Free flow There are civilisational reasons for Indian Muslims not joining the Al-Qaeda

News Insight ^ | Friday, July 22, 2005

[ulmo3]

There is a little known intelligence fact about the Ayodhya attack which can be revealed without distressing anybody, and it bolsters the point made by Manmohan Singh in Washington - and incidentally first analysed by this magazine soon after 9/11 - that no Indian Muslim has been caught involved in the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. The exception would probably be Haroon Rashid Aswat, born of Gujarati parents in the UK, who is being questioned for the London bombings after his arrest in Sargodha, Pakistan, but he would still make an extraordinary exception.

The intelligence fact is simple and straightforward. The Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists who attacked the Ayodhya shrine had to plan and execute the entire operation on their own from Delhi, because they got no local assistance either in Akbarpur, an important staging point, or in Ayodhya/ Faizabad. Rehan, the jeep driver, was as much as they got by way of local help, and interrogators say he was more their handyman than a scout, and kept along because the terrorists treated him well, and paid him in full.

“It is not that they did not try to get local help,” said an official. “We investigated that part carefully in Akbarpur. We tried to trace links to seminaries, and so on. But there was nothing, or nothing of any consequence. The terrorists got no assistance.” This pleasant discovery is being analysed by the agencies, and it sharply contrasts with the background of the London terrorist bombers, who were all born and brought up in the UK, and showed no obvious signs of alienation with the West, UK’s foreign policies, and Western culture. This aspect too, the attitude and actions of Indian Muslims that do not fit Al-Qaeda stereotypes, and represent remarkable assimilation with the rest of Indian society, is also the subject of British intelligence study after the London bombings.

But why is this so? Is this a factor of secularism as is presently pronounced, of and on, by UPA ideologues, or is it a product of India’s syncretic and tolerant culture and traditions more than seven thousand years old? The answer is obvious, but won’t be readily admitted as such, because it would be seen to run down official secularism, but who cares? The point is, India is not a nation-state, in the orthodox Western definition of it, and it was recognised in the intuitive way of writers by Tagore, and Mahatma Gandhi said so again and again. To Gandhi, to speak of India as a nation-state was to demean it, to minimise it, which is why he was so opposed to Partition, something that Jinnah and Nehru understood, but which did not stop their power ambitions.

Tragically, if you look at it from the broad sweep of history, both these power men tried to retain the civilisational content of their partitioned country, but whereas Jinnah failed, Nehru succeeded, although not entirely due to his own efforts. But, yes, the separation of church and state, removing politics from religion, assisted in the integration of the minorities, in the great and liberal tradition of India. It is not an accident that faiths or religions that have died or been put to death in their places of origin have survived and flourished here, the Parsis are a great example, not to be found in Persia or modern-day Iran, and India was one of those few places where the Jews were never persecuted. This partly explains the Israeli Jews great attachment for this country.

With the Muslims, unlike the Parsis who are very small in number, well knit, and by and large prosperous, and say the Sikhs, another minority community but dominant in commerce and industry, things are complexer. They are the largest minority community in a country where the majority religion is Hinduism, but Hinduism has such open borders, so embracing of all faiths, cultures and traditions, but still miraculously retaining its core, that the scope of confrontation is little to non-existent. This is not to paint over the crises that have erupted in the past from the politicisation of religion, but to simply and forcefully state that this is not a confrontation of religions. It is not a Crusade, to put it bluntly. The Al-Qaeda lexicon, if you notice, is full of avenging the “crusader” nations of the US, the UK, and so on. India is disconnected from this stream of thought, and disconnected in the process are Indian Muslims. Forget not participating in Al-Qaeda terrorism, India was almost alone not to have major anti-US demonstrations at the commencement of the Afghan war in October 2001. The Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid who tried a stunt of marching to the US embassy in Chanakya Puri found he had barely a following.

The thing is there is so much tolerance in everyday, workaday lives, and such intermixing of cultures, and Hindi cinema has been a great and enduring medium in that respect, that there is nothing closely resembling a clash of civilisations build up in this country. In Western argumentation against Islam, India falls flat. But the Pakistanis are also as flabbergasted by the existential realities of Indian Muslims, who visit Sufi shrines, pray at mazars of pirs, and make ritualistic offerings. The terrorist leader of the Lashkar-e-Toiba, Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed, refuses to accept Indian Muslims as Muslims, and vows a manner of reindoctrination of faith if the LeT succeeds in dismembering India. So it is not surprising that the LeT terrorists found no local support for the Ayodhya attack, although on the principle of Muslim brotherhood, they did expect to find it.

To turn that principle of Muslim brotherhood inward, why has Pakistan bred into a terrorist state while India has remained benign and tolerant, although they were partitioned out of the same civilisation? In Pakistan, the crisis of identity did not probably end with becoming a declarative Islamic state, and there were regional identity crises, Punjab versus the rest, supplanted since the late General Zia’s Islamisation programme with sectional warfare, Sunni versus Shia, Sunni versus Ahmediyas, and so on, and now, it has gotten worse, with the Wahabis at odds with the Deobandis. In the case of Indian Muslims, it has been a matter of coexisting with free flowing Hinduism and implied and later codified democratic secularism.

