Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Who is the 'terrorist'?

The right wing party has its militant wing called the ‘Bajrang Dal’ the self styled ‘moral police’ which has ‘terrorised’ people into following their diktats. The Left wing parties have their militant wing called ‘Naxals’ who terrorise the establishment and those associated with it. And it is the contention of both the parent parties that their militant wing members should not be called ‘terrorists’. It seems so similar to the movements in Kashmir where their militants do not want to be labelled ‘terrorists’ despite their terrorising the locals.
The ‘democratic process’ in India sure seems to have neglected the common man enough, except while looting him, to frustrate him to the point of taking law into his own hands. And now the ‘powers that be’ complain that they so much want to improve the living conditions of the common man but are unable to do so due all the militancy. Sigh.
Who is the terrorist? The perpetrator or the victim?


  1. To me, a terrorist, by any other name, is still a terrorist!

  2. i understand your irritation and frustration.
    you should do some more research before landing to such conclusions.
    First it may land you into problems for defaming the parties. Stop looking at parties as stand alone ideologies.

    also don't compare naxals to the kashmir militants. kashmiri militants do not fight for the cause of the people nor have their support, in the case of naxals and maoists they are actually ultra nationalist fighting for a cause, which we may may not agree to, but they are not comparable!