Muslim rage is for real

THE ‘‘Muslim rage’’ goes unnoticed unless expressed stridently. I wish to point to the manifestations of seething discontents not only in daring acts of terrorism, but also in peaceful and unobtrusive endeavours to restore a moral and spiritual order corrupted by authoritarian Muslim regimes. Based on the premise that the Koran provides answers to contemporary dilemmas and predicaments, Muslim movements fortify their belief structures through outward assertions of their identity — mosques, madarsas, the Arabic language, the headgear, the purdah.

You may pour scorn at these trends, but they are and will remain powerful and highly evocative symbols of protest against the depraved Muslim governments and their external adaptation to the mores of the West. Have we forgotten the political storm that broke out with full fury in February 1979 against the Shah of Iran? Today, the ferment generated by Ayatollah Khomeini still provides, despite its Shia colouring, a model for a revolution in the modern world. So that the debate is not whether such a model is worth emulating or not, but its effectiveness in adapting Islam to changed circumstances within an orthodox-Islamic frame.

What the Khomeini revolution achieved was to broaden the meaning of jehad, and place it on a par with the modern concept of revolution. In effect, the religious signification of jehad coalesced with the concept of inquilab — ie, activism — leading to a political transition and not just a moral revolution. Let’s get a sense of the background. After World War II, the Muslim communities were freed from the colonial stranglehold and its collaborators, the indigenous political elites. Decolonisation opened to them the opportunity to ensure their cultural and religious survival on the strength of existing intellectual and spiritual resources. Wherever the Western powers allowed the transition to proceed smoothly, Muslim leaders tried, as in Egypt under Nasser and in Syria and Iraq under the Baath Socialist Party, to reform society or community without reference to Islam. But whenever the US occupied the space vacated by the previous colonisers, especially after the discovery of oil in the desert, they installed or backed feudal, conservative or Islamist regimes.

The result was two-fold. First, secular regimes, trying to break free from their colonial past, found it difficult to face external aggression, ie, the overthrow of Musaddiq in Iran and the invasion of the Suez Canal. They resorted to political repression as a countermeasure, and gradually lost the moral ground occupied during the anti-colonial struggles. In the process, democratic forces received a decent burial paving the way for the emergence of dictators like Anwar Sadat and the resurgence of the Ikhwan al-Muslimeen in Egypt. Second, with the credibility of Arab states eroded and a Zionist state implanted in Israel, the Americans were firmly established in the Middle East. Unlike the lazy colonial administrators who retreated to their country houses or chateaux, their successors — proud inheritors of Thomas Jefferson’s wisdom — stayed put in the region with their heavy military equipment and coarse cultural baggage. Firmly ensconced, they instilled in the sheikhdoms a false sense of security, regulated oil prices, and ensure its regular flow across the Atlantic to preserve the American way of life. What the rich Arabs earn through royalties is stashed away in UK/US banks. What they spend at London’s Harrods or at the casinos in Las Vegas keeps the American dream alive.

These bare facts, rather than the sterile debate over Islam versus democracy, need to be underlined to explain the absence of democracy in Muslim countries. These bare facts need reiteration also to discover the roots of the present Muslim rage. The roots lie in an oppressive past constructed by the West to colonise the body and mind, and an equally oppressive present where deadly missiles are fired only at the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans. New generations have grown up with the knowledge of the past and present: the past is no longer buried under the debris but repeatedly invoked in the context of the events in erstwhile Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Chechnya, Palestine, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.

Having wrestled with these memories without finding answers to current anxieties, Islamic militants have broken free from the shackles of the past in order to rebuild a world free of Western aggression and exploitation. Doubtless, their perspectives are often distorted. Doubtless, their emphasis on taqlid (strict adherence to the letter of the law) stifles internal dissent, dims the chances of innovation and interpretation (jehad), and impedes the emancipation of women. At the same time, they are not the rustic Bedouins to be herded by a Lawrence of Arabia, but skilled, sophisticated, urbanised professionals (invisible, of course, in India) trained in the metropolis. For right or wrong reasons, they offer hope to a tormented millat-i-Islamia (community of Islam). It is this self-perception, of being beleaguered, that needs to be addressed before taking recourse to the familiar stereotyping of Islam and its followers.

The Muslim rage is real and not confined to the canonical texts prescribed in Egypt’s Al-Azhar, Iran’s Qum, or Deoband’s Dar-al-ulum. It is directed not against Christendom or the West per se, but towards the inconsistency and injustice displayed by the US administration — Democratic and Republican — in dealing with Arab sentiments and popular aspirations. The rage is directed not against Judaism, but against Zionism and Israel. It is for these reasons, mostly secular in spirit and impulse, that the anger cuts across territorial boundaries and the ideological divide. Today, the West is faced with a challenge, the first of its kind after one of them, Adolf Hitler, burst on the scene threatening to destroy the foundations of Western civilisation. The West was able to overcome that challenge — and thank god for that — but this is a different game altogether. Here the players will come and go without offering respite to their wearisome adversaries. The enemy is invisible, lurking in the shadows waiting for the next best opportunity to strike. If so, banning terrorist outfits will prove to be an ineffective exercise unless backed by the creation of a Palestinian state; lifting of sanctions against Iraq, and withdrawal of US support to anti-democratic regimes in the Middle East.

Guns are silenced; mountains flattened. And yet the US appears to have lost round one of the battle. Victory in the next round depends on how best American policy-makers can combine their military and political strategies to recognise the desire for change and progress in Muslim countries. Already, Osama bin Laden, the enfant terrible of the Muslim world, is on the way to achieving martyrdom. Dead or alive, he will be perceived as a hero.

Earlier Columns