Last Monday evening (November 10), the national capital was rocked by a devastating bombing. It was either a suicidal attack or an accidental explosion, occurring during the transportation of deadly merchandise by Dr Umar Un Nabi, associated with what has been termed the ‘white-collar terror module.’
While this incident has once again challenged many long-standing assumptions regarding Jihadi terrorism, it also prompts us to reflect on why civil society has yet to achieve a decisive victory against Jihadi terror.
Leftist-colonialist commentators have often attributed the Jihadi terror phenomenon to “illiteracy, unemployment and poverty” within sections of the Muslim community. If that were true, why then did highly educated, socially respected and economically secure Muslims such as Dr Umar, Dr Adeel Ahmad Rather of Anantnag Government Medical College, Dr Muzammil Ahmad Ganai of Faridabad’s Al-Falah School of Medical Sciences & Research Centre, and Dr Shaheen Saeed, who worked at Faridabad’s Al-Falah University, take the path of jihad?
The fact is, the jihadist mindset is neutral to class, status and education. The roots of jihadist violence often stem from the concept of ‘kafir-kufr,’ which many Muslims-whether affluent, poor, highly educated or illiterate-believe is fundamental to Islam. Some Muslims interpret their faith as a divine duty to target infidels (kafirs), believing that dying in such acts grants them religious merit. Additionally, the promise of rewards in the afterlife for martyrs (fidayeens) triggers such suicide missions.
Madrasa education often plays a decisive role in shaping the minds of young Muslims, sometimes fostering a worldview rooted deeply in specific religious doctrines. In many cases, students learn within a close-knit environment where their classmates and teachers are predominantly or exclusively Muslim.
This closed setting limits their perspective and detaches them from the rich diversity of a pluralistic society. Although the number of madrasa — going children is small, they often provide leadership to the community, particularly in matters related to faith. In the recent Red Fort explosion case, a Maulvi from Kashmir is the kingpin of the terror module.
Can madrasas be secularised by simply adding subjects like mathematics, English, science and computers? The answer is no. These subjects are mere tools-their real power or harm lies in the minds that wield them. The minds are often shaped by a toxic theological curriculum that calls upon the faithful to wage war against non-believers. The 9/11 terrorists in New York, linked to Osama bin Laden, possessed significant technological skills.
The harsh truth is that when a jihadist mindset combines with modern expertise, it becomes an even more dangerous combination.
There is an often-overlooked dimension to the phenomenon of jihad. A significant portion of the subcontinent’s Muslim population views historical figures such as Ghazni, Ghori, Babur, Aurangzeb, Abdali, and Tipu Sultan as heroes or ideological ancestors. Driven by a mindset that celebrates the destruction of ‘idolatrous’ practices, these figures are still admired by those who believe they have a religious mission- an ongoing Ghazwa-e-Hind- to convert the entire subcontinent to Islam.
The motivation behind many recent jihadist attacks-including the 2008 26/11 Mumbai siege and other atrocities-is connected to this long historical thread; a common, toxic umbilical cord links centuries-old Islamic invasions and the contemporary ideology of jihad.
According to the Tarikh-I-Sultan Mahmud-I-Ghaznavi: Or the History of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni (translated in 1908) by G Roos-Keppel, Qazi Abdul Ghani Khan reports that when offered a vast ransom by a vanquished Hindu king, Mahmud replied, “In the religion of the Musalmans it is (laid down that this is) a meritorious act that anyone who destroys the place of worship of the heathen will reap great reward on the Day of Judgment, and I intend to remove entirely idols from the cities of Hindustan…”
Similarly, Timur — who invaded India in 1398 and was responsible for the massacre of hundreds of thousands-wrote in his autobiography, Tuzuk-e-Taimuri, “My principal object in coming to Hindustan… has been to accomplish two things. The first was to war with the infidels, the enemies of the Mohammedan religion, and by this religious warfare to acquire some claim to reward in the life to come.”
When Babur confronted the valiant ruler of Mewar, Rana Sanga, and his formidable army, he encouraged his comparatively weaker forces by framing the conflict as a jihad to defend Islam against ‘kafir’ Hindus. In doing so, Babur transformed the battle from a mere struggle for political dominance into a religiously sanctioned campaign, laying the foundation for the Mughal Empire in India under the banner of Islamic conquest.
After Khanwa’s (1527) victory over Rana Sanga, Babur assumed the title of ‘Ghazi’ (Victor in a Holy War). Below the titles (tughra) entered on the Fath-nama, Babur wrote the following quatrain: “For Islam’s sake, I wandered in the wilds, prepared for war with pagans and Hindus, resolved myself to meet the martyr’s death. Thanks be to God! A ghazi I became.”
A more recent, equally toxic narrative has emerged, attempting to connect supposed ‘intolerance,’ ‘orthodoxy,’ and ‘aggressiveness’ within Muslim society to the policies of the Modi government. If that were true, why then did the bloodshed-filled partition of 1947 happen in the first place? Why were Gandhi and Nehru unable to stop it? And why, during the 1980s and 1990s, did the Muslim-majority Kashmir Valley see the massacre and forced displacement of Kashmiri Pandits?
What are the underlying reasons for incidents such as the 1993 Kolkata bombing, the 1998 Coimbatore blasts, the 2000 Red Fort attack, the 2001 Indian Parliament attack, the 2003 Mumbai bombings, the 2005 Delhi bombings, the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, the 2007 Samjhauta Express attack, the 2008 Jaipur and Ahmedabad bombings, the 2013 Hyderabad blasts, and the 2013 Patna bombings?
These events are not merely reactions to provocations; rather, they often originate from a jihadi ideological framework that considers ‘idolatry’ and ‘pluralism’ as unforgivable ‘offences,’ punishable by ‘death.’
India is a land where tradition and modernity intertwine, creating a vibrant tapestry of open debate. The ancient scriptures-Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Manusmriti — and their legendary heroes are topics of lively discussion and questioning. However, this openness does not extend to Islam, as Nupur Sharma of the BJP and several others have learned at significant personal cost.
Nupur, besieged and under attack, faced ridicule from the judiciary and was disowned by her own party. Still in hiding, she fears the lurking threat of jihadi assassins eager to silence her. Even her brave supporters who dared to stand by her faced brutal consequences, with some tragically beheaded. Her story is a stark reminder of the peril and hostility those questioning jihadists endure. Celebrated authors like Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasreen have lived in hiding for long, fearing for their lives. The list is endless. When it comes to confronting the very intellectual foundations of jihad, we have often chosen silence. Instead of engaging in open, honest debates, our public conversations tend to dodge the tough questions. Civil society cannot defeat jihadists solely through military and legal measures; it must also confront and discuss the very ideology that fuels violence against ‘kafirs.’Can we really see this fight through?
The writer is an eminent columnist and the author of ‘Tryst with Ayodhya: Decolonisation of India’ and ‘Narrative ka Mayajaal’; views are personal
