his children had little use for gandhi…*

( *to be read as a figure of speech)

picture courtesy: https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Life-of-Mahatma-Gandhi-Through-Pictures

anything, greatness included, is devalued when readily available; often treated as if worthless, unsought - as is often seen to be.

why does it happen?

one, because ultimately it is all assessed by the *utility value* for me, you, the *reckoner*.

gandhi was great for the nation because he rendered great service to them, as a *leader* - gave great thoughts to other leaders for social upliftment. hence greatly valued, revered.

but he was assayed by his children as a *father*; and as *husband*, by his wife.

the legend has it that he did not come out as shining there..?

and it is open for all to examine these statements for their worth, their truth.

that brings us to that central truth about human life.

that, for each, life comprises of the roles he/she takes on to play, whether born into, or taken up, or betrothed to.

roles are the positions taken, actions rendered, conduct/behaviour perceived, and consequences experienced - for each *context*, each *goal*, and each ‘contract’ undertaken for them.

roles are also the engagement manifolds - for the relationships to form, connect, feed and sustain.

thus, you are a different person - in each role, for *each* of those touched by that role.

this is a little realised, little spoken, central ‘reality’ that virtually decides your life ’story’, quality and sense of consummation!

second then, there is the attendant effect of/by ‘familiarity’, by degree of ‘availability’, sense of 'entitlement'.

the devaluation is in direct proportion to the proximity, other things remaining equal, and as given.

thus the same ‘mahatma’ could not evoke the same awe and inspiration in his immediate flesh and blood, as he could in even his compatriots, his inner-circle, and of course in the countless millions out there across the continents.

here is perhaps a clue for that - for all else he was a *cognitive* proposition. for his family, he was an ‘affective’ proposition.

and this shift/share, from affective to the cognitive, is again a function of the 'distance' from him, and in proportion to the direct transactions versus 'curated' information.. and that, one reckons, is another powerful, useful insight too.

thus, it is doubtful if shakespeare’s, or milton’s wife or children read their works with as much fervour, or appreciation, as the millennia that followed.

and then there is the third phenomenon; of the person’s multiple traits, shades, ‘interfering’ with one another.

meaning, one part that is good to great, getting interspersed or overlaid with another that is harsh, or ordinary, or even delinquent. we all know enough examples of this - a great poet that drank himself to death, a leader that was promiscuous, a pontiff that would shock you with profanities.. the list is endless..

there, depending on *who* is viewing, from *what* vantage point in space and time, decided the fate of that perception, and assessment, and judgment, and pronouncement.

thus, intrinsically *tenuous* is the ‘persona’, vulnerable his/her *worth* - them being woefully dependent upon the beholder..

but then, these are the in-built countervails too - to ego, pride, vanity and even fame - and that's ultimately good for you..! ;)

ps: a dear friend, after reading this blog, made a curious, but what struck me as very perceptive, parenthetical whatsapp remark that went like this: "very true, sirji. Complete Man... Raymonds.." (LoL!!)