In the rapidly developing, industrialised, fast moving, materialistic world of today, there can be no doubt of the fact that when money speaks, the truth falls silent. This Russian proverb has been proved true countless times. Power and money reign supreme. In fact, money has become synonymous with superiority, royalty, influence and of course, corruption.
Essay On When Money Speaks Truth Is Silent
Even the hospitals of today treat patients on the basis of availability of money, and not on the seriousness of the issue. Parul Bhasin Verma shared on social media that when her mother fell ill after accidentally inhaling ammonia, she was diagnosed with Liver Cirrhosis (the end stage of liver disease) and was taken to B L Kapoor Hospital, Delhi where they spent over 1.2 crores and are now paying a huge debt.
Another example of how the truth fell silent in front of money is the famous Operation West End that occurred in the year 2000. Of course, thanks to this sting operation, the truth did come out in the end, but the incident cannot be easily forgotten.
A team of journalists from Tehelka Magazine, in order to conduct the operation, fabricated an arms company called West End International. They made contact with members of the then defence ministry, who asked for and accepted bribes, slowly selling out the security of India. Even after the investigation was released to the public, the journalists who carried it out were arrested and imprisoned without charges. There speaks the power of money!
The bribes and scams, countless and untold, only prove that truth falls silent when money speaks. A bag full of money can easily defeat truckloads of truth, for the truth is often bitter but the fruits of money always taste sweet.
One need not go deep to find out the truth of why money is a potent weapon today. As a matter of fact, it has always been so. The mighty has ever ruled though its form has kept on changing. The poor and the weak stand helplessly, when the rich wield their power. Ideals of truth and honesty is a thing of the past. Plundering the nation by unscrupulous politicians, killing and extortions by their henchmen are the order of the day. Which corrupt politician has been convicted and jailed? The poor are being crushed daily under the heels of justice.
function deleteArticle(CommentID,ArticleID) answer = confirm("Are you sure you want to delete this Comment?")if (answer !=0) location = " =Content&sd=DeleteArticleComment&CommentID="+CommentID+"&ArticleID=" + ArticleID nice points Shakoor Bulledi15-Jan-2023 13:19 PM Very good Rushil10-Oct-2018 12:07 PM assalam o alaikumsurely nowadays truth is silent when money speaks ...its so true...but always remember truth can pay you in hereafter but money cant ..truth never dies it is revealed one day or the other...@kinzayes dear money cant buy everything ,it cant buy love , it cant buy sincerity ,loyalty ,trust,and most importantly happiness... wasti07-Jun-2015 11:32 AM money can not by everything? can any one answer this? kinza12-Jan-2013 00:55 AM This all is true... What is happening here in this world... its all corruption Sohaib07-Dec-2011 12:16 PM Assalamualyku,My Dear Friend,I agreed with your writing, because i am also part of this soecity and facing such kind of matters. without money nobody agree to perform his or her duty.Even Molvi, Pandit or charh father could not pary for you.My dear for all human God safe them and forgive our bad practices.Thank Sohail Afsar from PAKSITAN I am not a good writer so please forgive me. sohail01-Dec-2011 22:34 PM
'When money speaks, truth is silent' is not new to our soil. Money is synonymous with power, influence and also corruption. In ancient times also, no one dared to speak about the atrocities and beinous crimes committed by the Kings and also their top officials i.e. Montris. Masses knew that ail
It would be apt to sum up this essay in the following lines : When money speaks, truth is silent, ears deaf and eyes blind. Powerful persons keep on whistling, downtrodden gets not even a trifling. Who has time to listen about masses, When everyone is involved in his own clashes. All real values have gone waste, they are no more the societies taste. but let's hope time will change, as nothing in this world has a stable stage.
Finally, Creon's son, Haemon, musters the courage to tell his father that "Your presence frightens any common man from saying things you would not care to hear." Haemon tells the king: Then do not have one mind, and one alone that only your opinion can be right. Whoever thinks that he alone is wise, his eloquence, his mind, above the rest, come the unfolding, shows his emptiness. A man, though wise, should never be ashamed of learning more, and must unbend his mind. Have you not seen the trees beside the torrent, the ones that bend them saving every leaf, while the resistant perish root and branch? And so the ship that will not slacken sail, the sheet drawn tight, unyielding, overturns, She ends the voyage with her keel on top. No, yield your wrath, allow a change of stand. Young as I am, if I may give advice, I'd say it would be best if men were born perfect in wisdom, but failing this (which often fails) it can be no dishonor to learn from others when they speak good sense. But Creon stubbornly refuses to listen and, in the end, brings death to his family, ruin on himself, and destruction to his country. In the play, both the messenger and the king face tough ethical choices: the guard is likely to be killed if he speaks truth to power; and, as the king sees it, he must either execute his son's fiancé or undermine his authority to govern. Sophocles implies that the latter choice is both the harder and more morally significant. He puts one moral of the story in the mouth of the messenger: "To reject good counsel is a crime," and another is spoken by a blind "seer": "Stubbornness and stupidity are twins." The play thus is a reminder to leaders that their ethical duty is to create what, in a modern organizational context, Warren Bennis calls a "culture of candor." The ancient Greeks had a word for culture: ethos. Often translated as "character," significantly, it also is the root of the Modern English word "ethics." MODERN APPLICATIONS I first read Antigone in 1973 and, in the decade that followed, was amazed to find that the ethical issues raised by Sophocles in the context of an ancient monarchy were present in many of the modern corporations where I was doing research and consulting. Here are two contrasting examples of what I observed: In 1982, I was invited by the Cowles Media Corporation (owners of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune) to meet with their top executives to discuss their corporate culture. I could see why they wanted help: After having lost the magazines Look in the 1960s and Harper's in the 1970s (the first went belly up, the second literally had to be given away), the down-in-the-dumps corporation subsequently had seen their net income fall from $12.2 to $0.7 million between 1979 and 1982. I started the process by asking the group for a few short, descriptive phrases that would best describe the culture of the company. Silence. I asked again. More silence. Finally, I was passed an unsigned note that read "Dummy, can't you see that we can't speak our minds? Ask for our input anonymously, in writing." I did so, and for the next two hours I would ask them a question about their culture, they would write down their answers; then I would collect them and read the responses back to the group. At the end of this wearying experience (one I viewed then, and now, as a failure on my part), several executives came up to tell me in private to say that the meeting was the best they had had since John Cowles, Jr., had assumed leadership of the corporation! Within a year of the meeting, John Cowles fired several of those managers for disloyalty (that is, for having spoken truth to power) and several others resigned in protest over one or another of his decisions. Shortly thereafter, the Cowles family fired John. The second story is about the then-startup Federal Express Corporation. In the late 1970s, I addressed some thirty of the corporation's top managers on the subject of worker productivity. I had gotten no more than ten minutes into my talk when a young manager interrupted me and addressed a challenge to his colleagues: "The professor has made an interesting point that runs counter to a major decision top management made a couple weeks ago. I suggest we ought to reexamine that decision now in light of what we have just learned." To my amazement, the managers picked up the suggestion and turned directly to a no-holds-barred debate of the issue. What was surprising to me about the discussion was that the lower-level managers made those at the top defend their decision. When it became clear the policy couldn't be defended, the younger managers asked the bosses to change it. Which they did, then and there. This rough and tumble exchange lasted for about an hour. At the end, they all went to lunch without a trace of hard feelings, or a sign that anyone had won or lost face, power, or status. Apparently, this openness and willingness to raise tough questions and challenge accepted wisdom was part of the culture of the firm, for I seemed to be the only one in the room who found the exchange unusual. My feeling then, which I expressed in a book in 1985, was that if Federal Express could retain that rare ability to learn and to change, it was a good bet that they would continue to be a remarkable success. Quite apart from the ethical issues raised by these two examples, in hindsight one can see why the Cowles organization failed to meet the test of sustainability, and why Federal Express went on to become one of the world's most successful corporations in terms of anticipating and responding to technological, social, political, economic, and competitive change. The lesson I drew from these examples nearly three decades ago was that managers in companies with healthy cultures were constantly willing to rethink even their most basic assumptions through a process of constructive dissent. And my experience over the last thirty years confirms that companies get into moral and competitive hot water when their leaders are unwilling to test their operating premises about such (often taboo) subjects as (1) the nature of the working conditions they offer employees, (2) the purposes of their corporation, and (3) its responsibilities to various stakeholders. The failure to openly examine such behavior-driving assumptions leads to what commonly is called "group think," a state of collective denial or self-deception which often has disastrous business and ethical consequences. I hesitate to cite the late John Z. DeLorean as an authority on ethical matters, but he was one of the few business leaders to recognize the consequences of group-think. In On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors he described what he called a typical meeting of GM's executive committee in which then-chairman, Richard Gerstenberg, would pontificate and vice-chairman, Richard Terrell ("the master of the paraphrase"), would parrot his views: Gerstenberg: Goddamnit. We cannot afford any new models next year because of the cost of this federally mandated equipment. There is no goddamn money left for styling changes. That's the biggest problem we face. 2ff7e9595c
Comments