For once, Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorism cannot be blamed for a massacre. But that offers no sense of reprieve, for race and religion also sparked the weekend butchery in Norway.

Does this mean that Afro-Asian immigration to the West will provoke ever more horrendous spirals of bloody resistance? That India, too, should lower the portcullis on people migrating to the United States as they once did to Britain? If so, it would also mean demolishing the proud mythology of the non-resident Indian as a major factor in the Indo-American partnership.
All this has to be discussed. The world is on the move, and governments cannot any longer shy away from coming to grips with the societal challenge of immigration, multiculturalism and the shape of things to come. Many years ago, during an immigration debate in the United Kingdom, the Times newspaper spoke provocatively of a “coffee-coloured future”. Publicly at least, many Britons have reconciled themselves to that destiny, but other Europeans have not. Nor may many Indians like their brownness (if I may use such a term) diluted by Anglo-Saxon white. That thought, with its ramifications of caste and outcaste, is never mentioned.
We already have a chilling warning that the Oslo bombing and shooting on Utoya island may be but a forerunner of the Armageddon to come. If the seemingly lucid and closely argued 1,500-page manifesto that Anders Behring Breivik posted on the Internet hours before the dreadful killings is to be believed, there are plans to “seize political and military control of Western European countries and implement a cultural conservative political agenda”.
There may be no such serious conspiracy. If there is, the capacity of the conspirators may be grossly exaggerated. But it’s the idea that matters, and the thinking behind that idea must be addressed. Despite the 32-year-old Breivik’s one-time membership of the Progress Party, this is not only a Norwegian problem. With a population of under five million and a net migration rate of 11.4 per cent (42,346 migrants in 2010), Norway doesn’t loom large on the world’s radar. But a high 27 per cent of Oslo’s inhabitants are from abroad, and what can be most volatile in this context, Pakistanis, Iraqis and Somalis rank third, fourth and fifth in the list, after Poles and Swedes.
Breivik believes that the clash of colour and culture is sapping Europe’s heritage and can only be arrested through a revolution. His voice may be crazed with passionate hate, but it is not the first to be raised in protest. Nor is it only in the Nordic countries that political parties exploit rising public concern over immigration as economic conditions worsen and continuing Islamist attacks stoke fear and suspicion. Breivik apparently admires the Dutch anti-Islam politician, Geert Wilders, and included the anti-Islamic comments Mr Wilders reportedly made to the Dutch Parliament in his manifesto. One also thinks of Britain’s late Enoch Powell, cultured and highly educated with personal knowledge of India, and his “rivers of blood” speech, and of marching British immigration officers chanting “Six, seven, eight! We shall not integrate!”
Next door to Norway, the anti-immigrant Sweden Democrats with their neo-Nazi roots were last year elected to Parliament for the first time. The Swedish anti-fascism magazine Expo, where the late Steig Larsson, a bestselling novelist, was highly active, says that while there may be no direct link between violence and comments by politicians, the rhetoric creates a fertile environment for ethnically motivated attacks. A parliamentarian’s criticism of Islam is bound to fuel public hostility.
For let’s face it, tribal prejudice is strong in all of us. Even in Singapore where everyone is an immigrant, some among the Chinese who arrived first, look askance at Indians and Malays. American laws restricting immigration can be said to be similarly illogical for they are drawn up and enforced by people who were themselves once immigrants. At a personal level, we would all much prefer to mix and marry among our own kind. It’s usually economic necessity and political insecurity that drives conservative Afro-Asians to risk unimaginable hazards and the savings of a lifetime for an uncertain future in the inhospitable West.
The murderous Breivik is not the only one to object to multiculturalism. Britons who resented objections to fables like The Three Little Pigs and to demands for Friday to be declared a holiday were glad when Mr David Cameron declared that multiculturalism had failed. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel and France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy both made similar declarations, though all three were careful to highlight the contribution of immigrants to their societies and to avoid giving right-wing malcontents a handle.
This may not be enough. There has to be evidence of debate, as recently over wearing the burqa. There also has to be evidence of some slowing in the global movement of people until matters are more settled. Overly aggressive political rhetoric and scare tactics on either side inflame passions and stiffen resistance instead of focusing attention on the many complex, underlying problems. Hardline ideologues feed on the belief — often fallacious — that Asian immigrants exploit a European country’s welfare facilities.
Again, the only solution is public discussion. Dubbing multiculturalism “cultural Marxism”, the tirade of Breivik’s website manifesto, titled “2083: A European Declaration of Independence”, says: “The time for dialogue is over ... The time for armed resistance has come.” One hopes not. It is only because Breivik fears that dialogue alone can demolish the house of cards of his pernicious thesis that he is so anxious to pre-empt it.
Meanwhile, I am glad to read that about 100,000 Indians have returned from the United States. I hope they have also revived their Indian citizenship.

Sunanda K. Datta-Ray is a senior journalist, columnist and author