There is now a universalization of intolerance

Modernity, far from reproducing tolerance, has in its composition complex structures of intolerance. On the brink of precipice: Contemporary terrorism and limits of the state
PROFESSOR IMTIAZ AHMED December 4, 2005, in The Independant [Dhaka, Bangladesh]

The debate is still on as to the birth of contemporary terrorism, a phenomenon that has come to haunt the people of not only affluent societies but also poverty-ridden societies. In Europe, America, Africa, Central Asia, the Middle East and, of course, near home in South Asia the debate has produced a plethora of literature and above all a formidable line up of scholars and opinion-builders passionately arguing for the one or the other, or even settling for a combination of the two. Bangladesh is no exception in this respect. Here too the scholars, politicians, retired bureaucrats and military officials, journalists, women activists, at times, even members of donor agencies, have passionately contributed to the debate. The bulk of them, however, chose to blame ‘poverty’ and the ‘gap between the rich and the poor’ for all the terrorist activities in the country. Specificity cannot be ruled out, and so they argued that what is true for Bangladesh may not hold true for the rest of the world and vice versa. But then, what about the terrorism of yesteryears? Masterda Surya Sen, Pritilata and not to mention Aurobindo and all the beatified Bengal terrorists of the colonial era - were they not all bhadrasantans (sons of gentlemen)?

More importantly, what about the post-colonial terrorists - the Naxalites and the members of Siraj Sikder outfit - were they not also from social classes relatively well off? Indeed, the core leadership could hardly be dubbed as ‘poor and deprived’! But this is only one side of the matter, and I must quickly add that I would hesitate to fall for a dichotomous resolution of the issue, that is, if it is not ‘poverty’ then ‘affluence’ is responsible for the birth of contemporary terrorism, which incidentally is best advocated by the Muslim-basher Daniel Pipes, although he restricts his contention to America and the Middle East. My contention is qualitatively different from the syndromes of poverty and affluence or crass economism, but before attempting to delve into the intricacies of my contention let me highlight two issues informing the nature of contemporary terrorism, incidentally found in both developed and maldeveloped societies.

A key Orientalist, Lt. James William Graham, went to the extent of saying that the Indian subjects in fact regard the British as Sufis: "We are, generally speaking, at least in this country, looked upon as a species or one kind of Sufi, from our non-observance here of any rites or forms, conceiving a worship of the Deity in mind and adherence to morality sufficient. In fine, the present free-thinker or modern philosopher of Europe would be esteemed as a sort of Sufi in the world, and not the one retired therefrom." The idea was mainly to isolate Sufism from Islam to the point of making the latter thoroughly apathetic if not opposed to reason and free thinking. This had profound implications for the people of both Islamic and non-Islamic world. Islam in the modern West came to be understood as devoid of reason, while the followers of Islam, often naively if not shamelessly agreeing to the Western categorization of Islam, saw modernity as anti-Islamic. Only now with post-structuralism advocating the limits of reason do we find a renewed interest in the Islamic scholarship in the West. [first part of what may be a longer article]The writer is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Dhaka. posted by Dr. Alan Godlas on Saturday, January 07, 2006 at 2:25 AM