Questions to sepia mutineers and other second gen folks:

i) Is this sense of alienation found in the US/Canada - or just in UK/Europe?

ii) Is this limited to Muslims (whether Pakistanis or Indians or Bangladeshis)?

Take a look at the picture of the murderer above. They found his decapitated head on the street next to the bus bomb. That was all that was left of him.

Alienation is one thing. This has a special ingredient. A virulent strain of fascism that exists within modern Islamic thought.

Please do not go down the moral relativism and Christians-and-Hindus-and-Jews-do-bad-things-too. That is a separate debate.

There is a real frenzy of indoctrinated hatred amongst some Pakistanis in Britain. It seeks to displace guilt for this fascism onto factors such as society's failure to integrate them, blaming others, failing to mention that most Muslims dont become suicide bombers.

Please, spare us the hippy 'why-cant-we-all-just live-together' shtick. This is a problem of a cancer within British Islam. Dont beat yourselves up about it. This is not a 'Desi' thing. It is a Pakistani Muslim thing. It is something they have to face up to and repudiate, with the help of the state. They have to repudiate the hatred for Jews, the hysterical rhetoric of the 'corruption' of the West, the indoctrinated hatred of Indians because of the 'occupation' of Kashmir, the dividing of the world into Muslim and Kaffir and painting everything as part of a struggle between Islam and the infidel Universe.

This needs to stop. Now. This fascism has to be cut out. Now.

This has been coming since 1989 when the fatwa against Rushdie was instituted after British Muslim leaders lobbied the Ayatollah and brought it to his attention and rioted and burnt his book. Since then, Islamic fundmentalism has been tolerated and sometimes even tacitly encouraged amongst British Pakistanis. Hatred for Jews, Hatred for Hindus, Hatred for Sikhs, Hatred for America and Britain. It has to stop.

Dont have a nervous breakdown and say we are all the same. It loses focus. The focus must be on curing the fascistic hatred and intolerance that has become currency amongst some British Pakistanis.

This is the need of the hour.

Dont obfuscate. Tell the truth about what needs to be done.

My Son the Fanatic is a terrific movie. I figured it would not be on every store shelf, so I bought myself a copy when it came out on video. Om Puri gives his best performance in a Western movie as the scotch drinking, jazz-loving cabdriver Parvez.

Parvez is a quiet man, but when he is confronted by his friend Fizzy about his affair with an English prostitute, he explodes in the movie's most memorable line scene, "What else is there for me, but sitting behind that wheel without tenderness?! Is that it for me, is it? Till I drop dead?! Not another human touch?! You are too certain of what other people should do."

Kuerishi flipped the generation gap. Here, it is the immigrant who assimilated, and the son who refuses to do so. Perhaps it should be required reading in English classrooms.

Okay,
In this post I will be executing my censorship right and deleting all rants. Stay on topic or go to a message board and vomit there to your heart's content.

"Prem Kahlon": Nice rant, but my question was in all seriousness - not to explore any political point but simply as a 1st gen immigrant worried about his 2nd gen toddlers.

Prem Kahlon:

Makes some good points along the vien of Irshad Manji. But I don't think that I'd go this far in trying to distance this from the larger desi. After all some of the tension originates within the context of the country (Kashmir), culture (Hindu-Muslim),

Model Minority:

I used to chat to my Muslim grocer when I lived in the UK - I got the feeling that at least among the people in his immediate community, the persecution complex starts with the global picture (Palestine, Kashmir) and filters down to the local. So this is a big picture that they're connecting the dots with here - ideological.

Speaking for the situation in Canada, there certainly are small communities here that are looking for this kind of "false empowerment" (good description abhi). Hard to say whether or not there is as much a feeling of "alienation" as there apparantly is in the UK - how do you measure that anyway! I know that it's there - after all Canadian and American citizens have both been detained for suspected activities.

Re: other communities - the bombing of the Air India flight from Canada in 1985 is an interesting comparison because it was a devastating terrorist strike, but the fomenting anti-India sentiment of the time has largely dissapeared today as the situation in Punjab has ameliorated. So again - I think the key is the big picture. Palestine, Kashmir etc are still very much unresolved.

ModelMinorirty asked: i) Is this sense of alienation found in the US/Canada - or just in UK/Europe? ii) Is this limited to Muslims (whether Pakistanis or Indians or Bangladeshis)?

The migration pattern is very different in the US as compared to W. Europe. I remember reading books and papers that actually had titles like "immigrant Success" in the US, but just the opposite in the UK (The immigrant failure). Check out all the desi's cleaning the airport at Heathrow and you will see what I mean. The restrictions on immigration to the US meant that many of our parents are the doctors and engineers - the stereotype we laugh about. Not so in England.

I remember junior year abroad. My second day in London I went to the book store and as I was leaving some kids across the street were screaminmg someting. It took me a while to figure out: a) they were yelling at me and 2) they were yelling "go home Paki". That never happended to me in Boston, Washington DC, NYC or Houston, where I have also lived, but it sure happened a lot to me in London that year. I think the alienation is partly to blame for what happended, but the other problem is the ethnic ghettos. Maybe they go hand in hand, not sure. However, with migration changing in the US and the number of service (i.e. restaurant, domestic help and farm workers etc) from South Asia increasing I think it is time we confront these issues.

Interesting experiences Ek Aurat

Check out all the desi's cleaning the airport at Heathrow and you will see what I mean. The restrictions on immigration to the US meant that many of our parents are the doctors and engineers - the stereotype we laugh about. Not so in England.

How does this explain the "alienation or ghettoization" being confined to Pakistani muslims. Indian muslims, Hindus or Sikhs don't seem to have this problem. Based on what I read, by the second generation Indian muslims, hindus and sikhs seemed to be on par with whites (or very close). Isn't Lakshmi Mittal the Richest Briton ? (at least according the article).

Ek Aurat,
Good interpretation. Slate's daily news round-up seems to corroborate what you say by examining what the newspapers are saying:

A somewhat conflicting picture emerges of Leeds, which the Journal says is home to a quarter of all asylum seekers in the U.K. The WSJ says it was "the scene of race riots" in 2001. But the NYT says the city has actually been pretty peaceful and the riots didn't hit there. Everybody agrees that the neighborhoods where the suspects lived are down-and-out.

I agree that the economic status of desis in the U.S. coupled with more tolerant racial attitudes here are presently buffering the sort of thing brewing in Leeds. I think that Canada might be slightly more suceptible. Desi gang violence seems to be out of control there at least.

Two weekends ago I was standing in line at a bar in Atlanta. Behind me were three British Indian girls making all kinds of racially provocative statements just loud enough so that the white people in line could hear. I just couldn't believe it. If that is the norm in UK culture then I can see how tensions spiral out of control.

The disease is spreading through Europe:

Amsterdam teen arrested as self-made bomb is found

13 July 2005

AMSTERDAM — The national detective unit has uncovered a self-made bomb during the arrest of a 17-year-old youth in the Netherlands

The police carried out the operation at the home of suspect's parents in Amsterdam on Monday evening. The teen had come to police attention during the investigation in the Hofstadgroep.

The police stress the youth is not believed to be a member of the alleged terror group. Investigations are continuing to try and establish what contacts he had with the Hofstadgroep and what he intended to do with the bomb.

The teen is to appear before a children's court on Thursday.

News agency ANP reported that his parents
are of British and Dutch descent. The youth converted to Islam at the age of 14 and quickly became radicalised.

An initial examination of the device indicated it was "potentially dangerous", a police spokesperson said on Tuesday. It consisted of a cardboard bar filled with gunpowder, small bullets and a detonator.

Sources close to the investigation told ANP that intercepted telephone calls showed the youth seemed to have been out to get Independent right-wing MP Geert Wilders.

The MP also confirmed on Wednesday that the teen, who is the administrator of radical Islamic newsgroups, was suspected of threatening him via the internet.

Several young Muslim men are being prosecuted for alleged membership of the Hofstadgroep, which the authorities claim is a home-grown Muslim terror organisation.

Mohammed B., the man who killed filmmaker Theo van Gogh in November 2004, is said by prosecutors to have been an important member of the Hofstadgroep.

B. is a 27-year-old Amsterdammer of Moroccan descent. The prosecution's case in relation to the Van Gogh killing finished yesterday as B. made clear he did not intend to mount a defence.

Having taken full responsibility for the killing, B. also told his trial he would kill again in the name of Islam if given the opportunity.

The prosecution has demanded that B. be jailed for life and the three-judge panel will give its ruling on 26 July.

[Copyright Expatica News + ANP 2005]

A "minority" ? I think not. Is the world going to tolerate weekly bombings in their cities due to this menace ? I suppose Europe's passivity is matched only by their stupidity in allowing their lax immigration policies to open doors for the scum of the earth.

Yeah, My Son the Fanatic was the first thing that came to mind when SM first posted about the identities of the bombers. Everyone should definitely watch it.

Hi,

About a year ago, I wrote post "The Terror Bee Equation". It is quite related to discussion above. Do read it at:

http://www.kushtandon.squarespace.com/journal/2005/3/27/the-terror-bee-equation.html

Kush

The French vs the British approach to Islamic radicalism. From today's financial times (req. subscription). The UK foment of Islam’s radical fringe

France, where the authorities have taken a much harsher line than the British against radical Islamists, especially since bombings hit Paris in 1995.

