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 said, '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 without reaching any conclusions. 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.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

div style="text-align: center;">

When two tribes go to war...

Tehran University students, 1971.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/xmjn15/
tehran_university_students_iran_1971/

Persia's love affair with the Jews dates back to 593 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar plundered Jerusalem and took the Jews as slaves to Baghdad. He attacked Jerusalem again ten years later, destroying the First Temple and completing their captivity. After spending seventy years in exile in Baghdad, Cyrus liberated them, allowing their return to their homeland. In gratitude for helping the Babylonians, Cyrus enabled the construction of their Second Temple.

Throughout the generations, as Persia was overrun by various empires, including the Abbasid Islamic Dynasty, the Jews remained part of the Persian diaspora during the glorious days of Islam. The Islamic invasion did cause some Jews and Parsees to flee their homeland to various places, including India. Nevertheless, the Persian-Jewish relationship persisted into modern times. The Islamic Empire would claim that the Jews were very content living under the Empire. However, in reality, it is anybody's guess if the present-day opinion of Muslims about Jews is anything to go by.

Iran opposed the Palestine Mandate that aimed to establish the Jewish state of Israel in 1948. Many Persian Jews migrated to the newly formed country of Israel. Interactions between Iran and Israel remained cordial, though they were mainly transactional. Iran was among the first countries in the world to recognise Israel as a sovereign nation. Israel secured oil and finances from Iran, as maintaining a friendly relationship with Iran made considerable sense. It is important to note that the Israelis' neighbours, all of whom were Arabs, were quite hostile. The Persians have always held a sense of superiority, believing themselves to be one step above the Arabs. Therefore, maintaining a good relationship with a major non-Arab, non-Sunni country was crucial.

In the early 1950s, Iranian Islamists criticised Iran's diplomatic relations with Israel and actively collected donations for the Palestinians. They were unhappy with the Shah's close connections to Israel. The Iranian defence system used Israeli arms and was involved in their wars with Iraq. Both countries were also deeply engaged in developing each other's nuclear facilities. All of this changed after the Islamic Revolution in 1979. 

Suddenly, Israel became a 'cancerous tumour' as mentioned by Ayatollah Ali Khameini in 2000 and should be wiped off the surface of the Earth, according to President Ahmadinejad in 2005. Iranian hostility towards Israel grew over the years, mainly via proxies, in Hezbollah, Hamas and Houthis. The climax of all these must surely be Hamas's kidnapping of Israelis at a music festival on October 7, 2023. Finally, a full-scale war between Iran and Israel broke out on June 13, 2025, when Israel conducted strikes against Iranian nuclear and military targets. The world is once again at risk of a nuclear meltdown.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

About falling and the moustache...

A jocular Tamil proverb sarcastically portrays a man who denies losing his balance and falling flat on his face on the ground. He would show the people around him a clean moustache devoid of sand. The man hoped the others would believe he was a macho man who never fell. (குப்புற விழுந்தாலும் மீசையில் மண் ஒட்டவில்லை - the said proverb.)

This proverb has been playing in my mind over the past few days during the recently paused India-Pakistan War. 

It started with a band of terrorists crossing over from Pakistan, killing 26 tourists just because they were not Muslims and retreating back into Pakistan. Pakistan vehemently denied being part of the killing or even harbouring any terrorists at all in their country. This heart-wrenching moment, especially the one involving a 6-day married honeymooning couple and a father shot in front of his wife and young son, stirred India to take retaliatory actions.

Both sides flaunted their military toys, and the war games were flagged off. The only thing is that these were not games. People actually died.

Then, the media war started. Both sides were quick to announce their kills and successes. Loud cries of jingoism filled the air. Visuals of destroyed enemy planes and sites filled cyberspace. The only thing is that, as pointed out by their enemies, much of the footage was old pictures of unrelated events. Citing military secrecy, many images of damaged sites were kept under wraps. So what actually happened is anybody's guess.

