The so called Islamic Extremism

It has become fashionable these days to go up in a mountain top and start shrieking about Islamic militants. We don’t know what this term precisely means. If it simply means terrorists, then those Muslims who indulge in terroristic activities should be christened as Muslim militants, or Muslim extremists. Any person who knows a little bit of Muslim history since the time of Prophet Muhammad and the trouble which started with the assassination of the third caliph, ottoman, knows that in Muslim history those who indulge in Fitna (i.e. indulgence in disruption of state activities) has always largely been regarded as un-Islamic. Of course those who indulge in Fitna were Muslims, and sometimes they believed that they are not only true Muslims but also the true reformers of the Islamic society and its social structure. This has to be taken into consideration before we talk about the so called Islamic militants.

In Muslim countries during medieval times, many sects arose who differed from the communities’ view of Islam and Islamic religious observations. These groups rarely remained in power in a small section of land for a short period. Slowly they simply liquidated themselves out and also merge into the larger Muslim community. We know that in Muslim countries there are two large groups which are not very amicable to each other. However largely and throughout the ages they have lives with each other in a sort of friendly manner. One large group is as it is called these days, the Sunnis; and the smaller group is the Shia. Except in Iran and also in Iraq, and to some extent in Bahrain the Shias have always been a small minority in the Muslim countries. Truly speaking the Shia community took its shape as a fundamentally theological community sometime after 1200 AD. Before that they were tiny groups and indulged in as a kind of mild terroristic activities. Shias became important and forceful only when in Iran most of the Muslims declared themselves Shias or as it is called belonging to Athnai-Ashrya community. They adopted strict rules and developed Jafria School of law. For them Hazrat Imam Hussein, the grandson of prophet Muhammad, who was unnecessarily martyred in Karbala, now in Iraq, is the true person to revere, along with his father Hazrat Ali. It would be not worth to go in detail about Shi-ism, but it is interesting to note that they turned much more strict and unbending in their dislike for companions of prophet and the first three caliphs. Such reluctance has created a kind of semi religious chasm between them and the large Muslim group, the Sunnis. We are not saying that Sunnis are an innocent lot. Some of the “extreme” Sunni groups declared Shias as heretics, which is absolutely incorrect. It is true that Shia regard that Prophet Muhammad’s youngest daughter Fatima’s progeny, especially the youngest son Hazrat Hussain is a true inheritor of Prophets political and spiritual inheritance. What did happen at Karbala was exceedingly unfortunate. Hazrat Hussain was prompted and invited by his well-wishers in Kufa to come to them and most likely start the new Caliphate. At that time Amir Muawia the undisputed ruler of the Muslim world was dead and his son Yazid took over as the new ruler. During Muawia’s reign Hazrat Hussain’s eldest brother Hazrat Hassan made a deal with Muawia and secluded himself from claiming the Caliphate. Perhaps Hazrat Hussain thought that he would be able to take over the Caliphate from Yazid. After performing Haj on 10th Jamad II he started with a large retinue including women and children for Kufa. The journey usually took a month to complete. He with his party reached Karbala perhaps a day or two before 10th Muharram 60 A.H. The Umariat forces stopped the party from proceeding further ahead. On 10th there was a clash between the army and Hazrat Hussain’s retinue. Most of the party members were killed including Hazrat Hussain. None of the people wanted this to happen. Hazrat Hussain was willing to go and meet the Caliph, however this unfortunate incident brought about a great calamity for the Muslim world. For a number of years this incident, though deeply lamented, had not assumed a socio-political overtone. Propagandists were always active. Soon his Hazrat Hussain’s assassination became a ritual, a sign of dissident in the Muslim world. Gradually when the division between adherent to such views and common Muslims became deeper this brought about a large difference both politically, spiritually and socially. Shii scholars developed their own legal framework, which was largely different from the four Sunni schools of law (Fiqh). One must say a kind of mythical tradition developed amongst those who believed that the caliphate really belonged to Hashmaits, in actual practice the descendants of the youngest son of Prophet’s daughter. The Shii theology built up a genealogy of Hazrat Hussain’s descendants which were called Imams (spiritual-cum-political leaders). The 12th Imam is believed to have disappeared. Subsequently Shii clerics assumed part of this Imamat. Those who were christened as Imams were highly pious, intelligent and learned folks. They were deeply religious and most likely they were not against the common Sunni traditions. We must remember that the Sunni world developed Shariah (legal courts), scholarly traditions, historical investigations, largely about 100 years after the demise of the prophet. Hence there always have been some sorts of conflict in various theological point of views.

