'Hindu Terror' - A Nonsensical term

'Hindu Terror' and 'Saffron Terror' have become the most popular words for the media (especially English media) in India these few days. As usual, the credit for the 'invention' of this word goes to the communists. I wonder whether these self styled 'secularists' (be it the politicians or the 'editors' of various english newspapers or the 'analysts' of the news channels) have ever given thought about what the term means (or accuses) and why is it that Hindus like me oppose the term.
When I say 'Islamic terrorism', the reason for the usage of that term is very simple: Islam envisages Jihad against the non-believers (especially the Pagans). Jihadis use the Quranic verses to justify their actions. They cite from the Hadiths to show that their actions are sanctioned by Allah. Take for example, the case of the 9/11 hijackers or even Indian Mujahideen's letters after the Ahmedabad blasts. The terrorist activities are driven by the Islamic theology and doctrine. Apologists make great claims stating that Islam is a religion of peace and that the 'verse of sword' (Quran 9.5) should be read in the right context (that is we should blindly accept whatever they say about that verse). They also claim that Jihad is more an 'internal struggle'. More popular is the quote 'To you your religion and to me my religion' which is used by the apologists to 'show' that Islam is a very 'tolerant' religion. Their belief is that since most non-Muslims never read the Quran and even the few who read it never bother to read the traditional orthodox commentaries (they do not know how the Mullahs interpret Quran nor do they know about the peculiar features involved in it). There is something called the 'doctrine of abrogation' (which finds mention in Quran 2.106 and 16.101). According to this, when two verses appear to be conflicting, the later verses (or 'revelations' as the Muslims claim it to be) are to be considered as valid as the later verses abrogate the earlier verses upon the subject. In this context, verse of sword is the last revelation on the Jihadi policy. Let us see what the verse says:
“Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful”.
The only option for Pagans like me is 'death' or 'conversion'. The same policy was applied to the Hindus of Malabar by Tipu Sultan of Mysore. The 'jihadis' do their 'holy' acts of war (terrorist attacks) based on this verse and many such verses. Their acts of terrorism are supported by the Islamic doctrine. Hence, it is called 'Islamic terrorism'. Just like the holocaust is considered as 'Nazi act' (it is not called German terrorism) as Holocaust was sponsored and supported by the Nazi doctrine.
This is exactly the reason why I oppose the term 'Hindu terror(ism)'. Are such acts sponsored by Hindu theology? The answer is a huge 'no'. Some Hindus (even if the number of such terrorists are in thousands) may indulge in terrorist activies misguided in thier anger towards the jihadis. Such acts are deplorable. But I can understand the frustation behind those acts. After all, the media and the secular politicians still cries for the 790 Muslims who were killed during the post-Godhra riots but it does not care about the 254 Hindus who were killed during the same riots nor does it care about the Hindus who were killed at the Godhra carnage. The media has never shed so much tears for the thousands of Hindus who have become the victims of Islamic terrorism in J&K and other parts of this nation. It makes me wonder whether they consider the 'Hindu lives' to be much cheaper compared to the precious 'Muslim lives'. Whatever be the situation, I still cannot (and will not) condone terror acts committed by these misguided Hindus. But such acts cannot be called 'Hindu terrorism' because their acts are not propelled by Hindu theology. Such acts are not sanctioned by the Hindu texts nor do the the perperators claim that such acts 'reserve a space in heaven among the houris'. Being so, how can the word 'Hindu terror' be used in any context. It is neither driven nor supported by Hindu theology. Just because some Hindus involve in terrorist activities, it cannot be called 'Hindu terror'. Let us assume some journalists killed a few people in terrorist activities. Will it be called 'journalist terrorism'? We may say that those journalists are terrorists but it will never be nor can it be called as 'journalists terrorism'. Similar is the case with the present situation. Some Hindus may have become terrorists. But there is nothing called 'Hindu terrorism'. What has happened is a misguided reaction to the attacks on the Hindus. It is not driven by some 'holy book' preaching a '(un)holy war' against 'non-believers'.
May some common-sense prevail upon the 'media-wallahs'.