History is a tale. Like every tale, the story of history often has a hero and a villain, who that is, is at the mercy of the storyteller. Similarly, the memory of the story is only strengthened and transcends from story to history by how many times its heard or retold, and that is determined by who the winner is. History is remembered more as the eulogization of the victor, an when the loser is remembered it is for ridicule or more often than not to further glorify the victor. The tale of a terrorist crossing over to being a liberator is thus this journey of crossing the line of defeat to victory.
Robert Bruce is famous for his tale of the spider and it’s spawning of the try, try and try again idiom. He is famous for the uprising of Scots but what if William Wallace had won; Bruce would have been guilty of treason. What if the English king Edward ii won, Bruce would no longer be the hero but the terrorist who would have been tortured and killed.
Let us look home. Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is famous as a hero in India. His exploits in the guerilla warfare tactics against the Mughals led by Aurangzeb is legendary, and his heroics is probably the cornerstone of the Maratha regime that spanned till the end of the rule of the Peshwas. But what if Shivaji Maharaj had been captured in one of his guerilla raids, wouldn't the lore of this illustrious leader be assigned to that of a footnote use to glorify the rulers who subjugated him. Rana Pratap and his warrior horse Chetak are revered by the Rajputs. But isn't his valor a footnote that is often used to glorify the winner of the battle Zille-ilahi Jalaluddin Akbar.
A more contemporary hero and the subject of Guerrillero Heroico, often acclaimed as the most famous photograph in the world, is the Argentine Marxist Revolutionary Che Guevera. Che is revered as a revolutionary and not an anarchist in all probability as he came out on the right side of the revolution that overthrew the rule of Batista. If Che had met his maker in Cuba while leading the guerrilla war against the US-backed Batista instead of in Bolivia, the romanticism that is today a halo on him like his iconic green beret might not be so visible.
Every drop of blood that has paved India to her Tryst with Destiny whether that be of Bhagat Singh or Chandrasekhar Azad, of Kshudiram Bose or Mohammed Ashfaqullah or the legions of the INA led by Netaji, naught would have been celebrated for their contribution if the yoke of British rule had not been unharnessed and the tricolor was flying high. India lauds her heroes and compels the world to acknowledge her brave sons today as heroes. Make no mistake every one of them were once branded an anarchist or a terrorist.
So will we one day come to call Osama Bin Laden as a revolutionary? Will Maulana Massod Azhar someday be lauded as the hero on his blood was built Azad Kashmir. Well, time will be the judge of that I am sure. But what we can deduce from the strings of the above path is that the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is often perception. Essentially both of them are rebels, the outcome of their rebellion is usually the differentiator between which moniker they pick for themselves. However, the summary and very wistful differentiator of a terrorist and a freedom fighter is the long term output of the actions of both groups. A freedom fighter may use violence as a means but the greater end for him is liberation. For a terrorist, however, there is no end and the be all and end all for him is destruction. True they probably garb themselves under some fabric of justification, whether that be religion, or opposing repression.
The good book Bible lists out 7 sins as do the scriptures of our lands. Two of them are greed and envy. The psychological roots differentiating a terrorist and a freedom fighter could probably 2 different sins. A freedom fighter covets something that he doesn't have, liberty or equal rights or the ability to practice one's faith. He may thus pursue this excessively and might include violences a means of that pursuit. However, once that goal is fulfilled his thirst ends and so does the associated violence. For a terrorist however the root sin is envy, an intense desire to possess something that someone else possesses. The moot point is that for greed it is about something you don't have and for envy, it is about something that another possesses. The hunger for violence doesn't get satiated for a terrorist once the supposed goal is fulfilled, for the goal then mutates into something el end the violence continues.
The 9/11 mayhem was ostensibly in support of the Palestinian cause, but would the mayhem have stopped if there were no crises. The goal would then have shifted to probably establishing an Islamic caliphate as the IS is today espousing, the violence would continue unabated. This is the way of an Osama a terrorist, and not the way of a Shivaji Maharaj, who led down an administration to take care of his subject once he gained his goal of liberty.
The call of a liberator and that off a terrorist may sound similar or may have been delivered from the same place. The words hidden between the words cried out are the true indicator of whats to follow once the goal is achieved, liberation and regeneration or violence and more violence. A terrorist and Freedom fighter might seem to be of same coin but it is the use of the coin that decides whether we have a Netaji asking us to shed blood for freedom or an Osama leading a slaughter.
No comments:
Post a Comment