Nation or religion ... and which terror to go with it?

The Malegaon blasts issue has given birth to a new concept - 'Hindu terror'. On We the People, on NDTV 24x7, the discussion on Hindu terror was based on the premise that while Hindu fundamentalism has been around long enough, perhaps Hindu terror is relatively new, and hence quite confusing to many of us. Considerable airtime was hogged by the whole army angle. About how a national institution of the highest integrity had maligned itself with the rise of the Purohits of the world. The counter of course was that making a generalisation starting with one Purohit and extending to a 12M+ force, was a gross error. Agreed.

Everyone on the show, with great patriotic fervor proclaimed how the army was above all this. It was the most secular of institutions, and no religion was above one's loyalty to the country, and hence the army.It makes you wonder - why is it ok to fight to safeguard the sovereignity of your country, when it is not ok to stand up and say, my religion is superior. Has a time come, when in the natural evolution of the world, religion is going to emerge superior to nation?

PS: Let me clarify that I dont support this emergence. Perhaps, I will perish then, in one of those many blasts, as I dont survive the test of the fittest! Sigh. In fact, I am quite sure I will, especially given I believe I took more naturally to being an Indian as a kid, than a Hindu. Indeed, the world order ain't for me.

And as far as the original topic of debate, Hindu terror, goes, here goes - I think it is naive to assume that religion has no links to terror today. While it is stupid to not acknowledge how much it can motivate terror and terrorists, it is even stupider to hence focus on Islamic terror, over Hindu terror, given their strikingly similar end goal - death and destruction. Let's not waste time over this one.