The aftermath



The most frustrating debate that’s deafening our ears these days is this: To call them terrorists or not? Are they terrorists or mere criminals? While I wince at the term ‘mere’, I struggle hard to identify and understand why such a noise is being made in the first place.

If you are wondering what I’m blabbering about, let me clear the air. I’m so frustrated that I can’t start a blog piece in an appropriate format. Well, I’m referring to the aftermath of the failed Glasgow and London car bomb attempts.

While I fret and fume, I understand their dilemma. By ‘their’, I mean the politicians, the media and the secular intelligentsia. So far they had a standard, templatised framework for a terrorist. He is usually in his early 20s, beard sporting, often turban wielding, and is Madarassa trained ‘illiterate.’ He is trained to drive cars or fly planes into buildings or plant bombs in public places such as train stations, markets, embassies and temples. They don’t represent Islam. Islam preaches brotherhood; moderate and educated Muslims never endorse their Jehad.

Suddenly these intellectuals and politicos are at crossroads. An engineer and a PhD research student attempted to drive a bomb-laden Jeep into an airport and a trained and practicing doctor knew of their plans and allegedly even helped them. Overnight, Jehad turned very urbane and sophisticated.

Here is where the confusion came up. Do educated Muslims support these militants? Is Islam a reason for militancy and terror? Regardless or their class, qualification and social awareness, does being Muslim means being a terrorist?

These are difficult questions. I know that the above questions will be quite adverse on Muslims. Just because Prabakaran is a Tamil, doesn’t mean I’m a terrorist. I despise him and the regular visitors to this blog know how much. I also know that these questions can’t have a strong “No” as an answer.

My question, however, is this: Why is the world of Islam quiet about these events? Why do Indian Muslims quick to relegate this event as an exception and conclude in a hurry that ‘Indian Muslims are different.’ What evidence do I have to believe that they are? I look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. They ‘were’ Indian Muslims once. Today they live in utter chaos. These countries are returning to fundamentalism and their economy is in a shambles. In India too, we see the traces of such fundamentalism. Shah Bano is a classic example and the ferocity with which the Indian Muslims wanted ‘Satanic Verses’ banned still shudders me. I want to hear the voices of the so-called ‘moderate’ Muslim who would vehemently oppose Shah Bano incident, espouse free speech and advocate liberal religious practice. And well, shun these terrorists and acknowledge that they are indeed staining the face of Islam.

I want to believe that the concepts of Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb are archaic and kafirs are passé. The events happening around the world are not strengthening my beliefs. I want the moderate Muslims to assure me and the rest of the world that people are safe here and Islam is indeed here to spread the message of brotherhood.