IS WAR HEROIC OR HEINOUS?
DULCE ET DECORUM EST PRO PATRIA MORI - It is sweet and right to die for one's country .
Patriotism is the lifeblood, the raison d'etre of soldiers, wars, sovereignty and tribal pride. Like motherhood, it is a sweet narrative and it is politically incorrect to slander its noble ideals.
Yet War as an arm of patriotic fervour and the consequences of war with its Pyrrhic spoils need to be reflected upon with greater objectivity. The human mind is intellectually lazy and emotionally insecure or uncomfortable about turning conventional concepts around on their heads. So money, sex, technology are frowned upon and love, duty, God, humility are extolled, often without challenge.
To die in defence of one’s country and for one’s fellow soldiers is regarded as the greatest of sacrifices in most cultures, and such individuals are accorded great status by virtue of their actions. This spirit is integral to the warrior ethos of every culture worldwide and is probably best exemplified by the line from Horace: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori - it is sweet and right to die for one’s country.
Horace wrote in his Odes: "It is sweet and proper to die for one’s country / and death pursues even the man who flees/ Nor spares the hamstrings or cowardly / backs of battle-shy youths."
Horace in the political milieu of 35 BC was not free to express his pleasure or displeasure as he would have liked to, so one can only speculate on the satirist's intentions here ' whether it be propaganda for his regal patrons or parody of the consequences of their actions.
“Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori, sed dulcius pro patria vivere, et dulcissimum pro patria bibere. Ergo, bibamus pro salute patriae” in Latin means " It is sweet to die for the homeland, but it is sweeter to live for the homeland, and the sweetest to drink for it. Therefore, let us drink to the health of the homeland" This was a frequent 19th century students’ toast.
“Dulce Et Decorum Est ” poem written by British poet Wilfred Owen during World War I described the patriotic song as “the old Lie.” It was written in direct response to a poem written by Jessie Pope, a pro-war propagandist, also entitled “Dulce Et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori” about the glory of dying for one’s country. Pope had published numerous ‘jingoistic’ poems in such newspapers as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express urging young men to enlist. Owen’s poem is based on a gas attack during World War I, is one of his many anti-war poems that was not published until after the war had ended
Ironically ‘pro patria mori’ is also one of the mottos on the Menin Gate (Memorial to the Missing ) at
Dulce does not bring to mind Horace, it is Owen who our memories first evoke much in the manner in which the words 'Brave New World' draws us to Huxley and not to its original wordsmith Shakespeare. Therefore to hark back to the connotations of its original creators in order to understand the works that borrowed these lines mainly as symbols for larger messages, would be to misunderstand them. With Horace's intentions being nebulous this becomes a greater playground for speculation.
Therefore, what we can to do is to see how they serve as idioms for contemporary times and issues. First we need to clear some cobwebs.
Is the whole romantic martyrdom narrative of war, a means to make sure that men enlist or are legitimately made to do mandatory military service? Is it a way to make the womenfolk stoic and prepare to be orphaned? Is it a device to make men in uniform beckon forth their highest emotions of sacrifice and pride in the nation to counter the ugly realities of inevitable trauma and violence? Is it a way for manipulating leaders to use these men like pawns to be discarded to the hounds of war by giving them opium dreams of valour? Who shall judge? Who pays?
Or are we saying War like weather and pain and death is a constant, a reality from which we cannot escape? War is the nature of Mankind. Therefore to assume in fond hope that war can be avoided, evaded, extinguished from our psyche and our lives is but a pipedream of idealists and thus holds no truth? Defending the possibility of a world without war is therefore like hoping that we could obliterate jealousy or greed from the human heart. War is an accumulation of such negatives, ergo it is indelible and permanent?
The whole debate on Dulce depends on the perspective one takes on War. Are we saying war is evil and therefore deplore it as evil because it kills our young for no cause or gain? And therefore War is Ugly. Or are we saying human beings are evil and will constantly be on the case of needing to usurp one another's sovereignty? And therefore War is Peace.
