What We Are Up Against! July 18, 2006
Posted by chitranshu in Society & Politics.trackback
This title reminds me of Frank Capra’s ‘Why We Fight’, and the issue in question is also similar. I am generally skeptical of ‘Us vs. Them’ arguments, but this is something where I do not hesitate to take sides. The recent Mumbai blasts have brought back into focus terrorist groups like the Lashkar-e-Toiba (or the ‘new’ Lashkar-e-Qahhar) and SIMI. Whether the latter is a terrorist organization or not is not a matter of unanimity (as the Samajwadi Party claims it is not), but I believe it is, and will refer to it as one in this post.
That such groups are responsible for terrorist actions all over India is beyond doubt. It is also very clear that they are a threat to the unity and integrity of India. However, few of us must have actually seen a picture of the India that might emerge if such groups succeed in their diabolical plans. I once stumbled upon an anti-India site that had a few such pictures, through a link on the Wikipedia article about the LTTE.
(Update: I just checked, and it seems the site has been removed. I managed to get the map from another site)
The site talks of a grandiose plan to establish what it calls a Mughal-Muslim state in the Indian subcontinent, by merging Pakistan and Bangladesh through a strip of land running across the Indo-Gangetic plain, the heartland of India. The similarity of this map to what Jinnah originally demanded is striking (what he finally got was, to quote Jinnah himself, ‘a moth-eaten Pakistan’). The site presents several arguments to show that a majority (about 70%) of the population of this Mughalstan will be Muslim. The rest of the subcontinent, it argues, can be divided on ethnic lines. A brief glance at the proposed new map of the subcontinent is enough to comprehend the insanity of those who believe in this. The arguments presented in favour of this plan are equally insane, e.g. that Sikhism is a branch of Sufi Islam, and hence Khalistan (their name for the Punjab) should be a part of this new Mughalstan.
That this site pays homage to Osama Bin Laden, among others, should not be surprising. That it links up to a pro-LTTE website should also not be surprising for those who know something about international terror networks, and how terrorists across the globe have been cooperating better than governments. What is interesting, though, and what made me write this post in the first place, is a comment by one Jack Wheeler (whom this site quotes), ‘India, as we know it now, will cease to exist within ten years’ (As I said before, the site has been moved, so you’ll just have to take my word for it that this comment appeared on that site. I do not know whether Jack Wheeler himself said this, or whether he knows that he is being quoted on such sites). When I first saw this, I immediately searched for Mr. Wheeler on Google, and reached the website of one Freedom Research Foundation. There, I got to know more of his ‘enlightened’ thoughts on various issues of worldwide importance. I cannot write all that here; you have to check it out for yourself.
Jack Wheeler is not alone in thinking the way he does. I am not sure of his credentials, but from whatever I know, Presidents Nixon, Reagan, and most probably even George W. Bush have/had such people as advisors. Coming back to the question of India’s unity, even Winston Churchill had expressed doubt over whether India would remain united for more than a few years after the British left. As I said in my post on ‘freedom of opinion’, there are certain commonalities between various ‘rightists’ all over the world. This can also be extended to the BJP in India; Amartya Sen says in his ‘The Argumentative Indian’ that in taking a narrow view of Hinduism and Hindu culture, India’s Hindu nationalists seem to ‘endorse’ Samuel Huntington’s narrow view of India as a ‘Hindu civilization’.
This brings me to my most important point. We all are aware of terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba, and our security forces are trying hard to prevent them from succeeding in their plans. However, we do not pay enough attention to ‘the enemy within’. I am not trying to prove, by pointing out the presence of Jack Wheeler’s quote on the aforementioned site, that there are some sinister connections between people like Wheeler and global terrorist groups. Instead, it is the faulty generalization and the belief in a violent solution that is common between them, and that is the root of the problem.
Again, arguing against violence does not mean ‘softness’ towards terrorists. There should be no mercy for terrorists themselves, and for those who help them in any way. Someone who is incorrigibly committed to violence will meet a violent end. For example, Hitler could not have been reasoned with. However, if in using expressions such as ‘Islamic terrorism’, we forget that a majority of the world’s Muslims are themselves against such acts, it will be a grave mistake which will only exacerbate the problems of ‘alienation’ about which a lot has been said and written.
