Author: Dr R L Bhat
Publication: The Daily Excelsior
Date: May 11, 2002
Civilized societies live by dialogue,
uncivil ones by the brute force. In earlier time that force was wielded
with clubs and stones. In the modern times it is bombs, bullets and rockets.
But the impatience and intolerance of the others' viewpoint is the same
as it was in the times when the advanced instruments of death were unknown.
Yet the barbarian had one defense; he did not have any other way. The uncivil
by definition does not know, does not have the advantage of a civilized
way of life. He is forced by his circumstances to wield the club and stone.
When he gets the sword he has advanced to the stage of civilized discourse.
When he can get guns, bombs and rockets he has a wholesome framework to
resolve his differences, redress his grievances, even to press his ponts.
He has dialogue. He can talk everything out. Those who refuse to make use
of the civil way refuse to get civil. They close their eyes the advances
of the humanity. They refuse to be humans.
The terrorist uses those weapons
to annihilate men and women to press his point, which are not a part of
this civilized society. He is ages away, in eras that had no instruments
of peace. When that terrorist insists that he has a right to use the modern
weapons to decimate modern society and intercourse, he is also dismissing
the advances that made that weaponry available. Logically he has no right
to use that weaponry. The modern day terrorist has gone one step ahead.
He is not only using the instruments produced by the civilized world but
also attempts to misuse the instruments of peace to further his terrorist
objectives. After he has fired the bullets in his gun and blasted the bombs
in his bag, he comes back to have a dialogue on the strength of that barbaric
force. Often he has the barbarism to back him up. At other times he depends
on the 'legitimacy' that barbaric activity has 'gained' him. We in this
State have whole outfits barging into legitimacy with the force of barbarian
instruments and mentalities.
Not only are they unwilling to eschew
their modus operandi but actually use the option of terrorism as a counter
force of sorts. The dialogue with militants/terrorists in this State has
been rather forced with that power of using the club again. There are any
numbers of people in the ranks of the terrorists and their sympathizers
who credit the terrorism with having got them a 'say'. That is a situation
when the dialogue is not only bad but is positively harmful to the interests
of the civil society. It reinforces the creed of violence and discredits
the processes and instruments of peace. Not only does it justify the penchant
for barbaric behavoir but also legitimizes it as an instrument. And that
would be a most horrendous negation of the civilized way itself.
There we are not only derailing
the dialogue but also debasing the rationale of the dialogue process. Dialogue
is conducted between the people who respect it as an instrument, as a way
the life in a civilized society must be lived. Those who have negated that
principle must at the very least renew their commitment to it. They civil
society cannot allow its must potent instrument to be used a strategic
weapon by the persons who are out to defy the very civilized existence.
There is something to be said for the people who hold that the only way
to deal with detractors of the society is to get down to their level and
give them a taste of their own medicine. That may sound rather harsh to
many ears, but the only people who have survived barbaric ways are the
ones who have been able to get the better of them. Those who have give
way to their peaceful proclivities have often had their societies torn
asunder by the forces they should have fought out.
Of course, healing touch has an
importance. And all the prodigals that return must be welcomed back if
we want to keep the human fold intact. And then, it is also true that the
barbarian has succeeded anyway if he has been able to get the civil society
down to his own uncivil level. But few of these postulates would apply
or work with people who have the aim of drowning all achievements of civilization
as his sole motivation. That motivation would not be removed by investing
his brutish instruments with the credit of having bent the rules of the
civil society. We see something of this contradiction playing out in the
west Asia. Agreeing there has not weaned the terrorists away but made them
even more terror-loving. And that is what Israel and the west are discovering
to their horror. The dialogue and accommodation has not, dulled the terrorist
bent of the people there one whit.
Here every concession is seen as
a reason to further raise the terror and strike higher. The peaceable overtures
go to whet the terrorist appetites. And terrorism as an instrument in the
civilized society gains an underserved acceptance. That not only makes
the overtures of peace fruitless, it also puts the peace-loving at a discount.
thus when the Hurriyat proclaims that it has gone places with the support
of terrorists it is not hailing the civilized modus but acknowledging the
use of brute force in dealing with civil societies. No civil society can
allow that, unless it wants its civilization to be trashed. That bluff
of the barbaric modes triumphing cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.
