Religious Fanaticism, Communalism and Terrorism

By: Zaheer Ali*

The contemporary world is confronted with the scourges of religious fanaticism, communalism and terrorism. Consequently, the positive values like peace and harmony that facilitate the creation of all-inclusive societies have been almost forsaken. The chief victims of the current campaigns of hate are the plural societies where the followers of different religions have been living together for centuries. India is a prominent example of such societies. At the outset, it must be made clear that religious fanaticism and communalism are common to the followers of all religions. They are not Muslim-specific. Since this paper chiefly focuses on Muslims, most of the instances cited to underline certain arguments refer to events entailing Muslims. It is obvious that religious fanaticism and communalism are closely interlinked and for about two decades they have been, more often than not, contributing significantly to the rise of international terrorism. Despite having an intimate linkage, religious fanaticism and communalism are not interchangeable concepts. They have different connotations. Fanaticism as an unconnected notion is not innately related to communalism. It is only when it is qualified with religion it is usually perceived to be another shade of communalism. In its qualified form fanaticism, like communalism, gets linked up with religion. It is religion, therefore, which is the mutual bond between the two concepts. For that reason, it is necessary to briefly consider the institution of religion. In its etymological sense religion implies a cementing force, a rallying point or a common bond. As a social institution it prescribes, to its adherents, a set of beliefs, rites and customs, institutions and guiding principles to sustain those institutions. Religion essentially relates to things transcendental and in the main insists on the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, supernatural force, God, the creator of everything, who is beyond the rational prowess of humans and therefore, sacred. The divinity sets the God beyond the scope of rational scrutiny. Nevertheless, it should be made clear that though most religions preach about the existence of a supernatural creator, a few faiths do not subscribe to the existence of God. One of the major religions, Buddhism, is silent on the issue of God whereas another Indian religion, Jainism, is atheistic. It is a crucial issue as quite a few dogmas emanate from the controversy of the existence or non-existence of God. Religion is definitely an important social institution as it is a unifying force and provides a sense of purpose to the lives of its followers. It must also be noted that most of the devout persons tend to connect to morality as a requisite obligation of their faith. Religion serves as a hope for a better future for most of the disadvantaged people and thus, makes the wretched reality of their present bearable. By and large, steadfast followers of a religion are believed to lead a contented life. Many of them also contribute to society in positive terms. Religion, however, is also a divisive force as it may break up a plural society on religious lines. It may become damaging if it happens to be at variance with the prevalent social norms. A 1

major problem is likely to surface in a society if the adherents of a particular religion insist on literal interpretations of the scriptures of the yore and resort to violence against those who tend to have a contextual view of the precepts. In order to prove the point countless examples can be cited from the earliest times to the present. Some instances will certainly be referred to later. Those who adopt a regressive approach in matters of faith and are, as a rule, referred to as fundamentalists cause tremendous harm to their co-religionists as well as society at large. The orthodox adherents of almost all religions refuse to admit the social origin of religion. For them the institution of religion, its associate sets of beliefs, rituals, institutions and scriptures are all ordained by God and therefore, infallible. Accordingly, any attempt to fine-tune the canons of religion in the name of reforms either by individuals or state is construed to be interference in religious matters. The conformists reject the very idea of subjecting their faith to scientific and rational examination. Such an attitude buttresses religious fanaticism because a fanatic is incapable of listening to reason. Fanaticism can be defined as an intense emotional obsession for something__it may be an ideology, an object of desire, a person, a hobby, a place etc.__that makes a person lose his rational faculty and turns him into a zealot vis--vis that thing or person. If such uncritical and intense emotional obsession is for a religion then it is religious fanaticism. A religious fanatic assigns an extremely exalted position to his faith in his life and thus disregards every other thing, social norms, laws of the land, familial bonds, companionship and so on. His religion becomes the only point of reference for his thought and actions. In short he lives and dies for his faith. It must, however, be made clear that such a state of mind of a fanatic should not be confused with asceticism. An ascetic discounts the routine of rites and rituals and renounces the lures of the world in order to find the ultimate Truth, the nirvana or God on his own by way of penance, abstention and meditation. A fanatic on the other hand, becomes an overzealous missionary for his received faith that he considers the best and infallible and conversely believes that all other religions are false and therefore, be opposed. He does not renounce the world; he, in fact, pines for changing the world as per the canons of his faith. He cannot see any justification for the existence of other religions whereas he is incapable of critically assessing his own. Religious fanaticism has to do more with abnormal psychology than religion. The fact that most of the religious people have a balanced and dispassionate view about their faiths and lead a healthy normal life bears out that religion per se has nothing to do with fanaticism. It is quite possible that some people may sincerely have faith in the infallibility of their beliefs but they do not turn their back on social norms or the laws of the land. Also they do not make attempts to change the world in accordance with the tenets of their religion. Here lies the difference between a devout follower of a religion and a fanatic. Gandhiji, for instance, was a devout Hindu as he himself had expressed so quite often. Nevertheless, by no stretch of imagination he can be called a religious fanatic. His faith did not make him hate other religions. On the contrary he always wanted to see the followers of other religions, say for instance a Muslim to be a good Muslim. In contrast, Abul Aala Maudoodi, the founder of Jamat-e-Islami in the subcontinent and Syed Qutb of the Muslim 2

