In Hey Ram, was Saket Ram a terrorist?

TL;DR:

It's up to you. Were the murders he committed justified? Does his repentance at the film's end and his adherence to Gandhian principles forgive his earlier actions?

Long Answer:

I think you need to first look at the movie again, scene by scene, before then deciding what it all means.

Synopsis:

Saket Ram is working peacefully as an archaeologist with Amjad Khan when the Hindu-Muslim riots start. He returns home to his wife, only for a Muslim mob to tie him up, rape and murder his wife. In fury, he kills the Muslims.

He tries to move on with his life, but can't move past his grief and anger at Islam for what he perceives as their hateful malice. Sriram Abhyanka, a radicalised Hindu, blames Mahatma Gandhi for many of these issues, as he wants a society where Muslims and Hindu's live peacefully together - whereas Abhyanka believes violence should be met with violence.

The movie progresses and he ends up at a party where, in a drunken stupor, he agrees to a plot to assassinate Gandhi where either he or Abhyanka will commit the act. Later however, Abhyanka is left critically injured after an accident and makes Saket swear he will commit the act in his place.

We then have the scene at the factory where he inadvertently starts a Muslim/Hindu riot, after a brief reunion with Amjad. Unfortunately, Amjad dies in this struggle, but we already see Saket change a little. He initially argues against Amjad about the Muslims, before defending them to an extent once learning the Hindus rejected the peace offer that was made.

This ultimately leads to his overall change, where he goes to Gandhi and confesses the crime he was supposed to commit, asking for forgiveness (as he realises Gandhi never tried to harm anyone). Shortly after though, Gandhi is gunned down. He then leads the rest of his life by Gandhian principles.

Discussion

So is he a terrorist? He did murder people, but was he justified given his background? Does the fact he confessed his sins to Gandhi and lived the rest of his life by his principles excuse his earlier actions? When planning the assassination, he obviously was in contact with others. Did his words inspire other people to become radicalised? Can that be forgiven?

Ultimately, I don't think there is an overall right answer. I think what is far more important than if he was a terrorist is how he ended his life. Whether that made up for all that came before is debatable, but he tried to change, which is the important part.

The question about the extent of his terrorism is really up to the viewer. As Gerald Seymour said:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"

Do you think he was justified in his initial actions based on what he had happen to him? Or do you think he was still a terrorist (despite later repenting)? That's really up to you as the viewer.

There is no question of anyone being a terrorist. Saket Ram was a normal everyman who became religious fundamentalist due to incidents surrounding partition of India. Many incidents lead to his transformation from from a regular man to a fundamentalist and again many incidents lead to his re transformation. He is not suddenly convinced by his friend but his friend's death brings a big impact on him and his motives and hence he drops the plan to assassinate Gandhi.