The terrorists attacked my city because of its wealth

By Suketu Mehta

The first time I went to the Taj in Bombay, it was on a date, but not my own. I was 12, and the third wheel between my uncle and his fiancee; I had to be taken along for propriety's sake.

We sat in the Sea Lounge, overlooking the harbour, amid the Parsi matrons arranging marriages and the British bankers drinking gin with American aid officials. My uncle had brought my future aunt here because he wanted to impress her with the hotel's opulence, and I had the most expensive bhelpuri of my life. The Taj is to Bombay what the Empire State Building is to New York: it is what you see on a postcard of the city, a building that does not need to be further identified. It is, simply, "Bombay".

People who are seeking position or money in Bombay often use this one hotel, this one citadel of empire, as a mark or measure of their progress upward through the strata of Bombay.

The Taj was born out of a slight: because a man was turned away from a fancy hotel. When the prominent Parsi industrialist Jamshetji Tata was refused entrance into Watson's hotel in the 19th century because he was a native, he swore revenge, and built the Taj in 1903. It is less a hotel than a proving-ground for the ego. The Taj lobby and its adjoining toilets are where you test your self-worth; theoretically, anyone can come in out of the heat and sit in the plush lobby, or relieve themselves in the gleaming toilets. But you need that inner confidence to project to the numerous gatekeepers, the toilet attendants; you need to first convince yourself that you belong there.

The terrorists who swarmed the hotel on Wednesday ignored the gatekeepers, or shot them dead. They marched into the lobby with confidence, and in a rage. If, as seems likely, they are Muslims, then they are only the latest manifestation of the original sin of modern south Asia: the partition of the subcontinent into India and Pakistan.

India has been congratulated, and has congratulated itself, for not supplying recruits to al-Qaida. India's 150 million Muslims are different, it was thought. During partition, they voted with their feet; until recently, there were more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. But Muslims are poorer, and less educated, than other Indians. Urban Muslims have a poverty rate of 38% - much higher than any other segment of the population, including the lower castes. The 2002 anti-Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, just north of Bombay, made many Muslims think that if the state could not or would not protect them, they would have to take matters into their own hands.

In 1999, a quarter century after I went to the Taj to chaperone my uncle and aunt, I was in a small, dingy room in a guesthouse just behind the Taj, in much less romantic company. I was interviewing a young Muslim man whose family had been attacked by Hindu rioters, and who had subsequently joined the Muslim underworld. He told me about the coming worldwide war of Islam against its enemies, and its local manifestation in Bombay. "This time we will be fully prepared. We have all the equipment. The bhais (dons) will send ships with containers full of weapons." I asked the gangster why he stayed in Bombay, if he thought it was so bad for Muslims. He peered out the one window at the grey and white walls of the Taj, and remarked: "The main thing in Bombay is money. There's lots of it."

And this, when all is said and done, is why the terrorists keep attacking Bombay, and picked the top business hotel of this most commercial of cities to stage their spectacular: it is where money is made. Lots of it.

• Suketu Mehta is author of Maximum City: Bombay Lost and Found and a professor of journalism at New York University

IT’S WAR ON MUMBAI :TOI 27NOV

NIGHTMARE: Taj, Oberoi, CST, Santa Cruz, Colaba & Three Hospitals Among 12 Places Attacked By Terrorists, Killing Over 100. ATS Chief Hemant Karkare, DIG Among Killed. 15 UK Nationals Held Hostage At Taj. Army, NSG Called In 
TIMES NEWS NETWORK 


Mumbai came under an unprecedented and dastardly night attack as terrorists used heavyduty guns, including AK-47s and grenades to strike at the city’s most high-profile targets — CST (formerly VT) rail terminus, the fivestar Taj and Oberoi hotels at Gateway and Nariman Point, the domestic airport at Santa Cruz and Cama and GT hospitals near CST, killing over 100 (there were conflicting reports of the toll) and sending more than 250 to hospital, according to preliminary reports at the time of going to press just past midnight. There were unconfirmed reports that some of the terrorists came in by sea, by speedboats. 
The attacks occurred on the busiest places, including starred hotels (Taj and Oberoi), hospitals (Cama Hospital and G T Hospital), one of the country's busiest stations (CST), at a petrol pump (in Colaba) and on roads (Colaba, the Metro Junction, Crawford Market, Wadi Bunder and on the Western Express Highway near the airport). Several of these places are within a onekm radius of the commissioner of police's office. 
A vehicle that looked like a police van was reported to be moving around south Mumbai spraying bullets indiscriminately. Reports indicated that it may have been hijacked. The entire board of a multinational giant was reported to be holed up in the Oberoi hotel. Some media reports attributed the attack to Lashkar-e-Taiba. 
"This is definitely a terrorist strike. Seven places have bee attacked with automatic weapons and grenades. Terrorists are still holed up in three locations — Taj and Oberoi hotels and GT Hospital. Encounters are on at all three places,” said state DGP A N Roy. 
St George's Hospital and G T Hospital were said to have received 75 bodies and more than 250 injured people, additional municipal commissioner R A Rajeev said. Bombay Hospital got two bodies and 30 injured people were admitted there; Cooper Hospital, Vile Parle, got three dismembered bodies. 
Three of the deaths occurred inside the Taj and one G T Hospital attendant died in a shootout inside the hospital. There were reports of people cowering under tables and chairs at both the Taj as well as G T Hospital. 
Metro Junction resident Manoj Goel said: ``My brother, Manish, died in the firing at Colaba's Hamaal Galli.' 
Cops fired back at the men --probably from one of the Lashkar groups, dressed in black and with backpacks — and SRPF, Crime Branch, ATS and teams of military commandos were summoned to the spot. Train services at CST were suspended and all roads leading to and from south Mumbai were blockaded. 
Chief minister Vilasrao Deshmukh promised ``stringent action'' against the assailants but the mood across Mumbai was not so optimistic. 
There were reports of firing around several landmark buildings in the Colaba-Nariman Point area, including the Taj hotel, Oberoi and other tourist attractions and pubs like Leopold's. The top floor of Oberoi was said to be on fire amid reports of blasts in the area and blood-smeared bodies were being brought out of the Taj lobby. Terrorists were said to be holed up at the Taj as well as G T Hospital and cops scampered to cordon off these places. A white flag was seen fluttering from an Oberoi Hotel window around 11.20 pm, where a blast was said to have occurred. 
The blast on the Western Express Highway -- near Centaur Hotel outside the airport -- occurred in a taxi, deputy commissioner of police Nissar Tamboli said. 
The firing and bombing started close to the Gateway of India. The gunbattle then moved on towards CST and raged on for over an hour from 10 pm, sending commuters running out of the station. 
The assailants also fired into the crowd at CST and people on the trains and then ran out of the station themselves and into neighbouring buildings, including Cama Hospital, after being challenged by cops. 
SRPF personnel then entered the iconic BMC building -- just opposite CST -- to take aim at the assailants, BMC commissioner Jairaj Phatak said. 
`We fear some of the assailants are still inside the station and we want to catch them if they come out,'' a police official said. 
Vikhroli police station senior inspector Habib Ansari was on his way to work from his Colaba home when he saw two armed men, with sophisticated weaponry, trying to run into bylanes near the Gateway of India.``I rushed back to Colaba and all policemen, including GRP and RPF personnel, were called up,'' he added. 
Bhisham Mansukhani, a journalist, was attending a wedding reception at the Taj's Crystal Room. `I was inside the bar when glass shards almost hit my eye,'' he said. `More than 200 people were escorted inside Chambers, a business centre inside the hotel,'' he added. 
High alert in Uttar Pradesh 
Statewide high alert was sounded in Uttar Pradesh, particularly in Lucknow, late on Wednesday evening following the terror attack on Mumbai. Additional director general of police (ADG), law & order, crime and special task force (STF), Brij Lal said that alert was sounded across the state. TNN 
TERROR BY NIGHT 
Over 100 killed , at least 250 injured in terror attack on heart of south Mumbai 
Firing around several landmark buildings in Colaba-Nariman Point area, including Taj Gateway hotel and Oberoi hotel 
Top floor of Oberoi was said to be on fire amid reports of blasts in the area; blood-smeared bodies were brought out of Taj lobby 
Firing and blasts also reported from Mazgaon, the Metro Junction, Crawford Market and Colaba 
Reports of a blast in a taxi near Vile Parle 
Firing and bombing apparently began close to Gateway of India just before 10pm. The gunbattle then moved towards CST and raged on for over 45 minutes 
Assailants fired into crowd at CST and people on trains then ran out of the station into nearby buildings 
Just before going to press, fresh blasts were reported at the Taj and Oberoi Trident. 

Mumbai Attacks : NOVEMBER 26

November 27, 2008   | THE NEWYORK TIMES
At Least 100 Dead in India Terror Attacks 
By SOMINI SENGUPTA

MUMBAI, India — Coordinated terrorist attacks struck the heart of Mumbai, India’s commercial capital, on Wednesday night, killing dozens in machine-gun and grenade assaults on at least two five-star hotels, the city’s largest train station, a movie theater and a hospital. 

Even by the standards of terrorism in India, which has suffered a rising number of attacks this year, the assaults were particularly brazen in scale and execution. The attackers used boats to reach the urban peninsula where they hit, and their targets were sites popular with tourists. 

The Mumbai police said Thursday that the attacks killed at least 101 people and wounded at least 250. Guests who had escaped the hotels told television stations that the attackers were taking hostages, singling out Americans and Britons. 

A previously unknown group claimed responsibility, though that claim could not be confirmed. It remained unclear whether there was any link to outside terrorist groups. 

Gunfire and explosions rang out into the morning. 

Hours after the assaults began, the landmark Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel, next to the famed waterfront monument the Gateway of India, was in flames. 

Guests banged on the windows of the upper floors as firefighters worked to rescue them. 

Fire also raged inside the luxurious Oberoi Hotel, according to the police. A militant hidden in the Oberoi told India TV on Thursday morning that seven attackers were holding hostages there. 

“We want all mujahedeen held in India released, and only after that we will release the people,” he said.Some guests, including two members of the European Parliament who were visiting as part of a trade delegation, remained in hiding in the hotels, making desperate cellphone calls, some of them to television stations, describing their ordeal.

Alex Chamberlain, a British citizen who was dining at the Oberoi, told Sky News television that a gunman had ushered 30 or 40 people from the restaurant into a stairway and, speaking in Hindi or Urdu, ordered them to put up their hands.

“They were talking about British and Americans specifically,” he said. “There was an Italian guy, who, you know, they said, ‘Where are you from?’ and he said he’s from Italy, and they said, ‘Fine,’ and they left him alone.” 

Sajjad Karim, 38, a British member of the European Parliament, told Sky News: “A gunman just stood there spraying bullets around, right next to me.” 

Before his phone went dead, Mr. Karim added: “I managed to turn away and I ran into the hotel kitchen and then we were shunted into a restaurant in the basement. We are now in the dark in this room, and we have barricaded all the doors. It’s really bad.”

Attackers had also entered Cama and Albless Hospital, according to Indian television reports, and struck at or near Nariman House, which is home to the city’s Chabad-Lubavitch center. 

The police told Reuters that an Israeli family was being held hostage. Israel’s Foreign Ministry said it was trying to locate an unspecified number of Israelis missing in Mumbai, according to Haaretz.com, the Web site of an Israeli newspaper.

Several high-ranking law enforcement officials, including the chief of the antiterrorism squad and a commissioner of police, were reported killed. 

The military was quickly called in to assist the police. 

Hospitals in Mumbai, a city of more than 12 million that was formerly called Bombay, have appealed for blood donations. As a sense of crisis gripped much of the city, schools, colleges and the stock exchange were closed Thursday. 

Vilasrao Deshmukh, the chief minister for Maharashtra State, where Mumbai is, told the CNN-IBN station that the attacks hit five to seven targets, concentrated in the southern tip of the city, known as Colaba and Nariman Point. But even hours after the attacks began, the full scope of the assaults was unclear. 

Unlike previous attacks in India this year, which consisted of anonymously planted bombs, the assailants on Wednesday night were spectacularly well-armed and very confrontational. In some cases, said the state’s highest-ranking police official, A. N. Roy, the attackers opened fire and disappeared. 

Indian officials said the police had killed six of the suspected attackers and captured nine. 

A group calling itself the Deccan Mujahedeen said it had carried out the attacks. It was not known who the group is or whether the claim was real. 

Around midnight, more than two hours after the series of attacks began, television images from near the historic Metro Cinema showed journalists and bystanders ducking for cover as gunshots rang out. The charred shell of a car lay in front of Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, formerly Victoria Terminus, the mammoth railway station. A nearby gas station was blown up. 

The landmark Leopold , a favorite tourist spot, was also hit. 

Reached by phone, some guests who had been trapped in the Taj said about 1 a.m. that they had heard an explosion and gunfire in the old wing of the hotel. 

A 31-year-old man who was in the Taj attending a friend’s wedding reception said he was getting a drink around 9:45 p.m. when he heard something like firecrackers — “loud bursts” interspersed with what sounded like machine-gun fire. 

A window of the banquet hall shattered, and guests scattered under tables and were quickly escorted to another room, he said. No one was allowed to leave. 

Just before 1 a.m., another loud explosion rang out, and then another about a half-hour later, the man said. 

At 6 a.m., he said that when the guests tried to leave the room early Thursday, gunmen opened fire. One person was shot.

The man’s friend, the groom, was two floors above him, in the old wing of the hotel, trapped in a room with his bride. One of the explosions, he said, took the door off its hinges. He blocked it with a table. 

Then came another blast, and gunfire rang out throughout the night. He did not want to be identified, for fear of being tracked down.

Rakesh Patel, a British businessman who escaped the Taj, told a television station that two young men armed with a rifle and a machine gun took 15 hostages, forcing them to the roof. 

The gunmen, dressed in jeans and T-shirts, “were saying they wanted anyone with British or American passports,” Mr. Patel said. 

He and four others managed to slip away in the confusion and smoke of the upper floors, he said. He said he did not know the fate of the remaining hostages. 

Clarence Rich Diffenderffer, of Wilmington, Del., said after dinner at the hotel he headed to the business center on the fifth floor. 

“A man in a hood with an AK-47 came running down the hall,” shooting and throwing four grenades, Mr. Diffenderffer said. “I, needless to say, beat it back to my room and locked it, and double-locked it, and put the bureau up against the door.”

Mr. Diffenderffer said he was rescued hours later, at 6:30 a.m., by a cherrypicker. “That was pretty hairy,” he said. “I don’t like heights.” 

Among those apparently trapped at the Oberoi were executives and board members of Hindustan Unilever, part of the multinational corporate giant, The Times of India reported. 

Indian military forces arrived outside the Oberoi at 2 a.m., and some 100 officers from the central government’s Rapid Action Force, an elite police unit, entered later. 

CNN-IBN reported the sounds of gunfire from the hotel just after the police contingent went in. 

In Washington, the Bush administration condemned the attacks, as did President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team. The State Department said there were no known American casualties, but the White House said it was still “assessing the hostage situation.”

Reporting was contributed by Michael Rubenstein and Prashanth Vishwanathan from Mumbai; Jeremy Kahn and Hari Kumar from New Delhi; Souad Mekhennet from Frankfurt, Germany; Sharon Otterman and Michael Moss from New York; and Mark Mazzetti from Washington.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company 

Does religion make terrorists ?

By Abhishek Pandey

Do terrorists have any religion? This is a question which was raised by our Muslim brethren since terror was attached with Islam. Some radical groups like sangh parivar and VHP related Islam with terror by saying that “All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims”. And BJP had also used this as a political plank in recent past by some way or the other.

These days we are listening a new term ‘Hindu terrorism’ or Hindu terrorist’ which is opposed by sangh parivar and BJP in a different way saying that one person can not malign the whole community. The case of Malegaon blast accused has brought some BJP and sangh parivar activists under the scanner of the ATS (Anti Terrorist Squad) for their alleged anti-national activities. The day after Sadhvi was arrested for her alleged link in Malegaon blast case, BJP president Rajnath Singh, who was found with Sadhvi Pragya in a picture, said that he was embarrassed to be found with her in the same frame. Party’s prime ministerial candidate LK Advani also distanced party from the accused and said taking a political correct stand, Sadhvi should be punished if found guilty.

All this changed suddenly as Hindutva center authority, RSS, decided to support her. And BJP also found that it is loosing an emotive issue for the next LS elections, Advani asked the government not to politicise the issue and don’t mix religion with terrorism. He also said that a spiritual leader should not be treated in a barbaric manner. These statements can not be justified which are coming form a party which have been claiming to be the saviour of country from terrorism and asked for the strictest law for the terrorists. BJP is the same party, which has opposed the legal assistance by Jamia Milia University to it students, who have allegedly behind the bomb blasts in Delhi. BJP is also trying to malign the image of the Maharashtra ATS by saying that its actions are politically motivated and unprofessional in its investigation. BJP has forgotten the national interest for fulfilling its political agendas and this trend is alarming for the nation. In the recent past BJP president Rajnath Singh called Rahul Gandhi a bachha in politics but some one should tell him that mature leaders think before they speak, as BJP leaders didn’t do in Sadhvi’s matter.

BJP leaders and other outfits those are supporting Sadhvi and other accused of Malegaon blast should give the answers to the people of India, why did they attach religion with terrorism and see every member of the community -Islam- as a suspect. These question are still lying unanswered. 

Hindu terror targets RSS

HT | Nov 20/11/2008

Members of Hindu right-wing organisation Abhinav Bharat, accused of carrying out the Malegaon blast, plotted to kill senior Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) leaders who they thought weren’t doing enough for Hindutva, show investigation reports accessed exclusively by Hindustan Times.

At a time when the Bharatiya Janata Party has declared its support for the accused, who are being investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the probe report reveals a plan to kill RSS general secretary Mohan Bhagwat and senior leader Indraeesh, who manages the Rashtriya Muslim Manch, which attracts Muslims with a “nationalistic outlook”. The report is with the state Home Department, which has shared it with the Union Home Ministry and central intelligence agencies.

Data found on the laptop of Dayanand Pandey, alias Shankaracharya Sudhakar Dwivedi, who was arrested in Lucknow on November 12, verifies the report. Experts at the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina are examining the laptop.

The planned killings, the report said, were masterminded by S. Apte, a 70-year-old Pune-based RSS worker who was unhappy with the organisation’s functioning, along with Pandey, Major (retd) Ramesh Upadhyay and a leading Delhi-based doctor identified only as ‘Dr Singh’. 



The ATS found that Apte and Pandey, the son of a retired sub-inspector of the Uttar Pradesh police, approached Lieutenant-Colonel Prasad Purohit for help in executing the plan. Apte also paid him Rs 10 lakh, said the report.

Purohit introduced a close aide, whose identity HT has withheld so as not to hinder investigations, to Apte to assist him.

In August, when the group learnt that Bhagwat and Indraeesh would be visiting Pune, “Apte showed [Purohit’s aide] around the various spots [suitable for the killings] in Pune” and they zeroed in on a couple.

Investigations also showed that “[Pandey] had arranged for a weapon”, a 9 mm foreign-made pistol, which was delivered to one of his followers “in Faridabad” when he and Apte first hatched the plot. 

The ATS is investigating Apte, who is currently in Pune.

Rethinking Islam And Hinduism

                                                                                       BY S Irfan Habib

There has been a lot of noise about rethinking in Islam, particularly post September 11,2001. I feel it is long overdue and September 11 has just given us a rude shock to get into action. Within India, Godhra and the ensuing Gujarat carnage has added urgency to the question of rethinking, making us conscious of the fact that there is something seriously wrong somewhere. If September 11 and Godhra are the ugly faces of Islam than the burning of Graham Staines and his children and the ongoing Gujarat carnage is the depraved and distorted face of Hinduism. Both are threats to the secular and pluralist fabric of India.

Unfortunately Muslims and Hindus have allowed their respective faiths to be hijacked by the lunatic fringe, which appears to be calling most of the shots on their behalf. Pakistan is an apt example of this perversion in Islam while the Sangh Parivar is the mirror image of this aberration in India. The Islamic variety appears to be more threatening to world peace due to Islam’s multinational character and the diverse political problems involving these so called Islamic nations. However this does not mean that the sangh parivar’s machinations and hate filled campaign against its fellow citizens is a lesser danger to civil society. Striking terror and causing mayhem and misery among fellow human beings is nothing but terrorism. It is time to wake up and wrest control from those who have no qualms about vulgarization of their religion as long as it serves their sectarian agenda.

It is a known fact that Islam did not undergo any meaningful reform to cope with the challenges of modernity. Any serious attempt at ijtihad- a reasoned struggle and rethinking to reform Islam, has been countered by specious arguments saying Islam is beyond time and context thus any talk of rethinking is un-Islamic. This was seen during the 19th century when Syed Ahmed Khan, Jamaluddin Afghani, Mohammad Abduh and others gave a call for ijtihad. The so-called defenders of faith take refuge in Islamic tradition to counter any suggestion for change, which conforms to changing times. They fail to realize that Islam came in with a dynamic and revolutionary social, political, and moral message. It can never be a creed to resist change in accordance with the changing contexts. Alam Khundmiri, the late activist and thinker of Hyderabad who died in 1983, was right when he said that most Muslim social reform movements commit a common error of identifying a particular medieval religious tradition with Islam itself, which as a religion was itself a revolt against the superstitions of the age in which it was born. It is a pity that in an attempt to preserve the Islamic tradition, this revolutionary tradition of early Islam is being completely ignored.

The Book has many passages that should inspire man to use his reason and elevate the status of man as an agent of change. Islam left it to the creative intelligence of the believer to translate the essential vision of the Book into an idiom, which suits the requirements of the modern age. This early vision of Islam and its reverence for human reason and respect for human experience was revealed in a limited manner in the magnificent achievements of Muslims in the fields of science, mathematics and philosophy. All this was possible in an era of Mutazilite ascendancy when ijtihad reigned supreme and the shackles of tradition had not yet trapped the vibrant faith. The believers were still conscious of the fact that the only thing eternal about Islam is Quran and the relationship with the Quranic text has to be interpretative, more so if it is perceived to be eternal. Once interpretation or ijtihad was outlawed, any scope of adjustment with the changing times and contexts became impossible. Alam believes and rightly so that the medievalists committed an error by putting the seal of finality on Islam’s historical achievements. Let us stop finding medieval solutions to our modern day concerns and reinstate ijtihad to open up Islam, bring back its dynamism so that it stops being an obstacle to progress.

Another much talked about feature of Islam is Shariah. It is being interpreted in its most revile form by the believers themselves and in the process inviting ridicule and scorn of the civilized world. The Shariah is perceived as a divine code of conduct applicable forever without any spatial or temporal constraints. This has led to serious complications with respect to women’s rights. It is unfortunate that in Islam religiosity and morality have become synonymous with legality, while in fact legality should be subordinate to a moral and ethical vision.

There is an urgent need to make necessary changes in Shariah under the Quranic gaze so that it conforms to the moral fervour of the Prophet and the ethical vision of Islam. Ziauddin Sardar is right when he says that Shariah is nothing more than a set of principles: framework of values that provide Muslim societies with guidance. But these sets of principles and values are not static , they are dynamically derived within changing contexts. Taliban misadventure in Afghanistan has shown to us how narrow adherence to the text and tradition takes us away from the real world. What we have today is the caricature of Islam being projected as the true face of Islam.

But what about Hinduism and its vulgarization at the hands of sangh parivar? A group of rabble-rousers have legitimated themselves as representatives of Hinduism and its believers. They leave no opportunity to malign their bete-noire Islam but tend to do exactly the same while articulating their brand of Hinduism. They have brazenly adopted the most un-Hindu version of Hinduism called Hindutva, propounded by Vir Savarkar in the early last century. Being a proclaimed atheist, Savarkar had no qualms in defacing Hinduism to suit his politics of social engineering. It was treated with contempt it deserved all these years till L K Advani revived it in 1989/90, providing it legitimacy and respect.

Simultaneously Advani promoted the idea of cultural nationalism, which was again inspired by the mischievous ideology of Savarkar who unabashedly made Hindutva and nationalism interchangeable. This exclusivism automatically drove out Maulana Azad, Ashfaqullah Khan, Frontier Gandhi, Ajmal Khan and scores of others from the nationalist gallery of the sangh parivar. Contrast this cultural nationalism with that of Jamaluddin Afghani, who was in India during the 1880s, just when the nationalist discourse had begun. While addressing a group of young Muslims in Calcutta, he emphasized on the composite strength of Indian nationalism where all communities had to be equal participants in their struggle against the British colonialism. He emphasized on the common secular heritage including its science, technology and literature reminding the Muslim youth present that they were the inheritors of a civilization that produced arithmetic and geometry for the world. He further went on to say that `Human values spread out from India to the whole world…. The Indians reached the highest level of philosophic thought. The soil of India is the same soil; the air of India is the same air; and these youths who are present here are fruits of the same earth and climate.’

Here we find a clear enunciation of shared heritage that is not conflict-ridden and is not grounded in religious exclusivism. Hindutva is unfortunately rooted in the revival of a sectarian past and not the common past of all Indians. It seeks to construct an unadulterated Indian past after a careful sifting of icons and ideas, leaving out a large section from our heritage as something not only alien but also defiling. The most unfortunate aspect of it all is that Hindutva’s concerted hammering of lies had trapped a substantial Hindu population in its web.

Hinduism and Islam have had their bumpy patches but they never hated each other as much as they do now in their new avatars of Hindutva and jehadi Islam. Both these versions have purged their respected faiths of all humanity, morality and spiritualism. They merely represent crass jingoism, fanaticism and hatred for each other. Both are haunted by the images of their golden pasts which are lost in the march of history and which both of them want to rediscover. This reinventing of sectarian pasts has messed up our present and will certainly blight the region’s future.

The author is a well known researcher and author TO MAKE THE DEAF HEAR — Ideology and Programme of Bhagat Singh and His Comrades: Irfan Habib - Three Essays Collective.

This article was first published at Jahan-e-Rumi. 

Islam, Muslims And Terrorism

                      BY Asgar Ali Engineer

Islam is being invariably associated with terrorism both in media as well as in political circles, especially in Western countries. When they hear it being condemned by Muslim theologians, it is celebrated as something unusual. It is strange irony of both misunderstanding and motivated propaganda that if a small band of Osama’s followers give call for jihad, it is taken as authentic Islamic call and if it is condemned by mainstream Islamic theologians, it is accepted with mixed feelings of celebration and skepticism. The mainstream condemnation of terrorism is somehow not accepted with conviction.

When the Darul Ulum Deoband, a leading Islamic seminary in Asia, held an anti-terrorism conference the media spotlighted it and number of articles and editorials were written in mainstream media. There was underlying skepticism that how thousands of ‘Ulamas and imams could gather together in such large numbers, to denounce terrorism. In fact when media unceasingly targeted Islam for terrorism, these ‘Ulamas thought it necessary to do so to convince their non-Muslim friends that Islam does not stand for terrorism.

In fact it was hardly necessary to do so as all Muslim theologians know fully well that there is no link, whatsoever, between Islam and terrorism but due to such continuing attacks, Muslim theologians had to issue a declaration condemning terrorism. Let it be noted that not only Osama bin Laden but not a single leading member of Al-Qaida is a qualified theologian. They are all modern educated youth or politicians. Among Taliban too, there is no theologian of any credible standing. Some of them may be product of madrasas in North West Frontier province of Pakistan but they never went for higher Islamic studies. They never got beyond preliminary Islamic education. It was their political bosses who decided course of action and formulated policies invoking ‘jihad’ to justify their acts of terrorism.

Never any major theologian ever justified acts of terrorism. One of major Islamic thinker and theologian from West Asia issued any fatwa approving of terrorism as jihad. Yusuf Qardawi, a well-known theologian and highly respected by orthodox Muslims, condemned terrorism and suicide bombing killing of innocent people. A conference of leading Muslim scholars also condemned suicide bombing as un-Islamic. Qur’an is so clear on the issue along with hadith literature that save on political grounds, no one can approve of acts of terrorism.

There are in all 41 verses in Qur’an on jihad and not a single verse uses it for war or violence. In early twentieth century when terrorism, like today, was not the issue, a noted scholar of Islam Maulavi Chiragh Ali wrote a scholarly book on Jihad and showed that not even once word jihad has been used for war or violence in Qur’an. It is really a landmark work for those who want to understand meaning of jihad in Qur’an.

The prophet of Islam (PBUH) himself never fought any war of aggression; he fought battles only in defense. Most of the battles Prophet fought was in and around Madina where he had migrated to, to escape severe prosecution from his and Islam’s enemies in Mecca. It is opponents of Islam who attacked Madina and Prophet fought back. He followed the injunction of the Qur’an, “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allah does not love aggressors. (2:190)

This Qur’anic verse is self-explanatory and does not need any elaboration. How prophet could have violated this injunction from high on in his own lifetime? The real problem is that one fails to distinguish what is theological and what is political. Many Muslims had their own political interests and they conveniently invoked doctrine of jihad for their political project as Osama bin Laden has been doing in our own times.

The invocation of jihad for political purposes is post-Qur’anic development. The Prophet would have never approved it. Those who kept away from political struggle for power like Sufis, gave jihad a very different meaning. According to Sufis love and peace is the basis of Islam and jihad is spiritual struggle to control ones desires. In other words real jihad is war against ones own desires, as it is selfish desires which require human beings to resort to violence.

In fact Sufis always kept themselves away from political power struggle and believed in leading peaceful life and emphasized doctrine of sulh-i-kul (total peace and peace with all). Since they never involved themselves in political power struggle they led simple life and busied themselves in suppressing their desires and tried to achieve what Qur’an calls nafs mutma’innah (i.e. peaceful and satisfied soul). This could be possible only if one controlled ones desires.

It was Sufi Islam, which was most popular among the masses, as Muslim masses also had nothing to do with wars for political domination. Sufis believed in controlling themselves rather than control others. One needs violence only when one wants to control others, rather than oneself. Since Sufis controlled themselves they avoided violence and politicians desire to control others and hence justify use of violence.

All empire builders use violence and then justify it in the name of religion or patriotism or security. America today uses violence on largest scale imaginable and causes havoc because it wants to control whole word for its material resources. It attacked Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam before, only to control oil and other resources. And as Vietnamis were forced to fight in their own way now Osama and their followers are fighting against America.