Brotherhood of Egypt who declared to establish Nizam-e-Mustafa, the order of the Prophet, the world over and reduce the non-Muslims to the status of zimmis or second-class citizens were essentially religious fanatics. A cursory glance at the Muslim history suggests that the loss of political power and the ensuing sense of insecurity had frequently forced the scholars (ulema) to go back into their shells and put forward a rigid, revivalist interpretation of Islam. Although, the revivalist propensity had entered Muslim psyche with the publication of al-Ghazalis (1058-1111) Ihya-ul-Uloom-ul-Islam (Revivification of the Science of Islam), a regressive and stagnant view of Islam, the stagnation set in firmly when the Tartar warrior Hulagu Khan sacked Baghdad in 1258. Thereafter, the Muslim scholars would invariably never come to the front to meet the challenges of ever changing world. They began sermonising that the Muslims should strictly emulate the traditions laid down during the times of the Prophet irrespective of their incongruity in the changed circumstances. Consequently, a liberal tradition of ijtihad (an objective interpretation based on the spirit of Quran to address to the changing socio-political conditions) was almost abandoned. To cite an example from the Indian history, the ulema faced a momentous adversity when Gerard Lake, commander-in-chief of the East India Company (1801-1805) asked them to explain the position of the Muslims under the Companys rule and clarify the stance Muslims were supposed to take in the light of Quran and shariat (Islamic law) toward their Christian rulers. After much reflection and nitpicking, Shah Abdul Aziz declared that since almost the entire country was under the control of Christians or the puppet native rulers appointed by the Company, India could no longer be called Dar-ul-Islam (abode of peace); it got transformed into Dar-ul-Harb (war zone). This ruling, according to the Islamic law, left the Muslims with just two options. They should either wage a holy war ( jihad) against the infidel rulers or should migrate to some country under the control of the Muslim rulers. The second option was obviously preposterous for the overwhelming population of the Muslims, except the faith, was as much Indian as Hindu, Buddhist or Jain. Therefore, the ulema recommended the second option. In order to prepare for jihad, Syed Ahmed Barelvi (1786-1831) was nominated as Amir-ul-Momineen (chief of the Muslims) and all the Muslims were warned that anyone defying the dictates of the chief would be treated as a kafir (infidel) and would be punished accordingly. Syed Ahmed went on to launch a militant revivalist movement that he named after Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahab who had started on a similar movement earlier in Saudi Arabia. The Wahabi Movement of Syed Ahmed Barelvi was an audacious attempt to organise the Muslims of the subcontinent to recapture the lost political power from the British by force. Besides a militant political agenda, the Wahabis preached an exclusivist brand of Islam that hardly offered any space to the non-Muslims. It was the first Muslim fanatic movement in the subcontinent. Prior to declaring jihad against the British, Syed Ahmed fought a disastrous war against the Sikhs in 1826. Afterward, the Wahabis played a significant role against the British in the uprising of 1857. The current retrogressive trend widespread among the Muslims all over the world is the upshot of the confrontation between the military might of the West and the hapless position of the Muslim countries to meet the challenge. The acute feeling of despair permeated the Muslim 3

consciousness mainly after the devastation of Afghanistan and the two Iraq wars. This phenomenon also validates the argument that loss of power or a sense of powerlessness forces the ulema to sermonise the common Muslims to return to the socio-religious practices prevalent during the days of the Prophet.

II
Though religious fanaticism has certain areas that overlap communalism, the concepts differ in many respects. In order to make an attempt to analyse communalism we must be careful to distinguish it with the positive denotation associated with it in the English language. For instance the New Websters Dictionary defines communalism as a sense of belonging to the community. Therefore, outside the subcontinent, the social scientists define communalism in altogether different terms. For instance, Murray Bookchin explains that communalism is a theory or system of government (sic) in which virtually autonomous (sic) local communities are loosely in federation. Nevertheless, in the subcontinent the term communalism is used in the sense corresponding to the word sectarianism outside South Asia. In the South Asian socio-political lexicon communalism has a negative detonation, which essentially signifies the misuse of religion for acquiring social, economic or political power. Thus, when a politician invokes religion to make political gains, he degenerates its sanctity and turns it into communalism. Accordingly, religion, in the true sense of the term, does not correlate to communalism. It is the notorious use of religion for the attainment of power in varied forms that worsens it as communalism. Communalism in the subcontinent is a political strategy to further the so-called incompatible concerns between different religious communities with an objective to fuel communal clashes. Political parties, to capture political power, usually adopt this strategy. Communalism is, to quote Bipin Chandra, is a false consciousness of ones identity. To believe that a person is identified only by the religion he professes is to disregard his ethnic, cultural, professional and economic indices of identity. In fact, these other identities are far more instrumental in orienting the course of a persons life. Communalism espouses totally wrong premises to promote the politics of hate and vengeance. Communalists argue that since the religious identity is the most important to define various social groups so each religious community has its own history. It must be pointed out here that though the splitting up of historical eras on communal lines like the Hindu period and the Muslim period was a deliberate stratagem devised by the British historians, many Indian historians, instead of correcting the wrong, loyally endorsed the communalisation of the history of the subcontinent. For instance, a prominent historian such as R. C. Majumdar is also guilty of carrying forward the prejudices and canards against the rulers who happened to identify themselves as Muslims. According to Irfan Habib, To him (Majumdar) the entire period c. 1200 onwards was one of foreign rule; Muslims were alien to Indian (Hindu) culture; the Hindus oppressed and humiliated, wished nothing better than to slaughter the Mlechas (Muslims); the British regime was a successor more civilised than Muslim rule; yet real opposition to the British came from the Hindus, not Mu slims, even in

1857; and finally the national movements course was throughout distorted by concessions made to Muslims by Gandhiji If Majumdar, a much-revered historian, reads history with such shockingly communal mindset then, one can imagine what the average teachers must be teaching in the classrooms. Communal interpretations of history completely undermine the economic, social and political factors that have been far more potent than the faith of the rulers in giving direction to the course of history. They also disregard the fact that in the history of the subcontinent there were hardly any communal tensions all through the so-called Muslim period. The communal divide originated during the British rule, in particular, after the failed uprising of 1857, and got intensified in the twentieth century owing to the colonial masters policy of divide and rule. In this sense, communalism is a recent phenomenon. Communalism proposes that since each community has its own historical perspective it must also have its own political affiliation. The contention is that a political party of its own can only protect the interests of a community. This has been the justification for the establishment of the Muslim League in 1906, a development that can only be described as the institutionalization of communalism in Indian politics. The two-nation theory so resolutely advocated by Muhammad Ali Jinnah after 1935 was a logical corollary of communalisation of politics pursued by the Muslim League and robustly sponsored by the British. How erroneous was Jinnah and his separatist theory got revealed in less than 25 years after the creation of Pakistan when Bangladesh, home to more Muslims than Pakistan, emerged as an independent state in 1971. Communalists maintain that religion determines cultural ethos and since according to them Hindus and Muslims constitute two separate communities their cultures including linguistic and literary heritage are also different. Any objective analysis can expose this prevarication put forward by the communalists. There are more than 50 Muslim countries and each one of them has its specific homegrown culture. It is equally wrong to believe that Muslims in India constitute a monolith social group. The Muslims are as much divided in terms of culture as the Hindus. Urdu, which is unfortunately got labeled as the language of the Muslims after Independence, is an alien tongue to an overwhelming majority of the Muslims of South India and, in the present context thanks to the anti-Urdu policy of the government, is no longer a preferred language of most of the Muslims of North India. In Pakistan where Urdu enjoys the status of an official language, it is the mother tongue of less than five percent of the population. In this backdrop one must understand the sangh parivars persistence with the concept of cultural nationalism for the saffron brigade makes attempts to impose a single culture and a sole language across India. The slogan of Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan is the obvious expression of such a mindset. The most hideous manifestation of communalism is communal violence. The worst communal riots in the subcontinent were of course the ones erupted in the aftermath of the partition in which, as per reliable estimates, close to a million people were killed and many more were rendered homeless and traumatised. Nevertheless, communal riots in independent India are recurring phenomena. The most striking aspect of them is that they can hardly be linked to religion. They occur because of political or economic pressures that are the hallmarks of a competitive culture. The unscrupulous politicians sow the seeds of communal hatred in order to win elections. For that reason, many observers believe that communal riots are episodic. Whenever deceitful political parties or members of such parties strive to

