[Reader-list] the likes of Kafeel, Sabeel and Haneef...

[S.Fatima]

(Sarai-readers, my apologies for clogging up space)

Dear Radhika
I am just reacting to your comment: "All Muslims are
not terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."

Please see the following report from Times of India,
Jul 23, 2006:

"Terrorism is not a Muslim monopoly"

SWAMINATHAN S ANKLESARIA AIYAR 

"All Muslims may not be terrorists, but all terrorists
are Muslims." This comment, frequently heard after the
Mumbai bomb blasts implies that terrorism is a Muslim
specialty, if not a monopoly. The facts are very
different. 

First, there is nothing new about terrorism. In 1881,
anarchists killed the Russian Tsar Alexander II and 21
bystanders. In 1901, anarchists killed US President
McKinley as well as King Humbert I of Italy. World War
I started in 1914 when anarchists killed Archduke
Ferdinand of Austria. These terrorist attacks were not
Muslim. 

Terrorism is generally defined as the killing of
civilians for political reasons. Going by this
definition, the British Raj referred to Bhagat Singh,
Chandrashekhar Azad and many other Indian freedom
fighters as terrorists. These were Hindu and Sikh
rather than Muslim. 

Guerrilla fighters from Mao Zedong to Ho Chi Minh and
Fidel Castro killed civilians during their
revolutionary campaigns. They too were called
terrorists until they triumphed. Nothing Muslim about
them. 

In Palestine, after World War II, Jewish groups (the
Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang) fought for the creation
of a Jewish state, bombing hotels and installations
and killing civilians. The British, who then governed
Palestine, rightly called these Jewish groups
terrorists. Many of these terrorists later became
leaders of independent Israel — Moshe Dayan, Yitzhak
Rabin, Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon. Ironically, these
former terrorists then lambasted terrorism, applying
this label only to Arabs fighting for the very same
nationhood that the Jews had fought for earlier. 

In Germany in 1968-92, the Baader-Meinhoff Gang killed
dozens, including the head of Treuhand, the German
privatisation agency. In Italy, the Red Brigades
kidnapped and killed Aldo Moro, former prime minister.


The Japanese Red Army was an Asian version of this.
Japan was also the home of Aum Shinrikyo, a Buddhist
cult that tried to kill thousands in the Tokyo metro
system using nerve gas in 1995. 

In Europe, the Irish Republican Army has been a
Catholic terrorist organisation for almost a century.
Spain and France face a terrorist challenge from ETA,
the Basque terrorist organisation. 

Africa is ravaged by so much civil war and internal
strife that few people even bother to check which
groups can be labelled terrorist. They stretch across
the continent. Possibly the most notorious is the 
Lord’s Salvation Army in Uganda, a Christian outfit
that uses children as warriors. 

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers have long constituted
one of the most vicious and formidable terrorist
groups in the world. They were the first to train
children as terrorists. They happen to be Hindus.
Suicide bombing is widely associated with Muslim
Palestinians and Iraqis, but the Tamil Tigers were the
first to use this tactic on a large scale. One such
suicide bomber assassinated Rajiv Gandhi in 1991. 

In India, the militants in Kashmir are Muslim. But
they are only one of several militant groups. The
Punjab militants, led by Bhindranwale, were Sikhs. The
United Liberation Front of Assam is a Hindu terrorist
group that targets Muslims rather than the other way
round. Tripura has witnessed the rise and fall of
several terrorist groups, and so have Bodo strongholds
in Assam. Christian Mizos mounted an insurrection for
decades, and Christian Nagas are still heading
militant groups. 

But most important of all are the Maoist terrorist
groups that now exist in no less than 150 out of
India’s 600 districts. They have attacked police
stations, and killed and razed entire villages that
oppose them. These are secular terrorists (like the
Baader Meinhof Gang or Red Brigades). In terms of
membership and area controlled, secular terrorists are
far ahead of Muslim terrorists. 

