Author: Swapan Dasgupta
Publication: The Times of India
Date: November 2, 2008
URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Threat_of_vigilantism/articleshow/3663468.cms
In the sixth series of the gripping BBC tele-serial
Spooks, the MI5 is confronted by two contrasting adversaries: an Iran hell-bent
on becoming a nuclear weapons state; and the covert organisation, Yalta, that
seeks to restore global multi-polarity by bringing the US several notches
down. Made up of patriotic stalwarts of the British establishment, Yalta runs
a parallel intelligence network, strikes deals with the Islamists and undertakes
bombings and assassinations. Many MI5 agents are lured by Yalta operatives
into joining the secret war because they, too, are disconcerted by Britain's
skewed "special relationship" with the US.
Although over-dramatised and far removed from
the cerebral espionage games of John Le Carre's Cold War thrillers, Spooks
addresses a problem confronting the liberal State in an age of crime, sleaze
and terrorism: the threat of vigilantism.
Modern societies with codified laws and elaborate
checks and balances have based themselves on the unstated assumption that
the State enjoys a monopoly of violence. Just as there is no legitimacy for
insurgents, warlords and terrorists, there is no space for modern day Robin
Hoods or, for that matter, Superman. Those like Yalta who take it upon themselves
to rectify national problems through unilateral violence are likely to be
viewed in the same vein as, say, al-Qaida terrorists as outlaws. The people's
adherence to non-violence isn't a Gandhian fad; it is a pillar of statecraft.
There is no compelling evidence as yet to
determine whether the flamboyant Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and her associates
- the alleged practitioners of 'Hindu terror' - are guilty of vigilantism
or are victims of an elaborate frame-up. The signals are confused and conflicting.
There are hints that Muslim-dominated Malegaon was bombed on September 29
as an act of retributive violence - to force Muslims to share the pain of
terrorism. At the same time, the instant secularist equation of 'Hindu' terror
with jihadi terror has prompted concern of a frame-up by a beleaguered government.
Certainly, the suggestions of a conspiracy involving serving and retired army
officers seem utterly fanciful and could even provoke a backlash.
If, for argument's sake, a Hindu hand in the
Malegaon bombings is established, does it imply that terrorism is a problem
of competitive extremism? This is precisely what the government would like
us to believe - that there is an immoral equivalence between radical saffron
outfits and the treacherous SIMI, and that a ban on one should automatically
lead to curbs on the other. Apart from driving a wedge between the BJP and
its NDA allies just prior to the election, unearthing a Hindu terrorist conspiracy
may help the government project an image of even-handedness to those Muslims
who feel done in by counter-terrorism.
Yet, despite the law treating all terrorists
as equal outlaws, there are important differences between jihadi terror and
the Sadhvi's alleged criminality. Jihadi terror is directed both at the kafirs
and the sovereignty of India. Neither SIMI nor the Indian Mujahideen have
faith in the Constitution. They want nizam-e-mustafa (the rule of God) and
terrorism is a means to that elusive pipe-dream. Their target is the Indian
way of life.
The Hindu extremists have a more limited agenda.
They want retributive justice against the killers; they feel Hindus are too
meek and effete; they want a militarised Hindu society that takes an eye for
an eye; and they believe that the alternative to vote-bank politics is to
combine the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner. Jihadi terror is based
on warped theology; the extremist Hindu is driven by revenge and frustration.
Let's not delude ourselves that the two are
fringe phenomena. The Batla House encounter may have triggered Muslim fury
but the Sadhvi is fast acquiring cult status among angry Indians seeking quick-fix
solutions. Terrorism hasn't won the day but it has disfigured the cosy assumptions
on which India operated. The moral authority of the state is in tatters.
