The Mother of All Conflicts

"Imagine there's no country
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too "

If we could indeed realize Lennon's dream the world would have been a better and peaceful place to live in. But unfortunately, it's a lot easier to imagine such a harmonious system devoid of barriers than to implement it in reality.

But why is it so? Why are human beings so belligerent inherently? The answer to the question, perhaps lies in the depths of prehistory, to a time even before the dawn of civilizations.

Human civilization initially flourished in isolation. People developed languages, customs and societies within those isolated spheres; without knowing that a world existed beyond that sphere of familiarity. Men grew up like a breed of toads in a well. Then one day they encountered a new breed of toads, which looked different, and jumped and croaked in a manner henceforth unknown. Both the breeds decided that the new group was harmful to them. So they started to fight. Never, for once, occurred to them, that despite all the physical differences, the new breed was a group of toads after all! Never, for once, occurred to them, that sharing a bit of their wells and ponds among themselves would do them no harm!

Almost all the conflicts we humans encounter in life arise from these external differences. Difference in religion, difference in nationality, difference in ethnicity, difference in social and cultural background: and in general, difference in any of the specific parameters that define a particular system or group of individuals. Since the earliest days of civilization, history of mankind is the history of conflicts: of devastating wars where one culture has eradicated another. The Greeks obliterated Troy; the Romans demolished Carthage; Rama and his people destroyed Lanka. Ancient Mesopotemia witnessed the foundation and destruction of several civilizations: one upon another. History is replete with such examples, and the tradition has persisted through the middle ages (notable examples would be the crusades, Arabic aggresion throughout Asia, and the gory exploits of European colonists in the Americas, Africa and Asia that followed the 'age of discovery'. ) to modern times. The conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kashmir, in Bosnia and Chechnya; and the eternal clashes between Israelites and Palestinians are but bearers of that same tradition.

When the Spanish conquistadors arrived in South America, they encountered cultures inherently different from their own. They quickly decided that the Incas were but a new breed of barbarians, and plunedered and looted their riches. One of the greatest cultures of the world disappeared from the face of the earth within a few decades, because some people were too prejudiced to tolerate them. Such events occurred and re-occurred throughout history. India suffered such cultural aggressions for more than a millenium. The Arabs and Turks during their invasion ruthlessly destroyed temples, universities and human lives in India for the sole reason that they bore a belief system and tradition markedly different from their own. When the Europeans arrived, they, too took the onus upon themselves to 'civilize' the natives in their own way. The invaders almost never tried to relate to the cultural heritages of India, or try to accept its greatness despite differences from their own civilizations. They never tried to understand these new people, they never thought they might have something to learn from their civilization, because they were too blinded by a superiority complex.

The fundamental philosophy that guides an imperialist power is this prejudice of superiority among peers and a desire to make other nations a direct or indirect part of the empire. Which, in a broader sense, is to remove differences by making different identities dissolve into the identity, ideology and system of the empire. This has been the foundation of all empires, from the Romans to the Arabs, and from Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany.

There is a prevalent hypotheis that religion is the source of all inter-cultural prejudices and conflicts. An important thing to realize at this point is that there is not one particular mode of difference that may be identified as the root cause of hostility. As long as people are happy to adhere to their own religion without interfering with others' belief systems, a peaceful co-existance prevails. Conflict arises the moment one community starts to feel that theirs is the right path and that everything else is rubbish. Then they start to criticise others' ways, and in no time the thin line between criticism and mud-slinging is crossed. It isn't religion, or ideology, or race, or caste, or nation alone: it's the basic notion that connects all and more of them. It's the fundamental notion of difference among groups; and the inherent inability to accept them. And this prejudiced feeeling automatically develops into a severe selfish mentality, nationalistic to the core, when groups start fighting to secure tracts of land for themselves. And war ensues.


It's this psychology of intolerance that makes an Arab hostile towards an American, it's this sentiment that fuels hatred between an Indian and a Pakistani, or a Hindu and a Muslim, or, in general, between a member of group A and another of group B. Religion, though one of the major contributors, is not the sole reason. Events that lead to the war of Bangladesh's independence were initiated by the difference of language. It was fought between followers of the same religion. The seeds of racial clashes in the US and South Africa burgeoned from a prejudice on physical appearance. That too, had nothing to do with religion. And then of course, we have so many nationalistic 'movements' and wars fought between countries to talk about.


