[sacw] SACW #1 (28 Oct. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #1.
28 October 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC) Seminar and Peace Rally + peace resoluti=
on
#2. Pakistan: National Peace Rally planned for the 6th of November in=20
Rawalpindi
#3. Jehad University Inc : Interview with Jessica Stern (Rahul Sagar)
#4. Go on, cowboys, surprise me (Tabish Khair)
#5. India: R(andom) A(ccess) M(emory) is the only way the Hindu right=20
can win the elections in UP (Bhavdeep Kang)
#6. India: Why be shy about criticising SIMI? [its a declared enemy=20
of 'democracy, socialism, nationalism and polytheism'. ] (Javed Anand)

________________________

#1.

PPC Seminar and Peace Rally

Saturday, 27th October 2001

Seminar

Pakistan Peace Coalition (PPC), with the participation of the
Coalition's member oragnisations consisting of democratic political
parties, civil society groups, professional bodies and trade unions,
organised a seminar on: "The Possible Socio-Economic Impact of
Afghanistan War on Pakistani Society", in Karachi today. The Seminar was
attended by about 200 participants =96 among them political activists,
economists, social scientists, academics, lawyers, doctors, artists,
writers and students.

The speakers were: renowned economist Dr. Akbar Zaidi, social scientists
Dr. Jaffar Ahmed and Dr. Mrs. Tahira Khan, representative of minority
community and academic, Reverend Dr. Parvez Sultan and senior
journalist and political & economic analyst M.B.Naqvi, who also happens
to be the current President of the PPC. The speakers presented their
views on the adverse impact of the War on Pakistan's economy and
politics, on the lives of women, children, workers and other
marginalised sections of the society, on the religious minorities and
the people as a whole. While strongly condemning all forms of terrorism,
violence and intolerance under any pretext, the speakers rejected the
American way of dealing with terrorism as manifested in the continuing
brutal attack against the people of Afghanistan.

After the conclusion of the Seminar, the participants moved on to the
Karachi Press Club and held a silent, peaceful rally in front of the
Club. They were holding white flags, banners and placards with slogans
such as: No to War, Violence & Terrorism ; Justice, not Vengeance ; No
to Religious Extremism & Intolerance ; Stop Killing Innocent Afghans
etc. Besides the banners of Pakistan Peace Coalition, there were also
banners brought by the PPC member organisations including political
parties, with slogans against terrorism and war and in favour of peace,
tolerance and justice. Thousands of citizens, who passed by on
motorcycles, cars and other vehicles, paused to read the slogans and
nodded their approval. Copies of the Resolution (in English and Urdu)
which had been adopted earlier at the Seminar, were widely distributed
at the rally. There was no interference from the police.

Press reporters and photographers in large number covered the events.

THE RESOLUTION

"This Seminar on the 'Socio-Economic and Political Impact of Afghanistan
War on Pakistani Society', organised by political parties, civil society
organisations, professional bodies and trade unions, unequivocally
condemns Terrorism in all its manifestations everywhere and supports the
causes of religious, political and cultural pluralism and tolerance of
all views, a democratic dispensation, rational argumentation and
scientific mode of thinking with a view to preserving and enhancing
human freedoms and material progress everywhere. We, therefore,
condemn without reservations the terrorist attacks on September 11 last,
on certain American targets. We also fully support the struggle against
all forms terrorism.

But the kind of war that the Americans are waging against the Taliban
regime in Afghanistan is playing havoc with the more or less starving
people of that country. We hold no brief for Taliban and we condemn
their reactionary rule as also the so-called Jehadi organisations in
this country for being intolerant and violence-prone. They all stand, on
the whole, for obscurantism and reactionary politics.

What Pakistan needs today above everything else is democratisation of
its society, in which a tolerant and pluralist democracy should rule and
where rationalism and scientific outlook is encouraged. We also stand
for a thorough-going demilitarisation of the Pakistani society, politics
and economy.

In so far as this Afghan war is concerned, we urge upon the USA to allow
the UN General Assembly to enforce peace in Afghanistan through an
international force comprising peace keeping troops from small third
world countries, including Muslim countries. A thoroughly democratic
resolution of the Afghan problem is called for. Nominated so-called
broad-based governments can neither stick together nor made to work. A
big international effort is urgently needed for preserving the unity and
sovereign independence of Afghanistan as a state and to speedily create
the administrative, physical and economic infrastructure in it. The UN
is the only agency that is ideally placed to do this, so as to prepare
all ordinary Afghans to determine the nature and shape of their own
government and to create a constitution-making body. A Loya Jirga may be
relevant but it has to be one that is freely elected under UN
supervision.

We are opposed to any division of Afghanistan on any pretext
whatsoever."

B.M.Kutty
On behalf of PPC

______

#2.

From: "Aasim Sajjad Akhtar"
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 8:59 PM

> dear friends
> i would like to inform you all (and remind those of you who already know=
)
> that a National Peace Rally has been planned for the 6th of November in
> Rawalpindi. We are hoping to have about 2000 people participate. Till no=
w,
> we have received commitments from individuals and groups from across the
> country. I would in particular like to encourage those folks in Karachi
who
> have been involved in various peace initiatives to try and make it.
>
> The details are as follows:
> Venue: Liaquat Bagh, Rawalpindi - we will walk from there to Committee
Chowk
> Time: 3pm
> Theme: No to War, No to Extremist violence, Demand for restoration and
> protection of civil and political rights
> Our statement on the day will also mention the humanitarian crisis.
> Organised by: Alliance for Peace and Justice (a name just put together t=
o
> represent a nationwide coalition)
>
> For more information please contact me or Mushtaq Gadi (mus4@h...=
)
> immediately. Let us try and make this event one that involves as many
> different elements of civil society as possible - we have not had many
shows
> of force and this is one chance to express ourselves powerfully.
> In preparation for this rally, and to make our mobilisation effective in
the
> longer-run, we have also embarked on a series of local corner meetings
here
> in Pindi/Islamabad/Murree with different groups including informal secto=
r
> organisations (e.g. rehribaan union, rickshaw driver union, etc.),
students,
> katchi abadi dwellers, and various other local communities. We have trie=
d
to
> involve political activists, trade unionists, academics, and lawyers in
this
> organising effort.
> One final note: today the Citizen's Peace Committee Rawalpindi/Islamabad
> held a seminar with representatives of three political parties (PPP, PML=
,
> Communist Mazdoor Kissan Party). The seminar was reasonably well attende=
d
> and fairly good debate was generated. Following the seminar, 80 or so
people
> held a peace demo outside the Holiday Inn Hotel (Melody Market). I belie=
ve
> there was a similar event held at the Karachi Press Club.
>
> I look forward to hearing from all of you about your attendance on the
6th.
>
> Regards

______

#3.

The Times of India
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2001
INTERVIEW

Jehad University Inc

TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Jessica Stern, lecturer in Public Policy at the John F Kennedy School=20
at Harvard University, attracted global attention last year with her=20
path-breaking essay,'Pakistan's Jehad Culture'. In it, Stern argued=20
that Pakistan's role in fomenting extremism in other countries was=20
inadvertently furthering sectarian violence within it and threatening=20
its own stability.
In this interview with Rahul Sagar, she discusses the nature of, and=20
potential solution to, militant fundamentalism in the region:

Eqbal Ahmed argued that the idea of jehad had faded until=20
reinvigorated by the Americans in Afghanistan. So do we blame the US,=20
or could the US not have foreseen the strategic consequences of its=20
tactical actions?

Well, I think that both of those statements are true. What the US did=20
was probably the right thing to do at the time, but it is also true=20
that the US did inadvertently create the first international jehad.=20
So in a sense we created our own worst enemy.

Isn't the US to blame for not having done enough to demobilise the Taliban?

I think that is correct. People now realise that we cannot afford to=20
make that mistake again. By leaving Afghanistan at civil war, by=20
allowing it to become a failed state, we allowed it to become the=20
'Jehad University' for the entire world. This was wrong - it was=20
counter to our own national security interests. Moreover, there is=20
now a new understanding that failed states are more than humanitarian=20
issues - they are a threat to international security. People in my=20
field never worried about something like this. For the first time, it=20
has become clear that humanitarian crises have international security=20
implications.
Another element that I see as being critically important is that my=20
research shows there is an organisational dynamic to terrorist=20
groups. That is to say, once an organisation exists, it has an=20
incentive to keep going. So you have these jehadi groups that don't=20
want to give up the fight - so when there is no jehad for them to=20
fight in Afghanistan then they go looking for a fight elsewhere. I=20
have heard this over and over again from the jehadis that I have=20
interviewed in Pakistan and they keep repeating that they are=20
'spiritually addicted' to jehad.
Senator Sam Brownback and Christina Rocca have proposed investment in=20
primary education in Pakistan. Surely secular education isn't=20
sufficient to combat fundamentalism - it failed to curb ethnic hatred=20
in Eastern Europe.
No, it is neither adequate nor sufficient - but it is critically=20
important. To have generations of young men who have no real world=20
options means that they are susceptible to the teachings of radical,=20
destructive clerics. So yes, it will take a long time to take effect;=20
and yes, it is not the entire solution. But it has to be part of the=20
solution as there is no way that Pakistan will recover without=20
educating its youth. Education serves to pull people out of poverty.

Fundamentalists such as Osama bin Laden argue that their behaviour is=20
a direct response to specific American policies in West Asia. Do you=20
agree?

No I don't. The extremists do have many grievances including US=20
troops in Saudi Arabia and America's backing of Israel. However, we=20
should also keep in mind that Osama bin Laden said after the=20
September 11 attacks that his mission is to end America's anti-Islam=20
agenda. But what is an anti-Islam agenda? To me this sounds like a=20
branding device. I see organisations that persist as being very=20
important in explaining the jehadi groups. James Wilson said that the=20
first and last thing you need to know about organisations is that=20
they persist.
Now consider the tragic fact that you have a lot of people making=20
money off jehad and that these groups have access to young men who=20
are willing to become cannon fodder. We need to keep in mind that=20
these groups employ both unskilled and highly skilled young men and=20
they can offer them a lot of money. So these professional jehadi=20
groups are able to appeal to a wide variety of people.

Nevertheless, will a change in America's West Asia policies undermine=20
the legitimacy of these groups and their actions?

It is possible that it will reduce their ability to attract ordinary=20
Muslims. It is possible that if America were to change its policies=20
then these groups would have less legitimacy in the eyes of ordinary=20
people. But I personally don't think that this is the answer to=20
stopping the groups themselves.

Is it not in America's long-term interest to pay attention to groups=20
across the South Asian region, including those mujahideen groups in=20
Kashmir that have Afghani elements?

Yes, I think that allowing 'private armies' to continue is counter to=20
international security - it's not just a question of what is good for=20
America. Sometimes these groups target militaries, which I do not=20
consider to be terrorism, even though I know that the Indian=20
government does not think the same way. Nevertheless, what really=20
troubles me about these groups is that they deliberately target=20
non-combatants - that is a problem for me regardless of the=20
perpetrators, whether it be the American military or the Kashmiri=20
groups. Targeting civilians is a violation of the western just war=20
tradition, the Islamic just war tradition and a violation of=20
international law.

Do you foresee any serious attempt to choke off Saudi funding for the=20
extremist groups?

There is always a trade-off between broader foreign policy objectives=20
and counter-terrorism policy in terms of cutting off funding for=20
fundamentalists. Until recently the former trumped concerns for the=20
latter. It is, however, now apparent that it is critically important=20
to cut off such funding in order to end terrorism and hopefully the=20
current administration will be more zealous.

Is there adequate will and capability on the part of the Pakistani=20
state to shut down the madarsas? Or have parts of the Pakistani state=20
been irreversibly co-opted?

This is a very complicated question. There is a perception that=20
America is pressuring the Pakistani interior ministry to shut down=20
certain schools - this was made quite apparent to me in my meetings=20
with various chancellors.
However, you have identified an important problem. My own experiences=20
have made it very clear to me that the government itself is divided.=20
It seems that thus far the forces against extremism in Pakistan are=20
strong - they call themselves the silent majority. The Pakistani=20
intellectual elite is also very happy that Pakistan is being forced=20
to make a decision about whether it wants to proceed in the direction=20
that the jehadis would like, or whether it would like to be a more=20
legitimate part of the international community. However, I cannot=20
predict how likely either outcome is.

