Trial of Muslims and Islam by media and intelligence DR. AUSAF SAIED VASFI examines the biased attitude of media towards Islam and Muslims, by citing a popular magazine, which blames them for acts of terrorism. He demands that this vilification of Islam mu
Trial of Muslims and Islam
by media and intelligenceDR. AUSAF SAIED VASFI examines the biased attitude of media towards Islam and Muslims, by citing a popular magazine, which blames them for acts of terrorism. He demands that this vilification of Islam must be stopped.
Other Article/s in this Section
• TERRORISM How to Get Rid of It
Nobody’s – particularly Muslims’ – honour and dignity is safe when an over-ambitious section of the media and less-than-fair and upright section of our Intelligence apparatus start playing the cop, the jury and the executioner. Their antics are bound to cause disquiet and disequilibrium in the plural polity of the country.
TWO CASES
The two cases in point are the ban on Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and the August 11 issue of India Today. Before analysing the issue, let us, once again, forcefully reiterate that no sane, level-headed Muslim holds brief for terrorism, the terrorists and unwanted spilling of innocent blood. The terrorist should be hanged to the nearest lamppost. But he should be a real offender, a proven culprit, not a helpless victim of bias, prejudice and less-than-honest investigation or media trial.
It has to be recalled that the SIMI is facing its fourth ban under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It was first banned on September 27, 2001 as an “unlawful association.” Then the ban was re-imposed in September 2003 and February 2006.
THE QUESTION
This is August 2008. How come during the last five years, our Union Home Ministry could not collect sufficient evidence against the SIMI to warrant extension of the ban? The Special Tribunal dealing with the body has pointedly asked: Why specific reasons or activities were absent in the February 2008 notification to disqualify SIMI as an “unlawful association”. The tribunal had observed only on July 28: “You say that SIMI is connected to bomb blasts, riots, destructive activities. Place specific material before me, you (Centre) cannot presume their involvement.”
In a ruling running over 260 pages, Justice Geeta Mittal, a judge of the Delhi High Court who heads the tribunal, said the government had been unable to convince it about the reasons for including SIMI in the list of terrorist organisations and the material placed for consideration was “insufficient”. You are saying that 106 fresh cases have been registered against SIMI activists from 1999 to 2008 in various places including Maharashtra, Jaipur, Bhopal, Malegaon, Ghatkopar etc … but in some of these cases there is no mention of FIRs. But still you say they are involved … this may cause a serious impact,” the Bench told the counsel appearing for the government.
POINTS TO PONDER
A perusal of the Tribunal’s order would be really rewarding as far as “evidence” of SIMI’s alleged subversiveness is concerned:
- It is shocking to know that except for a minor rearrangement of some words at the end of the notification, the notification of 2008 is almost a reproduction of the 2006 notification.
- On April 29, 2008, the Centre told the tribunal that the last four paragraphs of the notification were the grounds on which SIMI was banned. Exactly three months later on July 30, the Centre took a U-turn and said the first three paragraphs of the notification were the grounds for the ban.
- A senior official of the Central government appeared before the tribunal as witness to defend the decision but submitted that he was not aware with regard to the matters. He did not even seek an adjournment to get back with details. It is a sorry state of affairs.
While references to some alleged members of SIMI have been made as well as incidents of recovery, etc., however all material particulars with regard to the dates of the offences, details of the FIRs registered by police and the details of the pending prosecutions are not mentioned.
- Most of the allegations made in the background note are not supported by any deposition.
- It is vaguely stated that one SK Abdul Nayeem aka Samir, resident of Aurangabad, Maharashtra, and prime absconding accused in the Aurangabad arms seizure case, was arrested by BSF while crossing the Indo-Bangla border in May 2007. No particulars of this case are forthcoming.
In the next three weeks, the prosecution will not only have to substantiate its claims with evidence against the SIMI but will also have to give an explanation to the highest palladium of justice.
In the meantime, it should be of interest to note that two strong allies of the UPA-led dispensation, Mr Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mr Lalu Prasad have publicly opposed the controversial ban on the Muslim students’ body.
INDIA TODAY
Simultaneously, the Muslim leadership has expressed pain at the irresponsible manner in which an eminent periodical has dealt with “Islamic Terrorism”.
Perhaps the editors of India Today do not have the slightest idea how seriously they have hurt the principal minority and insulted their faith by publishing a series of articles with highly biased views over an emotive issue in their August 11 issue. In the backdrop of the August 5 verdict of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Tribunal on the ban on the SIMI, the August 11 issue of India Today drew its readers’ attention to what it loves to call “Islamic terrorism”.
It carried eight extensive and exhaustive write-ups on the hot subject. But after their careful reading one did not feel educated or enlightened. Why? None of them was the result of “investigative journalism.” What had been dished out was the dishwater periodically distributed among media people by our Intelligence agencies. No writer questioned veracity or authenticity of the agencies’ version.
PROVOCATION
Not only that. The eminent weekly, through its very title, unwittingly, tried to provoke its audience and challenge the government. The provocation lay in the word “impotent” in bold blood-red letters and “India” in black, smaller font. Then we have: “India displays a shameful lack of political will to deal with Islamic terrorism despite being its single largest victim.”
In what could be forgiven as a futile exercise, an article by Farzand Ahmed and Shafi Rahman comes out with the “solution” and the solution is to encourage the Indian Muslims to turn towards Sufism. To quote the authors: “Between June 2 and 4, representatives of the British and Indian home ministries sat down for a series of meetings discussing their experiences of terrorism. The meeting comprised India’s Intelligence Bureau, UK’s MI5 and senior police officials. Their verdict was unanimous. Both sides would have to work to actively encourage moderates, which has worked well in the UK where community elders led the police to elaborate plans to serial-bomb aircraft in 2006. In India, this would mean encouraging the Sufis. Isolated peace efforts have come from the Sufi Foundation of India led by Syed Mohammad Jilani Ashraf Kichhauchhvi, who is busy creating a Sufi corridor.”
For this revolutionary recipe both IB and MI5 deserve three cheers.
Then as the active exercise is based upon official versions, the periodical does not bother to delve deep. For example, with regard to the tragedies at Malegaon, Hyderabad and Jaipur, we are asked to believe that “no arrests” have been made while the truth is that Muslim youth have been selectively picked up, interrogated, tortured and put behind bars without “official” arrest.
Then editorially, the magazine provides data of “Islamic terrorism”: “When does a nation say enough is enough? If you are India, it seems like never in spite of 1,120 deaths from 69 Islamic terrorist attacks since 2000.… In 2007, the US National Institute of Counter Terrorism calculated that between January 2004 and March 2007, the death toll in India from all terrorist attacks was 3,674, second only to Iraq during the same period.”
The basic question comfortably ignored by India Today is how can the terrorist attacks be termed “Islamic”? Since when has terror started bearing a religious identity? Has anyone ever heard in the media terms like “Jewish terrorism” or “Hindu militancy” or “Christian barbarity”? No! Why?
HISTORICAL FACTS
The Jews of Israel have killed, on average, 10 Muslims for one Israeli casualty during the Palestinian resistance against the Zionist aggression.
The Christians of Serbia in 1992 – under the stewardship of the recently-nabbed Radovan Karadzic – slaughtered about 10,000 Muslim youth and dumped their bodies in mass graves. Remember the fall of Srebrenica?
The Christians of Serbia also systematically raped thousands of Muslim women in detention camps and compelled them to bear their illicit babies.
The Christians of Russia, under the presidentship of Vladimir Putin, liquidated thousands of Muslim men, women and children in Chechnya because they were demanding freedom. Grozny was turned into a city of ruins.
Seeking independence, the Christian separatists of Northern Ireland, under the flag of the Irish Republican Army, blew up dozens of fellow Christians in Britain.
The Christians soldiers of the US, the UK and the “Coalition of the Willing” wreaked havoc first in Afghanistan then in Iraq. Millions of Muslims were annihilated by daisy cutters, missiles and gunfire.
Enraged over the reprehensible assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi by her own bodyguard, some misguided members of the majority community burnt alive or hacked to death over 3,000 Sikhs in Delhi alone. The Sikh property was allegedly looted in the police presence.
The Hindus of Sri Lanka, under the banner of the LTTE, shot dead in revenge attacks hundreds of Muslims.
A jamboree of incensed Saffron thugs murdered around 6,000 Muslims during the countrywide riots after the Babri Masjid was wilfully demolished by karsevaks on December 6, 1992.
To avenge the killings of their brethren during the unfortunate Partition disturbances, the Sikhs of Indian Punjab, they say, lynched tens of thousands of Muslims migrating to Pakistan.
The Buddhist cops in Communist China launched vile attacks on the ethnic Uighurs resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Muslims, whose only crime was that they wanted to peacefully practise their religion.
This all is history. The fact that few want to believe is that the Muslims – from Miami to Manila – are the worst victims of terrorism, perhaps purposely organised against them by their enemies. But there seems to be an unwritten deal between the media moguls about not relating violence perpetrated by non-Muslims to this religion and religiously shouting from rooftops “Islamic terror” whenever there is the slightest doubt over the involvement of Muslims in an attack. Otherwise what is the justification of not calling the nationwide Muslim pogrom after the Babri desecration “Hindu savagery” or the massacre in Srebrenica “Christian terrorism” or the Israeli killings in Palestine “Zionist barbarity”, but printing in bold “Islamic terrorism” for any bomb attack in India?
What is the rationale of this well thought-out vilification campaign against the religion of two billion people?
