Out of 3434 years of recorded history of man, only 268 have
been free from a major war ( many remote civilization like Incas not include).
This is an insult to those modern humanists who see man as a basically peace
loving animal. Thus it behaves us to study the war not just as a slogan of patriotism,
but as an all prevailing force in history of human evolution.
War is a competition between two opposed parties. Competing
groups are nothing but aggregations of competing individuals. They have all the
vices and virtues of competing individuals, acquisitiveness, pugnacity,
partisanship and pride. State being individuals multiplied is what individuals
are. It does everything an individuals does, but only on a grander scale. Man
has acquired these characters through eons of evolution, they are as deeply
embedded in his nature as any other facet of evolution.
Patterns of war during different stages of human history have corresponded to
the needs of that particular society. In hunting age, the ability to kill,
brutality, and sexual readiness were requirements of life which naturally
reflected upon the mode of war. In the agriculture age industriousness, ability
to maintain peace, and monogamy became the way of life and wars became
defensive in nature. Uncertainty of present day society has resulted in a state
of cold war.
A condition of peace is at best a state of unstable equilibrium. Peace can
never be maintained per sec, it can only be maintained by acknowledge supremacy
of one power, or by two equal powers (in which case it again is potentially unstable).
Peace essentially entails freedom and equality for all, but we have to
remarkably naive to believe that such utopias can exist by themselves without
use of force. Man was born unfree and unequal and he will remain so, because it
is an inevitable precondition for the selection of the fittest. To maintain
this natural status quo wars are fought, irrespective of their apparent
immorality. We must remember that nature and history do not agree to our
concepts of good and bad. They define good as that which survive and bad as
that which goes under. History has no prejudice in favor of a Christ or a
Gandhi , as against Genghis Khan.
In this jungle of human competition war emerges as a final arbitrary.
We are aware that now humanity has the power to destroy itself in a matter of
minutes. From Paleolithic age till the dawn of nuclear age it was not possible
for a group of mankind to eradicate the other group or to eliminate the
humans species. Now this cataclysm is possible. Now the power has grown disproportionate
to most of the objectives in dispute.
The development of such a degree of destructive power is unprecedented, hence
partially unknown, and as a result unstable. The conflict must be resolved
otherwise this palpable uncertainty will explode into unimaginable catastrophe.
So now as we move towards a higher plateau of competition and turn a new
chapter in history, the phoenix of history is perched precariously on
edge, nervously awaiting its fare, who knows whether it will rise again or not.
Logic dictates that that in the next phase of human development, one of the
present power shall aggregate enough power to annihilate the other group,
without being destroyed its self. The result would be a new global empire.
The nation which would do this would have clarity of vision( under stands the
logic of war), singleness of purpose and quite a certain degree of
ruthlessness. Necessity requires that all other nations standing in way this
development be eliminated. Unfortunately for us we are a nation that could very
likely end up as vanquished rather than the victor. If we want to survive we
must relentlessly strive to become THE STRONGEST nation, because its not only
the best way, its the only misplaced sense of kindness would lead to failure
and in the words of Field Marshal Sir William Slim:
"This may be the reason, but its no excuse"
A failure now would not mean no excuse, it would mean nobody left to make an
excuse.
Strong view.... Great perception!
ReplyDeleteFactual write and factual thought. ADK, you are man of words...
ReplyDelete