The enemy within - Does Europe need to fear West Asian refugees?

Sunanda K. Datta-Ray 

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1151121/jsp/opinion/story_54160.jsp#.Vk_6YvmUdO0 

It was surprising to hear Theresa May, Britain's home secretary, speak of the 2008 Mumbai bombings in connection with last week's massacre of innocents in Paris. But despite the barbarity of such "acts of war" (quoting France's president, François Hollande) and despite warnings that the enemy is not always outside the border, India's demographic mix argues for caution about being drawn into a collective campaign to stamp out the terrorists who call themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

India is usually regarded - when regarded at all - as sui generis. The millions of refugees from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Burma, Tibet and elsewhere are seldom included in the challenge of global homelessness. The many bombings and other outrages on Indian soil tend to be treated as expected eruptions of the legacy of the Partition riots. But even before May's reference, security experts in London and Paris were comparing the multi-target shootings in Paris with the Mumbai mayhem.

However, Westerners are still far too nervous about minority sensibilities to openly discuss the Muslim question in either country. A British government advisory speaks of "radicalizingsome youth and attracting certain sections of the local population" (emphasis added) without mentioning that 27 per cent of British Muslims approved of the Charlie Hebdokillings, that more than 700 British Muslims have rallied to ISIL's banner in Syria, or the current Old Bailey trial of Mohammed Rehman and Sana Ahmed Khan for allegedly planning to bomb London's Westfield Shopping Centre. Mohammed Emwazi, the masked assassin nicknamed Jihadi John, whom the Americans killed recently, was British.

One reason for now drawing India into the global picture may be Narendra Modi's prompt response to France's tragedy. His tweet after the Wembley Stadium extravaganza about the anguish of the "people of France in their tragic hour" may have been an instinctive human reaction but it was in sharp contrast to his reticence when Indian churches were desecrated, Muslims converted to Hinduism, or lynched on suspicion of eating beef. Statecraft took over the next morning and the mature sophistication of Subramanyam Jaishankar, the foreign secretary, probably produced the formal statement, "India stands firmly with the great people of France in dealing with this tragedy."

Leaving aside the Bharatiya Janata Party's particular bias, the sentiment was uncharacteristic of India's leaders and governments. Traditionally, neither is sympathetic to the sufferings of Western nations. India cannot even bring itself to acknowledge the humanitarian impulses that also underlie many Western - especially American - initiatives or express gratitude for the vast sums of money the United States of America invests in trying to develop Third World countries. The outrageous theory that 9/11 was the handiwork of the American Central Intelligence Agency and Israel was whispered in India too. However deeply some of Atal Bihari Vajpayee's colleagues may have felt about the attacks, officially, the government remained almost as neutral to Operation Enduring Freedom as it would have been in Jawaharlal Nehru's time.

Europe's media therefore deemed Modi's statement significant enough to highlight it. It suggested an edging away from conventional Afro-Asian neutrality, and a narrowing of the gulf between the West and a leading non-aligned nation. The obvious signs of a rapprochement between David Cameron and Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit in Turkey that followed (which Modi also attended), the promise of Russian military support for the French naval task force dispatched to the Mediterranean, and a $50 million reward for information on the Russian jet that was bombed over the Sinai, indicated a closing of global ranks against what Cameron calls the "direct and growing threat" of ISIL terrorists.

However, negotiations in Vienna and Brussels haven't yet produced a coherent and effective strategy against the shadowy enemy. The allies are not agreed among themselves. Turkey and Saudi Arabia want to get rid of Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad. Washington has reportedly earmarked $500 million for his elimination and officially describes him as a "brutal dictator". Russia and Iran want him to survive. Britain and probably France, too, believe it might be possible to reach a settlement so that Assad steps down after an interim regime. With ISIL's tentacles reaching out to propaganda in Bengali, everyone agrees that it is not enough only to bomb its headquarters at Raqqa in Syria. But remembering Afghanistan and Iraq, no ally is willing to send in troops. American and French aerial attacks (the latter considerably intensified since the Paris carnage) rely on Kurds and the rebel National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces for the fighting on the ground.

Britain can't join in the bombing because Cameron doesn't have the parliamentary sanction. The other reason for British circumspection applies with even greater force to multi-religious India. Appealing to his co-religionists not to bury their heads in the sand, Sadiq Khan, the Labour Party candidate for mayor of London, says Muslims have a key role not because they are responsible for devastating attacks like the one in Paris but also because they are uniquely placed to tackle the threat. While programmes like Pursue, Prevent, Protect and Prepare have not so far brought them fully into the social fold, British Muslims (five per cent of Britain's population against India's 15, but estimated to increase from today's three million to 26 million by 2051) also complain of discrimination.

The Pew Forum estimates 44 million Muslims (six per cent) in Europe, while 15 per cent of Brussels, home of the ethnic Moroccan mastermind of the Paris killing, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, is Muslim. Given its size, Brussels is probably Europe's most cosmopolitan city. I once asked directions from a well-dressed young Indian woman on a Brussels tram to discover that she spoke only Gujarati and Hindi. The city boasts one of Europe's largest Hindu temples. Indian diamond merchants are pushing out the Jews who traditionally controlled the trade; but one sees Hasidic Jews in their long overcoats, top hats and dreadlocks in the street. The Belgian curator of the city's main museum spoke fluent Sanskrit and was an authority on Bastar. Brussels, like Blackburn in England with its 29 per cent Muslim population (15 per cent in metropolitan Paris), makes one wonder whether Muammar Gaddafi was too far out in predicting an Islamic future for Europe.

The first small batch of the 20,000 Syrian refugees that Britain has promised to accept over the next five years flew into Glasgow this week. The expectation is that like the thousands of other Syrian refugees in continental Europe, they will be integrated with the native population. That is precisely what many Muslim leaders - even those who are called religious moderates - appear to resent. Unlike India, Western countries do not cocoon Muslims from the mainstream with the insulation of their own personal laws. Nevertheless, the upsurge of violence has exposed a dangerous division between Muslims and the rest. Since 51 per cent of the deaths from terrorist attacks are caused by ISIL and Boko Haram, it is impossible for non-Muslims not to see a link between Islam and violence. In Muslim eyes, however, any mention of such linkage amounts to singling them out for discriminatory treatment.

Fears are being expressed that if ISIL continues to plant agents among the refugees, the backlash will dismantle the borderless Schengen zone and restore Fortress Europe. The greater peril is of the enemy within. The indifferent response to Sadiq Khan's call takes me back to a seminar in Calcutta, where Muslim spokesmen rejected an Islamic equivalent of the Christian Sunday school on the grounds that their children must wake up every morning and go to sleep every night to the sound of god's name. The millions of West Asian refugees tramping through the Balkans deserve sympathy and demand support. Europe can absorb them. But the aggressive affirmation of an exclusive religious identity is bound to spell trouble in the years to come.