Finally, both sides seem to be congratulating themselves on a well-done job. Both boast of inflicting much pain and destruction. They claim to be on the side of truth, and truth prevails in the end. Perhaps, time would be the best judge. In time, all the putrefying rots would start stinking. Maybe then, we would know where each country stands. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Everyone loses in a war!

Once a war starts, nobody can control its trajectory. The promise of a swift surgical strike with minimal casualties is anything but a fallacy.

We have more than enough examples to tell us this wisdom in our present times, but we just refuse to listen. The Kuwait War and Iraq Wars were just propaganda wars attacking something non-existent. It also proved that there is no such thing as precision bombing with zero casualties. It is no use telling us it is just collateral damage. 

The Vietnam War showed how elections can be lost. When the body count piles up, and the disadvantaged fraction of society bears all the sorrows of seeing their sons returning in body bags while the elite dodges their way from drafting, the public knows they have been taken for a ride. It happens because, like a broken dam, war has a mind of its own that cannot be reined at will.

An episode in the Mahabharata tells us a thing or two about wars. All the war ethics were closely followed until about day 12 of the Kurukshetra War. With the battle heating up, casualties piling, and almost reaching a standstill, the Kaurava side decided to play dirty. Maybe the Pandavas, too. Krishna and Arjuna (of the Pandava clan) were steered away to fight with another faction. At the same time, Arjuna's son, 16-year-old Abhimanyu, was lured into a complex military calyx devised by master strategist Drona. As skilled as Abhimanyu was, he had learned about the military formation. He knew how to get in, but he was not taught how to escape from it. When Abhimanyu was caught in the maze, he was trapped and was unceremoniously killed from the back.

On learning of Abhimanyu's death, Arjuna took revenge the following day.

Legend had it that Jayadratha, who masterminded Abhimanyu's assault, had a special boon. His father, Vriddhakshtra, had learnt about Jayadratha's fall at war by beheading from his birth charts, had done severe penance and subsequently received a boon from Brahma. Whoever drops the son's head on Earth would have his head explode into a thousand pieces. With his unparalleled expertise with his bow and arrow, Arjuna shot Jayadratha's head to land right on the mediating Vriddhakshatra's lap. A shocked father instinctively moved his thigh, causing Jayadratha's head to fall on the floor. Vriddhakshtra's head broke into a thousand pieces as he wished/cursed. Be careful what you wish for; it is one lesson learned from this fiasco. 

Another lesson from this turn of events happened long before this episode when the Pandavas were exiled for losing a game of dice. Jayadratha had acted ungentlemanly with Arjuna's wife, Draupadi. Instead of severely punishing him for his misdeeds, Arjuna and his brothers let him off with a slap on the wrist. If not nipped in the bud, a minor wrongdoing would morph into quite a monster difficult to curtail. Hence, lesson number two is to nip evil in the bud. Do not let it branch out and grow deep roots. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Serenity exemplified in Auschwitz!

The Zone of Interest (2023)
Director: Jonathan Glazer

Even though this is about something that happened more than 80 years ago, put in a similar situation, I foresee we humans do the exact thing that we did during World War 2 Nazi rule of Germany. We justify our actions and inaction through the dog-whistle call of the majority without taking a step back and asking ourselves, "Am I doing the right thing?"

Even during peacetime in Malaysia, a section of people is trying to steamroll their agenda to the rest of the country. Any sane person of reasonable intellectual capacity would understand this is not how democracy works. The majority chooses, and the rest would follow suit. Changes are made via constructive discourses at the appropriate forums. This renegade group is trying to change all these. The might of high decibels in the confines of an echo chamber cannot be underestimated.

Like Grobbels, who thought that the propaganda machines of the State could steer the thinking of the majority, small-minded fascists in this country are using mob power backed by their own interpretation of the scriptures to gain political power and to cow the minority into submission.

The thinking majority should be aware of this and not just that. They should also have the gumption to call the bluff. Otherwise, the outcome will be what we see in this movie—the country's machinery used to carry out a dastardly activity for future generations to curse us.

