Terrorism, of any colour, is still terrorism

You can understand immediately why the BJP would object so vehemently to the Union home minister referring to the recent rise of terrorism by persons known and unknown in the name of Hinduism to “saffron” terror.

The colour saffron itself is certainly innocent of terrorism. And yes, it has long been a colour associated with Hinduism (as well as some other religions which have developed in this region). It’s there on our national flag as well — pride of place, at the top because that particular shade of orangey-yellow denotes a certain kind of peaceful spiritualism associated with a certain kind of Hinduism.

It’s also such a perfect colour for India — suits the landscape and our skin colour (those of us who don’t swear by fairness creams that is) — rich, vibrant, dynamic and calming at the same time.
Yes, saffron, we can certainly declare, is innocent of terrorism.

The same thing however cannot be said of its so-called champions in the current context. And how clever of them to try and deflect attention from the topic of Hindu terrorism itself while having hysterics about the colour. I would agree that it’s a bit distressing to hear terrorism described with a tag of ‘Hindu’ before it. This is for a variety of reasons. One is that us Hindus are far more sensitive than people of other religious persuasions.

There is little reason for Muslims to object to Islamic terrorism or Christians, Jewish, Buddhists and so on. Even Communists, I have heard people argue, since that’s a form of secular religion (poor Karl Marx eh? What a comeuppance!), should have no objection to being called terrorists now and then. But what has poor Hinduism done to deserve being lumped with terrorists?

That is true, undoubtedly, but seemingly the same argument cannot be applied to Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and the rest. I am not getting into the Commie argument here. There’s even a theory which goes that the Semetic religions with their origins in the Levant are better suited to terrorism than Hinduism.
Staggering and sanctimonious arrogance of course. But let’s leave that argument aside for now as well.

The bigger problem seems to have originated from the larger Hindutva family to which the BJP belongs, which is loosely called the Sangh Parivar and by some journalists the Saffron Brigade. So you can see where P Chidambaram got his tag of saffron terrorism from.

Several organisations under that loose collection known as the Sangh Parivar have long advocated Hindu militancy to deal with the apparent violent streak in other religions and therefore people of other religions. Weak, almost emasculated Hindus needed to become tough and learn some military arts. Stick practice for some and as it turned out, some years later, bombs for others.
And yes, there was a gun which we’ll get to soon.

BJP president Nitin Gadkari has pointed out very rightly that terrorism is terrorism, why call it saffron, Hindu and so on. How could one not agree? Presumably, the members of the Sangh Parivar will extend the same courtesy to other religions?

As for the Union home minister, he might like to consider that the first instance of terrorism inspired by a militant form of Hinduism — or was it Hindutva? — was evident soon after Independence on January 30, 1948 when Nathuram Godse and his associates assassinated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. Strange that it’s been a problem for so long, whatever colour you’d like to call it.