Religion and terrorism

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.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Why it is important to understand enigma of American politics - Donald Trump

One of the front runners for the Republican nomination for next year's presidential elections Mr. Donald Trump has been creating a lot of media waves all over the world. Somehow, he manages to grab headlines in print or electronic media because of his statements. Many of his statements have generated very polarized responses with some praising him for calling spade a spade (hinting that he is telling the truth, even though he might sound politically incorrect) and some criticizing him for spreading hatred and negativity about certain sections of society (an outright racist, misogynist, etc.). But to everyone's surprise, so far he managed to stay in the news, and also if polls are to be believed he is still one of the front runners to grab the Republican presidential nomination. Many people are surprised by his high popularity as well as the amount of support his statements receive. He is considered an outsider in politics, but for all Republican primary candidates, he is giving a run for their money. To some, this "outsider" tag might seem like a big drawback, especially, when you are planning to run for the topmost political post in the country, but this guy has managed to turn this to his advantage by diffusing all attacks that question his political inexperience. I am not at all his supporter or for that matter any party supporter, but I have a deep interest in politics and like to study various aspects of it, and there is no doubt that Mr. Trump is the most unusual and interesting candidate in this US presidential race.

I live in Connecticut, which is considered a loyal Democrat state, that's why I was really surprised to hear when an old lady who was a very devoted democrat supporter for many years said that maybe this time she will vote for Mr. Trump if he gets the nomination. It is worthwhile to note that she didn't say that she would vote for some republican candidate, but she specifically mentioned Mr. Trump. I guess the main reason behind this is people's frustration with politicians from both parties, election after election they witnessed every presidential candidate making huge promises during their campaigns, they all promised to bring change, and in the end, nothing much changed on the ground. So, it seems that people are increasingly getting frustrated with the inability of seasoned politicians to deliver on their election promises. They are losing their faith in them, for all those people Mr. Trump is like a breeze of fresh air, someone who may not lie and cheat just to win an election. To boost this confidence, Mr. Trump already declared that he is not going to take any money for his campaign from so-called BIG donors who then try to influence the government. This is a very well-known fact, called lobbying. The donations that these corporations make to various candidates from both major parties is a sort of investment on their part to protect their own interests, and it doesn't matter which candidate wins these corporate houses make sure to keep their goodwill with both major parties. There is nothing illegal or wrong in this practice as it is allowed by law and everything is declared for everyone to see, so one should not blame these corporations for this as the system allows them to do this. They are just using legal ways to protect their business interests. It is the duty of politicians to make sure that they protect people's interests. Mr. Trump's controversial statements about illegal immigrants, Syrian refugees, or Muslim immigrants are very insensitive and controversial, but I think he knows that people will relate to his statements as most politicians won't dare to make such statements as they are offensive. Many seasoned politicians don't want to touch some of these topics because they don't want to get into trouble, they don't want to hurt their vote bank, and because of this attitude, many of them just refuse to accept that these problems even exist. This is where traditional politics fails and gives someone like Trump an opportunity to make their case, these problems and concerns are there and people need some answers. Why can't Democrats explain that if you legalize current illegal immigrants then how it doesn't mean that you are actually encouraging more illegal immigration? Just because people who broke the immigration law are in millions, is it okay to pardon their illegal act? Suppose the government does that today, then what is the guarantee that after 10 or 20 years the country will not be facing a similar situation, and then what to do? Issue another legal pardon and legalize all peaceful illegal immigrants? What is the process followed to make sure that all refugees entering the US need genuine help? The point I am trying to raise here is, that people have many questions like these, and politicians or political parties who are willing to legalize illegal immigrants or want to take more refugees are not able to explain properly why they want to do that. They somehow are not able to explain the logic and rationale behind their decision clearly and assertively. If you dodge a question, you give your opponents a chance to say that you are hiding something, or you don't have any answers to that question. This creates confusion and builds resentment. Any opposition to these issues can not be dismissed just based on partisan politics. This should not be projected as a democrat vs republican battle. Mr. Trump is not even a seasoned republican guy still he is getting so much support, we need to ask, why??

