FUNDAMENTALISM AND TERRORISM
Asghar Ali Engineer
(Secular Perspective
Jan -1-15, 2003 )
Fundamentalism and terrorism are widely used term in the
media as well as academia. And, more often than not, they are loosely defined
terms. Many people describe any thing religious as fundamentalism and any
act of killing as terrorism. There is great necessity to define these terms
properly and prevent their use in loose sense. In fact the term fundamentalism
is hardly applicable to Indian religions on one hand, and to Islam on the
other. It is American media, which started using 'Islamic fundamentalism'
when Islamic revolution was taking place in Iran in late seventies. We hardly
see this term in the media or academia before that. Our media also then started
using the term and soon it was being very widely used.
The term 'terrorism' too has its origin in American media after 9/11. We
have had violence from across the border since nineties of the last century
but never used 'terrorist violence' for it. We called it either extremism
or militancy. But now call it 'cross border terrorism' after 9/11. Thus it
will be seen that American rulers and American media set the term for us
to be used.
I would, therefore, like to define these terms though not with academic rigour.
We can only try to put some sense in these terms so that we do not confuse
them with something else or something not intended. America devises terms
to reflect its own interests and not to make any academic sense. We should
resist temptation to use the terms loosely.
First, let us try to define fundamentalism. It should not certainly be confused
with fundamentals of religion. Even in America this term was not used in
that sense in early twenties of last century. In fact those who believed
that every word of the Bible is literally divine word were called fundamentalist.
One, it did not refer to fundamental teachings of Christianity and second,
it was never used in derogatory sense. But now the term is used in derogatory
sense and specially 'Islamic fundamentalism'.
As it is used in derogatory sense we must separate it from religion per se.
Thus to follow Islam or Hinduism should not be described as 'fundamentalism'.
Even to follow orthodox traditions of religion should not be dubbed as 'fundamentalism'
tough one may not agree with orthodox practices. There are millions of people
in every religious tradition who follow these orthodox traditions without
being any nuisance to any one in the society. Their practices could be quite
harmless.
Thus one must distinguish between orthodoxy and fundamentalism. Fundamentalism
in the sense in which it is being used in the media is, in fact, political
misuse of religion in a narrow sectarian manner. In this sense there is not
much difference between communalism and fundamentalism. Both the phenomena
are based on political interests. But still there is subtle difference between
the two. While communalism is all about political or economic interests of
a particular community, fundamentalism is enforcement of sectarianism with
all rigidity for political mobilisation of a community for the power-goals
of its elite. Thus while communalism is exploitation of sentiments of a religion
based community for a secular goal (i.e. political power) fundamentalism
is enforcing narrow sectarian practices for strengthening religious orthodoxy
on one hand, and, achieving political power, on the other.
Thus while BJP will be closer to communalism in this sense while the VHP-Bajrang
Dal will be closer to fundamentalism. However, it must be said at the same
time that the distinction is getting more and more blurred of late as VHP
is setting the agenda of the BJP. Similarly the pre-partition Muslim League
was closer to communalism and the Jamat-e-Islami was closer to fundamentalism.
Thus communalism is more about secular interests (mainly political) of a
religion based community. Fundamentalism, on the other hand, is enforcement
of narrow sectarian religion by misusing political power and for political
end i.e. with a view to consolidate political power.
Now let us define terrorism. One must admit, while defining terrorism that
it is very difficult to reach any consensus about it. Even the UNO failed
to evolve one despite great deal of debates. It is often said, and rightly
so, that ones terrorist is others freedom fighter. Thus those for Palestinians
are freedom fighters, for Israelis they are 'terrorists' to be killed and
eliminated. And in Kashmir those who are 'terrorists for us are, for Pakistanis
and even for some Kashmiris, are freedom fighters.
