Notions of War

The world is at a tipping point. Countries are at odds with each other, at the behest of man made concepts such as religion, ideology, borders, to protect their economies, and maintain their so called supremacy over the other. The egos, again artificial, backed by these plethora of man made notions of power based on ones ideologies, spiritual belief, or technological advancements, GDPs etc, are playing their part to ensure common sense remains hazy behind a garb of nonsensical sense of righteousness over the other warring party. And a different stratum of participants participate voluntarily or otherwise in these conflicts - The instigators - those in power who want to maintain status quo, and have something to gain from the ongoing conflict or the result of it; they form the absolute minority but play the biggest hand. They are the rulers, the politicians, the ones who stand on the farthest row in the chess board, deeply guarded and safe. They see all others as collateral in their bid for victory, and this victory remains their over publicised sole goal in life. Next are the followers - those who believe what the instigators have to say, and drive their propaganda, to maintain their relatively low control, but power nonetheless in their circles of influence. They either seek to stoke their egos, and/or also aim to gain financially or other kickbacks from conflict. They form the grapevine that serves as a carrier that spreads propaganda in the general population, the followers devising indigenous techniques to ensure effective indoctrination. Their numbers, still a minority, are directly proportional to the influence of the overarching instigator; This backing of followers is what gives the latter an assuring sense of moral obligation to continue and drive conflict. The warriors form the next group - these are the pawns in this real life game of strategy, those on the frontline, the policy makers in government offices who enforce economic sanctions, the soldiers on the battle ground, the military chiefs, the foreign ministers - all obligated to perform their little part, either convinced through indoctrination as prevalent in the military lines, or through the simple persuasion of keeping an income or the prestige and power of a government designation, or simply forced into participation through conscription. A vast majority of these warriors participate unwillingly, often leaving behind reluctant disagreeing families, often believing that they are but a spoke in wheel and their contribution is all but nothing, but it is through these unwilling drops of contribution that the seas of conflict are filled. The numbers of these warriors are not many, lower than the followers, in fact, but this faction is the one that actually implements the conflict through action, and bear the direct brunt of it. The last group, the most populous, are the bystanders, the ones who see this game of chess from the sidelines, with no real immediate impact from the conflict, and no real say in the matter. They go about their daily lives, as if nothing is happening a few thousand kilometers away, at times condemning one side over the other within their social circles; they are the ones who debate strongly over the morning coffee on what has happened to the world, and why the conflict is nonsensical and must stop, or choose to take one side over the other. They keep up to date about the going-ons through digital tabloids snippets that are selectively fed to them on their cellphones, and they keep opinions on the matter that are rather obtuse, but built on a very sheer base of fickle knowledge. The one common characteristic that binds all of them together is that they all don’t really want this conflict, they just want to live and let live, in harmony, or in indifference and at odds, it doesn’t really matter, they just want to live happily and safely. As long as the conflict is away from their homes, they are happy enough to ignore it, and speculate from afar. When things come closer, they become a part of the other strata, be it followers, or even the warriors, but mostly still remain the bystanders. 

In the eyes of the writer, it is unlikely that the reader would have made it this far in this story of conflict. Why would you continue reading this, it’s all a story, a construct of the writer’s mind, trying to fit people into different groups, and arranging them on a lifesize chess board. There is no proof to back this grouping, it is probably a very simple view of the world; and since it is all not true, none is obliged to believe or endorse it; it can only serve as entertainment, or food for thought. At the end of it all, it is all but fiction that is built on imaginary concepts and notions. 

And so is the actual conflict that is ongoing in the world, they are all to safeguard ideas and concepts that only exist in the common conscience of the literate mind educated by society, which have no real existence outside of our collective understanding. Only a few simple truths remain, outside of our constructed notions  - All creatures, including humans, all seek peace and have a yearning to live and thrive, and we all seek peace and calm. The concept of religion and borders are long running, successful human experiments to try and maintain harmony and order in a world where otherwise humans have struggled to agree and coexist. No true borders exist, the world is free for all to roam, and religion is only a vehicle for humans to find solace and meaning in their never resting minds. These statements are not really notions, but are closer to reality than the ideas the conflicts are trying to preserve and reflect the real world as it really is, and if everyone saw this, it’s rather imperative that conflicts on these matters of land and religion will become redundant.