View: India in the Islamic world
The Economic Times
March 10, 2019
Amidst
the ongoing repercussions of the punitive air strike made by the Indian Air
Force to take out the training camp of Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) at Balakot in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan, the address of India's External
Affairs Minister - Sushma Swaraj - at the Foreign Ministers conference of OIC
at Abu Dhabi on March 1 was an event of extraordinary significance for the
geopolitics of South Asia, the future of India-Pakistan relations and the
so-called Islamic world itself.
The Crown Prince of UAE hosting
the meet had invited India's External Affairs Minister to be the guest of
honour at the inaugural day of the OIC meet and thus for the first time put the
stamp of official recognition on India's association with the Islamic block -
even as India did not have an Observer's status yet. Brief attempts made by our
diplomats in the Cold War Era to secure that position on the ground that India
had the second largest Muslim population in the world, had been successfully
thwarted by Pakistan. But this time around the UAE, apparently in consultation
with OIC Chairman Saudi Arabia, rejected Pakistan's objection to the very
presence of India at the OIC.
This resulted in Shah Mehmood
Qureshi, Pakistan's Foreign Minister, registering his 'protest' by skipping the
meet and sending his juniors there to represent the country. This was a new
situation that Pakistan faced - as a founder member of OIC - at a time when
India had militarily challenged it on the issue of cross-border terrorism. It
is enough for India, which is not an 'Islamic' country, that we were able to
present at the OIC platform India's stand against the new terror fomented from the
soil of Pakistan in the name of religion.
In her address, which was noted
for its boldness and finesse, Sushma Swaraj raised the issue of terrorism
upfront and pointed out how the menace was caused by 'distortion of religion'
and emphasised how in India Muslims and non-Muslims practised their respective
beliefs and lived in harmony. She specially thanked UAE, Saudi Arabia and
Bangladesh but went on to name a whole lot of Muslim countries of West Asia,
North Africa and South East Asia with whom India, with its resurgent economy,
was developing bilateral relations. She talked of 'indispensable strategic and
security partnership and a natural economic collaboration with the Gulf
countries' but also declared that India shared 'civilisational and cultural
links with Iran' whose partnership with India was something vital for
'stability and prosperity in our region'.
Without naming Pakistan Sushma
Swaraj called upon the world to tell the states who provided shelter and
funding to the terrorists to dismantle the infrastructure of the terror outfits
on their soil. She did well to counter the 'exclusivism' of Islamic extremists
by referring to the Indian approach to religion that maintained that 'God is
one though He was described by many names'. The base of indoctrination of
Mujahideen lay in the fundamentalist line of Islamic radicals and extremists
that 'there was no God save Allah' and that the political decline of Islam was
to be attributed to the 'deviation' of Muslims from the puritanic Islam that
existed in the days of the Pious Caliphs. It is the faith-based motivation that
was producing Fidayeen and it is to be seen if OIC would muster courage to
pronounce that in today's times Jehad was not the answer to any political
problem.
One
cannot be sanguine about this. India's strategists have to factor in the more
pronounced crosscurrents that are operating in the Islamic world at present.
The US-led 'war on terror' targeted Islamic radicals of the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine
- and later of ISIS - who all carried the legacy of the anti-West Jehad that
the Ulema of the 19th century led by Abdul Wahab had conducted unsuccessfully
against 'the Western encroachment on Muslim lands'.
The withdrawal of the Soviet army
from Afghanistan gave the radicals a chance to establish an Islamic Emirate at
Kabul in 1996 with full backing of Pakistan. Meanwhile, OIC had built an
Islamic movement with large funding from Saudi Arabia that also rested on
adherence to fundamentalism and aimed at countering the influence of Communism
much to the delight of the US. Pakistan, a key member of OIC, housed not only
the Islamic radicals of Al Qaeda and Taliban but also the Islamic extremists of
Jamaat-e-Islami's Hizbul Mujahideen and Maulana Hafiz Sayeed's Lashkare Toiba.
The latter were easily available to Pakistan for being channelized by its
agencies against India on the Kashmir front.
When 9/11 tested Pakistan for leading
the fight against Islamic radicals on its soil it hoodwinked the US by just
pretending to be active against Al Qaeda and Taliban, the same group it had put
in power in Afghanistan. Before 9/11, Pakistan had no problem with radicals. It
needed all militant groups as its strategic assets to run its proxy war against
India. This is precisely what Pakistan is doing now. It feels encouraged by the
US dependence on Pakistan's potential to mediate with the Taliban for a
negotiated settlement at Kabul.
There is convergence between Saudi
Arabia, UAE and the US against Islamic radicals who considered the US their
prime enemy and who were also inimical to the Saudis for the latter's
identification with the Americans. The 'war on terror' has thus created a
division in the Muslim world because large sections of it are not ready to side
with the US or condemn Islamic radicals. In India, the influential Darul Uloom
Deoband known for its hold on Sunnis, claims nationalist credentials but is firmly
against the West. It is in this context that India raising its voice at OIC
against all groups indulging in terrorism in the name of Islam is a diplomatic
success even though it is doubtful if it would give us any leverage against
Pakistan on that platform.
India cannot be happy with the
hostile pronouncements of OIC on Kashmir - a resolution surfaced 'condemning
the atrocities and human rights violations by India' in the state, denouncing
'mass blindings' inflicted by security forces on protesting youth and, what is
worse, charging Indian occupation forces with 'escalating' ceasefire violations
on the LOC. It called upon member states to contribute funds for humanitarian
assistance to Kashmiri people. OIC voiced Pakistan's line that Kashmir was the
'core issue' between India and Pakistan and that its resolution was a must for
establishing peace in South Asia. It welcomed Prime Minister Imran Khan's offer
of talks with India. India has, in a prompt rejoinder, declared that J&K is
an integral part of India and is a matter 'strictly internal' to India. It
seems Pakistan continues to have its way against India as far as the forum of
OIC is concerned. We must seek a response from Saudi Arabia, as OIC Chairman,
reiterating that Pakistan must take action against terror outfits operating on
its soil as was being demanded by the US as well.
India has brought in clarity on
Iran by not linking our approach to that country with our relations with other
Muslim countries. India has to stay away from the extreme hostility that always
existed between the Sunni fundamentalist states like Saudi Arabia and UAE and
the Shia regime of Ayatollahs in Iran - reflecting the historical legacy of the
Kharijite revolt against Caliph Ali. India has rightly dealt with every nation
bilaterally regardless of the Shia-Sunni divide that prevails in the Muslim
world. Incidentally, both Islamic radicals and Shia fundamentalists regard the
US as their enemy for their own political and ideological reasons respectively.
India's foreign policy will have to reckon with this.
Our
stand is basically against injection of violence into national and international
politics in the name of religion. India's deep military strike against the JeM
training camp at Balkot in Pakistan is hastening the process of the world
beginning to realise the danger of faith-based terror arising from within the
Islamic world. It is, therefore, a matter of great satisfaction for India that
we have carried a message against this kind of violence right to the apex of
the 56-member Islamic block itself. This vindicates India's role as a frontline
leader of the democratic world engaged in fighting terrorists across the
Islamic spectrum as a matter of principled strategy.
Reference link: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-in-the-islamic-world/articleshow/68342026.cms
Comments
Post a Comment