The analysis of the motives and actions of Anders Breivik by sociologists, media writers and security analysts is beyond the comprehension of a simple minded bloke as this writer. Breivik is a thirty-two year old Norwegian right-wing extremist who this 22nd July killed eight people with a bomb in Oslo and shot to kill 68 and wound 96, including children, in a youth camp at a nearby island. Analysts have traced Breivik’s childhood in London with divorced  parents, his early career, and his far-right militant ideology outlined in an online manifesto titled 2083 – A European Declaration of Independence, posted on the day of the attacks under the pseudonym, Andrew Berwick. From his manifesto Breivik emerges virulently anti-Islamic and anti-communist, pro-Zionist, pro-Nazi and pro-Hindu.

From his articulate expression Breivik appears to be rational. But so do many mad people. Analysts are at pains to stress that Breivik is not insane. They attempt to analyze his motive for the crime. The general consensus is that like most terrorists Breivik committed his crime to draw public attention to his perceived grievances. Scholarly articles have appeared in prestigious newspapers in the west to justify this view. This theory, as most theories emanating from the white man’s world, is automatically lapped up by the herd of sheep comprising Indian commentators. And on the basis of this theory they have started expounding on the threat of right wing Hindu terrorism. By the way, are Al-Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba left wing?

My problem with the assertion that Breivik is not mad but a calculating terrorist carefully implementing a crafted agenda arises from what he did.  Surely it makes the commonest sense for an anti-Islamic terrorist to shoot Muslims in order to attract global attention to his perceived grievances? Breivik could have entered a Mosque and shot Muslims to express his rage. But no, he shot mostly Norwegian youth and children to demonstrate his hatred of Muslims. Frankly, for a dim witted layman like yours truly the esoteric theory advanced by the world’s analysts just doesn’t make sense. It makes perfect sense if Breivik is perceived to be a madman. But that is not what he is perceived to be. Analysts are at pains through their convoluted logic to explain the aims that Breivik sought to achieve.

One Sangh Parivar leader said with profound wisdom that Breivik’s goals were okay but killing people was not. Actually if Hindu terrorists were to emulate Breivik they would wantonly kill Hindus, Christians and Sikhs in order to fight Islam. I am sure that would bring a satisfied smile on the face of Mr. Ayman-al-Zawahiri. To my mind therefore there are two possibilities. Either Breivik is mad. Or Breivik is sane and is promoting an agenda quite different from the one he professes to believe in.

More than seven decades ago Adolph Hitler had perceived grievances against Jews. He entertained visceral hatred for them. He gassed millions to death. The world calls him mad. Was he mad or monstrously evil, destroyed by his overpowering hatred? Today Breivik expresses hatred for Muslims. To give expression to his hatred he kills Norwegian youth and children. The world calls him sane. I ask, is the world sane or mad?