------------------------

In France too, officials have been long-standing critics of British tolerance of Islamist dissidents, particularly from North Africa. They also believe that their policy at home of cracking down on jihadists and supporters – while not guaranteeing safety – has been more effective than Britain’s. Surveillance of radicals is much more intense, with every mosque monitored; extremists and purveyors of hate speech are harassed and deportations are much more frequent.

“The British do not have this system of permanent surveillance, with deep penetration of problem communities,” Alain Chouet, former director general of the DGSE, the French foreign intelligence service, told Le Figaro. Referring to Britain’s domestic security service, he added: “On the contrary, they have with MI5 a machine that performs well once the threat has been declared.”

Mr Chouet said French harassment techniques had limitations “but they upset networks and prevent them from moving into action”.

----------------------------

There are also differences that mean the UK is unable to follow aspects of the French approach. One is legal: France’s system of investigating magistrates is recognised by some in the UK as more effective in dealing with terrorism than Britain’s adversarial judicial system. Security officials say one reason they do not detain suspects more quickly is because they need to gather evidence that will stand up in court.

France has also chosen a course that insists on assimilation, as shown by the government’s insistence that headscarves and other religious adornments should not be worn in schools. Britain’s approach has been largely to let Muslim communities alone. There is still some official pride in the traditions of the rule of law, free speech and safe haven to dissidents. One official says the security services do not know whether more people than before were listening to radical clerics. “Attendance at a mosque and listening to a radical cleric or a moderate cleric is not a criminal offence. Free speech is entirely lawful and we don’t monitor the activity of people going to mosques,” he says.

Moreover, the experience of France, burned in the furnace of the Algerian war of independence that ended in 1962, is different from Britain’s. People from the Asian subcontinent make up close to 80 per cent of Britain’s 1.6m Muslims, Pakistanis alone accounting for 45 per cent of them. By contrast, North Africans make up more than half of France’s Muslims, 30 per cent of whom are Algerian.

Hmm... you might be on to something there - I think we take cultural inclusivity a bit for granted in N. America. Similar thing happened to me in the UK - waiting in line once and this moron standing next to me starts talking to me in the Apu-accent while his girfriend starts snickering. And this was at a University!!!

Ironic that multiculturalism became a political buzzword in the UK before it did in Canada or the US. So do you see this first as a problem of cultural access?

Also you're bringing the issue of class into the discussion - professionals vs. blue collar workers. But I don't draw that distinction too sharply - after all "Fakirs" can (and have) brainwash engineers just as easily as they can cleaners.

"scum", "disease", "fascism", "virulent strain of fascism", "this menace", "A 'minority' I think not."

These are words that dehumanize and, in the truest sense of the world, obfuscate. My best interpretation is that there are a bunch of real bastards with power and money and some insanity and a lack of disregard for people's lives (i.e. the zawahiris and bin ladens of the world
) and then there are these foot soldiers who are somewhat f@#ked up but led astray by false prophets, so to speak. I don't know if I'm right, since i have so little information to go on, but I feel comfortable saying that what I'm offering is at least the starting point for a discussion about how to address this problem, whereas what you two are offering is just anger (which is fair...just don't couch it in terms of policy or politics).

Whether or not you two think you should dehumanize people that are willing to kill you (as these people were, although they may not have thought about it as such) with imprecise language and metaphors, it's probably not in your best interests. If you don't understand what these people are about and why they do what they do, then what's the point of talking about this at all, and how is the reaction to all this going to be productive and avoid excesses? It's, in part, this kind of thinking that allowed the US government to play us into getting involved in the Iraq War (which just continued this cycle while doing little, if anything, to address the real problem).

So far, I've heard a call for more restrictive immigration policies in Europe (which is already a fairly xenophbic place, from what I hear). I am waiting to hear what else "needs to be done."

Prem, I find your attack on "modern Islamic thought" and "cancer" in Islam troubling. I find it curious that you take a position that even Tony Blair has outright rejected. Today Blair did not pin this on Islam, but rather extremism, a violent expression of “an extreme and evil ideology whose roots lie in a perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.”

But what I don't understand is why you cannot accept that the alienation that leads to violence is a common element in almost every conflict on the planet? Would you argue that with regard to the IRA bombings, that there is a "real frenzy of indoctrinated hatred amongst some [Irish] in Britain." I think it's unfair to attaching something fixed and inherent to Islam that is common to all people-the violent and angry reaction to perceived or real political and social isolation.

Abhi,

While I am normally a huge fan of your blog, I am shocked to see you making blanket statements like bigtory has persisted for generations in Gujarat. You've gotta be kidding me!! Either that or you are completely and utterly ignorant about Gujarati history. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I am forced to remind you of a certain gentleman with the last name Gandhi and the effect he's had on many generations of Gujaratis. My family has strong roots in Gujarat and it's incredible to see the effect Gandhism continues to have in that society - in fact, there are schools in Ahmedabad run by staunch Gandhians today that still inisist on students wearing unifroms made from hand-woven cotton. Even prior to Gandhi, Gujarat was the land of religious reform in Hinduism. The founder of one of the most liberal Hindu reform movement of the 19th century that wroked so hard to eradicate social evils of untouchability and religious intolerance, the Arya Samaj, was a Gujarati born in the Saurashtra region. You need a lesson in learning about your own heritage.

It's curious that Prem Kahlon's message was considered a "rant". Are we so PC that any that we aren't willing to entertain opinions that sound un-PC? Sad.

[Comment Deleted by Abhi--off topic]

All this stuff about young boys radicalizing made me remember my little bro when he was a teen and became a straightedge vegan punk. (he's since outgrown all but the punk band he's in, and matured into a healthy pinko) ;) Similar ideas about purity and disgust with mainstream civilization, yet obviously most of those kids just take out their rage by moshing and chaining themselves to fur store entrances. Heck, think about the rise of evangelical Christianity among American teens and the whole WWJD? trend. If most teens go through some sort of rebellion and/or issues with self-control (anorexia, abstinence, etc) simply because they're emotionally and hormonally wired to do so, how can society safely steer young Muslims away from the violent extremes? It would be interesting to hear from high school teachers, I think. One article yesterday pointed out that 25% of British Muslim men between 16-24 are unemployed, something like 4-5x higher than the average. Give these guys a productive hobby already.

Abhi,

Btw, East is East is a good adjoint to My Son. It offers a perspective from the (confused/fanatical) first gen side.

This site offers some pointers that may be constructive in this debate. It seems to have been written during the time My Son, the Fanatic was released. If anything, I would hazard a guess that matters have gotten worse. Re second generation attitudes, the Farrukh Dhondy article I had linked in the other comment is a good analysis.

Literacy & Income levels of second gen immigrants also offer a clue. There is considerable disparity between UK Indians and Pakistanis. See this (PDF), and this (PDF). Pay particular attention to the stats on women. Quote from the latter:
So the FRS data suggest that there are some systematic geographical influences on
minority incomes. These are strongest for Indians and Chinese, and weakest for Africans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. On the other hand, these area effects do not explain much of the very wide variations in income levels within ethnic groups (third row of Table 2.10). Nor much of the differences between ethnic groups: in every type of area, whites, Chinese and Indians had the highest levels of income; in every area, Africans, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis had the lowest. Thus income seems to be determined more by who you are,
and where you came from, than by where you live now.

CT,
The answer to your question is yes. It has nothing to do with being PC. I don't want my site degenerating into garbage. Thoughtful discussions require a moderator.

Gujjubhia,
I stand firmly behind my original assertion. Feel free to email me offline on this point, themadblogger at gmail dot com.

Not to be an idiot, I never really understood the first/second generation thing. The American Heritage Dictionary defines First Generation, like this "1. Of or relating to a person who has left one country and settled in another. 2. Of or relating to a person or persons whose parents are immigrants."

Definition one and two contradict each other!

Now back to the topic.

I've haven't seen or read My Son the Fanatic but I recall reading this a long time ago and it is linkable so here it is Jonathan Raban writing in the New Yorker

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/020204fa_FACT

"Like many homesick people, living outside their language in an abrasive foreign culture, Qutb aggrandized his loneliness into heroic solitude."

"It also confers a heroic glamour on the everyday alienation felt by the immigrant—especially the male immigrant—who struggles to keep his head up in a foreign culture"

When the Sepia Mutiny page opened, I was shocked at reading the title of the post and staring into the eyes of a young man that resembles my brother to the small bumb of his hooked nose. The resemblance is uncanny and saddening. Radical Islam brought home because I am completely and utterly sadenned for the family he left behind and for the futures he quashed with one decision. These men are someone's loved ones, they are someone's sons but most of all, they are our neighbors and their decisions are killing us and changing the view of the world for all South Asians.

