Terrorists and
Terrorism and the Rights and Wrongs of the Matter
Shrikant G.
Talageri
Is there any kind of “terrorism”
which would have my approval or moral support? This was the question put before
me recently, in the course of a conversation about terrorism in general, by an
acquaintance, who asked me to give my honest opinion on the subject. I had never
thought I would actually write an article on the subject, but, after this
conversation, a long wait at Borivali station on the Mumbai local Western
Railways on Sunday (two days ago) brought the issue to my mind again. So am I
actually writing an article of this kind admitting to be having some kind of
sympathy with any kind of “terrorist” activities? Well, since I have always
believed in speaking out my true opinions on every subject, without indulging
in politically correct and hypocritical reservations and without caring about
“log kya kahenge”, it appears I am.
In coffee table conversations,
ever since my acquaintanceship/friendship with “Hindu”/Hindutvawadi circles (HM,
VHP, RSS, etc.) commenced in my college days, and especially since Islamic
terrorism became a commonly known and discussed phenomenon, I have heard stray
people often wishfully/wistfully
expressing the thought that there should be a “Hindu Terrorist”
organization which would go around bombing Muslim areas or bombing areas in
Pakistan in the exact same manner as Islamic terrorist organizations. “That
would teach them” is the logic behind this kind of wishful/wistful comments.
As I said above, recently someone
(not in any way advocating or expressing a desire for such a Hindu terrorist
organization) asked me my sincere opinion about whether I think the same. And
when I said “no”, he asked me whether I was merely being diplomatic or
politically correct, and wanted to know my real feelings on the subject. And in
fact he asked whether I objected to “violence” per se, or were there situations
in which a person or organization indulging in violence (to the point of
killing or destroying property) would fail to outrage me or would even have my
moral support. This led me to thinking on the subject, and I realized that
there would indeed be situations where “terrorism” (or a process where a person
or organization indulging in violence to the point of killing or destroying
property) would indeed not outrage me or would even have my moral support, And
the first basic point that I realized was that while a person or organization
indulging in violence (to the point of killing or destroying property) merely
on the basis of “identity” issues, killing innocent bystanders in the process, will
never have my approval, there could indeed be situations
where a person or organization indulging in violence (to the point of killing or
destroying property) would have my moral support. I am in no way in a
position to (and have not the slightest desire to) inspire, form, organize,
finance, or conduct the activities of, any such “terrorism”, but I have no
inhibition to prevent me from stretching out my neck to express my views on the
subject.
Before “revealing” the two kinds
of “terrorist” individuals or organizations whose violence (to the point of
killing or destroying property) would indeed have my moral support, I will
examine the subject on more general and dispassionate grounds.
I. Terrorism Defined and
Analyzed.
II. What types of “Terrorism”
Pass the Test in my Opinion?
I. Terrorism Defined
and Analyzed
1. For the record, when I asked
the question “Definition of terrorist or terrorism” on Google, I got the
following “AI overview’ reply:
“Terrorism is broadly
defined as the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to
create fear within a population and thereby achieve political, religious,
or ideological goals.
A terrorist is
a person who engages in such acts and is generally concerned with the
commission, preparation, or instigation of these actions”.
2.
The above definition, while pointing to “political, religious, or ideological goals” as
the inspiration and aim of terrorists and terrorism, does not take
note of the fact that the victims (or victim populations) chosen may be based
on their political,
religious, or ideological identities, but
also that this may not necessarily be a strict point of importance to
the terrorists. Thus, when an Islamic terrorist chooses to
detonate bombs to terrorize his target “population” (e.g. Hindus, Jews,
etc.) it will not only be of no importance to him whether or not those who die
in the bomb blasts are necessarily Hindus, Jews, etc. who
stand in the way of his aims (i.e. they may well be totally innocent Hindus,
Jews, etc., who are totally free of any political, religious, or
ideological
predilections), but it will also be of no importance to him that some of the
victims may happen to be innocent Muslims as well! In some cases, Muslims
may even be targeted to create a reaction against the targeted population of non-Muslims.
Spreading terror gets to become an aim in itself, going far beyond the
preliminary political, religious, or ideological hatreds with which the
terrorist starts out on his journey. The fact that people going about their
daily lives, and having nothing to do with any political, religious, or
ideological issues,
get destroyed is just an irrelevant detail to terrorists.
