bad words? why?

[sexy_singh]

Militant

Terrorist

Extremist

.

.

.

These words are nowadays considered dirty. In fact almost all violence is dirty, unless presented through the sanitizing filter of a television screen. Even then, it is only just tolerated because its generally thought that some particularly bad people, unfortunately, need to killed so those who live around them can be free and good like us.

It is socially unacceptable for someone to advocate any sort of vigilante action. Others look down on this because to them such a thing is for backward, fundamentalist types who driven by hate, commit all sorts of horrible acts in the name of God or some other unquestionable authority.

Gone are the days when a revolution was considered healthy and just. When people suffering under the rule of a foreign unruly dictator could rise up and determine their own rulers and goverments. These days, anyone advocating self determination is most probably one of those dirty separatists. Trouble makers, hate mongers, bringers of division to harmonic order and purveyors of chaos.

There is probably a good reason for all of this anti violence inertia. The 20th century saw millions of lives wasted in war and fascism. The world watched as powerful nations unleashed their deadly arsenals on the poor Vietnamese. When men like Pol Pot and Stalin cold blood murdered their own people in the millions. There is no shortage, in recent history or otherwise, of examples where violence has been employed in despicably inhumane ways.

Somewhere, spread out around the globe are these strange people, the Sikhs whos religious doctrines encourage them to adopt force as a last means in the pursuit of ending injustice and other necessary niceties as air-like freedom. In frustration, one of them writes this post wondering why is society incapable of making honest judgements about such important matters. Must it be true that anyone supporting an independence movement is a blood thirsty bigot? He then tries to reconcile the historical heros who brought independence to the various countries under the British Empire. They're still celebrated. No one calls them terrorists?

Those intellectuals amongst us have perfect arguments that allow them to condemn whole nations, fundamentalist regimes, independence movements in a single stroke. They are free of contradiction, emotion and empathy. They also dont matter. They make no difference to the world outside their clean cut, logical and precise argument. Since they dont take a stance, they cant be faulted. When Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Nelson Mandela, Kenyatta called for freedom, one wonders if there were such intellectuals who with immaculate reasoning condemned their efforts. Even if there were, it doesnt matter because they dont matter.

For a given leader with unique revolutionary vision, there will be detractors. It just happens that today the detractors will be in majority. They resist change religiously. Does this matter? Would the 10th Master have resisted the Mughal Emperor if he'd known that people would consider him unfavourably for doing so? Ofcourse to a Sikh the answer is, he would have done so regardless.

So is that what it has come down to? That doing the 'right thing' in fighting for social justice is not only difficult, fraught with danger but its also a thankless task with no cheering, no heros and without recognition? Would Bhagat Singh have opposed the British if he'd known that he'd be shunned into the darker corners of history instead of the bright throne of hero.

(If there is discussion, please avoid it deteriorating into a polarized one about Someone or Something. I mean Bhindrawala and Khalistan. This issue applies to all sikhs and surely there is plenty to talk about without arguing the same stuff about the same thing for the 100th time!)

[challenge_everything]

vah vah