Terror Has No Religion, But Who Believes?

Terror has no religion. It is a face with no certain identity. A terrorist understands only one language, the language of hatred and bloodshed. Through out the world a terrorist is a terrorist and a criminal is a criminal. It is widely held notion, which is approved by majority of people. Judiciaries do not base the religion to pronounce their judgements. It is the degree of offence or the seriousness of act of "terror" that determie the culpability. But a few have moulded the term "terrorist" or "terrorism" for their own set targets. Be it a propaganda against a particular community or a trial by media, everybody almost starts believing in what is aired, printed or is talk of the town. It is a universal fact that people believe in what they are unstoppingly fed, no matter what is fed or shown to them is based on facts or hoax. Except a few, nobody sees a terrorist either as a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian or as a Sikh. India is the only country where terrorists hail almost from every big religion. The 1980s Khalsa movement revolved mainly around the secessionist demands of Sikhs. They wanted a land of their own. In north eastern Indian states some Christians are allegedly found to be involved in anti national activities. The central provinces of the country are battling with the naxalite movement. This movement is infested with Left-tilting ideology of the Maoists or the Peoples' War Group. The insurgency in Kashmir has seen Muslim terrorists, who mainly come from across the LoC. Recently the role of a few alleged Hindu millitants in Malegaon blast is being probed. A sadhvi with her accomplices allegedly planned the September 29 Malegaon blast. Reams of papers will end but the debate will continue. But who believes in the notion that a terrorist has no religion? Before that we take a sneak peak into the entire episode. What is terrorism? When innocents civillians become target of a deviated few who believe in the doctrine of bloodletting, the resultant scenario that leads to death and destruction of civillian population is the act of "terrorism". Unfortunately only bomb explosions are seen as acts of terror. In India since Independence huge number of people have been butchered in the name of religion. Only the modus operandi was different, but the outcome was the same, annihilation of the targeted innocent people. The past few decades or so have seen Muslims being branded as "terrorists". How can the entire community be held responsible for deviations of a few. Similarly all the Hindus can not be held liable for the crimes of a few of their co-religionists. Despite that a large chunk of India's populace still upholds the secular values of her forefathers. Nobody comes for the rescue of the Muslim community when it is branded as the cultivator of outlaws. In contrast, the arrests in Malegaon blast has created unrest in pro-Hindutva groups. Indiviuals and organisations have openly supported the arrested accused. Two incidents changed peoples' perceptions to some extent. America, for the first time in history, elected an African-American as her first "black" president and Jamiat-ul-Ulema E Hind, in its 29 general session in Hyderabad on November 8-9, adopted a resolution that condemned terrorism. While the first changed the way people saw to America, the second is expected to revive hopes of Indian Muslims. The hopes that seek tranquility are reasons to to be optimistic. Jaimat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind and its general secretary, Maulana Mahmood Mdani, who happens to be a Rajya Sabha MP, will be remebered for their courageous initiatives. This time for the audacious effort they have put in passing a resolution at its 29 Hyderabad session. More than 6,000 delegates attended the conference. Mahmood Madani made a statement on November 8 on the organisation's opening session in Hyderabad. There is nothing new in his statement which we may celebrate. His speech echoed with what pepole usually opine after every terror strike. "We should not link terrorism to religion". This is what he meant. And this is what Jamiat adoptd in its resolution. He was speaking on the backdrop of the arrests made in September 9 Malegaon blasts. A few may find it only as an ordinary statement delivered from dais of a religious congregation, but those who seek solutions to problems, it has huge ramifications. No political leader did have the same courrage as Madani did. He condemned the current ongoing "campaign" that brands Pragnya Singh Thakur as a "Hindu" terrorist. The right wing outfits are exception to it. As, it is quite natural for them to defend Pragnya and her accomplices, they have scome in full support of her. These right wing outfits can never even imagine of doing what Jamiat and Mahmod Madani have done. Resolution apart, they would never say a word against the alleged imjustice. Recently L K Advani spoke of media sensationalism. He appealed to media not to sensationalise the news. The silence of other political parties is deafening. They should also have denounced the "campaign" that brands people on grounds of religion. We do not want either to take sides or point fingers at others. Neither is our intention to support any act of violence. The bone of contention is that people should avoid rhetoric. A conceretd effrot to tackle the menace is the need of the hour. Instead of delivering statements, we should deliver results. Jamiat and Madani wanted Pragnya not branded as a "Hindu" terrorsit. A very few aslo did the same. People say terror has no religion. Now, it is not hard to say who pratices it. But who believes in the notion? It does not need to be answered.