Try to channel anger towards terrorism, not terrorist
Aakar Patel clearly states in his piece: “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus” (“Most extremists in India are not Muslim – they are Hindu”). How does he know they are Hindus? They could’ve been born Hindus, but then again, how do we know that for sure – where’s the data? Also, he clearly distinguishes between Hindu terrorists, that he calls Maoists, and other non-Muslim terrorists that he calls tribals, animist, and Christians. How is he sure they aren’t also Maoists, and therefore belong to the first group?
Secondly, and most importantly, Aakar cites data of deaths due to terrorism, which he then perplexingly equates to the above statement. But these aren’t terrorist numbers, these are deaths caused by terrorists, whose identity we do not know, and Aakar guesses them to be Hindus. Why?
Also, deaths due to terrorism exclude terrorist attacks that haven’t caused any fatalities. Aakar ignores this data. In 2012, he elaborated on Maoist violence in an article in Outlook and never once called them terrorists or Hindus. His Scroll piece is a quick rehash of his 2013 Firstpost piece where, again, he describes Maoist violence but doesn’t once call them Hindus.
“All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims” is as patently and obviously false as 2 + 2 = 5. Why construct an argument that is factually wrong, without data, to prove false something that so obviously is to begin with? (The LTTE and the IRA being just two proofs). Unless the purpose of the article was to state: “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus”, which he does, and has everyone eating out of his hands, yet again. As an aside, I like to keep the definition of a terrorist as broad as possible. I don’t think the 26/11 attackers were “gunmen” or the Charlie Hebdo attackers were “militants”. They were terrorists. They terrorised innocents to achieve their aims whatever they were, through violent, unlawful means. – Anand Ranganathan
***
Is the author Hindu or Muslim? I am a Hindu, but I condemn terrorism in any form whatsoever, so try to channel your anger towards terrorism and terrorist activities and not the actual terrorist. Fight the bigger battle, I think you might be from the younger generation, so that's the reason you might not have encountered terrorists threats or have not face terrorists threats personally.
I tweet regularly on terrorism and have been fighting the battle on various blogs across the globe. Global terrorism is something which you need to understand before wasting your precious time on creating articles like this. Try to bring in world peace, work towards it, use your resources to fight terrorism and not create a new issue out of already sickening situation. – Pradeep Puthran
***
It is obvious to people with some intelligence that Modi hates Muslims and hence his protégés speak for him. – Naiyer Razzaqui
***
I was shocked when I read the analysis in this article. I always thought that Scroll made a lot more sense than regular print media, but this just breaks that notion.
The author gets data from a source with numbers of deaths by terrorism or extremism. Maoists get equated to Hindus and North East people to Christians? While the article starts with segregating the violence by religion, the author proceeds to support his argument based on data that is segregated by region and then assigns religion to the region. Where is the logic in this?
This is nothing but irresponsible reporting and poor research. I also feel it is wrong use of the medium to rant against an ideology. Condemning what was said by Giriraj Singh is one thing but using this useless logic is pathetic. – Shalaka Gadkar
***
As I understand the objective of this article was to convince that most extremists are from the Hindu community, it instead reads as Hindus are more likely to be terrorists than people of other faiths.
The statistics you presented in the article are deceptive. You have very casually put in numbers without thinking that the Maoists have not waged war under the religious banner of Hinduism and the same goes for extremists in the North East. In fact, I will give you another juicy statistic: most criminals (rapists, murderers, thieves, arsonists, etc.) in India are definitely Hindus. Ah! This means there must be something hideous in this religion of Hindus to have made them criminals. Well, you should definitely join some political party since you have outdone Giriraj Singh, and I am sure with the logic of yours, you will outdo yourself too. – Abhay Nayak
***
Leaving out Kashmir, there is almost zero Islamist terrorism in India, although Indian Muslims are unsafe. My point to you is that Islam is not a religion of terrorist, and it’s difficult, almost impossible, to be a real Muslim. There are only a few real Muslims.
However, Muslims are murdered, not given admission into educational institutes, raped, their holy book is burnt, mosques are demolished – these reasons makes one commit suicide rather than launch an attack on other communities.
I am a Kashmiri and when I came to India to study, I felt unsafe and returned home. I am with you when you say no to terrorism, but every Muslim is not a terrorist. – Bilal Rather
***
I need to ask you about the data that you mentioned on your website, and the basis on which the people were categorised. You mentioned people from Kashmir and Assam, as well as Maoists. Who are these people? What are their names? And are they slaughtering people on account of religion or do they have other motives?
They say don’t categorise terrorism with any religion, but the delegation from Nigeria who showed grief and did not challenge Giriraj Singh, did not also express grief when Boko Haram and Islamic State attacked. Whatever remark Giriraj gave cannot be justified but look at the other side where he was widely criticised by the media. Nobody covered the story where Smriti Irani was mocked and called as '"umke lagane wali minister ban gayi". There must be transparency in both aspects. – Shreyash Gupta
***
The prime minister, or for that matter, the government has said that they are ready to discuss issues with the Maoists. But they have been not classified as terrorists – they fight the war ideologically and physically, but mostly with the police or the administration. So Aakar Patel is wrong on this front.
Second, the issue of Jammu & Kashmir is a known problem. But here the issue is not local. Remember, even the present government has said they would discuss issues even with separatists who have opposing views. However, the same does not apply to people of other countries who illegally enter to plant trouble (people who enter illegally are branded terrorists anywhere in the world).
In terrorist attacks the innocent are killed. Looking at incidents, including 26/11, Hyderabad and Delhi attacks, the rule that the majority of these people belong to a particular belief becomes true, not because of the religion but because they are misguided by vested interest in their community. Aakar Patel’s piece is aimed at targeting the majority community. – Prakash P
***
I am appalled at how Scroll allows the publication of such mindless, poorly researched and poorly analysed opinion pieces on its website. Aakar Patel makes the sweeping claim that all extremists in India are not Muslims but may actually be Hindus, but he does not take into account the following:
1. Most violent acts of terrorism in India are sporadic, and not something that follows a yearly pattern, since India is largely a country at peace and the incidents of extremist violence are under control.
2. We suffer more from external acts of terrorism than internal ones, and those incidents largely have their roots in Islamic terrorism.
3. Terrorism and extremism is identified in many far ranging ways, including deeply held beliefs, and not just through the number of people killed. Having a year-to-year breakdown may not be the most accurate way to depict this.
While I do support the premise that it is possible that Muslims in India are more moderate than those elsewhere in the world, it would be great to have more concrete data to substantiate that (by using other variables as proxy for the extent of their religious tolerance vis-a-via their counterparts elsewhere in the world). – Ipsita Parinda
***
I liked the article about Hindu terrorists and shared it on Facebook. Some of my friends commented on the post. Here are two comments.
Comment 1: Sickular logic of joining the dots to form an image. Naxalism vs terrorism are two different things, which need to be looked at in different perspectives. Jumbled numbers like this are similar to the wrong image of Delhi as the rape capital of the world.
Comment 2: If marking terrorists as Muslims is called wrong, how can marking Naxalites as Hindus make things better? I don't think religion is the root cause of extremism. No religion preaches that. The idea that one religion is correct or better than the others only create conflicts. – Ravindra Attili
***
Although I agree that most terrorist type of activities involve Hindus (Maoists and the people in the North East), I would not call it Hindu terrorism, which writer seems to imply. And the reason is very simple. Maoist and North Eastern terrorism did not happen due to the Hindu ideology. These people just happen to be Hindus.
The basis of Islamic terrorism, however, is nothing but the basic tenets of Islam which teaches to protect your faith with use of violence if required. So do we have double standards with respect to Muslims? Not at all. The best example of this is Baluchistan freedom struggle. The people of Baluchistan are also Muslims, but no one terms them as Islamic terrorists. No one claims that there violence is due to the teachings of the Quran. – Sandeep Kandwal
***
I thank you and appreciate your work for the facts you mentioned in the article about Hindu terrorists. There are only few media channels who show the reality. I appreciate that you have the courage to tell people the facts. – Rehan
***
I want to point out some of the factual blunders made in the Hindu extremist article.
1. “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus, the ones whom we have conveniently labelled "Maoist" instead of "Hindu".”
The writer conveniently forgot that Maoists/Naxalites are not Hindus. Maoists are not followers of Hinduism, they are the followers of Maoism which is a part of Marxism–Leninism. The Marxism–Leninist–Maoist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet. So how did Maoists become "Hindus"?
2. How did you conclude that the entire terrorist activity in North East India is done by Hindus?
a) In Nagaland, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Isak Muviah is an active Christian terrorist group. National Socialist Council of Nagaland has the professed goal of wanting to create a Nagaland for Christ should be sufficient to establish the connection to the church.
c) In Tripura, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is active since 1989. NLFT is a paramilitary Christian movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government.
