WE have always known that some human lives are expendable for causes that are deemed ‘important’ by others. These are lives of people who have not signed up to participate in conflicts; most of the time, they have not even been consulted about the causes in which their lives have been deemed expendable. Those with long enough memories will recall Madeleine Albright’s matter-of-fact assertion that US policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children. Others will remember Zbigniew Brzezinski’s casual disregard for sacrificing some “stirred up Muslims” in order to defeat the Soviet Union. Both these individuals were highly ranked representatives of the American state.

Of course, the US has always had the luxury of expending other people’s lives. But there are those who don’t balk at sacrificing their own. This came to mind when two young Jewish individuals were shot dead in Washington, D.C., earlier this year. Many high-minded statements condemning barbarity and antisemitism emanated from various quarters. It seemed inconceivable though that those carrying out a genocide and violating global laws, both facts categorically affirmed by the highest international courts, did not foresee some sort of irrational response to their violent and unlawful actions. One is forced to conclude that they did but calculated that a few lives sacrificed in the cause were worth whatever they had set out to achieve and that the latter could be compensated by high-sounding statements from important people.

Along the same lines, it is impossible to believe that in carrying out the surprise raids on Iran, the Israeli state did not envisage retaliatory strikes that would cause casualties within Israel. These would be of random people (between 800 and 4,000 according to one source) whose identities could not be known in advance. Once again, one cannot but conclude that these lives were considered expendable in the calculus that must have been part of the war plans.

That such a calculus is inhuman, despicable and worthy of condemnation is passionately proclaimed when the protagonists and their actions are somewhere far away. But people are squeamish and strangely reluctant to engage with the phenomenon with the same objectivity when it occurs closer to home. The question to be asked is the following: are we so morally superior that we would never contemplate something so inhuman? A lot of evidence would have to be denied to sustain that belief.

When an act of terrorism is perpetrated in another country, is it not anticipated that there will be a retaliatory strike of some sort? And is the possibility not considered that some random individuals — young, old, men, women — would fall victim to such strikes? If not, the decision-makers are incompetent; if yes, they are callous, secure in the belief that those who fall victims would not include themselves. This is doubly despicable — to jeopardise those with no say in the matter while making sure that they themselves not only remain safe and unaccountable but also gain from the fallout.

Countless lives have been expended in ‘higher’ causes.

Or consider the case of those who instigate communal riots as part of their electoral strategy. Destroying some homes, families and communities is an integral part of the strategy, which we have seen play out too many times to dismiss as an aberration. But surely the realisation exists that while the majority of victims would belong to groups that ‘deserve’ what is meted out to them, some from the home team could also be hurt in the chaos. There is little doubt that these are written off as the price of achieving the greater goal.

If we add up all these lives expended in ‘higher’ causes over the past century, it would amount to a staggering number. People tend to forget (or justify, which is worse) that just one such higher cause resulted in gruesome ethnic cleansing, a million deaths, 10m homeless, and continued misery for many others. On the other side, there were a few who got hold of riches and powers they could never have dreamed off, which they continued to use to enrich themselves at the cost of the victims.

Because we forsake objectivity when lives are expended closer to home, there has never been any accountability for acts of terrorism or communal violence. On the contrary, even those who can see clearly through the games being played, those not entirely brainwashed by misleading national narratives, feel compelled to line up behind their callous hegemons asking pathetic and irrelevant questions like who won. The truth is that most people lose the promise of a future and many lose their lives or those of their bread earners and loved ones.

There is something very wrong when the mourning for victims of random accidents vastly exceeds that for those deliberately condemned to death.

The writer is the co-author of Thinking with Ghalib.

Published in Dawn, July 1st, 2025