By Ravi Kumar
Stephen William Hawking, whose life was astoundingly far-reaching, is still receiving outpourings of praise and love for the contributions that he made to science and humanity throughout his disease-stricken life. Each one is uncompromisingly clinging to the true colours of their nature and each one is finding their sanctuary in their favourite slant.
The first to emerge from them are science mouthpieces. Fervent and rational, they are admirers of the very discipline. They have a good, profound knowledge of science, and are rightly acknowledging the works of the intuitive genius of Stephen Hawking’s stature. For them in darkness, the wick of hope is believed to be lit by reason, not by opinions and conjectures. In contrast to this, the second is a flock of people who barely know anything about science and the laws governing it but are jumping on the bandwagon to flaunt their sympathy for this sad loss. Thirdly comes the fold who, after brushing off his grit and magnitude of wisdom, has launched into the heartless spurt of phrases, hurling rantings at him in every dialect.
These attitudes, needless to say, make no room whatsoever for the ultra-orthodox school of thought, thus triggering reactions from every nook and cranny. The sentiments are noticeably bruised. But as to the vehemence of the responses, there would be some questionable concerns. Was such harshness required at the time of his send-off? Was Stephen violent, though a disbelieving effigy for a big chunk of the worldwide population? No, he wasn’t! Did he ever get involved in beheadings, mass shootings, pedophilia, or cow-related perpetration similar to what is happening in the soi-disant secularist hub, India? A big no again! And why would one do so if one is not prone to it? Resorting to such evils is a by-product of rigidity inculcated during the early formative years. If the seed is rotten, the fruit is sure to be poisonous. This kind of aggression does not happen out of the blue. Never did Stephen believe in such violence, and those who believe in not committing it dance to the vibrations of universal harmony.
“Whether or not there is God is an unfaltering sign of assertion reflected either by one’s belief or doubt. As long as one is dragging one’s body through most of the lifespan peacefully –sometimes on crutches and sometimes in a wheelchair – or keeping oneself completely aloof from any form of violence, one must be dealt with tolerance –if not with love and decency.”
Most revealingly, the deceased was a peace preacher – divorced from all sorts of belligerent urges. Hawkish, militaristic and hate tactics were completely foreign to his traits. Moreover, his stance on the nuclear weapons and the fights against Syria and Palestine testifies further to his support for humanity. Though his theories admit to being in conflict with religious doctrines, he defied our time-honoured beliefs with smiles and civility.
Despite Stephen’s being an emblem of goodwill and peace, some of us have lashed out at him and set yet another precedent for the future bands to emulate and enact it. That was utterly unwarranted. Someone’s cult that may be incompatible with the popular theology never qualifies anybody for inflicting verbal or physical harm. Traditionally, we would rather feel for someone whose ideology matches ours than someone that is harmless.
The planet is fast approaching within the aces of moral decay, while the societies inhabiting it are still ignoring the need to haul themselves out of the quagmire of the themes which are centered on who is religious and who is wrong. There has been a pressing necessity to break free from these trends. In this deteriorating hour, the global communities need to come out and convey that love on any given day is the best alternative to intolerance, lest the generations keep reaping the whirlwind at the hands of hate-propelled agendas designed by charlatans.
The writer research analyst based in Washington.
