We all talk about the growing face of "Islamic Terrorism". Though most muslims the world over do not adhere to or support the doctrine of these terrorist groups, yet it is labeled as Islamic terrorism on the pretex that it is born out of an orthodox school of thought from within the muslims and from their flawed understanding of our holy book. I may agree with that, though it does not make sense to me that how because of the actions of minority, all practicioners of Islam are held responsible. But, as I said, I may agree with this.
However, what amazes and astonishes me is when the same yardstick is not used for other - similar - cases. We all read about the Malegaon blasts, the Ajmer Sharif blasts, the Bhopal blasts and the Mecca Masjid blasts. The administration and the police were quick to proclaim the hand of Islamic terrorist groups, SIMI, and Indian Mujahideen. A lot of people from the minority community were rounded up. The media made a huge hue and cry about the cruel face of the Islamic terrorism.
And yet, when it has been discovered that these blasts were the handiwork of a group of people from the majority community who call themself the "Akhand Bharat" group, the same media is quiet. The same administration that was quick to find an Islamic hand is now not giving any statements, not accepting its wrong, not asking for forgiveness from those who were incorrectly improsened and accused of such hineous crime.
Why so? If what Al Qaida and its minnions does is religious terrorism, is this not the same? Just because the perperators belong to the majority community does not entail different yardsticks. But no, this is not the same. Maybe because nothing sells like a Muslim terrorist, real or otherwise. Is this what it has come down to - TRPs and what sells? I always thought that news is all about reporting what is happening at ground zero - an unbiased and unopeniated account. But it seems that is not the case here.
Similarly, after the recent attacks in Norway, the Western media was quick to jump its guns and report an Al Qaida link to the attacks. And yet, when it came out that the attacker was a Christian, it suddenly was the deed of an "aggressor" and a "gunman", never mind his anti-muslim manifesto.
Maybe muslim whipping is the latest fashionable thing to do, and as soon as we find that another person is accused of a similar wrong we conveniently turn our backs and ignore it. May be this is the official position, and may be that of the media as well, but beware of what you do - for your actions will have consequences you yourself do not fanthom.
The need of the hour is to fight terrorism - in all forms - together. But if you alienate a section of the society by such behaviour, you are yourself giving new ears and hands to those you want to fight. The best way to remove a problem is by preventing it, but sadly the policy makers seem hell bent on turning a blind eye and even fan the fire. And later, the same people will rise up and say that this was expected.
Understand that whatever monsters and demons we have to fight are our own creations. You may kill the monster in the end - but does it not make sense to not create it in the first place? Am not sure about you guys, but it does make sense to me. Think about it.
This is Hashir, signing off
Over and out