With the transformation of Iran into a Shia state where almost the entire subject became Shii. This transformation brought about the conflict between Shias and Sunnis into open. However in general terms, because of the simple fact that outside Iran and Iraq the Shias were a tiny majority, the conflict remained rather subdued. In every part of the Muslim world Shias and Sunnis live together and followed their own traditions. Hence we could say that it is largely due to action of some of the absolute rulers in Muslim countries which intensified such conflict. There were many descent groups in Muslim world but they were largely confined to small areas and were not very effective as a political force.

It is evident that in the West the idea of the “Islamic” terrorist developed only when Talibans in Afghanistan captured the country and promulgated the strict orthodox Shariah laws in the land. Almost at the same time Osama Bin Laden established a party called Al-Qaeda which started evolving terroristic activities. His and his party’s evolution is most interesting. Bin Laden is the person who was raised as a leader of Muslim fighters (Mujahideens) to fight against the Soviet Invaders of Afghanistan by CIA and America. That conflict was largely part of a cold war tussle between Soviet Union and US. Americans took little notice of Bin Laden. However 9/11 attack in America where the twin trade towers of New York was destroyed turned Al Qaeda into a violent terroristic organization. It goes to the acumen of Bin laden and his Companions that they turned their group into an Anti-Christ. They recruited young Muslims, largely residents of western countries for their purpose. These youths were indoctrinated to establish the Islamic kingdom after indulging in Jihad, the holy war. The background could easily be understood. The youths were unemployed with meager education and little resources. Al Qaeda was able to induct them rather easily. What they have been doing in recent years all over the world is quite well known.

It needs to be remembered that Al-Qaeda and related organizations, like Somalia’s Al-Shabab and Algeria’s Maghreb Al-Qaeda have almost nothing to do with the basic teachings of Islam. They have developed their own theory of Jihad which is in deep conflict with the concepts present in Quran. Jihad largely is a defensive strategy to oppose the offensive warring forces. Hence it could be said that all those who call themselves Jihadis and the Western world calls them Islamic terrorists, are not in tune with the fundamental ideology propagated by Quran and later Islamic theologians and clerics. There is no disagreement that they should be termed as terrorists or such kind of groups indulging in indiscriminate violence against Muslims and non-Muslims are terrorists. Period.

However to call them Islamic terrorist is simply a misnomer. It is product of a wrong kind of propaganda indulged by various interested groups largely of the Western world. It is true that Al-Qaeda wants to destroy as much as it can, the socio political system of the Western countries. They have established themselves in various Muslim worlds like Yemen, Somalia, Algeria, to some extent in Indonesia and Philippines. In Pakistan they are in league with the Pakistan Talibans who are closely related to Talibans in Afghanistan, who wants to reestablish the previous Taliban kingdom there. In Pakistan terrorists of the various sorts have developed like Mushrooms. This is also related to the sociopolitical situation in that unfortunate country which has passed through phases of army dictatorship. It is almost certain that if the overwhelming force of Al-Qaeda is decreased in a substantial manner, all these terroristic organizations, working all around the world would go under. There are reasons to believe that the ideological influence of Al-Qaeda is gradually lessening amongst the Muslim youth. As a matter of fact, Al-Qaeda has no constructive program but to keep themselves in permanent conflict with the Western countries, especially US. The reaction against Al-Qaeda was largely indiscriminate. The idea was to crush it totally. There were no other program promulgated by the US and the cohorts. It was unfortunate because of the simple fact that Al-Qaeda, largely brought into being by CIA, has turned into such a violent group. There initial success was largely accidental. However they started involving themselves into a very well organized, highly motivated group of active workers. Al-Qaeda reminds us of the Assasins created by Hassan bin Sabah who created havoc in Medieval Southern European states. They had only one program: to extract money from the rulers and keep Hassan’s fidayeen in shape to indulge in terroristic activities. All the indications have been that Osama bin laden has not been keeping good health. Had he been left earlier to die this terroristic activity would not have assumed such a violent menace.

What we have been saying is simply that Al-Qaeda and all the related terrorist organizations, who called themselves Jihadis and go on killing innocent people are definitely terrorists. They can also be called Muslim terrorists or Muslim extremists. However it is totally incorrect to christen them as Islamic terrorists.

JYOTI BASU

Jyoti Basu, one of the foremost leader of the communist movement in India, and one of the greatest statesmen of post independent India, died at the ripe old age of 95. It is sobering to reflect that Jyotida was three years older than Indira Gandhi.And we know very well what the Iron Lady did during her heydays. She almost single handedly destroyed the Congress party in various Indian states. Jyoti Basu was made of another stuff.

Jyoti basu belonged to an old zamindar family of East Bengal. After his education in Calcutta where he was born he left for England to do his bar-at-law. There he met communist workers and imbibed the tradition of Marxism. After returning he joined the then communist party of India which was taking its shape in a rather tough time. Along with his law practice he started his party work in a dedicated manner. From the very beginning it seemed he was inclined towards parliamentary form of governance based on Westminster model. At that time the Party was largely under the strict control of Stalinistic mode of activity. This mode proclaimed the dictatorship of proletariat. This mode also supported the one party control of the state. Here we see the early contradiction Basu faced. It has been very difficult for a dedicated communist worker to renounce his Stalinistic legacy and follow parliamentary system. It is remarkable to see how a fearless, true Marxist to adopt his whole philosophy around the idea of a parliamentary democracy which necessitates the multi-party politics. The communist movement of India since its inception has faced such dilemma.

Jyoti Basu started his parliamentary activity at state level from 1946 and after Independence he joined the West Bengal state assembly as a member. Subsequently he joined various ministries and finally became the chief minister of West Bengal. He remained Chief minister of Bengal for 3 years leading the left front whose main constituent was the communist party(Marxist) of India.

Basu proved to be an able and efficient administrator. During his long tenure of chief minister ship he dealt in a polite, politically correct and in a civilize manner with the centre and with various states. He never tried to lose his revolutionary Marxist ideology when dealing with non Marxist parties, governments and individuals. Basu was a simple man, in spite of being a barrister and one who loved his whisky. He was able to do what very few politicians in office have done; the idea of land to tillers was always on the lips of politicians during the freedom struggle. He through legislation gave the tillers of West Bengal the authority to hold the land. This is no doubt a great achievement of his government. The other notable achievement, which is no less important, is that he made it possible for Panchayati Raj (local self government) to get established in the state. These two achievements have changed the face of West Bengal. Off course during the long tenure of party control and of cadres a kind corruption set in. This is in voidable in a system where one party takes control of almost every branch of social relationship. Such corruption has been in vogue during the long soviet regimen and is still prevailing in communist China in spite of many reforms. If Basu has to be blamed for this corruption the blame lies largely on the one political party dominance over the society. Now that Jyoti Basu is no more and the grip of CPM in West Bengal--and in Kerala--is getting weaker day by day, the question which crops up is quite straight forward: what ,after him would happen to the communist movement in India ? The answer is not simple; on the contrary it is highly complex problem to deal with. We would try to look at this aspect of a possible social transformation of the Indian society in some detail.

