Allahu Akbar use in Azad Bharat by Terrorists: Can God be a Lover of Violence?

In Murshidabad, a Muslim mob killed two innocent Hindus who did not have the power to change the waqf laws. Yesterday, in Bangladesh, an innocent Hindu man was burnt alive, accused of blaspheming against the Islamic prophet. Two years ago, in Rajasthan, a Hindu tailor was cut into pieces by two Muslim men for having a different view. In Delhi, Muslim doctors killed many people in a car blast. In Pahalgam, Jihadis shot 26 people point-blank after confirming they were Hindus. Muslims evacuated Kashmiri Pundits from their native place after a brutal massacre. Until now and ever since, no religious community has forcefully evacuated another religious community like this from any state in Azad Bharat. Peaceful?

Bharat's people served two terms of slavery: under Muslim invaders and the British Empire. After much struggle, we got our freedom from being slaves again of a brand of politics that continued the legacy of the British and Mughals. Bharat forgot the freedom motto of Swadesh, Swaraj, and Self-reliance. We remained slaves of the West and the Middle East. Bharat kept relying on them for resources (petrol to missiles), ideas (science and technology), languages (English to Arabic), and cultural ways (Western to Arabic). In 2014, Bharat's world changed. For the first time, a deshbhakt ruled Bharat after many years of Western and Middle Eastern hegemony. Now, we are free to pursue our dream of Azad Bharat.

The abrogation of Article 370 was an excellent step to integrate Bharat and develop Kashmir so that the native Kashmiris would cast off all terrorists back to Pakistan. The CAA was a brave and compassionate legislation to offer Bharatiya citizenship to the persecuted minorities of Islamic countries. The legislation did not include persecuted muslims for two apparent reasons. First, who is persecuting muslims in Muslim countries? Second, if Burmese and Chinese are persecuting Muslims, why can't they go back to their native land: Bangladesh or Pakistan? Persecuted Hindus have no other option but Bharat. However, persecuted Muslims have many options: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

Modiji's model of development with prosperity and inclusivity is admirable. The government is improving people's lives by reducing taxes, developing infrastructure, investing in science and technology, creating jobs, attracting major investors, discouraging alcoholism and drug addiction, curbing violent Extremist Islam, and combating corruption. Our focus is on Swadesh, Swaraj, and Self-reliance. We will become a Developed Bharat by 2047. Now, we can say "Bharat Mata ki Jai" as freely as Muslim people say Allahu Akbar with a loudspeaker four times a day. What God will tell his people to kill other people to attain a paradise filled with Prostitutes and Alcoholic beverages? By their actions, many Muslims have shown us that Allah is not God. He is too cruel and violent to be God. Only love can build up healthy, thriving societies.

In my view, Bharatiyata would be a better term than Hindutva, as the term Hindutva carries many negative connotations. My suggestion is to use Bharatiyata –a more inclusive word– so that many minorities –Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, Christians, liberal Muslims– won't feel threatened, but would want to join Modiji's Viksit Bharat model. I'm not talking about extremist Muslims whose agenda is to make Bharat an Islamic Sharia-governed country, but many Christ-followers of Kerala are happy with Modiji's development model. When politicians question the need for a discussion on Vande Mataram –the freedom fighters' slogan– in the parliament, they threaten Bharatiya consciousness. Instead, they must ask, "Why does 'Allahu Akbar' precede almost every terrorist attack? Is the slogan a call for violence against non-Muslims?"

I do not question the slogan "Allahu Akbar", which simply means, "God is the greatest." I am presenting it as a contrast. In Malappuram, Muslim league members are trying to impose a ban on Kerala temples from playing Hindu devotional songs since it is a Muslim majority area. The meaning of the phrase Allahu Akbar is harmless, but the way terrorists are using it is a concern. Is it not ironic that people don't want to say the freedom fighters' slogan "Vande Mataram" for religious reasons. Still, people from similar religious groups insist on making others chant "Allahu Akbar" at gunpoint? My point is not against the general use of Allahu Akbar like Christians use "Hallelujah" or Hindus use "Jai Shree Ram." It is about the terrorists invoking God before a violent attack to generate Islamophobic responses in other people's heart.