Can’t we have it as a rule?

First, I read a very outrageous headline yesterday on Google news: “Maoists kill a cop, Nitish’s security tightened”. It is any body’s guess what is the attitude of our politicians when it comes to common folks being killed by Maoists and terrorists.

Anyway, I’m not going to talk about this. I was just thinking, with so many people being taken hostages by terrorists and other extremist groups wouldn’t it be better if we had an international rule that the moment people are taken hostage in order to get an individual released that individual must be killed? It is just a thought and I don’t know what would be its implications. But I’m sure this trend of taking people hostage will be drastically reduced because it would mean immediately getting your chap killed.

For instance if I am a terrorist or a Maoist in jail and my people take hostage civilians or policemen, and threaten that the hostages will be killed if I am not released, then I should be immediately put down. This will send a strong message to such organizations and they will only resort to this at the cost of the person they are trying to help.

And this needs to be an international law or rule because for a single country it will be difficult to implement or there won’t be any political will, for example, in the case of India, it’s our politicians who don’t seem to be willing to solve such problems. On top of that there are some misguided intellectuals and the so-called human rights activists that provide vocal support to such extremist groups even when they slit throats of their captives and then organize press conferences to boast about their acts. If it is an international law then countries like India will have to implement or toe the line.

I know, in the current international scenario this is not going to happen but I think the citizens of all the countries must put pressure on their respective governments; this will really help reduce the number of such instances and in fact they may cease to occur completely.

6 thoughts on “Can’t we have it as a rule?

  1. Mai Harinder Kaur

    I think the problem with this is that it would create martyrs. A dead martyr is much more effective than most living members of any group. Many – perhaps most – extremist groups are more than willing to have members die to further the cause (whatever it is). And most members of these groups, I imagine, are willing to be martyred.

    Even look at Indian history. A live Bhagat Singh was minimally effective. A martyred Bhagat Singh was a bright, shining star that even today is looked upon with something approaching awe.

  2. Kashmira

    The above comment seem to be written while on drug. He/she is clubbing Bhagat Singh with Maoists and Islamic terrorists.

  3. Amrit Post author

    @Mai although I do agree that killing them would needlessly turn them into martyrs I would prefer dead martyrs to live terrorists. This is because most of the terrorists are direction less and they need strong leaders. if the leaders are either jailed or killed they will be mostly clueless.

    Bhagat Singh on the other hand was a part of a revolution and revolutions normally involve people, they are not individualistic and hence such martyrs gave rise to more revolutionaries. Many Sikh Gurus and commanders were brutally and publicly killed by Muslims but this could never stop more people from putting up the resistance.

    If these terrorists and Maoists were real revolutionaries first of all they wouldn’t kill needlessly and they would especially never kill people to get out of jail. Remember Bhagat Singh let the British arrest him after he exploded bombs in the assembly. Even while exploding the bombs they made sure that nobody got hurt; they just wanted to convey a message. So yes, they shouldn’t be compared and it was a misplaced comparison.

Comments are closed.