Dhimmitude And Stockholm Syndrome In Full View As Bengaluru Muslim Mobs Rioted

The only thing that stands out about the recent violence in Bengaluru – riots involving Muslim mobs that attacked the police, civilians, police stations, vehicles and private property – is the essential “dhimmitude” of our media, politicians and the Indian state.

The unwritten code in “secular” India is that violence by Muslims should be dismissed with neutral words, while any act of humanity by the same community should be praised to the skies. Consider just a few headlines from The Times of India’s Bengaluru edition of 13 August.

The lead headline is “3 killed in police firing as mobs riot; MLA’s kin held for FB post”. The house of the MLA, Sri Akhanda Srinivasamurthy, was targeted for his nephew Naveen’s post which apparently offended Muslims. The latter was arrested. The irony that a nephew’s post can be justification for attacking the uncle’s home was lost on the media.

The gravity of this kind of violence is emphasised through a box, which says that 70 cops and 35 civilians were injured in “attacks”. No one is told who organised or participated in these “attacks”, which has to be deduced from the context.

The same thing happens on pages two and three, where the Muslim violence gets neutral treatment. The page two lead headline says, “False news of cops nixing plaint triggered rampage”. There is no attempt to explain that the cops did not give false news; it was the false interpretation of what the police told them that was the problem.

Another headline says, “Rioters attacked police with stones”. Again, “rioters”. Nothing to do with who they were.

A third headline, “No stranger to controversy”, which is about the Facebook post’s author Naveen, prejudges his alleged crime by claiming that his post may have carried “derogatory comments”. By identifying him as a controversial person, the paper effectively makes him a target for Islamists to wreak vengeance on him.

Remember Kamlesh Tiwari, who was murdered for a similar “derogatory” post in Uttar Pradesh? Now, Naveen is a marked man. One Uttar Pradesh Muslim politician has already announced a bounty of Rs 51 lakh for anyone who beheads him.

It should be clear from this bounty who needs protection — a human being who may have made hateful comments by exercising his right to free speech and expression, or the intolerant belief systems of a community that can easily energise a mob to perpetrate violence against both state and individuals.

The headlines to note are two others. “Local Muslim youth saved me, says instigator’s mom”. Another says “Muslims formed a chain to protect temple”. So, a simple human act of protecting the innocent in now attributed to the community these humans came from. It’s a “Muslim youth” who saved Naveen’s mom, and “Muslims” who formed chain to protect a temple.

But the violent actions of members of the same community need to be camouflaged in neutral language.

This is dhimmitude – the act of living in the shadow of Islamic violence and intimidation and calling it neutrality or fair reporting. It is the Stockholm Syndrome – where victims of an attack or a crime somehow internalise the perpetrators’ goals and provide rationalisation or justifications for it.

In Islam, dhimmies are conquered people with limited rights under Muslim law as defined by Sharia and Quran. The term dhimmitude was popularised by Israeli writer Bat Ye’or who says that “dhimmitude... represents a behaviour dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability…”.

The Stockholm Syndrome is something similar, where in a hostage situation, the hostages develop some empathy for their captors, even justifying their illegal detentions.

According to Britannica, “The name of the syndrome is derived from a botched bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. In August 1973, four employees of Sveriges Kreditbank were held hostage in the bank’s vault for six days. During the standoff, a seemingly incongruous bond developed between captive and captor. One hostage, during a telephone call with Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme, stated that she fully trusted her captors but feared that she would die in a police assault on the building.”

The second part of the unwritten code of Indian (or Hindu) dhimmitude is that false equivalence should be drawn between thought and action. A Facebook post, however hateful it may be to Muslims or any community, is just a written or illustrated expression of a thought. It can be condemned, criticised, even challenged in courts. But violence is something else. It cannot be justified whatever the provocation.

At worst, Naveen’s Facebook post was about giving expression to his negative thoughts on Islam and its revered beliefs. But the violence of the mob was real action, causing real damage to police and civilians. Which is the greater crime, free speech or freedom to physically injure or hurt people and properties?

And yet, former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah tweeted this false equivalence between the Facebook post and the Muslim mob violence. He tweeted: “I condemn both violent incident that erupted in Kaval Byrsandra & also the social media post that instigated the mob. I humbly request both Hindus & Muslims of the area to stay calm, maintain peace & live in harmony.”

Another tweet said: “Our experience tells us that only innocents suffer in the communal riots. I urge leaders from both the religion(s) to discuss and resolve the issue amicably and restore peace in the area.”

He is essentially asking the rape victim and rapist to resolve their issues “amicably”.

For a leader who claims to be secular, this is the ultimate form of dhimmitude, where the mere expression of an idea on social media is equal to the massive violence unleashed by the Muslim community. He is effectively providing a justification for the violence.

But Siddaramaiah need not fear, for the dhimmi state obliged. Without much ado, it simply arrested Naveen for the Facebook post in response to mob demands.

India’s tragedy is that we have a dhimmi state, dhimmi politicians, and an inert Hindu society that is willing to internalise dhimmitude in the face of violence from Muslim mobs. A dhimmi mindset can never ensure the rule of law, for the law is seen to bend over backwards to protect the law-breakers, enforcing it only for those who are timid and scared.

It is time for the Indian state, and the various Hindu communities living in this state, to shed dhimmitude. Or there is the danger of the Stockholm Syndrome being renamed the Hindu Syndrome, the syndrome’s current practitioners.