Would you Die for your Country?

I’m not a particularly unpatriotic person. I love India – not just because I’m born into it, but because it has so much potential. There are plenty of flaws, but I believe that things will get better. I love its democracyand I more or less like the direction its taking.

Can you Blindly Obey?
Can you Blindly Obey?

But would I give up my life for it? After some thought, I’ve decided the answer is…No.

A “nation” is too vague an idea for me sacrifice something so precious. I can imagine giving my life to protect someone close to me – someone, or some people I love. Such as a family for instance if the threat is serious enough. But I can’t imagine dying to protect man made borders to which I have no real close connection.

In short, I would make a poor soldier.

It’s because I’m unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause, and will myself to shut my eyes to everything else. My core individualism simply doesn’t allow that to happen. I’m glad there are some people who can do that – put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior officers. But there shouldn’t be too many. After all, that’s what fanatics are made of.

Just Following Orders?
Just Following Orders?

I view my life as too precious a gift to squander away without a tangible benefit. I get one shot at living and will dissolve into nothingness when I die. It’s so brief a spark after all. We’re all born alone, essentially die alone – and that’s the end.

Sometimes tactical sacrifices are needed in war. Maybe a contingent to delay the enemy for a while. They’re expected to fail. And often, only the superior officers know the expected outcome. Only they know the overall strategy. The rest of the soldiers are pawns. Pawns who don’t question why they’re asked to do whatever they’re asked to do. I could never be that pawn. To relinquish my grip on life just to serve a higher cause under someone else for purposes I don’t fully understand…not for me.

What does this mean as an Indian? I know it’s patriotic to say that you’ll give your life for your country. I know there’s no law saying that you must want to give up your life. And that’s one of the reasons why I love India. But how much is it expected informally? Are Indians expected to lay down their lives to protect their borders?

How many people are like me? Would you give up your life for your country in the manner outlined above?

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (35)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (18)
  • You're an asshole (17)

75 thoughts on “Would you Die for your Country?”

  1. I am like you…I would give my life for my daughter in a heartbeat but not for my country or a cause…If I did give my life for my country, who would raise my daughter? Yes, my husband is there but it’s not the same, is it? Call me selfish, unpatriotic whatever…I am who I am, period…

    Reply

  2. “It’s because I’m unable to blindly follow anything. I can never fully submerge myself in a larger entity, a larger cause and will myself to shut my eyes to everything else.”

    I guess that answers your question for me too, especially when one is incapable of being that unthinking “pawn” who does not question. It must sound odd coming from a soldier’s wife. :) But yes, this is something that I used to tie myself into knots trying to unravel. Not that one is unpatriotic or anything. I am grateful too that there are people who’ll lay down their lives unquestioningly for people they don’t even know and some of who don’t care a damn about them/their life.

    Reply

  3. Hi Bhagwad
    There is no doubt that a country like ours is something one gets if he is very very fortunate.
    But same applies to life too. We could have been born an animal or a parasite. But someone up there had different plans for us. Our life has a meaning. It is not to be given up easily.
    I agree with you that I would sacrifice myself for people who are very close to me. But sacrificing myself for country seems going a bit too far.
    I would prefer not to be a pawn in someone’s plan, unless its God himself.

    Reply

  4. It is difficult for any human being to lay down his life for anyone, which basically means overriding that instinct for survival that is hardwired into each of us. The only concession most of us can give to this instinct is when our offspring are about to come to harm–I think most of us can legitimately claim that should the need ever arise, we will protect our kids’ lives even at the cost of our own. This too appears to have been genetically hardwired into us–many animals tend to do this too.

    Bodyguards of our leaders receive rigorous training to immunise themselves against their natural survival instincts, so that they are able to throw themselves between the source of harm and the person they are protecting , instead of ducking or lying down flat on the ground which is the standard, unlearned response. I presume soldiers who die for the country/terrorists who agree to die for a cause both are adequately trained to do just that. Some amount of faith in the cause is essential too for the person to be responsive to the training. This training is crucial–without it a soldier is as patriotic or unpatriotic as the average man on the street when it comes to laying down his life for the country and with it even you and I may become as good at it as those soldiers/bodyguards/terrorists.