_______

#4.

The Hindu (India)
Sunday, October 21, 2001
Features

Go on, cowboys, surprise me

Bombing Afghanistan is an easy and arrogant way out for the West in=20
the war against terrorism. Unless it becomes a war against inequality=20
and poverty, says TABISH KHAIR, scepticism will continue to dog a=20
'campaign of imperialism and global military considerations'.

FIFTEEN bombers, 25 fighter planes and 50 missiles. That is all it=20
took to launch the first phase of what Bush has promised will be a=20
long war on terrorism. Evidently, the first phase is not an expensive=20
one. According to my rough estimates, the weaponry used on this one=20
short night did not cost much more than the entire national budget of=20
Afghanistan for five years.

Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, has plans that are just as long=20
ranging as Bush's. Describing it as a ``war on Islam'', he has urged=20
all Muslims to back the Taliban's fight.

Well, I am a Muslim, and I have no intention of backing the Taliban's=20
fight. In times like these it is important not to overreact - like=20
the West has done in its reading of the nature and extent of the=20
so-called ``terrorist threat'' and many in Muslim countries are doing=20
in their inflation of the United State's bombings, which are largely=20
motivated by petty domestic politics, venal global economics and=20
strategic military interests, into a ``war against Islam''.

But I do not buy Bush's statements either. I do not consider the=20
attacks merely a ``war on terrorism''. The ``war on terrorism'' is=20
one side of the story; the other side is imperialism, global military=20
considerations in an increasingly unequal world and the on-going=20
attempt to throttle voices of dissent and leftist forces in the West.

The Taliban spokesperson had a technical point when he described the=20
U.S. attacks as ``terrorism''. But even people like me, whose ears=20
have not been stuffed with the cotton wool of American war=20
propaganda, could only smile bitterly at the spokesperson's words.=20
The Taliban has long lost any moral right to accuse others of=20
terrorism - not because of the terrorist strikes in the U.S. on=20
September 11, criminal as they were, but because of its longer and=20
more brutal reign of terror against its own people.

Whatever we may think of Bush's Government, the Taliban is a cancer=20
in the body of Afghanistan. Any attempt to surgically excise this=20
cancer ought to be welcome, provided that the surgery does not end up=20
killing the patient. However, will the U.S. not only bomb Afghanistan=20
but also go in and dismantle the Taliban regime? For if the Americans=20
do so, they will have to fulfil a forgotten promise to the Afghan=20
people - the promise, made in the 1980s, to rebuild a democratic=20
Afghanistan.

Many of the Afghans who fought the ``evil empire'' (the former USSR)=20
for the ``free world'' then, fought because they believed the West's=20
promises of democracy and development. After the war was won, they=20
waited in vain for the economic help that had been promised. All they=20
got was intensified civil war. When the Taliban rose, it succeeded=20
not because of the Islamic card - many other factions had also played=20
that card. It succeeded because it provided a respite from that civil=20
war.

So, what is it we want to do for the Afghans this time by bombing=20
them? Does the West wish to enable the Northern Alliance to regain=20
control of Afghanistan? Does the West want to wage another war by=20
proxy?

But isn't this war the direct result of a war by proxy that the West=20
waged against the former USSR and active Leftists all over Asia and=20
Africa? Even the metamorphosis of Islamic Fundamentalist parties from=20
marginal groups (like the Ku Klux Klan or neo-Nazis in the West) to=20
political forces had to do with this undercover war. From the 1930s=20
to the 1970s, Western governments actively encouraged autocratic=20
governments in the Muslim world to clamp down on the leftist=20
opposition. Many of these governments in Muslim countries also=20
encouraged marginal Islamic groups in a bid to counter the ``red=20
threat'' - again with Western complicity. Very soon the only=20
opposition left in these lands was a religious opposition - and=20
Islamic fundamentalists could offer a heady cocktail of demukrattiyya=20
(democracy) and jihad. The problem of Islamic fundamentalism - not to=20
mention the Taliban - is largely the result of that proxy war by the=20
West.

