'Oh, These Are Muslims!'

The Amsterdam incident of August 24, 2006, in which 12 Indian Muslims--two of them reportedly with beard and in typical Indian dress and the other 10 without beard in Westerndress--were handcuffed by the Air Marshals of an American North-West Airlines flight, removed from the plane and detained for questioning by the Amsterdam Police for 48 hours before being released has created justifiable anger in some sections of the Indian civil society.

Accounts from their fellow-passengers fall into two categories. Those from fellow-Indians do speak of the 12 indulging in unruly behaviour on board the aircraft after it had taken off, but not yet reached the cruising height, when the "fasten seat belts" lights are switched off by the pilot. Their unruly behaviour consisted of not obeying the instructions of the flight stewards/stewardesses to remain seated and not to use theircell phones while on flight. Their behaviour towards each other was alsoboisterous. None of these accounts has criticised the action of the Air Marshals in advising the pilot to fly back to Amsterdam and in having them arrested and handed over to the police. But they have criticised the use of handcuffs.

The accounts from some of the white-skinned fellow-passengers, including some Dutchmen, aredifferent. They have held that the perceived unruly behaviour of these persons did not justify the shocking manner in which they were treated by the AirMarshals. One Dutchman has alleged that the Air Marshals treated them like dogs.One white-skinned passenger has said that the Air Marshals probably behaved in this manner because they mistook them for Arabs. The inference being that if they had known that these persons were Indians, they might have behaved differently.

One Dutchman has said that when he protested to the Air Marshals over the way they were treating these persons, one of the Air Marshals said: "Okay, you come with us. You are not allowed to fly anymore"(The Hindu of August 26, 2006)

The arrested persons are textile retailers from Mumbai, who often travel to the West Indies in connection with their business. It is, therefore, surprising that they did not know the importance of obeying the instructions of the stewards/stewardesses whileflying. I would not be surprised if the stewards/stewardesses were Indians too. Many of us, while travelling by air, tend to obey the instructions of white-skinned cabin crew, but disregard those of Indian cabin crew. Even 59 years after we became independent, our habit of obeying a white-skinned person and disobeying a fellow- Indian has not yet disappeared from some of us. It is,as if, in our genes still.

I was tracking the reactions to this incident in various web sites and chatrooms that have Indian or PIO (Persons of Indian Origin) participation, ever since the first breaking news about the incident came in. I was also tracking the reactions of the spokesmen of thegovernment of India. For some time after the first news flashes, there was total outrage among large sections of the Indians andPIOs. And then, a couple of hours later, a flash came in that all the arrested persons were Muslims.

One could notice the immediate difference. The sense of outrage dissipated."Oh, these are Muslims! Then, one can understand the action of the Air Marshals"; "They must have given cause for concern, otherwise the Air Marshals would not have arrested them": "The Air Marshals are responsible for the security of the passengers; one must respect their judgement and support theiraction." 

These were the kind of comments, which predominated after their identities as Muslims were known.

The reactions of the spokespersons of the government of India were totallydifferent. In the initial hours when the identities of the arrested persons were not known, the reactions of the Government of India were balanced and did not exhibit any sense of outrage.But, when it came to be known that all of them were Muslims, there was outrage and anger. One could not help feeling that this outrage was contrived and not natural.

Over-demonisation of the Muslims by many, who tend to blame the entire Muslim community for the escalation of jihadi terrorism since 9/11, and uncritical lionisation of Muslims by some others, who in their anxiety to be seen as politically correct, close their eyes to the failure of the community leaders to stand up and be counted against terrorism, have been the bane of counter-terrorism since 9/11. Many of us are behaving as if we are determined to prove Prof.Samuel Huntington right by contributing to a permanent divide between Muslims and non-Muslims through our words, behaviour and actions.

The process of competitive mutual 'Satanisation' of the Muslims and non-Muslims started after the Islamic revolutionaries under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeni captured power in Iran in 1979. It was the Ayatollah and his followers who started projecting the Christians and the Jewish people as'Satans'. This 'Satanisation' of the Christians and the Jewish people picked up momentum in the 1980s. Acts of jihadi terrorism escalated.

Initially, it was the Shias of Iran, who were in the forefront of this campaign of'Satanisation' of the Christians and the Jewish people. The Sunni extremists, who were collaborating with the Americans against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, kept their Satanisation confined to the Jewish people. They did notthen Satanise the Christians.

This changed after the withdrawal of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan. The Sunni extremists too, under the leadership of terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Prof.Hafiz Mohammed Sayeed of the Lashkar-e-Toiba etc, embarked on a campaign of Satanisation of the Christians as well as the Jewish people. Subsequently, they started Satanising the Hindus too.

It must be said to the credit of the political leadership of the then President Bill Clinton in the US and the then Prime Minister John Major in the UK that they refrained from indulging in a Satanisation of the Muslim community despite extreme provocations in the form of jihadi terrorist strikes.

Since 9/11, this policy of balance and restraint in reacting to jihadi terrorism is gone. In fact, a tendency to demonise any adversary has become the defining characteristic of the present political leaderships in the US (President George Bush) and the UK (Prime Minister TonyBlair)--whether the adversary be Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Baathists, Osama bin Laden, the jihadi terrorists or others. No attempt is made to make a distinction between Muslims as a community and the jihadi terrorists. It is this over-demonisation of Saddam and his Baathists, which led to shocking human rights abuses in Iraq against theBaathists. The US political leadership kept projecting them as demons and their soldiers came to the conclusion that any methods are good methods against demons.

The present attitude of growing sections of the civil society in manycountries--in the West as well as the East--towards the Muslims and their inability to make a distinction between the community and the terrorists remind one of the attitude of the British colonial regime in the Indian sub-continent towards the so-called criminal tribes. When the British were the rulers, many of the crimes were committed by tribals belonging to certain communities. They designated these communities as criminal tribes and passed a Criminal Tribes Act in order to deprive them of some of their basic rights. The demonisation of the tribes as a whole by the British because some of their members were habitual criminals created a prejudice in the minds of the people as a whole against thesetribes. Members belonging to these tribes were looked upon with suspicion and faced difficulty intravelling.

Since 9/11, the policy of over-demonisation has been leading to a disturbing tendency on the part of growing sections of the civil society in the world as a whole to view the Muslim community as a whole with suspicion and to subject them to indignities and humiliation just as the British viewed the tribal communities as a whole with suspicion and subjected them to similar indignities and humiliation.

The tribals constituted small minorities. Their feelings of hurt and anger over the manner in which they were treated did not lead to much violence. The Muslims of the world constitute over one billionpeople. Their feelings of anger and humiliation over the way they perceive themselves to be treated could lead to an irreparable divide between the Muslims and non-Muslims and ever-escalating terrorism.

The leaders of the Muslim community cannot escape their share of the blame for the growing suspicion of the community. Their failure to condemn and act effectively against the acts of terrorism of their co-religionists and their tendency to rationalise these acts and try to find some justification or the other for their acts of terrorism are making even right-minded persons look upon them with suspicion.

The initiative for reversing the process of competitive mutual demonisation has to come as much from the Muslims as from the non-Muslims.

B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai.