[sacw] SACW (16 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire
15 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. Yes, there is an effective alternative to the bombing of=20
Afghanistan (Tariq Ali)
#2. Labour Party Pakistan Peace rally stopped by police (Amir Suhail)
#3. India: BJP activists on the rampage at the Tajmahal (Deepshikha Ghosh)
#4. India: Fringe and the mainstream
#5. India: Counterpoint: Waiting for the Hindu backlash (Vir Sanghvi)
#6. The task ahead (Mushirul Hassan)
________________________

#1.

The Independent (UK), 15 October 2001

Tariq Ali: Yes, there is an effective alternative to the bombing of Afghani=
stan

'A lesson could have been learnt from Israel's patient stalking,=20
capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann'

15 October 2001

Over the past decade or so, every war fought by the West (in the=20
Gulf, the Balkans and now South Asia) has been accompanied by a=20
well-orchestrated propaganda campaign. Politics is conducted and=20
presented in the style of intelligence agencies: disinformation,=20
exaggeration of enemy strength and capability, explanation of a=20
television image with a brazen lie and censorship. The aim is to=20
delude and disarm the citizenry. Everything is either over-simplified=20
or reduced to a wearisome incomprehensibility. The message is simple.=20
There is no alternative.

As the bombing of Afghanistan continues for the second week, the=20
Pentagon has admitted that some bombs went astray. Two hundred Afghan=20
civilians have been killed so far and more will die if the bombs=20
continue to fall. During the lull before the war, the US Defense=20
Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, mused in public as to whether Afghanistan=20
had any "assets worth bombing". He knew the answer. The fact is that=20
the Anglo-American bombing campaign is in clear breach of Articles 48=20
and 51 of the Geneva Convention as well as the Nuremberg Charter.=20
Article 48 insists that: "In order to ensure respect for and=20
protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the=20
Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the=20
civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and=20
military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations=20
only against military objectives."

Article 51 is equally clear in prohibiting indiscriminate attacks and=20
specifies these as attacks "which may be expected to cause incidental=20
loss of a civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian=20
objects or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in=20
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

Was there ever an alternative to the bombing? If the real intention=20
was not a crude war of revenge, but to seriously weaken and eliminate=20
terrorism and bring to trial those who ordered the crimes committed=20
on 11 September, then the answer is yes. The disproportionality of=20
what is taking place speaks for itself. If the US judiciary was=20
convinced by the evidence of Mr bin Laden's guilt then a warrant=20
should have been issued for his extradition and a plan prepared to=20
bring him to trial.

A lesson could have been learnt from Israel's patient stalking,=20
capture and trial of Adolf Eichmann who was accused of a far more=20
serious crime. In going to war, Bush and Blair resorted to a mixture=20
of cowboy discourse and Old Testament imagery to pre-empt any=20
judicial inquiry or action. The model so far has been that of the old=20
lynch-mob, egged on by a populace fed on a regular diet of scare=20
stories. Anthrax today and, no doubt, nuclear briefcases tomorrow.

If the real aim is simply an old-fashioned imperialist one, i.e. to=20
topple the Taliban regime and replace it with a protectorate=20
considered closer to "Western values" (as the Taliban once was), then=20
and only then does the bombing make sense as the Northern Alliance,=20
waiting to commence the battle for Kabul, realise full well. Its=20
leaders boast they can do it alone, but US marines and British=20
commandos are standing by to help them just in case the Taliban=20
defeat them as they did once before.

Meanwhile, there is no news of the pretext for this war. Where is=20
Osama bin Laden? Is his capture part two of this operation? And if he=20
is caught will he be killed or brought to trial? And, if so, will=20
this entire exercise have helped to diminish the attraction for, let=20
alone help to defeat terrorism? I think the result will be the exact=20
opposite and especially in the Arab and Muslim world.