Clearly, some kind of
ruthless and perverted psychopathic mentality (with strong shades
of sadism) is necessarily a part of the terrorist make-up, beyond
any issues of political, religious, or ideological concern.
3.
There are obviously situations where no one can legitimately or honestly object
to “the
calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to create
fear within a population” in certain circumstances, as when police
or armies use it against a “population” consisting of organized armed
gangs, actual terrorists themselves, murderous drug racketeers, serial killers,
human traffickers, etc. Here this kind of violence aims to stop or put
an end to actual violence.
4.
There will of course be certain types of people who will object even to this
above kind of “violence” which aims to stop or put an end to actual
violence. The two main types of people who do object strongly to such “violence”
are the two categories of advocates of fake “Humanism”: i.e. “Gandhians”
and true “woke” leftists. These two types of fake humanists
are the hypocritical sadists whose “humanist” sympathies
are really with the perpetrators of violence than with their victims.
Gandhi
himself did very much represent this kind of fake behavior. For example, Godse
cites the following in his book “May It Please Your Honour”:
“The practice
of non-violence according to Gandhiji is to endure or put up with the blows of
the aggressor without showing any resistance either by weapon or by physical
force. Gandhiji has, while describing his Nonviolence given the example of a
‘tiger becoming a follower of the creed of non-violence after the cows allowed
themselves to be killed and swallowed in such large numbers that the tiger
ultimately got tired of killing them.' It will be remembered that at Kanpur,
Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi fell a victim to the murderous assault by the Muslims
of the place on him. Gandhiji has often cited this submission to the Muslims'
blows as an ideal example of embracing death for the creed of non- violence”.
Gandhi
had also said (and this is not a
fake quotation): "My own experience but confirms the opinion that the
Musalman as a rule is a bully, and the Hindu as a rule is a coward….
Bullies are always to be found where there are cowards". But even
here, he backtracked from the logical connotation of his statement by saying “If
Hindus wished to convert the Muslim 'bully' into a 'respecting friend,' they
had to learn to 'die in the face of the heaviest odds' without retaliation”.
That even a mere observation by Gandhi on the more undesirable
fall-out of the otherwise commendable universalist, tolerant and respectful
nature of Hinduism and Hindus was quickly amended by him to take away the sting
from it shows the value of his fake “humanism”. But no-one should think
that Hindus are fools to take Gandhi’s words as a canonical statement
of the dogma that they must follow in order to show themselves to be
"true" Hindus!
The practical truth of his observation (and its logical
connotation) has been borne out in Mumbai and Gujarat.
Till 1992-1993 in Mumbai (and till 2002 in Gujarat),
regular riots used to be annual, biannual or multiannual
events resulting in disruptions, destructions and deaths, on the basis of any
event anywhere in the world. In my very first book published in 1993, I had written:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2021/09/does-aryan-invasion-theory-mean-that.html
“Any event in any Muslim country gives Indian
Muslims the right to take to the streets and start vicious riots, all over the
country, in an orgy of loot, arson and vandalism (especially vandalism of Hindu
temples, shops and houses situated near Muslim areas). The event may be the
arson by an Australian tourist in the Al-Aqsa mosque in far-off Jerusalem, the
temporary take-over by a group of Sunni extremists of the mosque in Mecca, the
execution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto by Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, or the death of
Zia-ul-Haq in an aircrash.
The Leftist
and secularist response to all these riots, as to every other riot started by
Muslims, is the same: huge amounts of money are paid to the Muslim
"victims" of the riots: action is demanded, and often taken, against
police officials for "atrocities against Muslims"; conferences are
held and reports published in which "Hindu communalists" are held
ultimately responsible for the riots; and strident demands are made to offset
the "Hindu character" of the police and paramilitary forces by
large-scale recruitment of' Muslims.”
But after the 1992-1993 Mumbai riots
and the 2002 Gujarat riots, when Hindus showed that they
were not cowards, there has not been a single riot in these two places
to date (i.e. till 2025). And guess what: the normal Muslim
in these two places is as happy about this riotless state as the normal Hindu,
since normal people desire to live their normal day-to-day lives
in comparative peace more than to remain in perpetual states of
battle-alertness!
