In my humble opinion, an ‘idiot’ is one who…

SUDHEENDRA MURALI alerts us to a story in The Sunday Times of India in which the Supreme Court has, in its infinite wisdom, laid down three parameters on the basis of which any of our countrymen (and women) can be certified an idiot.

Yes, an idiot.

To mix metaphors in an idiotic sort of way, an idiot is one who, in the eyes of the long arm of the law which is an ass, an idiot is one who:

1) is unable to count up to 20.

2) is unable to list the days of the week.

3) is unable to remember the names of his parents.

“An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals: and those are said to be idiots who cannot count 20, or tell the days of the week or who do not know their fathers or mothers or the like,” said the judgement by Justices Arijit Pasayat and M.K. Sharma.

But, as (most) non-idiots are aware, we are gheraoed by idiots who, in our biased eyes, are fully capable of lucidly circumventing these conditions and do so in perpetuity. What then are the other parameters the SC ought to have considered to separate “us” from “them”?

# Are those who repeatedly forget our names and birthdays idiots?

# Are those who ask us our mother tongue or caste idiots?

# Are those who piss, shit and spit on the roads, idiots?

# Are those who park their car on the wrong side idiots?

# Are those who write emails like snailmails, idiots?

# Are those who are hooked on to “reality” shows, Bollywood gossip, page 3 stuff, idiots?

# Are those who use their animal instincts to try to force us to turn vegetarian idiots?

# Are those foolish enough to be caught speaking behind our backs idiots?

In other words, what are the everyday parameters the non-legal world should employ to judge idiots?