The communist party of India was founded in 1920s by a set of dedicated young men. It came into being only a few years after the October revolution of 1917 in Russia. There, in a rather conspiratorial action, Lenin took hold of the Russian parliament and declared the establishment of Soviet Union under the control of the Bolshevik party. At that time Russia has bled profusely during the WWI and the ruling establishment was in tatters. Lenin was a staunch follower of Karl Marx who theorized about the establishment of a popular democratic state which would give all the citizens their right to enjoy life and remain closely related with each other. Of course Marx wanted that the downtrodden, mainly the workers working in various factories, would be in a position to dictate the terms concerning the running of state. They were the product of capitalistic society and were exploited by Capitalist masters. However with all his deep revulsion against capitalism and against the ruthless tiny minority which controlled the society Marx was not in a hurry to establish a workers’ paradise. He was of the firm view that the exploiters would dig their own grave and hence the society would turn into a socialist state. The Paris Commune of 1848 has taught him a lesson. It was futile, worthless and harmful to attempt a transformation of a social relationship through naked aggression. We are not saying that Marx was against the armed insurrection and capture of state power through ruthless means. However he in his later life always took into consideration the situation under which an armed struggle can be made successful. He wrote at the end of his life that he was not a Marxist; which simply means that Marxism is not a closed ideological setup: it is always ready to accept innovations and revisions. Lenin on the other hand was not only a deeply committed revolutionary but he also was a lover of conspiracy. The Czarist regime has executed his elder brother and he wanted to take revenge for that bloody happening. His Bolshevik party, part of the Russian communist party, was initially not in a position to bring about a successful revolution is a battered Russian capital. In spite of all the shortcomings he had around him a number of active revolutionaries and socialistic thinkers. Lenin was himself a theoretical man in theorizing over the possibilities of revolution in a rather less developed capitalist society. Russia at that time was largely an agricultural society where rich people controlled huge estates and had lots of peasants under their control. In such a country it was almost impossible to think of a Marxian socialist state. Nonetheless by his acute strategic work he brought about the October revolution. Soon he started suffering from ill health and was not a in a position to govern the newly formed state. Though he wanted that the Czarist reign should end and the rich oligarchy should be subdued in a forthright manner, he wanted that there should be an independent mode of discussion concerning the development of the socialist state. He died in 1922; and it so happened that Joseph Stalin by many acts of cruelty and heavy handedness became the supreme leader of the Soviet Union.

When CPI was formed all over the world the idea for a change in social relationship was fomenting. There is a long history that since about 1840 the whole Europe in a sort of ferment and wanted a change, which unfortunately was not coming in peaceful and constitutional manner. The socialist idea was rampant and the CPI originally was inclined towards an open kind of party. Of course there were die hard revolutionaries who wanted to rebel against the British Raj and establish a socialist state in India. This idea to us seems rather a wishful thinking and nothing else. The British Raj was, in spite of their great sacrifice during WW1 was on a firm footing, and India was under their full control. The Indian National Congress was trying to raise the people against the foreign regime by talking for a Swarajya, the basic idea of Mr M K Gandhi who later took control of Congress party and became Mahatma Gandhi. CPI remained always in a sort of bifurcated mood. They very well knew that a socialistic state was simply not possible in an agrarian society. The Indian capitalism was in a nascent state and was largely dependent on British Capitalism for its growth and function. The Indian people, largely peasants, were highly illiterate and obedient to the core. The Leninist mode of revolution was just a theoretical platform, a kind of dream which comes only once a while. This dichotomy has always been a part of communist movement in India. The party wanted a great revolutionary change; however it was never in a position to bring about such drastic transformation. Furthermore the party was always unwilling to enter into a parliamentary mode of contesting the election and capturing power. The Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union was turning into a highly repressive form of government which kept its population under strict control without much opportunity to express their viewpoints. The Indian society, however illiterate and backward, had a great tradition behind it which could be called the composite culture. This culture allowed various viewpoints to flourish in an independent manner and absorbed good points from different ideological streams. The Leninist mode of social transformation was simply not applicable to that culture. Mao Tse Tung brought about a communist revolution in China in 1949. It was a bloody struggle and which in a manner was against the essence of the ancient Chinese civilization. The Maoist doctrine of power coming out of a barrel of a gun was successful in China due to various geopolitical reasons. The Japanese occupation of part of China, the defects of Kuomintang regime assisted Mao in his valiant and hard fought revolutionary struggle. The Maoist mode, it soon became known, was as impossible to help in social transformation. Hence both the Leninist method and the Maoist method, which essentially were based on armed insurrection and in bloody capture of power, were impossible to attain in India.

