:: Inder Malhotra

The many sides of Deoband message

Back to Forward / Inder Malhotra

Deoband’s highly respected Islamic seminary, Darul Uloom, was, in every respect, the appropriate venue for the first All-India Anti-Terrorist Conference, organised by the Islamic Madrasas Association, at which 6,000 madrasas (traditional Islamic schools) were represented. The message emanating from it has deservedly received wide welcome, though there have also been several reservations about, and objections to, the Deoband Declaration. Of these only a few can be adjudged to be valid.

In any case, the most important point to be noted is that the vast gathering of theologians assembled there unanimously condemned "all kinds of violence and terrorism in sternest terms." The rector of Darul Uloom, Maulana Maghoobur Rahman, used the occasion to declare that the "killing of innocents is not compatible with Islam. It is anti-Islamic." The declaration itself included the statement that Islam "recognised oppression, mischief, rioting and murder among the severest sins and crimes." It added that the "killing of even one innocent equals the killing of entire humanity." This statement is unambiguous and makes no differentiation of creed or caste.

At the same time, the statement has come down heavily on "defamation of Islam" and the "maligning of madrasas," and is emphatic in denouncing the West, led by the United States, for being anti-Muslim, citing Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of western aggression and oppression. As for anti-terror action within India, it has complained that innocent Muslims usually become the "targets."

No wonder then that the pronouncements of the Deoband meet have evoked mixed reactions. Remarkably, some Hurriyat leaders in Jammu and Kashmir have resented the fact that the Deoband gathering made no distinction between terrorism and the "fight against oppression and suppression." Somewhat more extensive is the criticism by others who feel that in condemning terrorism the declaration does not go far enough. One question raised is: why did the conference, held nearly six and a half years after 9/11 and several years after the attack on Parliament, Red Fort, Mumbai train blasts and other outrages in India, make no mention of these even though it concentrated on Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine?

As against these critics, the former attorney-general, Soli Sorabjee, holds that the Deoband declaration is an "implicit recognition of the principle that the supposed laudability of the end cannot justify recourse to terrorist act." Several Muslim clerics, while commenting on the Deoband proceedings, have suggested that "root causes" of terrorism be explored. That may well be done. But, under no circumstances, can this exercise be made a pretext for letting loose terrorist acts. It would be great help if the leaders of the Darul Uloom and other madrasas make this clear.

The issue of defamation of Islam, religious profiling and harassment of innocent Muslims in the course of the fight against terrorism cannot be brushed under the carpet. The problem is complex and sensitive but it is there. The Indian state has to protect the people from the scourge of terror. It is also committed to secularism and rule of law and cannot compromise on this commitment. There is every possibility that the agencies and individuals entrusted with the task of combating terror do err occasionally. The government’s top leadership cannot shirk its responsibility to ensure that the innocent do not suffer, while the offenders are brought to book and meted out exemplary punishment. The tragedy, however, is that this critically important issue has got entangled in the country’s highly polarised politics. There is certainly a radicalisation of the Indian Muslim youth, though the numbers are mercifully small. But it suits the BJP and the other votaries of Hindutva to mobilise support on an anti-minority platform. The agenda of the Congress and other secular parties is equally flawed, though in the reverse direction. The BJP’s refrain of the ruling coalition being "soft on terrorists" may be old hat. But strangely, its prime ministerial candidate, L.K. Advani, finds the latest Union Budget to be "communal." He perceives in it the ghost of Liaquat Ali Khan, who briefly served as finance minister in undivided India before becoming Pakistan’s first Prime Minister.

An unexceptionable statement in the Deoband document is that Islam is "the religion of mercy for all humanity … and a fountainhead of eternal peace, tranquility and security." But then so are all other religions, including Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism. Yet, from Crusades onwards, religion has been used to justify wars and other acts of violence. The key point therefore is that such misuse of religion must end in the 21st century at least.

No one in his senses would accuse Darul Uloom of aiding jihadis. But it is also true that the Taliban have grown on broadly the Deobandi school of conservative Islam. Moreover, the Deobandis in Pakistan, such as Maulana Fazlur Rahman, have had no compunction in patronising jihadi terrorists. On the other hand, it is a tribute to Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani of Darul Uloom that at a conference in Pakistan some years ago he made sure that no one criticised India over Kashmir. The seminary’s close links with Saudi Arabia regrettably prevent the modernisation of education at the madrasas, which is what the Muslim youth really needs.

In sophisticated circles it is being pointed out that the Deoband list of Muslim countries under attack is selective. It includes Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Bosnia, but conspicuously excludes Darfur where the Islamic government of Sudan has killed between 200,000 to 400,000 Muslims. Tragically, similar silence had prevailed when a million Bangladeshi Muslims were butchered by the Pakistan Army. The respected Pakistani commentator, Ayaz Amir, is absolutely right in saying that the "father of Bangladesh" was not Mujibur Rahman but General Yahya Khan. The eight-year Iraq-Iran war in which at least half a million Muslims were done to death by fellow Muslims also evoked no comment in most Muslim countries.

However, all in all, the conference at Deoband has been a commendable beginning. One of its most constructive recommendations is that similar conferences should be organised across the country so that the anti-terrorism message can spread. This should be acted upon without delay. For, the more frequent and intense the discussion, the greater clarity it might yield. It could also be the starting point of inter-religious dialogue.