The Curse of Humility

If there is one quality that all of us adore, it is humility. Over time it has become one of the highly overrated virtues. Egotism, on the other hand, is constantly vilified. We scorn egotists and look at the concept of egotism contemptuously. We never really understood why do we show this bias towards humility over egotism, and this behavioural trait has been shoved upon us for ages by society. For instance, let us have a short detour and enter into mythology.

The story goes like this - The Trinity of Hinduism, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva decided to test themselves to assert who was the greatest among them. Brahma claimed that he was the greatest because he had created the universe and that we perceive beauty, ugliness, happiness, sadness, humanity, nature and whatnot in his universe. Lord Shiva manifested himself as Analstamba (Pillar of fire) between them. Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu were very surprised to see the fire pillar, which was so enormous that it reached the sky and penetrated down the Earth.

Lord Vishnu transformed himself into a boar and went to the Patal (Underworld) to find the base of that fire pillar. But he was unsuccessful in his attempt and came back. Similarly, Lord Brahma transformed himself into a swan and flew up in the sky to find its limit. On his route, he met a withered Ketaki flower. Ketaki flower told Lord Brahma that he had been present there since the beginning of the creation but was unable to know about the origin of that fire pillar. The flower also advised Lord Brahma against making any effort in that direction, as it would be no use. Lord Brahma then sought the help of Ketaki flower to give a false witness before Lord Vishnu that he (Lord Brahma) successfully saw the limit of that fire pillar. Ketaki flower agreed. Both of them went to Lord Vishnu, and Lord Brahma told him that he had seen the limit of that fire pillar. Ketaki flower gave a witness. Lord Vishnu accepted the superiority of Lord Brahma. Lord Shiva became very angry with Lord Brahma but pleased with Lord Vishnu and accorded him the same status he enjoyed. He proceeded to punish Lord Brahma for his falsehood.

So what do we understand from this story? Keeping the falsehood aside, one can infer that people have to go down and accept their inferiority (Vishnu) to prove their superiority. Brahma, on the other hand, was chastised, hated and punished.

Let us look at how people react to their achievements in general. For instance, if we interview school toppers and ask them the reason for their success,  they might not acknowledge their hard work and dedication. They would jump to "dedicate" their achievement to someone else. It is strange because we don't enjoy our achievement, even though we fully deserve it. Instead of the want of virtue of humility, you dedicate it to someone else.

Consider cricket. If we see most of the Man of the Match presentations, it would be less about their performance in the field and more about others. When a player hits a century, he would dedicate his achievement to his team/ coach/ parents/ girlfriend but never to himself. Imagine an Olympic gold medalist, during her press meet, announcing that her phenomenal achievement was purely hers and she would love to have the gold medal for herself and not for the country. What do you think would be the public reaction?

An involved reader might have a question after reading this. So dedicating one's achievement to someone else is wrong? No. Does one have to do that all the time? Again, no. There is a high probability that a reader might perceive that this article is damning humility. It merely is begging for self-esteem (Irony intended). Over a while, people are not enjoying their achievements. What is so wrong with people celebrating themselves? There might be a possibility that people would become less ambitious or have less incentive to work harder because they might never enjoy their achievements fully.

In her phenomenal book, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand introduces a brilliant character named Ellsworth Toohey. The protagonist, Howard Roark, builds a temple for his client. Toohey lambasts Roark's work as follows, " A person entering a temple seeks release from himself. He wishes to humble his pride, to confess his unworthiness, to beg forgiveness. He finds fulfilment in a sense of abject humility. Man's proper posture in a house of God is on his knees. Nobody in his right mind would kneel within Mr Roark's temple. The place forbids it. The emotions it suggests are different: arrogance, audacity, defiance, self-exaltation. It is not a house of God, but the cell of a megalomaniac. It is not a temple, but its perfect antithesis, an insolent mockery of all religion. We would call it pagan but for the fact that the pagans were notoriously good architects."

Why should a temple be the place to beg? Why does a man have to humble his pride? Why can't a man joyously feel what he has accomplished so far in his life at a temple? 

Enjoying one's achievement should not be mistaken for arrogance. It is a mere selfish desire, and it is nothing wrong to have that. There is no harm in being humble, but that should not compromise one's self-esteem. As a society, we commit a crime towards achievers by forcing them to be humble and robbing their sense of complete happiness. Let us feel no guilt or remorse about appreciating and enjoying ourselves for our achievements.