KUPA MANDUKA: DISMISS DIVERGENCE AND DIFFERENCES MALIGNING A FROG

 The Exchange

“Kupa Manduka”! (Frog in the well). 

The trailing text was loud and emphatic!

Though the reference was to self-admitted limitations and the usage purportedly for himself, it left a sour taste. Was it just self-depreciatory idiom or a snub and beyond?

A different opinion, a divergent view, expressed politely on a benign subject like ‘charity’ eliciting an uncharitable response, though self-accusatory, from someone[1] with excellent command on the language, was surprising. Condemnation of a divergent view and its proponent? Inability or unwillingness to accommodate discussion? A novel method of typecasting the opponent as illiterate, unaware and blind to the ways of the new world and therefore unfit to continue discussion?

Such retorts are weapons of intimidation or call to shut up, often deployed to silence opponents in political discourses. But, in a benign discussion its is certainly out of place even if it was used self-depreciatingly.

Regardless, of the purpose and for whom it was meant, “Kupa Manduka”, is now considered derogatory!

The Famous One

The most famous public reference to ‘Kupa Manduka’, 'the frog-in-the -well' came from Swami Vivekananda, on 15 September 1893, at the Parliament of the world's religion at the Art Institute of Chicago. Swami Vivekananda was essentially attempting to acquaint the delegates with the state of impermeable confinement people subject themselves to, with dogmas, preventing them from understanding the ‘other point of view’.

The story is about a poor frog, who grew up in a well and had seen nothing beyond it. Another frog, from the sea, somehow came into the well. The discussion, between the two, reveals how the frog in the well finds it difficult to accept the existence of the world outside. The story moves forward through the dignified two-way communication between the two. As the well-frog bares its ignorance and lack of exposure to the vast world outside, the sea-frog neither castigates it for its deplorable level of ignorance and inability to fathom the vastness of the sea nor does it boast of its origins or claim any high grounds of wisdom. Both frogs, though convinced of their positions, are open to discussion. As the story progresses, the sea-frog persists and succeeds to motivate the well-frog to leave the well and explore the world.

Few Other Frogs

There are other ‘frog-in-the-well’ stories. Although the protagonist remains the well-frog, the guests are different and so are the outcomes.

According to a Taiwanese folktale, it was a yellow sparrow that talks to the frog and helps it experience the world beyond the well. In Alvin Tresselt’s story, the frog, driven by a drying well, dwindling food supplies and possible hunger overcomes his fears to venture out. Unlike other stories where there is an external entity to show the mirror, motivate and provide a way out, here adversity seeds the desire to explore and the fire within sets it free of its confines.

Frogs in all these stories, are well-dwellers not by choice but by events beyond its control. Its inability to understand the unseen world and its complexities are not its own creation. It makes peace with the world it knows and can comprehend. He hasn’t been adequately exposed. With the appropriate intervention he is able to free himself from his confines.

Unfair in Perpetuity

Over time and with usage the ‘frog-in-the-well’ has been vilified as ignorant and unwilling to accept anything new, a cruel contradiction to the truth. Though, the frog, constrained by circumstances in all the stories leave its comfort zone, the well for uncertain new world, we continue to brand it as ignorant, petty and narrow minded. Our own impatience, ignorance, propensity to jump to conclusions and lack of empathy perpetuating injustice on all the ‘frogs in the wells across the world?

Perpetuating Unfairness

This, unfortunately, is the story that is repeated every day, in every society. Driven by some queer sense of superior knowledge and unaware of the constraints of the other, fuelled by impatience, filled with ignorance we pre-judge individuals, groups and societies based on their surroundings and origins. Anybody, with a different thought, could easily be labelled Kupa Manduka.

Such an attitude to diverging views, incongruent opinions, differences in ideologies and disagreements in discussions, with someone who has the wherewithal to inflict damage to the opponent can have serious consequences for individuals and society. Even without such powers, this attitude has great potential to wreak havoc in interpersonal or intra organisational transactions. 

Irrespective of how good or bad, confining or liberating one’s environment may be, isn’t there a world outside to be explored, experienced, and understood? Then isn’t each one who settles to makes peace with one’s state of existence a Kupa Manduka?

Challenging Status Quo Stability

It’s natural for everything to settle down, over time, making peace with its surrounding. Inertia is naturally tempting. Conditions may be trying, limiting or even stifling, yet individuals adapt and accept. We eventually gravitate towards status quo, driving ourselves into the deeply limiting and dangerously confining wells.

Even slavery and other discriminative practices have been accepted as fate by generations. It wasn’t surprising to see blacks opposing slavery, or women protesting abolishment of Sati. ‘Status-quo-ism’ provides familiarity and builds comfort zones promoting internalisation and acceptance of debilitating conditions as inevitable truth.

Change, in its wake, brings turbulent uncertainty. It needs immense fire with in to overcome inertia and fathomless reserves of motivation to sustain the quest. It is only when one dares to question the status quo, that possibilities outside the familiar appear.

It takes a proverbial ‘sea-frog’ or a ‘yellow sparrow’ to motivate people, show them the light ahead and egg them to explore, and experience the horizons and beyond. All socio-political reforms and science and technology developments happened because someone became the sea-frog and helped challenge the status quo.

Sea Frog and Yellow Sparrow

Organisations, societies and Nations periodically need sea-frogs or yellow sparrows to hold mirrors, persist and convince others of a better world outside. The propensity to label and therefore shut out possibilities is cruelty of a different kind. Depreciatingly labelling oneself a ‘Kupa Manduka’ too is a crime, though against one’s own self.

Come to think of it, ‘Kupa Manduka’ is a state of denied opportunities for no fault of that person. Cutting out a differing voice, an incongruent logic labelling it ‘Kupa Manduka’, is either incompetence of the labeller to continue the discourse or sheer intolerance.

---

[i] With no malice whatsoever, my gratitude to the individual for providing the seed for this article.