Deciphering mass murders - II

Suketu Mehta writes in his seminal non-fiction work Maximum City, "A murderer isn't just defined by the murder he has committed". Since I haven't read the book, I might have misplaced his exact words, but to be precise, these words were expressed to me by a friend and I surely might have jumbled up the words. However, I narrated them here, because what I'm going to write bears a relevance to the above expressed comment regarding a murderer as an individual.

But what about mass murders? Do their perpetrators too fall in the same category? Suketu Mehta's actual comment (as told to me by my friend) is "A murderer isn't just defined by the murder he has committed. He's a father, a son, a husband and a friend too". Clearly, characters in real life aren't in perfectly white or black shades. As I wrote in my earlier post, Even Hitler was adored by the German populace in 1930s because of the economic development he brought about, and reviving German national pride. Today, everywhere in the World, Hitler is looked at with contempt and disdain except for few blessed souls such as Iranian President Mr. Ahmedinejad and Shiv Sena Supremo Balasaheb Thakrey for reasons known only to them. But the point remains the same, even a Hitler had supporters during his regime, and these supporters believed that they were to benefit from Hitler's rule, if it lasted.

The Tienanmen massacres during 1989 in China, in which thousands of youths were massacred for demanding Democracy didn't overthrow the communist regime. In fact, to many in India, the present rise of China makes a very strong case for single party system so that decisions regarding development can take place very smoothly and do not get bogged down by protests as has been happening in India over the issue of Special Economic Zones and entry of organized retailers such as Walmart etc. Again, the communist regime here too isn't just a murderer. It was the father of economic rise of China, and many people in China take such a strong nationalistic pride in this meteoric rise of Chinese Dragon, that they are willing to fore go Democracy for the sake of economic development so that China would be able to bring its millions of poor out of poverty efficiently and smoothly.

But then what about the murders and killings of innocent? Do they get justified in the pursuit of development? I, you and anybody who believes in Democracy would cry this as blasphemy. But this is what happens in many parts of the World. Too many dictators in Middle East and Latin America have been able to keep their populace happy just because of their oil money which they spend lavishly on their masses. And if the majority of the masses don't have a problem, who are you and me to complain?

Now, to talk about celebrated Democracies of the World - U.S. and India. United States has everything in contrast to above two examples - a free media operating in a democratic political framework, but still George Bush was able to dupe everyone into believing that Iraq possessed WMDs. What happened to the media then? Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib still happened. Thousands of Iraqis have died in the infightings and clashes between Shias and Sunnis in Iraq. Who's to blame? Agreed that Bush faulted, but isn't so much proclaimed and self-congratulating, competitive and free media of U.S. at fault too which by and large supported the invasion. What about US politicians? Can they put the full blame on one person - Bush and Bush only. And who chose these politicians?

Coming back home, In India, Narendra Modi and his government fully supported street killing of Muslims during 2002 Godhra riots and yet, It is for everybody to see what has become of Gujrat today. Investors are lining up to open Industries and Business in Gujrat. SEZs are being opened, Highways are being built. As for Media, Truly, the murders have been forgotten. The same media which criticized Modi's government day and night in 2002, now publishes advertorials from Gujrat government inviting everybody to reap in the sops being provided under Modi's aegis. Never does an interview gets published in any newspaper where Modi is questioned over his role in 2002 riots, all that gets published is Gujrat's phenomenal growth story. Moreover, Modi is expected to win the coming state elections during end of year 2007 due to his strong emphasis on development and good governance (bringing check to corruption and straightening bureacracy). But what about millions of Muslims living in Gujrat, Mr. Modi? What about their lives?

At this point, I'd like to pose a question to my readers, "Have Democracy and Free Media failed the people of US and India?" Do comment. I'd like to know your views on this.

This is second in a three part series on Democracy and Free Media. I'd conclude this essay in my next post.