Islamic Terrorism in India is a complete myth

Everyone knows that India is a target of Islamic terrorism right? Listening to the news hype or the blog conversations on pro-hindu sites (that’s not an insult btw), you can’t help but feel that the Muslim extremists are taking over India and bombing innocent men, women and children all over the place every day. But there’s one teensy little problem with this scenario.

Islamic terrorism makes up less than 9% of all terror incidents in India! And almost all of it is in the Kashmir region.

Now that can’t possibly be true right? I mean what about all the terrorist blasts in 2009 in the rest of India? Except that there were none. Yup, that’s right. Not one damn terrorist attack in India in 2009 outside of Kashmir that we can attribute to Islamic fanatics.

How do I know this? While researching data for a reply to a blog comment – see, I do the research :) – I found that the US government has set up a worldwide terrorism tracking system which gives a wealth of information regarding terrorist attacks globally. It’s free, publicly accessible, and users can filter by country, date range, type of terror attacks, casualties, groups responsible, location within the country, generate heat maps, get victim data and many more options and you can mix n match to get the exact info you’re looking for.

It turns out, that the majority of terror attacks in India is carried out by the Naxals. Here is the complete map of terrorism in India in 2009. A total of 703 attacks.

Terror attacks in India - 2009
Terror attacks in India - 2009

When you filter by “Islamic Extremism”, the map changes to this with the number dropping to just 63. I got a bit of a shock on seeing this really.

Islamic Terrorism in India - Where is it?
Islamic Terrorism in India - Where is it?

Ouch..where are all the Islamic bombings? You know, the “terrorists” which our government is trying so hard to save us from. The terrorism which has every citizen in India in a funk afraid of their own shadow. It’s in the damn Naxal belt that’s where – go get em!

But please stop this crap about Islamic militants. Yeah, it happens now and then but hardly kills anyone. Not that we Indians particularly care about lives being lost. Otherwise we would have done something about train accidents in India which have already killed 285 people in this year alone.

Of course, this robs people of the satisfaction of blaming all violence in India on the Muslims. Hopefully at least some people will take note.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (2)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

216 thoughts on “Islamic Terrorism in India is a complete myth”

  1. Agree and it reminds me of Arundhati Roy’s stand on not using proactive Army action against Naxals ; if Pak army can fight and kill internal terror elements, shouldn’t we also employ Army to finish this home grown terror

    Reply

    • In reply to Aditya

      Absolutely. I feel we need to use whatever forces necessary to crush a menace in our own backyard. In many ways, the political sphere will have to admit that Naxalism is a bigger problem than they’ve been willing to admit till now.

      Reply

    • In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok

      Thanks for that data Sanjeev. If those documents (I’m talking about the very first one) are reliable, it’s quite shocking. Especially those relating to number of Hindus vs Muslims killed in police firings as well as the arrest patterns depending on which community is the aggressor. It seems to be official government data – though if you could provide me with references as to where it can be found independently or how you obtained it, that would be quite useful.

      Reply

  2. This isn’t true just for India, but here in the US. Americans live in constant fear of radical Islam. CNN came out with a study to indicate the threats of terrorism is exaggerated.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/06/muslim.radicalization.study/

    Sometimes I wonder if we should be more worried about how the Christian right is gaining more power here.

    You know, now that I think about, I don’t hear much about Naxals in the news. Maybe I’m watching the wrong news.

    Reply

    • In reply to RenKiss

      Good article RenKiss. Looks like it’s true everywhere in the world.

      The Naxals are a unique problem in India. People are hesitant to call them exactly what they are – terrorists.

      Reply

  3. Pakistan and Bangladesh don’t really exist. It is Narendra Modi who is lying to the Indian people
    about the existence of these two countries. Indian Muslims would never want to forcibly occupy
    Indian territory. Not just that, Muslims really love democracy. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Syria are all democracies.

    Reply

    • In reply to SS

      What has this got to do with Islamic terrorism?

      Oh and you forgot Indonesia which has the largest Muslim population in the world and is a Muslim majority country. It’s the third largest democracy on the planet. But that data is so inconvenient.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        ooooo…Indonesia is a democracy…wow super. By the way, what’s the current penalty for apostasy in Indonesia? Thanks…dear Muslims, for being so nice as to let apostates die. After all, life in a Muslim country is a fate worse than death.

