The Telegraph, Kolkata 3 October, 2008
Terrorism has mugged Indians into a greater sense of realism
Simple assumptions
Swapan Das Gupta
Swapan Das Gupta
Till last month’s meltdown left them looking a bit silly, clever young conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic – the ideological progenies of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan – used to define themselves as liberals who had been mugged into reality. The self-image may be characteristically glib but, like all caricatures, was grounded in stark reality. The apparent collapse of an established moral order during the permissive Sixties and the comic inefficiencies of the socialist alternative first prompted cracks n the liberal edifice. However, it was the traumatic after effects of 9/11 and the growth of Islamist terrorism that transformed the shakiness into a full-blown crisis, a crisis of being that won’t be resolved even if Barack Obama wins the US presidency on a strong anti-incumbency plank.
The liberal perception of terrorism is based on a few simple assumptions. First, there is a belief that Muslim anger which transforms middle class kids into nasty suicide bombers is an expression of fury against "imperialist" America and "Zionist" Israel. After 9/11, for example, there were many voices that portrayed the suicide bombers as symbols of oppressed peoples determined to exact vengeance on an arrogant superpower. The implication is that a more sensitive America and a chastened (if not obliterated) Israel is the key to controlling terrorism, Without these two military powers running amok, or so the argument goes, Muslim ummah wouldn’t feel that the world is against it.
Secondly, the "roots of terrorism" in a country such as India is seen to have a socio-economic underpinning. Just as Maoist murderers are perceived as rebels against high-landlordism and feudal iniquity, the Student’s Islamic Movement of India and its colourful offshoot are regarded as angry victims of a community’s sustained deprivation. Here too the prescriptive remedy of liberals is for the government to implement the Rajinder Sachar committee recommendations, employ more Muslims in the organized private sector, and perhaps, have an Indian variant of the British Race Relations Act that deters discrimination, our-laws prejudice and makes it possible for Shabana Azmi to rent the apartment of her choice.
Thirdly, because of the perception that the roots of terror are so complex, liberals believe that the situation must not be exacerbated by intemperate over-reactions. Bred in an environment where punitive deterrence is no longer an aspect of schooling, liberals genuinely feel that terrorism must be fought by using the same laws as are applicable to ordinary law-breakers. Why, one of India’s aggressive liberal TV hostesses asked recently, don’t we treat the bombings in Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Varanasi and Delhi as violent crime, rather than a terrorist assault on India? Why are the vulgarians, they say, so insistent on implementing court orders and awarding capital punishment to one of those responsible for the attack on parliament in 1991? At a recent TV programme, troubled liberals asked why there are disproportionate numbers of Muslism in Indian prisons. The question seemed a transplant from Manhattan anguish over Middle America’s equation of criminality and the Black community.
Finally, there is a specifically Indian angle to the liberal view of terrorism and this, tragically, is centred on the principle of denial, whether fuelled by contrarians such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky or wild bloggers, there is a strong perception in the Muslim world that 9/11 was either an insider job or a Jewish conspiracy.
This remarkable piece of negationism has, in turn, bred a galaxy of theories that paint Indian terrorism as something other than what t seems. There is the colourful view that the mujahideen attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 was a sinister BJP conspiracy t polarize India and even provoke an India-Pakistan war. Those demanding freedom for Afzal Guru have based their arguments on this colourful recreation of events.
There is the also the perverse argument that the burning of two coaches of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra station in February 2002 was a state-sponsored ploy to create conditions for a witch-hunt of Muslims. This expedient theory has become the handle to denounce all those reports that suggest that 58 persons were burned to death by a hostile mob. The fact that there was a mob attack on the train in Godhra does not condone what happened in Gujarat subsequently. But to deny that what happened in Godhra station was a crime is perverse. To be an Indian liberal today means believing that 58 persons either committed suicide or died as a result of an electrical short-circuit.
