Why Are We Killing Ourselves?

Anas Malik
Mar 2, 2002





Some will leap to "clash of " logic to understand the recent

tragic violence. The loose use of categories and carelessly

associating them with violent acts leads to the possibility of exacerbating the cycle of violence

From the smoldering remains of a pyre protrudes a child's tiny, blackened

arm, its fist still clenched. What mentality burns a human being alive?

"Senseless", "barbaric", and "an outrage" have all been used to describe

these events, but adjectives fall short. Comprehending such visceral

physical violence is beyond words. The observer is struck dumb.

We have had tragic days of violence in the past few days in and

. Gunmen sprayed in a Shia mosque in Multan, . A train

carrying Hindus was set alight as it returned from a disputed religious site

in Ayodha, and dozens died. Muslims were burnt alive in houses and cars in

Indian . In just over three days, the toll is over 400.

, -related, and ethnic violence are no strangers to the

Indian subcontinent. In 1992, about 2000 people were killed in a similar

spiral of violence. Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh community members slaughtered

each other. The partially documented atrocities and ethnic cleansing

surrounding the British-planned Partition of the subcontinent may have

cost a million lives. Perhaps 10 million people migrated in probably the

greatest short-time transfers in history. My own parents and

other relatives left Uttar Pradesh at this time and moved to .

Sadly, UP is again afflicted by violence.

Why has this happened? Is this further evidence supporting Samuel

Huntington's allegation that has "bloody borders"? Are we seeing the

realization of fears and predictions of a "clash of "?

It certainly serves some zealous political entrepreneurs to believe so. For

a Muslim political activist, it may be advantageous to claim that " has

been attacked" and that the non-Muslim other is the enemy. This builds

political cohesion around a Muslim . Likewise, a Hindu

political activist might find it useful to have an easily identified enemy

tag called "" and point to Muslims as the outgroup responsible for

atrocities against the Hindu ingroup. The use of religious rationalization

complicates the picture. Selective, distorted use of Muslim and Hindu

religious and are cloaked attempts to hold rich traditions

hostage to a narrow and usually intolerant reading.

I have titled this piece "why are we killing ourselves" to emphasize that

"we"- the common inhabitants and relatives of the Indian subcontinent and

beyond- are hurting our future and ourselves. The appropriate ingroup and

outgroup are not "Muslim" and "Hindu"- and the loose use of these categories

plays into the hands of ideologues who wish to push supremacist

agendas, and are careless about the murders of innocents. The danger is that

repeating such categories with the wrong associations reifies them. In the

world of perceptions, people who are persistently exposed to the categories

"Hindu violence", "Muslim violence", and "Sikh violence" and will start

tagging all members of a wide social category as potentially dangerous

criminals. If "Muslim" is the source of the problem, then the emotional

blindness of retaliatory rage will seek a "Muslim" target. The loose use of

exacerbates a cycle of violence. The problem exists in other

contexts- just substitute "Hindu", "Sikh", "Christian", "Catholic",

"Protestant", "Jewish" "Hutu", "Tutsi", "Serb", "black", or "white".

The factors underlying violent behaviors are complex and vast.

is one of many possible contributory influences, and is itself

neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for social strife. Others have

effectively critiqued both the unsound premises and contradictory internal

logic of the clash of argument (for example, see Shahid

Alam's article at http://www.counterpunch.org/alampeddle.html). If they are able to control the realm of perceptions with their favored truths and categories, then ideologues promoting an exclusionary version of a "civilizational" may turn the clash of from a question mark into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The political consequence of the careless repetition of labels is severe. A correspondingly high ethical responsibility for their judicious use must prevail.

Anas Malik is a political scientist in the US and an occasional commentator. He enjoys reading articles and the spirit of dialogue, and wishes there were more places like for South Asians!