By Gertrude Lamare
This is a response to the article titled “Islamic terror – the biggest threat globally” by Albert Thyrniang, published on 10th January 2015. Commenting on the recent Charlie Hebdo attack, Mr Thyrniang rightly argues against the danger of religious fundamentalism and with regards to this particular instance, its brutal threat to the freedom of speech and expression. I should begin by emphasizing that I completely condemn the killing of the twelve persons at the Charlie Hebdo office and that I likewise consider it an act of “extreme cruelty.” However, I could not help but notice that as the article develops, it increasingly reads like a racist rant against a monolithic “Muslim community.”
Yes, Mr.Thyrniang specifies that he is referring to “extremists” in some parts of his article but this is not consistent throughout; the title is a case in point, being the most striking example of a massively generalized claim. The phrase “Islamic terror” conveys the notion that “Islam” and “terror” arewords so naturally associated with each other; Islam supposedly being a religion which more than others, inspires and breeds terrorism. In fact, when drawing our attention to the fact that Charlie Hebdo is an “anti-establishment” magazine which had equally lampooned other religious figures including Jesus Christ, Thyrniang again poses generalized questions like: “Were not Christians offended? Why are only Muslims offended when their prophet is scorned? Is Islam superior to other religions?” Correct me if I’m wrong but the tone of this sentence suggests that Christians and Muslims are two polarized groups whose relationship is established strictly by a concept of difference. While Christians (again an umbrella category) are “tolerant” people who do not take extreme measures in dealing with offence, Muslims (of all kinds) are collectively violent and blood-thirsty.The writer here seems to have conveniently forgotten about the several acts of terrorism by other religious fundamental groups like the Christian organisation “Army of God” and the Hindutva group the RashtriyaSwayamsevakSangh (RSS).
The Army of God has been responsible for attacks largely in the United States, two such incidents being the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in July 27, 1996 and theKnoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting in July 27, 2008.Similarly, the RSS has maintained a strong record of violent crimes like burning churches, beating up Christians and forced conversions in states like Kerala, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh and several others.In reserving the blame for “Islamic terror(ists),” Mr.Thyrniang’s article could potentially communicate the dangerous idea that from all religious communities in the world, “it is a truth universally acknowledged that Muslims have more of a tendency to engage in terrorism.”
The writer then weaves into the debate the argument about freedom of speech and expression, citing the contexts in which books by authors like Salman Rushdie and TaslimaNasreen have been banned by Islamic fundamentalists. Yes, I similarly disapprove censorship having been a frequent victim of the same; however, I could not help but discern Mr.Thyrniang’s almost discriminatory method of reporting on censorship. The article callously filters out the recent banning of Wendy Doniger’s book The Hindus: An Alternative History last year which was triggered by a case filed by the Shiksha Bachao Andolan, another Hindutva organization. Further, nowhere did it mention the banning of films like The Da Vinci Code and Red Ant Dream in our very own state in 2006 and 2013 respectively. Thus, instead of positioning himself completely against the regime of censorship, the writer is in support of a selective kind of censorship, where that imposed by the Government or other fundamentalist groups appears to qualify as less repressive and hence does not need to be publically denounced like those enforced by Islamic fundamentalists.
What the writer calls the “false and fake, the bogus and hoaxed custodians of Islam” are really the targets of the article but statements like, “They hide women in the hijab…” have a generalizing undercurrent. Seeing the wearing of the hijab as “backward” and “oppressive” is racist and orientalist; it is a view that emerges from a white-supremacist neo-colonial position which perceives non-Western customs (clothing, eating habits etc.) as eternally inferior. How is the critique so different from that of women who “hide” in their jainsems?
The most important factor here is agency, which the article completely ignores. Not all women who wear the hijab are being forced to do so, not all are “hidden” away by their “fundamentalist” men; similarly, many women see wearing the hijab as empowering and derive a sense of identity from it, the same way women of other cultures exert their independence and strength through the showing of skin. Why are we so-called liberals sitting in our ivory towers casting judgemental looks when it’s fundamentally a matter of choice?
After providing a long and tedious almost sociological account of various Islamic fundamentalist organizations, Mr Thyrniang reiterates that “Islamic terror presents the biggest threat globally. They threaten the existence of billions of people across the world” and that it is “the biggest challenge for world leaders and intelligence agencies.” I agree that terrorism is a global threat but I do not think that the Islamic kind is the only one. The United States military invasion in Afghanistan (which started in 2001) and Iraq (started in 2003) as well as the historical invasion of Palestine by Israel (continuing till today) which have led to the death of millions, in my opinion come within the purview of terrorism; the Gujarat massacres in 2002 which resulted in the mass killings of Muslims and not to forget the countless number of fake encounters in the states of Manipur and Kashmir because of the notorious law – AFSPA are other instances of terrorism, not committed by an Islamic fundamentalist group.
Thus, to say that Islamic terror is the “biggest threat globally” is to accept that anti-humanitarian crimes perpetrated by non-Islamic State and non-State agencies are comparatively less appalling and hence almost excusable that mentioning them in a public article is superfluous.