How then you put the entire mantle of North East terrorism on the Hindu community alone? Next time do you research before you write such biased articles. – Pranshu Sharma
***
Aakar Patel is wrong when he equates Hindus with terrorism. The Maoists are Maoists – they do not kill people in the name of religion. Equating them with Hindu terrorism is a travesty of fact. There are many unscrupulous reports. In West Bengal, making of bombs by terror modules by a foreign extremist group was covered up as crude bomb manufacturing activities, when a blast exposed them subsequently. We encourage terrorism as a ploy to take advantage of the situation and Patel is just doing this.
It would be more meaningful if Patel would have dissected the causes. Maoists are killing not for religion but for economic rights, while bombs are manufactured in West Bengal and elsewhere to foment communal troubles in India and in the neighbouring country. – Debasis Bagchi
***
Why doesn't this writer do some homework before labelling Hindus as "terrorists". The Maiost do not have a religion. Their ideology doesn't support any. Hinduism is a religion which has to tolerate movies like PK, so-called artists like MF Hussain and numerous such examples. And now this writer. – Saurav Bhowmick
***
You should give detailed data of the people killed by Muslim extremists as compare to Hindu extremists. Please don't mislead the people. Everbody knows the world is on fire because of Muslims, and not any other community. Also, please pay attention to the Owaisi brothers because "most extremist Hindus" have ignored Giriraj Singh’s comment, but the Owaisi brothers’ comments are disturbing the society. – Jayendrasingh Rawal
***
We believe any community who believes that their god is the only true god and those who follow it shall live and others don't deserve to live, are communal or extremist. Such ideology belongs to what religion can be studied in the history of India.
Instead of protecting the action of culprits, you should expose them or at least treat them neutrally. People like Giriraj will speak because at the time of Partition, we declared a separate country for extremist Muslims, but there was no separate land allotted to Hindu extremists. Ultimately, Hindu extremists became citizens of India and Muslim extremists did not. However, people like Owaisi brothers challenge the secularism of this country, but no one cares because 2,000 years of forced conversions is not an issue for the media and Gharwapsi is. – Shubham Chauhan
***
This article is complete eyewash, with confusion being introduced by mixing extremism of various complexions with terrorism. Can we collate a data by including Maoist extremism and religious fundamentalism on the same platform? This is a very cheap gimmick to catch the fancy of the Muslims. The methodology is very biased and fails to touch a sensible intellectual, be it Muslim or Hindu. – Sushanto Sarkar
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Aakar Patel clearly states in his piece: “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus” (“Most extremists in India are not Muslim – they are Hindu”). How does he know they are Hindus? They could’ve been born Hindus, but then again, how do we know that for sure – where’s the data? Also, he clearly distinguishes between Hindu terrorists, that he calls Maoists, and other non-Muslim terrorists that he calls tribals, animist, and Christians. How is he sure they aren’t also Maoists, and therefore belong to the first group?
Secondly, and most importantly, Aakar cites data of deaths due to terrorism, which he then perplexingly equates to the above statement. But these aren’t terrorist numbers, these are deaths caused by terrorists, whose identity we do not know, and Aakar guesses them to be Hindus. Why?
Also, deaths due to terrorism exclude terrorist attacks that haven’t caused any fatalities. Aakar ignores this data. In 2012, he elaborated on Maoist violence in an article in Outlook and never once called them terrorists or Hindus. His Scroll piece is a quick rehash of his 2013 Firstpost piece where, again, he describes Maoist violence but doesn’t once call them Hindus.
“All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims” is as patently and obviously false as 2 + 2 = 5. Why construct an argument that is factually wrong, without data, to prove false something that so obviously is to begin with? (The LTTE and the IRA being just two proofs). Unless the purpose of the article was to state: “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus”, which he does, and has everyone eating out of his hands, yet again. As an aside, I like to keep the definition of a terrorist as broad as possible. I don’t think the 26/11 attackers were “gunmen” or the Charlie Hebdo attackers were “militants”. They were terrorists. They terrorised innocents to achieve their aims whatever they were, through violent, unlawful means. – Anand Ranganathan
***
Is the author Hindu or Muslim? I am a Hindu, but I condemn terrorism in any form whatsoever, so try to channel your anger towards terrorism and terrorist activities and not the actual terrorist. Fight the bigger battle, I think you might be from the younger generation, so that's the reason you might not have encountered terrorists threats or have not face terrorists threats personally.
I tweet regularly on terrorism and have been fighting the battle on various blogs across the globe. Global terrorism is something which you need to understand before wasting your precious time on creating articles like this. Try to bring in world peace, work towards it, use your resources to fight terrorism and not create a new issue out of already sickening situation. – Pradeep Puthran
***
It is obvious to people with some intelligence that Modi hates Muslims and hence his protégés speak for him. – Naiyer Razzaqui
***
I was shocked when I read the analysis in this article. I always thought that Scroll made a lot more sense than regular print media, but this just breaks that notion.
The author gets data from a source with numbers of deaths by terrorism or extremism. Maoists get equated to Hindus and North East people to Christians? While the article starts with segregating the violence by religion, the author proceeds to support his argument based on data that is segregated by region and then assigns religion to the region. Where is the logic in this?
This is nothing but irresponsible reporting and poor research. I also feel it is wrong use of the medium to rant against an ideology. Condemning what was said by Giriraj Singh is one thing but using this useless logic is pathetic. – Shalaka Gadkar
***
As I understand the objective of this article was to convince that most extremists are from the Hindu community, it instead reads as Hindus are more likely to be terrorists than people of other faiths.
The statistics you presented in the article are deceptive. You have very casually put in numbers without thinking that the Maoists have not waged war under the religious banner of Hinduism and the same goes for extremists in the North East. In fact, I will give you another juicy statistic: most criminals (rapists, murderers, thieves, arsonists, etc.) in India are definitely Hindus. Ah! This means there must be something hideous in this religion of Hindus to have made them criminals. Well, you should definitely join some political party since you have outdone Giriraj Singh, and I am sure with the logic of yours, you will outdo yourself too. – Abhay Nayak
***
Leaving out Kashmir, there is almost zero Islamist terrorism in India, although Indian Muslims are unsafe. My point to you is that Islam is not a religion of terrorist, and it’s difficult, almost impossible, to be a real Muslim. There are only a few real Muslims.
However, Muslims are murdered, not given admission into educational institutes, raped, their holy book is burnt, mosques are demolished – these reasons makes one commit suicide rather than launch an attack on other communities.
I am a Kashmiri and when I came to India to study, I felt unsafe and returned home. I am with you when you say no to terrorism, but every Muslim is not a terrorist. – Bilal Rather
***
I need to ask you about the data that you mentioned on your website, and the basis on which the people were categorised. You mentioned people from Kashmir and Assam, as well as Maoists. Who are these people? What are their names? And are they slaughtering people on account of religion or do they have other motives?
They say don’t categorise terrorism with any religion, but the delegation from Nigeria who showed grief and did not challenge Giriraj Singh, did not also express grief when Boko Haram and Islamic State attacked. Whatever remark Giriraj gave cannot be justified but look at the other side where he was widely criticised by the media. Nobody covered the story where Smriti Irani was mocked and called as '"umke lagane wali minister ban gayi". There must be transparency in both aspects. – Shreyash Gupta
***
The prime minister, or for that matter, the government has said that they are ready to discuss issues with the Maoists. But they have been not classified as terrorists – they fight the war ideologically and physically, but mostly with the police or the administration. So Aakar Patel is wrong on this front.
Second, the issue of Jammu & Kashmir is a known problem. But here the issue is not local. Remember, even the present government has said they would discuss issues even with separatists who have opposing views. However, the same does not apply to people of other countries who illegally enter to plant trouble (people who enter illegally are branded terrorists anywhere in the world).
In terrorist attacks the innocent are killed. Looking at incidents, including 26/11, Hyderabad and Delhi attacks, the rule that the majority of these people belong to a particular belief becomes true, not because of the religion but because they are misguided by vested interest in their community. Aakar Patel’s piece is aimed at targeting the majority community. – Prakash P
***
I am appalled at how Scroll allows the publication of such mindless, poorly researched and poorly analysed opinion pieces on its website. Aakar Patel makes the sweeping claim that all extremists in India are not Muslims but may actually be Hindus, but he does not take into account the following:
1. Most violent acts of terrorism in India are sporadic, and not something that follows a yearly pattern, since India is largely a country at peace and the incidents of extremist violence are under control.
2. We suffer more from external acts of terrorism than internal ones, and those incidents largely have their roots in Islamic terrorism.
3. Terrorism and extremism is identified in many far ranging ways, including deeply held beliefs, and not just through the number of people killed. Having a year-to-year breakdown may not be the most accurate way to depict this.
While I do support the premise that it is possible that Muslims in India are more moderate than those elsewhere in the world, it would be great to have more concrete data to substantiate that (by using other variables as proxy for the extent of their religious tolerance vis-a-via their counterparts elsewhere in the world). – Ipsita Parinda
***
I liked the article about Hindu terrorists and shared it on Facebook. Some of my friends commented on the post. Here are two comments.
Comment 1: Sickular logic of joining the dots to form an image. Naxalism vs terrorism are two different things, which need to be looked at in different perspectives. Jumbled numbers like this are similar to the wrong image of Delhi as the rape capital of the world.
