Skip to main content

Open Ended

It’s funny sometimes how the logic of an argument gets tilted by one’s pre-conceived notions about things. Because this is what I would exactly term the following. I was reading an article on Time magazine about how Haji Bashai Noorzai, an Afghan warlord or druglord as he has been variously described, got into these ‘deal’ with American agencies about how he could be of value to America’s fight against terrorism by trading information for freedom and 'no capture’. But on reaching Manhattan, Noorzai does his job and when he is about to leave, he is arrested instead. Deal over, trust broken.

Now, I am not debating the intricacy of it all, not debating Noorzai’s credentials or the US’s stance in arresting him. But my first reaction as a citizen of the world is: why backtrack on a deal and stab someone from behind? That to me is heinous a crime as anything else. It’s just unacceptable that you enter into a contract of ‘give and take’ with someone and without warning, the other party sidesteps and arm-twists the deal to their advantage and pin the other party down. And what would happen to all the principles and ethics of the world if we were to say that just because one is a thief, a deal with him shouldn’t be respected? Why enter the deal in the first place, then?

That is my ire. But my British colleague goes off in a tangent and counter questions me. He says the likes of Noorzai are responsible for thousands of deaths and for the flourish of illegal opium trade in the world. And so, would I support him knowing that and let him off? Surely, no. Coming from an insurgency ridden place, I know more about terrorism and about living with terrorism than him. I do not condone terrorism, I hate it all as much I loath the Islamic world for their parochial view about things. And maybe the likes of Noorzai, again, are abetting terrorism in Kashmir, he goes on. Probably, presumably. But that is not my point again. My point is: Noorzai as a human had a right for his deal to be honoured, so that is why we have criminals/terrorists turning approvers too. It doesn’t help the argument, he replies because the bottom line is terrorists are terrorists.

Dragged into what is turning out to be a 'for' and 'against' Noorzai debate, much against my intention, I go on: “Then, would it help if Noorzai remained in his home country and carried on with his heinous crimes killing more people in the long run, than for him to have turned informant and help the US fight terrorism? Isn’t it good for society in general that he leave his past and take sides with people who are on the right side of law? Isn’t the deal good then, shouldn't the deal have been mutually respected then…” My young Brit friend answers: "How do you know he will not go back to his old trade?"

I have run out of steam, my argument defies a white man's logic.

Comments

Anonymous said…
i guess your friend has not heard of the saying that u dont kill the goose laying golden eggs. This one act of betrayal will stop many from giving inside info of various mafia operations.
Shanti Thokchom said…
Definitely this act of betrayal would not make anyone to come forward to help.
Anonymous said…
All's fair in love and war

Popular posts from this blog

A Mad Man Or A Boor

What does one do when one encounters a mad dog? Or what does one do when one encounters a man with pre-fixed notions about everything in life, most specifically of women who live alone and give him some importance? The two are equivalent to me and basic intelligence says avoid the paths they tread like plague. But I chose to tackle them head on. I almost got rabbies.

The mad man said [sic] "You sound like a very desperate person. A single and frustrated woman who is looking for anyone to leave a comment on your blog so much so that you wouldn't even spare a spammer." Spammer being, the first comment on the previous post is apparently a spam, an advert for T-shirts. Bummer! I thought it was a handsome Spaniard or Latino, so I had replied "Hi Rodrigo", hoping to take the conversation forward offline. Anyway! All this the mad man found out. I didnt. Sure, I dig comments because I love the spontaneity and intelligence of my friends. And I didn't invite the mad m…

The Churn

11 am: There I was bang on time at work, perhaps, in a long time. The occasion: a meeting called by the top boss and compulsory attendance required. I am, as always, out of the loop. Reason being there is always so much happening in my life that I am always behind everything. That does not mean I fail to deliver! And unlike some people who are truly into perception management (will delve on it later) and are such repository for all 'inside news', office gossip and politics least interest me. I mean, who cares if someone is quitting for some place else or is having an affair with so and so, or is being transferred unless that person happens to be someone I am generally fond of. Maybe then I would have been privy to some of the classified information ahem... So, was I in for shock today?

The meeting was sombre and had a full house attendance. And then our top boss spilled the beans. Three of the men at the helm were either quitting or were assuming other responsibilities and a ne…

O-B-A-M-A

Two million people at the National Mall in Washington alone. The world watched too as Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. So did I. I rudely cut roomie's soap operas and switched to CNN to witness history being created. Some day I may live to tell the tale of how Barack, the much touted Afro-American President of the United States, stumbled with his swearing-in oath.

I was a bit disappointed as I watched the man who had run the most successful of election campaigns, the man who Americans were pinning their hopes on, take his oath. Clearly, he was under too much of a pressure to be the best. So before Chief Justice John Roberts could complete the first sentence, there was Obama abruptly breaking out into his first names... "I Barack Hussein Obama.." and then waited for the judge to complete the sentence.. The next line was even taxing. He stopped short after two words... "That I will excute..." and then Justice Roberts continued…