Islamic Terrorism in India at one point of time was just confined to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The terror spreading elements were from the other side of the border and some who were locals either helped under pressure or were lured to work for the terror groups.
But slowly terror started spreading to different parts of the country. This happened because many radical/fundamentalist Islamic organizations and Islamic educational institutes not just imparted education but also started taking a political flavour.
They talked about the atrocities on Muslims not only in India but also in other parts of the world. Young impressionable men were told to fight for the rights of the Muslims, to avenge what they were told was ‘religion under siege’. Thus terror started taking a new shape as pan Islamic issues emerged.
Local sympathizers and support for the terrorists came about. The number of such people is still little as compared to the entire Muslim population but their actions are what the Indian Muslims paying for.
The question I ask is how do we stop this changing profile of terrorism? Because if it is not curbed now, it could prove to be harmful and deadly in the long run. National policies have to be put in place to deal with this relatively newer shape of terrorism.
Before I start the rhetoric that the middle and lower middle class Muslims needs to be integrated into the main stream, we need to focus on the issue of educating them. One sided education (brainwashing in simpler terms) cannot allow a person to make an informed choice or decision. Education is also a stepping stone into the ‘integration process’.
Long term plans have to be drawn at both Central and State level such that the Indian Muslims feel part of this country without the burden of them proving their loyalty and changing their mindset that they are been ‘victimized’. But how do we bring about these changes? And whether they will be effective and if not then what else can be done.
As Islamophobia is seeping into the Indian psyche and creating a divide between communities, polarization of society and statements and actions of religion based political parties are making sure the gap widens.
Making the chasm smaller will leave us less vulnerable to terror attacks and hopefully this changed profile will be substituted with peace and safety again.
Also read this
Update: Can the commentators please discuss the issue at hand instead of trashing one religion or the other. Please don't force me to delete comments which go completely off track
Originally posted on Monday, August 07, 2006 2:03 PM
Showing posts with label Islamic fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islamic fundamentalism. Show all posts
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
India In The Eye Of The Storm
India is a unique country because of its rich cultural diversity, ethnicity and amalgamation of different religions. This country epitomizes what religious tolerance means. How many times have we heard the above lines, read them in our textbooks and essays or described this while explaining to someone what our country is like.
The intricate fabric of life which gives life to this country is unravelling and we have taken the easy way out - either watching it with detachment or lashing out with misplaced frenzy.
Islamophobia has not just seeped into the psyche of the common man, it has gripped us and paralyzed us to an extent where rational thinking is disappearing only to be replaced by us looking at our countrymen with mistrust and asking them to prove their loyalty to us.
The common refrain I hear all the time is let the liberal Muslim rise and speak out and the mullahs didn’t condemn it (the cartoon protests, the Bush visit, the blasts – a list which is ever growing).
When the liberal Muslim speaks out and condemns it, we look at him and say, “He has to say this if he has to live in this country. How do you know he’s not happy from inside?” And when the mullahs condemn it, then it becomes a page nine story in an obscure one coloumn box or a 20 second sound byte in 1.40 minute news story in an 11.00 am bulletin which no one watches.
When a fatwa is passed saying no religious monument (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi, Christian) should be a target, somehow we push this ‘news’ to the back burner. But when a fatwa about Sania’s skirt is passed, we have special programs on it. I remember Aaj Tak doing a graphic and visual of what Sania would be wearing if her head was covered or if her legs were covered. Without deviating further and driving my point forward, I shall talk about the political parties.
Political parties and politicians have gained mileage and will continue to do so by whipping up emotions of people. We are nothing but pawns in their game. To be remembered when we have to vote or to keep the vote bank intact and to be forgotten all other times. Just like Yaqoob Quereshi, who desperately wanted a political upheaval and his ticket to the big league. The pawns took to the bait.
And then we cry hoarse that the Muslims are destroying our country. I agree, there are snakes amongst us but putting everyone on the same pedestal is acceptable? Why can’t we address the roots of the ‘snakes’? Unfairly bracketing every person from the Muslim community as a terrorist or a terror loving, hindu-hating, anti nationalist person is myopic. Oh! And we have brackets for Hindus who write posts like is, they are called minority appeasing pseudo liberal secular people.