Neither George Bush nor Tony Blair appear to appreciate that, like it=20
or not, Mr bin Laden has become a hero in many parts of the Third=20
World. Young, middle-class graduates in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the=20
Maghreb will make sure that his martyrdom will not be in vain. Only=20
last week, President Bush told journalists: "How do I respond when I=20
see that in some Islamic countries there is vitriolic hatred for=20
America? I'll tell you how I respond. I'm amazed. I just can't=20
believe it because I know how good we are."

Mr Blair, his military confederate, had another solution: "One thing=20
becoming increasingly clear to me is the need to upgrade our media=20
and public opinion operations in the Arab and Muslim world." The=20
simplicity on display is frightening. Surely the mandarins in the=20
State Department and Foreign Office are aware of the realities. They=20
must know that the medium-term solution is political and economic,=20
not military.

Unless the Palestinians are guaranteed a viable, sovereign state,=20
there will be no peace. Mr Arafat may be content with the shrivelled=20
little Bantustans at Israeli pleasure, but the Palestinian population=20
is not. The latest intifada is also a revolt against the Oslo Accords=20
and the corruption of the Palestinian leadership.

Then there is Iraq. Not a single one of the standard arguments for=20
the continuing bombardment and blockade of Iraq stands up. The notion=20
that Saddam's cruelties are unique is an abject fiction. The Turkish=20
Generals, valued members of Nato, have killed 30,000 Kurds over the=20
past decade and denied them the use of their own language.=20
Responsible modernity? Saddam never attempted a cultural annihilation=20
of this order. The Saudi Kingdom makes not even a pretence of human=20
rights, its treatment of women would not pass muster in medieval=20
Russia. As for nuclear weapons, the hawkish Unscom inspector, Scott=20
Ritter, insists they cannot be countenanced. Israel, however,=20
possesses nuclear weapons without any sanctions whatsoever.

Double standards of this sort and on this scale drive young people to=20
despair. Here is an immediate solution. The lifting of sanctions and=20
a permanent halt to the bombing of Iraq would have a positive impact=20
throughout the world of Islam, reducing the number of young men=20
prepared to sacrifice their own lives for what they regard as a holy=20
cause. It would be a small step forward if, as US and British jets=20
are dispatched for yet another bombing raid on a the shattered and=20
famished remnant of Afghanistan, a few of our political leaders spoke=20
up in the name of reason.

The writer's novel, 'The Stone Woman', is published in paperback by=20
Verso this month

______

#2.

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 19:58:56 +0200 (MEST)

* Labour Party Pakistan Peace rally stopped by police
* Over 1000 participated,
* Condemned the American aggression and demanded an immediate end to =
=20
war.

Police stopped Labour Party Pakistan peace rally before reaching its
scheduled place near Flaties hotel. Police told the organizers that=20
the presence of
Jaish Mohammed (the religious fundamentalist group) has taken over the main
Mall Road and if this demonstration goes there, there will be a clash with
them. The LPP leaders insisted to go on the main Mall Road but were prevent=
ed
by the police to go further. A Public meeting was held there on the spot an=
d
was addressed by the main leaders of LPP.

Earlier, the LPP peace rally started with red flags and banners demanding
the American imperialism to stop the war. Over a 1000 participated in the
rally. Over 200 activists were stopped on different road o Lahore, as=20
police has
already sealed many main roads on the eve of the general strike called by t=
he
religious fundamentalists.=20=20

Half the participants were women. They were raising slogan against the
American attacks and also against the terrorism of religious fundamentalist=
s.=20
American go back from Asia, Americans stop the war, Terrorism will not solv=
e
the problems. American gangsters Go Back, No to military government support
to Americans, We want peace, We want bread instead of bombs, were some of t=
he
slogans raised at the rally.

The Peace rally was cheered by the many on the main pavements, as this was
something totally new for them. Many working class families with red flags =
and
raising slogans against the American and religious fundamentalists were
welcomed.

