How powerful is Force ?

                                                        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.