A rather humorous situation developed for the CPI during the WWII. When the war started between Britain and Germany CPI leaders called it a capitalist war. However when the Nazi Germany started its operation Barbarosa against the Soviet Union they immediately christened it as a people’s war, and were ready to cooperate with the Raj to fight against Germans. Of course they initially were instructed by their ideological bosses in Moscow to call the war first as a Capitalistic war; and, on further instructions, termed the conflict the people’s war. This attitude has been prevalent in the CPI throughout their existence. And this has led them to popular resentment against them for their so called non-Indian behavior. Trouble is that CPI believed in a violent conflict to bring about a social transformation in India. This it seems is not a very productive ideological stance. India throughout its history has faced violent conflict from outside as in the country where various vested interests have tried to gain the upper hand against the rivals. In ancient India this was largely possible simply because of the fact that a powerful kingdom was not able to rule over the country for a period of time. Only small kingdoms reigned supreme. Furthermore India had a tradition of composite culture which was prevalent all over the Indian sub continent since Gautham Buddhas time. This cultural inclination adopted a view in which conflicting interests were persuaded to come together and leave in a peaceful coexistence. The Leninistic or Maoistic concept of social transformation fits ill with this cultural behavior. O fcourse Marx in his writings have adopted a view of violent aggression against the capitalist class to capture the political power. However the Paris Commune of 1848 must have taught to Carl Marx about the possibility of such violent mode of social transformation. Marx throughout his writing is very careful in his political activity. He wanted the workers to wrest the political control out of the reigning establishment. However detail of such violent transformation is not available in that sense in which Lenin and Mao developed their theories of socio-political transformation. Lenin’s behavior during the 1917 October revolution was rather two faced. At that time Russia had bled during the war and Lenin took the opportunity to capture the Russian parliament by means which were not actually ethical in political terms. It is true that Marxian edge proclaims that ‘end justifies the means’. However such program leads to a greater social unrest after the achievement through unfair means. For Mao power emerges out of a barrel of a gun. For him China was not in a position to withstand his long conflict against the ruling KMT. In India the situation was entirely different. The British Raj was firmly established in India. A substantially large part of Indian society was with the Raj. The Congress party under the astute policy of Mahatma Gandhi was fighting a war of independence through non-violent means. India has seen the parliamentary form of government which, though it worked from London, was in a position to unite the Indian sub continent under an able administration. Hence, apart from a few groups, largely Indians were ready to accept a parliamentary form of government if they get independence from the British Raj, and if possible through non-violence means.

This situation was largely in contrast to the basic CPI program of resting the power and bringing about a socio political transformation of the Indian society. The party was never in a position to wean people away from the Gandhian principals. Of course Gandhian principals had many shortcomings, but still it seemed the best way to achieve freedom. The Indian intellectuals were largely, if not overwhelmingly, in favor of constitutional means through which a parliamentary system of government could be established in India.

In 1947 the British government gave up their reign over the sub-continent. The country was divided into two portions and in India Jawaharlal Nehru, the prodigy of Mahatma Gandhi, became the Prime Minister. A constitution of India was constructed and gradually the Indian political institutions assumed the Westminster form of governance. Soon afterwards a conflict between the Soviet Union and communist China started. After the death of Stalin, Khrushchev made the Soviet Union much more humane and less conflict prone. This was revisionist attitude. In India this theoretical conflict affected the CPI. After a struggle the party was divided into two groups: CPI and the CPI(M), also called CPM . The CPM was a much more Stalinistic-Maoistic party and believed in armed conflict. Jyoti Basu was in CPM. However quite soon both the Communist party realized that they have to adopt parliamentary mode of governance in which they have to go to people to ask for their votes. CPI adopted a mode in which they were largely in league with the Congress party. CPM, being more independent and forceful, captured power in West Bengal and in Kerala.

This rather longish detail tells us that the communist movement if it has to become a prominent political movement in India has to become much more adopted composite culture and people oriented. In India whosoever tries to come to power has to adopt a purely Indian mode of political behaviour.