A response to SSP Anantnag, Sandeep Chaudhary, who does not like to humanise militants.
Inam ul rehman
After Riyaz Naikoo, pro-Pakistan Hizb-ul-Mujahideen militant commander, was killed in an unequal encounter with Indian forces, a number of Indian intellectuals, and members of the Indian police service took umbrage at the reports that mentioned he was a teacher before taking up the gun (https://theprint.in/opinion/time-drew-red-x-for-osama-but-western-press-humanised-riyaz-naikoo-with-pre-gun-stories/416743/) ( https://www.dailyo.in/politics/riyaz-naikoo-kashmir-terrorism-jihad-hizbul-mujahideen/story/1/32879.html). For them Naikoo was a “cold blooded murderer” who killed civilians, and as such does not deserve to be humanised at all!
Does a human cease to be a human because he responds to existential threats in a way that is not compatible to the state? There also comes the important question: why do people pick up the gun against a nation state knowing that they can’t match the firepower of the state? The killings, which according to Indian intellectuals, and IPS officer, made Naikoo “inhuman” also raises an ugly question: civilians according to your version, informers according to their version. Like any dispute it has no one version. It is as debatable as the version that the police is dishing out on the killing of civilian Peer Merajuddin. (https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/a-lie-a-lie-slain-kashmiris-uncle-and-cop-crpf-unwavering/cid/1773048)
And, of course, there never has been any unanimity among the world community on the definition of terrorist. Take the example of united India under the British colonial rule. Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru, Ram Prasad “Bismil”, Ashfaqullah, Chandra Shekhar “Azad”, Udam Singh, et al, were terrorists for the British, heroes–krantikaris– as you say in Hindi for the general public.
Udam Singh killed former Punjab's Lieutenant Governor, Michael Francis O'Dwyer, whom he held responsible for the actions of General Dyer, the butcher of Jallianwala Bagh, in 1940. At that time Mahatma Gandhi called this act as insanity, so did Jawharlal Nehru. With this decree pronounced, Udam Singh, who killed a civilian bureaucrat, did not deserve to be humanised. But his action became so popular that he is referred as Shaheed-i-Azam Sardar Udham Singh. Twenty-two years later, and 15 years after India achieved freedom, Nehru had to rescind his earlier judgement and deferentially call him “Shaheed-i-Azam”. One can say it was Nehru’s volte-face but it is political-synthesis. Also, living in colonial landscape one tends to be politically correct, but living in an independent country the mind is free of slavery and as such see things clearly. It is this political-synthesis that makes yesterday’s terrorists today’s prime ministers. One example is former prime minister of Israel Menachem Begin. He was one of most wanted terrorist with “MI5 placing a 'dead-or-alive' bounty of £10,000 on his head.” Che Guevara fought against inequality and was severe on capitalism. Today capitalists sell not only clothes with his pictures printed on it but books on him as well. The fact is that a few years ago, Mr Narendra Modi was not allowed to travel to the US, but now as prime minister he receives red carpet welcome there. These are facts, and facts whether written in chronological order or not will stay same.
Now Udam Singh maybe a foregone memory with this generation. Let me cite the earlier example of civilian Peer Merajuddin killed on May 13. For Merajududin’s family paramilitary personal is a villain but from soldier’s point of view he is defending his country and in the fire of line some “aberration” take place, and as such should then they not humanise him?
It’s a man who fights with another man for his dignity in the world. The winner always demonises the fallen warrior. Only a few in the history have courage to admit the valour of their adversaries, and this confession of accepting his enemy’s superior quality or intellect has also ushered the progress of their own nation.
Since an IPS officer (He also runs “operation dreams” training students for competitive exams. https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/j-k/when-ips-officer-turns-teacher-789289) in his writing said that he is averse to chronology (Writing in chronological order is cliché but is easier for most journalists.) let us back peddle.
Why is Kashmir in this mess? The partition was done on religious basis, but why was Kashmir not allowed to join the Muslim majority province of Pakistan? The Nizam of Hyderabad acceded with Pakistan but since majority of his population was Hindu his accession was rejected, India mounted attack and annexed it. In Junagadh plebiscite was held to decide which majority state it wants to join. But when it came to Kashmir India repels Pakistani advancement and takes the issue to the UN. Then the first Prime Minister of India promises Kashmiris right of self-determination. Indian political system may brush it as real politick to keep Kashmiris in check. But Kashmiris believed the then tallest leader of India verbatim. We believe a learned Indian knows this much of history.
Come to think of it just because a people say that they want to live on their own terms in their own land why should they be put under jackboots? Why should people among them be killed if they resort to violence for a thing which they believe is their right? What is humane about killing people just because they want to live independently in their own land? Why is patriotism related to defend your land only and not to enlightenment? The enlightenment of understanding that people are born free and want to remain free. We have the pen, paper, and platforms to articulate our views, but militants and ordinary soldiers don’t have this privilege to express themselves.
We will do justice to this expressive form of expression by not being unjustifiable in humanising and dehumanising the people. Writing is indeed an enlightenment bestowed on us. By virtue of this enlightenment we have to understand whys: why are people refusing to be a part of a nation state? why are people protesting at the death of a militant? why does state need to arrest hordes of people for dissent? and why majority of people believe that they are ruled by force? This belief maybe wrong or it maybe right but there it is!
Come to think of it every hundred years world map keeps changing. There is no permanence in maps. But people are stifled, killed, or made to kill in the name of protecting this map. There are 200 nation states in this vast world of ours what calamity would befall if there are 400 nation states more according to the wishes of the people. Why should intelligent people defend killing in the name of protecting sovereignty when this sovereignty does not lost long?
I will go, you will go, the empires will continue to fall, maps will be redrawn, and some other people will tread this earth wondering, as we wonder on the Stone Age people, where are the people who killed for nation states, inconsistent maps; where are they who slaughtered people for this piece of land!
Image courtesy: Times of India
