08 May 2018
Why are terrorists heroes for liberal media?
Written byShikha ChaudhryIndia
Two days back, Indian Army eliminated a certain terrorist called Mohammed Rafi Bhat. Forces brought along his family to convince him to surrender, but he didn't yield. In my humble view, he died the death he deserved.
Soon after, the Indian media started 'mourning' his death.
The looming question, therefore, is - why is it 'intellectually cool' to normalize terrorism? What, on earth, can justify terrorism?
Repeat after me: A terrorist is not a hero. He is a TERRORIST.
Lest we forget
Difference between terrorism, militancy, insurgency
Militancy: It is the use of violent methods in support of a social cause. The militant violence disrupts the normal life of civilians and is aimed at pressurizing the government to agree to the their leader's demands.
Insurgency: It is an act of revolt by armed means to overthrow the government. The violent actions are directed towards state, but not against civilians.
Terrorism: It is using violence against innocent civilians to intimidate them for supporting the established government of an area.
Why do their hearts bleed for terrorists?
Now that we have established the definition of terrorism, the pertinent question is - why do the hearts of India's liberal journalists bleed for terrorists?
Why, in the twisted world of Barkha Dutt, it was important to highlight that Burhan Wani was a son of school master?
Why did Indian Express change its Facebook cover page image to Wani's dead body? They might as well remove 'Indian' from their name.
And, now 'The Bahl' from 'The Quint' tweeted
Propagandist TV anchors will swoop down on Dr Rafi Bhat’s “anti-nationalism”, but unless we break away from this binary of hate, and begin to understand the desperation that is pushing even PhD scholars to take to arms, Kashmir will continue to bleed. https://t.co/rC4DNRs29e— Raghav Bahl (@Raghav_Bahl) May 7, 2018
Jai, Veeru and Mausi
As a child of 80s, the behavior of our 'all-so-intellectual' media reminds me of the famous 'Jai, Veeru and Mausi' scene.
Desperate, humble Indian 1: He killed innocent people. Media: But, he is a professor.
Peace-loving Kashmiri Pandit: I was uprooted from my home. Media: But, he is a son of a school master.
Jawan's widow: I lost my husband and all we got was a flag. Media: But, we will romanticize terrorism.
Case in point: Osho
Science has no proof that educated people can't be bluffed
That he is a professor does not absolve him of anything. His identity is not that he is an educated PhD holder, but the fact that he chose terrorism, reasons notwithstanding.
Education, by itself, doesn't make one educated, the life choices do.
More importantly, if you think educated people can't be bluffed into non-sense, you need a reality check. In the late 1980s, hundreds of Americans left their lives, to follow a guru called Osho who used their money to buy 94 Rolls-Royces. (This is beyond the scope of this article.)
Can we say "fuck off"
Makes us angry, very angry
We are the Unoffended Right Indian, we have been ignoring their antics for a long time. But today we are hurt.
We are hurt because in their hatred towards one individual (and we concur, he is not Modi-vationally perfect), they have changed the narrative to anti-India.
Media-walas, consider this as a warning: If you step on our toes, we will spit on your face.