Opinion in a free state

It is assumed that states in the comity of nations practice certain strategies and tactics in statecraft to scheme and execute covert disruptive operations to destabilize, malign, or otherwise disturb the peace, law, and order across the borders. This practice unwritten in public records remains classified as a state secret, its early propounder was, of course, Kautilya, through his treatise on statecraft was called Arthasashtra. 

Can we say our nation does not indulge in espionage and is not stoking unrest in a sovereign territory that is not at war with us (covertly in peacetime), just because we have no tangible iota of evidence even? If someone accuses his or her government in those terms, such a person might run the risk of getting indicted and convicted for treason in some countries though they are not totalitarian states. If we claim our country does not do such kind of ‘unethical ’ things, some people will say we are adhering to moral high ground. There will be some others who also might say our government is complacent and negligent and prefers to be a sitting duck without taking up suitable counter operations when the other countries are plotting and interfering in our internal affairs through covert and overt activities. 

Any member of a given polity comes to some or other conjecture about the leaders in the helm of things who matter, either directly or indirectly. Come to that, one has a right to form their opinion as he or she likes it or even prefer to jump to conclusions without any basis even, and is always free to hold such thoughts, be they reasoned or considered opinions. To him or her, such ideas are not short of convictions. Among several home truths that are almost always true, as one common adage goes, “ Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Another one says, “Behind great fortune, there lies a crime”. 

Just as averred by Aristotle, ‘Nature abhors a vacuum’, an illiterate too will form an opinion that is closer to universal truth even though disputable and liable to be proven wrong.  Certain faculties in humans are intuitive and beyond analysis. In the same breath, certain things cannot be subjected to rationalization.

Finally, while some indulge in what looks like making sweeping statements, though think they are doing so in good faith. I have known my father to be a staunch evangelist in espousing his conviction that there should not be any difference in one’s on-script and off-script statements. To him, it was a sacrilegious libel on humanness if one says something off guard or jokingly even, against his true intent and mind, without meaning the same. To such persons, duplicity is a big no-no which is nothing but doubleness of thought, speech, or action. This kind of person should be acclaimed for his or her uprightness and acknowledged in this majorly lackadaisical slipshod world of abusers of free speech.