Terrorism & Email forwards – Part II

Hi Noorul,

First of all, a very happy new year to you and your family. Indeed nice to be in touch with you after all this while. I frequently see your updates / photographs on Orkut, including your swanking new car, and it really is heartening to know that you have done so well after ISM.  

With regards to the issue below let me respond in this way……. 

1. Day before yesterday was Moharram. I especially mention this because I still remember the day when you were in my room in Diamond hostel and explained to me the battle of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Hussein. I distinctly remember that near the end of the story you had tears in your eyes. This convinced me that day, that you were a very devout Muslim. It also told me that you were a true follower who believed in the righteous teachings and virtues of ISLAM. Had, I not been, so convinced, I would not have marked a copy of the email forward to you. 

2. The emailer was a forward which  I received and forwarded further like people generally do on net. However, since it went under my email, I owe full responsibility. 

3. I am really impressed by your scholarly arguments and deep knowledge. 

4. I agree with you that much of the finer points made in the forward, were mere propaganda and exaggeration, like the ones common on net. 

5. However, I disagree with you on the broader point. Let me explain why. 

Mumbai attackers 

Consider the terrorists who attacked Mumbai on 26/11.  Recent transcripts of the phone conversations published reveal that they were instructed to identify Muslims and spare them, while kill anyone else in sight. This they could not do in CST, since there was too large a crowd there and it was impracticable to segregate people in such short time. But this they did in every other place including the Taj, Oberoi, Cama Hospital etc. That is why although 48 Muslims died tragically, yet almost all of them at died at CST and just none at any other place (except TOI food critic at Taj, and that too because the terrorists did not know her identity.). Infact Muslims were stuck in both the Oberoi and Taj and they all escaped. 

I raise this point in response to your “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” argument.  Infact this argument of yours has disappointed me most. The terrorists were freedom fighters for at least some body as per the argument. But if they were fighting against India and probably for Kashmir, why did they specially spare Muslims? Were the Muslims stuck there not Indians? If they were, why spare them??? Why this special affinity for certain citizens of a country, a country against whom they are fighting for freedom (freedom by at least someone’s definition). If the fight is against the country and its oppression, then why spare some citizens of that country? If such so called freedom exhibit religious profiling, is it unfair to profile these terrorists by their religion? 

You brought out the example of Bhagat Singh, Netaji etc. They did employ violent means against Britishers. But there was no hint of religious preference in their opposition. So they did kill Britishers, as they did their Indian supporters. That is why people like Bhagat Singh and Ashfaqulla Khan are freedom fighters for all and terrorists for none!! But can you say the same thing about the present so called freedom fighters? 

 

Kafeel and Glasgow attacks  

 

You are well aware of the conspiracy and the issues involved in this. I raise the point in a different perspective. Kafeel was born in India. He was well educated and earned a scholarship to UK. 

Now give a thought to this question. Why do people leave their motherland and go to a foreign country? Why do people leave India and go to US, UK anywhere? Presumably because the conditions offered to their talent there is better. Right? The opportunity could be better in terms of better education, better jobs, better pay, better life style, etc. Some people also migrate because their home country is oppressing them, or does not offer equal chance to them or discriminates against them because of religion, caste etc.  

But consider the turnaround in Kafeel’s case. Kafeel goes to UK from India. The reason could be any of the above identified. Yet in an amazing turn of events, he starts feeling oppressed in UK too!!!!  And decides to take revenge. Who invited him to UK? Was it the British government? If he made the choice on his own free will, then surely he would have known beforehand what UK was offering him. Yet he made the choice to go there, and on his own free will. 

Is it not unprecedented, that one chooses a foreign country as his new residence, utilizes its infrastructure, its education, its money, and then says sorry……..you are too bad a country so I will bomb you? Consider the sheer hypocrisy here. A shameless sense of gratitude. Absence of any morals. If you did not like the country and its ways, why did you go there? And even after you went there and found it not as per your liking, why did you not simply return? Instead you choose to bomb the country.   

 

Kafeel and his motivation 

 

Now lets look at Kafeel’s motivation to maybe understand his psyche. Kafeel did, what he did, because he disagreed with British policy in Iraq, and Israel-Palestine issue. This is the kind of motivation that most people in the world have a problem with, and that is why sometimes Muslims get branded.  

You know most people, including me, can understand at least in some way, a Palestinian bombing Israel. He is oppressed, his family might have been killed, or if no harm has come to him and his family, at least his country is under subjugation. Infact sometimes I also understand Kashmiris bombing or killing Indians. They are the direct party feeling oppressed and subjugated. Therefore, although we might not agree with them and their methods, at least we understand the reason. That is why India and such other countries, who do not endorse violent means, still support the cause of Palestine. 

