.png)
.jpg)
The 20th century saw the rise and fall of two demonic ideologies, fascism and communism. The present century is also facing a similar existential threat from another deadly creed, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which is equal to the other two in terms of cruelty and mass murder.
Its strength, too, lies, as in the case of the other two, in a messianic appeal based on the promise of a better world. Moreover, since the appeal is based on religion, albeit a distorted version of Islam, whereas fascism and communism were essentially non-denominational, the attraction of the new “faith” is seemingly greater, presumably because of the supra-natural element.
As in the case of all such Manichean worldviews there is an identifiable enemy. For fascism, it was the Jews; for Communists, the bourgeoisie. For the Islamists bent on resurrecting the Caliphate recalling the early days of the religion, it is the infidels or the non-believers. As may be expected, the “final solution” for the kafirs is conversion or death.
The craving for imposing this solution is perhaps all the greater for the Islamists because of the “reward” which awaits them in afterlife in the form of 72 virgins. Since this esoteric belief is a different and a more powerful motivating factor from what drove the fascists and communists, the danger is all the greater.
It also precludes any possibility of diluting the threat via round table parleys because no prize on earth can be greater than the bounties of paradise. The dialogues that were possible, therefore, with the fascists – occasionally – and with Communists on a more durable basis before the collapse of the doctrine are not feasible with the nihilistic Islamists. The only option is a war to the finish, as against Hitler.
The difference, however, is that while fascism could be crushed because it came to be associated with the suicidal megalomania of Hitler and overreached itself, and Communism fell apart because its utopianism was distorted by the murderous ambitions of Stalin, Islamism has a greater chance of survival because its other-worldly attributes are sustained and enhanced in the Muslim countries by a stifling traditionalism under the aegis of bigoted clerics. The absence of democracy also enables the zealots to establish and retain their stranglehold.
Since Islam hasn’t experienced the kind of reforms which Christianity did in the form of Protestantism, it has remained rooted in the tenets propounded at the time of its inception in the 6th century. Its palpable bias against women and science reflects this stagnation.
Other faiths, too, have groups who cherish their antediluvian orthodoxy like the Christian, Jewish and Hindu fundamentalists. But, their influence is circumscribed by the liberal atmosphere of democracies where they have per force to operate.
Since this isn’t the case in Muslim societies, the fundamentalists are able to gain the upper hand. The bias against science because of its ambivalence towards the concept of divinity, and against the arts because, first, of the religious injunctions in Islam against the depiction of the human form and, secondly, because of the evocative reflection of the sub-conscious, has stymied the growth of the scientific temperament and an efflorescence of the liberal arts. The fallout is a suffocating mental backwardness which makes the youths susceptible to the hate-filled propaganda of the jehadis.
From Pakistan with its terror groups, some of whom are officially sponsored, to the new habitat of the killers under the control of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the monster of intolerance and violence has once again raised its head.
Unlike the 20th century fiends, whose rampages were confined mainly to Europe and Southeast Asia, where Japan acted as the cohort of the fascists, the proximity to India of the new demons is a cause for immense concern.
The two World Wars had passed India by. But, unless the ISIS is stopped in its tracks and wiped out, India may increasingly experience the terrorist menace in the coming years.
It goes without saying that America should play a leading role in exterminating the ISIS and other terror groups. It is the least that Washington can do, given the foolish role it played in fostering Islamism in the first place with its short-sighted policies.
Pakistan is a prime example of this American myopia. The arms which its dictators like Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan procured from the US in the name of fighting the Cold War were really meant for fighting India. Whether the US understood this subterfuge or not, it continued to prop up the military dictatorship with the result that neither democracy nor the middle class had a chance to develop.
The resultant social and political vacuum between the military establishment and the average citizens was filled by the zealots. This is largely true of virtually all Muslim countries of West Asia where the absence of democracy and of an enlightened middle class has enabled the bigoted ecclesiastical establishment to establish a deadly grip on society by exploiting the quotidian grievances of the ordinary people against the remote and insensitive authoritarian rulers.
It is the American policy of siding with these rulers which is behind the deep anti-American feelings across the Muslim world. However, considering that it is the US which is at the root of the creation of the Frankenstein’s monster of terrorism, it is also America’s obligation to root it out.
Otherwise, the ogre will continue to grow if only because of its fatal attraction for young people even in Europe. In a way, it is a new form of the hippie cult of the 1960s when the crass materialism of the West induced hundreds of youths from well-to-do families to forsake their comfortable lifestyles, take to drugs and roam around like wandering mendicants.
The difference, however, is that while the hippies wanted the cynical members of the ruling dispensation to make love, not war, the ISIS militants only want wars, leaving the act of love for the next world in the company of the virgins.
But, it isn’t this allurement alone which makes so many young men and also not a few women from the West to go to Syria and Iraq, but a desire to escape from what The Economist says, the “ennui” of their homes – remember the Beatles song, “She’s leaving home, ’bye,’bye” ? - and from “dead-end jobs in drab towns”. In contrast, the brotherhood of like-minded gun-wielding comrades engaged in imposing the Sharia in distant lands looks like a worthwhile adventure.
The hosannas to a religion – even an alien one – may also seem novel to these youngsters who have seen how Christianity has lost its meaning in the West. The newness probably makes them ignore the implications of relegating women to a subservient status which ordains the practice of being covered from head to toe and even genital mutilation.
However, the explanations about the dysfunctional families in the West aiding the cause of jehad do not apply to India, where the family bonds are much stronger. As much can be gauged from the fact that the parents of those who have secretly gone over to the jehadis are invariably surprised and cannot understand why and when their children have changed.
Evidently, there are other reasons, including the rise of Hindu extremism. But, the real motivating factor remains the intense anti-American sentiments fuelled by the poisonous propaganda of the mullahs, which is lapped up mainly by the ill-educated lower middle class Muslim youths although instances of the well educated falling prey to the millenarian vision of the clerics are not rare.
Considering the role which the US played in fostering Islamic militancy, it is America’s “duty” to fight the ISIS because, first, it remains the only superpower – though a much weakened one – which has the wherewithal to do so, and secondly, because it is the prime target of the jehadis who will not hesitate to inflict another 26/11 on the US.
By Special Arrangement with : South Asia Monitor (http://www.southasiamonitor.org)