What lends to the bravery of the English citizens?
One has heard of young English girls going on lonely sojourns, in very strange lands. Yet, in a country like India, there are many families, where even young men are not allowed to go for long journeys unless accompanied by someone of adequate social seniority and experience. The case of girls, and women going alone is a very, very rare event, unless one is going to one's known workplace or studying institution.
What makes the English so daring? See my understanding of the case of a young Malayalee girl. I have dealt with this item in the section on Independence of women in the Part I of this book.
Now let us look at the case of the English girl. Wherever she goes, and to whomever she talks to, her individuality does not change, as per her age, social position, professional qualification etc. in the indicant words, for there are no such things in the English language. The daring that this gives can be understood only in comparison to the ignominy, a lower indicant word can bring to a person in a vernacular language.
The protection that higher indicant words can give a man or even a woman is not always a stable one. In a changed social circumstance, or in a place, where one's credentials have no bearing, the higher indicants words vanish, and in its stead, a level of high level humiliating words crop up. So, for all persons who go beyond their home ground, there is a slight possibility of falling flat socially, if circumstances go negative. The vulnerability is real and all persons who live in a feudal language society understand this factor, though in some cases, in a very vague manner.
Another thing is the bravery of the English youth, in battle, and war. Getting hurt and dying are always very daunting. It is a universal feeling. Yet, it has two different components. In a country like Japan, where the feudal language might have been associated with a very homogenous, monolithic feudal social system, the language would not allow anybody to stray away from this dictated path. In a period of war, they would have only one path. That of fighting and winning or fighting and dying. No middle path. The only persons who could have successfully dodged it to some extent must have been the persons who knew English, for they would understand that there is a world outside the confines of their language.
The power of the language to bring a death is very much seen in Indian societies, where a change in economic strength cannot be faced in society, for, without a platform of stable financial level to perform from, the indicant words would change, and death would be far more preferable to continued living in a lower indicant word level. The meaning of this understanding is not easy to convey in English. The language structure of Kerala is very bad. In fact, Kerala does have a very high suicide rate.
Actually the lack of fear of dying, the Japanese soldier displayed without demur during the World War II, is not exactly a display of bravery, but that of cowardice to face his feudal language society with a losing record in his attributes.
The bravery of the British is entirely different from that of the Japanese. It comes from an underlying lack of knowledge of indicant words. For, in an Indian society, there is always a looming fear of going down in the indicant words. To make it more understood, I have to go into an allegory.
Suppose one man is a good photographer. He likes to go to the jungles and take beautiful pictures and study the various living creatures, all without any academic ambitions. Just because he is highly accomplished in the field of photography. Now, he has an acquaintance who is trying for a government or senior management post in a private firm. By the time, the photographer comes home after a year or two, this acquaintance of his, has secured a government job of a clerk. He is a Sar, even though his intellect and accomplishments are near negligible. At the same time, the photographer who has done beautiful study of many things is, in the vernacular, just a nobody, and all indicants connected to him is at the lowest, while the other man's indicants go on improving, as time goes on.
This is a recurrent undercurrent in all social understanding in the feudal society. So, there is a fear of losing out on the social front, as one goes in for independent action. This naturally gives rise to the cowardice of not being able to stand up to one's principles, and dedications. Also, an undercurrent of tension, of what would happen to one's family's indicant levels, if one is dead or injured, or penniless, makes a man a coward.
This cowardice will be significantly less in persons coming from an English language society. Otherwise, (that is, if the factor of indicant words is not there) it is possible that the average bravery and cowardice of all people may roughly be equivalent to that of the English people.
But, beyond the realms of bravery, there is another factor that wins battles. And that is resourcefulness, in the face of daunting and limitless blocks and complications. This also comes with an English atmosphere, for one's mind is free from the tensions of maintaining a level of respect from everybody consistently, and in all situations. In a feudal situation, everyman who is in a position of decision making is really in an unenviable position, for he can't and dare not exhibit any signs of human weaknesses. For, there is immediate change in the indicant words assigned to him, and that too by the lowest in the hierarchy. And so, all his decisions, and actions should be logical and clever to the least of the intelligent guys. In other words, he would have to play to their gallery.
Leadership
Consider India, the so-called bastion of democracy. The Prime Minister lives in a palatial palace-like-enclosure. He puts on a feudal touch-me-not demeanour. He is friendly, yet no one dares to go beyond the limits of feudal reverence in any communication with him. What takes place in terms of his communication with his colleagues is cloaked in an air of divine reverence.
People are happy. They believe that he is great, and can accomplish many things, that they can't. The very fact that they can't do many things is due to the lack of the power of communication for them, is not taken into consideration.
The British Prime Minister, and the American President are discussed openly, by the citizens of their countries, without any exhibition of any feudal obsequious reverence, to them. They don very sportive dress and are seen in such attire, when they are in the public eye. In comparison to Indian leaders, a feeling of them being just rich juniors comes into the Indian mind.
I remember a case in India, wherein an Indian doctor, who got educated in the US came to India. He was promptly arrested by the Police, in a case related to alleged wife harassment. His parents, also living in America and apparently acquainted with Bill Clinton, the former President of America, appeared on the scene. They among other things went on mentioning Bill. The Indian media took a very dim view of such a casual mention, of a President. In India, very few people would dare to take such liberty with the name of even a petty official. The media used it as an issue for poking fun at them.
Actually, the doctor had been the darling of the Indian media, a brief period earlier to this incident. For, he had set a certain record in the history of Medical studies in America.
Also, the Police also must have taken a dim view of the free communication, they must have exhibited. They must have thought, 'My god, if all Indians start being as free as these people, then where would we stand?'
They were nicely given an Indian treatment, which I believe they would not forget in a hurry. In this recount, I have not aimed to take any sides. Just to illuminate the difference the languages can make.
And the same man who was talking about Bill would never have dared to display such a level of informal and casual use of an Indian official's name in a formal situation, if he were an Indian resident.
The correct use of language lends a feeling that the persons in leadership are unassailable towering personalities. And naturally, when one sees the way the English leaders are moving without any effort to display a feudal requirement, they may exhibit a body language, which if the setting is not properly understood, would be absolutely shocking for a leader in a feudal language nation.
