Bearded & Tagged

With the Mumbai blasts being seen as a coming of age of domestic terror, the Indian Muslim is coming to terms with the fact that there may be some hard-core, motivated terrorists in their midst, however small their number. Yet many are in a state of denial. Says Shahid Siddiqui, Nai Duniya editor and Samajwadi Party MP: "If one goes by the writings in the Urdu press, the community knows it has the most to lose if the jehadi mentality catches on. They are in trauma." It seems that whenever terror comes to the forefront of the national debate, Muslims emerge as the biggest losers.

As it is, Muslims are seen as the spoilers at the party where India has lined up a tango with the Americans. George Bush may not be loved by Indians, but he is truly hated by Muslims the world over. And Indian Muslims have been unabashed in admitting that they are concerned about world trends and India’s growing friendship with the US. Qurban Sheikh is an unemployed youth who hangs around a small dargah in Mehrauli, Delhi, but he has a worldview. Muslims, he says, have become victims everywhere. "They have killed us in Bosnia, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq. In India too, they are now calling us jehadis. We are trapped." In small mosques across the country, world events are debated and spoken of from the pulpit. Since the days of the Khilafat movement, Indian Muslims have been concerned about the fate of the larger Ummah.

But can a country’s foreign policy stand be sufficient cause for nurturing terrorism? After all, India pulled back at the last minute from sending troops to Iraq. And the country has always supported the Palestinian cause although cooperation with Israel has increased. A diplomat who has served in several Muslim countries says, "If an individual is already alienated, he will only be looking for excuses to justify his hatred of the state. The perception could be that we are now friends with George Bush, it can be the Gujarat riots, it can be anything."

Others would disagree. Mumbai-based social commentator Asghar Ali Engineer points out: "If alienation alone was the reason for terrorism, then Gujarati Muslims should have been at the forefront. But there is no evidence of this. I believe professional terror organisations from Pakistan are responsible, using some misplaced Indians as footsoldiers." In fact, the picture emerging is vastly different from the stereotype of a bearded madrassa product saying his prayers five times a day and plotting terror in his spare hours.

Indeed, Muslims across the board believe that madrassas, where poor boys get a semblance of education, are unfairly blamed. On the contrary, they say these networks can act as watchdogs for the entire community. Take the powerful Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, which runs the network of Deobandi mosques and madrassas and had been behind the huge anti-Bush protests earlier this year. Indian Deobandis were portrayed as traders of terror for several years in the ’80s and ’90s, highlighted because the madrassas that bred the Taliban on the Pakistan-Afghan border followed a Deoband curriculum. Yet, Indian Muslims know that the Deobandis can at best be damned for conservatism but on national issues they have always taken very responsible postures. Moreover, the RAW and IB have carefully scrutinised all grants given to their madrassas, from India and abroad, and never found a shred of evidence of them promoting terror.

Jamiat secretary Abdul Hameed Noumani is not above taking a swipe at the security agencies: "The problem is that those who give information about Muslims to the media know nothing about the community. Several Shia individuals have been named as being part of the LeT, a Sunni outfit. This time they say that one Syed Ziabuddin Ansari is the mastermind. They don’t know that a Syed can’t be an Ansari. As for us, they see our beards and say terrorist." Does the maulana have a prescription for the problem? The reply is sharp: "Those who say Gujarat and Babri Masjid are the cause don’t know what they are talking about. There is no root cause for this. The problem is some fringe group which may brainwash a few into believing they are persecuted. Such people are usually isolated from the larger community."

The maulana has a point. Others agree that if Indian Muslims are in fact found to be behind the blasts, the terrorists could well be educated, clean-shaven professionals (the founders of SIMI were professionals from Aligarh, many of whom are now settled in the US). Some could have had a stint in the Gulf countries, and likely to be from the South or Marathwada. So what is their grouse? They don’t want to secede or set up an Islamic state (as security agencies keep repeating at briefings about SIMI). They just want to hit out at the system.

Why? There is a well-evolved "victimhood" argument put out by even well-meaning individuals. It goes something like this: Indian Muslims are discriminated against, increasingly ghettoised, slipping on socio-economic indicators, find themselves stereotyped in the media, saw mothers and sisters raped in Gujarat. Ergo, why should we be surprised if they become terrorists? Certainly, historic and contemporary grievances would have a role in shaping the mind of a terrorist. Even in Muslim countries which have spawned terrorism like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the state is seen as the enemy. But sociologist Imtiaz Ahmad points out a difference: "There is still an elite among Muslims, the middle class and ulema, who believe their claims can be negotiated through democratic means. The state cannot become the enemy in India because it is not intrusive and does not invade personal space like in several Arab countries."

That is why if terrorists do emerge among Indian Muslims, they would be alienated from their own communities. They may or may not be linked to foreign outfits, but would certainly have imbibed the idea of global jehad. In an age of globalisation, they would have watched the planes smash into the twin towers, or young boys blow themselves up in a London Tube. They would view this as a manly and glorious act. They would be filled with so much hate that they may derive some satisfaction from incinerating themselves and others.

Yet the Mumbai killers cannot even lay claims to martyrdom like Hamas suicide bombers or Hezbollah fighters. With no evidence yet to suggest a suicide mission, the act of targeting civilians can only be described as cowardly. That is why Muslims repeat again and again: don’t blame the Indian Muslim till you are certain. How do we gain from this? The foreign hand theory remains the most acceptable to the majority.

Anwar Hussain is a chauffeur in Delhi. He was all ears when the blasts took place. On Thursday night, he went to a dargah, offered money and prayed for peace. "People always do a police check on me when I apply for a job," he says. "If there are such boys who kill innocents, I don’t believe they love Indian Muslims. They are agents sent to add to our troubles. I want them caught and hanged." Although Anwar knows that "George Bush is killing Muslims", his primary concern is holding a job.

Meanwhile, final touches are reportedly being given to the Sachar Commission report in New Delhi, the largest ever survey of the state of the Muslims. Word from the commission says the findings are explosive: Muslims are slipping below Dalits on socio-economic indicators. Other Muslims argue that this is a faulty analogy that belittles the Dalit experience. Smaller surveys are being done in regions where Muslims say their lot has improved in the last five years, and more crucially, expect it to improve further. Which means that they have a stake in the system. As with everything in India, there are several shades of grey between black and white perceptions.

More than anything else, it is the long queues of Muslims at polling booths that still stands testimony to their engagement with the system. Yet, whatever semblance of a Muslim leadership there is in India must also examine its own track record. Many opportunities to negotiate for space have been wasted on some personal law demand. The bankruptcy of Muslim leaders combined with the cynical pursuit of votebank politics by mainstream parties remain the bane of the community.

But as Muslims say, we can curse the maulvi, the neta, but how do we overcome that look of suspicion when they see our beard, the frozen expression when they hear our name? The terror tag must be the hardest cross to bear. Perhaps why Indian Muslims are increasingly sticking to their own. Perhaps why even if the terrorists turn out to be Muslims, it would come out that they were alienated from the ties of community and clan that sustain Indians.