Yet another brutal attack in Paris took place yesterday. Places of attack were so designed to give impression as an attack on western world. One such place was football stadium where match was being played between France and Germany, while another where American band was performing. It has been termed as attack on human civilization.
Mass killings have been rampant throughout the history. However in contemporary world, such barbaric killings are not that prevalent. Most of such killings are due clash of two cultures. These are to decide supremacy of one culture over another. In modern world concepts of secularism and tolerance have contributed in tackling these cultural wars.
After any such incident we are reminded by "intellectuals" and "media" that "terrorism has no religion". This statement seems to be correct in order to avoid discrimination of any single community especially in diverse societies like India. Media and intellectual bias is evident in such commentary. Sporadic incidents with alleged involvement of Hindus had caused then Home Minister of India to coin the phrase "saffron terrorism". Further few incidents in recent past had caused large propaganda of "intolerance" in our country with few returning awards to protest "rising intolerance". One columnist has gone to extent of calling India as Hindu Taliban while another historian comparing RSS with ISIS. These are two extreme stands taken by intelligentsia. It is unfortunate to have such biased opinions in main stream media. It leaves root question, the question of cultural fanaticism unanswered.
Coming to the phrase "terrorism has no religion". While it can be granted that terrorism has no religion but can we also say that terrorists have no religion. If they have no religion then why this violence? what it is for? for money? power? No, these violent incidences are for establishment of supremacy of certain ideology and perpetrators of such crimes are fanatic followers of such ideology.
Coming to philosophical discourse regarding religion, what exactly is religion. The word religion is derived from Latin word "religare"which means to bind. Hence religion is defined as a faith or belief that is followed by a set of people. When we use word religion then our concept is limited to known religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. But religion is beyond these existing religions. Even scienticism, secularism, humanism, environmentalism etc can be called religion based upon above definition. Thus saying terrorists have no religion is flawed concept.
Another distorted concept prevalent in India is that of secularism. In our country it is interpreted from religious tolerance to freedom of faith to minority appeasement. Actual secularism implies indifference towards religion in public discourse. This meaning of secularism has been left way behind in the history of modern India.
Now if any act is done to establish supremacy of certain culture or faith then can it be called secular? Is it possible to commit such act without having staunch belief in ideology? Answer is bog NO. Next step is whether interpretation of religious texts by such extremist groups is correct or not. Common sense says that no religion can preach killing of innocent people. Merely non believing in particular faith doesn't make a person guilty at all. Having said it, non believers have no right to mock the faith of a particular community. Such acts of mocking acts as provocation.
It is only when believers and non believers respect each others faith then only violent crimes happening in the name of religion can be stopped. But repeating a line that terrorists have no religion is like turning blind eye to root cause of such extremism.
Mass killings have been rampant throughout the history. However in contemporary world, such barbaric killings are not that prevalent. Most of such killings are due clash of two cultures. These are to decide supremacy of one culture over another. In modern world concepts of secularism and tolerance have contributed in tackling these cultural wars.
After any such incident we are reminded by "intellectuals" and "media" that "terrorism has no religion". This statement seems to be correct in order to avoid discrimination of any single community especially in diverse societies like India. Media and intellectual bias is evident in such commentary. Sporadic incidents with alleged involvement of Hindus had caused then Home Minister of India to coin the phrase "saffron terrorism". Further few incidents in recent past had caused large propaganda of "intolerance" in our country with few returning awards to protest "rising intolerance". One columnist has gone to extent of calling India as Hindu Taliban while another historian comparing RSS with ISIS. These are two extreme stands taken by intelligentsia. It is unfortunate to have such biased opinions in main stream media. It leaves root question, the question of cultural fanaticism unanswered.
Coming to the phrase "terrorism has no religion". While it can be granted that terrorism has no religion but can we also say that terrorists have no religion. If they have no religion then why this violence? what it is for? for money? power? No, these violent incidences are for establishment of supremacy of certain ideology and perpetrators of such crimes are fanatic followers of such ideology.
Coming to philosophical discourse regarding religion, what exactly is religion. The word religion is derived from Latin word "religare"which means to bind. Hence religion is defined as a faith or belief that is followed by a set of people. When we use word religion then our concept is limited to known religions like Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc. But religion is beyond these existing religions. Even scienticism, secularism, humanism, environmentalism etc can be called religion based upon above definition. Thus saying terrorists have no religion is flawed concept.
Another distorted concept prevalent in India is that of secularism. In our country it is interpreted from religious tolerance to freedom of faith to minority appeasement. Actual secularism implies indifference towards religion in public discourse. This meaning of secularism has been left way behind in the history of modern India.
Now if any act is done to establish supremacy of certain culture or faith then can it be called secular? Is it possible to commit such act without having staunch belief in ideology? Answer is bog NO. Next step is whether interpretation of religious texts by such extremist groups is correct or not. Common sense says that no religion can preach killing of innocent people. Merely non believing in particular faith doesn't make a person guilty at all. Having said it, non believers have no right to mock the faith of a particular community. Such acts of mocking acts as provocation.
It is only when believers and non believers respect each others faith then only violent crimes happening in the name of religion can be stopped. But repeating a line that terrorists have no religion is like turning blind eye to root cause of such extremism.
No comments:
Post a Comment