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