    Reply

  5. Dear Bhagawad,

    First let it be known what do you mean by Country? Boundaries? Is that all? If so first question the concept of country and then better think of sacrifice? Am I right?

    Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        If that were a case those certain benefits (roads, money etc) are available in every country and certainly a social contract exists and still the countries are different. Question is what is that which makes these countries different from each other. If you settle this issue parhaps you would be in better position to justify your case of sacrifice. So this cannot be your answer to my question! Am I right?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Good! Laws mean social contract. Given the liberal, critical thinking based on scientific perspective it is imperative that there shouldn’t be much difference between them. And as far as geographic boundaries are concerned these are purely man made devoid of any logic. Therefore according to me the concept of country itself should be first broken. I appeal you and the rest of your likes to exhort for demolition of the boundaries world over. None other work should get priority given the impact of this on the human history. Let us see how you break this logic. Can you? I guess that you will be against the concept of a country itself! Am I right? If so I may conclude about your thinking.

        My case is different because for me country is far more than boundaries and laws which would never fit with your sort of free and liberal thinking.

        Reply

      • In reply to ramesh

        Perfect reasoning.

        The dismantling of borders will indeed come one day. We have to proceed slowly since there’s likely to be a lot of resistance until we educate people about how foolish this “nation” business is. I’m sure you agree with me.

        Of course, there can be administrative division for ease of governance, but this segregating of humanity based on random boundaries drawn by people thousands (or hundreds) of years ago by strangers must go.

        While this ideal cannot be achieved immediately, it will come slowly.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        You talked ideal which everybody imagine. It will happen only when religions Hindu (as is commonly understood), Muslim, Chirsten and host of others would vanish from the earth. Along with this the ‘ego’ factor should also vanish which may come from social standing of a particular country viz a viz the rest. When all these things vanish your dream would come true. For me it would never happen. Reason YOU. Sorry! I mean a thinking which refuses to see the ego factor and understand it properly, interprete it properly how such an ego factor would ever vanish? Everybody is born free and so everybody would have his own line of thinking. Then is it possible to hold together even such few members in a family? No. How one country (one family) could be thought of?

        It is not topic change or jumbling. It is built in contradiction which needs to be resolved in order to break the still more complex issue of sacrifice for a country. Do you agree?

        Reply

      • In reply to ramesh

        But why is it so difficult? India as a nation survives even with all these religions in place. The binding factor is that we’re Indians.

        Isn’t it more logical for that binding factor to be humanity instead? That’s something tangible and real that every human on earth shares.

        As for ego, we’re talking about a system where people are free to do as they wish after all no? So how will their ego be hurt?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        No! We are considering your view. India is as undefined as a country, an abstract concept.
        India survives because there are others who think not like you. How India or for that matter any country could ever survive if everybody thinks the way you think without ever sacrificing their own self for an abstract concept like country?

        As humanity concerns it runs throughout the whole world. Why one should sacrifice one’s life for a limited humanity acting contrary to the humanity of the hostile nation? Does your philosophy permit it?

        Even within a country ego is always hurt. Even both the Muslims and Hindu are Indians but when asked to reason out logically they will end either with Islamism or Hinduism. So I doubt if ego is safe in Indian?

        And your line of thinking is along the line of all the three points above that is why you do not like sacrifice your life for a country!

        I am not sure now which view your support? Sacrifice your life for a country OR not? And with what justification?

        Reply

      • In reply to ramesh

        You’re right – A person like me would never sacrifice their life in such a situation. The enemy is also fighting for their country. They’re not demons or rakshasas. So I would never give up my valuable life for that.

        I could never understand why Hindus and Muslims are always at each other’s throats in India. There seems to be no good reason. Both communities live in a free country with Freedom of expression and no oppression….so why this ego? To me, the reasons sound historical and illogical.

        Reply

  6. Bhagwad, in an ideal world there would be no wars (there would still be borders, to ensure that taxes are spent within the borders), but in reality wars are a permanent threat.

