Narendra Modi on Big Fight

Duration: 00:27:32; Aspect Ratio: 1.333:1; Hue: 208.366; Saturation: 0.288; Lightness: 0.152; Volume: 0.346; Cuts per Minute: 10.531; Words per Minute: 153.348

Narendra Modi, the current chief minister of Gujarat, the late Dr Rafiq Zakaria, an Indian politician and Islamic scholar, and Mr G. Parthasarthy, the former High Commissioner to Pakistan, debate on NDTV's "Big Fight," hosted by Rajdeep Sardesai, on whether Islam is the new driving force of global terrorism today.

John Elliot, Special Correspondent, Forbes, and Siddharth Vardharajan, Strategic Affairs Editor, The Hindu, are co-hosts.

The debate took place shortly after the September 11 attacks.

it finds its way as archival video into youtube 12 years later.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fas-jaaZWWM

Thank god we remain an archive, an

Mr Narendra Modi (the then the General Secretary of the Bharatiya Janata Party) starts of the debate with his reasons for the September 11 attacks. He suggests that the attacks are "Islamic Terrorism," as he believes that the religion is being manipulated to suit the purposes of the attackers. He supposedly cites the need to consider all religions as singular in order to avoid these religious conflicts.

Dr Zakaria responds to the points made by Mr Modi.

