Relativity in Life Has Significant Implications on Peace

Its sounds like an amusing little quote, but I would say that it's a paradox. Indeed, there are people in this world who firmly believe that each and every person in this world is made different, a unique masterpiece. And there are people who classify others into two types based on innumerable different criteria. I would take a little bit from both, mix it up thoroughly, garnish it with some ideas and ask you, "How does it taste?" Your answer need not necessarily be one that pleases me. I would want your most honest opinion. But, but, but... first I would want you to taste it thoroughly without any prejudice before giving your answer. I think that a paradigm shift is imminent.

Relativity in life

Everything in this world is relative. It's a simple short assertive sentence. But think about it, its true in every facet of day-to-day life. For example, if I say, "John has a very good physique. What a body!" it only means that in my view (which is relative to the people I meet personally and have seen their muscles) John has a good physique. The same John with the same body could be "a person with pathetic physique" to some person who is in regular contact with professional wrestlers.

This relativity is so common in our everyday life, that we don't even notice it or bother to give it a thought specifically as such. When a friend of mine tells me, "Mr. Brindle is a very rich man", I instantly take it as I interpret it from my standards. I don't even bother to think about the relativity in existence that, when my friend tells me that Mr. Brindle is very rich, what he means to say is that Mr. Brindle has several times more wealth than that of my friend or me; or that he can be put into the class of 'rich people' from me and my friend's standards. The same Mr. Brindle could be

'a man who can just make ends meet' to people who have several times more wealth than Mr. Brindle.

I say that an ant is so tiny in size. The same ant says to me, "You are so huge in size!"

Who is right? And who is to decide whether I am huge or is the ant tiny? I say, that humans have an average span of life and banyan trees have a very long span. The same banyan tree says to me that humans live a very short live as compared to the average life span of banyan trees.

Look at this scenario. There are three vessels filled with water. First one contains water at a temperature of 10 degrees Celsius. Second contains water at a temperature of 40 degrees Celsius. And the third one contains water at a temperature of 70 degrees Celsius. Now I'm made to soak both my hand in vessel no. 1 and my friend Mr. Neil Johnson is made to soak his hands in

vessel no 3. After a minute or so, we both are asked to soak our hands in vessel no 2. I say, "Ah, warm water!" My friend says, "Its cold!" Who is right? Am I lying or is Mr. Neil Johnson lying? None of us is lying, we both are right. It's relativity playing its role. It's a pretty simple thing really. However, it has to be assimilated and its understanding has to come.

It's this relativity what makes some people to be very close to us, and others not so much. Because, our opinions are all relative opinions and those who happen to have same or similar relative opinions to us, we develop a liking for them. Generally, people having common or similar interests, thoughts or views get along very well. At times though, it so happens that two people having totally different interests get attracted towards each other due to the curiosity to know the areas of personality of each other which are foreign to both. So far, so good.

But usually what happens is, when there is a difference of opinion about something between two people, it leads to conflicts. Proper communication, compromising and agreeing to reach a golden mean can settle most of the conflicts. If a conflict isn't solved, it leads to major disputes and controversies. Are disputes and controversies good? You may say that I'm foolish to even ask such a question, for any person with common sense would definitely say 'No!'; and that, "..had controversies been so easy to settle, life would have been so simple!"

Now listen to my answer to the above question.

"Yes and No". No, because controversies leading to severe violence are definitely not good for us, the common people. But they are very good, productive and lucrative to people who can milk them. These people could be anybody - politicians, bureaucrats or perhaps religious leaders.

Disputes / Differences

Difference of opinions may often lead to a fight between two persons, and similar thing is observed on the international level, where leaders use difference of opinions as a reason to wage a war. What does exactly happen when two countries go in war with one another? People's money is used to destroy their property, risk their lives and to give them emotional torment. Has a war ever done good to any common man? To elaborate this point, let me draw out an example. Mr. A is a common man living in a country called Girdleshorts. And Mr. B is a common man living in a country called as Bubblesniffer. Due to some reasons, perhaps genuine or may be falsely projected, the political leaders of Girdleshorts and Bubblesniffer push their respective countries into war with one another after 'a lot of talks on diplomatic level.' This means that Mr. A and Mr. B both would be paying their share to their respective governments to provide for the things required for a war. Now, suppose if Girdleshorts wins, its residents will celebrate a lot and be happy, whereas the residents of Bubblesniffer will be sad and dejected. Likewise, if Bubblesniffer wins and Girdleshorts loses, the scenario would be exactly in contrast to the first one. And this is after overlooking the fact that a lot of destruction and deaths of soldiers would have taken place on either side. What difference did the war do, other than terrible destruction within the losing country and

