How powerful is Force ?
Debates, discussions and arguments with the
decibel level reaching high intensity have held centre stage regarding the
release of Karan Johar’s film with Pakistani hero in the lead cast. The media
divides the guests on their TV shows into ‘for’ and ‘against’ groups with
reference to the screening of the film but the mischief loving media obliquely
suggests them to be anti- Nationalists and Nationalists. The argumentative
Indians who are hauled over the coals for seemingly lacking in patriotism, have
turned cautious and affirm that their plea for the release of Karan’s film is a
one-off plea and they are one with the Nationalists who demand a complete ban
on engaging or inviting Pakistani
artists to act or perform in India.
Karan Johar passionately affirms that he
was and is a nationalist to the core and promises not to engage Pakistani
actors in his future ventures and seeks people’s consent and grace to accept his film
that had courted controversy. But neither
the so-called ‘Nationalists’ or the unfairly branded ‘anti-Nationalists’ have
asked the question as to the worthwhileness of this puerile debate in the
context of the never ending Indo-Pak conflict! Will banning Pakistan actors, artists and
sports persons put a stop to the daily crossing of the LOC by armed forces of
both the countries and which daily accounts for the martyrdom of one or two
soldiers on either side? Isn’t it true
that such rabid anti-Pakistan rant ( and anti-India rant form the other side)
only escalates the tension that may eventually lead to war for
the fourth time since the two
nations got their independence? The War mongers on both sides are keen on
keeping the pot boiling and therefore are whipping up hysteria of hatred with
delusions of persecution , startling
insinuations of
paranoia and intolerance that their political and religious liberty are lost and that use of
force is the only answer for protecting their respective freedom. It is easy to
excite people into a state of war frenzy without ever making them understand
the terrible consequences of war. When both the nations have nuclear strike
capability, such irrational hysteria will bring about mutual destruction of an
unimaginable scale, so chillingly narrated by Amitav Ghosh in his slender
volume Countdown. According to Ghosh, to the politicians in
India and war generals in Pakistan, nuclear bombs are just status-enhancing,
"a primal scream for self-assertion" and “ the pursuit of nuclear
weapons in the subcontinent is the moral equivalent of civil war: the targets
the rulers have in mind for these weapons are, in the end, none other than
their own people.” It is a pity that the leaders and army generals on both
sides do not recognize the possible devastation that would be one hundred times
more than that of Hiroshima.
How many of our leaders have had the time to browse through Amitav’s book? The world –and in particular the nuclear
armed nations like India and Pakistan and North Korea besides the nuclear
weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey )today require
well educated, well read philosopher –statesmen to lead their respective nations.
The current scenario in India is limited to
electing only demogogues who have the power to articulate deep seated hatred, fear and suspicion in the name of nationalist
fervor without ever bestowing any rational or intellectual thought on the
consequences. On the contrary, the elected members of Pakistan parliament are
mere puppets in the hands of the military generals. How many among our politicians have read great
classics that talk about human nature and human experience? On the Greek classic, the Iliad, Simon Weil
raised a fundamental question:“Is force inevitably all-controlling and
malevolent? Or can it be tamed? Is it possible to "learn not to admire
force, not to hate the enemy…?" She wrote this when France was reeling under
the shadow of Nazi and fascist regimes, who lionized
military power and deliberately misconstrued weakness as akin to illness.
Today we have to ask the same question – the question that had been
discussed in the Iliad, the question that addressed war’s human dimensions. The
war between the Kauravas and the Pandavas, between the Greeks and the Trojans,
the war of the crusades between Christians and Muslims, the Nazi war against
the Jews, the Islamic State war between Sunnis and Shias and the present
Indo-Pak conflicts have their genesis in hatred, revenge and anger among the
warring groups, incited by leaders whose
myopic vision of battle cry masks their personal ambition to prove their
strength and thereof their leadership credentials. You hit, I hit, whose hit is
the most fatal is the proud boast of these war thirsty leaders. They are the
least concerned about the fatal consequences of war on the masses. Post Uri
massacre, we have shrill cries from all those who wear nationalism on their
sleeves to the effect that we are enemy nations and people on either side of
the border should nurse anger and hostility towards each other. No doubt, India
feels justifiably angry over the murderous assault on its soldiers at dead of
night and Indian army’s retaliation has signaled a strong and forceful message
to Pakistan about encouraging covert terrorist actions. So far, so good. But to
keep harping on it and shaming Pakistan in all international forums is like
flogging a dead horse- that is seeking a magical cure to an incurable festering
wound. LOC conflicts have daily increased the martyrdom of one or two soldiers, if not more,
on either side. I recall Mary Shelley’s address in her first novel, Frankenstein,( published when she was
just twenty)-the address by a father to
his son: “Come, Victor; not brooding thoughts of
vengeance against the assassin, but with feelings of peace and gentleness, that
will heal, instead of festering, the wounds of our
minds.”
The way the media and some of the self proclaimed Nationalists
orchestrate their hatred of Pakistani people, seeking a ban on entry of
Pakistani artists and sportspersons and similarly Pakistan ‘s retaliatory ban
on showing Indian films and Indian TV serials, show that both nations have
reached a dialogic cul de sac. Both sides have come to believe that cannons,
missiles and bombs including the dreaded N-bombs alone shall speak. The
people-to-people bonding, the sharing of
their common culture and civilization, language and food, exchanging of goods
and trade, engaging writers, artists, sportspersons, film and TV actors is the
only way to promote camaraderie and ensure the survival of the two nations. For
this to happen, the leaders on both sides should first focus on strengthening
the ties and not on the conflicting issues. Our of Prime Minister did once
speak about appealing to the Pakistani people for promotion of ties between the
two nations. I wish he had made similar appeal- more so now during the film
controversy- to his own people. Unless people recognize that most issues can
be worked out by mutual respect and regard for each other, both nations will
militarily, economically and culturally collapse till their very existence will
become a question mark. The power of force is exciting, frightening and catastrophic
but cannot be sustaining for long without fatal consequences. But the power of
peace is gentle, restrained, and enduring. The way to make a success of the
diabolical two nation theory left by Britain in 1947 isfor thenations to extend hands of friendship
and not use them for wielding guns. One
wishes for a Mahatma, a Martin Luther King, a Mandela in our midst. But with no such noble and wise personality in
sight, let people of both countries rise up to show that the power of peace is stronger
than the power of force.
No comments:
Post a Comment