Ah! Nothing like an irrational point of view to stir up the conscience
from an ill-deserved hibernation! Just read an article by Mr. Pritish Nandy
called ‘The age of conflict’ and quite frankly, this piece dumbfounded me. I’ve
never been a big fan of Mr. Nandy as I believe that he usually picks up a contradictory
view just to appear different. But the sheer irrationality of this piece, made
me want to take it up and give a response; a reply to the best of my abilities.
I may not have a Times of India to publish me, but I do hope that I have an
audience, maybe even Mr. Nandy.
I suggest that you take some
time off to first read Mr. Nandy’s article so that you can better comprehend my
reply. You can read this article on
Welcome back! Now, I shall dispense my response.
Strife and conflict may result in paradigm shifts, but they are only
good if they happen once in a while. A continuous period of conflict would give
rise to chaos and insecurity of life. This is precisely why the period between
5th and 15th century in Europe is regarded as the "Dark Ages". There
were too many conflicts, wars and religious persecutions. This resulted in an
era were artists, scientists and traders cared less about their profession and
vocation, and more about just managing to survive. The Golden Age that followed
was marked by more stability and peace. Hence art, trade and science
flourished.
Simply put, a horse will run faster when it is hit with a stick, but
how long will it run before it bites the dust?
Mr. Nandy purports that Nathuram Godse kept Gandhi ‘alive by assassinating
him’. This is a dangerous conspiracy theory and I sincerely hope that he doesn’t
really believe in what he is typing. Gandhi is remembered today because India
still flourishes as a nation and because he is still a popular part of the propaganda
machinery of successive incumbent governments. Mikhail Gorbachev is forgotten (sic)
because the USSR doesn’t exist anymore. I agree that violence has changed our
history and defines us as human beings, but it is absolutely unnecessary as
well as irresponsible to glorify violence and anger like this.
Great religions have ‘expanded’ through strife, but they have
flourished and have become enriched only during times of peace. The purpose of
religion is not merely to expand their area of influence, locusts behave like
that.
Yes! Conflicts do change countries and draw , but who draws the line
between a conflict and an all out civil war? I find the ANNArchy these days,
very disturbing. Every revolution must have a shut-down button, something to
bring the temper of the populace back to normalcy and, if I may add Mr. Nandy,
peace. A revolution can give rise to a Gandhi or George Washington; it can also
give rise to a Hitler or Pol Pot. Time will tell if this present revolution
ends in peace or dies a gruesome death.
The Bhagvad Gita apparently says that it is our moral duty to fight
every war and win it. I am no expert on Bhagvad Gita, but I’ve always believed
that a war is never fought to give rise to another battle. A war is fought for
the good to prevail over evil, for the peace to triumph over strife.
Overall, I find Mr. Nandy’s tone to be quite defeatist. Just because
something seems improbable in the present, doesn’t mean that it is impossible
in the future. The grapes ain’t all that sour, sir!
