Author: Shyam Khosla
Publication: Organiser
Date: October 7, 2001
The ban on the Students' Islamic
Movement of India (SIMI) slapped last week did not come as a surprise.
The Centre was under tremendous pressure from several State Governments,
including Congress-run States like Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, to ban
the activities of this fundamentalist outfit that had links with Pakistan's
ISI and terrorist organisations operating in J&K. There is credible
evidence in the possession of the State Governments and the Union Home
Ministry to link SIMI with anti-national activities including its role
in fomenting communal tensions leading to riots, spreading venom in the
name of "jehad" and spreading the dangerous doctrines of Osama bin Laden,
Sheikh Mohammed Yasin of HAMMAS of Palestine and Maulana Masood Azhar of
Jaish-e-Mohammed, who was released after the hijacking of IC 814.
Founded in Aligarh in 1977, SIMI
has been working for an international Islamic Order and supporting secessionist
and terrorist movements in Punjab and J&K. Its official literature
questions India's territorial integrity. It is known to have produced and
distributed pro-Taliban literature. SIMI activists and supporters have
been involved in numerous explosions in trains between February and August
this year. Its role in planting explosives outside RSS headquarters in
Nagpur is well known. SIMI was also behind blasts in Delhi and other parts
of the country. IB says SIMI cadres were given ideological and arms training
in Pakistan.
The ban has been imposed under the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, for a period of two years.
The Centre will now set up a tribunal to examine the evidence the Centre
has in its possession to ascertain whether the ban was justified.
Initially, the Centre was reluctant
to impose the ban and advised the State Governments concerned to proceed
against the outfit in their respective States. The issue came up for discussion
in the Conference of Chief Ministers and later in the Conference of State
Police Chiefs, The consensus was that a ban to be effective would have
to be imposed by the Centre for two reasons. First, the ban in a particular
State will enable the outfit to operate from neighbouring States. Secondly,
the Centre would be in a better position to convince the proposed tribunal
for the need to ban the activities of this ant-national outfit.
Mulayam Singh, President of the
Samajwadi Party, is totally opposed to the ban. His opposition to the ban
is on expected lines. It is part of his game plan to strengthen his hold
over Muslims in UP, among whom SIMI is believed to have a large number
of sympathisers. He is projecting the ban as an attack on Muslims by the
"pro-Hindutva" Government at the Centre. SP leader's demand that the Centre
must explain to an all party meeting the rationale behind the ban and convince
the Opposition parties that SIMI's activities were prejudicial to national
interests is amusing. The Centre has to justify the ban to the proposed
tribunal as per the requirements of the law of the land. It is not obliged
to convince Mullah Mulayam Singh. In any case, he is unlikely to be satisfied
oven if a mountain of evidence is produced in support of the central action.
Vote-bank politics leaves him with no other option. He is least bothered
if his blinkered vision is hurting the national interests to no end. He
is willing to sacrifice national interests for a handful of Muslim votes
in UP.
The UP police have charged the Samajwadi
Party with provoking violence in Lucknow that claimed three lives. Senior
leader of the SP, the police say, were actively involved in inciting Muslims
after the ban and arrest of senior leaders of SIMI. Mulayam Singh has a
lot to answer for. He and his party am sowing the weds of yet another vivisection
of Mother India.
The Congress too would have loved
to oppose the ban but is handicapped because of two Congress Chief Ministers
were among those who repeatedly urged the Centre to take, legal action
against SIMI. The Congress is now trying to hoodwink public opinion by
demanding a ban on Bajrang Dal as well by 'describing the latter as a fundamentalist
outfit. It is nothing if not outrageous. Bajrang Dal is a patriotic organisation
and has never done anything that may threaten India's territorial integrity.
Even if one were to concede for argument sake, that Bajrang Dal workers
had been more aggressive than was comfortable for the secular brigade in
opposing the activities of Islamic fundamentalists, the law can take its
own course. There can be no comparison between a nationalist Bajrang Dal
and an anti-national SIMI. Having said that one must point out that beaming
an outfit however, dangerous or anti-national that may be, does not necessarily
lead to the elimination of danger from that organisation and its ideology.
The ban can force SIMI to go underground and continue its activities under
another name with the help of cash-rich ISI or political outfits like SP
that are more concerned with votes than national interests. SIMI's ideology
namely Islamic fundamentalism and its support to terrorism have to be fought
politically. It is for all nationalist elements including politicians,
social activists, intellectuals, academicians and the media to launch an
all-out war against Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. Muslims need
to be educated about the dangers to the nation and to their own community
posed by fundamentalist outfits like SIMI and its supporters.