All extremist groups have a broader identity than is commonly believed. It is a very complex issue, but two things can be generally observed: Firstly, the leaders of such groups use religious identity and other factors purely for self-interest, and secondly, the followers are misled into or indoctrinated with a dangerous ideology. For the latter, the maxim ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’ is quite apt.
These characteristics of ‘leaders’ and ‘followers’ are not unique to outlawed terrorists, but are also found in our ‘leaders’, and in us as their ‘followers’. For example, ordinary people like us who make sweeping generalizations against any ethnic group are equally misled. Also, I believe that there can be only two explanations for the way such leaders behave – either they have some ulterior motives (in which case there is no solution but to throw them out of power) or that they themselves are victims of ‘a little knowledge’ (in which case they do not deserve to be in power). Thankfully, in functioning democracies, there exist mechanisms for peaceful overthrowing of governments and leaders who misbehave. Whether these mechanisms work or not is something I will leave for another post.
Terrorists need not be devout followers of the religion they identify with. Conversely, devout followers of any religion need not be religious fanatics. The religious identity is just a façade, which hides more important, mostly economic, explanations for the growth of extremist beliefs. The new recruits for such groups are mostly unemployed youth from the lower sections of society, but that need not be their only socio-economic identity. Radical beliefs can also attract reasonably well-off individuals, especially if they are alienated from the mainstream of the society in which they live. For example, the behaviour of John Walker, the American who joined the Taliban, can also be understood by looking at the problem of alienation.
We Indians are strong enough to take action, and strict action, against those who try to terrorize us. However, this can and should be achieved without alienating a part of our own population. Mumbaikars have shown that such incidents cannot inflame communal passions in them any longer, and this should be an example for the whole world. On a different note, India has shown that she can survive and thrive with a thousand identities flourishing within, and this should be an example for the rest of the world, especially those nations which are falling apart along ethnic lines.
![OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]](http://static.flickr.com/2631/4150305338_5dd4270c04_t.jpg "OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]")
Blogspot has been blocked by the Indian Govt.! I can’t believe it! Looks like I’ll be shifting to wordpress too!!!
Dalitstan.com is also blocked.
We live in Dangerous Times…
[...] The title for this post has been gleaned from my earlier post on ‘what we are up against’ (it is also the title of several controversial books, but let’s keep that aside). The context was the Mumbai bomb blasts, and my point was that all of us are aware of terrorist organizations like the Lashkar-e-Toiba, but we do not pay enough attention to ‘the enemy within’. I am not saying something new; this has been discussed threadbare on almost every news channel after every such incident. [...]
Two points to make:
(1) India needs to take pro-active steps in countering menace. Terrorist use violenece primarliy not to incite communal tensions, this is waht politicans do. They use it to show that they are mighty. Unless we reply back strongly, we will only be weakening even more. London, Madrid and Mumbai. They achieved more in Mumbai.
(2) Have we become insensitive to J&K to the extent that we have accpeted the plight of those people as their fate? There were bomb blasts in Jammu also on the very same day. It is worrying for me and encouraging for such perpetrators of terror. Will someday we will become oblivion of all wrong that surrounds us accepting it as inevitable?
@Yohan
I completely agree that we live in dangerous times. and it is only going to get more dangerous, the way things are going.
@Vikram
I am writing a post on counter-terrorism. will upload that soon. have dealt with the question of ‘how and how strongly can we reply’. and yes, we ignoring J&K because of Mumbai is certainly worrying. Though that’s not a new phenomenon. People die by the thousands (and even millions) in civil wars in Africa, but that doesn’t get a fraction of the attention that, say, the Israel-Lebanon war is getting.
[...] Meanwhile, online movements like Juga can help people stay entertained, so that someone living in the UK or Denmark or Switzerland (or wherever one pleases) can dream of a united Yugoslavia, or an Akhand Bharat, or a Mughalstan (or Atlantis, if you please), but can do little else. Of course, these dreams often manifest themselves in real activity, of the good or bad kind, but again, that activity, and its antithesis, only help in strengthening the ‘real’ state system. [...]
Khalistan is a movement for the reunion of East and West Punjab, which was split in 1947 when India and Pakistan were created. In the separation, many thousands of people were killed and millions more suffered injuries, abuse, and obviously displacement. However, nobody suffered as much as the residents of Punjab (regardless of their religion). Punjab was split in two by greedy politicians (Gandhi, Nehru & Jinna) with unrighteous ambitions.
I think that the Khalistan movement is a righteous one, because it aims to restore equal rights to the residents of Punjab. Furthermore, the Sikh faith is a universal one and every day in their congregations they actually pray for the wellbeing of the entire universe. The Sikhs have historically fought for the goodwill of innocent people, the downtrodden, and victims of oppression like the Dalits and Tibetan monks. It was Sikhs who helped displaced Tibetan Buddhists with relocation to Dharamshala in Northern India. Sikhs, although they comprise only 2% of the Indian population, have historically served between 40 and 50% of the Indian army. But not only do they have martial traditions, but humanitarian, environmental, and egalitarian. Sikhs promote equal rights for all people regardless of their social class or caste, and work to abolish racism, sexism, and oppression.
The Khalsa was created as the “Army of God” in the sense of helping, protecting, serving, and inspiring all living beings. They do not try to convert others to Sikhism, nor do they discourage others from following their own faith. Instead, they denounce corruption and tyranny, and promote universal love and harmony. Given these core values and ideology, the support for Khalistan would be the least that India and Pakistan could do to repay the Sikhs for their contributions and sacrifices. They were massacred in 1984 by the government, but they have still not received justic for the crimes against them.
Just like Buddhists support Tibet, Jews support Jerusalem, and neither of these groups are labelled “Terrorist,” the Sikhs should also be free to support and promote Khalistan, and not be labelled. Instead the world community should be brave enough to put pressure on their trading partners India and Pakistan to allow the Sikhs to be free from oppression and have political autonomy. They are not fighting for land, but for principal. And their principals are very righteous and something to learn from.
We should all support Khalistan as it is a beacon of hope for our world. One country which would allow Sikhs to have resources and authority to serve the world. Sikhs were sent to this world to love, serve, and inspire. To show the light of truth. To encourage people to follow their own faith with compassion, love, discipline, courage and grace. These values are admirable and part of the teachings of the Sikh scriptures. These values would be part of the core of the Sikh political agenda.
@ Sameer Bhagwat
I do not know who you are or how you landed up on this blog post, but I’ll still try to reply to your comments as well as I can.
First of all, everyone agrees that Partition was indeed a tragic event in the history of not just this subcontinent, but humanity as a whole. However, instead of just putting the blame on a few greedy politicians (by the way, I am not too sure about ‘unrighteous ambitions’, but they were definitely ’short-sighted’), let’s look at it in more detail.
Whatever you have said about Punjab/Khalistan can also be said about Bengal. It is a recorded historical fact that Mountbatten had considered the idea of an independent and united Bengal (thus dividing the subcontinent into three, not two, fragments), but the idea was angrily dismissed by Nehru (that East Pakistan eventually became Bangladesh is a different matter). Nehru’s argument was (and I agree with him on this point) that if Bengal was allowed to break away from the Union, it could lead to Balkanization to an unimaginable extent as others like Hyderabad, Kashmir, Travancore, Mysore, Rajputana, and of course, Punjab could demand the same freedom. Even Periyar, the Communists, Ambedkar, etc might have then fancied their chances of obtaining their personal fiefdoms. In that case, the Indian subcontinent today might well have looked like the map I have posted above. The movie ‘Sardar’, for example, shows Patel arguing against Khalistan and in favour of a strong and united India in the midst of an angry Sikh crowd, saying that if everyone just keeps asking for a separate country like this, then this place would become ‘Pagalistan’.
History is replete with examples of ‘re-drawing of borders’ making things worse instead of better, contrary to what most people expect in the name of self-determination. Secondly, most states founded on a religious basis (irrespective of whether they are constitutionally secular or theocratic) have either failed or created problems for themselves and others. Pakistan is an obvious example, but even Israel (which you cite as an example in your favour) is no less than a ‘terrorist state’ according to me.
Also, for every good point that you have mentioned about Sikhs and the Khalistan movement, someone can point out equally ‘bad’ points. For example, Sikhs definitely ought to be proud of their martial traditions, but it is also true that they did not actively participate in the 1857 Revolt, and lived under that guilt for many decades. Also, if everything is so good and fair in Punjab, why is there such a bad sex ratio? Isn’t that an indicator of glaring gender discrimination, to put it mildly?
