On Drones, Ideas and Narratives

On Drones, Ideas and Narratives

Unmanned aerial vehicles ( UAV’s) commonly known as drones have emerged as a weapon of choice in America’s war against terror in Pakistan’s frontier areas. They have rather effectively eliminated some of the Al Qaeda/ Taliban cadre hiding in these areas of Pakistan. Controversial and a bit of a sticking point between the United States and Pakistan, drones continue to be employed on a regular basis by the United States. Whatever the military significance and effectiveness of drone attacks these, in the final analysis, amount to pin pricks and of marginal utility in the broader fight against terrorism. Why?

The reasons are rather prosaic. While drone attacks may be effective in physically eliminating the Al Qaeda cadre, they have no utility in combating the real cause and issue. The reference here is to the ideas that feed the Al Qaeda narrative. This narrative, roughly speaking, is premised on an extreme interpretation of Islam where armed and offensive Jihad is elevated to the status of one of the duties of Islam. Incubated in the authoritarian milieu of the Arab Muslim world and forged in the battlegrounds of Afghanistan, this narrative feeds on the alleged victim hood of Muslims and Islam. This victimhood, in the Al Qaeda scheme of things, can be reversed through military means. Muslims, in the Al Qaeda narrative, have been betrayed by their rulers who in turn are supported by the so called ‘distant enemy’, the West or more accurately, the United States. The alliance systems in place held validate and prolong the rule of the autocratic regimes in the Arab Muslim world who then crush dissent or alternate points of view by employing violence. These linkages get pronounced and vivid in the Al Qaeda imagination and the means to break this is counter violence against those who allegedly support these regimes. This line of thinking helps explain September 11.

Terrorism gets legitimated as a weapon and tactic of the weak against the strong.   The attendant violence is viewed as cathartic, eliminating the encrustations that the Muslim mind and imagination are allegedly in the grips of. Given this legitimization and the sanction of Islam, brand Al Qaeda has enormous appeal. Young Muslims who get drawn towards this brand then cherish and seek martyrdom. Death is seen as kind of nirvanic helping the Muslim attain liberation. It is, in modern day parlance, a curious mixture of Fannon and religion or an extreme interpretation/rendition of religion. This begs the question of the overall effectiveness of drone strikes. While the body count forming Al Qaeda, may get somewhat diminished, the ideas informing the narrative remain intact. Al Qaeda continues at attract followers and its brand equity, so to speak, remains intact or even gets a new lease of life. The question then is: how to diminish this appeal and render Al Qaeda’s appeal infructuous and delegitimize its narrative?

First and foremost, the United States, which is leading the campaign on the ‘war on terror’ needs to understand and put into perspective the reasons for Al Qaeda’s genesis and appeal. This then may be followed by vigorously changing the contours of its relationship with the Arab Muslim world. Specifically, it means reviewing the alliance systems in place and making it clear that the politics of clientism and oil will not be countenanced and a healthy alliance structure put in place.

Contemporarily, it may mean vigorous support for the Arab spring and even military intervention in Syria.  This may bring the Islamists to power. However, given the noises made my the Islamists president in Egypt , it may well be worth the risk. Shunting Islamists, driving them underground, and denying them a voice has historically manifested itself in terrorism. Governance, power and government may give short shrift to this and lead to the moderation of Islamists. In the process then, the Al Qaeda narrative may lose steam and get marginalized. This could be followed by the demonstration of the United States soft power and making its real nature clear to Muslims. Anti Americanism in the Muslim world flows largely from stereotypes which, in turn, are premised on ignorance. Revealing its real nature to Muslims could potentially obviate this.

Last, it is also incumbent upon Muslims to introspect and review. Violence may be temporarily cathartic but in the final analysis, it is the choice of losers and a mug’s game. Yes: our condition is defined by torpor and political decay. But this can be reversed by engaging with the world and not by withdrawing, retreating and lashing out. It is incumbent upon us to review, understand and present Islam in an idiom that reveals its real nature. A regressive and reactionary approach will only redound negatively to/for us.

It is then in a dialogue with the world, especially the west, that political decay in the Islamic world can be reversed. The impetus for this must come both from the West and the world of Islam. Drone attacks merely reduce the body count; not the impetus and impulse behind Al Qaeda’s narrative. Dialogue, reconciliation and fighting on the domain of ideas is the real Jihad. It is about time that Muslims re engage the world and contribute to its efflorescence and progress.