consolidate their communal constituencies they embark on dividing society on communal lines. The consequent communal riots help them win elections. Secondly, communal riots generally break out in those places where the minority community has a sizable presence and thus, can be in competition with the politicians and businessmen belonging to the majority community. A communal riot is unlikely to break out, say for example, in Satara or Sangli towns of Maharashtra where Muslim presence is negligible. Conversely, places like Mumbai and Aurangabad are considered to be communally sensitive by the authorities because of substantial Muslim population, which can compete with the majority community for having a share in political and economic power. Thirdly, many studies suggest that several communal riots had their roots in economic rivalry. The immediate cause of the riots might be something different but the real cause is usually to damage the economic prowess of the targeted community. For instance Moradabad riots, the Mumbai riots of 1992-93, and the Gujarat pogroms of 2002, started out for diverse reasons but they were thoroughly planned to ruin the businesses of the Muslims. Finally, all political parties, perhaps with the exception of the Left parties, get engaged in espousing communalism whenever it suits them. It is, therefore, a bit inaccurate to label a party secular only because its constitution says so or its leaders shout from the rooftops that they are committed to secularism. It is widely known that parties such as the BJP, Shiv Sena, Muslim League, Akali Dal, Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen et al are openly communal. Nonetheless, the principal political party, the Congress, has always been an umbrella organisation for both overtly secular and covertly communal politicians. Since Nehru personally was a genuine secular person, the Congress rank and file could not dare to dabble in communal politics. However, Mrs. Indira Gandhi was a self-professed pragmatic politician and she did not have any qualm in exploiting communal sentiments for political gains. She would emotionally manipulate Hindu voters in Jammu and, at the same time, portray herself as the defender of Muslims in the valley. She would not hesitate in proclaiming that the Muslim League in Kerala was a secular party. With an eye on Hindu votes, she even went to the extent of making a common cause with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on the controversy that surfaced when some dalits embraced Islam in the Meenakshipuram district of Tamil Nadu. Mrs. Gandhi was also guilty of dividing Hindus and Sikhs on communal lines in Punjab to settle scores with the Akali Dal. Her son, Rajiv Gandhi too played the communal card. In the wake of Shah Bano controversy, he passed the Muslim Womens (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill to please the misogynist and regressive Muslim leadership. Thereafter, to win over the communally inclined Hindus, he lent his active support to open the locks of Babri Masjid and allowed pujas to be performed there. Prime Munister Narsimha Rao under whose reign the 500-yearold mosque was demolished by the BJP and its allies pursued the similar communal policies. III Terrorism that has emerged, in recent times, as an acutely serious problem affecting the security of many nations, cannot be easily defined in absolute terms. It is so because there is no agreement on the issue of use of legitimate violence for a just cause by an organised group and also on the controversial subject of state terrorism. According to a study conducted in 1988, by the US Army, there are more than a hundred definitions of terrorism. Another difficulty in describing terrorism is its changing facets. It is a very old phenomenon and over
6

