The recent explosions in Bangalore, Surat and Ahmedabad have sent renewed shivers among the common citizens all over India, where we have a rich variety of ‘terrorists’. As usual, there has been a spate of articles and statements demanding stricter laws and better intelligence. And yet no one is willing to admit that if an individual/group seriously decides to kill people and is willing to pay the price, there is nothing much you or me or the state can do about it except after the event. All you can do is keep an eye on how kids are growing up in your neighbourhood over time. Call it community policing if you want. But this is not a counsel of despair!
Ironically, as the terrorists discover greater individual liberty and empowerment on behalf of the common citizen, it is often the common citizen that ends up becoming the target of these attacks and not the state – a zero sum game. Hitting out at the state via the common citizen is a very unethical but also a very circuitous idea. I reckon that in any terrorist group, half the members would be people with qualms, and the rest must be men and women who were anyway on their way to turning into suicides, serial killers, or child and wife beaters. It’s just that they find an excuse in a cause, and settle down to a humdrum career in violence. Many such people in India become cops and political leaders and succeed in sublimating their ferality to various extents.
The bombs e. g. in Surat were spread all over the place like garbage as if the bombers suffered a serious bout of moral reluctance on their way to work. I think it’s high time terrorists of all hues rethought their purpose – is the idea to hurt the state directly, or to hurt common people who will then turn and accuse the state of failing as protectors? If they are really earnest in their cause, why don’t they target government buildings emptied of people, or construction hubs and cinema halls after midnight? I think such acts would serve the cause better, although I remain strongly prejudiced in the favour of satyagraha. Significantly, even the meaning of 9/11 minus the 3,000 deaths changes radically!
The question is – does a terrorist want to kill people or win support among them? This appeal is clearly not directed at those egos that have a macho-er than thou problems with the super-macho state, or those caught in a deadlock who will anyway end up in a lover’s embrace with the big bro. But in case our terrorists want to win some support and sympathy among the citizenry, it may be a good idea to create spectacles where the citizen remains confined to the status of an onlooker/audience staring fascinatedly at their ideological fireworks, and not a target/victim. Lastly, I would recommend that before blowing up a huge building, a terrorist group should run up and down firing blanks at people to force them to leave. This much terror is still robust and anyway actually amounts to tender care.
Ironically, as the terrorists discover greater individual liberty and empowerment on behalf of the common citizen, it is often the common citizen that ends up becoming the target of these attacks and not the state – a zero sum game. Hitting out at the state via the common citizen is a very unethical but also a very circuitous idea. I reckon that in any terrorist group, half the members would be people with qualms, and the rest must be men and women who were anyway on their way to turning into suicides, serial killers, or child and wife beaters. It’s just that they find an excuse in a cause, and settle down to a humdrum career in violence. Many such people in India become cops and political leaders and succeed in sublimating their ferality to various extents.
The bombs e. g. in Surat were spread all over the place like garbage as if the bombers suffered a serious bout of moral reluctance on their way to work. I think it’s high time terrorists of all hues rethought their purpose – is the idea to hurt the state directly, or to hurt common people who will then turn and accuse the state of failing as protectors? If they are really earnest in their cause, why don’t they target government buildings emptied of people, or construction hubs and cinema halls after midnight? I think such acts would serve the cause better, although I remain strongly prejudiced in the favour of satyagraha. Significantly, even the meaning of 9/11 minus the 3,000 deaths changes radically!
The question is – does a terrorist want to kill people or win support among them? This appeal is clearly not directed at those egos that have a macho-er than thou problems with the super-macho state, or those caught in a deadlock who will anyway end up in a lover’s embrace with the big bro. But in case our terrorists want to win some support and sympathy among the citizenry, it may be a good idea to create spectacles where the citizen remains confined to the status of an onlooker/audience staring fascinatedly at their ideological fireworks, and not a target/victim. Lastly, I would recommend that before blowing up a huge building, a terrorist group should run up and down firing blanks at people to force them to leave. This much terror is still robust and anyway actually amounts to tender care.
Ratnakar Tripathy
3 comments:
Ashish Nandy recently gave a lecture series at the universty of hyderabad. One of the topics he talked on was terror. Nandy in his trademark style drew from a variety of empirical data on communities and terror organisations worldwide to show that the root cause of terror begins in despair; economic and state induced. Terror as a weapon was introduced not by maniacs out to jeopardise world security but by the bastions of good democracy. Introduced during the french revolution it was later developed into an art by nazi germany, soviet union etc. Thus, nandy pointed out,what the terror that accompanied 9/11 and since has done is to differ from the state supported terror by flouting the terms of this 'normal use of terror' by states. It was this state induced terror of the earlier period that has given rise to the present era of terror. In a startling revelation nandy pointed out that the taliban belong to the same community of pathans that surrounded gandhi when he began his styagraha movement in the most oppressive of states in the period; south africa. He traced the history of the pathans from the khudai khidmatgars to taliban, in the process delineating the immeseaurable sufferings that the pathan community silently bore at the hands of the british. And that too a community that is known for its valour and strength. As nandy pointed out it was not because the pathans were weak or could not fight back yet there wasn't a single instance of a pathan fighting the stick blows that were administered brutally time and again. Nandy says if we are to understand the motivations of terrorists we must pay heed to the rampant despair prevalent in the countrysides and villages in many countries. He ended his lecture by reading from a letter written by an american journalist visiting pakistan. Titled ' a modest proposal from the brigadier' it reveals the despair prevalent in pakistan and the desperate measures that people like brigadier amanullah are willing to take to end their and others miseries. Here is the link to the letter. I hope it is an eyeopener for all of us who think that radiacal fundamentalists can motivate ordinary people to kill each other.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200203/landesman
i agree with most of what you say. but in this case i am not consoled by a historical account that makes the violence seem either justifiable or understandable. the main reason is that the battle between the state and the heroic individuals seems to crush the commoner sort of individual. both the modern state and the terrorist have a finely embroidered morality that not only justifies collateral damage, but revels in it. there mostly is nothing collateral about it anymore - it is the main purpose.
the problem is there is no continuity in the history of terrorism - just check on accounts of how Bhagat Singh and his cohorts planned their murders - they were indeed people who would abort a mission if they felt that commoners would be hurt.
by 'hurt' i don't mean a bodycount - more scary is the scare itself as it will allow my fellow citizens to cower under the shelter of the blanket state.
so let us please register the difference between a Bin laden and a Khudiram Bose.
I think this is a very well-intentioned post. I believe the Basque separatists in Spain used this principle (creating fear without loss of civilian/innocent life). It probably worked there, because life in the 'West' is still considered precious (3000 dead persuaded the Americans to support a President in launching not one, but two invasions). The brutal reality of India is that life is cheap - forget terrorism, we cannot adequately protect our own people from annual national disasters. Unless there is a Bombay or Surat or Bangalore burning, we do not care - so why would the conscientious terrorist believe that not killing people will have any impact at all in getting people to listen to him?
I am probably not clear enough in getting across to you, but I hope you understand...
Post a Comment