The End of the European Sisyphus:Implications on World Politics?

The nation state and the Westphalian system of state reigns supreme and there can be no challenge to it. The floundering and the potential break up of project Europe is testimony to this. The so called widening and deepening of the Union ultimately became its Achilles’ heel and it was the fallout from the economic travails of Ireland,  Portugal, Spain-the laggards- and then finally Greece that catalyzed the current structural crisis. While the potential fall out of the break up will have significant ramifications on the global economy, the break up may in the scheme of things be good. It will be good for the world and for Europe as well. The world may heave a sigh of relief given that the European behemoth was a mere political pygmy politically. It could neither come up with a coherent foreign policy posture (this was inherent to it) nor could contribute in any meaningful way to world order and politics.(Doling out aid to Africans , in no way, can be said to constitute meaningful contributions. It merely added to the structural morass that is Africa and sated the so called post modern European guilt over colonialism).

The potential split and break up raises a host of questions:  Was project Europe a flawed and false economic construct from the word go? Was this project sold to a war weary peoples who accepted it rather reflexively? Did the technocratic nature of the project render its potential splitting inherent to it? Who and what is the real Europe? And what implications would the split or break up have on world politics and order?

It was, to belabor the point, the political entrepreneurship of the visionary Jean Monnet and other political entrepreneurs that sought to transcend the nation state paradigm and the attendant balance of power politics and create a union of states from the ashes of war. These visionaries tied the major states of Europe into an economic gridlock. The creation of the European Steel and Coal Community was the precursor to a broader and wider union. The premise was economic and the politics of the union rested on hope.  This, in retrospect, could be held to be the fatal flaw in the design, form and shape of Europe. This project was then presented to  a war weary peoples who did not see the real implications and consequences of the union. Overlaying this was the Cold War and the vigorous support for the Union by the United States. (This critical support has been met with ingratitude in Europe where gratuitous anti Americanism runs rife). Once the existential threat of the Cold War was out of the picture and US support for the Union mellowed, problems began to emerge. This condition was complemented by the ‘widening’ and deepening’ of the Union wherein ‘wannabe European’s’-Eastern Europeans and the Mediterranean countries- were incorporated into the Union. This unsustainable expansion along with the democratic deficit wherein the European Union was ruled by a distant bureaucracy, the European Commission and its unelected technocrats brought the artificiality of the Union to the fore. The economic travails and problems engendered by the laggards-Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece- may, in the long duree scheme of things, be said to be mere corollaries.

If the Union was an artificial construct, what then constitutes real and existing Europe? It could be safe to posit that the Anglo phone Britain and the hitherto implacable enemies-France and Germany -constitutes real and existing Europe. The rest are merely wannabe Europeans with pretensions to Europe. And it is here problems of a political nature arise if the Union splits and breaks up. The Union had becalmed the rivalries that have historically defined these entities for much of their modern history. The breaking up of the Union may potentially lead to recrudescence and recidivism. This will axiomatically have grave implications and consequences. Among other things, the potential break up of the European Union is statement on the so called complex interdependence having an ameliorative effect on inter state relations, state craft and real politik. States are states and nationalism continues to be a potent force in world politics. And states will behave like states no matter how ‘tied’ they are in the webs of commerce and trade. Nations and peoples will give their loyalties to abstractions like the nation states and not to distant bureaucracies. Thucydides, Hobbes and Machiavelli continue to remain relevant.

  All in all, this then creates a problem for the United States. How is the country to deal with the new uncertainty?   The United States now may not have to face the Kissingerian conundrum of who to speak to in Europe? It will be individual nation states that the US will have to deal with. Inherent in this problem is also an opportunity. This lies in the fact that the United States my no longer have the option of retreating into itself. It will have to, on account of the potential break up of the Union, by default, have to re engage the world and insert itself into the politics of these states. This then means the return of balance of power politics in Europe with the United States holding and maintaining the balance The world does not want  or need Europe reverting to its fratricidal and conflictual mode.  And it is only the United States that can prevent Europe from conflict, chaos and disorder. It is about time that the country gird itself for this role.

Does Islam Have a Place in the Modern World?

Does Islam Have a Place in the Modern World?