the centuries its nature has undergone changes. So, it is a complex issue to make distinction between terrorism, war crimes, crimes against humanity and state terrorism. In spite of this, most of the countries subscribe to the definition of terrorism stated in a United Nations report entitled Larger Freedom that was released on March 17, 2005. It defines terrorism as (any action) intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians and non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. This article conforms to the UN definition. The terrorist acts could be traced back to the Ancient times, c 70 BC, when the Zealots of Judea, also known as sicarii (the dagger men) launched a Jewish subversive movement to assassinate the Roman soldiers as well as their collaborators. During the 13th century, the Nizari Muslims (the hashishain, the term that gave us the English word assassin) led by Hassan bin Sabah, took on the course of assassination of their politico-religious opponents. In the Modern Age, the word terrorism was first used in 1795, in France to describe the violent activities of the Jacobin Club as the reign of terror. The reign lasted for eleven months during the period of Revolution when the Jacobins adopted extreme violent means, including execution by guillotine, to implement their radical policies. In the beginning of the twentieth century an act of terrorism led to the outbreak of the World War I. When a teenaged Serbian student, Gavril Princip shot dead the heir to Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, he could not envisage that his action would lead to a global war. Then a Zionist secret group, Irgun, employed terrorist methods to smuggle Jews into Palestine and kill those Arabs who resented the ever increasing Jewish population in their land. The real inventor of modern terrorism, so far as devices, techniques and use of technology is concerned, is Britain. During the World War II, the British Special Operation Executive (SOE) sponsored many terrorist groups in almost every theatre of the war that carried out guerilla raids and violent resistance movements. The US dropping of atomic bombs on the Japanese cities and annihilating lakhs of civilians was without doubt an act of terror. The argument that it was in retaliation of Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and was a strategy of the war may just about justify the bombing of Hiroshima. Nevertheless, dropping of an atomic bomb on Nagasaki three days later that killed minimum 74000 people instantly and several thousands died in the decades that followed, cannot be justified. Japan, in the immediate aftermath of the Hiroshima bombing, had decided to surrender and the Americans were well aware of the fact. Yet, the Pentagon hawks went ahead dropping a terrible weapon of mass destruction on a city just for the hell of it. It was clearly a terrible act of terror. Taking into consideration these past events it is ironical that currently the USA and Britain are supposed to be the leading players in the global war on terror. The contemporary concerns about the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism are without doubt real but the non-Islamic world, in particular the West, has, so far, calculatingly refused to address to the causes that forced many of the so-called jihadis to take on the path of violence. The US hypocrisy in the matter is so glaring that one tends to suspect the very aim of the war on terror. It was the US in collaboration with Pakistan that had helped Osama bin Laden and his maniac cohorts by giving them weapons and financial assistance to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s. At that time they were called the freedom fighters and their abominable violent acts were approved by the Western media as legitimate

warfare. When the Taliban and Osamas Al Qaida turned the heat on the US and its allies they are portrayed as barbarians and the worst terrorists the world ever knew. It is necessary here to add a word of caution lest an impression is formed that the writer of this paper obliquely approves of terrorist acts. It must be stated in clear terms by all the peace loving people of the world that terrorist acts for whatever the causes and under whatever the circumstances must not be condoned by anyone. The so-called Islamic jihadis are a stigma attached to the religion of Islam. Though the variants of the word are used in Quran quite often, the term jihad itself appears only once in the holy book and it essentially conveys the sense of a defensive war for the protection of the faith. Having said this, it is equally important that the world should address to the genuine grievances of the oppressed people many of them happened to be residing in the so-called Muslim nations. Terrorism is a global phenomenon. More than the Western world, Asian countries like Iraq, India, Pakistan, Afghanitan and others continue to bear the brunt of terrorist attacks. As per the latest estimate arrived at after the recent terrorist attack in Hyderabad, India since 2004, except the war torn Iraq, has lost more lives to terrorist acts than the US and entire Western Europe put together. Therefore, the US, Britain and some of their European allies should not make the world believe that only they are under terrorist attacks because of their affluence and superior way of life and this entire confrontation is between Islam and the West. Terrorism is a scourge of the contemporary world. It is a crime against entire humanity and it should be firmly dealt with international community. In this respect the only legitimate body that should deal with terrorism and the states harbouring terrorists is the United Nations. A nation behaving as an international policeman and brazenly flouting all international norms is in complete contrast of the values enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. If only the supreme military might of a nation gives it the right to mould the world as per its plans then the message that gets issued is power justifies all. It is difficult to get rid of terrorism with this mindset. IV Finding a way out of the mess in which the contemporary world finds itself thanks to the nuisances like religious fanaticism, communalism and terrorism is without doubt a daunting task. It is quite likely that one may sound like giving sermons while making suggestions to deal with these scourges. It is so because most of the apparent actions that are usually prescribed to tackles these hazards are easier said than done. Yet one must persist in making attempts. To eliminate the vices like fanaticism, communalism and terrorism is bound to be a time consuming exercise. There cannot be instant solutions. It is only through perseverance and by adopting the right course of action we can hope of creating an all inclusive, harmonious society. In response to religious fanaticism, the suggestions made here, as pointed out in the beginning, are confined to Islam. The Muslim apologists all the time keep saying that Islam believes in tolerance and the message of Quran is that each one is free to follow religion of his choice. This position is no doubt in complete conformity of the Quranic teachings. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter is that in social interaction a religion is not judged by its pristine teachings enshrined in the scripture but by the conduct of its followers. Regrettably Muslims, in particular, the self-serving mullahs are the worst distorters of the spirit of Quran. It is explicitly stated in Quran that Allah has sent his messengers to all the people of the
8

