|
Resistance, terror
& faith
by Irfan Husain
As terrorism continues to dominate the international
agenda in one form or another, it might be a useful
exercise to examine the different strands that
constitute the phenomenon.
Ever since 9/11 turned the world on its head, it has
become acceptable to lump all resistance movements
involving Muslims into the convenient but inaccurate
holdall called ‘Islamic terrorism’. Thus, whether
Chechens are resisting Russian occupation of their
territory, or Palestinians are fighting for their land,
the common western perception now is that they are all
loosely connected to the global jihad.
At the apex of this imaginary network is Osama bin Laden
who is seen to be coordinating and directing sundry acts
of terror against the West and its allies. In this
worldview, a vast Islamic conspiracy exists to impose
its values and beliefs on the rest of the world, and to
this end, it is sending waves of suicide bombers to
destroy and damage western interests across the globe.
However, a little analytical rigour would reveal the
absurdity of this interpretation of recent events. When
Al Qaeda expressed its support of Hamas after its
electoral victory, it was told by the Palestinian
leadership to back off in no uncertain terms. Muslim
separatists in the Philippines conduct their struggle
without their co-religionists in the rest of the world
being aware of what they are fighting for.
The reality is that several underground asymmetrical
battles are being waged by Muslims for specific, local
causes. The only factor linking these struggles is a
common faith. But this does not mean they share some
global pan-Islamic vision. A Kashmiri Muslim engaged in
a fight for independence has more in common with a Hindu
pundit in Srinagar than with a fellow Muslim in
Chechnya.
When Basque terrorists belonging to ETA, the separatist
movement that has been fighting a long and deadly battle
for independence from Madrid, strike civilian targets,
they are not accused of being part of a Christian
movement together with the IRA. Although fighters in
both organisations are Catholics, this does not
automatically mean that they, or indeed, Peru’s Shining
Path guerrillas, are part of some evil papist
conspiracy.
Similarly, the only thing the Tamil Tigers of Sri
Lanka’s LTTE separatists have in common with India’s
Naxalites is their Hindu belief. But this shared faith
in no way puts the two groups on the same side. They
both have their own agendas and their own methods. Both
would resent the label of ‘terrorists’, and insist that
they are fighting for just causes.
Having made this rather self-evident point, let me
return to the pressing question of differentiating
between ‘Islamic’ terrorism and ‘Muslim’ terrorism. In
my book, the former refers to violence aimed at creating
a vague, utopian world based on a fuzzy vision of a
distant tribal past.
This involves resurrecting the caliphate, adopting the
laws and way of life that might have existed 14
centuries ago, and imposing these archaic values on the
rest of the world. This search for a ‘perfect’ world
involves destroying the existing dominant power
structure so it can be replaced with the ‘pure’ Islamic
model.
In this sense the movement is more nihilistic than
idealistic. Adherents of movements like Al Qaeda fall
into this category. But clearly, organisations like
Hamas and Hezbollah do not.
Other Muslim reformist movements, inspired by the Muslim
Brotherhood, seek to impose Islamic values, often by
force, on their own societies. And while they are
connected spiritually to the larger Muslim ummah, their
primary aim is to obtain political power in their own
countries. They use a combination of political
manoeuvring, violence and moral posturing to achieve
their ends. But most of their energies are devoted to
local goals. Many so- called terrorist organisations are
doing nothing more than trying to overthrow
dysfunctional governments and venal leaders. In the
absence of any political space to effect change, they
have been driven underground.
We would not have been discussing these issues had it
not been for the sudden flood of petrodollars that
poured into Saudi coffers after the oil price rise of
1974. Over the years, much of this unearned wealth has
translated into support for the most repressive Muslim
governments, and the most violent Muslim groups. By
exporting their brand of Wahabi/Salafi Islam across the
world, the Saudis have unwittingly set the stage for the
current confrontation that threatens them most. This is
an exclusionary vision of the faith in which anybody not
following a narrow and literal interpretation of Islam
is not only beyond the pale, but is, by extension,
deserving of death.
It is this strand of Islamic fundamentalism that has
caused so much havoc around the world. Not only has
public and private Saudi largesse funded Muslim
dictators, Islamic political parties and ruthless
terrorists, it has paid for the establishment of
thousands of madressahs across the Muslim world. These
incubators of extremism have proved to be fertile
recruiting grounds for Muslim militias. This is the
version of the faith that has infected young men from
Lahore to London.
With this background, it was not difficult to sell the
idea of a vast, unified Islamic conspiracy against the
West in the wake of 9/11. Fanning public fear,
Washington soon had the majority of Americans believing
that somehow Saddam and Iraq were connected to the
suicide bombing of the Twin Towers.
According to a poll published in the July/August 2006
issue of Foreign Policy, 57 per cent of Americans
believe an attack on their country on the scale of the
Madrid or London train bombings is likely by the end of
this year. Seventy-nine per cent think it likely or
certain that there will be a terrorist attack of the
magnitude of 9/11 by 2011.
The same poll reveals that 62 per cent of Americans
believe that Saudi Arabia has produced the biggest
number of terrorists; 13 per cent think it is the
Egyptians; and 11 per cent feel it is the Pakistanis.
Thus, a total of 86 per cent consider that the three top
Muslim allies America has in its ‘war on terror’ also
produce virtually all the terrorists they are fighting.
After 9/11, a number of countries, eager to jump on the
American bandwagon, declared their local problems to
have global roots. Thus, freedom fighters in Chechnya,
Kashmir and Palestine were immediately lumped together
with Al Qaeda. This made it simultaneously easier to
deny even their legitimate demands, as well as to get
American diplomatic, moral and material aid in
suppressing them.
But while this conflation of different movements might
be politically expedient, it represents lazy thinking of
a kind that is not conducive to dealing with the
problem.
courtesy: The Dawn internet edition
|