This movie won many accolades for its gruesome (not in graphic representation with gore, violence and blood) depiction of events that may have happened at Auschwitz concentration camp. All the violence, killings and death are only depicted in sounds and indirect visuals.

Serene living beside a concentration camp
in Auschwitz.

It tells the story of the Commandant of Auschwitz and his family as they live in a lovely double-storey bungalow immediately beside the camp. Amidst the background hum of the incinerator, screams of prisoners as they are led to their death and the occasional gunshots, the family leads a happy life. Oblivious to the happenings at the camp, the family grow attached to the bungalow, beautifying it and even refuses to move when the Commandant is transferred elsewhere. The air is filled with bellowing smoke of burning flesh. The river occasionally has fragments of bones discarded after incineration. The compound is strewn with ashes. Still, life goes on happily.

The irony is that the family lives without a care in the world. They conveniently overlook the carnage that happens behind the camp walls. They even have grand plans for the future.

This must be the true meaning of the word banality of evil that Hannah Arendt popularised after the 1948 Adolf Eichmann Trial in Jerusalem. People perform the cruellest of evils, not because they are sociopaths or inherently evil. They do it because the system expects them to behave in a particular way. For them, it is business as usual. It becomes the list of duties that must be completed to qualify for remunerations and promotions.

The mind shuts down. Mindfulness is lost. The higher thinking centres get bypassed. Everyone goes into zombie mode under the hypnosis of the supreme leader. 

(P.S. The director's acceptance speech at the Oscars ceremony has started a storm and could possibly be outcasted by Hollywood. His speech essentially can be interpreted as all that seen in the film was the effect of dehumanisation. His mention of the October 7th incident begs further clarification. Are the Jews, after surviving their aggressors, repeating the dehumanisation policy to the Gaza people? There is no easy answer. Remember, the state of Israel is located amongst neighbours who yearn for its annihilation. Can one practice no violence at the end of the barrel of a gun? 'We stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people,' he said.)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The Elusive Utopia

© Borderless Journal

When I was growing up, the radio was the musical score constantly playing in the background. Blaring between Tamil movie songs and radio dramas were news of the hour and current issue discussions. The things that got imprinted on my impressionable mind as I was transforming from a teenager to a young adult were about violence, wars and bombings. I remember about the war in Vietnam as it was close to home. For every peace talk and the end of war announcement, there would pop up another bombing and a barrage of casualties. My simple mind wondered when the war would end, but it never did. It went on for so long that they had a Tamil film in 1970 named Vietnam Veedu (House of Vietnam), referring to a household forever in family feuds and turmoil....

https://borderlessjournal.com/2024/03/14/the-elusive-utopia/

In defence of Shakuni...

Shakuni, Master of the Game (2019)
Author: Ashutosh Nadkar

That is the essence behind the Mahābhārata. It is not supposed to give a 2-dimensional view of things. It should make us realise that good and evil are a spectrum. One man's good deed can be to another's detriment. One man's version of the truth is another's untruth. I suppose, in the same way, Shakuni, the archetypical villain of the epic saga, could have his version of what actually transpired in his lifetime. He would have his version of what happened between the two noble families, the Pandavas and the Kauravas.

This book goes on to tell exactly that; Shakuni's actions, reactions and justifications of all the things that he allegedly connived in eventually leading up to one of the bloodiest wars in history amongst brothers, cousins and uncles.

Shakuni gives the lowdowns and dirty secrets of the family his beloved sister was married to. He claimed he was not handicapped as per common misconception. He was an able body who could easily run, walk and scale mountains. It was just that he walked with a slightly abnormal but functional gait. There was no need for military training in the peaceful country of Gandahar, so thought his father, the King. Hence, he need not be trained militarily. The army was not even equipped as well as its neighbours. Due to the extreme weather found in this region, people here spend more time indoors. Hence, Shakuni became a whiz in board games and handling the dice.