Fake Gandhians (who are often woke leftists in Gandhian
clothing) will never quote, much less present as observations to be pondered
over and discussed, these above statements of Gandhi, for very obvious
reasons. They will merely spout goody-goody views on love, peace and
non-violence in the name of Gandhi, meant for the edification and
instruction only of Hindus.
In the case of woke leftists,
the obsession with having rabid sympathies with the perpetrators
of violence than with their victims is an intrinsic and core
aspect of their sadistic and pathological hatred for all human beings in
the name of “humanism”. See my following article, “Rapists, ‘Child
Rights’, Left and Right”:
https://talageri.blogspot.com/2016/05/rapists-child-rights-left-and-right.html
5.
I, like most Hindus, am born a Hindu, and likewise there
will be Muslims born as Muslims and Christians born as Christians.
This is the identity one is born with. No-one has a right to kill,
attack, hate or discriminate against, someone else for the identity with
which they are born. As I wrote earlier in this article, a person or
organization indulging in violence (to the point of killing or destroying
property) merely on the basis of “identity” will never have my approval. Even
in my article on “Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism” (an extract from what
was published in the Sita Ram Goel Commemoration Volume
in 2005), I clearly set out my views about a true Hindu Nationalist
government system:
“An administrative system which governs
the least, and with the least interference; and which provides public utilities
at the least cost to one and all; and which provides full protection, security
and aid to every citizen - regardless of race, religion, caste, sex,
profession, or any other mark of identity - from fear, terror,
injustice, insecurity, crime and oppression, from hunger and want, and from
diseases and natural disasters…..
To sum up: we must evolve a nationalist
socio-economic ideology which will try to (1) make India a rich, prosperous,
peaceful and happy nation; and (2) see that, basically, for every Indian, regardless
of race, religion, caste, sex, profession, or any other mark of identity,
India truly becomes a land “where the mind is without fear, and the head is
held high”, in every sense of the term. The primary guiding principle should be
sarve bhavantu sukhinah, sarve santu niramayah, sarve bhadrani pashyantu, ma
kashchid duhkha bhag bhavet: “may all be contented and happy, may all be free
of pain and disease, may all ever see auspicious times, may no-one be unhappy”.”
[Read
Anand Ranganathan’s book “Hindus in Hindu Rashtra…”
and many of my articles which detail how India under every Party
government, and most definitely under the mercenary BJP government, is a
country where Hindus are singled out for discrimination and harassment,
and the state most definitely does not provide “full protection, security and aid to Hindus
from fear, terror, injustice, insecurity, crime and oppression, from hunger and
want, and from diseases and natural disasters” or even give them equal
rights with Muslims and Christians!].
6.
I reiterated this point (about people born as Muslims or Christians
in India) because this raises a different question which requires to be
discussed: what about Muslims and Christians in India who
are not born as Muslims and Christians, but are converted
from Hinduism? Do people who have converted from one religion
to another have, in my opinion, the same moral right to their “religious
identity” as people born in the religion (perhaps because their
ancestors converted long before their birth)?
I
must put forward my clear views on various aspects of this matter:
Everyone
has a right to believe in the religion or spiritual persuiasion of his/her
choice and to follow it. But this is a vague, goody-goody, and deceptive idea
if not understood in its true sense. True
“conversion” can only be a purely personal and individual
affair where a person learns about some particular type of religious/spiritual
view and feels it most suited to his/her personal nature and character
and adopts its tenets in personal life. It is then therefore a purely personal
matter. But here also there are very important nuances concerning marriage:
When
someone marries, it should really be a personal matter for each
individual to decide whether to remain within one’s ancestral religion or
to adopt the religion of one’s spouse. Logically, of course, one expects that
this feeling of wanting to be in harmony with one’s spouse should work both
ways, and both the husband and wife should be equally accommodating and
accepting of each other’s religion. One also expects that
the issue must have been thought out, discussed and decided before the
actual marriage. However, we see in real life that in Hindu-Muslim
marriages and Hindu-Christian marriages it always tends to be a
one-way affair, with the Hindu practically expected to give up his/her
religion and adopt that of the spouse. In recent times, the ugliest public display
of this “my religion only” attitude has been in the disgusting case of
the JD Vance-Usha Vance marriage. Even then, with a
severe loss of respect for both the partners in
such a marriage, I would still say it is a personal matter.
