Not at all. Why? Because we are civilians, and we tend to think that way. Ask the son of a cop if he thinks his father is a bad man, because he kills bad guys. You know the answer even before you ask that question. So, what makes war non-violent?
One person is enough to make us think that war is not violent. That is a commanding officer that orders around a military unit. His judgment and attitude decides the fate of his entire military unit. The entire unit does not even question the philosophical nature of war itself, but only judges and questions its commanding officer. Thus, whether or not war is violent rests upon the judgment of one person, the commanding officer. Similarly, whether or not war is violent depends upon your judgment too. If you stick to one side and don't think from the other, you will always try to defend yourself saying war is violent, and people who voluntarily refrain from war are true heroes. Gandhi, a paragon of non-violence, when in South Africa, looked to recruit men to fight for the British empire, because he understood the difference between non-violence and dharma. He saw no hypocrisy there. If you still think war is violent, I will leave you to your one-sided, and hence biased, judgment. Also, there is no reason for you to stop thinking, just because you think war is violent.
After you cross the 'all war is violent' mental hurdle, you can step into the fields of war, where the beauty of war is fully expressed in the bonds of brotherhood between men fighting for survival, and some for a virtue. This "beauty of war" concept will lead us to so many analytical thoughts about war, and it is very essential for us get over this hurdle, to understand the life of warriors and soldiers. This will help us understand that soldiers are no different from civilians, and there are cowards and heroes among soldiers, just as there are cowards and heroes among civilians.
One person is enough to make us think that war is not violent. That is a commanding officer that orders around a military unit. His judgment and attitude decides the fate of his entire military unit. The entire unit does not even question the philosophical nature of war itself, but only judges and questions its commanding officer. Thus, whether or not war is violent rests upon the judgment of one person, the commanding officer. Similarly, whether or not war is violent depends upon your judgment too. If you stick to one side and don't think from the other, you will always try to defend yourself saying war is violent, and people who voluntarily refrain from war are true heroes. Gandhi, a paragon of non-violence, when in South Africa, looked to recruit men to fight for the British empire, because he understood the difference between non-violence and dharma. He saw no hypocrisy there. If you still think war is violent, I will leave you to your one-sided, and hence biased, judgment. Also, there is no reason for you to stop thinking, just because you think war is violent.
After you cross the 'all war is violent' mental hurdle, you can step into the fields of war, where the beauty of war is fully expressed in the bonds of brotherhood between men fighting for survival, and some for a virtue. This "beauty of war" concept will lead us to so many analytical thoughts about war, and it is very essential for us get over this hurdle, to understand the life of warriors and soldiers. This will help us understand that soldiers are no different from civilians, and there are cowards and heroes among soldiers, just as there are cowards and heroes among civilians.
No comments:
Post a Comment