An old school friend – a pious and a devout Muslim-of mine’s inquisitiveness and the attendant remark about the nature of the west was revealing. He remarked that ‘Muslims in the quest for knowledge must even listen to non Muslims’ and ‘intellectual freedom in/of the west explained the west’s success and vigor. On the face of it, the former remark, to a western ear might convey the implication of paternalism and suggest that Muslim pride and glory in Islam’s erstwhile achievements and its current torpor is inherent in the remark. However, things are not as clear cut as this.

The remark along with the appreciation of intellectual freedom reflects an opening up of the Muslim mind. Admittedly, this remark cannot be generalized. There are scores of Muslims for whom the west and any trapping or hint of modernity is anathema. However, this extremist and obscurantist fringe is just that: an obscurantist fringe. This small minority of Muslims unfortunately gets disproportionate media attention in the west. It is to this intelligent, inquisitive and somewhat ambivalent opinion that the west must address and explain itself to. By explaining, the reference is not to the defensive explanation but an endeavor to reveal itself and its real nature to the Muslim mind. The images of the west spewed out by Hollywood-rampant hedonism and violence- and the unexplained premises of the foreign policies of the United States grotesquely distort and blur the nature of the west to sober sections of Muslim opinion. This is the amplified by the extremist fringe who cast the west as hedonistic, ‘materialistic’ and vulgar. In short, they frame and cast the west in vulgar essentialist terms and thus in contradistinction to Islam. This vulgar reduction, in turn, leads to stereotypes and a facile and incorrect view and perception of the west.

To the western ear and eye, the world of Islam, presented and shaped by the media and its  quest for ratings and  crude sensationalism gets reduced to religion inspired violence,  medievalism and irrationality, intolerance, misogyny, gender biases and imbalance and religious chauvinism. This again is a grotesque parody of reality. The world of Islam is too complex and variegated to be reduced to such crude caricatures. The inevitable conclusion that is then drawn by both sober and lay opinion in the west is that Islam stands in stark contrast to the values and principles of the west. In short, the conclusion is drawn that Islam is antithetical to modernity.

The question is: Is this true? It would be foolish to reflexively say no to this question. At the same time, it would be equally foolish and naïve to respond affirmatively. The answer to this very important question lies in the mists of a grey zone. And it is here that an opportunity to reconcile the west and the world of Islam lie. The west’s modernity is premised on the philosophical premises and rationales of the Enlightenment and the Renaissance. In sum, the gravamen of these philosophies questioned convention, received wisdom and tradition and thus challenged the established relationship between man and God.  The voice of people, to iterate the cliché, was held to be voice of God and law and principles governing society were derived from reason. Sovereignty rested in man and the individual was central in this schema.

In contrast, divinely revealed religion like Islam was/is predicated and premised upon the centrality of God and His Prophet (SAW) in the scheme of things. All law flowed from God and His vicegerent, the Prophet (SAW). Absolute sovereignty rested in God and man or mankind was merely one reflection of His attributes and His creation. Temporal life was held to be a way station- a place of trial, tribulation and a test for the real life after death.

These two divergent and contrasting worldviews, beliefs and approaches, on the face of it, seem irreconcilable and doomed to clash.  However, the reality is more complex. If reason and rationality is the yard stick and benchmark for modernity, then Islam has a rich history and legacy of reason and rationality. Its best scholars and philosophers explained, read and understood the Quran and the Ahadith-the corpus of Islamic sayings attributed to the Prophet (SAW)- in the light of reason and rationality. Unfortunately, these scholars and philosophers were usually marginalized and even harassed by those who held power in the realm of Islam. An unholy and incestuous relationship developed between the rulers and those scholars who helped legitimized their rule. This, in turn, led to the popularity of a vision of Islam that the rulers were comfortable with and dulled and dimmed the Muslim mind in the process. Political decay and the attendant torpor that defines much of the Muslim world then became a natural concomitant and in due course of time got crystallized and set in stone. The rest is mere corollary and detail.

It then is critical that the vision of version of Islam imbued and informed with reason and rationality be revived.  The impetus for this must come from within the Muslim world. However ,it is to this revival that the west can aid and help the Muslim world. This rather counter intuitive assertion might sound like blasphemy and scandalous to both Muslim and western ears. However, it falls in the domain of the possible. The academy and a more open world becomes central and pivotal in this schema.  The open nature of the western academy and the critical method that undergirds that is welcoming to young Muslim scholars can potentially open up the vistas of the Muslim mind that have been corrupted by centuries of warped thinking. Similarly, cross cultural contacts and immersion into each other’s societies can allay and get rid of the mutual stereotypes that defines the attitudes of the two camps. Western aid hitherto premised on political grounds and narrow, parochial interests should be disavowed and funneled into the educational sectors of Muslim countries. A concerted effort along these lines can allow the light of reason to shine upon the Muslim world and allow the west and Islam to re engage in an idiom that is salubrious and mutually beneficial. In the process, that gift of modernity, democracy, may also take root in the world of Islam and give short shrift to darkness, regression and decrepitude. The Muslim may then as an individual become empowered and refuse to accept his/her station. This then means the morphing of the Arab Spring into a Muslim dawn. The world of Islam may come out of darkness and regression and play its part in forging a progressive   and peaceful world. Time is of essence here. Let us all make haste slowly

Houla Massacre: Time to rejig the extant World Order?

The cold blooded murder of 108 people in the central Syrian village of Houla is an outrage. A ‘response’ to an attack on an army picket, the Houla massacre is an eerie echo of the Hama massacre where hundreds of Syrians were murdered at the behest of Hafez Al Assad. The context and the background however were different but the impulse more or less the same.  The Houla massacre comes amidst the background of the Arab Spring while as the Hama massacre was premised on the desire of the Assad regime to crush its Islamist opponents. The Houla massacre raises a whole host of questions and issues that has both domestic and international ramifications.

At the domestic level, it reflects the jitteriness of the Assad regime and its attendant need to stay in power by taking recourse to  disproportionate force,  disarray among the ‘rebels’ and  their inability to forge a coherent response to the regime. At the level of international politics, the Houla massacre reflects the dated power structures of the post World War II wherein the veto power held by China and Russia shields the Assad regime, the force and durability of the Westphalian construct of sovereignty-another shield under which dictators like Assad hide and murder their own people- and the dilution of military intervention and tepidity of the western response.

 Another issue that may also come under the broad rubric of the international response to the Syrian condition is the lack of condemnation of the Assad regimes brutality against its own citizens wherein fellow Muslims and killing Muslims in cold blood. In a different context, if the perpetrators of the massacres had been non Muslims, the Muslim world would have been up in arms and seething with rage and anger. This double standard and hypocrisy may be one of the most glaring contradiction that stares the Muslim world in its face.

Cumulatively, these sets of conditions point out to a world wherein drastic change is required. This change is warranted to save human life and improve the human condition. No dictator or regime should even think of harassing , let alone murdering its own citizens and flout the rules of international law.  Bringing about this condition calls for far reaching changes in international relations and politics and these are nothing short of revolutionary. The first and foremost change to be brought about is in the structure of international politics. It is perhaps about time that the UN structure is changed and veto power accorded to democracies like India, Brazil and Germany. This will align the contemporary distribution of power with extant reality and countries like China and Russia will not then be able to shield odious dictators like Assad. Concomitantly, the Responsility to Protect (R2P) formulation needs to be strengthened and accorded teeth.

This can perhaps only be done by a vigorous consensus within the West about the need to   in thrall and at the mercy of vicious dictators and regimes. This implies that the west introspect and think deep about its moral and ethical obligations towards humanity. A word of prudence is necessary here: this obligation is not the equivalent of the ‘white man’s burden’ but accrues from the very nature of the west: a set of principles and philosophies about man, society and the economy which place human rights and dignity at their centre. If the west shies away from the responsibilities and duties these entail, it amounts to nothing but disaster for humanity.

Here it is the doyen and the lodestar of the west, the United States that should take the lead. It should lead from the front and build a consensus over military intervention in the 21st century in cases like the one in contention. This would, among other things , set a precedent and make regimes and dictators like Assad think twice before taking recourse to mass and massive repression.

Last, it is about time that the Muslim world shakes itself out of its torpor and the hypocrisy that defines it. Mass murder is mass murder regardless of the nature and identity of the perpetrator(s). And it not only needs to be condemned in the strongest possible term but also concerted and collective action be taken against the perpetrator especially if he/she is a Muslim. Both morality and common sense warrant it. It is sheer hypocrisy to condemn the United States for its alleged hostility towards the Muslim world or protest against Israeli actions in Palestine and maintain a stolid silence when even more gruesome acts of wanton cruelty and murder are perpetrated by fellow Muslims. The need for introspection is even more poignant and strong in the Muslim world.

