Abdel-Moneim Said writes that the predominant Indian response to centuries of brutal exploitation by the British was a peaceful, constructive one. This has led to a nation, that is more forward-looking than backward-looking. So he calls for some introspection in the Muslim world as to whether terrorism

is a product of a sense of injustice and persecution felt by some Muslims in response to certain events and circumstances in the Arab and Islamic world, or whether it is a manifestation of a specific ideology that sanctions killing as part of its mission to establish a system of rule and social organisation that achieves deliverance in this world and the next.

Nevertheless, regarding Mahatma Gandhi, who is referred to in the article, and regarding the partition into India and Pakistan, which is also mentioned in the article, there is a certain irony. Before Gandhi, politics in India was limited to the small numbers educated people. Gandhi created mass politics in India. But Gandhi was confounded by the Muslims of India, they were quite difficult to mass-mobilize for the cause of Indian independence. In the 1920s, the Muslims were more energized by the fate of Ottomans and the Caliphate, in a phenomenon similar to today, when Pakistanis are typically more exercised over the Palestinians' lack of franchise than their own similar shortfall. So Gandhi decided to hitch their concerns to the Independence movement, and the non-cooperation movement he launched in the 1920s had dual goals - of Indian Independence and of restoration of the Ottoman Caliphate.

In doing so, Gandhi forfeited the support of one class of Muslim leaders - most notably, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Father of Pakistan. Then, the Non-Cooperation movement exploded into violence. A mob attacked a police station in Chaura Chauri, people were killed. Gandhi suspended the Non-Cooperation movement, fearing that the violence would spread. This suspension of the struggle was considered to be a betrayal by the Muslim leaders with whom Gandhi had made common cause. Ultimately it was this class of people, led by Jinnah, who led the successful movement to partition India.

The Pakistan part is now quite backward looking. In the words of Stephen Cohen, in The Idea of Pakistan (page 174)

Even before 9/11, the more Islamist elements of the Pakistan Establishment held that the rest of the world, especially Christians, Jews and Hindus, feared Islam's progressive, reformist qualities and were intent upon keeping Islamic countries backward. Thus Pakistan's material and military backwardness is easily explained: it is due to Pakistan's religious and social greatness, and to a worldwide conspiracy to prevent it from acquiring modern technology and weapons. Thus the threat to Pakistan increases as it becomes purer, more Islamic; Islamic superiority explains Muslim inferiority.

One should be clear, Gandhiji did not have a high opinion of modernity. Asked about western civilization, he quipped that it would be a good idea. Gandhi thought that the Industrial Revolution had destroyed the dignity of human labor. Perhaps in some sense, Osama bin Laden has a higher regard for modernity - technology, at least - than Gandhi. So, forward-looking does not mean necessarily embracing technology, progress, and so on. Then, I'm also reasonably sure that Hitler embraced technology, progress, whatever. Forward-looking comes from recognizing that the only legitimate power I may have is that of peaceful persuasion. From that core, everything else arises.