Do skyscrapers exchange knowing glances or raise eyebrows about rats and embezzlement that live and die in their stomachs?
Skyscrapers are inanimate things, yes. They don’t have eyes, noses, ears, tongues,
hands, hearts or minds. I’ve directed to
myself often this question: ‘what if they did?’
The point is that a lot of things happen in high places and not all of
it is as pretty as the architecture and the interior décor.
Things smell nice in high places, don’t they? The people are dressed well, perfumed,
groomed and delicate. Impeccable is the
word that comes to mind when one considers the corporate overall, isn’t this
true? But then again, I’ve lived long
enough to know that beauty is skin-deep and appearances deceive, and that what
you see is not what you really get.
It all boils down to whether or not one has the money to
purchase the required make-up, perfume, ambience and other frills to cover up a
whole lot of bad-smelling and ugly stuff, doesn’t it? Have you ever wondered why there are so many
stories about pickpockets, illicit brewing of alcohol, petty thieving and so on
in the newspapers and so little about corporate fraud? I have often wondered if someone has kept
count of the total value of petty crime and compared this with one instance of
white-collar fraud. I would say, off the
cuff, that the former would be negligibly small compared to the latter.
I remember writing about a monumental fraud committed by
someone who was once considered beyond reproach, highly respectable, titled in
fact and a widely seen as a benefactor of and adornment to society. That piece was killed for a simple and indeed
understandable reason: publishing it would have meant an immediate loss of
advertising revenue from the many companies this individual controlled.
Certain things just don’t get reported. They are
‘unpublishable’, like four-letter words. Certain things are hushed up, swept
under the carpet hoping that time, the most reliable inflictor of amnesia, will
iron out the humps and make for smooth continuity of business-as-usual.
I believe that all institutions, villages, cities,
countries, organizations, political parties, parliaments, ministries, corporate
entities and even religious orders have roughly the same proportion of
visionaries and dunderheads, people of integrity and shady characters, the
skilled and unskilled, the honest and the dishonest, the brave and the
cowardly. And I believe this is
applicable to buildings too. I don’t
think there is a single building in this world that is free of rats, free of
fraud. And I can’t put it down to
‘coincidence’ that a lot of these rats go around without having to worry about
traps and that most of them, if they get caught to some cheap and ineffective
contraption, are immediately released, their wounds treated and sent scurrying
away to do whatever they used to do before.
In short there is a system of complicity in place here. There is inbuilt security for transgressors,
an insurance scheme that will get them through difficult times. This is not to sat that every now and then a
rat is caught, skinned alive and hung by its tail for all to see, but this is
mostly for show, what do you think? It
is about saying ‘look, we are not protecting anyone; we can and do catch
rats’. And that example is then
transformed into perfume, make-up, ambience etc so that other rats can raid the
larder at will.
What is really interesting is that it is not just the rats
that are interested in purchasing perfume, make-up, ambience etc. They may purchase it, but there are lots of
other creatures who are willing to apply these odour-effacing things; just by
looking the other way, just being silent.
I am not sure what skyscrapers tell one another or if they
really see things and wonder. I would be thrilled if a lot of people exchanged
knowing glances and raised eyebrows and more than this, had the gumption to
call a rat a rat, to set up traps etc (no offence to the rodent, by the way). But do we do this and if we do, do we think
‘self-preservation’ first? Do we play
safe? Do we calculate the
‘practicalities’ and the costs of rat-hunting?
We do, don’t we? Isn’t this why
we leave it to buildings to listen to secrets and are quite happy that the
listeners never go public with the knowledge thus acquired? Isn’t it true that we would rather have one
rat squeal (squeak?) on another than dirty our fingers by engaging in
rat-hunting?
In a different world, we would call a spade a spade. We would not only call a rat a rat, we will
fault anyone for calling a rat a squirrel or some other cute and furry
creature. We blame politicians, envy the
rich, play the victim, whine, pick the easy quarrel and say ‘pass’ when we are
given the option of fighting the good fight, of cleaning up that which is
emanating poisonous gases, don’t we? Sometimes
I think those who look the other way somehow belong to a species that is
inferior to the rodent family.
We are not born without heart and mind. We are not born to be cowards. Inside everyone there is a hero, a remarkable
character that sadly is born, lives and dies without ever doing anything worthwhile. We just leave it to the skyscrapers because
what they do or don’t do does not change anything. We abdicate in favour of the irrelevant. We deny, then, our right to live in a
rat-free society. We stew in our own
juice, therefore. What a species we are,
aren’t we? I mean, ‘worse than rats’ is
pretty low in the evolution chart, isn’t it?
Perhaps we should ask ourselves whether that’s where natural selection
has taken us and whether that’s where we shall always be.
Maybe we should tear down the skyscrapers if only to divest
ourselves of the option of deferring the should-be-done to things that will not
do it. Too obscure? Perhaps. Let me put
it this way then: there’s a thing called rat fever and if you are not careful
it will kill you.
This was first published in the 'Daily News', November 24, 2009.
malindasenevi@gmail.com.
0 comments:
Post a Comment