world. The implication is that all religions are different ways that lead to God. However, most of the mullahs teach the susceptible Muslims that Islam alone is the repository of Truth and, therefore, it is superior to all other religions because they are false. Religious fanaticism emanates from such a conceited view of religious superiority. Moreover, there are other reasons that have encouraged fanaticism among Muslims. One is the insistence of mullahs that a Muslim must follow ahadis (singular hadis that means a saying or action traced back to the Prophet) as strictly as the injunctions of Quran. Now, this is a contentious issue because many of the regressive, misogynist, anti-rational, anti-women, anti-poor and anti-other standards that are usually associated with Islam are drawn from the stock of ahadis. It must also be noted that first four caliphs who were obviously the closest to the Prophet and are known as Khulfa-e-Rashideen (the caliphs who were shown the right way) had strictly prohibited the invocation of ahadis. It was more than 200 years after the death of the Prophet that various compilations of ahadis were introduced as parallel to Quran. The other controversial area is shariat or Islamic law. This was also framed at least a hundred year after the reign of the first four caliphs. The shariat too negates many progressive, tolerant and egalitarian values that are part of the Quranic teachings. A point that needs serious consideration is that there are 72 sects of Islam. The major ones are called Sunni and Shia. The adherents of all the sects strictly follow the teachings of Quran. However, the ahadis and shariat are not common to all the Muslims. They differ from sect to sect. Thus, when a mullah insists that a Muslim should abide by ahadis and shariat he should be asked which set of ahadis and what school of shariat? The religious fanaticism among Muslims can be curtailed to a large extent if the contentious sources like ahadis and shariat are overlooked. Concurrently, the positive values of Quran should be highlighted vigorously. The complex situations of the contemporary life that may not be dealt adequately in the light of Quranic text should be sorted out by ijtehad (an objective interpretation based on the spirit of Quran). Communalism, as pointed out earlier, is a subcontinent specific issue. Therefore, the suggestions too are meant to engage the peace loving and genuinely secular people of the subcontinent. To restrain communalism and its repulsive upshot, communal violence, a series of concerted efforts by civil society will be required. It cannot be done away with only through stringent legislation. Anti-communal principles are inherently present at least in Indian laws since the beginning. They could not, however, contain the ever-increasing activities of Indian communal forces. It means we have to look beyond laws and judicial activism to confront the juggernaut of communalism. The first area that urgently calls for the attention of peace loving people is a careful review of syllabi prescribed for different levels of education, in particular, school education. In this respect history needs meticulous consideration. It has been already mentioned earlier that even a historian of international repute such as R. C. Majumdar gave expression to his deep-seated prejudices against the Muslim ruler while chronicling mediaeval India. Similar is the situation in Pakistan. According to Irfan Habib, a much respected history scholar from Pakistan, Ishtiaq Husain Quraish, completely discounted the evolution of composite culture over the centuries that helped the subcontinent become a natural home to Hindus and Muslims. Instead Quraishi perceived that the Muslims began their struggle for a separate nation right from AD 712 when Muhammad ibn Qasim entered Sind at the head of an Arab army. So, history text books must be thoroughly reviewed and all communal biases should be purged from them. Besides, communal prejudices are subtly interwoven in text books of
9

other subjects too. It is a huge task to prescribe appropriate syllabi for a secular subcontinent. The educationists have to really put in enormous efforts to devise the right curricula. Additionally, media have to play a pivotal role in curbing communalism and promoting secular values in tandem. The mainstream English press is, by and large, free of communal bias. The same, however, cannot be said about many of the regional language papers. The press regulating authorities in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh have to be more vigilant in this regard. The electronic media has a powerful and much wider reach than the print media. Though communal propaganda is not rampant on TV, the over all agenda lacks commitment to secularism and promotion of communal harmony. This needs to be rectified. The secular activists associated to various non-governmental organisations, more often than not, do commendable works to restrict communal activities. Yet, many of their efforts can best be described as counter-communalism activities or a fire fighting exercise. The need is to instill secular values in the minds of the people by relentless initiatives and not merely in the aftermath of a communal riot. The activists will have to work at the grassroots and among the young people in smaller groups to further a secular culture as the normal way of civilised life. Terrorism plays havoc both at national and international levels. So far India is concerned the areas worst affected by terrorism are Jammu and Kashmir and the North East. Earlier, Punjab too witnessed terrorist violence. The Indian security agencies maintain that almost all the terrorist attacks at different places in India were planned and executed by the jihadi groups which get the active support of government agencies of Pakistan and Bangladesh. On their part, both Pakistan and Bangladesh deny the charge. Now, this is a demanding situation that calls for sagacity and resolve on the part of the political leadership of the subcontinent. Instead of looking towards the US to help us dealing the terrorist menace, the policy makers in South Asia must invigorate South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and make sincere efforts to settle the conflicting issues. This, of course, is a tall order. However, instead of becoming a junior partner in the strategic alliance led by the US, if the leaders of South Asia commit themselves to redefine the international priorities and transform the region into an area of peace and harmony, SAARC too can prove to be as successful as European Union (EU). The global war on terrorism led by the US can only be won if the causes of terrorism are not swept under the carpet. The US and the Western European countries need to address to the legitimate grievances of the terrorists, most of them are no doubt Muslims. In response to terrorist attacks on twin towers, pentagon and some other targets, the US was in a sense justified to bombard Afghanistan because as per the American intelligence reports Al Qaida carried out the heinous acts. At the same time it must be made clear that there was no justification of the invasion of Iraq. Initially the US claimed that Iraq was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. When no such weapons were found, the tune changed and the Americans began claiming that they attacked Iraq to dislodge a dictator and establish democracy in the oil rich state. There are end numbers of arguments against the position of the US which is hardly defensible. What is alarming is the rise of neo-conservatives in the most powerful state in the contemporary world. George W. Bush is the worst example of a neo-conservative. The allusions and expressions he has been using since declaring a scornful war on terror can only be employed by a fascist dictator. Following the attack on Afghanistan, he declared that it was
10

a crusade against terror. The usage of the term that essentially refers to the bloody wars between the Christians and the Muslims during the mediaeval period gave credence to the popular perception among Muslims that the war on terror was in essence a war against Islam. Moreover, with a view to involve many nations in the alliance against terror led by the US, he threatened the hesitant states in these terms, you are either with us or with the terrorist. Is it the language of a statesman who claims to lead the most powerful democracy on earth? The binary option of either/ or is, in fact, the negation of democracy. In a nutshell, it must be made plain that the US on its own or in collaboration with like-minded Western powers cannot win the war against terrorism. It requires a global effort to eliminate a global problem. Therefore, the scourge of terrorism can only be dealt with by the concrete actions of the United Nations. In a unipolar world the US and its client states have almost rendered the UN superfluous. This needs to be changed. A revitalized UNO can be effective in curbing terrorism for the simple reason that its efforts will be broad-based involving all the signatory nations.

*The writer is a former professor of Political Science. Currently, he is a human rights activist, a political commentator and a freelance journalist. He is heads the Centre for Democracy and Secularism.

11