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
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top