Speaking on the occasion, Neelum Hussain of Women Action Forum condemned th=
e
American bombing of innocent Afghan people. She said Americans has no right
to kill people. We have no sympathies with the
terrorists and there are other ways to deal with them, instead of bombing
the Afghan cities. Labour Party Chairman Shoaib Bhatti told the rally that
imperialist strategy is terrorism to stop terrorism. This will not=20
succeed. This
will not solve anything. Shoaib Bhatti told the economic basis of the war
that it is to control the whole world by American Imperialism. To kill inno=
cent
people on the name of maintaining peace is an insult to the word peace.

Speaking on the occasion, Farooq Tariq condemned the Nobel Peace Committee
to award the Nobel Peace award to Kofi Annan and UN. The institution has
failed to address the question. He said that We are totally oppose to=20
the American
imperialism attack on Afghanistan But we have no sympathies for the Talban
government. He said the US and the military government of Pakistan promoted
Talban. It has banned women to participate in the social life. It is promot=
ed
terrorism. Talban are the new fascist of the present era. Americans promote=
d
this force and now want to control it.

Farooq Tariq also criticized Jamaat-I-Islami and told that when Clinton cam=
e
to Pakistan it welcomed him as guest of the country. Only LPP opposed the
visit at the time. The fundamentalists are opposing the US imperialism on
opportunist basis. It is fight between the two old friends., We the=20
Left forces,
are the one who have opposed the American imperialism from the beginning. I=
t
is the number one terrorist of the world. Farooq Tariq criticized the polic=
e
to stop the demo and said that religious fundamentalist are free to go any
where but the progressive forces have been stopped.

The rally dispersed peacefully after the speeches.

Report By Amir Suhail | 15-10-2001

______

#3.

BJP activists on the rampage in the Taj (LEAD)

By Deepshikha Ghosh, Indo-Asian News Service

Agra, Oct 14 (IANS) Thousands of youth activists of the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP) went berserk at the Taj Mahal, teasing women, urinating
publicly, plucking flowers and rinsing their mouths in fountains as
officials watched helplessly.

Hours after Home Minister Lal Krishna Advani admonished the youths here for
their aggressive display of loyalty Saturday, the young men stunned and
shocked people at the 17th-century monument of love with their thuggery.

They had gathered here to commemorate 50 years of the birth of the party.

The BJP workers went wild at the Taj, which opened to visitors free of
charge for three days beginning Friday to commemorate the "Urs" of Mughal
emperor Shah Jahan who built the monument in memory of his wife Mumtaj
Mahal, according to those who witnessed the ugly scenes.

They urinated all over the lawns, heckled visitors, plucked flowers,
uprooting plants, ravaged the ancient fountains and launched a free-for-all=
,
violating the placid environs that had been done up for the India-Pakistan
summit in July.

The fountains that had been renovated were completely defiled. The attacker=
s
also plucked flowers from the exquisite gardens surrounding the marble
monument, tempted to leave their signs all over the famous mausoleum.

Some went on a spree of teasing, picking out foreign women who looked
completely disgusted. A few workers were detained for teasing women.

Sections of the workers also raised slogans. Honeymooners who usually
frequent the Taj also fell victim to the unruly workers who constantly
heckled and teased them. Many made lewd comments against women.

Shocked foreigners and Indian visitors remarked they had not seen anything
like this before.

They destroyed property all over the garden and left the environs looking
like a garbage heap.

About 100 security personnel armed with batons watched helplessly as the
workers completely took over the complex and went out of control.

Some security personnel tried to control the mob with batons but succumbed
to political pressure, especially after vast numbers of Uttar Pradesh's
ruling BJP activists joined the melee.

A large number of policemen were hurriedly deployed at the monument Sunday.

A Taj Mahal official explained that most of the city police were preoccupie=
d
Saturday with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's impending visit for the
two-day BJP convention.

An official for Taj Tours agency told IANS: "This is very unfortunate.
Incidents like these put off the foreigners. It has never happened before."

Earlier Saturday, Youth Affairs and Sports Minister Uma Bharti told the
party convention that the BJP was known for its discipline while Congress
workers were mostly "rowdy".

--Indo-Asian News Service

______

#4.

The Hindustan Times, 16 October 2001 | Editorial

Fringe and the mainstream

There are two ways of regarding the news that delegates to the BJP=20
youth wing's conference in Agra ran riot near the Taj Mahal, raised=20
communally sensitive slogans and carved names into the marble. The=20
first is to conclude that no matter how moderate Vajpayee - who=20
addressed the conference on the day of the Taj Mahal incident - may=20
sound, large sections of the BJP rank and file have not abandoned=20
their communal agenda.

But there is also a second way of looking at the incident. Assume for=20
a moment that it was not the BJP youth wing that ran amok but some=20
Muslim organisation instead. Assume also that the conference had just=20
been addressed by leaders of the Muslim community. Assume now that=20
members of this organisation rushed to some Hindu temple and began=20
shouting pro-Muslim, anti-Hindu slogans (or, simply imagine that they=20
shouted something like 'Osama bin Laden zindabad'). Assume also that=20
they took out their pen-knives and began to carve Muslim names on the=20
walls of the temple.

How would Hindus react?

The answer is not difficult to envisage. There would probably be a=20
violent response from the Shiv Sena or some militant section of the=20
parivar. Editorial writers would condemn the Muslim leadership for=20
having failed to restrain the vandals. And moderate Hindus would say=20
things like "these Muslims are really fanatics".

It is a tribute to the moderation of India's Muslims that they have=20
not responded as Hindu's would have. We should keep that in mind each=20
time we see TV footage of the Shahi Imam exhorting the faithful to=20
help the Taliban. Every religion has its share of maniacs. But they=20
don't represent the majority or speak for their religion. The Muslim=20
leaders who talk of jehad are a lunatic fringe. The BJP youth wing=20
represents the mainstream - the party in power in Delhi. Let us keep=20
that distinction in mind when we talk of moderates and fanatics.

______

#5.

The Hindustan Times
14 October 2001

Counterpoint: Waiting for the Hindu backlash
Vir Sanghvi

Forgive me if you think I'm overstating the case but I'm beginning to=20
get extremely concerned about the impact of the war in Afghanistan on=20
communal harmony in India. It is not that I expect huge Muslim=20
protest demonstrations of the kind we've been seeing in Pakistan over=20
the last fortnight. Far from it.

In fact, it is not the Muslims I'm worried about, at all. It is the=20
Hindus. Nearly everywhere I go, there's always somebody who says=20
something like, "My God! These Muslims are fanatics!" Or "How can=20
Muslims possibly support the Taliban?" Or, "Islam is really a=20
medieval religion!"

Naturally, I always protest against the generalisations and point out=20
that to judge Islam on the basis of what Osama bin Laden is up to is=20
a little like judging every Hindu on the basis of what V Prabhakaran=20
is doing in Sri Lanka.

Or, to use an even more telling example: Hindu mobs dragged Sikhs out=20
of their homes in Delhi in 1984 and then burned them alive. But that=20
does not mean that Hinduism is a murderous religion. Nor does the=20
demolition of the Babri Masjid prove that Hindus are intolerant=20
people who destroy other people's places of worship. Similarly, the=20
assaults on churches and the rapes of nuns in 1998 reflected on the=20
people who carried them out, not on the world's oldest religion.

And as for medievalism, let's not develop short memories. Till around=20
a century ago, widows were still being thrown on their husbands'=20
funeral pyres. And can any religion match what Hinduism did to its=20
dalits; people so unclean that not only could they not be touched but=20
that brahmins had to rush to bathe if a dalit's shadow fell on them?=20
Religions are not bad; people are.

But no matter how much secular and reasonable Hindus may want to=20
think otherwise, a climate of derision and fear of Islam is=20
developing.

The last time this happened was in the late 1980's when such issues=20
as Shah Bano, the Satanic Verses and the alleged intransigence of the=20
Babri Masjid Action Committee (at least from some Hindu perspectives)=20
led to a deep schism between Hindus and Muslims. That schism led to=20
the demolition of the Babri Masjid, to the slaughter of Muslims in=20
the streets of Bombay and eventually to the rise of the BJP.

My fear is that neither Hindus nor Muslims have learned from history.=20
And that we will begin the new century repeating the mistakes of the=20
last one. What worries me most is the manner in which all Muslims,=20
all over the world, are being treated by non-Muslims: as though they=20
are somehow culpable for the death and destruction. This is not only=20
tragic; it is unusual, if not unprecedented, at least for us in India.

Over the last few years Hindus and Muslims have both learned to treat=20
terrorists as a breed apart; as beyond religion. There is now no=20
doubt that the Bombay blasts were executed by the Dawood Ibrahim gang=20
at the urging of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) to take=20
revenge on Hindus for the Bombay riots. Despite this, there were no=20
anti-Muslim riots in response. Both Hindus and Muslims were equally=20
appalled by the destruction and few Hindus (and fewer Muslims)=20
believed that Dawood spoke for his community.

Similarly, few Hindus see the Kashmir problem as reflecting=20
Hindu-Muslim tensions in the rest of India. No Indian Muslim of=20
consequence (not even the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid) identifies with=20
the terrorists - and this is despite the frequent use of Islamic=20
imagery (jehad etc) by the militants. The truth is that a Muslim in=20
Bihar or UP, (let alone a Muslim in Kerala) has little in common with=20
a Muslim in Kashmir and the community has sensibly rejected all=20
attempts to turn the conflict into a Hindu-Muslim affair.

Why, then, are we unable to make the same sort of distinction between=20
bin Laden and our Muslims?

Part of the answer lies in bin Laden's rhetoric. For years, Hindu=20
communalists have told us that Indian Muslims are Muslims first,=20
Indians second. Bin Laden's statements feed those fears. He appeals=20
to some pan-Islamic identity, to Muslims everywhere in the world,=20
regardless of their nationalities. His call is always for all Muslims=20
to rise up to fight America. And every murder is celebrated as a=20
triumph of Islam.

Clearly the man is a psychopath and a massive embarrassment to Islam.=20
But here's the funny thing: at some level, Muslims all over the world=20
are responding to him. You might expect protests in Pakistan but how=20
do you explain demonstrations in Malaysia?

How do you explain the fatwa against Tony Blair issued by a British=20
Muslim group? How do you explain the uproar in Indonesia? How do you=20
explain Imran Khan's comment that the longer the operation takes, the=20
more of a hero bin Laden will become to the world's Muslims? For=20
Hindus - and that includes secular Hindus of the sort who wept when=20
the Babri Masjid fell - all this is discomfiting. Is there, in fact,=20
a growing international pan-Islamic identity? Is this identity so=20
strong that even an operation against a psychopath and the world's=20
most barbaric regime can stir up such strong emotions?

Most important of all: are Indian Muslims reacting as bin Laden wants=20
them to? Why were bin Laden's portraits on sale in Delhi's Walled=20
City? Why has the Shahi Imam (as always, God's gift to the Bajrang=20
Dal) called for a jehad against America? And so on. My concern is=20
that if these questions are not satisfactorily answered, relations=20
between Hindus and Muslims will plummet again. So far, at least, the=20
answers that have come from educated Muslims have been deeply=20
unsatisfactory or incomplete.

Answer number one is framed in terms of the standard anti-American=20
response: America has double standards. It was quite happy to look=20
the other way when 6000 Iraqi children died because of the sanctions=20
but now treats the 6000 deaths in the World Trade Center bombings as=20
a holocaust. Or: it was the US itself that created bin Laden and his=20
ilk to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. That conflict used Islamic=20
imagery (mujahideen and jehad), so what right does Washington have to=20
get so self-righteous now?