Of course there is big difference between Vietnam’s fight against American aggression and Osama bin Laden’s use of violence. Vietnam was a country and it was defending itself and Osama is a fugitive from Saudi, represents no country and leads a group founded by him al-Qaida and uses hit and run tactics and involves innocent citizens in his attacks. Osama has not been authorized by any country, much less by any religious authority, to attack All leading theologians always condemned him for his terrorism.

The problem with media is it never goes in depth. It has no time for it. Its news is related to events and particularly negative events. What we call investigative journalism is rare and again in depth analysis appeals to intellectuals, not to average readers. Then add to this hostile attitude, political agenda of certain vested interests, Zionist lobby in USA and USA’s own justification of war of aggression against Muslim countries and one can understand why western media projects Islam as religion of jihad and terrorism.

There is great need to understand various parallel trends in the Islamic world today. Media reporting and statements of certain political leaders has developed a stereotype that Muslims are essentially jihadis and united in their fight against non-Muslims. When we are hostile to a community or a nation, we homogenize it and look for negative traits ignoring diversity and complexities.

It is no different when it comes to Islam and Muslims. Since theologians tend to speak of Islam and not Islams, a message goes that there is one single understanding of Islam and all Muslims fall in line with this theological Islam. Sociological and cultural differences in understanding of Islam is totally ignored. Apart from Sufis there are several Muslim sects who do not approve of use of violence as integral part of Islam.

It would be of great interest to know that among all other Islamic sects Isma’ilis consider jihad as one of the seven pillars of Islam (generally Muslims believe in five pillars) as at one time in history Ismailis were involved in long struggle for power with Abbasids and yet today Ismaili communities throughout the world are most peaceful communities. This clearly shows that violence is political, not religious necessity.

Christians too, despite Biblical doctrine of love and presenting other cheek if slapped on one cheek, came out with the theory of ‘Holy War’ during crusades and the Geeta pronounced concept of dharmayuddha. We find so much violence in Buddhist countries like Sri Lanka and Thailand. Thus it would be seen that all religions talk of love and peace and all religions permit use of violence in defense. But the followers often misuse the concept of defensive violence for aggressive purposes.

Media may have its own compulsions, politicians may have their own needs, but scholars should not buy their formulations. They must fight their own prejudices and go for in depth understanding of issues. Intellectuals and scholars should be committed to quest for truth as peace and non-violence is not possible without truth. Gandhiji insisted on truth and even said truth is God in order to promote peace and no-violence.

War needs propaganda for its justification and propaganda is based on half-truths and outright lies and peace needs truth and nothing but truth. It is quest for truth which brings peace of soul – nafs-i-mutma’innah or shanty. Desire for controlling others and political power creates unrest and violence. Today Middle East is a war torn zone as it sits over unlimited source of oil. It is control over oil which tempts America to attack Arab countries and people like Osama indulge in reactive violence. Terrorism is reactive violence whereas state violence is active violence. Thus terrorism is not all about jihad but reaction to American violence for its lust for oil.

JIHAD is not Terrorism

Jihad? But What About Other Verses In Qur’an?       By Asgar Ali Engineer

The terror attacks in India as well as abroad has created an impression as if jihad is central to Qur’anic teaching. First of all, as we have asserted repeatedly, jihad does not mean war in Qur’an as there are other words for it like qital and harb for war. Jihad has been used in Qur’an in its root meaning i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (ma’ruf) and contain evil (munkar).

But supposing jihad means war, as many Muslims, especially those who want to use it for their own political agenda, even then jihad is not that central to Qur’anic teachings. The word jihad occurs in the Qur’an 41 times (though not a single verse uses it in the sense of war) there are other key words in Qur’an representing values. As we have pointed out in one of the previous articles there are four most fundamental values in Qur’an i.e. justice (’adl), benevolence (ihsan) compassion (rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah).

These are Allah’s names also in Qur’an i.e. Allah is Just, Benevolent, Compassionate and Wise. Thus the Qur’an is embodiment of these values and a Muslim is duty bound to practice these values above all. One who fails to practice these values can hardly claim to be true Muslim. Jihad is not even obligatory in Islamic jurisprudence whereas these values are indicative of a Muslim’s character and hence quite important.

In Qur’an compassion is quite central and Allah’s names Rahman and Rahim (Compassionate and Merciful) are among the most important names. A Muslim begins his/her work by invoking Allah’s names Rahman and Rahim (i.e. I begin in the name of Allah Who is ‘compassionate and Merciful). Thus it would be seen that Compassion is most central to Qur’anic teachings and the words compassion and mercy in their various forms occur in Qur’an 335 times as against jihad only 41 times.

The word ihsan (i.e. to do good to others) occurs in the Qur’an 194 times which also greatly outnumbers jihad. Similarly the word wisdom and its derivatives occur 101 times. Qur’an lays great emphasis on wisdom as wisdom is superior to reason in a way. Reason is also quite important but at times it can be misused by human beings whereas wisdom includes reason and values put together. Qur’an advises Muslims again and again to use wisdom. It asks Muslims to call to Allah also with wisdom, not with threats or force. One cannot invite anyone to ways of Allah by use of force, coercion or threat but with wisdom and kind words.

Also, there is great emphasis in Qur’an on justice in all social and political matters and Qur’an uses three words for justice i.e. ‘adl, qist and hakama and all these three words put together there are 244 words for justice in Qur’an. Thus it clearly shows that justice with all is highly necessary which clearly implies no innocent person would be punished in any case.

Also, Allah is thirty three times described in Qur’an as Ghafur al-Rahim i.e. Forgiver and Merciful and not one who seeks revenge. To seek revenge is human weakness, not strength of character. Thus a devout Muslim tends to forgive like Allah who forgives his servants if they sincerely repent. Those who are waging ‘jihad’ in the form of terror attacks are bent upon seeking revenge whereas a good Muslim would tend to forgive alike Allah forgives. It is true Allah punishes oppressors (zalimun) but no individual or a group of individuals not representative of community or state can dispense punishment. Only Allah or state or its representatives of states can dispense with punishment.

That is why in Islamic jurisprudence (Shari’ah law) jihad can be declared only by state or those empowered by the state, no one else. Terror attacks, on the other hand, are planned and executed by few individuals unrepresentative of any state or state institution. So their attacks cannot be legitimate by any Islamic or Shari’ah law. That is nothing but committing murder of innocent people. Also according to Islamic laws in jihad too no non-combatant can be attacked much less women, children and old persons and no civilian property can be destroyed unless it is being used for military purposes or for purposes of combat.

It will be seen that rules laid down for war by Islamic laws are no different from modern laws of warfare or Geneva Conventions. But terror attacks are gross violation of all these Islamic rules and there is no way these attacks can be characterized as ‘jihad’. These terrorists are described by media as jihadis. It is also gross misuse of the word as there is no word like jihadi in the first place in Arabic language. It is in fact mujahid and word mujahid is used in laudatory sense – one who devotes oneself for a good cause like fighting against social evils etc. At times it is also used for a warrior but in that sense it used for a brave person who is not only fearless but also wages war only for a good cause and fights only on the front, not hit and run kind.

I would also like to throw some light on the word jihad as understood and explained in Islamic literature. If these Qur’anic values are important and they are undoubtedly then real jihad would be to cultivate and promote these values with utmost efforts and sufi saints considered real jihad only in this sense. After all Islam came in this world through the Prophet to combat all social evils then prevalent in Arab society in general, and in Mecca, in particular.

Since primary importance in Qur’anic teachings is for these values, a true Muslim would devote himself/herself to fight all evils in the society which negate these values. The Prophet (PBUH) devoted his entire life in practicing and promoting these values. He was, therefore, rightly described in the Qur’an as Rahmatun lil ‘Alamin (i.e. mercy of the worlds) because mercy can prevail in the world only if one eliminates all these evils.

