Conflict and Peace
It was interesting to read a prediction by a mystic who claims to have
accurately foretold Donald Trump's presidency that the exact date for the start
of World War III will be any time between May 13 and October 13, 2017. Whether
this prediction will come true is a million dollar question! The way Trump has
been tweeting and tooting his own trumpet makes it a close possibility. North Korea
is challenging the military might of US and US is retaliating with threat that
says “better get your act together or you are going to be in
trouble like few nations ever have been in … trouble”. Whether North
Korea’s announcement of a
detailed plan to launch missiles aimed at the waters off the coast of US
Pacific territory of Guam is bluster and bombast, the truth is, it is trying to get Trumpet’s goat and has
succeeded as Trump’s incendiary remarks of fire and fury testify. We have in
our own backyard the Chinese with their atavistic nationalism currently engaged
in psychological war with India with frequent threat of military conflict issued through its media if India does not
withdraw its troops from Doklam. It almost commands obedience from India saying
“there cannot be two Suns in the sky” and “one mountain cannot accommodate two
tigers”. We have on our Western border a perpetual threat from Pakistan with
the possible danger of a maniac pressing the nuclear button any time.. The ISIS
has been running amok seeking total surrender of the world to the rule of its
Caliphate. The only silver lining amidst this war cry is everyone is afraid of
the weapons of mass destruction and no one really wants a war except for those
few hawks who live by the sword and do not expect to perish by it. The majority
of population all over the world wish to live in peace, but powerless to stop
the sabre- rattlers whose aggression and intimidation, complemented by
jingoistic nationalistic fervor and
religious fanaticism pose the biggest
threat for the survival of humanity.
No one wants war, but ironically human beings are forever wired up for
fight. What we see, what we hear and what we read testify to the fact that
fight is in our DNA and without fight, life seems an empty drag. We are
perpetually in a conflict zone with fellow beings as our fighting gene is
buttressed by our personal ego and self importance. Everyone wants his/her word
as the last word and brooks no opposition to it. In recent times we do not stop
with verbal duel or with coming to blows, but we take the next step towards manslaughter
or homicide. The first two pages of any newspaper that deals with city news is
full of murder most foul, revenge
killing, road rage and obnoxious sexual
assault and ravishment of the opposite sex . Conflict has moved farther towards
brutal violence and heinous crimes.
Conflict engagement is a genetic trait of the human race. No workplace is without a conflict. No home is without a conflict. No debate in Parliament or on television and watched by millions, is without a conflict. But all these conflicts stop with verbal duels rarely descending to physical skirmishes and murders. We see partisan news anchors jumping onto the debates, shouting and screaming at the participants who are not on the side of the establishment. In India, barring a couple of knowledgeable and balanced interviewers like Karan Thapar and Ravish Kumar, a majority of the anchors are arrogant, uncivil, with bloated ego as though they are omniscient and omnipotent to heckle and dismiss views that are in opposition to what they assert (or told to assert by the owners of the TV channels) . They will be on the channel enrollment as long as they echo their political master’s voice. One is astounded to see the participants belonging to the opposition camp subjected to the insults heaped on them by the anchors who are barely in their late thirties but holding forth on all issues in a hectoring voice. If these anchors are so seemingly knowledgeable and wise, they should have been in the Indian Administrative or Indian Judicial Service. I suspect they must be paid humungous salaries to sit in air conditioned comfort with the sole task of heaping quotidian dosage of insults on their guests who come from the opposition benches. I am also sure the victims- who are ready to stick out their neck to be guillotined, must be paid equally large fees to receive daily these insults from young anchors. The conflict often reaches verbal crescendo that ends with a cacophony of sounds that deafen our ears.