All this is valid but unsatisfactory because it does nothing to=20
address the key issues of a pan-Islamic identity and bin Laden's=20
support among Muslims who have nothing to do with him. Answer number=20
two is framed in terms of the targeting of Islam. These were acts=20
committed by madmen, say many Indian Muslim intellectuals. And yet=20
one of the world's great religions is being attacked. This is a=20
conspiracy to link Islam with terrorism on the basis of the actions=20
of a few individuals.

The problem with this response is that it is not America that is=20
identifying Islam with these attacks. It is bin Laden himself. And=20
the assaults were carried out by a transnational network of men who=20
had only one thing in common: their religion.

But there is also a third answer even if few Muslims are giving it.=20
This states that it is a fallacy to imagine that Indian Muslims feel=20
any kinship with bin Laden or the Taliban. Every religion has its=20
share of fanatics and crackpots who take an extreme view. Islam is no=20
exception. But these nutcases do not represent the majority, just as=20
those who burned Graham Staines did not represent Hindus.

As for the pan-Islamic identity, this is difficult for Hindus to=20
understand because Hinduism is not a global religion. But take=20
Christianity, for example. Catholics all over the world will kneel=20
before the Pope or prefer his edicts on divorce or abortion to the=20
laws of their countries. Does that mean that there is a pan-Catholic=20
identity that comes before patriotism? Some Hindus will retort: What=20
about the Shahi Imam's fatwa then? The obvious response to that is:=20
Who is the Shahi Imam anyway? Who does he speak for? Who appointed=20
him as the representative of Indian Muslims?

This is a more satisfactory answer because it seems to adequately=20
address many of the non-Muslim apprehensions. Sadly, few Muslims are=20
bothering to provide this kind of response and to explain what is=20
happening in their community. Instead, we get knee-jerk=20
anti-Americanism and daft allegations of anti-Islamic conspiracies.

The problem with India's Muslims is that despite all our talk of=20
secularism, the vast majority has decided that the best way to get on=20
in this country is to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Even=20
those who have done well feel more secure when they address issues in=20
purely secular terms and do not speak from a Muslim perspective.

I am sympathetic to their plight but the unfortunate consequence of=20
this stand has been that moderate voices within the community are=20
hardly heard. This leaves the field clear for demagogues,=20
rabble-rousers, mullahs and politicians. Because such people seek to=20
win followers by inflaming the community, their rhetoric is often=20
extreme and offensive.

And because there are few other voices, these views are taken as=20
representative of the Muslim community.

During the communally surcharged days of the late 1980s and early=20
1990s, many educated liberal Muslims had recognised that they needed=20
to speak up so that the whole country could hear them. Sadly, most of=20
those voices have now lapsed into silence. And the fanatics are the=20
only ones we hear.

This is dangerous. One reason why Sikhs were re-assured after the=20
1984 massacres was because so many Hindus made it their mission to=20
bring the murderers to justice. Similarly, most of the condemnation=20
of Dara Singh and the Bajrang Dal, in the aftermath of the Graham=20
Staines murder, came from liberal Hindus who denounced the incident=20
for what it was: a perversion of Hindu beliefs.

Liberal Muslims must do something similar. They cannot allow their=20
community to be hijacked by the madmen and the rabble-rousers.=20
Liberal Hindus can fight Hindu communalists. But we can only do this=20
if liberal Muslims also fight their own fanatics. Otherwise, there is=20
certain to be a Hindu backlash.

And all of us - Hindus, Muslims or whatever - will pay the price.

______

#6.

