Comparisons: The bane of Life

In every walk of life, an individual is compared to other individuals on account of the deeds that he has performed. Some individuals are compared to the broader socio-economic index. Some individuals are compared on account of their sporting exploits. Nations are compared to other nations on the development front. The rationale behind all this is to have a model to look upto, so that man and nation can emualte that. But, is this rationale correct? Is it wise to compare everything to a model of development or humanity?

At a personal level, very few individuals like to be compared to other people. The reason being that nowadays the diversity factor is more prominent. There is acknowledgement that people have different mindsets and different wavelengths of thought. Each is unique in their own way. The reason that they lag behind others and force themselves to be compared is either the lack of mental application or expression of interest where there is no medium.

Lack of mental applications means Ideas and Innovativenss, while medium of expression could be any work which suites the Individual mindset. All may not want to become Doctors or engineers, but they against their wishes because of lack of any flexible alternative orbecause of societal pressures. If man has to be on his own, then it is important to have at least ideas. Because, by having an idea, man progresses ahead and achieves it. He then becomes something, rather than a shadow of someone else.

Comparison of nations is also been done at a large scale today. Globalization has meant that no economy operates independently of the other. But, this comparison is very dangerous, because it wipes out the uniqueness factor, and puts nations on a framework which might not be sustainable and in the end subject to colapse and anarchy. None is more evident today then US centric economic development. Wherever we go, the US is the economy to be emulated, and many in India are dedicated to emulating it.

But, the notion to comparison of nations economy is indeed frought with danger. A prime example of this being India. In one part of the country, the rich are dominating. Rich are getting richer. Majority of India, about 70% of the population are rural, are getting poorer. This division is prompting critiques to say that, "There is an India within a Bharath". The socio-economic fabric is being tested, with constant violence among the population to also join in the prospierity. The problem pertaining to India is that no mainstreaming or follow up is done on any initiative.

People comparison is in a Microcosm. The comparison of nations is in a Macrocosm. When there are so many discrepencies in the Microcosm, would it be wise to consider something else in the Macrocosm? In the Microcosm, elements of diversity and different setups hinder the comparison. In the Macrocosm, the same things are prevelant, only differnce being that the Macrocosm is blanketed by an even bigger element.

Comparisons do not work. Experiences for a very minor proportion may be the same, but otherwise, it is known that nations and people have different experiences. This may be the ultimate stumbling block for Globalization, but since it shows prospierity and that it can adapt to various circumstances, this arguement may be pushed aside until collapse is ushered.