I saw something today, that is rare to see in this age of political correctness. On an income-tax related site, the instruction for a set of fields was rather surprising (almost shocking)
Full name, address of the Representative Assessee, who is assessable under the Income Tax Act in respect of the person, whose particulars have been given in column 1 to 13 (Representative Assessee details to be filled only in special cases like minor, lunatic, idiot, etc., as provided u/s 160 of Income-tax Act, 1961)
My friend and I both thought it funny at first that anybody who represents another person would want the latter to be declared an idiot. Later we felt it was actually rude. Even lunatic is not a very acceptable term these days since even a fat person would not like to be called that, and instead prefer more polished terms such as “well covered” (expression courtesy: Obelix) or “big-boned” (expression courtesy: Akimichi Chōji). May be it was okay in the colonial era to call a person an idiot because those in power thought so, but in our day and age every person has a right to dignity – and I think referring to them as an idiot denies that right.
Looking up dictionary.com, there seems to have been a system of classification in psychology, in which idiot was the name of a class. But thankfully, it says it’s no longer in technical use
In what calls itself a legal dictionary, this term is listed and defined in a way that, it looks like, is still in use (at least in some countries)
Perhaps it is just the layman’s bewilderment at a legal term that has a different connotation in everyday use. It might also be the rebellion of the new generation against an archaic usage.
Spread the love