Let me tell you about an incident from that day.
Arobindo Babu had gone to visit his friend. Finding the outer room open, he pulled up a chair and settled down—waiting for someone to emerge from inside the house. A little distance away, another gentleman sat in another chair, calm and composed. Naturally, Arobindo Babu assumed that he too was waiting for someone.
After some time had passed, the other gentleman seemed to spring up. Addressing Arobindo Babu, he shouted, "Why are you sitting here, sir? Go, get out! Get away from here!" This unexpected rudeness had the effect it usually has on everyone—the same happened to Arobindo Babu. At first he was somewhat stunned, then naturally his body began trembling with rage. But all that anger vanished in an instant when he learned from his friend that the rude gentleman had a screw slightly loose in his head.
Two things strike us from the above incident. First, without intimate closeness, how little we know or can know of a person's true nature from the outside! Second, if we can clearly understand that some wrongdoing is not entirely voluntary on the wrongdoer's part, then we feel it inappropriate to punish them—at least we consider it desirable to soften that wrong with forgiveness in the canvas of our hearts.
But how much do we actually follow this in our daily practical life?
There are very few people whom you won't hear claiming—with just a sideways glance or after exchanging a few words—that any person's life becomes as transparent as a mirror to them, down to the minutest details. It is precisely the lack of knowledge about how complex and varied the human mind's workings are that allows such arrogance to nest in our minds.
When a massive iceberg floats on the ocean's breast, how much of it do we actually see? Most of it remains submerged beneath the water. The same can be said about the mind's various manifestations, like wave after wave in the stream of life. Most of the mind lurks in the darkness of the unconscious, beyond our conscious, vigilant sight. In ordinary daily life, we have very little control over this. From these shadowy nooks and crannies, who knows what might emerge like magic to startle us—it's a difficult thing to predict.
When we ourselves are so ignorant about our own mind's nature and workings, it doesn't suit us to boast about others. Indeed, don't we do or say things that make us wonder afterwards: how was this possible through me?
To jump to straightforward conclusions about someone's actions without understanding their circumstances and intentions is pure foolishness. The same action can be performed by people of different natures for different purposes. Therefore, even if they appear identical on the surface, it's not at all unusual for both actions to have completely different motives.
When the mind's workings and nature are so shrouded in mystery, it would be entirely unreasonable to sit in judgment and weigh human incapacity and crime with the same measure on the scales of right and wrong for every action. Disputes and disagreements are constant in our daily lives. We declare so many people guilty by the yardstick of right and wrong. But we fail to understand that most of these faults are merely the wrongdoer's incapacity or simple weakness. We have learned to forgive the mad, but we don't understand that we are all somewhat mad—that is, many of our actions happen entirely without our knowledge, not driven by free conscious will.
To establish proper relationships between human beings, to know whether someone has actually committed any wrong, to properly understand the wrongdoer, we cannot have blood-red eyes behind the rod of punishment—we must judge their actions with a compassionate mind. Only then can we truly know each other.
As the saying goes, man is a slave to habit. Don't our habits provide the impetus behind most of our actions and behavior? How much place is there here for any specific purpose or rational consideration? Doesn't a person's daily conduct generally conform to the environment in which they've grown up since childhood? How much is each person individually responsible for each of their actions? Yet we construct a motive behind every action or behavior of others and inevitably create a fuss about it.
Again, don't we sometimes find ourselves compelled to do things even knowing they're wrong? Even if someone steals, is it right to despise them or straightforwardly declare them guilty? Doesn't environment sometimes incite us to do wrong? In the current irrational and discriminatory economic system we're forced to live in, aren't we tempted to do wrong to earn a livelihood for ourselves or our close relatives?
In ordinary daily life, much of what we do or say lacks any reasoning behind it. One great weakness of humans—they always try to support their self-interest and dignity through their actions or words, no matter how unreasonable. It would be difficult to make any landlord understand what damage the zamindari system has done in Bengal. (I had this experience after talking with Manab Babu, the zamindar of Kishoreganj, for several days.) Someone who was heard speaking so much against the temptation of accepting high government posts—after accepting the position, they never lacked arguments to explain how beneficial it was for the country. This was possible because of the lure of honor and status, wasn't it? Naresh Kaku, who was always elated at the mere mention of Brazil, cannot believe that Brazil's game has declined greatly—because believing so would wound his self-pride! If a Brahmin doesn't understand the harm of caste discrimination, is there anything surprising about that?
There are many opinions we hold very firmly, but they haven't taken root in our minds through proper reasoning. Yet in debates, we create a hullabaloo by weaving webs of logic in their favor. In truth, these seem self-evident to us. Several conventional prejudices from the family environment in which we grow up become embedded in our minds. Ram feels nauseous at the mention of beef, but according to Rahim, it's very delicious. Of course, if Ram had grown up in Rahim's family and Rahim in Ram's, their opinions about beef would have been exactly opposite. Ram would then have savored beef with great satisfaction, while Rahim would have recoiled at its very mention.
Due to differences in education and culture, Mrs. Roy would see the mark of refinement in unrestricted social mixing, while Kadambini Devi would search for it behind the veil. For someone raised within the constraints of orthodox Hindu society, doesn't it seem reasonable that a sixty-year-old man should remarry despite having a wife, while a seventeen-year-old girl should not remarry despite her husband's death?
The final word is this—to properly assess the gravity of what appears to be wrong, we need complete knowledge about the wrongdoer's external environment and the true workings of their inner self; only then can we discuss their actions in their proper context. If we assume every action, word, or behavior of ours is entirely voluntary and motivated by purpose, we would be making a grave mistake. This would erase the distinction between mere incapacity and actual crime.
Of course, it's extremely unfortunate that in human life we encounter people who have ulterior motives even behind their most trivial actions. Despite repeatedly warning these scheming people, they don't suppress their base instincts. About them, I feel like saying in the poet's words: there I would be merciless.