Islamic fundamentalism is not something created by the West. It exists. But not all forms of Islamic fundamentalism are religio-political movements, some of them are small sectarian movements which look inwards ... Religious fundamentalism ... means that particular category of religion related movements which have a political thrust and are invariably directed against some state.

It is convenient for certain sections of the American establishment at certain times to rake up this bogey of a worldwide Islamic fundamentalism. These sections demonise Islam because they see some kind of opposition coming from some Islamic states. Their approach is highly selective. When it suits them, they support it and vice-versa. One of the most fundamentalist Islamic regimes is Saudi Arabia, an important US ally.

There is no universal Islamic fundamentalism ...Islamic fundamentalism ... all too often take the form of different kinds of Islamic nationalisms. And by the very fact that they are nationalisms they are diverse and different from each other. However, it is convenient for Hindu communalist forces to play on this theme of a monolithic Islamic ummah (a community of believers) and, therefore, a global Islamic menace. The reality is enormously diverse ... Instead of thinking through the complexities of the issue, instead of recognising the enormous diversities of lived Islam or even the great variations in the interpretations of doctrinal Islam, there is a strong temptation to simplify everything into some kind of religio-cultural essentialism. This is the procedure adopted by communalists of all types.

You don't have one Islamic civilisation but many.The differences, say, between Malay Indonesian, peninsular Arabic and Balkan Islamic cultures and societies is enormous. What you have is different societies and cultures 'divided' by the same religion, Islam, rather than 'united' by it.

Lived Islam is far more important than doctrinal Islam ... People not willing to do the hard work of grappling with complexities reduce it to an essentialism (the 'essences' that supposedly define across centuries a religion-culture-civilisation) ... Try to explain, what we sometimes called for convenience the Islamic world, within a crude essentialist framework.

There is no big clash of civilisations. Civilisations are not a general category to which religions are connected in some unchanging way. This is something which suits certain sections of the American establishment. Samuel Huntington may be much admired and loved by the Hindu communal forces because they would like to sell the idea that a 'Hindu India' could be a potential political ally to the 'Christian West' against the common 'enemy' Islam ... Certain influential sections of the US establishment feel that there is going to be some political resistance in the strategically important west Asia, and possibly from oil-rich Central Asia ... There is no monolithic Islamic ummah ... The basis of ... some kind of worldwide conspiracy of Islamic fundamentalism. it is not correct to say that there is a group of worldwide mercenaries inspired by Islam who are going to fight anywhere and anytime ...

In South Asia one must not look simply at the ugly forms of Islamic fundamentalism but also at the ugly forms of Hindu and Buddhist nationalisms and revanchisms. They feel off each other ...                                                                (Source: The Patriot ( ??? ), 30 August, 1998)