Are we saying then that the criticism of War is a whine? Are we calling men who are decrying war sissies? Or are we saying they have the courage to call for an end to the waste of farcical wars and face up to the truth, unveiling the lie on wars and martyrdom?
Owen who died young in the War raised a voice against a popular narrative giving it the lie. It was an act of courage and one which strengthened and popularized a cache of war poetry on protest lines. Seigfred Sasson, Rupert Brooke, Stephen Rosenberg and others formed a part of this formidable genre at a time when most of
Is Owen relevant in a world where the methods employed by militant groups to recruit suicide bombers is reminiscent of the methods used, since time immemorial by every nation state and political body ever to have existed, when trying to raise an army? Substitute ideology for country and you are essentially describing the belief system of suicide bombing. The recent Bush wars are testimony of the wanton nature of War be it political skirmishes or machinations of economic deviousness. This is the aggression of the state as opposed to the maverick destruction of fundamentalist anger, and yet, the two are so easily interchangeable.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori is ironically a "war cry" that allows the oppressor to feel no guilt, especially when the oppressor and the victim merge and you can't tell who is who like the Orwellian pig and man.
This blog is an extended response to Turbojet San whose comments evoked these thoughts and reflections. Do jump in and comment.
THE POEM
Dulce Et Decorum Est by Wilfred Owen
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!– An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.–
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,–
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
Dulce et Decorum Est (written in 1917 and published posthumously in 1921)
Owen died in service at the age of 25
In my opinion, patriotism is a kind of glorified fanaticism which in turn leads to hatred, violence and killing . We are inheritors of a nation that taught us the ideology “Vasudhaiva kutumbakam ( ‘The entire world is one family ). Some wars might have been necessary or inevitable, but none was ever regarded as holy. War bestows only victims and no victors. Greed and Hate have initiated more wars than anything else. Hate–racial, tribal, religious, ancestral, national, social, ethical, political, economic, ideological- has been the single scary source to set off the seeds of war. Hate is cancerous. It envelops and destroys nations. Unfortunately mankind has not made little progress in lessening hate. Everyday I read more exaltations on hate than elimination of it. Unless we individually and collectively make any progress in hurling down hate, war would remain as the messenger for peace……PGR
This is the season of thanksgiving and dosti … so I will reserve my comm on yer posts to after Diwali is over and the crackers have stopped busting de ol” ear drum … … jeez! u sure know how to rile up a nice guy like me … hehehe …
http://www.alternet.org/story/17446/ MUST READ LETTER FROM PRESENT DAY AMERICAN TROOPS IN IRAQ. Thank you Ekanta for this find. This is exactly what my blog is all about. Thanks for letting us all see how ”timeless” Owen’’s poem and his plaint is. Ekanta I owe you one
Your boss from Holland is giving you a rational answer which makes Europeans look very evolved as opposed to us. He is right but there is more to it than nations being civilized and cooperative. Europe has seen destruction of magnitudes that this part of the world has only read about. A lot of their ”discipline” comes from being close to annihilation. Our softness comes from the same lack of it. When you rebuild after devastation collectively there is a memory… a consciousness … a determination never to allow the nightmare to revisit. Check out our cultures in North and South India for a miniature of what I am saying. Take a Punjabi and a Tamilian. See the difference in their spending, saving habits,. aggression, manner, lifestyle, business tactics. People who have faced death and no tomorrow are very different from the eternally secure kinds who think their tribe will be there intact for centuries. History is education of who and why we are we….
Jolly: Use the “scaling fallacy” when examining the truth..That is what I did with your argument. Often when you scale up or down - you lose the plot. Its like stealing a piece of bread and stealing a million dollars - both are stealing and yet… they are not the same. So to say bloodshed is bloodshed is also not the same. It is easy to do armchair constructs on rape and attacks on ones country… rationality does not feature when our own lives are in danger… like you said you “think” you wont kill your attacker ( I definitely mean someone who plans to kill you) what you will do is another thing. Again your not killing may not be out of noble intent of avoiding murder, it could well be out of fear of initiating an unfamiliar violence. Scaling always makes us rethink. Rape is not about sex it is about power. We can say society is responsible for all crimes… but would we forgive?? reform than punish? would that be justice to the victim? Think family here.
