Sailing Along Or Standing Apart – The Realpolitik Of Collegiality And Conformism
Some truths should not declared – they’re merely held, quietly, with dignity.
QUIET INTERROGATIONS – Collection
The place silence asks the tougher questions.
This reflection was born from a second of quiet discomfort. It was a small act—rising in silence after a courtroom reference—the precise gesture, I believed, of quiet respect earlier than returning to one’s chamber or ending the day. But it appeared unusually out of step with what others round me selected to do—remaining seated in courtroom apparel to converse. I discovered myself uncertain—not about what I did, however about whether or not I had missed one thing. I reached out to a couple senior colleagues; their replies have been sort and reassuring. Nonetheless, what lingered was not confusion, however a deeper query: in establishments constructed on hierarchy and custom, the place lodging is commonly rewarded, what turns into of those that quietly stand aside? This reflection started there—in that small area between silent motion and silent uncertainty.
In each establishment, there comes a second when the person should select: to sail alongside or stand aside. Collegiality is typically cited because the bedrock of institutional concord—and rightly so. However it may quietly morph into conformism too. What begins as easy courtesy or group consolation finally ends up feeling like silent approval of issues we’re not absolutely okay with.
This is not one thing distinctive to judicial life; it occurs throughout the board, wherever hierarchy, custom, and status are at play. The realpolitik of such areas teaches us that adapting is safer than standing out. However beneath this sensible knowledge, there is a quiet query that retains knocking: are we dropping the braveness to assume or act otherwise, simply to maintain the peace?
For girls, the expertise typically comes with added layers—the necessity to belong, and the fixed consciousness of how gestures are learn. Being quiet is typically learn as stiffness, and silence mistaken for dissent. However possibly what’s actually happening is that establishments themselves are uncomfortable with individuals who do not match the unstated mould.
The inquiry shouldn’t be whether or not one should insurgent. The actual query is quieter: Can institutional dignity thrive the place quiet dissonance is mistaken for disloyalty?
Behavioral ethics, sociology, psychology could have lengthy studied this. However for these residing it every day, the query is speedy and private. Can we mistake conformity for collegiality, and endorsement for maturity? And most worryingly—in in search of ease throughout the fold, can we construct institutional immunity not in opposition to wrongdoing, however in opposition to ethical readability, i.e., the quiet gentle of discernment itself?
Crusing alongside is straightforward. Standing aside, even quietly, shouldn’t be vanity. Generally, it’s integrity—judicial integrity—in its most solitary kind: an invocation of the proper to privateness — the quiet freedom to assume, to vary, to dissent with out worry or spectacle. In a world that rewards lodging, it’s the sluggish insistence on ethical readability. Because the Supreme Courtroom reminded us in Puttaswamy (2017), privateness shouldn’t be merely the liberty to retreat, however the autonomy to discern — “the constitutional core of human dignity.”
Writer is Choose, Madras Excessive Courtroom. Views are private.
