PETER FERNANDES
Humans by nature are bound to fall and fail. Accordingly, what prin ciple would be a true guide for humans to establish a peaceful and prosperous society? Could it be “an eye for an eye,” a guiding principle? “An eye for an eye” is an idiom that means to exact retribution in kind, or to punish someone with the same harm they inflicted. The phrase originates from ancient legal codes, including those found in the Bible, and has been used throughout history to define appropriate punishment. It appears to be right and sound to restore justice, but does it only satisfy a psychological and emo tional need for healing when those who mistreat us are pun ished? Very often, one will hear these words: “When the crim inals are finally punished, they say they can finally get on with their lives.” They’re comforted knowing that hurt has been met with hurt. Do such moral con tours bring redemption? Isn’t it true that humanity is to rise above the ordinary moral quag mire into a more sublime and divine realm with love and for giveness?
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
The conflicts between India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine are based on the principle of revenge and karma. The two major world religions, namely, Judaism and Islam, hold the principle of “an eye for an eye” as a moral contour, as dic tated by their sacred scripture. Revenge may taste sweet, but it embitters the soul and poi sons society. Justice may be less pleasing to the palate, but it heals society and nourishes the soul. In the face of ongoing and never-ending wars, people are confused with more questions than answers. Is there a way out of this vicious cycle of “an eye for an eye”? Great Britain, during the co lonial era, in order to hold on to their hegemony, made people of different religions and races fight against each other, know ing that this fight was not going to ever end for their benefit.
Two good examples are the conflicts between India and Pakistan and Israel and Palestine. Politics is such a driving force that it se duces anybody and everybody and when mixed with religion, it becomes diabolic. The recent terror attacks, such as the one in the Delhi Red Fort bomb blast, are diabolic and should be condemned in no uncertain terms, and those involved should be brought to justice. Without a doubt, such terror acts inflame the passion for “an eye for an eye,” and the cycle of violence repeats. How ever, humans are not excused from recognizing the truth, for they are endowed with reason and a divine inner voice of con science. Knowing well the na ture of rational beings and the ultimate purpose of existence, humans should rise above the ordinary quagmire of violence and revenge. The citizens of this nation should perceive that Is lamic imperialism and Hindut va theocracy are incompatible with Indian democracy and its secular principles.
Martin Lu ther King, Jr., had this to say: “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right, temporarily defeated, is stronger than evil triumphant.” The whole world is on edge due to the guiding principle of “an eye for an eye,” with no res pite in sight after all these many centuries. It is said that minds seeking revenge destroy states, while those seeking reconcili ation build nations. A concrete example is unfolding before us: after the terror attack and sub sequently Operation Sindoor, India has taken an ominous turn that might trigger a nuclear war between India and Pakistan. In April 2025, India an nounced it had put the Indus Waters Treaty in “abeyance” following a terrorist attack and is exploring options to increase its water use and storage capac ity on the western rivers. Under the terms of the Indus Waters Treaty, India is legally obliged to let the waters of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chen ab) flow into Pakistan and can not unilaterally block the flow completely. Pakistan has repeatedly warned that any attempt by India to block or significantly divert its water supply would be considered an “act of war” and could lead to military es calation, a genuine existential concern for Pakistan’s agrarian economy.
Blocking a lifeline, such as water, to millions of peo ple is truly an inhuman act, and it would be an immoral decision for a nation known for humani tarian values and non-violence. To such a situation, Francis Ba con had this to say: “Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man’s nature runs to, the more ought law to weed it out.” The faulty principle, “An eye for an eye,” which is upheld by most governments around the world and is also revered by some major religions because it emanates from their sacred texts, and the principle of Kar ma ought to be re-examined to avoid the existential crisis. The existential empirical experience concurs with the fact that it is impossible to be perfect, wheth er we’re talking about knowl edge, action, or morality. To expect perfection in the human realm is to expect too much. Accordingly, to err is human. Hence, forgiveness is essential for humans, who are both social and political beings.
We have to remember: forgiveness ema nates from love, and forgiveness is absent in these major beliefs, which is a matter of grave con cern for the wellbeing of human society. The reason why human history in all spheres, such as religion, social, economic, and political, is mostly written in the blood of innocent people is because the wars are fought to avenge and not in pursuit of true justice or to uphold truth with love and forgiveness. Ma hatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, in his reflection, stated, “an eye for an eye makes the world blind.” The ongoing wars are results of the hardness of heart, and the woes of human kind will continue to prolong as long as we uphold the principle of revenge as a sacred guiding force. Although all of us do, in fact, fail to know and act per fectly, we’re not made for such failure. In our experience, to be human is to err, but to err is not what makes us human.
All should know that peace through strength and revenge has not worked thus far, and the trajectory is not promising at all. Retaliation and revenge create a never-ending cycle of violence, which ultimately leads to wide spread destruction and suffer ing. Why continue this failed path? The only person who ever walked on the face of the earth was able to forgive his enemies while dying on the cross with courage, authority, and au dacity: “Forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.” While teaching the people He said, “You had heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye,’ but I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” This principle of a dying man, Jesus of Nazareth, is a true path for a peaceful and happy society. (The author is a Priest based at Pilar, Goa)