Here is a link of Michael Moore’’s “Letters from the troops”. http://www.alternet.org/story/17446/ Truly, there is nothing heroic about war itself, just a lot of vested interests operating on a macro scale. A world without war would be so ideal. Imagine what a lot could be productively achieved with the HUGE defence budgets!!But as the world exists now, where war continues to be a reality, young soldiers lay down their lives in order that the rest of us are secure. I would like to call them heroes, even if the reason for their enlisiting in the army, be merely the compulsions of earning a livelihood.
In these modern times, most conflicts can be resolved through talks and negotiations. That they are not being, as in the case of India-Pakistan is because vested interests keep the conflict alive. I was talking to my boss who is from Holland, and I asked him how it was possible for the Europeans after WW2 to forgive the Germans. He answer was illuminating. He said after WW2 the leaders decided that it would be better in Europe’s long-term interests to not only rebuild their own countries but Germany as well and that’s what they did with the help of US funds. If only the countries in the Indian subcontinent would realize that working in tandem, they can not only achieve economic progress but also be a formidable world power and counteract the growing Chinese influence. But I guess there are forces active who are working to keep us all divided and thus weak and vulnerable. — contd —
Sovereignty? India thinks it’s a sovereign state and Kashmir is part of it, Kashmiris thinks they are a sovereign state it itself, and Pakistan thinks K should be part of it. Who decides? Kuwait thought it was a sovereign country but Iraq decided that K was just one of its territories. Luckily for the Kuwaitis, the Americans decided. But if Somalia had been attacked by its neighbour, I don’t think the US would have bothered. On the micro level, if someone attacked me with the intention of taking something away, I would try as best to fend him off or run away myself, I don’t think I would kill him. And if he attacked me with the sole intention of separating me from my life, sitting in the cosy, secure confines of my house, I can only conjecture and say that I wouldn’t be able to kill anyone. But who knows, dazed and crazed by fear facing annihilation, I even might. But I don’t think it would be right to use the personal, micro level example for country, macro level. In these modern time
. Rape! It is said that rape is a social crime and not a sexual one. In which case society could be held partly responsible for the rapist’s actions. How else would you explain the higher incidence of rape in states like UP and Bihar as compared to Kerala or Karnataka? It is also said that a butterly fluttering its wings in a forest can cause a hurricane somewhere else, ie we are all connected in ways we cannot even fathom, not only our actions and words have impact, our thoughts do too. But we are digressing here, aren’t we? :)))
Turbo dear… da anzer waz in mah blog. Lirez-vous. “This is the aggression of the state as opposed to the maverick destruction of fundamentalist anger, and yet, the two are so easily interchangeable.
Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori… is ironically a “war cry” that allows the oppressor to feel no guilt, especially when the oppressor and the victim merge and you can’t tell who is who like the Orwellian pig and man.” Jolly did an exemplification that was neat so I piggybacked… shez mah pal so i can take a ride…. *rolls her eyes* now he wants to patent sic…. gawdddd
Aaila, what be diz … “Thanks for putting into words the answer I meant to give Turbo San?” … Lady Lisssssssssssssome at a loss for words? … and having to enlist nice fellows like Jolly to throw stinkbombs in my direction? … heresy, heresy … :-)) … c”mon Lizzie, the ‘’sic” is more my style …
Thanks Shivani.. I like the point you have raised of being at war with yourself and others… so true. The Kurukshetra in all of us eh? You ask: “Given a chance how many of us would opt to go and fight on the border! so heroic indeed..” The point we are making here is … if you went to fight because you thought it was so heroic and found that it is just about killing and killing over the whim of some minister/king how would you feel. what do you think the kin of young boys who died in Iraq felt when they found there were no weapons at all.. the cause of war was a mirage.. a myth.. and thousands young lives had gone because Bush is mad and their arms industry needs sales/use…
Jolly superb comment. Thanks for putting into words the answer I meant to give Turbo San. He seems to think that Owen’’s wail (sic) is not for the terrorist or the mujahedeen.. or the Nazi.. As you rightly ask who created them? And is the size of US that which determines the seriousness with which Bush is regarded as opposed to the contempt the world has for Osama? In a lot of peoples books Osama is hero and Bush is terrorist. I like your take Jolly… Bloodshed is bloodshed no matter what… It kind of simplifies the issue and brings a sense of humanity and fairness to it. But tell me if someone attacks me (micro)and I hit back and kill him it is self defense and I have a right to do that… cant the same thing be approximated to an enlarged scale (macro) where the attack on sovreignity is answered with war?? Then again shrinking from macro to micro … We asked who created Naziz… are we going to ask who created the rapist? Can we use the same brush?
Heroic in their own way though i would not attach too much of a sense of patriotism to it..whihc can be practised in our day to day lives too when me just let so amny opportunities just pass by. Given a chance how many of us would opt to go and fight on the border! so heroic indeed..
War and dying for the country are as seperate with each other as much as they are related to each other. A war here u have talked of is to be defensive whihc is not only for the vountry but by enlarge for the people staying whihc includes the families of the soldiers too…but they are taught the toughest modes of survival and war is made their habit , for soem by choice witha sense of patriotism attached and for some just a way to earn money (for the family) so for some its only a job, some one has to do it. And the soldiers do show the courage to leave everyone behind and go and fight on the border defending or taking lives there it all becomes a matter of survival. As human beings we are at war with each other and with ourselves in so amny ways and its us who overcome finghting our ways outta it…so we are too kinda soldiers…..first we have to be self defensive then only can we fight for others and i do respect the real war soldiers for what ever reason they do what they do!
Yes
We all are loving it- some with feathers ruffled, some with those that never get ruffled 
Thanks Turbo 
As for L2, “jaadu aate hain tumko saare”.. the blogqueen of rediff…. hey Lisse ! you sure need a much wider canvass, try out TOI for anywhere else yrs will be a gross understatement 
And Turbo ! You are THE one person that can take on Lisse fair and sqaure, so you too keep blogging and dont you runaway anywhere 
I yam loving it ;-)))
There is nothing heroic about war and even less about dying for one’’s country when in this age the concept of nationality gets more and more blurred. I agree with Owen, it is a lie and it’’s about time we gave up our delusions of heroism and called it so. Is war heinous? All killing is heinous, more so war. If dying for one’’s own country is a big hoax, then killing for one’’s country is an even greater mistake, no matter how many moral excuses you quote to justify it. No matter who gives the order to shoot or in which higher echelons of power the decision was taken, it is still simple murder, and the blood will still remain on your (the soldier’’s) hands. What about self-defense then? What about Hitler? Or the terrorist bomber, you ask? But look into the events that led to the creation of Nazism or of terrorism and you will see that society was not entirely innocent. Gosh! this is too long :(((
