Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in Drupal\gmap\GmapDefaults->__construct() (line 107 of /data-1/webspace/10183/html/sites/all/modules/gmap/lib/Drupal/gmap/GmapDefaults.php).
Monday, February 26, 2007

K Haridas NairCompassion has to be infused into the agenda if we want to see a difference in international affairs.

The agenda ultimately sets the tone for action. It provides the context within which decisions are made. The underlying intentions and motives are often well disguised. But they drive the agenda and set in motion clear targets and goals. The whole process then gets a life of its own. Other interested parties join the bandwagon. It is usually cast as an ‘us versus them’ agenda that is presented on a moral high ground to maximize support.

The ‘war on terrorism’ is a case in point. As soon as the agenda is set it is then globalized. Either you are with us or against us. For various motives several countries then join the bandwagon. Others are forced to sign up and the battle is on. It is a ‘war’ on terrorism and it is sold on such terms as ‘evil’ to dehumanize the ‘other’.

This benefits the war-mongers, the weapons industry and those who feed the notion of violence. Violence begets violence and soon the very terror that you imagined becomes an imposing reality. The war-mongers who have decided to use violence to deal with this threat create the very monsters that face them. Violence creates a momentum of its own. This breeds greater violence and very naturally the chain of hate extends breeding new terrorists to support the cause.

What if the context were different? What if the agenda was not ‘war on terror’ but ‘an end to terrorism’? This would immediately open up a more inclusive approach. The underlying issues that generate terrorism would also have surfaced on the agenda alongside the need to deal with terrorism as a modus operandi to achieve goals. ‘An end to terrorism’ is a concern for all. If the ‘other’ knows that his or her concerns are on the table, then we have an opportunity to dialogue, to negotiate and to bring change.

It is akin to learning all about ‘illness’ in order to understand ‘health’. That will not get us far. Health, if it is to be understood, has to be studied in the context of health and the preventive measures that should be in place to ensure that the health and well-being of people are safeguarded. When is mankind going to learn that there is a better way than violence?

Such a perspective can only thrive when we have a more compassionate view of the human being. The ‘other’ is at best – and at worst – a being like me. Whatever may be the distinctions based on geographical locations, language, ethnicity, colour, class or religion the ‘other’ remains a human being. I create the monsters that I then need to deal with by my very response.

Once we demonize the ‘other’ then somehow we seem to find it easier to liquidate the other, mistreat the other and subjugate him or her to all sorts of torture and terror in the name of fighting terrorism. The same means are used by the perpetrators of terror. Both devalue life. Many of us unwittingly become victims of this demonizing process either because of our own ignorance or because we have bought into the ‘us versus them’ strategy. Poverty, social tensions, inequality and the siege mentality drive people into hopelessness. Terrorism is often born out of such hopelessness. This is why the notion of human security is critical if sustained peace has to become a reality.

It is this demonizing of the ‘other’ that has to stop. Without compassion this is not possible. This seems to be a quality and a factor that is missing in international affairs. Only the likes of the Dalai Lama or Archbishop Desmond Tutu emphasize this critical factor. Compassion is not a quality born automatically from a reasoned mind. It is a heartfelt quality that has to be infused into the agenda if we want to see a difference in international affairs.