No sentiments intended

One can’t fight sentiment. In the absence of sunlight, sentiment is the strongest force in the world. It derives its strength from its utter disregard for reason. Imagine a wave rising 15 feet high only to splash on the beach. The statement it tries to build gets lost through its screeching silence or horrendous noise. When people turn sentimental, they resemble that wave. No surprise why it becomes increasingly difficult to engage, let alone converse, keeping logic alive in the equation. The offline world is understandably spontaneous. What is more striking is the way people on social media behave under the sentimental garb, despite knowing very well that discourses on the Internet are significantly staged.

Still, you play to the gallery.

Also, mind you, sentiments are seldom in top form because they are always hurt. After all, without injury, they have no prestige in the ensuing discussion. It won’t make a difference who really deserves benefit of doubt and who doesn’t because you don’t get to cherrypick. That honour will go to those who display their broken sentiments more aggressively. Let’s take the example of a white man who gets beaten up by some black boys 1500 miles away from your home but your white sentiments are hurt and you choose to see things only in black and white now. Similarly, a black dude’s human rights are violated and you are incensed because your black skin believes being angry somehow enhances your humanity. Again, rage isn’t the issue. The clouding of judgement is. Of course, sentiments aren’t restricted to racism. They are very flexible that way. So far, they’ve done superbly well in the historic sport of self-serving.

Closer home, you must have noticed how a young woman’s benign message got twisted out of context to the point that she became a fleeing mini-celebrity. To her credit, she was being sentimental about war and peace like a naive 20-year-old should be. On the opposite spectrum, people who detested her were being sentimental about nationhood like fools are supposed to be. In an ideal world, the young woman would have dragged those who threatened her to court and set an example for the rest. The online laws are weak in our country because the cases are weaker. A high-profile case like this would have delivered a major blow to violent trolling.

But then, we don’t live in an ideal world.

We live in a sentimental one.

And as soon as sentiments enter the room, every other element quietly disappears into the wall.

This week was an ongoing circus for several episodes from the world of arts too. For instance, a white actor was awarded the Oscar gong to his detractors’ unhideable chagrin. Interestingly, even the lady actress who handed him his prize didn’t bother to applaud. So much so his splendid performance came to be discredited for two sexual harassment claims that never reached the court of law—both settled for an undisclosed amount — effectively mummifying them as ‘claims’ instead of ‘conviction’. But then, sentiments won’t allow these nuances to be highlighted. It’s much easier to label someone an evil person (which he or she might be by all means) than do a thorough background check.

Failing which, the sentimental folks turn to their newfound deity: Whataboutery. What about the other black actor whose entire film got rubbled because of his past sexual misconduct? Fair point but a more mature caveat was being overlooked here: Is it THAT difficult to separate art from artists? Is it even possible to take a moral ground throughout all courses of human engagement? For example, did you know that the plumber who fixed your leaking kitchen sink last month was a murderer? Nobody does. Because it’s a secret. And it doesn’t matter in the grander canvas who did what in their past unless judicial purview is in place.

Law should have been the strongest force after sunlight but it’s not thanks to our unchecked emotions. Now, would you go back and destroy your sink? Or are you too sentimental to let the faucet cry louder than you?