Unholy Wars

Coupled with the menacing problem of terrorism is human rights. No sane person can and should condone violation of human rights and that too at the hands of the state. The state terrorism is worst. If the state starts violating human rights, who will safeguard the violation of human rights. But the terrorists too should not be allowed to use the platform of human rights in the way they are successfully exploiting the free press under the cover of freedom of press. The latest move to change some laws in Europe to prevent misuse of human rights is a overdelayed but welcome step. The West, Europeon countries in particular, used to be fond of raising the bogey of human rights’ violation. But, when the monster has reached to their doorsteps, they are realising that the violation of human rights at the hands of terrorists is too bad and is to be curbed. The BBC, claiming to be the leader of the free media, calls terrorists in Ireland as terrorists but prefers to call terrorists in Kashmir state of India as militants, a respectable term in political jargon. Yes, it is right that a terrorist for a group may be considered and hailed as freedom fighters by a section of the society. However, the basic fact remains that anyone, out to spread terror is a terrorist. Another equally important question is of the credibility of the human rights groups. They are fast losing their constituency in the civilised society on account of their action of turning the nelson’s eye towards the violation of human rights by terrorists. The human rights groups must realise that the terrorists cannot be allowed to perpetrate atrocities on innocent citizens. At the same time, the human rights groups should have transparency in their financial transactions so that the citizens could know their source of finance.

The human rights groups ‘bend over backwards’ to prove their radicalism. And this radicalism seems to consist of a ‘gleeful and malacious’ State-bashing, of ‘proving’ that the law and order machinery is excessively violent; that terrorist violence is almost excusable in the face of ‘State terrorism’, and so on. That the dominant sections of the guardians of public discourse ‘the intelligentsia and the media’ ‘too fell easy prey to these sentiments is predictable. Their willing complicity in a self-imposed censorship or a deliberate distortion (or worse, fabrication) of news only further strengthens the votaries of an authoritarian state. Rarely do the human rights groups realise the faith that this society had reposed in them. Unlike the official media, the politicians and the administration, the human rights groups were seen as courageous guardians of public morality. It is this faith that had given them their power, quite out of proportion to their numbers. But if they too are to be seen as ‘no different from the rest’, then we are indeed in for difficult times. Their pride in a belief that such reports create confidence in the victim groups and communities that at least someone cares, remains at best a partial argument. The purpose of a human rights report cannot be to merely contribute footnotes to history. It must, to be effacacious, communicate with wider sections in society so as to facilitate the emergence of a genuine public discourse on the issues that it contends with. Maulana Bakri of UK, who was reportedly apprehended by the police abroad, is a classical example of ‘rent a quote’ for bytes-hungry TV journalists.

The shooting of a 27-year old Brazialian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes by the London police on July 22 continues to haunt the London police. The media, T.V. and the Opposition besides the human rights activists across the world, in particular from the victim’s home country Brazil, allege that the British Government and the London Police were covering up the unfortunate incident in which an innocent was killed by the police. He was mistaken as a terrorist. Accusing the British Government, Prof. Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Director of the Center for India and South Asia in UCLA in U.K. said: ” As with their bogus claims on Iraqi nuclear weapons, the British government has tried to brazen it out. No one will resign. While issuing a tepid apology to the family, both Blairs have attempted to justify the shoot-to-kills tactics, which they state will continue. No warning will be issued to the victim.” The Police have admitted their mistake. Human rights activists should also ponder over the question that whether such a sustained anti-British Police hostilities would not boost the morale of terrorists who are out to spread terrorists.