Author: Balbir K. Punj
Publication: Deccan Chronicle
Date: September 26, 2008
The recent serial bomb blasts across the country
have got the "secularists" busy in building smoke screens, raising
red herrings and finding scapegoats - all to save the real culprits. The terror
machine in India has two faces: The "underground" one which plans
and executes the violent operations, while the "over ground" face
hides behind masks of human rights, social activists and NGOs and operates
under a common brand name of "secularism". Together, they provide
an atmosphere conducive to the germination and growth of terrorism in the
country.
How does the "secular" cabal provide
covert and overt support to terror in the country? It does so by discouraging
the rational and forward-looking elements in the Muslim community and promotes
only renegades. Remember how Rajiv Gandhi dumped his progressive minister
Arif Mohammad Khan and instead courted bigots and reversed the Supreme Court
judgment in the Shah Bano case? Or how V.P. Singh wooed the Shahi Imam?
Not in the too distant past, the Kerala Assembly
had passed a unanimous resolution seeking Madhani's release, a man then behind
bars for his alleged role in the 1998 Coimbatore blasts which had left 33
dead and 153 injured. A couple of weeks ago, leaders of three "secular"
parties (the Congress, the BSP and the SP) were vying with each other in expressing
their support for Abu Basher in Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh, after he was arrested
for his involvement in the Ahmedabad blasts. What is the message being sent
here?
While subsidy running into hundreds of crores
of rupees is given for Haj, nothing tangible is done to wean away the Muslim
youth from madrasas and motivate them to join the mainstream. In fact, the
reverse is being done. Madrasas are being promoted and computers are being
made available in a bid to "modernise" them. Equipment is not the
issue; it is the mindset. Modern tools are being used to add to the lethal
capacity of a medieval mindset. Right from the young men involved in flying
planes into the Twin Towers in New York, to the ones involved in Delhi blasts,
all are computer savvy and come from comparatively well-off backgrounds.
The 14-page email of the Indian Mujahideen,
sent minutes before the Delhi blasts, started with a quotation from the Holy
Quran. It said, "When you encounter (in fight) those who disbelieve,
strike their necks first, till when you have completely massacred and wounded
many of them. Then bind them firmly (taking them as captives). Thereafter
is the time, either for generosity or a ransom, until the war lays down its
burden (Quran 47:4)."
In the public outrage following the Delhi
blasts, the "secularists" have been careful in not mentioning the
fact that the terrorists quoted the Quran.
However, they have repeatedly recounted from
the same email message the demolition of the Babri structure and the riots
in Gujarat as the cause for jihadi anger. If the presumed injustice to the
Muslim community is the cause of strike on India's capital and other cities,
why are their fellow jihadis attacking the national capital of the Islamic
state of Pakistan? The continuing jihadi violence against Muslim-majority
countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia and the
large number of Al Qaeda-inspired terror modules functioning in many European
countries can only lead to one conclusion: This is radicalisation calling
for a throwback to strict Islamic laws that deny education to women, discourage
all entertainment, insist on strict implementation of purdah and carry out
summary executions.
And what about 9/11? The US did not have any
history of either Gujarat or Babri. The truth is that a section of the Muslim
community is now ideologically motivated to impose its will on the rest of
the world.
The demolition of the Babri structure, Gujarat
riots or Muslim grievances are just smoke screens which "secularists"
build to camouflage the real intention of terrorists. Then there is a well-practiced
effort on the part of the "secularists" to blame the police of targeting
"innocent Muslims" and of staging "false encounters".
The obvious attempt is to obfuscate issues and prevent security agencies from
getting to the conspirators.
To divert attention from the real issues,
"secularists" frequently raise red herrings.
For them, the Simi is an innocent organisation
of Muslim youth fighting for justice, and a little bit of violence on the
side is a minor indiscretion on the part of some misguided among them. So
the ban on Simi is wrong. Shift the focus instead to the Bajrang Dal and the
VHP, term them dangerous and ask for a ban on them. To "secularists",
Simi's call for "Nizam-e-Mustafa" is probably only an expression
of Muslim aspirations and "Bharat Mata ki Jai" is a provocative
slogan endangering communal harmony!
There is no end to this sort of perverse logic.
The other day, in a television studio, a Congress leader sought to redefine
terror. To him, Hindu-Christian clashes in Orissa and Karnataka and the demolition
of a mosque or church were in the same category as the serial bomb blasts.
This logic has only one aim: Dilute the severity of the crime of the terrorists
and find scapegoats.
If at all the definition of terrorism has
to be enlarged, then logically it should include the Congress consenting to
Partition, reversal of the Shah Bano judgment, demolition of temples and the
forced eviction of Kashmiri pandits, revocation of land allotted to the Amarnath
shrine board, the move to demolish Ram Sethu, allowing religious conversions
through fraud and bribes, permitting hate literature against Hindu deities,
displaying vulgar paintings of Hindu gods and Bharat Mata by M.F. Husain etc...
the list is endless. Will "secularists" still insist on enlarging
the scope of "terror-related" activities?
"Secularists" won't allow laws which
can help security agencies combat terror. Such laws already exist in most
western countries. In most European countries a terror suspect could be detained
for up to 30 days before being produced in the court. In the US, the anti-terror
provisions are even stricter. Besides, as recent events in our own country
have revealed, the trail often goes cold if even one cell is alive.
Muslim alienation and economic distress is
leading some of the community's youngsters to look to terror as an instrument
of action - this is another "secular" argument. This is an absolute
lie. Every other group that feels alienated or discriminated against is using
democratic means of organised protest, political clout and intervention in
the political process to get its demands accepted. Why is it that only one
community is keeping away and sympathising with the merchants of terror? Why
is it that Osama bin Laden is an icon within one community? Is there an theological
underpinning to this macabre drama? Will "secularists" have the
intellectual honesty to discuss this aspect of the problem?
