L ONG ago, there lived a king. He was very brave as well as kind. One day, a violent group attacked his citizens and killed some of them. He was furious and ordered all the perpetrators to be executed at once. But, a highly learned man who always appealed to his kind side, suggested to schedule the execution a few days later. From the next day, suddenly, a campaign commenced that portrayed some among the victims as not-so-innocent citizens. Side by side, another campaign began portraying the entire kingdom as a territory where there was no scope for understanding the psychology of the accused. One more campaign unleashed on the gullible citizens of the kingdom aimed at creating awareness about what constituted ‘justice’ and how ‘rights’ of the accused should be respected. By the time the date of execution of the perpetrators of the violent act had come, pressure built up on the king, and execution was deferred further.

 

The campaigns continued, perpetrators lived on till they died a natural death. But, by their death, the kingdom had been hollowed by self-doubt among citizens. After the death of the king, the kingdom collapsed. The moral of the story is simple: Apologists can allure vulnerable sections of society to selfdestruction. One may find this story relevant in case of India. For years, several apologists under the garb of academics, literature, arts, poetry, activism, humanitarianism have been working tirelessly to build pressure on successive governments to not act against terrorists but talk to them. Hence, when the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits was effected by Islamic terrorists in Kashmir Valley, the governments of the day shied away from giving a befitting response to Pakistan-backed terrorists.

 

The courts were not opened well past midnight to save lives of the Kashmiri Pandits. When domestic and foreign media showed plight of the Kashmiri Pandits living in pathetic conditions in camps, the political dispensation of the time termed it as attempt to show India in poor light. May it be the massacre of Hindus by Islamic terrorists in Kashmir in various incidents ranging from Kishtwar, Chittisingpura, Doda to the killing of innocent tribals by the Maoist terrorists in hinterland of India to various riots from preindependence to the presentday, whenever the governments of the day thought of action, the apologists swung into action in a big, co-ordinated, and wellorchestrated manner. In case of Kashmir, they whitewashed the religious fundamentalism angle. Though not all Muslims were terror supporters, those who killed Hindus definitely spoke of religious war ‘jihad’. No doubt, these fanatical elements killed some Muslims too. However, the apologists utilised killing of patriotic Muslims by Islamic terrorists as a tool to whitewash religious angle behind forced change in demography of Kashmir Valley. Similarly, the apologists whitewashed Maoists killing tribals and Dalits by way of peddling seemingly innocent narratives like ‘tribals killing tribals is unfortunate’.

 

Through all these narratives supported by their aides in a varied field, they have been trying to convince vulnerable people into believing that terrorism of any kind is fuelled by political ideology. Once the foil of ideology is woven around terrorism, they pitch for talks or negotiations as the only way to ‘resolve the issue through better understanding’. Thus, instead of convincing the government, they convince the people, who, in turn, build pressure on the government for outcome desired by terrorists and their sympathisers. They know that the government cannot act against common people. Hence, when IC-814 aircraft was hijacked in 1999-2000, so much pressure was mounted on the erstwhile government that it had to release three dreaded terrorists. That move has been haunting India’s security. Years later, when a web series was made on the episode, selectivism in presentation caused quite a stir on social media. Even today, when the government is winning a war against the Maoists, the apologists have started supporting the Red terrorists deceptive demand for talks.

 

The basic principle on which the apologists operate is to create sympathy for the terrorists. If that is not possible, then they create try to create an ‘understanding’ of the situation as to why someone becomes a terrorist, and invariably link this to political suppression irrespective of the party in power. Gradually, their task is to divide the public opinion at a time when the government needs it to be unanimous. In the current context of the Islamic terrorists killing 26 tourists in Baisaran valley of Pahalgam in Kashmir also, the apologists have started their work. While the first demand of the people is a strong government action against terrorists, even if it requires crossing the Line of Control or the International Border to teach a deterrent lesson to Pakistan-backed elements, the apologists have engaged in ‘post-mortem’ of the situation by raising questions over intelligence failure, abrogation of Article 370, ‘illusion of calm’ in Kashmir Valley etc. At this juncture, the first task before the government is to take resolute action so as to create a sense of security and assurance in the minds of the people. However, the apologists want to serve a different agenda. Hence, they are resorting to all sorts of posts on social media, so that the government either delays the action or does not take any strong action.

 

 Unfortunately for them, time has changed. India is receiving massive support from the world over, and all major countries have condemned the terrorists for the dastardly attack. Besides, people also have started seeing through the smokescreens manufactured by the apologists. The days of the apologists yielding 100 per cent result to their resolve-weakening campaign against the government are fading, if not over. More and more people becoming aware of the language and grammar of the apologists is the only way to defeat their nefarious designs. And, this is the need of the hour. Else, apologists masquerading as academics or rights activists or even celebrities and authors may create a smokescreen of narratives, which may lead to blunting of response of the Government against perpetrators of terrorism. Hence, while cracking down on terrorists, an iron-willed action is needed against the terror sympathisers as well as their apologists. The present-day government at the Centre has been doing it. Now, it needs to go full throttle against the apologists.