War? Heroic? What is heroic about the American Marines fighting insurgents in Iraq? What is heroic about the Indian forces fighting the Kashmiri militants in their quest for their own homeland? What is heroic about the tribal wars being waged in Africa against it own people, keeping them deliberately poor and vulnerable? There is no right or wrong in war. Each side at war with each other has a justifiable reason for fighting from their own perspective. Who judges then? War these days are started and fought for mainly economic reasons. In the US, the arms manufacturers lobby is so strong that they can influence who comes to power. There is a whole bunch of powerful people around the world whose sole aim is to keep the fires of war burning all over the world. How will they sell their arms if we stopped fighting? Has anyone stopped to consider why USA continues to sell arms to people who then turn around and use it on the Americans themselves? — contd —
Amit, you are right … Owen’’s wail is a powerful statement against leaders playing chess games with human lives … but there are many, more recent, standard-bearers … from this age, when war has morphed from the mud trenches of France, when leaders sent soldiers to kill soldiers, to now, when they are sent to kill civilians … it all started in WW2
You conflate Owen’’s wail with the mujaheddin’’s ire … comparing oranges with apples, aren”t you? … (check aforementioned ”10”) … patria mori is official hubris, suicide-bombing is not … erm, obvious, I shoulda thot …
Now, you, Lady Lissome
… “It all began with Owen”’’s Dulce being termed a ””whine”” by Turbo San (yes Turbs you did!)” … oy, I said ”wail” … the ”whine” word was yours … you have put words into mah mouth that mah mouth ne”er spoke … this falls squarely into the ”10 games” that you blogged out … maybe, you should have added a 11th … a wail is a cry from de heart, a whine is a crib … major difference …
Hallo, Amit … sorry about that entry … but don”t let LL to prod you … quickly unruffle any feathers I may have ruffled … LL is quite a handful on her own, as it is … hehehe
why do ppl only remember Owen, but forget (conveniently ?) the chocolate cream soldiers (Shaw) and the schoolboy warriors of EMR’’s All Quiet on the Western Front ?
Look at Owen in contemporary times too: With the suicide bombers recruitment agencies finding kids queueing up to die, Owen comes back to us with greater strength and poignancy. “Whine” it was not. At 25 when you go with stars in ur eyes from “that old lie”, conscripted or not, the courage to call it a hoax against popular opinion, and face up to the truth is remarkable and great.
Turbo San: You say :”Barring a few nut cases , no one wants to fight for its own sake?” A few nut cases are all we need and the ones who have warred have mostly been nut cases.. from guys who went aimlessly sailing across the seas and “captured” innocent lands while using fancy names like maritime conquests for their nuttiness… to wars over women… to wars over a letter misread or miswritten …nutiness rules! The injustice of it is that the Owens die in trenches paying for the nut. And the survivors proclaim him hero and further the myth of the brave soldier.. and I think THAT is what Owen stands for. I have always been partial to those who pull down masks of all kinds… so Owen more than Horace has my admiration.
Hmmm Turbo San has got that… more like cricket as opposed to batting. This debate is over two opposing labels of war: 1) the glorious (popular narrative and conditioning tool) as opposed to 2) the evil (death causing, exploitative and wasteful) Add to this the inevitability and mull over the intrinsic nature of man as a war mongerer… and you have a cocktail for a complex controversial discussion… I was merely placing all the parts of the puzzle and asking a few questions. The very fact that we have all dirtied our hands here with so many perspectives and not found any black and white answers is proof that no matter how many times we discuss War it will never be the last. It all began with Owen’’s Dulce being termed a ”whine” by Turbo San (yes Turbs you did! )and my blog to challenge his stance… hehe…. and Turbo ‘’setting the ball rolling in all directions” is my speciality… I make a living doing that.
…more
I have some different opinion.
Thank you, Mr Amit … I can take it from here … actually, come to think of it, when you say “isnt it like saying in a different context that the question is not about cricket, but about batting” … you mean, “isnt it like saying in a different context that the question is not about batting, but about cricket” … c”est ne pas? … what Lissome Lady is talking about is generic, not specific …
L2 yo0u say, “Here the question is not so much about fighting for ones country.. and that could be any…. but about fighting itself”:… isnt it like saying in a different context that the question is not about cricket, but about batting…
No, I don”t think it is whining … and those who say so have already lost it … however, talking about war qua war is nigh imposs … without context, it has no substance … don”t you think, Lissome?
too many typos … ignore these, LL …
correction in previous entry : a few might say ”no”, not ”yes” (aaila, my brain is half-dead tonight)
Barring a few nut cases in this world, no one wants to fight simply for its own sake … and certainly, not go to war … but, if I ask, Are there some things in this world worth dying for? … a few might say ”yes” … but they would be lying … if, say, my wife and children have been set upon by a murderous mob, is not my death not worth their life? …
I think the centre of gravity in your arguments lies in what you wrote in response to Amit … “Here the question is not so much about fighting for one’’s country… but about fighting itself” …
Hey there, Lissome, sorry for being AWOL … hehehe
Difficult to latch onto one statement of yours to set the ball rolling … you have touched upon so many aspects … each which relate to war either directly or indirectly … and often, relate to other aspects of life …
Being a pacifist… with a design to gain a world peace icon, even greater saint than the Mahatma… was Nehru’’s policy. He proposed the principle of Panchasheela. He took China’’s shenanigans (talking of peace while actually it was planning to attack us) vis-a-vis Tibet at its facevalue. The reasons were manyfold why he had to be in a self created fool’’s paradise were twofold. A strong Britain, which had occupied India, was able to thwart the resurgent China. A nascent and militarily weak India was not able to do so. And Nehru was married to that crap called non-alignment. So a joint excercise with the US and Britain too was against his ideology… And what he did get out of the bargain is history. Similarly taking the Kashmir issue to the UNO instead of thrashing out militarily too was a terribly naive thing to do, a grave crime ( even graver than thrusting his progeny onto us) which would outdo any good turn ( if he ever did one) he did unto India… So war is a necessary evil…
Amit what is new thought, if not controversy? If we dont raise questions we will stagnate and fossilise… and never grow or modify, defy or desist, innovate or ignite… how boring that would be… Here the question is not so much about fighting for ones country.. and that could be any…. but about fighting itself and the narrative of bravery, nobility, martyrdom attached to it… It is thinking about whether this is exploitation? or it is about palliatives to quieten what causes disquietitude? And if this were so, are we conditioning future generations to sing the songs that will lead to our miseries, injustices and final annihilation? Ca c”est le question mon ami. Do you think if half the world died from our punacity the other half would cease fire or get engulfed? What if it were 80 % destroyed? Just conjecturing with you…
from our *pugnacity
Aah Tarun I love your comment. Just after my own heart. first you say strife/war is the bedrock and I agree - it is the theory of the survival of the fittest and pray…. what is that but not war???? the irrefutable Law of Nature. Percect so far! Then you abandon this theory when the rationality of man differentiates you from the common surviving species of animals.. You, the thinking animal, is uncomfortable! You are also an animal with a sense of fairplay and so you are bothered by the survival theorynow. Better an better! then you investigate and you get the unexpected answer..not the noble one we want to assuage our consciences with, but the pedestrian, materialistic one… and lo an behold you find nobility in that too… see how our minds work Tarun. This is not criticism Tarun… this is an invitation to think about all the contradictions that the topic enveloppes and which is why we discuss it over and over again…. It aint easy eh? thanks for this useful comment. LL
Dhaivat wow.. I have stirred you up big time with this blog. Never seen you so animated and loquacious. And your take on this is war is peace. “War ready” as you call it ( I like that word!!!) whether offensive or defensive - war is inevitable and you are saying more defensive than offensive re: Lion King. Now each country in this ”war ready” state is like a tinder box waiting for flint and one sliver of heat is sufficient to turn all of it into a blaze and rapidly spread… the question is this: Is that an intelligent option even if it were an inevitable one? Are we gunning for self destruction even as we see ourselves obliterated and possibly able now to find an alternative to avoid the destiny? That is the million dollar question. The blog title: Is it heroic or heinous is a rapid fire round type question
Lissome has the habit of setting controversy alive, whether it is faith in God, conquest of sensuality, education system or now- nationhood, wars and loyalty. Though much can be said and has been said abt wars and nationhood, bereft of polemics and shorn of all philosophic talk, every person in today’’s world is free to chose their own nationality. This being so, there is the diktat of taking the side of your country, even if it is blatantly wrong and against one’’s grain. Pacifism has no place in today’’s world where one can chose. and this choice has been exercised by a variety of ppl,from ultra rightists to the most mainfestedly left, from the perpetuators of terrorism to the apostles of peace and virtue.
