people watching as a hobby was fascinating. Yet, when the question of interaction is in the picture, who would I choose? A common man or an self-proclaimed intellectual man? i think Gramsci find his relevance in this choice.
An interaction with a common man:
I took a cab to ahmedabad and a confusion over dysfunctional traffic signal got us talking to each other. Today, however, i found a mere conversation compelling. He shared his opinion on the heat, climate change, Iran war, Pakistan economy, corruption and shaitaan worship. A riveting dialogue, I must say, under a terrorising sun.
An interaction with a self-proclaimed intellectual:
I walk into the cabin and the discussion with the professor proceeds with his advice to his newly married student. I think it should have stopped there but, as usual, it doesn't. He claims that varna system (different from caste system) is a necessary structure for society. When I shook my head, he said: then we won't have maids. He says access to scriptures is not an issue because the guardians of the scriptures have propelled the requisite message of god already?
I had to compare, didn't I? Who is misinformed? Where is prejudice? or rather where is it not? which of these are detrimental to us?















