TERRORISTS ARE THE SECOND MOST DANGEROUS, SECULARS ARE THE FIRST

In a world plagued by violence and ideological conflicts, the provocative assertion that “terrorists are the second most dangerous, seculars are the first” challenges us to confront an uncomfortable question: do those who champion secularism, in their pursuit of political correctness or electoral gain, inadvertently enable heinous acts of terrorism? This article delves into the claim that secular narratives, driven by vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash, may downplay or justify atrocities committed by Islamist groups targeting non-Muslims. By examining cases like the 2025 Pahalgam attack in Kashmir, the targeting of Jews in Israel, the Yazidi genocide in Iraq, and grooming scandals in Great Britain, we explore whether secular apologism emboldens perpetrators. The role of figures like Priyanka Gandhi, whose symbolic gestures amplify certain narratives, underscores the broader implications of prioritizing political agendas over justice and security.

The Pahalgam Attack: Religious Targeting in Kashmir

On April 22, 2025, a horrific terrorist attack in Pahalgam’s Baisaran Valley, Jammu and Kashmir, claimed the lives of 26 tourists, predominantly Hindus, with one Nepalese national among them. The attackers, reportedly linked to the group Kashmir Resistance, allegedly singled out victims based on their religion, shooting those who could not recite Islamic verses or identified as non-Muslims (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’). Survivors recounted chilling details, such as being asked to recite the Kalima or strip to confirm their identity before being executed (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack). This attack, deemed one of the deadliest since the 2019 Pulwama bombing, reignited debates about targeted violence against Hindus in Kashmir.

The response from some global media outlets, such as The New York Times, BBC, and Al Jazeera, drew criticism for using terms like “militants” or “gunmen” instead of “terrorists,” which critics argue sanitizes the ideological and religious motives behind the attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). The US House Foreign Affairs Committee condemned this framing, accusing outlets of “whitewashing” the attack’s religious targeting (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT). Such language, critics contend, reflects a secular tendency to downplay Islamist violence to avoid offending certain communities, potentially driven by political considerations or fear of backlash.

Israel: Targeting Non-Muslims and Hostage Crises

The claim extends to Israel, where terrorist groups like Hamas have been accused of targeting non-Muslims, particularly Jews, in attacks such as the October 7, 2023, assault. This attack killed over 1,200 people, with Hamas taking 251 hostages, many of whom remain in captivity (Reuters: Hamas attack on Israel). The deliberate targeting of Jewish civilians, including at a music festival, mirrors the religious profiling seen in Pahalgam. Michael Rubin, a former US official, likened the Pahalgam attack to Hamas’s tactics, noting that both targeted specific religious groups to sow fear (News18: ‘Label Pakistan As State Sponsor Of Terrorism’).

Some secular voices, particularly in Western media and activist circles, have been criticized for framing these attacks as resistance against occupation rather than terrorism driven by religious extremism. For instance, narratives emphasizing “Justice for Palestine,” as seen in Priyanka Gandhi’s public display of a bag with this slogan in 2019, are accused of overshadowing the plight of victims and hostages ([X Post: @sankrant]). Such rhetoric, while advocating for Palestinian rights, can inadvertently legitimize or downplay the actions of groups like Hamas, which explicitly target non-Muslims, according to critics.

Yazidi Genocide: Atrocities and Sexual Slavery

The Yazidi community in northern Iraq faced unimaginable horrors at the hands of the Islamic State (ISIS) in 2014, with over 5,000 murdered and thousands of women and girls abducted as sex slaves (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). ISIS justified these acts by labeling Yazidis as “heretics” due to their non-Muslim faith, claiming that raping non-Muslims was a form of worship (Reuters: Captive Islamic State militant). Survivors like Kovan, who endured a decade of captivity, recounted being sold multiple times, raped daily, and forced into conversions (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).

Despite international recognition of these acts as genocide, justice remains elusive. Few perpetrators have faced trial, with many detained in Syrian prisons like Panorama without prosecution for their crimes against Yazidis (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?). Some secular narratives, particularly in academic and activist circles, have been accused of framing ISIS’s actions as a byproduct of geopolitical failures (e.g., Western interventions in Iraq) rather than religious extremism, thus diluting accountability (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror). This reluctance to confront the ideological roots of such violence is seen as a form of apologism that enables impunity.

Grooming Scandals in Great Britain: Vote-Bank Politics?

In Great Britain, the grooming gang scandals, particularly in cities like Rotherham and Rochdale, involved the systematic sexual abuse of thousands of minor girls, predominantly by men of Pakistani descent (The Guardian: Rotherham child abuse scandal). Between the 1990s and 2010s, over 1,400 girls in Rotherham alone were abused, with authorities accused of failing to act due to fears of being labeled racist or alienating Muslim communities ([X Post: @sankrant]). A 2014 report by Alexis Jay revealed that police and social services ignored evidence of abuse to avoid “community tensions,” a decision critics attribute to vote-bank politics (BBC: Rotherham child sexual exploitation report).

Secular politicians and institutions, wary of losing support from minority communities, allegedly prioritized political correctness over justice. This inaction allowed perpetrators to operate with impunity for years, reinforcing the narrative that secularism, when driven by electoral motives, can enable heinous crimes. The claim that secularists justify such acts to preserve a “united vote bank” stems from this perceived reluctance to confront criminality within specific communities ([X Post: @sankrant]).

