Comment

After years of trying to fool people and build up its structure of hate politics, what could the BJP do but welcome with open arms the people accused of bombing the mosque in Malegaon earlier this year? The steps from “no Hindu can be a terrorist” to “we will help Pragya” follow the same railway track. The earlier shock — probably amazement that someone had actually taken their rhetoric seriously — has now given way to familiar bravado, bluster and hectoring.

But is it not late in the day to start a debate on the connections between terrorism and religion? When it comes to Islam and terrorism, reams have been written about it. The sectarian movement started for Khalistan in the 1980s was some sort of “Sikh terrorism” if you like. The Ireland problem was partly between Catholics and the rest, so that could be some sort of “Catholic” terrorism while those opposed to them could be “Protestant” terrorists, all together taken as “Christian” terrorism. Then you can count all the people of different religions who might be terrorists for some other cause, but still have a religion — the Hindu Tamils of Sri Lanka, or the Christian-Hindu-Tribal extremists and militants of North east India or the even the Naxals.

So does the idea of “Hindu” terrorists shock us because we buy the daft Hindutva line that Hindus are weak, emasculated, peace-loving, put upon, tolerant, sweet blah blah and therefore incapable of violence? Or do we make some strange disconnect between kinds of violence and therefore decide that while Hindus are capable of murder, rape, theft, general maara-maari, soldiering, lathi-charging, torturing in custody, hitting, beating and burning, it is just terrorism that they cannot do?

For the record, that Hindus are non-violent is a meaningless blanket statement that the Hindutva brigade have used as a stick either to beat Hindus with (that Gandhi and his non-violence, we have been emasculated so we could not fight the Mussalmans) or as a matter of pride (we Hindus are so kind and loving, we have never used violence against anyone). This last statement is made in a country whose history is peppered with wars of all kinds and whose two greatest epics are based on war and about a religion which has a warrior caste which is second in status only to the priestly class.

Let’s stop this fake breast-beating and not get caught up in the bogus doctrines of the Hindutva brigade. They have their own problems, caused by the contradictory nature of their own arguments which have created all manner of monsters. They have gone on and on about Hindu weakness and then used tolerance as a high moral ground, that now they’re stuck. Which line to support? Terrorism is surely a cowardly way of dealing with a situation, as is suicide bombing. The honour in hara-kiri for warriors can only be understood in a cultural context: it might easily be argued that Hitler did not have the guts to face the consequences of his actions and that is why he killed himself. Why would anyone but a misguided, indoctrinated fool want to be a terrorist? You could argue that this could happen to all believers in religion or a particular thought process: you cannot therefore equally indict all the people who believe in that religion or thought process. The Sangh Parivar’s problem is that some of them made facile
connections between Islam and terrorism. Now what do they do about Hinduism and terrorism?

Instead, let us accept that all humans are capable of violence and all humans are also equally capable of controlling their violence. It is a fool who thinks that violence is the right way and holding back is the weak way.

Let’s instead look at terrorists as foolish misguided people who have believed all the nonsense they’ve been indoctrinated with. However wonderful or third-grade our investigative and justice systems, let them deal with all terrorists — Hindus, Muslims, whatever — in the same way. Let the same human rights arguments apply to everyone.
Let the standards be the same.

Email: b_ranjona@dnaindia.net