WHY KILL FOR THEM AND WHY DIE FOR THEM?

  

WHY KILL FOR THEM AND WHY DIE FOR THEM?

    What happened in Udaipur and Amarawati were heinous and planned acts. What follows in many parts of the country in the name of blasphemy is nothing short of a chaotic mob frenzy. Condemnable is too insufficient and mild an adjective for such belligerent conspiracy. However, the response of the political fraternity continues to be disgusting; that of the bureaucracy and administration, under the command of their respective political lords, is mixed as always; that of the media is mostly dependent on its ideological leanings and its strength to counter or ignore pressures, political or otherwise.  The response of the common man appears to be a little more attentive and alive than usual. Each one of these groups extracts its share of mileage out of the reprehensible acts and resulting disorder. There are indeed exceptions, but they are like islands of sanity and hope in the otherwise turbulent seas.

    Any such public crime should be condemned, just condemned, without qualification. When we put 'ifs' and 'buts' in our response, we not only dilute the graveness of the crime but also associate our sympathies with those who glorify such inveterate sentiments of violence. A wrong done by someone in the past, cannot justify a wrong done in retaliation by another person in the present, whether the gap between the present and the past is a few hours, a few days, a few decades, or a few centuries. Such a vengeful mindset breeds a continuing chain of violence and retaliation.

    When working against evil, it is essential to condemn it unequivocally and to dissociate oneself from it. Those who respond with any reservations or conditions attached, risk the chance of being counted among those who perpetrate evil. Those who sincerely fight evil should ensure that such people are also counted among the evil-doers. The diehards and the fence-sitters sympathetic to them may require different medicines, but both should be counted among the sick.

    All analysis, recrimination, and explanation should come separately and much later, not when the atmosphere is charged with the passions of the moment. Ironically, the so-called intellectuals rush too quickly to a discussion that inevitably leads to unpleasant hardening of attitudes. The basic purpose of any discussion should be to develop a better mutual understanding of views and viewpoints. But unfortunately, such productive discussion is not often seen, neither in visual nor print media and indeed it is hardly seen in seminars or meetings of any kind, general or private. Mostly, discussion on such issues does not fall in the category of genuine intellectual interchange. Rather, it tends to consist of argumentative exchanges or overly heated debate that merely propagates dogmas. Such debates by people, who are not concerned directly and immediately, have a tendency to inflame both sides. They end up as irresponsible messiahs inadvertently adding fuel to an already burning fire.

    People in the grip of the passions of the moment would do well to avoid discussion of contentious issues. They should at least allow for a cooling-off period. This is not because they are necessarily mistaken in their opinion, but because any hardening of attitudes is antithetical to compromises and peaceful solutions. If we want others to listen to us, we should first prepare ourselves to listen to others. And that becomes impossible when attitudes harden.

    We must realize that terrorism or any sort of extremism thrives on partisan attitude hardening into dogma. Therefore, instead of an immediate reaction, we should stop and think calmly and rationally. Throwing around accusations of blame and instigating people to raise their voices is simply playing into the hands of unscrupulous leaders of all hues.

    An area is continuously doused with petrol, accidentally or intentionally. No one takes any steps to stop this process and the area continues to get saturated. No one tries to cordon off and clean the area, and then someone throws a spark, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. The area bursts into flame. Who should get the blame?

    Those who sprinkled petrol say that those who threw sparks should be blamed. Those who threw sparks say that the petrol sprinklers should be blamed. Those who remained inactive blame both. This indiscriminate throwing around of invective further inflames the fire. It also makes extinguishing the fire more difficult. In fact, each and every group should share the blame. But they never do. Once again, the leaders are responsible because they callously continue to take advantage of the shortness of public memory.

    Nowadays, leaders, politicians, preachers, and advisers — both altruistic and selfish, who themselves do not follow what they advise or preach — infest our social system. It would be good for them to recall the oft-repeated incident from Gandhiji's life where he postponed advising a child not to eat jaggery till he himself abandoned doing so.

    Why do none of these leaders actually go to disturbed areas with the resolve of staying there until peace is permanently restored?  Alas, this is not what they do; instead, they utter sympathetic clichés, promise some money or a job and consider their duty to be fulfilled by means of a short, formal visit. This is because in their hearts they consider the common people to be mere stepping stones for their pursuit of personal glory. Yes, apparently they take care of their followers but how? Not as fellow human beings, but as munitions for the artillery employed in missions of their mercenary motives.

    It is time we realized how we are being used — mostly in ways we scarcely suspect— by our so-called leaders; leaving aside a minority of exceptions. In eyes of most politicians, we are simply vote-banks and nothing else. For religious leaders, we are hordes of mice who dance to the tunes of their sacrosanct flutes. For social activists, we are sacrificial lambs ready to be slaughtered on the altar of their ideology for enhancing their glory. For the parasitic monolith of the bureaucracy, we are simply a perpetual source of illegitimate pecuniary nourishment. For the media, we are like firecrackers that can be blown at will at any time to enhance their TRP. The farcical irony is that each one of these leaders continues to exploit us on the pretext of our welfare, and we continue to produce more such leaders in our trance-like stupidity.

    Shouldn't we pause and ask ourselves, “Are we not mere pawns on the chessboard of our leaders' selfish games?” If we find the answer to be yes, we should honestly accept this reality and make earnest efforts to dissociate ourselves from leaders who seek sacrifice without giving any. If we find that impossible, we should at least extract from them what we can with our eyes wide open.

     Why kill for such people? And, yes, why die for them?

 (Published in First India, a Jaipur-based print and online daily newspaper.  Friday 15-7-2022)

 

*******