    The social contract of a nation is based on defence (the fortress). If India fails to ensure defence, the subsequent anarchy would make mince-meat of any idle day dreamer. There are no natural “rights” to exist without first defending against the enemy.

    Citizens pay for defence through taxes, but should the need arise, the able-bodied are expected to share the responsibility of defence as well (e.g. should the enemy cross the border, overpower the nation and threaten to take slaves).

    I always knew that India doesn’t produce enough citizens, but I’m disappointed at your current way of thinking in which you, a well-“educated” Indian, are publicly declaring your determination to free ride on the lives of others.

    Such lack of citizenship has already handed over the baton of political leadership to crooks. (I “admire” these crooks who govern India far more than “educated” Indians who sit on the sidelines and criticise.)

    But above all I deeply admire our brave soldiers and officers who are willing to put their lives at risk for the defence of all Indians (including pseudo-citizens).

    No one has asked you to volunteer to defend India, but was it necessary to indulge in such extreme lack of citizenship?

    What are you trying to say? That our jawans “put their lives at risk in unquestioning obedience to their superior officers”? – that our jawans are idiots? that our armed force officers are fanatics? that their life is less important than your life?

    I would encourage you to read Shantanu’s book: http://pothi.com/pothi/book/shantanu-bhagwat-saluting-our-heroes-param-virs-bharat. And then let’s discuss.

    Note, none of this is about “patriotism”. It is about citizenship.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok

      Sabhlok,

      Great Indeed! However Bhagwad seems to put self before the citizenship. So it would be relevant first him decide on the concept of citizenship which can be done first by defining a nation, country. Then the importance of self viz a viz the citizenship and country could be decided in a just way. Am I right?

      Reply

    • In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok

      Sabhlok, it’s easy to talk about the “social contract” in abstract, but that concept is flawed in two ways:

      1. There was never any explicit contract. I was born without a choice into this country and no one ever placed a document in front of me asking me to sign my approval. In such a situation, I take what I get.

      2. Even if a document was placed in front of me, what alternative do I have? Born into a world and forced to make a choice between this and…what?

      Despite this, I’m a good citizen. I keep the laws, pay my taxes, and do whatever else is required of me. I’m unaware of any Indian social contract requiring me to give my life in defense of my country.

      I think I’ve mentioned in my post that I’m grateful that some people exist who will give their lives unquestioningly no? My assessment of their intelligence is another matter. Even if I were to call them idiots, is your objection emotional or logical? I’m hardly in the business of saying the politically correct thing!

      So my point stands. I was accidentally born into a set of boundaries. I have just one life. Personally, I won’t give it up unthinkingly.

      Reply

  7. Interesting post. I respect your honesty. I wonder if any part of this post was triggered even partly by my comment on the Voltaire quote :-)

    1. I’ve for long had problems with wars of aggression. I wouldnt support any aggressive war by our forces into other territory. But you are raising the stakes here and questioning even defensive action!

    Still worth debating. What’s at stake beyond just boundary lines. Does it depend on who is waging war on us? If its the US or say Sweden, is it more acceptable to not defend ourselves (or less acceptable to defend ourselves) because these countries are arguably better democracies/ less corrupt/ whatever. Could losing a war to these aggressors result in a net gain for the aggressed?

    Example: Imagine we are Iraq and got creamed by the US a few years ago. The war wasnt really “justified” there were no WMD. But “we” now have fledgling democratic systems coming up however guided or imperfect they be, they are an improvement on what went before.

    If its say a military dictatorship you are losing a war to, you are losing more than boundary lines. Is this somewhere along the lines of your thinking.

    2. “…My assessment of their intelligence is another matter…”

    Even having said 1 above I am very disturbed by your line questioning the intelligence of those who laid down their lives for the country, even in defensive action. I hope NO reading of my comment implies that I share this opinion of yours. I dont.

    A while ago you were ranting on how women were not safe in Indian cities at 2am. Consider that the act of preventing violence against women is risky (re my comment on the other thread, Keenan-Reuben) and its very possible that a gang of 20 would have a go at 2 ppl even if they were police officers:

    What would be your assessment of the intelligence of a cop who tried to prevent harassment of women that he is not related to in any way and ended up dead as a consequence? Not very bright? Should have waited it out or just been a witness?