So when Bhishma, the feared patriarch from Hastinapur, came his mighty army to its border, the King of Gandahar got scared. Bhisma's soldiers outnumbered even the country's total population. Bhisma came with a marriage proposal for the blind King of Hastinapur, Dhritarashtra, to Gandhari, the beautiful princess of Gandahar. Left with Hobson's choice between causing suffering to his people and simply marrying off quietly, the King and the Princess chose the latter. Prince Shakuni was livid but felt helpless. He told himself that he would live to fight another day with his own devices.

Shakuni left his family in Gandahar to live in Hastinapur to choose the opportune time for revenge which did not involve military prowess.

Shakuni's stay in Hastinapur saw the Pandavas and the Kauravas scrambling to produce their first male heir, hoping to usurp the throne. King Pandu of the Pandavas probably had erectile dysfunction and faced fertility issues. King Dhritarasthra of the Kauravas impregnated his wife, but unfortunately, even after two years of gestation, she just delivered a lump of flesh.

Meanwhile, Pandu and his wife Kunti took a retreat to the jungles. Miraculously, Kunti conceived and delivered successively to Yudhistra, Bhima, Arjuna and twins Nakula and Sahadeva. Rumours went around the kingdom that Pandu did not complete the job. Pandu's uncle, his mother's sage son from another husband, Vyasa, the author of Mahābhārata, inseminated with his seeds. Perhaps the Prime Minister also had a hand in conceiving the offspring, the eldest of the Pandava sons, Yudhistra and the Lord of the Wind in Bhima. This practice was totally legitimate under the niyoga system to treat childlessness. 

The blob of flesh from Gandhari was treated ayurvedically by scientist-philosopher-poet Vyasa to 101 live babies. Believe it or not, this is what some fundamentalists refer to as the first in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). The first-born of the Kauravas was Duryodhana and a clear favourite of Shakuni. Shakuni had placed a lot of hope to outrun Bhishma and his clan.

On the Pandavas' side, Kuru's Prime Minister, Vidura, gravitated towards aggrandising the brothers. It became apparent after the military training with Dronacharya. That became the tinder box that eventually led to the Kurukshetra War. 

Kurukshetra War

Shakuni also noticed Drona's dark side. He refused to pupil in Karna because of his caste. When a tribal person, Akhilavya, learned the art of archery through an effigy of him, Drona actually demanded his right thumb as tuition fees, thus rendering him useless as an archer. 

The legendary backgammon game that spurred the Pandavas was played fairly and squarely. There were no special gaff dice made from Shakuni's father's bones. In fact, in the first game, through his marvellous skills, Shakuni made Duryodhana lose badly just to catch the Pandavas unawares later on. The fear of losing in the second game got Yudhistra carried away, betting his brothers, throne, and wife. The 12-year exile and a year of living incognito were agreed upon as fair and square. 

Things got out of hand when Shakuni managed to identify the Pandavas during the final year of their punishment. Their cover was blown. Shakuni never meant for the Kurus and Pandavas to go for each other's jugular and turn into maniacal hunters, breaking all rules of a Kshatriya. He felt a tinge of regret.

Shakuni, as a good uncle to the Kauravas, donned military fatigues finally and partook in the Kurukshetra war, only to be slain on the final day. He 

[P.S. Duryodhana was named Suyodhana, meaning good warrior, at birth. Because of his unusual birth, he was cast as bad, evil, or bad omen, hence, the prefix 'dur', meaning evil -Evil Warrior.]

[P.P.S. I remember my history teacher, Mrs Lai, commenting during history class when she was covering the Mahabharata War. In the same as Shakuni commented, she said, "How would you expect a fair war when God take sides?" What she said made much sense then, but I am wiser. There is more to what the eyes see. That, precisely, is the essence of life. Things are neither black nor white. They come in shades of grey.]

