Why are we always hesitant in taking a clear stance ?
“Life is a system of half-truths and lies, Opportunistic, convenient evasion.”
(Langston Hughes)
It’s amusing to note that in any controversial issue the general lot never takes a proper stance. The so-called peacemakers try to convey the impression that various parties involved in any contentious issue do have valid reasons to pursue their respective rights. That’s not called resolving the issue or defending the right of weaker lot-the harassed lot. It’s not hard to sense that when you start playing safe, taking a neutral stance, you are prima facie defending the accused.
Worse, when the the wrong forces emerge as peacemakers, the situation goes out of control since they never let right arguments to prevail. They see suppression of viewpoints, ideas, beliefs, arguments as a mean to ensure peace! After all, arguments in their eyes, escalate the tension! However, the truth is that shrewd manipulators avoid arguments to prevent themselves from getting exposed. The point is that if people learn to argue well in any issue by deciding well whom they actually represent, the bothering issues would soon get resolved. The issue remains unsolved because the cowards, the gutless souls, acting as peacemakers play politics in name of offering amicable solutions.
Pics Credit:
Indowaves's Blog 
Many thanks to these readers for making their presence felt on this post..
Ravi Hooda, Canada; Neeraj Dayal, New Delhi; Er Ratan Pandey, Calcutta, West Bengal; Swati Kurundwadkar; Sc Mudgal, New Delhi; Sudhir Gawandalkar, Bangalore, Karnataka; Mithilesh Mishra, New Delhi, and Himanshu B.Pandey, Siwan, Bihar.
Shubhranshu Pandey’ Butul’, Advocate, Allahabad High Court, Uttar Pradesh:
Controversy itself start with difference of opinion,where different parties pursue their rights. then what a peacekeeper will do to resolve the difference, lead to a medium path. madhyama margi..
Author’s Response:
I am especially referring to those conditions wherein a harassed person seeks justice but the vested interests instead of expeditiously delivering justice lend ears to the wrong voices..That they do under guise of hearing all the parties..The moment you do so you are not delivering justice but merely rubbing salt into the wounds of aggrieved person..And that’s not justice..That’s not the fair way to impart justice..ये भी सही है वो भी सही है ये न्याय की भाषा नहीं राजनीति की भाषा होती है ..क़त्ल करने वाला ही कत्ल के मुक़दमे का न्याय करने वाला हो जाए तो फिर कैसा फैसला आएगा???
Frank Van Ekeris, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said
Agreed!
Author’s Response:
Thanks for honouring true elements of justice…
Sucheta Singhal, USA, said:
This is the exact slippery slope that the accused wants you to take.
Author’s Response:
In reality, we rarely apply conscious mind while adjudicating serious issues. As a result of our premeditated approach, the accused gets away with his/her crime..Above all, it makes the plight of the sufferer a bit tragic. He/she expected justice but the drama that took place in name of justice created more room for injustice…”Andher nagri Chaupat raja; takeh ser bhaji, takeh ser khaja”
Prasanjit Saha, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, said:
Arvindji, I am not sure in which context or issue you have made this observation. I feel, specially, when I see live debates on news channel, that today common people are more alert about the issues and do not afraid of expressing their views upfront.
Author’s Response:
I am talking at gross level when we are resolving disputes..The tendency is to appease all the groups instead of categorically stating what is right and what is wrong..Please watch the debates again and you would clearly notice that how anchors and participants are so biased, pre-conceived..As far as general lot is concerned-the average mass-is more governed by popular sentiments rather than by substantial logic..It’s another thing that in wake of newer mediums of communication, there is some sort of awakening..Hope this awakening is real and not apparent..