Who is a Terrorist?
It was loud and it filled the air with smoke and confusion, but it never meant to hurt or harm. It created chaos and panic among those privileged enough to sit there. It was a smoke bomb thrown at those privileged! They (the privileged) would have heard those loud wails (after the blast) – the desperate cries of those youth who represented the pain and suffering of the lot – a loud “Inquilab Zindabad”.
It was 8th April 1929, when two youth, disillusioned of the Colonial charm, decided it was time for them to “make the deaf hear”. They have had their share of lost brethren, wailing mothers, empty stomachs – while a privileged class enjoyed it’s pompous shows of strength and regalia. They chose their hallowed grounds, maybe the biggest of them all, the Central Legislative Assembly at Delhi. They decided to throw a bomb in the Assembly as they have had enough!
They never ran. They offered themselves to get caught and imprisoned. They knew they were going to lose their youth then, if not life, but they stayed. A life of hardship awaited in Prison. They did not waiver.
They later learnt that it would be the noose, but none flinched. Like writing on the wall, the day came when they sang “Sarfaroshi ki Tamanna..” for the last time, praising glory to a mother (the motherland), and embraced the garland of death as their medallion. It was 23rd March 1931.
They were instrumental in bringing a political change despite their insignificance in front of the might of Colonialism. Technically the methods they used is quite similar to what the terrorists use today. They created a spectacle and made the state react. Their sacrifice acted as a spark to the already present fuselage of dismay and discontent among the masses, propelling the oppressed to action, who were crushed day by day, gradually being choked by the stranglehold of their “White Masters” and the “Brown Sahibs”.
Were they Terrorists? The technicality may bestow this ignominy upon those who we revere as Martyrs in the country (India celebrates the Martyr’s Day or Shahid Diwas on 23rd March every year), and with whose blood we have strengthened the edifice of our freedoms. Maybe those who left are not here to check the colour of the footprints they left behind, but we do not call them “terrorists”, for they evoke love and respect, something that we do not associate with terrorism.
Our argument then brings us back to square one but not without leads. At least we now understand that it is not the actions which define but the underlying intent which matters. The intent leaves the impression and it might also be the parameter which allows us to separate the wheat from the chaff (or ironically the “Good” Terrorists from the “Bad” ones – which as a nation we do not agree with).
The Intent Conundrum
We saw the Taj Hotel burning with anxiety, fear, and exhilaration (as we are mere mortals who feel). We saw the hysteria being shoved down our throats by the media. We consumed it because we, knowingly or unknowingly, wanted to. They (the media) were selling it because they had to. We both were guilty (or were we?). Nevertheless, we saw the flames caressing the majestic structure burning, not only the material, but also the promise of safety and security with it.
The horror of death being portrayed might have made some weak at heart faint, but some might have celebrated. Some raised their banners of victory, while the flames leapt far and wide, representing the torch of their fight was brighter than ever. They may have lost some sleep too, but it would have been for all the wrong reasons (but it is just our opinion!). The point which may perplex a lay reader is that who in their right frame of mind can wreak such misery (and find a band of accomplices who feel the same)? Well, to you Sir or Madam, we are just too naive!
They arrived here as a band of few, fully aware of what they were supposed to do. Who can forget that day when they unleashed death across lively Mumbai. The spray of bullets which was callously unleashed from place to place without a worry who it hit. The intent was clear – kill! And so people died and none was the enemy, or had wronged the killers. It is this intent we talk about, which evokes emotions in stark contrast to love and reverence.
But, the question may arise that, aren’t they mere serial killers? They are no different from mentally deranged people who kill just for the sport of it. So why do we make a brand out of them by calling them “terrorists”? What allows them entry to this so-called elite club? The most infamous of the murder cults which shakes the humanity (after all, ‘normies’ fear death!) and brings out the feeling of utter abhorrence.
To understand the answers to these (well framed maybe!) questions we have to understand what drove the intent – the ideology.
The Folly of Ideology
The simple people go about their day to day business – they do not care or maybe don’t have enough time (to do so) about deeper stuff! They are bogged by expectations, ambitions, hopes and aspirations (black holes and revelations!). They see a flower, they smile, they see pain, they feel hurt. Some may argue that simple people (they or we) are mere reactionaries, just reacting to the available stimulus. Their surroundings determine their actions. But, that may not be true for everyone, right?