see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bharatiya_Janata_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11,_2001_attacks
NM: I would like to congratulate the organisers of 'Big Fight,' because till last Monday, the Indian media, even after many reasons, did not have the courage to use the term "Islamic terrorism," because they were so influenced by their pseudo-secularism that they did not have the courage to tell the truth. Last Tuesday, the media of the world started writing about this after the American incident for the 1st time, and I congratulate this initiative taken by Rajdeep, that they have had the courage to depict the truth in its original form.
As far as Islam goes, it has many good aspects in it.Today how people are using Islam, that is the real question. When a religion says that "my religion is different that yours, better that yours, and till the time you don't take refuge under me you will not attain moksha (freedom from reincarnation/ the cycle of life) or go to Allah or Jesus," it then starts a conflict. And in my opinion, India has given the world the ideology of truth is one, but it is called in different ways. If there is a general acceptance that every religion is the same, then there is no conflict. But when I say that your religion is (nikamma) and that mine is right, it leads to conflict and creates hatred and that hatred goes on to join politics than terrorism spreads. Since the 14th Century, the quest to rule the world has resulted it the current situation.
RS: Mr Modi, your time is up.
NM: Instead of cursing the ideology of Islam, we must focus on the elements that are misusing it.
RS: Mr Modi, your time is up. We haven't used the word "Islamic terrorism," we have only raised the question. So we don't need the compliments from you at the moment. But Dr Zakaria, respond to Mr Modi.
Z: Should I respond in Hindi or in English?
RS: English, please.
Z: Well, I would have liked to have replied in Hindi. But you know this is the outcome of the Muslim phobia which unfortunately hasn't left people like Mr Modi - I am very sorry to say that - simply because some media in the United States called what happened last Tuesday ("Islamic Terrorism"), as far as the bombing of the New York buildings and the Pentagon that for the first time, the Indian media has realised that it is "Islamic Terrorism." Now, what has Islam to do with whoever is responsible? As far as...
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Mr Modi tries to continue his previous line of argument that Islamic Terrorism and Islam have nothing in common, not realising that by using the "Islamic" prefix, he is automatically linking it to Islam. Furthermore, Mr Modi, while supposedly preaching against differentiating between religions and religious beliefs, constantly seems to imply a firm divide between the Hindus, and specifically the BJP, and Muslims.
The floor was given to Mr Parthasarthy, who also stressed on the importance of not combining religion and terrorism, asking Mr Modi also not to do the same.
Siddharth Vardharajan comments on Mr Modi's point of view.
John Elliot questions Mr Modi on the implications that the growth of Islamic terrorism will have on communal relations within the country.
Mr Modi claims that he and his party have never linked religion and terrorism much to the exasperation of the mediators. When asked for an assurance for the same by Rajdeep Sardesai, Mr Modi suddenly shifts tracks and never gives a direct answer.
NM: I don't know what phobia he is having. I do not understand what phobia Dr Zakaria is having. I, myself, say it has nothing to do with Islam. Those who are using religion for this bad interest... (?)
RS: Just a minute, Mr Modi. You used the word "Islamic Terrorism," you were actually praising us in this program and suddenly...
NM: Yes, because in India, the pseudo-secular people are not ready to raise this type of question before. But only because the western media started, you have adopted it.
RS: So you mean suddenly, we are no longer pseudo-secular?
Z: So what he's trying to (say) is, that he happy that now whomsoever he calls pseudo-secular, that they have also now realised that really it is "Islamic Terrorism." That shows what really disturbs him.
RS: Right. Mr Parthasarathy just pointed out what Dr Zakaria just said. (?)
P: I think I'll come to what is really happening, and what is called "Islamic Terrorism" on hand to make my presentation. My query to Mr Modi is that there are certain noble tenets to Islam, as you have yourself remarked, Islam says you will not harm civilians. Islam, for example, says that even if you hurt one innocent human being, that it is a crime against humanity. Mr Modi, don't you think it is right now incumbent, firstly on our entire political leadership and I particularly call on the leadership also of the Muslim community of India, to draw a distinction between the misuse of Islamic tenets by zealots in our neighbourhood on the one hand, by Pakistan in particular, on the one hand and being very careful not label an entire religion or an entire religious order in those terms?
NM: I 100% agree with Mr Parthasarthy because you cannot blame a religion, and one should not. And we are not against any religion, and any Hindu can never be. This is the basic thinking of the Indian philosophy and that's why...
RS: And yet you say that from 14 century Islam has used religion for militancy...
NM: The problem is the misuse of the emotional feeling, and whether it comes from religion or something else; that is the danger to the society.
RS: Okay. Siddharth, question?
SV: I'll make two quick points or questions. You said no Hindu can be opposed to religion.You, yourself, a few moments ago started by separating "Islamic Terrorism" from Islam, and then you made a judgement on Islam as being a religion which so called downgrades other people, religions, etc. So, in other words, you are commenting negatively on the religion itself.
Second question - you seem to be very enamoured by the western media's description of "Islamic Terrorism." Do you know what the western media refers to your party as; the BJP? They use the phrase "Hindu Fundamentalist." Do you accept that phrase?
NM: We don't accept it. In democracy, they have every right to say. In democracy, why should I say that they cannot say? This is what the difference is between us and others; they say if you say this, the gun is there. I say "no, I'll accept it."
SV: Is the western media being pseudo-secular when they refer to the BJP as "Hindu Fundamentalists"?
NM: If you want to debate on pseudo-secularism, I am ready to debate on that.
RS: Okay, that's another issue.
NM: But your issue was different. Tell, Mr John, what is your question?
JE: If the fear of Islamic terrorism builds up in this country, what would it do to the communal relations?
NM: As far as relations with each and every community is concerned, India is bound to have good relation with each and every citizen of this country. If terror (?), we have to isolate this terrorist activity, we have to isolate terrorists, we have to curb their lifelines and then we will be able to handle them.
RS: But how are you isolating terrorists, Mr Modi, when every time an incident like this occurs you raise the religious, you bring in the religious agenda? You are linking it at some stage - religion and terrorism.
NM: We, as far as the BJP is concerned, we never do that.
RS: Oh My God!
NM: How are you going to blame me...
RS: You just did it...
NM (continuing):...When myself, I am saying (RS: Oh My God) that Islam has nothing to with these things, but those who are using Islam for this purpose are a danger to the society. And if even a Hindu is doing this type of activity with the help of religion, it is a danger.
JE: It is a dangerous road. We have seen what happened to Sikhs in America over the last few days; because they wear turbans, that they assume they look like Osama Bin Laden. If you build this up too far, what are you going to do to the relations of your country. Isn't it dangerous?
NM: It is a surprise for the world that even they don't have this much general knowledge, as American citizens; that because only they have a turban, they think they are the Taliban people. I am very sorry to say... (?)
RS: Okay. Why don't you give one assurance that during... There will be an election campaign, for example, in Uttar Pradesh, you will not use the incidents of Tuesday to stir a communal divide, to label every Muslim in this country somewhere down the line as an Islamic terrorist. Are you willing to give that assurance?
NM: It's a tragic condition in my Indian media that such a challenge to the humanity, and you are talking about the footpath politics! What are we doing? When the people are talking about the challenge to the humanity, and we talking about Uttar Pradesh, and this (?), and that (?). What more(?) of footpath politics are we going to do? This is the challenge against the humanity...
RS: Are you going to give it?
NM (continuing): ... And we will have to face this challenge and talk about the humanity.
RS: Okay, you are unwilling to answer the direct question. After the break, we'll get Dr Rafiq Zakaria to give us a perspective from an Islamic scholar.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaia explains why Islam and terrorism cannot be summarily linked.
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks
Z: There has been a bit of confusion in the discussion that we had, and therefore I hope I will get your indulgence right at the outset to explain as to what is the relationship between Islam and terrorism. Now, whether you call Islam a driving force towards terrorism, or "Islamic Terrorism," I mean, nothing is further than truth. Islam is the antithesis of terrorism, and let me tell you that the very word "Islam" means "Peace." The Qur'an describes the Prophet as the mercy to all living creatures.

