He is one of the cruelest of modern leaders whom almost all the contemporary democratic regimes happily tolerated. He spoke with the barrel of gasoline in his courtyard and the entire West and the great countries of Asia remained silent. His political motive rarely bothered any of the democracies of the world because he did not look crazy, bizarre, and undemocratic to the economically strong nations until the Libyans themselves revolted against him.
Mubarak was a healthy neighbor in mind and body. He committed mistakes but quickly mended his atrocious ways by leaving his position. He thus is a sensible man despite his multiple mistakes. King Birendra is still praised for his liberalism when Nepalis revolted for freedom: he did not resist. Gaddafi is unable to imagine that he will fall.
He still ruled a country for decades. The most surprising thing is that people like us allow such leaders to rule, for so long, and with patience and pain. Gaddafi made the statement about millions of people as drugged is a desperate attempt to save his power. Saddam Hussein in his frantic attempt to save his position named his war as the Holy War against the West whereas he was an individual who was fighting for his power, and not for his country. He too ruled so long and with so much of authority.
I can understand the ignorance of the famous French leader Charles de Gaul who perhaps once said, “China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese,” but I know the intention of Mussolini when he said, “The truth is that men are tired of liberty.” Gaddafi is of a similar mindset, just across the sea from Rome.
Gaddafi is funnier when he called Switzerland to be dissolved as a state: The French part should go to France, the Italian part to Italy and the German part to Germany. He was reacting to the notion of legalizing euthanasia in Switzerland. He called the country a murderous one. He once said that Libya is the most democratic state in the whole world.
The man looks even more absurd when you see him surrounded by his female body guards who are ready to kill and be killed for their master’s life. It is absurd because he who has no respect for the lives of others surrounds himself with beautiful soldiers. The cruelty is juxtaposed with beauty. The poetry of cruelty and beauty being together is not contextual here; I am talking about the imagery of a dictator and his safety circle.
The man looks even more absurd when you see him surrounded by his female body guards who are ready to kill and be killed for their master’s life. It is absurd because he who has no respect for the lives of others surrounds himself with beautiful soldiers. The cruelty is juxtaposed with beauty.
Then again, how a shepherd can be such a dictator! The identity shepherd carries with his or her has a host of connotations from tending sheep to giving guidance, to being divinities. I re-think and evaluate my question: How can a shepherd be a dictator? The people with most humble background have proved to be the most inhuman. One should not be surprised by such extreme shifts in human behavior.
If he was a shepherd, he holds the lineage of the most ancient occupation. Furthermore, shepherd has idyllic association in mythical narratives and literatures. Thus claiming to be a shepherd is the most cherished of mythical identities. Many of our leaders too can claim that they are shepherds. They claim now and then when they link their childhood with their countryside upbringings.
“I have come from the countryside, a gaunlay” is a favorite claim among well-established people, especially with the public figures like the politicians in Nepal. The claims of rustic roots, mostly, prove to be a funny identity quest which to the present state of affair is not consequential at all. If you are from a village, it is not an inherent qualification. The pastoral identity remains nostalgia and it does not shape your character neither in terms with humbleness nor in terms with being a guide. The political claims of rustic origins are masks to hide the guilt. Gaddafi is that shepherd who by calling him a shepherd tries to hide his present demonic traits. Calling oneself a shepherd is a political mask.
One of the interesting things about shepherds is that at times they have been very successful when they have come of the ways of the countryside. There are multiple mythical, religious and political instances. But Gaddafi must have been a bad shepherd if he was a shepherd at all.
He is old. He looks tired. His eyes are sunk. His lips are as dry as desert sand. He must leave because everything that the people of Libya represent is full of energy and aspiration. I wonder how such a dictator ruled for such a long time. A shame of being a shepherd!
orungupto@gmail.com
Related story
James Taylor and his wife donate $1M to Boston hospital
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
