Many centuries ago, when Alexander had defeated the Indian forces on the banks of the Indus and taken Porus as prisoner, the latter was asked as to what he'd wanted - tradition dictated that, once the war was over, it was incumbent on the 'victor' to ask of the 'vanquished' if there was anything that was needed to be done. History states that Porus had asked to be treated as an equal and with dignity and Alexander was so impressed with his steely determination that he consented to his request without any hesitation!
Taking a cue from this analogy, in today's international relationships between nations, strategic partnerships can only be strong if each of the sides considers the other as its equal. This needs to be the underlying factor while forging relationships.
The latest Wikileaks revelations put a question mark on this aspect. It's hoped that the anomaly is set right without any delay. The Americans seem to have an egg on its face over the issue!
Tailpiece.
In the annals of history, all battles that have taken place in this world thus far have been chronicled correctly, with the names of the victors and the vanquished clearly mentioned except for one and that's the 'Kalinga war'.
While the whole world is aware that the victor was Emperor Asoka, who on realising the futility of bloodshed was saddened and moved by his actions. Consequently, he'd embraced Buddhism and was an ardent proponent of 'ahimsa'. But who was the vanquished? History is silent on this name!
Why has this omission taken place? Was it because the personality of the victor was so overwhelming that it obliterated his opponent's?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment