We revere our revolutionaries, branded then as terrorists by the British because they took to arms to defend the honor of our country. Rightly so, they are now our venerated freedom fighters and martyrs who laid down their lives for the better future of our country.
They raised the wounded pride of their motherland at a time when she was undergoing humiliating subjugation by foreign imperialists. We may recall how a reign of terror was unleashed in Punjab by the British in the aftermath of Jallianwala Bagh massacre and how people in Amritsar were asked to crawl on their four limbs before the cheering British forces.
We also know how the subsequent British Inquiry left the perpetrator of that crime against humanity, Brig Edward Dwyer with patronising reprimand. Even before this, the shameful Komagata Maru episode had happened involving wanton police killing of Indian workers at Calcutta (now Kolkata), hundred years before the date of writing of this piece, i.e., 27th.
The then lt Governor of Punjab, Michael O’Dwyer was later shot dead by revolutionary Udham Singh in london in 1940. While such reprisals appeared then to many people as unacceptable, there is no denying the fact that incidents like this would have enkindled the fire in the hearts of Indians then and does it so when we read about their selfless actions. We cannot forget the martyrdom of Bhagat Sigh, Rajguru, Sukhdev, Bismil, Ashfaqullah and several others who laid down their lives at the altar of freedom — they were household names in India, woven in folklores and stories for young children — but branded then as traitors by the British regime.
Similarly Mukti Bahini and African National Congress volunteers were seen as lawbreakers in the eyes of their governments but as heroes by their suffering countrymen. That would be the scenario for most freedom fighters of suppressed nationalities who were struggling to rid themselves free from the colonial masters. Even PlO under Yasser Arafat, despite having a kind of militant outfit was generally considered to be freedom fighters, so much so, that it was recognised among others by the Government of India.
However, these individuals and groups belonged to a different genre — persons like them are not made any more. Their commitment, loyalty and sacrifice were of a very high order; their stories so inspiring. It is difficult to fathom the depth of their love for their motherland. And they seldom caused harm to innocent people. Now we have the new breed of militants who are rightly identified as terrorists by the world at large. They spare no innocents, not even women and children. It might perhaps sound harsh but they truly have no religion or code of conduct whatsoever. No organised religion permits such bloodletting.
The so-called ‘Islamists’ of various hues, al-Qaeda et al and their latest avatar, Islamic State are indulging in worst unIslamic crimes that can be. Flushed with ill-gotten petrol money, equipped by greedy arms suppliers and seeped in ignorance, they present the saddest spectacle of everything that Islam does not stand for. Islam means peace and Allah is always invoked in all the verses of Qu’ran as ‘the most benevolent and merciful’. So they cannot carry out such vicious killings in the name of Allah. If anything, they are only as much Muslim, as were Hitler and Mussolini Christian, with the exception that the latter did not raise the war cry in the name of Christianity. These terrorists operating in many parts of the Muslim world are killing more Muslims than non-Muslims and that too in the name of Islam; that is the most tragic irony of the situation. Apart from the ethical and religious angles and moral repugnancy of attack on
innocent persons, there is another cogent reason why such activities cannot be condoned by any flexible interpretations, even as we leave reference to Vienna Convention and violation of Human Rights as defined in UN Charters.
Unlike the first-mentioned erstwhile groups, later ones like the Tamil militants in Sri lanka, our own Punjab militants in 1980s, the left-wing militants then and now, the ‘Islamic’ militants of today — there is nothing Islamic about them, except the visible beards, and militants operating elsewhere like in Ukraine etc. are mostly fighting against democratically elected or legally appointed Governments. These militant groups had/have the option to join the political spectrum, work around it and gain strength to push through the change they want to see in the policies and programs. But they pugnaciously work against the system instead of working around the given political structure, at huge cost both to themselves and others. This option was no way available to our venerated militants of early 20th too puts them totally apart from these assorted varieties.
Thus, by first doggedly refusing to be within the existing political gamut and then attacking its institutions, most of the present age militants do not come out with clean hands. Working against a military regime, an autocracy or a repressive regime is one thing — not that, resort to violence is condonable by any such delineation — but not relying on available alternative resource in a democratic regime and frequently trying to subvert it with violence shows that such elements have no commitment to the professed objectives, rather they clearly have other hidden agenda or worse, play a proxy war on behalf of one or the other power.