The issue of terrorism is not new to humans, our society has dealt with various forms of terrorism since its existence. The most ugly form of terrorism is violence inflicted on innocent people, but it can also manifest itself in so many other forms which are equally detrimental. There is no doubt that any form of terrorism is harmful to any society or civilization. The arms and weapons industry is a huge player in this area and it has a tremendous influence on how world politics works, the revenue of this industry depends on feelings of fear and there is nothing better than terrorism to infuse this feeling among people of any country. Any society suffering from any form of terrorism faces so many problems, first of all day-to-day lives of its citizens are severely affected in many ways, many people live in constant fear of attack and it creates feelings of insecurity and distrust among its people. All these things are not signs of a healthy society, they affect its growth, stability, and productivity. So, it is always better to address problems related to any sort of terrorism on a priority basis. Ignoring such problems doesn't make them go away on its own, rather they can give rise to so many other problems which can be very damaging to any country in the long run.
Many countries have been battling with the issue of terrorism in various forms for years. As an Indian, I know very well how it feels to live in a country that is at the receiving end of terrorist attacks regularly. The situation in India is not as bad as many other places in the world, but still one can feel the heat of terrorism. People try to label these acts of terrorism in so many ways, many times these terrorist groups label themselves, they choose to attach themselves to certain regions, ethnic groups, or religions to create an impression that they are fighting for that particular group's interests. In the last few years, there has been increasing use of terms like "Islamic terrorism" all over the world or "saffron terrorism" in India. These terms try to link some particular religion with terrorist activities happening in that region. The clear intention behind this is to indicate that that particular religion is used as an instrument to incite people to perform acts of terrorism. So, the question we need to ask is, is there any relationship between religion and terrorism? Especially, when almost everyone claims that all religions teach peace, why there is so much hatred and violence in the name of religion? Why are people willing to kill each other in the name of religion? Is this a fault of those people or does religion give them this opportunity by being ambiguous about the use of violence? Is it possible that in reality, almost all religions teach both, hate and love, peace and violence? When such extreme options are available people conveniently use the one that suits them to justify their actions of love as well as hatred and violence. I know some of these questions might make some people feel very uncomfortable and might even offend some devoted followers of religion, but nevertheless, we need to ask them. It seems people very easily get offended nowadays, I was surprised to hear that speakers need to give a "trigger warning" before saying anything that might be contrary to some popular belief or against some widely accepted ideology. But we need to ask these questions so that people can understand about this very complicated and sensitive issue. Religion or aspects are religion are regularly exploited to propagate terrorism, therefore, we all should be very careful in defending everything associated with religion, especially, the aspects that are used to trigger violent reactions should be recognized and appropriately handled on intellectual and social levels.
Most religions have gone through various forms of struggles to establish themselves in this world, one can easily read the history of different religions on the internet. Some religions originated in a very hostile environment and had to fight bloody wars to defeat their enemies and establish their presence. This might be the reason most of them include recommendations to fight wars against their opponents (enemies) until the opponents are wiped out from that region. These recommendations might have been necessary at that time as that was the time of the "might is right" era, but such conditions don't exist anymore. Most of us now understand that all these religions are like personal choices and different people can have different religions as it suits their requirements and needs. Most of us also understand that there is no imminent threat to any religion in most countries. Most civilized countries offer their residents the right to practice any religion of their choice. If that particular religion is relevant and useful it will survive, and if not, it will fade away with time. This is a simple rule of the market, if the product is popular and sellable it will stay in the market or something else will replace it. The point I am trying to make is, that any violence propagated in the name of some religion is under attack or in extreme danger is a false narrative and a lame attempt to justify the hatred and violence.
Also, every religion needs to own things happening in its name, it doesn't matter if they are good, bad, or ugly, they need to take responsibility for all these things. The propagators and followers of any religion can not be selective in only owning good things about their own religion. They just can't only talk about good things about their religion and purposely ignore all the bad and ugly things. This is called hypocrisy, where someone tries to project only one side conveniently ignoring other sides as they don't suit their purpose. At least, violence in the name of religion must be confronted in the strongest possible terms by people of that religion to demonstrate that they don't support any violence in the name of their religion. Historically, every major religion has been used to commit autocracies on nonbelievers at some point in time. Some sort of discrimination was practiced or still is in practice against nonbelievers of all religions. Rather than accepting these things, various explanations are offered to justify these acts either directly or indirectly. This is one of the reasons why most people don't hesitate to justify violence in the name of their own religion as almost everyone other religion has done it. As others have done it, so, why not us, this is the simple but ridiculous logic they follow. Many of these heinous acts get some sort of legitimacy if they are committed in the name of some religion.
It seems religion can generate extremely good or extremely bad emotions in people. Some groups use both these extremes to serve the purpose of their organizations. But the problem is most followers are really prompt and attentive in praising good deeds by people from their own religion, but at the same time, they are hesitant or completely reluctant to accept many bad acts committed in the name of their religion. People need to own these bad acts and criticize them in the strongest terms if they care about their religion. Strong criticism from outside of that religion doesn't act as a deterrent, it helps to radicalize some of its supporters and it helps the purpose of groups who want to misuse that religion. Because no religion takes criticism from outsiders very kindly, because it is assumed that outsiders will criticize mainly out of their hatred or jealousy. This is why strong criticism must come from within the same religion, and then only any positive reform is possible. Until these things start happening on a large scale, religion will be vulnerable to misuse by some bigots from their own fraternity. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it might be something else, or even some new religion. Our social and political class needs to show courage and commitment to address this problem without getting into a trap of not hurting anyone's sentiment type of mentality. Please remember that as most saints belong to some religion, most terrorists claim to belong to some religion and they make their motive clear. As religion owns these saints, they need to own these terrorists and take up the challenge of refuting their narrative assertively, a meek denial or refusal won't work. It is the job of everyone to reject these violent ideas no matter which holy book or religion is used to justify them. Unless we all unite to fight this evil, we will continue to suffer because of it, so, let's unite and fight this evil of terrorism together.
Many countries have been battling with the issue of terrorism in various forms for years. As an Indian, I know very well how it feels to live in a country that is at the receiving end of terrorist attacks regularly. The situation in India is not as bad as many other places in the world, but still one can feel the heat of terrorism. People try to label these acts of terrorism in so many ways, many times these terrorist groups label themselves, they choose to attach themselves to certain regions, ethnic groups, or religions to create an impression that they are fighting for that particular group's interests. In the last few years, there has been increasing use of terms like "Islamic terrorism" all over the world or "saffron terrorism" in India. These terms try to link some particular religion with terrorist activities happening in that region. The clear intention behind this is to indicate that that particular religion is used as an instrument to incite people to perform acts of terrorism. So, the question we need to ask is, is there any relationship between religion and terrorism? Especially, when almost everyone claims that all religions teach peace, why there is so much hatred and violence in the name of religion? Why are people willing to kill each other in the name of religion? Is this a fault of those people or does religion give them this opportunity by being ambiguous about the use of violence? Is it possible that in reality, almost all religions teach both, hate and love, peace and violence? When such extreme options are available people conveniently use the one that suits them to justify their actions of love as well as hatred and violence. I know some of these questions might make some people feel very uncomfortable and might even offend some devoted followers of religion, but nevertheless, we need to ask them. It seems people very easily get offended nowadays, I was surprised to hear that speakers need to give a "trigger warning" before saying anything that might be contrary to some popular belief or against some widely accepted ideology. But we need to ask these questions so that people can understand about this very complicated and sensitive issue. Religion or aspects are religion are regularly exploited to propagate terrorism, therefore, we all should be very careful in defending everything associated with religion, especially, the aspects that are used to trigger violent reactions should be recognized and appropriately handled on intellectual and social levels.
Most religions have gone through various forms of struggles to establish themselves in this world, one can easily read the history of different religions on the internet. Some religions originated in a very hostile environment and had to fight bloody wars to defeat their enemies and establish their presence. This might be the reason most of them include recommendations to fight wars against their opponents (enemies) until the opponents are wiped out from that region. These recommendations might have been necessary at that time as that was the time of the "might is right" era, but such conditions don't exist anymore. Most of us now understand that all these religions are like personal choices and different people can have different religions as it suits their requirements and needs. Most of us also understand that there is no imminent threat to any religion in most countries. Most civilized countries offer their residents the right to practice any religion of their choice. If that particular religion is relevant and useful it will survive, and if not, it will fade away with time. This is a simple rule of the market, if the product is popular and sellable it will stay in the market or something else will replace it. The point I am trying to make is, that any violence propagated in the name of some religion is under attack or in extreme danger is a false narrative and a lame attempt to justify the hatred and violence.
Also, every religion needs to own things happening in its name, it doesn't matter if they are good, bad, or ugly, they need to take responsibility for all these things. The propagators and followers of any religion can not be selective in only owning good things about their own religion. They just can't only talk about good things about their religion and purposely ignore all the bad and ugly things. This is called hypocrisy, where someone tries to project only one side conveniently ignoring other sides as they don't suit their purpose. At least, violence in the name of religion must be confronted in the strongest possible terms by people of that religion to demonstrate that they don't support any violence in the name of their religion. Historically, every major religion has been used to commit autocracies on nonbelievers at some point in time. Some sort of discrimination was practiced or still is in practice against nonbelievers of all religions. Rather than accepting these things, various explanations are offered to justify these acts either directly or indirectly. This is one of the reasons why most people don't hesitate to justify violence in the name of their own religion as almost everyone other religion has done it. As others have done it, so, why not us, this is the simple but ridiculous logic they follow. Many of these heinous acts get some sort of legitimacy if they are committed in the name of some religion.
It seems religion can generate extremely good or extremely bad emotions in people. Some groups use both these extremes to serve the purpose of their organizations. But the problem is most followers are really prompt and attentive in praising good deeds by people from their own religion, but at the same time, they are hesitant or completely reluctant to accept many bad acts committed in the name of their religion. People need to own these bad acts and criticize them in the strongest terms if they care about their religion. Strong criticism from outside of that religion doesn't act as a deterrent, it helps to radicalize some of its supporters and it helps the purpose of groups who want to misuse that religion. Because no religion takes criticism from outsiders very kindly, because it is assumed that outsiders will criticize mainly out of their hatred or jealousy. This is why strong criticism must come from within the same religion, and then only any positive reform is possible. Until these things start happening on a large scale, religion will be vulnerable to misuse by some bigots from their own fraternity. Today it is Islam, tomorrow it might be something else, or even some new religion. Our social and political class needs to show courage and commitment to address this problem without getting into a trap of not hurting anyone's sentiment type of mentality. Please remember that as most saints belong to some religion, most terrorists claim to belong to some religion and they make their motive clear. As religion owns these saints, they need to own these terrorists and take up the challenge of refuting their narrative assertively, a meek denial or refusal won't work. It is the job of everyone to reject these violent ideas no matter which holy book or religion is used to justify them. Unless we all unite to fight this evil, we will continue to suffer because of it, so, let's unite and fight this evil of terrorism together.
Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.
[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]
No comments:
Post a Comment