  

In concert and in unison, action on these fronts identified in this monograph should potentially lead to a changed and different world order-the kind that is responsive to the current world disorder. It is incumbent upon all to mull and introspect and come up with solutions that not only pre-empt gory massacres like the  Houla one but also pre-empt them. And it is again on the west that responsibility largely falls.  The health, strength and vitality of the westis indispensable to world order, peace and respect for human rights. It is therefore time that the west led by the United  States rises to the occasion and come to the help of the hapless victims of power and depravity.

India Pakistan Relations: Recidivism or a New Dawn?

India Pakistan Relations: Recidivism or a New Dawn?

The warming up of relations between arch rivals-India and Pakistan- has elicited parallels with the détente between the former Soviet Union and the United States. While the parallel may be inexact and debate continues to rage over the nature and consequences of détente between the USSR and the United States, the dimming of the structural rivalry between India and Pakistan is a welcome development. This warming up of relations naturally has consequences over the dispute over Kashmir- a sticking point that has led to a series of wars between the two nation states. In the main, this development raises a set of questions that ought to be addressed. The salient of these are: how should this ‘détente’ be sustained? How can forward momentum be generated and crystallized or set in stone? What could potentially derail the momentum and drift of the relationship? And how can these forces be given short shrift?

The answers to the questions necessarily take us into nature and ideational premise of Pakistan. For, it is Pakistan that could be said to be a revisionist state in the region, bent on disrupting the status quo and therefore encouraging the forces of irredentism. Its ideational premise-roughly a homeland for South Asian Muslims- in turn premised on the two nation theory which posited that Muslims constituted a separate nation and could not either co-exist or live in ‘Hindu’ India-rendered revisionism and irredentism inherent to it. It also meant that Pakistani nationalism was negative nationalism. That it, it drew sustenance from positing India as its ‘Other’. The consequences of this were that Pakistan deemed itself incomplete without Kashmir and devoted its national energy to wresting Kashmir from India. This led to three and a half wars, initiated almost all the time by Pakistan and a proxy war meant to bleed India and make it compromise on Kashmir through attrition. Despite these adventures or misadventures, the status quo –Kashmir as part of India-has prevailed. However, this has come at a great price and cost both in terms of men and materiel. Thousands have lost their lives in Kashmir, and the Pakistani state instead of bleeding India has itself succumbed to the forces that it harnessed to wrest Kashmir from India.

In this schema, Pakistan viewed the dispute over Kashmir in zero sum terms and imbued it transcendence- a condition that rendered the dispute or conflict into an all or nothing bargain. As such it was impervious to either suasion or compromise. In the process and on account of the ideational premise of Pakistan, raw emotions defined the Pakistani people’s orientation to the dispute. In this sense, the state and society of Pakistan were in unison.  On account of these factors, the dispute over Kashmir then gradually and inexorably became intractable-impervious to any reasonable conflict resolution method.

 In the recent or current warming up  the core issue appears to be have been frozen and a modus vivendi arrived at other issues-Siachen, trade and investment- that do not have the same significance as Kashmir appears to form the gravamen of the ‘détente’. That is to say, other amenable issues appear to have been delinked from the core issue of Kashmir. This starting point can potentially be salubrious if it is informed by sincerity and good will on account of powers that be on both sides of the divide.

What is of significance here is that if indeed the Pakistani state is willing to modify its stance on Kashmir, then this is truly historic. It presupposes the fact that the Pakistani state or what forms the Pakistani state is rejigging its core premises and dropping the negative nationalism it is defined by. That is, it is disavowing its historic animosity toward India. This process, marked and defined by gradualism means that a review of the Pakistani state is underway. This can only be an unalloyed good. It will allow the Pakistani state to consolidate itself and face the immense internal challenged that it is facing. Insofar as the dispute over Kashmir is concerned, it perhaps implies that Pakistan is willing to countenance India’s sovereignty over Kashmir and accept the demarcation of the Line of Control as the border between the two states.

