The young guy who has died in encounter with the State forces wanted to die the death of a martyr. Martyr as per dictionary means the one who suffers for the sake of principle. So, he can indeed be called a martyr though it’s a different matter his cause was non-alighned to the interest of the State. So, yes he was guilty of waging war against the State. State is a practical reality. Many a times, or almost always, it is evil, but so are rebels. They both use the same means to attract cadre for sacrifice.
I find ISIS to be a completely retrograde institution. Indian State is anytime preferable to ISIS. But my problem here is with the parents, more specifically the father, of the ISIS martyr, who have declined to accept the dead body of their son. Whatever the circumstances, the State can’t become more important than the family. The question here is whether the martyr showed any disrespect towards the family by waging war against the State. And the answer is a clear no.
In fact, the adoption of ISIS ideology in this case was also a ramification of the not-so-long-back existing climate of the country, where new nations within the country were being built each single day. In such circumstances, some kind of civil war environment is inevitable, for nations are built to fight with each other. Those who have led to this ramification are even now not ashamed. They just want a reason to carry nationalism on their sleeves, and this event provide them a new opportunity. I wonder if they used it to garner votes yesterday — the Media did wag their tails faithfully enough throughout the day.
Be the first to comment on "In Re: ISIS Martyr"