Likewise, it has become fashionable to equate counter-terrorism with Islamophobia. Given the ideological nature of the present wave of bombings in Indian cities, it is inevitable that most, if not all, the suspects are likely to be Muslims. More to the point, they are also likely to be Muslims whose adherence to violence stems from a strong theological commitment. Predictably, this will involve some demonization of the community, and the belief that community organizations are not doing enough to deter this drift to waywardness. However, falling back on untenable platitudes, about the inherent pacifism of all religions and the automatic innocence of the terror suspects won’t improve community relations. It will deepen the polarization.
Grand generalizations centred on momentary hiccups are problematic. During the Khalistan inspired troubles in Punjab, the suspects were invariably Sikhs. At that time, there was a great deal of hand-wringing over the damage to the "Sikh psyche". After the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, there were also dark hints of unbridled majoritarianism. Some of the complaints of wrongful arrests and false encounters had some basis. It was also common knowledge that the secessionist movement was defeated by methods that bore greater resemblance to dirty Harry than Dixon of dock Green. However, ham-handedness and over-zealous policing did not mean that the Establishment had chosen to cast Sikhs out of the Indian nation. Some 15 years after peace returned to Punjab, is it possible to speak of any institutionalized discrimination of Sikhs?
India’s liberals are inclined to protest too much and lose sight of the larger picture. Last month, after two students were arrested after a well publicized ncounter in Delhi’s Muslim dominated Jamia Nagar, Mushirul Hasan, the Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, succumbed to sustained "community" pressure. In a series of ill-considered moves, he equated two alleged murderers with the institution. In a defiant speech, Hasan is reported to have urged students to not be defensive about the arrest of two colleagues, adding, "We owe no explanation to anyone except ourselves and to our faith that unambiguously eschews violence."
Hasan’s assertion was symptomatic of the growing perversion of the so-called Enlightenment tradition. It suggests that a person of impeccable liberal credentials like Hasan no longer feels the need to maintain a healthy detachment between a rarefied institution and the radicalization of Indian Muslims. As a liberal, Hasan was not afraid of swimming against the majoritarian consensus. Tragically, this contrariness merely guided him towards a ghettoized sense of victimhood- one that will be fuelled by the likes of the Indian Mujahideen. Hasan unwritingly confirmed the impression of Middle India that India’s English-speaking liberals are apologists of terror and the destruction of the Indian nation – a feeling that is certain to be strengthened now that the likes of Arundhati Roy have jumped into the Jamia Nagar defence campaign.
Terrorism has certainly mugged the Indian people into a greater sense of realism and an awareness of the threats. The liberal minusculity that has a commanding presence in academia and the media has, however, arrived at the novel conclusion that it owes the mugger a living.
The liberal perception of terrorism is based on a few simple assumptions. First, there is a belief that Muslim anger which transforms middle class kids into nasty suicide bombers is an expression of fury against "imperialist" America and "Zionist" Israel. After 9/11, for example, there were many voices that portrayed the suicide bombers as symbols of oppressed peoples determined to exact vengeance on an arrogant superpower. The implication is that a more sensitive America and a chastened (if not obliterated) Israel is the key to controlling terrorism, Without these two military powers running amok, or so the argument goes, Muslim ummah wouldn’t feel that the world is against it.
Secondly, the "roots of terrorism" in a country such as India is seen to have a socio-economic underpinning. Just as Maoist murderers are perceived as rebels against high-landlordism and feudal iniquity, the Student’s Islamic Movement of India and its colourful offshoot are regarded as angry victims of a community’s sustained deprivation. Here too the prescriptive remedy of liberals is for the government to implement the Rajinder Sachar committee recommendations, employ more Muslims in the organized private sector, and perhaps, have an Indian variant of the British Race Relations Act that deters discrimination, our-laws prejudice and makes it possible for Shabana Azmi to rent the apartment of her choice.
Thirdly, because of the perception that the roots of terror are so complex, liberals believe that the situation must not be exacerbated by intemperate over-reactions. Bred in an environment where punitive deterrence is no longer an aspect of schooling, liberals genuinely feel that terrorism must be fought by using the same laws as are applicable to ordinary law-breakers. Why, one of India’s aggressive liberal TV hostesses asked recently, don’t we treat the bombings in Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Varanasi and Delhi as violent crime, rather than a terrorist assault on India? Why are the vulgarians, they say, so insistent on implementing court orders and awarding capital punishment to one of those responsible for the attack on parliament in 1991? At a recent TV programme, troubled liberals asked why there are disproportionate numbers of Muslism in Indian prisons. The question seemed a transplant from Manhattan anguish over Middle America’s equation of criminality and the Black community.