As a Sikh who has lived in Britain, I can profess the type of hatred I have encountered suddenly while walking down the street, while buying vegetables and when I was younger, at the playground. I was called Paki, my cousins were made fun of for wearing the top knot and I remember being asked if my father was a "camel jockey" at the tender age of 6. The members of my family (the patriarchs and matriarchs of our current generation) are very succesful business people. Their main income was from the cornershops that many minorities are known for, raking in millions every year. Upwardly mobile, I remember attending school at a prestigious school in London but being heckled on my way home from school by skinheads. These people had no concern that I was a child or that my tender years would prevent me from answering their crude and often times violent language. The worst incident that stands out in my mind was my bedroom window being broken by a brick. The only reason I was saved from any injury was the double plated glass that had been installed earlier that week. We traded fresh air for safety. These are terrible memories but they are my memories of the street, not my neighborhood. Those people were transients in my neighborhood. They were not my classmates, not my peers. They were simply the skinheads that were so economically depressed that they panhandled near trafalgar square when they werent on our street bothering people passing. I do remember being treated differently by "normal" people, but that comes with the territory of being the product of a culture that is proud to be different. I am Indian but I also had an inside view of the Pakistani community. Even now, my friends admit that their parents pay to have Al Jazeera beamed into their house via sattelite. We avoid speaking of Kashmir or Palestine. Our parents simply wave at one another and rarely converse (not true of the US where my parents have many Pakistani friends). Still, I hear the rumblings of their displeasure and sometimes I am privy to the conversations over tea in the living rooms while watching the Indian/Pakistani news. Even the names of the Imams known for spreading a fundamentalist/fanatical idealogy hedge up in the conversation. The unrest that is transformed into hatred all starts with the news of Islam being supressed, treated unfairly and from the fealing that Islamic peoples across the globe are under attack. Islam is seemingly under attack from the US to the Middle East and inwards to India (even China supresses Islam and holds innocent leaders in jail). The results of supression, the fruit of the seeds of unrest, bloom in blood in the mosques where men like Tanveer are changed, fundamentally and internally, into soldiers of a spiritual war by the ideology preached by the leaders of their faith. The belief that war is the only way to call to attention and change the fate of Islam around the globe becomes the only solution to a growing problem.
Sikhs and Hindus are also alienated and treated differently but most do not feel that their religion is under attack across the globe. Lakshmi Mittal is only one part of changing, hybrid face of South Asia in Britain. The fundamentalist problem may not be a "Desi thing" but there is something of the South Asian status in the problem of fundamentalist Islam. South Asians are treated differently by British society but Pakistani muslims do not count themselves in the same group as Indians. Perhaps these young men had something to prove? I have heard many times that Bangladeshi and Pakistani muslims are somehow lesser than Arab muslims many times. Is this a status problem? Pakistanis are not accepted (always) as true muslims but they are not ready to counted in the same group as Indians. Where do they fit? Fundamentalist Islam was perhaps the solution to that void for these men.

I used to chat to my Muslim grocer when I lived in the UK - I got the feeling that at least among the people in his immediate community, the persecution complex starts with the global picture (Palestine, Kashmir) and filters down to the local. So this is a big picture that they're connecting the dots with here - ideological.

It's hard for me to believe that the "global picture" is where the sense of persecution comes from (if in fact, that's what's going on). I'd imagine there's an emotional substrate of a person's life experiences that makes them prone to adopting the kind of intellectual analysis you're talking about. You can take the same set of facts and spin it 100 different ways, depending on what you're prone to do.

Sorry about the second post but -- here is a more relevant quote from Raban's article.

"He was a normal person. . . . He drank alcohol, he had girlfriends." "His personality and his life bore no relation to the kind of things that happened." "We are in shock. . . . We thought he liked the U.S.A." In Europe and the United States, each of these ordinary, insecure, unprepossessing men learned to think of himself as someone who might yet have a spectacular career, as a martyr. This peculiar strain of religious belief, with its equal measures of rage and passion for death, was hatched in Egypt more than fifty years ago, and seems to have found an ideal growing climate in exile, in the most secular-looking landscape yet devised: the low-rent, rootless, multilingual suburbs."

Abhi,

The nihilism in the second-generation bombers of Leeds is perhaps matched by the nihilism of the shooters in school in Columbine, Colorado, or that of the perpetrators of several such incidents.

In the case of the bombers of Leeds, the existence of a jihad, the ability of the bombers to use the expertise of the jihad to make the bombs made them much more deadly. But perhaps the human impulse is the same - a growing alienation from the people around oneself and the lapse into inhumanity.

It is only a perhaps,we can never interview a suicide bomber, only failed suicide bombers - and who knows there may be some crucial difference between the guys who couldn't do it versus the guys who could.

It is a primarily a failure of the perpetrator's moral judgment, but it is also a failure of the society around them to seem human and welcoming to them.

-Arun

Gujjubhia,I stand firmly behind my original assertion. Feel free to email me offline on this point, themadblogger at gmail dot com.

Sorry, I am not going to waste my time arguing against "truth by repeated assertion". After all, you've expressed your views condemning the entire Gujarati scoiety in a public post. I've given you evidence to refute your claims. It is only fair that you defend your position in a public forum. If you don't have the intellectual integrity to defend your viewpoint - and a very bigoted and offensive one at that, if I may say so - then I don't see how we can go anywhere even with an offline dialogue. And don't throw tired cliches of 2002 pogroms at me. Yes, that proably wasn't the proudest moment in Gujarati history. However, to be brutally clinical about it, less than one thousand people killed in a riot with almost 1/3rd of them being Hindus does not make a genocide, not even by a long shot. Gujarat in 2002 pales into insignificance compared to the brutality perpetrated on Hindus in Bengal and Kashmir.
http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jul/28arvind.htm

So, if you have any arguments other than the 2002 riots, let's hear it out in the open. Perhaps I can learn something from you too, and discover if I am a product of generations of bigotry myself.

He has such a paavam face. I agree with sunderban, he could have belonged to any of our crowds or families. They can only get young impressionable fools to blow themselves up, bastards like Bin Laden know how to save their own skins.

And the article in the previous thread is almost unbearably sad. "Her mother Romena is riddled with guilt because she insisted her daughter should go to work. . ." :( But she needs to know that she was doing the right thing, and so was her daughter. Nobody could have known.

sundarban

great comment.

I think there is no straight upfront answer. There are too many issues involved. The whole birth of Pakistan based on religious ideals is in hindsight a very shallow ideal to base the birth of a nation on. I am sure Pakistanis today would have more of a identity had they been a part of a larger India as was known in the first half of the 20th century.

Probably its not too late for it to become one !

There is less racism towards desis in America than in the UK due to the 'model minority' image, less history/bagage with desis in US and also due to the fact that there are more blacks, hispanics, and east asians here, so the racists in America can 'spread out' their hate. Or as my father was told in the late 60s, "if you're white, you're all right, if you're black, stand back, if you're brown, stick aroun'" ... HOwever, 9/11 changed that sentiment, especially when you're 'flying while brown'.

Although I'm American, I spent most of my summers in UK. The way I see it desis are the "Blacks" of the UK and up until recently were labeled black by many in UK (including desis themselves). "Blackie" is still used as a slur against desis there. Pakistani muslims seem to be at the bottom of the desi heap there. No one likes the Pakistani mulsims not even the Indian Muslims. Even the Afghani Muslims are better thought of by Arab muslims there than the Pakistani ones.

I am Indian but I also had an inside view of the Pakistani community. Even now, my friends admit that their parents pay to have Al Jazeera beamed into their house via sattelite. We avoid speaking of Kashmir or Palestine

Thats strange considering the fact that Al Jazeera is an Arabic channel and most Pakistanis dont speak or understand Arabic.

Thanks for sharing your experiences sundarban. Your analysis of Pakistani youth appears to mirror the national tragedy of Pakistan. Neither Arabic nor Western. Betrayed by the country leaders. Engaging in copycat violence in an effort to prove their allegiance to the Arabs. Fate of the lowest of the conquered. Sad indeed.

I'd imagine there's an emotional substrate of a person's life experiences that makes them prone to adopting the kind of intellectual analysis you're talking about.

Gujjubhia, FYI. I don't care either way about Gujarat's communal character and I won't respond to this further, but for those interested in history (scroll to ...

Ever since the outbreak of violence, there have been frequent expressions of surprise that such events could ever happen in the “land of Gandhi”, in a state that is the most industrialised after Maharashtra, in a society with such a “strong mercantile mentality”, and in a polity that has seen such “stable governments”.

History of Communal Riots in Gujarat

If you don't understand what these people are about and why they do what they do, then what's the point of talking about this at all, and how is the reaction to all this going to be productive and avoid excesses?

At some point one has to turn take off the lab coat and turn off the measuring instruments and put on the pest control gear. What have people really gained from studying the philosophies of Neo-Nazis ? Of the Mafia ? Of groups like NAMBLA ? To each such group, their philosophies and goals make precise sense and seem reasonable. But would those words make any rational human society any closer to understanding them ? No matter how well written those words are. "Mein Kampf" did not help anyone in formulating anyway to counter the Nazis peacefully.

Your question about what needs to be done is not one that can be answered without crossing what I think you would consider the boundaries of PCness: the closure of all foreign(Arab) funded mosques, close monitoring of what is taught in Islamic schools, the filing of lawsuits against mosques that invite hate speech spouting imams (If the Catholic church can be sued for the actions of their priests, why cannot mosques ?). I suppose that is a start. Anyone else ?

"got the feeling that at least among the people in his immediate community, the persecution complex starts with the global picture (Palestine, Kashmir) and filters down to the local. So this is a big picture that they're connecting the dots with here - ideological."

Kashmir ??? Its amazing. Its the Hindu minority that is being persecuted in Kashmir. Hundred of thousands of Hindus refugee in their own country. Sikhs brutally murdered in Jammu.

WTF... Its the muslims who are the opressors in Kashmir, but they conveniently take on the 'victim' role as it fits in their "under seige" mentality.

They always have Palestine and Kashmir in the same sentence as if both are equal situation. They are NOT. In palestine the Jews are the majority and Muslims the minority and Muslims were driven out.

The Palestine comparison would mean that Hindus should be doing suicide bombings in Kashmir.

The American Muslims have done a much better job of assimilating with the mainstream when compared to the Pakistanis in UK, Algerians in France, Turks in Germany and Moroccons in Holland and Spain.
Why do the Muslims in the US have a lower profile (apart from 9-11, which too was perpetrated by foreigners and not American Muslims) than they have in Europe.
Why have the Muslims in the US been able to assimilate better or atleast avoid most of the problems that plague the Muslim communities in Europe. The Muslims in the US have been surprisingly tolerant of some very nasty comments from people on the right, from Franklin Graham to Michael Savage. Where are the realistic death threats like the ones given to Rushdie in UK and Hirshi Ali in Holland and murder of Van Gogh? The Muslims in the US have their problems with terrorism but the problems they have in the US are qualitatively different from the problems the Muslims face in Europe. Is it because there are more Muslims in Europe ? The total Muslim population in Europe is around 3%. The US population in US is around 2%. (1) It might be because the Muslim population in US is more dispersed while the Muslim population in Europe is concentrated in a few big cities in a few countries. They are more visible and have an opportunity to create their own 'muslim ghettos' complete with halaal meat shops and streets full of covered women and crazy imams. This is not possible in the US because of the Geographical dispersement of the Muslims in the US. In Europe you have Pakistani ghettoes from Bradford in UK to Arab ghettoes outside Paris. (2) It might be because the more Conservative America has less differences on social issues with the Muslims than the Ultra Liberal Western Europe where the differences between Muslims and the natives on social issues are more pronounced. (3) It might be due to the fact that there is a higher majority of second generation Muslims in Europe than in the US. Second generation immigrants tend to be more assertive. They are also more likely to follow radical ideologies especially when theres unemployment and discrimination. Unlike their parents who thought they were lucky just to be in the West, they dont have the incentive to work 2-3 jobs and more demanding of their governments. Their parents on the other hand were too busy working hard and were more willing to accept racism or alienation from the mainstream. (4) Muslims are the biggest minority in Europe, while in the US the Muslims are far behind the Blacks and Hispanics in numbers. Traditional hostilities to blacks and the sheer number of Hispanics dwarf the problems created by Muslim immigrants. (5) Muslim immigrants to Europe are more likely to be from rural areas and hence less tolerant, more religious and less willing/able to assimilate. Majority of the Brit Pakis in Britain are from the rural areas of Pakistani Punjab with almost a half of them from Mirpur, a remote rural area in Pakistan. The Arabs from Morocco in Holland and Turks in Germany all come from very remote, rural and conservative areas of Morocco and Turkey.
A lot of Muslims to the US come on student/ work visas. Also with the abundance of cheap capital and a much bigger/stronger US economy, a lot of Muslim immigrants (especially Arabs) find it easier to start their own small business and come out of poverty. The Black Muslim immigrants from Africa are treated like other African Americans and not as a seperate minority. The Paki Muslims in the US are a very small minority with no community and spread all over the US (6) US in general is more accepting of Immigrants than Europe. The US economy being bigger and better, the strain on resources is more dramatic in Europe than in the US. The strain on resources due to new immigrants and already settled poor immigrants is much higher in Europe than in the US because the US has less charitable welfare programs for new and poor immigrants while Europe has better and more generous welfare programs for new and poor immigrants.

Abhi, thanks for telling that story. I heard similar stories as a child and am surprised to see that it's as widespread as it is.

It's hard for me to believe that the "global picture" is where the sense of persecution comes... You can take the same set of facts and spin it 100 different ways, depending on what you're prone to do.

Sure - there's an element of personal experience there that's being tapped into. On the other hand, this doesn't explain why you can sit down for coffee with a rich Arab in his own country and get an earful about how Muslims are being singled out all over the world for persecution... even the gentleman at the grocery store couldn't stop talking about Palestine/Kashmir as Muslims vs the-rest-of-the-world.

So I see some continuity there. It's the same discourse, even if they are from different social strata and in different countries.

At some point one has to turn take off the lab coat and turn off the measuring instruments and put on the pest control gear. What have people really gained from studying the philosophies of Neo-Nazis ? Of the Mafia ? Of groups like NAMBLA ? To each such group, their philosophies and goals make precise sense and seem reasonable. But would those words make any rational human society any closer to understanding them ? No matter how well written those words are. "Mein Kampf" did not help anyone in formulating anyway to counter the Nazis peacefully.

This is almost pointless and other people commenting are doing what I'm suggesting anwyay. What I'm saying is not to study the ideologies (as I made clear in another comment--although that might be important as part of it) as it is to look at what produces people who are willing to do things like this. What factors lead on an individual level to people being willing to fall into the psychology that produces things? What social conditions facilitate that? My question about "what needs to be done." was sarcastic--without abandoning phrases like "pest control" or your preconceptions and trying to get a real handle on what this phenomenon is about--you'll never be able to come up with social policies that actually have an effect in accomplishing what you want. This is a common problem among people who are angry about something and then move into a normative analysis and then put toward policy ideas, all while rejecting any kind of thinking about whether those policies are at all connected to producing a solution. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about childhood sexual abuse in the Untied States or organized crime or xenophobia.

It's always possible that what you're advising are the necessary ones, but until you can come up with a way of presenting them reflects an undersatnding of what's going on in language that eschews hyperbolic rhetoric (that has a lot of really horrific antecedents that I won't bother mentioning here), there's very little credibility to what you're saying in my eyes.

Us, and them
And after all we’re only ordinary men.
Me, and you.
God only knows it’s noz what we would choose to do.
Forward he cried from the rear
And the front rank died.
And the general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side.
Black and blue
And who knows which is which and who is who.
Up and down.
But in the end it’s only round and round.
Haven’t you heard it’s a battle of words
The poster bearer cried.
Listen son, said the man with the gun
There’s room for you inside.......

Sorry for the messup up text... here it is cleaned up

This is a common problem among people who are angry about something and then move into a normative analysis and then put toward policy ideas, all while rejecting any kind of thinking about whether those policies are at all connected to producing a solution. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about childhood sexual abuse in the Untied States or organized crime or xenophobia.

Perhaps the anger is because many of us are tired of rationalizing and explaining away a culture of destruction that has grown beyond pacifistic sympathy and explanation.

It is unrealistic to expect a clinical unemotional computer like analysis of what is happening currently. Pearl Harbor brought the country to its feet and action. Historians in later years could look back and fill libraries with detailed (and quite often meaningless) discussions of the geo-political climate that led to the fateful day in 1941. Do you expect people in the eye of the storm to be able to disassociate themselves from the reality and emotionality of the situation ? I don't think so.

As regards social policies, it takes two hands to clap. The Muslim community has not made any significant move in addressing the issue. Why do they continue to hire radical imams ? Why do they continue to hand out hate literature to fuel more jihadis ? The hyperbole is more from their side than ours and has had more of an effect on their followers than we'd like to admit. So perhaps we should request CAIR to address our questions. Until we recieve answers, we cannot formulate any solutions. I'm sure CAIR et al will say that is no problem in the Muslim community. And that my friend is the crux of the problem. Their denial and not ours. Why should the onus be on us to suggest the solutions ? The Muslim community needs to show that it is working on long terms solutions. And so far sadly they are not.

Perhaps the anger is because many of us are tired of rationalizing and explaining away a culture of destruction that has grown beyond pacifistic sympathy and explanation.

Yes, clearly "pacifistic sympathy and explanation" is what lead to the Iraq War. Which is doing so much to stop the recruitment of other people like this. I suggest you read this pdf from a Department of Defense committee about how flawed the underlying analysis of the War On Terror is and how reliant it is on the narrative of the Cold War. If you can't open it, I have some quotes from it here.

.

It is unrealistic to expect a clinical unemotional computer like analysis of what is happening currently.

True. But it's not unrealistic to expect people to strive more towards an empirical understanding of what's going on (rather than a knee-jerk emotional reaction built on preconceptions)--particularly when they're conscious that that's what's going on.

Pearl Harbor brought the country to its feet and action. Historians in later years could look back and fill libraries with detailed (and quite often meaningless) discussions of the geo-political climate that led to the fateful day in 1941.

Yes, and that led to some good things and some bad things from the U.S. government. The more rational you are about it, the more you come up with good things or necessary things that are really, really unfortunate. The more irrational you are about it, the more you come up with unnecessary and counterproductive bad things. Not trying to aim for the former is inexcusable.

The Muslim community has not made any significant move in addressing the issue.

1. This is factually incorrect. You can argue that the diverse predominantly Muslim communities in the West (which is what I assume you refer to) haven't done enough to tackle intolerance or extremism or violence or have gone about it the wrong way, but you can't argue that they haven't done anything. Also, I'm not sure what you're basing your argument on (as opposed to, say, some of the personal experiences that some of the Muslim people posting to this blog have related).

2. The "Muslim" community is extremely diverse, as I'm sure you're well aware. There are many ideological and theological bents within Islam. See some of the information that a scholar gathered on different attitudes in Pakistan, Egypt, Kazakhstan, and Indonesia. There's a review of the author here.

3. Placing the blame on the "Muslim" community is like blaming all Americans for the excesses that led to Abu Ghraib.

The hyperbole is more from their side than ours and has had more of an effect on their followers than we'd like to admit.

Who is "their side"? Who is "our side"? If you really want to pose it in a "with us or against us" kind of way: people who don't want to get killed and are interested in policies and programs that make sense that will help us not get killed; people who don't fit in category one--including: violent Islamist fundamentalists; "go kill 'em" American conservatives; xenophobes and racists and otherwise severely intolerant people of all stripes; elites with too much power and not enough conscience; and well-meaning, but extraordinarily stupid people with too much power. Not a moral classification--just a political one.

I'm sure CAIR et al will say that is no problem in the Muslim community.

See here. (it's the most prominent link on their website).

Why should the onus be on us to suggest the solutions?

Again, I'm not sure who "us" is, but setting that aside: because we might get killed. Or because we want the world to be slightly more tolerable and want less other people to be killed. Or because we have Muslim friends who have asked us to be allies. etc. etc.

But the most important reason is because Al Qaeda has managed to draw in the American and British and other elites into a trap, and now they're in it, and so my tax dollars are going to support the expansion of this nonsense and I have to sit around and hear about this all the time while other problems continue to get ignored.

Okay, I give up. Here's the link to the main CAIR site. I'll leave it to you to find the link called "U.S. Muslims to Release Anti-Terror TV Ad"

Disclaimer - This is just a hypothetical thought, not a suggested plan of action.

Am I the only one who finds it difficult to believe statements from family members to the tune of - but we never thought he would do anything like that, he seemed normal etc ?

Does love for close ones cloud ones judgement or R they lying? Is it possible to hide such hatred/nihilism/fundamentalism/confusion- call it whatever - from family? Wouldnt it be a daily oscar worthy performance?Why dint they do or say anything?

Is it a crime to hide knowledge of possible crime?Can family members be arrested for this?

Maybe if the bombers were scared of the consequences of their actions on their family members, they wouldnt be so ready to murder.

The Catholic community has done a lot to combat the problems of the Church, but that still didn't exempt the U.S dioceses from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. In the same way, the organizations supporting extremist behavior in the Muslim community need to be served with lawsuits. So far that hasn't happened.

From www.wikipedia.org

CAIR's Omar Ahmad, told a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

Not a particularly peaceful and community relations building statement woouldn't you say ? I think they made the first distinction of "them versus us". And this was before 9/11 etc.

Perhaps having CAIR police/control the Muslim community is like having the
inmates run the asylum.

Diary of a Terrorist

Here are the thoughts of Omar Sheikh, British-born Pakistani-Origin Top Student, the murderer of Daniel Pearl and of Indian citizens while in Delhi. Diary of a Terrorist . Delhi was at various points in history the seat of muslim power in the subcontinent. [AFAIK, Omar now enjoys the good life in the terrorist state of pakistan after being sentenced to 'hanging' more than two years back]

...Over the next month, I analysed every place I visited from various points of view: as a "future conqueror"—which I fondly imagined myself to be

Here you have the summation of islamic radical thought -- At one point, the islamic empire was the greatest. Those wily indians in collusion with British have robbed us of our land. We must fight to get back 'our land'. Various similar versions throughout the Islamic world. This idea of the great past stolen by west is constantly drummed into peoples heads since they are kids. That is why we can never expect the 'moderate' muslims to really fight against the islamic radicals. It is too convinient. One one hand they get to enjoy the privelages of the liberal west by making money and living the good life in host countries on another they can be supportive (or turn a blind eye) of their 'brothers' back in their ancestral country. After all, they don't lose out if the Islamic Umma is established. They have a longing, however slight, of their past.

Another problem is lack of reformation in Islam. To be a muslim is to be a believer who follows the strict unchanging laws or be an apostate. Nothing in between. The religion forces you into submission to the unchanging idea of the islamic world. The islamic world of the caliphate, islamic glorious past, Quranic law etc. There is no idea of western reformation, the enlightenment, liberty of man. Nothing. When you ask the moderates to stand up to the religious leaders and call their bullshit, it is to formulate a reformation philosophy, have the energy and character to look past the political game being played. Too hard again for moderates. Easy to sit this out by making weak protests.

As I see it, convinience and lack of virtue will continue to play out among the moderates. Some weak protests, standard apologies, Islam is a religion of peace etc. Whatever it is, I dont think the rest of the world can count on inner reform to occur within the Islamic society. Muslims might eventually come to recognize the political power game that is being waged by their religious leaders, but it could be too late for the rest of the world. One nuclear bomb in a big city. Nothing is beyond these power mad mullahs and military men. Unfortunately, this really leaves the option of forceful intervention and wiping out the mad mullahs and military men or putting them somewhere where they cannot influence the muslims. I don't believe this is ideal or probably workable, but I am sure appeasement will not work.

From www.wikipedia.org

CAIR's Omar Ahmad, told a crowd of Californian Muslims in July 1998: "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran ... should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.

Not a particularly peaceful and community relations building statement woouldn't you say?

Here's the page from wikipedia, which is highly disputed in terms of its neutrality. But setting that aside for a moment, you're going to pull one statement by one person at one organization that purports to represent Muslims in the United States and cite that as evidence of a moral or political failure on behalf of the entire, diverse community?

Try going to this event for Arab-American heritage week in New York (keeping in mind that not everyone who shows up is a Muslim).

I've been reading this blog for quite sometime now and I've liked it from the first day I came across it. But this post is something else. I've acquired a new found fondness for Sepia Mutiny.

I'm ashamed to admit it, but it has broken a long held stereotype, which I can't even bring myself to say it.

Anyways, definitely one the best blogs on the net. I felt you guys should know your effort in running this blog is appreciated.

www.abdusalaam.blogspot.com (shameless plug)

Abdusalaam,
Thanks man! It's amazing how productive an intelligent, rant-free discussion can be.

[Deleted by Abhi--off topic]

post 43: Saurav, you are right on track! Vast majority of muslims are caught up in between this mindless game between the terrorists and the U.S. All that U.S did after 9/11 has only helped increase the perception of persecution and get more people to Al-Qaeda camps. The wolves in Al-Qaeda are just waiting for the right opportunity to get more people into their bastardly acts. It is heartening to see CAIR and other muslim associations trying to reach out and denounce terrorism in whichever they can. I hope the sanity stays on in muslim communities and they fight both U.S. militarism and terrorism with non-violence. Despite Bush's actions, it it ridiculous to assume that the west is trying to crush Islam - even when they really did that in 15th century by ousting them from Spain, what happened to Islam? It still has over a billion followers and one of the fastest growing religions in the world. I don't care care about these numbers, but I just hope the moderates in the community do not fall into the traps of Al-Qaeda likes and realize that Islam only loses out when it loses its humane face, which is what is happening slowly by the actions of a few.

Babloo - it's a little more complcated than that. Have you read Fareed Zakaria's "The Politics of Rage"

http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/101501_why.html

An excellent article which covers political, historical and religious roots of Islamic extremism. He also has a very astute conclusion on a program of engagment with these roots.

I just heard on the BBC a moslem youth (pakistani origin) stating "...what's the big deal, it just 50 people, look how many are dying in Iraq everyday"

When are these guys ever going to understand? Since when did two wrongs make one right? History has shown us that this kind of thinking only makes matters worse. I am sure there are thousands of hindu youth in Gujarat living with guilt and shame because of what they did as an act of revenge for the killing of 50 Hindus on a train. Do you think they feel better that they killed a 1000 moslems in response? Do you think the moslems who took part in the initial attack is happy now with what he did??

In the words of KPS Gill, "If you feel strongly enough to take up the gun. Do it against me and my men, spare the civillians. We are ready for a fight, they are trying to feed their families."

Just another reminder. As I stated at the begining we ARE going to stay on topic in this post. Sepia Mutiny is NOT a message board or an internet chat room. If you have "just heard" something send it to our tipline. Making random comments leads to chaos and a bunch of useless "facts" that are too hodgepodged to make sense of or learn from.

Saurav & Anji

Take off your myopic, obfuscatory and knee jerk ignorant blinkers and stop pussy footing around. The need of the hour is for clarity. We need to call a spade a spade. Get used to it. And Anji, your statement about how these people are, like, just like everybody else who is angry in the world is part of the problem.

I anounce that people like you and saurav, in your refusal to face up to the issues of hatred and bigotry being propagated by a virulent, cancerous and menacing form of Islam inside a culture of hatred for Jews and the West within a section of Pakistani British society, cross the line of just passive observers, and become TACTIT SUPPORTERS OF FASCISM.

