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.
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.
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.
there are no terrorist attacks by Islamists because nothing is happening. So there is nothing like islamic terrorism, our good friend says.
What was that on lat year’s christmas plot, people call him underwear bomber, where he almost send 200 people to death.
Failed plot in New York by a Pakistani truck bomber.
Then subway plot.
I am not mentioning recent ones. According his most ridiculous logic, unless there are bags of dead bodies, one can not call it terrorism; it looks like we should not prevent terrorist attacks so that our Park friend can see that there is terrorism.
I have never seen anyone who uses such stupid logic like this blog author uses; so naive or hatred of left.
In reply to very-very-nice
Most terrorist planted bombs don’t even detonate. Unless people actually die, why should you be terrified? Don’t give the terrorists so much bhav!
And these are the incompetent jokers you’re shivering in fear from?
In reply to bhagwad
Of course you can make your point but this is far from facts, its ridiculous, are u really waiting for the bombs to detonate and loosing your loved ones. If any of your loved ones dies of a bomb blast in which he/she is the only one to die and there is another blast where 100 people die, what u really care ? just taking numbers will do no good, the motives behind it has a larger picture, you can take numerous examples from history of India the Arab Invaders or the East India Company. One should not be afraid of terror attacks but ISLAMIC TERRORISM is very much there in INDIA and the WORLD.
One should not compare an accident with an ACT of deliberation, these are two completely different things, of course India has a lot to worry about, than Terrorism but enactment over the terror acts will cost our next generations their future, they will have only two options either to accept the Religion of Peace or Die. Believe me I am getting all my facts 100% correct, if not just check out the history of Spread of Religion of Peace specially in India it is the best example how barbarically the religion of peace spread. Accidents do happen which is out of human control of course with the use of better technology it can be avoided but cannot be ruled out completely whereas the root of Terrorism worldwide lies in followers of Religion of Peace, where in people of Specific Religion are taught to hate every religion but the Religion of Peace, the hatred is not just injected in their minds you can try to change the mind but it runs in their Veins. Of course we should not get terrorized because of any terror acts but this does not mean we have to be calm and do nothing about it. We are missing the bigger picture if we say that only few people died, because the small acts will turn into bigger acts slowly, take the example of Kashmir, who is responsible for it and whether the population living their were Muslims?.
@ Sir,
Is the topic about shivering? No.
It is about whether terrorism is prevalent or not. The examples I cited show that there is intention to carry out mass destruction.
Terrorism is just means and bigger picture is some thing else like ‘only truth no crap’ said.
@ others,
Another blogger responded very well to this kind of disinformation.
http://knowing-islamic-doctrines.blogspot.com/2010/12/is-islam-really-most-violent-religion.html
Above link is for other readers; it is not for the writer of this website because he may not like it. That writer got it wrong like he mentioned that this website moderates comments but I found not. Except for this, it is pretty much an decent answer.
In reply to very-very-nice
Thanks for the link! Very interesting indeed. Everyone has a right to put forward their point of view, and at least the author of that post wasn’t abusive – so no issues.
But the author is wrong when he says that Islamic scholars agree that the quran is violent. No one says that of their own religion and if you were to ask one, they would give all sorts of reasons to tell you why it’s not.
It all comes down to interpretation and which parts you want to follow. In fact, forget Islam! I’m willing to bet that 90% of the terrorists haven’t even read the quran, so this really has nothing to do with Islam at all.
Somewhat related:
http://republicofdream.blogspot.com/2010/12/media-mis-representation-what-did-rahul.html
Check.
i asked few questions……plz answer!
Great blogpost as usual Bhagwad. Shows how much propoganda is fed to us
I’m replying to whoever said Iran,Iraq,Egypt,Saudi Arabia,etc are democracies. They are not especially not Saudi Arabia if you know anything about Saudi Arabia I mean anything like raped women get lashes and can only prove rape if there were 4 male witnesses, that is not a democracy. Definition of democracy is government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. That is not Saudi Arabia. Also a lot of countries are democracies just by name like Egypt.
Dear Bhagvad
you said – ………How can it be the biggest threat when nothing happens?
Are you really serious ? Human lives are so cheap that one can count and act up on.
Dear Bhagwad,
Either you are way too smart and use titles like “Terrorism is Over Hyped – Creating Mass Hysteria” (and the above post) to drive up traffic to your site or else you are too naïve otherwise you would not compare accidental traffic deaths to those that are deliberate acts intended, to control large populations using fear as a tool. Accidents can at the worst kill and injure a few, perhaps hundreds, yet when they are over they are over. Not so with acts of terror; the consequences of which are borne not only by those directly affected but by all those who belong to the group to which the victims belong and for whom the message is intended.
