Who is Next gen hero

[..:: Free Radical ::..]

Funny this place has turned into a menagerie.
Here's some sense for everyone who reads this:
By admitting outright that someone else is a hero and you are not, itself shows that you shun your capability to be heroic.
Heroes are born from us. If you are not a hero, you are just common. You'll never do anything extra ordinary. Fame doesn't bring heroism.
I believe that every man who died by the side of Gandhi or Bose is a hero. So is anyone who strives for a cause other than his.
Verghese Kurien is a hero. So is Jayant Narlikar and Arundhati Roy.
So is the guy who brought RTI.
So is every person who fights against injustice.
If you are not a hero in your own,
you'll die with regret of not being enough.
What a life if not lived to make a difference? eh..brethren.
So just do the right thing when you are required to do so,
don't shy away from your responsibilities,
have the courage to stand aganst wrongdoing,
have the conviction to fulfill your promises.
The mundane and the mediocre will try to thwart you,
greed and luxury will entice you,
yet if you move on...you'll be a hero.

Boy, that indeed sounds poetic. I'm a hero.

 

[Yamaraj]

Heroism is too high an abstraction required for simpletons. I don't need heroes!

 

[Aberforth]

Heroism is too high an abstraction required for simpletons. I don't need heroes!

No all people really do need heroes and heros aren't a synonym for idols. Heros human beings which did deeds that inspire people and even if they don't inspire you, they deserve respect for the way they improved and changed life of many people or the world as a whole. There is nothing to say simpleton about it.

 

[piyush gupta]

See movie Hero Hiralal and say u no need heroes

 

[Yamaraj]

No all people really do need heroes and heros aren't a synonym for idols. Heros human beings which did deeds that inspire people and even if they don't inspire you, they deserve respect for the way they improved and changed life of many people or the world as a whole. There is nothing to say simpleton about it.

Once you realize what heroes do to the society and their effect on the common, you'll praise them no more. People are simply too dependent on heroes, and are ready to wait forever for one to arrive and rid them of all the miseries. They cease to think and act upon thoughts. That's what the heroes are there for, afterall! They'll take care of everything, lead the country and the people, win the wars (or hearts, as they say nowadays), save the girls from local gundas, punish the corrupt police and politicians and even wipe their arses when they're too weak for that.

Yes, they're simpletons.

 

[Aberforth]

Once you realize what heroes do to the society and their effect on the common, you'll praise them no more. People are simply too dependent on heroes, and are ready to wait forever for one to arrive and rid them of all the miseries. They cease to think and act upon thoughts. That's what the heroes are there for, afterall! They'll take care of everything, lead the country and the people, win the wars (or hearts, as they say nowadays), save the girls from local gundas, punish the corrupt police and politicians and even wipe their arses when they're too weak for that.

Yes, they're simpletons.

I guess you watch too much of Hindi movies as your idea of heroes are based on them. A person who fights wars, saved people from local goons isn't always a hero. It could be a person who found a way to help people reap better crops, a scientist who developed a low cost efficient pump, a person who made mobile available to the masses.

Whether you choose to wait for a hero or decide to become yourself is your choice, if heroes didn't exist the society and glorified people would have been inspired by dons, mafias and crooked elements. You can't blame people who are heroes for the complacency of lazy people....really.

Bhagat Singh is remembered on his birthday. Netaji's birthday was on 23rd january. Did you see a single channel or a single newspaper mention it? Yes, a couple of Bengali newspapers did mention it. But what about Times of India, HT, The Hindu etc. This is what we did to the most courageous Indian, who dared to take on the mighty allied forces.

Netaji Subhash Bose was a revolutionary and a warrior unlike most of Indian freedom fighters. He was very organized, forged the right connections which gave the colonials nightmares. He also allied with Nazis and made Indian WW2 soldiers defect from the British army; he negotiated with Japan for India's freedom. Post WW2 it became fashionable to consider the Nazis evil, Subhash and his INA was given a backseat. Now India has become pro-US and UK which makes them ignore Bose and reviving his memories might spoil Indian's relationship with Anglo-US countries. I know its clinched but it is true, the last few years have seen decline in Bose's popularity and Gandhi's publicity.

 

[Yamaraj]

I guess you watch too much of Hindi movies as your idea of heroes are based on them. A person who fights wars, saved people from local goons isn't always a hero. It could be a person who found a way to help people reap better crops, a scientist who developed a low cost efficient pump, a person who made mobile available to the masses.

Whether you choose to wait for a hero or decide to become yourself is your choice, if heroes didn't exist the society and glorified people would have been inspired by dons, mafias and crooked elements. You can't blame people who are heroes for the complacency of lazy people....really.

You're both right and wrong at once. Yes, my sarcastic remark was loosely based on Bollywood characters, but the last time I sat through a Hindi movie was about 5-6 years back.

