In the past two years, the quintessential
argumentative Indian in me, like most of my fellow countrymen, has assumed
“expert” status in many diverse fields such as Virology, Epidemiology, Medicine,
Macroeconomics, Geopolitics, Defense strategy, nuclear weaponry, History etc.
This is besides the Politics, Spirituality, Religion, Astrology and Memelogy
(the art and science of making jokes for every important and serious issue) which
have been the domains of our expertise for a long time.
Recently, we have been discussing (or trying to
direct, if you will) the geopolitical and war strategies of Europe. The
government of India may have chosen to stay neutral in the conflict between
Russia and Ukraine; but the people have taken sides. More than the countries,
we are taking sides of the leaders - The Russian president Vladimir Putin and
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
Supporters of Putin are mostly playing the “old
friendship” card. They are vehemently arguing that Russia is our old and tested
friend, while Ukraine has always opposed us at UN and other international fora.
It is therefore appropriate for Indians to support the Russians in this war. In
their argument, they are happy to omit the issues of human rights; wide scale
destruction of civil infrastructure; plight of foreigners caught in the
crossfire; and the suffering of the poor in Eastern Europe and Africa who were
already suffering from the effects of the pandemic and are now facing food
shortages and prohibitive inflation. They are also missing the point that in
their support for Russia, they are also (even if unwittingly) supporting a war
that has the potential to become a much wider conflict involving the use of
weapons of mass destruction. These people are also not recognizing the very
close Ukrainian connection of at least three of the USSR premiers (Khrushchev,
Brezhnev and Gorbachev) who had taken our side at the time of Goa liberation
and Bangladesh independence.
The supporters of Zelenskyy are mostly
concerned with the hardships that the common Ukrainians are facing in this war
of the unequal. They feel that the acts committed by Russia are a violation of
human rights and international laws. By extending their moral support to
Ukraine, these people are in fact glamourizing war. They are happy to share
pictures of the Ukrainian women in uniform carrying guns and Zelenskyy sharing
meals with soldiers. Many of these supporters are just cheering for an
underdog, as if it were a game of soccer between the top-ranked Brazil and the
bottom-ranked Samoa. These cheerleaders are conveniently ignoring the blatant
foreign policy mistakes of Ukraine in the past three decades which may have
pushed this beautiful and prosperous country into a perennial conflict, just
like Afghanistan and Palestine.
I am against any kind of war that is fought
merely to plunder territory, wealth, and/or power. Sometimes wars do become
essential to establish the rule of Dharma (righteousness). For instance, the
War of Mahabharata, in which neutrality was not an option, everyone must choose
a side.
Speaking of Mahabharata, I feel that there is a
need to examine whether ‘Hitler’ is a common noun, or a proper noun. Or is it
just a title given to an overzealous or despot administrator/governor, who does
not mind using inhumane methods to enforce his ideology and practices? I am
sure most of us have used this title for a strict teacher, hostel warden,
parent, or boss!
Even after 77 years of his death, people all
over the world are enthralled to see ‘Hitler’ getting defeated again and again;
just like we like burning of the effigy of Ravana every year. Hundreds of successful
movies have been made on WWII, reminding us of the consequences of war and the fallacies
of the methods and principles of bigotry and fascism. Even young children are
fascinated to see Thanos, a super villain comic character having a twisted
moral compass and his actions to eliminate a large part of humanity, getting
defeated in his misdemeanors over and over again. Many Zelenskyy supporters are
even commonly using this title for the Russian president. While we all like
seeing ‘Hitler’ defeated and destroyed in fiction, we hardly make an effort to
acknowledge the Hitlerian tendencies in the people around us.
A social media survey conducted by me yesterday
indicated that a majority of people concur with the thought that ‘Hitler’ is a
common noun, representing a person who sincerely believes that they are
empowered and authorized to use force to make people believe in their ideas on
the ideal socio-political and/or religious order.
Prior to the German Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s
attempt to establish the racial superiority of his people, many Greek, Roman,
Turkish, British, French, Mongol, Japanese and other rulers had used the
methods of genocide and enslavement to establish the superiority of their clan,
race and/or ideologies.
The British enslaved half the world –
destroying ancient cultures and plundering wealth. Mongols, Hun, Greeks also
invaded the Indian subcontinent, destroyed places of worship, raped and
kidnapped women, and killed millions of natives.
I certainly do not intend to hurt anyone’s
feelings and apologize beforehand if it happens so. At the risk of sounding
blasphemous, I would nonetheless like to examine the following with an open
mind:
Whether the killing of all the Kshtriyas 21
times by Parashuram, because he believed that Kshtriyas had begun to abuse
their power, take what belonged to others by force and tyrannize people,
tantamount to a Dharma Yudh or genocide?
How was the Kalinga War, in which the mighty
army of Mauryan King Ashoka killed 2,50,000 Kalinga soldiers and citizens,
different from the present Russian-Ukraine conflict? Did Ashoka the Great also
have Hitlerian traits before turning to Buddhism for penance?
Rodion Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Crime
and Punishment (Fyodor Dostoyevsky, 1866), also had the belief that he was
entitled to kill people – a Hitlerian trait. But later he learned like Ashoka
that salvation is possible through atonement.
History is replete with instances of people
with Hitlerian traits. The point, therefore, is that ‘Hitler’ is not a proper,
but a common noun.
Society shall do much better if we could incorporate methods and practices in our education system that would guide children to become better human beings by curbing their Hitlerian tendencies and develop compassion, empathy, tolerance and acceptance.