        Guess what? Indonesia is also bringing humanity more gifts of tolerance. As a member of the Organisation of Islamic Conference, it is trying to bring in a binding UN resolution barring “defamation of religion”. The OIC is also pushing for the adoption of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights… which states, among other pearls of wisdom that:

        “Article 10 of the Declaration states: “Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.”

        The Declaration is also careful enough to remind us in Articles 24 and 25 that “all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah, which is the declaration’s sole source”.

        Gee! Thanks Indonesia. What would we have done without you? Who would have led our ignorant souls to the light of tolerance?

        By the way, the OIC has already passed a non binding UN resolution banning defamation of religion. The UN hasn’t agreed (yet) to a binding resolution on all member states. Care to take up that cause on behalf of Indonesians and the rest of the people in the religion of peace?

        Reply

      • In reply to SS

        SS,

        Barring the sarcasm in tone of your comment, you have brought up an issue I wanted to. The will of the majority (the exercise of ‘democracy’) need not always be in their best interest, though I do not know what more effective and safer alternatives exist. But that would be something for an entirely different conversation. :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Dear Ketan,
        I agree that whether people will make the “right choices” in a democracy is a very complicated subject. But that is not what I was hinting at. I was talking about something much simpler. Democracy is simply about letting ideas compete freely with the most popular prevailing. The premise here is that everyone enjoys a decent level of freedom of speech/thought/assembly to articulate those ideas in the first place. In a country like Indonesia with death penalty for not following the state religion, it is absurd to talk about being a “democracy”.

        Did you know that even China has elections?

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        SS,
        Bhagwad,

        It would be for SS to clarify, but I find the following pertinent (taken from the same Wikipedia article you had linked). I personally would not be happy if I were made to choose a religion. In fact, even India does not recognize ‘atheism’ as a religious position, but I guess there is at least an option like ‘others’ or ‘not specified’:

        “Significant changes in religion aspect also happened during the New Order era. Following an abortive coup in 1965 officially blamed on the Communist Party of Indonesia, around 1/2 million were killed in an anti-communist purge. Following the incident, the New Order government had tried to suppress the supporters of PKI, by applying a policy that everyone must choose a religion, since PKI supporters were mostly atheists. As a result, every Indonesian citizen was required to carry personal identification cards indicating their religion. The policy resulted in a mass religion conversions, topped by conversions to Protestantism and Catholicism (Christianity). The same situation happened with Indonesians with Chinese ethnicity, who mostly were Confucianists. Because Confucianism was not one of the state recognised religions, many Chinese Indonesians were also converted to Christianity.”

        I think the only modification that SS needed to make in his comment was to use “state religions” instead of “state religion”.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Sucks doesn’t it? This sounds like general poor governance rather than anything Islam related which was the point that SS was trying to make.

        If most of the conversions were to Christianity, then we can eliminate any Islamic agenda theory. Moreover, the country seems to have come a long way since 1965 – forty years later when it must be like a bad memory for them. It seems that moderate Islamic voices are in vogue rather than the hardline forms practiced in the Middle East. Left alone, it should carry on the way most other countries have.

        My basic point is that there’s nothing inherently about Islam that causes oppression any more than Christianity does. No one really cares about what their religion really says or follows it 100% even if they do.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I think both you and SS have valid points here.

        If it is SS’ contention that it is only apostasy against Islam that is punishable by death, then he/she is wrong. If it is your contention that there exists complete freedom of religion, then that also I find wrong.

        But, SS’ basic point was that unless and until there is freedom (of choosing whatever religion/ideology one to wants and openly propagate it), it is meaningless to talk of democracy. In that I find Indonesia lacking. Yes, but it seemingly is also true that this particular deficiency does not have much to do with Islam (to be sure, one would have to go into religious dispositions of those who had ordered the killing of atheists in 1965).

        You present with an interesting caveat here – “left alone”. What is one to make of that? The greatest problem, as I’ve been trying to stress on in my previous comments, with Islam is pan-Islamism. Do you not think there is something alarmingly about certain nations forming an organization solely based on which Book the majority of their citizens follow? This group is very large. Indonesia is part of that group. Yes, it would be an entirely different matter if the citizens are actually against formation of such a bloc, but it is just that their rulers are not listening to them. To think that there would be no external influences in a country where vast majority are Muslims is against the current trends (elsewhere as well in Indonesia itself). It is possible that I might be knowing only one side of the story. But as I pointed out above, I’ve read about Sharia law finding greater foothold in Indonesia (my conjecture being, the original inspiration is Saudi Arabia), whereas I have not read of Saudi Arabia mulling over Indonesia’s kind of democracy or freedom of religion, which should be surprising as well as alarming, because as you (rightly) pointed out Indonesia has lot many Muslims than Saudi Arabia has, so one would expect former to be more influential (assuming, more the number of people to push a set of ideas, greater the positive feedback for its spread), but which is not the case.

        But, SS’ insinuation that apostasy against Islam officially invites death is certainly incorrect. However, for me that does not invalidate his another concern that for democracy to be exemplary there needs to be greater freedom than what is there in Indonesia.

        Lastly, I would like to point out, that from the title of your blog post, we are discussing ‘Islamic terrorism’ and not ‘state of affairs in countries where Muslims are in majority’. By virtue of the fact that Indonesia officially accords equal status to all religions, it ceases to be ‘Islamic’ and in my opinion, disqualifies it from being an illustrative example. But, from it’s joining the OIC, it seems it had inched towards Islamization. Think of India for a moment: the proportion of Hindus here is comparable to that of Muslims in Indonesia. What if India initiates the formation of Organization of Hindu Countries? [It’s a different matter that perhaps only one or two other nations would join]. How much religiously ‘free’ would you find India then? Moreover, would you say that India has remained the “same” in terms of religious freedom? Hahaha! I just researched a bit and Wikipedia tells me India had made attempts to join the OIC as an ‘observer nation’! ;) Not impressed! :|

        I agree, nobody follows their religion 100% and anyway it is not possible, but I think most people are trying to ask here is: does whatever percent of religion one follows (which is not necessarily But from it’s what is written in books, but includes even traditions and ‘memes’) influence their thinking and actions? I believe, yes. And I also believe that applying certain basic premises (of ethics, if one agrees upon them), such influences can be classified into ‘good’ and ‘bad’. My contention is influences of certain religion (the way they are practiced and not necessarily, just what is written in the Book) are ‘more bad’ (worse) than influences of other religions (say, Jainism, Buddhism, etc.).

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        Thanks!

        That’s an interesting link.

        The ranking as well as scores for Kashmir do not impress me (I’d been there in 2006).

        But irrespective of that, I think we can pass judgments both on India and Indonesia, again irrespective of whether we live there or not. And to be honest, political and civil liberties of India seem pretty dismal to me at 2 and 3. I mean, really, except for IPC 295, I thought I was pretty free as a citizen. :( Is there much greater margin to be more free than we are in India? You must know that better than me (I’ve never traveled outside of India).

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        Dear Ketan,
        You need not feel bad about India’ ranking of 2 and 3 in freedom categories. They are absolute bullshit. Who appointed freedom house to run the world anyway?

        I have travelled widely outside our country and I can freely attest that India is not lacking in any manner in political rights. To understand why India is ranked so low, you have to dig deeper into the liberal mentality.

        Liberalism is watered down Marxism and as such the liberal worldview is based in a class war mentality. Liberals therefore divide the world into 2 parts: the greedy “West” and the oppressed “non West” (for sake of brevity, we’ll inaccurately call it “East”).

        The two are supposed to play their fixed roles: the oppressed East is supposed to be always aggrieved at the evil West. Liberals love to apologize for the West. And they love a good humble person from the East, who will ever more produce pictures of starving children and demand that the West should compensate for past wrongs by giving charity. Liberals want to be the “good guys” who are the knights in shining armour for the people of the East. This is why liberals love Muslims sooo much; Islam plays the victim card perfectly!

        Now..liberals get real upset if someone refuses to let them play Robin Hood. That is why liberals HATE India. India is the only “poor” nation that has a real democracy, a very strong military, nuclear weapons, massive economy, meaningful space programme and is now even on the cusp of making real contributions to technology and basic science. GRRRRRR!!!! Liberals want everyone to be in full costume for a performance on Robin Hood. And in this play, India wasn’t assigned a costume because we were supposed to show up naked, hungry and dying. We’re ruining their performance.

        If India does well, how are they going to explain why Saudi Arabia and Iran, sitting on lakes of oil, don’t have anything to show in terms of civilization? Since India and Pakistan were identical in every economic sense on Aug 14, 1947, how are they going to explain the difference today except admit that Islam can be singled out as having led to savagery that reigns in Pakistan today?

        That is why liberals spend all their time coming up with abuses for India, making light of its achievements and what not. These rankings are part of that defamation campaign. Don’t mind them. Pity them. Liberals hate winners. If liberals hate India, it means there is a decent chance we are winning. Every year their criticism of India just makes them look dumber and dumber.

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        SS,

        Hahaha! I’m not laughing at you, I actually enjoyed reading your comment. I do believe there is some truth to what you say, but to ‘objectively’ prove that would be difficult.

        Yes, Pakistan and India are good ‘test & control’ situations – both started with comparable resources (perhaps, Pakistan had it even better and for a long time had better per capita income, if I remember it correctly). It was progressing despite Islam. So, the major difference, that I see between Pakistan and India is ‘Islam’ and ‘not Islam’.

        Atanu Dey, quite politically incorrectly, in his characteristic style (with some rhetoric) had the following to say [ http://www.deeshaa.org/2010/05/08/the-us-funds-global-islamic-terrorism/ ]:

        “Given its Islamic genesis and character, it is not surprising that Pakistan is a failed state in the modern world. It appears to be a widely recognized fact that Islam leads to poverty. Even in India, various committees have reported (the Sachar report, for example) that Muslims in India are more uneducated, illiterate, poor and unskilled than the average. It should be shocking (but apparently it is not) that the prime minister of India routinely tars Indian Muslims with a broad brush by begging non-Muslims to give more to support the Muslims. I find it very peculiar that Muslim leaders (political and intellectual) don’t see how demeaning this is towards the Muslims. Be that as it may, the evidence is that the followers of Islam, not just in India but around the world, are unable to compete against the non-Muslims in all spheres of human endeavor except in murder, terrorism and mayhem.”

        I wish there were more liberals that also believed in ‘free’ markets. :(

        But on the other hand, I am not particularly proud of what India has achieved in terms of scientific or technological advancements, given the amount of spending on research. This worries me because problem is not with funding, but with work culture and work ethics. This paragraph is irrelevant, but I’m including it only because otherwise I would’ve found my comment less than honest.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Ha Ha… well Indonesia has freedom of religion, alright :)

        http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2010/04/20/in-indonesia-keeping-the-religious-status-quo/

        For sure Indonesia has “freedom of religion” as well as laws that blatantly violate it. The pathetic contradictions live side by side. This is DIFFERENT from poor governance or widespread prejudice. The contradictions are allowed to exist freely in law and are directly enforced everyday by all state institutions.

        In fact, such hypocritical absurd laws are not uncommon across the world. You might find Article 35 of the Chinese Constitution interesting:

        “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration”.

        I entreat you. Go back to the tired liberal argument about the (invisible) vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and condemn terror. Stay away from facts and naming names as much as possible. Or else you will run into an impenetrable wall of inconvenient truths about the Muslim world.

        Reply

      • In reply to SS

        China has been independently ranked as “not free”. Indonesia and India have been ranked free by the same. This isn’t rhetoric – it’s what informed and close observers have noted.

        So again – Indonesia is as free (or as restricted) as India, Muslim majority notwithstanding.

        Reply

      • In reply to SS

        Thanks, SS for the link!

        “At its most extreme, Aceh province — the only one to use sharia for its legal code — last year passed a bylaw that threatened adulterers with being stoned to death.” If that is true, that is quite ‘not free’, independent verification notwithstanding. Because, in no region of India any such law officially exists.

        Anyway, I’m actually always quite skeptical of the independence of such independent organizations. But that would be besides the point.

        Also, I realized one thing – the reason there is so much outrage against against Islam is because it finds lot many apologists than naxalism does. E.g., if you’ll do a blog post trying to falsify certain well-known unsavory facts about naxalism, I’m sure you’ll get as many angry comments as you got here. :)

        In fact, it is a taboo and actually illegal to criticize Islam publicly (IPC section 295-A), whereas doing so in case of naxalism is not. If you see, many commentators automatically tend to dismiss apologizing for Islam as ‘political correctness’ (even I do). So, most of this anger is reactionary (I guess) owing to perceived insincerity of those trying to apologize for Islam (or its brand of terror).

        Now, whether calling existence of Islamic terror a “complete myth” is apologizing or not is difficult to say. If I were to go merely by the arguments presented here, I would say it amounts as such. Perhaps, only thing that prevents me from doing so is the my knowledge of your outlook from our past interactions, which tells me you should have no reason to do any such thing.

        Reply

      • In reply to SS

        I find that the reverse is true – that many people defend Islam precisely because people keep giving it so much attention!

        Perhaps both are right and it’s a self sustaining cycle.

