The coordinated massacre of Shias in Iraq and its blood-soaked replication in Pakistan on the very day that the sect mourns its martyr would suggest ruthless intention. It is certainly a cruel reminder of the age-old rivalry between the Shias and Sunnis that originated in a confrontation more than a thousand years ago in the deserts of Karbala. But such sectarian conflict is not new. Extremist factions on both sides have often met in bloody combat in different regions of the world, for the rivalry is usually brought to boiling point by the colouring of the ruling political dispensation. After all, the original conflict, which culminated in the creation of the two sects, hinged on the question of succession to the supreme religious leadership. For Iraq, where suicide attacks occurred in both Karbala and Baghdad, the expression of sectarian hatred is tied up with the country’s turbulent political situation. The Shia majority has been freed from the oppression it experienced under Mr Saddam Hussein, and is accused by many Sunnis of having welcomed the Anglo-American intervention. Since the Baath party had many Sunni leaders, supporters of the Hussein regime are being suspected, along with al-Qaida, of having masterminded the Ashura festival attacks. The conflict has gained a sharper edge with the approach of the June 30 deadline for the transfer of sovereignty from the United States of America to Iraq. As a result of the massacre, the signing of the interim constitution has been postponed, an indication that the intention behind the killings is not a simple one.

Besides, the mechanism for selecting the interim government is yet to be determined. The Shias would prefer an elected government, and not one chosen by regional councils, as the US has proposed. The majority Shias would gain should the new government be elected; this is likely to have strung its opposition’s resentment to fever pitch. The situation is ideal for civil war: the message of hatred is also a provocation. The reminder of traditional conflict points towards a war of interests that has to do with here and now. Similarly, the killing of Shias in Quetta in Pakistan carries on an old war too. The Shias’ anger there is closely related to the treatment meted out to them in Gilgit and Baluchistan. While contributing to an ongoing war, the killings on Muharram day are bound to raise questions about security, with the Indian cricket team’s tour on the horizon. Such violence establishes the folly of perceiving terrorism in terms of Islam and the world. Terrorism fattens on conflict, and uses all conflict to prolong its own existence.