7/28/2014 The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum - Special Issue: countering terrorism

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030105/spectrum/main3.htm 1/2
Ad by Browser Shop | Close This Ad
Special Issue
Countering terrorism
Views of eminent experts and
thinkers on countering
terrorism
Hari Jaisingh
Kanti Bajpai
Asghar Ali Engineer
Owen Bennett Jones
Shelley Walia
G. Parthasarthy
T. V. Rajeswar
Gen V N Sharma
Ashok K. Mehta
Prakash Singh
M. J. Akbar
Sunday, January 5, 2003
Tribune special
Fundamentalism & terrorism
Politics of religion and religion as politics
Communalism is all about political or economic interests of a particular community,
while fundamentalism is enforcement of sectarianism for the political mobilisation
of a community with the aim of achieving the power-goals of its elite.
Fundamentalism invariably leads to terrorism, says Asghar Ali Engineer.
FUNDAMENTALISM and terrorism are
widely used but loosely-defined terms
in the media as well as academia. Many
people describe any thing religious as
fundamentalism and any act of killing
as terrorism. It is necessary to define
these terms properly. In fact, the term
fundamentalism is hardly applicable to
Indian religions on the one hand, and
to Islam on the other hand. It is
American media, which started using
Islamic fundamentalism when the
Islamic revolution was taking place in Iran in the late 1970s. Our media too
started using the term and very soon it was being very widely used.
The term terrorism too has its origin in American media after 9/11. We have had
violence from across the border since 1990s but never used terrorist violence for
it. We called it either extremism or militancy. But now, we call it cross-border
terrorism after 9/11. Thus, American rulers and American media set the term for
us to be used. America devises terms to reflect its own interests and not to make
any academic sense. We should resist the temptation to use the terms loosely.
Let us try to define fundamentalism. It should not certainly be confused with
fundamentals of religion. Even in America this term was not used in that sense in
the early twenties of the last century. Those who believed that every word of
the Bible is literally a divine word were called fundamentalist. One, it did not refer
to fundamental teachings of Christianity and second, it was never used in a
derogatory sense. Now the term, especially Islamic fundamentalism, is used in a
derogatory sense and since it is used in a derogatory sense, we must separate it
from religion per se.

To follow either Islam or Hinduism should not be described as fundamentalism.
Even to follow orthodox traditions of religion should not be dubbed as
fundamentalism, even though one may not agree with orthodox practices. There
are millions of people in every religious tradition who follow these orthodox
traditions without being a nuisance to any one in the society. Their practices
could be quite harmless.
Therefore, one must distinguish between orthodoxy and fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism in the sense in which it is being used in the media is, in fact, a
political misuse of religion in a narrow sectarian manner. In this sense, there is
not much difference between communalism and fundamentalism. Both the
phenomena are based on political interests. Still there is a subtle difference
between the two. While communalism is all about political or economic interests
of a particular community, fundamentalism is enforcement of sectarianism with all
rigidity for political mobilisation of a community for the power-goals of its elite.
While communalism is the exploitation of sentiments of a religion-based
community for a secular goal (i.e. political power) fundamentalism is enforcing
narrow sectarian practices for strengthening religious orthodoxy as well as
achieving political power.
While the BJP will be closer to communalism in this sense, while the VHP-Bajrang
Dal will be closer to fundamentalism. However, it must be said at the same time
that the distinction is getting more and more blurred of late as VHP is setting the
agenda for the BJP. Similarly, the pre-Partition Muslim League was closer to
communalism and the Jamat-e-Islami was closer to fundamentalism.
Communalism is more about secular interests (mainly political) of a religion-based
community. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is enforcement of narrow
sectarian religion by misusing political power and that too with a view to
consolidate political power.
Now let us define terrorism. One must admit, while defining terrorism that it is
very difficult to reach any consensus about it. Even the UNO failed to evolve one
despite great deal of debates. It is often said, and rightly so, that ones terrorist
is the others freedom fighter. Those who are freedom fighters for the Palestinians
are terrorists to be killed and eliminated for the Israelis. In Kashmir, those who
are terrorists for us are freedom fighters for Pakistanis and even for some
Kashmiris,
Even though it is difficult to define terrorism, those who kill innocent and non-
combatant people on a large scale could certainly be categorised as terrorists.
7/28/2014 The Sunday Tribune - Spectrum - Special Issue: countering terrorism
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030105/spectrum/main3.htm 2/2
combatant people on a large scale could certainly be categorised as terrorists.
Many Pakistan-based organisations like Lashkar-e-Toiba who kill innocent citizens
not only in J&K but also in other cities of India are terrorists.
Let us see whether fundamentalism necessarily leads to terrorism and what is the
link between the two. Though logically fundamentalism should not necessarily and
inevitably lead to terrorism, it often does. Fundamentalism involves enforcement
of narrow sectarian practices using political power. In order to consolidate
political power, extreme coercion becomes necessary and extreme coercion
involves violence.
People do not easily accept such enforcement willingly (except a few) while the
authoritarian forces use violence. Also, when it involves political power, political
rivalries and secessionist movements, violence is inevitably used since democratic
alternatives take far too long and test out patience. It should also be noted that
all terrorist movements are not fundamentalist in nature though fundamentalism
may also lead to terrorism. For example, the LTTE movement is a terrorist one but
not a fundamentalist one.
Another important thing to be noted is that terrorists may use religion or religious
terminology like jihad or Dharma yuddh or holy war but their objective may have
nothing to do with religious teachings as such. It would, therefore, be wrong to
describe a terrorist act as religious terrorism just because of religion of a terrorist
and his use of religious terminology. Thus, Osama bin Ladens being a Muslim and
his attack on the WTC twin towers, New York, does not become an act of
Islamic terrorism.
Osama bin Laden has his own agenda and his acts by no means represent Islamic
teachings. No religion in the world, much less Islam, teaches terrorism or inspires
any one to kill innocent people. Though some Muslims may have expressed
sympathy for Osama, so did some non-Muslims who resent Americas policies and
its pro-Israeli stance. Osama never had any official sanction from any Islamic
establishment. There is no priesthood or church in Islam and no fatwa, howsoever
eminent the institution issuing fatwa be, cannot be binding on any Muslim.
And in case of Osama no such institution has issued any such fatwa supporting
his act of terrorism. It is, therefore, not justified at all to describe 9/11 attack by
Osamas men as an act of Islamic terrorism. Even if any eminent Mufti (one who
issues fatwa) had issued such an opinion, it would not have been binding on all
Muslims. And in this case no one issued such a fatwa
Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaida organisation does not pretend to have any
mass base. No terrorist organisation, as a matter of fact, has a mass base
anywhere in the world. It would otherwise seem to be a terrorist organisation.
Osama does use Islamic terminology to gain the sympathy of Muslim masses but
use of such a terminology does not make it an Islamic organisation. It remains
basically a terrorist organisation. The religion practised by masses of Muslims is
more spiritual than political and religion practised by likes of Osama is more
political than spiritual.
The Koran clearly lays down that killing any person without a just cause amounts
to killing whole humanity and saving one persons life amounts to saving entire
humanity. This is truly humanistic and spiritual dimension of Islam and of any
religion for that matter. Killing hundreds of innocent people can not qualify for
being a religious act by any stretch of imagination.
In fact whether fundamentalism and terrorism m (in the sense in which they have
been defined above) are linked together or not both are curses for humanity. No
truly religious person should approve of such a gross misuse of religion. A religious
attitude has to be of humility, distance from political power and of non-violence.
The Sufi Islam which was truly spiritual Islam always maintained its distance from
power centres and believed in the doctrine of what is called sulh-i-kul i.e. peace
with all. True religion is one, which does not get politicised. Political Islam or
political Hinduism became a great danger for peace and tranquillity in the society.
It is political Hinduism (Hindutva) which caused havoc in Gujarat and many other
places and it is political Islam which has resulted in bloodshed in New York or in
Kashmir or in Algeria, for that matter. Muslims and Hindus should fight against
politicisation of their respective religions.