Was Rohith Vemula Being Anti-National?

Rohith Vemula committed suicide after disciplinary action was taken by the University authority. His death has  triggered a fresh row of debate about the status of Dalits in India; Rohith being from Dalit background. The controversy has its genesis because of a quarrel the students group he was affiliated to had with another students group. Rohith was part of a students group of the Dalits and the other group these students quarreled with was the right wing Hindu group, ABVP, the students wing of BJP. It has been reported that Rohith was labelled 'anti-national' by people in ABVP after he and his friends protested against the hanging of Yakub Memon, the person responsible for the bombing of Mumbai.

Whether the quarrel has anything to do with Dalit vs. Anti-Dalit or whether the extreme step was taken due to external pressure and blame must be shouldered by those putting the pressure, I am not going to touch on those matters. Much has been already said. I want to examine whether the protest against Yakub's hanging was an anti-national activity or not.

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that Yakub was indeed involved in Bombay bombing. When he was hanged last year, there was protest from different quarter, including Rohith and friends apparently. There was no denial that there was a protest. But why were they protesting against the hanging of a criminal, whose criminal activity led to the death of 257 people besides wounding many?

Was the protest trying to say (1) that Yakub is innocent and he is not responsible for the bombing and so he should not be hanged. (2) that Yakub should not be hanged though other people who would have done similar bombing should be hanged -- because Yakub is Yakub, and no one else, he should be spared. (3) that Yakub should not be hanged because hanging in general is to be done away with; he should just be kept in prison as it has been done till then.

No. 1 is not on the table... because he was guilty. I don't think Rohith and others were saying that Yakub was innocent. No. 2 is unreasonable... because Yakub alone being spared when others would face the rope is unfair. Why should Yakub be given special treatment? Was Rohith and his friends saying that Yakub and Yakub alone should be spared and other similar criminal activities deserve hanging? May be; may not be. How about no. 3? There were people who argued this way. It is possible that Rohith and friend were also saying this thing. The chance of this message being communicated through their protest was higher than other messages being community.

But if this no 3 was what they meant through their protest, was it an anti-national activity? I do not see how this would amount to an anti-national activity. Suppose they were saying for no. 2, would it mean that their protest was an anti-national activity? I would still say their protest was not an anti-national activity though I would say their protest was unreasonable and unfair. I would thus conclude that it was unfair for those in the ABVP camp to label Rohith as anti-national.

Freedom Fighters or Terrorists

There is a saying that is often repeated: One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. At the superficial level, there appears to be truth in the statement. However, if one digs deeper there are at least two reasons why the statement is problematic. This is important to be set right because faulty idea such as this can have a life of its own and later on hurt the larger society. Arriving at a globally agreed understanding of what consists terrorism has been elusive for various reasons. However, as of today a credible case can be built that defines terrorism as 'employing terror as a political tool by state or non-state actor in a deliberate, systematic and sustained manner upon non-combatants in order to attain certain political objective'.

From time to time Imphal valley has witnessed bombs being planted in public places by non-state actors, resulting in several civilians being killed and wounded by the bomb blasts. Barring an incident or two – like the one where a bomb was planted at Mini Secretariat, Senapati, recently – bomb culture is largely absent in the hill districts of Manipur or even in the entire Naga-land. This suggests that the principle with which some of those in the Imphal valley and the hill districts operate are different. All the non-state actors operating in the Imphal valley or in the hills would insist that they are fighting for self-determination, for political space where they can exercise political autonomy. One important distinction, however, is the way the different parties pursue their political objective.

Given the frequency of bomb blasts in public places, it is hard to miss the point that certain non-state actors are resorting to terror to achieve their political objective. Even in a full-blown war, maximum restraint has to be maintained to avoid civilian casualties. Gun-fights and bomb blasts that target the rival armed forces will occur in battlefield. Yet a distinction must be observed between combatants and non-combatants. Bombs in public places that target non-combatants is terrorism. This is a poor reflection of a group that is pursuing self-determination. Even when the political objective is just, the strategy to achieving the goal can damage the cause. Planting bomb in public places is just the kind of strategy that will invite international and local outrage – a perfect recipe for political disaster; a freedom fighter having become a terrorist.

The same concept of terrorism applies to para-military forces as well operating in the region. Fake encounter killing is not an unusual story being circulated among the general public. 'Friends of the hill people' undertaking active effort to befriend the hill people get nullified with an instance of fake encounter killing. Given the history in the state or the region, significant number of people grew up thinking of the armed forces as Devil's stooge. With an instance of fake encounter killing, it is so easy to typecast the entire security personnel with the age old impression. Even without any effort to reach out and befriend the hill people, 'friends of the hill people' might as well look within and try to curb any kind of fake encounter killing and harassment of innocent public. This will be more productive in creating a friendly outlook. Yet the more important reasons is because of the moral implication such an action bears and guilt associated with it – or ought to associate with it.

