A professor was praising an individual. Having committed several blunders, the individual, in my opinion, did not deserve to be idolised. As I tried to present my views, the professor remarked, "I see! So, you follow his opponent."

How conveniently was I labelled as an "opponent" of the individual! And, that too, by a learned person. I changed the topic, but the experience left me wondering: why do people find it so easy to idolise people? Why can't they examine, accept and appreciate people like normal human beings? Why can't they accept healthy criticism? Why is it necessary for one to belong to a particular camp? Why can't one be neutral, in possession of one's senses?

I find it very amusing when someone claims, "My daddy is the best in the world!" What makes them release such a ridiculous statement? Have they met all the daddies in the world? Obviously, no! Such exaggerations please whom? What purpose do they serve? Who are they fooling?

"Best daddy in the world" is just an example. Replace "daddy" with the name of a politician, boss, sports person, movie personality, guru, writer, etc., and it would still ring true to many of us. Isn't it funny?

It is funnier when one realises that the idoliser has little idea about the object of worship, and most of the notions are misplaced. Many people take offence when I say that Vivekananda smoked cigarettes and ate mutton and fish. I am labelled mad when I declare that George Eliot was actually a woman, or that Lata Mangeshkar was also a music composer, or that Milkha Singh didn't get the title of Flying Sikh from an Indian but from Ayub Khan, the dictator of Pakistan. I can go on and on, but I am sure you get what I am hinting at.

Rather than examining the merit of an idea, we look at its originator. So many items I have witnessed people rubbish an idea, only to eulogise it moments later on realising that it is the brainchild of someone they hold in high esteem. 'Who' is saying should not matter, 'what' is being said should. However, it is generally the other way round. We feel compelled to follow the successful. We don't follow ideas, we follow people. We don't discuss ideas, we discuss people.

What makes us blindly follow a personality, in spite of knowing that success is temporary and fads become outdated? Today's heroes often turned out villains tomorrow. So many swamis of yesteryears are today branded as rascals.

Desmond Morris has brilliantly analysed the psychological aspects that make us find comfort in becoming part of a group and being identified as members of powerful sects. It is an easy way to stay safe and gain recognition, wealth, and power. Inability to make own decisions also forces people to follow the majority around them. Mediocrity and lack of intelligence, knowledge, courage, confidence and risk-taking ability compel people to blindly follow others. Peer pressure and fears of failure, suppression and ridicule also contribute to the phenomenon. Gradually, people lose sense and start believing everything that their idol says. Some readers may be aware of the Stockholm syndrome, under the influence of which hostages start sympathising with their captors and the abused start admiring their abusers. The so-called idols use the followers for selfish gains. Scams thrive on the weakness of the human mind to avoid complexities and follow the easiest route.

            Blind followers always suffer. It is not necessary to be in a camp. Some of the greatest achievers such as Tagore, Einstein and CV Raman were so different from each-other. So, why copy? Why not be rational? Don't underestimate yourself, my friend. Be original and earn respect. You deserve it!

            Believe me, it is possible. It has been proved so many times.