Politics and Society

A number of bombs have gone off in London killing scores of people and the consequences in days to come are different for different sections of society. An entire community fears backlash, world’s second most populous country is hopeful that West will empathize with it this time and those who have been spared in West are speculating whether there homes are any safer. Don’t be fooled by worldwide (but not unanimous, since some skeptical leaders in Pakistan have termed it a plot of West and America to denigrate Islam) condemnation speeches that express solidarity against this fight against terrorism. Divide among us has never been wider and what is tragic is every time a crime is committed against innocent people, involved parties always look to gain some political mileage by justifying their actions by drawing upon them. Very soon the real tragedy is forgotten and what remains in the wake of it is plain politics. A classic example of modern times would be Bush deciding to invade Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11 on the pretext of breaking the “nexus” between Saddam and Osama and unearthing WMD. Everybody, at the outset, knew that the real reason is either to secure oil reserve for strategic purposes or establish a foothold in the Middle East or both. Thousands of innocent civilians have been killed in American bombing since then but nobody thinks, or at least articulates, that this is an act of terrorism on part of America and its allies. Countries that didn’t approve of it opted out but didn’t oppose the invasion. But that is understandable since everybody wants to do business with America and hence you better not play with its sentiments, more so because it is the superpower. Self-proclaimed model of righteousness and perpetrator of democracy. But the point remains that it is an act of terrorism by an imperial power in constant denial. And terrorism as the state machinery in the disguise of patriotism is a potent weapon otherwise how do you explain Bush winning the second term? Are the terrorists always to be identified as firebrand fundamentalist Islamic fanatics? Can they not be suave looking, English speaking leaders representing an entire nation? Does less media coverage of people getting killed in Iraq or elsewhere make them less of a victim? The question west needs to ask itself is, does it stand on a higher moral ground than those Islamic terrorists? Does a recognized society with its civilized people have the privilege of being absolved of its crimes? If, after all every action is aimed at furthering the interest of the concerned nation/group in the global arena then there is no question of ethics, just pragmatism. Judging from this perspective then this war on terror is nothing more than the battle of interests. No different from any other battle or even crusade. One example, India has been suffering from state sponsored terrorism (some people would call those militants freedom fighters) for past more than a decade, first Punjab and then Kashmir but West always turned a blind eye to it but this London bombing assumes so much significance because it is seen against the backdrop of 9/11, as an attack on West itself. And entire West feels vulnerable. Why double standard about a global phenomenon such as terrorism? The point is, the international politics is the one of sheer shrewdness and expediency, of cold calculations. There is no place for humanitarian and ethical consideration or perhaps there is some, as long as it doesn’t conflict with your own agenda.

This is a glimpse of a bigger tragedy called society itself. Society has a will of its own, has identified some self preservation measures and presents them in the garb of moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. Demands complete conformity to these norms at individual level but relaxes them, only to be replaced by something more sinister, if the challenge to its authority gets bigger. It goes to the extent of even ostracizing the weaker faction labeling it anti-social. It is not just the battle between West and Islam but two factions of the society and society itself has taken the side of more influential and powerful since in the long run it envisages a future with the progressive and “civilized” populace, not the backward ones. It is not to say that Islamic fundamentalists are not at fault, certainly they are their ways of carrying out their struggle are more qualified to be called terrorism. What makes their actions more horrific in public eye is that it doesn’t bear the stamp of authority of a nation such as US and are committed in a very brutal way, arousing our emotions and turning our opinion against them. Killing scores of people in Vietnam or Iraq doesn’t seem to capture the public attention but beheading a person by a group of masked Islamic fanatics gives us nightmares. The inherent question is not that which side is guilty since both are, more or less, but it doesn’t change the characteristic of a society. Once it has identified which side it should associate itself with, it gives that group the right to act with impunity, without fearing consequences, not even the moral ones. In a much smaller setting any aberration or deviation from socially accepted values is perceived as threat to the society itself and dealt with the instruments of first, conscience and then punishment but at this level, the usual rules don’t apply anymore since the stakes are high. Don’t let the ethics guide your decisions but take all the pre-emptive measures and retaliate without any qualms. For the greater good of society few atrocities will be forgiven. It’s the society that is running the show; calling the shots and one has the choice of being one of its agents, enforcing the rules or being a spectator.