Religion didn146;t do it

The War of the Spanish Succession. The War of the Austrian Succession. The Seven Years War. The American Revolution. The Wars of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. The Crimean War. World War I. World War II. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. Gulf War I the Iran-Iraq conflict. Gulf War II the invasion and liberation of Kuwait. There were lots of reasons why each began 8212; geopolitics, greed, passion, nationalism, economics, what-have-you8230; everything, in fact, but religion. So how can anyone still come up with that silly cliche cited above?

But if the generals and the admirals have had little to do with churches, mosques and temples, you can8217;t say the same of the terrorist, the murderer who disdains the Geneva Conventions and the Articles of War. He makes use of places of worship in two distinct ways 8212; as sanctuary and as target.

Eighteen years ago, Bhindranwale demonstrated how the first was possible. More recently, we saw terrorists entering the Mazar-e-Sharif in Kashmir, taking the calculated risk that no agents of the law would pursue them there. And then there were the Palestinians who entered the Church of the Nativity, Christ8217;s birthplace; it was a win-win situation for them 8212; they would either frustrate the Israelis outside, or would draw the wrath of the Christian West on the Jewish state if the soldiers did dare to enter.

Irrespective of whether terrorists want to hide or to sow chaos, entering a place of worship is deliberately provocative. It is a ploy to arouse passion 8212; whether by killing pilgrims on the way to Amarnath, or in the tragedy we saw unfold at Akshardham. The 8216;other8217; side, the terrorist calculates, shall respond in force 8212; and that in turn will lead to two reactions.

First, the violence will draw the wrath of the world upon the 8216;other8217; side, even if it didn8217;t start the conflict. Forget Gujarat for the moment, haven8217;t, say, Israel and the United States too been condemned for 8216;over-reacting8217;? Second, the terrorist8217;s own community will be forced to stand by him as issues polarise.

Godhra and all subsequent events were a perfect example of this. I still shake my head in disbelief 8212; disgust too 8212; on going back and reading the headlines about the massacre at Godhra. 8216;Ayodhya Backlash8217; screamed one. It was alleged that the men on the train had 8216;provoked8217; the vendors on the platform. Anything, it appeared, was grist for the mill if it could damn people from one community and whitewash those from another.

To digress a little, does anyone recall the brouhaha last year when some churches were vandalised in South India? A section of the media immediately blamed 8216;Hindu fundamentalists8217;; it turned out that the attacks were arranged by an Islamic group based in Pakistan 8212; and nobody ever heard of the issue again!

Mercifully, this has not, yet, happened in response to the tragedy in Gandhinagar. Nobody has tried to advance the claim that the murderous assault on Akshardham was the result of provocative speeches made by Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Everyone who has come out in public has spoken out against the terrorists. Even the graceless Pakistani dictator 8212; who had the bad taste to refer to Gujarat in his United Nations speech 8212; has condemned the murders.

But is this initial outburst enough, or do we need something more? If you ask me, it is time 8212; and more 8212; that the leaders of the various religious denominations came out with clear views on carrying arms into a place of worship. I think we can take it for granted that killing innocents, especially children, is so far outside the pale of civilisation that it needs no specific guidelines!

History tells us Maharaja Ranjit Singh was forbidden from carrying his personal arms into the Harmandir Sahib; all but the traditional kirpan were deposited outside. Muslims perform the Haj in a single piece of unstitched cloth; no holsters or scabbards there! Forget the laws of the land, there is a moral ban on taking weapons into a religious place. Shouldn8217;t the acharyas, the mullahs, and the bishops state this unequivocally? Without fudging, and stating the issue in purely religious terms?

As noted, the first reactions to the Akshardham massacre are in refreshing contrast to those heard immediately after the burnings at Godhra. But it would be a fatal error to let the outrage evaporate in a mist of wishy-washy 8216;justification8217;.

There is no justification for the kind of murder committed at Akshardham. No speeches and no taunts, no matter how 8216;provocative8217;, justify the wanton killing of innocents in a house of worship. It needs to be emphasised that the terrorist doesn8217;t belong to any community, he has placed himself outside civilised society. And that point needs to be made by the religious heads, not just the secular laity. Unless, of course, they want to give fresh life to all those cliches about religion.