Fundamental to the debate are certain uncomfortable questions. Is the so-called common man really as helpless as he is generally made out to be? Is he really worthy of the sympathy that is showered upon him?

Our common man's notion of his plight has populist overtones, often bordering on self-pity. Even the most democratic society would have men and women who are more equal. Yet it is the general public which must remain the real sovereign. When a handful of people wield excessive power, the rest must take the blame for the simple reason that these arrogant elites are thrown up from amongst the common public, which pampers and nurtures them.

Why else should we elect -- not once, but for umpteen times -- notorious men asour leaders? Why is it that our society rarely rallies around people of integrity? It is mostly the political elite which takes the rap for the plight of the `Common People'. But there are leaders in every sphere of life who hold society to ransom. For instance, the vicious crop of religious gurus, barring a few honourable exceptions, have always held sway over the masses. We must admit to our role in perpetrating these Frankenstein's monsters.

Further, don't we actively contribute to the process of general decay? Aren't we divided along every possible line? Conflict is a necessary ingredient of social dynamics but it is counterproductive when provoked by narrow perspectives. Then, the result is a certain section of Common People leaving the rest in the lurch by exercising its monopolistic powers.

Bank workers plan their strikes so as to fetch them not only their `legitimate rewards' but also the added incentive of a few days' vacation, ignoring the consumer's interest. Petrol pump owners care little forvehicle-users when they shut shop to protest against the accusation of adulteration, despite their questionable record. Traders hoard to create scarcities that hit the common people (traders excluded) hard. This opportunistic game of taking turns as `righteous' unionists and `deprived' common people should make us question the existence of a homogeneous community.

This attitude is manifest at the individual level also. How little we care for the values we expect our leadership to preserve. We have not only internalised corruption but also patronised it. Any chain of corruption has more common than `uncommon' people involved in it. In fact, corruption isn't possible without the participation of common people.

Many of us might claim that we never resort to it. But teachers shirking work and taking private classes is also a form of corruption. Almost every one of us has experienced how doctors, who refuse to serve where they are most needed -- in the villages -- fleece their patients. Be it securing adriving licence or a school admission, the general public rarely goes by principles.

People habitually pay for small favours like gas cylinders and railway berths. For many of us, morality is lack of opportunity. Then there are those belonging to the genre of R.K. Laxman's common man, bewildered and passive.

Germane to our debate is also the issue of civic manners. And our utter disregard for them is well-known. Spitting at public places, urinating by the roadside, destroying public property, breaking the rules, -- the list is endless. Being common people has become a matter of convenience.

The whole debate is about rights and duties. Just how many of us act like responsible citizens? A minuscule minority. It's time we re-assessed our role as conscience-keepers because charity begins at home.