NM: It is said that not only the well-being of a certain nation or society, but the well-being of all mankind has been thought for on this planet.

RS: Answer his first question about Kafirs(?)

Z: It is relevant, but let me tell him I wish he would read my book - Discovery of God
The issue Kafirs is raised by the panel.
Big Fight
Discovery of God
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Dr Zakaria attributes the oft believed Islamic belief on Kaffirs to the Muslim rulers of India, who, according to him, had nothing to do with Islam's tenets.

Mr Vardharajan questions Dr Zakaria with regard to his opinion on the attacks being related to US policy in the Middle-East.

Rajdeep Sardesai seeks an explanation from Dr Zakaria as to how Al Qaeda manages to use Islam quite so easily to woo supporters to its cause, given the nobility of the tenets of Islam.

Dr Zakaria attempts to refute the veracity of this question by suggesting that the principles of a religion have been manipulated in a number of religions to propagate terrorist activity. Although his intention was to deflect the likelihood of religion being linked to terrorism, and specifically Islam, he actually provides a great deal of credence to Mr Sardesai's question.
NM: They say those who are Kafirs, they have no right to live.
Z: Why are you mixing the teaching of Islam with what some of the rulers in India did, who had nothing to do as far as practising the tenets of Islam?
RS: Okay, let's look at what happened on Tuesday. Question Siddharth for Dr Zakaria.
SV: Dr Zakaria, I was just wondering how much of what happened on Tuesday is the product of US policies in the Arab world, in your opinion.
Z: Well, I mean, whether it was the reaction to what is happening in Palastine and in other countries, I do not know. But if it is bin Laden, then there is something more sinister in it, and I don't think you can mix it up also with it because there is a particular group which is determined to create disturbance.
RS: How do you explain, very quickly Dr Zakaria, the fact is that the Al Qaeda group he has created has used religion all across the world, whether it's in Sudan, whether it's in Saudi Arabia; they are using it in Iraq, they want to use it in Libya, they have used it in Afghanistan. How do you explain that that religion can be so easily used if you say Islam tenets are so noble?
Z: Do you know that who is the pioneer of modern terrorism, a terrorism which has almost disappeared? It is the Zionists, the Jews, the first terrorist attack in modern times took place on the David Hotel in Cairo.
RS: So, you are saying that terms like Jewish terrorism are never used, and we only use terrorism in the Islamic context?
Z: Do you mean to say that terrorism has not been used by the erstwhile Christians in Yugoslavia? Do you mean to say that religion has not been used even by Prabhakaran in Sri Lanka? Religion is an easy weapon for those who want to exploit it.
NM: In a way, the very idea (?) that they are using the religion. Now, my question, my another doubt is - why these people destroy the Bamyan Buddha in Pratimas?
SV: Why did you destroy the Babri Masjid?
NM: Please Mr Siddharth, wait. Why did they destroy this? And no one country in the world, Islamic country, has criticised it. Not only that Pakistan has... (?)
RS: Do you accept that all religions have been used over the years by various groups - yes or no, Mr Modi?
NM: I am telling you if you go to the history, only Hindu religion; as far concerned, Hindu is not religion it is a dharma, and there is not a history record they have done any activity against other religions.
RS: Okay, we will come back to it.
Z: What did you for thousands of years as far as the Dalits are concerned? What did you do as far as the Buddhists are concerned? Why are you not talking about that?
NM: It is an internal problem of the society. It is a weakness of my society, and we are worried about it.
RS: Mr Modi, you have had your say.
JE: Dr Zakaria, given what you've just said, that every religion almost in the world has used terrorism at sometime or other, why do you find it so difficult - with respect to all you've just said - why do you find it so difficult not to agree with the tenet of this program, which is that Islam is the new driving force of international terrorism? I don't see why, logically, you can't say "yes, that too has been doing it, even though Islam stands for peace."
Z: On the contrary, I have said that religion has been...
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

