|
|
I had been intending to explore
why, throughout history, man has been the perpetrator of so much inhuman
behavior and what, if anything, could be done about it. My plan was to
substantiate the claim of inhumanity with some examples before moving on to
a discussion of the possible remedies.
It is a coincidence that between the intention and the execution, I chanced
upon a poem by Josh Malihabadi (1898-1982), a poet held in high regard in
Urdu poetry. This poem written in 1928 (Fitrat-e Aqvaam – The Character of
Nations) makes a much better case than I could have and I offer it here
(with a rough translation by myself) in lieu of the first part of the
intended article.
zulm-e la intihaa se tang aa kar
aadmii chaahtaa hai aazaadi
ho ke azaad phuunk deta hai
doosre bhaai’oN kii aabaadi
pehle banta hai dushman-e jalaad
khud hii phir seekhta hai aazaarii
khud ko aabaad kar ke, yeh haiwaan
Daal deta hai tarh-e barbaadi
paa ke apne huquuq, auroN ke
chiinta hai huquuq-e bunyaadii
pehle to zaalimoN se Darta hai
aur phir khud hii zulm karta hai
Tiring of endless injustice
Man desires freedom
On becoming free, reduces to ashes
the abodes of fellow beings
First, becomes the enemy of the oppressor
then, himself learns to oppress
Making himself safe and secure, this Being
Initiates the ways of destruction
Gaining his own rights, from others
Snatches even their most basic rights
First, he is afraid of oppressors
then, he himself begins to oppress
This process has been repeated so often throughout history that there is
little need to provide concrete illustrations. Josh makes the point in a
powerful manner although he provides no explanation for why this is the
dominant characteristic of human beings. I don’t intend to do so either.
Rather, taking this to be a given, my interest is to discuss what could be
done to minimize the damage that man feels compelled to do to fellow men.
There seem to be two clear perspectives on this dilemma. The first is to use
suasion, appeals to a higher calling, and character building to improve the
moral nature of man. This includes the invention of religion, the
promulgation of moral codes, the propagation of sermons, the practice of
rituals, and the like. On objective evidence, it seems it must be admitted
that all these have had virtually no impact on the propensity of human
beings to inflict pain and injustice on others. Even the prospect of divine
retribution appears to have failed to have much effect. And, in fact, has
the inhumanity inflicted in the name of religion and ideology itself not
been appalling?
The other perspective favors the approach of restraining the worst impulses
of human beings by means of temporal laws and the effective threat of
punishment on earth. While this has by no means been a panacea, it has had
limited success. The variations across countries in the extent to which one
person can do something inhuman to another suggest that some amelioration is
indeed possible.
However, this limited success remains confined within well-defined
boundaries. For example, existing laws would not tolerate one state within
the US to lay waste to another state for any reason, justified or not. There
are other means specified to deal with such situations. But the very same
citizens of the US who would not tolerate such behavior inside its
boundaries have little compunctions about the acts of the US in visiting
destruction on people outside its borders or in discriminating against those
inside not considered part of the majority. Not only do they not voice
disapproval, there are many quite vociferous in their support for nuking
this or that group outside or limiting the freedoms of those inside they
take a dislike to.
This suggests a very long and hard struggle to extend across countries and
nations the laws that exist to restrain the worst impulses of man within
countries and nations. Is such an outcome possible?
As to why human beings behave like this, it is hard to fathom.
Courtesy: Anjum
Altaf
|
|
Anjum Altaf