The Crown Prince of UAE hosting the meet had invited India’s EAM to be the guest of honour and thus for the first time put the stamp of official recognition on India’s association with the Islamic block — even as India did not have an Observer’s status yet. Brief attempts made by our diplomats in the Cold War era to secure that position on the ground that India had the second largest Muslim population in the world, had been successfully thwarted by Pakistan. But this time around, the UAE, apparently in consultation with OIC Chairman Saudi Arabia, rejected Pakistan’s objection to the very presence of India at the OIC.
This was a new situation that Pakistan faced — as a founder member of OIC — at a time when India had militarily challenged it on the issue of cross-border terrorism. It is enough for India, which is not an ‘Islamic’ country that we were able to present at the OIC platform India’s stand against the new terror fomented from the soil of Pakistan in the name of religion.
In her address, which was noted for its boldness and finesse, Sushma Swaraj raised the issue of terrorism upfront and pointed out how the menace was caused by ‘distortion of religion’. The base of indoctrination of Mujahideen lay in the fundamentalist line of Islamic radicals and extremists that ‘there was no God save Allah’ and that the political decline of Islam was to be attributed to the ‘deviation’ of Muslims from the puritanic Islam that existed in the days of the pious Caliphs. It is the faith-based motivation that was producing Fidayeen and it is to be seen if the OIC would muster courage to pronounce that in today’s times jehad was not the answer to any political problem.
India’s strategists have to factor in the more pronounced crosscurrents that are operating in the Islamic world. The US-led ‘war on terror’ targeted Islamic radicals of the Al-Qaeda-Taliban combine — and later of ISIS — who all carried the legacy of the anti-West Jehad that the Ulema of the 19th century led by Abdul Wahab had conducted unsuccessfully against ‘the Western encroachment on Muslim lands’.
The withdrawal of the Soviet army from Afghanistan gave the radicals a chance to establish an Islamic Emirate at Kabul in 1996 with full backing of Pakistan. Meanwhile, the OIC had built an Islamic movement with large funding from Saudi Arabia that also rested on adherence to fundamentalism and aimed at countering the influence of Communism much to the delight of the US. Pakistan, a key member of the OIC, housed not only the Islamic radicals of Al-Qaeda and Taliban but also the Islamic extremists of Jamaat-e-Islami’s Hizbul Mujahideen and Maulana Hafiz Sayeed’s Lashkar-e-Taiba.
Division in Muslim World
When 9/11 tested Pakistan for leading the fight against Islamic radicals on its soil, it hoodwinked the US by just pretending to be active against Al-Qaeda and Taliban, the same group it had put in power in Afghanistan. Before 9/11, Pakistan had no problem with radicals. It needed all militant groups as its strategic assets to run its proxy war against India. This is precisely what Pakistan is doing now. It feels encouraged by the US dependence on
Pakistan’s potential to mediate with the Taliban for a negotiated settlement at Kabul.
There is convergence between Saudi Arabia, the UAE and the US against Islamic radicals who considered the US their prime enemy and who were also inimical to the Saudis for the latter’s identification with the Americans. The ‘war on terror’ has thus created a division in the Muslim world because large sections of it are not ready to side with the US or condemn Islamic radicals.
In India, the influential Darul Uloom Deoband known for its hold on Sunnis, claims nationalist credentials but is firmly against the West. It is in this context that India raising its voice at the OIC against all groups indulging in terrorism in the name of Islam is a diplomatic success even though it is doubtful if it would give us any leverage against Pakistan on that platform.
India cannot be happy with the hostile pronouncements of the OIC on Kashmir — a resolution surfaced ‘condemning the atrocities and human rights violations by India’ in the State, denouncing ‘mass blindings’ inflicted by security forces on protesting youth and, what is worse, charging Indian occupation forces with ‘escalating’ ceasefire violations on the LOC. It called upon member states to contribute funds for humanitarian assistance to Kashmiri people.
The OIC voiced Pakistan’s line that Kashmir was the ‘core issue’ between India and Pakistan and that its resolution was a must for establishing peace in South Asia. It welcomed Prime Minister Imran Khan’s offer of talks with India. India has, in a prompt rejoinder, declared that J&K is an integral part of India and is a matter ‘strictly internal’ to India. It seems Pakistan continues to have its way against India as far as the forum of OIC is concerned. We must seek a response from Saudi Arabia, as OIC Chairman, reiterating that Pakistan must take action against terror outfits operating on its soil as was being demanded by the US as well.
India has brought in clarity on Iran by not linking our approach to that country with our relations with other Muslim countries. India has to stay away from the extreme hostility that always existed between the Sunni fundamentalist states like Saudi Arabia and UAE and the Shia regime of Ayatollahs in Iran — reflecting the historical legacy of the Kharijite revolt against Caliph Ali.
India has rightly dealt with every nation bilaterally regardless of the Shia-Sunni divide that prevails in the Muslim world. Incidentally, both Islamic radicals and Shia fundamentalists regard the US as their enemy for their own political and ideological reasons respectively. India’s foreign policy will have to reckon with it.
Our stand is basically against injection of violence into national and international politics in the name of religion. It is, therefore, a matter of great satisfaction for India that we have carried a message against this kind of violence right to the apex of the 56-member Islamic block itself.
(The writer is a former Director, Intelligence Bureau)