Author: Balbir K Punj
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: July 28, 2006
It might appear preposterous to the rest of
the country, but two Ministers from the Congress, a CPI(M) top brass and one
Muslim maulana distinguished themselves by offering alternate theories on
7/11.
It all began with Human Resource Development
Minister Arjun Singh, whose statement was buttressed by Minister for Minority
Affairs AR Antulay, speaking in a Cabinet meeting on July 13 that Mumbai blasts
could be the handiwork of the RSS.
According to Mr Arjun Singh, Hindutva groups
"regularly fake" (sic) such attacks to malign Muslim organisations.
To put this point across in Parliament, Mr Arjun Singh interrupted the presentation
of Union Home Minister Shivraj Patil on Mumbai and Srinagar serial blasts
on July 11. He quoted a certain Maharashtra High Court judge to claim that
the foiled attack on the RSS headquarters in Nagpur on June 1 was faked. Mr
Patil added that the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba modules responsible for the attack
had already been arrested. Interestingly, Agricultural Minister and Maratha
strongman Sharad Pawar then accused Mr Singh of trivialising a grave issue.
Mr Antulay, also from Maharashtra, said that a "similar blast" (sic)
in Nanded was wrongly attributed to Islamic organisations. Finally, it took
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to issue a caveat against any Minister disturbing
the Home Minister's presentation.
Was there a 'similar blast' in Nanded as in
Mumbai? Well, there was one explosion of low intensity in the house of a retired
irrigation engineer in Nanded on April 6 in which two Hindus died while preparing
a bomb, injuring two other co-religionists in the process. The anti-terrorist
squad submitted a report on June 11, saying they were associated with a "fundamentalist
Hindu group". But there was a disclaimer, too: "It is for the first
time that a fundamentalist Hindu group is known to be involved in such activity."
But why is Mr Antulay silent about the large haul of RDX, AK-47 rifles and
hand grenades in Malegaon, Aurangabad and Nashik? The Aurangabad seizure of
30 kg of RDX, 17 AK-47 rifles and 50 hand grenades was the biggest of its
kind in Maharashtra after the 1993 Mumbai blasts. The seizure was followed
by the arrest of 11 LeT men.
The hauls in May, adequately reported in the
media, hold the threat of another Mumbai type serial blast. In the last 10
years, the capital of Maharashtra has witnessed some 12 explosions - all of
them could be ascribed to Pakistan-sponsored or inspired radical Islamist
outfits that get easy local recruits.
Yet, if Mr Arjun Singh knows that Hindutva
organisations carry out such attacks, why has he not cared to bring it to
the notice of the Home Ministry? It is both callous and communal of such a
'secular' personality.
As many as 65 terrorist modules, mostly masterminded
by Pakistan's ISI, have been busted in the last seven months. The ISI has
succeeded in outsourcing some terror chores to groups in Nepal and Bangladesh
and hiding Pakistan's direct involvement in terrorist activities in India.
Terror has also been routed through the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.
After the blasts, the needle of suspicion
pointed towards LeT and Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). Only the
pervert amongst secularists would suggest an RSS hand. A complex set of both
inter-State and international network ranging from Tripura to Kenya is emerging
now. It is clear how deep Islamist terrorism has penetrated into India. Ministers
like Mr Arjun Singh and Mr Antulay, who extended the ludicrous suggestion
of 'fake' attacks, should have been sacked immediately. But we must also reflect
on why and how we have arrived at such a sad state of affairs. It is because
we have been producing a crop of virtual Mr Arjun Singhs and Mr Antulays,
in academia, media and political circles since Independence.
We have been living in a state of self-denial,
preferring political correctness to security. For too long we have been professing
mazhab nahin sikhata apas men bair rakhna (religion doesn't preach to keep
division amongst ourselves), overlooking the fact that the very writer of
that verse, Allama Iqbal, had become a hardcore pan-Islamist and visionary
of Pakistan. It's time we sought truth in another verse of Iqbal: Chin-o-Arab
hamara/ Hindustan hamara/ Muslim hain hum/ Saara jahan hamara (China and Arab
is ours, India is ours, we are Muslims and the world is in our possession).
It's time we shed naiveté and complacency
and woke up to the theological warfare against India. As I have said before,
7/11 will prove a milestone in the war against 'infidel Hindu' India that
had begun in 711 AD with the first expedition of the Caliphate in Balochistan.
It is the gullibility of secularists and their
indirect complicity in disruptive activities - touted as 'tolerance' - that
has emboldened Islamic fundamentalism. Shahi Imam Ahmed Bukhari acted as the
spokesman of LeT, saying, "I can say with authority that it is not any
Muslim but the Shiv Sena, the RSS and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad who are responsible
for the serial blasts in Mumbai."
Instead of trying to plumb the depths of ideological
warfare, we are trying to rationalise them as reactions to perceived injustice.
We have been desperately portraying every act of Islamist terrorism as 'reaction'
against the Babri Masjid demolition or Gujarat riots.
Equally mistaken is the recent policy statement
released by the Tribal Ministry advising that Salwa Judum be disbanded, seeing
Maoism merely as a symptom of tribal unrest. However, the PMO and the Home
Ministry view Maoism as the single biggest insurgency ever faced by India.
It seems, in the UPA Government, the left hand doesn't know what the right
is doing.
If it was merely a tribal unrest, tribesmen
would have been using indigenous modes of expression to mark their protest.
Also, their agenda would have been restricted to the tribal belt. But the
Maoists speak in a Marxism-Leninism-Maoism jargon. They speak of overthrowing
the states, India and Nepal, to establish a 'revolutionary Government'.
Unmistakably, the movement is being led not
by tribesmen, but non-tribal educated minds. Moreover, it is proactive, not
reactive. It doesn't make a distinction between a monarchy, as existed in
Nepal until recently, and a democracy like India. The single-most visible
character trait of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism it that it is only interested in
capturing political power.
Like radical Islamists, Maoists are bound
by their ideology and would adopt any means, fair or foul, to execute it.
In contrast, Salwa Judum activists are tribesmen who want to continue with
their traditional way of life. But Maoists by nature are a violent, aggressive
and expansive creed. It's time our policymakers shed their ostrich-like mentality
and recognised the threat that civil society faces from militant ideologies.
