The myth of “Islamic terrorism” – diligently nurtured by the mainstream Jewish-controlled journalists in the US and Europe, and their misguided Hindutva cousins in the Indian press – has been busted by a report prepared by the European Police Organisation (Europol).
From 2007 to 2010, the data shows, Muslim radicals were only responsible for six strikes in the continent, while separatists and extreme right groups like neo-Nazis carried out a shocking 1,326 terror acts, mostly concentrated in France and Spain.
Some of these separatists are fighting for independence in Europe itself (as ETA of Spain), while for others the focuses of struggles are in distant parts – Columbia, Kurdistan, etc. – but they want to draw attention to it by spreading terror in Europe.
A steep rise has been seen in Leftwing terrorist actions in recent years – from 21 incidents in 2007 to 45 in 2010. Recession and resulting anger and discontent among general masses have been cited as main reasons.
The main credit for smudging the image of world Muslims goes to war-mongering neo conservatives – Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, to name a few – who authored, supervised and glorified terrible atrocities done in Iraq and Afghanistan in the name of defending America. The Bush doctrine outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress threats from other countries and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.
It was during this period of state terrorism and the sole superpower’s bellicosity that it became axiomatic in the West to chant: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but nearly all terrorists are Muslims.” The world media – electronic and print – obediently followed this nonsense and – barring Al Jazira – their bias against one sixth of mankind showed in reportages.
While the Norwegian Christian behind the slaughter of 92 people should be denounced in the severest possible terms, Anders Breivik cannot be accused of hypocrisy – the strong point of India’s ultra-nationalist Hindutvawadis.
Breivik minced no words in his over 1,500-page manifesto, titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”, while spelling out his mission to stem the spread of Islam. To the utter chagrin of Hindutva brethren, he provided the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad websites as references for more information.
Saffronites’ alleged as well as proven roles in anti-Muslim riots since and during India’s independence and a detailed study of the Norwegian freak’s manifesto leave the students of journalism wondering if there is the slightest difference in the opinions, goals, thoughts and stances of Breivik and Hindutva radicals.
CLOSEST COMPARISON
Breivik stands out for his transparency. Neither his hatred for rising Islam is hidden, nor did he conceal his anti-Muslim campaign in the garb of “social welfare” (with due apologies to the apologists of the Saffron). The message in Breivik’s Mein Kampf is clear – don’t shoot from the hips, shoot to kill.
Until the roles of Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Aseemanand and Col. Purohit – in the blasts at Samjhauta Express, Malegaon, Hyderabad and Ajmer did not come to light, the RSS and its allies feigned innocence after periodic Muslim massacres. Until Col. Purohit did not confess his crimes, the RSS, before accusing the principal minority of provoking and hurting the sentiments of the majority community, attacked Sonia Gandhi, Manmohan Singh and the current government for their policy of “Muslim appeasement”.
Despite its untiring efforts with a single-minded focus to keep India’s principal minority on the run, marginalised and at the receiving end in every department of life, the RSS wants the world to believe it is an ideological group dedicated to social uplift of the masses, equality, justice, etc.
The closest comparison that can be made for Breivik in India is Nathuram Godse, an RSS worker, who assassinated Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Father of the Indian nation. The RSS never admitted that Godse was trained by the Sangh and that he was an RSS pracharak (propagator) before he decided to join the Hindu Mahasabha. His brother Gopal Godse, however, maintained in different interviews that they (his brother and himself) had never left the RSS.
The RSS tactics are to train the gullible youth in shakhas, brainwash them, inculcate in them jingoism in the name of national pride and let loose them to carry out the job. How does it help the Sangh? The Saffron per se is never blamed for the butchering of minorities. The case of Graham Staines, a Christian missionary who was burned alive in his jeep in Orissa for “proselytizing”, is still fresh in mind. If Adolf Hitler was alive today, he too perhaps, would be an ardent fan of the Saffron given its track record. Strange ideologies make strangest bedfellows.
BJP’S APPRECIATION
Although the red-faced RSS is squirming after being praised by Breivik, BJP parliamentarian B. P. Singhal has removed confusion (if there was any) by saying that the killer’s ideas were not wrong but his methods were. Breivik talks of Hindutva elements as allies and urges them to fight shoulder to shoulder with his knights.
While Breivik’s clarity leaves the Saffron embarrassed, the episode has shown the ugly side of the media. During the tragedy’s coverage, the Islamophobic media’s bias against Muslims became evident. In the first few hours after the news broke, correspondents of Fox, CNN, BBC etc. started screaming that “the attacks have all the hallmarks of ‘Islamic militants’.” Al-Qaeda was their most favourite speculation. The Telegraph of the UK even published a fact box about the “History of Islamic militant attacks in Europe” to give its readers an overview of problem.
Had the killer been a Muslim, the media would have declared him a terrorist in bold letters and – if space allowed – in all caps. But for now, he is just an “assailant” or “attacker”, according to Reuters, or a “gunman” for the BBC and CNN. There is no doubt now that the term “terrorist” is reserved for Muslims alone.
The US State Department called it an “act of violence”, not an “act of terrorism”. Washington’s outrageously lopsided view and policy vis-à-vis terrorism have only aggravated the issue. When an Afghan or an Iraqi or a Palestinian, after losing all hope, blows himself up to drive out occupation forces, he is referred to as a terrorist. But when a Norwegian or an American goes on a killing spree, he is just called a “killer”. Western double (at times triple) standard is exposed, once again.
Propagators of the myth of Islamic militancy have to eat crow as Breivik’s manifesto calls for a “Christian war” to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination. The darkest aspects of his twisted ideology belong to the neo-fascist fringe.
Brievik is no armchair theorist and his acts cannot be dismissed as the work of a deranged man. His anti-Islamic chauvinism finds reflection in the sections of his manifesto where he discusses at length how to obtain, cultivate and use anthrax and refer to it as “one of the most effective” weapons. He speculates that a large-scale attack could kill as many as 200,000 people.
How the UN and world Muslim leadership look at the proposed use of anthrax against Muslims?
Have the OIC and Arab League any fresh, constructive ideas on the subject?
What is the take of the Congress-led UPA dispensation over the issue?
The Arab Spring is about to end. Facts and figures are exposing real villains.
Does the Muslim world need not shorten its slumber?
[The writer, based in Jeddah, is with Arab News and can be reached at [email protected]]