This is not a tirade against Sikhism or the ideals of the Khalistan movement, but there are just too many examples in history of idealism going crazy, turning into dogmatism, and wreaking havoc instead of building a utopia. Having said that, I do agree that the Khalistani supporters, and Sikhs in general, suffered a lot in the 70s and 80s, for no fault of their own, but only due to the greed of Indira Gandhi and her sycophants. I once did some research for a play on Operation Bluestar, and I do know a lot about the events of that era.
I also admire Sikhs (and, I might add, Parsis) for the way their religion is organized, and offers support to disadvantaged members of the community. And I think the Golden Temple is the best religious shrine I have ever visited, even though it was way back in 1991, when Punjab had still not recovered.
However, none of these points convince me that Sikhs, or any other religious/linguistic/cultural group in India should have a separate State. That will only create more problems, not lessen them. If all the religions preach universal brotherhood and tolerance, then why do we need to create more borders?
Inspite of all its faults, I believe that India is the finest example in the world today of ‘unity in diversity’ and tolerance for multiple beliefs. Let’s keep it that way…
WTF …. Sikhism is not a part of Sufi-Islam =/ .. these ppl need to get their facts straight …Sikhism is just Sikhism … its not a brach of Islam or Hinduism .. people should research more into religions before they come up with bullshit
[...] few weeks back, I received an email from someone, who said that he had read my blog post on Mughalstan and wanted to know more about my opinion on this issue. I replied, and initially didn’t think [...]
@PreetG & @all
don’t be so angry when ever someone say that Sikhi is a Part of Sufism, Hinduism, Islam or….
these type of arguments show that all the religions love Sikhi
the don’t have anything to criticize us..
they know that Sikhi is against all the evil rituals and practices.
wjkk wjkf
Well feel so sorry for what terrorist did in Bombay, very sad, i thinh even if pakistan government is not involved, pakistan must make goodwill guesture to india, to establish a trust to compenciates the victims of bombay tragidy. I heart goes to people of Bombay, i can imagin what victims in bombay gone through, helpless and worse, I think people of Bombay felt same as Iraki citzens or Afghanistan victims when super power nation like American army bombing the accupied cities while people celibrate thier marriages and american bombs crack ome thei houses, it is ok when Americans or britich do such act of terror, to punish vast citizen of a naation under accupation,
As in human history it (moral ), does not matter, it makes difference who does what(INHUMAN), if a superpower distroys a country and commits massacres,that is being tolerated due to the influence of super power by means of modern multi media, and the victims have no chance to express to th e world, even trhey are not allowed to come on media, or they have no means , what they have gon thru, by american inhuman adventures with powerful military,
Plain Speak:
Will I carry my land or glory after life like the Egyptians thought? So what really are we up against?
Philosophy:
If the Egyptians created pyramids of glass,
We’d see rainbows year round
Comment:
The quest for man’s desire for territory and glory is genetic. Even monkeys guard their territories and we were (or lets say are) no different.
Quitessential Happiness:
Do as Buddha preached – Desire as less as you can
Think about what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said – Belive in faith, not religion
The Big IF:
If I could find a Buddha or a Chaitanya in myself, I will to begin with stop worrying about the fence outside my home.
The Reality:
Few of us can, but many of us cannot.
So what can be done?
Just learn to respect those who can. We don’t need the entire mankind to acheive Sainthood. All we need is a little change in our own thinking. Thats what Mahatma Gandhi did in modern times – brought about a little change in thinking. Its the Thought and not War that creates revolutions.
Who should we respect (and follow if possible)?
Dalai Lama
Baba Ramdev
Mother Terresa
These are famous names. If we look around in our neighbourhood we WILL find selfless people. I know of one who lives close by. My chowkidar (80 years) has 6 children. He never found education all through his life, but was determined to give it to his children. Did he have the money? No! He funded whatever he could for the elder ones, who as they grew started earning while learning and thus helped the younger ones. Eventually some of them won scholorships! Today they all have qualifications and jobs! He is a Muslim by religion, but what saw him through is his FAITH.
THE DAY WE JUST LEARN TO RESPECT SELFLESSNESS A LOT LOT MORE, WE WILL FIND OURSELVES MORE CONTENT WITH LIFE.
NO WOES, NO WAR