The virulence manifested in the Kolkata Minority Forum's demonstrations against the West Bengal Government and the CPI(M) offices has reportedly shocked the Marxists. One explanation being given is that some extremist elements had penetrated what was originally intended to be a general Muslim protest over the events of Nandigram. The village has an overwhelming Muslim population. But the protests were catalysed by the Islamic extremists who wanted not only to force the Government to send Ms Taslima Nasreen packing from West Bengal but also send a strong message to the Left Front Government that they needed the wages for supporting it all these decades.

What made the community suddenly turn so audacious? If the Marxists now claim that it was their instruction to the cadre not to retaliate that saved the situation, they are simply bluffing. The 'Bhasmasura' was of their making.

The apologists of the State Government are spreading the canard that it was a fringe group that infiltrated the group of demonstrators legitimately protesting the Nandigram killings. This is obfuscation. Actually, Nandigram was only an excuse; the real reason was Ms Nasreen's presence in Kolkata. After some Muslims attacked the writer in Hyderabad and then warned her never to come back to the capital of Andhra Pradesh -- a threat she could ignore to her own peril -- how could their extremist brethren in West Bengal keep quiet, that too with the Bangladesh border so close?

Bangladeshi terrorist organisation Harkat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami (HUJI) is now known to operate in India without hindrance. India's official claim is that HUJI was behind the bombings in Malegaon, Ajmer and Hyderabad. But not a single person has been charged so far. And when the police closed in on a few suspects, the so-called human rights activists rose from thin air to accuse the police of targeting the minorities.

That no one has been charged so far in the terrorist incidents from Malegaon to Kolkata is enough condemnation of the Union and State Governments. Vote-bank politics is promoting the antithesis of liberalism in the country. The protesters in Hyderabad might have never read Ms Nasreen's books as they are in Bengali; nor are they literary savants. But what about the Bengali littérateurs? We are yet to hear them denounce this fanaticism, where a woman author, who has only portrayed the horrible situation of minority Hindus in Bangladesh, is being haunted. Nor have we heard the so-called progressives, who take to the street at the drop of a hat, coming out in support of the hassled author, either in Delhi or Mumbai or elsewhere.

For the Marxists, they are facing the consequences of promoting Muslim communalism for decades. From the days of Partition when the Communists supported the demand for Pakistan to holding joint demonstrations with them on any issue that purportedly affects them, the Communists have been shrewd purveyors of Muslim extremism. In Kolkata itself, have we forgotten the violent agitation over the incident in which some old pages of the Quran were found in a heap of waste paper imported at the port? The leader of that agitation happened to be a Marxist who occupied the chair of the Speaker. Last Tuesday's agitation, too, was in the constituency of the present Speaker.

Islamism is being dangerously mixed with the issue of Nandigram in a bid to create more confusion in the country. There seems to be good planning behind this as the Marxists claim they were taken by surprise. That soon after three well-timed blasts shook three different cities of Uttar Pradesh is no coincidence. HUJI is the suspect. But the Kolkata violence and the Uttar Pradesh blasts might be linked.

Last week, Uttar Pradesh Police arrested three terrorists who, it says, were planning to kidnap Mr Rahul Gandhi to use him as hostage to secure the release of Mohammed Afzal, the mastermind behind the attack on Parliament House. If that is true, it is a grimmer reminder to the Government to act quickly and eliminate this terrorist. After all, the Supreme Court has gone through his claim of miscarriage of justice again and again and has rejected all his bogus pleas. Why is then the Government hesitant? Is it because Islamic extremism, using the Indian liberal establishment as the cat's paw, has threatened reprisals if the terrorist is executed?

Even the Government of Bangladesh had enough courage to hang six militants, including the founder of HUJI, despite the threat of reprisals. Is it that the Government of India is prisoner to the communal cry against Mohammed Afzal's sentence, having pandered to Islamists for such a long time? Under similar circumstances, Mrs Indira Gandhi had the courage to ensure that her Government carried out the death sentence against Kashmiri terrorist and separatist Maqbool Butt, convicted for the kidnapping and murder of an Indian officer in the UK.

From the blasts in Mumbai local train to those in Malegoan and Lucknow, the trail of Islamist terrorism is seen all over the place. But Home Minister Shivraj Patil has nothing to say except some hackneyed words of sympathy for the so-called misled youth. The UPA Government is afraid of calling a spade a spade when in countries like the UK and Australia the Prime Ministers have never hesitated to deal firmly with the threat of Islamic extremism and terror.

In many western European nations, Islamic terrorists are under constant pressure not only of Governments but also public opinion. Several planned terrorist attacks have been foiled because of this sensitisation. But we have a whole chain of events where innocent people are killed in hundreds and all that we have are Government leaders who lose sleep over a suspect being taken into custody since he happens to be a Muslim.

The central issue is not of terrorists' infiltration in society. These infiltrators and terror merchants find it possible to lie low among a section of the local population, plan their strike, carry it out and then disappear quietly before the security forces can catch them.

The security forces think they can find the trail by zeroing in on the local supporters of the terrorists. This approach succeeded in getting at the Parliament House attackers. But subsequently this approach has been ruled out by an official diktat on the plea that it hurts the sensibilities of the minority community. If so, why can't their leaders ensure that no such criminals get shelter and infrastructure support and that any suspicious newcomers are at once reported to the police?

We need to learn from the aggressive counter-strike operations by the US's security forces in the case of the murder of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl, though it happened in another country, and that by the Australian Government in the case of the Bali bombers in Indonesia.

Courtesy: www.dailypioneer.com, November 30, 2007