We have an innate sense of justice and fairness that we expect from others, even during such extraordinary times as war.
But it is important to realize that such expectations are a product of our time. What counts as immoral act during war has widely varied in history.
For instance, during the initial stages of World War I, airborne pilots did not attack fellow pilots of opposing sides. Such an etiquette in war is incomprehensible now.
Hindu works on war even had restrictions on attacks at night time and on attacks without warning. There were even injunctions against mismatch of weapons: a cavalryman could not attack a foot soldier, an elephant-rider could not attack a cavalryman. It even prescribed that only soldiers of the same rank could engage each other.
Again, we do not subscribe to such moral laws of war any more.
There were even an instance in Ramayana, where the enemy was asked to exit the battlefield, as he had lost his weapons during the fight. What was then considered a noble act will be deemed downright foolish now.
What complicates the matter further are immoral acts that are committed under the guise of religious or patriotic services. In an infamous incident during India's freedom struggle, General Dyer massacred innocents, but he was rewarded on his return to Britain.
Further, many acts during war may be considered admissible, unlike under normal circumstances.
In fact, the settings for arguably the most important religious work for Hindus, Srimad Bhagavad Gita, concerned the qualms of a warrior who loathed to kill his own teachers and brethren. Under normal circumstances, such acts would be considered immoral, but were deemed right, nay duty-bound, during that war.
The next time you rage in anger on hearing a war news, as dramatized by news services, bear in mind that history may change its view of the act perpetrated, however heinous it may sound in contemporary times.
No comments:
Post a Comment