A lot has been spoken about it. Since it
happened, that is. Debates and arguments, discussions and peace marches, many
people have taken it up. A sort of post-mortem, so as not let it fade from
memories. As if, it would.
Calling it, it isn’t an attempt to lessen the import of the act by any means.
Neither is it a means of avoiding the truth. An act of extreme violation, of
defiling and corruption, barbarism and inhumanness towards one’s very being;
what difference is the right nomenclature going to make in the context? It’s a
deed of abject apathy and as such, doesn’t merit any name-tagging of any sort.
But what matters is the deed in itself in
that, the audacity with which it was committed. The single-minded ruthlessness
that certain factions employ to get their way, however amoral and wrong it
might be. And what matters more than the deed in itself is the innumerable
post-mortems that spring up.
Post-mortems, that consist of so-called
experts coming and raging on about potential punitive measures, about how in the
future such events can be prevented, about the innumerable ways in which the
system failed and most importantly – the peace parades that spill over as
sudden as the event itself, without any precedence whatsoever.
And just as sudden people assemble to carry
the fight forward, equally abrupt is their dispersion. Holding candles one day,
only to forget the event a few months down the line; it’s like a vicious cycle –
a sliver of memory here today, gone tomorrow. Peace parades are supposedly all
about taking a proactive stance, a vestige of the bygone days when the nation strived
for its freedom by standing its ground – literally, so to speak.
But reality differs from suppositions and
differs hugely, at that. Peace parades today are more of a trend, catching
steam as more people report its USPs on the various available social networking
sites. A prospect that rather than achieve the purpose, defeats it admirably as
over-hyped newscasters and media personnel start to surround the locale and try
to purposefully put a completely different slant to the story.
With law-making authorities entering the
fray, thanks to the media intervention, the whole concept of peace and march
lies blown to smithereens while newer voices rage on about suppression of
freedoms of expressions and speeches. This utter destruction of the original
purpose and intent, carried out in so unassuming a manner, pinpoints the very catch
in the situation. Of lapses in security that necessitate these parades in the first place, and the
resultant moral policing carried out by those practicing jurisprudence in an
effort to subvert their inadequacies. If the law were so keen to maintain its
untarnished repute, it wouldn’t have occurred
at all in the first place, would it?
Which is why, while wanting to do a certain
act as a stance against an unmoral deed, remains a message to be passed around;
doing so with utmost discretion needs to be a priority. For as significant taking
a stance is, equally significant it is to see it to fruition, no matter the
involvement – or intrusion – of the media personnel and the unwanted
extravagances of backlashes they bring in their wake.
No comments:
Post a Comment