The law of the nature, by default, sanctions two or more shades of almost everything, from its basic elements of life like air, water, climate to its complex creations like animals, humans. Both of the parts of the same creation work hand-in-hand with each other to maintain a balance suitable for life, sustainability and eventually development. And no one can object to this very basic character and majestic power of nature – of creation and destruction – as both are equally important and needed. But the acceptance of that element and its multiple shades is only possible until the element’s multiple shades are compatible with life and are prudent enough for the collective betterment of everything. The moment the element’s dark shade swallows its brighter one, it become incompatible with the nature; in other words it becomes unacceptable in the natural society. The nature is mighty enough to immediately recognise this morphing of the element into a darker one and it exterminates that element – permanently.
Same multiple shades are present in the human society and there is a mandal of shades within shades. Humans too have always acknowledged this natural multifariousness; but only until it was in line with the laws of nature. The day any section of society morphs into a dark and dangerous one, humans have galloped to exterminate that section – most of the time. But history tells us that many of them, though, were either not fortune enough or were not intelligent enough, to recognise that certain section’s transformation into dark hegemonic one; and hence they fell. The reason why they fell might vary, but there are some which stays predominantly in all of those situations – banality, vapidity and unrealism. Part of their unrealism can be attributed to their intelligence deficiency and partly to the opponents brilliancy. When the darker section – who was the predator – managed to create a realm of delusion around the prey section; it made it incredibly easy for it to hunt.
No amount of denial can change the fact that it is indeed a brilliant strategy of the predator. Today we face the same challenges posed by a section of society which uses the same brilliant strategy of deluding the prey before eventually defeating it. On one hand we have the radical extremists Muslims who uses the tool of extreme violence in forms of killings, massacres and genocides to eventually snuff out its prey religion – the kafirs (non-Muslims). In case of any other religion, a radical might be someone espousing a radical view, opinion or ideology. But in this case if we use the same stick of ideology to measure the extremism, we will end up finding almost everyone of that particular section of society as the some kind of radicals. Hence we up the bar and denote anyone who actively uses violence as a tool as radical. They use violence and terrorism as a ladder to climb up to their dreams of establishing caliphate (Muslim rule) – where there should be no other religion than Islam and no other god than theirs – and they’ve been absolutely ruthless, unapologetic, unwavering in this quest of theirs.
And then we have the moderators in the same section. Moderates try to portray or project themselves as truly secular, inclusive and progressive ones, as someone unrelated to or against the radicals. They make others believe that they put peace and ethics of humanity over barbarianism and Islamic state. But the reality is in sharp contrast to what they delineate. To a less equipped mind, speaking of radicals and moderates of the Muslim society in one breath might seem like taking lemon juice with milkshake. But people familiar with ummah’s functionality know that distinctions between moderates and radicals are nothing but delusions. Both of them, ultimately, aim to reach the same summit of Islamic state, just that their ladders of climbing are different.
Recently the distinction was dehazed multiple times, most prominently once after the brutal killing of Hindu Samaj Party chief Kamlesh Tiwari. The radicals horrendously murdered him, slitting his throat ISIS style and eventually gunning him down at his Lucknow residence on 18th of October for allegedly insulting their prophet (thus accounting to blasphemy). Moderates rather than condemning the terror incident, they decided to use the incident to subtly push the warning that whosoever ‘insults’ their prophet will meet the same fate. We had plethora of Muslims – some of whom were considered secular earlier – openly cheering and celebrating what their radical companions did. We had political analysts refusing to condemn the incident stating that Kamlesh Tiwari ‘deserved this fate’ .
And again this time, after the Modi led NDA government passed Citizenship Amendment Bill – which seeks to fasten naturalisation of minority refugees coming from 3 officially Islamic nations of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan – in both houses of the parliament making it a law. Radicals were already whining and wavering as they were not getting any opportunity to fete out their mouldered frustrations – from Article 370 to Ram Temple – on the Indian government. Moderates were silent, cuddled like a snake, in their caves of social justice, waiting for the right time to bite. Their right time, paragliding through the smoke of misinformation, came with passing of CAB and triggered a fire of protests which burned all the differences between radicals and moderates of Muslims – again.
On one hand radicals burned buses, railway stations, barged into crowded trains with iron rods – many of them espousing the creepy smiles of terrorising innocent civilians – and attacked even children, rallied in mobs from Delhi to Bengal to destroy public property, attacked Hindus, dragged people out of their houses, stabbed CAA supporters, lynched policemen, pelted stones on literally anyone they deemed enemy and openly called for genocide of Hindus & repetition of Moplah like riots.
On the other hand moderates called for ‘Khilafat 2.0’ while craving, pleasurably, for the larger cause of forcing majority to submit and argued in favours of every rampaging radical as they were harbingers of social justice. Journalists did overtime highlighting the alleged ‘Police atrocities on students’ while fox-cunningly veiling the student attack on police. Their supposed beacon holders of revolution, the students of Jamia Milia Islamia and Aligarh Muslim University, erased every doubt in my mind on their allegiance to cause of caliphate, with their calls for Islamic cultural supremacy.
They not only tried to counter the state’s legitimate attempt at providing assistance to innocent hapless non-Muslim minority fleeing from Islamic states, while eerily justifying their enormous violence, they also tried every brick and trick from the book of propaganda o put the blame upon the state. We had statements callings Modi and his supporters fascists, people shamelessly accusing majority of hurting country’s squinted secular fabric, journalists dancing in the ring to create a smoke cloud of misinformation that Muslims will be stripped of their citizenship. Added salt to injury was that they were doing all this on the innocence of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis and Christians hounded by their fellow pals in other 3 nations. The way moderate Muslims tried to spin the case in favour of their radical buddies, putting everything bad upon the state by justifying their violence and genocidal intents, shows how tenebrous and evil their unveiled form is.
It startles me to see that despite unpleasant reality’s tandav at the doorsteps, many people do tend to believe the moderate Muslims’ preposterous agenda. Moderate Muslims artfully hijacks the truth, manipulates the reality and spin the course to ultimately somehow put the blame on Hindus. And this tantra of delusion does work on some Hindus – who proudly identify themselves as liberals – spawning the same situation of brilliant predator and deluded prey which I described earlier.
Featured Image: bhatkallys
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. IndiaFacts does not assume any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in this article.
