When we read about the detail of war in history books, the battlefields presented a horrified scene after the war was over. Dead bodies of soldiers who were killed were scattered throughout the field. Sometime so mutilated that it was difficult to recognize them. They were buried in the same place where they were killed. Far from the battlefield, their families and relatives waited to know about the fate of their beloved ones. Often they received the news of death either from their comrades or from the authorities. But in some cases, the whereabouts of soldiers were not known and their families waited in hope to see them safely returning home.

In the early period of history the practice was to bury the soldiers where they died. These graveyards became the memorials of dead soldiers. However, after the First World War some families raised the question that their dead should be buried in their ancestral graveyard. This created a debate whether the dead should be buried where they died or their bodies be shifted to their hometown. A father whose son died during the war, expressed his wish in these words:“ I think my son must rest among those whom he fought; he led his men in battle and I want him to remain among his comrades; that the battle will continue for him, that he be on the frontier and there inspire future generations, in case of a new attack to defend his country…I am convinced that facing this army of sleeping heroes on the field of battle, the Country will be very profoundly moved.”

On the other hand there were people who wanted that the dead should come to home for eternal rest. Pleading this point of view, a father of a dead soldier wrote a letter in July 1919 to the authorities: “ Though they are dead, we want to remove them from those accursed places in the battlefields. They did their duty. Now we must do ours for them: to let them rest in peace in the cemetery of their ancestors. To abandon them is to condemn them to eternal torment. The war today is over. The livings are going home. Let’s the dead return to their villages, to those villages which were in their last thought at the tragic moment of their deaths.”

In Europe, during the 1^st world war, a system was evolved that how to communicate the news of death of soldiers to their families. In France, it was duty of the mayor of the town to inform the family about the death of their relative who died on the front. It was the custom that when the mayor came out of his office, people stood in front of their house in anxiety to see where he stopped. He calmly delivered the news and left the family to mourn. In Britain, the news of common soldiers’ death was communicated by letter and of an official by telegram. In Australia, the priest did the job to go to the family of dead soldier and told them about the sad news.

Traditionally, in Indian subcontinent, the death of a general and high military officer is expressed in an elegy (mirsiya). One of the famous elegies is of Amir Khusru that he had composed on the death Sultan Muhammad Shaheed, the son of Balban, who was killed fighting against the Mongols. When he recited his elegy in the court, the audience wept bitterly, except the sultan, the father, who controlled his emotions to show to his courtiers that, as a king, he was above from ordinary people. He mourned and wept when he was alone in his chamber. A high example of hypocrisy.

Recently, we have observed a new development to the culture of mourning. In the Kargil conflict, when the dead bodies of soldiers were brought to the families, the media teams rushed there and asked families about their opinion in front of the coffin. The poor father, mother or brother has no other alternative but to say that he or she was proud of their son or brother and ready to sacrifice more for the country. The whole show was done in such a way that it became nauseating. The families were compelled to hide their grief and display brazen form of patriotism.

The same culture was developed by the jihadi organizations in Pakistan. When a young mujahid died in Kashmir or Afghanistan, the concerned group, instead of condolence, congratulated the family of the deceased on the martyrdom of their relative. Such was the pressure of the culture that if somebody visited for condolence, the family rebuked him and said proudly that it was the moment of pride and happiness for them that their son/brother died for a sacred cause, so. People, instead of condolence, should congratulate them. Soon, everybody accepted it and on the occasion of the news the relatives and friends garlanded the family of the martyr and distributed sweat to celebrate it. It also became a custom that the street where the family of the dead mujahid lived was named on the martyr. The religious interpretation of this culture was that martyrs never die; they live an eternal life, therefore, their departure from this world should be celebrated.

The characteristic of this culture is that personal grief is not important. What is the grief of an individual is the pride of a community. The martyr no more remains property of the family but of his organization. And by celebrating martyrdom, it inspires other to emulate him and desire for the glorious death. However, the tragic part of this culture is that the family has to endure its sorrow and grief privately and mourn the death silently. While in case of natural death there are no such rituals. No hypocrisy and no artificiality.