Decoupling our religious sentiment (almost always tilted) is an essential ingredient of a fair discussion. Religious zealots thus often fail to grasp the “whole” while trying their precarious cling to the “Holy”. Zealots under the nonreligious marquee are no different. He believes in “NO-GOD” and he worship “HIM” (William James). In their slanted view religion is the mother-of-all-evil. An attempt or tendency to explain a complex set of facts, entities, phenomena, or structures by another, simpler set is reductionism. Like Prof. Sloan Wilson, one may assert that, analogous to a colony of ants, religion (like other non-religious social structures, e.g., a state or a political party) is just one more tool for survival of fellow conspecifics. Despite belonging to the same species, two colonies of ants are no friends. War erupts in case of territorial overlap. One may call it a clash of civilization or a crusade or a jihad, but the underlying matter-of-fact is the same: “a matter of self-preservation”. Let us consider a few historical/fictional events: Cain, if I am correct, committed the first act of aggression against his own brother for the lust of a woman. And in all the fairy tales the Prince Charming fights for his beloved princess. Asoka killed and maimed and plundered for the sake of power and domination (until he saw the light of a religion). Alexander reached the perimeter of India for the fun of conquest and nothing else. Babur Shah left the barren hills and valleys of Afganistan and established a Mogul dynasty, not because of his love for Islam, but because of his wish to have an empire in the midst of the lush riches of India. If delved carefully, in the putrid alleys of history, tyrants with no religious affiliation shall abound. In the immediate past century, the world has seen the sinful wrath of two world wars and none of those are religiously motivated. It’s all the same old story: territory, power, wealth and domination. And the Crusades? To understand the primal underpinnings, one must look at the structure of Christian Church and political milieu of the time. I can bet, if the adventures of Muslims did not bang on the door of Europe, thus threatening the Christian Church and the European kings/queens, there would have been no crusade… It is apt to discuss the issue of Palestine. Again the issue is not Muslims Vs Jews. It is rather Israelis Vs Palestinians. The Israelis gathered in a small strip of an ancient land. In the process the latter population suffered an ill-fated displacement. Israelis are fighting for the preservation of their existence as a nation state. And the Palestinians are fighting for right to return, for the scarce water of Jordan river and their right to return. Right to return can essentially liquidate the State of Israel, as it exists now. Palestinians also can not have a viable state in disjointed islands of lands as proposed in the past. Palestinians are known to be pretty secular in their attitude. The religious fervor of the conflict is rather exaggerated. The basic paradigm thus is “one land/ two people”. An equitable and just settlement of those non-religious issues is sure to extinguish this current anguish and turmoil. It should be remembered that during the hiatus of hope in the 90’s, peace and prosperity supervened despite the religious divide. This just affirms the fact that in period of calm and happiness religion burns in the back. In Kashmir, the pertinent issue again is the right of a population to have self-determination, freedom from the anxiety of being subjugated. “Kashmir has been wrongly looked upon as a prize for India or Pakistan. People seem to forget that Kashmir is not a commodity for sale or to be bartered. It has an individual existence and its people must be the final arbiters of their future”. (July 06, 1951. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru). If the sane voices are heard, the nefarious hands of the religious zealots are certain to be reduced in a corresponding manner. And Finally: War predates religion. War, in fact, predates the emergence of our species. Just quenching the thirst or satiating a hungry stomach calls for a struggle. Such individual struggle, morphs into war when collectivized. Irregardless of a religious bent, WAR is here to stay. I wish not to totally exonerate the ill-influence of religion in many conflicts. Prima facie evidence, however, is not an absolute proof of guilt. Just have a look at the ongoing war in Iraq. Whatever way one portrays the events leading to this war, it can never be portrayed as a religiously motivated war, if the religious uttering of President Bush is discounted for understandable reason. But there is a catch. Even a secular tyrant like Saddam Hussein, tried to play the religion-card. Religion, to my mind, however, is not the prime mover. It is just an abettor.