SV: Islam should be subjected to this kind of scrutiny and finger pointing. I want to shift the focus slightly, because it seems to me from what you have said and from what one understands of the situation, that terrorism is a essentially a political phenomenon. And I think this is true, particularly of west Asia; I think it is true of central Asia. Often people with political ambition or political grievances may turn to religion or misuse religion for political purposes. We have seen that in India with Mr Modi's party, for example. So, what do you feel about it? Aren't we better off looking at terrorism as a political phenomenon, rather than just trying to find out out this and that?

P: I think it is a political phenomenon with a religious dimension. The fact of the matter is that after the Cold War, when the economic ideology of the communist proved to be a non starter and a failure, people who were disgruntled, unhappy with life to our west - and these are largely made up of Islamic countries - turned to religion. I believe they misinterpreted the tenets of Islam. It would be I think very...
Siddharth Vardharajan looks at the political angle of terrorism and asks Mr Parthasarthy whether political ambition is the sole driving force of terrorism.

Mr Parthasarty agrees with Mr Vardharajan, but maintains that these political ambitions cannot be viewed completely apart from their religious dimension.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Mr Parthasarthy explains his perception that that Al Qaeda feeds off the discontentment of people in Islamic countries.

Mr Modi attributes the growth of terrorism to the fundamentalism propagated by "certain" Muslims. Dr Zakria attempts to refute Mr Modi's statement, and blames the Hindu phobia for this line of thought. Mr Modi responds by calling Dr Zakaria anti-Hindu.
P (continuing): ... Experts, or by constitutional monarchy, have they been able to meet the aspirations of the people, whether it's Algeria or Egypt. That breeds discontent, which takes a religious dimension. But what is important is that these things have now led to a networking on a religious basis; Osama's network on a religious basis extends into the middle east, it extends into the United States.
SV: Mr Parthasarthy, wouldn't we be better off focusing on the discontent and the root causes of discontent, rather than simply having pointless debates as to whether Islam is responsible or not?
P: If you ignore the religious dimension, there is a religious...
SV: It exists, just like it exists in Mr Modi's party.
NM: The reason why terrorism today has become so powerful is that it contains fundamentalism. It is fundamentalism that is solely responsible for the current scenario. Second point - you must understand that Muslims, when I say Muslims it doesn't mean Islam, they have a political road map. They have divided the world into three parts:
1) Darul-Aman
2) Darul-Harab
3) Darul-Islam
Darul-Aman means "Land of Peace." Where Islam has reached there should be "Land of Peace," or the place where Islam is powerless there Darul-Aman should exist.
Darul-Harab is "Land of Conflict." Where there is power, fight and take over that place.
The third is Darul-Islam. To convert the whole world into Islam. With such motives, some political activists, those who belong to Islam they are doing these activities. Unless and until we don't understand these people, we cannot understand terrorism.
RS: You have made your point, Mr Modi. Quickly respond.
Z: Only if he stops, can I speak.
NM: I don't want to...
Z: His (NM's) problem is that he doesn't have a clue who started this Darul-Aman. Darul-Harab, Darul... This was started by those Muslim rulers who wanted to allocate some sort of classification to their Rule. Neither the classical jurists, nor is there any reference to it in the Qur'an, nor is there any reference to it in the (?), but the Hindu phobia has so gripped them, that wherever they find something to malign Islam, that they are very happy to project it as if...
NM: Dr Zakaria's anti-Hindu mind is not being able to understand what I am saying.
RS: We have to take a break.
NM: I am saying a few Muslims. I have said again and again, few Muslims.
RS: We are cutting up, Mr Modi. We are taking a break.
Al Qaeda
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Dr Zakaria responds to the allegation of being anti-Hindu.

Related links:
For more information on the Two-Nation Theory, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Nation_Theory

For more information on the Quit India Movement, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quit_india_movement
Z: How can anyone call me anti-Hindu? Nobody has been the stoutest, the greatest opponent of Jinnah's two-nation theory. I have gone to jail during the Quit India Movement! No, it is necessary, I have in my next...

NM: Dr Zakaria, you should be careful. Repeatedly (RS: Mr Modi) Hindu phobia, repeatedly Muslim phobia. You will have to listen to such things.

RS: Please, let's not degenerate this into a debate.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Mr Parthasarthy talks about the clash of civilisations.

Related links:
To know more about the clash of civilisations, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations

For the full text of the Clash of Civilisations, see http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm

For President Khatami's address, see http://www.unesco.org/dialogue/en/khatami.htm
RS: Where are these so called fault lines, clash of civilisations that you spoke about about earlier?

P: I think, Rajdeep, you have raised a very important point and I... Remember that this clash of civilisations is a very dangerous concept, and I refer to a proposal by President Khatami of Iran calling for dialogue of civilisations. I think that's what we should look at.
Secondly, on Siddharth's question of our rather hasty readiness to offer military facilities, I am quite clear in my mind that if it is established that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are responsible for the incidents in New York and in Washington, then an international consensus will emerge to take on the Taliban. I think - let me complete, Rajeev - I think we should join that consensus, let it build. We should join them, join the...
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Dr Zakaria comments on Mr Parthasarthy's point of view regarding the clash of civilisations.
RS: Islam on one side, the west on the other.

Z: There is no clash of civilisation. There is a clash of barbarism against civilisation. And therefore what has happened in America and in Washington is the worst kind of barbaric explosion.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

NM: So, when at one side there is a terrorism, at another side there is civilisation. How can you put both on the way?

RS: Then why bring the religious angle in the first place? If Osama was, as long as he was a CIA creation, nobody called him a radical Islamist. Today he becomes an Islamic terrorist.

NM: Rajdeep, where is Osama getting all this strength? Who's supporting him? What is the inspiration for his supporters? When he adopts the Islamic line of reasoning, only then will young kids stand up with him. There is no other inspiration. He does not inspire them by being anti American. He is inspiring them by misusing Islamic teachings.

Z: He got inspiration from Pakistan, he got inspired because of all the equipment and dollars that America gave him. And that is why even America has now realised that what they did was a big blunder.

RS: Okay. Let's get in one more question. John?
The panelists comment on what they feel has inspired Osama bin Laden.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Osama bin Laden
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

JE: Partha, does this need to be seen in against a wider context that just your field of crisis? Because the main focus of this terror is with America and what it stands for, and that's also the main focus of the anti-WTO demonstrators, and the anti-globalisation protesters over the last few years. As we have seen in Punjab and Sri Lanka, yesterday's peaceful protesters become tomorrow's terrorists, and the anti-WTO protests aren't that peaceful. Do you think that (it is) the poor and the dispossessed who are going to gang up? Do you see a wider problem here? Is there is bigger issue of globalised disenchantment to be tackled, rather than just the Islamic divide?

P: Well, there is certainly a problem of people adjusting to the imperatives and the realities of globalisation; that's spread across the world, John. But having said that, I go back to what I said earlier - we do have a problem in our western neighbourhood. It has political dimensions, diplomatic dimensions, religious dimensions, you name it. It has to be tackled in a multifaceted manner, and I'll go along with Prof Zakaria on this.
John Elliot asks for Mr Parthsarthy's opinion on the possibility of globalisation being the driving force behind terrorism.

see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_civil_war
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Man: What is the definition of Jihad? this is the first part of my question.

Z: Well, I will be very happy to explain it to you. Jihad means a struggle. The classical jurists have divided it into two parts - Jihad ul Akbar (the great struggle) and Jihad ul Asgar (the smaller struggle).

RS: What's the second part of the question?

Z: No, let me explain. What is this?! In the middle (of my explanation), you cut me (off).

RS: He has a second part to the question.

Z: He has not understood anything. Let me explain.

RS: Okay, go on.

Z: The greater struggle is against temptation, against evil.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks
The audience are now allowed to question the panellists. Dr Zakaria is asked to explain the term Jihad.

Woman: Mr Modi had made a comment on isolating terrorism. So how do we isolate it? It is high time. Like, we must really take a stand.

RS: Okay.The gentleman in the back.

Man: I am sorry, I am not standing.

RS: That's okay, you don't have to stand.

