My dear Prem,
I am afraid you have not grasped the first thing about where I was coming from, which was probably my fault for not being clear enough. So let me try again, and if you still do not get it, I give up!😉
1) There is a major difference between public morality and private morality. Violations of the former are crimes against the law and the public good or both. Thus matchfixing, which is cheating, drug addiction or drug dealing, harassing women, domestic violence against a spouse, dowry demands and harassment, corruption, fraud, and of course crimes like the ones we read about daily in the papers, both violent ones and white collar ones, are the kinds of things that should put the perpetrators beyond the pale of public acceptance.
Private morality is related to marital loyalty. To being faithful to the marital partner for life.
2) My point is that failings in respect of private morality need not affect the character or even the greatness of a person in other ways. I do not know if you are aware of this, but all the Kennedys, including JFK, RFK and Edward Kennedy, were serial philanderers. So were Martin Luther King and Willy Brandt.
These failings in terms of their private morals did not in any way affect their greatness in public life or the tremendous significance of their achievements for the public good. The civil rights movement in the US would never have succeeded but for the Kennedys and Martin Luther King. Willy Brandt was a great leader for world peace, disarmament, the dismantlement of apartheid in South Africa, and decolonisation worldwide. But they were not good family men, though their families kept things under wraps.
In the 1960s and the 197os, the US media were also compliant and kept their affairs strictly confidential, even after the death of Marilyn Monroe. In doing so, they were wise, for the US public is a strange animal. That is the country with the highest divorce rate, the maximum percentage of children born out of wedlock, and endless affairs in the private lives of many average Americans Still, they want their leaders to be lily white in this respect. So, to make possible the public good that these leaders achieved, it was necessary to keep their image as family men too intact, so that they were not trashed and thrown out of office, and were able to implement their highly beneficial programmes.
The situation in France, for example, was totally different, and Presidents Mitterand and Chirac had no problems about their having had mistresses and illegitimate children. The French are less hypocritical than the Americans, that is all.
Edward Kennedy got into bad trouble over the Chappaquiddick scandal because the girl was drowned. But even there, he was able, over the next few decades of dedicated public service, to overcome that stigma and again become a respected senior statesman.
So one cannot trash JFK or Willy Brandt because they were not faithful to their wives. They were great in spite of that failing.
To revert, the American public reserves this moral standard for politicians, not for the Hollywood stars of the 1950s-1990s, who had endless marriages and almost as many affairs, or for the Madonnas and the bad boy rock stars of the entertainment industry. Tiger Woods fell more because the African Americans did not like his failure to identify with them than anything else. And if his game had not gone down, he would soon have ridden out that scandal.
3) To idolize an actor or a sports star for his skills is a sign of immaturity. Most of them have done nothing but perform well on screen or play a game well. Why should anyone put them on a pedestal for that? What good have these people ever done for their fellow human beings?
At the same time, to believe all the positive reports put out about them by their PR machines, as also the rumours against them, implicitly is also a sign of immaturity. I have always taken the former with a large pinch of salt, and as for the latter, I am not interested at all.
To revert, Amitabh Bachchan is a very good actor, and for that very reason his public persona is excellent, as are most of his performances. I admire him for that. But I would not put him on any pedestal, for I have no idea what he is really like, or what has he done to deserve to be called great in the sense of being a public benefactor.
Raj Kapoor was an excellent actor, but also a serial philanderer. Does that make him any the less of a great actor? No. But putting on a pedestal or thinking of him as a great or even a very good person, no way!
The very idea of putting the likes of the Khans or Hrithik or Dhoni or Kohli on a pedestal is laughable.
4) Finally, I watch an actor for his or her craft, and in any case, never, not even when I was your age, have I idolized any of them. Maybe I was born old! 😉 And unless he or she has violated public morality, I would not put that person beyond the pale.
Maybe this is not what you were taught at school, but do think about what I have said above. It might, just might, make you reconsider your cast in iron certitudes. Including about the point that character cannot be taught or developed or re-developed. That is completely wrong, as the Lord Buddha and the Lord Jesus would be the first to assert. And all our rishis and saints as well.
My eyes are sore and I have used up my whole laptop time for today on this post. I hope it is at least worth it.
Shyamala Aunty
CID
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
