Masood Azhar is back in news — this time because of confusions over his “protective custody” by the Pakistan police counter-terrorism department after the Pathankot attack. After the Pathankot attack, Pakistan, being exposed to continuous pressure from India as well as from the US and other nations, assured substantial actions on terrorism. But while the Indian Government, with the help of NIA and other investigative agencies, is pushing Pakistan to take firm actions, the apologist brigade — including many from media houses who were kept away from Pathankot investigations (for some obvious and some not so obvious reasons) have started sabotaging the ongoing mission by creating narratives to hold India responsible for the attack.
Recently, an article by Harinder Baweja on Hindustan Times titled, “Making of a terrorist: Babri demolition triggered Masood Azhar’s jihad” infuriated many Indians, but at the same time, it gathered support from many hardliners like Rana Ayyub and alleged liberals like Ramachandra Guha.
Surprisingly, this article, which has already been declared brilliant and insightful by our many people is nothing but a small paragraph of crippled argument mentioning, “Azhar may never have turned his attention to India or Kashmir were it not for the demolition of the Babri Masjid. He was content playing the role of a ‘journalist’ through a militant journal called Sada-i-Mujahid (Knock of the Mujahid)“, incoherently placed between emotional stories narrated by Masood Azhar. The more disturbing part of this childish article is that it glorifies Masood Azhar as a freedom fighter who is chivalrous, emotional, religious and respectful to women. I was so overwhelmed with frustration after reading this eulogy of a terrorist, involved in killings of many innocents, that I had to close my laptop for a break.
Even if we assume that the author has a soft corner for Masood Azhar (the tortured “donation seeking journalist”, as described by Harinder Baweja) because he treated her with respect, I fail to understand how and why intellectuals like Ramachandra Guha, who write pages on how to deal structure, substructure and superstructure of terrorism or who preach people not to complicate terrorism my mixing religious angles, jumped to affirm the theory with justifications like “Babri demolition was Bad, Masood Azhar is bad, so I will not oppose the argument”
.@IDhruvjaywant The Babri demolition was, and Masood Azhar’s/Jaish’s terror attacks are, brutal and barbaric. I condemn both.
— Ramachandra Guha (@Ram_Guha) January 15, 2016
The blatant hypocrisy of this kind of liberals is not a new thing. They have built their career and credentials by emphasizing secularism to such an extent that it becomes impossible for them to decouple crime and religion before analyzing it. Rightly pointed out by many, if Babri demolition is responsible for the rise of worst terrorists, the perennial destruction of thousands of temples should have turned many Hindus into cannibals. Few days back, most of these apologists were singing rhymes of intolerance, but for Masood Azhar, they have reasons and sympathy for him to become a murderer. It is because of this palpable hypocrisy that “whataboutery” finds a space to grow. It is because of this hypocrisy that when Kiku Sharda is attacked for hurting religious sentiments of some people, other people find justifications from Malda.
Dear apologists, at least stand by your philosophies; at least stand by your arguments; at least don’t make those stupid logical fallacies which you mock others for; and if, you can’t criticize murderous terrorists like you criticize Hindu fundamentalists, at least don’t glamorize them as a freedom hero.