Man: You told to this gentleman that to think of the sentiments of the Muslims in Babri Masjid demolition; they are footpath politics in America, or anywhere in the world is very good and elitist politics.

NM: See, it is due to India's initiative that the issue of terrorism has been raised the last two times in the UN meetings.

RS: You have a minute minute talk.

NM: And because of this we have been successful in dividing the whole country into two camps - first those who are against terrorism, and second, those who are supporting terrorism. It is my opinion that the recent incidents in America will add fuel to this process. And world is going to split in two parts - those who are with humanity, and those who are against humanity.
As far as the another question is concerned, total misconception you have, you don't have the correct information. And if you want the debate on Ayodhya, then you call me wherever you want me.
A lady asks Mr Modi how he plans to isolate terrorism, while a man comments on the double-faced nature of Mr Modi.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Mr Modi's policies appear to be blatantly divisionist and reductionist. The automatic assumption of the country now being divided into two camps is ridiculous, and the possibility of this supposed division being used to incite actions against those labelled as "with terrorism", regardless of whether they are or not, is terrifying.
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

It seems surprising that Mr Parthasarthy would choose to reduce the support for the Arab countries to a sort of playground reciprocality - "I'll do this and you do that." Independent decisions appear to fall far by the wayside. If one wanders down that line, then India's choice to support America's stance seems conflicted with America's choice to arm India's supposed enemies. The whole concept is flawed in itself, and lacks rationality.
RS: How many of you think terrorism is only linked to religion? How many of you? What's your response?

Man: Because if you see the historical record, in 1960 when Vietnam was attacked, and in the early 90's when Iraq was attacked, can you give it a name like Christian terrorism? and whatever happened in 1992 or something like that, with the Babri Masjid demolition, can you give it a name like Hindu terrorism?

RS: Why is it Mr Parthasarthy - this is a view, it seems to be a minority view in this audience - that when there are acts of terrorism committed by other groups, you don't give it a religious denomination?

P: There is a reason for that. The only religion, group of countries who have grouped themselves in the world in religious terms are the Islamic countries. They have an Organisation of Islamic Conference.The Christians don't group themselves in religious terms, the Buddhists in South-East Asia don't group themselves, only the Islamic countries do it. And I'll add one point, which I would like to tell Dr Zakaria. Every time, despite our support for the Arabs, every Arab country has joined in resolutions in the OIC every year to condemn us on Kashmir.

RS: Dr.Zakaria, answer this. Is Islam the only religion which builds this kind of universal brotherhood that can kind lead to a global network like the Al Qaeda?

Z: You see, the Islamic countries, their grouping...
Rajdeep Sardesai takes an audience poll.

Mr Parthasarthy is asked to comment on the result of the poll.
Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks

Big Fight
Dr Rafiq Zakaria
Islamic terrorism
Mr G Parthasarthy
Narendra Modi
RS: If we have learnt when it comes to tackling terrorism... When it comes to the basic subject, is Islam the driving force of terrorism? What are your final comments?

P: Final comments - it is very wrong to attribute terrorism to any given religion. But the fact remains that the terrorists are coming from Islamic countries misinterpreting Islam. It will be highly dangerous for us, within India, in a secularist pluralistic society, to give it a predominantly religious connotation.

RS: Your 20 seconds are up. Your 20 seconds.

NM: All my friends must understand that these terrorists have damaged Islam like anything. So they must disconnect themselves from these terrorists, they come out openly against the terrorists, then only they can change the image and they will have to do then something.

RS: Your last word.

Z: I am so sad that to hear all these things. You know there is so much of misrepresentation, now this discussion has gone haywire. Please allow me...

RS: You are allowed 20 seconds, sir, the program is at an end. Tell us your last comments.

Z: Instead of sympathising with the victims, instead of thinking of how to face in the future this menace. And therefore, if you allow me, I will quote a few Urdu couplets.
After the tragedy, instead of discussing the tragedy, we are saying Islam did this and did that. Start thinking how do you save this world from this tragedy.

RS: On that highly sobering note, we must say that it's been an extremely tragic week, and our thoughts must go with the victims of the tragedy. Thank you all very much for joining us on the "Big Fight" on this highly contentious issue. Do email us at bigfight@ndtv.com. We will be back...
Rajdeep Sardesai
September 11 Attacks
The panellists make their final comments.

Pad.ma requires JavaScript.