Terror strikes India: 300 armed Maoist terrorists attack, kill 25 security personnel in Chhattisgarh

In the biggest terrorist attack in India this year, armed Maoist militants killed 25 security personnel in Chhattisgarh on April 24, 2017.

The heavily armed ultra-leftists ambushed the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel in Sukma district in the southern part of this central Indian state.

The security personnel were like sitting ducks for the Maoists. Police said that the CRPF party had stopped for lunch, when they were ambushed.

This is the second major attack in Sukma district of Bastar region within 1-1/2 months. Around 90 CRPF men had left Burkapal camp near Dornapal, for patrolling and security of the road laying work when they were attacked.

While 25 jawans were killed in the firing, many others were injured. Some Naxalites were probably killed and injured in the cross-firing. The injured jawans said that they were outnumbered by the Maoists.

Sher Muhammad, the CRPF personnel, injured in the attack, said that he shot over half-a-dozen Maoist militants. The security establishment in the entire country was alerted after the dardevil attack.

LIST OF SOME OF THE MAJOR TERROR ATTACKS BY NAXALITES IN CHHATTISGARH

*12 security personnel killed by Maoists in Bhejji on March 11, 2017
*30 jawans killed in Jhiram attack on May 25, 2013
*76 security personnel killed in Tadmetla massacre on April 16, 2010
*36 securitymen killed in Dantewada on May 17, 2010
*27 jawans killed in Narayanpur on June 29, 2010
*55 personnel killed in Bijapur attack on March 15, 2007

When media terms a Terrorist attack as 'ambush' : Criterion for terming a violent attack as terrorism, another more severe attack as 'ambush'

When 20 armymen were killed in attack by banned 'militant' groups in Manipur, the TV channels and newspapers termed it as 'ambush'.

Despite the fact that it was the worst attack on army in decades, the word terror wasn't used.

In fact, many reports didn't mention early in their reports, that who was behind the attack.

1. The headlines and sub-headlines were just about 'armymen killed', not about those who committed the act.

2. No one showed photos of wanted NSCN-KCP-KYKL chiefs or security experts talking about their modules or other past crimes by them.

3. For our media, which is quite sensitive about army, this attack was not enough to cause any OUTRAGE.

No live reports, no flash and no special panel discussions. The next morning, newspapers also carried the story just like a routine report, sans any emotion or information about the 'killers'.

4. In follow-up stories in many papers, words like 'rebel' were used, not terrorist or militant. So what exactly is terror? Does the identity of the 'shooter' or' attackers' lead to sudden decision that word like 'Terrorist' would not be used and it would be termed as 'Ambush'. How this happens, who's behind it?

5. After all in incidents, when there is no casualty and a person who may not belong to any banned group and is killed in an encounter by police, he is quickly termed terrorist, just for carrying a gun or firing a bullet. Is it because the person has a different name!

6. Let's be straight, it is about having a Muslim name. So how does it occur? Knowingly or Unknowingly. No norms or internal system to decide. Or it is so deeply engrained in minds, that as soon as the report comes or story develops, the differentiation of words is there.

7. Any attack, anywhere [not just in North East, Chhattisgarh or any other part of the country by any banned outfit, howsoever dreaded or big in magnitude, will never be termed Terror attack unless the suspect is a Muslim.

8. If a Muslim is killed in encounter and police says that he was trying to fire, he is termed 'TERRORIST', but those who belong to banned militant-terror groups, and commit such gruesome killings, aren't termed even extremists or radicals.

9. By use of words like 'ambush', the severity of the incident is diluted and the image continues to be reinforced that Terrorist can only be a CERTAIN PERSON, belonging to a certain group. Isn't it absolutely unfair and unjustified.

10. Religious is a factor. There is a clear bias. Let's face it. A non-Muslim can commit crime of any magnitude but won't be termed as Terrorist. And a Muslim can always be implicated and termed Terrorist even if he hasn't commit any violent act.

