The most important issues in human experience remain unchanged and
unresolved from age to age. Whether we live in the Stone Age or the
various epic ages of the world's civilizations or imperial age or the
space age, some things simply do not change. We still seek to understand
the purpose of life, each individual at each turn of our fate. We still
seek love and struggle both with its giving and receiving. We persevere
with the Rubik's cubes of our desires and needs on the one hand and
the mores and moralities outside of our selves on the other, trying
to get them to lock into place with each other. And with each choice
and action, we still defensively justify ourselves ad nauseum.
For me, the penny has finally dropped. I finally understand what
it is about the march to this war with Iraq that has bothered me the
most. From the first weeks when the 'Iraq next' idea was mooted, on
both sides of the war debate, it is the objectives of the war that have
animated us. No matter what we are justifying, it seems we are justifying
it in terms of the objectives sought.
Arguments in favor of war have been couched in terms of the objectives
of such war. Iraq, we have been told, has weapons of mass destruction
which much be dismantled. Iraq's ruler is a tyrant and must be replaced
in order that democracy may be established in Iraq and spread thence
to the rest of the region. War is necessary because no other means will
achieve those ends. Even when means are justified, they are justified
from the perspective of the ends. On the other hand, those who protest
war frame their protests in similar terms. Disarmament is not an adequate
reason for war, and if it is, war should be waged against others who
possess the same kinds of weapons. Tyrant though he may be, we cannot
be sure that the overthrow of Saddam Hussain will in fact lead to a
democratic Iraq, much less Middle East. Further, neither Iraq's ruler
nor arsenal are believed to be the true objective of this war. That,
we are told, is access to oil. That is also not held to be an adequate
objective-indeed, it is especially suspect. Finally, there are those
who believe that George W. Bush's true objective is to finish what his
father started. All objections to the objectives of this war.
For a brief period, as the world watched the US-UK alliance try
to persuade the UN Security Council, we had the opportunity to discuss
means. However, as 'Old Europe' and the rest of the world ranged themselves
against the US, UK and 'New Europe,' this colorful clash of national
personalities caught our attention and the moment was lost. What remain
are editorial obituaries to internationalism and an unreadable (to me)
rash of ad hominem writings that vilify and mock, rather than inform
and challenge.
Theoretical discussions have long left me cold. I read them without
quite registering the import of what they say. Polemical writing irritates
me. I am still looking for that writing with heart, that will tell me
simply the things I want to say but that I cannot quite formulate.
That war is wrong. Not because of anything, not because its goals
are flawed or its strategies and techniques lacking or its outcome uncertain.
Just simply wrong. I want someone to show me why my mind simply will
not walk that little distance between listening to and following along
with realist arguments and being convinced by them.
I am still looking for someone to raise the questions that are taking
shape in my mind. Such as, how can violence yield peace? How can willful
destruction precede creation? Will the survivors of war be the fit citizens
of a future state of peace? I don't want these questions to be raised
as rhetorical flourishes in a polemical argument, but with the profound
sadness and concern and compassion of an Avalokiteshwara. I want to
ask them because I really want to understand the answer. I want someone
else to ask them in the same way, because their asking might actually
illuminate answers I cannot see.
In my heart, I know what I believe and I believe it as an article
of faith. My conviction is that the means are always more important
than the ends. What was striking both after September 11, 2001 and in
the build-up to the war with Iraq was the swift movement to an 'all
else has failed' position. Calls for elucidation were met with varying
historical reconstructions of record. We never seem to know during the
long process that does not work that such a process is even underway.
This puzzlement on the part of people like me, is dismissed with the
assertion that everyone cannot be told everything. It would simply jeopardize
national security. Another means-related issue that I have. Where secrecy
and subterfuge must precede resort to war, leaving us unable to judge
whether all other means have been tried, I want to ask how that war
can establish an open society? Must you not reap what you sow? But more
importantly, how are we to know that this is the only means left? And
if it were, would that be reason enough?
The means justify the ends. Not the other way around.
And for the most part, we approve of this maxim. Why else do we
frown on torture as a means of seeking intelligence? Why else do we
frown on domestic violence as a means of preserving family unity? Why
else do we oppose the seclusion of girls as a means of preserving cultural
integrity? Why else do we oppose the employment of young children in
sweat-shops, although it feeds their families? Our principled objection
to these goal-driven choices crumbles when it comes to the state.
We concede to this collective of our individual selves immunity
from this maxim whose benefits we would like to seek for ourselves.
The pacifist in my heart is more tenacious than any other part of me,
unyielding to any other logic. Thus far and no farther, she seems to
say. Let this simple idea-that the means matter more than the ends-inform
my behavior and give me the courage to seek the same consistently in
other contexts.
So this is it. This is what bothers me most. Beyond all the political
debate and beyond the horrendous loss and disruption of lives on all
sides, what is most disturbing is that we skirt around discussing the
question of means. We concede easily to expertise, to those whose access
to information we deem superior without having any proof of the same
and to those who speak louder than we do. We just don't press on and
say: what means are these? what means have you tried and can you show
us you tried them enough and creatively and with an open mind? can you
prove they have all failed? and beyond all this, beyond all that you
might say, can you still really tell me that violence yields anything
good?
The ends do not justify the means. Only the moment of our effort
is real and in that moment, in that sole reality, our action-the means-is
all-important. Does it meet the highest of our standards and conform
to the best of our values? Is our means infused with compassion?
For each of us, in each moment, the choice is simply between two
alternatives: the means or the ends. Which do you choose?
Swarna
Urbana
4-4-03
Return to My two-paisa bit...
Return to Swarna Rajagopalan's home-page