I think one major reason behind Mr. Trump's popularity is that there was an apparent disconnect between republican voters and politicians, and Mr. Trump is trying to bridge that gap. His ability to say some things that any traditional politician won't even dream of saying on a public platform is paying him some dividends. We all know that many times in politics political parties try to make use of the same issues in every election. Actually, many political parties are interested in keeping many issues alive because those issues generate votes for them in every election, I have seen it happening in India for decades, in the US the situation is much better compared to India, but these things happen here also. I guess people think that Mr. Trump can challenge this and change this, whether he will get elected or do it or not, is a different issue, but at least he is projecting himself as a "no-nonsense" person, and many people are buying that. Many of his controversial statements are highly flawed and made with a clear intention of polarizing people, they are inflammatory statements. They are clearly targeted to make use of feelings of uneasiness in people's minds. I guess he is willing to take the risk, and he thinks that rewards are high if it works in his favor. I am sure he also knows that it can backfire on him, but if he is also like the rest of the politicians, then why the heck people should choose him? He wants to set him apart from the rest, and I guess so far his strategy seems to be working. Pressure and obligation to be politically correct all the time has made many politicians very defensive, they hesitate to attack any problem aggressively because of fear that it might disturb their core constituency. Fear of being sidelined or hammered by the press and the public who are just looking for one loose statement to finish someone's political career is very real among all public figures. Mr. Trump seems to be immune to this fear and it seems many people are appreciating this. 

One can agree or disagree with Mr. Trump's statement or even dismiss him as publicity publicity-hungry businessman or call him an insignificant candidate who is not going to make it to the finish line, but there is no doubt that this man has created a lot of waves in the political arena. If it is good or bad only time will tell, but I think people should ponder over the fact that why is he getting so much support? Maybe it will help us understand many issues that are stuck in deadly partisan politics in such a way that it seems they can not be resolved no matter how long both parties try. But there is no doubt that this is a dangerous path to achieve power, this is not a sustainable approach. You can not create a rift in society and then expect peace and unity. A similar thing happened in India last year. Current Indian prime minister Mr. Modi made use of a huge vacuum created by indecisive leadership and the inability of politicians to address some real problems like corruption, black money, poor infrastructure, communal tension, etc. He rose to the charts of the popularity index day by day by making many statements and promises which seasoned politicians in India hesitate to make. He said whatever people wanted to hear, whether it was about taking on Pakistan or China, about black money, the so-called pink revolution, or about dynastic politics. He used all rhetoric and theatrics, never apologized for any of his mistakes, or never minced his words while attacking someone and it all worked in his favor. Voters of India saw a ray of hope in him and gave him an unprecedented mandate, but since coming into power he has been struggling to clear his image as a divisive leader. He is finding it hard to rein in some elements of his own party who totally believe that it's okay to spread hate and make inflammatory statements as such things are validated by their top leader. Almost a year and a half has passed but the current government is still finding it very hard to pass some key reform bills in parliament in spite of having a clear majority as the opposition is just refusing to cooperate. It is easy to win elections by polarizing the society, but then it is not easy to neutralize that polarization when you want to run the country. While filling the vacuum created by indecisive political leadership, Mr. Trump is setting up the same dangerous precedence in the US that Mr. Modi did in India. Their intentions might be good, and they might be sincerely trying to do something good for their country, we should give both these leaders the benefit of the doubt, but then the method they are using has some serious side effects which cannot be ignored. Today he is targeting Muslims, what if tomorrow he says the same thing about Hindus or Africans? What is a guarantee that his supporters won't target other minority immigrants who according to them are taking up American jobs? A polarized and divided society can go in any direction, it is very difficult to predict. Purposely cultivated hatred can manifest in several ways, it is very dangerous to play with this fire. Divide and rule is the well-tested and best strategy if you just want to rule any society without having any concern about its welfare. This trick has been successfully used in the past many times to exploit many regions, but these regions are still struggling with those divisions, they are still grappling with problems like a lack of trust and perpetual communal tension. It is a very tempting strategy as it seems to provide immediate short-term gains, many political parties and leaders still use this in India. Does Mr. Trump want to see a similar situation in the US? We can find faults with other methods and ways used by other politicians or political parties, policies like minority or majority appeasement are also not good, but a clear agenda of divisiveness or hatred is the most dangerous among all. So, I hope people try to understand what's really going on. I hope even Mr. Trump will realize that he doesn't need to make such divisive statements to stay in the limelight or ahead in the polls. After all, no election win should be more important than the unity and prosperity of the nation. Please note one thing here, I am not at all objecting to the right of Mr. Trump to say those things, he has the freedom to say those things and others can criticize him for that as much as they want, I am just trying to discuss the merits and demerits of his divisive approach. If Mr. Trump doesn't change his ways, I hope voters realize that his approach is dangerous for the country and act accordingly. One should not underestimate his candidacy and approach, this has worked in countries like India and I see no reason why it may not work in the US. I hope each one of us understands this and thinks over these things logically, no matter in which country we reside, or which party or person we support.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Paris attacks: Are we going to learn any lessons?

I watched with dismay and shock news about the brutal attack on Paris by terrorists. I am not going to bother by mentioning the names of organizations or terrorists who carried out these attacks as they don't deserve any recognition. These violent groups only know how to kill people and spread violence, this is their only motive, they take shelter from some religion or ideology, but their ultimate goal is to spread hatred and violence. Religion indeed has some inherent weaknesses which makes it a very easy and attractive tool for fanatics to attract and misguide youth. They try to use it to spread fanaticism, and it is very easy to incite people to do violent things using their religious emotions. Today, we are witnessing it prominently in the name of Islam, and have seen it happening with many other religions in the past, so, no religion is spared from fanaticism. But what is the solution? Why do so many people get attracted to these radical terrorist groups who just want to spread hatred and violence? Why people are willing to kill innocents just because they follow some different faith, belong to some other group, eat some different food, worship some different god, or dare to break some age-old social or religious norms? Why do they do this?

Actually, this question comes to my mind every time I read news about any terrorist attack, mob violence, communal riot, or any other violent incidents. I also wonder what is the ultimate aim of all this violence? Is it to spread terror? Definitely, spreading terror has to be their major goal, because for sure they are not spreading any religion or delivering any divine message from any book by killing innocents, and to some extent, they are successful in spreading terror temporarily. But this also doesn't last long, we humans can overcome our fears and accept the challenge and there are ample examples from the recent past where we did this. New York and the US stood firm and strong after the devastating 9/11 attacks, Mumbai and India didn't budge after terrorists attacked innocents in Mumbai and I am sure Paris will also come back to normal very soon. But still one can not ignore the loss of precious lives of innocents during all these attacks, and I am including the attacks on innocents during military operations carried out as a response to these terrorist attacks also in this. The loss of every innocent life is condemnable and we should regret it, we cannot trivialize the loss of innocent lives by calling it collateral damage. Also, we can not be selective in our outrage, otherwise, we will look like total hypocrites who care about some people more than others. Is there any solution to end this violence? Who is funding all these terrorists? From where do they get all these sophisticated deadly weapons and vast amounts of money to carry out these attacks? How come the arms and weapon industry is so powerful that no country or government can stop the sale of these weapons to such dangerous terrorist outfits? How come so many powerful countries fail to control these terrorist groups? Why did these superpowers create or support one terrorist group to fight another terrorist organization even after knowing that the former would replace the latter in the future and create the same problem? How long they are going to play this game of good terrorist organization and bad terrorist organization? We can go on asking so many questions like these, but I don't think any government or agency will bother to answer any of these questions. Some of us offer very logical-sounding explanations blaming some country or religion depending on where we live and which religion we belong. But all this blame game and ugly drama of politics, religion, and money has been going on for decades without any result. In the end, innocents are murdered regularly, either on planes, in music concerts, in restaurants, on roads, in train stations, or in their homes. I don't think we common people can do much about it. Religion, politics, and business are too big and powerful entities that have been controlling humanity for ages and all these violent incidents are byproducts of the selfish interests of one or more than one of these entities.

Terrorism is a tool used by various organizations to control regions and civilizations, it is a relatively easy method that some fanatics believe produces instant results. This is why many fanatic groups are prone to use it as a means to achieve their aims. Sadly every religion or sympathizers of their own group try to justify all atrocities or mistakes committed by that group and we see this trend everywhere. No one is willing to admit their own mistakes, but at the same time, they never fail to point out other's mistakes. It seems people are only interested in pointing out other's mistakes, they want only to hold others accountable and don't want any scrutiny of accountability for themselves. I don't know if we are going to learn any lessons from all these incidents, I don't think anyone is in the mood to reflect on what might have gone wrong. The whole emphasis is on taking revenge and beefing up security, but we all know that this is not a permanent solution. Security and defense are very important things, there is no doubt about that, but at the same time talks and negotiations to bring peace in conflict-affected regions are also necessary. After each and every tragic incident like this, I always remember this line, "an eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." We all know this quote, but very few of us understand the real meaning behind it, and until we all understand this we can only hope that we are not adamant on making the whole world blind.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Terrorist do have a religion

The Peshawar school massacre by the Taliban shook many people across the world. It was not the worst massacre by terrorists and it was not the first time schools or children were attacked by terrorists, but even after that, the brutality of this attack is really disturbing. Whenever any such attack happens, we start hearing phrases like "terrorists don't belong to any religion" "terrorists don't have any religion" "these people are not humans," etc. I always wonder how much truth is there in these statements. All these statements are mainly used by people to try to dissociate the religion (especially their own religion) from such barbaric acts but to me, these statements sound too hollow and meaningless. If we look carefully some of these terrorists who kill innocent people and others who spread hatred against certain communities do use religion as a tool to attack and spread fear and hatred. They do claim to represent the true form of some sect or religion. I am not talking about Islam or Hinduism or any other particular religion as most religions have fanatic elements in their teachings which are misused by some people to create fundamentalists some of which manifest themselves in various forms of terrorism. Politicians as well as terrorists use religion as a tool to divide people. One wants to divide and rule while the other wants to spread fear and rule. This has been going on for many years, and no religion has been able to dissociate itself completely either from politics or terrorism, only the intensity and level of involvement differ from time to time.

What is there in religion or some of these ideologies (like communism or Maoism) that people are willing to kill hundreds of innocents in the name of protecting or propagating it? Why these people don't feel the guilt or shame of doing such barbaric acts in the name of religion or their ideology? Why religion is such a powerful force that it makes people go blind and makes them hate others just because others belong to some different religion? Can we really dissociate religion from these barbaric acts? Why there is so much communal violence if all religions teach peace and love? Why scriptures are quoted to justify violence, discrimination, or gender bias? The truth is that terrorists who use religion to kill people do belong to some religion. They all derive their justification from some holy book, they all claim that they are killing to protect the word of their God. Many of these terrorist organizations brainwash young and impressionable minds, misguide them by using some religious teachings, and convert them into lethal terrorists. This has been going on for so long and various religions have not done enough to curb this.

Followers of any religion are not willing to question or object strongly to any content from scriptures that are used to justify violence. Once it is claimed and accepted that that particular book is a word of God very few dare to question it. Most of these books contain something that could be misinterpreted but these things are ignored because it is understood that as these books also teach love and peace so few minor things don't matter. However, some anti-social elements make use of some of these objectionable or outdated messages and propagate hate and violence. As no one dares to condemn these sections of any of the books, these things get taught, and people interpret them to suit their own propaganda. That is why I think now the time has come to ask some serious questions to keepers of all religions. They need to make it clear that there is no place for any violence or hatred under the name of their religion. If there is some outdated or objectionable material in their own holy book they need to make it clear that it is outdated and no more applicable. They need to be very strong about this message and condemn any group that tries to propagate hate in the name of their religion. Religion might be a need for many but communal violence or hatred should not have any place in any civilized society.

Isn't it a time to think about whether there is some inherent flaw in organized religion? The time has come for all of us to unite and stand against such criminals. The time has come to question religion and holy books, whenever they are used to justify any violence and hatred. The time has come for all civilized humans to speak up and ask questions. We can not just wait for our turn to become victims of such violence, it will be too late by that time, so speak up NOW.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:

1. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-30507836

Dr. Vedik's case - display of double standards by BJP

A recent meeting between Dr. Ved Pratap Vedik (known to be close to Baba Ramdev, BJP, and RSS) and 26/11 terrorist attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed created a lot of controversy and uproar in Indian media and political circles. This event was heavily politicized just because of the involvement of these organizations. As a reporter Dr. Vedik has the right to meet anyone and conduct an interview, this view was expressed by almost everyone involved in this discussion. But he should tell for which newspaper or magazine or channel he conducted this interview? Where did he publish it so that people can know the contents of that interview? Is he an active journalist, if yes, associated with which journal? He was part of some delegation when he visited Pakistan, I assume that this delegation must have got the Indian government's permission to visit Pakistan as Pakistan is not like any other country where any Indian can go and visit without going through a rigorous review process. Did he inform anyone from the delegation about his plans to conduct this interview? It will be also interesting to know who sponsored his trip to the residence of Hafiz? This guy Hafiz Saeed is an internationally wanted terrorist, and he is accused of carrying out some major terrorist attacks on India which killed hundreds of people. If Dr. Vedik was aware of all these facts then he also must have been aware of the repercussions of this meeting in India, so what was his purpose behind interviewing this terrorist? Why did he publish a photo of his meeting before publishing the interview? He needs to give satisfactory answers to all these questions.

Another interesting thing was the response of the Indian government headed by the BJP. For some reason, they responded by defending Dr. Vedik's actions indirectly. This is the same party that reacted very aggressively when Kashmiri leader Yasin Malik shared the stage with the same terrorist in 2013. They demanded strong action against him (like revoking his passport and arresting him), but they didn't say the same things about Dr. Vedik. Dr. Vedik also gave one interview to some Pakistani media in which he talked about the possibility of granting independence to Kashmir. I have no problems with his personal views about Kashmir or any other issue and he has the right to express his thoughts, he should be able to share his views without worrying about any intimidation from the government or anyone else. But it seems the BJP and its supporters don't believe in the existence of freedom of expression when it doesn't suit them, and I am saying this based on their reactions to such statements in the past. Many times in the past they tried to vandalize homes and public buildings or even attack people who made controversial statements related to Kashmir or said anything that didn't align with their stand on any sensitive issue. Their silence in this case was a pleasant surprise. It is not that I would have liked their violent reactions but I am surprised to see that they base their reaction on who is making the statement but not the content of the statement. So, it seems to them the person who is making the statement is more important not the content of the statement. If the person is from their party or a supporter of their party or someone close to their associates (which Dr. Vedik is) then it is fine if they say anything but the same courtesy is not offered to other individuals (the example of Mr. Prashant Bhushan must be very fresh in people's memory). 

This is a blatant display of double standards by the BJP. If they believe in freedom of expression, it is really great news and I congratulate them for this. But they should show it in their behavior towards everyone irrespective of their party affiliations or political ideologies not only for selected individuals otherwise it is called double standards or hypocrisy. Surprisingly they are doing this when they have no pressure of coalition politics (this excuse was used by Congress on many occasions). The BJP has an absolute majority on its own in the parliament. It is easy to be harsh and critical about people from the opposition party or other people not related to you but when a person from your own group does something serious and you keep mum or try to justify their actions then it is hypocrisy. So far, the BJP's attitude is the same as Congress which used to justify each and every action of their leaders in the past. I hope the BJP realizes its mistake as they have a long way to go, these are just the initial days of their new government so I hope that they will take necessary corrective measures not to repeat these types of mistakes. If not, then we all know what happened to Congress same thing will happen to them sooner or later.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Kashmiri Pandits - banished from their own homes in their own country

Kashmiri Pandits is a Brahmin community from the Kashmir valley, but I am not using this term for that particular caste, but for all Hindu communities that once used to reside in Kashmir valley. This is one of the most beautiful regions of India, with a lot of beautiful mountains, valleys, and lakes, it was stable and peaceful till the partition happened in 1947. After that also largely it was very peaceful and tourism was one of the major businesses in this area. Once, Kashmir was a major tourist destination, and many Hindi movies were filmed here, especially many songs of famous Hindi movie star Shammi Kapoor were filmed in Kashmir. Those days shooting abroad was not so easy and common, Kashmir valley provided much-needed scenic locations for romantic movies and especially for songs. Kashmiri Pandits constituted approximately 14-15% of the population (during Dogra rule from 1846 to 1947). The valley population was dominated by Muslims during this time but there was a peaceful co-existence of different faiths during all these years.

The major problem started sometime after 1985 or so, many separatist groups emerged and Kashmiri Pandits became easy targets as the largest minority in that region. Many of these militant groups with their demand for independence from India or demand for a merger with Pakistan started terrorizing people by spreading violence. Kashmiri Pandits and other non-Muslims were specifically targeted because they were in the minority. Targeted killing of many people from their community naturally spread fear among them, government's failure to control these killings and provide the required protection to these people resulted in the fleeing of these people from the valley. These people were victims of cruelty and brutality which happens during any communal riot. These families left their ancestral homes, land, culture, and identity behind and moved to different parts of India to save their families. They mainly migrated to parts of Jammu and Delhi, and even though it was in the same state of the country they were uprooted from their ancestral home and culture. I am sure many of them hoped that this was some temporary madness that would go away and they would be able to return to their homes and live their original life again peacefully. But, sadly it never happened. According to different different estimates around 100 to 200 thousand people migrated away from the valley because of this insurgency. This brutal and targeted killing and displacement of Kashmiri Hindus is no less than any other communal riot in India. Respective governments (state and national) should apologize to all affected people for their failure to protect them and every effort should be made to reestablish these victims in their own homeland.

This is a serious issue like any other riot or massacre in India, but unfortunately, it hardly gets any mention in mainstream media. Everyone agrees that there is a problem but no one is willing to discuss or to show any willingness to solve it. No one is held accountable for this. Like every other communal riot, we are expected to forget this incident and move on with our lives. But how these people who got uprooted very recently from their culture and land will move on? How can they forget all the trauma and pain that they endured all these years waiting for justice? Can we just tell them that we tried our best but nothing can be done now? Is it enough to heal their wounds? One can understand the seriousness of this problem only when you talk with those people and listen to their stories. Mere words are not enough to explain the pain and anguish of these people. These people were banished from their own homes, uprooted from their own culture, murdered, and victimized for no fault of theirs and their own government couldn't do anything to protect them. Unfortunately, this issue (along with many other similar issues) is heavily politicized because of so many political interests involved in this. Some parties (like BJP or Congress) raise this issue but they never pursue it enough to take it to any logical conclusion. But all political parties are only interested in taking the political benefits that come by exploiting these types of issues. Sometimes it's really sickening to see the way these political parties play dirty political games using some of these unfortunate incidents.

As I wrote in one of my previous posts recalling memories of any tragedy, communal riot, or massacre is not a pleasant experience, but when we see so many people still suffering and waiting for justice, how can we remain silent as if nothing happened? How can we tell them to forget everything and move on? Is our system become so weak and useless that we can not punish the real culprits? Or we don't want to punish them because of some political equations? Does our society believe that the minority always needs to surrender before the demands of the majority and forgive each and every injustice done to them? Are we going to react to massacres or communal riots based on people from which religion or caste die in these incidents? For me, any communal violence is a disgusting and a terror attack. I don't check how many Hindus or Muslims died and base my reaction based on the scorecard of the riot. This issue of Kashmiri Pandits is equally important as the 1984 riots, 2002 riots, or any other riot, or terrorist attack. Every riot victim deserves justice and at least an unconditional apology from the administration which failed to protect them. There cannot be any exception to this and as a society as long as we don't achieve it we will be forced to look into the eyes of riot victims and hang our heads in shame.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

[Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing]

Links:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Pandit

Religious fanaticism - Let's talk about it

The recent incident of the Boston Marathon bombing is another example of how religious fanaticism can drive people to do insane things. This bombing is not the first example where some crazy person (or a group) attacked innocent civilians to take revenge for some incidents in the past where they felt their religion was targeted unfairly. Every day we read news about these types of attacks all over the world. Some places are more prone to these types of attacks than others, but this happens all over the world and no country is immune to this.

Religious fanaticism can drive people crazy. It can push them to do unimaginable things, they can do extremely good things (Mother Teresa is one example of this) or can do extremely crazy or cruel things (mass killings of non-believers, religious riots and terror attacks are some examples). The problem is not the religion itself but the feeling of "fanaticism" which is encouraged in almost all relations with the hope that it will motivate people to become devotees and totally surrender to their God. Religion wants to create a group that will practice and defend its beliefs without questioning them. However, it doesn't work this way all the time. People not only practice their own religion but they also force others to practice it, this is where the problem begins. No other discipline preaches fanaticism as much religion does. The closest second can be politics (actually both are like twins of each other). Religion needs devoted followers, who don't question the basic foundation of that religion, and submit themselves totally to serve the purpose of that religion. Religion recruits a dedicated force to propagate its values and protect it against any outside attacks. These things sound very benign but they can instill fanaticism and hatred about others who don't subscribe to the same ideology. This hatred can be in many forms. A subtle form of it makes people discriminate against others based on their faith. Devotees may form exclusive societies or cults which only cater to people with particular beliefs system, they may stereotype particular gender or group (like gays or transgenders). The extreme form of this hatred can result in violence, like mass killings or communal riots. The problem is that there is a very thin line between a devotee and a fanatic. You never know when any devotee can cross that line and become a fanatic or terrorist.

Many people who carry out all these barbaric attacks look and behave like normal people most of the time. The only difference if at all they have is they are very passionate about their beliefs and faith which is not a very unusual thing as many devotees are also passionate. These terrorists or fanatics also go to the same temple, church, mosque, or any other religious center, like any other devotee. They listen to the same sermons, but they interpret everything differently. Also, some religious gatherings preach fanaticism and extremism, they also ridicule other religions while trying to glorify their own religion. All religions should abstain from preaching hatred of any type against any group. This is the need of today and every religious group or leader must understand this. All religions need to update or revise their syllabus, the one which they are using is too old, totally outdated, and not at all suitable for the current world in which we live.

Just for the sake of not hurting the feelings of its followers or for diplomacy, many people say that no religion teaches hatred and they all teach truth and love. NO, this is only the half-truth. All religions teach love and compassion for their own followers but not for others. At least this is how the preachers and followers of every religion interpret the message. In some way, directly or indirectly every religion in its current form says that people who don't follow the path prescribed by them are either on the wrong path, are misguided, or plain evil. This is why we see so many attempts of conversion (from one religion to another), riots, and killings in the name of religion. Otherwise, what can be the reason for all this? Where is the love which all religions claim to teach? If they all teach only love then from where this hatred and violence is coming? Time has come to acknowledge that this current system has a problem, a serious problem that teaches people to hate or discriminate against people with different sets of values. Even kids in these families are not spared from such divisive teachings. From a very young age when they cannot decide what is good or bad, these kids are fed with a dose of sectarian beliefs which limits their intellectual growth in so many ways. By doing this these groups feel happy that they created obedient followers who will follow their respective beliefs and rituals to the core but at the same time, some of these kids become like a time bomb (with so much hatred in them about non-believers) which no one knows when it will explode. 

Many of these religions and cult movements teach one totally ridiculous thing that any crime (no matter how heinous it is) if done in the name of religion or to protect it is forgivable or rather rewarded lavishly by their super powerful God. They all also promise some imaginary, unrealistic, and outrageous after-death rewards. To encourage conversion (to attract new customers) they promise that all your sins and crimes will be immediately pardoned/forgiven once you surrender to their deity or God and not only that you will also be eligible for lucrative rewards just for surrendering to their almighty. It all sounds so stupid, and outrageous, something like a bumper offer to wash all your sins. This is a very clever marketing tactic. Many people believe in this propaganda and fall for it and this turns out to be a big selling point for all religions.

Fanaticism in any form is the ugly side of all religions and cult movements. This ugly side shows its presence more than often in various forms. Sometimes in the form of suppressing a particular gender or group. Sometimes in the form of physical or psychological violence within that religion. Sometimes in the form of terrorism. This is the aspect of religion that its followers don't even want to discuss and many don't even accept that this even exists and is a serious concern. As long as we keep on pushing this issue under the carpet for the sake of not hurting religious sentiments it will keep on hurting all of us in some form or other. Let's first acknowledge that this problem exists and then search for possible solutions. We need to talk about this and talk loud so that everyone concerned with this issue can hear it. Our silence has been way too long and if we remain silent then it will be considered as our approval of such violence.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic. 

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Afzal's hanging - How strong is the message against terrorism?

Finally, the death sentence of both Ajmal Kasab and Afzal Guru is executed. Both were hanged till death, and punished according to the law for crimes they had committed. Kasab's case was straightforward, he was caught red-handed while committing that heinous crime on the night of 26/11/2008. Afzal Guru's case was more complicated. He was arrested as a conspirator or mastermind behind the parliament attack which happened on 13 December 2001, killing seven people and five attackers. Right from 2005 when the Supreme Court upheld Afjal Guru's death sentence some sections in media and social circles have said that he didn't get a fair trial. The Supreme Court in its judgment also that the evidence against him was circumstantial and that there was no direct evidence against him about his involvement and maximum punishment had to be given to Afzal "to satisfy the collective conscience of the nation." Some regions of Jammu and Kashmir are tense, and there is a curfew imposed to tackle any unpleasant incidents that might happen in reaction to Afzal's hanging. On one side there are many articles in the media questioning the real purpose and timing behind Afzal's hanging, other the other side many support it, and both sides are passionate about their argument. In Afzal's case, his family was also not aware of his hanging when it happened and they didn't get a chance to perform his last rites, which I feel was a little unusual because in most cases the family is informed before executing the death sentence of any convict and they are allowed to perform last rites. 

What is this "collective conscience" that which Supreme Court has mentioned in its judgment? Do they mean feelings of revenge, blood for blood? I am not questioning the judgment here or the judiciary process. I am sure the Supreme Court must have taken all necessary steps to ensure a fair trial. This was the first time our parliament was attacked. It's one thing when common people get attacked and die but it's dam serious when the office of legislators is under attack. No doubt it was a serious security lapse. However, this was not the first terrorist attack, and this was not the first time people got killed because of an act of terrorism. Similar or sometimes even worse incidents happened in the past. Various communal riots killed many for no reason. People got killed for some mosque, temple, or some other trivial religious issues. Most of the time these riots happened for political reasons. Many people, even some very "Big" names got accused in some of these riots and had to go to court in some cases. A committee or commission was formed to inquire about these incidents. They submitted their report, and sometimes more violence happened against some things mentioned in these reports, and then nothing really happens, no one is punished, everything goes on as if nothing happened and this has become a regular pattern in most of these types of cases. Maybe because of all this, some sections of society feel victimized or targeted.  Maybe that is why some of these accused get some sympathy from some sections of society because they feel that these people fight for their rights, and try to get their voices heard. In the case of Kashmir, these things happen very often making situation more complicated day by day.

The issue of Kashmir is not that simple and it has a long history, the threat of terrorism that our country faces today is mostly because of the unsolved issue of Kashmir. I know there are no easy solutions for this problem, but at least our political leadership should work towards maintaining peace in that region and release some of the tension that has prevailed in that region for the last two decades or so. I am not here to discuss who is right or wrong as far as the issue of Kashmir is concerned, I have my own opinions about this issue but this post is not about that. 

If the government wants to take a tough stand against terrorism there is nothing wrong with it, but they should be consistent in their reactions, Muslims should not feel targeted just because they are a minority. All acts of terrorism or communal riots in India are not performed only by Islamic terrorist outfits. In India, many extreme right-wing Hindu groups also engage in these types of activities and nothing seems to be happening against them. Terrorism doesn't have any religion or face so please don't try to give it one. Let's hope that our government is really serious when they say that they are going to act tough against terrorism. I hope the execution of this hanging was not just for political gain. I hope this is not the case of selective implementation of justice, and I am eagerly waiting for their next steps in this direction. Let's wait and see, only time will give answers to these questions.

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

Reference:

1. 2008 Mumbai attacks

2. 2001 Indian Parliament attack

3. Afzal Guru and Indian government's new, tough message-Amaresh Misra

4. A perfect day for democracy-Arundhati Roy
5. Afzal hanging: Efforts to turn traitor into a martyr-Tarun vijay

6. Omar Abdullah's reaction-TOI

7. Reactions to Afjal Guru's hanging

Is there any relationship between terrorism and religion?

Recently, Union Home Minister Sushilkumar Shinde claimed that the BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) are promoting something called "Hindu terrorism." This is not the first time when someone tried to link some religion with terrorism. Even the above-mentioned term  (Hindu terrorism) was used in the past by some leaders, but I still wonder what is the logic behind using terms like this? I guess what he meant by this was these parties are using Hinduism to create a communal rift in society. Don't all political parties work based on the same philosophy of divide and rule? Similar to this term there are some other terms like "Islamic or Muslim terrorism." All these terms are used to describe terrorist groups or organizations that use particular religions to misguide people and spread communal tension. To associate only a particular religion with terrorism is wrong. All religions are equally good or bad in this aspect. Therefore, just to single out any religion for this is stupidity or at best one can call it a very opportunistic approach to get some political mileage.

Religion and politics are two sides of the same coin. They both work on many similar principles and ideas. They both are human-made institutions. They can be compared with big corporate organizations that try to maintain their hold on their customers by aggressive advertising and brainwashing. Their main intention is to grow their customer base by using all available resources and techniques. All organized religions present today have a long history of violent conflicts with each other, with nonbelievers, or even with factions within them. Depending on their strength and attitude weaker religions have suffered at the hands of more powerful ones. There are many reported incidents in history where these conflicts become violent and many people lost their lives. The use of divide and rule strategy is also not new in politics. Most politicians are in search of something that they can use to divide people and polarize their opinions. This helps them to create their own loyal vote bank. Politicians know very well that most people don't think rationally when they become emotional and they love to exploit this weakness. Religion, caste, or race are very powerful tools to challenge people's emotions. They polarize people's opinions which creates divisions among them and this technique is used very commonly in politics all over the world. It is often used by politicians to appease their vote banks.

The dominance of religion, caste, or race in people's minds works in favor of these politicians who use these things for political advantage. People form very strong associations with things like religion, caste, race, or anything with which they like to associate their identity, and these things are exploited not only by politicians but also by various cult movements. Religious institutes or organizations (temples, Churches, Mosques, etc.), gurus, and many other entities exploit this weakness for their own selfish purposes. Many times, these emotions are also used to organize people to do something good but such events are very rare. Mostly, these emotions are used to scare people, blackmail them emotionally, financially exploit people, or for political/personal gains.

For me, the most interesting part of this equation is this dirty trick works every time. I have not seen this trick failing, this high success rate makes this tick a very attractive and potent weapon. Even after all these years of advancement in knowledge and understanding of our surroundings, people fall for these things regularly. I can understand people's dependence and their need for religion and God but I fail to understand why don't they question when these things are used to divide them. Why do they put blind faith in these books and their authors? Why do they still search for their identity in all these things? Why for many of them it's not enough just to identify themselves only as humans? Why do we allow personal things like religion and race to be used to divide us and create rift or enmity among us?

As long as people don't ask these questions and find their own logical answers these things will be used to divide them. Such people will be used as cards in the game of politics and religion where they will try to beat each other and kill each other without even realizing why and for whom they are doing all this. The ultimate winners in any card game are not cards but the players who use those cards. Cards might think that they are powerful where king beats queen, a higher number is more powerful than a lower number but they don't realize that it all depends on how the players use them. If the cards stop listening to the players then the whole game will collapse and become meaningless for players. This is what we need to do to stop the exploitation of these emotions by politicians and religious organizations.

Terrorism or violence doesn't belong to any particular religion, sect, community, or country. Every religion and country has used it as per their own requirement and desire. All are equally guilty. No one can point fingers at others as there is blood on everyone's hand. Instead of playing this pointless blame game endlessly which we all know no one is going to win why don't we stop this game and take a break. Why don't we focus our attention on more important topics like social reforms, women's empowerment, finding solutions to many problems that still trouble humanity, and tackling issues like climate change? The list is very long, why not discuss these things instead of propagating hate for the benefit of wasted interests? As long as people are going to give unnecessary importance to these things there will be people or organizations who will exploit them for their own benefit. We give them this chance so why only blame them?

Let's make one thing very clear to these people, we are not going to fall for these things anymore. Let's tell them that they can not fool us by using these emotions anymore. Terrorism or violence has no face or identity. Violence only hurts. We can not preach peace by using violence. Let's diffuse this bomb permanently which is being used to divide and ignite us so many times. 

Thanks for reading and please share your views on this topic.

(Copyright: Vinay Thakur. Please contact the author for re-posting or publishing)

References:
1. http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/shinde-blasts-bjp-rss-for-inciting-hindu-terror/article4325767.ece
2. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Shindes-statement-on-Hindu-terrorism-based-on-facts-Salman-Khurshid-says/articleshow/18132530.cms