And that makes the difference!

 In politically correct circles, nothing ever is wrong. There ever is this notion of 'perspective'. An example thereof could be this notion of who a terrorist is. In such circles, it would always be maintained that a person who appears a terrorist to one faction could be a patriot, a hero for the other.

An example of such a perspective  could be that the Hamas might be terrorists to Israelis, while to Palestinians, they are saviours. Is this right? Well, 'yes and no' as the French people say, 'may be'!

Personally, I am a little suspicious of such total relativism. In my opinion, absolute relativism may lead to chaos. Freedom of any sort, in my opinion, always comes with a huge responsibility. Similarly, I do feel that the purpose behind any activity or the ultimate objective does matter. Only if the objective has a trace of 'objective'  validity, of 'universal' nobility, can the activity be valorised.

Let us look at a concrete example. Meeran Borvankar, whose book release has caused a huge scandal currently, was reportedly talking of Sanjay Datt and Ajmal Kasab in the context of her much quoted comment on the Yervada jail.

To begin with, I have never ever understood the glamour attached to the Sanjay Datt case. When he was caught in the infamous terrorist arms deal case, he was in his late thirties. 'Sanju Baba', as he is/was fondly called, was no child, in brief, and must have known perfectly well what he was doing. Just because this drug addict (surely then) was a pampered silly son, actually a brat, of famous, rich and connected parents can not alleviate his participation in a crime that killed innocent lives.

I have never understood how he could be a hero, of/for a feature film or of/for the doting media or  of/for silly spectators! The Borvankar lady says that this 'hero' caught in anti-national nefarious activities was shit scared that there would an encounter! A real patriot would never indulge in a nefarious activity,  nor cringe in a cowardly fashion when it comes to facing its aftermath! And that makes the whole difference, I suppose.

Now let us look at Ajmal Kasab. A poor person, used as a convenient, dispensable tool by his "aka", he cried like a child on the eve of his execution, says Borvankar. No revolutionary would ever do this. That makes the difference, I suppose.

 A revolutionary would neither be heartless nor would indulge in mindless violence. The ideal pursued would be genuine, would enjoy a humane philosophy behind it. Revolutionary activity can never be mindless cruelty.  Precisely the point Charles Dickens makes in his brilliant analysis of the French Revolution. In other words, a genuine Sydney Carton is far nobler, truly a revolutionary than any  number of committed Madame Defarge-s. And that is the difference!

 Pratima@ In the times of universal deceit (called 'perspective'?!?), telling the truth is a revolutionary act! Long live George Orwell! Literature is always truer, more revolutionary than any 'theory', and thus makes the difference!