The North East in general has a sense of historical movement which is rather different from the mainstream Indian society in several ways. For example, the mass uprising against the British Raj did not take place in the North East just it happened in other parts of the country in the 1930s or 1940s. This kind of mass movement or the lack has a bearing on the present political scenario. No wonder there is some sort of a political faultline between the North East and the rest of India. Given this reality, the way these different entities – state and non-state actors – respond to the ever evolving society will determine the course of political future and its speed of change. Let no one take the general public for granted!

( For the Hornbill Express for 23rd Feb. 2015)   

Norway Attacker a Christian Fundamentalist?

So the Norway terrorist confessed himself to be a Christian, and hates Muslims and adores Hindutva ideology? Well, he is doing some of the things a follower of Christ should never be doing.  Terrorizing innocent people to achieve one's political or religious objective is never a Christian approach, and should never be. In fact, it's not just about being unchristian, but every human person or organisation or government should never use such approach. 

Jesus does not teach his followers to hate anyone. Jesus hates sin, not the sinner. And the same attitude is expected of his followers too. Put it differently, is it a morally acceptable practice to hate Muslims? No. It's quite alright to think Muslims are wrong in their belief, as much as it would be right for them to think Christians are wrong in believing and worshiping Jesus as the divine Lord. And what do we do about it if we disagree with their belief? Kill them? No way. Tell them about Jesus Christ, and show love and respect to them.  Had Anders Breivik understood his Bible, instead of engineering such massacre he would have shared about Jesus to Muslims, and given them the choice to accept or reject.

Did Anders know what Hindutva's attitude is towards the Christians, forget about its attitude towards Muslims? As much as Hindutva's attitude towards minorities like Christians and Muslims are harmful and bad for human flourishing, so much so would any of such attitude of Anders towards Muslims be harmful and bad for human flourishing. I don't know what Anders' ideology is, but if it is like that of Hindutva fringe group I am sure it is bad for any society. No wonder majority of Hindus do not share such ideology! 

If religion is a way of life, as all Christians, Hindus and Muslims would claim then it is quite reasonable that people would have different set of beliefs about it. Utilitarians come up with an approach to life which is different from that of deontological way of thinking, and they compete with each other in public square in a free and fair way. And let such atmosphere prevail even among different religious adherents. You think you are right, share your way of life in free and fair way. No bombs; just words. Let truth win!

Just War Theory: Augustine and Aquinas, and Terrorism

It was Tertullian who asked: What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Unlike Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan advised Christians not to withdraw from the world. Augustine (354-430), following his mentor Ambrose, writes that it is part of Christian duty to work for justice in the world. Ambrose as well as Augustine reject self-defence as appropriate reason for war. However, both of them considered it as Christian obligation to defend the third party nation from aggressor. Augustine thus held that war is justified only under certain conditions-- such as, defending against an unjust oppressor, protecting or rescuing innocent victims in hostile territory, and defending an ally and similar situations. Further, Augustine gave instructions on how to use force, and not just when war is justified. So the question of “when” and “how” were addressed.

Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274) too was not a pacifist. Aquinas laid down three fundamental guidelines for a war to be just: legitimate authority, just cause and right intention. For Aquinas, declaration of war by a legitimate authority was an extremely important condition for he feared that if princes and nobles could declare war for some petty reasons, chaos will reign supreme. Departing from the viewpoint of Augustine, Aquinas was of the view that self-defence was a legitimate reason for war. Thus, when an emperialistic nation/kingdom invades another nation/kingdom, fighting back to protect its territory from the aggressor is a just war. By similar token, waging war for emperialistic expansion of territory would be unjust.

It is important to note that even in situation when it is just to wage war, non-combatants or civilians do not come under attack. The respect for the sanctity of this innocent lives must be safeguarded. The (natural) right of the innocent lives insist that nation-states that go to war observe this right with utmost respect. In present day situation, if nation-state that go to war (on terrorism!) would not distinguish between non-combatants and combatants, how would we differentiate between an act of terrorist group and non terrorist group. Being a nation state or non-state actor do not provide immunity to being called labelled a non-terrorist group. Whether it is US invasion of Iraq or Sri Lankan govt's war on Tamil Tiger or Indian Govt counter-terrorism efforts, army officers or politicians whose orders and policies deliberately killed or injured or tortured non-combatants to achieve their political ends must be brought to the court for trial and appropriate sentence given.

In any war, people are killed and there is loss of resources. And Bible does not endorse war. However, for the sake of lesser evil there arises situations when war has to be fought. The choice, therefore, is about two situations where there would be casualty and loss, and yet as Christians we choose that which would result in lesser casualty and loss or greater good through intervention. The end purpose thus is for greater good!