Understanding Jihad and Fundamentalism in South Asia

05 Dec, 2001    ·   652

Report of the IPCS Panel Discussion held on 23 November 2001 at India International Centre
Panelists:

 

Prof Riyaz Punjabi

 

 

Prof Kalim Bahadur

 

 

Mr Sultan Shain

 

Chair    :

 

Mr Anand Verma

 

 In his welcome remarks, Mr. Chari emphasized the importance of conceptual clarity especially on words like ‘jihad’ and ‘fundamentalism’ as they connote different meanings in different contexts. 

 

 

Introducing the topic, the Chair, Mr. Anand Verma, pointed out its importance in the present context. Fundamentalism in the sub-continent is a product of the Reformist Movement during the colonial period not a century ago. There are three types of Islamic followers today:

 

 

·  Those who believe in the ‘restoration’ of the present civilization to an idealized form

 

 

·  Those who emphasize the combination of both tradition and modernity

 

 

·  Those who take a pragmatic approach of keeping out religion from governance

 

 

Fundamentalism belongs to the first trend: it refuses to accept any modern political system – neither any debate nor discussion is permissible. Only the fundamentalists’ interpretation of the Quran and other Islamic scriptures is acceptable. Though less intensive, its influence is felt in India too. In this regard, the important questions that need to be addressed are:

 

 

·                     Is the average Indian Muslim clear about the difference between religion and nationalism, given the fact that religion and nation are one and the same for the fundamentalists?                    

 

·                     Whose responsibility is it to guide the Muslim community, and how?               

 

·                     Why are Muslims inert over important national issues like Kashmir ’s accession to India , Pakistan ’s efforts to sabotage and subterfuge India , and consequences of madrassas and jihad?

 

·                    

 

·                     Why is jihad not attempting to positively reform the society?   

 

Prof Kalim Bahadur began his speech by providing a definition for the various terms such as ‘communalism’, ‘fundamentalism’ and ‘revivalism’. Fundamentalism means going back to the fundamentals, where there is a text. There are two kinds of fundamentalists – creative and conservative. The first creatively interprets the fundamentals, whereas the second strictly follows the text.

 

 

Taliban fundamentalism is a mixture of tribalism and mullahism in Afghanistan . It is doubtful whether Mullah Omar, the supreme leader of the Taliban, has ever attended any seminary. 

 

 

The Muslim writers, in general, have misunderstood the concept of jihad. Jihad literally means struggle. It calls for fight against oppression but not to propagate Islam. Jihad also includes the fight against the self – the vices of an individual. Only an Islamic state can declare a jihad and there can be no subterfuge in its declaration. It should be overt and not covert. Jihadi organizations’ claim that jihad can be declared by individuals is incorrect. Most of these organizations use jihad to achieve an Islamic state. Neither Mullah Omar nor Osama bin Laden can declare jihad, as they are individuals. Jihadi groups consider jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam.

 

 

The Arab concept of jihad is totally different. For them, jihad is not a means to end, but an end in itself. They prefer to keep fighting, whether or not they achieve anything. For them, jihad is not territorial.

 

 

Sultan Shahin, the second panelist, focused on the role of madrassas in India and traced the history of the Islamic fundamentalist movement. Madrassas in India do not teach jihad in their curriculum and one of the main reasons for their popularity is the failure of government -run schools to provide effective education. It is wrong to presume that the fundamentalists are uneducated. 

 

 

One of the main factors that contribute to the growth of fundamentalism is the pride among the Muslim community regarding the vast Islamic empires of the previous centuries and the desire to achieve that lost glory. The second factor for the growth of fundamentalism, especially their hostility towards the West, is that they feel the ideals of Islam, are represented, in fact, by the West. For example, the idea of Human Rights, introduced to the West by Islam, is now being used against them.

 

 

According to Prof Riaz Punjabi, as Islam transformed into a state system, Ahadis, certain sayings attributed to The Prophet, proliferated. It is the Ahadis from which contemporary fundamentalist groups like the Taliban and the Al Qaida draw inspiration. Along with this, misinterpretation of the Quran contributes to the ideology of violence that these groups follow. Secondly, a myth has been created that the door has been closed on Ishtehad as this would lead to the reconstruction of religious thought. Mohammed Iqbal had given a series of lectures in Madras (Chennai) on this issue and its importance in dealing with fundamentalism. It must be noted that these lectures were in English and this has been a continuing problem with the Muslim intellectuals in India . Liberal Muslim opinion in India is expressed mostly in English and hence fails to reach the majority of the Muslim people who do not understand it.

 

 

The Islamic concept of Haqmat-ullah or ‘Sovereignty of God’ is another concept that the fundamentalists interpret for narrow gains. It also works as a form of mental block in the minds of the people. Though the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) talks about self determination, Islam rejects the concept. Maulana Mehdudi condemned the formation of Pakistan on the basis of this principle. However, he later changed his position on the issue and migrated to Pakistan .

 

 

Fundamentalism is being used as a mechanism of grievance redressal. There are geographical areas in the world where the Muslims are faced with different kinds of problems ranging from unequal representation to territorial conflicts. In these areas the bogey of fundamentalism has been raised to fight the existing power structure. Earlier, in many countries, Islamic idiom was used in the fight against colonial oppression. However, it needs to be debated whether it is still relevant today.

 

 

Finally, fundamentalism is being used as a strategic weapon. The US-Pak axis used the ideology of fundamentalism to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan . At that time, ‘jihad’ and ‘mujahideen’ were revered words in the American press. Even after the exit of the USSR , the use of Islamic fundamentalism as a strategic weapon continues. Between 1990-98, the US turned a blind eye to the growth and spread of fundamentalism in Central Asia , Afghanistan , Xinjiang and Kashmir . In fact, the West pleaded for a dialogue with the fundamentalists and objected to the Taliban being referred to as ‘fundamentalists’. Even after the September 11 attacks, fundamentalism is being used as a strategic weapon, with the US differentiating between different types of political violence in Kabul , Kandahar and Kashmir . India must devise its own means and strategies to deal with it.

 

 

What are the implications of Islamic fundamentalism for Indian foreign policy? India is fighting a war in Kashmir and should not mince words in describing it as such. Political patronage to people like the Shahi Imam must stop. Narrow political goals are endangering the internal security of the country. There is a need to evolve a mechanism to see what is happening in the madrassas without offending their sensibilities. The government should also show greater urgency in instituting a Hindu-Muslim dialogue. More attempts need to be made to integrate the voices advocating peace from both communities and for this, space should be created at different fora for the expression of moderate opinion. Better governance in Kashmir and other areas where communal tension prevails is essential to prevent the alienation of the population from the government. Finally, India must call the bluff of the US in differentiating between different types of fundamentalism. This principle must not change on the basis of political exigencies.

 

 

Discussion

 

 

The discussion highlighted the following key points:

 

 

·                     Liberal Muslim opinion does not get percolated down to every section of the Muslim population in India because of extensive use of English by the intellectuals.                  

 

·                     Muslims in India are not a monolithic entity. They can be differentiated on the basis of adherence to a religious doctrine, language, region and political affiliation.          

 

·                     The explicitness inherent in the Quran does not restrict the space for interpretation and adaptation because the principle of ‘free will’ established  very well in the Quran endows enough space both for interpretation and adaptation.

POPULAR COMMENTARIES