Will the Northern Alliance provide a different conclusion to this=20
depressing story of the West's proxy wars? Can it, when it contains=20
people like Rasoul Sayaf, whose thugs tortured Shia families and used=20
their women as sex slaves?

But then, say the Americans, let us bring back ex-King Zahir Shah.=20
Aha, a monarch, ergo stability (like in Saudi Arabia, etc). So, what=20
about democracy and civil rights? What about all those things for=20
which the West made the Afghans fight in the past and for which it=20
claims to be fighting the Taliban today?

No, the Taliban has no face to accuse others of ``terrorism''. But=20
neither do the U.S. and its Western allies.

There is only one way out of this mess. Let the ``West'' go into=20
Afghanistan and remove the Taliban, if possible, but then let it also=20
economically and infra-structurally support the development of the=20
country (under United Nations aegis). Above all, let it stand up=20
strongly, now and forever, for the restoration of democracy not only=20
in Afghanistan but in every other country that does not have at least=20
some kind of democracy. In order to do so, however, the West=20
(especially the U.S.) will have to overcome not only its largely=20
racist bias, which makes it suspicious of any mass movement in=20
non-White countries, but also place its much- touted human ideals=20
before its hidden business interests.

I, and many like me, Muslim and non-Muslim, shall retain our deep=20
scepticism of the current attacks until and unless the ``West''=20
follows its ``war against terrorism'' with a ``war against=20
inequality, poverty and lack of national and international=20
democracy''. And the first step in this greater ``war'' would be the=20
rebuilding of Afghanistan as a democratic nation state. Bombing the=20
place is the easy and arrogant way out. Even getting rid of the=20
Taliban will not be enough.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of English, University=20
of Copenhagen, Denmark.

_______

#5.

Outlook Magazine (India)
November 5, 2001

UTTAR PRADESH
R(andom) A(ccess) M(emory)

The BJP is convinced that returning to the temple plank is its only=20
way out in the state
BHAVDEEP KANG

Despite repeated assurances by BJP leaders at the state and Centre=20
that it will not play the Ayodhya card in the UP assembly elections,=20
the Hindutva brigade appears to be banking on the mandir-masjid=20
controversy yet again. According to bjp insiders, pre-poll feedback=20
from intelligence agencies indicating the bjp was on the downslide in=20
the state-in fact, falling well short of the 100-seat mark-led party=20
leaders to insist that the Ram Janmabhoomi issue be revived.
According to party sources, feedback from Lucknow, Atal Behari=20
Vajpayee's constituency, was particularly disturbing. The bjp, it=20
said, can't be sure of winning any of the five assembly seats in this=20
prestigious parliamentary constituency.

"The country's pseudo-secular people are our Taliban. Wait=20
for the Hindu backlash," warns Praveen Togadia, VHP.

With alarm bells ringing, the forced entry by the vhp on October 17=20
into the proscribed portion of the disputed complex in Ayodhya is=20
being seen as an effort by the Sangh parivar to bring the mandir card=20
back into play.
It is now very clear the bjp's calculation-that
the war in Afghanistan and the ban on the Students' Islamic Movement=20
of India would work in its favour by polarising Muslim and Hindu=20
votes in UP-has gone awry. Intelligence reports speak of only a=20
marginal impact on the electorate. Not all party leaders are=20
convinced Ayodhya will work again. Says one bjp leader: "The maximum=20
polarisation took place immediately after the rath yatra in 1991. At=20
the time, the Muslim vote was divided and the Hindu vote was not. We=20
got just 32 per cent of the vote. This time there will be some=20
splitting of the Hindu vote, so it's unlikely that raking up Ayodhya=20
will benefit us."
For his part, the PM publicly administered a mild reproof to vhp=20
leaders following the October 17 incident, saying it would prove a=20
setback to his efforts to resolve the imbroglio. The vhp responded by=20
rubbishing the setting up of an Ayodhya cell in the pmo. But, vhp=20
sources say, despite the public posturing, there have been secret=20
parleys with the PM-indicating a degree of coordination on the issue.

The PM has been in touch with the vhp leadership and spoke twice on=20
the phone with Ramchandra Paramhans, head of the Ram Janmabhoomi=20
Nyas, in the last one month. Later, vhp chief Ashok Singhal and the=20
sant met him in Delhi, again at the PM's instance. Sources say it was=20
with his

Many within the BJP itself do not believe that the strategy=20
to polarise Hindu and Muslim votes will pan out in next March's=20
assembly elections.

tacit approval that the vhp issued a statement that the mandir=20
construction would begin next March.
The October 17 incident, however, apparently did not take place at=20
the instance of the central leadership. Neither the PM nor home=20
minister L.K. Advani were kept posted about it. According to a=20
cabinet minister, the intrusion was a spur-of-the-moment decision.=20
Annoyed by the security guards challenging them at the fence around=20
the sanctum sanctorum, vhp leader S.C. Dixit vaulted the barricade.=20
The others followed and a three-hour puja was conducted.
Advani may not have been aware of the intrusion and may have mildly=20
criticised it but his political analysis of the party's progress and=20
prospects at the 50th anniversary function of the Jan Sangh echoes=20
the temple line: "If we had not taken up the Ram Janmabhoomi issue as=20
a symbol of cultural nationalism, we wouldn't have progressed so=20
much. We tried to present it in the right perspective, though=20
attempts were made to discredit it. We should continue to project it=20
in the right perspective."
The SP's Amar Singh says the return to Ayodhya was prompted by the=20
fact that the bjp's "Mandal card"-reservation for the most=20
backward-failed to generate votes."From Advani's statement, it is=20
clear that they are back to their old plank," he says. Congress=20
spokesperson Jaipal Reddy feels the PM's strategy on Ayodhya is=20
downright Machiavellian. "By setting up the Ayodhya cell, he wants to=20
satisfy the secularists that he's working on an acceptable solution=20
to the dispute and at the same time, tell the vhp that he is in their=20
corner."
For its part, the vhp says it has no political axe to grind. Says=20
general secretary Acharya Giriraj Kishore, "We'd announced the=20
construction programme two years ago. At that time, no one knew when=20
the assembly election would take place." Apolitical the vhp may claim=20
to be but it is hard to detect a difference between its language and=20
the bjp's. Says vhp leader Praveen Togadia: "There's a strong Hindu=20
backlash against terrorism and jehadi politics.... The=20
pseudo-secularists are the Taliban of India." State bjp chief Kalraj=20
Mishra speaks in much the same vein: "Look at the extent terrorism=20
can reach with anti-national groups. Those who favour it are only=20
revealing their selfish motive to gain the vote of a particular=20
community."
A hard-pressed bjp, in an effort to keep its Hindu votebank intact,=20
has decided it can't afford to keep the temple issue on the=20
backburner. Whether this will pay off will be known next March.
Bhavdeep Kang With Sutapa Mukherjee in Lucknow

_______

#6.

Communalism Combat (India)
October 2001
Cover Story

Why be shy about SIMI?

The objection to the selective ban on SIMI may be valid. But Muslim=20
religious and political leaders cannot run away from the question why=20
never in the nearly 25-year-old history of SIMI, have they spoken out=20
publicly against an organisation that is a declared enemy of=20
'democracy, socialism, nationalism and polytheism'.

BY JAVED ANAND

Most Muslim religious and political leaders from India have condemned=20
the September 11 terrorist attack on the US as "un-Islamic" but there=20
is a widely held perception among non-Muslims that the public=20
pronouncements notwithstanding, Osama bin Laden is a "hero" for a=20
very large number of Muslims, whether globally or in India. The near=20
universal protest of Muslim religious and political leaders against=20
the September 26 decision of the government of India to ban the=20
Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), has, if anything,=20
reinforced that feeling even among many secular non-Muslims.

