by Pritish Nandy
Call it conflict. Call it confrontation. Or
call it simply the dialectic of growth. Whatever you call it, clashes
take the world ahead. We may talk endlessly about peace and stability,
how crucial continuity is. But what brings about change and opens up new
ideas, new markets, new opportunities is always conflict. It breaks the
status quo, creates the momentum for change. In the process, the world
transforms.
Yes, every time a person, a brand or an institution
comes under threat, the world changes. It forces us to think afresh. The
classic example is when Pepsi challenged Coke, we all recognised for
the first time the amazing elasticity of demand for a fizzy drink. Or
when Penthouse challenged Playboy and converted what was till then a
niche business into one of the world’s biggest industries. To take a
recent example, when Anil and Mukesh fought, it appeared self defeating
and long dirges were written about the demise of the great Ambani
empire. Two years later, we found just the opposite had happened. The
conflict had quadrupled their collective wealth. Similarly, if there is
one thing that can resuscitate our moribund politics, it is Anna’s
aggressive campaign that has woken up a lazy, corrupt Government to its
responsibilities. As indeed it has woken up an equally lazy, corrupt
Opposition to its opportunities.
So, if conflict is the
catalyst for change, why do we constantly enshrine the importance of
harmony, reconciliation, freedom from strife? Every spiritual guru talks
about it. So do political leaders. Even businessmen claim that
stability is the only way for the world to progress and prosper. If
stability goes, we are warned, the markets would collapse. So would the
world. Actually, the contrary is true. Even though it appear to be
bloody and unseemly, conflict is good for business, politics and, often,
even human rights. The status quo invariably represents exploitation,
corruption, the perpetuation of wrong. It also represents the lack of
free thought. If we did not have enough conflicts, the world would rot.
Great
religions grew from conflict. Every emerging sect and sub sect may have
drawn blood during its birth and baptism but eventually they grew the
size of the following and gave these faiths their cutting edge, to see
them through difficult times. So, even as religions denounce violence,
the truth is that it is violence that enlarged their domain. The benign
perish, unsung. The gentle leader remains enshrined in our hearts but no
longer relevant in a world we have created for ourselves where only
strife moves us ahead. If Osama did not exist, we would have had to
create him. (And some say we did.)
Godse kept Gandhi alive by
assassinating him. Or else, we would have forgotten him even in his
lifetime. Like the world forgot Mikhail Gorbachev. Violence, anger,
bloodshed are the highpoints we celebrate as history. Our wars are what
define us as nations, as the map of the world is being constantly
redrawn. Empires are shrinking. New nations are being born.
New
instruments of conflict keep being discovered. These are the new change
agents. So when Sibal protests against social networking sites he is
doing exactly what every Government wants to do: Preserve the status
quo. For in the status quo lies their only hope of clinging onto power.
That is why every re-election campaign starts with the promise of
stability. It is the perpetuation of the myth that what exists is
perfect. What could follow may be dangerous.
But the modern
world exists because it flirts with danger. Conflict creates markets.
Conflict brings us change. Conflict opens up new opportunities,
redefines existing social structures, gives hope to the underprivileged,
the trampled upon. It teaches us the importance of constant change. Sun
Tzu is the philosopher of our times. He teaches us that we must not run
away from conflict but win it artfully and use it to change our lives.
The
Tomsk court is not wrong. The Bhagawad Gita teaches us exactly this,
and more. It teaches us that it is our moral duty to fight every war and
win it instead of whimpering about peace and stability, right and
wrong. In that sense, it is indeed extremist literature for our
extremist times. It is that rare manual for survival in the age of
bloody, bare knuckled fights. To ban it would be stupid. To learn from
it would be apt.