Real causes of terrorism

With terrorism beginning to show its teeth - fangs really - in Pakistan, President General Pervez Musharraf has spoken twice, in less than a week, on such subjects as terrorism, fanaticism, extremism and the need for what he calls "enlightened moderation."

Since his observations reflect the thinking of the government and the policies it hopefully plans to pursue towards the stated objectives, it will be worthwhile to carefully examine the issues raised and the measures suggested by him against the menace of terrorism.

Speaking on May 19 at the inaugural session of an international conference held in Islamabad by the newly established International Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IIPCR), President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not "compromise" on its fight against terrorism.

Referring to the theme of the conference - "A New War - A New Peace" - , he called for a war against illiteracy, hunger, backwardness, poverty and social injustice.

Continuing, he remarked that political disputes leading to the suppression of people give birth to feelings of deprivation, hopelessness and powerlessness which, combined with illiteracy and poverty, make a dangerous mix for the rise of militancy, extremism and terrorism. He also emphasized that the way forward for the Muslim world was the strategy of "enlightened moderation".

A few days later, addressing a students' convention, he significantly held out the assurance that fanatics would not be allowed to rule Pakistan. It is, however, not clear what he means by fanaticism and who are considered fanatics.

The dictionary meaning of "fanaticism" is excessive and unreasonable zeal and a "fanatic" is a person whose zeal, piety etc. goes beyond what is reasonable. Fanaticism, therefore, is not confined to religious beliefs as one may be a fanatic in one's political, social, economic or cultural views.

Calling for a review of the Hudood and blasphemy laws, he said the country was at a crossroads, and it was time to choose between opportunities for progress and a path for pitfalls.

President Musharraf's observations as well as the IICPR's well-conducted discussions reveal that the problem of terrorism continues to be understood merely in terms of extraneous and overt causes. But it is an over-simplification to say that illiteracy, poverty, deprivation, social injustice, foreign occupation, etc. are the only factors contributing to the growth of extremism, fanaticism and terrorism.

Do they fully explain the rage and resentment that drive suicide bombers to blow themselves up in order to wreak vengeance on their perceived or real enemies?

None of the September 11 highjackers lived in poverty or suffered from illiteracy or deprivation. None of them was a Palestinian victim of Israeli repression.

About 16 of the 19 highjackers were, in fact, the nationals of the richest Islamic country in terms of revenues and social and economic assistance for its citizens.

It is obvious that the extraneous factors mentioned above do not fully explain the causes of their rage and resentment against the United States. They willingly sacrificed their lives in targeting the Twin Towers as they were the symbol of American power and supremacy. The war against terrorism will not succeed unless the causes of terrorism, overt as well as covert, are dealt with appropriately.

Soon after 9/11, President George W. Bush, addressing the American people, asked the question: "Why do they hate us?" It was not a rhetorical question. He and the American people really wanted to know the reasons behind the rage for the homicidal attacks.

Mr Bush suggested that the reason was the greatness of America. He asked the right question but gave the wrong answer as he overlooked the deeper issues involved.

To begin with, his administration has pursued policies which themselves are fundamentalist in nature. What, after all, is fundamentalism all about? My views and no one else's. If Mr Bush is trying to impose American values on others, is this not fundamentalism?

Reverting to the problem of terrorism, two important factors have played a crucial role in distorting Muslim consciousness and its worldview in modern times.

The thinking of fundamentalist Islamic intellectuals and the great masses of ordinary Muslims has been deeply influenced by these two factors which are generally overlooked in any discussion of terrorism.

Perhaps the most important cause underlying Islamic resentment against the West, led by America, is the culture of victimhood. Instead of wondering "Where did we go wrong?" Muslims have been asking the wrong question: "Who did this to us?" First, they blamed the crusades, then the Mongol invasion, then the Western imperialism of the last two centuries, and now they blame the American and Jewish conspiracy to keep them down.

No forward movement in the fight against terrorism is possible unless the Muslims are made to realize that the success of their adversaries has not been the cause but the consequence of their decline and decay.

When Europe was living in the dark ages, the Islamic world was a global leader in science, technology, statecraft, culture and the arts. Its decline began when it turned away from the path of inquiry, reform and regeneration and began to resist change and stifle intellectual inquisitiveness and creativity.

That was the reason the Renaissance, the Reformation and even the scientific revolution passed unnoticed in the Islamic world. In a nutshell, the Muslims fell behind because they failed to come to grips with new ideas and changing times. But there is even a more important factor that explains the current turmoil in the Islamic world. The larger crisis of Islamic society is neither political nor economic.

It is the crisis of a civilization that has become aware of its inadequacies but is too confused or fearful to walk on the path of reason and initiate reforms and changes that are imperative to moving forward.

This factor largely explains the social, political, economic, cultural and institutional stagnation and crisis that we encounter today throughout the Islamic world.

An example from the current Pakistani scene will illustrate the all-pervasiveness of this crisis. How is it that the Pakistan government has failed to review the Hudood and blasphemy laws despite repeated promises by President General Pervez Musharraf? The reason is simple: the people who matter are too fearful to walk the path of reason and introduce the needed changes.

The need of the hour is that religious scholars, intellectuals and thinking people in the Islamic world get together to dispassionately and critically examine the factors that have been responsible for their decline, and suggest concrete measures to rid Muslims of the culture of victimhood and the civilizational crisis engulfing them.

We are all acquainted with the extraneous factors which provide a fertile ground for the growth of religious extremism and terrorism. No one disputes the inference that economic and social evils like poverty, illiteracy, deprivation, social injustice, gross distortion in the distribution of wealth and resources, foreign rule and occupation, etc., do play an important role in tempting the suicide bomber to kill and get killed in the hope of buying a ticket to paradise.

What is important is to keep in mind that it is a combination of extraneous factors, as well as covert and intrinsic factors like the culture of victimhood, civilizational crisis, distorted worldview etc. that make a dangerous mix for the growth of militancy, extremism and terrorism.

Today's world is an interdependent world of rapid changes. The times are moving so fast that unless we heed the wake-up call, the world will soon pass us by and treat us as a lost tribe.

We have to get out of the groove of hate and spite, rage and self-pity. We have to regain the lost spirit of inquiry and analysis, reconstruction and regeneration so that we may once again walk the path of reason and embrace reforms and changes imperative for moving forward.

The decision-makers in Washington need to understand that their overwhelming military might can conquer countries and bring about a change of regime but cannot win the war against terror. The only way to win that war is to conquer the hearts and minds of the people by seriously addressing the underlying issues of poverty, injustice, disparity and suppression.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Sonia's hour of triumph

In the Mahabharata, an Indian epic, Bishma Pitamaha, a revered elderly warrior, remained quiet when Daraupadi, a lady of virtues, was sought to be disrobed in public. People even today compare him to a person who lacks the courage to speak out.

Atal Behari Vajpayee reminded me of Bishma Pitamaha when democracy was disrobed by his BJP. Not a single word did Vajpayee utter to condemn or criticize those of his party men who raised passions and threatened to disrupt normal public life if Sonia Gandhi had been sworn-in as prime minister.

Even when Sushma Swaraj said that she would resign from the Rajya Sabha and tonsure her head, Vajpayee did not tell her to behave. As parliamentary affairs minister, Sushma had accepted Sonia Gandhi as the leader of the opposition and talked to her on affairs connected with the two houses.

Neither Sushma nor her party ever demanded that the Congress should nominate somebody else to deal with them since Sonia Gandhi was ruled out on the basis of her foreign origin.

Vajpayee also maintained his silence when Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Uma Bharti submitted her resignation. And, of course, there was no question of pulling up Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi who said: "Sonia is a Jersey cow. Even shopkeepers are not ready to employ her (Sonia Gandhi) as a clerk. Rahul Gandhi is a hybrid calf. I will not even employ him as my driver."

I cannot imagine even in my wildest dream that Vajpayee was supporting them. But I can well imagine his silence in the face of an ugly and abusive campaign which the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) orchestrated against Sonia Gandhi.

He has always faltered when the occasion has arisen. He may well go down in history as a person who had healthy instincts but lacked the courage to put them to use.

What the BJP has done to stall the democratic process will haunt the party for years to come. It has written its own epitaph by not letting a leader with the support of some 320 in the 545-member Lok Sabha become the prime minister.