The Hindu, Monday, October 15, 2001 Opinion

The task ahead

By Mushirul Hasan

A GRIEVOUS error of judgment on September 11 led to a colossal human=20
tragedy - the death of innocent civilians in the U.S., followed by=20
the massive air strikes in Afghanistan. The action of the jehadisor=20
terrorists is unpardonable, but so is the disproportionate reaction=20
of the U.S. administration. Having exercised restraint for nearly a=20
month, the Bush administration, responding to the popular and=20
justifiable revulsion against the terrorists, relented. In=20
consequence, Osama bin Laden, firmly in the crosshairs of American=20
rage, has become some sort of a messianic figure. Dead or alive, he=20
will inspire the jehadisacross the globe. An alternative approach -=20
one that is still worth pursuing - is to forge an ideologicalrather=20
than a military coalition.

This is a no-win situation. The death of Osama or Mullah Omar will=20
achieve nothing; they will be well on their way to martyrdom. The=20
relentless bombing of Afghanistan will, on the other hand, stiffen=20
the resolve of the jehadisto wage future wars against the U.S.=20
Drawing lessons from the Soviet Union's experience, the U.S. should=20
get out of Afghanistan as fast as possible and let its people sort=20
out their mess. They cannot win this war. The U.S. policy-makers can,=20
however, develop a long term agenda - to foster, with the active=20
support of Muslim countries,a counter culture and a counter-ideology=20
that will isolate the likes of Osama. This, rather than the pounding=20
of the Afghan mountains, is the way out of the crisis.

The way out is not to punish the entire Afghan nation for the=20
misdeeds of an individual and his Taliban followers. Cities such as=20
Kabul, Kandahar and Herat form part of the historical memory of=20
Muslims: their bombing hurts and leads them to wonder if Baghdad and=20
Damascus could meet the same fate in the months to come. At the=20
beginning of the last century, Shibli Numani, a reformist scholar,=20
was outraged by Western imperialism directed against the Muslim=20
countries. This is what he wrote:

``Will someone ask, ye teachers of civilisation,
How long these cruelties, these atrocities - how long?
How long this provoking hurricane of injustice and trouble?
This delight at wailing and crying - how long?
How long will ye take vengeance for the victory of Ayyub?
Ye will show us the sight of the crusaders - how long?
Shibli! Should you long to migrate, where can you go now?
Syria or Najd or Cyrene are sanctuaries - how long?''

At the beginning of this millennium, the same apprehensions are being=20
voiced from Cairo to Jakarta. Muslim fears, though exaggerated, will=20
not be assuaged in the face of the West marshalling its enormous=20
military and intellectual forces against the Muslim nations. If=20
anything, their anxieties are heightened by the media's systematic=20
attempt to conjure up the image of Islam as the number one threat to=20
the West. Already, several writers have drawn the battlelines between=20
Islam and Christendom. The bosses in Stockholm have rewarded one of=20
them, V. S. Naipaul, an Islam- baiter.

It is easy critiquing the West and offering guidance to Bush & Co. as=20
to what they should do. Their conduct, in Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and=20
West Asia, deserves loud and strong criticism. Yet, the lamentation=20
must cease and give way to introspection, to a reappraisal of the=20
crisis that afflicts Muslim societies, and to a careful reordering of=20
priorities. The survival of Islam is not at stake, the progress and=20
prosperity of the Muslims are. Self- delusion and misplaced=20
confidence - and that may well be the unfortunate outcome of the=20
``successful'' September 11 attack - can only make their position=20
more awkward and vulnerable.

Moving away from the anti-Western rhetoric, it is important to=20
highlight the dismal failure of the Muslim nations to meet the very=20
minimum standards of good governance. Someone has to explain why=20
Osama and the Taliban target the West and not the regimes West Asia.=20
Someone has to analyse the absence or weakness of democratic=20
movements in Muslim countries. Someone has to tell us, furthermore,=20
about the passive role of the Muslim intelligentsia and its=20
acquiescence in political repression. What one needs is a powerful=20
internal critique, free of religious rhetoric, which will set the=20
Muslim societies on the right course and free their people from the=20
stranglehold of oppressive governments. One thing is sure: no longer=20
can the West be a convenient scapegoat for the ills that plague their=20
countries.

