Shiban Khaibri
Unwittingly or deliberately, when an object is propagated out of context or talked about so voluminously that it results into veneration in disguise; an ordinary terrorist even gets projected as an icon. He becomes more troublesome after his death than when he was alive. We in India, perhaps realize it when the milk gets split or the small spark unintentionally put near a sack of grass turns into a raging fire, dousing of which becomes much difficult. The serology of events that took place immediately after the three terrorists were neutralized in an encounter in Kashmir, one of whom was Burhan Wani proves the point. What we saw after July 8, was horrendous in terms of lives lost of and grievous injuries sustained by the civilians and the security personnel, the damage to public property, loss of trade and commerce, paralyzing of Banking business, loss of studies to the students and last but not the least, the discomfiture, the state of feeling of ill at ease as also of suspicion of what was destined to follow, must jostle the conscience of those who contributed towards this scenario in whatever proportion. Can we introspect and learn lessons ? Can the current blunders committed innocently or in a zest of scoring points in an era of competitiveness, guide us to be more cautious in future ? If we indulge in it again as a routine or as adage goes “old habits die hard”, won’t the same be at a perilous cost to the nation ? Do we heave a sigh of relief and dive deep in a pool of complacency when somehow a crisis was managed, quite oblivious of its recurrence at an immediate future point? These are the questions we should engage ourselves with to find answers but the condition is in an air of feeling of how much was the country, the nation important and paramount of all other things.
The 22 year young Kashmiri terrorist Burhan Wani died in an encounter on July 8, 2016 along with his two accomplices. The news spread but with a special piquant of both overambitious and competitiveness of who or which agency gave wide and intense details. If the information would have been provided in the “ordinary course of business” like other similar incidents in this large country of nearly 130 crore people, most probably the scale of violence would have not been of such dimensions. How many knew that he carried a cash reward of Rs. 10 lac on his head and how are the people interested in how the Police or the administration plan to nab a trouble, a mobile trouble in human form. Giving wide publicity to “reward” information, after the death of a person in comparison to when he was alive sounds strange as in the hope of netting the reward anyone could have facilitated it earlier . Usually , as common sense and elementary discretion warrant, the Police and the administration never make public , unless under compulsions of law, the source of information for easiness of the process of zeroing in the place of hiding to nab the culprit. In the instant case, one must feel aghast on how the vital information was made public that one of his girl friends , estranged with the “infidelity” of Burhan “informed” the Police about his movements around Anantnag area which led it direct to the spot where the fugitive was present. One could have imagined there and then when such information was shared with the public and that also repeatedly, the fate of the source of the information as also those in uniform who asked him to surrender instead of choosing to attack them.
What was the necessity of repeatedly airing the fact that one of the girl friends of the terrorist had given the exact details of the movements and presence of the terrorist? What was the necessity of repeatedly sharing other avoidable information even when the fire had started raging with full intensity? The freedom of expression brings with it self controlled and self imposed restrictions in the interests of the country and its law enforcing apparatus. Why can we not emulate the example of how with utmost secrecy, utmost absence of a whimper even, the American Government, the army men , the media “handled” storming of the hideout of the dreaded terror monger Osama Bin Laden till he was killed and reportedly dumped into a sea at unknown destination. “Yes, we have got him”, was all that came out from the American officials. It was, however, only left to Indian politicians like Digvijay singh to lament about what was done to the body ( “Mayat – e-shareef”) of Osama “Jee”.
We cry hoarse and “secular” politicians are vying with one another if a Particular cine star of India is thoroughly frisked at an American airport or asked to wait for some time to enable the officials to complete their patriotic formalities to safeguard their country against anything untoward and for that, they won’t compromise a bit even if some celebrity of a country or a political leader of their own country had to face a bit of inconvenience. That speaks for nothing of the sort happening there after 9/11 attack. The national narrative there in respect of the country’s integrity, sovereignty and security is just one , a cohesive clear cut and assertive one.
We also find the gulf in the manner of the reporting immediately after the terrorist’s death and during the turmoil that followed between the local vernacular press and some sections of the national press. The fact of Paparazzi taking place in an entire different form led to confusion followed by the self proclaimed and believed ones – mainstream parties , at the outset, tweeting , ” Burhan was not the first and the last to take to the gun” or worse still further , ” Burhan’s death won’t stop further recruitments….”. This also indirectly upped the nefarious designs of the mischief mongers to escalate violence. This is a travesty that the ones believed to be liberals and democrats as also those vouching for freedom of expression did not exactly know , intentionally or otherwise, how to report the terrorist’s death and the violence that followed and kept on harping on a singular point of how the armed forces could best exercise restraint while dealing with the Sangbaz elements , rather expecting them to stand still and motionless to prove as target posts for the missiles and boulder hurlers to set and test the accuracy of their hitting the targets.
Non professional individuals from areas like political, religious, secessionist elements, a section of writers and reporters lamenting and questioning the use of pellet guns could best be asked to act as substitutes of these “non restraining” Police personnel to smilingly face the unruly mob in thousands, holding in hands, pointed and frightening sized boulders, for hurling with intent to grievously injure, if not kill instantaneously, to know the proof of pudding in how it tasted. “A son of a poor Headmaster” was one of the versions to describe this committed terrorist who had taken to the gun to kill, maim and spread terror and the “poor”. None questioned the “dereliction” of fatherly duties in allowing to slip things out of his hands to an extent of his son becoming a poster boy of a dreaded terror organization. A very thin line drawn between the love for the country and the hate for the country is often overlooked in the burst of maddening “Janoon ” of showbiz zing of freedom to expression and dissent. The question of vital importance is whether you should be loyal to your country or to the dictum of “Report – what, where, when and how” and while describing “when” and in particular “how”, you have leverage to fiddle with the restrictions you should impose on yourself.
Ask those Indians who were found scurrying and struggling to come out of conflicting zones in countries like Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, etc; and reach back home (India) as quickly as possible, via the “airlift”, as to how much was the country above everything in comparison to the inelastic stand to put events in a way it fuels suspicion, doubts, anger and therefore gets titled against the interests of the country. Those who adhere to the principle of the “country first” are often charged with overplaying to the sentiments of the people, promote extreme nationalism or worst, indulge in jingoistic activities. When you have to choose between a terrorist’s rights and a soldier’s rights, those who preach sedition from the ones preaching nationalism, the national flag from the enemies’ flags, the country’s security and the national integrity from those propagating its “Tukday tukday” , one must choose India and India alone, the other option can be suicidal.
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel