The West set stereotyping of Islam and Muslims decades ago and the US-led ‘war on terror’ only intensified this phenomenon. Phrases of sorts, one after another, from ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ to ‘Islamofascism’ were coined to sustain the Islamophobia. This deep-rooted conspiracy to tarnish the fair name of Islam and defame Muslims or to give leverage to their ‘new world order’ ultimately proved to be an exercise in how to portray Muslims as ‘enemies’ of the world. In the typically charged atmosphere of India this exercise gave impetus to the Hindutvawadis not only to further their hate agenda but to carry on terror acts ‘in the guise of Muslims’. Yes, the bomb blasts at different places in Maharashtra, stage-managed attack on RSS headquarters in Nagpur, especially discovery of skull caps, counterfeit beards, sets of Muslim-looking shalwar-kameez besides pipe bombs and a diary with tips for making bombs from a Bajrang Dal activist’s residence in Nanded, where two BD activists were killed while making bombs on April 6, 2006, and arrest of Hindutva leaders Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand Pandey and Lt. Col. Srikant Prasad Purohit, make the point home.
This is what the world has been witnessing. But some recent developments, both national and international, tend to suggest that it has come to realise the futility of this exercise. A Bombay High Court Judge, Justice Dhananjay Chandrachud, while hearing a petition challenging the ban on a book authored by a city lawyer R.V. Bhasin, on July 17 sent a clear message against stereotyping on the basis of a person’s religious beliefs. Justice Chandrachud, who was part of the full bench with Justices Ranjana Desai and R.S. Mohite, admonished a lawyer who tried to link 26/11 attacks in Mumbai to Qur’ānic teachings. He pointed to statistics in the United States where many persons arrested for criminal offences were found to be black. “On that basis every black person cannot be said to be a criminal,” he said.
In another development of far-reaching importance Assam Legislative Assembly, of course following a heated discussion between the Asom Gana Parishad and BJP MLAs on one hand and Assam United Democratic Front MLAs on the other on the use of ‘Islamic fundamentalist’, on July 14 set a precedent by ruling that the term ‘Islamic’ will not be used as a prefix of ‘fundamentalist’ in the proceedings of the House.
In Australia a yet-to-be-released book A Lexicon on Terror, sponsored by Australian Multicultural Foundation (AMF) and the Victoria State Police, aims to guide politicians, police and public servants on how to speak about Islam and terrorism without implicating the peaceful religion. The book advises the intending readers to avoid while talking about terror terms like ‘Islamic terrorism’, ‘Islamo-fascists’, ‘moderate Muslims’ and even ‘war on terror’. This is not the first time that a country adopted the linguistic approach to disassociate Islam from terrorism. Earlier Austria as well as the USA made similar attempts to avoid stigmatising terminologies in dealing with Islam and Muslims.
This is high time Legislative Assemblies and Parliament in India and the powers that be in the West followed this voice of sanity and clamped a blanket ban on the use of such derogatory terms.