This
brings us to the matter of “love-jihad”. In Islamic countries
(including Pakistan and Bangladesh) and even in most parts of India
with areas dominated by Muslims and Islamic underworld
elements, “Hindu-Muslim” marriages (especially when the bride is
a Hindu) are very often a matter of coercion and actually terrorism.
The film The Kerala Story gave the true story in graphic
details in the matter of Kerala. Obviously, normal discourse about
inter-religious marriages cannot apply here. But in other areas with
normal, modern, cosmopolitan or otherwise free societies, if a Hindu
girl chooses to marry a Muslim boy and herself adopt Islam in her
personal life, I would still say it is a personal matter, again with great
loss of respect for the girl, which would legitimately get
converted to contempt and disgust if she suddenly converted
herself into a burqa-clad anti-Hindu-views-spouting
Muslim. Even then, a personal matter: if she lives to regret it
later, and even if she doesn’t, that (in my opinion) is her problem or fate,
and her personal affair.
Basically,
any person in a purely personal and individual capacity can believe in or adopt
any spiritual or religious practice without it being an issue. Hinduism
is the primary example of such open religiosity. People belong to different
castes, regions and communities with their own Gods, customs and rituals, and
yet freely join in the religious activities of other castes, regions and
communities. Some ex-Hindus (i.e. Christians and Muslims
whose ancestors converted) also sometimes share this ancestral spirit of
open religiosity. So do many Parsees. As I wrote in my article “Are
Indian Tribals Hindus?” (in six parts on my blog, but in a single one on
Academia.edu):
https://www.academia.edu/43131618/Are_Indian_Tribals_Hindus
“The
fact is, Hinduism can never be in true conflict with any other religion (other
than the two predator Abrahamic religions which themselves choose conflict with
all other religions) since it has no particular God, Ritual or Dogma to impose
on the followers of other religions. In itself, Hinduism contains the seeds of
every kind of philosophy, and is comfortable with all streams of thought, and
not necessarily to do with the worship of “Gods”. In Hinduism, we find all
kinds of atheistic and materialistic philosophies, the most well known being
the Lokayata philosophy of Charvaka, who believed that there is only one life,
that there is no such thing as an afterlife, or heaven or hell, or rebirth, and
that our only purpose in life should be to maximize our pleasures and minimize
our pains. The very basic texts of Hinduism contain the seeds and roots of
agnostic philosophies, from the Rigvedic Nasadiya Sukta (X.129. 6-7, which
says: “Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and
whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production.
Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this
creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it? He whose eye controls
this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.”) to
the Upanishadic speculations which reject everything, after deep discussion,
with the phrase “neti, neti”: “not this, not this”, i.e., “no, this is still
not the ultimate truth”. And then of course, there is every kind of deistic,
henotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, and every other kind of -theistic
philosophy, including even (but not exclusively) monotheistic philosophy (minus
the hatred of “other” false religions and false Gods, and the concepts of
permanent Heaven for believers and Hell for non-believers, characteristic of
Abrahamic monotheism).
This is not to say that intolerant strands are not
found in Hindu texts: among the countless philosophies that flowered within
Hinduism there could be found stray voices of intolerance and hatred, but they
are just that: stray voices in the wilderness, which never became the voices of
mainstream Hinduism, unlike in the Abrahamic religions, where they represent
the Only Voice.
Hinduism thus represents the opposite end of
the spectrum from the Abrahamic religions: of the four possible attitudes
towards other religions and religious beliefs (respect, tolerance, indifference
and hatred), Hinduism represents respect for all other religions and streams of
thought and philosophy, while Christianity (as also Islam) represents hatred.
This is the central thread of Hinduism: even the Manu Smriti enjoins that when
a king wins a victory over an enemy king and enters his (i.e. the enemy)
kingdom, the first thing he must do is to pray and worship at the feet of the
deity of that king and kingdom. The Bhagawad Gita, even as it asks Arjuna (and
presumably mankind in general) to abandon all other dharmas (i.e. duties, not
religions) and surrender to the Supreme Entity (an abstract concept although
nominally represented by “Bhagwan Shrikrishna” here), assures him that whatever
form of worship he indulges in, that worship reaches Him (i.e. that Supreme
Entity) and Him alone – a far cry from the “One True” God and “One True” form
of worship as opposed to other “false” Gods and “false” forms of worship
classified by Christianity (and Islam).
