I grew up in an era of certainties. We knew what was right, what was wrong. So even when we did wrong, often in defiance of authority, we believed we were in the right. There was no ambivalence, no doubt in our mind as to good and bad, moral and immoral. There was clarity about most things that mattered. This defined us as a generation. We knew what we stood for.

That certainty has chipped away over the years. We live today in an Age of Moral Ambivalence. There is a charming ambiguity over most things, and it’s this ambiguity that best reflects our moral dilemma. We are all Arjuns standing in the battlefield, a bit unsure, a bit confused, desperately seeking that certitude which eludes us. Faith cannot provide it as easily as it once did. Tradition lies tattered before the onslaught of modernity. The moral compass that once showed us the way is now defunct. Before us, lies the wilderness. Where our heroes are no longer heroes and villainy is infinitely more seductive. In such times, how easy can it be to know what’s right, what’s wrong?

This ambiguity has seeped into our public life. Do we hang a man when he is sentenced to death? We are at odds with the world if we do. State killing is abolished almost everywhere. If we choose instead to accept the Mahatma’s way that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, then what about those who grieve the death of the victims? How will they find closure? This is particularly true for terror plots where the number of lives destroyed through death and injury are so many that it’s not easy to find a closure that allows people to forget, move on. Forgiveness is a tough act to follow.

The same ambivalence exists when we face a choice between development and protecting the environment. The problem is doubly complex here because protecting the environment is not just an abstract ideal of preserving your forests, mountains, rivers, and precious species. It also means preserving livelihoods, lost cultures, languages, and (above all) the health and well being of millions of people who are poor and marginal and cannot protect themselves from the predatory, politically well-connected bounty hunters who come with the promise of prosperity. The compulsions of growth make things worse because Governments seek comfort in numbers, not in protecting the quality of life. India today is in competition with itself, unsure about what it wants: global markers of progress or continuity of its traditions. Every day, as we pursue our search for change and growth, we lose what we have. We are becoming a nation of immigrants, chasing dreams, fantasising about the future. In the process, we are wiping out our past, mortgaging our present.

But our biggest ambiguities are moral. If bakshish is fine, why are bribes bad? If bribes are bad, why is it perfectly legit to have brokers and middlemen? If you hire a broker to find a flat, why is it wrong to hire a broker to buy a aircraft or a howitzer? When Government can charge you speed money (it’s called tatkal) for a railway ticket out of queue or a phone line, why is it wrong to pay speed money to quicken the pace of a file or a permit? If fake encounters are legit and the State can kill bad guys without a trial, why are honour crimes wrong? Isn’t the Panchayat an extension of the State? If the State can give grace marks to pass undeserving students, what’s wrong in an examiner doing it? The dividing line between right and wrong, already thin, begins to blur.

Why are dance bars banned in Mumbai when Bollywood’s most memorable songs have shown heroines and vamps dancing in bars? Even kids dance to bar songs on TV. The ban on child labour has killed off so many traditional crafts where kids learn skills from their artisan parents in their formative years. It’s getting tough to decide what’s right. And our laws don’t help any more.

Sunday’s paper reported how four women in a Ghatkopar slum caught a young man and beat him to death, claiming he was a history sheeter, a frequent molester. The murder took place before the entire neighbourhood. Yet no one is ready to testify. The young man’s family denies every charge. Who do I believe? Who do I sympathise with? There is moral ambiguity everywhere. With it, grows violence. Brutal, unstoppable violence. Is this also a sign of the times?