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.
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.
No comments :
Post a Comment
Type your mind