The media has misleadingly conflated
terrorism with Islam. But don't expect Narendra Modi or his ministers to
clear up such misconceptions.
Are most terrorists in India Muslims? I had the chance to look at this following yet another avoidable incident last week.
On
April 1, Nigeria’s ambassador to India responded to a comment made by
Union minister Giriraj Singh, who said: “If Rajiv Gandhi had married a
Nigerian lady and not a white-skinned woman, would the Congress have
accepted her leadership?” The remark revealed the casual racism that is
so commonplace in India.
Nigeria’s ambassador OB Okongor was
upset enough to say, “I believe the prime minister will do right thing
on this. I am not going to lodge protest.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi
ignored it – once again, as those who have observed his conduct on such
things will have noticed – though the media was naturally outraged.
Rediff ran a
commentary
headlined “5 reasons why Giriraj Singh should shut up”. It included
this statement of his from last year: “Isn’t it true that all people
caught in terrorist activities belong to one community? I am not trying
to blame any one particular community. Why are all so-called secular
parties silent on this?”
Presumably he means Muslims. He is of
course not right in assuming that all people caught for terrorism are
Muslims, but are Muslims responsible for most of the terrorism in India?
Let’s look at the data. The South Asian Terrorism Portal lists
fatalities and incidents across India. Quite helpfully, it also lists
them by conflict theatre.
Numbers disprove beliefIn
2014, there were 976 deaths from terrorism (or extremism, whatever name
one wants to use for it) in India. Of these, the most (465) came in the
North East. The second most (314) came from Left-wing extremism, by a
group of people called Maoists. Deaths in Jammu & Kashmir, assuming
we want to attribute the whole lot to terrorism, stood at 193. Outside
of these conflict theatres, Islamist extremism claimed four lives.
In
2013, the figure was most for Maoists (421), the second most for the
North East (252), and the Kashmir plus Islamist violence outside the
state again came third (206). In 2012, we had a similar situation:
Maoists (367), followed by the North East (326), followed by Kashmir
(117). The total number of victims of Islamist terrorism outside these
three areas, across India, was 1.
In 2011, Maoist violence
claimed 602 lives, the North East 246, and Kashmir plus Islamist
violence outside the state toll stood at 225. This year, again the
sequence is the same, though violence levels across India have dropped,
as they have been doing for the past decade.
As is obvious, most
terrorists in India are Hindus, the ones whom we have conveniently
labelled "Maoist" instead of "Hindu". The second largest group of
terrorists are the tribals, Hindus, animists and perhaps some Christians
of the North East. Muslims are third. If one looks outside the
separatism of Kashmir, their violence and terrorism levels are among the
lowest in the world and they appear to be less susceptible to terrorism
not just by the standards of the world’s Muslims but also India’s
Hindus.
A media constructSo what
explains Giriraj Singh’s statement, which I must confess one hears all
the time in India? I cannot remember the number of times I have been
informed by someone at a party that “all Muslims are not terrorists but
why are all terrorists Muslims?” They are not. Not even close.
The
reason is that ‘terrorism’ is today accepted only that which is
Islamist. And the reason for this is the narrative in the media, which
has neatly conflated terrorism with Islam and Pakistan. News channels
like Times Now run many more programmes firing middle class and
Anglicised Indians up against ‘terrorism’ (i.e. Islamist/Pakistan) than
they run shows on the North East and on Maoism, which claim a far
greater number of lives as the figures show.
It is of course
unfortunate that this should be the case, but we can explain away the
common man using such arguments. For a Union minister to hold them as
Gospel is frightening and shows how wrongheaded the members of this
government are.
I said on a TV show after Giriraj Singh’s comment
that Modi deliberately chose such unhinged people because they said
what he wanted to but could not. He agreed with every word Singh said
and that is why he was rewarded with a ministry. My comment greatly
offended the Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman on the panel, who read out
a list of cabinet ministers who were touched by sobriety, like Sushma
Swaraj and Arun Jaitley.
But surely these people pick themselves
in any BJP cabinet. They have been leaders at the Centre before Modi. It
is the new ministers, like Giriraj Singh and Niranjan Jyoti (famous for
referring to non-Hindus as bastards), whom Modi has brought in. And he
has done so, as I said, because he agrees with what they say, even
though it is manifestly and demonstrably bogus.
ALL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME.