Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right

Two Wrongs Do Not Make a Right
Vinod Kumar

M. D. Nalapat in a 1998 article “Importance of Indutva – Moderation is the Key to Harmony” (The Times of India, 21 January 1998) -- whatever Indutva may mean – wrote “greater attention to the precepts of Lord Ram would have reinforced the truism that two wrongs do not make a right. Even should the Babri masjid have been built on the ruins of a demolished temple, that is no justification for repeating the crime of the invaders by a second pull down”.

In the aftermath of the demolition of Babri masjid two common themes have emerged in the media. The first is that ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ and the second, the Muslims of today can not be held responsible for the acts of their ancestors. The second theme will be discussed in next month’s issue.

Let us first examine the first: ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ with the truism of the precepts of Lord Rama in the seminal Hindu epic Ramayana (the story of Rama). Ravana had abducted Sita – a wrong by any means. To avenge the abduction of Sita, Lord Rama attacked Lanka and Hanuman burnt it down – another set of ‘wrongs’ to avenge the earlier ‘wrong’ of Ravana. I fail to see where is the ‘truism’ of the precepts of Lord Rama that ‘two wrongs do not make a right’. Lord Rama did not say just because Ravana had abducted my Sita there is no justification for me to commit another ‘wrong’ and attack Lanka because ‘two wrongs do not make a right’.

According to this truism Lord Rama should have made peace with himself and lived without Sita and let Ravana get away with Sita’s abduction. According to the Nalapat’s theory that would have been very magnanimous of Lord Rama. That would have been a brilliant example of ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ but unfortunately Lord Rama did not do that. Lord Rama thought it appropriate to attack Lanka to reclaim Sita and I have no doubt if Lord Rama was alive today he would have done the same to reclaim his birthplace.

And Hanuman’s burning of Lanka was a symbolic warning to wrong-doers about the punishment they should expect - nothing wrong in Hanuman’s action either. In fact one could look at Hanuman’s actions as an early version of “shock and awe” treatment designed to demoralize the enemy. This concept is perfectly legitimate when locked in mortal combat with the enemy, and allies used it to full effect during World War II through the firebombing of German cities such as Dresden and the nuclear attacks on Japan. Given a chance, the German-Japanese Axis would have done the same to the other side, and probably would have turned the tide of the war. The corollary is that it is not moderation, but total victory, that assures survival.

Nalapat has got it wrong in connection with the demolition of Babri masjid. Nalapat is not alone; many in India have propounded this theory lately. Definitely, two wrongs do not make a right. That is only in as far as the wrongs are not related. An action to right a previous wrong can not be termed a ‘wrong’; it is a 'right'. Lord Rama’s action in attacking Lanka and bringing Sita home can not be termed a ‘wrong’; it was a ‘right’ and the same is true of Babri masjid. Lord Rama’s attack on Lanka would have been a wrong if there were no previous provocation by Ravana. Similarly, demolition of Babri masjid would have been a wrong if an earlier Rama temple had not been demolished and masjid built at its place. Would the Vatican be expected to tolerate a mosque built on the destroyed ruins of a church within its territory, for example? Or would any Muslim around the world tolerate a synagogue built on the same grounds where, let’s say, Jews had destroyed a mosque?

The same is the story of another Indian epic Mahabharata. If Duryodhana had committed a ‘wrong’ by depriving the Pandavas of their rights, by fair means or foul, according to the theory ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ it was ‘wrong’ for the Pandavas to wage a war to avenge the ‘wrong’ done to them. Even when Arjuna had doubts about the war and expressed concerns about the slaughter that would ensue, about killing his near and dear ones, Lord Krishna did not justify Arjuna’s reluctance to fight on the premise ‘two wrongs do not make a right’. To the contrary he counseled that a ‘wrong’ must be avenged; dharma, law and justice must be protected. Lord Krishna action in urging Arjuna to fight was not a ‘wrong’; it was a ‘right’ to protect dharma. If Lord Krishna had asked Arjuna to fight and kill without any previous ‘wrong’ on the part of the Kauravas, that would have been a ‘wrong’.

Even Allah Almighty in His Divine Wisdom in His Holy Book, the Koran says: “Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed: a free man for a free man, a slave for a slave, and a female for a female.”(2:178) The religion of the Muslim invaders not only expects but also demands retaliation from those who were wronged. A Muslim has no trouble understanding retaliation to the ‘wrongs’ done to him or by him. To him, a ‘wrong’ in retaliation to an earlier ‘wrong’ in the Only Divine law.

The Koran goes on to say “He who is pardoned by his aggrieved brother shall be prosecuted according to usage and shall pay him a liberal fine.”(2:178) Even if the Hindus pardon the Muslim invaders, they (Muslims) still, according to their own religion should pay Hindus a liberal fine.

The entire criminal justice of the world is based on the premise that a ‘wrong’ must be punished. Should a country believe ‘two wrongs do not make a right’, there would be no need for any laws or courts. If a man steals or kills somebody, according to newly found ‘blanket’ wisdom of ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ there is no need to punish the guilty and confine him to the jail or send him to the gallows. But sadly, even the killer of the apostle of non-violence, Mahatma Gandhi was sent to the gallows. Where was the principle ‘two wrongs do not make a right’? Why do we have an army of half a million in Kashmir? If ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ why should the government of India try to capture and kill the terrorists? Just because the terrorists are doing a ‘wrong’, why should we in our infinite wisdom do another ‘wrong’, after all ‘two wrongs do not make a right’?

The entire world politics and dealings of the countries are based on the principle of reciprocity. If Hitler and the Nazis had committed a ‘wrong’ by sending six million Jews to their death, should the world have said, there is no sense in having a trial and punishing the guilty, after all ‘two wrongs do not make a right’? Just because the Nazis killed six million Jews, what purpose would punishing the guilty serve? After all those six million Jews would not be brought back to life! Try to tell that to a Jew. History will neither forgive nor forget what the Nazis had done to the Jews.

I wonder if those who preach in ‘two wrongs do not make a right’ really believe in it in their personal or social life?

The fallacy lies in what one terms a wrong. An action to correct an earlier wrong is not a wrong; it is a right and if not exercised would throw the world in chaos. Similarly to define the demolition of Babri masjid as "wrong" is itself "wrong" and seriously flawed. Even if some term it as a "wrong", it was done after all attempts to correct the earlier "wrong" had been exhausted.