To control terrorism, national interests must take precedence over electoral victory
Terrorism has existed for two or three thousand years for different reasons. Today, it is related to a perception of violation of identity – religious, ethnic or linguistic. The peculiarity about terrorism is that it operates from both sides of morality. The two opponents, the terrorist and the authority against which the terrorism is directed, both claim a moral basis. The terrorist sees himself as a freedom fighter; the authority sees him as a criminal. This has been responsible for the United Nations’ failure to come out with a single definition of terrorism. There are over a hundred definitions. This has also prevented the United Nation from passing a resolution against terrorism.
In Asia, terrorism is largely related to religion, particularly Islam. There is a perception in the Islamic community that it has been unfairly dealt with. There are issues like Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and, for some, Kashmir. They feel there is no other way to seek redress except by highlighting their grievances and gaining publicity all over the world through terrorist acts. People react, the government reacts and this makes the terrorist happy. The larger the number of victims, the happier he is, because of wider publicity.
But there are ideological and doctrinal causes as well. In the seventh century, Islam was bequeathed by Prophet Mohammad to his followers in Medina. He was trying to create a bulwark of supporters, strengthen their resolve by following a demanding ideology. That seventh century Islam given to a tribal society is the ideal of radical Islam today, and also of the Salafis, Wahabis and terrorists all over the world.
In Islamic Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, or Iraq, there is a variation. Terrorism in an Islamic society or country is different from terrorism in a non-Islamic society. In an Islamic society, the causes become different. Schools of thought developed in Islam as time went by. Sunnis think that Shias are a conspiracy of the Jews against Sunni Islam. In Iraq and Pakistan, the Shias are victimized and, in retaliation, they are victimizing the Sunnis. So here the cause is different but the basis is the same. The radical Sunnis want the entire world to become Sunni Muslims. The Shias want to defend themselves but essentially the hardliners in both sects want the same thing – to spread the philosophy of Islam all over the world.
In Pakistan, other factors come in. When the first Afghan war was being fought, the Americans took the support of the Pakistanis to build a force to oust the Soviets from Afghanistan. That was the beginning of Jehad as it is known today. The Pakistanis had an agenda of their own – to pursue pan-Islamic Pakistani domination. They joined in enthusiastically, and trained the Mujahideen. They took money from the Americans and trained people from various parts of the world who came to Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.
When the Soviets were driven out, the trained jehadis who remained were at the beck and call of Pakistan. They were sent to other theatres of Islamic turbulence like Turkistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, Philippines. Pakistan thought it could become a pan-Islamic force because, after Indonesia and India, it is the third largest Islamic country. And, being Asians, Pakistani Muslims are more cerebral than those of West Asia, who are guided more by emotion. They could think out five-year or 10-year plans and implement them. That kind of planning is not possible in West Asia or North Africa.
The Americans knew about it. They knew that the money which they would now be sending to fight Afghan War II, which was against Osama bin Laden, would be used by Pakistan elsewhere. Yet they kept up a relationship with Pakistan because they thought Pakistan was indispensable. Now, unwilling to accept the duplicity any more, they are entering Waziristan. It is a really dangerous area, where radical Islam has its strongest fort and staunchest believers. They don’t care a damn what happens to them personally. Throughout history, the people of this belt have been ungovernable. Nobody has been able to control these Pakhtoons on both sides of the Durand line. They have become one solid mass and the Americans don’t know what to do with them. The Pakistanis certainly don’t know what to do with them because a good part of the Pakistani Army is drawn from that area. Talibanisation is another face of terrorism. Now this talibanisation has spread eastwards in Pakistan, and has reached Islamabad and Rawalpindi encouraged by segments of the Pakistani leadership itself.
The Americans tried to end it after the defeat of the Soviets but failed because of two factors. They needed Pakistan to pacify Afghanistan and for access to oil-rich Central Asia. The other factor was Pakistan’s duplicity. They took American money but didn’t do the job. They promoted the new Taliban who fought against the Americans in Afghanistan. Now the new Taliban is ruling throughout the entire seven tribal areas of Fata. It has reached the North West Frontier Province also. It has controlled Swat.
The Islamic terrorists in India want an Islamic caliphate here, with the Shariat as the law in this country. Every Muslim in India does not want it. There are those who disagree in their heart of hearts but don’t have the courage to stand up and defy because Islam lays down in very clear terms that there can’t be a re-interpretation of the Koran. The Koran and the Prophet are beyond criticism of any kind by a Muslim. In other words, this means there is no freedom of speech for a Muslim. It implies that the Koran does not allow a liberal Muslim to coexist.
Look at recent incidents of terrorism. The terrorists who have been caught and interrogated have sometimes spoken of a revenge motivation. But the real motive is the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Whether just educated or highly educated, a multinational corporation executive earning Rs 19 lakh a year, all have the same motive. Such terrorists are the only ones operating in this country and they want to ensure that everybody else comes on to the same wavelength as them.
India has had Muslims and Hindus coexisting since the beginning of the last millennium. The number of Muslims increased because of Muslim rulers. The Hindu had no option except to coexist. But that did not really mean a development of compassionate understanding of each other. They had a civilized relationship where they didn’t interfere with each other. But there was no assimilation, there was no integration. This is a fact we have lost sight of. There was never a feeling of brotherhood between the two. It doesn’t exist even today. So, what is the result? A responsible Muslim voice in the government has privately expressed the opinion that we are moving towards a civil war, a civil war which will be fought on every street, in every village, in every town. This country could be divided into sixteen nations or more.
The problem lies in our governance. To fight terrorism, we should stop all funding of Wahabi and Salaafi money from West Asia, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. There should be a will to do it, then you will find the resources to do it. We must also stop such teaching in institutions that inject thoughts of violence, revenge and intolerance. Such teaching inspires a belief that violence is permissible and killing others can add glory to your ideology. The third thing is to identify the people from that community who don’t think like this, and get them together, provide them platforms, ask them to speak out on TV and in think tanks and at various places.
Fourth, promote a debate between these people and the others so that they identify the problems between them leading to terrorism. This means reinterpreting, accepting some liberal reforms – freedom of speech, the Constitution as the highest law of the land, gender equality and so on. What is one first, Muslim or Indian? Mohammad Ali, one of the Ali brothers, once stated that he is was an Indian as well as a Muslim and the arc of his Islamic identity didn’t intersect with the arc of his Indian citizenship. Can this be possible? The two arcs have to intersect and you have to come to terms with the reality that either you are an Indian first or you are a Muslim first. This question can’t be evaded now as the foundation of terrorism gets built directly from this nuanced perception. The terrorist thinks that he is a citizen of Umma and he is fighting its cause and the Indian nation does not come into the picture at all.
From the point of view of governance, it is a matter of confidence. Whatever the authority does must be seen by citizens as being the right thing. You cannot earn their confidence merely by strengthening the law or police forces. You have to show that you are governing in the interest of the country. Now, unfortunately, there is a crisis of confidence. The aam aadmi thinks you are not governing, you are playing vote politics. The problem starts from here. If you start playing vote politics then neither the police nor strengthening the legal apparatus is going to help because you come to a point beyond which you can’t go due to political compulsions and the citizen is confused. You have to govern fearlessly. When electoral victory is given top priority, national interests are not kept at the same level. If you start from this paradigm then everything else becomes false.
India has had Muslims and Hindus coexisting since the beginning of the last millennium….But that did not really mean a development of compassionate understanding of each other
You have to come to terms with the reality that either you are an Indian first or you are a Muslim first. This question can’t be evaded now as the foundation of terrorism gets built directly from this nuanced perception
