The whole world is mourning the tragedy unleashed by the terrorist attack in London—and rightly so. More than 50 people were known to have died as a result of ‘coordinated’ attacks on the metropolitan city’s public transport systems and hundreds were injured. Many have already compared the London attacks (already named ‘7/7’) with 9/11 attacks on New York that had, of course, taken many more lives. A comparison is something that also leaves an uneasy feeling among quite a few in this country.

At the time of the London tragedy, India was still recovering from the shock of an abortive bid by terrorists to blow up a makeshift, if rather controversial, temple at the disputed site in Ayodhya. A large section of the country thought that had the terrorists been successful in their nefarious design on Ayodhya the country would have been plunged into an even more serious tragedy: another orgy of communal violence resulting in the death of hundreds, maybe thousands, of innocent people in many parts of the country.

Well, one could be wrong but the Western leaders took no notice of the event; at least there was nothing in the Indian media to suggest that. Both before and after the London attacks, terrorist had continued with their game of death and destruction in Kashmir and elsewhere—something that they have been doing for almost two decades. Estimates of numbers may vary, but it will suffice to say that the number of Indians killed in terrorist violence since the 1980s runs into hundreds of thousands. Does the West accept that India has been at the receiving end of such a large scale of violence by terrorists for such a long time? Do countries in the West commiserate with the Indians the way we do when they suffer at the hands of terrorists? Is it not a fact that a few hundred Indians killed in terrorist violence is hardly considered an important news story in the Western media whereas the Indian media replicates its Western counterpart in overplaying the losses in the West? Stories from London, splashed all over on the fist day of the tragedy, continued to dominate the news columns in India days later.

The crowning insult that the West and its media heap on India is when they insist on calling the murderers of innocent Indians as ‘unidentified gunmen’, ‘separatists’, ‘insurgents’ or ‘militants’ etc, but almost never as ‘terrorists’. The bomb attack on the Indian Parliament, for instance, was the work of ‘unidentified gunmen’ even when their identities as Pakistani nationals had been established beyond doubt. On the other hand, the moment the report of the first bomb blast in London reached the media centres it came to be described as ‘terrorist’ attack even as no other details, including the casualty, were available. If ‘terrorists’ strike anywhere outside the Western world it is only in a friendly country such as Pakistan?

No wonder, a lot of Indians feel that the West is not serious in rooting out terrorism; it only wants these beastly creatures to stop attacking the West. If that leaves the terrorists hands itching, they can pick on countries like India. Notice how the accounts in the Western media and governments rarely, if ever, mention India as among the countries most affected by terrorism, though Pakistan is now frequently mentioned as a ‘victim of terrorism’—a huge joke in the eyes of most Indians who think that much of the terrorism that has come to haunt the world today originated in Pakistan. After some initial tough talking with its ally, Pakistan, the US and other Western countries have reverted to the old ways of closing their eyes to the flourishing reality under President Gen Musharraf.

Western leaders like US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair never miss an opportunity to inform their listeners that they are determined beat the hell out of terrorists and their spiteful acts of terror would not deter or demoralise the West. Commendable words, indeed! Reading various media accounts would, however, suggest that the Americans still live with the fear of another 9/11-type attack on their country. Life in London has by no means returned to normality days after the terrorist attacks on July 7 with many people deciding to stay indoors or not to venture out unless necessary. Crowds were missing from the pubs, restaurants and roads. That does not sound like the normal London life. It also looks strange for a city that had been heavily bombarded at the height of the last Great War.

Contrast this with what happens in India where the entire country is aware of the seriousness of the problem of terrorism. There are few signs of ‘abnormality’ after a tragedy as people quickly resume their daily avocations. At any rate, newspapers and other media in India stop being overloaded with reports of the tragedy days on end. Even those whose profession is carping—those who sit in the Opposition—give up ‘exploiting’ the tragedy after they have given calls for a strike or bandh. People in the country do not become demoralised by terrorist attacks even as they mourn the human loss that it almost invariably entails.

After London’s ‘7/7’ attacks several reprisal attacks against the minorities were reported. Racial tension was raising its ugly head again. Muslims were the obvious choice of some dastardly attacks. Perhaps more surprising are the attacks on Sikhs and their Gurdwaras. It is not immediately clear if the Hindus too came under fire from the White (Christian) fanatics in Britain. The Sikhs may still be a relatively unknown community in the US, especially its smaller towns, but the Sikhs cannot be a totally ‘alien’ figure for the average White (Christian) British. Yet, the White lunatics set upon the Sikhs and their Gurdwaras in ‘revenge’.

In order to underplay it, the media and the establishment treats the ‘retaliatory’ action by the White—obviously the lesser-educated and poorer ones—against the minorities as an aberration.

Western media has a different yardstick to view ‘retaliatory’ actions in India. They are played up in the Western media with the clear purpose of suggesting that the Indians are an intolerant lot and the minorities are not safe in this country. A couple of people killed in any part of India in what we call a ‘group clash’ promptly finds a place in the Western media, often meriting a disparaging commentary by an India ‘expert’.

The people, who claim to have a strong social conscience, need to answer how is it that when terrorists attack a country in the West, such as the US or the UK, the government is able to go about its investigations even by bypassing the law or bringing in ‘draconian’ legislations.

The same group of people in India raise a hue and cry if the government does something similar.

The unmistakable message is: since there are no ‘terrorists’ in India (according to the West), the suspects here should be treated with kid gloves, but the West faces a ‘real’ threat from terrorist--such as Saddam Hussein’s ‘WMD’-- and the law of the land cannot be allowed to interfere with the investigations.

Can the ‘war’ on terrorism be ever won with hypocrisy?


Courtesy : Syndicate Features

Printer-Friendly Version