Whenever a conflict arises between two people, how do we truly determine who is right? How do we understand where the mistake lies? Let us explore.
Whether it is
1. India–Pakistan’s Kashmir conflict,
2. Kerala–Tamil Nadu’s Mullaperiyar dispute,
or even a simple disagreement between you and me—
the principle remains the same.
Imagine this:
I am travelling in a boat with my friends. You come in another boat, and the two boats collide. A fight arises. Naturally, I will support my boatman and my friends.
And you will support your boat and your people.
This is human nature.
Immediately, two separate circles are formed.
And in this world, there will always be many such circles.
Without our invitation,
people who favour my circle will join to support me,
and people who favour your circle will join to support you.
Each side will bring their own arguments, emotions, and justifications.
So then—how will a fair solution ever emerge?
It can happen only if we find someone beyond both circles—
a neutral human being whose judgment both sides accept wholeheartedly.
Otherwise, the conflict will never be resolved.
But where do we search for such people?
Where do we find a Buddha?
A Ramakrishna Paramahamsa?
A truly impartial mind?
Even if such a person appears,
who will agree to their verdict?
Do we have real-world examples?
Look at the United Nations.
When disputes arise, does it act with pure justice?
Often, it supports whichever nation it fears or depends on.
The powerless—those without political weight—are brushed aside.
Did the world truly stand for Tamil Eelam?
Did any nation loudly condemn the injustice done to Tamils in their own homeland?
In this world, there are always people ready to twist logic, saying:
“The one who attacked is right, and the one who protected himself is wrong!”
We have seen such absurdity everywhere.
Take Saddam Hussein.
What was his “greatest mistake”?
America had other hidden interests,
but instead of admitting them,
they gave the flimsy excuse that he possessed chemical weapons.
They invaded Iraq,
destroyed the nation,
captured him, held a symbolic trial,
and executed him.
Later they casually said,
“We found no weapons.”
Not a single word of regret.
Not one apology.
Did the UN condemn America?
Did any nation declare war on America for this injustice?
No.
So when even global bodies with scholars and diplomats cannot uphold fairness consistently,
how will small organisations or ordinary individuals find perfect justice?
It becomes a beautiful illusion—nothing more.
In this world,
“The one holding the stick becomes the judge.”
Whoever gathers more people, more nations, more power—
the world fears them and often supports them,
rarely examining whether truth is actually on their side.
This is the nature of the world—
in the past, now, and forever.
Even in the Mahabharata, in the Dvapara Yuga,
Dharma itself was not standing fully.
Out of 105 warriors,
100 were on the side of adharma,
and only 5 stood for righteousness!
(What a ratio!)
Now we are in Kali Yuga.
Dharma does not even have one stable leg to stand on.
It crawls and struggles forward.
When will it finally reach the good,
the just, the righteous?
We do not know.
-Yozen Balki
கருத்துகள் இல்லை:
கருத்துரையிடுக
You can give here your comments: