Let us start with the not so obvious, and seemingly, the last option that is ever adopted by South Asians, who tend to prefer all other options compared to the concept of instigating "Bhedh" among their opposition, or among the camps of their enemies.
In Southern Asia, Bhedh is usually associated with the idea of creating discord and division, between your opponents and their social habitats. Supposedly, if all other options fail, the only sly, yet effective strategy available to you, would be to cause chaos and confusion, among the allies of people who stand mortally opposed to you as your enemies, by sowing seeds of doubt, trepidation, hatred, envy, disgust, or a sense of betrayal, in their hearts and minds.
I have no idea how the above notion came to become seated within Southern Asia's pop-culture. Perhaps it was from the TV Series called "Mahabharath" from the nineteen-nineties. Or perhaps, because the word is often translated in English as "discrimination", its allusion has come to evoke a strategy of causing hostilities to grow between seemingly allied groups, in order to bring those groups under control by dividing and conquering them.
I would instead like to tell you about the word's proper meaning, which has nothing to do with underhandedly creating discriminatory animosity, among groups of people who are opposed to you, in order to hamper, undermine, weaken, conquer, or to completely destroy them.
The word — Bhedh, has to do with a decision maker's ability, "to conduct precise and accurate, measurements and comparisons" (सही तुलना कर पाना), in order to ascribe suitable value judgments, to discernible things.
A proper and worthwhile judgment regarding a situation can be produced by a decision maker, only when the factors linked to the situation, that have generated causal impacts on concerned persons, can be scoped, measured, analyzed, and critiqued in a conscientious manner.
This immediately brings into question, the level of competence a decision maker has, or can have, in discerning the "reality" that is impinging upon them, during the process of conducting an investigation, for producing a valid, impartial, correct, and fair judgment.
In chores involving legal decision making, the act of choosing which foundational principles and frameworks are to be applied to a set of cases, is the foremost task of a legal decision maker. "Conflict of laws", or the subject matter of choosing private laws that can be made applicable across jurisdictions where they wouldn't normally be applicable, becomes even more pertinent and significant, in international-scale conflicts. Therefore, one must be able to discern the facts and postulates of a series of events, with respect to a chosen datum, in order to subsequently promote a particular measure of conciliation, compensation, and/or penalties which can resolve the problems that have arisen, as a result of those chain-of-events.
What is truth? What is reality? What counts as a fact? What is a datum? How is the scope of a situation to be defined? Which principles are scientifically relevant? How is relevance or linkage to be established? How can a set of events be reified during discussions and arguments? Which set of principles are to be prioritized during the course of adjudicating procedures? Which form of an escalation or a de-escalation can materialize with mere passage of time? What counts as fairness? What can be deemed as satisfactory, by whom and for whom? Which cultural and inherited norms can be used as precedence? Who is the "ultimate" decision maker or adjudicator, in resolving a dispute or a conflict? By which authority or powers can a judgment be enforced, and within which geo-political realm of influence? Is there an absolute datum with respect to which, other things can be measured or gauged? Is every observable thing an emergent phenomenon of relativistic interactions among pre-existing things that lack any spiritual essence? What is to be done when an impasse is reached due to irreconcilable factors pervading a present scenario? These are the types of questions that have challenged human beings over the ages, and have continued to be debatable among diverse groups of individuals.
However, it is also true that certain fundamental scientific principles prevalent in the universe, underpin all possible ways of gathering as well as processing information, in order to be able to make an educated decision and a valid judgment, about any conceivable contextual matter, within every possible situation. So, fundamental principles restrict how a person may be able to discern things, and how a person can discern things restricts their ability to even comprehend sets of fundamental principles.
Is the above statement a Catch-22? It certainly looks like one; but the more important thing to note here is that such a cardinal aspect of "reality", within the entirety of the universe across all possible realms, in every measurable span of time, only highlights the ways in which: any being or a collection of systems, that happens to be mortal, or even has the slightest hint of mortality within themselves, possibly cannot be "The Supreme Ruler", or "The Ultimate Judge", or "The Peace", or "The Law."
| Translation in English | Word in Arabic |
|---|---|
| The Supreme Ruler | (Al Maalik) اَلْمَلِك |
| The Ultimate Judge | (Al Ḥaseeb) ٱلْحَسِيبُ, (Al Ḥakam) ٱلْحَكَمُ |
| The Peace | (As Salaam) ٱلْسَّلَامُ |
| The Law | (Al 'Adl) ٱلْعَدْلُ |
Table 2: Titles or names of The Most Exalted, God