It is this process, more than anything else , that needs to be sustained. Again the Pakistani state becomes crucial in this scheme. The state must educate its people over the pitfalls of rendering Kashmir central to Pakistan’s identity and present a modified, secure and secular version of Pakistan to its people. Undoubtedly, this will incur resistance. But it is here that bold and beautiful leadership is required. This leadership should lead the people of Pakistan in directions that are salubrious for Pakistan. Weaning Pakistani’s off the Kashmir obsession or syndrome should be the animating principle of this leadership. They may have to pay a price in terms of being shunted out of power or even the ultimate price but for the sake of Pakistan and its longevity as a healthy functioning state respected in the comity of nations, these prices have to be paid. It may be only this approach that can generate forward momentum on the détente between India and Pakistan. Of course, India as the status quo power and the regional hegemon has to play a supportive role. This means that it respond positively to overtures by Pakistan and not be obstructive. This can then encourage the Pakistani state to take head on its own obstructive and extremist forces who potentially can throw a spanner into the momentum generated by the warming up of relations.

  The need of the hour then is prudence and sagacity. Not only Kashmir but the future of the Pakistani state is at stake here. It behooves the power structures of both India and Pakistan to  to stick to the course and take recourse to wisdom and foresight.  The subcontinent may be on the cusp of history. It is about time that the nettle be grasped and a peaceful and prosperous future be accorded to the people’s of the subcontinent.

Is the Clash of Civilizations Real?View from Kashmir

Is the Clash of Civilizations Real? View from Kashmir

The scholar of scholars and the doyen of doyens, the late Samuel Huntington, asserted that the end of structural bipolarity or the Cold War would give rise to new configurations of power, new fault lines and axes of conflict. The enduring conflict between states would, according to Huntington, give way to conflicts between civilizations. This civilization jostling, roughly speaking, would define the politics of the 21st century. And the west, the dominant civilization, since the past few centuries should be prepared for this. In short, Gibbons would triumph over Thucydides. And the dominant conflict would be between Islam and the West with the Cold war being a mere side show. The September 11 attacks and the attendant invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan lent credence to the Clash of Civilizations thesis. The former validated to the west that the world of Islam was bent on destroying the edifice of western civilization. And the latter suggested that the west, led by its lodestar, the United States, had embarked on a ‘neo imperialistic’ crusade to destroy the world of Islam. The language of crusades was employed and many believed that the confrontation these acts connoted harked backed to the time of the Crusades. Consequently, it was widely believed that the world was divided into clear cut civilizational poles or lines.

The question is whether the eminent Professor’s prognostications and assertions are correct: Is the world really divided into civilizational blocs? And are these blocs defining and asserting themselves in contradistinction to the west? While it would be presumptuous to even suggest that a robust critique of Professor Huntington could even be tried, it however, is important to present a picture of the world as viewed and perceived by someone with vantage points that are premised on admixture of the west and the non west. The following then is an attempt to allay stereotypes and present a portrait of the world from these vantage points.

To start with a cliché, it would be safe to infer that civilizations are not monolithic, self contained entities. They are porous with borrowing and synthesis the norm rather than the exception. Hence, it is rather meaningless to talk of pure civilizations. What may be germane and apposite is that the civilization that can produce a compelling set of ideas and norms may be said to enjoy prominence, precedence and preponderance. Other civilizational entities then naturally bow down –either overtly or subliminally- to the dominant civilizational paradigm.  The world of classical Islam, the Roman Imperium, the Chinese civilizational all have in varying degrees enjoyed this preponderance and pre-eminence. The critical variable is the force and thrust of ideas. Contemporarily, it is the ideas of the west which reign supreme. The rest of the world either reacts or adjusts to this ideational hegemony. (The rhetoric of assertion reflected, for instance, in the Lee Kuan Yewian formulation of ‘Asian values’ is part of this equation).

 

The western ideas that have been the animating impulse of politics, economics and culture and have set benchmarks for these have been ascendant since the past few centuries. This ascendance is owed to the vigor and vitality of these ideas. Individual liberty and freedom, human rights, political pluralism forms the core of these ideas. The rest is commentary. This stuff of modernity has been so compelling and powerful that other nations and peoples frame their aspirations in its idiom. Whether it is self determination, the quest for sovereignty or economic growth, lifestyle aspirations or even dignity, it is all formulated and articulated in western inspired modernity. A little tweaking here and there and adjustments to local conditions does not detract from the fact that these aspirations are inherently western. This testifies to the force and soft power of these ideas of the west. The larger point here is that whether it be reaction or adjustment, mimicry or osmosis, the idiom that in which these are expressed are informed by western ideas. As such, this constitutes a triumph for the west.  The west in contention is not a geographical zone but a set of ideas.  Given that these ideas have left and are leaving an indelible imprimatur on world politics, economics and culture means  that the world is the west or is becoming western. The question of a clash of civilizations then becomes meaningless and in fructuous.