        Reply

      • In reply to SS

        Bhagwad,

        Where do you think the cycle started? This question is partly rhetorical, but yes, if you have some knowledge of history in this regard, I would like to know.

        Do we give so much attention to “Buddhist violence” or “Jain violence”? Are there apologists for Buddhist and Jain variety of violence?

        So, is your grievance basically that not many people are paying attention to other kinds of violence that exist or is your contention that people give unnecessarily greater attention to Islamic violence than it ‘deserves’?

        I remember only vaguely, but there was some account, which had stated that Gandhi had claimed that he had actually read the Quran and found that it had contained message of peace and Universal Brotherhood. Provisionally taking it as true, what I had read, do you think Gandhi was being truthful? Anyway, you may not answer the last part if you need greater evidence to support my recollection. I will try to find it.

        If someone says that “not everyone follows what is written in their religious Book completely” (as you do and something I greatly agree with) or that “no community is homogeneous, so all Muslims just cannot be violent” – I would have no problems with such observations and would in fact welcome pointing out of such facts/possibilities. But, when there is deliberate obfuscation of facts like calling Islam a “religion of peace”, that Prophet Mohammed was a “Messenger of peace and love” and that “all religions teach truth, love and universal brotherhood”, that is something that gets on my nerves and it becomes difficult for me to ascribe any good intent to persons who do that despite knowing what would be written in certain Scripture. It is at this stage that I would have no qualms about slotting such arguments into “apology for Islam (or religion in general)”.

        Thanks!

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Pakistan’s constitution guarantees religious freedom. So does Bangladesh’s. Malaysia’s does as well. Yet Hindus suffer persecution in all three of these countries. Clearly, the fact that a constitution pays lip service to religious freedom is not in and of itself an iron clad guarantee of the same. This persecution, contrary to popular belief, is not because of “radical Islam” but merely LITERAL Islam. Anyone who actually reads the Quran and the Hadith can find ample justification for Islamic supremacism, persecution of kafirs (nonbelievers), oppression of women, cruel and unusual punishment, and resistance to democracy (the only form of government permitted in Islam is the caliphate).

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Islamic terrorism is based on the same idea that the oppressive Islamic governments are based on: ISLAM. The only difference is that while the terrorists want to create an Islamic state, the governments of Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. already have, with all the lack of religious freedom, oppression of women, death penalty for apostasy, and all the other wonderful things that come with that. If Indonesia has more freedom, it is because they DEVIATE from Islam and its Sharia.

        Reply

  4. Actually the over-reaction to islamic terrorism needs to be understood from the fact that:

    Urban middle classes are primarily afraid of it because they fear that their FAVOURITE PLACES will be targetted . Like cafe , malls and now hotels etc

    Reply

    • In reply to Indian Pundit

      IP

      People sleeping on the railway platform were killed, some of the in their sleep, on 26/11. The commuters in the Mumbai locals don’t find enough time to sit in cafes, shop in malls etc (they don’t even get sufficient time to have a cup of tea with their spouse in a normal working week!). The people murdered on the bus stands in Bangalore probably dread walking into the unaffordable hotels. The young girl killed in the recent Varanasi blast probably hadn’t even seen a shopping mall….

      Common mate. Expected a lot better from you than this!

      Reply

    • In reply to Indian Pundit

      Indian Pundit,

      Though Ashish has provided an effective counter to your argument, it needs to be pointed out that there is nothing reasonable/wrong/immoral about having to/wanting to visit any place as long as it is legal to do so.

      Based on my past experiences, which betrayed a lack of nuance in reasoning, I disagree with Ashish‘s last line.

      Reply

  5. Someone has rightly said there are three type of Lies and Statistics is one of them. It is a very powerful tool and also very dangerous when in the wrong hands.

    For ex-

    Choose the year 2008 and filter by Islamic extremism and you wont even find 26/11 mentioned in the “data”. So what does that prove? Did 26/11 not happen or It wasnt related to islamic extremism at all?

    If your answer is “no” to both the questions then there is really nothing left to talk about. However if you agree to it you will realise that the data is insufficient and frankly you or no other common man know how exactly is it collected and what is the authenticity of it and what are the parameters used.

    If some bombing doesnt appear in this chart which was exclusively claimed by some organisation it doesnt mean that you disregard it just because this chart doesnt show it.

    It might be possible to discuss on the topic that “naxal is a bigger threat in India than islamic terrorism” but “Islamic terrorism doesnt exist in India and is a complete myth” is a myth in itself.

    Lastly we all know what is the condition in countries where Muslims are in absolute majority. Whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.

    Reply

    • In reply to Sanchit Goyal

      You’re plain wrong. It does mention 26/11 since I checked it myself. Please go and see it properly and let me know if you need help using the tool.

      As for Muslim majority countries, the largest Muslim population in the world is Indonesia which happens to be a republic and is the third most populous democracy in the world.

      I think you’ve proved exactly how statistics can be misused.

      Reply

  6. Bhagwad

    Partially agree with you. Although it’s true that not all terror attacks are inspired by the jihadi ideology (and in some cases they are even in minority), there are a few things that separate Islamic terror from all other forms of violent campaigns and that makes it the most dangerous form of terror campaign in our generation.

    The first thing that separates Islamic terror as far more serious than any other is the ideology. The fact that killing non-muslims is their duty that if performed will be rewarded by god. This gives them the “divine authority” to kill innocent people without any repent; in fact, they consider it as something glorious! You can’t say that about the Naxals or the ETA in Spain or the LTTE in Sri Lanka.

    The second differentiator is that the Islamic terror is indiscriminate. You won’t find the Naxalites randomly killing people in Mumbai. Or the LTTE blowing themselves up in London. Because they have a specific grievance, their battle grounds are concentrated. You can’t say that about Islamic terror. They had absolutely no grievance against those party-goers in Bali or those tube commuters in London.

    And the third differentiator is that Islamic terror has no agenda. Their agendas range from reinstating the caliphate to women dressing immodestly to their prophet’s legacy! A militant organisation such as LTTE or the Naxals have a specific agenda and they would have no reason to fight once their grievances are addressed. But Islamic terrorists won’t stop at nothing. They are equally happy to kill Jews, Hindus, Christians, Shias, Sunnis… for some or the other cooked up reason.

    So I think statistically you may be right about the statistics but let’s make no mistake about the seriousness of this threat. It was the Nazis during our grandparents’ generation, the communists during our parents’ generation. It’s Islamic terror now for our generation.

    Reply

    • In reply to Ashish Deodhar

      Good points, and i add

      –it is now global in reach and somebody can do it in Bali in support of a cause in Middle East. so inspiration to act is wide ranging and self sustained.

      Reply

    • In reply to Ashish Deodhar

      My issue with the ideological approach is that Christianity as an ideology is not fundamentally different from Islam. They share the same roots and over 80% of their holy books are the same. I was born a Christian so my knowledge of the scriptures is fairly accurate.

      Also, Indonesia has the largest population of Muslims in the world and is a democracy – the third largest in the world. Hardly anyone ever mentions this.

      I’m afraid the Naxals have no scruples either. Their attacks are limited in geography because they lack the means to go further. Their stated intention is the overthrow of the Indian state by violence. For me, that’s a more dangerous ideology than Islam because in Islam you can pick and choose which parts you want to follow. The Naxal creed is deliberately crafted.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I think most people have here agreed that in the current Indian context, Naxalism is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, but how does that assertion lead to the conclusion that the title of your blog post is?

        And to be honest, there is hardly anything that makes me “shiver” with terror – not even radionuclides – that I routinely handle. That does not mean nuclear weapons are not a threat. :)

        Reply

      • In reply to Ketan

        If most people have really agreed that Naxalism is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism then I’m happy :)

        But I don’t think anyone has agreed to it. If they did, the sheer volume of outrage regarding Naxalite terrorism (see – even you didn’t call it terrorism!) would have swamped the media and blogosphere.

        Instead, there for every 1 article about Naxalism, there are 10 about Islamic Terrorism. So no – I don’t think most people here have agreed that it’s a greater threat.

        Of course, when I say say “complete myth,” I mean insignificant compared to other threats going by the volume of numbers alone.

        Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        Bhagwad,

        I think reasons for that also are also pretty clear. Just like the above map you posted, I feel, if we map the places where these blog posts are published from, and superimpose upon them, the number of people killed maimed by Islam-inspired terror attacks v/s number of people killed/maimed by Naxaism-inspired terror attacks, then that would correspond with number of blog posts being published from there on the respective two kinds of terrorism.

        The reason I did not say ‘Naxalite terrorism’ is very simple – it’s only terror that I associate with it, so no additional qualifier was deemed necessary. Whereas, Islam has had other nicer aspects also to it, for instance, music, algebra, psychiatry, poetry, so equating Islam exclusively with terror would not be fair, no? :)

        Reply

Leave a Comment