In sum, terrorism is certainly not a Muslim monopoly.
There are or have been terrorist groups among
Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, and even Buddhists.
Secular terrorists (anarchists, Maoists) have been the
biggest killers. 

Why then is there such a widespread impression that
most or all terrorist groups are Muslim? I see two
reasons. First, the Indian elite keenly follows the
western media, and the West feels under attack from
Islamic groups. Catholic Irish terrorists have killed
far more people in Britain than Muslims, yet the
subway bombings in London and Madrid are what
Europeans remember today. The Baader Meinhof Gang, IRA
and Red Brigades no longer pose much of a threat, but
after 9/11 Americans and Europeans fear that they
could be hit anywhere anytime. So they focus attention
on Islamic militancy. They pay little notice to other
forms of terrorism in Africa, Sri Lanka or India:
these pose no threat to the West. 

Within India, Maoists pose a far greater threat than
Muslim militants in 150 districts, one-third of
India’s area. But major cities feel threatened only by
Muslim groups. So the national elite and media focus
overwhelmingly on Muslim terrorism. The elite are
hardly aware that this is an elite phenomenon. 

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/ml.asp?Ref=VE9JTS8yMDA2LzA3LzIzI0FyMDEyMDA=&Mode=HTML&Locale=english-skin-custom


--- radhikarajen at vsnl.net wrote:

> Fatima,
> 
>  again some hate for the group of individuals in
> student community just because they are not under
> banner of NSUI or DYSI ? Can you cite one instance
> of funding terror by HSC or any student union of
> Sangh parivar for the progoms as you say ? NRIs of
> hindu origin if they contribute to Sangh parivar, it
> becomes funds for terror ? What is the basis of this
> assumption of false propaganda. ? As I have already
> told you, some do not represent the whole of
> community as you have rightly pointed out, just as
> all muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists
> are muslims, as seen by society by now. Society as a
> whole has big role in stopping the fanatic elements
> in society, otherwise the results are obivious, in
> actions and reactions as seen in Gujarath. In free
> India, every time the riots broke, it was the
> "secular" parties which rewarded the rioters with
> plush MP or MLA tickets and thus goon shouting
> brigades were built, to force the silent majority in
> any faith to comply with their 
> wishes to put the rowdy in legislation forum. In
> Gujarath, it must be remembered that administration
> did not hesitate to fire bullets at rioters
> irrespective whether they were of hindu or muslim
> faith. But our "secular" media with sycophants in as
> anchors have only exploited with SMS and debate
> revenues to enrich themselves with bank rolls.
>   Is there any justification for the visual media to
> show again and again the gujarath riots every time
> the elections are around the corner by the reward
> and award winning "journalists" crooning for
> "secular" parties when the truth of the matter is
> these very same "secular" parties were the fomentors
> of trouble between communities ?
>    
>   By the way, I have read one of the mail by Sarai
> adfmn regarding many mails in response which says to
> ignore the mails from ids who post 4-5 mails and
> clog the mailbox, may be sarai does not want face
> the truth to retain its "secular" image. ?
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in>
> Date: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:11 pm
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] the likes of Kafeel,
> Sabeel and Haneef...
> To: radhikarajen at vsnl.net, Pawan Durani
> <pawan.durani at gmail.com>
> Cc: "S.Fatima" <sadiafwahidi at yahoo.co.in>, chanchal
> malviya <chanchal_malviya at yahoo.com>, reader-list
> <reader-list at sarai.net>
> 
> > Dear Pawan/Radhika
> > Is there a difference between funding the
> activities
> > of hate and and actually doing the arsoning and
> rape?
> > HSC may not have participated in the violence, but
> > they did fund the Gujarat pogorm from their
> armchairs.
> > The NRIs are probably more religious and communal
> than
> > even resident Indians (and I include both Hindus
> and
> > Muslims in it).
> > 
> > The beauty of our terminology is that when a
> Muslim is
> > involved in arson or kidnapping, he is a
> terrorist.
> > When anyone else does the same, he is a
> reactionary.
> > Why?
> > 



      DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register