A handful of people think, and they are driven, they fuel their minds with knowledge. It is also likely that their environs have played a role but now their work has amplified the impact. They are political and ideological, or sometimes even better, they are the drivers of the ideology. This allows them to justify the “reign of terror”, whatever may our opinions be about that (they are not worried about our opinions, it is blood and fear they want!). This allows them to kill or mastermind killings, justifying their actions with the ideology behind. The cushion of ideology which absolves them of the guilt.
This ideology that justifies killing of innocent mercilessly is what bands people in “Club Da Infamy” called “terrorists”. It differentiates them from the run of the mill serial killers. People who kill innocents for a cause (whether justified or not is a different question).
This also differentiates them from people like Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and the likes who did not kill innocent to serve their purpose. Their ideology could not justify the killing of innocents and neither could absolve them of this guilt if it were so (let alone allow them a good night’s sleep!).
But, how does this dissension come about? Both parties were killing (Bhagat Singh and others have also murdered people who they thought were worth killing) and that too from an ideological standpoint, but had drastic differences in types of outcomes (one party is killing innocents day by day – though less than what diabetes kills!). Maybe this we can call the folly of ideology – the ideology which is the harbinger of chaos. The question is what brings it about?
A Questionable Peace
Who does not want peace and happiness? But, how do we achieve that? Are we happy (and we should at least not lie to ourselves while answering this question)? The answer depends upon your outlook. But, let us ask this question to the plenty. According to experts, when masses band together (a mob?) they behave like a child – ever unsatisfied – always seeking more. If we ask a mob this question (“are you happy?”) what would the answer be?
Well! Ladies and Gentlemen (or brothers and sisters of the world!), if they were happy what promises would politicians make? And why? Masses are always unsatisfied. They just need to be stoked and the pain pours out. There is so much commonality in pain – such a binding factor, tying people together. Mix the pain with another commonality (like religion, race, ethnicity, nationality, etc.) and viola! – a cocktail strong enough to knock out an Elephant is born.
The brewers of ideology know the recipe quite well. They have been brewing it since ages and never ran out of ingredients (what can you say – destruction has a simple recipe, reconstruction is harder). So, they mixed and showed that the other (race, religion, etc.) is the enemy and to win peace we need to forego it (peace) first. Hence, they draw people out of their comforts (comfort does not need you to be rich!) and make rum amuck. The solution is simple – “kill all and get peace”. You will have all you need (because when everyone dies all will be left with you only! Armageddon, Qayamat ..?).
Yes, we agree that sometimes people are really oppressed (as was with Colonial India). But, the question is what lengths do we go to get rid of the oppression? Is the oppression bad enough to drive you into such desperation to kill an innocent? If yes, then how did we end up there? Could we have stopped the slide somewhere? Is oppression and destitution bound by a group identity? Do we want just a particular group of people released from destitution? What about the rest?
The Reconciliation
We all are happy and we all are sad (some more than others). We all are greedy and we may be mad? The famous quote of Mahatma Gandhi comes to mind,
“The world has enough for everyone’s needs, but not everyone’s greed”.
To solve the problem of terrorism we have to jump to it’s root. The root (or rot) lies in poverty, hunger, malnutrition, unemployment, lack of proper (or quality) education, etc. Yes, weeding out the dirt being peddled out in the name of ideology is very important. But, the ideology always works in combination with a disability. A battle on multiple fronts can help to fight terror. On one side remove the disability and on the other educate enough to cleanse the rotten ideology.
If the world is gentler enough, they can expect the same in return. We cannot rise alone and expect to stay happy if our neighbour is not doing so. In such a scenario we are left with limited choices: move to a new neighbourhood or “kill thy neighbour” before he becomes a nuisance. Since we can’t do any of them, it’s better we both move ahead together.
Maybe the problem will not solve itself that easily (it is easier to say but harder to achieve) but we have the options of gagging the media and keeping our minds under control – so that we do not end up fearing the terrorists. Which one do you prefer? (A mix of both?)
This is an excellent article.. Great Job!