Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Absurd Theory of the Clash of Civilisations
In the past few weeks since I have been posting I have received several comments from people either applauding my point of view or deriding it. In some cases I received long diatribes against Islam and ALL Muslims filled with a violent hatred.
What shocked me more than anything else was that some of my Indian compatriots are parroting what the western media has cleverly planned and disseminated which is taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the "Clash of Civilizations."
So now by the looks of it it is not only East against the West but also Christians against Islam, Jews against Islam and if I am to take any heed of some responses to my blog, Hindus against Islam.
Should we then call it an epic struggle between the East and the West?
If so, then why is the US government now bandying around the dangerous term Islamo-fascism while conveniently forgotting that some of its staunchest allies are undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism? It is common knowledge now that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not only established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world but also funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. In fact,Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI -- sometimes called a "state within a state" -- not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s.
Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they're on the side of the Western democracies, particularly the US.
Now, in columns in Indian newspapers there are hawks exhorting the Indian government to take on "wild, terrorist Muslim" hordes.
Respectable journalists are parroting the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric completely oblivious to the fact that it is obvious nonsense peddled by vested interests playing to xenophobia latent in all human beings, rather than something inherently violent or nihilistic in Islam which may be violent, but no more than any other religion.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" is a common refrain on the many "war-blogs" that have proliferated since 9/11.
This is not only wrong but racist. Last year, excluding the mess in Iraq (it's awfully tough to distinguish between terrorism, insurgency, sectarian violence, etc.), U.S. government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Some were inflicted by Muslims, but more were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces, the Communist Party of India and various Hindu extremists. Next up was Colombia, a country with a population that's over 90 percent Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place -- after the mess in Afghanistan -- were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal.
Research show that in Indonesia -- the most heavily populated Muslim country in the world which is considered by Western analysts to be a hot-bed of Islamic terror, "violence against innocent civilians has been ... committed by secessionist movements in Sumatra and elsewhere, by Christian and Muslim fanatics [and] by indigenous people threatened by migrants ..." The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, who has studied terrorists exhaustively (and seriously), found that the group that led the world in suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group that draws its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam just isn't serious at all.
It has to be understood that so called Islamic extremist groups are not fighting one ill-defined and melodramatic conflict with the "West," but a host of conflicts with national or regional origins. For the most part, their primary targets are not liberal democracies or Western decadence, but some of the most brutal, authoritarian regimes in the world, many of which are considered "moderate" by our own extremists. The fact is that virtually all terrorist attacks outside of the disputed Kashmir region are perpetrated by extremists in their own country or in the homelands of states that are occupying their country. Some examples are stateless peoples whose desire for self-rule are violently suppressed -- Palestinians and Kurds the most prominent among them.
Some terrorist groups have recently turned their eyes to the US not because they hate their freedoms or their women's bare shoulders. It's because Americans have supported many of those repressive regimes -- often with troops on the ground -- from Indonesia to Iran.
In the end, the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric is, by design, a way to cut short any discussion of neo-imperialism, the conviction of the US and other Western nations that they have the right to control the world's resources.
Sure, there is a Clash of Civilizations, but its dividing line is not between East and West but North and South.
Ultimately, these conflicts, like civil conflicts in the non-Muslim world, are about power, control of finite resources or long-term ethnic and tribal friction, regardless of whether they're packaged as religious-inspired "Jihad" or not. Those who embrace the idea of a global struggle against "Islamic fascism" would never suggest that decades of violence in Ireland could be reduced to a story as simplistic as Catholics against Protestants, much less that it was an indictment of Christianity as a whole. They'd be quick to admit that the sectarian divide in Ireland was just one of a number of factors that caused so much bloodshed.
As for Indian Muslims and Hindus, there have been clashes since the time of partition and subsequently-- ALL in the name of politics. All of these have been ignited by political concerns. All have had some roots in economic issues. This includes the violence in Assam. The clashes after the Babri Masjid debacle were also after Shri Advani undertook his infamous rath yatra with the single minded mission of stirring up trouble in communities which had learnt to live with each other. The Gujarat riots two years ago, which gave our country such a good name, were also based in economic rivalries and insecurities.
That's why it's so important to understand that those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get people to herd together in fear and terror. It presents the bewildering politics of the Arab world as a simple matter of Us versus Them
What shocked me more than anything else was that some of my Indian compatriots are parroting what the western media has cleverly planned and disseminated which is taking a dozen complex conflicts that originated in a dozen countries, stripping them of all historical and political context and lumping them together in an amorphous blob called the "Clash of Civilizations."
So now by the looks of it it is not only East against the West but also Christians against Islam, Jews against Islam and if I am to take any heed of some responses to my blog, Hindus against Islam.
Should we then call it an epic struggle between the East and the West?
