heroes who will not fight

(the title is a bad remix of dean parker's "the heroes who did not fight")

it's ANZAC day and the TV is full of heroes. i woke up *bloody early to catch a programme about conscientious objectors, only to (finally) be told by dee that i had the AM and PM mixed up. which circumstance, of course led me to google it. 

the image of “pacifists” as cowards of some sort takes quite a beating when you look at history. according to an article by dean parker, there were 4 kinds of objectors: “Christians who took the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" at its word; socialists prepared to fight in a war against capitalism but not one between imperialists; Irish who, understandably, would fight for anyone provided it was against England; Waikato Maori, who found it ironic to be asked to fight for King and country as they had once fought for their own King and lost their country.” the punishment for objection was harsh- “As a consequence of their actions, 2600 conscientious objectors lost their civil rights, including being denied voting rights for 10 years and being barred from working for government or local bodies.” the trailers for the programme suggest some even died of the torture they were put through.

india has never forced people to join the military-there are enough people willing to sign up, often because there are few alternatives. if it ever does come to that, i pray i have the courage and strength to resist, whatever the personal cost may be.

4 comments:

Joe Pinto said...

Who will break bottles then, if my baruk goes to war?

baruk said...

grin. exactly, joe. breaking bottles is MUCH more important than breaking heads (and hearts).

Indian Homemaker said...

Most wars are a result of bad diplomacy some are a planned distraction (from more difficult to sort issue), and some desperate for power leader getting young people killed for his dreams. But the one's being attacked have to defend themselves? Only that part is justified.

feddabonn said...

[thinking aloud]

my issue with war, IHM, is that even the 'justified' ones quickly turn twisted. i have seen the rise of the ULFA, and saw the ending of the MNF. in both cases, they were 'justified', if not by direct attack, but in issues of total neglect. ALL armies concerned turned into the worst sort of thugs very soon.

what do we do in case of a direct attack? i don't know. i (personally) fail to see the importance of hanging on to siachen or kargil, but i guess arunachal under the chinese is not such a bright idea. no easy answers on that one-but as a PERSONAL stand, i hope i will ever pick up a gun for anyone.