We have arrived at a stage when we yearn for peace and quietness in
our homes wanting the TV channels to observe a modicum of propriety and engage people in intelligent and healthy debates. I distinctly recall my professors five
decades back, who taught us by their gentle and polite responses how to differ
and accommodate divergent views. One of the memorable phrases used by them was
“yes, maybe, you are right. But this is how I see….” and thereby give the
students the probability of being right. I have never heard any professor
assert: “No, what you say is wrong”. I
experienced the same broad mindedness in foreign universities, when senior
professors were open to views of students coming from a different background
and different culture. They were not tolerant which premises a certain degree
of superiority, but they were willing to see some truth in the student’s
perception. This is what Goethe wrote : “Tolerance should really be only
a temporary attitude; it must lead to recognition"
I thought about the change in our behaviour and speech, turning us from
being an argumentative Indian to becoming an assertive Indian. Accommodation,
adjustment and adaption – the cardinal three ‘A’s have been replaced by
intolerance, inflexibility and
inexorablity- the three ‘I’s which stem from the egotistic fourth ‘I’. This is why the number of divorces is on
the increase today as the three’A’s have been overshadowed by the three
‘I’s which, in turn, are subsumed
by the egoistic ‘I’ . It is ironical that today sons and daughters celebrate
the golden jubilee or silver jubilee of their parents’ wedding anniversary but stay
single with failed marriage. The tragic news of a young IAS officer committing
suicide due to constant feud between his wife and mother is a devastating example
of maladjustment and inflexibility between two persons. In fact marriage is the best institution to
educate young men and women to cultivate the three ‘A’s and accept
responsibility for the success of their marriage and family togetherness. But unfortunately, marriage is now more of an
experiment as young people ,forever in
search of personal independence, enter wedlock with the idea that if it does
not work there is the option of walking out. The sanctity of marriage has been
reduced to getting a license for sexual union and therefore does not go beyond
it. Similarly in the political arena in
India in particular and in general, true of the entire world, the conflict is intense
between the right and the left and both unyielding to accommodate the positives
on either side. In India, the bitter conflict is seen in rewriting history and taking
license with facts, just because the left historians all these years had failed
to give any leeway to the rightist’s point of view. The insistence on
unilateral view – right or left deprives the young minds of an objective and
analytical understanding of history or for that matter of any theory or
ideology.
Conflict, thy name is Man( used in
the generic sense to include woman). But let that conflict remain true to our
Indian trait of being an argumentative Indian, an apt phrase coined by Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. Central to his notion of India, as the title
suggests, is the long tradition of argument and public debate, of intellectual
pluralism and generosity that informs India's history. Professor Sen
illustrates his concept of the argumentative Indian with examples from the teachings and lives of
Indian emperors like Akbar and Ashoka and from the epics, The Ramayana and the
Mahabharata. He speaks of as an inclusive philosophy rather than an
exclusionist, divisive religion. This is the correct view of Hinduism, mature and
magnanimous to accommodate dissenting views and 'even profound scepticism'.
This is a “capacious view of a broad and generous Hinduism, which contrasts
sharply with the narrow and bellicose versions that are currently on offer, led
particularly by parts of the Hindutva
movement”.
We may not be able to stop Trump’s bellicose
cry nor China’s war hysteria. We cannot stop ISIS in its destructive killings.
We cannot find a permanent solution to Pakistan’s vengeful attacks on India nor to Afghanistan’s continuous misery in its
fight against Taliban. It is a pity we have more hawks as leaders today and very
few peaceniks among them who prefer negotiations to armed conflict with other
nations.
If our principles and faith in
democracy are genuine, then it is the duty of all Indians to explore the
possibility of people to people relationship that can restore sanity from
hysterical war mongering. One Trump cannot and does not destroy the world with
war hysteria, one Osama or one Hafeez Saeed cannot win a proxy war. The world
does not depend on Trumps and Hafees Saeeds to survive. We were fortunate to be inspired by Mahatma Gandhi to look at our neighbours with
malice towards none and love towards all. Though Gandhiji is no longer there and
no new Gandhi has emerged, we are privileged to have Gandhi’s lineage that can inspire millions
of us to establish mutual and friendly relationship
in terms of trade, exchange of cultural artists, litterateurs, cinema, sports and
academic scholars with Pakistan on the Western border, with Bangladesh, Bhutan and
Sikkim ,extending to China on the eastern border, with Srilanka and other
southeast Asian nations on the southern side and Nepal and Afghanistan on the
northern sphere. The spirit of SAARC and the Nehruvian principles of Panchsheel
have to be revived to ensure peace at least in the subcontinent. It is time to
say ‘No’ to hawks and say ‘Yes’ to doves.
But what is more important is to set
our home in order. The present divisiveness
and political acrimony between the ruling party and the opposition, the bitter polarization
between the Leftists and the Rightists, the no holds barred personal attacks on those who profess and practice a different
ideology, the conflicts arising out of different groups trying to ride herd on each other, the deep schism between the haves and the have-nots ,besides
the carry -over from the past of social
and religious divide- have made deep inroads into our psyche making us
forget the concept of a pluralist India that
had shaped the freedom movement. It is essential to restore harmony among the
different sections of people and bring an Indian homogeneity through the
heterogeneity that has always been the
strength of India and which was evidenced duringthe Independence struggle.
India can show the
way. The sankalp or the oath that Prime Minister Modi has asked Indians to take
on the 70th anniversary of independence should be to restore the
three ‘A’s in our scheme of things and
seek peace with neighbours through a recognition of the basic human instincts of
empathy and love, friendship and compassion embedded in the genes of every man
and woman who belong to the Homo Sapiens race. Can we take a pledge to say ‘No’
to conflict and ‘Yes’ to peace ?
No comments:
Post a Comment