The word terrorism is being widely used by the media after 9/11. It was rarely
used before. In Kashmir we describe those who use violence as terrorists
and no more as extremists or militants, as pointed out before. Again the
change of terminology is in keeping with American interests. Though it is
difficult to define 'terrorism' those who kill innocent and non-combatant
people on large scale could certainly be categorised as terrorist. Many Pakistan-based
organisations like Lashkar-e-Tayyiba who kill innocent citizens in not only
in J&K but also in other cities of India are terrorists.
Now let us see whether fundamentalism necessarily leads to terrorism and
what is the link between them. Though logically fundamentalism should not
necessarily and inevitably lead to terrorism, it often does. Fundamentalism,
as already pointed out, involves enforcement of narrow sectarian practices
using political power and for consolidation of political power - extreme
coercion becomes necessary and extreme coercion involves violence.
People do not easily accept such enforcement willingly (except a few) while
the authoritarian forces use violence. Also, when it involves political power,
political rivalries and secessionist movement violence is inevitably used
as democratic alternatives take far too long a time and tries out patience.
But it should also be noted that all terrorist movements are not fundamentalist
in nature though fundamentalism may also lead to terrorism. For example the
LTTE movement is terrorist one but not fundamentalist one.
Another important thing to be noted is that terrorists may use religion or
religious terminology like jihad or dharma yuddh or holy war but their objective
may have nothing to do with religious teachings as such. It would, therefore,
be wrong to describe a terrorist act as religious terrorism just because
of religion of a terrorist and his use of religious terminology. Thus Usama
bin Laden being a Muslim his attack on New York twin towers does not become
an act of 'Islamic terrorism'. Unfortunately the media used this term quite
unthinkingly.
Usama bin Laden has his own agenda and his acts by no means represent Islamic
teachings. No religion in the world, much less Islam, teaches terrorism or
inspires any one to kill innocent people. Though some Muslims may have expressed
sympathy for Usama (so did some non-Muslims also who resent American policies
and its pro-Israeli stance) he never had any official sanction from any Islamic
establishment behind him. It is true there is no priesthood or church in
Islam and no fatwa, howsoever eminent the institution issuing fatwa be, cannot
be binding on any Muslim.
And in case of Usama no such institution has issued any such fatwa supporting
his act of terrorism. It is, therefore, not justified at all to describe
9/11 attack by Usama's men as an act of Islamic terrorism. Even if any eminent
Mufti (one who issues fatwa) had issued such an opinion it would not have
been binding on all Muslims. And in this case no one issued such a fatwa
Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida organisation does not pretend to have any
mass base and in fact no terrorist organisation has any mass base anywhere
in the world. It would otherwise seem to be a terrorist organisation. Usama
does use Islamic terminology to gain sympathy of Muslim masses but use of
such a terminology does not make it an Islamic organisation. It remains basically
a terrorist organisation. The religion practised by masses of Muslims is
more spiritual than political and religion practised by likes of Usama is
more political than spiritual.
The Qur'an clearly lays down that killing any person without a just cause
amounts to killing whole humanity and saving one person's life amounts to
saving entire humanity. This is truly humanistic and spiritual dimension
of Islam and of any religion for that matter. Killing hundreds of innocent
people can not qualify for being a religious act by any stretch of imagination.
In fact whether fundamentalism and terrorism (in the sense in which they
have been defined above) are linked together or not both are curses for humanity.
No truly religious person should approve of such gross misuse of religion.
A religious attitude has to be of humility, distance from political power
and of non-violence. The Sufi Islam which was truly spiritual Islam always
maintained its distance from power centres and believed in the doctrine of
what is called sulh-i-kul i.e. peace with all.
True religion is one, which does not get politicised. Political Islam or
political Hinduism became great danger for peace and tranquillity in the
society. It is political Hinduism (Hindutva) which caused havoc in Gujarat
and many other places and it is political Islam which has resulted in bloodshed
in New York or in Kashmir or in Algeria, for that matter. Muslims and Hindus
should fight against politicising of their respective religions.
***************************
Centre for Study of Society
and Secularism,
Mumbai:- 400 055,
E-mail: css@vsnl.com
|