Wrestling with shadows

THE events of the past week have been a colossal human tragedy in every sense of the term. There is a certain numbing, surreal quality about what we witnessed as lived experience for those in New York and Washington, and those of us who share their trauma, whether in India or America. More generally it is a worrying situation for us in South Asia, which will doubtless bear the brunt of US retaliation. It is a defining moment for Pakistan; it has an opportunity to cleanse itself of the abhorrent trend of terrorism and fundamentalism.

Terrorism endangers all countries but the answer to this menace is not to nurture a monster like Osama bin Laden or the Taliban in Afghanistan, but to evolve a counter-ideology to weaken the very forces that give rise to extremism. For this to succeed, the US — having thrown its weight behind the feudal, military and authoritarian regimes in West Asia of yesteryear — will need to define afresh its national interests and international agenda. In a unipolar world the US will remain invincible, for its military might and economic hegemony is likely to engender resentment in areas afflicted with poverty, disease and social strife. Indeed, Americans will feel increasingly vulnerable unless they mount pressure on their Republican government to fortify liberal, secular and democratic ideologies around the globe. An alternative strategy may not avert such disasters.

In other words, the US should do what it does in its own backyard. What is good for America cannot be bad for the rest of us. The sense of loss will, doubtless, push many to seek revenge. And, yet, there are numerous sensible voices in US cautioning against retaliation. They realise that increased defence spending and world-wide coalitions against terrorism will not buy peace now or in the future. Certainly, the fight against terrorism and fundamentalist ideologies must be pursued relentlessly, but punitive action will only deepen anxieties and enlarge arenas of tension in the Arab world, Iran, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa — notably Somalia.

In the long run, President Bush and his sober secretary of state must curb the belligerence of the Zionist lobby in Israel and put a halt to its almost natural inclination to hurt and humiliate the Palestinians. They will have to alleviate the enormous sufferings of the Iraqi pe- ople, whose leader was once a great favourite with the US establishment. Mr President, even the dead infant children and women talk. Believe me, Sir, they do. Oil and gas will continue to flow from the wells in the Arab peninsula and numerous World Trade Centres will mushroom in your vibrant country, and yet global peace will always be an elusive goal without a Palestinian homeland free from Israel’s aggression.

The US anger is justified and yet directing it against Islam or Muslims is hardly an antidote to terrorism. Millions of Muslims are not in a state of readiness to wage ‘jehad’ against all and sundry. They live, as do followers of other religious creeds, within the moral and spiritual realm defined by Islam. They must not be stigmatised or targeted by the fury of ‘‘Christendom’’. The Archbishop of Canterbury, having allowed his imagination to run amok, must know that there is no clash of civilisation. The irrepressible V.S. Naipaul must realise that, contrary to his assertion, there is no clash between Islamdom and Christendom. At a time when passions are running high, it is extremely irresponsible for the leading lights in religion and literature to fuel such ill feelings.

Regardless of Islamist rhetoric, ‘jehad’ is at best a moral doctrine representing the civilisational urges of a people to order their lives in the light of the Koranic teachings. This is evidenced by such a verse as the following: ‘‘He who exerts himself, exerts himself only for his own soul’’, which expressed the ‘jehad’ in terms of the salvation of the soul rather than a struggle for proselytisations.

Surely, the meanings of ‘jehad’ have changed over the centuries, and hotheaded individuals and groups attempt to target innocent civilians cannot invoke it in the present world order. Instead of taking recourse to such diabolical means, Muslim groups need to marshal their intellectual resources to strengthen socialist and secular ideologies. That is how the people in Palestine, Iraq and Kosovo can secure justice in an otherwise unjust world. That is how we can also break the stranglehold of autocratic and military regimes in Muslim countries.

Instant reaction is no substitute for sober reflection. Quite apart from the fact that the attack on strategic centres in New York and Washington were acts of terrorism, let us pause for a moment and consider defining (outside the formalistic legal codes) terrorism. It is not going to be easy, unless we endorse the definition handed down by western governments and the western media.

If, on the other hand, the unified American definition is patented, you will find many voices of dissent being aired in international bodies. This will, surely, make the task of destroying the shadowy and murky den of terrorism so much more difficult. In effect, it will not help to tighten procedures, forge elaborate espionage networks, and monitor the movements of suspected individuals/groups. What may help is a consensus that will distinguish popular struggles against oppressive regimes from brazen acts of intimidation and
violence directed against innocent civilians.

Who is a terrorist? Chapekar brothers, Chandershekhar Azad, Madan Lal Dhingra, Bhagat Singh? If you had lived in colonial India and acted in unison with like-minded people to overthrow British rule, your action would have been described conspiratorial. Hence the ‘Silk Letter Conspiracy’ in 1915-16, the ‘Meerut Conspiracy’ and the Kakori ‘Dacoity Case’. And if you were reckless enough to take up arms, you would have been hauled up, jailed and executed. Even Gandhi, the symbol of the liberation struggle, would not have come to your aid.

He did not, for example, secure clemency for Bhagat Singh. The idolisation of Bhagat Singh after his execution, wrote Gandhi in Harijan (July 30, 1931), had done incalculable damage to the country.

In our own times, it is hard to characterise the activities of Al-Hamas, the Maoists in Nepal, the Naxalites, the Christian groups in the Indonesian Archipelago, the Kosovans and the Chechnyans. Is Yasser Arafat a terrorist? The Israel prime minister, who has blood on his hands from the days of Israel’s occupation of Lebanon, would like us to believe that he is. It is his judgement against mine. Why is he, one might ask, not a terrorist? George W. Bush might know.
If they lean to peace, then lean thou also to it, Koran, VIII, 63.

Earlier Columns