KOCHI: It’s not uncommon these days to see Young Turks of the CPM in Kerala get mired in controversies – ranging from narcotics cases to the latest, a cryptocurrency scam. Does not look good for a party that used to be once known for cadre discipline.
Two peculiar cases over the past couple of weeks triggered quite a bit of muckraking. The first one involved Students’ Federation of India state general secretary P M Arsho, who was declared ‘pass’ in an exam that he had not appeared for. He had been behind bars in an attempted murder case at that time.
As the passing became national news, there came a ‘clarification’ that it was a “technical error” that led to the goof-up.
The second one yet again involved a ‘former’ SFI lead K Vidya, who allegedly faked a letter of experience in the name of Maharaja’s College, Ernakulam, for an interview for the post of a guest lecturer at Government Arts College in Agali, Palakkad. With non-bailable charges slapped, she is ‘absconding’. A massive police hunt is on, really.
Arsho’s case should have died a natural death, considering the state’s fickle memory when it comes to such issues. However, it got a bit nasty with the police registering a case against a female reporter of a news channel. Arsho had accused her of being part of a “conspiracy” against him.
Things came to a boil as CPM state secretary M V Govindan snapped at reporters hounding him on media freedom: “The media should not exceed its limits. If someone wages a campaign against the government or the SFI, under the cover of the media, cases would be taken against such people. This was done before. And this would be done again. Never be in doubt about that.”
His statement stirred a hornet’s nest, and out came stingers on press freedom, fascism, Constitution… you know.
With some comrades grumbling, Govindan did a U-turn. He ‘clarified’ that he had not meant the party would target unfriendly media fire, and that his statement was taken out of context and misinterpreted. Okay, noted.
Next in line was CPM general secretary Sitaram Yechury, who has been busy fighting for Twitter freedom. When asked about the Kerala case, he brushed it aside: “I am not familiar with the specifics of the case. The state secretary of our party has provided an explanation. Therefore, I have nothing more to add. Do you have any other questions? Isn’t the media in Kerala interested in issues concerning India?”
Er, Kerala… India… freedom of press… never mind!
That sounded a bit like obscurum per obscurius, the Latin phrase that translates to “the obscure by means of the more obscure”. It is an expression often used in logic and philosophy to criticise an explanation or argument that is overly complex or unclear.
Let’s leave politics at that, and move onto the intricate tapestry of the English language. A word that has been trending is hypocrisy, or “feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; behaviour that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel”.
It is from ‘hypocrite’, which traces its lineage back to the Greek word “hypokrite”. In the realm of ancient Greek theatre, hypokrite meant “an actor” or “a stage player”.
Interestingly, the compound noun literally meant “an interpreter from underneath”. The etymology becomes clear when one considers the peculiar nature of the actors. Wearing large masks, they interpreted stories while concealing their identities beneath the dramatic visages.
Over time, the Greek term acquired a metaphorical layer, expanding its meaning to include individuals who wore figurative masks and assumed false personas. In 13th-century religious texts, “ypocrite”, as it was then spelt back then, referred to those who feigned moral goodness or piety, employing deception as their modus operandi. By the 16th century, the word evolved further, acquiring an ‘h’ to become “hypocrite.”
Some credit Greek philosopher Plato for popularising the word’s figurative usage. He was struck by the parallels between the theatre and human behaviour. Plato used the term “hypokrites” to describe those who, like the ‘stage players’, put on a facade, projecting virtues they did not truly possess.
Some people have a tendency to get confused between hypocrites and the poor-old Hippocrates. Let’s be clear, Hippocrates was a Greek physician who lived from 460 to 370 BC. He is considered the father of modern medicine and is credited with developing many of the principles of medical practice that are still used today. These include the Hippocratic Oath, which is a set of ethical principles that doctors are expected to uphold.
Roman philosophy, too, has contributed a term for hypocrites — call them “Janus-faced”. It is an idiomatic expression used to describe someone who is two-faced or deceitful, similar to a hypocrite.
It refers to a person who presents different faces or attitudes to different people or in different situations. The term derives its meaning from Janus, a god in ancient Roman mythology, who was often depicted with two faces.
Janus was the god of beginnings, transitions, gates, and doorways. As a symbol of duality, his two faces represented his ability to see both the past and the future, the inward and the outward, and the beginning and the end The term “Janus-faced” was adopted metaphorically in English to describe individuals who behave in a contradictory or insincere manner, showing one face to some people while hiding another face or intention from others.
Now, if one really wants to give it hard, the word to use is mawworm. In biology, it is a parasitic worm of the stomach or intestine. Mawworms can cause a variety of health problems, including diarrhoea, vomiting, weight loss and weakened immune systems.
The word mawworm is used for hypocrites, too, especially in American English. The figurative meaning is derived from ‘Mr Mawworm’, a character in the 1768 comedy play ‘The Hypocrite’ by Isaac Bickerstaffe.
The character is a hypocritical and self-righteous preacher who is also a social climber, constantly trying to curry favour with the high and mighty. He is portrayed as a deeply troubled person who is driven by his own insecurities and fears. He is repulsive because of his duplicity and selfishness.
Okay, time for me to go turn my other face on. Have a hippocampus-stimulating weekend.
Pharisee: “a person who is morally superior to others, typically in a narrow-minded and self-righteous way” (Pharisees were a Jewish religious sect. Their beliefs and practices had a profound influence on the development of Rabbinic Judaism. Known for their strict adherence to the Torah and the Oral Law, Pharisees were often criticised for their self-righteousness”
Canting: “using religious or moral language insincerely or hypocritically”
Two-faced: “behaving in one way to one person and in a different way to another, typically in order to deceive or gain an advantage”
Dissimulating: “concealing one’s true feelings or beliefs”
Insincere: “not sincere or genuine”
Phony: “not genuine or authentic”
Deceiver: “a person who deceives others”
Deceit: “the act of deceiving someone by concealing or misrepresenting the truth”
Pretense: “the act of pretending to be something or someone you are not”
Double-dealing: “the act of dealing with someone in a way that is not honest or fair”
Sanctimonious: “giving the impression that you feel you are better and more moral than other people”
Sham: “a false or misleading appearance or pretense”