RIFLE RANGE BOY: Violence, the necessary evil?

Sun Tzu

A couple was asked how they maintained peace in their household. The husband replied, "we clearly demarcate our respective scope of duties. My wife would handle the smaller issues like what to cook, where to get groceries, and how to balance the household budget."

I, on the other hand, am left to deal with larger issues, such as peace agreements in Gaza, airport security, and the world's geopolitical strategies. In that way, we do not cross paths. There is peace within the family.

My secondary school friends, mostly males, seem to have taken the cue from the couple mentioned above. In the WhatsApp group they share, they are quite fierce about condemning one side's perceived cruelty and justifying the other's right to defend themselves during discussions on unrest in the Middle East. Another member would respond by saying violence can never be justified. An eye for an eye would only leave the whole world blind.

Another wise guy retorted that it is idiotic to subscribe to Jesus' idea of turning the other cheek. Many current commentators are quite certain that it was not Gandhi's passive resistance or satyagraha, which he began in 1907, that led to India’s independence in 1947. They argue that the Royal Indian Navy revolt in February 1946, sparked by the trial of captured Bose's Indian National Army (INA) prisoners of war in Delhi, was the real catalyst. The threat of thousands of sailors mutinying against the colonial authorities terrified the oppressors. Meanwhile, the Indians, left uninformed by the British media about resistance from locally recruited soldiers, suddenly became highly motivated.

Similarly, a select group of individuals in my WhatsApp group support the actions taken by the Palestinians against what they perceive as Israeli oppression. They justify Hamas's stance on 'teaching the Zionists a lesson'. They oppose turning the other cheek, preferring instead to strike the offending hand before it lands a second blow. The former might argue that doing so would make the whole world blind, not to mention the hardships it would cause. They often quote Sun Tzu, who advised that 'in war, no one wins', suggesting that wars should be avoided. In reality, Sun Tzu did not promote abstaining from war. Instead, he advocated using diplomacy, strategies, and intelligence—well before conflict arises—to prevent direct confrontation and bloodshed.

Justifying Nathuram Godse's violent decision to kill Gandhi, a lifelong advocate of violence, he argued there is a moral duty to resist and overpower an enemy by force. Godse cited examples of Rama and his men fighting Ravana, as well as young Krishna overpowering the tyrant Kansa. History is filled with violence. For one era to end and another to begin, Nature marks it with violence; whether it is the Big Bang, the start of Kaliyuga, or even the extinction of the dinosaurs.

In that manner, the discussion continued, with no conclusions reached. Everyone clung to the topic until it reached a lull. Then somebody would suddenly go off topic, and at that point, everyone would have another subject to discuss.

And believe you me, my friends are all Jacks of All Trades who would never admit to being Masters of None. In conclusion, they have simply become very opinionated armchair geopolitical critics who could only stir up a storm in a teacup.