Let me give you specific examples. In the years leading up to the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple in Punjab, there were on an average one or two acts of terror reported in Punjab by the Khalistanis and perhaps two to three hundred people died in those each year. For the sake of argument let us double up the total and then round it off and say a thousand per year from 1979 (when in one of the first attacks an editor of a local daily was killed) to 1984. That makes it five thousand people in all. In the same period perhaps a same number died every year in the road accidents. Again for the sake of it let us double it up and call it 50,000 people killed.
So by your argument since the road accidents were ten time more deadly and so the Punjab terrorists were nothing but a myth.
Right? Sorry to say my friend but you would be wrong.
First of all what those few thousand deaths did were to undermine the state. A competent state has to have a monopoly on violence; when that is lost then all other aspects that make up a modern democratic state (and people like you and I take for granted) recedes. So after the first killing, many news paper reporters toned down their criticism of the terrorists; first they became to be called the ‘militants’. A few more dead reporters later they became the ‘boys’. Then a prominent IPS officer was killed on the steps of the Golden temple; following this the police lost a great deal of enthusiasm in pursuing ‘militants’ into their hideouts within the GT. Then after a couple of school headmasters were killed (after formal warnings) the children were asked to dress according to ‘Sikh code of dress’. Then came the killings of eight Hindu bus passengers following which the Hindus stopped travelling after dark; many migrated outside Punjab selling their properties for a pittance. By the time 1984 came along, there were very few voices opposing the terrorists and they were running a shadow government. A phone call from a terrorist ‘Lieutenant general” could get your children admitted or your man released from jail. Even all of this described (all this can be easily verified by a quick web ‘research’) reign of terror was IMHO not the biggest loss. The biggest casualty was the communal amity between the Hindus and the Sikhs for which the nation paid dearly in Nov 1984 in the anti Sikh riots which were partly a consequence of the poisoning ot he communal relations in our multicultural nation.
So dear Bhagwad when you say:
“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…”
I am afraid you demonstrate your naïveté that gives us liberals a bad name (A right wing radio host in America calls liberalism a mental disorder). The attack in Mumbai may have killed only a few hundred people but its target and its aim was much bigger; the target is ‘Hunuds’ of this world and its aim was at the fragile communal amity in our country; nothing would have pleased the terror handlers in Pakistan than triggering communal riots as a result. The attack on the Parliament almost brought our nation on the brink of a nuclear showdown. Not responding is not an option either; if the state chooses not to respond then it recedes back and the terrorist impose their will on the terrorized population as in above examples.
The state is right to try to curb any such attacks vigorously.
One last thing; the Islamic terror today is certainly bigger than the Maoist one because its aims are shared by a nation of 170 million whose stated goal is to fragment India by a thousand cuts. So far the Maoists have modest goals; however God forbid if tomorrow they find sponsors in Chinese establishment then indeed your above title implying that Islamic terror is overrated will come in handy.
Regards.
In reply to Gorki
Gorki,
I quite agree with most of the points you have put up above. And though your statement, “competent state has to have a monopoly on violence” did startle me, I get you’re absolutely right in what you say. Though, I am not a student of political sciences or sociology, I get that is one of the founding principles of liberalism and State-citizen relations. At least in theory, the State is supposed to use that violence with proper justification, unlike the terrorists.
I’ve argued quite vigorously against Bhagwad’s current post, perhaps, I would have agreed more with him had he toned down the title of the post to something like “People tend to overreact to Islamic violence”.
Another point I had put forth and that might interest you is that, it is much easier to prevent road accidents. The only reason so many road accidents occur is partly because of carelessness/attitudinal problems, etc., but in great part also because of the amount of traffic. This is traffic is a trade-off. In the sense, each time I take a ‘risk’ of dying while crossing the road, the car that might kill me would have been also doing something purposeful, like carrying the passengers to their workplace, or a cinema hall or it could even be an ambulance carrying a critically injured person. Likewise, the car that kills some other person might be carrying me to a cinema hall or to my workplace. In simpler words, if we stall traffic, there would be a lot to lose for everyone. But if let us say, terrorist attacks are stopped, very few people have anything to lose. In all of this, we must not forget that the human and monetary resources that we have to expend only to curb Islamic terrorism (largely emanating from Pakistan) are phenomenal. The expenditure towards this end is calculated in percentage of GDP, that itself should indicate how great a threat we must be facing. So, how much of threat Islamic terrorism is cannot be gauged without considering the measures that are already in place. Whether Ashish Deodhar feels these measures are sufficient or not is not the issue. The issue is whether Bhagwad feels the measures in place are taking a heavy toll on a poverty-ridden Indian economy or not. And when I say “measures”, I do not mean tapping phone calls or tracking bank accounts, but I mean the defense purchases and the large armed forces that India has to maintain. Are these practically dispensable? Are we confident that once we remove the army from the borders and sell off most of our arsenal, the number of Islam-motivated attacks on India (both from the Pakistan ‘army’ and terrorist organizations like LeT) will not increase?
