Since decades, the tactics of war have been used againstpeople mutinous to the authority. It is but natural to see power(s) reacting ina quite jumpy and unnerved way to any kind of resistance. And when resistanceattempts to cross the flashpoint of “control”, the war of ideas ensues. Besidesmilitary prowess, the battle is played with intangible weapons, crafted outcleverly and cruelly, to yield ‘results’ in an amazingly short time.
The whole war machinery gets activated. The tactical dealingembedded with harassing maneuvers becomes an indivisible part of crushingstrategy. From holding an entire population hostage to the blocking ofessential commodities, the war machinery tries to plug up even the breath ofdissenters. Gagging of media to sheer human brutality, the silent stifling isorganized with dexterity. Propaganda mills start churning out the ‘loyalistlanguage’, manufacturing readily available lies and liars. Power corridorsmastermind designs, crass and subtle, to confuse the nonconformist vanguard,and pressurize them to break off and retreat.
Livid and frustrated, war machinery henchmen even turnarrogant in their outpourings and outburst. Statements and counterstatements;briefings and meetings; speeches and sermons: the ‘bravado’ becomes ludicrouslyhigh and mighty. The myth of invincibility gets reinforced. Smothering everyvoice seems an easy and painless task.
As far as dissenting people, they are the real victims. Theonslaught is on them is tricky and scheming, making a fodder of them, andsneakily overpowering too many minds to engineered outlooks and judgments.
At such times, the situational watershed ought to emerge.The whole gamut of strategy appears calling for a paradigm shift. If aparticular method invites more trouble, the recourse to something that isunderstood and equally forceful seems inevitable. If the idiom of peace getsresponse through consistent operational war machinery, the point ofexperimentation in pacifist laboratory becomes unreasonable.
Hawks are never admirable. No sensible person wants to beso. But when situation pushes people to the wall, and even rips them off, thedetested alternatives become working probabilities. The question arises: is itdiabolically contemptuous to answer a brick with a bullet or a bullet with abullet or strike with a strike? In all the cases, the mantra of ‘Ahimsa’ seemsdefeated. Perhaps the countries, communities and cultures are not what theywere some 60 or 80 years ago. Sophistication of State machinery and modernwarfare, besides strengthening of imperial forces has undermined the meaning ofanything that is peaceful and unarmed. That we need a discourse on non-violencefrom perpetrators of some of worst ever crimes of the last three decades ofhuman history is ironical as well as a sad commentary on our collectiveamnesia.
Serving as counterweights in opposition to those whosurreptitiously encourage and manipulate bloody drama, the dissidents do nothave to prove to be capable of nothing but historical disasters time and again.Using appropriate strategy to step ahead on a dicey path is critical. Thecrafty adversary, the vulnerable ally, the collective state of societalcharacter, the economics and the sustainability of plunging whole populationinto an unending anarchy are something that need serious rethinking.
Bottomline: As war machinery hovers over, the dissentingmasses have to guard against gullibility. This is not their war. It’s not forthem. They are already in a bloody war since last three decades. Suffering as permanentvictims—collateral damage— of hysterical history and self-seeking states.
s_afsha@yahoo.com