In theory, the Muslim communities are not answerable to anyone else;=20
in practice, their conduct is under close scrutiny. They must get=20
their act together not because others want them to, but because=20
sooner or later the forces of reaction and bigotry within their own=20
ranks will overwhelm them. The enemy lies within the boundaries of a=20
nation-state, acquiring only in specific situations a transnational=20
dimension. The enemy is not Samuel Huntington, Salman Rushdie or=20
Naipaul, but those who destroy statutes at Bamiyan, impose dress=20
codes, and enforce a version of Islam that goes against the spirit=20
and letter of the Koran.

The enemies are those who flout the Prophet's following injunction:=20
``O believers, be you securers of justice, witnesses for God, even=20
though it be against yourselves, or your parents and kinsmen, whether=20
it concerns rich or poor, for God is nearer to you than both. And do=20
not follow caprice, so as to swerve (from the truth).'' It is this=20
search for truth and justice that must go on, in the traditions=20
pioneered by the Sufis.

The elusive notion of umma(international community) or the political=20
ideology of pan-Islamism need not sway a Muslim. The finer definition=20
of what constitutes Sharianeed not be his sole concern. He needs to=20
hold, rather than abrogate, his right to hold an independent opinion=20
about right and wrong, good and evil. What he needs is to act=20
according to his conscience and remind himself that he must be=20
``securers of justice'' not only for his brethren but the whole=20
international community, of Muslims and non-Muslims to which we=20
belong. Historical situations in which certain deductions are made=20
from the Koran are no longer relevant; the Mutazalites in Baghdad,=20
and Syed Ahmad Khan and Maulana Azad in our own country, repudiated=20
them long ago. The Urdu poet Akbar Illahabadi ridiculed the type of=20
casuistry practised by the ulama:

``You can wear these souls and shoes
And make love to Miss D'Souze
If only you fast and pray
You can live and love as you choose.''

Doubtless, the Muslims are inheritors of a great and glorious=20
civilisation. Indeed, no one can deny to them the right to lead their=20
lives in accordance with the injunctions of the Koran, the highest=20
authority, and to regard the Prophet of Islam as the model of a=20
perfect man. At the same time, they cannot regard themselves as the=20
sole possessors and upholders of true belief without coming into=20
conflict with other religious traditions. Central to the idea of=20
Unity of Existence (wahdatal- wujud),expounded by the great thinker=20
Ibn Arabi, is the acknowledgement of a Muslim community accepting the=20
right of non- Muslims to profess their own faith. Taking our cue from=20
the Sufi saints and the Persian and Urdu poets in India, we have=20
every reason to reinforce and popularise such ideas.

While it is hard to believe that so eclectic a view will merit=20
worldwide acceptance, a change in the mindset of the Islamists, in=20
particular, will make the categories of darul-Islam(land of Islam)=20
and darul-harb(land of war) irrelevant. That is when jehadin the=20
modern world, in the sense in which Osama bin Laden or the terrorists=20
in Kashmir use it, will lose its popular appeal. In the world of=20
today, a secular idiom, as indeed secular goals, can be the sole=20
raison d'etrefor waging war against the internal and external enemy.=20
Expressions such as jehadand jehadisare used rhetorically, with=20
disastrous effects, to legitimise non-secular goals and ideologies.=20
The Taliban or the Pakistan-funded mercenaries in Kashmir best=20
exemplify this.

Admittedly, the judgments of some Western scholars are prejudiced,=20
but the traditional presentations of Islam are woefully inadequate.=20
The point to stress is that ``The West'' is neither a unified entity=20
nor is it inimical to Islam. Conversely, the ideology of Islam is not=20
antithetical to Western ideas and institutions. Still, in the=20
aftermath of the September 11 happenings, a great deal needs to be=20
done to build bridges not between Islam and the West but between the=20
Muslim countries and the rest of the world. When that happens we will=20
not have to light candles to mourn the victims of terrorism.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20