Christchurch, not any isolated incident

We still do not know the details of the Friday attacks in New Zealand's Christchurch. Initially the number of deaths was reported as 40. The gruesome racist and nationalistic killing of history has made lead news across the world.

Is there any scope to see the attack isolated from the incidents of Palestine, Kashmir and Arakan? Can we not identify the attack as an extended version of the current phenomenon of hatred and oppression against the Muslims?

It is important to consider whether this nationalistic and racist crime is an outcome of the practice which has been prevalent over the decades. This is the practice that has been creating anti-Muslim sentiment, constantly projecting them as backward, stirring debates repeatedly on their dress and food habits, promoting the idea of controlling, oppressing and even killing them.

Is it just ‘far-right terrorism'?

We have already witnessed the attempt to show the New Zealand’s mass killing as a mere 'terrorist' incident. The influential politicians of Australia and New Zealand, to hide the global nature of the attack, have been explaining this as a 'far-right' incident, but the inclusion of an Australian citizen among the attackers proves the cross-border liaison among such criminals. There are previous examples of such combined attacks on Muslims in the 'developed' countries full with security. Such nurturing of hatred is actually prevalent in the whole world. What is new in the New Zealand incident is that there was a conscious delay to reveal the name and identity of the terrorists in the media.

We had to wait long for the number of the casualties too. Their identities were not revealed either. The information was so crucial for the relations of the immigrants across the world. This means, right to information was so restricted.

Whenever a Muslim organisation or person had committed such an incident in the past, investigative reports came up over their names, lineage and religious identities. There has been exception in the instance of New Zealand and the political aspect of this exception is not unclear either.

Attacks based on ideology of hatred

According to the description already available, the attack was a combined one and many were involved. Several spots including mosques were bathed in blood. There is sharp evidence of military training in the attack. The attackers revealed their ideological manifesto before the attack and then recorded the event as it took place. The depth of anti-Muslim hatred and the ideological purview are clearly evident from this information. This is obvious that the attack was neither isolated nor 'suddenly emerged'. This was evident from the intellectual and military preparation of the attackers. They wanted to set this up as an 'example' before the world and have succeeded so far.

This incident in New Zealand has proved how helpless the Muslims have become as victims of nationalist and racist hatred across the world, particularly in Europe, America and Australia.

The present condition can be seen as a global manifestation of their 'dehumanisation' as a nation in the name of 'Islamophobia'. The blood-soaked Friday at Christchurch has informed the world of the humiliation and psychological fear in which the Muslims live. Despite that, grave doubts remain over whether the world is ready to listen this.

Who has created the backdrop for this 'terrorism'?

Though the attack in New Zealand has been called an 'isolated incident', dozens of major political parties in the international arena could be mentioned right now, who, openly and systematically, have been institutionalising Muslim hatred. As the birth rate of Muslims is higher, such hatred is being proven as crucial. Benefits in politics and in elections are being taken from such institutional hatred. There has been enthusiasm in drafting anti-Muslim act. We cannot deny that the backdrop of the recent New Zealand attack was not created by such campaigns and zeal. No one can, either, guarantee that such attacks would not reappear. The most alarming aspect is that no so-called 'secure' country of the world is any longer safe for the Muslims.

When will we focus on the politico-economics of the 'Islamophobia'?

After the attack, it has been said the reason was 'Islamophobia'. This seems as indirectly saying Islam is frightening, that there were reasons for fearing Islam and this fear would have to be dispelled by killing, war or by exerting control.

In fact, the Muslims have been portrayed as the 'menacing' opponent for a long time to hide the corporate plundering and autocratic state system across countries. The 'project of fear' was introduced as soon as the appeal and urgency of the communist-fear was over.

The arrangements to curb individual independence and surveillance over citizen independence have been increased across countries posing the Muslims as 'opponents'. Anti-Muslim hatred has emerged as a crucial ideological investment for arms trade in many places of the world. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan along with Arakan, Kashmir and Palestine have been burning for years. The human rights communities of the world including the United Nations could not do anything in these areas.

At the same time, this cannot be denied that at different time and in several places of the world, sections of the Muslim community too have stepped into such global capitalistic hatred projects and counter hatred mindsets have developed too. Eventually, the original enemies have been benefitted.

The gravest moment of the atrocity in New Zealand has been the call to identify the factories of the nationalistic hatred and the state and political projects behind them.

*Altaf Parvez is a researcher in South Asian history. This piece has been rewritten in English by Nusrat Nowrin.