AGENDA | Sunday, March 15, 2009 | Email | Print | 
Voice of America curbs freedom
Kanchan Gupta
There is a pattern to the waxing and waning of American hubris. What begins as a shock-and-awe show of power through the unrestrained use of overwhelming force invariably ends with a pathetic whimper. We have seen this happen in Vietnam where a futile war was waged to nobody’s benefit; a war that shall forever be remembered for two indelible images: Nick Ut’s Pulitzer Prize winning photograph of a nine-year-old girl screaming in agony after being scalded by napalm and helicopters evacuating soldiers, officials and collaborators from the US Embassy hours before the fall of Saigon in 1975. The war in Vietnam (and before that in Korea) was meant to contain the spread of communism; it was part of a grand strategy based on the ‘domino theory’, which later turned out to be as spurious as the ‘holy war’ the Americans funded to force Soviet troops out of Afghanistan in the 1980s.
Once that task was accomplished, the homegrown Afghan mujahideen reinvented themselves as the Taliban while the Arab ‘holy warriors’ led by Osama bin Laden laid the foundation and built the base — what we now know as Al Qaeda — to launch a global jihad targeting ‘enemies’ of Islam. Borrowing heavily from Islamic traditions and texts, they created a lexicon of terror, incorporating words, phrases and expressions that have over the years come to represent their dark thoughts and darker deeds. In doing so, the Taliban and Al Qaeda were merely following in the footsteps of the original protagonists of radical Islamism. Let’s not forget that it was Hasan al-Banna who gave a political edge to Islam by coining the slogan, “Islam is the solution.” Syed Qutb used that slogan to fashion Islamism as a political ideology which became the creed of the Ikhwan-ul-Muslimeen or the Muslim Brotherhood. The Ikhwan’s members and supporters wear their faith on their sleeves; one of its offshoots, Hamas — an acronym for Harkat al-Muqwamat al-Islamiyyah, or ‘Islamic Resistance Movement’ — uses the Shahadah as the emblem on its flag.
Neither the Ikhwan nor Al Qaeda, or for that matter the Taliban and the neo-Islamists who are on the ascendent in many Muslim countries, would resent the association of faith with their violent actions. Some may resort to sophistry, but the bulk harshly assert that what others view as terrorism is entirely justified from their perspective. For evidence, recall the crude e-mail sent out by the ‘Indian Mujahideen’ owning up responsibility for the ghastly bombings in Jaipur, Ahmedabad and Delhi. From Bali to New York, the killers of innocent people see themselves as serving the cause of Islam. When the Taliban orders girls to stay at home and not attend school, it insists that the decree is in accordance with shari’ah. For President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, calling for the destruction of Israel is a profound expression of his faith and identity.
But we are told not to associate terrorism and its attendant violence with Islam. The Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind touts a fatwa issued by Darul Uloom Deoband which purportedly denounces terrorism as ‘un-Islamic’. What it forgets to mention is that the practitioners of terrorism, most notably members of the Taliban, the Lashkar-e-Tayyeba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, are products of Deobandi madarsas. It is equally ironical that Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who almost single-handedly set up Hamas, was a product of Al Azhar. Had theological sophists who so glibly seek to absolve terrorists of their crimes and paint fanatics as no more than devout Muslims been sincere in separating faith from violence, as they demand of others, then Mohammed Atta would not have flown an aircraft into the World Trade Center, nor would Ajmal Ameer Kasab be nicknamed the ‘Butcher of Mumbai’.
Yet, great offence is pretended to references to jihadi terrorism, Islamic fanaticism and radical Islamism. We are told that this hurts Muslim sensitivities and belittles a great faith. The argument is not without merit, but it is absurd to suggest that criticism of radical Islamism or Islamic fanaticism, which fuel jihadi terrorism, amounts to Islamophobia and hate speech, as has been decided by the Organisation of Islamic Conference, just as it is ridiculous to interpret the war on terror as a war against Islam. Strangely, we are witnessing abject capitulation instead of resistance to this concerted effort to suppress free speech so as to gloss over horrendous atrocities. What is distressing is that the capitulation is more pronounced in those countries which till now have fiercely protected free speech as an inalienable right without which no society can be open and democratic.
This is where the waning of American hubris that waxed in the aftermath of 9/11 comes in. With Mr George Bush’s grand strategy in Afghanistan all but discarded by President Barack Hussein Obama who proposes to pursue a policy of grand bargain and strike a deal with the ‘moderate’ Taliban, which is an oxymoron, efforts are on to enforce an official code that redefines the war on terror as an engagement with militancy! What began as the US Department of Homeland Security counselling “caution in using terms such as, ‘jihadist’, ‘Islamic terrorist’, ‘Islamist’, and ‘holy warrior’ as grandiose descriptions” has now begun to evolve into what can and cannot be said in public discourse. This is best exemplified by a memo sent out to staffers by Jennifer Janin, the head of Voice of America’s Urdu service, informing them that the “editors & I have come up with the following guidelines on usage of words & phrases related to terrorism & violence”:
“Islamic terrorists: DO NOT USE. Instead use simply: terrorist... Sometimes even the names of the accused themselves point to the identity, and there is no need to specify.” So, VOA will not, for instance, mention the name of Ajmal Ameer Kasab while reporting on the Mumbai terror attack.
“Terrorism/ terrorist: AVOID OVERUSE. Listeners get tired... Militant, militancy, violent etc can be used descriptively as appropriate.” In conformity with this guideline, a VOA report would say, ‘Violence in Mumbai on November 26, 2008, left 173 people dead and 308 wounded.’
“Islamic Fundamentalism/ Muslim Fundamentalists: AVOID... The use of such expressions, more exclusively in case of Muslims, adds to existing misgivings in the Islamic world of an anti-Muslim sentiment ... better to use ‘conservative’... ”. VOA report from Swat: ‘Conservative’ Muslims have decreed that girls can’t attend school and victims of rape will be stoned to death.
“Islamist: NOT NECESSARY... Muslims perceive that it has been ‘intentionally’ rhymed with ‘Fascist’, ‘Communist’ or ‘Anarchist’... We just don’t need this short cut in our reporting.” Short cut? Am I missing out on something?
kanchangupta@rocketmail.com
Email | Print | Rate:
|