The Islamic history during Prophet’s life is to be seen in two important phases i.e. the Meccan phase for first thirteen years after Muhammad (PBUH) became Prophet and then 10 years in Madina after his migration. In Meccan phase the Prophet and his followers were most oppressed minority and yet Prophet did not ask his followers to use violence in any form. On the contrary, Qur’an repeatedly advised Prophet and his followers to bear all hardships patiently and not to despair.

The Prophet bore with utmost patience all the hardships, even insults and humiliations and carried on his mission. His followers were subjected to great hardships but he always advised them to be patient and penitent. Thus the Prophet (PBUH) guided Muslims how to behave in such adverse conditions and how to ensure peace despite such hardships. But when conditions became unbearable he advised some of his followers to migrate to Ethiopia and later he himself migrated to Madina with some of his followers.

Thus Meccan model of Islam can be very useful for those Muslims who are facing similar situation in parts of the world. As Qur’an lays great stress on hikmah (wisdom) one has to imply wisdom and carve out a proper strategy of survival rather than take plunge in violence throw themselves into peril. The Qur’an advises Muslims “…and cast not yourselves to destruction with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good.” (2:195)

This advice of the Qur’an not to throw yourself to destruction with your own hands is important and relevant even today in similar situations. See what the 9/11 attack on New York towers resulted in? Did Al-Qaida not invite great disaster to the entire Islamic world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did they not throw themselves in perdition with their own hands? What good that attack do to anyone. Was there any wisdom in that rash and ruthless attack?

Qur’an repeatedly advises Muslims to use wisdom. Was there any wisdom in that attack on New York trade towers? How can one be Muslim without following Qur’an in every sphere of life? To launch such attacks recklessly will bring nothing but disaster for Muslims and Islam. On the contrary the Qur’an advises Muslims to do good to others instead of throwing themselves into perdition (tahlukat).

Qur’an is clearly advising Muslims to win over hearts of others by doing good to others and thus ward off evil from them. Also, both peace of Hudaibiyah (name of the place where the Prophet signed a peace treaty) and behavior of the Prophet (PBUH) after conquest of Mecca are shining example of exemplary conduct of a great and generous leader. It is in this sense that Qur’an describes the Prophet as uswah husnah i.e. good role model for all.

Both at Hudaybiyah and in Mecca after the conquest the Prophet (PBUH) rather than dictating terms or seeking revenge showed great generosity towards his enemies and won over their hearts. At Hudaybiyah the Prophet had enough strength to dictate terms to the unbelievers of Mecca but instead he accepted certain humiliating terms dictated by them. Ultimately the treaty benefited Muslims. But it required wisdom of the prophet to enter into such treaty which was apparently humiliating but proved to be otherwise.

Similarly after conquest of Mecca the Prophet forgave worst of his enemies who had insulted and humiliated him and oppressed in most inhuman ways his followers. That won over his worst enemies and all of them embraced Islam. Had he chosen to seek revenge which was customary to Arabs, another bloodbath would have resulted and Islam would not have won so many adherents. Thus moral victory is far more superior to seeking revenge. Revenge only satisfies our ego and injures the ego of the enemy and thus war of attrition continues.

What terrorists are doing is seeking revenge and that too from a weaker position and thus every attack brings nothing but disaster for themselves and others. Allah certainly does not like those who only seek revenge to satisfy their egos. Conducting ummah’s affairs with wisdom would be far more beneficial to Muslims as a whole. However, it does not mean surrendering to unjust powers but how to fight for justice must be decided through collective wisdom to minimize danger to the cause of Islam and Muslims.

Also the question is of methodology for interpreting Qur’an. The Qur’an was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) over a period of 23 years and most of the verses were revealed in response to certain situation and the relevant verse has to be understood in the context in which it was revealed. Every text has a context and only context can explain how to understand the text. And while understanding the text it is also necessary to judge whether context has changed and similar conditions prevail.

Various verses quoted to justify ‘jihad’ are generally taken in literal sense and also ignoring the value system of Qur’an. It is not only context but also value system of the Qur’an which must be kept in mind while applying the injunction contained in the verse. When Qur’an was being revealed the revelation was from Allah and was being revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and both were fully aware of the value system and hence they knew when war becomes absolutely necessary.

But when human beings other than the Prophet apply Qur’anic injunctions it is very different thing. Ordinary Muslims are neither infallible nor thoroughly immersed in Islamic values because unlike the Prophet they are not a real role model (uswa-e-husnah). And when someone applies these Qur’anic injunctions without any consensus of ummah behind it, it is all the more unacceptable. This is what these terrorists are doing.

It is well known fact that be it Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, they do not represent any government or larger Muslim organization. They succeed in mobilizing some angry youth who have no maturity or wisdom and are carried away by ‘Islamic’ rhetoric and commit terrorist attacks taking lives of several innocent bystanders. These attacks violate all Qur’anic values.

Apart from this the conditions as obtained in 7th century Arabia cannot be compared to the conditions in the contemporary world. In those days violence could be met only with violence. The Arabs had their age old tribal traditions of qisas (retaliation) and Qur’an, looking to the context permitted qisas with strict condition that it be strictly in equal measure in the interest of justice but also advised if you forgive it is better.

In those days there were no other institutions available and Qur’an permitted only defensive war and banned aggression even against enemy. And as the example of peace of Hudaybiyah shows, war should be avoided wherever peace is possible even on enemy’s terms and the Meccan example shows instead of qisas one should better forgive and win over the hearts of the enemy. Both these models are part of the Prophet’s sunna and Muslims should follow Prophet’s sunna.

And today’s world is radically different from 7th century Arabia and today we should go more by Qur’anic ethics than injunctions about war. Today several institutions are available for arbitration, reconciliation and solving disputes. One cannot rush to resort to violence. All Muslim countries are members of United Nations Organization and without referring any international dispute to it no other action could be contemplated.

Well, the extremist organizations can point out that UNO is dominated by the USA and other western nations and one cannot get justice from it. It is entirely true but then this also has to be continuously exposed and world should know how UNO works in the interests of USA, rather than in the interest of justice. It is also known that USA committed aggression against Iraq despite UNO refusing permission to wage war against Iraq. It exposed USA and world at large knows today how helpless UNO is before powers like USA.

Also, if one wants to really solve the problem peacefully violence will only damage the cause and make world opinion also adverse. The greatest strength of the cause in contemporary world is the favorable public opinion. One must try and win public opinion. Non-violent action is much likely to win public opinion rather than violent actions. Killing innocent people through terror acts can never be effective against a very powerful enemy. And it also makes public opinion very adverse.

Today media is very powerful in creating public opinion and non-violent actions will certainly impact the media people. Unfortunately the youth being impatient with democratic processes and under illusion of following Qur’anic traditions rushes to resort to so called jihad and antagonizes the world opinion. And what they do not understand, other Muslims, including Muslim countries, have to face adverse consequences.

Such thoughtless violence as committed by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Pakistan has created an image of Islam as violent religion, religion of jihad though the value system of Islam gives precedence to compassion and respect for human life and dignity. While Buddhism is being equated with compassion and Christianity with love and peace Islam is being equated with jihad and violence. Should these Muslim youth not deeply reflect what adverse image of Islam they have helped create?

These youth are so brainwashed by certain vested interests that they think jihad is obligatory on Muslims and that jihad is the only way out. These youth are totally ignorant of Islamic value system and importance of moral superiority over superiority of weapons. The examples of Hudaybiyah and peaceful Meccan conquest clearly show moral superiority ultimately matters. The most powerful can be disarmed before the might of moral stand.

