Tuesday, 7 April 2009

Who defines a terrorist?

The editorial page of The Hindu contains an interesting article (of course, against congress party men) and rightly so exposing those who now being glorified after having done heinous crimes in the past! Titled 'Immunity for mobs in the war on terror', the article by Siddharth Varadarajan, makes a point when he states: Bearing silent witness to injustice, as Bhishma and Dronacharya did, makes one morally culpable. Modern jurisprudence tells us that allowing the commission of a heinous crime that one was in a position to prevent makes one as guilty of the offense as actual perpetrator. Throwing a stone at a gurudwara or emptying a Jerry can of petrol on a helpless man or inciting others to do these terrible things are not the only way of committing a crime. Walking away when all of this is happening or about to happen makes a leader or police officer just as guilty.

He goes on to rightly say that we are in a way lob sided in our view of terror and violence. Terrorists blowing up people with bombs and splashing bullets are indeed great criminals (some one for whom no lawyer is even permitted to defend). But individuals guilty of inciting and orchestrating mass murders in the shadow of religion and caste, enjoy effective impunity.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...