Are Muslims alone to blame?

Not long ago, reports of terrorism emanated from there. Lashkar-i-Tayyaba attacked the Indian Institute of Science under tight security one and a half years ago.

I recall the national security adviser, M.K. Narayanan, the topmost person in the field, telling me a day before the attack that terrorists could strike anywhere, at any time. He sounded helpless and resigned.

In narrating this, my purpose is to stress that in the face of such a warning, the response of the authorities was tepid. At that time, the authorities did not look closely at the network of terrorists that had spread in the state and beyond. The man who drove a blazing jeep into Glasgow airport and those supporting him are doctors from Bangalore. Apparently, the police, the intelligence agencies and the state machinery did a shoddy job then. They failed to reach the centres of pan-Islamic fundamentalism where the doctors were indoctrinated.

Regarding the overall performance of the authorities in India, I feel that either they lack the expertise or do not put their heart into the job because of political pressures. The latter is true of many states, especially Maharashtra. Yet, the revelations following the Glasgow airport incident have ripped open underground activities and the agencies behind them.

Woefully, it has to be admitted that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have cells operating in India. Some well-educated and well-placed Muslims are part of them. They are suspected of harnessing the help of fundamentalists from Europe as well.

What has shocked some is that only a couple of years ago, all of us proudly said that Indian Muslims had firmly rejected the extremists’ call to participate in the jihad in Afghanistan. Congress president Sonia Gandhi asserted in Oxford in 2002 that “Indian Muslims were not of an Al Qaeda bent of mind.”

For some years, there has been no demolition like the one of Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid, nor has there been a Gujarat-like massacre. The two still torment Muslims and pluralists in the country. Yet, they are old wounds which may not have healed, but the Muslims do not reach for their guns to avenge the happenings.

True, most Muslims are still distant from the mainstream but they have learnt to live with the situation when the larger picture is secular. My hunch is that the reaction of doctors from Bangalore was because of what the West has been doing to the Muslim world over the last few decades. The Muslim world feels alienated and believes that America, Britain and other European countries are spoiling for a fight owing to their belief that the two civilisations, Christian and Muslim, are in the midst of a clash to establish who is supreme.The invasion of Iraq is seen in the same light. It was proved beyond doubt that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country and that the invasion was sheer butchery by President Bush. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed and thousands of them have been reduced to living in conditions resembling those of the Stone Age. The US has inducted more troops in Iraq. If it had tried to make amends for its aggression, it would have made the Muslim world think that it was probably wrong in assuming the West as its enemy.

Some immediate gesture by Washington to show its regret may go a long way to mollify Muslims all over. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown can break new ground instead of remaining America’s poodle.

Palestine is on the minds of the Muslims. They may not be able to do anything substantial to help the cause, but the subject is mentioned from every pulpit of mosques all over the world. Nobody wants “to throw the Jews into the sea,” as was the phrase used in the past. Israel is a fact which the Muslims grudgingly recognise.

Yet, there is no indication that Israel is prepared to go back to its original borders as mandated by the UN when the state was established. The proposal by Saudi Arabia regarding the recognition of Israel, provided it vacates the territories it had occupied during the wars or otherwise, is fair.

America should have put all its weight behind the proposal. But it has not because the Jewish lobby is powerful in the US Congress and in Wall Street that dominates US finances. The grievances of Muslims, some real and some imaginary, do not mean that there is something wrong with the religion. Terrorism is not a part of it, and the call for jihad has been raised wrongly and goes against the tenets of Islam.

Look at Turkey. It is an Islamic state. But one has not heard that such and such terrorist is a Turk. Not long ago, a procession was taken out on the streets of Istanbul in support of secularism. Still, the biggest drawback of Turkey in not making it to the European market is that it is a Muslim country.

There is no doubt that the sheikhs and the savants of the Muslim world should meet to devise ways to introduce rationality in Islam. Some reinterpretation of dogmas is required. One can see this already happening in Turkey, Pakistan and Bangladesh. But the right to voice objection should take place more visibly and more categorically. Islam advocates fighting in the name of Allah against those who fight against one, but does not encourage one to begin hostilities. Terrorism is a deliberate act to kill the innocent that is not sanctioned in Islam.

What is disconcerting is that the Indian nation, nurtured in pluralism and tolerance, should have some people who place religion above the country. One can be proud of being Indian and Muslim at the same time.

The Bangalore doctors have given a bad name to India because they have ventilated their anger through bombs. This is as much un-Islamic as anti-Indian. Equally unfortunate is the backlash against Indian doctors in Australia, the UK and elsewhere. There are some bad eggs in every community. It does not mean that the entire community is rotten. But I suspect a bit of racism in the attitude of some western countries.

As India’s high commissioner in London in 1990, I was horrified to find racialism creeping in a mature and pluralistic nation like the UK. Every person from the subcontinent was a ‘Paki’ those days. Even sophisticated white Britons used this term of contempt. Non-white was tolerated, not accepted.

I shudder to imagine what new rules and regulations the British will introduce in the name of immigration. Mrs Margaret Thatcher, during her last days as prime minister, told me that Islam was the biggest danger to the world after the defeat of communism. I think she meant Islamic fundamentalism.

Courtesy: Mr. Kuldip Nayar/Dawn Lahore July 14, 2007