Tuesday, September 12, 2006

The chemistry of terrorism.

Often after Islamic terrorists have carried out an attack the aftermath is a debate over banal phrases. Progressives/liberal/apologists would proclaim but for a small minority of extremists, Muslims are moderates, this proclamation is meant as an assurance, lest there is any alarm or panic or animosity. Yet this proclamation even if true doesn't hold much comfort. The reason is simple , moderate has more than one meaning. One someone holding views which are middle of the road that is moderate views.

Other and more appropriate (in the present context) meaning is person(s) who are willing to take path of least resistance, who will prefer to get along rather than to enforce their beliefs through means of violence. Whereas radical are those who spread their ideologies aggressively ,many times though not necessarily always using violent means. Osama Bin Laden and others of his ilk are radicals in this sense.

Now the difference between "moderates" and "radicals" means that above a certain percentage it will be "radicals" who will set the agenda for the community. What is more crucial the radical faction will become more significant with the passage of time.
Thus it is analogous to evolution or chain reaction

The only way to counter this is for moderates to turn radicals albeit for different cause, the cause assumed to be more worthwhile than that of terrorists.

Fighting terrorism is first and foremost a battle of ideas. And yet regrettably this aspect is most neglected, more than that time is of importance in this, because if the extremists are not checked in time, they will be unmanageable. One can excuse "moderates" in various Islamic countries (in west or central Asia) for not doing enough, however what can be said about those in India.

The "moderates" who are the first to take umbrage over real or imagined transgressions and lament over exaggerated grievances are suddenly coy when it comes to self introspection, instead there is a persistent effort to obfuscate the issue.

This apologia may save "face" for the moment but does nothing to help the situation

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "moderates" who are the first to take umbrage over real or imagined transgressions and lament over exaggerated grievances are suddenly coy when it comes to self introspection, instead there is a persistent effort to obfuscate the issue.
Is this not true of hindu nationalists too ? Who start railing about pseudo secularism after every comment on thier activities. ?

doubtinggaurav said...

Anon,

Well Yes.

Ofcourse it depends on what you think is the problem with hinduism.

Regards