|
Betterment of life is the innate desire of all human beings. In this endeavor revolutions do occur either consciously or by default. This is true for all entities and phenomena. We keep on hearing about scientific and technological revolutions. History is a witness to social and political revolutions as well. My interest in this note is in the socio-political revolutions. The immediate impulse to write this comes from the recent kidnapping of a little girl at the end of her hectic school day; my heart bleeds to think of such brutality.
Why Revolution:
Every society has certain inviolable virtues which have stood the test of time and fully tally with the innate humanitarian models. These are to be respected by whatever regime in power. While I say this I am not affirming that no revolution should take place. The people or at least reasonably large groups of people have to feel certain imperatives for a revolution to be justified. First, there has to be an accepted feeling that the society is not growing in a positive way in which its innate virtues are respected and new energies are released. Secondly, the society is growing below its potential and similarly placed societies are growing faster. Thirdly, there is unlikelihood of the situation improving under the prevailing regime. These are reasons enough to rise against the prevailing regime and thus work towards its ouster.
First Principles:
While there are many aspects to be examined in the process of a revolution, my interest here is to examine whether a revolution should have principles or should it be following the dictum of ‘all is fair in love and war’. Here I would like to reiterate history a little. We are told that the ancient Greeks fought many internal wars, but, to their beauty, they observed the rules of battle. The highlights of these rules were (a) prohibition of summary execution of prisoners; (b) no attack on non-combatants; (c) no pursuit of the defeated enemy beyond certain duration. I have intentionally highlighted these three components of the rules as they bear relevance to the present milieu.
Now if one starts acting like the non-combatants should not be attacked for they can be used as hostages for ransom anytime, which would be the end of the world. Such reasoning would be even worse in a context where there are movements for the overthrow and replacement of the existing state by a new one. Here, it must be pretty clear by now on which side of the approach I stand. The need for observing the rules of the battle is all the more in a situation like Manipur’s where there are movements and organizations purportedly serving the cause of revolution and society.
I am fully aware of the fact that criminals are even put to the firing line under law. But presence of movements and organizations endeavoring for revolution is fundamentally different from a war between two states. The need for honoring the rules of the battle are all the more in the former. I need to spell out how.
The Future:
The vision of any revolutionary organization is to nourish the original virtues of the society and build a more livable society than the current one. While aiming for this it is absolutely basic that there should be no indulgence in any activity which may make the resultant society ungovernable. The resulting socio-political milieu after a resolution of conflict is always a very difficult one. There is need for undertaking development and welfare activities on massive scale. This can however be possible if only governance can be established. Now here lies the crux. If the organizations supposedly moving for social revolutions start indulging in activities like kidnapping people, and worst of all children, for ransom, that society is only heading for chaos; governance can never be established. It is equally worse even in the case of non-indulgence by these organizations in such cruel activities, but they tolerate such activities to occur right under their nose.
The adverse impact of such activities on future governance of the society would be even more intense if the original society did not have any culture of such kidnapping. First, the emergence of such activities is a manifestation of the symptoms of decay in that society. Secondly, it casts a very grim future for the society. Thirdly, in a context of prevalence of armed conflict situations, such phenomena implies only a movement from a frying pan to fire whatever the regime may be.
In fine I would rather believe in the thinking that conflicts should follow rules of battle. Kidnapping should never be used for ransom or settlement of scores. A society like Manipur’s should not allow the emerging trend towards institutionalization of kidnapping to continue.
|
