The provocation for this article is the baseless, motivated and misinformed criticism of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's speech in Goa by the pseudo-secularists of India and jehadis from Pakistan. The accusation is that it contained remarks against Islam and Muslims.
Pakistan chose to deplore the prime minister's remarks saying that it contained a "bigoted and extremist message" promoting dangerous anti-Muslim trends. The criticism of pseudo-secularists of India was no different.
Vajpayee has since clarified that taken his remarks in totality it contained nothing that is either against Islam or Muslims. He stated, "I had said Islam has two forms. One is that which tolerates others, which teaches its adherents to follow the path of truth, which preaches compassion and sensitivity. But these days militancy in the name of Islam leaves no room for tolerance. It has raised the slogans of jehad. It is dreaming of recasting the entire world in its mould."
Does Islam exhibit signs of intolerance? Is it advocating hatred and killing of innocent people to further religious or political objective? Does the Quran sanction waging jehad on non-believers of Islam? Who are the infidels that the Muslim scriptures allegedly find so despicable?
Let me first draw attention to a statement the former prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, made in a television interview sometime back. She said that a parallel army is being recruited, trained and run by religious parties in Pakistan to spread Islam.
Why does Islam need an army for it to spread? Some say that Islam was spread through conflicts. If it is to be spread further through fierce means, it certainly needs an army. Some countries have well-armed private armies. Its members are fiercely dedicated to defending Islam. This is the case in Pakistan. This was the case in Talibanised Afghanistan.
Take the case of suicide terrorism. How many Muslim nations have condemned suicide attacks carried out by Muslim youths the world over? Why don't mainstream Muslims muster courage to come out to condemn terrorists who unabashedly claim Quranic sanctions for committing crimes like kamikaze attacks? Is it not a fact that one face of Islam is showing a tendency of justifying violence?
Osama bin Laden proclaimed his jehad against crusaders and Jews in 1998. Is it also not a fact that many militant Muslim organisations entertain fanciful ambitions of having an Islamic world in the next 100 years? Feeding Islamic fervour, Major Eshan-ul-Haq, an ex-Pakistani army officer, said some time back that "the whole world belongs to Allah, and the whole of Allah's laws has to be executed in this world". The nation that is finding fault with Vajpayee's speech today never felt the need to control this type of dangerous utterances.
Hamas, which was formed in 1987 as an outgrowth of the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, encourages young women to become suicide bombers. What was the motivating factor for 28-year-old Wafa Idris, the first female bomber to strike inside Israel? Sixteen-year-old Ayat Akhras blew herself up at a Jerusalem supermarket.
It was Hamas that employed suicide bombers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the first time. More than hundred Palestinians have since blown themselves up taking with them 339 innocent people. Terrorists motivated by religion view all their acts with moral sanctity and divine sanctions. They have an instant justification for their acts.
Ask any bigoted Muslim, for instance, why the World Trade Center was attacked and the answer will be that it was the nerve centre of capitalism. Ask why the terrorists attacked Pentagon. The answer will be that every worker there is an enemy of Islam because he or she helps Israel. Ask why Americans are targeted and the answer will be that Islam was under attack by the US and that crimes committed by Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims. They simply blame the West for all their failings.
President George Bush stated that this is not a 'clash of civilisations'. He also argued that the campaign against terrorism was in fact a clash between the civilised world and its enemies. Religion, the world over, is a way of life. All religions are enlightened, liberal and idealistic. But in the religious books of some of them, a saying or two can be found which are unsuitable for application in today's world. But if a person of one faith considers that it is his religious duty to fight believers of other faiths, there can be no peace in this world.
Religions are for binding people. Hatred of a particular region, religion, sect, culture, country or language should not be preached by any religion. Anwar Ibrahim, the former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, wrote from his prison cell in an article: "The democratic cause in Muslim countries will regress for a few decades as ruling autocrats use their participation in the global war against terrorism to terrorise their critics and dissenters.. There is simply no place in the Muslim world to express dissent. Autocratic, theocratic, despotic regimes allow no political freedom, all thought is outlawed, and brute suppression is the norm. In such circumstances, violence is seen as the only way of expressing dissent."
Nobody needs to shed tears for safeguarding secularism in India. Secularism is and will remain secure. But those trying to preach values of secularism should know that India is the only country in the world where one can listen to Hindu bhajans, Bible recitals, Muslim azaans, Sikh gurbanis and Buddhist chanting. Where else in the world can one hear the chantings of so many religions?
(The writer is Union Minister of
State for Home Affairs)