Aristotle The Geek

Today, a few terrorists in Jammu took some people hostage and locked themselves inside a house. The Indian army is still fighting them and there have been casualties. According to the report, except two children, all other hostages have been freed, and the terrorists are demanding “safe passage” in exchange for the hostages-

Once the remaining hostages were rescued, there would be a “final onslaught”, said an army officer, which in military terms means blowing up the building with rocket launchers or explosives.

The best case scenario here is that the kids are brought out safely, and the terrorists are then either captured alive or killed. But India is what is generally referred to as a “soft state”. Government action on this front has been inconsistent at best, and it would rather let terrorists get away to save hostages than take the tough decisions that should be taken in such matters – the capitulation in the Rubaiya Sayeed hostage drama as well as the IC 814 fiasco are proof of that. What am I hinting at? That the terrorists should be dealt with satisfactorily no matter what the human cost.

I am a liberal, I stand for individual liberty, and my position on terror may seem contradictory in this context. But it is not. I am not talking about cases where the “enemy” is silently going about his plotting and scheming. I am referring to situations where the terrorists are acting in broad daylight. On one hand governments worldwide don’t mind stripping their citizens of all their liberties all in the name of “fighting terror” – monitoring bank accounts, tapping phone calls, you know the rest. But at the same time, when they do come face to face with terrorists running around with guns – they sit down and negotiate.

Morally (and philosophically) speaking, in incidents like the one I refer to, the State is responsible for the safety of its citizens. But when its hand is forced by terrorists, the primary objective should be the elimination of the particular terrorist threat. If the hostages are rescued, it should be considered a bonus, but the terrorists should not be allowed to get away. Whatever the outcome of the battle, the State is not morally responsible for the same. It is the terrorists who bear the responsibility. As Ayn Rand said, “morality ends where the gun begins.” Note, however, that this principle cannot be used to convert a nation into a police state and let fascists run riot.

Unfortunately, governments don’t necessarily act in this manner, leading one to question their actual motives.