secularists try to rationalize terrorism

aug 7th, 2006

Title: 'Secularists try to rationalise terrorism'
Author:  Hindutva Supporter. These are the views of a professor at
Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, who spoke to Sujata Dutta
Sachdeva. 
Publication: TOI
Dated: July 30, 2006



Intro: Why do Muslims feel the system is biased against them? Our
society is divided into so many sections and everybody is angry about
something or the other. Even a Dalit is angry about the way he's 
treated. Why doesn't he react in the same fashion?



I grew up in a small town in Mayurbhanj district of Orissa. After
completing my school and college education there, I moved to Delhi. Mine
was a typically apolitical, middle-class family. No one had ever been a 
member or actively supported any particular political party - they used
to vote for Congress and later shifted to Biju Patnaik's party.



As a schoolboy, I did not have any political leanings. But in class XI, 
I started attending RSS shakhas, simply because it was the 'in' thing
and all my friends had joined. It was basically a reaction to the
Emergency and since the ban had just been lifted, we were looking for an
 alternative ideology to the Congress.



When I joined JNU for my post-graduation in the '80s, there was no ABVP
on the campus. Communism seemed attractive for a while. I appreciated
their discipline, commitment and anti-imperialist views. But that was 
then. The Nehruvian concept of secular India has become irrelevant now.
Today, I am totally disillusioned by the so-called secularists and
Leftists. I am all for Hindutva.



It angers me when secularists try to look for a cause and rationalise 
every terrorist act. Terrorism is terrorism, it cannot be condoned. They
try to link the Mumbai blasts of 1993 to the Babri Masjid demolition and
7/11 to Gujarat. By doing this, they justify the acts of terrorists. 



Minority appeasement policies of various political parties are the root
cause of a lot of our problems. This has only harmed minorities (read
Muslims), since they have not been able to integrate into the 
mainstream. Thanks to these policies, terrorists feel they can get away
with anything. We come across as a soft state.



Theologically, there is a fundamental difference between Muslims and
non-Muslims. The Muslims have problems of co-existence with most other 
communities. Examples abound all across the world: look at Indonesia,
Bangladesh, Philippines, Pakistan. In Bangladesh, there is a systematic
attack on symbols of Hinduism. All over the world, Hindus are considered 
moderate and accommodating people. If secularism and democracy has
survived in India, it is only because of us.



Unfortunately, the voice of the moderate Muslim is not loud enough to be
heard by even their own community. Their protests don't seem to matter 
to anyone. No wonder it is the extremists' leaders who have become
politically relevant now.



And why do they feel the system is biased against them?



Our society is divided into so many sections based on caste, ethnicity, 
state, and everybody is angry about something or the other. They don't
resort to violence to show their angst. Even a Dalit is angry about how
he's treated; why doesn't he react the same way? Many houseowners may 
not be willing to rent out their premises to a Bihari, so why is it that
only a Muslim feels victimised?



Can minorities in any other country behave in this fashion and get away
with it? What happened in Gujarat was a response of the majority 
community to certain actions. If the majority does not react all the
time, it comes across as soft. The message had to go across: every
action can have an equal reaction.