[P.P.P.S. In Shakuni's eyes, Bhishma cannot be as noble as he is revered to be if he is to be judged by his actions. Besides arm-twisting a helpless princess from a docile kingdom like Gangadhar to marry his blind nephew, he is reputed to have kidnapped princesses Amba, Ambilika and Ambalika from their swayambara for his weakling half-brother, Vichitravirya, against Kshatriya dharma.]

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

"Tonight we dine in Hell!"?

300 (2007)
Director, Screenplay: Zack Snyder
(Based on the graphic novel by Frank Miller)

I was drawn to this movie after listening to Empire Podcast, hosted by William Dalrymple and Anita Anand. It is a riveting podcast that takes its nerdy listeners on a long journey through history. What started with the East India Company and the British Empire in India, they have covered the Ottoman Empire, the history of slavery, the Russian Empire, and now they are discussing the Persian Empire. They were discussing the Battle of Marathon and The Battle at Thermopylae, and the film '300' emerged.

King Darius I's Army was defeated at Marathon in 490 BCE. Then, the messenger ran 26 miles to bring the news to Athenians. He died doing that, but that was the birth of the marathon run.

In 480 BCE, King Xerxes I sent an entourage to the Spartan King Leonidas demanding 'earth and water' as a token of submission to the Persian King. Of course, Leonidas, in his most Spartan way, retaliates. He pushes the messengers into a bottomless pit and takes the challenge to war. Leonidas battles the Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae.

Historians may disagree with what is depicted in the film as history. At the outset, the director has cleared the air that it is just a retelling of what was presented in Miller's graphic novel. It is a documentary or suggested viewing for history students.

King Xerxes

A true blue Spartan warrior would not be parading in spandex and capes but with full regalia of full body armour. I just realised that the Persians were the first to introduce trousers. They thought they were cultured as it prevented their inner thigh from chaffing as they spent long hours on horseback. For the record, the Tartars placed raw meat as saddles on their horses. By the end of the day, after a long ride, the meat is tender enough to be eaten raw. Of course, it is an urban legend made by people who have not seen a Tartar in their life. 

Besides the attire, the weapons choices were also different between the factions. The Persians used a lot of bows and arrows with long swords and rode on horseback, whilst Greeks liked to see their foes in their eyes and stab them with their short blades.

When the movie was released, the Iranians stated their objection to the depiction of their ancestors as hedonistic, grandiose, slave-owning tyrants. In their defence, King Xerxes was depicted as effeminate and promiscuous. History also tells us that Cyrus the Great freed Jewish slaves in his time. And the Spartans were high on slave ownership. The leaders asserted that the movie was just part of a comprehensive U.S. psychological war aimed at denigrating Iranian culture.

Another thing about Persian history is that what the present world knows about Persia is biased as they were written by Herodotus, who was at the receiving end of the assault. Figures could have hiked up, and the invaders could be painted as more evil than they really were. On top of that, Herodotus is said to have had many variable accounts of what transpired during the clash. Plutarch had refuted many of his writings. 

The Greco-Persian Wars have been labelled as the clash between the East and West, the good versus evil battle. In reality, nobody is good or bad. It is just geopolitics. Both sides had their superiority and defects. The Persian Empire was the earliest and most prominent Empire. The Spartans who led the land offensive at Thermopylae were stellar combatants. Hitler was so impressed by the Spartan fighting spirit that he built his military school based on the Spartan model. That must have helped the Nazis in their blitzkrieg as they marched through Poland and Belgium. Methamphetamine also must have contributed too. The war was led by Sparta, but other states would contribute manpower, too. 

This battle had a sea warfare component, too, led by Athenians. Their heavy ships caused much damage to the Persian fleet during the Battle of Salamis that followed afterwards. Intertwined in the saga are stories of betrayal by a Greek and the convoluted prophesy of the Oracle. Ephialtes, a Spartan rejected from the Army, decided to sell information on easy passageways to the Persians in exchange for a Persian uniform, wealth and pleasures of the flesh. The Oracles are apparently bribed by Greek turncoats. A kingdom will fall, they say, but which one?

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.