What I, and people like me cannot understand is, what was Kafeel’s relationship to the sufferings of people in Iraq /Palestine? How was he in any way related to these people? Was his family ever affected by policies of Britain and Israel? Were his relatives affected? Was his society affected? Was his country affected?  Was he in any way opressed by any means whatsoever? Infact Kafeel had as much to do with Palestine as I have. Which is zero? 

Oh yes, he had one thing in common with them. He shared the religion with the people of these lands. And for this reason alone he decided to Bomb his new country of choosing. All his loyalties were superseded by his loyalty to his religion. Therefore, when it came to choosing between his country and his religion, he chose his religion.  

Think of it like this. Kafeel says – I will enjoy all the benefits that my new country (UK), which I have chosen on my own free will,  has to offer, I will selfishly use all its facilities created by its citizens over centuries of hard work.  I will fight for the right to earn its citizenship. But if my new country (UK) goes to war with another country (Iraq), whose citizens happen to be of my own religion, then I will betray my new country (UK) and fight on the side of the enemy (Iraq).  You know what is this kind of behaviour called? At least treachary if not more.

End piece 

 

I raise the above point only to answer the argument, as to why Muslims are sometimes labelled. Because frankly, no other religion and its followers exhibit this trait. A trait where there is para loyalty to their religion above every thing else. A person who has been born and bought up in UK for 25 years ( the 2005 metro train bombers) choose to turn against their own country and murder fellow citizens. Not because Britain had harmed them in any way. Infact, quite the opposite. They had only gained from Britain’s way of life. They killed scores of people not because their loved ones have been killed. Not because they have faced oppression. Not because they have been discriminated against (the usual dfefences of such acts). 

Had any of the above happened, we could have at least understood, if not accepted, the reason. But they choose to murder fellow innocent people, of their own country, because some people in Iraq were killed in a war. And what relationship did they have with those people in Iraq, that made them more loayal towards them than their own countrymen –  None whatsoever, except that they shared the same religion.  

Many people opposed the Iraq war. There were indeed many legitimate reasons to oppose the war. International law, strategic calculations, human rights, proper justification, and myriad other reasons. And  a vast majority of people did indeed oppose the war in legitimate ways. But these terrorists opposition had only one reason. Shared religion.  And the manifestation of their opposition – mass murder of fellow innocent citizens. Were they freedom fighters for anyone? Anyone?

Muslims are also labelled because of another reason. Perfectly normal people, who are living otherwise very normal lives, choose to use all kinds of arguments to defend such actions. That Muslims are oppressed. That they are alienated. That they are demonized. 

Is it not unprecedented that Muslims are alienated in India and in US and in UK and in Australia and in Spain and in France and in China and in Russia and in any other country of consequence? Ironically, and not by coincidence, these countries are considered as the most open, free and just socities. 

However, I also agree with you, that not only a majority of Muslims but a very vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and have nothing to do with the actions of these terrorists. But what is most disappointing is that many educated individuals are not part of this majority. Because educated individuals, like the one I am addressing in this email, use arguments and language skills to defend acts of violence.  

Hinduism had over the middle years been plagued by many vices like sati, dowry etc. But it was rescued by educated leaders of the religion like Raja Ram Mohan Roy and Swami Vivekananda. These people fought against the clergy and dogma of those times, and did not defend the self serving actions of the entrenched order, but tried to change it. And that is the reason that Hinduism reinvented itself. 

The other great religion of the world, Christianity had similar movements across many countries which rescued it from the medieval vices and grip of the papacy. And it was also led by the educated class of that religion.   

When will this happen to the only other great religion of the world – Islam? We are awaiting that educated leading light, who will admit the there are problems in the way the religion is being practised and not always blame others for it. He will be revered because he will show to his people that Islam is a great religion. But he will also show to his people that like other religions, some of the followers of this great religion have twisted it during the middle ages and many distortions have crept in. And trust me, he may well be recognized as the greatest personality of that era. I hope it will be in my life time. 

 

Post Script 

I had marked the copy of the forward email to you, although it was controversial and provocative, only because I remembered that day in Diamond Hostel. And I remembered that you were such a true follower. And thus I had full confidence that you will understand the reason why I forwarded it. Although we have disagreed on many things but yet the tenor of your reply has only reinforced my belief.  

Only a true and genuine person could have been so polite, in face of such provocation. We disagree. But it is indeed heartening that we are not disagreeable. This alone gives me immense hope. 

Regards,

Akhilesh Mishra 

With reference to the situation in Israel, I just want to repost a quote from Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel ’s part, the following two sentences really say it all:

‘If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence.  If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel‘ -Benjamin Netanyahu

 

 

 

~ by Akhilesh Mishra on January 11, 2009.