In the face of adversity, we have a choice: we can be bitter or we can be better!

The Blitzkrieg of Alexander’s invasion through Persia reached the doors of India in 326 B.C. back in the day, the region lying across Khyber pass, Gandhara was ruled by two kings, Ambi and Porus.

Frightened by the enemy’s onslaught, Ambi surrendered even without a fight. Porus, however, stood his ground but was defeated. When Alexander asked how he should be treated, Porus quickly quipped, “ just as one king treats another”. Impressed by his reply, Alexander released his kingdom and restored his status as a king.

The above anecdotes evidently present to us a case of adversity but the way those two kings reacted also explains to us two choices to react to adversity - to be bitter or better.

Ambi was bitter and thus is infamously remembered while the sagas of Porus are sung even today. What this tells us is that our actions define us!

History is resplendent with events of adversity and what steps we took to counter that defined human existence. From the struggles of an early man facing the whims of nature to the women of suffragettes, adversity is the common denominator.

The victory of women in the suffragette and “survival of the fittest” man present to us what our response truly can achieve.

The question then arises is why we need to be better rather than bitter. In the next paragraph onwards we argue that.

As Thomas Aquinas pointed out, inherent in our existence is the will to do good. Thus, presented with adversity we do good.

Being better inspires generations to come. We saw how the struggle and success of allied soldiers in Dunkirk become a sniff of imagination today.

Paulo Coelho believed that “when you really desire something, the entire universe starts conspiring to help you achieve it”. Thus the struggle of today set the ground for the achievement of tomorrow. In short, being better is the function of human choice and human will is generally obligated as Kant viewed it.

It is exemplified by the success of humans in many fields.

Politically, Gandhiji suspended the non-cooperation movement when the problem of violence arose in the wake of the Chauri -Chaura incident. He chooses the path of non-violence to steer us toward independence.

Post this independence we faced the grave mystery threat in the 1971 war with Pakistan, Indra Gandhi with her decisive action took us to victory.

Independent India faced its gravest economic threat in the 1991 economic crisis but the “will to do good” and “to be better” exemplified in the “LPG” policies of Manmohan Singh and Narasimha Rao. This boosted our economy and today we are 5th largest economy today.

Going back to the 19th century, when faced with the cultural morass in the form of Sati, Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Bentinck chose not to look the conformity way but instead took the decisive action to ban Sati. This shows how adversity persists in cultural realms.

When it comes to international relations, when all the countries looked inwards to protect their population from Covid 19, India started “Vaccine Maitri” which was our gesture of helping poor nations which couldn’t afford vaccines and exemplified our belief in “VASUDHAIV KUTUMBAKAM”.

That adversity exists on an ethical plane is no trick. The Murrey-Verdasco match of 2005 brings to us the memories of when humans decide "to be better". Murray officially won the point and game but called into challenge the last shot as he believed his last shot was out of line which indeed was the case. Verdasco then recovered and ended up winning the cup. Andy Murray showed us to overcome the adversity of “winner takes all” to prove a point.

We have seen many time, Sachin Tendulkar walking off even after being given no out. What was that if not to overcome the adversity of cheating?

Often it is in the midst of adversity, do we get to realize our potential. As an existentialist philosopher, Camus said, “in the midst of winter, I found there was, within me, an invincible summer”.

But the world unfortunately, has seen many examples of where man out of sheer ignorance pride, ego, and foolishness acts in a manner that does not behave like a human being.

Challenged with the political crises at hand, Lukashenko the president of Belarus decided to crank down on protestors. His decision to cause a false bomb scare on Ryanair fight and arrest a political dissident en route to Lithuania spoke of his meek ego in the face of adversity.

Internationally, failure to cement rules in place to tackle illegal migration was to lead to a horrifying figure of 3-old year Aylan Kurdi lying dead on the beach of Ismir, Turkey.

The social existence of Khap Panchayats and their gruesome decision speak tonne on how when faced with social adversities societies react. The same is applicable to the case of Xenophobia, racism, etc. the hatred of the other emerges out of an acceptance certainty of the other’s existence.

In the field of economics, examples abound. The failure of Herbert C. Hoover to take a decisive step in the midst of the economic depression of 1929 caused untold horrors for people.

On the ethical place, the concentration camps of Hitler remind me of how Hitler dealt with his problem. The horrors of Dachau, Buchenwald, and Auschwitz can’t be forgotten.

Vivekanand argued, “if in a day’s work, we don’t come across a difficulty, we can be sure we are travelling in the wrong path”.

The depredation of Whites by Mugabe and the establishment of the truth and reconciliation commission in South Africa by Nelson - Mandela spoke of divergent responses to adversity.

In conclusion, one can quote, Schaupenhaver, who argued “tough times don’t last, tough people do”. It is we who face difficulties and difficulties always exist in our daily life. What makes us better is how we tackle those difficulties.

Churchill quipped cleverly, “Success is walking from failure to failure”.

It was in fact exemplified in the life of Abraham Lincoln who faced adversity of extreme proportions in his personal life but he - with his positive attitude - handsomely succeeded and conquered all his tears. This will to change was to guide him in his most stater man-like decision to sign the “emancipation proclamation” in 1865 to face the slaves.

After, all it was Abraham Lincoln who was to say “if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”.

It is just not enough to face adversity with the will to do better. It is the thought of doing so consistently in human existence since the cons have been to do better. As Mandela quoted in his release from the prison, “after climbing one mountain, one realises there are many more mountains to climb”.

One just hopes, this will do better can have its reflection felt in the era of climate change, where much depends on our evolutionary instinct to “be better” to successfully tame the climate change adversity.