If so, then why is the US government now bandying around the dangerous term Islamo-fascism while conveniently forgotting that some of its staunchest allies are undisputed champs in spreading violent Islamic extremism? It is common knowledge now that both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not only established fundamentalist, anti-Western madrassas all across the world but also funneled gobs of cash to extremist groups, and nurtured and supported them in their infancy. In fact,Saudi Arabia made it a foreign policy priority to spread its brand of Wahhabism, mostly to counter the perceived threat of Pan-Arabism and other anti-colonial ideologies. Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI -- sometimes called a "state within a state" -- not only supported the Taliban in Afghanistan but funded, equipped and helped train some of the most notorious terror groups that grew out of that country in the 1990s.
Talk all you want about Syria and Iran supporting Hezbollah, these are the great terror-sponsoring states, and they're on the side of the Western democracies, particularly the US.
Now, in columns in Indian newspapers there are hawks exhorting the Indian government to take on "wild, terrorist Muslim" hordes.
Respectable journalists are parroting the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric completely oblivious to the fact that it is obvious nonsense peddled by vested interests playing to xenophobia latent in all human beings, rather than something inherently violent or nihilistic in Islam which may be violent, but no more than any other religion.
"Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims" is a common refrain on the many "war-blogs" that have proliferated since 9/11.
This is not only wrong but racist. Last year, excluding the mess in Iraq (it's awfully tough to distinguish between terrorism, insurgency, sectarian violence, etc.), U.S. government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Some were inflicted by Muslims, but more were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces, the Communist Party of India and various Hindu extremists. Next up was Colombia, a country with a population that's over 90 percent Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place -- after the mess in Afghanistan -- were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal.
Research show that in Indonesia -- the most heavily populated Muslim country in the world which is considered by Western analysts to be a hot-bed of Islamic terror, "violence against innocent civilians has been ... committed by secessionist movements in Sumatra and elsewhere, by Christian and Muslim fanatics [and] by indigenous people threatened by migrants ..." The University of Chicago's Robert Pape, who has studied terrorists exhaustively (and seriously), found that the group that led the world in suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group that draws its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam just isn't serious at all.
It has to be understood that so called Islamic extremist groups are not fighting one ill-defined and melodramatic conflict with the "West," but a host of conflicts with national or regional origins. For the most part, their primary targets are not liberal democracies or Western decadence, but some of the most brutal, authoritarian regimes in the world, many of which are considered "moderate" by our own extremists. The fact is that virtually all terrorist attacks outside of the disputed Kashmir region are perpetrated by extremists in their own country or in the homelands of states that are occupying their country. Some examples are stateless peoples whose desire for self-rule are violently suppressed -- Palestinians and Kurds the most prominent among them.
Some terrorist groups have recently turned their eyes to the US not because they hate their freedoms or their women's bare shoulders. It's because Americans have supported many of those repressive regimes -- often with troops on the ground -- from Indonesia to Iran.
In the end, the Clash of Civilizations rhetoric is, by design, a way to cut short any discussion of neo-imperialism, the conviction of the US and other Western nations that they have the right to control the world's resources.
Sure, there is a Clash of Civilizations, but its dividing line is not between East and West but North and South.
Ultimately, these conflicts, like civil conflicts in the non-Muslim world, are about power, control of finite resources or long-term ethnic and tribal friction, regardless of whether they're packaged as religious-inspired "Jihad" or not. Those who embrace the idea of a global struggle against "Islamic fascism" would never suggest that decades of violence in Ireland could be reduced to a story as simplistic as Catholics against Protestants, much less that it was an indictment of Christianity as a whole. They'd be quick to admit that the sectarian divide in Ireland was just one of a number of factors that caused so much bloodshed.
As for Indian Muslims and Hindus, there have been clashes since the time of partition and subsequently-- ALL in the name of politics. All of these have been ignited by political concerns. All have had some roots in economic issues. This includes the violence in Assam. The clashes after the Babri Masjid debacle were also after Shri Advani undertook his infamous rath yatra with the single minded mission of stirring up trouble in communities which had learnt to live with each other. The Gujarat riots two years ago, which gave our country such a good name, were also based in economic rivalries and insecurities.
That's why it's so important to understand that those reactionaries within our own society who are pushing the Clash of Civilizations are mirror-images of the terrorists that inspire their hyperbolic fear; they're just as xenophobic, just as irrational and, ultimately, are just as great a threat to our security. Both have to be challenged aggressively before they give birth to another, even bloodier generation of culture warriors.
"Islamo-fascism" looks like an analytic term, but really it's an emotional one, intended to get people to herd together in fear and terror. It presents the bewildering politics of the Arab world as a simple matter of Us versus Them
No comments:
Post a Comment