When Is Violence ‘Terror’
And When Is It Not?By M R Narayan Swamy
03 August 2006
Deccan Herald
It is easy to denounce the vicious train bombings in Mumbai for what it is: plain terrorism. But in the politics of hatred planted in India from the 1980s, one question begs an answer: are some types of violence perhaps justified? The Shiv Sena will surely answer in the affirmative. Two days before high-velocity bombs ripped through first class compartments of Mumbai suburban trains last month, the Shiv Sena — which acts perennially as if it is above the law — masterminded violent attacks all over Maharashtra.Buses and cars were burnt, policemen attacked, roads and highways blocked and markets shut, causing huge economic losses.
The reason? Mud was found splashed on a statue of party chief Bal Thackeray's wife!
As could only have been expected, Bal Thackeray justified the needless violence.
His son Uddhav, still trying to put his stamp on the party, gave an added religious twist: “If derogatory cartoons in a newspaper in far-off Denmark can have repercussions in India, this incident is bound to provoke reactions from Shiv Sainiks.”
Even Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh, whose job it must be to roundly denounce any violence, did a wrong to Mumbai by calling the Shiv Sena-inspired destruction an “emotional reaction”.
If hurt caused by mud flung at a statue can justify mayhem, what about the fury in a community's heart that sees innocent law abiding hundreds — a former MP included — horribly put to death just because some mad elements torched a train car and killed 59 Hindus?
No one can justify any killing, be it in Mumbai or Delhi or Coimbatore or Godhra.
But the politics of polarising people on religious lines, robbing them of their shared national identity, has given birth to a mindset where even people who should know better brand terrorism as terror but seem to think that violence by right-wing Hindu groups is somehow justified. It is not.
Those of us who witnessed the horror of 1984 on the streets of Delhi vividly remember the lies trotted out to justify the brutal killings of innocent Sikhs.
We were told it was “natural reaction” to the slaying of Indira Gandhi.
There was nothing “natural” about the slaughter of Sikhs.
And there was nothing “natural” about Gujarat 2002.
An elderly, wrinkled Muslim man I interviewed in Ayodhya town shed tears as he related how a mob set upon his modest house after razing the Babri mosque, dragged out his teenage son (while he and other members of the family fled) and repeatedly stabbed him — and then threw the body into a well, all the while shouting Hindu religious slogans. “Sir, I am a poor man. What sin did I commit to see my own son murdered for no fault of his?” he asked in sorrow.
On a desolate street of Mumbai in 1993, when I spoke to a group of frightened Muslim men running scared of Shiv Sena mobs, one of them took out his visiting card that revealed him as a sub-divisional magistrate.
“Sir, what use is this identity today?” he asked, staring at me. “Why did I remain in India after the 1947 partition?” These were two despairing members of India's largest religious minority.
The younger ones today are not asking any questions.
They are simply taking revenge, for real and perceived injustice done to their community.
Those associated with security agencies warn that the radicalisation of young Muslims poses one of the gravest dangers to the Indian state. And this has not happened in a vacuum.
I hold no brief for fanatics, and there are, without doubt, many in that genre in this country. But fanaticism cannot be fought with fanaticism.
If we are to remain a nation state, no chief minister should be allowed to justify mass killings with a glib “every action has a reaction” comment.
The Babri mosque razing was a grave wound to the Muslim psyche besides the Indian secular state; Gujarat 2002 has truly given birth to Islamic terrorism.
