Some five decades prior, she had decided to join a group of Bengali patriots committed to prosecuting India’s right to independence through armed resistance. She drank deeply of their revolutionary fervour and accepted their rage as evidence of their beliefs. But she was anxious to do more.
So, when her compatriots were convinced she could not be swayed from the group’s goal, they included her in a plan to kill a British functionary. She arrived at the imperial agent’s workplace on the appointed date. Using her status as a student to solicit some concessions for her institution, she soon found herself alone with him in his office. He acquiesced to her demands. Then, as he bent over to authorise her petition, she pulled out a revolver and shot him.
Her story made me uncomfortable. My teacher, sensing this, quickly brought the meeting to an end. After we had taken her leave, he asked if her story had troubled me. I said yes, adding, ‘The Englishman was an ordinary man.’
‘Yes. His was a cruel end.’
‘He wasn’t even armed,’ I shot back.’I agree. Her action seems excessive. Even unconscionable.”It was an evil act.’
‘No,’ he replied, ‘Evil is cold, calculating, and unemotional. This was an act of desperation. And yet, the cause of freedom is just. There can be no moral ambiguity in that. When all sides acknowledge this, the past and the future can make peace with the present.’
This is why peace remains a forlorn hope three-quarters of a century after the British created the two states of Israel and Palestine. During this time, the Palestinians have had the worst of it: losing wars, land, and finally, their independence. Today, their requests for a fairer share of land, a right of return for Palestinian refugees, and a division of Jerusalem are largely ignored.
On the other hand, Israeli settlements continue to encroach on Palestinian soil, triggering an armed revolt by groups like Hamas — Palestinian civilians either accept this, or emigrate – which is invariably met by blunt Israeli force in the interest of neutralising terrorism.
Hamas’ recent act of gruesome brutality, labelled ‘sheer evil’ by Joe Biden on October 7, followed by an Israeli offensive in response, is a stark reminder that peace is contingent on freedom — something that could only result when national self-determination (especially vested Zionist interest) does not prohibit the negotiation of more equitable, permanent, and sovereign territorial boundaries.
This round of mayhem is likely to end badly for the Palestinians. Many thousands of innocents — not only children, but also equally hapless adults — have perished. Using genuine concerns like national security and self-defence, Benjamin Netanyahu is whipping up a storm of outrage that could eradicate everything, including his culpability.
It is tragically ironic that Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant believes his country is ‘fighting human animals, and that it would act accordingly’. With these words, he has outdone Ludwig Fischer, Nazi gauleiter of the Warsaw District, destroyer of its eponymous ghetto, of which Gaza is only a modern avatar and a stark historical reminder.
The unfolding human disaster has been reviled, justified, and ignored by such concerns as Iran‘s clandestine involvement, Hamas’ growing militancy, and Gaza’s inertia to change. All these assumptions may be correct. And yet, governments silently postpone their condemnation of unscrupulous oppression, while loudly expressing their censure for an indefensible act of violence.
Like others in the past that deplored the savage resistance mounted by Native American tribes in a hopeless bid to avoid life on a reservation. Or denounced MK participants of the Soweto uprising who indiscriminately used bombs in a desperate attempt to end apartheid in South Africa. The cause of freedom continues to be morally and relentlessly unambiguous.
