Why did the tragedy in Norway happen? Why had not the police realised that there was something wrong with the perpetrator Anders Behring Breiviks behaviour? How come the leaders in the multicultural Norwegian cities did not take seriously the need for more proactive approaches in their integration and diversity policies? Why did the politicians, organisations and educational institutions ignore extreme right-wing views in the public debate? How do we study and analyse what happened so that tragedies of this kind can be avoided, if possible, and indeed, so that the society at large can draw lessons and become more inclusive, tolerant and open? And finally, how can we in other countries, including Pakistan with frequent terrorist attacks, learn from Norway, and how can the Norwegians learn from Pakistan? I must stop asking questions now because I will not be able to answer them, not in this article and not in future articles. Well, I hope I can shed some light on important issues through asking questions, helpless, and key as they may be. At this early stage after the tragedy in Norway, asking questions is what we all do, and asking the right questions is indeed an important part of finding answers. In addition, we are beginning the tentative analysis after the unprecedented tragedy. The tragedy was indeed huge, with a total of 77 people killed and many more injured from the explosion outside the Norwegian Prime Ministers Office downtown Oslo and at Utoeya Island. Most of the victims of the loan perpetrator were teenagers and young adults from all over the country. Similar to the 9/11 attacks in the United States, the tragedy has in many ways been felt as an attack on Norway as a country and its values. Luckily, there were no Pakistani-Norwegians among the victims, in spite of the fact that it is the largest immigrant group in Norway from outside Europe. But there were several others with immigrant backgrounds among the victims, from Iraq, Georgia and Africa. It is possible that the Pakistani-Norwegians were injured, but the names of the injured have not been released. The Norwegian media has noted that the Pakistani-Norwegians and other newcomers to the land mourn the loss of the victims irrespective of creed or colour, ethnic Norwegian or immigrant, it does not matter at all. The leader of a political party in opposition to the Labour Party said immediately after the attacks that: Today, we are all Labour Party members. And Pakistani-Norwegians expressed the same feelings: Today, we are all Norwegians. Whether the perpetrator was ethic Norwegian and most victims, too, does not make any difference. Well, it was good that the perpetrator was an ethnic Norwegian, rather than an immigrant. We should analyse the tragedy specifically as related to Breivik, and that will be done in the court case, and the studies and debates related to it. However, I am of the opinion that we should not over-analyse the Breivik case in a limited sense. We should rather discuss broader and specific issues that have been prompted by the case, notably immigration issues, anti-Islam feelings, right-wing (Christian) extremism, etc. Comprehensive debate of some of these issues may have been deliberately suppressed in the past; others may have been left untouched for convenience and comfort. It is, probably, true that the Norwegians are sometimes lofty and evasive, more than you would expect in a well-developed, liberal democracy. As a Norwegian, I know that there are many issues that we do not encourage in the public debate. They are outside what it is politically and socially correct to talk about, well, the borderlines vary, of course. Furthermore, many issues are left to be solved by the civil service without enough public debate and civil society participation. Organisations may get tired of discussing issues, taking part in hearings, and so on if the civil servants and politicians never have money to invest; without funds few new initiatives can be realised. Today, that has become the most common excuse from the decision-makers, even in oil-rich Norway, one of the wealthiest countries on earth. Thus, the peoples participation is often less than a few decades ago. After the current tragedy, many youth realised this and thousands registered as members of political parties. They want to take part in shaping their own future. That is great Norway is a consensus society, with a quite polite political debate. There are very few extreme and militant groups, and those that may exist have gone underground, it seems, since the official approach by the other political parties was to eliminate them through ignoring them. Organisations and the civil society, at large, prefer to contribute to the decisions to be made by the politicians and the civil servants. But it is important to discuss issues more deeply and even in confrontational manners to be able to reach better decisions. Earlier, say 39 to 40 years ago, there was clearer understanding of the advantage of such debate. Today, we seem all to have become conservative and sedate technocrats, losing the understanding of the importance of debate, especially between social classes and groups, those who have and the have-nots, be it money and wealth or just a share and voice in society. Many observers have after the tragedy in Norway said that we must open up for more debate, and everybody must be allowed to express views, unpopular and extreme sometimes, without immediately being called names. For example, it should be allowed to have a debate about the volume and tempo of new immigrants to Norway from within and outside Europe without being called a racist. In a longer time perspective, it is likely that Norway needs more immigrants, not less. So, we better plan for that situation. The debate will surely lead to more knowledge and greater understanding of issues. Currently, there are certain problems for the host country when many immigrants come at the same time, especially in a country like Norway where the high influx is less than two generations ago. But what about the problems for the newcomers to Norway, immigrants and refugees, do we talk enough about those? We should help newcomers proactively to settle in, and we have a lot to learn from them, too. In centuries, Norway and Europe have always received immigrants and many more have left the continent for elsewhere. For example, about one-third of Norways population emigrated to America in the nineteenth century. When Breivik in his manifesto expressed xenophobic hate against the foreigners, arguing that Norway and Europe should take their lands back, he argues like a white supremacist, with unrealistic dreams and limited knowledge of history. And when he argues against multiculturalism and for the assimilation of immigrants, he is again ill-informed. After three or four generations, most immigrants anywhere in the world become pretty much assimilated anyway, so what is really his argument? He does not like Islam. But then he, probably, does not know the first thing about the religion: It is almost identical to Christianity, or at least very close to it. So what is his problem as a Christian, as he claims to be? But as with most terrorists, religion is used as a cover; I do not believe that terrorists are true believers, because God is love, not hate. When Breivik wants immigrants to be assimilated in the Norwegian society, he forgets that he himself was living very much outside his own society. I would claim that he has been much less integrated than most Pakistani immigrants in Norway. Following from that, we may ask: How could the rest of the Norwegian society allow that to happen? There must be something wrong when a loner is left to himself. In an inclusive and caring society like Norway wants to be, that should not have happened. When Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg repeatedly in his speeches said that he wanted more openness and inclusiveness, I believe he precisely has this in mind. In a successful democracy, everyone must have a stake. Everyone must take part, be included, contribute and receive according to needs. Everyone must count. It seems Breivik did not enjoy being included: Was it his fault only or was it the societys fault? It will be important to study that question in the future, and it will be important to find relevant social science methods to study it. The writer is a senior Norwegian social scientist based in Islamabad. He has served as United Nations Specialist in the United States, as well as various countries in Africa and Asia. He has also spent a decade dealing with the Afghan refugee crisis and university education in Pakistan. Email: atlehetland@yahoo.com