Listen To The Guru

In the aftermath of the Jaipur blasts, an email purportedly sent by 'Indian Mujahidin' and signed by 'Guru al-Hindi' claimed responsibility for the ghastly killings. Although it is understandably difficult to pinpoint who these'Indian Mujahidin' are, yet the contents of the email raise important issues whichmerit serious discussion; unfortunately, they have remained mostly ignored. 

Just after the blasts, the government argued that it was done with an intention to create a rift between Hindus andMuslims However, one of the first things that one notices in the impugned e-mail is the near absence of hatred and venom against theHindus. Barring a lone sentence which alludes to Hindu gods as 'dirty mud', the general tenor of the mail is free from religious denigration.In fact, whenever Hindus have been mentioned, the context has been to criticize the Indian Muslimulama. The text claims to be a 'declaration of open war against India' and not Hindus. 

Nevertheless, there is a clear sense in which Hindus and the Indian state have been treated as synonymous. This is an ominous understanding but one which is gaining ground among Indian Muslims and the Indian Mujahidin spell out clearly why they think so. One of the very first issues that the mail raises is the fate of Srikrishna Commission Report which probed the Bombay riots. It points out, and rightly so, that policemen who killed Muslims got promotions and enjoy the protection of the state. It also refers to 'killers' like Babu Bajrangiin Gujarat who, despite proclaiming openly that he killed Muslims, still roamsaround freely. The mail also talks about Modi and Bal Thackeray who, it says, openlykill and denigrate Muslims, yet the state remains silent on their atrocities. On the other hand, it claims, many Muslims have been arrested forjust protesting against these atrocities.

To reiterate, it is important to understand that the primary target of the 'Indian Mujahidin',whoever they are, does not seem to be Hinduism or the Hindus as such. Rather,what comes through is the frustration and agony of belonging to a state which is being seen on compromising its cardinal value of secularism. Thus,a reading of the mail would show, Babu Bajrangi is not being hated because he isHindu, but because he mocks at the proclaimed neutrality of the Indian state. And if Bajrangi has the support of Modi, the Congress government in Maharashtra colludes with the Shiv Sena to keep shelving the Srikrishna Commission Report. 

The 'Indian Mujahidin' is probably a fringe group within the Indian Muslims, but the point which it articulates in the email iswidely felt, or so this writer's personal interactions reveal. Groups like the Indian Mujahidin remainon the fringes because most Indian Muslims still repose faith in the Indian state.But if events like post-Godhra Gujarat continue to shake that faith, then these groups likethe Indian Mujahidin would find many supporters for their point of view which would certainly be detrimentalto the idea of India. 

Security experts have been telling us that most of these terror groups are foreign sponsored; some also have said that problem lies with the 'intolerant nature' of the Islamic religion itself. But what about the context in which terrorism takesroots? In much of the Muslim world, it is the absence of democracy; in India it seems to be the erosion of secularism.

While the Indian state's bias is one of the articulated grievances of theIndian Mujahidin, the scathing attack on the existing Muslim religious leadership comes across as the most important point that they want to make in the email. Scholars of Islamicjihad like Olivier Roy and Faisal Devji have noted that one of the important things thatjihad does is to challenge the traditional power structure within the Muslim society.Diverse groups, from the Muslim Brotherhood to Osama bin Laden, have all mounted an attack not only on their respective states but also on theirulama who they charge as being state's agents. 

When the Indian Mujahidin call the Indian ulama as 'Ulama-e-Khabisa' (Satanic Ulama), they are articulating the same challenge to the existing patternof religious authority within the Indian Muslim society, as articulated by the global jihad. The Indianulama are charged as being soft on atrocities committed on Muslims. They are called 'dogs' who have been 'brought up' by the likes of Modi and Advani and who don't have the 'guts to speak the truth'. 

The 'truth' that the Mujahidin are talking about is that Islam sanctions the use of violence including the killing and destruction of properties of civilians when Muslims are in mortal danger. They argue that theulama, in league as they are with the Indian state, have distorted this 'truth' of Islam by stating that there is no place for violence in Islam; that civilians should not be harmed and most recently that terrorism is un-Islamic. The Indian Mujahidin marshal hadiths to'prove' that Islamic sharia does not differentiate between soldiers and civilians and that the only distinction is between the combatants and non-combatants. They define combatants as anyone who help(s) in the fight with his body, wealth or opinion. Furthermore, they argue, according to the above criterion, the 'people of this country' become combatants because 'they have willingly elected their leaders and representatives inparliament who draw up policies which murder our children, dishonor our women, occupy our houses and plunder our wealth'.

Now Islam, like all religions, is open to interpretation. Like a magician's box, with some ingenuity, one can take out different things from the same box. The same Quran and Hadith get marshaled in Indonesia to 'prove' that Islam sanctions family planning while the Indianulama are still prevaricating on the issue. Obviously, therefore, who interpretsand how assumes centrality, with 'truth' residing with the interpretation of the powerful. 

Over the years, the Indian ulama, aided by the de-facto recognition granted to them by the state, have sought to monopolize the right to interpret Islam despite the fact that there is no place for an established clergy within classical Islam. On the other hand, especially within the last decade or so, Muslims who have had access to scriptural sources of Islam have sought to challenge the right of theulama to interpret their religion for them. 

The uproar over Deoband's retrograde fatwa over Imrana, the establishment of a Muslim Women's Personal Law Board and even a politician like Arif Mohammed Khan questioning Deoband's interpretation of Islam are all pointers towards this trend of puncturing the monopoly of a select group ofulama to interpret Islam to their liking. 

The Indian Mujahidin's email shares in this broad trend within Muslim society to dismember the authority of the Indianulama. It is no wonder then that the ulama have responded with alacrity. Movement Against Terrorism, a group ofulama in Lucknow, condemned the contents of the email, while the Deoband's famous anti-terrorism fatwa is now to be read in every mosque controlled by them. 

But fatwas won't help, more so when it comes to those who deny the authority of theulama and call them the agents of an anti-Muslim state. What needs to done lies beyond the scope of theulama. It is the state which needs to take the primary responsibility of upholding secularism in this country. Mere paying lip service and stating thatIndia is a secular country won't do, the state needs to be seen as doing justice to all its citizens, especially the minorities, who have been at the receiving end due to the competitive communal politics between various political parties. 

More than a month after the Jaipur blasts and the arrests of a local maulvi, madrasa teacher and an IT professional, the probe is headed nowhere. From the fantastic claim that RDX was used in the bombs to the recent revelation that all the ingredients of the bomb can be bought in Old Delhi, there is an uneasy realization that terrorism here is now getting an Indian Muslim face.

The email sent by the Indian Mujahidin gives us a small opening to understand the social psychology of this new Indian Muslim face. And that's why, we must listen to the Guru.

Arshad Alam is with the Center for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies at the Jamia Millia University, New Delhi