Underlying Dissensions
The color of Europe has changed; it is no more pale white but has many more hues now. The demographics has changed. The erstwhile colonial countries like Britain, France, Spain and Portugal were one of the first to experience this change in demographics as people from their colonies started settling down there. Northern Europe, especially the Scandinavian countries were slow in experiencing such change. Though the diversity was recognized, the process of assimilation of immigrant population never really took place. Different races, culture, ethnic groups co-existed but never truly integrated with each other. That is one of the primary reasons why Europe sees separatist movements all over and so many countries including the former Soviet Union broke down into many smaller countries. India, where a multitude of races, castes, cultures and religions have co-existed is still rife with rampant racism, casteism, communalism, regionalism, bloated cultural identities, class differences, which are all evidences that despite living together for centuries, we are not truly integrated. Creation of different states in India can be seen as a local parallel to the creation of countries in Europe. The dominant race and class was always able to suppress and subjugate the weaker class and separatist movements sprouted as a reaction to that reinforcing their own identities. But we have learnt to exist together, exist with people who might be different from us, accepting different cultures as part of our own existence and in the process becoming multicultural societies. We have gained this wisdom after many wars, in-fighting, occupations, colonialism, and human catastrophe. With the world shrunk with technology, most societies are multicultural with disparate groups existing within its folds.
This multiculturalism is seen as a threat by people like Anders Behring Breivik for whom ‘homogeneity’ is at stake. This is more true for Scandinavian countries who have been tolerant but ‘homogeneous’ societies. Breivik, who went on a killing spree, gunned down 76 people in Norway (68 on an island in Norway and 8 in Oslo) mostly in a youth camp of the ruling Labor party. Breivik wrote a 1500 page manifesto which he calls “A European Declaration of Independence.” It is filled with right wing hate rhetoric and blames Muslims, Marxists, multiculturalists and feminist women for the decline of the ‘old Europe.’ Conservatives condemned the violence but came out to defend Breivik’s manifesto and his basic philosophy of hate. In his manifesto, Breivik draws inspiration from several right wing groups in the US and Europe, refers to the right wing Hindu nationalists and actually praises the extreme anti-Muslim Hindutva ideology of RSS/BJP. The undertone is of fascism which rides on false fears and preys on economic deprivation and hardship when people are desperate to survive. People like Breivik fear Muslim takeover of Norway when Muslim population in Norway is only 3% and most of them speak fluent Norwegian. It is instructive to reflect on Nazi Germany where economic hardships led to the success of extreme demagoguery resulting in irrational hatred against Jews. Breivik by no means is alone or isolated in this extreme ideology. The far right nationalist and anti-immigrant parties in Norway receive more than 22 percent of votes. The figure is 29 percent in Switzerland and 19 percent in Finland with countries like Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark and Austria around 10 percent. Similar to the US, the far right, ultra-nationalist, fascist groups are on the rise in Europe. The myth of ‘white Christian nation’ is under threat; it is a reflection of deep seated resentment against non-white cultures and races. One of the more famous Norwegians, Stieg Larsson, of ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ fame spent his lifetime researching right-wing groups in Norway and Europe and expressed deep concerns for this trend. He edited ‘Expo’ that routinely published his findings.
The fawning corporate media immediately jumped at the conclusion that the attacks must have been carried out by Al-Qaeda or other extremist Islamist groups and was another heinous terrorist attack. Among others, Jennifer Rubin of ‘Washington Post’ wrote that “it’s a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.” It is important to note that according to Europol, between 2006 and 2008, only 0.4 percent of terrorist attacks in Europe were from the Islamist groups. The lion’s share (85 percent) of such attacks goes to the separatist groups. However, when Breivik’s identity was discovered, the entire episode fell off their radars. Had Breivik turned out to be a Muslim, he would have been ‘unanimously’ accepted as a terrorist. But for a Christian like Breivik, the attacks were no longer terrorist attacks but the attacks of a madman (a Hindu terrorist likewise is unthinkable). Though Breivik had fantasies of being a Knights Templar crusader who along with other anti-immigrant groups would seize power in Europe through coups d'etat; Breivik, by no standards is a madman. This is only a manifestation of his ultra-religious, medieval, right wing ideology and is particularly a vile strain of that trend. If he is a madman, then everybody on the extreme right must be put in asylum and should not be allowed any public space in any form, let alone practicing active politics. The kingpin is always more responsible than his hit man and so is the case here. Breivik was just a hit man who got deeply affected with the flagrant hate rhetoric of right wing groups and parties. People like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Robert Spencer, Pat Buchanan of ‘The American Conservative;’ and organizations like ‘The Family,’ an American Christian Right group with the idea of founding a Christian government and a Christian nation critically affected Breivik’s thought process.
If Breivik is no longer a terrorist, then the question arises as to who is a terrorist? Is the definition come to be attached to the religious, racial identity of a person? Is indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians not an act of terrorism? A stray rocket fired by Hamas which often misses its target is considered an act of terrorism but not targeted bombing of Palestinians by Israelis. More than half million civilians dead in Iraq is not considered an act of terrorism; nor are the night raids and incessant killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. When propped dictators in African continent brutalize their own populations, slaughtering people at will; that is not terrorism. The acts of violence by state against its own citizens, India being one of the shining examples with its record in Kashmir, Gujarat or against tribals, where thousands have died at the hands of armed forces and law enforcement agencies is again not an act of terrorism. When people are terrorized by genocide to vote for their own tormentor, is that not an act of terrorism and the tormentor a terrorist? The term ‘terrorist’ has come to be selective, conveniently employed in perspective and distorted by the powerful class to meet propagandist ends.