Strife has been the bedrock on which the entire evolution has been based and will in future be based. Very much an immutable natural Law. However, replace ‘’strife” with ”war” and I am not so comfortable. Someone else fights for your ideals while you sit in AC conference rooms. Last year, we were at one of the frontier posts and I asked a soldier who I got friendly with why he was in the army. Was it because he loved his motherland so much that he would risk his life? He replied it was his job, was there only for the salary. A very unheroic answer but suddenly I felt great respect for him. He was willing to lay down his life for the 4-digit salary he got!
Ooops, it should read ”wisdom mouthED by….”
And as far as the warmongers are concerned, There is a lovely piece of wisdom mouth by the origial ”Lion King” , Mufasa… ”Being brave doesn”t mean that one should go looking for trouble. I am brave when I have to be.” So this can be modified a little to suit our goal… Regards, - Dhaivat.
And L L, you are right on another issue too, an issue that is not directly related to the one you are out to discuss here. It’’s about our Indian philosophy to deride materialistic interests- wealth, sex, power etc. That is absolutely absurd and hypocritical. They are the motivating force making every right minded (pun unintended) person try to excell in his/her field. We are out here primarily to enjoy ourselves and renouncing the world is nowhere on our agenda… So what geeta says is so true: doing your job honestly and zealously is your dharma. India would be a much better place to be if every citizen would start taking hisjob more sincerely…
The previous comment put by me was much before I read the full post…Even this comment is probably being put without getting a grip on the whole write up… Still I thought it appropriate to express myself at this juncture… As a thought form sometimes needs to be expressed before it is obscured by a newer and probably a contradicting on… War is as I said earlier is a necessary evil inasmuch as every country… or if we take the term in a wider context, every group… must be war-ready… Whatever you are doing is likely to be ambushed by another group; a group whose interests are hostile to your own. So by not being prepared to fight for your rights is tentamount to suicide. Having an idealistic and ”Gandhian” mindset will make you lose all instinct to fight and you are likely to be taken completely off guard. Todays” world needs you to be warready so your own interests are taken care of. This is particularly true for people high up on the country’’s decision making body.
The previous comment put by me was much before I read the full post…Even this comment is probably being put without getting a grip on the whole write up… Still I thought it appropriate to express myself at this juncture… As a thought form sometimes needs to be expressed before it is obscured by a newer and probably a contradicting on… War is as I said earlier is a necessary evil inasmuch as every country… or if we take the term in a wider context, every group… must be war-ready… Whatever you are doing is likely to be ambushed by another group; a group whose interests are hostile to your own. So by not being prepared to fight for your rights is tentamount to suicide. Having an idealistic and ”Gandhian” mindset will make you lose all instinct to fight and you are likely to be taken completely off guard. Todays” world needs you to be warready so your own interests are taken care of. This is particularly true for people high up on the country’’s decision making body.
What we all must remember here is that wars are not won by dying for your country… They are won by killing for your country… No army can win by dying… More number of enemy soldiers you end up killing, more are your chances to win the war for your country… And gory may however seem the idea of war to the idealistic mind, wars are a necessary evil in today’’s world. Whoever asked you to offer the opposite cheek to one who slapped you was talking thru his hat. Life can”t be lived like that. That philosophy is history… Idealism is passe. Remember what that baffoon of a Nehru begot for India by chanting ” Hindi Chini bhai bhai”? He wanted greater glory for himself, greater than Gandhi who was the ultimate peace icon of those days… A national leader must put the integrity of his country highest on the priority list, much higher up than these stupid notions of antiwar sentiments…
what so ever one may say,,war cannot be labeled as heroic it always is heinous,,leaves behind wounds and scars on many faces..soaks the earth the mother of all in blood..many innocent unseen faces are pushed from smiling to weaping modes.how can war produce heroes it cant….