This is fascism. Dont shoot the messenger. Moral relativism at this time is a sophists choice. Do not be a snake oil salesman or a sophist. Do not wriggle and obfuscate.

Pay attention to the real source of hatred and fascism.

Wake up!

[Deleted by Abhi--off topic]

Is it really fair to call this young boy a murderer, just yet?

I understand the London Police haven't said anything or charged anyone yet. They have only pulled in one man for questioning.

Alleged murderer, perhaps?

Prem, you're precious (which makes sense, given your name). I don't know that many people who "announce" anything, let alone that I'm a "TACIT SUPPORTER OF FASCISM," so I should probably consider you a valuable resource :) I can't speak for Anji though.

Vikram, I don't know exactly what you're looking for. There are obviously Islamists and other people that you would disagree with in the United States. There may even be sleeper cells that are working with Al Qaeda or in some other way to promote violent Islamist action. If you're looking to indict the entire ummah, though, you're just not going to succeed, because the evidence just isn't there.

I don't know where you live, but you could probably go talk to some people who are practicing Muslims--there are all kinds. Some of them will probably bitch about the maulvis and the fanatics more than you will. It might help you get a less theoretical and more grounded perspective on all this.

Here's my 2p.

What's the difference between your non-Muslim (i.e. mostly Hindu desi) and your Muslim desi in UK?

Think about how the aspect of Hinduism and the culture associated with it is idolized & exoticised in the West. 'Indian' girls are exotic, desi beats are blasting at night clubs, Ganesh is on shoes (I've seen this, I wish I had a link, though I found it a bit distasteful), Om is on teeshirts, Raghav is a pop sensation. The average man on the street cannot tell whether a passing desi is a Hindu or a Muslim (unless they don religious symbols), but at the heart of it - what you are, where you come from, Hinduism and India is 'cool'. It is THE age to be brown.

On the other hand, their Muslim counterparts, not only have a handful on men defame their name internationally, their neighbours are suspicious, their women are thought to be oppressed when they don the burkha (while nuns who do the same are not given a second thought) - speak of serious alienation, no one seems to want you in their country, because ofcourse it only takes one bad apple for you to be suspicious of the whole barrel.

I think that, my dear, is the difference between Muslim desis and non-Muslim desis.

Even as a simple gesture of distancing themselves from terror and fundamentalism, has any American Muslim organization issued a Fatwa against Osama Bin Laden?

Well, my understanding is that it would have to be a religious authority that issued a fatwa, not a group like MPAC or ISNA or CAIR. If the American clerics haven't distanced themselves sufficiently, as some did in Spain, it would probably be in their best interests to do so, and someone should tell them. Maybe you? But I think this article, entitled "Muslim leaders condemning terror to the deaf?" might be of relevance, since I and numerous other people have pointed you to numerous denunciations of al qaeda style attacks by Muslim groups.

Again, if the proposition is "could Muslim communities be doing more to combat extremism by other Muslims?" well other people on this blog who are actually from Muslim communities seem to have made those arguments. But the question remains on what authority you're making them, particularly in a polarized climate in which moderate and secular elements in Muslim communities are being attacked from many sides in many ways and how it's at all productive. Especially in this venue. Go write a polite letter to your local masjid. Or better yet, make friends with the imam. He'll probably be more likely to listen to you (although I doubt you'll get very far if you're asking him to take on an Ayatollah in Iran).

Also, why is your argument only applied to Muslims? Why not against the American Hindus that are funding extremists in their communities like VHPA? Why not against Republicans for not bringing Kissinger to trial? Just curious.

Or spoken up against the Fatwa against Salman Rushie issued almost 16 years ago and reaffirmed earlier this year by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ? Somebody ? Anybody ? (deafening silence)

Here you go...again.

"We at MPAC opposed the attempt by some misguided Muslims to condemn Rushdie, and we took a stand in favor of his free speech rights to be impolite."

You can also see a similar statement from MPAC here.

Some notes from a comparative perspective:

In Canada, the Air India bombing of 1985 still remains unresolved, with the main suspects being acquited earlier this year.

An editorial in today's Globe and Mail makes some provocative points:

1) Would the investigation have been done more urgently if the victims were not mostly brown?
2) How serious is Canada about securing itself (and the US) from terrorist activities, if it botched the investigation of the largest terrorist attack on its soil so far?
3) Excuse me, weren't the victims mostly Canadian??? "Immediately after the bombing, our prime minister, Brian Mulroney, sent condolences to the Indian government... in the minds of some, this message justified the allegations of racism."
4) "Ujjal Dosanjh, now our Minister of Health, once said the authorities saw the growing violence as just some brown people fighting amongst themselves." ... hmmmm
5) Will we learn from history: "The federal government dismisses such concerns by saying the authorities have learned their lessons and the same mistakes would not happen today."

A good post. Let's ignore the nutbars (Vikram, Prem) in the comments for a moment -- they're all one-track desi uncles (CAIR!, CAIR!, its all about CAIR!!!), and I have enough of those in my real life.

I liked "my son, the fanatic". A couple of memorable scenes.

-- the son, before he became religious, was set to marry the daughter of a local policeman. The parents are very proud, and visit their future daughter-in-law's family -- a traditional Desi thing to do. Extremely awkward and uncomfortable scene ensues -- British and Desi marriage customs are just too different.

-- The son starts becoming religious, breaks off his engagement. His father confronts him and asks him why he did this. He says "Dad, you can't mix strawberries and keema" (a ground beef dish common in North India). There's your metaphor for race relations in the UK.

If you want to understand people, suicide bombers of unhappy lovers, read fiction. Other sugegestions

- In Monica Ali's Brick Lane, Nazneen, the FOB narrator, takes Karim, a young British-Bangladeshi boy as a lover. The religious Karim (notwithstanding his adulterous sex with older Nazneen) is religious and a community 'leader' of a farcical group in Tower Hamlets. Nazneen, who has a firm B-deshi identity, comments on Karim with pity "Poor Karim, he was born a foreigner in his own country". There's your epigram on being young and brown in the UK.

- Lastly, in Zadie Smith's book White teeth, the ladies man turned religious leader Millet (another b-deshi) joins the local Muslim group Keepers of the Eternal and Victorious Islamic Nation (Kevin -- they know they have an acronym problem).

You can't beat fiction for understanding life. Anyone else have other suggestions beyond these three books?

As long as we refuse to recognize the "real source of hatred and fascism" in each and every one of us, this form of terror will always exist. What I suggest is not moral relativism, it's moral absolutism -- look at it all or stay quiet. While attempting to grok the modern human condition here, foisting the blame on one group is useless. Pointing the finger while utilizing words like "virulent, cancerous and menacing" is completely ineffective as an intellectual and physical way forward, and shows a metastasizing cancerous lesion in itself. What does it accomplish? As Victor Hugo once said, "If a writer wrote merely for his time, I would have to break my pen and throw it away."

What sense of severe alienation turned a boy named Shehzaad Tanweer into the latest famous suicide bomber? What made Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris? What pushed Timothy McVeigh over the edge? What created Nicholas Minucci, the thug, and a score of nameless others like him? What is it about our world today that estranges a growing number of young people and leads them to acts of supreme violence?

Is it anger, boredom, a lack of purpose, hormones, disgust at the double standards surrounding them, an easy way to attain peer status, poor educations and a general feel of impotence in the face of problems out of their control? Well-off, suburban, middle-class kids grow frustrated with their surroundings and take a stand to do something ... anything. What put them in that despairing position? Let's delve further; is the reason:

a) their parents' materialism (arguable -- a lot of parents work their tails off so the little Shehzaads, Nickys and Dylans can have better lives -- leaves less "quality time" with kids),

b) following from a), are these kids spoiled and given a lot more than their parents ever had, and thus lack a sense of meaning and individualism when everything is given to them,

c) the growing competitiveness of today's urban and suburban centers when it comes to employment, housing and racial/social status,

d) traditional tenets of religious conservatism that promote violence against invaders/infidels,

e) from d), that the west has stuck its often unwelcome hand into the affairs of almost every other country on this planet and continues to reap those rewards (again, I abhor the "vengeance" mentality vs. growing oneself and living well as a better form of revenge)

f) double standards everywhere -- kids are very sensitive to this global phenomenon -- Don't smoke but it's so glamorous in the ads; Don't drink but parents' liquor cabinet is stocked; Follow the 10 commandments, the Gita, the Quran, but it's ok to let go of these moral guideposts when it comes to people and situations we don't like; Repaying terror with more terror,

g) swords more handy than pens in a world that doesn't find education very uplifting or of immediate use, or

h) a combination of all of the above (which is very easy for me to say, but I'd like for you all to help me put flesh on or take down any of my above suggestions)?

I offer that this conversation would be better served if we DO work with, and not just wave fingers at or pay attention to, what causes terror. And terror, in this definition, is not the individual cause, but the point at which an otherwise acceptable human being offers to commit violence in the name of that cause. That aspect of today's human is what I am after.