On the face of it, this seems really unfair to India's Muslims. For,=20
after all, hasn't their objection - if SIMI is banned, why not the=20
Bajrang Dal, a Hindutva outfit all too 'similar' to the former in its=20
aims, objectives and activity - also been voiced by Mulayam Singh=20
Yadav of the Samajwadi Party, Mayawati of the Bahujan Samaj Party,=20
communist parties and, lately, even Sharad Pawar of the Nationalist=20
Congress Party, apart from any number of human rights groups.

But the moulvi sahibs and the siyasi netas among Muslims cannot wish=20
away the problem.

The politicians' objection to the ban against SIMI has largely to do=20
with politics (both Mulayam and Mayawati have their eyes on Muslim=20
voters in the coming UP elections, just as the BJP-led government's=20
selective ban on SIMI has more to do with its wanting a communal=20
polarisation on poll eve than with SIMI's alleged link with=20
international terrorist outfits). Human rights groups protest has=20
primarily to do with their objection, in principle, to the banning of=20
any organisation so long as it does not cross constitutional bounds.=20
Besides, there is the additional and legitimate concern over the=20
implications of this singling out of SIMI (as against a simultaneous=20
ban on the Bajrang Dal) for a religious minority that is already=20
feeling battered and bruised. (See the accompanying piece by Teesta=20
Setalvad).

The objection to the selective ban on SIMI may be valid. But Muslims=20
religious and political leaders cannot run away from the question why=20
never in the nearly 25-year-old history of SIMI, have they spoken out=20
publicly against an organisation that is a declared enemy of=20
'democracy, secularism, nationalism and polytheism'.

For at least 10 years now, SIMI has been pasting stickers in large=20
numbers in Muslim shops and homes, a thick red 'NO' splashed across=20
the words, DEMOCRACY, NATIONALISM, SECULARISM, POLYTHEISM'. 'ONLY=20
ALLAH!' exclaims SIMI's punch line on the same sticker. The sticker=20
leaves no doubt that for SIMI, any one who subscribes to the=20
principles of democracy, secularism and nationalism, or believes in=20
peaceful co-existence with polytheists, is not a Muslim, a follower=20
of Islam.

You only have to visit SIMI's website, to be greeted by the following=20
message on its homepage: 'Jihad our path', Shahadat our desire.' This=20
is followed by the stern message for Muslims who are comfortable=20
'Living under an un-Islamic order' and a surah (Al-Nisa: 97) is=20
quoted from the Quran: 'Such men (read Muslims) will find their abode=20
in Hell. What an evil refuge'.

The commentary on the above surah that follows reads: "Those people=20
who had willingly submitted to living under an un-Islamic order would=20
be called to account by God and would be asked: If a certain=20
territory was under the dominance of rebels against God, so that it=20
had become impossible to follow His Law, why did you continue to live=20
there? Why did you not migrate to a land where it was possible to=20
follow the law of God?"

In other words, an organisation that has had an impressive growth=20
among India's Muslims (see box) is teaching its youth that any idea=20
of living in peace with Hindus and other non-Muslims in a=20
secular-democratic India ('un-Islamic order') is a sure passport to=20
Allah's hell!

Very many Muslims in India and elsewhere will quote the saying of=20
Prophet Mohammed that the 'struggle against self for=20
self-improvement' is the highest form of jihad. But you have to be a=20
fool to imagine that that is what jihad means for SIMI. Bear in mind=20
that for this outfit, Osama bin Laden is "not a terrorist" and=20
Kashmir is not an "integral part of India" and the picture is as=20
clear as should be.

Around December 6, 2000 (the eighth anniversary of the demolition of=20
Babri Masjid), SIMI plastered coloured posters in Muslim pockets=20
throughout the country, praying to Allah to send another Mahmud=20
Ghazni down to India. Whatever historians might think of Ghazni, SIMI=20
is without any shred of doubt praying for a new destroyer of temples=20
to be dropped over India!

While announcing its ban on SIMI, the Union government has claimed,=20
among other things, that SIMI is linked to extremists and terrorists=20
who are enemies of India. Given Hindutva's dubious agenda, Union home=20
minister LK Advani's motives in the selective ban on SIMI are=20
understandably suspect. But what about the fact that the Congress=20
governments of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra had asked the Centre to=20
ban SIMIand Bajrang Dal simultaneously?

