Walk Alone

Humans exhibit herd behaviour in many aspects of life. Unlike cattle, however, they are born with thinking faculties that could set them apart from cattle but only if those faculties were used to their full extent; however, which does not happen in all cases. Not surprising, therefore, a characteristic herd mentality is reflected by most common human social behaviours.

Associating and moving with a herd works both ways – for and against one. In times of real or imminent threat – from a real or perceived enemy – moving alongside and staying close to the herd undoubtedly provides one with immense safety – psychologically or otherwise – albeit relatively lesser if one is precariously positioned on the fringes of the herd. One can only feel sorry for those inexperienced young calves that temporarily stray away from the herd and, unsuspectingly, become meal of those ferocious big cats that lurk in the surrounding bushes.

In the absence of any real external threat, moving unquestionably and blindly with a herd – in apparent random or potential dangerous directions – attracts cost. In times of herd euphoria, therefore, it becomes logical and prudent to pause for a while and assess the herd behaviour and, if warranted, step out and carefully assess the direction that the herd is heading into. If that direction does not look right, it becomes logical that one quickly retraces one’s steps and changes direction away from the herd. However, it is much easier said than done and not everyone may have the guts to leave or make a turnaround.

The breakaway action of an individual undoubtedly raises many an eye brow. It can be construed as dissidence and disrespect, and possibly revolt against the herd. The leadership and many members of the herd will feel threatened; they will use all four tactics – coercion, incentive, intimidation and blackmail – to pull the estranged member back into the herd. They may go to any extent to harass the estranged member.

Walking out alone also exposes one to vultures and predators who prey on such individuals. A lone walker is, therefore, required to take due cognizance of all potential dangers lurking on the path of the prospective lone journey. Walking away alone, therefore, needs immense courage, strong convictions, selfless pride, leadership, intertwined essentially with pure and unadulterated intellect. It can be extremely risky for an individual, with potentially high costs, which, in some instances, may be as low as facing a social boycott and as high as paying with one’s life. The human history bears testimony to numerous such costs that many a brave human have paid for their selfless bravery, supreme courage and standing for what is right and just.  

It is for this reason that not many individuals venture to move out of the herd. Most individuals lack the courage, self-confidence and moral strength to stand and walk alone outside the herd. Simply, they lack the scruples to stand for what is right but instead keep following the herd, albeit compulsively, though voluntarily.

Tagore ‘Ekla Chalo Re’ does not literally mean walking alone when there is no need to do so. It does not mean walking away aimlessly, without rhyme or reason, in unknown random directions. Humans are social animals, they need to stay and move close to one another.

Walking alone (Ekla Chalo Re) means deliberately stepping back, or stepping out of the herd, and change one’s pace and direction when one’s understanding and position – about important matters of life and living – don’t align with the position of the herd (‘the majority of people’). For example, it means following rules and regulations in an environment when most people act as defaulters. It means upholding law when most people act as lawbreakers. It means paying all due taxes to government when most people try all possible tactics, albeit some deceitful, to reduce their tax payment. It means voluntarily offering to take a salary cut when one realises that one’s employer is struggling. Most importantly, it means speaking against social injustices when most other people chose to stay quiet for fear for backlash, retribution and prosecution. It means acting as Vidhur of the Mahabharata, and not as Bhishma.

Majority is not always right. In any group of people, leaders fall in a small minority and followers come from the majority. In a classroom, the majority of students exhibit average intellect and don’t top the class. Class monitors and prefects are usually elected from amongst the top students of their classes.

In any scenario, majority represents mediocrity. Brilliance is generally exclusive to a small minority, who generally lead, and not follow. Brilliance and herd behaviour don’t go together. Independence and subservience don’t marry. Leadership and blind followership don’t go together. Where one lives, the other has to vacate and disappear.

A natural leader remains a leader in most, if not all, walks of life, no matter what. A leader questions everything, including oneself. A follower just follows, reposing unquestionable faith in the leader. This hierarchical relationship apparently makes the leader responsible and accountable for the lives and behaviours of his (or her) followers, whilst superficially exonerating the latter but only to an extent, beyond which both the leader and the followers become fully responsible and accountable for not only their own behaviours and actions but also of one another’s. Where leadership can be natural and instinctive, followership is voluntary. Any voluntary behaviour attracts consequences. So, followers are equally responsible and accountable for the actions and behaviours of their leader.

Leaders and followers sit in a pyramid shaped social structure, and not on the same level. Leaders remain ahead of the followers and rise to a higher level from where they can see their followers. As such, they invariably tend to live lonelier lives. They rely on their convictions, gut, intelligence and wisdom and, of course, guidance from the distant stars and other heavenly bodies.

Leadership does not always mean tending to a flock followership. It also means doing something useful for the flock by exemplifying benevolent tasks and noble actions and setting examples from afar. Leadership also means sharing one’s experiences with the flock, educating and warning them about the pitfalls of venturing into potentially dangerous directions.

When like-minded lone walkers happen to meet, they end up in forming a wave. Walking alone does not come from a position of arrogance, it comes from a position of social responsibility and humanistic care.

… Bill Koul (Perth, Western Australia, 11 April 2020)