    Assume he was ordered in to prevent the women being raped, rather than making the decision himself. Does that change things and make him an idiot.

    thanks
    Jai

    Reply

    • In reply to Jai_C

      Jai, I have a problem with unthinking obedience.

      I’ve often thought about it and I might well put my life at risk to save an individual woman from being raped even if she’s a stranger to me. Why? Because in this case, my action is meant to prevent something tangible happening in front of me right now and my action can make a concrete difference.

      In an army, that tangible benefit is missing. My intelligence tells me that my presence there is insignificant and if I wasn’t there, nothing would change. The war would still be fought and the outcome would be the same. I’m aware that if everyone thinks like this, the whole thing would fall apart – but such are the risks of the prisoner’s dilemma.

      Now in an army, obedience is extolled beyond all virtues. Obedience to a superior officer. In fact, in the Nuremberg trials, this was the primary defense of the German officers accused of crimes against humanity – that they were “just following orders.” And to me that kind of unthinking “following orders” is repulsive.

      If a soldier lays down his/her life out of a genuine love for their country and not just because they’re “following orders,” more power to them. Who am I to pass judgement on what a person values and what they don’t?

      I hope you understand what I’m trying to get across here.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        1. “….my presence there is insignificant and if I wasn’t there, nothing would change. The war would still be fought and the outcome would be the same. …”

        I get your thinking, but still, in the case of Keenan and Reuben that was *exactly* what happened. As long as you agree with me that a cop ordered in to rescue the ladies has the right to think through the order, weigh the risks, and act on his reckoning of the possible outcome, potentially deciding to not save the women, I have no problem :-) No blind obedience to a superior or any moral expectation of “responsibility” to save the women, just because he or she is wearing a uniform.

        I am not as sure as you are, that the modesty of a stranger is so tangible and valuable to a beat constable or officer that they will take such risks. To be consistent I still feel you have to say the jury is out on the IQ of the cop if he/she charged into the mob in a futile hope of saving the women.

        Additionally the loss of a war, even a skirmish, usually carries with it real, tangible risks and losses -not just territory and strategic loss; in the case of subcontinental armies, often exactly equivalent to the molesting mob. Women were targeted for rape by winning and occupying armies.I’ve heard this charge applied even to IPKF forces in Sri Lanka.

        2. Blind obedience to officers who callously send soldiers to their death

        I’m not sure where you get these scenarios from. major Sandeep Unnikrishnan led from the front, asked his boys to stay back, and died in the 26/11 terror attacks. He saved his men and gave up his life. I’d spoken to a couple of friends who have family in the Army, around that time. They told me its not unusual at all. Officers willingly take risks and this engenders in their men a feeling that they would die for their saab.

        Anecdotal data of course, not a proof of anything. There were ketchup colonels too who fudged for gallantry awards.

        thanks
        Jai
        PS: Another question occurred to me: would you kill for your country? I very much doubt I could and *that* is the primary disqualification for me to be a soldier.

        Reply

      • In reply to Jai_C

        I don’t know if I could kill or not – depends on the circumstances I think.

        About the tangible consequences of war, for me it depends on two things. Which country is doing the invading will determine what effect it will have on my life after that. If the US invades India, I doubt anything terrible will happen. If a country like China invades India, I’ll leave the country and go settle elsewhere….

        Reply

  8. Hi Bhagwad,

    I just stumbled across your blog, and I must say that I am impressed by your excellent line of thinking. I also cannot really relate to ‘uber-patriotism’ and ‘uber-nationalism’ – the shrill, unquestioning, flag waving, drum beating, marching army type of attitude– mindless soldiers, pawns ready to kill and die for the “nation”.

    Too many lives have been lost and too much destruction has taken place due to these generated feelings of aggressive “patriotism” and “nationalism” — mindless fighting over imaginary borders drawn upon the Earth. Unfortunately until humans evolve overcome their ego, love for power, xenophobia, narrow-mindedness and territorial greed, such attitudes will continue.

