“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” —Martin Luther King Jr.

IF you had thought that giving verdicts is merely the job of courts and judges, then believe me, that’s a misunderstanding. In our everyday life, we all have to make some decisions about the arguments that take place in our surroundings, in our families, schools, etc.

Seeing friends turning into enemies is not a novel phenomenon. It happens too often: I bet every school-going kid has witnessed, or even experienced best-friends-forever turning into staunch enemies due to some misunderstanding or another.

Misunderstandings exist, but what we must not do is to rush at conclusions or take rash decisions. The two (or more) people involved in a conflict can rarely see both sides of the issue, and thus cannot judge fairly. That is where the role of the third person comes up.

For example, say two friends-turned-enemies come to you and ask for a fair decision, i.e. who is right, who is wrong. Let’s call them Gabe and Stuart. Following are a few guidelines to make this kind of decisions in a fair manner.

If you know Gabe very well but Stuart is only a slight acquaintance of yours, you might become biased in Stuart’s favour. An unprejudiced decision can only be taken by someone who is not involved with the two parties and who hears both sides’ arguments without unconsciously tilting on one side or the other; who can treat Gabe and Stuart as “the prosecutor” and “the defence”, not Gabe as “my childhood friend” and Stuart as the one “who did not seem very friendly at first sight”.

However, involving a third party (in effect, a stranger) is not a tangible solution because people value privacy in their lives. Therefore, you might have to make a decision on your own about the two friends, Gabe and Stuart, without letting your friendship with Gabe cloud your judgment.

Examine the situation and consider if Stuart really is such a person. As a starting point, you may find it helpful to ask Stuart’s friends about this, i.e. “Is Stuart envious of other people’s belongings? Does he bully his friends?”

People are known by the company they keep; Stuart’s friends may themselves act as a reflection of Stuart, or if not, at least they could tell you the negative as well as positive aspects of Stuart’s character.

People have a natural tendency to exaggerate things, especially the injustices they have experienced. On the other hand, some people may deliberately not choose to be honest. The reliability of the source of evidence should be analysed properly and justly to ensure that only truth is taken into consideration.

For instance, if Gabe has a history of frequently swerving from the path of truth, you must not believe him when he says, “Stuart has eyes on my lunchbox” or whatever his argument against Stuart might be.

Interestingly, we never take these arguments seriously or view them as worthy of as much scrutiny or significance as the judgments that take place daily in courts. It is time we paid as much attention to our informal squabbles as is paid to the grave decisions of courts.

The first characteristic of a trial in court is the essential requirement of the presence of both parties. In our personal lives, sometimes the informal “trials” happen in secret with only one party present. I call them the signs of the worst kind of dictatorship where the prosecutor is free to give their statement but the defence does not even know that a trial is taking place. We must avoid presenting opinions or judgements in such lopsided situations until we finally get the opportunity of hearing the defence. Seeing and listening to both sides in the argument is essential after all. Why else are we blessed with two eyes if not to see both sides, and two ears if not to hear to both parties?

If Gabe, your best friend, says, “Stuart has eyes on my lunchbox,” and you believe him without listening to Stuart’s version of the events, then most likely you would say Gabe is right, Stuart does not have a good character, he wishes to get his hands on other people’s possessions, etc. Believing this, you would condemn Stuart’s alleged behaviour, which would in turn make Gabe more certain of himself being in the right and Stuart being in the wrong, even though Gabe might be unconsciously hurling false allegations at his friend. This could lead to a flawed, unfair decision and result in more strains in the relationship of Gabe and Stuart as well as in yours and Stuart’s.

Dr Harriet Lerner, a clinical psychologist and the author of the book The Dance of Deception says in her epilogue, “There is a fabled tale about a little boy who questioned how Tarzan could have defeated all the jungle animals, including the mighty lion. The child’s mother replied, ‘My son, you’ll get a different story when the lion learns to write’.”

It’s time we gave a pencil and a piece of paper to both Tarzan and the lion, taught them to write and gave them both an opportunity to voice their own accounts of what happened.

People often say the world is not fair. According to me, this world of ours is made up of us, the people, and its sense of justice or lack of it is therefore entirely dependent upon us. If we desire to spread equality and fairness, the first step towards it is giving both sides the chance to speak. It is only then that we can make a fair, impartial and objective assessment.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This, in my opinion, signifies that if justice is not served in our homes, in our communities, in our schools, then justice in the whole world is threatened. So bring justice home now and see it reign supreme!