Hamas-Israel war: Why is the truth so tight-lipped?
That religious bigotry should determine the political attitudes of some of us in the 21st century is an insult to human intelligence.
Crowds of jubilant Muslims across the globe celebrated as the Hamas horror unfolded. Even in cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic London, the Metropolitan Police received reports of street celebrations by “people”, as one politically prim and proper British newspaper put it. What is happening in the unseen confines of Muslim drawing rooms is an easy guess. Why such misplaced, unbecoming celebrations of barbarism by educated, intelligent, prosperous individuals and groups, instead of the expected, even warranted, revulsion and criticism? Let us turn to the past for light on this. – Hamas-Israel war: Why is the truth so tight-lipped?
In the Yom Kippur War of 1973, almost the entire Muslim world had come together in support of the surprise attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria. Pakistani pilots flew Syrian aircraft in raids on Israel, Algeria provided fighter aircraft and tanks, and Saudi Arabia and Libya sent light armoured battalions. Smaller Islamic countries like Kuwait, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Sudan also contributed arms or soldiers. Israel was fighting not one country but the entire Muslim Ummah.
Even now in the ongoing crisis, Pakistan and Iran have come out strongly in support of Hamas and the Palestinian cause, with the Iranian President, Ebrahim Raisi, even congratulating Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, on the attack’s initial success. Given the large scale of Hamas attacks and the well-coordinated military planning, it is quite likely that it has funds, weaponry, and defence advisors from some Muslim nations. The barbarism of Hamas is religion-driven, reminiscent of medieval crusades, and morality does not come anywhere in determining the motivations of its sponsors.
The other day, Mehbooba Mufti, an outspoken sympathizer of Islamist terrorism in Kashmir, remarked with a satisfied smirk, that the shoe pinches when on the other foot. Hyderabad’s Owaisi too voiced his support for Hamas. Most other Muslim political figures in India have kept a conspiratorial silence on the outrageous actions of Hamas and Hezbollah, betraying their underlying sympathy for the terrorists as well as their guilt over it. Pan-Islamism is at work here, overriding all logical and ethical considerations.
Even predominantly non-Muslim political parties in India have been reticent and ambivalent for fear of alienating the large, community-committed Muslim vote-bank. In refreshing contrast, Indian PM Narendra Modi has been quick and clear in his condemnation of the Hamas attack and his assurance of the Indian government’s support for Israel. No other past Indian Prime Minister could have done this.
That religious bigotry should determine the political attitudes of some of us in the 21st century is an insult to human intelligence. One would expect humanity to have left such impassioned mediaeval bigotry far behind; sadly, that does not hold good for some of us. It repudiates the notion of evolution and growth of human society if innocent lives are taken by religion-driven hate and this becomes a cause of celebration.
What needs to be done to put humanity back on the track of pluralism and peace? For that to happen, religion has to retreat to the temple, mosque, church or synagogue, and to our homes and personal spaces, away from the temporal, public world of politics, commerce, and ideology that is today globalised, multi-ethnic, and civilized. For that happy state of affairs to come about, we must call out the mediaeval bigotry, the distortions of religion and its misuse by vested interests. We must not let the unvarnished truth be obscured in humanity’s discourse, even at the risk of appearing unfashionably impolitic.
Inexplicably, truth is diffident today and fanaticism is strident. The BBC refrains from calling Hamas a terror organisation; it prefers instead the less obnoxious expression “militant group”. There has to be a limit to this penchant for softening the harsh realities of our world to appear neutral. It is downright timid for the BBC to do so to avoid upsetting British Muslims. One cannot help wondering, with all this talk of paid fake news doing the rounds, whether filthy lucre is behind such patent hypocrisy.
Scribes prefer “one community”, “a particular group”, and other such euphemisms to refer to Muslim groups involved in violence. Politicians in Islamic countries inflame Islamic passions, those in secular countries like India appease them for votes.
In our interactions, we avoid frank inter-religious discussions. The press shies away from publishing articles that portray the uncamouflaged reality. This will not do. If humanity is to wipe away the accumulated scars from its fair face, the incorrigible, bullying fanatics must be called out.
(The writer is a columnist, views are personal)
