Why are breaking NORMS “taboo”? Shouldn’t we be open to change, and embrace these differences? Unfortunately our society as a whole has not changed much from the 20th century. We still shun and look down on change, like Naranappa in Samskara; he was looked down upon for being different. These differences should not be forbidden or “taboo”, as learned from society; we are scared of the unknown, we run from the idea of something new. Why? Because it’s not what we are accustom to and it’s out of our control. We do not need to look down on this, but applaud those who break social norms for they are the courageous ones. “Alive, Naranappa was an enemy; dead, a preventer of meals; as a corpse, a problem, a nuisance” (Murthy 3). The central issue revolves around the death of a Brahmin who broke all the rules and flaunted it. In Durvasapura, a village of supposedly orthodox Brahmin, Naranappa stood out, as the exact opposite of everything a Brahmin should be. He was wild, partied, socialized and had sexual encounters with people outside of his caste, destroyed holy relics and ate sacred fish. In other words, he broke every taboo …show more content…
Praneshacharya should have realized this right from the start, and instead of trying to find a perfect way to solve the problem, he should instead have been looking for the least polluting solution. Resolving the problem would have saved the agrahara from the stench and complete disruption of their lives. It’s hard to believe that none of the villagers knew the danger of having a plague-killed corpse sitting in their village. Removing the body would have likely saved the lives of some of the Brahmin as well. Taken together with providing the Brahmin a way to resume their prayers, the pollution caused by performing the funeral rites would likely have been balanced out, whether the person that performed them was Praneshacharya or another