But Advani's motives and evidence before the government apart, should=20
anyone with even a cursory familiarity with the origin, worldview and=20
activities of SIMI be in the least surprised if it turns out that=20
SIMI has strong links with Islamic extremists?

As Sajid Rashid, editor of the Hindi eveninger Hamara Mahanagar=20
published from Mumbai, pointed out in a recent searching and=20
scorching column, SIMI was created by Jamaat-e-Islami (Hind) to carry=20
out its work among students and youth. What does the Jamaat-e-Islami=20
stand for? Sajid Rashid: "the core belief of the organization=20
revolves around the proposition that Muslims should propagate Islam=20
throughout the world and struggle to establish the Kingdom of Allah=20
globally. The Pakistani and the Kashmiri wings of the Jamaat-e-Islami=20
are fully committed to conduct such a jihad to meet their objective".

What about the Indian wing of the Jamaat? "The Jamaat-e-Islami (Hind)=20
is non-committal on the jihad question, and claims to be against=20
violence," writes Rashid. How is it that Jamaat India resembles its=20
Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi counterparts in every respect=20
except on the jihad imperative? One view says that the circumstances=20
of India compel the Jamaat wing here to adopt a different tactical=20
position.

Interestingly, those convinced of the Indian Jamaat's bonafide=20
distaste for extremist tendencies, point out that it is for this=20
reason that over 10 years ago it snapped its relations with SIMI and=20
created a new outfit - Students of Islamic Organisation (SIO). But=20
the opponents of the Jamaat among Muslims claim ask why the Jamaat is=20
content keeping the SIO as purely a paper organisation and point to=20
the surprisingly cordial and fraternal equation that obtains between=20
the rivals (SIMI and SIO) at the ground level. The Jamaat in=20
Pakistan, as is well known is the ideological parent of all kinds of=20
Islamic terrorist outfits in Pakistan, including the Taliban. The=20
detractors of the Jamaat (Hind) claim that having given birth to=20
SIMI, whose perspectives and programmes increasingly resemble that of=20
Muslim extremist outfits in Pakistan, the public posture of=20
"ideological difference" between the Jamaat and SIMI is merely meant=20
to hoodwink the Indian state and public.

Within India and globally, too, an as yet small group of Muslims have=20
started going backwards tracing the lineage of the Jamaat-e-Islami to=20
the Deoband school (in India) that is rooted in the not more than=20
250-years-old rigid, and orthodox Wahhabi sect, and forward to claim=20
that today's 'Islamic terrorists' are nothing but the most extreme=20
version of Wahabbism.

Within days of the attack on America, the British Muslim, Hamza Yusuf=20
(see his interview earlier in this issue) had declared, from the=20
lawns of the White House soon after a meeting with President Bush:=20
"Islam was hijacked on that September 11 2001, on that plane as an=20
innocent victim". But, others like the American Muslim Nuh Ha Mim=20
Keller are arguing that in fact Islam got hijacked nearly 250 years=20
ago. To recall Keller's piece (see earlier in this issue): "Muslims=20
have nothing to be ashamed of, and nothing to hide, and should simply=20
tell people what their scholars and religious leaders have always=20
said: first, that the Wahhabi sect has nothing to do with orthodox=20
Islam, for its lack of tolerance is a perversion of traditional=20
values; and second, that killing civilians is wrong and immoral".

Every culture, every religion, every society has its lunatic fringe.=20
Indian Muslims can no more be blamed for the SIMI types in their=20
midst than Hindus held responsible for the Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena.=20
But as Ziauddin Sardar puts it in his piece (see earlier in this=20
issue): "All good and concerned Muslims are implicated in the=20
unchecked rise of fanaticism in Muslim societies. We have given free=20
reign to fascism within our midst, and failed to denounce fanatics=20
who distort the most sacred concepts of our faith".

It will not do for Indian Muslims to speak out against the ban on=20
SIMI. Fairly or otherwise, the entire community will get implicated=20
if Muslims fail to denounce the fanatics and the 'fascism' in our=20
midst.'=20

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20