Isolate terror, do not secularise it!

Isolate terror, do not secularise it!

S Gurumurthy"

The mounting evidence" says The New York Times (28/11) quotingAmerican intelligence and official, "indicate that Pakistani militantgroup based in Kashmir, most likely Lashkar-e-Toiba, or possiblyanother terror group in Kashmir, Jaish-e-Mohammed, was responsible forthe dastardly attack" on Mumbai on November 26। `The Mumbai terror hasbeen planned for the last six months' and `the terrorists came fromKarachi; they landed on the Indian coast through boats; they weretrained by Pakistan Navy for 12 to 18 months; Dawood Ibrahim's localinfrastructure had provided the logistics for the attack; the terrorbears the Inter- Services Intelligence (ISI) stamp', say the mediareports citing Indian intelligence and Mumbai police. All this pointto the Jihadi character of the terror. The Jewish religious head inMumbai and the white foreigners staying in hotels as special targetsof the terrorists who allowed Turkish Muslim inmates of Taj Hotel toescape because they were Muslims reinforced the view that theterrorists were part of the global Islamist terror network againstnon-Muslims (Kafirs).Yet the Home Minister first and the Prime Minister later madestatements on November 27, warning that the terrorists would pay fortheir crime, but, did not utter a word about who were the terrorists,and where they came from.Then entered the Minister of State for Home Affairs Sri PrakashJaiswal. He provided the comedy in an otherwise grim tragedy thatMumbai was experiencing for nearly 48 hours. He told the media on

November 28, `terror could be a conspiracy hatched by right-wing Hinduparties'. Hindu parties — read the BJP? Yes. So Pakistan, orLashkar-e- Toiba or Jaish-e-Mohammed or other Jihadi outfits are notthe prime suspects! Following this line the Chinese People's Dailysuspected Hindu terrorists as the culprits! But most secular media inIndia fortunately dismissed the junior minister's statement as just ajuvenile prank. As his state minister was striving to make those whocry laugh, the Prime Minister stepped in to supplement his juniorminister's efforts to humour the nation. On that very day, he invitedthe chief of the ISI — the main suspect in the terror on Mumbai — tocome to Delhi.Why? To share info on the Mumbai terror with the main conspirator! Isit that the PM too was cracking a joke like his junior minister byinviting the ISI chief ? The ISI continues to be, as it always wassince 1959 when it was born, hostile to India. On August 1, 2008, TheNew York Times reported, citing US officials, "American intelligenceagencies have concluded" that Pakistan's ISI had "helped plan thedeadly July 7 bombing of India's embassy in Kabul" that left 58 deadand 141 wounded. As his junior minister spoke of Hindu terrorists assuspects, the Prime Minister invited the ISI chief, a well knownjihadi who was involved in the jihad in the July Kabul attack toassist in investigating the Mumbai terror. That is, the Prime Ministerwas asking the main conspirator, ISI, to catch the other perpetrators– namely, the Jihadis whom it had trained to attack India! Normallysuch an act would be a subject of a cartoon.Read together what Jaiswal said in Mumbai — namely, the terroristswere from Hindu political parties — on November 29 — and what Dr Singhdid in Delhi on the same date – namely, invite the ISI chief to probethe Mumbai terror.Did the Prime Minister take his minister of state for home so
seriously that he wanted the Hindu angle to the Mumbai terror — someAdvani or Modi involvement — to be jointly investigated by the IB inIndia and the ISI in Pakistan? Or did he expect the ISI to confess toits involvement? Or did he think that the ISI has suddenly shed itsenmity and turned its admirer under its secular leaders Sonia Gandhi,a Christian, and himself, a Sikh? But fortunately for India, thePakistan government refused to send the ISI chief to India. The worldwould have laughed at India if the ISI chief had come to India anddeclared to the media that the ISI would `co-operate' with the IB tocatch the culprits! What has done India into this mess? It is theIndian polity's inability to say plainly that Islamic terror is aglobal phenomenon, and it is extending itself into India throughglobal Islamic network.Result, instead of isolating the terror, the national politicaldiscourse began secularising it. The seculars saw normal anti-terrorlaws as anti- Muslim laws by showing the number of detainees under thelaw which contained more Muslims. They refused to acknowledge thatglobal Islamic jihad appeals only to Muslims and not to othercommunities. How then to maintain arithmetical parity betweencommunities in the arrests under the anti-terror law? Once it isconceded that a terrorist has no religion, the person detained foracts of terror also has no religion.How then could detainees under POTA be seen as Muslims and others?More, this secular formulation has facilitated the free entry ofglobal jihad.More, the national discourse, instead of protecting the local Muslimsfrom global jihad, has not only exposed them to it, but alsoencouraged the process by integrating anti-terror laws within secularvs communal discourse. In the discourse anyone opposing strongantiterror laws became instantly secular, and any one supporting itinstantly communal. Consequently, terror became secular, and
anti-terror laws became un-secular. Thanks to this debasing seculardebate, the UPA repealed the POTA as its first job. The result is forall to see. In the last four years and more, the terror attacks haveaccounted for more than 4,000 lives and in the last one year ourterror toll had been more than that of — believe it — Iraq.The next perversion followed the first.The secular discourse instead of isolating the jihadi outfits like theStudents Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) worked to make the unwarylocal Muslims identify with, own such outfits.Take the example of the ban on SIMI. The BJP-led NDA had banned it in2001 and the Congress had opposed it, saying that the ban had targetedthe Muslims. This secular perverted discourse made the unwary Muslimsown the SIMI about which most of them perhaps knew nothing except thatthe `anti-Muslim' BJP had banned it and the secular parties — readpro-Muslim parties — had opposed it! The UPA first lifted the ban, butreimposed it but not before allowing the SIMI to grow into an IndianLeT. Why not ban the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, asked the Congress and theseculars, when SIMI was banned. But little did they realise that VHPcan and should be banned if it indulged in terror, but not to justifythe ban on SIMI. See what this secular perversion translates into.One, the state cannot act against the SIMI unless they find some Hinduoutfit to act against.Two, the state cannot detain or act against a terrorist unless it canfind terrorists from all communities. QED: terror stands secularised,not isolated in secular discourse! How will India fight terror withthis cerebral paralysis?