Shortly after the news of the terror attack in the offices of Charlie Hebdo broke, questions were asked of Muslims around the world to justify the “violent nature of their religion”. Islamic terror, as it is now called — an umbrella term that rather insensitively covers any bearer of a Muslim name who is at the operating end of a gun— is a wholly accepted term. The minute it is established that it is indeed a Muslim who held the gun, anyone practising the Islamic faith is asked why their religion is so violent, or why the religion can’t do something to rein these gunmen in.
Ever since the attack on the World Trade Centres, Muslims around the world have been consistently pushed into the defensive. They are expected to have an explanation for the violence from “their community”. On Twitter and Facebook, questions are unabashedly asked of anyone with a Muslim name as to how they would “explain” it. Why should a practitioner of a faith be forced to defend the actions of a faraway lunatic? When rightwing fundamental Hindus perpetrate violence, the larger community is never questioned. The default option for most Hindus is to be a benign observer or an objective third party commentator of crimes perpetrated by its violent fringe. In the new ‘with us or against us’ world that George W Bush heralded, Muslims are somehow not allowed this dignity.
In fact, the morning before the Charlie Hebdo attack unfolded, newspapers carried the story of BJP’s Unnao MP, Sakshi Maharaj, extolling Hindu women to have four children. Everyone laughed, and rightly so. No one asked random Hindus on the internet to explain this twaddle or defend it. It was understood that his wasn’t the voice of the reasonable Hindu. The truth of the matter is, the fringe is the fringe. And the fringe is often lunatic. Whether they wield Kalashnikovs or trishuls, the onus is not on the moderates to explain it.
Veena Venugopal - Deputy Editor