in the day-to-day life of any common man, whichever country he belongs to? Did it provide for "free goods that you ever need in your day to day life, delivered at your home" for being a resident of the winning country? And, let me go one step ahead ridiculously, and assume that even if it did, would it be ethical and acceptable to any scrupulous person to live a life without working on the basis of work done by someone else, just because he belonged to a country that lost?

Residents of every country having a military force are taught to be proud of their soldiers who selflessly fight for their country, putting on stake their own life. Hats off. I admire their spirit, bravery and commitment. But suppose, before the war between Girdleshorts and Bubblesnniffer, every family in either country was told that, the war demands one person from every family in the country and that particular person would definitely die in the war, i.e. the chances of the person dying are more than 100%, would the war take place at all? All the common people would get down in streets to protest against the war and change the decision of their respective governments. Common people DO NOT want colonization, common people do not want fuel at cheap rates, and common people do not want to win a religious debate, as much as they want peace and sanctity.

So, you see that a war doesn't affect much directly the day-to-day life of most of the common people in a drastic way, other than the monetary burden and the sorrow of losing some of the brave soldiers. And if it does, the people won't let the war happen in the first place.

Relative evil and actual evil

What does 'evil' exactly mean? We all think that we know it, and that we can make it out when shown an example. But I want a criterion for deciding something or someone as 'evil'. How would you define it? Look at the following instances

1) A criminal named Long John Silver has held a lady as hostage, and demands the release of his fellow men from jail if people and police don't want him to kill the lady. Would you call Long John Silver to be evil? Just then a police officer named Mr. Redmond arrives at the scene and shoots in the head of Long John Silver killing him on the spot, thus safely rescuing the lady held hostage. Is the act of Mr. Redmond an evil act? I expect a 'yes' for the first question and a 'no' for the second question. An act of not actually killing but just a threat to do so is put under the head 'evil' and an act of actually ending someone's life is not put under 'evil' in this case.

2) In continuation to the above case, you later learn that Long John Silver was actually a 'criminal' from government's point of view, but actually he was a person who didn't agree with the government's policies and role and so actively carried out operations which would benefit the under-privileged people by large. And his fellow companions were arrested by police, and he needed them back to carry out his operations so he adopted a way which threatened the life of a lady, but would have benefited a huge mass of people. Would you still call Long John Silver to be an evil person? Mr. Redmond, an honest police officer who never did anything immoral was told that Long John is a totally evil person, and ordered that the criminal be caught 'live or dead' and the lady rescued, by the government who is corrupt and finds Long John Silver to be a thorn in the flesh. I would call this as a classic example of one non-evil person killing another non-evil person due to misunderstanding (either deliberately created by someone, or formed unfortunately)

3) In the above case, assume that Mr. Redmond is not an honest officer, and was ordered to kill Long John Silver the 'Robin Hood' of modern times in return of a sum of money paid to him. Who is evil in this case? Definitely Mr. Redmond, isn't it?

The above three examples would have clearly portrayed that a particular act cannot be said to be evil solely on its own. It is relative to the intentions of the doer. If the intentions of the doer are selfish, then any act, whether its killing someone, or simply uttering a lie, could be said to be evil. And if the intentions of the doer aren't selfish, the act and the doer aren't evil. Thus, we can say that selfishness is where evil takes birth. So, selfishness is the root of all evil.

Also, did you notice while reading the above 3 points, that the lack of full knowledge about the circumstances, or a difference in opinions cause misunderstandings that relative differences are 'evil' in nature.

