Opinion - its dark side

We learn that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, because it grows to embody something like a personal brand-image which nobody can really argue against. You can't strike a scuffle based on someone liking garlic ice cream and hating the classicism of plain chocolate. But that's just a simple point of disagreement. Yes, I have no power whatsoever to define and label one's opinion to be "wrong", regardless of how far-fetched it might be according to my perception of it.

The problem arises when an opinion manifests itself into a full belief system which opposes the foundation of open-mindedness and progressive action. The massacre of about six million European Jews during the Shoah is one of the most horrifying and dehumanising genocides in the history of mankind. We know this based on our established ideologies of morality and humanitarian law. We know this because it is a question of being human and the Holocaust's devastating impacts on uncountable lives all over the world. Yet Hitler opined and believed that Germany had been "stabbed in the back" by Jews post World War One. And in the Second World War, this was meaty propaganda to impassion a national majority.

Opinions make the individual a thinking being. As people, we are expected to form a clear and strong opinion in favour of justice and inclusion (easier said than done). Come to think of it, everything is essentially a mixed blessing - centrally depending on its form of usage. For example, globalisation is seen as a means of integrating the world AND as a threat to destroy aggregate cultural diversity. These factions of opposing thought must exist. Critical thinking apparently points to the creation of an informed opinion. So, why are members of the LGBTQIA+ community still targeted by homophobic people? Aren't the harassers informed on the biological backgrounds and the consensual form of sexual orientation? The answer boils down to the matter of the WILL's functioning.

You might read anywhere that the human will is capable of anything. It is the powerhouse of opinion. Established traditions and beliefs often hinder its growth. Kerala has the highest literacy rate in the nation, but caste divisions are still rampant throughout (despite Article 17 of the Indian Constitution). There, some still consider a "Dalit" colony to be a brothel. However; in our households, caste and race are practically non-existent. Our opinion of unprejudiced recognition is the governing system of our lives. Still, matrimonial advertisements in our newspaper shout out: "Groom looking for fair Brahmin bride, Kayastha also accepted."

International law is based on structured codes of humanitarianism, promoting collective empowerment and development. This is the generalised norm of opinions. Sparring separation between two spheres of thought seem to be inevitable, for morality itself tends to be a subjectively objective motion. We sometimes justify things to suit ourselves, right? Yet again, this is just my opinion. The last thing I would want is to impose it on anybody.

People of my state are afraid to voice their political opinions (other than the status quo) freely in open society, lest they get beaten up by extremists. My question is, how far can we let go of allowing destructive belief systems to prevail for the sake of "privacy"? When it arrives to the matter of the democratic growth of a nation at large, why do we fall silent with a helpless shrug?

Asking why is the first step of our integrated growth.

---