Author: Kanchan Gupta
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 24, 2007
Flipping through a recent issue of *Time*,
I came across an interview with Hungarian-born Holocaust survivor and Nobel
laureate Imre Kertesz, better known for his novels *Fatelessness, Kaddish
for a Child Not Born* and * Liquidation*. During the course of the interview,
Kertesz, with touching humility, makes two interesting points which are, in
many ways, inter-linked. In response to a question, he says, "It is not
always worthwhile to compromise."
Later, answering another question, he is more
lucid: "There has been a struggle between the negative and the positive,
and we are deep in this fight at the moment. The real fight will not be between
nations, but a struggle between fanaticism and democracy. Terrorists do not
have a common list of demands on which to base negotiations. Fanatical hatred
has taken over the world and this phenomenon conflicts with rational politics
that is accustomed to negotiation and compromise."
My immediate reaction to such profound observation
was to try and figure out how to reconcile the two points - if it is "not
always worthwhile to compromise", then why should we be besotted with
"rational politics that is accustomed to negotiation and compromise"?
That apart, it's difficult to quibble over his comment that "fanatical
hatred has taken over the world". Kertesz carefully avoids attaching
any label to this fanaticism, but since I am not known for being politically
correct, I have no hesitation in elaborating on this point. Much of the fanaticism
that we witness today originates from a fundamentalist reading and practice
of Islam that makes individuals intolerant and repudiate democracy and secularism.
Strangely, while the practitioners of Islamic
fundamentalism insist it is their right to be fanatical about their faith,
they are unwilling to allow those who subscribe to other faiths similar fanaticism.
I recall getting into an argument with the venerable editor of an Arabic magazine,
published from Cairo, over lunch at India House while the Ambassador looked
increasingly alarmed. The editor, an accomplished man who had spent the better
part of his life in Paris and was no fire-breathing Islamist zealot, was remarkably
passionate in his defence of Islamic fundamentalism and fundamentalists. "We
don't just believe in Islam, we practice it. And only when we practice the
fundamentals of Islam can we claim to be good Muslims. If those fundamentals
make us fundamentalists, so be it. And if those fundamentals militate against
what others believe in, it is the others who must compromise on their beliefs
and accommodate our fundamentalism," he said, his voice, stridently shrill,
rising with each sentence. My post-lunch notes also refer to some other points
made by him, but they are not really germane to the issue.
If Islamic fundamentalism is justified, then
so is Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism and Hindu fundamentalism,
I suggested to him, half in jest, mindful that it was an official lunch. "No.
No other religion demands of its followers to be fundamentalists. They can't
just decide to be fanatical about their faith. Fundamentalism of any other
variety is wrong and unacceptable," he asserted. In brief, in the cloistered
world of fundamentalist Islam, everything else is wrong, including legitimate
criticism of Islamic fanaticism that rejects rational, secular politics but
expects accommodation and compromise, both on its terms.
Seen from the perspective of those who subscribe
to - and defend - fundamentalist Islam and the fanaticism that it breeds,
it is perfectly alright to use textbooks in schools that denigrate other faiths.
Hence, King Fahad Academy in London uses books that teach Muslim children
Jews are "repugnant" and Christians are "pigs". Hindus,
being 'pagans', do not merit mention in such texts, thank god for small mercies.
Hence also the demand that hate speech laws should not apply to Muslims because
it is their religious duty to denigrate others, but others do not have the
right to either protest against such denigration or question the basis of
this presumed right of the fanatics.
It is not only liberal democratic Governments
in the West who are being alarmingly discomfited by the clamourous assertion
of the fanatics' right to be obnoxiously hurtful in thought and deed, but
also regimes that rule Arabic and Muslim-majority states which dot the map
of Arabia and beyond. King Abdullah would be delighted to see fanatics chased
out of Saudi Arabia, if not lined up and beheaded in public squares. President
Hosni Mubarak of Egypt has stepped up his fight against the Muslim Brotherhood,
the progenitor of Islamism and Islamic fanaticism. Jordan's King Abdullah
II rules with an iron fist and disallows even a squeak that smells of Islamism.
In the Maghreb, rulers refuse to acknowledge the very presence of fanatical
Islam. In the lesser states of Arabia, calculated emphasis on generating wealth
and using it for development has kept Islamists in check. But in countries
like Pakistan, as also African states where Islam is the predominant religion,
fanatics need not fear either Government or society. In Iran, fanaticism rules.
President Pervez Musharraf, talking to the
BBC, admitted that "Islamic fanatics have the potential to destroy Pakistan"
and described their rising political strength as a "nightmare".
What he did not admit, however, was his utter failure to check the growth
of Islamism or political Islam which flows from fanaticism. For all his bluff
and bluster and his claimed emphasis on "enlightened moderation",
Gen Musharraf has singularly failed in confronting fanatics. Instead, he has
repeatedly sought negotiation and compromise, falling back on what Kertesz
describes as "rational politics" to deal with irrational demands,
often with comical results. The pistol-packing, fatigues-wearing General beat
a hasty retreat when confronted with *burqa*-clad, AK-56-wielding women who
ostensibly study theology at Hafsa Madarsa near Islamabad. They stood guard
over an illegally constructed 'library' which the municipal authorities wanted
to demolish. In the end, the authorities had to not only back off, but also
promise to rebuild demolished mosques that had been illegally constructed
on Government land.
As for our secular democracy, fanatics have
always had their way with the Government of the day. Not only has the Government
of India repeatedly caved in before fanatics, it has willingly offered to
accommodate their absurd and illegitimate demands to buy peace. So we have
a situation where Islamic banking is being talked of as a secular necessity
and Islamisation of the economy as a precondition for India's development.
Where's the conflict?