Author: Francois Gautier
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: June 12, 2002
"There is nothing wrong about war,"
once said Sri Aurobindo. And it is true that throughout the ages, war has
been an essential part of man's life on this planet and there have been
very few periods in modern history which have not seen strife. The French
fought three bloody wars against the Germans in the last 125 years, India
has battled five wars in 55 years, four against Pakistan, if you count
Kargil, and one against the Chinese.
Of course, the horrors of war, the
devastation it creates, have been documented so that there is no need to
delve upon them. In the olden times, it was accepted as a fact of life
and very few people protested. Actually, of all the nations in the world,
India is the one which has handled the business of war in the best possible
manner. As Sri Aurobindo points out, "Ancient India allowed for men's inclination
to war, but made sure that it never went beyond a certain stage, for only
professional armies fought and the majority of the population remained
untouched."
But today, as there is a new awareness
of the value of life, both human, animal and vegetal, man often recoils
from the terrors of conflicts and its consequences on the human being and
its environment. Naturally also, humanity aspires to a more harmonious
life, where not only will it not be necessary to kill each other to survive,
but also where all human beings would love and respect each other, regardless
of their colour, religion and nationality. Thus, particularly in the United
States during the Vietnam war, there manifested amongst the youth this
aspiration for "no war, but peace", as symbolised by the famous photo of
a young American girl inserting a flower into the barrel of the gun of
a National Guard.
This anti-war pressure was so great
that it knocked the wind out of the US to fight this bloody conflict in
a faraway country. Ultimately, the US had to surrender to Vietcong. Since
then, although there is no more such anti-war movement in the US, American
soldiers seem to have lost their valour and now their wars are fought from
the safety of supersonic planes and very rarely on the ground. And as soon
as a few American, or French, or English soldiers are killed, the will
to fight goes, because of intense media and public pressure on governments.
In India as well, there has risen
a strong, coherent anti-war lobby. Arundhati Roy, for instance, has brilliantly
pleaded for a peaceful and restrained India, powerful but benevolent, which
learns not to retaliate, is merciful and generous towards its smaller neighbours.
The spectre of a nuclear war has, of course, come as a strong argument
for the anti-war lobby in India, and we have seen in the last two weeks
how both foreign correspondents and Indian magazines have used the available
data on the horrendous consequences of a nuclear war on India to put pressure
on the Government to back out from a conflict with Pakistan.
At any rate, Indian governments
have not been exceptionally bold, militarily speaking.
Two factors appear to have inhibited
it when faced with threats. The first is Buddhism, which made a rigid creed
out of non-violence; and, second, Mahatma Gandhi's equally unbending theorem
of ahimsa, which may have precipitated India's Partition. And this is why,
maybe, under the guise of non-violence and peace, so many Indian intellectuals
and politicians have shied away from war since Independence. Witness Nehru's
refusal to heed warnings about China's hostility, which saw the humiliation
of the Indian Army in 1962. But will there be a nuclear war? General Musharraf
is a bright man: He knows that if he does manage to drop one nuclear bomb
on Delhi or Mumbai, there will be no more Pakistan worth the name, as all
major Pakistani cities will be wiped out in retaliation.
If there is a war between Pakistan
and India, whatever the politicians say, it will be a war between two brothers,
for, except their religion, everything is common between Indians and Pakistanis.
During a war, indeed, some on both sides may feel they are killing their
own brothers. Does this not remind one of something? Did not Arjuna face
the same dilemma 5,000 years ago? Did he not throw his bow down and tell
Krishna: "No, I will not fight, because war is such a horrible thing and
I refuse to kill my bothers."
But what does Krishna tell him:
"You are not killing the soul, but only the material body." Also sometimes,
when all other means have failed and it is necessary to protect one's borders,
wives, children and culture, war can become dharma.
And that brings us to the final
question: Is a war against Pakistan justified? Would it be dharma? Well,
you will have to decide this yourself: For nearly 20 years Pakistan has
waged a proxy war against India in Punjab, Kashmir and now in the North-East.
It has killed thousands of innocent people, women and children.
Several Indian prime ministers have
made one-sided attempts at peace, without getting reciprocity from Islamabad.
A war between Pakistan and India might be the Kurukshetra of the 21st century,
one which will set right 1,500 years of Islamic terror and both redeem
the Hindus' karma of cowardice, as well as the Muslims' karma of bloodshed.
This war, if it ever happens, will also pave the way for the reunification
of India and Pakistan, by force or by natural means.