If youths who shot a Delhi cop who had raided their home in Batla House locality were termed terrorists by all, then why those who killed 20 armymen NOT called terrorist? Define terrorism or accept your biases and double standards. Accept, that you are not naive, but doing it purposely to defame Muslims. That it's Islamophobia--crime to malign an entire religion.

11. The result is that in a country where Armyman is treated in utmost respect and injury or casualty can lead to media affecting relations with other countries, the terrorist attacks like in Manipur, are simply treated as 'just an unfortunate happening' and is forgotten.

12. On the contrary, individuals can be framed, termed 'Terrorist' without even firing a bullet, and made to rot in jails for the rest of their lives, because if someone is termed Terrorist, everyone parrots the line, he is branded and he is destroyed--from lawmakers to courts, he is seen as one.

So does anyone has answer that why such unfair attitude in media persists.

Aren't Muslims justified in feeling that they are being targeted and wrongly portrayed. Why it continues? Is it because there is no strong voice raised till now by Muslim leaders, politicians, thinkers and community jointly? 

Media and national security: How Indian media views Burdwan, Manipur blasts differently

This post once again brings to fore the serious issue that how our media is now viewing incidents of similar nature, differently, and is creating scare in one situation while it completely ignores the other.

For weeks, in fact, two months, everyone on the national security beat in TV channels and newspapers, seem to be talking about Burdwan blast in West Bengal. 

It is being described as one of the biggest issues as far as law-and-order is concerned. Day after day, we see reports about it, the concerns expressed in this regard.

Top officials go to Burdwan [now Bardhaman], politicians take up the issue and media has made it a national security issue of such magnitude, which we haven't seen in the last  year or so. 

It's fine because that's the job of investigative agencies to look into anti-national activities. We all agree that such disruptive elements [like those involved in Burdwan blast] should be chased, caught and completely crushed. 


However, it is not that fanatic elements haven't died while making IEDs or bombs before in the country. From Bajrang Dal activists in Kanpur to Himanshu Panse's module in Nanded, Maharashtra, there has been a long list. None of these incidents in the past got as much media focus. 

Still, we must welcome the media's seriousness towards it. But, the recent blast in Manipur, remained off the media radar. In fact, after the incident, there was hardy any special stories, capsules or discussions in prime time. It was not even carried in the headlines by 'national' channels.

In one report on IBN Live website, the headline was 'Blast in Manipur kills one'. Read this short report at IBN website at this LINK. This incident was serious, especially, as it happened just before Prime Minister's visit to the region. 

In fact, this report in IBN didn't even mention that the 'person' who died was a child. It wasn't taken seriously, else the report could have been updated, as it happens later in online reports. Other papers, channels and agencies also didn't consider it worth reporting. 

It was a general report with no focus on the organisations or extremist groups involved in the incident. Prime time discussions weren't conducted. If TV has no time or finds little TRP on North East, newspapers could have covered the story properly. But no, there was no interest or focus.

Why? 

Of course, nothing about modules, no suspects, no Terrorism angle, no name of terrorist or extremist outfits or worries about threat to India's security. There have been no follow-up stories either about this incident. Just one Hindi newspaper, Amar Ujala, on its website gave the news some importance. LINK

In fact, we hear nothing about arrests of suspects, which otherwise continues for days, nothing, just nothing. Silence. That's not the first. Of course, we know West Bengal will go to polls 2 yrs from now. We also see other developments. [Also, read the report in Asian Age]

But does it mean that media would take one incident so seriously that it would go on to demonise all Madarsas, and go to obscene levels of reporting. And in a similar other incident, there is hardly any effort to even report it, let alone talk about outfits, ideologies, local factors, law-and-order issues.

The factors are clear. Certain states and their demography, and presence of certain outfits in these regions, stir media more, than say, states that have outfits of different ideologies or even Naxals. The latter may commit even more heinous acts, but they aren't taken seriously. 

No wonder, media's credibility has hit rock bottom. But isn't this too worrying?

Media's surprising softness towards Maoists: Even terms like 'militant', 'radical' or 'left-wing extremists' not used after seven policemen killed in blast

Seven commandos were killed in a Maoist attack in Gadchiroli in Maharashtra on May 11. As expected, this incident wasn't treated as a major news on electronic media throughout the day.

But what was more surprising was that the newspapers seem to have gone extra soft towards Naxalites. There was a time, till a few months ago, when terms like 'Red terrorists', 'Left-wing extremists', 'Leftist militancy' or 'Radicals' were used after such acts.

However, none of the newspapers used these words. Even words like 'explosion' and 'blast' were avoided. The headlines were too simple like 'Seven policemen killed in Gadchiroli' or 'Maoist attack leaves 7 cops dead in Maharashtra'.

Of course, one doesn't expect 'screaming headlines' when a group other than suspected jihadis commit an act of any magnitude. But on this occasion, even the shock or anger over so many deaths was missing in the newspaper reports.

The words used were not terrorists, extremists or militants, but REBELS, MAOISTS et al. Terminology, words play a very important role. Either the choice is deliberate or you just don't get the words while writing on killings by a group though you seethe with anger when the killers are different, leaves a lot to think.

It has impact on society too. Naxal attack won't anger society as much, as newspapers and TV channels largely ignored it. One or two papers took it on their front page. A 'powerful IED' was used to engineer the blast that targeted police vehicle and later there was indiscriminate firing on police personnel.

But neither the cops were 'blown up' or 'butchered' in media reports. They were just killed. Plain, straightforward reporting. At places, 'suspected Maoist rebels' was used. The use of words can increase or decrease gravity of any incident. The difference in coverage of incidents, shapes public perception.

When there is such one-sided, blatantly biased reporting in cases where certain groups are suspect, and on the other hand softness shown towards certain others, it raises questions. Generally, there is anger over death of men in Khaki. No panel discussions were held in studios in the evening.

Strangely, it appeared that these deaths were nothing 'unusual', unlike other cases when even 'no death, just injuries' in a 'terror strike' is seen as 'attack against nation'. Incidents like killing of 30-odd Congress leaders and policemen in Chhattisgarh were almost termed like terror attacks, but a lot seems to have changed.

Compare to Chennai incident, Bodoland killings

Now see the difference. Take the recent case of the blast in a compartment in a train in Chennai recently that killed 1 passenger (a woman). Even before it was clear that whether it was indeed a bomb or something else, the names of Muslim outfits were poured by anchors. Also, it was dubbed 'terror strike' instantly.

This was the lead news of all newspapers. There has been no arrest so far and yet, the follow-ups continued for days.And just for the sake of record, we must talk about another incident--a genocide or a pogrom in North East.

When 46 Muslims were killed in Bodoland region in Assam recently, the killers were termed as 'separatists' and 'insurgents'. At a couple of places, the word militant was used too. NDTV used the term 'violence' in Bodoland, so that the group involved in the attack, wasn't even named.

Word play, isn't it! Shouldn't we wonder, why?

Attack on Ajmer Sharif: Terror reaches Sufi Shrine

The bloodthirsty terrorists have struck again. For long they are trying to trigger communal riots.

They attacked temples and mosques and gatherings in Delhi, Benares, Hyderabad, Malegaon and the list gets longer as you start recalling the incidents in the past.

Now one of the most revered Sufi shrines in South Asia (and the world) Dargah Ajmer Sharif has been targeted.

That too in the holy month of Ramzan when the devout were having 'iftar', just on the eve of Alwida course a day or two before Eid.

Terrorists will fail in their aim to instigate ordinary Muslims and Hindus to attack each other. Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti's shrine is visted more by Hindu pilgrims (and devotees) than Muslims.

[Two persons have died and over a dozen injured in the blast] It always feels good to say that our secularism and communal harmony can't be disrupted by such attacks, but that's no solution.

The terrorist attacks are not ending. Intelligence agencies are unable to stop or anticipate them. The terrorists responsible for such attacks need to be identified and caught. The police is seen in the photo after the blast.

The Home Minister of Rajasthan said that probably due to Gujjar agitation, adequate attention could not be paid to security at the Dargaah.