“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s really an easy way: Stop participating in it.”- Noam Chomsky
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was the leader of militant Sikhs in the 80s. Some believed he fought against political oppression of the Sikh minority. Never mind that. Facts: His group was armed. His separatist political ideology was becoming increasingly popular among the agricultural Sikh community in the region. More than 1,000 lives had already been lost. Bhindranwale’s militants were operating from the Golden Temple complex – which to Sikhs, was equivalent to what Mecca is to Muslims. The assumption was that India was somehow not bold enough to attack the most significant shrine of this religious community.
A miscalculation. In June 1984, after all peaceful negotiations with militants failed, Indira Gandhi, India’s Prime Minister, ordered her forces to launch the infamous Operation Blue Star. Tanks and heavy artillery were used to attack militants, who responded with anti-tank and machine-gun fire. After a 24-hour firefight, the army gained control of the temple complex with 83 soldiers dead. A total of 493 rebels and civilian died. (Militants had used pilgrims trapped inside the temple as human shields.) That opened a can of worms. Five months and many events after the operation, Indira Gandhi was assassinated in an act of revenge by her own two Sikh bodyguards. Public outcry over Gandhi’s death led to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots that killed more than 3,000 innocent men, women and children.
[pullquote]RESPECTING LIMITS IS A MUST. CROSSING THEM WILL NOT ONLY RESULT IN DIRE SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES[/pullquote]
Could Indira Gandhi be blamed for shedding blood in a shrine? I guess, no. A religious entity has been forcibly brought into the midst of politics. Gandhi was left with no option than to curb terrorism. Her personal religious beliefs had nothing do with it. Given similar circumstances, she may have done the same at a Hindu shrine as well.
Fast forward to April 2019. Sri Lanka experiences coordinated bomb attacks and the worst terrorist attack since 9/11. Seven suicide bombers exploded themselves in three Catholic/Christian churches and three Colombo hotels. Information received after the attack all converge to a single origin: NJT – an extremist Islamic organisation. Individuals responsible were identified. Families of suicide bombers, some prominent in Colombo society, are now known. They all belong to one ethnic group and one faith. No matter how sensitive we are for the feelings of a foremost religious minority community, the fact remains that religion has played a crucial role and was the powerful motivation for these attackers. Hate was planted and nurtured within their religious faith. Thus, the ‘’R-word’’ cannot be taken off the equation. Statements like “Terrorism has no religion” are meaningless. Clearly, 4/21 was simply not a job of “irreligious” terrorists. That fact, too big to ignore, makes it impossible to discuss this issue without bringing in religion (or religions) to the table.
We deeply respect the post-attack reaction of the mainstream Muslim community. We commend their condemning of attacks and disowning of terrorists. Going far beyond that, mainstream Muslims were ready to share grief with Catholics/Christians, expressed in multiple ways. They were also more than willing to give up the Burka and Niqab, two internationally established dress codes of Muslim women, ostensibly for security reasons, but it was a sign of deviation from strict religious identities. Mainstream Muslims also fully assisted security operations, in some cases tipping off about terrorists. This supportive behaviour shouldn’t stop here. These more passive measures should convert into dynamic suppression of extremist forces within. Mainstream Muslims, particularly the religious leaders, should see it as their own responsibility to prevent a few fundamentalists from hijacking their faith for heinous self-destructive ends.
“Islamic fundamentalism, a child of the expansion of Wahabism under Saudi patronage with petrodollars, first ensnared the East during the late 1980s and spread like wildfire to rest of the country,” writes an ethnic affairs researcher under the pen name Sean Sathkorale. Elsewhere, “It suppressed moderate voices and today is a dominant strand among Muslims. We have been seeing its effect on the Muslim community for decades. Their increased isolation, their attempts at expansion into suburbs, changes in their dress and manner all emblazoned the increasing Arabization of this native community.”
Muslims traditionally were never so. In the 60s and 70s, they were very much a part of Ceylonese’ identity. Their dress codes, not different from others, didn’t isolate them. They were open to interfaith marriages – I personally know many Sinhalese-Muslim couples, a scarcity today. Integration with other communities wasn’t looked down upon. Muslim girls were not internally threatened for relationships with boys of other faiths. They were permitted more opportunities for higher studies. In short, Islam then was a religion practiced privately. Nobody saw it as a license for thee Arabization of Lankan society.
Communities change. They, with globalisation and exposure to international media, tend to follow global rather than local trends. They, not us, should decide what’s right for them. Agreed. Still, that makes no sense if such blind transformation pushes the entire community to ends approved by no civilized society.
[pullquote]COMMUNITIES CHANGE. THEY, WITH GLOBALISATION AND EXPOSURE TO INTERNATIONAL MEDIA, TEND TO FOLLOW GLOBAL RATHER THAN LOCAL TRENDS[/pullquote]
Writes Sathkorale: “Patrons of the Muslim community take the initiative to wean young generations away from destructive Salafist interpretations of Islam. The young generation should be taught that Quranic verses that incite violence against non-Muslims should be interpreted in the context of the time of Prophet Mohammed when he had to confront the numerous enemies to his nascent religion, as diverse as Arabic tribes who were anti-monotheistic to the Byzantine Christian armies. Faced with such enmity in all fronts, Prophet Mohammed perhaps had to adopt harsh methods to prevail in an extremely hostile environment. Therefore, literal interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah hardly do justice to the context within which such verses were first uttered.”
Buddhists, though not fully successful, have at least genuinely and robustly attempted controlling similar negative developments within their own community. For example, the prominent Buddhist monk whose name is synonymous with Buddhist extremism of the land is right now safely behind bars. It wasn’t the work of the government. Moderate Buddhists have also vehemently pushed typically reluctant governments to arrest youth responsible for minority suppression and communal disharmony. ‘Buddhists against Bodu Bala Sena’, an active Facebook group, was the first to organize a peaceful protest in front of its Havelock Town Head Office, despite staunch state patronage that extremists group were receiving. Social media activists have made sure that extremists remain a minority in cyberspace. Such examples are numerous. I guess others must follow suit.
Sri Lanka’s future, now it is evident, will only be as a secular nation. Within that open space, individual religious groups can map themselves. All, be they the majority or minorities, have limits. Respecting such boundaries is a must. Crossing them will not only result in dire social circumstances, as we have already witnessed, but communities themselves driving themselves to surrealistic ends as well. We all, not just politicians, may be indirectly responsible for this mess, so it is our collective duty to clear it. That would be the only way we can make the supreme sacrifice of those innocent souls we lost on Easter Sunday morning justified.