FIRST READ

Is this how a Jihadi Jane is made?

Fiction excerpt: What makes Ameena and Jamilla go from being teenage students in England to fighting for the IS in Syria?

Over the next few years Ameena and I became the best of mates. We hardly did anything without each other. We did our homework and watched TV together, we went shopping together, we went to the mosque together, we surfed together for Islamic preaching on YouTube.

She liked spending time at our place. You have to realise that I was not the kind of girl who hung around in malls or went to McDonald’s. No pop concerts, not just any film in the theatres, no raves. There were not that many places for a girl like me. Once in a while we visited a like-minded friend or saw a “safe” movie, sometimes we went to a lecture or to the library, while at others we met with our discussion and social welfare group at the mosque. There were several of them, and I belonged to an all-girls’ group which gathered under the tutelage of a middle-aged woman.

We were the ones who wrapped ourselves up most severely, the ones who never allowed a frivolous smile on our faces; for a while Ameena, who still dressed more casually than us despite her scarf, stuck out in the group.

But no one said anything to her, I am sure. And she had stopped calling me a “nunja” by then! But all this still left us with lots of time: our group met only for definite occasions. The rest of the time, we had to meet at home.

Ameena’s flat was difficult for us, mostly because we were certain Aunty would object to some of the preachers and speakers we followed on Facebook and YouTube. These were people who either preached a very strict version of Islam or highlighted the hypocrisies of the West: the political double standards, the arms industry, the orange-clothed prisoners in places like Guantanamo, the lack of international democracy, the inability of the West to hold Israel responsible for human rights violations, the role of oil money in the conflicts of the Middle East. Aunty might not have objected to the latter kind, for much of what they said was not unusual from the leftist perspective – except that the ideologues we listened to had a religious explanation for everything.

Economics was just a pretext; finally, they argued or suggested, that this was an attack on Islam and it was only a continuation of what had begun during the first Crusades.

Look at the way the Christians have been circling and hemming in the Muslim world, they proclaimed. Look at the wildly sprouting military bases: Did any Muslim nation have a single military base in a Christian country? No wonder, they scoffed, Bush II slipped and used words like “crusade” – before his damage-controllers stepped in to assuage the conscience of those duplicitous leftists of the West who did not even have the guts to face up to the truth of the matter and instead quoted that ex-Jew, Marx.

Such YouTube films could be watched in my flat. My Ammi, it is true, almost never watched them, but Mohammad would, if he was around and not resting. He would comment on the commentary, and Ameena would too. Mohammad and I had grown up listening to such opinions about Islam and the West from our father – who had felt besieged and considered Islam under threat – and had inherited those views.

Ammi felt besieged too, but she did not have the resentment that my father and Mohammad had. She could only relate to specific matters, such as a Palestinian child being shot, to which she would respond by cursing the Israelis and Americans for the atrocity, but she would not harbour abstract or general opinions about the threat to Islam or the duplicity of the West. My father had been different – I suppose you can say that he had transferred his personal resentments on to a cultural, even cosmic, level. Mohammad was like him.

What about me? Strange as it may sound to you, though I had totally believed in what Mohammad and my father said, perhaps there was a bit of my mother in me too – I had not thought too much in the abstract and in larger terms.

The presence of Ameena in the flat changed that. Ameena brought a bit of her mum to the flat. Like Aunty, Ameena was an intellectual person – a girl who reasoned with concepts, facts, figures and ideas. For her, a wounded Palestinian boy being carried in the arms of his father was not primarily a human tragedy, an affront to the justice and religion of Allah, which surely Allah would avenge.

That, I suppose, was what my Ammi would think if she went beyond her moment of instinctive sympathy while watching the footage on TV and letting slip from her mouth the standard curse, before returning to her Quran or kitchen. I might give it more thought but, like Ammi, I would not try to fix it absolutely as the conspiracy of a selection of specific villains in the past and the present.

Ameena would. She and Mohammad sat facing the TV for hours, discussing the event, tracing it back to the past, agreeing on everything—how the Russians had invaded Afghanistan and been resisted by the heroic mujahideen, these indomitable Afghan fighters who were supported then by the US, which simply wanted more clout in the region, and how these great Afghan heroes had suddenly been branded as the Taliban and as terrorists and were now being bombed by the same US and its allies. They would go on and on, each getting more impassioned with the support of the other. The ghost of hurt that I had detected in Ameena’s liquid eyes would change shape and harden into anger and resentment.

That, perhaps, was the difference between her and Mohammad. Mohammad had exactly the same opinions and sometimes even the same words. But the words did not leave him bitter and restless, they left him feeling good and righteous.

Again and again, Ameena would conclude by lamenting her inability to do anything to change the world, to protect other Muslims from being attacked by a crass, vulgar West. Mohammad, on the other hand, would end his condemnation of the West and even Muslims – almost all of the other Muslims who did not believe and practise the faith like we did – with a smile of satisfaction, as if this litany of infamy made him feel proud (I might say “smug” today) of what he was.

Listening to them, and I mostly listened, I felt that they would make a good couple. Yes, the thought crossed my mind. I mentioned it to my mother. She smiled. Did I tease Ameena with the notion? I don’t think so, we were very serious girls by then. (You were born ten years older than anyone else in our class, Ameena used to joke.) We indulged in little frivolous talk, though we still had our girlie fits of giggling when the world got too funny. Did the possibility of marrying my brother cross Ameena’s mind? I don’t know. What I do remember is that she used to be very animated in all her conversations with Mohammad.

