![[FSF
Associate Member]](http://www.modspil.dk/images/fsfMembergetButton.png){kind=small}
Hadets købmænd
Et interessant omvendt perspektiv på tesen om "the clash of civilizations" og nødvendigheden af en konfrontation mellem islam og Vesten, eller mellem islam og resten af verden, har vi i digteren, aktivisten og filmmanden Javed Akhtars tese om, at konfrontationen mellem ekstrem hinduisme og islam (som eksemplificeret ved urolighederne i Gujarat og den barbariske nedrivning af en moské ved Ayodya i begyndelsen af 90erne) i virkeligheden ikke har noget som helst med religion at gøre.
Akhtar mener tværtimod, det ultimativt er et spørgsmål om at få magt - verdslig magt: Det skisma mellem hinduer og muslimer, der førte til Indiens deling og til voldsomme etniske udrensninger i delingens kølvand, udsprang således af en bevidst del-og-hersk-strategi fra den engelske kolonimagts side.
De hinduer og muslimer, der søgte konfrontation og deling, var således i Akhtars øjne ikke andet end kollaboratører, der aldrig bidrog til Indiens uafhængighedskamp.
Akhtar skriver:
Not a single member of these organizations that succeeded in dividing this nation and creating Pakistan, went to jail even for a day at the peak of the freedom movement. There is an unbelievable similarity in the political stands of the Muslim League and the RSS. The Muslim League asked its followers to boycott the Quit India Movement, the RSS did the same. M.S Golwalkar, called guruji by RSS followers, said such movements create chaos and law and order problems, so they should be avoided and ignored. Ultimately, one set of British collaborators, the Muslim League, was rewarded with Pakistan, a Muslim state. But the Hindu proponents of the two-nation theory were deprived of their dream because of genuine nationalists who fought for the independence, filled the jails, went to the gallows, gave the country a Constitution based not on the two-nation theory but the vision of composite India.(Mine fremhævelser - Akhtars egen position i alt dette er, at han er ateist med muslimsk baggrund og kulturelt forankret i urdu-kulturen.)
At this point we need to ask ourselves who a fundamentalist is? The fundamentalist has his own version of history, his own definition of culture, his own interpretation of religion and his own brand of nationalism. Behind all the impassioned sloganeering and pretensions of defending culture, religion and nation, the real agenda is to legitimize an unjust and an exploitative system where it exists, or to create one where it does not.
Gujrat is called the laboratory of Hindutva but in my view its biggest laboratory is Pakistan, which was founded on those very principles on which the Sangh Parivar wants to rebuild this country. In Pakistan, Islamic fundamentalism is but a convenient cover for an exploitative economic system. And the ‘parivar’s’ ultimate fantasy is a Hindu Pakistan. In Pakistan whose population is around 150 million, nearly 75 percent, that is around 110 million, are directly or indirectly engaged in agriculture. Some 200 families own most of the agricultural land. Even assuming each of these extended families comprise 1,000 members, some 200,000 people control all the agricultural property. What is the status of remaining 109 million and 800,000 people dependent on agriculture for their livelihood? The fact is that they are landless and even bonded labourers living in abysmal conditions. These people are at the total mercy of these landlords. In many places no schools are permitted; the police dare not enter these areas.
To make such a system viable, it is necessary that all civil liberties be denied to the people. To deny civil liberties, you need an undemocratic system. And to justify and legitimize an undemocratic system, you need religious fundamentalism and majoritarianism pretending to be nationalism. This use of fundamentalism is also evident in those Muslim countries where a few control all national wealth. Though the elite holds out crumbs to the ordinary citizen in these countries, no civil rights exist.
Incidentally, fascism and fundamentalism (theocracy) have one thing in common: both believe in the total usurpation of the basic rights and civil liberties of citizens. Nazi Germany and Talibani Afghanistan are eloquent testimonies of this. Interestingly the Sangh Parivar has from the very beginning been enamoured by Nazi ideology as is evident from the writings of the stalwarts of Hindutva. Given half a chance, like the Taliban, the Sangh Parivar will start putting women in their place. This gives us an insight into their mindset and their agenda of total control over society.
It is not that every fundamentalist sees his worldview as a mere political instrument. On the contrary, the large majority of those who subscribe to such views are sincerely committed to them. But these are mere pawns and minions who have been brainwashed. And among them, those from the economically weaker sections are often used as cannon fodder. But for those who are pulling the invisible strings, fundamentalism remains a political strategy. To think that it was reverence for Ram that made L.K.Advani launch his Rath Yatra is like believing that actually Jinnah wanted to save Islam in the sub-continent. The fact is that Jinnah was a cold-blooded, calculating, unscrupulous, over ambitious, manipulative, power hungry politician who hardly had any religious beliefs.
Når den islamiske verdens værste diktaturer (Pakistan, Iran, Saudi-Arabien ...) insisterer på en streng religiøs disciplin, har det med andre ord intet med religion at gøre - men alt med at holde folk nede i skidtet, hvor de - ifølge dem, der sidder ved magten - hører hjemme.
Akhtars omtale af Pakistan er måske ikke helt ublandet med den sædvanlige indisk-nationalistiske fjendtlighed overfor dette land, og en tilsvarende ulighed findes naturligvis også i Indien - i de hinditalende stater i det nordlige Indien er den gennemsnitlige indkomst pr. person således ca. 8400 rupees eller 1100 kroner (om året!), mens en ret lille middel- og overklasse vælter sig i luksus og tjenere.
Men disse forhold er Akhtar naturligvis også både klar over og kritisk overfor. Pointen er netop, at de indiske hindunationalister egentlige formål er at oprette en religiøs stat, der kan opretholde denne tingenes tilstand.
Og de folk - the neo-cons - der ønsker den samme type konfrontationslinje her i Vesten, som eksemplificeret ved fupnumre som "krigen mod terror", har formentlig præcis samme hensigt.
Bush stjæler fra de fattige og giver til de rige, mens han udhuler borgerrettighederne og fabler om en ikke-eksisterende eller overdreven terrortrussel.
Og de "pawns and minions", som er " sincerely committed to such views" men som "have been brainwashed" ...
kender vi vist også kun alt for godt herhjemme.
Link til Akhtars artikel.
Læs også: The Death of Shaikh Burhanuddin, en fortælling om Indiens deling.