Is collateral damage inevitable? Or have we simply accepted it to be so?
Why should collateral be accepted?

Sample this…
In the Ramayana, when the episode of Hanuman setting the Golden Lanka on fire is narrated, has anyone thought about the owners of the property that was damaged? Not all was owned by Ravana himself. In an ego clash between Hanuman (on behalf of Rama – it was not even his personal business to begin with) and Ravana, the common man had to pay the price. Assuming the King compensated for the loss, why should they have gone through that in the first place?

In the clash between The Kauravas and The Pandavas, the whole of Hastinapur and the allied kingdoms suffered. For what? An ego clash between Duryodhana and Draupadi? Despite the versions and various retellings, this aspect has never been discussed. At least I haven’t read about it or heard about it.

In today’s world, what has really changed? Our stories are full of inflated ego and the clash between the protagonist and the antagonist. Eventually good wins over evil. But not without collateral damage.
Look at the political scenario around. And expand it to any level your imagination lets you to. You will see that this acceptance of collateral has NOT changed.
Why have we accepted it so easily? Is it culturally embedded in us? Or have these stories glorified the violence to the extent that we have completely ignored the collateral comfortably?

How can we let any individual or set of individuals take control of lives other than his/hers and then also justify it? When I say lives, not necessarily with life itself but other aspects of life as well.
Something’s horribly twisted in us as the audience to such stories or as a community.
To the extent that no one even gives these a second thought.

Maybe it’s time to revisit this aspect. Maybe we introspect ourselves from a different perspective.