You might find this interesting:
Indian Muslims choose politics, not terror
By Siddharth Srivastava
NEW DELHI - Investigations into the London blasts continue to reveal militant links to countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Afghanistan, countries long considered fertile ground for fundamentalist thought, as well as to al-Qaeda. Inevitably, debate has ensued in India about the absence of Indian Muslims in al-Qaeda. Indian Muslims number more than 150 million, in a population of more than a billion.
Indeed, in the wake of September 11, 2001 and the London attacks of July 7, 2005, US intelligence has traced international terror modules to Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Chechnya, Afghanistan and some Arab countries, but not a single report has linked al-Qaeda or similar jihadi groups to Indian Muslims. Similarly, no Indian Muslims are among al-Qaeda suspects on international lists of wanted criminals or in prison camps such as Guantanamo Bay.
Analysts say that the main reason Indian Muslims have stayed away from international terror circles is the strong democratic tradition that exists in the country. Muslims have been able to give vent to their grievances and grow, unlike international hotbeds where democracy is not a norm.
Several Indian Muslims have flourished in various professions, whether as film stars, cricketers, politicians or businessmen - actors Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan; cricketers Irfan Pathan, Zaheer Khan and Azim Premji; the owner of Indian software giant Wipro; tennis icon Sania Mirza. Some of the soldiers who fought Pakistan's incursion into Kargil in 1999 were Muslim. The President of India, A PJ Abdul Kalam, is a Muslim. Although Indian Muslims remain one of the less-developed and poorer sections of Indian society, they have not been lured by the pan-Islam radicalism that afflicts many other nations.
Given the strong and uniform voting constituency that Muslims provide, Indian political outfits vie for their support. Different parties realize that securing a majority and support of coalition partners can be possible only by keeping Muslims happy. It is in keeping with the sentiments of Indian Muslims that India - under both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Congress party - has resisted intense pressure from the US to join the war effort in Iraq that is widely seen as having prompted the London attacks.
Nevertheless, there have been times when the machinations of Indian politics have left Indian Muslims seething, and their faith in democracy as a weapon to vote political parties in or out of power has been eroded and tested.
The threshold of tolerance was pushed hard following communal riots in Gujarat in 2002 in which more than 2,000 Muslims were killed. The state government was a mute spectator, indeed a perpetrator of, and collaborator in, the violence. In a brute expression of the Hindu majority, the state BJP government led by Chief Minister Narendra Modi was subsequently voted back into power in Gujarat.
One can recall the sensational suicide attacks on the Indian parliament, on the Akshardham temple in Gujarat, and most recently on the makeshift Ram temple at Ayodhya; in none of these instances has the identity of the terrorists turned out to be Indian - they have been renegade mujahideen from Afghanistan or Pakistan.
One reason for the rapid rise of the BJP as a political outfit in the 1990s was due to Hindus being disillusioned by the Congress's supposed "pseudo-secular" politics that appeared soft on Muslims and pampered them. The current dispensation under the Congress, which has lost out to regional parties in the north that have won over the Muslims, has floated the idea of reservations for Muslims in educational institutions and jobs. The question of quotas has been mooted by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, though the BJP has taken strong umbrage to the idea. The Congress has also kept a studied distance on the Imrana rape issue, in which a Muslim woman was asked by clerics to live with her father-in-law after she was raped by him. The Congress believes that pandering to extremist and conservative elements buttresses its image as a pro-Muslim party.
While there is no gainsaying that the BJP could still play the communal card at the regional level if it suits its interests, there is a definite rethink at the national level. Muslim votes play a critical role in the most populous states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, where the BJP has also lost its hold. The general elections in 2004 saw the BJP reach out to the Muslims for the first time. It is widely believed that the BJP might form an alliance with a regional party with pro-Muslim proclivities in Uttar Pradesh in the near future.
The ongoing crisis in the BJP leadership is also due to the efforts of its leader L K Advani to take on a moderate garb, which is being opposed by the hardliners. Indeed, it is believed that even aggrieved Indian Muslims do not become terrorists, imbued as they are by the deep ethos of tolerance in India as well as political parties vying for their attention. If at all, they want to be party to progress as well as economic growth. The exception is in volatile pockets such as the Muslim majority state of Kashmir that is seen as a disputed territory by Pakistan. That too is changing fast as has been witnessed by the successful elections, both legislative and civic, that saw people vote in huge numbers. It is in the summer months when the snow melts and infiltration from Pakistan is at a maximum that the frequency of terror attacks goes up dramatically, as is happening in Indian portion of Kashmir.
This is not to say revenge killings do not happen in India. Investigations in London point to the deployment of British troops in the Iraq war as the cause of deep angst that drove the bombers, despite being British Asians. However, in India the links as well as perpetrators have not been indigenous. Most intelligence reports point to Indian Muslims at most being facilitators either under duress or lured by money.
The Indian police usually trace terrorist strikes in the country to Pakistan and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). Until the late 1990s, the Hizbul Mujahideen (operating mostly in Kashmir and having perfected the art of remote-triggered explosions) created havoc in India. Two of the most dreaded terrorist organizations that operate in India are the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, with active bases in Pakistan.
Then there are the henchmen who have their links with the Mumbai underworld. Such gangs are led by people such as Dawood Ibrahim, supposedly headquartered in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, working under the aegis of the ISI.
The police hold Dawood and the ISI responsible for the serial Mumbai blasts in 1993 that left more than 250 dead. The bombs were revenge for the destruction of the Babri mosque at Ayodhya by Hindu fanatics who were buttressed by the BJP - a party that owes its rise to upper-caste Hindu votes.
Police described the Gateway blasts in Mumbai in August 2003, in which more than 50 people were killed, as revenge against the Gujarat riots. Likewise the attack on the Akshardham temple in Gujarat in which 37 people were killed. The ISI is held responsible for infiltrating poor and unemployed youth in Kashmir, vulnerable to religious indoctrination as well as monetary incentives.
Of course the role of the US remains under scrutiny, though the meddling in areas without democracy makes matters worse. A recent analysis said: "A basic reason why the military or feudal autocrats control these countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) is that the US propped them up to serve its economic and diplomatic interests. It was either the presence of oil or their utility as frontline states against the Soviet Union that guided the Americans.
"As is known, Osama bin Laden, a Saudi millionaire, was an American ally when his band of fundamentalists fought the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is the cynical use of these countries by Washington that built up a reservoir of resentment among large sections of their people against the US.
"This anger may have become all the more intense because there were no democratic outlets - no parliament, opposition parties, a free press and a free judiciary - to let off steam.''
Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing |
