THOUGHT-TERRORISM

In the wake of recent events at a certain literary meet in a certain city on the west coast of the ancient kingdom of King Bharat, it is quite natural that the lay person might contemplate on what is meant by the expression of thought-terrorism. In times when guns and tanks define peace, progress and other deliberations, it is but natural that a similar notion of the word “terrorism” is taken for granted as to encompass all possible meanings of the term. It is of essence now, however that we come out of this ”scotma” and try to gauge the true damaging factor of Thought-terrorism.

It might be questioned what is this thought-terrorism that is being written and spoken about in current media. The answer is, as is the case with most difficult questions, exceedingly simple. Thought-terrorism refers to severe intolerance among classes that would even lead some members of the more obsessed class to take steps to murder or otherwise harass their opposition for its views, regardless of whether such views are right or wrong.

The main difference between other variants of intolerance and this particular breed lies in the fact that it seeks to curb free thought in its crib and does not hesitate to defend its own ideas, however obstinate or out of date, by all means which the human imagination is capable of calling to its grasp -including banning of books, articles, arrests and convictions. In contrast with militant terrorism, it does not seek to kill by the millions but selects a few individuals who have had the misfortune of incurring its wrath. However, this difference is soon fading in keeping with the phrase “All wars have small beginnings”.

The examples of thought-terrorism are not rare in the world or in its brief history. The most compelling instance is perhaps of the crucified Christ, the first victim of thought-terrorism in the Common Era. In the medieval ages thought-terrorism was the daily work of the papal autocracy and had the complete sanction of the ruling king and his state. Illuminated individuals who brought public new ideas of heliocentricity and equal rights of man and called for the abolition of the Church’s interference in matters outside the purview of religion were burnt at the stake as heretics. Some more fortunate ones (those who had the double virtue of being both renowned priest and scientist) escaped the stake but were forced to renounce their claims.

The same spirit of exceptional mercy however, is not exercised in modern times. The first half of the 20^th century has seen bonfires with books being burnt instead of logs in Germany and this ceremony being presided by the country’s Fuhrer. It has also been witness to copies of Mein Kampf being burnt in the USA and has seen an exhibition of Hitler’s paintings being banned in Austria in the 1990s. In India, the “Vernacular Press Act” is too well documented in history to be out of common knowledge as a glaring instance of thought-terrorism.

The 21^st Century bought forward new ideas of implementing this atrocity and had either the power or the fear of the state for its support. It is not unknown how many renowned artists, authors, sculptors and even musicians have been forced into exile around the world for fear for their own lives. Even longer is the list of those who have been threatened with death for some claim or other task that they might have exhibited in their work. Dan Brown, Sir Salman Rushdie, MF Hussain and Taslima Nasreen are some examples. In recent years, the instances of thought-terrorism have increased in India with the banning of books containing controversial claims about private and public activities of several national leaders in addition to arrests of renowned authors like Arundhati Roy and laymen alike for expressing their thoughts against any particular group or sect (including the activities of the government).

It can be thus understood that the phenomenon of thought-terrorism is not limited within the boundaries of any particular region and neither is it the monopoly of a certain group, religion or peoples. It might be dormant in one country at this particular moment in time and very active in another, but this should not be looked upon as the triumph of one country or one particular race of peoples over this disease. It is to be understood if not eliminated permanently, it will resurface and ruin the balance of life that is the aim of human civilisation; as has been seen in the USA in 2009 when a retired army general had organised a Koran burning session at Ground Zero. Hence, the true germ is not to be sought in either the east or the west, but within ourselves.

The modern world claims to be democratic but sadly is autocratic in nature and authoritarian in practise. Be it the largest democracy or the smallest commune, it is not devoid of thought-terrorism in either blatant or dormant practise. The real problem lies not in governments but in the people. The people of this world are segregated from birth in groups of various capacities. The conflict between these groups is not as inevitable as one would believe. The illusion that is created in human minds that people cannot belong to more than one group without sacrificing their loyalties and ties with the other one is the root of thought-terrorism and iconoclastic behaviour. For example, a person may, without conflict, be a Hindu, a male, a scholar of Mohammedan texts, a heterosexual, a supporter of homosexual rights, a Brahmin and a worker for upliftment of socially backward classes.

In reality, every single person belongs to several groups on the basis of gender, profession, language, science, morals, politics, etc and all these groups are intertwined and interrelated. The illusion of group supremacy has caused endless conflicts culminating into two world wars; it must now be given a peaceful burial. The realisation that every human being has multiple identities and cannot be member of any one group exclusively is the thought that will prevent the spread of thought-terrorism in human minds and will set the path for a rational world less imprisoned by illusion.

In conclusion, it would be apt to quote an insightful one-liner of Rousseau:

“I might not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to my death your right to say it”

That is true disillusionment.