When a writer realises that acknowledging political motives of a terror outfit might risk his/her job, he/she chooses to stick with the word ‘militant’.
Mohammad Zubair, who has an engineering degree and US residentship, is not involved in any case in India. Investigators hope to extract information on al Qaeda's network in India from him.
Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal hit back at BJP leader Parvesh Verma for calling him a "terrorist", saying he had worked like the son and brother of Delhi residents in the past five years.
BJP MP Pragya Thakur has been in the eye of a storm over a remark — since expunged — she reportedly made about Gandhi assassin Nathuram Godse in Parliament.
On 19 November 1962, PM Jawaharlal Nehru addressed the people of Assam in a radio address and spoke of the resolve against Chinese attack, saying India won't tolerate this invasion.
Highly biased views (supposedly) coming out of personal suffering. I am not in favor of taking away the much-needed attention from the victims and their families. But the emphasis of proper terminology doesn’t mean we will diminish the importance of their sacrifice.
Terminology merely highlights the motive as you mentioned yourself. There is a difference between people like Osama Bin Laden and these local ‘militants’. Though, the genesis of both movements has been the same; disruption of existing social structure through violence. Yet Al-Qaeda and other groups have gone way off from their course in wake of a misinterpreted meaning of Jihad.
Surely, by now you would have deemed me a “terrorist sympathizer”. Believe me, I would like any international terrorist and local militant to be hanged (after a legal trial). It’s just the need of doing the things by book, that keeps us civil. Otherwise, the line between a non-objective politician and a scholar will be blurred.
I agree with the author in his convincing and cogent writing about the need to deprive most undeserved hallow effect to the terrorists by re-christening their status as less culpable under the name of ‘militants. The very fact that the dreaded and most brutal acts of the the perpetrators of crimes eminently get covered by the domestic and international definition of the term ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ ,renders the term’militant, totally unacceptable.It, ostensibly, tends to trivialise the gravity of the gruesome murders by those taking up deadly arms to fight the state agencies enforcing rule of law. And that unwarranted benefit also becomes available to their over-ground and underground supporters to escape from the lawful consequences flowing from their wilful abetment of the brutal acts of crimes by the ‘terrorist’ sought to be renamed as ‘militant’. This should not be acceptable in any democratic system.
As a Kashmiri, I had witnessed men in uniform
Killing, blinding peaceful protesters, kidnapping ,killing innocent civilians
Aren’t these so called security forces terrorists by your view? mr choudary
A very good, eye opening, heart shaking article, one cannot cover up the truth whatsoever the consequence of speaking truth be.
We needed such articles, editors to tackle radicalisation through informed information /news…..
They will use terrorists? These chaps at Associated Press and western media outlets have hired Kashmiri reporters who file stories describing terrorists mostly as rebels. If they are in a kind mood the use ‘unidentified gunmen/assailants’. If you point this out, they cry about media freedom.
This is a very contested domain. Let us not put it more strongly than that. It is possible to have more than one view about what is happening in Kashmir.
Highly biased views (supposedly) coming out of personal suffering. I am not in favor of taking away the much-needed attention from the victims and their families. But the emphasis of proper terminology doesn’t mean we will diminish the importance of their sacrifice.
Terminology merely highlights the motive as you mentioned yourself. There is a difference between people like Osama Bin Laden and these local ‘militants’. Though, the genesis of both movements has been the same; disruption of existing social structure through violence. Yet Al-Qaeda and other groups have gone way off from their course in wake of a misinterpreted meaning of Jihad.
Surely, by now you would have deemed me a “terrorist sympathizer”. Believe me, I would like any international terrorist and local militant to be hanged (after a legal trial). It’s just the need of doing the things by book, that keeps us civil. Otherwise, the line between a non-objective politician and a scholar will be blurred.
I agree with the author in his convincing and cogent writing about the need to deprive most undeserved hallow effect to the terrorists by re-christening their status as less culpable under the name of ‘militants. The very fact that the dreaded and most brutal acts of the the perpetrators of crimes eminently get covered by the domestic and international definition of the term ‘terror’ and ‘terrorism’ ,renders the term’militant, totally unacceptable.It, ostensibly, tends to trivialise the gravity of the gruesome murders by those taking up deadly arms to fight the state agencies enforcing rule of law. And that unwarranted benefit also becomes available to their over-ground and underground supporters to escape from the lawful consequences flowing from their wilful abetment of the brutal acts of crimes by the ‘terrorist’ sought to be renamed as ‘militant’. This should not be acceptable in any democratic system.
You should not get disheartened.
Illiberal and leftist dominate the pen and ink.
But people in general are awakening and see the facts on ground.
When you kill a jihadi they don’t express it out loud but believe my people of bharat are with security forces.
Echo chambers of these so called journalists will continue to peddle their cabal but they can’t sustain this fake and false narrative.
Continue with your good work of exterminating jihadis and wahabis Until the slate is wiped clean and restore the land of kashyap rishi.
We are with you.
Thanks for your service to the bharat.
As a Kashmiri, I had witnessed men in uniform
Killing, blinding peaceful protesters, kidnapping ,killing innocent civilians
Aren’t these so called security forces terrorists by your view? mr choudary
You have a choice to twist facts.. People in uniform can do anything and still be called ‘ security forces’
Stop using cops, security forces , jawans etc etc for people who kill unarmed civillians start refering to them as terrorists in uniform
A very good, eye opening, heart shaking article, one cannot cover up the truth whatsoever the consequence of speaking truth be.
We needed such articles, editors to tackle radicalisation through informed information /news…..
They will use terrorists? These chaps at Associated Press and western media outlets have hired Kashmiri reporters who file stories describing terrorists mostly as rebels. If they are in a kind mood the use ‘unidentified gunmen/assailants’. If you point this out, they cry about media freedom.
Kudos for this article, Mr. Chaudhary.
This is a very contested domain. Let us not put it more strongly than that. It is possible to have more than one view about what is happening in Kashmir.
Fully agree with author ??