Your Religion Reflects Your Identity, But Your Action Connects You With Your Name
The defining dilemma these days regarding identity is “What’s in a
name?” In these tortuous times of identity crises, one’s appellation
establishes one’s credentials. So, when I say, “My name is Prabhu and I
am not a Communalist,” it means that it is my name and not my actions
that denote my acceptability and credibility in society. Like many
Indians, I am proud to be a nationalist Hindu. But I take much more
pride in being a Bharatiya, which doesn’t differentiate between
religions, cultures and faiths. For me, Hinduism is not a religion. It
defines how we live in peace and tolerance. It pains everyone, including
me, when one has to invoke his first or last name to prove his
commitment to human values and liberty. It is also equally agonising
that this nomenclature nightmare started when Muslims started being
blamed by Islamaphobes for rising terror incidents worldwide. To
convince people that not all Muslims are jihadists or terrorists,
Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan even acted as the hero in a film, the
theme of which was “My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist”. It was
shot in the horrific background of the 9/11 attacks. Since then, Indian
liberals and propagandists have been celebrating only Muslim names in
various fields to establish the nationalistic commitments of Indian
Muslims, which is hardly in doubt in the minds of most number of
Indians. This moniker manipulation marked the beginning of the identity
wars between various communities with their fringe organisations taking
advantage of the divisive din. Though all Ahmads and Abdullahs are not
supporters of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda, the impression being created by
secularism-mongers is that most Prabhus, Rams, Deen Dayals and Krishna
Kumars are communal and conspiring to annihilate the minorities. For the
past few months, a competitive chorus is on, using proper nouns to
divide India rather than to unite it. The discourse is not aimed at the
consolidated idea of a united and inclusive Bharat, but to keep
reminding people of their distinctive religious identities by
emphasising on their family background. Why can’t those who exploit
religion to prove their secular credentials use the hashtags
#IamaBharatiya and #I stand for unity? It is tragic that in the name of
modern thinking and fake ideological neutrality, some of us are bandying
about minority names to defend the indefensible that is terrorism.
Unfortunately,
the dance of terror in Paris has once again revived the practice of
using names for cultural and religious taxonomy. For the past four days,
millions of people worldwide have been tweeting #I am Charlie” and
#JeSuisCharlie (I am Charlie), which have become slogans of solidarity
with the victims of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Two terrorist brothers
attacked the offices of the French satirical magazine—which had
satirised Islam—and murdered 12, including 10 journalists whose only
fault was critical and perhaps excessive satirical adventurism. Now for
the French, and other Western countries, the name of an individual
appears to be the only effective way to identify a possible terrorist
threat. Sadly, it took the Paris carnage to wake up the West once more,
which faces a lethal threat to its existence and culture. Forgetting the
famous adage that ‘thou shalt reap what thou shall sow’, the West is
primarily responsible for overtly and covertly funding non-governmental
organisations working in the Third World for ameliorating the conditions
of the poor and oppressed. For Europe’s neo-liberal altruists,
championing human rights and saving the poor guarantees a ticket to
heaven, flying first class. Hardly do they realise that financial
magnanimity will also lead to the rise of communal hatred and encourage
divisive tendencies, the way it is happening in India. Over one lakh
Indian NGOs receive about `4,000 crore annually from Europe, the UK and
US in the name of protecting human rights. Some of them have even
aggressively defended people with suspected terrorist links. It is due
to massive Western support and native chest-thumping by professional
human rights activists that terror groups in Afghanistan, Syria,
Pakistan and India as well as in other parts of the world got the space
and time to consolidate themselves and eventually become a threat to the
very people who financed and promoted them for the sake of their own
narrow political or ideological proclivities.
It is quite telling
that France is now Europe’s terror capital. According to figures
released by various websites on the 152 terrorist attacks in the EU last
year, about 65 happened in France alone. The research organisation,
Muslim Statistics, claims that over 66 per cent of Muslims in France and
80 per cent in the UK support the idea of an Islamic State. It also
reveals that Sweden spends over 10 million kroner to finance Muslim
immigration and the UK parts with 840 million pounds of taxpayers’ money
per year on Muslim prisoners who constitute 14 per cent of Britain’s
prisoner population—who incidentally are converting many prisoners into
radical Islam, which has become an added source of worry for law
enforcement agencies. Research scholar Tim Sadandoji wrote in his blog
that “looking at all the people killed in terrorist attacks in Europe
and North America during the last 10 years, 97 per cent was committed by
Muslim terrorists, or 4,703 of the 4,873 killed”. While none of the
Western countries have released a comprehensive list of jihadi attacks
on their soil, over 5,000 people are estimated to have been killed so
far in America, Russia and Europe during the past 12 years. If one
includes the pogroms in West Asia and Africa, the victims of the
Taliban, Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, the number stands at 18,000
people. Out of each 100 killed, 90 died in bloody encounters between a
Hafiz and Bin Laden and not between an Antony and Abdullah, or a Prabhu
vs Hezbollah. Even in Paris, it was none other than Said Kouachi, a
devout Muslim, who shot the 40-year-old French Muslim policeman Ahmed
Merabat in cold blood. One of the rampaging monsters said killing the
journalists of Charlie Hebdo was taking revenge for insulting their
Prophet. When the screams had died, and the smell of cordite was blown
away in the chilly January wind, what was left scrawled in the blood and
gore was just a name. It was Chérif and he turned out to be a
terrorist. It’s all in the name, stupid.
prabhuchawla@newindianexpress.com; Follow me on Twitter @PrabhuChawla
No comments:
Post a Comment