In the name of War        

-- Mubarak Ali --

When W.George Bush, launching his war against terrorism, gave the message to the nations that ‘either you are with us or with terrorists’, he divided them into two distinct categories: friends and enemies. This language of war and categorization into ‘us’ and ‘them’ is not new. It echoed what the Roman emperor Caesar writes in his book Bello Gallico. He regards any war between the Roman and other nations as a conflict between good and evil. The sense of justice gave the Roman soldiers moral boost to fight and wipe out evil. The Muslims fighting against the hostile powers also followed this binary division. They called themselves ‘holy warriors’ believers’ and ‘righteous’, while the others were depicted as ‘polytheist’ infidels’ and deceitful’. This division of right and wrong and evil and justice provided a moral justification to fight and lay down their lives for a cause, a cause that was greater and higher than their lives.

In the medieval period, religion played an important role in fighting a war. Whether the war was between the Christians and the Muslims or an internecine war between two religious sects and groups. In all such cases, each believed that his religion or sect was right and God was on his side. During the European colonization, the mission for civilization took place of religion. The non-European powers were subdued and brought under control because they were barbarians and needed to be civilized. When the European states became secular, the cause for war also became non-religious. For example, in the first and second world wars the slogans were democracy, liberalism, and human values against expansionism, Fascism, totalitarianism, and Nazisim.However, in all cases, whenever there was war, emotions for patriotism were exploited to unite people for support to their respective governments.

It is a fact that throughout history ruling classes glorified war and warriors. Those who fought were given high status in the society; in case of their death, they were called martyrs if they survived, they were idolized as heroes. On the contrary, those who opposed war and preached for peace were ridiculed and satirized as coward and passive. Sometime they were called traitors, enemies and agents to foreign powers. In the history books we also find conquerors and victors as great men while those writers, thinkers, and philosophers who preached for peace are marginalized.

The building of monuments further glorifies war. The characteristics of these monuments were different from country to country. For example, in France, the inscription on the monuments is’ in memory of dead’, while in Britain, Germany and Austria, they call them simply as’ war memorials’. These monuments were built in graveyards, squares of cities, and as a part of important state buildings. The purpose was to remind people of the greatness of their nation and how bravely the soldiers fought and heroically died on fronts. In this way, they became a link between people and war. Besides monuments, the states have also established war museums in which war weapons are displayed to show to the people the power and strength of their state. The result is that these edifices and memorials perpetuate war in the minds of people.

However, with the passage of time the concept of war has changed. There was a time when war was fought in a battlefield.  Then it followed the capture of cities and plundering looting which affected the population. Sometime, citizens surrendered and concluded a peace treaty with the victor. In the modern period all has changed. . The scope of war has widened. With the emergence of new technology, soldiers as well as citizens both are involved in war and suffer equally. We have seen that how in the First and Second World Wars cities were destroyed and millions of innocent citizens lost their lives. 

Moreover, the whole concept of war has also changed from the medieval to the modern period. There was a time when enemies used to fight face-to-face and appreciated each other velour and bravery. For example, Akbar was much impressed by two Rajputs who fought bravely during his siege of Chittor and died in fighting. After the war, he ordered that their statues should be carved and placed at the gate of Agra fort. In medieval Europe, there was the concept of chivalry that represented the fusion of Christian and military concepts of conduct how to behave in a war and how to preserve knightly values. All these medieval values of the East and West have changed with the advent of new technology and new weapons. There is no need to fight your adversary face to face. Now, there are planes that fly for bombardment and pilots do their jobs without seeing the enemy. Same is the case of shooting missiles from a distance and destroy enemy’s target. The job is done without any feelings. The enemy remains invisible. therefore, easy to wipe him out without any remorse. Recently, a new language is evolved to describe the war activities. For example, it is said that the plane hit targets. The target is an abstract item that evokes no emotions. When the American plane bombed a caravan mistakenly in recent Afghan war, the Pentagon spokesman said that it was good target. No mention that how many people died as result of this and what about those who lost their dear ones? Sometime they say that they regret loss of life. That’s all’ Similarly, a new word of ‘collateral damage’ is coined describing the killing of civilians and destruction of their properties. It evokes no emotions and sorrow.

War not only destroys cities and kills people but also culturally changes societies. Human values that are nurtured by poetry, fiction, art and music, decay during war and in its place artists, poets, and musicians involve in justifying war and mobilizing people’s emotions. Hate, prejudice, and hostility are created against enemy. Not only this, but fundamental rights and civil liberties that have been achieved as a result of long and strenuous struggle are suppressed in the name of national interest. Culturally, society become bereft of moral and ethical values. This is the tragic result of war.

When war comes to end, people ask question about the results. This is beautifully portrayed after the First world war, when a French filmmaker, Abel Gance, screened a film J’accuse, in which a wounded soldier comes to his village and narrates his dream to his fellows that he saw dead soldiers came out from their graves wrapped in tattered bandage with upraised arms. They left their graves and walked down in the lane of their village to see if their sacrifices had been not in vain. What they found: the pettiness of civilian life, infidelity of their wives, and selfishness of their friends, they were shocked and found their sacrifices useless The villagers were so horrified by seeing dead among them that they mended their way. Seeing this, the dead returned to their graves with satisfaction that their mission had been fulfilled. After telling this dream, the wounded soldier accessed the sun standing idly by watching the war go on. Giving this message he died. The film stunned people and the question was asked about that why should people sacrifice in war when they fail to change the world. It remained the same in spite of their sacrifices.