As I try hard to concentrate on the book I've been trying to read for some time now, such brilliant pieces of reasoning are pushed down my ears. Yet another political meeting is being held near our apartment, and they have placed loudspeakers everywhere. Closing doors and windows did not help. Listening to the voice of the Great Uniter, I wonder if the strategically located loudspeakers were at all necessary. He has the sort of voice that you might confuse him with a firecracker during Diwali.
In the book I am trying to read, something on political philosophy, the words 'individual's freedom ' stare at me. I wonder if I don't have the freedom not to listen to whatever that is being shouted out on loudspeakers by whoever can afford them. The freedom of speech does not include the right to be heard, and I would like some protection from the noise. Sure, I could put on my ipod or something, but that's not the point. The point is: a person, when she's in her own house, in her own room, should have the right to choose what she wants to listen to, which may be nothing at all. At this moment, all I demand is a reasonable degree of silence that will allow me to just make sense of the words before me. But the Great Uniter has now worked himself into a frenzy of righteous indignation and is louder than ever. I can't make out anything he's saying, it sounds like a lot of tyres bursting.
I wonder if there's a law protecting from such noise. Surely this is greater than 65 decibels. Maybe I should call the police. Is it at all likely that they will stop a political meeting in election time, given the possible political repurcussion? And if they do, will I be able to continue living here, after angering all the political parties ? Or perhaps I should just 'adjust', like everyone else seems to be doing? After all, the Great Uniter has just stopped (having had a heart attack, I'm sure) and his replacement is somewhat less loud. Besides, all this will stop when the elections end. Mmm, maybe I should settle for a scorching letter to the editor. Or just this post.
2 comments:
ahem... silent protest ? Hilariously put. However, I would like to draw your attention towards the third paragraph in which you have repeatedly chosen to refer to a person of the feminine persuasion as the wronged party in the affair. Note carefully that I say "feminine persuasion". Do you know that gender is a social construct but sex is not ? The point of my pointless babble here is this - why do you choose to write "she " instead of "he" ? Give this some thought... or maybe none at all... This struck me as different because men generally refer to characters in such a situation as males and not as you have chosen, maybe it's something to do with gender identity...
Hey, Thanks for the comment! I'm afraid the reason is not anywhere as interesting as you suspect. Heedless of conventions as you are, you probably haven't noticed that it has been the custom for sometime now to use 'she' instead of 'he' as the third person personal pronoun. I find it only fair, the 'he's have hogged the spare limelight long enough.
I'm aware of the feminist opinion you express here, but I understand it only vaguely. You must explain it to me sometimes, starting with the definition of gender and so on.
Post a Comment