Last week, the front page of this newspaper’s Sunday magazine carried a long analysis of the London bombings under the headline “Shocking, but...”
I have encountered this same ‘but...’ in conversation after each conversation about this atrocity. In fact, it has surfaced every time there has been an anti-West attack from New York to Bali to Madrid. This short, seemingly innocuous word is pregnant with real and imaginary wrongs inflicted on the Muslims from the Crusades to Chechnya.
The ‘but...’ pops up something like this: “Of course, I condemn the suicide attacks in London. But surely the British government and Tony Blair should accept some of the responsibility for the incident. After all, they invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.” A variation on this theme is: “What happened in London was terrible. But Iraq suffers as many casualties every day, and nobody in the West cares.”
The truth is somewhat more complex. There is no doubting the fact that, just as there is no such thing as a free lunch, wars, invasions and occupations have to be paid for too, and usually in blood. Far too often, those paying this price are innocent civilians. Armed conflict invariably claims far more civilian victims than soldiers.
And because civilians are ‘soft targets’, they are the ones terrorists are likely to kill and maim. Unable to strike at well-protected government targets, the killers set off their explosives among crowds of ordinary people among whom they can mingle undetected. Quite apart from the morality of this murderous attack, in terms of tactics, it was a stupid move. The majority of the British people are against the war in Iraq, and support the right of the Palestinians to their own state. This atrocity will only alienate people sympathetic to the cause the bombers committed suicide for.
Although Londoners had long been mentally prepared for the attack, its source has come as a huge shock. Few people expected young Britons to so cruelly and wantonly kill their own countrymen. Had the bombers been Iraqis, the public would have at least seen the attack as a direct response to their government’s policies. Their grief and horror would not have been diminished, but at least the motive would have been clear.
There is currently a feeling of betrayal among even liberal Britons that has nothing to do with so-called Islamophobia. The thought that kids who grew up in British homes and streets, went to school with their children, and were given all the amenities of their generous welfare state, could have perpetrated such a wicked crime fills them with horror and disbelief.
As usual, we Pakistanis went into typical denial in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Our first reaction was: “How can Blair accuse Muslim extremists of the outrage? What proof does he have?” This soon changed to: “How can they suggest that young Pakistanis were behind it?” And finally: “The West always blames Pakistan for every terrorist atrocity.”
The fact is that apart from a vast network of terrorist groups in Pakistan, there is a groundswell of anti-western sentiment that sustains these extremists. The causes for this range from anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, to anti-liberalism and anti-secularism. This broad spectrum of causes unites the democratic left with the religious right, and leaves very few people in the middle.
There is a strong nexus between Pakistanis who migrated to the UK in the fifties and their descendants and the home country. Thus, attitudes here do influence those in the diaspora. And there is no shortage here of extremist and extremely violent dogmas. Since the seventies, when oil exporting countries suddenly became very rich, Saudi Arabia has used hundreds of millions of petro-dollars to push its rigid Wahabi/Salafi version of Islam. This embodies a virulently anti-West strain that has now infected Muslim thinking, especially among the young, across the world. In the subcontinent, Muslims have been further radicalized by the rigidly literalist Deobandi school.
British tolerance is also greatly to blame for the recent attack. An entire generation has grown up in the midst of a remarkable experiment in establishing a multi-cultural society. The various groups of immigrants making up the mosaic that is Britain today have been encouraged to retain their cultural and religious identity. Thus, instead of blending with the mainstream, Muslims have tended to stick together, usually in unattractive ghettos, some of which have become breeding spots for crime. Indeed, many of these are no-go areas for the police, and whites enter them at their peril.
For years, firebrand preachers have been spewing out a message of hate from mosques across Britain. Organizations like Hizb-ul-Tahrir and Al Mahajiroun poison young minds under the noses of the authorities. Thus far, officialdom has turned a blind eye to these extremist attitudes, fearing to offend Muslims in Britain, as well as decent liberals. This easygoing, tolerant ‘political correctness’ will be an early casualty of 7/7.
Muslims in Britain have a mantra which goes like this: “I am a good Muslim, and I am British.” The problem is that more and more people in the UK are seeing this as a contradiction in terms. Being British is more than having a passport proclaiming your nationality. The term implies that you are democratic, liberal, secular and follow the rule of law. None of these attributes are automatically applicable to Muslims.
By conferring citizenship on a foreigner, a society makes certain assumptions about his or her loyalty. If the new citizen is willing to accept the privileges and benefits that go with citizenship, he is also expected to transfer his allegiance to his new country. And while this process cannot be instantaneous, surely the second generation should be integrated into society their parents have decided to settle in.
Unfortunately, this has not proved to be the case for many Muslims, especially those from Pakistan. When pressed, they say they are Muslim first, Pakistani second, and British last. After 7/7, this is going to raise questions about their loyalty. Indeed, a backlash is already building up.
The French daily Le Monde sent a correspondent to Beeston in West Yorkshire to gauge public attitudes immediately after the London attack. He found a divided community where Pakistani gangs warred with white and black rivals. He quotes a bitter Fred Dibner on his Pakistani neighbours: “They don’t mind insulting our women, but if we insult theirs, they turn up to smash our windows...” The correspondent adds that Dibner spoke as though his tongue had been freed by the events of 7/7.
Regretfully, it will be more than
tongues that will be freed. Despite odd incidents of racism, Britain has
been an island of tolerance in an increasingly intolerant world. Even after
9/11, liberal attitudes mostly kept Islamophobia in check. Now, thanks
to the actions of a few deluded men, the gloves will be coming off and
Muslims, especially of Pakistani origin, are going to be singled out. I’m
glad I’m back in Pakistan for the next few months.