Your apprehension of heriosm is a bit too theoretical and poetic. Heroes are fictional, always. In the real World, everyone's a hero if they're doing what they're supposed to be. Society functions only when we work as a team. Heroes, if any, also depend on the common nobody for anything and everything. Your scientist hero didn't start from scratch. And your war hero could never win any wars on his own.

Heroism is a collective effect.

 

[zyberboy]

Heroism is a collective effect.

But who made them organised the heros,Aberforth is correct.

 

[Yamaraj]

But who made them organised the heros,Aberforth is correct.

No, he is your hero!

Really, did you even bother to read the posts? We're not contesting on the validity of heroism, but if it is required at all. You only strengthen my point. It is easier for simpletons to take a side than to read, think and debate on their own.

 

[zyberboy]

We're not contesting on the validity of heroism, but if it is required at all.

Then who will make ordinary people into organised force,so it is required isn't? atleast in our freedom struggle it is true.

 

[shantanu]

why this place is turning into SPAM home...

 

[cyborg47]

subash chandra bose.

 

[Aberforth]

You're both right and wrong at once. Yes, my sarcastic remark was loosely based on Bollywood characters, but the last time I sat through a Hindi movie was about 5-6 years back.

Heroism is a collective effect.

If you fight a war without a General, you lose, doesn't matter how collective it is. Collective farming and shops in Soviet was a proof. You need a leader, a person who is capable to guide people to do things ranging from running a country to running a school. If the leader is good, he/she becomes as example for others and is considered a hero. Not that people who respect and get inspires are simpletons.

It is easier for simpletons to take a side than to read, think and debate on their own.

If you agree with someone, it does not mean 'taking sides'. I can have opinions which match someone else and that would not make anyone a simpleton. Simply disagreeing with people just for the sake of it is idiocy at best, arrogance at worst.

Your apprehension of heriosm is a bit too theoretical and poetic. Heroes are fictional, always. In the real World, everyone's a hero if they're doing what they're supposed to be. Society functions only when we work as a team. Heroes, if any, also depend on the common nobody for anything and everything. Your scientist hero didn't start from scratch. And your war hero could never win any wars on his own.

Scientist hero could start from a scratch, all by himself. Most of researches we see today involving team work and billion dollars are peanuts in significance compared to mostly one man researches of Newton on gravity, Einstein on photoelectric effect, etc. Mostly they use the work of another hero to go for further advancements.

For the war hero, there are soldiers who have bravery and skill better than the ordinary ones and then there are exceptional leaders. Without their skills the war would be a matter of numbers if all worked the same - what they are supposed to do and the outcome would have been mathematically predicted. It is the heroes in practicality which unbalance the equation and make the outcome unpredictable. Small armies succeed against big armies with the help of heroes with skills and strategy. A large army with a bad leader and bad strategy is as good as sitting ducks.

Heroism is very much practical, not poetic or theoretical. Collectiveness and teamwork is fantastic, it assumes everybody makes equal contributions and has same skills which we can se earound us is not the case with reality. It has as much logic as the statement, "All men are MCPs".

 

[zyberboy]

why this place is turning into SPAM home...

Now this has become a trend in this forum to call good debate and post as spam

 

[Yamaraj]

Heroism is very much practical, not poetic or theoretical. Collectiveness and teamwork is fantastic, it assumes everybody makes equal contributions and has same skills which we can se earound us is not the case with reality. It has as much logic as the statement, "All men are MCPs".

No, collectiveness is about active participation of all. Never does it assume that all must contribute evenly. Not only is it impossible, it is also impractical to think this way.

Americans got their independence because of their collective heroism. They were not fighting under a banner of an old, fragile and unlikely hero like the Indians in 1857.

Getting back to the topic, I don't consider any of the two a true national hero. Bose aligned with the greater evil to fight aginst the lesser one, and Gandhi had little effect on our independence in 1947, if any at all.

 

[Arsenal_Gunners]

^^I completely agree with the Bose point,nowhere in school textbooks(full of heroics) it is written SC Bose took nazi help...And I think the main reason for our independence is the weakening of Britain after WWII.

 

[shantanu]

hey MR. alba (cyberboy kerela) you call it good debate..

 

[alok4best]

None Of The Above..

 

[zyberboy]

hey MR. alba (cyberboy kerela) you call it good debate..

Only one i can see spamming in this thread is you simply saying "main hoon naa" or something like that

 

[Aberforth]

Bose aligned with the greater evil to fight aginst the lesser one, and Gandhi had little effect on our independence in 1947, if any at all.

There is no relativism in evil here, it depends on your perception. History is nothing but opinions of victors and victors of WW2 wrote history as they saw fit. Just like children in Britain learn how the Britons emancipated India from hindu occults of human sacrifice, nawabs, sati, dowry, child marriage...etc. We know its true but they conveniently hidden the atrocites of theirs like Jallianwala Bagh for the sake of pride and patriotism of Britains. So there, nobody's perfect. Bose wasn't a stupid man, if Hitler won, history would have been seen differently and probably the Middle East conflict and cold war wouldn't have existed.