This and that: conflicts and collateral damage

This and that: conflicts and collateral damage

Here is a familiar scene from either a movie of yesteryears or a tearjerker soap on the idiot box. The father is expectantly pacing the corridors outside the maternity ward. It will be their first child. Everything was fine and the joy of becoming a father was just about to burst out. He was waiting for the doctor to emerge and announce ...the doctor did finally emerge after what seemed an eternity...not all was well...there are complications. It has to be either the child or the mother.  A bit cruel...the choice was simple “Kill one to save another”. Thankfully, the recent developments in medicine hopefully spare such situations in real life these days.

Switch scene...the famous epitaph on the tombstone of the Unknown Soldier in Imphal, “When You Go Home, Tell Them Of Us And Say, For Your Tomorrow, We Gave Our Today"...Is the soldiers’ martyrdom a collateral damage, eminently acceptable to a Nation?

We have to accept that every conflict throws up collateral damage. When the conflict is in the public spaces and not confined to defined battlefields the damage is usually manifold. Probably the burning of Lanka by Hanuman is a major collateral damage of the war between Ram and Ravan. The act of burning down a capital city was undertaken because Ravan was holding a hostage who was a citizen of Ram’s kingdom,  within his territory. While Sita was illegally confined  in that country the Lankans, with the exception of Mandodari (Ravan’s wife) and Vibhishan, did not vehemently object to or revolt against the act.  If the people of the country had risen in revolt against Ravan, Lanka would have been saved.

There cannot be subversion, militancy or ‘terrorism’ without the connivance of the state (Libya, Yemen...), society (Afghanistan, Pakistan), or both. Just as a wild fire starts from a spark and is stoked by external forces like the wind, the spark of terrorism (initiated by right or wrong ideals)  is fanned by vested interests and terrorist organisations function like a polity with or without geographical boundaries as a base. Soon the ideals are forgotten and in most cases the organisation is dominated by criminals.....a section of the society plays along either due to fright (terrorised) or for material gains, thereby making them vulnerable.

Not even in our dreams we can experience Utopia (Ram Rajya). Even the King’s wife was not safe in Ram Rajya!!! History tells us that all conflicts have wrought immense destruction – collateral or otherwise. I do not want to sound villainous; you may turn around and say my near and dear ones were not among the hostages...but consider this – if we had not exchanged jailed terrorists for hostages in the infamous hijacking of an Indian aircraft IC 814 to Kandahar in December 1999,  would today’s subcontinent be different.

I leave it your imagination.....

Armed conflicts do not end like a soccer match – on the pitch.... I repeat conflicts wrought damage – collateral and otherwise.

I wish that there are NO conflicts!

This and that: pragmatism and a ray of hope?

I see a ray hope...a light at the end of the tunnel, hopefully NOT an oncoming train.

Among the ebbing value system and growing intolerance, both inimical to a healthy democracy, there is an encouraging development.  A group of scholars who are also members of the powerful All India Muslim personal Law Board (AIMPLB) has invited Salaman Rushdie to debate on Islam in the wake of his book “satanic Verses” and imminent release of a movie based on his book “Midnight’s Children”. The author’s controversial novel The Satanic Verses created a storm in the 1980s.

What a refreshing idea...this debate....I only hope Salman Rushdie is up to the challenge and accepts the proposed healthy confrontation. We need open debates where every opinion is expressed. Debates are generally inconclusive and (should) avoid decisions. Democracy is strangled if debates are precluded. Stifled voices spread rumors. Open debates are places where expressions find a way out which allows for easier breathing and healthier living. Just debate the positions and let the listener decide what is right and wrong for her. Let us NOT presuppose events and feelings based on ignorance and blind faith.

Open debates exclude possibilities of complexes, which herald insecurities. This is a situation rife with raw sensibilities and pregnant with disastrous possibilities.  All this nonsense of communal feuds and caste fights ares only due to insecurities caused by ignorance.  It is very simple. I do not become a bastard overnight only because somebody decides to proclaim me thus. Conversely if I am a bastard, I am one even if none says so!!!

Now, you tell me is it a straw (the offer for a debate) we can clutch at...and hope?

Grandma recommends tippling

Grandma was awake. It is very unusual for her not to be in bed at 11.30 PM on a Saturday night.  No paper, no knitting, just sitting on the patio and staring into oblivion.  The night temperatures of around 18^o Celsius helped. I became worried though and rushed to inquire after her health. Everything about her was fine, she assured me. However, it seems she just could not sleep.

G: (With a stunned, blank look) Have you been drinking?

I:  (A bit taken aback) come on grandma, you know I have not touched that stuff, yet.

G:   Then start drinking.....

I: (Well you don’t expect such stuff from Grandma...I reached for the phone...) Grandma are you alright, shall I call the doctor?

G:  Putr, put down the phone. The trouble is you youngsters do not read newspapers.

I: I do...

G: Yes only  page 3. Well the point is that there is a honorable SC judgment which has commuted the sentence of a rape cum murder convict from death to life sentence.

I:  So, what is the big deal grandma?

G:   He has done it because the criminal, the convict, committed the crime under influence of alcohol.

I: Ah!

G: This implies that the degree of heinousness   of any crime is inversely proportional to the state of inebriation while committing the crime.

I:  So, drunken driving is safer than sober steering, for the driver you mean....

G: Exactly, that is the derivative interpretation would you say?

I: (Grandma has never asked my opinion earlier...)er...er..er... yes true (I blurted out) . Who is to blame the judiciary or the law? (my escape route).

G:  Son, it is the law which should be blamed...the archaic law says that in any culpability, the offence and the offender is to be considered while sentencing. The argument is that in this case the offender was NOT in his complete enses while committing the crime...

I:  What a load of bullshit.....

G: You see, now you are swearing in front of your grandma...

I: Sorry grandma, I did have a glass of beer..pardon me.