Buddha himself was quite the disaffected young indivual who entertained the moral quandaries listed above. He didn't, however, go on a kirpan-throwing and mace-smashing spree to break himself out of his despondent rut. Quietly leaving the comforts of his home, he retreated to the forest to meditate on himself and how permanently to get over his problems with the world.

If there is anyone out there planning an act of hatred and violence, including self-annihilation (and I hope there are few to none of you that frequent this site), consider this: Even if you don't discover your inner Buddha, please find purpose in constructiveness by helping this kid, this kid, or these kids, or heck, even these kids, who so badly want to live.

Thanks.

Hey Ikram, how about a spoiler warning next time ;) You're lucky I wasn't planning on reading Brick Lane anyway, or I would be just *outraged*.

Maitri, thanks for putting together that list. It's hard for me to get my mind around the whole thing, so I'm just going to put out a hypothetical of my own and let you take from it what support or criticism you see fit:

I think for young people, particularly when compounded by other factors like racial discrimination, sexuality, bullying, etc., there can be a real sense of alienation. When people come from desi societies--where the families were geared to operate as extended families--and enter into Western societies--where at best they get surrogate extended families--you lose out on a lot of things (this is sort of related to your part a, although). Most of all, you don't have a sense of community (which I think this is a widespread problem among millions in the US, not just desi youth). So you're left to navigate a culture gap, an age gap, and many other things all on your own, with limited support.

Now, when you don't have a sense of community, and someone comes to you and provides you with a sense of purpose, community, a sense of belonging, you're going to jump at it. And if it's the wrong people and you surround yourself with them and external influences that would have shifted your thiknking or moderated it are more and more absent or ignored, then eventually, you end up just totally isolated and alienated while at the same time a slave to an ideology that was presented to you.

Of course, there are strong minded people and independent thinkers and people who have naturally high self esteem and all that who can avoid traps like this. But some people, I think are going to fall into them if they exist.

Open for comment :)

Spoilers -- you want spoilers? How about this, Anna Karenin kills herself. That's a freakin' 1000 pages you don't have to read.

But seriously, sorry about that. Feel free to edite the comment to add spoiler warning.

Spoilers -- you want spoilers? How about this, Anna Karenin kills herself. That's a freakin' 1000 pages you don't have to read.

Wow...now I am upset. I might have read that someday!

:)

Now, when you don't have a sense of community, and someone comes to you and provides you with a sense of purpose, community, a sense of belonging, you're going to jump at it. And if it's the wrong people and you surround yourself with them and external influences that would have shifted your thiknking or moderated it are more and more absent or ignored, then eventually, you end up just totally isolated and alienated while at the same time a slave to an ideology that was presented to you.

Saurav, another good point, but I would like to use it to highlight something about the individual vs. the community: Between the ages of 10 and 17, I grew up severely hating the Indian community in the Gulf and the States. The main source of my rage was my strict parents' question when it came to everything I wanted to do within my wild-streak volition: "What will other people think?" (The blood of the Mrs. Feynman #1 that lives in me always boils at that question.) They cared so much more about the shame bestowed by this ephemeral phantom known as the Indian community as opposed to their daughter's happiness. We just had to keep up with the Jainses.

I yearned for a community of people who "understood me" and, for a while, broke away from my parents, physically, intellectually and emotionally. The time by myself, to work hard for myself, to make ends meet by myself, to think about my life and my future by myself was severely useful (those wings of mine grew and grew). Yet there were many waiting to take me down the path of monarchism, Nietzsche's philosophy, Keynesiansism, Dittoheadedness, Hare Krishna, bad drugs, abusive relationships, Republicanism, Democrat politics, the cult of Rand, this, that and the other. I somehow reserved the right to judge everything for myself and didn't fall prey to any of this. So, can we say that only the self-destructive to begin with are going to end up self-destructing? And did I not ruin my life because, no matter what, somewhere back there in the recesses of my life, there was a community to lean my head on? Keep in mind that that community and I had very little in common and I distanced myself from them. So, what kept me? I don't know -- maybe it's my personal need to survive, live and thrive.

I no longer loathe my community, because they are who they are, and they have come through for me, culturally and emotionally. Needless to say, I still try to maintain a healthy balance between my own life and getting overwhelmed with what this uncle or that aunty thinks.

The subtext: Am I simply lucky? Could I have gone down that track of no return? Or, is there something in the human will that can prevent one from making a bad decision? What else is missing from these kids' lives that breaks that barrier?

Let's ignore the nutbars (Vikram, Prem) in the comments for a moment

How about this, Anna Karenin kills herself. That's a freakin' 1000 pages you don't have to read.

I suppose the moderators think none of this stuff is off topic and requires deletion... So much for on-topic and non abusive postings on this blog.

Vikram, I apologize to you for calling you a nutbar. I have many one-track uncles, and although I do my best to avoid them at parties, I do not think they are nuts.

And besides, couldn't any young brown man turn, one day, into an irritating one-track brown old man. But for one small 'v', a letter many desi's can't even pronounce, wouldn't I be a Vikram too?

Again, my one-track brother-in-Kram, I'm sorry.

I finished reading White Teeth the day before the bombings happened and yeah, I was struck by the similarities. Hopefully this doesn't sound too stupid, but the relationship between Millat and his father had me in tears. I've kinda been through the same thing with my parents. When I didn't get into med school, it was a huge round of "you've brought shame on the family" and "if only you could be as well behaved and obedient as the girls in India". Instead of becoming hyper-religious, I spent a lot of time turning that frustration and loneliness back on myself but the point is that it has to go somewhere. Acceptance can be a really heady feeling. I know that I'm not the only one who was faced with these expectations, I've had so many conversations with friends where we mirror these same feelings back and forth. I'm NOT saying that the parents of these bombers were the reason that they turned to this sort of senseless violence and hatred, but I still wonder whether these relationships and expectations played a small part in what drove them to fanaticism.

But for one small 'v', a letter many desi's can't even pronounce, wouldn't I be a Vikram too?

That letter would be 'w' and not 'v' my indian brother ;)

Vikram,

I hear ya, man...I too had written what I thought was something perfectly germane to the topic. The mod here is clearly exercising political censorship, especially against people that have a rational and logical set of arguments that question their political biases.

Prem,

You rock : we need more people like you to call a spade a spade.

The rest of you: read Friedman...

"If it's a Muslim problem, it needs a muslim solution"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/opinion/08friedman.html?incamp=article_popular

Islam has a lot to answer for.

Gujju,
I called up Islam Bhai but he was too busy playing cricket and eating samosas.
If you see him, can you please ask him to answer the question.

The subtext: Am I simply lucky? Could I have gone down that track of no return? Or, is there something in the human will that can prevent one from making a bad decision? What else is missing from these kids' lives that breaks that barrier?

Well, only you know the answer to that for sure. I think there's probably a combination of clearheadedness or self-love or simple fear of going down the wrong path that can keep you in check until you have better options in front of you. But I guess the way I look at things is that a lot of it depends on the particulars of your life situation (e.g. how strong your mental health capacity is, propensity for addiction, self-esteem, what your parents are like, how much outside support you get (either from other kids or your family or teachers or whatever), whether you were victimized in any way)--so yeah, there's some luck involved. I have a friend (White, well off, divorced parents, probably other stuff I don't know about) who told me that she would have fallen apart had it not been for a babysitter.

Which I guess, sort of brings us back to where you started :) Sorry :)

But I wonder how applicable the picture we've drawn would be for someone a little older...I mean, I'm 27 and I'm still lost, so I know it can happen, but it just seems significnat circumstances would be different for the fall of a 30 year old man with a kid and a pregnant wife than they would be for a 20 year old. Although I can tell you that his being a special ed teacher probably didn't help his emotional state any.

Although I can tell you that his being a special ed teacher probably didn't help his emotional state any.

Very interesting. I was also thinking about it. Initially I was a little surprised that a person who is a special ed teacher could engage in such wanton destruction of life.
However I do wonder about being continously exposed on a daily basis to the sad inequities of life as you see developmentally challenged children struggle on a daily basis to do chores which most of us take for granted.
Maybe you then learn to detach yourself from everyday pain and suffering and other human emotions.
To be a cold blooded mass murderer you have to be divorced some basic human emotions of compassion and guilt. Its possible that this job helped Tanweer in making that critical transition.
Of course being in a state of religous frenzy also makes you temporarily insane and there is no doubt that Tanweer was a religious fanatic.

*you have to be divorced FROM some basic human emotions

"If it's a Muslim problem, it needs a muslim solution"

Even Friedman doesn't say it is a Muslim problem; he offers it as one of the possibilities. The fact that any human can lash out so violently when something isn't going his/her way has a lot to answer for, not Islam.

Yes, you're very "rational and logical" indeed.

Maitri, did you even read the article? Here, let me quote from it to spell it out for you:

"..it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere."

This is precisely what some of us are trying to articulate: it is an undeniable fact that Islam has a triumphalist vision of imposing its retrogade 6th century social vision on the entire world. Now before you go all moral-relativist on me, yes other religious scriptures have similarly uncivilized viewpoints as well, but the key difference is that most of them have moved on while Islam continues to propagate it even today. Muslim countries continue to treat their religous minorities horribly and muslim imama do not issue fatwas against OBL or the ayatollahs in Iran. This is why jihadis see themselves as perfoming the highest moral and religious duty when they are carrying out their dastardly terrorist acts.

