Terror has a religion

Terror has no religion. Religion has no terror. Both the arguments are somewhat misappropriate in the hunt. Religion has always been considered an important potent force of unification. But to quote many secular agonists as well as atheists, the cause of religion has started to become the reason of universal human degradation. Everybody talks of the silent majority-its power, its resilience, its resistance to the awkwardly inhospitable world. But when the noisy minority overruns the silent majority in the bid to counter and encounter the roadblock towards religious supranationalism – the entire protractor of spiritual serenity gets nipped in the bud. Paris is no stranger to terrorism, neither is the Western world, dealing with an increasing influx of the war ravaged hotspots in the Islamic domain. Aylan’s guileless, unmoving, stagnant body crying without the visible tears moved the world, forced candle light marches to and fro without parachuting into the problem of terrorism which has reduced an entire West Asia-to be the hubris of gunpowder.

Not even a year back, when the revolving Earth took a disastrous notice to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the planet showed remorse, even moral aid. But what it missed out was on the probability or even a possibility of having a strict no legal solution towards scaremongering the Planetians, not only Parisians. The rise of Islamism or radical view of Caliphate is not a new story. The dream of the Prophet and the reality of the world had to be merged somehow. Sporadic November love of terrorists immersed in the choice of the date Friday-the 13th very clearly shows that the visionary of human slaughter was to be directly expounded on the streets of Romantic capital of the world. But contradictory principles of national interest of the leading “G” Group countries is forcing an overhaul of unity. Russia in the land of Syria has actively decided to support the Assad regime, while the pole positioned USA has decided to give rebels a greater weight. There are situations when an indirect war is being ravaged between the USA and Russian fronts as a means of achieving greater geo political leverage.

1980 Afghanistan showed what foreign occupation through vandal means can bring about. Similarly, the 2001- War against Terror created a miscreant which eventually resulted in little, other than the Nobel laurel for the present US Premier. Similarly, the notion of extremism must now be decided not on the value ruling of self-acclaimed, moral policemen of India, but by the global conscience of reunification against a force of terror. The sub-continent itself has been the breeding ground of terrorism and a mere name of one country is enough to support the statement. But, it is also time for the United Nations to come out of his titular slumber and forge unity in a world of 10 billion. If today terrorists can be united for the cause of jihad, the nations can also drag their internal, trifling differences in the view of a better tomorrow. When faced with Japanese aggression, the nationalists and the Communists in China fought shoulder to shoulder for almost a decade.

And then there are people who actually view the world through the lens of Newtonian philosophy of action and reaction and blame the Gujarati CM of 2002 for the same. Mani Shankar Aiyar- the person who indirectly helped the Brit PM to introduce the term chaiwala in his speech talked about the Islamophobia of France behind the Charlie Hebdo murder. “France has had Charlie Hebdo, because it banned Hijab.”- And the main stream media had little to offer except silent applause to an well-articulated, secular remark. I didn’t know secularism of Paris, can enviably bring votes in New Delhi. Terror does have a religion-that of hatred and blind prejudice.Well, marches have stopped, dissent/intolerance seems contained, national awards look happy with their change of address, Cow is in peace, and Anupam Kher doused in his show where “anything can happen”. Drama in India has gone for a pee, while the shit of the world awaits……


Nehru and Tryst with Terrorism…

Nehru not only excelled in his so called “platonic relationship” with Lady Mountbatten, but also was a clear winner with his liberal values which included British mannerisms and may I add British scotch. The sanatorium of Oxbridge thought he grew himself into was an added advantage for the middle class which always has had a special succour towards the anglicised scheme of things along with the Playboy. But, such a liberal mind was the all in all at a time, when actors had to change their Muslim names to Hindu ones to get a break in the film industry. Alyque Padamsee, theatre luminary known for his extreme views on many things including fairness creams also illustrated the apartheid against the Muslims in now the Khan dominated fiefdom of post independent India.

Even then there were fissures hard to cover, there were right wing activists hard to suppress and there were hard lined terrorists who were abused and not eulogized. Nehru was the Prime Minister, when Nathuram Godse with indiscreet links to the RSS assassinated the Father of the Nation. A self-righteous guy called Madan Lal hurled bombs while Gandhi was carrying on his prayer in his ashram. But, still Godse and his vile towards Gandhi was not dispensed with. Rather, he was executed. And the man who “discovered India” treated an assassin as a terrorist and rightly so. Were there not right of centre voices then? Were there not any iota of intelligentsia who challenged the meek advocacy of the Mahatma towards resilience to a terrorist state? Of course there were. But justice prevailed.

RSS has never been a den where any right thinking liberal can mingle with its narrow mindedness and parochialism-something which has rounded off terror attacks on minorities. But, then how Asaduddin Owaisi becomes a saint like figure with his ultimate view of a biased judiciary and uncompromising segregessionist outlook towards religion? The hue and cry was nimble and indifferent till the AIMIM chief came into the radar and spoke how Yakub was being victimised just because he is not Maya Kodnani or Babu Bajrangi. How would have Nehru seen this? The man who vehemently opposed Jinnah’s gimmicks of communalising the already acrimonious communities-could he have endorsed that?

And when the left thinking liberals come out as the Owaisis fired the venom, we experienced the institutions which Nehru garnered and polished and recuperated getting abused, getting lowered in the eyes of public scrutiny. Indira did it at the times of Emergency, but the intelligentsia did it to sermonize its ‘rational’ militancy-capable of plaguing the face India is trying to project in front of the world. Because, Sunny Leone is not our sole ambassador in any case! The mutiny seems to have been propelled by some sort of testosterone charger, whose logic remains in the grey even now. Yakub’s death sentence was in the run for long. And somehow, the Karats and the Tharoors seemed to have been in the slumber. Perhaps for them the past year brought too many electoral challenges to find them some time.

Many opt for abolition of capital punishment. I lie in accordance with the view. But how many of the greats of protective humanism burnished their vanguard when Dhananjay Chatterjee, was sent to the gallows for raping and killing a minor girl called Hetal Parekh in the year of the 14th Loksabha elections? CPI(M), a party known for inconsistent stands at that time also had Prakash Karat and Sitaram Yechury with Harkishan Singh Surjeet as the General Secretary of the party. They never uttered a word on the measure of punishment which was being awarded. Even then there was a raging controversy in the Bengali media about the various discrepancies found in the case against Dhananjay. And here lies the irony. The man who was extremely feverish in sending Chatterjee to jail was Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, the CM of Bengal along with his wife and daughter Suchetana. “His wife made an impassioned speech in favour of the hanging in a public meeting”. This is what the TOI had to say regarding Meera Bhattacharya’s statement. Civil rights group protested against the hanging. It is a different issue now that the fate of the Left in Bengal now hangs in disarray. If I memory serves me right, Mamata Banerjee protested against the drama of the then CM in the hanging of Dhananjay.

How would Nehru perceive the high handedness of a discussion which even his liberal mind of the 50’s failed to catch? The declaration of equality, sovereignty, fraternity is being challenged not by communal forces, but by storm troopers who are far more veiled in religious nepotism unaware of the idea India and its multi-cultural identity the first PM despite his loopholes championed. Yes according to me, hang till death is wrong, but the tryst with a terrorist of debating law, judges and a judgement is not going to serve any right……