Right, Wrong and Correct

Before the deluge of budget news yesterday, all eyes were on the meeting of foreign secretaries of India and Pakistan. Our nation has a certain view and position on issues ranging from the arrest of 26/11 perpetrators to what is the best and lasting solution to the Kashmir problem. It must have been plenty obvious by now that Pakistan doesn't see things the same way as we do. So to expect that Pakistan will be overawed by our gesture to talk and will change its views overnight is sheer insanity. If our ability to persuade was so magical, and if Pakistan was willing to objectively approach matters, then the impasse would have been resolved long ago. As the editor of The Dawn pointed out on Newshour, we are sitting on the opposite sides of the table, for God's sake!

It is now too late to sit in judgement and say who's right and who's wrong. 50 years back maybe that was an option, but not anymore. To even make an attempt to try and get Pak to see our side of the story is a waste of time and resources. The only way forward is to acknowledge the current situation and evaluate options as alternatives to status quo and not the originally stated positions of the two countries. Agreeing to LoC as the international border must not be evaluated against whether Kashmir rightfully belonged to us or Pakistan; rather, it should be compared to the constant firing that currently takes place, and will continue if no resolution is reached. Some concessions have to be made by both sides.

Today's HT has a piece by Gopalkrishna Gandhi on Prez K R Narayanan, who once asked the Mahatma that the struggle often faced by humans is not so much to choose between the right and the wrong, the truth and the untruth, but rather to choose between one right and another right, and one truth and another truth. Apparently, he did not receive a direct answer, even from the Mahatma. It is easy to distinguish the right from the wrong, but the right option is not always the correct one.

Civilization, non-violence and maoism

Gandhi famously said that ends never justify the means. In the current standoff between the government and Maoists, the maxim applies to both parties. The government may have wronged, but the brutal killing of security personnel and villagers is hardly justifiable. The tribals and Maoists may be creating trouble but the excesses of security forces is equally unpardonable. But when both parties err, the solution is never simple. It requires grace and courage to admit errors, swallow egos and plot a way forward - traits that remain a rarity in the human race. The easier option is to justify and rationalize the action, which only makes it easier to commit a greater error, causing the entire situation to spiral into a full-fledged war, where everything is fair, or so the stupid saying goes.

Despite Gandhi's well-documented success of using reason and dialogue, rather than violence, to prove a point, the approach is incredibly inefficient. It took some 25 years for the British to finally relent, and the decision was no doubt influenced more by their losses in WWII than by their prickly conscience. And not every non-violent protest will gain the momentum of Gandhi's movement. There are so many variables, and in Gandhi's case, they miraculously fell in place to elevate him to a Mahatma so that even the British held him in respect. But despite so many conflicts post-independence, why has no one risen to such prominence as the Mahatma? Is there a dearth of Gandhians in the country? I doubt. It is more that the "timing" and "placement" of these non-violent protests were not as perfect as the Mahatma's. To be clear, I am for non-violent protests. I'd any day prefer that Pak militants swim across the Arabian Sea and organize a satyagraha at the Gateway rather than open indiscriminate fire. And air travel will be vastly comfortable and security checks much less interfering if the Al Qaeda simply chose to protest outside buildings than blow them up.

If civilization is an onion, then non-violence is the outermost layer that has evolved after eons of human life and strife, which also makes it the easiest one to shred because underneath it is a more primal and dominant layer of survival instinct and self-preservation, which is usually subdued, but can get invoked in a jiffy. Shootings in college campuses and churches, driving a plane into the IRS building over a tax dispute, shouting contests and physical abuses on local trains or roads are the handiwork of this instinct. One can debate to no end whether the situation warranted such a primal response, but, unfortunately, life is a matter of perspective and there are no absolutes, whatsoever: The umpire at the bowler's end sees three stumps at the batting crease but the square leg umpire sees only one.

The emperor and Birbal were talking a walk in the palace garden, when Akbar notices a monkey pampering its offspring in the pond. The emperor comments that a mother's love for its child is pure and selfless. Birbal disagrees and when asked to prove, requests the water level in the pond be increased. At first, the mother protects the child from drowning, but when the water rises above its own head, the monkey abandons the offspring and runs for safety. Civilization is our offspring and we will guard it closely until our own existence is at risk, and then, all bets are off. Gandhi also said that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. But isn't that a better option if non-violence will end up making you the only blind guy walking around?