Comment 2: If marking terrorists as Muslims is called wrong, how can marking Naxalites as Hindus make things better? I don't think religion is the root cause of extremism. No religion preaches that. The idea that one religion is correct or better than the others only create conflicts. – Ravindra Attili
***
Although I agree that most terrorist type of activities involve Hindus (Maoists and the people in the North East), I would not call it Hindu terrorism, which writer seems to imply. And the reason is very simple. Maoist and North Eastern terrorism did not happen due to the Hindu ideology. These people just happen to be Hindus.
The basis of Islamic terrorism, however, is nothing but the basic tenets of Islam which teaches to protect your faith with use of violence if required. So do we have double standards with respect to Muslims? Not at all. The best example of this is Baluchistan freedom struggle. The people of Baluchistan are also Muslims, but no one terms them as Islamic terrorists. No one claims that there violence is due to the teachings of the Quran. – Sandeep Kandwal
***
I thank you and appreciate your work for the facts you mentioned in the article about Hindu terrorists. There are only few media channels who show the reality. I appreciate that you have the courage to tell people the facts. – Rehan
***
I want to point out some of the factual blunders made in the Hindu extremist article.
1. “As is obvious, most terrorists in India are Hindus, the ones whom we have conveniently labelled "Maoist" instead of "Hindu".”
The writer conveniently forgot that Maoists/Naxalites are not Hindus. Maoists are not followers of Hinduism, they are the followers of Maoism which is a part of Marxism–Leninism. The Marxism–Leninist–Maoist worldview promotes atheism as a fundamental tenet. So how did Maoists become "Hindus"?
2. How did you conclude that the entire terrorist activity in North East India is done by Hindus?
a) In Nagaland, the National Socialist Council of Nagaland – Isak Muviah is an active Christian terrorist group. National Socialist Council of Nagaland has the professed goal of wanting to create a Nagaland for Christ should be sufficient to establish the connection to the church.
c) In Tripura, the National Liberation Front of Tripura is active since 1989. NLFT is a paramilitary Christian movement that hopes to secede from India and establish a Christian fundamentalist government.
How then you put the entire mantle of North East terrorism on the Hindu community alone? Next time do you research before you write such biased articles. – Pranshu Sharma
***
Aakar Patel is wrong when he equates Hindus with terrorism. The Maoists are Maoists – they do not kill people in the name of religion. Equating them with Hindu terrorism is a travesty of fact. There are many unscrupulous reports. In West Bengal, making of bombs by terror modules by a foreign extremist group was covered up as crude bomb manufacturing activities, when a blast exposed them subsequently. We encourage terrorism as a ploy to take advantage of the situation and Patel is just doing this.
It would be more meaningful if Patel would have dissected the causes. Maoists are killing not for religion but for economic rights, while bombs are manufactured in West Bengal and elsewhere to foment communal troubles in India and in the neighbouring country. – Debasis Bagchi
***
Why doesn't this writer do some homework before labelling Hindus as "terrorists". The Maiost do not have a religion. Their ideology doesn't support any. Hinduism is a religion which has to tolerate movies like PK, so-called artists like MF Hussain and numerous such examples. And now this writer. – Saurav Bhowmick
***
You should give detailed data of the people killed by Muslim extremists as compare to Hindu extremists. Please don't mislead the people. Everbody knows the world is on fire because of Muslims, and not any other community. Also, please pay attention to the Owaisi brothers because "most extremist Hindus" have ignored Giriraj Singh’s comment, but the Owaisi brothers’ comments are disturbing the society. – Jayendrasingh Rawal
***
We believe any community who believes that their god is the only true god and those who follow it shall live and others don't deserve to live, are communal or extremist. Such ideology belongs to what religion can be studied in the history of India.
Instead of protecting the action of culprits, you should expose them or at least treat them neutrally. People like Giriraj will speak because at the time of Partition, we declared a separate country for extremist Muslims, but there was no separate land allotted to Hindu extremists. Ultimately, Hindu extremists became citizens of India and Muslim extremists did not. However, people like Owaisi brothers challenge the secularism of this country, but no one cares because 2,000 years of forced conversions is not an issue for the media and Gharwapsi is. – Shubham Chauhan
***
This article is complete eyewash, with confusion being introduced by mixing extremism of various complexions with terrorism. Can we collate a data by including Maoist extremism and religious fundamentalism on the same platform? This is a very cheap gimmick to catch the fancy of the Muslims. The methodology is very biased and fails to touch a sensible intellectual, be it Muslim or Hindu. – Sushanto Sarkar