She evidently took pleasure in his company. But Mohammad never noticed her as a woman. I always know when a man notices a woman; I did even then. It is the kind of instinct some people have more than others. Ameena did not have it despite all her early escapades, the adult cigarettes and the adult boys she had gone around with. She wanted a man to love her, but she could not tell when a man was interested in her and when he was not. Not then, not later.

Excerpted with permission from Jihadi Jane, Tabish Khair, Penguin Books.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

As India turns 70, London School of Economics asks some provocative questions

Is India ready to become a global superpower?

Meaningful changes have always been driven by the right, but inconvenient questions. As India completes 70 years of its sovereign journey, we could do two things – celebrate, pay our token tributes and move on, or take the time to reflect and assess if our course needs correction. The ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, the annual flagship summit of the LSE (London School of Economics) South Asia Centre, is posing some fundamental but complex questions that define our future direction as a nation. Through an honest debate – built on new research, applied knowledge and ground realities – with an eclectic mix of thought leaders and industry stalwarts, this summit hopes to create a thought-provoking discourse.

From how relevant (or irrelevant) is our constitutional framework, to how we can beat the global one-upmanship games, from how sincere are business houses in their social responsibility endeavours to why water is so crucial to our very existence as a strong nation, these are some crucial questions that the event will throw up and face head-on, even as it commemorates the 70th anniversary of India’s independence.

Is it time to re-look at constitution and citizenship in India?

The Constitution of India is fundamental to the country’s identity as a democratic power. But notwithstanding its historical authority, is it perhaps time to examine its relevance? The Constitution was drafted at a time when independent India was still a young entity. So granting overwhelming powers to the government may have helped during the early years. But in the current times, they may prove to be more discriminatory than egalitarian. Our constitution borrowed laws from other countries and continues to retain them, while the origin countries have updated them since then. So, do we need a complete overhaul of the constitution? An expert panel led by Dr Mukulika Banerjee of LSE, including political and economic commentator S Gurumurthy, Madhav Khosla of Columbia University, Niraja Gopal Jayal of JNU, Chintan Chandrachud the author of the book Balanced Constitutionalism and sociologist, legal researcher and Director of Council for Social Development Kalpana Kannabiran will seek answers to this.

Is CSR simply forced philanthropy?

While India pioneered the mandatory minimum CSR spend, has it succeeded in driving impact? Corporate social responsibility has many dynamics at play. Are CSR initiatives mere tokenism for compliance? Despite government guidelines and directives, are CSR activities well-thought out initiatives, which are monitored and measured for impact? The CSR stipulations have also spawned the proliferation of ambiguous NGOs. The session, ‘Does forced philanthropy work – CSR in India?” will raise these questions of intent, ethics and integrity. It will be moderated by Professor Harry Barkema and have industry veterans such as Mukund Rajan (Chairman, Tata Council for Community Initiatives), Onkar S Kanwar (Chairman and CEO, Apollo Tyres), Anu Aga (former Chairman, Thermax) and Rahul Bajaj (Chairman, Bajaj Group) on the panel.

Can India punch above its weight to be considered on par with other super-powers?

At 70, can India mobilize its strengths and galvanize into the role of a serious power player on the global stage? The question is related to the whole new perception of India as a dominant power in South Asia rather than as a Third World country, enabled by our foreign policies, defense strategies and a buoyant economy. The country’s status abroad is key in its emergence as a heavyweight but the foreign service officers’ cadre no longer draws top talent. Is India equipped right for its aspirations? The ‘India Abroad: From Third World to Regional Power’ panel will explore India’s foreign policy with Ashley Tellis, Meera Shankar (Former Foreign Secretary), Kanwal Sibal (Former Foreign Secretary), Jayant Prasad and Rakesh Sood.

Are we under-estimating how critical water is in India’s race ahead?

At no other time has water as a natural resource assumed such a big significance. Studies estimate that by 2025 the country will become ‘water–stressed’. While water has been the bone of contention between states and controlling access to water, a source for political power, has water security received the due attention in economic policies and development plans? Relevant to the central issue of water security is also the issue of ‘virtual water’. Virtual water corresponds to the water content (used) in goods and services, bulk of which is in food grains. Through food grain exports, India is a large virtual net exporter of water. In 2014-15, just through export of rice, India exported 10 trillion litres of virtual water. With India’s water security looking grim, are we making the right economic choices? Acclaimed author and academic from the Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi, Amita Bavisar will moderate the session ‘Does India need virtual water?’

Delve into this rich confluence of ideas and more at the ‘India @ 70: LSE India Summit’, presented by Apollo Tyres in association with the British Council and organized by Teamworks Arts during March 29-31, 2017 at the India Habitat Centre, New Delhi. To catch ‘India @ 70’ live online, register here.

At the venue, you could also visit the Partition Museum. Dedicated to the memory of one of the most conflict-ridden chapters in our country’s history, the museum will exhibit a unique archive of rare photographs, letters, press reports and audio recordings from The Partition Museum, Amritsar.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of Teamwork Arts and not by the Scroll editorial team.