The basic cause of almost all conflicts, then, is not the difference itself, but the inability to accept it. We expect people to be like us, and censure severely whatever seems alien to us, be it thought, look, or social norms and cultural nuances. That's where we destroy places of worship of others, term their philosophies as heretic and sacrilegious; force them to follow our path, and, when they do not, set out to eradicate them from the face of the earth. And we try to secure everything good for our 'own people', be it land, wealth or power.


The concept of a homogeneous global society where everyone thinks and acts the same way is an utopian one. The world would never be like that, and it should never be like that, too; for this difference is inherent and natural. Besides they bring variety, and variety brings progress. Human beings and their societies have been, are and would continue to remain inherently different from each other. But there are underlying similarities among them that go far beyond these different exteriors, and that's where we need to focus. That's where we get to realize that having a black skin, or wearing a turban, or eating beef, or worshipping more than one god do not make people our enemies; nor do that make them thugs, or stupids, or infidels. These differences are but much minor compared to the invisible bond that connects all humanity. Once we realize that, we would learn to happily respect and appreciate the deviations, and be friends with people from all over the planet despite differences.

The Traveller's Song

I don't know where the winds came from, and where they'll lead me to:
I only know I'm moving on, and that's all I can do.
Forgotten is my origin and dusky is my past
I move on with a steady pace because I know I must.
The roads criss cross like cobwebs, like arteries and veins
I walk through streets and avenues, and along crooked lanes.
The heavens melt in horizon and new roads start from old
I've walked through darkened alleys too, and across streets of gold.
I have the sun and moon with me, and stars show me my way,
With blessings from the mighty sky I travel everyday.
I have my dreams to guide me and give me magic wings,
To take me past the stormy nights and beyond dusky ruins.
The lights ahead, like illusions, charmingly dance and bend;
I know I'll meet my destiny, upon my journey's end.

Arranged Marriages

Well, personally, I've nothing against arranged marriages in general (though I would like to prefer the other option for myself, if I ever decide to bite the bait, that is): I've seen love marriages going completely wrong and arranged marriage couples living happily ever after. But often there are certain disturbing aspects of an arranged marriage.

The fact that we don't get much of a prior knowledge about the spouse-to-be might result in being stuck with an individual with a perfectly different mindset: different tastes, different values and that sort of stuff. Most of these unlucky folks can't break off an arranged marriage easily and tend to suffer forever with a long face. Marriage would always demand some amount of a compromise, but the amount is likely to be higher in an arranged one. Such marriages are like gambling one's luck on a Vegas Roulette; and the future of such negotiated relationships are as uncertain as the position or momentum of a rotating electron. Moreover, meeting and checking out someone with the sole interest of making him or her a spouse seems too artifical a way of establishing a relationship.

But the main issue is the way marriages are arranged usually. Nasty things like caste-matching, Kundali-mapping, Dowry are so often involved in such weddings. Almost all advertisements on the matrimonial columns specify the preferred caste and sub caste. Though expected amount of dowry is not stated on the advertisements, parents of a prospective groom most often expect to make a decent deal through the negotiations; and the bride's family sighs a breath of relief if the demands are manageable for them. Astrologers fatten their purses by making most of the opportunity, as they 'analyze' horoscopes to predict whether a pair would sustain happily or not.

Then there's the practice of 'bride-seeing': where the prospective bride sits pretty draped in her best Banarasi, dazzling in the resplendent jewellery that she inherited from Mom; with the prospective in laws staring at her with inquisitve eyes, in between munching the samosa and the sweets that are brought in aplenty. How perfectly disgusting that might be for a girl of dignity, having to market herself like a difficult-to-sell commodity!

These days many people go for some sort of a milder version of the above. They cut off the dowry, the routine of planet-matching and the formal 'bride-seeing' part. The persons involved see each other for some time before the marriage is sealed, and spend some time together to check if their frequencies are well tuned. When things appear to be going nice, only then the green signal is flashed. Such modernized arranged marriages are pretty much acceptable. More so in a society where inm ost cases the male and female still don't often get to see each other and mingle together in a casual, friendly sort of way.