Err…Did I just throw myself out of the frying pan and into the fire?
Also read this and this
Originally posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:52 PM
The intricate fabric of life which gives life to this country is unravelling and we have taken the easy way out - either watching it with detachment or lashing out with misplaced frenzy.
Islamophobia has not just seeped into the psyche of the common man, it has gripped us and paralyzed us to an extent where rational thinking is disappearing only to be replaced by us looking at our countrymen with mistrust and asking them to prove their loyalty to us.
The common refrain I hear all the time is let the liberal Muslim rise and speak out and the mullahs didn’t condemn it (the cartoon protests, the Bush visit, the blasts – a list which is ever growing).
When the liberal Muslim speaks out and condemns it, we look at him and say, “He has to say this if he has to live in this country. How do you know he’s not happy from inside?” And when the mullahs condemn it, then it becomes a page nine story in an obscure one coloumn box or a 20 second sound byte in 1.40 minute news story in an 11.00 am bulletin which no one watches.
When a fatwa is passed saying no religious monument (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsi, Christian) should be a target, somehow we push this ‘news’ to the back burner. But when a fatwa about Sania’s skirt is passed, we have special programs on it. I remember Aaj Tak doing a graphic and visual of what Sania would be wearing if her head was covered or if her legs were covered. Without deviating further and driving my point forward, I shall talk about the political parties.
Political parties and politicians have gained mileage and will continue to do so by whipping up emotions of people. We are nothing but pawns in their game. To be remembered when we have to vote or to keep the vote bank intact and to be forgotten all other times. Just like Yaqoob Quereshi, who desperately wanted a political upheaval and his ticket to the big league. The pawns took to the bait.
And then we cry hoarse that the Muslims are destroying our country. I agree, there are snakes amongst us but putting everyone on the same pedestal is acceptable? Why can’t we address the roots of the ‘snakes’? Unfairly bracketing every person from the Muslim community as a terrorist or a terror loving, hindu-hating, anti nationalist person is myopic. Oh! And we have brackets for Hindus who write posts like is, they are called minority appeasing pseudo liberal secular people.
Err…Did I just throw myself out of the frying pan and into the fire?
Also read this and this
Originally posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 1:52 PM
Monday, October 29, 2007
Fundamentalism. An Ugly Word?
Fundamentalism. The word has a new meaning these days. I wanted to delve into the meaning of the word and how it has evolved into a 'bad' word these days.
The dictonary gives the following definition
Historically Speaking
No one person can be credited with founding Fundamentalism. Nor does any single group comprise the history of the movement.
The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century.
Theological fundamentalism : theological movement concerned with defending traditional religous doctrine against modern thinking
Political fundamentalism : combination of theological fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat wordly vices
Where does the problem lie?
The problem is when we try to implement our beliefs/fundamentals on other people or feel threatened by fundamentals of other people. A sense of fear or power struggle ensue and fundamentalism rears its ugly head. Sometimes it is in-your-face. Sometimes subtley given to you in small doses that you don't even realize that you are been swayed or affected.
Now theological and political boundaries seem to have merged and fundamentalism has a new definition.
I got 19,40,000 results on google when I typed Christian fundamentalism. I got 20,50,000 results on google when I typed Islamic fundamentalism. Jewish fundamentalism fetched me 10,30,000 results and Hindu fundamentalism 4,16,000 results.
What's happening now?
Almost everyone knows about Islamic fundametalism (in the world context) and people in India must be aware of Hindu fundametalism. What about Christian fundamentalism? We don't even know about it.
A lot has been said about Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism and I am not going to repeat it again. I would like to bring the attention to a third form of fundamentalism i.e. Christian Fundamentalism.
According to Yoginder Sikand:
Question is why do we never come to hear about this? While the Western press is awash with stories, real and exaggerated, about ‘Islamic fundamentalists’, rarely is mention made about Christian fundamentalists. The reason is their vast resources and close links with the current American administration.
Another example of this fundamentalism, and we tend to overlook it, is what the president of US said.
Just because it is said in such a sophisticated manner, we don't tend to think that it exists. The reason for writing is post are many. Firstly, I want my fellow bloggers and readers to ponder over this. Secondly, I am tired of muslim-bashing because we just don't look beyond it. We don't acknowledge the power struggle between the East and the West.
To conclude, I condemn ALL forms of fundamentalism. Why is it said that extremes are not good and why is it said moderation is better anyday. If we advocate moderation in eating, spending, wordly pleasures, then why not in our religious and political beliefs and thinking. If the man on the street does not spew venom, then we can live peacefully. Because, as someone said, in the end all forms of fundamentalism are self-destructive.
Originially posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:42 PM
The dictonary gives the following definition
Fundamental : Serving as a foundation, essential, primary,
important
Fundamentalism: Belief in the literal truth of the Bible, against
evolution etc; adhere to strictly orthodox religions or political
doctrines
Fundamentalist: Person who profess such a belief
Historically Speaking
No one person can be credited with founding Fundamentalism. Nor does any single group comprise the history of the movement.
The term `fundamentalism' has its origin in a series of pamphlets published between 1910 and 1915. Entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth," these booklets were authored by leading evangelical churchmen and were circulated free of charge among clergymen and seminarians. By and large, fundamentalism was a response to the loss of influence traditional revivalism experienced in America during the early years of the twentieth century.
Theological fundamentalism : theological movement concerned with defending traditional religous doctrine against modern thinking
Political fundamentalism : combination of theological fundamentalism and the personal commitments of religious adherents to combat wordly vices
Where does the problem lie?
The problem is when we try to implement our beliefs/fundamentals on other people or feel threatened by fundamentals of other people. A sense of fear or power struggle ensue and fundamentalism rears its ugly head. Sometimes it is in-your-face. Sometimes subtley given to you in small doses that you don't even realize that you are been swayed or affected.
Now theological and political boundaries seem to have merged and fundamentalism has a new definition.
I got 19,40,000 results on google when I typed Christian fundamentalism. I got 20,50,000 results on google when I typed Islamic fundamentalism. Jewish fundamentalism fetched me 10,30,000 results and Hindu fundamentalism 4,16,000 results.
What's happening now?
Almost everyone knows about Islamic fundametalism (in the world context) and people in India must be aware of Hindu fundametalism. What about Christian fundamentalism? We don't even know about it.
A lot has been said about Islamic and Hindu fundamentalism and I am not going to repeat it again. I would like to bring the attention to a third form of fundamentalism i.e. Christian Fundamentalism.
According to Yoginder Sikand:
“....If Christian fundamentalists are to be believed, America’s invasion of Iraq
and the consequent brutal slaughter of thousands of innocentcivilians in that
country are all part of a grand divine plan that willfinally culminate in the
‘second coming’ of Jesus Christ. Establishing anempire that will extend all over
the globe, Christ will rule like apowerful monarch, saving those who believe in
him and dispatchingnon-believers, all non-Christians and non-conformist
Christians, toeverlasting perdition in hell....”
Question is why do we never come to hear about this? While the Western press is awash with stories, real and exaggerated, about ‘Islamic fundamentalists’, rarely is mention made about Christian fundamentalists. The reason is their vast resources and close links with the current American administration.
Another example of this fundamentalism, and we tend to overlook it, is what the president of US said.
Before the Iraq war, George Bush went on to say: "God told me to strike at al
Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I
did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East."
Just because it is said in such a sophisticated manner, we don't tend to think that it exists. The reason for writing is post are many. Firstly, I want my fellow bloggers and readers to ponder over this. Secondly, I am tired of muslim-bashing because we just don't look beyond it. We don't acknowledge the power struggle between the East and the West.
To conclude, I condemn ALL forms of fundamentalism. Why is it said that extremes are not good and why is it said moderation is better anyday. If we advocate moderation in eating, spending, wordly pleasures, then why not in our religious and political beliefs and thinking. If the man on the street does not spew venom, then we can live peacefully. Because, as someone said, in the end all forms of fundamentalism are self-destructive.
Originially posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 1:42 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
