Cultural Clash or Political Motive

“The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech…the cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions…the cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.”

- Editorial in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten response to opposition over the publication of cartoons depicting Prophet Mohammed.

September 2005. Exactly four years after 9/11’s events, Jyllands-Posten, a leading Danish newspaper, publishes 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depict the Islamic Prophet Mohammed, as an ‘attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam. Brushing all opposition aside, newspapers and periodicals of 63 countries around the world re-publish either some, or all of the cartoons.

Supporters defended the publication as a right to exercise free speech, and that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism. They also said Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions are frequently printed.

So, is caricaturing Mohammed as a grenade-toting turbaned fellow a method to extend the debate about Islamic fundamentalism? Or is the incident a microcosm of the Western world’s popular perception of Islam?

‘Clash of civilizations’?

Growing tensions between the Muslim and rest of the world have escalated post the twin towers’ destruction. Cultural differences do exist; however, there is a serious lack of understanding the means and methods to bridge this gap. As the editorial response notes, the west perceives Islamic society as being inconsistent with their ideals of democracy and free-will. In their understanding, ‘the fuel for terrorists’ acts stems from interpretations of Islam.

In this larger framework of a collective opposition to the fear of the ‘other’, hostilities have spiraled amidst political mobilizations cutting across states and societies. An upcoming Dutch movie called ‘Fitna’ (literally, a test of faith in times of trial) has raised fears of Opposition, especially as its maker, Dutch politician Geert Wilders calls the film “a call to shake off the creeping tyranny of Islamization.” Pre-emptive actions have been taken by the Dutch government to protect its overseas interests in the face of opposition to the film.

But in all these interpretations of Islam, what has failed to come across is the acceptance of multiple identities within the religion. To suggest that an imam represents a collective identity of a Muslim is a purely stereotyped notion; rather, this has allowed the more militant faction to gain ground amongst the Muslim youth.

Amartya Sen debunks Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ theory on the ground that a classification of cultures based on religion has led to a ‘ham-handed’ response to global terrorism. He argues that such restrictions have allowed Western policy to define and re-define Islam by magnifying the voice of the Islamic authority; in this case, the mullahs. The re-defining of identities based on religious and cultural backgrounds has resulted in a quest to seek the ‘true Muslim’, one who is open to assimilation with western ideals.

This division of identity based on culture and religion has brought forward the prevalent idea of ‘us’ and ‘them’, creating a construct of the ‘other’ in the popular perception.

Fear of the ‘other’

On November 26, 2006, radio host Jerry Klein broadcast a message after the removal of six imams from a US Airways flight earlier that month. In an effort to gauge his audience’s reaction, he said that force should be applied to all Muslims inside the US to wear ‘identifiable markers…arm bands that that have a crescent moon or a crescent moon tattoo.’

The response was overwhelming. While there were a few angry reactions, the overwhelming response was to round ‘them’ up, and set up ‘encampments like during World War II’ for the Jews. Later, Klein revealed his statements were a hoax, and that he was disgusted that “any of you were sick enough to agree” with what he said.

Post 9/11, the US government has continued to raise paranoia regarding the fragility of American lives through various color-coded levels of security. However, the mistaken belief of equating an individual as a representative of his race or religion has done more to enhance this irrational paranoia than any government initiative.

This unfounded idea of a Muslim being a fundamentalist is further compounded by the terms the media uses. ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘Islamic fundamentalism’, ‘Jihadis’ – these terms further compound the idea of the ‘other’, and that the ‘other’ means harm at all costs.

This notion has also prevented a public debate on America’s foreign policy, which is often blamed as the root of discontent within the Muslim mind. Shehzad Tanweer, one of the 7/7 London bombers, put the blame squarely on US and British governments and the people for continuing to vote back the very same leaders.

Mohsin Hamid, author, talks of how a Muslim student when applying for visa has to answer multiple questions; according to him, they are ‘not treated as equals’ in this globalized world. It is exactly this inequality that forces Changez, his protagonist in The Reluctant Fundamentalist to return. There is a sense alienation he feels, post 9/11, in the way his colleagues perceive him to be. And that alienation leads him to re-shape his beliefs.

Unlike the Jews in WWII, or unlike Changez, alienation in the current context leads to radicalization of the other.

Multiculturalism Revisited

In September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI contributed to the anti-Islam tirade by quoting a medieval emperor Manuel II Paleologus, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached,” at a university in Germany. The comment immediately brought forward another round of debates over the perception of Islam in the west.

European countries have begun to introduce policies for ‘social cohesion’ to integrate the immigrant population within the mainstream. However, much of these policies reek of an open idea that an immigrant must conform to that society’s ideals, else he/she is not acceptable. Hostile immigration policies in recent times across Europe, combined with resentment to the ‘ghettoisation’ of the immigrant, have led to an open battle between the two groups; the 2005 French riots being an example.

The riots also highlighted the fact that these banlieues, or suburbs, suffered from state apathy; unemployment was double than the rest of France, poverty rates more than four times the national average. Tariq Ramadan calls it a ‘territorial and social apartheid’, and that certain citizens are treated as ‘second-class’ within the French nation.

Cultural mismatch and Political results

The BBC in its report on the Danish cartoons wrote correctly that it was the satirical intent of the cartoons and the association of the Prophet with terrorism that was found to be most offensive to the vast majority of Muslims. Indeed, the cartoons fuelled the perception among the Muslim world that many in the West harbor hostility towards – or fear – Islam and Muslims. And it was exactly this feeling that was capitalized upon during the protests.

The popular perception of a mullah being the voice of all Muslims is based on equally incorrect grounds. The West’s attempt to give space to ‘moderate’ Muslim voices equates as being a west-educated, liberal and ‘culturally assimilated’ individual – who is far removed from the ground realities of an immigrant Muslim youth, and hence cannot answer his grievances better than the local mullah.

At the same time,

Such gross misunderstanding of a culture will allow a certain section to seek out political mileage through the event. The Danish authorities defended the newspaper as having a right to express itself; the mullahs called it an attack on Islam and its Prophet. Either way, what the cartoons managed to do was to polarize the Muslim community further in an already fragile Europe.

thoughts from a war-zone

Our driver points towards a lamp post in a village on the way to Ramgarh, and casually tells us, “The Naxals tied an informer to that post, and chopped him up. Then they burned down his house.” He shows us another semi-broken house just beside the post. “Luckily, it rained that night. Only half the house burned down.”

Gadchiroli district is full of such tales. Instances of naxal brutality are equally matched by reports of police torture. Such as the two fishermen in Markana village, who were shot down after the C-60 (anti-Naxal Task Force) commandos found them fishing illegally.

This eastern district of Maharastra, designated the ‘Red Bastion’ of the state, has witnessed a drastic rise in naxal activities over the last five years, from 55 cases in 2001 to 102 cases in 2007. At the same time, attacks on police patrol parties have gone up from six to 30 during the same period, reaching an all-time high of 35 in 2006. This rising phenomenon of a direct assault on the state machinery only goes to show that left-wing extremism within the district, far from being contained, is strengthening itself.

Gadchiroli’s inaccessible terrain, 90% of which is considered forest land, and its continuous boundary with Chattisgarh have proved to be a blessing for the movement. Locals recall how the movement began in the early 80’s, when the People’s War Group (PWG) leaders came from Andhra Pradesh. Sister Avila, an advocate from Ghot, makes a distinction between the movement then, and its present scenario. “The Naxal movement then was definitely working for the tribal population. It was only because of their pressure that wages for tendu (Beedi leaf) collection increased from Rs. 2 to Rs. 150 per bundle. However, most naxals now are not helping the villagers in any way.”

In a sense, it appears that Sister Avila’s analysis may be true. Most villagers in the interior complain of lack of accessibility to bigger towns. Raju, a Maria tribal in the village of Vasimundi, says the biggest problem here is lack of roads. “We either commute by foot or by cycles”, he says, adding that politicians and officials rarely visit them.

The insurgents in the district have certainly not helped the situation either. The brutal murder of Border Roads Organisation (BRO)’s engineer, M Ganesh, in January 2006 sent shockwaves around the district. Naxals regularly force workers to stop road construction, and lay land-mines to ambush the para-military forces. It is their way to prevent further state incursions into what they term as ‘Dandakaranya’, a huge tract of forest and tribal land across four states.

However, the state’s slate is equally, if not more, blemished. Reports of police brutality continue to filter in, though absent in the local media. The C-60’s soldiers are notorious for their beatings and interrogation methods. “The adivasis are more afraid of the police than the Naxals,” according to a health worker in Poyarkothi village. C-60 sources told us how they used third degree torture methods to extract information. The state naturally denies any such practices; however, District Judge G.M. Kubde recalls how six policemen were acquitted in 1996 in a case of custodial death due to lack of evidence.

In the middle of this war, villagers and their development aspirations are quashed. It was surprising to see how every villager we met had voted. Though most had forgotten who they had voted for, it came as a shock to discover the exercising of this basic democratic right – in essence, most villagers still brew hopes that the state will bring them development.

Gadchiroli is a battleground of two potent forces – one backed by the state uses all its force to contain left wing extremism, and the other uses under-development and subjugation by the state as a motive and the terrain to its advantage. The tribals of the land are sandwiched between, as in every other war.