Tuesday, December 23, 2008

I con fusion

At one point of time, life was crystal clear.
You knew where the train headed, and why you were going there. Things made sense out of the sheer desire to make sense, and it was all like a movie on Blu-ray.
At one point of time, life was crystal clear.

But that was probably sometime in the '60s.

Just when I thought I was somehow exempt from teenage hysteria, it gripped me like a cold hands on a warm cup of coffee. Odiously, it hasn't loosened its grip since.

For example, my will to write about the Mumbai attack (11/26) was crushed when I was stuck choosing between:
"It's not raining." and
"It isn't raining."
Complexities have sprouted from nowhere, and I'm constantly standing at a fork in the road. This has led me to believe that I'm probably the only one who doesn't know what's going on.

The guys who missed their Metro Train home and stood, like a stone, at the station to watch the news about the situation in Mumbai when a couple of idiots hooked to GTA busted into the Taj -- they seemed to know what they were doing.
Why was I trying to get a seat in the Metro then?

The kids in college, who came in like me, at the same time as me, study day and night, and are on no sleep -- they seem to know what they're doing.
Why was I thinking of a new template for my blog then?

When I'm always heading in the opposi -- Wait a second!

No sleep? Are you kidding me? Those books don't deserve that! I don't care if you spent all night trying to memorise a useless fact about types of hammers! Plus, the results aren't even out yet. We'll see who thought about their blog, slept all night and comes out on top.

And those who cared about the Mumbai blast -- YOU don't know what you're doing. You're protesting against terrorism? Wow, smart move. It's not a freaking Government you're protesting against -- taking the nation to a halt for a day and marching out to the gate won't do anything. How does it even matter? Do you really think protesting against terrorism will make them stop? "Oh my God! Those guys are protesting against terrorists! We can't attack there!"

I don't mean to kid around when I say 'Rang De Basanti' has really gone to your head.

However, peace marches or lighting candles -- those are personal beliefs, and they do make sense. Protesting against someone who doesn't care, that is stupid.

Well, at least you made me feel smart.
I may have written only 118 posts, and this may be the millionth one about utter confusion, but you've done a good job at stopping me from writing my next post about confission. Fusion. Whatever.



  1. "Protesting against someone who doesn't care, that is stupid."

    Hmmm now where is that placard that barks "down down terrorism, we don't like terrorism" . I have never seen one.

    But then again didn't we win over and abolish the British rule/terrorism by only protesting in many ways similar to what u witness now, although very rare. But it can't be called stupid and absurd and all cos our country won its independence through non-violence.

  2. Certainly.

    We got independence from the British rule (not terrorism, it was colonialism) because it was working as a government. And as every government works, it needs its people to survive. When those very people are unwilling to cooperate, the government collapses.

    However, terrorists are not a government. They don't need people to survive. And as far as I know, it needs people to kill so that people who survive, live in fear. But no one really knows how they work.
    In any case, note that they differ from the government, and that not cooperating with their rules or policies will not make them tremble.
    And that's what makes me say what I said.

  3. Hmmmm we call it terrorism and those involved as terrorists but they call it holy war and themselves as god's disciples. You can call it whatever you want but the fact remains that any single person or a group or an organized body that kills a human being for merely not believing in what they do is but terrorism only it is called by a different name.

  4. Fine.
    Let's call that terrorism.

    In any case, though, the British functioned as a government. And like I said earlier, they need people to survive. If people are unwilling to cooperate, they collapse.

    Terrorism is not a government. At least not the one we're seeing. So, what do we achieve by marching out and taking the nation to a halt? They don't care what you do. You can badmouth them for all eternity and they wouldn't care. So it'd be best we stop that, and do something to stop terrorism (once again, marches and placards won't stop them).

  5. Well even though terrorism does not have a globally accepted definition, it can be called an act which is done to inspire terror among a targeted mass, and to impose the superiority of the terrorists. Now, I believe that no govt. is ever a terrorist to begin with. Lets talk about the British colonial govt. in particular. They were driven by their greed when they set foot in India. of course, one may talk at length about 'the white man's burden' etc. but the fact remains, is that the British looked at India as a source of cheap labour and raw material, and as a market to sell their finished industrial goods. For the British to effectively rule over India, it was essential for them that the locals believed in their superiority and did not question their authority. You may note, that the British used thousand other ways to conquer the Indian territories, like Divide and Rule etc. before force was used.Once again, one must keep in mind the difference between a terrorist attack and war here. In war, the motive is to survive and win, in terrorism, the motive is to die and prove. So, can we thus safely conclude that no govt. is a terrorist? Of course we can't!
    We cannot , so easily forget the atrocities done by the British in colonial India towards poor farmers and peasants, towards revolutionaries, towards nationlaists and towards the spirit of India. It is not so easy to turn a blind eye towards the inhumane practices of the US Army towards the Iraqi prisoners of war. Guantanamo Bay, till recently was the biggest example of a country's use of terrorism to prove its might. 'Operation Shock and Awe" was a calculated step to induce fear and terror in the hearts of the Iraqis for AMERICA. These, and many more are all acts of terror. There's no use denying it.
    The difference between the terrorism by a govt. and that of , lets say Let, is that for a govt. an act of terrorism is a means to an end, whereas, for a terrorist outfit, the act of terrorism is the end itself. In simpler terms, when a govt. indulges in an act of terror, it is always to serve a biggere motive, which is generally to prove its superiotiy over other nations or to acquire some strategic power important for the country's economy. The primary motive of a govt. is not terrorism. However, for a terrorist outfit like Let, terrorism or jehad is a holy act. here, the act of terrorism itself is an ultimate motive.
    here, I have talked about let and jehad. This is not to say that terrorism is restricted to only one faith or community, hell no! A terrorist has no religion. They have just been used as examples for what my main message was. What i say would hols true just as much had I been talking about Sadhvi Pragya Thakur instead of Osama bin Laden.
    The crux of the matter and the question all of us need to ask our ourselves today is,'Who is responsible for Terrorism?'
    Im already seraching for the answer.....