This is the reason a Hindu
would not think twice before bowing his head in genuine reverent worship before
an idol of Osiris or Isis in Egypt, Quetzalcoatl or Kulkulcan in Central
America, or Kuan Yin in China (or, indeed, before visiting churches and
dargahs, not realizing the difference between non-Abrahamic and Abrahamic
religious entities). This is the reason why the Zoroastrians who fled Iran from
Abrahamic persecution, and the Jews who fled ancient Palestine, found safe,
respectful and helpful refuge only in Hindu India and nowhere else. And this is
also the reason why the tribal Gods and tribal religions in different parts of
India which, either due to isolated location or out of choice, did not choose
to merge, or merge fully, into the greater pan-Indian Hindu entity (where, in
any case, their distinctive characteristics would only have been respected,
preserved and popularised everywhere) continued to freely maintain their
distinctive identities to this day – i.e. till the advent of the predatory
missionaries.”
If
this is so, what is my objection to conversion from Hinduism to Christianity
or Islam? Plainly and simply:
6a).
Conversion (especially, even in the present day,
to Christianity) is not a matter of personal or individual choice. In
the past it was a matter of forced conversion by the sword, and, except
brazenly lying leftist historians, no-one can deny or pretend to
doubt that for one second. It is a matter (apart from very sharp and graphic Hindu
traditional memories) of detailed records left by the Islamic and Christian
proselytizers themselves. At present, Christian Evangelism is a
multi-trillion-dollar industry funded and backed by powerful political elements
in western countries: see Arun shourie’s book “Harvesting Our Souls”. People
don’t convert as thinking individuals, it is mercenary mass
conversion where entire countries (Nepal on our own
borders) are slowly becoming Christian all over the world, and entire
states (at present count, Tamilnadu, Andhra, Arunachal
Pradesh…), as well as districts, talukas and towns and villages in
different other states, are becoming Christian within India.
This
is not mere “religious conversion”: this is a war on
Hinduism going on all over India, and in my opinion, it should be
treated as a war situation.
6b).
In the case of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam
it is not merely a case of conversion from one religion
to another, it is a case of conversion from an
open, accepting way of life to a
closed and hate-driven way of life.
A convert is mandatorily expected to hate his/her earlier religion
and co-religionists as a matter of principle in this life and in
the hereafter. The only idea of “love” in this discourse is
bringing earlier co-religionists out of the earlier religion
and into the new one to “save” them!
We
cannot, should not, and do not have a right to be “tolerant” towards intolerant
ideologies. Being “tolerant” towards intolerant ideologies is not “tolerance”. Karl
Popper has expressed this point in great detail in his book “The Open
Society and Its Enemies” (1945:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
“The paradox of tolerance is
a philosophical
concept suggesting that if
a society extends tolerance to those who are intolerant, it risks
enabling the eventual dominance of intolerance, thereby undermining the very principle of
tolerance. This paradox was articulated by philosopher Karl Popper in The
Open Society and Its Enemies (1945),[1] where
he argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to
deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. Popper posited that if
intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could
exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance
itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.”
The
point of all this is that when I wrote above; “I, like most Hindus, am born
a Hindu, and likewise there will be Muslims born as Muslims and Christians
born as Christians. This is the identity one is born with”, I
did not include, and do not consider, the “Christian identity” of
neo-converts to Christianity (i.e, people who were born Hindus
but converted to Christianity in their lifetime) in India as their “identity”.
I make no bones about it. This conversion is not “religious conversion”, it
is a full-fledged war against Hinduism by powerful international forces.
Further
to the above, I wrote: “No-one has a right to kill, attack, hate or
discriminate against, someone else for the identity with which they are
born. As I wrote earlier in this article, a person or
organization indulging in violence (to the point of killing or destroying
property) merely on the basis of “identity” will never have my approval”.
Does this mean that violence against these neo-Christians has my
approval?
As
I do not want to be hypocritical, let me say in very clear terms that it has neither
my approval nor my disapproval. If it had my disapproval,
I would not have included the names of “Dara Singh (of Orissa fame)”
and “The unknown, unnamed Sentinelese tribal who shot an arrow and
killed the American missionary boy of Chinese origin in November 2018” in
my article as two of “The Twelve Indian Political Figures I Like,
Respect and Admire the Most”. I refuse to disapprove of “terrorism”
against missionaries in India (including neo-converts who
function as missionaries). But more responsible even than these missionaries
are the Indian politicians (belonging to left, secularist
and pseudo-Hindutva parties) and leftist “intellectuals”
who encourage these missionary activities for mercenary reasons, so I
obviously do not and cannot approve of “terrorism” against the actual neo-converts.
I leave the question open, and leave it to people to draw their own
conclusions.
II. What types of “Terrorism” Pass the Test in my Opinion?
As I wrote above, I am in no way in a position to (and have not the
slightest desire to) inspire, form, organize, finance, or conduct the
activities of, any such “terrorism”, but I have no inhibition to prevent me
from stretching out my neck to express my views on the subject.
There are two types of “terrorism” which would have my moral support or
approval.
The first is terrorism against terrorists themselves.
I wrote above: “There are obviously situations where no one can legitimately
or honestly object to “the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to
create fear within a population” in certain circumstances, as
when police or armies use it against a “population” consisting of organized
armed gangs, actual terrorists themselves, murderous drug racketeers, serial
killers, human traffickers, etc. Here this kind of violence aims to stop or
put an end to actual violence.”
When police and armies undertake such tasks, it is
perfectly legitimate. But when individuals and organizations do it, it is
considered illegitimate and called “vigilantism”. And indeed, human
beings being human beings with their multiple faults, the individuals and
organizations who/which start out on such activities generally tend to acquire
criminal tendencies themselves in the course of time and become at least as big
a problem as the socio-criminal tendencies and problems in society that they set
out (or claimed to set out) to counter in the first place: perhaps Naxalites
who claimed to have set out to oppose socio-economic exploitation
in rural and tribal parts of India are the most telling examples
of this. So it is not practical or realistic to really support violent vigilantism
as a real solution to problems.
Nevertheless, since I abhor injustice of any and every kind, I have
always, at least in theory and in my mind, had a sneaking liking for true
vigilantes (at least before they become problems in themselves). When I
read newspapers (in the past: I stopped reading newspapers and watching
news programs after 2019) or see crime serials, or even watch TV
“family” soap operas, I often wish there was some terrorist organization
or higher power (perhaps, as in old Pauranik films, a rishi
with incredible magical powers acquired after thousands of years of tapascharya
in the Himalayas?) which would suddenly appear and, with great and systematic
organization or one wave of a wand, would ruthlessly teach a lesson to all
these criminals (from organized armed gangs, actual terrorists themselves,
murderous drug racketeers, serial killers, human traffickers, etc. to rapists,
abusive husbands, roadside goondas, school bullies,
etc,). Childish? Admittedly yes! But that is the way I feel.
In the circumstances, I recently started seeing an old English
(American) serial on Netflix, “Dexter”. It is all about a man (named,
obviously, Dexter) who has psychopathic tendencies and obsessive urges to kill
people in a brutal way. His adopted father, however, has trained him from
childhood to use this evil tendency (the “Dark Companion” or “monster” within
his psyche, as he calls it) for the good of society, by killing serial killers
and brutal monster-criminals who manage to escape punishment because they are
never caught, or because the extremely faulty American “justice system” lets
such dangerous criminals loose on society.
[But all justice systems are criminally faulty: remember
the brutal rapist who had thrust a rod into “Nirbhaya” in the notorious Delhi
gang-rape case in 2012 and pulled out her intestines, and who was given a short
sentence of three years in a “special reform facility” by our Indian justice
system, and who was not only released and let loose on an
unsuspecting populace in 2015, but moved
to an undisclosed location in South India and given a new identity and a job,
reportedly at a roadside eatery, as part of a rehabilitation program with a
charity?]
To be very frank, I just loved this serial (I have not yet
completed all the seasons, and am still on the sixth season), and very, very
fervently wished there were such terrorist vigilantes like Dexter or
super-efficient secret vigilante organizations in India, genuinely
dedicated to dealing with satanic criminals with the utmost violence possible. So,
yes, such vigilante terrorists and terrorist organizations would have my full
approval.