Secularism and Vote-Bank Politics: The Role of Priyanka Gandhi

The reference to Priyanka Gandhi carrying a bag with “Justice for Palestine” highlights how political figures can shape narratives around contentious issues. In 2019, Priyanka Gandhi, a prominent Indian National Congress leader, was photographed with a bag bearing this slogan, sparking debate about her stance on Israel-Palestine conflicts ([X Post: @sankrant]). Critics argue that such gestures, while symbolic of solidarity with Palestinians, risk aligning with narratives that downplay or justify violence by groups like Hamas, which target non-Muslims. This aligns with the broader claim that secular leaders, in pursuit of minority votes, may overlook or rationalize acts of violence to maintain political support.

In India, secularism is often equated with protecting minority rights, particularly for Muslims, who constitute a significant voting bloc. Critics contend that this leads to selective outrage, where violence against Hindus, such as in Pahalgam, is underplayed to avoid alienating Muslim voters. For instance, the lack of strong condemnation from some secular leaders after the Pahalgam attack, compared to their vocal support for other causes, fuels perceptions of bias (Times of India: Pahalgam terror attack).

The Psychology of Secular Apologism

The article’s central claim—that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists—draws on the idea that enabling or justifying violence indirectly causes greater harm than the acts themselves. This perspective invokes the concept of Stockholm syndrome, where fear leads individuals to sympathize with or rationalize the actions of oppressors (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism). The 2019 Pulwama attack, which killed 40 CRPF personnel, saw some liberal intellectuals framing the attacker’s actions as a response to socio-economic marginalization, a narrative critics argue excuses terrorism (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).

This phenomenon is attributed to a desire to maintain a comfortable narrative that avoids confronting the religious or ideological roots of violence. By focusing on geopolitical or socio-economic factors, secularists may inadvertently provide cover for perpetrators, allowing them to evade accountability. This is particularly evident in media coverage that avoids the term “terrorist” or downplays religious motivations, as seen in the Pahalgam attack (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).

Counterarguments: The Role of Secularism

Defenders of secularism argue that it promotes equality and protects minority rights in diverse societies. In India, secularism is enshrined in the Constitution to ensure no community is marginalized, particularly in the context of historical communal tensions ([Indian Constitution: Preamble]). Critics of the “seculars are dangerous” narrative contend that attributing terrorism to secularism oversimplifies complex issues. For instance, the Pahalgam attack’s religious targeting may reflect local insurgent dynamics rather than a global secular conspiracy (Al Jazeera: Kashmir attack).

Moreover, secular leaders like Priyanka Gandhi may argue that advocating for causes like Palestine is about human rights, not endorsing terrorism. The grooming scandals in Britain, while a failure of governance, are attributed to institutional lapses rather than secular ideology per se (BBC: Rotherham report). Proponents of secularism emphasize that condemning terrorism unequivocally does not require abandoning minority rights or fostering communal division.

The Broader Implications

The claim that seculars enable terrorism by prioritizing vote-bank politics or political correctness has significant implications:

• Erosion of Trust: Perceived double standards in addressing violence (e.g., strong condemnation of Hindu hardliners but softer responses to Islamist terrorism) fuel distrust in institutions and media (Hindu Post: Why Liberals Justify Islamic Terrorism).
• Impunity for Perpetrators: Failure to confront the ideological roots of terrorism, as seen in the Yazidi genocide or grooming scandals, allows perpetrators to operate without fear of justice (Radio Times: Will Yazidi women get justice?).
• Polarization: Accusing seculars of enabling terrorism risks deepening communal divides, particularly in diverse societies like India, where Hindus and Muslims coexist amidst historical tensions (Outlook India: Post-Pulwama Violence).
•  

Recommendations

To address these concerns, a balanced approach is needed:

1. Clear Condemnation: Political leaders and media must unequivocally condemn terrorism, regardless of the perpetrators’ identity, to avoid perceptions of bias.
2. Transparent Justice: Governments should prioritize accountability for crimes like the Pahalgam attack or Yazidi genocide, ensuring perpetrators face trial without political interference (Just Security: Rape as a Tactic of Terror).
3. Media Accountability: Outlets should adopt consistent terminology (e.g., “terrorist” for ideologically driven attacks) to avoid sanitizing violence (Times of India: US House panel slams NYT).
4. Community Engagement: Secular leaders should engage with all communities to address grievances without appeasing vote banks, fostering trust and unity.

Conclusion

The assertion that seculars are more dangerous than terrorists is a provocative critique of perceived apologism for heinous acts. Cases like the Pahalgam attack, Hamas’s targeting of non-Muslims, the Yazidi genocide, and Britain’s grooming scandals highlight instances where secular narratives may downplay religious extremism for political gain. While secularism aims to promote equality, its misapplication—through vote-bank politics or fear of communal backlash—can enable impunity and erode trust. A critical examination of these dynamics is essential to ensure justice for victims and prevent further polarization. By prioritizing accountability and consistent condemnation of violence, societies can address the root causes of terrorism without sacrificing the principles of fairness and inclusivity.