Ehmed Sameer
Not even in the wildest dreams can human behaviour justify the killing or harming of another human being simply for being different, nor do moral values guide one toward committing such heinous acts. We have been endowed with the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. This sense of camaraderie and affection has, over generations, built the pillars of trust that make us distinct from other species. With this collective spirit, we have confronted and solved countless challenges. Isn’t this one of the most intriguing aspects of the human species?
Yes—it is, in fact, the hallmark of our identity.
Then the question arises: why do we still witness wars around us?
We are confronted with disturbing visuals that linger in our minds for days, even months—toddlers on battlefields, buried beneath debris; playgrounds and blooming gardens no longer spaces for joy. There is no place for war within any moral framework, given the suffering and devastation it unleashes.
Recent statements emerging from contemporary geopolitical discourse have described entire societies as “backward-looking” or belonging to the “stone age.” In such moments, a deeper pattern becomes evident. These remarks are not isolated instances of prejudice; rather, they reflect a mindset rooted in the era of imperialism and colonialism—one that constructs the West as rational, modern, and civilized, while portraying the East as irrational and inferior. The labeling of others as “animals,” therefore, is not incidental but part of a long-standing discursive tradition, critically examined in Orientalism.
The idea of the “civilizing mission,” most famously articulated in The White Man’s Burden, was framed as a moral duty to uplift so-called “backward” societies. Yet behind this moral façade lay systematic exploitation and resource extraction—effects of which continue to shape the present. This is evident in regional conflicts rooted in arbitrary boundaries drawn during colonial rule.
India’s economic trajectory also reflects this history—from being a major contributor to the global economy before colonial rule to a state of economic impoverishment under it.
When any unjust project is initiated, people of conscience are likely to resist. How, then, are societies persuaded into accepting such agendas? Here, language emerges as a powerful tool. Before exploitation begins, language prepares the ground. Through carefully crafted narratives, binaries are constructed—virtue versus vice, “us” versus “them.” The West is equated with order and progress, while the East is associated with chaos and primitiveness. In this way, language conceals underlying material interests.
In the present context, this pattern is visible in selective morality—colonial massacres once justified under the guise of a “civilizing mission,” and modern wars often framed in the rhetoric of human rights and democracy. The language has evolved, but the underlying logic remains strikingly similar.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that Western thought is not monolithic. There exist diverse intellectual traditions that advocate coexistence and plurality. However, dominant frameworks often retain a Eurocentric orientation. Even thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, despite their significant contributions to dialogue and modernity, have been critiqued for operating within such frameworks.
In conclusion, voices from the Global South must actively challenge these narratives by reclaiming their identity, history, and dignity. Countries like India can play a pivotal role in this process by questioning inherited assumptions. The idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam—the world as one family—offers a meaningful foundation for coexistence.
Asian philosophical traditions emphasize that human beings are ends in themselves, not merely means, and uphold a deep respect for collective harmony.
The labeling of societies as backward and inferior is not an isolated prejudice; it is a historically embedded discourse that legitimizes domination, masks geopolitical interests, and sustains hierarchies under the guise of moral superiority.
To move beyond this, it is essential to critically examine not only the actions of states but also the language that precedes and justifies them. For it is often in words that conflicts are first imagined, then normalized—and ultimately made possible.
