Daylight Saving Time

Daylight saving time (DST) and Our Contemporary confusions

“Tomorrow morning I need 5 kg yogurt at 8am,” I said.

“At new time or old time,” the shop man asked.

After a moment’s pause, doing some calculations in my head, a vexation in my mind, a vague smile on my face as if hiding some conflict of my own, I selected the option of old. DST is a well-known practice and very religiously observed in some parts of the globe. Benefits, as shown by studies, and as seen by practice, are variable. For our purpose, imparting significance to DST can overshadow actual problems, as if making the background fogy while trying to focus on the near object; because it is not the idea itself but our response that deserves discussion and contemplation. And we will find the philosophy of reaction than reflection as a ground for our behavior towards this idea, too.

Behavior lacks consistency

Behavior lacks consistency, no doubt; but ours is a master of this pattern. In seventeenth century, we despised education but gave a warm welcome to the armament while both were same in origin. No major changes have been observed since then. Our inconsistencies, today, can be witnessed in a single event of Matrimonial ceremony: clothes’ style, food selection and even place of function have radically changed but the issues like process of marriage, dowries, and few other nasty customs persist. Our jobs and rides have been transitioned to modern machines and cars but our prides still reside in ancient casts. Our methods of communication have been changed but not characters. Our attires have been revolutionized but our attitudes have further demoralized. “We are ready to accept what pleases us but refuse everything that flower our nation” is more plausible theory for the explanation of our inconsistency of behavior than “Outward appearance is much easier to change than inward mind or in simple computer language hardware is easier to repair than software.”

Such behaviors of Muslims surfaced with the advent of western ideas on the soil of India. Sir Syed Ahmad khan pointed Mullahs as a cause of our intellectual stagnation. Iqbal added lull, created by mysticism preached by Sufis with the rhetoric of self annihilation, abandoning of action, and denial of the existence of the world inspired from teachings of Plato, to the list. They not only highlighted the problem and its cause but provided solution: one prevented Muslims by providing ship; other protected them by teaching how to swim. Between them and since then we lack such personalities. This period is mostly full of satirist but no savor No new ideas, whether from within the community or from without, are infallible. And it may happen that the same idea that work well with one set of human beings, prove fatal for the other. When a new idea approaches us, our only safeguard should be solid reasoning. We ought to critically review our history of such instances; and enlarge our views by comparing the results where our understanding has deceived us compare to where it has benefitted us.

What is our responsibility?

What is our responsibility in present situation? First step is to find the cause, and it is same for both — our infertile intellect and abnormal behavior: “The Indian Muslim has long since ceased to explore the depths of his inner life. The result is that he has ceased to live in the full glow and colour of life and is consequently in danger of an unmanly compromise with forces which, he is made to think, he can not vanquish in open conflict,” as explained by Iqbal.

State of affairs

State of affairs may seem desperate and confused more than ever before, but we have stood up in the past to achieve the impossible. It is time to stand up again. I suggest that intellectuals have to take back their seat. They are the ones who should be managing the affairs of the state. They do. They need to look beyond walls of their home; they need to care for the nation in addition to their families; they need to think more than their personal needs; they need to rise above their carnal pursuits; and they need to adjust their life such that they are able to achieve national prosperity in addition to ephemeral pleasures. For lucky is the one who claims to be a Muslim, ignores the peace and prosperity of the mankind, and then lives a content life. Further change will occur of necessity. Until that change appears and gains momentum, we can borrow ideas from the west and use them according to our necessities as they used ours in the Dark Ages. Only valid formula I can suggest for such change is simple: work, work hard, work now, and work all.