    Please have a look at this excellent video from Osho:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6UMT94jNGI

    I guess this is a painful stage in the evolution of humans which, maybe after some terrible wars, death and suffering, will eventually result in a “single-world” kind of state, where there are no borders and countries and humans strive to better themselves individually and for the collective good in a peaceful manner (akin to a “Star Trek” like world). People would have evolved spiritually to realize the futility of branding into tribes, groups and countries.

    I personally do not hold my countrymen dearer to others, I try to look unbiasedly at all humanity as a whole. The people of my country are people with families, hopes, desires; so are the people of other countries. I cannot subscribe to the narrow-minded view of loving my countrymen alone and hating others. (The US vs. THEM mentality that causes wars, conflict) My personal ethics and Buddhist philosophy would make it very difficult for me to take up arms to kill; and I would only consider putting myself in harms way if it helps the cause of peace, HUMANITY and global unity rather than for my “country”.

    Lots of love and peace to you.

    Reply

    • In reply to locutus83

      Thanks :)

      I too agree that we’re all human beings – that’s the only real “country” to speak of. Artificial boundaries made by strangers hundreds of years ago is not how I define my identity.

      Reply

  9. Hi Bhagwad,

    You said in a comment reply above that you have a problem with ‘unthinking obedience’. This is such a worthy thing to have a problem with, and just that comment has ensured that you will have my readership into the future. Patriotism is largely an unthinking, unquestioning devotion. It is a devotion that often clouds peoples judgements into making unethical decisions, valuing the lives of certain people more than others based on their birth place etc…

    Socrates is quoted to have said ‘I am a citizen, not of Athens or Greece, but of the world’.

    Co-coincidentally I wrote a bit of a rant on patriotism myself yesterday, (bloycey.blogspot.com) although i need to make it a little less wordy.

    I look forward to your next post. :)

    Andrew.

    Reply

  10. Bhagwad,

    Linked here through Sanjeev’s blog – was going to comment there, but linked here first – glad I did because I would have missed some of the nuances of your argument otherwise.

    I have a different view on your post – which is the reason I am posting – I think you are confusing a few issues here and I will deal with them in two separate posts.

    The underlying issue of country of birth, nationality, patriotism (from simple to uber to the fanatics): I believe we are on the same page here – the lottery of birth placed us in India, instead of Somalia (as some one else suggests) or Italy (as I would have liked – ah, the food and the wine!). So, there is an environment that we are faced with as a result of this lottery, a set of options and a set of choices. What we achieve is a consequence of our actions, largely, and the environment in which we are set, secondarily. Thousands of people fled Sudan, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Russia, Ireland and even Germany and UK at different points in time as the environment offered such poor choices to the individual that their best choice was actually to flee to an alien nation.

    So, in many ways the levels of nationalism and patriotism is a function of what an individual percieves as his/her best outcome within the nation state that the lottery has chosen.

    I can not accept any nation state forcing any of its citizens to fight involuntarily, ie. no forced military service, even in times of war. A nation state certainly needs its army to defend the “fortress” as a sine qua non for its existence – but, such an army has to be voluntarily created by the citizens of the nation state. One imagines that an intelligent average citizen would analyse and be able to estimate the net balance of the risk/rewards of participating in the army at times of war to defend the nation state. However, it is still an individual’s choice to fight or flee.

    I note that US war history says that tens of thousands of Americans signed up voluntarily to go fight in World War II in Europe, even though their immediate nation state was not in peril, and the Americans won this war both in Europe as well as in Asia. I also note that the Vietnam war was run on the back of a draft, and we know the end result of that particular war. Although, the cause and effect may be random, it is equally noteworthy that the US Army disbanded the draft shortly after the Vietnam war and has not used it either for Iraq or Afganistan.

    Cheers

    Supratim

    Reply

    • In reply to Supratim

      Thanks Supratim – so we more or less agree on this.

      Might I add that in case of an invasion, I might switch sides to the invaders or anyone else depending on what social contract they offer in return.

      Reply

Leave a Comment