Also, the point made by Gorki that terrorists want us to relinquish our freedoms and bow to their demands is one of the most valid points that nobody in this entire discussion had brought forth. I guess, it is for similar reason that Bhagwad feels the likes of Pramod Muthalik are the greatest enemies of Indians, because they try to strike at the very heart of idea of sovereignty of individuals. By that logic, indeed, Islamic terrorists should be at the very least considered to be an equal danger. If, e.g., a person whose family member dies in a road accident gets so paranoid of crossing road that he decides to stay home, it is not a case that the person who had caused the original accident would come to bulldoze his house. There is a reason what terrorists use is called ‘terrorism’. But, terrorists are not like that. Once we relinquish part of our freedoms, they will escalate their attempts. It is not road accidents that brought Swat Valley to where it is today, something else did.
And Gorki, thanks a lot for the information you provided about Khalistani movement (terrorism?). I was not even born then, and so virtually had no idea of what all had transpired back then.
If you so allow, I might want to publish a part of your comment on my blog some day, though I currently do not have any specific ideas in mind. And of course, I would be glad if I get to read your blog if you maintain one.
Thanks!
In reply to Ketan
Dear Ketan,
Thanks for your post. I don’t maintain a blog due to time constraints but did visit your blog and I am impressed. I am proud of young and eloquent people like you and Bhagwad for writing so well. I posted my thought because I was surprised that some 80 posts later no one had forcefully addressed the real issues:
1. The title ‘Islamic Terrorism in India is a complete myth’. ‘Complete’ implies that there is no truth to it what so ever; none; nada; zero; in effect agreeing with those who claim that the 26/11 was an inside job.
2. Equating terrorism related deaths to road kills and arguing that the Govt. should not do much (or should take it just about as seriously as road accidents) is nothing short of accepting defeat of the state; the first step towards the dreaded term ‘failed state’.
You see the single most important job of the state is to provide security for all its citizens from lawlessness. A terror attack is first and foremost an act of lawlessness and a challenge, and if it goes unchecked would undermine the very basis of the state.
It is not about the numbers killed etc. because the terrorist do not have to kill everyday; they just need to demonstrate that they can kill with impunity and at will.
Once that is believed by a large number of ordinary people the state would have conceded a little authority and the terrorist gain a little. They then do not have to kill again; only a threat of a repeat attack is enough.
With a perceived weakness of the state two things happen; first the law abiding citizens are forced into one of the two choices; either move themselves, their businesses and their families out of the harm’s way or else arm themselves for protection. Businesses suffer.
So for example if after 26/11 the GOI were to say “India is a big country; deaths happen all the time, go get a life….” less law abiding businessmen will travel to Mumbai to invest and stay at the Taj etc. In response, the Taj would either accept reduced profits or else spend its own money on private security. It may also do the unthinkable, close shop and move to a safe place.
Once enough people and businesses have moved out due to fear and the state is not feared or respected the local ‘Dada’ would move in; and would be tempted to run extortion rackets; provide protection for a price.
If the Taj does none of the above then the next time Saeed and the ISI may not even have to send its ‘independent contractors’ to Mumbai, they may simply write a letter to the Taj management offering to not send in men to kill their customers for a price; just pure business.
If it is taken seriously enough and gets paid they would up the ante; now the price for the safety is Kashmir! You get the idea.
Use of terror is nothing but a tactic; the aim is to wrest power from the state; ideally the most successful use would be to kill the least number of people and yet inspire enough fear (or a lack of confidence in the state) to establish a parallel seat of authority.
This is how once successful metropolises become a ‘Beirut’ or a ‘Karachi’ and states become a Lebanon or a Somalia.
I am even surprised that I have to spell it out for those arguing to the contrary…..
Regards
In reply to Gorki
Gorki,
Thanks, again!
Though, Bhagwad would be the best person to explain, he had told me in the past, the reason he wrote this post the way he did was because he feels the government exaggerates the fear of Islamic terror mainly to rob the citizens of their privacy, e.g., by tapping their phones, tracking their financial transactions and decrypting/reading the emails. My counter-point to this had been that the government can still do all of this on pretext of preventing tax-evasion or curbing other illegal activities like smuggling. So, Islamic terrorism is not the only pretext the government has to do what otherwise would be unacceptable to freedom loving individuals.
Unfortunately, neither is Maoism a small problem. I had recently done a post on this topic. Of late, Maoists have been expressing sympathy for organizations like Al Qaida and/or LeT (this is my vague memory). It is also possible that they’re indeed getting foreign support. A sketchy, but tenable link of Maoist financing was traced to, I guess, Phillipines by a blog called ‘Offstumped’.
I will link to it in some time.
there were on an average one or two acts of terror reported in Punjab by the Khalistanis and perhaps two to three hundred people died in those each year=
there were on an average one or two acts of terror PER WEEK reported in Punjab by the Khalistanis and perhaps two to three hundred people died in those each year….
(I noticed some other such silly mistakes too late but the overall argument remains clear. Mistakes are regretted)