What's pushing our boys, once again, towards the path of destruction? The powers that be, may find it convenient to portray ever resisting sentiment as terrorism. The so-called categorisation of a 'terrorist' provides an easy escape to the security establishment.
That for not to seek answers to some troubling question; why and how a boy finds himself pushed, to tread on the path of an ultimate self-destruction. Consequences of an armed struggle are rather well-known here, its invitation to an imminent death.
Agreed, a distinction can never be drawn between a, 'good' or 'bad', terrorist; every terrorist ultimately is a terrorist. Every rebelling youth, however, is not a terrorist that we need to bear in mind.
No one here is interested in glorifying the cult of violence. The path of destruction eventually resulting, nothing else than death and destruction, is hardly a moot point. Highly educated youth with a fairly well-to-do background are now flocking towards militancy.
I am afraid Burhan may eventually turn out to be a trend. A likeable rather handsome boy, slowly acquiring a cult figure image, emerging as a role model for rebelling youth to follow the pursuit, is a highly worrying development. The boys are being sucked in by a vicious cycle of violence. From where they will never be able to withdraw unscathed, even if physically but never emotionally, is hardly a situation to celebrate. Most of the boys chasing a dream may eventually get consumed in a movement that they perceive as resistance.
Profoundly upsetting is to witness a boy getting killed in an encounter, in the prime of his youth. More distressing, however, is the inability for not been able to offer a word of caution. Ultimately, more distressing, is the awful feeling that the boys conditioned by the existence of a dispute, even confronted with a possibility of immediate death, and may never be able to heed to the word of that caution.
For that matter is anyone here capable of, morally empowered and visionary enough, to counsel the boys that the violence is purely a path of sheer destruction.
And we must confess that the boys solely are not to be blamed. The boys caught in the web of violence are simply victim of a very complex conflict. That fully resembles a Gordian knot, a near impossible situation incapable of invoking any hope. What a profound paradox it seems to be. We may empathise with their cause yet we feel sorry for the course of action the boys are desperate to adopt.
It serves no cause to eulogise a destructive approach. We still hope that somehow boys could desist from the path of violence. Let's assert every right to criticise the boys for treading on the path of utter destruction. Yet it will be highly unfair to condemn them as criminals. Neither the boys are frustrated unemployed youth.
Let's face the reality, howsoever unpleasant it seems to be. The truth can never be denied even if the boys have become a problem.
This society can never wish away this problem by simply shrugging-off the problem, what to me. Every Burhan after all is a son of the soil. If my son ends up as a problem, how could I deny the fact that he is my son? The ostrich like approach will never make the problem to disappear. Alas denial never provides a way out.
The real problem, however, is that a vast majority in Kashmir believes that boys are not a problem, at all. The boys are simply desperate to resolve an intractable problem. Thus the argument boils down to, far from being problematic to the resolution of a problem.
How it is possible to wish away a problem that has kept captive the future of Kashmir for generations now?
When has gun resolved a problem? There is a near consensus on the fact that violence is a destructive path. But then, has any dialogue been instrumental in resolving the Kashmir dispute? Terror and talks can never go together, who can deny that fact.
The boys have resorted to violence is indeed a challenging situation. The real challenge however is the horrible reality that not only boys but the people of Kashmir seem to have lost trust in so called dialogues. Is it possible to convince the boys that just peace is achievable? The Kashmir problem is the root cause of the conflict. New Delhi, however, holds the key for a sustainable peace.
Who here has the credibility to tell the boys that New Delhi is amenable for peace? Only the instrument of war now carries the conviction in Kashmir. The instruments of peace fully stand discredited. On one hand, the resort to gun fully negates the idea of sustainable peace through peaceful means. On the other hand, the continued denial of legitimate rights only exacerbates the conflict rather endlessly.
Shall we mourn the prospect of an out-and-out destruction as gun is again staring at our face? Or else, shall we grieve the destruction of a middle space, wherein resolution of the dispute was possible through pursuance of peaceful means.