The second type of “terrorism” which would probably have my approval is the destruction of public properties in certain specific
cases. Here I know I will have all the “upwardly
mobile middle classes” of Mumbai baying for my blood, or at least condemning me
in strong terms for what they may call “anti-developmental” obsessions, and
perhaps even calling for strong action to be taken against me on charges of
“sedition” or “terrorism” or “urban naxalism”. Well, I am only expressing my
heartfelt wishes. As I wrote above, I am in no way in a position
to (and have not the slightest desire to) inspire, form, organize, finance, or
conduct the activities of, any such “terrorism”, but I have really strong
feelings on this subject and wish to put down in writing a frustrated desire or
idle wish that I have felt countless times in the last few years
whenever I have had to travel long distance on local Western Railway trains in
Mumbai (say to Virar or Borivali in the north of Mumbai, from Churchgate,
Grant Road or Mumbai Central in the south of Mumbai, and back). Two days ago,
Sunday, I had to go to Borivali to listen to a lecture on Chandragupta Maurya
organized by an associate organization of the RSS (one of my old office
colleagues was among the organizers and had asked me if I would attend it). It
was when I was returning in the late evening from Borivali (and hanging around
at Borivali station) that this dark idle wish sprang into my mind again: “I
wish there was a terrorist organization which would blow out of existence every
single local AC (air-conditioned) train in Mumbai, without of course causing
any loss or injury to human life”.
[This, after the recent conversation on terrorism with an
acquaintance, was the last straw which made me think of writing this article
today].
Two factors about Mumbai must be kept in mind:
One: while all kinds
of new transport facilities have been developed in Mumbai in the last
decade (sea-routes, metro train systems, highways,
underground roads, etc.) the population of Mumbai keeps
shooting up like rocket, and in spite of all the new modes of transport, the
main mode of transport for the vast majority of people in Mumbai (especially
for the working classes, the poor and lower middle classes, etc. most of them
living in the northernmost suburbs of Mumbai and its satellite towns) is the over-a-century-old
local railway system with three lines, the Western Railway, the Central
Railway (Main line) and the Central Railway
(Harbour line). People living at one corner of Mumbai and
working at the other corner (or having to move to and fro in the course of
their daily work) have to travel by local trains all the time. The trains and
platforms are always tightly packed at almost any point of time in the day, but
most especially during what is known as the “peak working hours” in two long
stretches morning-to-afternoon and evening-to-night. Before and after working
all day long, people have to travel for hours in tightly packed trains in
suffocating atmospheres, from home to office and office to home. Only the
people who live through these situations know how searing the daily experiences
of travelling by the local trains can be, for which there are no real
alternatives, and how badly it affects their time, dispositions and health.
To be honest, I have to face this situation only rarely,
usually on holidays, when I make the infrequent trips to distant suburbs in
north Mumbai. When I was working, both my office and home being in south
Mumbai, and any northern travel being against the rush tide, I have not faced
the brunt of this horror. But lakhs and lakhs of poorer people, who live in
northern Mumbai and have to travel to and from the south during peak hours,
have faced this kind of life since decades, with the situation only growing worse
with time with the growing population of Mumbai and the shift of the bulk of
people to houses in the northern suburbs.
As if things were not bad enough, western
Railways have introduced “AC (air-conditioned) local trains” since December
2017, and the number of such trains is slowly increasing. The prices of the
tickets are obviously much more than in the case of the normal locals, and they
are meant for the new middle elites (mainly the “upwardly mobile middle
classes”, the IT crowd, the younger crowds, etc.) while the poorer classes
would not be able to afford the fares within their limited budgets. So, while
the peak-hour crowds on the platforms keep increasing by the minute, we see the
daily scene of people wearily waiting on the platforms as an “AC local” comes
(later than the scheduled time) and goes off half empty. Sometimes two “AC
locals” come one after the other (with gaps of 5-10 minutes in between) while
the crowds continue to increase by the minute. Finally, a normal local train
arrives, but so tightly packed (with people hanging out from the doors: after
all this is the situation on earlier station platforms as well!) and no-one is
able to enter the train. The train leaves after some time, leaving most of the hapless
people on the platform to wait for more time (even as the crowds continue to
increase on the platform). I think this much of a word picture is enough.
When I, who rarely have to endure this
situation, find myself so frustrated and furious over it, can you imagine the
condition of the poor people who have to face this situation at least twice a
day, every day, for hours on end? But who cares for the woes of the poorer
classes? India is “progressing”! And this total indifference to the woes and
troubles of the poor is a standard feature of mercenary India today.