In our own time Gandhiji showed the effectiveness of truth and non-violence. The mighty British Empire had to bow down before the might of truth and non-violent action. Unfortunately many think non-violence is cowardice and is born out of weakness. It is very erroneous view. It is only most courageous and truthful person who practices non-violence. Violence is borne out of anger and revenge, not out of truthful stand.

The Prophet of Islam once defined jihad as ‘telling truth in the face of a tyrant ruler’ Telling truth in the face of a tyrant ruler requires tremendous courage and a coward will only kneel on his knees before a tyrant. One who is convinced of truth (Haq in Qur’anic terminology) will stand by it most courageously and endure all hardships patiently. The Muslims in Meccan period of Islam endured unimaginable hardships with greatest degree of patience and most steadfastly. They were never provoked into violent action.

Meccan Muslims are best example of how to endure hardships in the face of most challenging situations. Today we have so many Muslim majority countries and the Muslim youth have to put pressure on the rulers of their countries to unite and fight against injustices being perpetrated by the USA and other powers. If the rulers are pro-US and do not take action they must launch public agitation peacefully. It will expose those rulers who serve their personal interests rather than the Muslim ummah.

One can argue such agitations do not produce immediate results and no one knows what effect it will have on the ruling class. This argument is partly true. But then one would like to ask how effective is terrorist attacks? Do they succeed in achieving the desired goal? One has no such example. And again, violence against whom? So far there is not a single example that such violent attacks have forced US or any other power bringing them on their knees. It invites greater counter-violence and it becomes vicious circle. In Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan (and now also in India) hundreds of innocent people have died and yet violence has been going on.

It becomes more of ego fight than fight for any cause. Wisdom (which is one of the important values in the Holy Qur’an) requires that one should thoroughly and objectively assess the situation before adopting any strategy. Those resorting to terrorist violence are no match to superior might of these western nations they are fighting against or any government for that matter. And in armed struggle they cannot involve masses. The violent actions, on the other hand, alienate the masses from violent groups for their arbitrary attacks.

Thus wiser course will be to fight democratically mobilizing public opinion in their favor. The Meccan model of Islam is far more useful than any other model. The verses relating to war in the Qur’an were revealed in Madina because Muslims were being attacked by Meccan kuffar (unbelievers) again and again and in those days only course of action available was to defend themselves. The Islamic history is witness to the fact that all the battles fought by the Prophet were defensive in nature.

And if the USA attacked Iraq and Afghanistan it was for the armies of these countries to defend themselves or devise other strategies, in case of defeat. It does not give license to any group to launch violent attacks. And these groups cannot attack the innocent civilians of their own countries.

In case of India one cannot avenge communal violence by such terrorist attacks on innocent Hindus and Muslims in market places. It is same sin which communal forces committed against innocent Muslims. Wisdom requires that one should patiently mobilize public opinion through democratic means and win over hearts of common Hindus and expose communal fascist forces in the eyes of public.

One hopes the misguided Muslim youth resorting to such violent actions would realize the futility of terror attacks and renounce such sinful and criminal acts and instead concentrate on excelling in learning and acquiring superior moral character thus truly following transcendent Qur’anic moral precepts. Did not the Prophet say ‘ink of a scholar is superior to the blood of the martyr?’

Ugly defence of the indefensible(The HIndu) & Mind your words (TOI)

Ugly defence of the indefensible 

The Hindu : the day after advani supported Pragya Thakur : 20-11-2008

When someone takes to offence as a form of defence of the unjustifiable, the outcome turns nasty. The Bharatiya Janata Party, which was on the political offensive over the last decade on an anti-Islamist terrorism plank, is clearly shaken by the revelations of the role of extremist Hindutva elements in the Malegaon bomb explosions and some other terrorist attacks. As news broke of the alleged involvement of Sadhvi Pragnya Singh Thakur in the bomb blasts, BJP leaders first tried to distance themselves from her. On October 30, party president Rajnath Singh said he was embarrassed to find that he had been photographed with her. The next day the party’s prime-minister-in-waiting, L.K. Advani, took the politically correct stand that the sadhvi should be punished if found guilty. All this changed quickly enough with the Hindutva command centre, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, deciding to back her to the hilt. Mr. Singh went over the top, claiming that those who believed in “cultural nationalism” — a euphemism for the sangh parivar’s highly toxic communal politics — could never take to terror and voicing his suspicion of a frame-up. But more significantly, the heavyweight Mr. Advani spelt out a new line, condemning the “barbaric treatment” of a “spiritual person,” seeking a judicial probe into her dramatised allegations of torture, and assailing “the manner in which unsubstantiated allegations have been made against serving Army personnel [Lt. Col. Shrikant Purohit].” No one can miss the irony of such statements coming from the top leaders of a party that has tried to position itself as India’s foremost adversary of terrorism. Indeed the BJP, which attacked the Jamia Millia Islamia’s offer of legal assistance to two Muslim students accused of involvement in bomb blasts, now has no qualms about supporting alleged terrorists of the saffron kind. Every accused is constitutionally entitled to legal assistance but political support to those accused of serious crimes, especially terrorist acts, is an entirely different matter.

Clearly, the BJP’s stance on Malegaon has nothing to do with the principle that a person must be presumed innocent unless proved guilty. It is a stance of blanket opposition to the law of the land bringing to justice sangh parivar elements accused of terrorist crimes. The double standard aside, the BJP is guilty of seeking to politicise, pressure, and derail the legal investigation of the Malegaon explosions and the conspiracy behind them by Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. It is particularly shocking that Mr. Advani, a former Union Home Minister, going on nothing but the hysterical words of an accused, charged the ATS with being politically motivated and unprofessional in its investigation. The parivar has a track record of applauding the ATS whenever it acted against alleged Islamist terrorists. Blinded by its communal agenda, the main opposition party has gone dangerously over the top in the cause of Hindutva.

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

TOI                                      EDITORIAL COMMENT | Mind Your Words
20 Nov 2008


Recent statements by senior BJP leaders on the Malegaon blasts probe are now a bit alarming. On Tuesday, the party's PM-designate and the nation's leader of the opposition, L K Advani, defended Pragya Thakur, a sangh parivar activist facing charges of terrorism. He accused the police of bias against Pragya and army personnel and called for changes in the anti-terror squad (ATS), which arrested Pragya and others. His party president, Rajnath Singh, went a step further and spoke darkly of civil war. Do these leaders understand the import of their statements? 

The ATS probe is far from complete and political parties must not try to scuttle it. If the conclusions of the probe are unconvincing, they can be challenged in courts. Any other method to influence or disrupt the investigation is simply unacceptable. The nation expects senior politicians, like L K Advani and Rajnath Singh, to respect the sanctity of the institutional process and not cast aspersions on investigators. Both Advani and Rajnath have politicised the stray case of an errant army officer by claiming to speak on behalf of army personnel. As we have argued in these columns, the armed forces have an exemplary record as an apolitical institution. Political parties must respect that record. The threat to subvert terror probes will appeal to sangh parivar activists but such talk by leaders of the country's largest opposition party may seriously hurt public institutions. 

Extremists in the sangh parivar have already upped the ante by attributing communal undertones to the terror probe. A meet of sadhus in Panipat last Sunday decided to launch a mass movement against the "vilification of Hindu monks and army personnel". The talk of civil war by the likes of Rajnath to stop possible arrests of sangh parivar activists can give political legitimacy to such blatant communal mobilisation. India can't afford such an outcome. 

Countries ravaged by civil war surround India. This country too could have gone their way but for a relatively responsible political leadership — including the BJP's thus far — that to a large extent respected the independence of public institutions. And the armed forces, unlike in our neighbourhood, always shunned politics and took orders from the executive. Surely, leaders like Advani and Rajnath would want this state of affairs to continue. They, therefore, must ask themselves whether loose talk will do any good to this nation. A strong state is one that has mature politicians. Mature politicians think before they speak.

