Me : All the three have something in common.
Myself : Are you sure? Gandhi and terrorists? I'm assuming that you are referring to MK Gandhi.
Me : Yes.. In my opinion I'm fairly certain. They all use fundamentally the same principles, as far as I can see.
Myself : Never heard of an ahimsavadi terrorist.
Me : No, ahimsa was simply a tool. So is warfare, or jihad. A tool is used as a means to propagate or to implement a principle.
Myself : and the common principle that you suggest is?
Me : Giving a person a sense of higher purpose, to be a part of something larger than himself, to be seen and to be recognized.
Myself : Greek and Latin.
Me : OK. Let me elaborate. Gandhi was appealing to most of the Common people because he was one of them. People could relate to him. And he, in his own way inspired, and in many ways made people believe in what he was saying - that the British Raj was the cause, and that freedom was the solution, to many, if not all of India's problems. And by being part of his movement, an individual, any individual, could become not just an insignificant speck of dust scattered around India, but a martyr, a freedom fighter - known for his selfless sacrifice for the greater good of the nation. A nobody can thus become a somebody.
Myself : Ha. I see what you are saying. I think I agree. But I'll go one up on you and make a more generic statement which might actually transcend time and space.
Me : I'm listening.
Myself : A well educated youth trained by the west, finds that his people back home are suffering because of the ways of the West, and so starts a revolutionary movement. People join him like he's a people magnet and are so appealed by the cause that they are willing to give up their lives to achieve the desired result of the movement. And he causes long lasting damage to the very nation that trained him.
Me: Ha, yes. But I don't agree completely. Though it feels simple to paint all such movements ranging from the Ahimsa movement to the Al Qaeda with the same brush, I am only referring to what sustains the movement -the people who keep joining the movement, and how they are recruited.
Myself : The feeling that they are now fighting for a bigger cause. Their everyday problems seem so much smaller and pettier when they put themselves in the shoes of a freedom fighter or that of a martyr. Drive the message hard enough, and Career, education, and even family takes a back seat.
Me : Exactly. I think you almost borrowed the words of one of the recent terrorist recruits' statement about why he has joined the revolutionary movement. Another example is Bhagat Singh. The British hanged him for terrorism, and we have busts and images of him, the martyr, all over the country.
Myself : Yes yes. And so now I also see why NSC Bose, was a similar case. He lived in the same time period as Gandhi, and initially he was even part of the Indian National Congress, along with Gandhi! But he was too radical to take up the path of ahimsa. I'm guessing this is where your point about the tool comes in.
Me : That's correct. And Gandhi and Bose are the perfect examples. Same problem, similar education, same proposed solution but a different tool to achieve the same desired end. One chose Ahimsa and the other founded the Indian National Army.
Myself : And they both were able to appeal to hundreds of thousands of Indians, across social, geographical, economic and educational boundaries to join their respective movements. They must have been extremely inspirational!
Me : I am sure they were. Goes to prove my point. An inspirational leader, a shot at a larger than life identity, a chance to contribute to a greater cause, and a lot of peer pressure - bingo! An almost ideal recipe for the creation of a radical element.
Myself : I guess it also serves as a great way to vent out stored up frustrations, if any.
Me : I'm fairly certain that recent terrorist movements are tapping into that.
Myself : And in turn, the frustration built up by the terrorist attacks are tapped into by governments to recruit for the armed forces, and also to push their political and economic agendas - the very things that sparked these radical movements. A vicious cycle. The war on terror, though it seems necessary, doesn't seem to be a solution in itself. It only seems to create more chaos, and consequently more opportunities for radical recruitment.
Me : I agree. The best long term solution might be to choke the supply of their biggest weapons - their recruits. I didn't think we'd be on the same page so quickly.
Myself : Your lucky day! So, where do you think religion fits into this picture?
Me : As our conversation clearly suggests, nowhere! I believe that it's just plain bigotry. Religion seems to be one of the symbologies flouted by some of the radical elements, and it simply seems to have caught on as a paranoia for the western mind. You tell any stupid story to yourself for long enough and one day you may actually start believing it to be a fact. Illogical rhetoric, I think.
Myself : And by doing that, a whole community is being antagonized. Won't it actually make recruiting easier for those organizations?
Me : I am sure it does. And, a leader of such an outfit wouldn't mind such bigotry because It fritters away the energy of his enemy and shifts the focus away from the real issues.
Myself : So He'd actually flout the symbology even more - flags, slogans, graffiti and the like. Because it appeals so much to the story in his enemy's head.
Me : If only, people in power were as smart as you are, things may be a lot more different.
Myself : Ha!