With such growing trends, a society must not succumb to misrepresentations and demagoguery. We must ensure that the economic depression worldwide does not result in repeating of the worst times of human history and any such trend must be nipped in the bud.
This multiculturalism is seen as a threat by people like Anders Behring Breivik for whom ‘homogeneity’ is at stake. This is more true for Scandinavian countries who have been tolerant but ‘homogeneous’ societies. Breivik, who went on a killing spree, gunned down 76 people in Norway (68 on an island in Norway and 8 in Oslo) mostly in a youth camp of the ruling Labor party. Breivik wrote a 1500 page manifesto which he calls “A European Declaration of Independence.” It is filled with right wing hate rhetoric and blames Muslims, Marxists, multiculturalists and feminist women for the decline of the ‘old Europe.’ Conservatives condemned the violence but came out to defend Breivik’s manifesto and his basic philosophy of hate. In his manifesto, Breivik draws inspiration from several right wing groups in the US and Europe, refers to the right wing Hindu nationalists and actually praises the extreme anti-Muslim Hindutva ideology of RSS/BJP. The undertone is of fascism which rides on false fears and preys on economic deprivation and hardship when people are desperate to survive. People like Breivik fear Muslim takeover of Norway when Muslim population in Norway is only 3% and most of them speak fluent Norwegian. It is instructive to reflect on Nazi Germany where economic hardships led to the success of extreme demagoguery resulting in irrational hatred against Jews. Breivik by no means is alone or isolated in this extreme ideology. The far right nationalist and anti-immigrant parties in Norway receive more than 22 percent of votes. The figure is 29 percent in Switzerland and 19 percent in Finland with countries like Belgium, France, Italy, Denmark and Austria around 10 percent. Similar to the US, the far right, ultra-nationalist, fascist groups are on the rise in Europe. The myth of ‘white Christian nation’ is under threat; it is a reflection of deep seated resentment against non-white cultures and races. One of the more famous Norwegians, Stieg Larsson, of ‘The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo’ fame spent his lifetime researching right-wing groups in Norway and Europe and expressed deep concerns for this trend. He edited ‘Expo’ that routinely published his findings.
The fawning corporate media immediately jumped at the conclusion that the attacks must have been carried out by Al-Qaeda or other extremist Islamist groups and was another heinous terrorist attack. Among others, Jennifer Rubin of ‘Washington Post’ wrote that “it’s a sobering reminder for those who think it’s too expensive to wage a war against jihadists.” It is important to note that according to Europol, between 2006 and 2008, only 0.4 percent of terrorist attacks in Europe were from the Islamist groups. The lion’s share (85 percent) of such attacks goes to the separatist groups. However, when Breivik’s identity was discovered, the entire episode fell off their radars. Had Breivik turned out to be a Muslim, he would have been ‘unanimously’ accepted as a terrorist. But for a Christian like Breivik, the attacks were no longer terrorist attacks but the attacks of a madman (a Hindu terrorist likewise is unthinkable). Though Breivik had fantasies of being a Knights Templar crusader who along with other anti-immigrant groups would seize power in Europe through coups d'etat; Breivik, by no standards is a madman. This is only a manifestation of his ultra-religious, medieval, right wing ideology and is particularly a vile strain of that trend. If he is a madman, then everybody on the extreme right must be put in asylum and should not be allowed any public space in any form, let alone practicing active politics. The kingpin is always more responsible than his hit man and so is the case here. Breivik was just a hit man who got deeply affected with the flagrant hate rhetoric of right wing groups and parties. People like Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, Robert Spencer, Pat Buchanan of ‘The American Conservative;’ and organizations like ‘The Family,’ an American Christian Right group with the idea of founding a Christian government and a Christian nation critically affected Breivik’s thought process.
If Breivik is no longer a terrorist, then the question arises as to who is a terrorist? Is the definition come to be attached to the religious, racial identity of a person? Is indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians not an act of terrorism? A stray rocket fired by Hamas which often misses its target is considered an act of terrorism but not targeted bombing of Palestinians by Israelis. More than half million civilians dead in Iraq is not considered an act of terrorism; nor are the night raids and incessant killing of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. When propped dictators in African continent brutalize their own populations, slaughtering people at will; that is not terrorism. The acts of violence by state against its own citizens, India being one of the shining examples with its record in Kashmir, Gujarat or against tribals, where thousands have died at the hands of armed forces and law enforcement agencies is again not an act of terrorism. When people are terrorized by genocide to vote for their own tormentor, is that not an act of terrorism and the tormentor a terrorist? The term ‘terrorist’ has come to be selective, conveniently employed in perspective and distorted by the powerful class to meet propagandist ends.
With such growing trends, a society must not succumb to misrepresentations and demagoguery. We must ensure that the economic depression worldwide does not result in repeating of the worst times of human history and any such trend must be nipped in the bud.
a very wholesome approach .it is true that people hav a colored vision.very few care to think the way u do and understand that.ppl forget that terrorism has no religion;has not one but many forms but most of it goes unreported or unnoticed becoz ppl r too busy in the world of their own ,grappling with problems that affect their life.
ReplyDelete