BJP AND CHALLENGE OF TERRORISM

                                             

                                              BJP and the challenge of terrorism 

Published on 20-11-2008 :THE HINDU

Vidya Subrahmaniam 

Instead of acknowledging the possibility that some Hindutva elements could be involved in terrorism, the BJP and the sangh have gone on the offensive. 






At a press conference held some weeks ago in Delhi, Ravi Shankar Prasad, the amiable spokesperson for the Bharatiya Janata Party, seemed strangely out of form. If this was unusual, so too was the subject under discussion — Hindutva’s terror connection. A veteran of countless television studio debates, Mr. Prasad is well schooled in the art of repartee and rejoinder. Yet here he was, stumbling and stuttering, unable to face the volley of questions on the revelations linking a handful of Hindutva followers to terror attacks in Malegaon and other places. 

Asked the hacks: What happened to the BJP’s stand that terrorism brooked no leniency? The BJP had no qualms about labelling every Muslim terror suspect a terrorist; it campaigned for the return of the draconian Prevention of Terrorism Act, which placed the burden of proof on the accused. Yet it now wanted the presumption of innocence applied to terror suspects from its own fold. Why? The party wanted the maximum freedom granted to terror investigators so that they felt no pressure. Yet it now complained of police excesses. Why? 

That was then, in the early days of some Hindutva warriors’ newly discovered terror links. As the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad set off on the saffron terror trail and arrested a gaggle of activists, among them Sadhvi Pragnya Singh and a serving army officer, the BJP seemed in shock. At a loss for a strategy to deal with this unexpected twist in the terror plot, the party lurched from one unclear position to another — from the tried and tested “let the law take its course” through outrightly denying the terror link to urging a fair trial for the accused. Party strategists worried that they had lost the terrorism plank, and wondered how the new revelations would play out in the electoral arena. 

Judging by the BJP-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s current aggression, the moment of self-doubt has passed. Evidently, the Hindutva terror angle, which formerly discomfited the parivar, has since become an opportunity to deepen the communal divide. BJP chief Rajnath Singh, who has been photographed with Pragnya Singh, earlier claimed that he was embarrassed to have been found in the same frame with her. Today he is out on a limb to defend her and others caught in the ATS terror ring, going so far as to call their arrests a “ huge conspiracy,” and offering them the full protection of his party.
Calculated belligerence 



The RSS’ initial restraint has similarly given way to a belligerence calculated to incite divisive passions. The crackdown on Pragnya Singh and others has sent the Vishwa Hindu Parishad’s Praveen Togadia into a torrent of abuse and anger. Warning of reprisals against the ATS and the United Progressive Alliance government, he fumed: “They are committing the sin of describing a sadhvi as a terrorist. I promise a political backlash against this.” 

This is dangerous talk. Mr. Togadia’s threats aside, Mr. Singh is virtually saying he will not allow the police to do their job in a serious terror case. The BJP and the sangh would have gone ballistic had one of their ideological adversaries or a Muslim cleric used similar language. 

The BJP’s other point, that arrests should be based on hard evidence, is unexceptional, though this is an unprecedented first from a party which never before attached any importance to evidence: “The Congress must realise that terrorist investigations can be solved not through propaganda but only through hard evidence and non-politicised investigation.” 

A word of caution here for the BJP’s opponents. This is not a moment for gloating or finding satisfaction over the involvement of Hindutva elements in terrorism. Terrorism is serious, whether of the Islamist or Hindutva variety, which is all the more reason to ensure that it does not become a tool for settling political scores or to target the innocent. It can be no rational person’s case that investigation into Islamist terrorism must be meticulous, impartial and transparent but that a wild goose chase is permissible when the suspects are of Hindutva persuasion. 

The BJP is fully within its rights to question the ATS on the veracity of its findings. Yet this right by no means extends to threatening the ATS or warning of a backlash. There is also the party’s blatant double standard. When the Delhi police killed two Muslim terror suspects in an encounter at Batla House on September 19, following this up with more arrests from the neighbourhood, the BJP did not wait a second to call all of them terrorists and angrily swung at human rights activists who picked holes in the police version. The party called Mushirul Hasan, Vice-Chancellor of the Jamia Millia Islamia University, anti-national for his offer to provide legal assistance to the terror suspects at Jamia Nagar. It stuck to this position despite a clarification from him that the funds were being privately arranged by the students and teachers of the university. It said this knowing that lawyers in many courts had been physically prevented from representing the Muslim terror accused. 
An irony 


Today, the BJP has promised to arrange the best legal help in the country for Pragnya Singh and others. If this is an irony, so is the fact that every terrorism-related charge the party hurled at its political opponents is now recoiling on it. Terrorism had been the BJP’s biggest plank, topping the agenda at every party meet and providing the basis for its political resolutions. The party contended that it alone had the will and inner strength to counter terrorism, which posed the single most potent threat to the unity and integrity of the country. 

From this vantage nationalist position, the BJP attacked its opponents: The Congress and its allies in the UPA were soft on terror because they coveted the Muslim vote-bank. Rights activists and even some within the UPA were openly sympathetic to Muslim terror suspects, offering them legal help, countering the police claims and so on because they looked at terrorism from an anti-national perspective, because they refused to accept that the imperatives of pursuing terror overrode human rights considerations. 

Addressing a seminar in the capital as recently as October 4, Lal Krishna Advani, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, summed up his party’s position on terrorism thus: “As far as the BJP is concerned, let me make it absolutely clear that we shall never conduct ourselves in such a short-sighted way that history would hold us guilty of not doing our duty at the right time and in the right manner … Our vision is not limited by the considerations of where our party will be after the next elections. Rather, it extends to caring about where India will be after a hundred years, after a thousand years.” 

Has the BJP passed the test of the “right time” and “right manner” set by its shadow Prime Minister? Clearly not. The “right manner” at this “right time” would have been for the BJP to openly and categorically acknowledge the possibility of some extremist Hindutva elements being involved in terrorism while simultaneously stressing the importance of transparency in all investigations. Such a stand would not have tainted the Hindu community. Far from it, it would have strengthened Hindu society and underscored its celebrated openness. Instead, the BJP and the sangh have clung to a single defence: That as nationalist forces they were above board, indeed that Hindus could never be terrorists, much less Hindus who subscribed to cultural nationalism. 

This is an absurd claim. Gandhi’s assassin, Nathuram Godse, was a product of cultural nationalism. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and the National Democratic Front of Boroland (suspected to be involved in the serial Assam blasts), are not religious extremists but they would loosely fall in the Hindu category.

For long the BJP and the sangh have lamented the absence of moderate, outspoken voices among Muslims, voices that would frontally confront the reality of terrorism. It is true that Muslims have largely been in denial about Islamist terrorism. But that situation is slowly but surely changing, and the evidence is in the unequivocal condemnation of terrorism by over 6000 clerics at a meeting of Muslim clergy in Hyderabad on November 8. The BJP must follow this bold lead rather than bury its head in the sand and believe in the pristine purity of Hindutva. 

There is much that is wrong with our approach to terrorism. Investigative agencies have tended to talk loose and fast, leading to too many quick-fix arrests. Last week, the Andhra Pradesh government announced compensation to at least 15 innocent Muslims who were wrongly arrested by the Hyderabad police and tortured in custody. Cops on the Hindutva terror trail have made many contradictory claims. Television channels that ran defamatory stories about “Muslim terrorists” are now flooding the screens with salacious details of the “sadhvi and the sant.” 

For the challenge of terrorism to be squarely met we need investigators who brag less and concentrate more on finding clinching evidence. We need a more responsible media, and finally we need political parties that preach less and have the courage to turn the mirror inward.