Very thoughtful post. I agree entirely with your diagnosis of the problem of emotive words and the solution you provide on a ageneral level. While dealing with genuinely emotive words your recommendations are perfectly valid.

I think however the controversy in relation to “saffron terror” is that certain sections on the hindu right even quibble with descriptive validity of the phrase. What I am able to decipher from the angst expressed by the BJP is that no such form of organised terror networks exist and not as many incidents have been orchestrated by the Hindu extremists to warrant the creation of a new genre of terrorism. Instead they would be happy to categorise them under say “miscellaneous acts of terrorism”. I think their logic is driven by grisly statistics – you need to have atleast say 20 bomb blasts and a certain global network for you to earn yourself a separate category of terrorism altoghether. They are not upset on the traditional logic that such terms sully the image of all Hindus.

In a very practical sense I think they are playing on a very legitimate feeling. Reading certain left wing English language newspapers, one finds almost barely muted glee that Hindus have been found to be responsible for certain terrorist acts. A stray incident does not an epidemic make. However much you want to make one. Again – the same grisly logic – you dont have as many bomb blasts to warrant a separate cateogry of terrorism.

But that does not mean that I subscribe to the theory that there is something innately terroristic about Islam or some other bunkum that the hindu right might come up with. It is just that as a social issue that we need to address, it might be sensible and accurate to talk about Islamic Terrorism (or as you suggest, ‘terrorists motivated by a fundamentally incorrect understanding of what Islam requires’) as a social phenomenon. You can then come up with responses to it. Of course, the question of when you can legitimately start talking about Hindu Terror, i.e, how many more bomb blasts you need, is a question I hope I will never have to answer.

I have nothing to say on whether there is a parallel between Hindu and Islamic “terror” . I specifically bracket that issue. No doubt what you highlight is a matter we need a proper public discourse on, in order to arrive at a solution to it . However before we do that we must earn the right to do speak about these things in a more dignified way. I argue that there is a fundamental problem with the politicians and the press using phrases such as ‘Islamic terror’ or ‘Hindu terror’. There is a much better way of talking about these problems and I have suggested one such way. This way we do not predicate terrorism of any religion and also find a way of talking about these problems openly . Of course this in itself does not solve the real issue underlying the ‘semantic’ one. However at the moment politicians, or at any rate some of them, use the semantic problem as a fig leaf to avoid discussing the real underlying problem.

See also this blog post of mine.