It has worked.

[ulmo3]

Hi Genghis
Would you ping everyone on your India list. I think this is a pretty good artcile.

[E Rocc]

I wouldn't call the RSS "tolerant" by any stretch. Indeed, when I read the words "Ayodhya attack", I initially thought the writer meant the terrorists who destroyed the mosque there.

Hinduism is indeed a diverse religion, and the RSS is by no means representative of all Hindus. But it's important to note that they are closely allied with the BJP.

-Eric

[Gengis Khan]

The Free Republic India and Indo-US Issues Ping.
Freepmail me if you want on/off.

[ulmo3]

I agree with you on that. RSS is not my representative of Hinduism and will never be. I was more talking about the the fact that Indian Muslims are less likely to be terrorists as they are in a democracy and can voice their opinions and anger.

Infact India has the second largest muslim population in the world and yet it is one of the two countries to have a favorable opinion of USA (71% had a fav opinion).

This leads to think its not Islam thats the problem but the culture in some Islamic countries. Islamic countries like Malaysia do not produce terrorists. Even though Malaysia is not a perfect democracy they are working towards democracy.

It is autocracies like Saudi Arabia and dictatorships like Pakistan which seem to be producing terrorists. So I would blame terrorism on Dictatorship and authoritarian regimes more than on religion.

[CarrotAndStick]

Actually the RSS is desparately trying to mould itself as some sort of a sole representative body for the entire community of Hindus. They won't succeed. History has taught us that no single entity has ever succeeded in getting every Hindu into it. The past election was actually proof of that. Most Hindus don't even care about the RSS, or religious extremism. But this doesn't mean they don't care about Hinduism. Poke in the right place and things may erupt.

[voletti]

There're those who say the RSS has been demonized by the Nehruvian establishment and the leftists somuch that its not possible to conduct a dispassionate perusal of facts pertainig to this case anymore. I, for large part, tend tyo aghree with this school of thought.

Going back to he main thesis of the article, India is benign (by and large) and tolerant and peaceful etc largely because it is Hindu in its civilizational genes. Look at what happens when islam tries to overrule that DNA - Pakistan, and nowadays increasingly, B'desh, come into being.

Also, all is not hunky dory with Indian moslems. The hardline Deobandi school of islaimc jurisprudence originated and spread from UP in India. Deobanism doesn't quite compare with Wahabism but comes close.

[GOPJ]

But, yes, the separation of church and state, removing politics from religion, assisted in the integration of the minorities, in the great and liberal tradition of India. It is not an accident that faiths or religions that have died or been put to death in their places of origin have survived and flourished here, the Parsis are a great example, not to be found in Persia or modern-day Iran, and India was one of those few places where the Jews were never persecuted. This partly explains the Israeli Jews great attachment for this country.

Iranians also have the advantage of cultural Zorasterism and Persian beliefs that cut into the poison of Arab Islam. What do you, ulmo3, think it the root of Arab Muslim's madness?

[E Rocc]

I agree with you on that. RSS is not my representative of Hinduism and will never be. I was more talking about the the fact that Indian Muslims are less likely to be terrorists as they are in a democracy and can voice their opinions and anger.

I would say it's possible that their minority status has something to do with it, especially when the Hindu supremacists misbehave. The latter have been known to target Christians, Muslims, and secular Indians (think Valentine's Day for the latter) alike. Co-victimization can often lead to a more ecumenical outlook. Plus, I don't think the influence of Sufism can be overlooked.

As you say, Islam is not the disease some here potray it as. Indian Muslims, Malaysian Muslims, Indonesians, and even Turks, Morroccans, and Jordanians are not afflicted with the level of fanaticism some others are.

I would maintain that fanaticism is a disease that afflicts numerous religions, and its worst manifestation is the desire to make the rules of ones creed applicable to everyone. Islam has the worst case of these disease right now, but Christianity, Hinduism, and Judaism are also susceptible.

It's notable that the latter two are typically the least afflicted. The RSS has political power now, but is not dominant, and Shas has fallen behind even its counterpart Shinui in Israel (India could really use a party like Shinui, right leaning but secular). Among the Christians, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox faiths seem the least prone to fanaticism. Perhaps it's something religions tend to grow out of over time.

-Eric

[swarthyguy]

Not to rain on the parade, but alHindi, captured by the Britishers or the Pakistanis, is Indian Hindu convert to Islam.

Let's hope it stays that way.

[CarrotAndStick]

The problem with Sufism is that it can act as a stepping stone to a more jehadi version of Islam, and the classic example of this phenomenon is Kashmir, India. Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia are already following suit.

[anu_shr]

This story is all bunkum. Muslims behave in India because any mischief brings about a quick and brutal reprisal from the Hindus. Sadly - this is what is needed to keep Jihad at bay in India or anywhere else.

[CarrotAndStick]

I know.

[ulmo3]

I think it has got to do with the kind of government you have. If there is an anger there has to be an outlet to it. So if you allow demonstrations and allow people to write about and discuss and argue about it in newspapers and media there is a sense that someone is listening.

I have a Syrian friend who when she was four was making a funny chant about their President in a public bus and her aunt had to get her to keep quiet because they were scared about the repurcursions.

I this kind of societies including Saudi Arabia there is no outlet for the anger. Imagine a pressure cooker without a safety outlet and the pressure keeps building up and one day its going to blow.

Ofcourse it doesnt help when you have organizations which help you do exactly that.

[ulmo3]

Thats bullshit. There are good people and bad people in every religion including Hinduism, Christianity and Islam. To say Muslims in India behave because of reprisals shows your prejudice and bias.

[ulmo3]

whoa Sufism didnt act as stepping stone to Jihadi version. Infact the homegrown Kashmiris were weeded out very early in the 90s by Lashkar and Harkat Ul Ansaar.
I know because I was in Kashmir in 91, 92 (my dad was in the IB then)
Remember Hazratbal the Terrorists damaged the mosque because it was a Sufi mosque. These Taliban types dont like Sufis any more than they like any other religion.
Infact they claim that Kashmiris are soft because of Sufism and cannot fight.

[CarrotAndStick]

Really? I didn't know this at all! I remember some trouble about Hazrathbal, in the early 90s. I was a kid then though.

Wasn't this around the time when Rajiv was assassinated?

Can you give me more info (personal or otherwise, keeping in mind your dad's IB history ), and links, on this?

[ulmo3]

Eric let me tell you my theory why RSS and BJP got so dominant in India. Others may disagree but here is my view point based on my life.

In the late 70s and early 80s it was not something to be proud of to be a Hindu. I dont know why, but a lot of Hindus were putting their own community down. Hindus had become anti-religion.

I remember in Grade 5 my class teacher who was a Christian making fun of my religious beliefs and the class which was a majority of Hindus laughing and this was very common.

The Congress government was busy pandering to the Muslim leaders (not the Muslim community mind you) and asking them to issue fatwas to the Muslims to vote for them. For example, even today if a Muslim wants to go the Haj from India the Indian govt subsidises his trip to the tune of 100,000 rupees. They dont do that for Hindu pilgrims.

Minority (Muslim and Christian) schools and colleges had special privilages not given to the Hindu schools and colleges.

The RSS and BJP started their campaign on multiple issues. To appeal to the moderate Hindus like me and my family they talked about
1. Common Civil Code: Right now Civil law like property and divorce in India is different for people of different religions. The muslims follow the Shariat on that.

2. No special status for Kashmir: Even today no Indian can buy property in Kashmir but Kashmiris can buy property in India

3. No special sops for different religions either government should have nothing to do with religion or if they do anything like finance pilgrimages like Haj they do it for all the religions.

Ofcourse as an emotive issue for the radicals they bought on the Babri Masjid

Let me tell you that 5 years of BJP government did nothing about the first 3 issues which seemed important at that time but BJP and RSS in the 15 years (85-2000) have made the Hindu community more assertive and less submissive.

They have gotten the Hindus to take pride in their religion which they should in the first place.

They have also done a whole bunch of things which doesnt hold with Hinduism and which is why I decided long ago in the early 90s that BJP and RSS were not the kind of parties I would want to support.

Its like supporting Pat Robertson, or Graham or any of the crazy Christian evangelists

[ulmo3]

Hi from what I remember this was after Rajiv Ghandi was assasinated. This was sometime in 93. Militants from Afghanistan (Talibanis) holed up in Hazratbal a sacred sufi mosque where the hair of the prophet is supposed to be have been kept.

Anyway after 10-20 days I dont remember and lot of damage to mosque they were flushed out. But they set fire to mosque. This pissed a lot of Kashmiris off because the mosque to them is as sacred as Mecca is and I remember the leader of the terrorist group making a statement saying this was a Sufi mosque and so was not Islamic (Sufis sing and dance) and Kashmiris were not really Islamic because they are really Sufis

This was huge coup for Indian forces because we brought the media along and it was very clear that it was the terrorists who did the damage not the Indian Army.

This was one of the turning points among many turning points in the terrorism in Kashmir. They started loosing local support from that time on.

I think it was in the 93-94. I did a google and came upon a piece from Arun Shourie on it

http://arunshourie.voiceofdharma.com/print/19931027.htm

[CarrotAndStick]

Thanks! You've really opened my eyes to the whole issue. Do you have any more you can Freepmail me? You must describe more about your stay in Kashmir. I have a lot to ask.