Use of the term ‘Hindu terror’ can only further deepen the divide with the opposition

Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh meant it as part of the cut and thrust of debate when he blamed his predecessor in the UPA government for using the term, ‘Hindi terror’. Singh was making a statement in the Lok Sabha about the Gurdaspur terror attack on Friday. The previous day, he had made similar observations in the Rajya Sabha. There was no discussion on the statement in the two Houses because the Opposition led by the Congress has continued to disrupt the proceedings two weeks into the Monsoon Session. 

Singh further needled the Congress by saying that the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) leader Hafiz Sayeed, the mastermind of the November 26, 2011 terror attack in Mumbai, had even congratulated the then home minister for using the term, ‘Hindu terror’. Singh went on to say that use of the term, ‘Hindu terror’ has weakened the Indian position on terrorism. He argued that terrorism has no religion, and therefore it is wrong for the Congress to talk of ‘Hindu terror’.

The Home Minister’s remark is only going to further deepen the rift between the ruling BJP and the Congress, the main opposition party. It will make the debate on terror not only ideological but also more vituperative. It is going to be a war of words and a veritable semantic minefield. The BJP’s objection to ‘Hindu terror’ is two-fold. First, it refuses to countenance the fact that there were or are extremist Hindu organisations which, like jihadi outfits, believe in and practice terrorism. 

Rewind in this context to the arrest of Aseemanand, Pragya Thakur and Prasad Shrikant Purohit, implicated in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blasts that brought the existence of ultra-Hindu groups engaging in acts of terrorism, to light. The cases against these three are still being tried, and the verdict is awaited. 

Meanwhile, the critics of BJP and the Hindutva organisations have maintained that there is need to combat Hindu terror alongside terror perpetrated by other communities. Initially, the BJP and its affiliates appeared to be cautious in countering their critics on this issue. The Rashtriya Swayasevak Sangh (RSS) and other Hindutva organisations appeared to distance themselves from Aseemanand, Thakur and Purohit, arguing that they want every terrorist, regardless of ideology or religion, to be booked and punished. Later however, both RSS and BJP changed tack, stepping up their criticism. And it could perhaps be argued that the change in tenor came in the wake of then home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde making a direct reference to “saffron terror”. Senior BJP leader LK Advani soon expressed concern over the torture of Thakur, and the party started taking a more ambivalent stance on these cases.  

The present home minister has — once again — revived the  pow-wow, even if it was triggered by a spur of the moment remark. But considering that there are far more serious issues hanging fire within and outside Parliament, it is unlikely that this topic can sustain itself for long. The problem with the BJP is that the party seems to believe that by declaring its determination to fight terrorism, especially when such terrorism emerges from Pakistan, it is confronting Islamic terrorism. Yet, the BJP flinches at the possibility of Hindu terror acts because it would like to believe that India, with its Hindu majority population, intrinsically does not believe in the credo of terrorism. Recall that not so long ago, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had argued on behalf of Indian Muslims denying the existence of jihadis in India even as terrorism — he said — was manifesting itself across the world. 

This is mere obfuscation of the complex character of terror which is no longer limited to just one religion and community — not just in India but across the world. Singh’s bid to outflank the Congress in Parliament, by using such a sterile argument could only be a wasted effort because the country is not interested in the semantic snipings that the BJP, Congress and other political parties want to engage in, if only to trip up each other.