This, then is the reason why the Us vs Them viewpoint : because THEY created it. They divided the world between infidels that are seen as fair game for conversion or killing and those following the final faith of the Book. Don't think that by hiding your head in sand, you will escape being their target.

disclaimer: I haven't read all of the comments in all of the threads pertaining to the topic, so I might be repeating someone here.

I read the book Tipping Point a few weeks back and I was really impressed with the similarity between the 1980's crime scene in NYC and the Jehad (I know, I know - the reason for that decrease wasn't described correctly in that book, but it still is a good description of the problem).

My opinion is that teenagers like this are all around us - what makes the difference is their environment. The columbine massacre, for example, happened because of the easy availability of guns. Suicidal jehadi attacks happen because of the easy access these kids have to training camps and the indoctrination that goes on in these camps.

Maybe Islam is a religion of peace, but the fact is that there are radical ulemas in many countries and terrorist training camps in Pakistan. The only solution, IMO, is to remove them from the picture. I can see a parallel with the Khalistani movement in all this. Sending the army to the Golden Temple was not a very PC thing to do - but that was how that terrorism was stopped and the Sikhs mostly are at peace with themselves and with other Indians now.

Gujju,

You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. Listen to yourself and your own Us vs. Them perspective. What you outline above can be ascribed to right-wingers of any religion, including evengelical Christianity and Hinduism. The problem lies in the born-again via the drumbeats of modern cults of any religion. People who believe they are correct because of an irrationally-sought and humanly-ordained divine or self-centered right have no place on a civilized planet, and this goes for all religions or lack thereof.

This is not moral relativism, as I said before, because I'm not saying it's ok because everyone does it. The moral absolutism required here states that all this self-righteous bullshit has to stop. All of it, regardless of religion and color. If you cannot see the retrogradation in yourself, we have already lost. And that is SO sad.

I dont think the answer to the question - Why do some people choose violence and swear alligeance to an idealogy that the majority in a society disagree with ? - is such an enigma.

Of course, there is certainly a chain of responsibility here:

1. The bomber himself is first cause
2. The people who convinced /encouraged / supported (logistically and idealogically) him to do it
3. The larger society that allowed these memes to flourish, and predispose(?) certain people to be more susceptible to step 2
4. And then a whole set of historical reasons, that can be go on ad infinitum

If your question, is how come two people exposed to same cirsumstances choose different paths (like constrasting the bomber to say, his friends), I think there is an invidual attribute that may/may not hard to quantify. Perhaps, its the realm of the psycholgists. Moreover, any knowldge of this attribute will not give us any useful tools to deter future bombers.

If your question, is how come some people are more susceptible to radical idealogy, then in addition to the individual attribute, there might be experiences that predispose him. What are these experiences - racial taunts, alienation (these are just random factors that occur to me, but they may or may not be true). If it is experiences we can put a finger on and do something about, perhaps a society that formulates it policy to decrease these, might put itself at less of a risk.

And if your question is about how society let some memes flourish, I guess one has to expect that in large, industrialized, and alienated societies . Perhaps, some social marketing and activism can work towards decreasing the attractiveness of some memes, but the decrease is only quantitative. More survaillance on suspected hotbeds is another measure.

So my point is that regardless of how much change happens in policy and in the percieved attractiveness of certain idealogies, we are only decreasing the frequency with which the the next bombing will occuring. Not eliminating. I guess, the questions come down to:

1.

If by manipulating the factors that we might as a society be able to control (alientaion, racial integration, or whatever else we determine to be necessarily enhance chances of someone becoming a bomber), can we decrease the probabilty of the next occurance to say only about once every 20 years or 50 years etc.?

2.

How much do these factors contribute, and how much is contributed by the individual attributes? Do the factors contribute enough that controlling them will be sufficient to expect to the results of "decrease the probabilty of the next occurance to say only about once every 20 years or 50 years etc.? "

3.

Also, there is a cost involved in implementing policies that control these factors:

- Money spent on implementing policies, activities, social marketing aimed at decreasing future bombers
- Civil rights issues like profiling, discouragament of assembly of members with extreme idealogies

How important is security compared to free speech, civil rights etc.?

These will certainly conflict, and we must deciede if the trade off will be in favor or against more security.

Sorry, Maitri : Hindu priests do not preach killing of infidels from temples, but a lot of imams from LAhore to Leeds do. No sane Hindu argues for imposition of Manusmriti in modern society, but muslims even in Western society want to do it (see: Canadian muslims want establishment of Sharia tribunals - http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/displayarticle535.html).
No Hindu or Christian influenced country has institutionalized bigotry against religious minorities to mercilessly persecute them the way Saudi Arabia and Pakistan do (see: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/82/story_8248_1.html)

""I was carrying a picture and a small Ganesha idol," recalled Gopinath, who has since returned to India. "The picture was torn up in front me and the idol crushed. I also saw Bibles being torn."

Within Saudi Arabia, as he would soon learn, even a privately held non-Islamic religious display can get one arrested. This includes, for example, praying alone in one's house."

So you're right, we'll have to agree to disagree but not for the reasons that you mentioned. The real tragedy is the dhimmitude of people like you who refuse to see the facts starting at them in their face and fail to see the problem. Oh yeah, deinial is a river in Egypt, Islam is a religion of peace and the land of Gandhi has done nothing but practised bigotry for generations. Sweet!

Ok, I'll leave now to continue my pursuit of bigotry as expected of a Gujju. Over and out.

Peace,
Gujjubhia

Satish, will you please go work for the U.S. government? That's the most cogent and fairminded outlining of the problem I've seen.

These young men were indoctrinated, pure and simple. Actually, not so pure and not so simple. And this indoctrination is a particular problem in a subpopulation of Muslims, at this point in time in our history as a planet. By pointing this out, it doesn't make you anti-Muslim, or racist, or us-vs-them, or an apologist/'ignorer' of violent actions by other ethnic/religious groups - say the Tamil Tigers (I've never got on the MIA bandwagon the way others have at SM because of this. I hate the radical chic of MIA. Absolutely hate it).

Look at the Muslim majority countries - does this look like a healthy picture to you? Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and so on. Only Turkey really looks like a country that is moving into the future.... it is in the interest of Muslims everywhere to look work against the jihadi death cult. And it *is* a death cult. By fighting the cultists, you help Muslims everywhere. It makes Muslims' lives fundamentally better. Why are some of you so afraid to see the obvious? Why not call a spade a spade? It's like knocking your head against a wall, it really is. Isn't this typical of some South Asians (notice, I say some)? Where you can never admit you are wrong or that you might have anything to do with a problem in your life? It's always racism, or the West, or the war in Iraq or capitalism or some such. But I'm sorry, I don't care if you hate the war in Iraq, or the Palestinian situation, or multinationals or whatever your political beef is. None of that justifies what these young men did, and unfortunately, so much of the 'understanding the motives' slips into a sort of soft and gentle justification. We have to understand, certainly, but we also have to say: this sort of hatred preached against women, and Jews, and, Hindus, and Christians, and 'bad' Muslims, and gays is completely unacceptable. The ideology of these jihadis is utterly repugnant, reprehensible and vile. And yet, as long as you say the right thing and are brown, someone somewhere will accept the racist things you say in a way they never would with whites. This is moral relativism, and it stinks.

So, guys. How do we stop the death cult, the jihadis? I know the answer I prefer, but it wouldn't be popular on this board where the pain of being called "mohammed" or "paki" because you are brown is conflated with having your child blown up on the Underground.

Sorry, Abhi, I know you wanted to stay on message for this post, but I just had to respond to some of the commenters. Apologies if I have broken a cardinal rule :)

Sorry if the last sentence in my first comment seems harsh - but I'm a pathologist and make bad cancer diagnoses all day long. Some of the young people who post on this site drive me to distraction. Yes, life is hard and can be hurtful, painful and very difficult to negotiate. Feeling bad because you are different from the majority culture or are called a racist name is terrible, and I sympathize, but it is so far from the worst things that can happen to you in this life......

We have to understand, certainly, but we also have to say: this sort of hatred preached against women, and Jews, and, Hindus, and Christians, and 'bad' Muslims, and gays is completely unacceptable.

What does that mean? Should we enact laws against certain kinds of speech ?

Why be surprised at the homegrownness of the London bombers? It's apparently too difficult for policy makers and observers to understand that the threat to the West (I'm not speaking here of local conflicts like Palestine and Iraq) comes from modernized Islamists - whether homegrown like the British bombers or killer of that Dutch filmmaker, or modern-educated, a la Bin Laden and Zawahiri...at any rate, it should at least be clear to them that al Qaeda has best USE for the English speaking, trained engineer or scientist, as opposed to a madrassah trained village boy who speaks only Urdu, and whose traditional beliefs act as a buffer against the sort of radicalization required by al-Qaeda-types. It's therefore ironic that the Western eye continues to view the traditional Muslim in a burqa or whatever as an object of fear and derision and expresses wide-eyed surprise when the modernized Islamist is proved far more dangerous time and time again.