Politics and we, the people

Politics, they say, is just what it says it is: 'poly' = multiple, and 'ticks' = blood sucking insects

Let me explain it to you. Every person's mind is constantly given instructions from inside by two voices speaking simultaneously; one: which asks him to put himself first without caring for others, and two: to think of others, and what trouble his actions could cause to others. It's up to that particular person as to which voice he chooses to listen. In general, a person who chooses to listen to the angel more often than the devil could be said to be non-evil. This way, the lesser the number of times a person listens to the good voice, and the intensity with which he reacts, the more he is inclined towards evil. Any common man - could be anyone - a provision stores owner or a computer programmer, what are his primary needs? They are food, clothing and shelter. The secondary and tertiary needs would vary from person to person because no two people are same, not even twins. Every person has a choice as to how he fulfills these needs, whether he puts himself ahead of all others and does immoral things by stealing the rights of other people (being selfish), or achieves everything as per his principles based on morals. It decides whether a person is evil or not. Having his primary, secondary and tertiary needs fulfilled, by natural tendency there isn't much that a common man is concerned about. He isn't concerned about when was the state he lives in was established (other than for plain curiosity at times), what's the area in square km of his nation, and which country is going to be the next economical super-power. But, he is taught things like, "Bubblesnifer President says that Bubblesnifferians aren't cowards and any action by Girdleshotsians would be given reply to with double force." This provokes the person. Then he is taught things like patriotism and love for motherland etc. This provokes him further. This way, our leaders drag us into things that otherwise we wouldn't have even bothered. To exemplify this fact, let me ask you a question. To whichever country you belong, if unfortunately there happens to be a country that is considered as your nation's enemy, and if you come to know that a helpless kid, or a physically challenged person from that particular country needs sponsorship and/or help. You're in good position to render the required help. Would you render the help or would you decide against it just because the innocent kid or the physically challenged person lives in a land that is said to be an enemy nation of the piece of land you call as your nation? I don't think that the situation would take much time to touch the heart of any civilized person, and make him come ahead to offer help. A government is needed to look after the financial matters, and to maintain law and order in a country. So, we can either have such governments, which have no intentions and capabilities to attack each other, or we may have only one government for entire world.

Recently, in a seminar organized locally to let the people interact with Mrs. Meena Prabhu, a well known Marathi writer who has traveled around the world and written books about different cultures and traditions, said that the difference in different cultures and nations around the world is about only superficial; its only related to food, practices and traditions. The emotional needs are same all over the globe. Nice people are everywhere and they welcome you; except for some areas which are very prone to terrorism(e.g. like Israel or Palestine), and one can't trust any stranger for he/she could be a human bomb. This too, happened over a period of time. During her first visit to Israel she saw the streets were beautiful, with different shops having various variety of articles to be sold and cheerful people greeted her. The second time, half of the shops were gone and soldiers replaced them. The third visit showed her a totally grim picture where there was no simple life as such, and soldiers kept watch everywhere.

Thousands of decisions which involve millions of dollars and which would affect the life of all people are taken daily in various existing businesses in forms of corporations, sole proprietorships, joint stock companies, etc. When two intelligent people or parties sit together with the wish of sorting out a conflict and come to a solution, it could be a bit difficult but by no means impossible. There is always a golden mean over which both parties can compromise for the benefit, well-being, prosperity and happiness of the common people. So why are some political decisions left unsolved for years and decades? The answer is very simple. The politicians don't want to solve and settle these issues. If politicians solve these issues, there will be no issues left to be solved. Then people's attention would go to more important issues like employment, recession, population control, pollution control, which are more difficult to solve. So, the government does things that will catch the entire attention of people and in the meanwhile enjoy fully all the powers and privileges they're entitled to as leaders.

I'll talk specifically about an issue that has been the cause of differences between two countries since a long time. The 'K' word - Kashmir has been an issue between India and Pakistan, which has been causing differences, wars, proxy wars and deaths since past 50 years. One need not be an Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawkins to tell that the issue, no matter how intricate, could have been solved long ago if the people actually dealing with it wanted it settled once for ever. Lives of so many Kashmiri people and soldiers on the either side would have been saved.

Thus, we must realize how important role relativity plays in our lives. Understanding relativity well and good acts as a catalyst in the process of having peace. If we only understand that all things in life are relative and most of the differences of opinion are caused by relativity in life, there would be more compromises and lesser conflicts.