The
Hindu Islamist
By Farzana Versey
26 October, 2006
Countercurrents.org
Dhiren Barot is the first person
in Britain to be convicted for a terrorist conspiracy. He pleaded guilty
before a London court for plotting to detonate radioactive "dirty''
bombs and other explosive devices to commit mass murder in Britain and
the United States. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6044938.stm)
There has been silence among
op-ed writers about the episode. What is curious about this case is
not that he is an Al Qaeda activist, but the arguments being dished
out by the British Indian community to delink themselves from him. It
isn't because of their immense concern about terrorism, but due to their
covert Islamophobia.
They are at pains to point
out that Barot, a Muslim now, cannot be described as Al Qaeda's "first
Hindu operative'' because he converted to Islam when he was 23. They
quote this as yet another example of British Muslim youths turning to
Islamist radicalism.
They do not question why
he, as an educated adult, converted to Islam at all. They are too busy
nitpicking that he was not born in India and his only Indian link is
that his parents were of Gujarati origin. This would apply to Osama
bin Laden too, for he can only claim Saudi origins (that too half; his
mother was Syrian), and little else.
Barot, in fact, travelled
with Laden's former bodyguard to Malaysia at the time of the Al Qaeda
summit where the 9/11 attacks were reportedly planned.
He has fought with the militants
in Kashmir and served as an instructor at an Afghan training camp. His
Al Qaeda connections were known to the US authorities.
The moot question to ask
is: are these converts lured by what Muslims the world over call the
'religion of peace'? If that were the case, then radicalism would be
far from their minds.
The West, in its enthusiasm
to find a voodoo doll that it can prick pins into has, in a twisted
way, managed to make radical Islam extremely attractive. The war against
terror has created a behemoth. Osama has made religion sound sexy in
his isolation.
Had it been left to the Muslim
world in the early stages Osama would not have had a leg to stand on.
Were he to dare to appear like a messiah (he never wears a black turban,
symbol of the Prophet), he would be discarded. Far from being a megalomaniac,
he is seen as the man who has given up all worldly pleasures. How could
he then be accused of mobilising the Muslim world? Why were Yasser Arafat,
Saddam Hussein and the tough Iranians never spoken of in the same breath?
Simple. They were visible.
Osama being a fugitive with
selective access to the media of his choice is a convenient weapon for
the West – it helps keep up its crusade and moralistic stance
while at the same time attracting more people to the fold.
Dhiren Barot is just one
among the many.
What the expatriates do not
understand is that the India link is more damaging for those of us who
live in India. Indian Muslims have not been a part of international
terrorist organisations. Yet, the stamp of jihadi and Islamist follows
us.
This has been the real fallout
of the West's Islamophobia – it has been exported to other countries
where Muslim populations are in a minority. As an Indian Muslim -- although
one is aware that one constitutes the second largest chunk of the Muslim
population in any country, after Indonesia -- I am perturbed by this
trend.
The Barot episode brings
the prejudices even more sharply to the fore. The British Indians are
distancing themselves from his Hindu origins. The message being that
it is only "those Muslims" who indulge in terrorist activities.
This is a curious denial of contemporary history, for Indian Muslims
have been systematically put to test due to Hindu radicalism. And it
has not been done by militant organisations, but by the State establishment
in places like Gujarat.
Is there any excuse for this?
Did not these same non-resident Indians create a ruckus when the Gujarat
chief minister was denied a US visa? The American stand was unambiguous:
"We confirm that the chief minister of Gujarat state, Narendra
Modi, applied for but was denied a diplomatic visa under Section 214
(b) of the act because he was not coming for a purpose that qualified
for a diplomatic visa. His tourist/business visa was revoked under Section
212 (a)(2)(g) of the act, which makes 'any government official who was
responsible for, or directly carried out at any time, particularly severe
violations of religious freedom,' ineligible for a visa."
These same expatriates who
are now talking about radical Islam were biting the bait of Hinduism
being at risk that Modi was dishing out then.
The response to Barot reveals
the biases that have embedded themselves in people's minds. One can
imagine them believing that had he remained true to his original faith
life would have been different. Indeed, it would.
The world can handle only
one enemy at a time. And Islam lends itself wonderfully as a whipping
boy.
(Farzana Versey can be reached
at [email protected])
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights