Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Book review: "God's Terrorists" by Charles Allen

It was the subtitle of this book that made me buy it - "The Wahhabi Cult and the Hidden Roots of the Modern Jihad". I've been trying to understand more about modern Saudi political history, and how the official Wahhabi form of Islam in Saudi Arabia has produced both a very politically conservative form that is absolutely supportive of the Saudi monarchy and the Salafi-Jihadis who want the violent overthrow of the same royal family, and thought the book might have something to say on the background of this. I was to be disappointed.

"God's Terrorists" isn't a bad book, it's just 90% a different book to the one suggested by the cover. See the camels in the picture? And the head scarves? Doesn't that sort of suggest Arabia? But oddly this is a book about Imperial India. Allen is a respected historian of the Raj, and perhaps that should have been a clue, but I would say both the front cover and back cover blurb deliberately set out to suggest this is book about the roots of modern jihadi terrorism and not about Empire-era India. What the meat of the book is about is Muslim radicalism within British-India, generally known at the time as the "Hindustani Fanatics". This is a fascinating story in itself: the origins of this group were Indian Muslims who in the early 19th century had gone to Saudi Arabia and had been inspired by Wahhabi puritanicalism and brought their zeal back with them. They were somewhat involved in the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, but this was not a Muslim thing in particular with Hindu regiments mutinying as well. They fled India to hide out in the mountains of the North West frontier, bringing British and Indian-native forces into various skirmishes and minor wars with Pashtun tribes of the India/Afghanistan border regions. The Pashtuns didn't think much of the British invading their lands, but they didn't think much of the Wahhabis either, with the Imperial forces sometimes doing deals with them to drive the fanatics out - much like the current Pakistani government at times tries to do, co-opting the tribes against various foreign al-Qaeda groups.

This is all very interesting but really didn't have much to do with what was happening in Saudi Arabia at the time. In fact Allen notes that the Deobandi school of Islam, the specifically South Asian school that began in India in 1866, was set up in opposition to the Wahhabi inspired Hindustani fanatics (p.206-7). The Deobandi school has an important role to play in the development of Pakistani Islamism, and more globally because of the influence of Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, who along with Sayyid Qutb, was central to the development of modern Islamism. The Taliban are also described as Deobandi, although some say the claim is problematic.

There are some chapters that deal with Saudi Arabia, both the beginnings of the Wahhabi sect in 18th century and its more modern history, but they aren't anything I haven't read elsewhere and feel like a basic review of the known history, rather than an a fresh delve into primary sources - diaries, reports, statistical data - that Allen clearly has mastery of in the case of Raj-era India. Perfunctory would be the word. His descriptions of minor battles and skirmishes between the British and Indian Armies and the Pashtun tribesmen at the fag-end of the 19th century are well written military history. This is obviously Allen's 'thing', not Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty certain Allen had a book pretty much written just on Muslim radicalism during the Raj, but then his publishers suggested that if he gets the words al-Qaeda and Taliban in there a few times, and they put the word "terrorist" in the title, it would sell 20 times the amount that a military history of British Army skirmishes in the Hindu Kush a century ago. I bought it, so they were probably right. More fool me.

You will learn lots of things if you read this book. Just not what you expected.

Monday, February 19, 2007

Is Shilpa Shetty white?

It's a rhetorical question; I don't need answers on a postcard thanks.

I was just eating lunch and listening to the podcast of Simon Mayo's FiveLive book panel from last Thursday. They were interviewing the author Sujit Saraf about his book the Peacock Throne, when the other guest author mentioned an excellent article of Mr. Saraf's website with Saraf's take on the Big Brother racism controversy. The point can be summed up in his own words: "I find it extremely funny and amusing that 'our' [meaning an Indian] white woman is being treated like a black woman by a 'real' white woman". The article is in a word document format and hopefully if you click this link you should be able to download it, or alternatively follow the link on the front page of Mr. Saraf's website. Saraf argues that where Jade (for anyone from Mars, click here) sees a "Paki", the vast majority of Indian's see a white woman. Shetty is a Bollywood actress in part because of her fair skin.

Over the last week I have been listening to the "India Rising" series from the BBC World Service, and like the Foreign Policy article I noted in an earlier post, it is an education in the complexities and paradoxes of modern India. Sujit Saraf does an excellent job on spotlighting the bluntness of Indian racism in this article, but if you listen to the BBC documentary series you start getting a feeling for all the other often more complex tensions - socio-economic, rural/urban, caste, religious - in modern India.

On a less India-specific note, Jade Goody has become famous for being thick, but she can serve as a reminder for us all that seeing people defined by race, or some other singular and preeminent identity, smudges out all the complexities of human nature, both good and bad.

You can get Mr. Saraf's book at this link:

According to the FiveLive book panel it's meant to be jolly good.

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Think Again: India

(pic. from Foreign Policy magazine, showing Indian security forces at work in Kashmir)

Foreign Policy magazine does a good series called "Think Again" were it gets experts to challenge some common assumption about some issue in the international news. They currently have one on India where Barbara Crossette, a former New York Times South Asia bureau chief, takes a critical look at some of the "good news" stories that continually flow from India. She challenges the following statements:
  • "India and the United States are natural allies"
  • "India is a responsible world power"
  • "India will surpass China"
  • "India is becoming a high-tech, middle-class nation"
  • "India is a model of tolerance"
Her responses to these are all well worth reading. Over a couple of trips to India, I've spent more time there than any other non-European country, and I know a little about its history and current affairs. Everyone should do their best to visit India at some point. It is an amazing place that I love, not the least for simply managing to be a multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-lingual democracy of a billion people. But as Crossette argues, it is like everywhere else far from perfect. Crossette mentions the pogroms against Sikhs in 1984 where 3000 innocents were slaughtered, and again in 2002 with the Gujurat massacres where police stood aside to let Hindu mobs kill probably 2000 or so of their Muslim neighbours. But she doesn't mention the on-running Marxist "Naxalite Rebellion" where landless poor, connected both to being classed as "tribal peoples" and at the bottom of the persistent caste system, have been fighting an insurgency for decades. More generally the Dalits, the untouchables, face not only systemic prejudice but at times outright murder and rape as a result of their caste, across India.

These kind of issues disappear from prominence in the international media that, at least in the English language, is generally led by US sensibilities, purely because of the US's size and importance. For the US, India is an ally and hence a place of opportunities, not a country to worry about and the news generally reflects this. India faces much of what in other countries would be described as "terrorism" but with the exception of the Kashmir problem - which occasionally erupts elsewhere in India as bombings such as last year in Mumbai - that terrorism isn't to do with Muslims so doesn't fit in the international media's current idea of what terrorism stories should be about. Who really cares to learn who the Naxalites are and what they want? Or what is the fighting and killings of migrant workers in Assam all about?

Fitting things into pre-existing stories happens elsewhere as well, I was talking to some young British-Indians and British-Pakistanis not so long ago and they all said how it was noticeable that over the last five years or so forced marriages (normally of young South Asian women brought to the UK) have become "a Muslim thing". They aren't, well not solely. Exactly the same kind of abuse happens to Sikh and Hindu girls - really its "a subcontinental thing" but that doesn't fit the current media framing.

So like the title suggests, it's always good to think again.