Finally, there is a specifically Indian angle to the liberal view of terrorism and this, tragically, is centred on the principle of denial, whether fuelled by contrarians such as Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky or wild bloggers, there is a strong perception in the Muslim world that 9/11 was either an insider job or a Jewish conspiracy.
This remarkable piece of negationism has, in turn, bred a galaxy of theories that paint Indian terrorism as something other than what t seems. There is the colourful view that the mujahideen attack on the Indian parliament in 2001 was a sinister BJP conspiracy t polarize India and even provoke an India-Pakistan war. Those demanding freedom for Afzal Guru have based their arguments on this colourful recreation of events.
There is the also the perverse argument that the burning of two coaches of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra station in February 2002 was a state-sponsored ploy to create conditions for a witch-hunt of Muslims. This expedient theory has become the handle to denounce all those reports that suggest that 58 persons were burned to death by a hostile mob. The fact that there was a mob attack on the train in Godhra does not condone what happened in Gujarat subsequently. But to deny that what happened in Godhra station was a crime is perverse. To be an Indian liberal today means believing that 58 persons either committed suicide or died as a result of an electrical short-circuit.
Likewise, it has become fashionable to equate counter-terrorism with Islamophobia. Given the ideological nature of the present wave of bombings in Indian cities, it is inevitable that most, if not all, the suspects are likely to be Muslims. More to the point, they are also likely to be Muslims whose adherence to violence stems from a strong theological commitment. Predictably, this will involve some demonization of the community, and the belief that community organizations are not doing enough to deter this drift to waywardness. However, falling back on untenable platitudes, about the inherent pacifism of all religions and the automatic innocence of the terror suspects won’t improve community relations. It will deepen the polarization.
Grand generalizations centred on momentary hiccups are problematic. During the Khalistan inspired troubles in Punjab, the suspects were invariably Sikhs. At that time, there was a great deal of hand-wringing over the damage to the "Sikh psyche". After the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, there were also dark hints of unbridled majoritarianism. Some of the complaints of wrongful arrests and false encounters had some basis. It was also common knowledge that the secessionist movement was defeated by methods that bore greater resemblance to dirty Harry than Dixon of dock Green. However, ham-handedness and over-zealous policing did not mean that the Establishment had chosen to cast Sikhs out of the Indian nation. Some 15 years after peace returned to Punjab, is it possible to speak of any institutionalized discrimination of Sikhs?
India’s liberals are inclined to protest too much and lose sight of the larger picture. Last month, after two students were arrested after a well publicized ncounter in Delhi’s Muslim dominated Jamia Nagar, Mushirul Hasan, the Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, succumbed to sustained "community" pressure. In a series of ill-considered moves, he equated two alleged murderers with the institution. In a defiant speech, Hasan is reported to have urged students to not be defensive about the arrest of two colleagues, adding, "We owe no explanation to anyone except ourselves and to our faith that unambiguously eschews violence."
Hasan’s assertion was symptomatic of the growing perversion of the so-called Enlightenment tradition. It suggests that a person of impeccable liberal credentials like Hasan no longer feels the need to maintain a healthy detachment between a rarefied institution and the radicalization of Indian Muslims. As a liberal, Hasan was not afraid of swimming against the majoritarian consensus. Tragically, this contrariness merely guided him towards a ghettoized sense of victimhood- one that will be fuelled by the likes of the Indian Mujahideen. Hasan unwritingly confirmed the impression of Middle India that India’s English-speaking liberals are apologists of terror and the destruction of the Indian nation – a feeling that is certain to be strengthened now that the likes of Arundhati Roy have jumped into the Jamia Nagar defence campaign.
Terrorism has certainly mugged the Indian people into a greater sense of realism and an awareness of the threats. The liberal minusculity that has a commanding presence in academia and the media has, however, arrived at the novel conclusion that it owes the mugger a living.
No comments:
Post a Comment