After losing at the polls, nobody thought that the BJP would resort to the tactics of street urchins. It was not merely hitting below the belt; it was hitting at the very constitution and the legal system.

In 1999, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging Sonia Gandhi's election from Amethi on the ground that she was not a citizen of India. The court said: "It must be held that Sonia Gandhi by virtue of certificate granted to her under 5 (i) (c) of the Citizenship Act, which has not been cancelled, withdrawn or annulled till date is a citizen of India."

There is no law to bar a person of foreign origin from holding public office in India. An unofficial bill brought to the Rajya Sabha a couple of years ago was not supported even by the BJP, much less other allies. The party did not make it an issue during elections.

Wherever it did - Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu - the BJP and its allies were rejected lock, stock and barrel. Why is the BJP so churlish in not accepting the defeat at the hands of Sonia Gandhi when it had itself converted the polls into a clash of personality between Vajpayee and her?

True, the Congress won only 143 seats. But it had the support of the left, the DMK, Sharad Pawar's Nationalist Congress Party and Laloo Prasad Yadav's Rashtriya Janata Dal.

In addition, Mulayam Singh's Samajwadi Party and Mayawati's Bahujan Samajwadi Party had given their letters of support to the president in favour of the Congress. Except for the Samajwadi Party and the BSP, all other parties met and elected Sonia Gandhi as their leader.

The BJP goes on saying that it accepts the verdict "in humility" but does everything to sabotage it. Humility has to be in deeds, not in words. Even after the defeat, the party leaders have not given up their posture of arrogance which has been their undoing.

In any case, their game is up for many, many years to come. On the other hand, Sonia Gandhi has risen to the stature which Vajpayee did not attain in all his six-year rule. It is easy for the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) to give Vajpayee the credit in a prepared statement.

But it is a pity that the NDA did not have the grace to congratulate the parties which had won. It is customary. By spurning the highest honour in the biggest democracy in the world, she, an Italian by birth, has told India-born politicians that there was something else beyond power: conviction and commitment.

Sonia Gandhi was right when she said that she did not want to divide the country. A person who was not considered an Indian had to tell the BJP and other members of the Sangh Parivar, which do not stop talking about "nationalism", that she would rather step down than copy their ways.

They have, indeed, done everything to polarize the society on communal lines. They should learn a lesson from what she has done to save the country from chaos which the fundamentalists and fanatics were determined to create.

In fact, she has done something more: saving the nation from the perennial suspicion which the Sangh Parivar would have raised at every decision she would have taken as prime minister.

They would have argued that she had done or not done such and such thing because of her foreign origin. She too would have bent backwards to prove her national credentials.

Sonia Gandhi put the BJParty in the dock. Here was a party that fought for democracy and against the cult of force during the emergency. But it is the same party that has turned out to be anti-democratic and authoritarian.

If the BJP can take the credit for playing a part in retrieving democracy in 1977, Sonia Gandhi can claim to have single-handedly restored secularism. The BJP has done its worst to saffronize education, culture and information. But pluralistic forces have emerged victorious with determination to clean up these fields.

What does the future hold for the country? The left looks as if it will creating problems. They have said: "The government will be watched as the policy direction of the new government is going to be determined by the formulation of a common minimum programme."

Does it mean that the left will be a supervisory body to judge whether the common minimum programme (CMP) has been implemented or not? This will only reduce the importance of the cabinet. It would be better if the left were to join the government. It is an open secret that the CPI wanted to do so but was dissuaded by the CPI (M).

The left must have watched the emotional scene in the central hall of parliament when Sonia Gandhi refused to accept office and the Congress members shouted in chorus "no". Still, a consensus emerged.

The left must deal with the new government in the same spirit. Economic reforms should not hurt the common man as some of the steps taken by the NDA did. At the same time, the country cannot go back to the mantras which had stalled progress. There will have to be give and take as much in the economic sphere as in the political.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

The debate over 'mark-up'

To what extent can the Islamic Shariah be considered competent to pass judgements on matters of a fiscal and monetary nature that belong entirely to the realm of economic management? This question assumes urgency in the context of contemporary controversies centred around the Islamization of the economy.

Religious jurists suggest that all economic issues, whether fiscal, monetary, trade-related or exchange-based, lie within the purview of Islamic jurisprudence because Islam is a complete code of conduct and the Islamic Shariah is comprehensive and all-embracing.

The opposite school of thought suggests that modern fiscal and economic issues are too complex and intricate to be handled by scholars who have exclusive learning and training in Shariah and little exposure to the technicalities of economic systems.

However, a middle-of-the-road position between these two extremes sees the Shariah as capable of interpreting fiscal and economic matters to the extent that it does not contradict itself.

A related question emerges: Does the Islamic Shariah regard mark-up, or a similar system, consistent with its basic precepts and principles? Mark-up is defined as the amount added to the cash price of goods to cover overhead charges/profit, etc.

The importance of mark-up in recent years has re-emerged because some of the most popular modes of Islamic finance such as Bai-Muajjal and Murabaha are based on the mark-up system.

In its operations, structure and use, mark-up resembles interest. This has led to the conclusion that if the Shariah accepts mark-up as valid, it is left with no basis to reject interest.

The stance of Islamic jurists on mark-up has gone through various stages in the last two to three decades. This now needs to be reassessed in order to determine the relevance of the Islamic Shariah to the economic issues and problems of today.

During the first stage, the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) in 1980, during the time of General Ziaul-Haq, allowed Bai Muajjal as a mode of financing trade transactions which involved the pricing of commodities on a mark-up basis (i.e. cost plus a margin of profit).

The use of this mode was conditional: it was stressed that it should not be used as a backdoor for allowing interest into the banking and financial system. It was specifically stated: "However, although this mode of financing is understood to be permissible under the Shariah, it would not be advisable to use it widely or indiscriminately in view of the danger attached to it of opening a backdoor for dealing on the basis of interest."

While referring to the use of mark-up as a mode of financing, the CII had clearly laid down: "Safeguards would, therefore, need to be devised as to restrict its use only to inescapable cases.

In addition, the range of mark-up on purchase prices would also need to be regulated strictly so as to avoid arbitrariness and the possibility of recrudescence of interest in a different garb.

The State Bank may, therefore, specify, and from time to time, review and vary the sub-sectors/items for which banks may provide the needed finance under 'Bai Muajjal' arrangements.

It may also lay down the range of profit margin in general or separately for each sub-sector or item, and may impose such other restrictions as may be deemed necessary with a view to avoiding the emergence of unhealthy practices."

The consequences of permitting the use of mark-up were quite obvious as the State Bank of Pakistan in its BCD. Circular No.13 dated June 20, 1984, on Elimination of Riba from the Banking System allowed mark-up for seven different modes of transactions out of a total of 12 identified in the circular.

Thus, the apprehension that mark-up would serve as a gateway for interest proved quite true because mark-up in all practical matters is another name for interest.

Therefore, an interest-based banking system remained fully entrenched and protected. However, the use of the substitute word "mark-up" was enough to beguile the sensitivities of the Muslims.

This brings us to the second stage. The use of mark-up as a mode of Islamic finance was reviewed by the CII in 1984. Its use was subsequently disallowed in banking transactions.

The decision was worded as following: "There is a genuine fear among Islamic circles that if interest is largely substituted by 'mark-up' under the PLS operations, it would represent a change just in name rather than in substance.

PLS under the mark-up system was in fact the perpetuation of the old system of interest under a new name.... though not prohibited according to the Hanafi and Hanbali Schools of Fiqh, and that too in exceptional circumstances, its widespread use [of this technique] is not permissible as the mark-up does not differ in essence from the interest system."

The rejection of mark-up as an Islamic norm was also confirmed by the Federal Shariah Court in November 1991. This reconfirmed the revised decision of the CII in 1984.

The court concluded: "The mark-up system, as in vogue, is held to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam and the word 'mark-up' be deleted from the provisions of section 79 and 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981."

The next stage came with the reversal of the decisions of the CII and the court. The Commission on Islamization of Economy gave its report in 1992 showing a major departure from the earlier decisions of the CII and the Shariah court.

It concluded: "A contract of sale, whereby the deferred price of a commodity is different from the spot price, is not riba for the purpose of this act in so far as the contract entails all the necessary rights and obligations of 'a sale'."

The fifth stage relates to the famous judgement of the Supreme Court on riba delivered in December 2000. In the judgement there was a detailed discussion on "mark-up". But finally, the Supreme Court put its stamp of sanctity on mark-up as a norm of Islamic transactions.

The Supreme Court judgement states: "Murabaha mode of finance or the "mark-up" system with the conditions attached thereto is a permissible mode of Islamic finance and this mode cannot, therefore, be held to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam if the conditions prescribed are not being practiced by some of the parties.

It is to be noted that such violations occurred, as there was no monitoring system in existence to check such errors of omission and commission and violations.

In the system proposed to be adopted with Shariah Board in existence in the State Bank of Pakistan as well as in the financial situations themselves, such violations as and when noticed shall be pointed out and eradicated... The adoption of the mark-up system within the limits prescribed appears to be the need of the economic system in the transitional period and till the time more and adequate number of Shariah-compliant financing modes are developed."

The above discussion leads to an important conclusion: Shariah jurists cannot reject interest if they accept "mark-up". It is imperative that the position of these jurists is redefined and made clear so that the present ambivalence is removed. This is essential if the credibility of Islamic jurists to interpret fiscal and economic laws is to be restored.

Money rolls in for Bush

Sitting on a stool, microphone in hand, President Bush shared a stage on Thursday with a doctor, a patient and the mother of a sick child as he hosted a discussion on medical technology. The images were tailor-made for TV: a concerned leader engaged on an important matter of public policy.

But Bush soon left the cameras for a private residence nearby and the event that brought him to town in the first place - a fund-raiser that netted $1.7 million for the Republican National Committee.

Such is life these days for Bush, who stopped raising money for his own campaign last month but now is aggressively helping his party beef up its bank account to orchestrate what GOP officials say will be the most sophisticated and expansive get-out-the-vote effort in history this November.

In the past month, Bush often has attended GOP events and conducted taxpayer-financed business while on the same trips outside Washington. He delivered the graduation address at Louisiana State University before raising $2 million near New Orleans, spoke to graduates of a Wisconsin college shortly after taking in $2.2 million in St. Louis, and hailed his commitment to the environment near a Florida bay before pulling in more than $4 million for the Republican National Committee in Naples and Miami.

Sometimes, as with the graduation speeches, campaign strategists build fund-raisers around the president's official schedule. Other times, a fund-raiser prompts White House aides to set up an official event.

That is how Bush came to hold a "conversation" on health-care information technology on Thursday in Nashville, a White House spokeswoman said. She said the White House had been seeking an opportunity to hold a health-care technology event.

The purpose of arranging campaign and official events on a single trip is to save money, campaign-finance experts said. The campaign does not have to foot as much of the bill on official trips as it would on an entirely political journey. "Is it fair? It's the advantage of the incumbent," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Centre for Responsive Politics.

Vice President Dick Cheney and first lady Laura Bush also have coupled fund-raising stops with official visits, at locales from Florida to Nevada. The money often goes to the RNC's "Victory 2004" fund, which has taken in more than $50 million in the past six weeks. The fund will pay for phone banks and other forms of direct voter contact to boost candidates in local, state and national races.

Piggybacking fund-raisers on official business is nothing new for presidents of either party. President Clinton netted millions for his campaign and the Democratic National Committee leading up this re-election in 1996, taking heat from critics for his use of White House coffees and Lincoln Bedroom sleepovers.

What is new this election is the law that caps donations to national parties from individuals at $25,000. The national parties are barred from raising unlimited funds, known as "soft money" from unions, corporations and individuals.

The Republican National Committee had raised $179.5 million as of the end of April, and had about $64.2 million in the bank, according to the campaign-finance monitoring group Political Moneyline. The Democratic National Committee had collected $91.5 million over the same period, and kept about $42.3 million in cash.

"There's a lot of enthusiasm in the grass-roots to make sure Democrats are in the strongest position possible to compete," DNC spokesman Jano Cabrera said. With several Senate and House races tightening and Bush sliding in battleground-state surveys, the president is expected to continue an aggressive pace of collecting money.

And, aides said, the trips will continue to be built around official visits. Next week, for instance, Bush will deliver the graduation address to the Air Force Academy, then headline another Republican National Committee fund-raiser. "The point is to make the most effective and efficient use of the president's time," White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan said. - Dawn/The Los Angeles Times Service