Burhan Wani, And the likes

I have not done much research into who he was and how he was killed, but one thing that almost all news articles describe is that he was a militant. For state (India), he was a terrorist who was terrorising the idea of a united India. For some other states (say, the likes of Pakistan) he was a martyr who gave up his life for the freedom of Kashmir.

To me, he was an indoctrinated youth, mislead to path of violence and fundamentalism. He might not have even committed that much crime in such a small age (21.7 yrs) that he was labelled in the eyes of nation as fit to be killed, but the thought, the idea, the organisation which he represented was the culprit. He was standing in front of the army men as an idea of a divided India. Indian soldiers, or for that matter any Indian citizen would risk his full life to kill this idea. That idea was showing itself in full demonic form in Burhan Wani, and possibly the soldiers who killed him could not differentiate between the idea and the person.

They killed the person, but could not yet kill the idea. Words like martyr, decorating a person whom the rest of the country considered a terrorist, did further harm to the country's loss. The country soon realised that it has not just lost one of the sons of its soil, it has also gained a multiple times more number of opposing forces, having sympathy with their late martyr.


I am yet to understand clearly why the forces have to kill the terrorist. When they see that the killing is more costly to them, as the idea spreads more when the person fighting for a cause is killed, why they let the idea spread ?

The same happened in Pathankot when the officer saw no other option but to blast the room in which the terrorists were hiding. 26/11 led to arrest of one out of six terrorists but that lone terrorist was able to disclose information of priceless value, something which a dead terrorist would not have provided even in remote dreams. Why not follow the policy of arresting the terrorist alive ?

I personally don't have the full information of the overall encounter, but if the forces' ideas was to terminate the person as such, I am no less certain that this is a non useful, in fact a militating idea, an idea that actually goes against our wishes.

May be the forces in Kashmir have arrested so many innocents as well (on the basis of doubt) that the higher action against the true violence perpetrators appears to be death. This is again not right in my eyes.

I hope this violence ends as soon as it can, and opportunistic countries shut their mouths before interfering in this nation's internal and sensitive matter.

Woman, a social issue

The title may irritate many, but this is true to a large extent. For a long time, women have only been fought for, or have themselves fought; for equality, justice, tolerance, gender parity... the list is not endless, but it is not short either.

The issue may be the difference of opinions that today's liberated minds have nurtured. Some would hardly care about any other group in the society, while some others may only think about themselves. Some may think about pressing problems out of their lives, but would not have the will to address those issues. Some may have the will and may fail, while a very few remaining ones will be able to succeed. Unfortunately the amount of success achieved by them is not sufficient to address the unrest arising out of the issues related to women.

Why is the action not sufficient ? I believe it is because the mindsets are hard to change if there is no one who would inspire, or at least make people aware for changing their mindsets. Without awareness, even an initiation to change does not happen. A few feminist groups, or commission for women would not be able to change the mindsets. Punishment is just a remedy and a deterrent but not a solution. They are there only when we contact them, telling them about the grave injustice related to a woman happened around us. They will take our case and will fight for us. This may indeed create love for them in our minds, but that will not be the change in mindset that I am talking about. Mindsets are developed with loved ones, the people whom we trust. Only when the close knit group, be it a family or a group of friends, keeps a healthy environment will the bigger groups , like society be rid of such painful realities. The 'unit economics' of the social organisation has to be positive so as to ensure that the social organisation is fully positive.

There must be many incidents in families where on birth of a boy, there are big celebrations, while the birth of a girl child invites sadness and worry. At the same time, I also know of families where there is great celebration on birth of a girl child. There are families where growing up children realize that they have this role to play as a boy or a girl. While there are also families which raise their kids equally, as kids the brother and sister playing and fighting each other and only with time, the brother realises that he has to be a little more sensitive for his sister and the sister realises that her brother has his own needs which she should respect. The gender roles evolve with time in both these kinds of families but in the first kinds, the difference in male and female has been engraved right from childhood, while in the second kind, the differences have evolved with time and are more of understanding and tolerance based.

During prosperous times, any of the kind of families or groups would live happily as everyone has what he wants, but when resources are limited, emotional strength is required. This is when the second type of families get an edge over the first type. When the siblings were considered equal, they both are going to contribute during the time of need, whereas in cases where the female(on in some regions, male) member is not considered worthy enough, or weak enough, only one would be able to contribute during the time of need, as the other, unworthy one, is not at all prepared, or she/he may not even have been asked if she can contribute. Hence the inequality in such a case becomes bigger, the seeds of which were as small as division of work right at the birth. The second type of families were able to come out of the difficult times earlier than the first type, because work by two is finished quicker than work by one, simple maths. Along with this, the woman of this family was happier as she also contributed during the time of need, as she was brought up like this, equal to everyone.

This 'unit economics' of a small family that I am trying to describe can be scaled 3 billion times to make the world we live in. The society built by such families would for sure have women and men treated at par, while both having their work definitions evolved with time, which would certainly not be mutually exclusive. We all are mix of feminine and masculine qualities, females having very small masculine qualities and males having very less feminine, if masculine and feminine have to be necessarily defined the way these words are. Females can have power to blow a punch on face of their colleague, and males can have power to show shyness and timidness. (I just tried to mix the well formed opinion about masculism and feminism. I do not personally associate with these definitions.)

Swami Vivekanand said, "The best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women.” He connected the women as symbol for good health of a society. 

The news of bad treatment of women at workplace perturb people equally. No one would be able to justify sexual assault on women, whether one of them is working as a labourer in a garment factory or serving as a manager to a rich MNC client. Sensitivity to women's issues should start at home, the very family in which we live, and with the very friends which mean the world to us.

If we are able to stop any differentiating incident or any indecent remark made towards women in our group or our family, we are going ahead with the progress of the nation, as per vivekananda. (as per me too :) )