Monarchs . Aspirations . War

Monarchs | Aspirations | War

"Powerful leaders have the ability to blur the idea of a Nation and impose their own national narrative. An Individual Leader should not be allowed to grow beyond the Nation, who can eventually become a threat to the Nation and the World with the unopposed power"

Centuries ago, the Kings and Emperors built their empires and nations by conquering and controlling settlements.

The borders of the Empires those days was always fluid and kept growing.

Back in those days, growth of an empire was achieved by way of expansions, acquiring resources, talents, culture and treasures of other settlements.

It made sense then, as the aspiration of one Man, one King was the driving force.

The prosperity achieved, aspirations served were the motives for long battles and all killings in those battles were ticked off in the name of prosperity and growth of the nation.

Military muscle and size of the Army was directly proportional to the size of the Nation. Hence, it made sense for Kings those days to build and maintain a huge army.

In the present 21st century, growth and prosperity of a nation is determined by advancement in education, technology, businesses, revenue, GDP and stock market, what place does an Army have?

Why does Nations have Armies now when the geographical boundaries of each nation is clearly defined and the expansionary approach is no more relevant, practical or the need of the day!

Is it to protect our nation from being invaded by other nations? To ensure territorial integrity? Or to invade and regain lost territory as per their definition of borders?

The neighbouring countries also strongly believe the territory they hold is rightfully theirs, so what's the solution?

Is that why India also has such a imposing gallery of defense strength?

Forget India's territorial claims and threats, Maharashtra claims a piece of Karnataka, so does Kerala and Tamil Nadu. So, should Karnataka also have its own army to protect our State's integrity?

A country like India spends astronomical amount of money to maintain its defense. A whopping annual spend of Rs. 3 Lakhs Crores!! The worthiness of such a spend can always be argued.

Imagine this amount was used for betterment of country's economy, people and infrastructure!

A feku promise of giving 15 Lakhs to all citizens could have been achieved every year!! Haha..

I am not very sure if having an elaborate army has saved us from China, Pakistan invading us or the only reason it's stopping them taking the pieces of land which they claim to be theirs.

A debt ridden country like Pakistan that survives only on Grants and Loans by others Nations, can only think of getting Kashmir to generate some sort of tourism revenues. But what difference could it do to China or Russia by invading and getting some piece of land!

I also think it gives room for hyper nationalism, display of extreme patriotism built around Army men.

History stands as proof that having the military might, gives alter ego to the country heads, they feel powerful and ahead of others.

What will countries like US, Russia, China who spent Millions of Dollars and have a strong army do with it? Just to protect their borders?

With so much power, they can either fiddle with other country's affairs or keep invading just for the heck of it!

History again stands testimony that power in the hands of a greedy, ambitious man always proved disastrous.

Such Men are usually seen when the leader becomes larger than the Nation itself.

Be it Putin, Xi Jinging, Kim Jong-Un, NaMo and alikes, these men have grown beyond their own stature and have all the power to impose their own agenda and ideas. One commonality with these men is they fight and win Presidential election, though India was until 2014, a parliamentary democracy, has now unofficially become Presidential with country revolving around one Man.

Who is stopping these Men from using the military might to fulfil their own personal agendas and aspirations.

What's Putin doing in Ukraine is just invasion, the reason given sounds stupid that Ukraine adapting NATO is a threat to Russia...Joke! Infact, Russia will lose any possible opportunity to invade Ukraine if it becomes a NATO member.

The idea of NATO is simple - to collectively protect and defend the member states and provide military aid when attacked.

In these modern times, when education, technology, health, jobs, money power determines the goal, ambitions of individuals and nations, the idea of territorial land conflicts, religious fanaticism proves counter productive to any country and having the military power only makes any crazy idea execution easier!

On the contrary, a War pulls Nations decades back, it's impact on economy, world affairs is catastrophic and loss of lives and livelihood is usually irreparable.

Can this risk of a leader turning a maniac be stopped by making it a world policy to demilitarize all Nations?

It is possible! Google and check, there are 36 (though smaller) countries either never bothered to build a military or have given up military or have treaty with other countries to take care of their security.

Countries like Iceland, Costa Rica, Mauritius amongst the 36 list just do not have an Army at all, yet they have peacefully co-existed. Another coincidence is none of these countries are closer to the Nations lead by these "tall leaders" / "Presidents".

The fine line between a Leader, President and a Monarch, Dictator needs to be well understood.

Does territorial ambition still be relevant in this Digital age?

No Weapons, No Military, No War! I am such an unrealistic idealist!