When Ravana stood emptyhanded in his fight against the omnipotent, Lord Ram said, “Leave today; fight tomorrow.” But Lord Vishnu in his next incarnation did it differently when Karna was defenseless. Hitler gave a halt-order which helped the English and French troops to retreat and head for their trip from Dunkirk, which remains a conspiracy. In the movie “Gladiator”, Maximus refuses to kill his opponent in the pre-ultimatum fight, when the whole colosseum yells the other way. Kauravas gave innumerable attempts to Dharma for reclaiming what he lost in the game of dice. It is a popular cinematic act, where MGR gives three chances before he rips his enemies apart. Kannaki accepted her desire driven husband when he came back after losing his entire wealth. In Kolkatta, when the mammoth gave the underdogs a follow-on, a chance to choke the latter, the reverse happened.
The above are all relatable incidents of second chances; but none are alike from the givers’ perspective. A dramatic start to this blog sets the context, as I try to understand the dynamics of the mind of the giver, since the giver calls the shot in every second chance. From the taker’s side, a second chance often instills hope and vigor to do things right or inflicts anger for being conceived as timid or confuses whether to take or not. In each of the example given above, a possible thought process of the giver transpires alternative reasoning. Since, you have come so far, why not give me a second chance by reading it fully 🙂
Ram did not ask Ravana to leave the battlefield as he wanted the latter to live. The same is evident because Ram actually killed Ravana later. Ram left him to maintain purity in his soul and not to let bad blood taint his outlook. For the world, Ram did so, as he wanted to demonstrate true grit and stand an example for being righteous. Hitler’s halt order could be of similar class, but it is not a parallel, as the results were opposite and for the obvious reason that it was Hitler and not Lord Ram.
Maximus allowed his opponent to survive even when the King signals him to kill the opponent. It was not the kindness in his mind that let him do so, as he was a swordsman who killed hundreds in the battlefield. It was his political motive to win the hearts of the people to reason his subsequent murder which made him give the second chance.
It was an obvious trap when Duryodhana and his uncle allowed Dharma to proceed with the wager one after another. Every chance was a bait, which drowned Dharma. Every chance given to Dharma, was a step closer to bringing dishonor for his wife and to seek revenge for humiliation, for Duryodhana. Was Duryodhana the giver of chances or the one taking it?
When the Aussies were well over 270 runs ahead of the rookies, they might have thought they can repeat the first innings and get back home for early supper. The chance they gave to Indian batsmen was not for building an innings, but to choke them easily, as history says winning from following on is like catching flies at night without light. Did Aussies give India a chance or give themselves a chance for early win?
In every single instance, the one who offers a second chance is also the one who takes it. What is it one gets by giving a subsequent chance to another? Many, depending on each case, as said above. It could be a tiny satisfaction of being magnanimous to a mighty test of character. But what is more beautiful and equally terrifying is that the giver without knowing the other end of the act, success or failure, gain or loss, gives a chance.
Inspired from a random discussion
Be simple!!! Be good!!!