BEST OF BOTH WORLDS FOR ISLAMISTS

Swiss chocolates are good; Swiss watches are the best in the world; Swiss cheese is most delicious and you can add some more to this list. But the people of Switzerland are bigots, sectarian and intolerant of other religions. This is what the liberals feel. The referendum in which the Swiss electorate gave a clear verdict for a Constitutional ban on the construction of minarets in their country is cited by liberals of the world as discriminatory and divisive. Indian Constitution may not have provision for referendum, but some of the modern democracies in Europe have and Switzerland is one among them.

The ruling Swiss People’s Party (SVP), considered to be a right of the centre party wanted to have this referendum as it felt that increasing number of mosques with spiral like minarets would change the landscape of the nation. As everyone knows Switzerland is a small land-locked nation with a population of 7.6 million and 4 percent of the population constitutes Muslims, majority of whom migrated from Yougaslavia after that country broke up. There are already 160 mosques in Switzerland and four minarets.

What then was the fear of Swiss people and why did they vote for a ban on minarets? Practice of burqa, shariat law and unequal treatment of women in Islamic cultures have been troubling the conscience of modern democracies in Europe. The Muslim population in Europe after World War II was one million and now it has risen to 15 million. On the other hand influence of Christianity in Europe is on the wane and the attendance in churches is thinning out causing concern.

This is what is troubling the rulers in Germany,France and Switzerland. We have seen what Denmark did to assert its right to freedom of expression when it permitted those controversial cartoons which set the Muslim world on fire. A German daily also felt that had there been a similar referendum in Germany, Germans verdict would not be different from that of Swiss.

When French President Nicolas Sarkozy was not averse to waging a battle against Muslim orthodoxy, it was this fear of Islamisation of Europe that forced him for a ban on veil. He put a ban on veil saying that he does not want certain neighbourhoods to feel more like Kabul or Tehran than France. He also said that France could be on the “verge of losing its soul because of multi-culturalism that tolerates radical Islamic fundamentalism”.

But, look at our liberals and seculars. They swear by multi-culturalism because that is what will strengthen the forces of political correctness. Never mind what happens to the country’s ethos, civilisation and culture. Contrast this with Sarkozy’s call for Muslims of France. He wants them to share the country’s history and culture accepting its civilisation, values and customs. Don’t you think Sarkozy shares the same spirit of those forces in Nagpur of Jandevalan?

However, some of the dailies are at variance with the viewpoints of governments in Europe and the people. It came out loud and clear when The Times wrote an editorial like our national daily from Chennai calling the Swiss verdict as “bigotry in Switzerland”. Times wrote “Swiss’s cosmopolitan and sophisticated electorate voted (yesterday) to inflame tensions and violate religious liberty” and it was a “destructive and pernicious decision”.

The Hindu wrote “this victory for fear and demagoguery shows clearly the failure of mainstream European politicians to deal decisively with xenophobia, bigotry and racism among their own populations”

The Times readers were not amused with the stand of their daily. Their reaction was quite virulent and pointed. Here are some quotes from their letters:
We get the usual nonsense from liberals who remain in sullen silent shame about how the system does not work the other way round. Try building a Church in Saudi Arabia and you will be treated like Hitler treated the Jews.

Historically, Islam envelopes other cultures once it passes a certain threshold percentage of population. It then eventually ends up as Saudi Arabia has done, banning the practices of all other religions and demoting non-Muslims to the status of Dhimmis.

Swiss vote wasn’t one that was against freedom from religious persecution, but rather one that was against the hard line views put forth by religious fundamentalists who cannot be controlled by the moderates in their faith.
Where Muslims are in a minority, they assume the mantle of the “victim” and demand rights and privileges that the majority does not often have. The situation in Muslim majority countries is something that is known to all of us. There is no question of a pluralistic religious framework in any Muslim majority countries.

As I said before, this again comes in sharp contrast to what our secular forces feel and behave. Take the latest example of Congress striking a deal with MIM for Mayoral post. There is deafening silence on the part of our so-called secular forces. Look at the perception of the Congress. BJP is communal whereas MIM, whose ancestry can be traced to Razakars, is “secular” and you can sup with them.

Apart from secular-communal debate, giving legitimacy to MIM is going to be at the cost of nation’s security concerns. Old City, which is in the grip of MIM, has emerged as one of the hubs of jihadis and we have witnessed the reaction of MIM activists whenever a jihadi is apprehended. It will be foolish to assume that Muslim fundamentalists can operate in the Old city with impunity without the local support. TDP is no better except that it did not have an opportunity to go with the MIM.

Coming back to the Swiss ban, the reaction in the Muslim world, besides the liberal media, has been on the expected lines and there is a sense of outrage with the warning that the ban will have diplomatic ramifications. But, should not the Muslim countries look within instead of trying to get the best of both worlds. You cannot carry even a copy of the Bible in Saudi Arabia. In Maldives you cannot be a citizen of the country if you are not a Muslim. Sudan applies Islamic law even to non-Muslims. Pakistan limits public positions the non-Muslims can hold; Bahai’s plight in Iran is well known; there can be no new churches in Egypt while old ones are being demolished. But Muslims want democracy, equal rights, religious freedom in those European countries where they are in a minority. More than Muslims, those so-called seculars who support their double standards and hypocrisy should be exposed.