What then accounts for pockets of resistance? This resistance, whether it be in the form of Islamic fundamentalism, the problems engendered by multi culturalism or other movements which challenge the ideational hegemony of the west, is in the nature of a reaction. And this reaction from the longer term view of history is ephemeral. It cannot and will not offer a sustained and compelling assault on the ideational premises of the west. In the grand scheme of things, these may even constitute a prelude to a more cosmopolitan world envisaged by Kant. The area of immediate concern is then not a clash of civilization but the conflict stemming from a jostling of cultures.  Cultures are not static.  There is no such thing as a mono culture. The boundaries of cultures are porous and mingling, borrowing and synthesis defines cultures. The current phase of globalization intensifies cultural contact and conflict may be inevitable. The question is how to manage this conflict.  The beauty of modernity is that while it does not impose a straitjacket. It leaves ample scope for change and mutation. This means that cultures which do not conform exactly to the western ideal can retain some of the salient aspects of their cultures and yet imbibe and absorb the salubrious aspects of western modernity. An important condition for this to be realized is to work towards and maintain a more open world. Globalization accords this opportunity and it then behooves upon powers that be to not to interrupt or interfere with the march of globalization. If the logic of globalization is allowed leeway, the entire world then gradually and inexorably becomes a melting pot at large. This can but be a welcome development.

The world is moving in the direction of a certain plan and design.   This plan, to be sure, is messy and chaotic. September 11, the Iraq war or other forms of reaction are mere teething troubles and messy interludes. And importantly, the direction and trajectory of this historical process is inspired by western ideas and principles. The Clash of Civilizations then does not bear scrutiny. This direction, to repeat, can only be salubrious. It has space and room for the Muslim, the Hindu, Christian, the Jew and the atheist. It is there about time that we read the obvious and hasten the emergence of this new brave world.

Crystallizing Peace in Kashmir: Politics or Administration?

The political condition of contemporary Kashmir is defined by a certain languidness, torpor and a dull resignation. This is in sharp contrast to the ‘ragda’ phases- periods when Kashmir erupted and Kashmiris became energized and launched a diffuse protest against the Indian state and its representatives. This rather schizophrenic dichotomy is rather inexplicable and bizarre. What accounts for the lull and the eruption? What political lessons can be drawn from this? And can the situation be ‘exploited’ to obtain permanent peace and tranquility in Kashmir? Or in other words does the current lull offer an opportunity to resolve the internal dimension of the conflict in Kashmir for good? And who can potentially be an enabler for this?

The eruption of Kashmir and the energization of Kashmiris accrues and stems from the fact that the powers that be in the Indian political class have viewed Kashmir from an administrative, management and security prism. This means that these powers feel and believe that containment of the insurgency by military means, of a semblance of a patina of governance, followed by dollops of monies and other administrative means would end the conflict in Kashmir. This narrow and technocratic approach views the conflict as a conflict of interests that can be managed by the so called ‘rational bureaucratic’ method. It naturally militates against and ignores the conceptual dynamic of the dispute: an abstraction called freedom and its ancillary-self determination. (In vulgar and crass terms, it is akin to the belief in the tooth fairy sneaking during the night and stealing the bad tooth. Or in a nutshell, this approach is delusionary.  Commonsense suggests that the bad tooth needs treatment).  The eruption of Kashmir or what has popularly been called ragda is an eloquent reminder about the failure of the management approach.

 What then accounts for the current lull? Does this mean that Kashmiris are a mercurial lot prone to temper tantrums? The answer is a clear and a big no. They are animated by the concept of freedom and self determination and obstructionism of these aspirations accounts for the protests. The current lull accrues probably from the forces of attrition and the shelf life of protest movements and the triumph of state power. Potentially and probably, Kashmir can erupt again and the cycle of protests and lulls will resume. The question is how to obviate and break this cycle and crystallize a Kashmir at peace within and without? Answering this question and proffering a solution is not easy. However, a tentative attempt to offer a template is worth it given its consequences.

The first step is to acknowledge the nature of the dispute by powers that be in the Indian political establishment.  The nub of the dispute is about a people wanting and desiring freedom and its corollary, self determination. Accepting this premise does not mean the end or withering of India’s sovereign remit over Kashmir but finding ways and means to sate this quest within the sovereign rubric of India. This, given the subjectivity of freedom, is eminently possible. A paradigm and template that sates the aspirations of Kashmiris under the broad rubric of freedom and within the sovereign remit of India could potentially go miles in resolving the psychic and abstract dimensions of the conflict. The rest then is corollary or mere detail. The question is who will bell the cat?

The onus or responsibility of this falls on the shoulders of the young Mr. Omar Abdullah. Why? Because it is his party’s plank that comes closest to sating the abstraction of self determination and freedom in an idiom acceptable to the Indian state. This plank is greater autonomy. It approximates freedom and can be presented to both Kashmiris and the Indian state as an equilibrium and win win solution. How can the young Mr. Abdullah do it?

 He can do it by being a ‘therapeutic populist’, a consensus building leader and an educator. It is by no means a stretch to posit that Kashmir and Kashmiris have suffered a lot since the past few decades. They are a ‘wounded people’-psychically and emotionally. This sense of hurt and grievance needs to be attended to. And it is only a leader with organic ties to Kashmir that can heal Kashmiris. Mr. Abdullah- the scion of the indomitable and the charismatic Sheikh Muhammad Abdullah- is potentially that kind of leader. All he needs to do is to connect to people in an idiom that they understand and appreciate in a manner that enables a transfer of allegiance from the late Sheikh Abdullah to him. Plebiscitary authority can then be vested in him. The power that could accrue from this would be immense and a case of transference would occur: people would project their aspirations and desires onto the personality of the young Mr. Abdullah. He could then follow it up by expanding and redefining his support base in a manner that coalesces the cleavages-political, economic and social- of Kashmiri society and makes them work together in harmony. The idiom that he employs to build this political class should be informed by the preferences and popular culture of Kashmir is and his goal should be the distribution of power to the people. This populist program should be enacted and pursued simultaneously by a project of what is called good governance, decentralization, direct democracy and administrative competence. The corollary to this should be activism on the centre state relations front where the young chief minister should educate centre about greater autonomy and its benefits.

A concerted effort along these lines could potentially transform the conflict dynamic in Kashmir and resolve the internal dimension of the conflict for good. Politics, to iterate the cliché, is an art of government involving authority and government while as administration is all about management and the rational bureaucratic method. It is about time that Mr, Abdullah disentangled the two and focuses on politics. Or merge them together in a fruitful symbiosis and synthesis and crystallize the current lull into lasting peace. Is he listening?

Was Sayyed Qutb Right About the West?

Was Sayyed Qutb Right About the West?

 

Sayyed Qutb- the ideological mentor and inspiration for the Al Qaeda network and ifs affiliates- condemned the west for its hedonism and rampant capitalism and his works colored the vision and world view of generations of Muslims.  The narrative that he told about the west was premised upon his experience(s) and perceptions of the United States where he formed the formative and fateful opinion about the west as a whole. This narrative became the theme of Islamists across the world and served as the ideological rallying point for Islamists of various hues and complexions. Fatefully and fatally, it also became the focus or locus of Al Qaeda’s rage which it spewed out on the United States on that fateful and eventful day, September 11. This saga tells us more about the importance of narratives and ideas and how they can influence the minds of men and make them take recourse to extremism and violence.

The sad and unfortunate thing about this that it became the dominant narrative about the west and most peoples in the Islamic worlds still tend to see the west in these reductive terms. Ideas, it may not be far fetched and a bit of a stretch to say, are the motor of history and the stories that they tell or form determine men’s attitude and approach towards others-positively and negatively. It is a sad irony that Qutb , the literary genius  that he was, fell victim to a flawed and warped view of the west and in the process through the power of his pen influenced a movement that viewed the west as an enemy. Qutb’s perceptions of the United States were flawed because what he saw one aspect of the west: hedonism .And he reduced the west to it. The west, as I understand it is more than the sum of its parts and there is more to it than meets the eye.  The superficial aspect of the west –its hedonism, some social problems and pathologies-cannot and should not be taken as the benchmark for judging it. Getting the west right is very important for Muslims and the Islamic world more broadly at this crucial juncture in history.

So what yardstick should the Islamic world employ to understand and gauge the west? One tentative answer would be to understand the trajectory and history of the west-its struggles and intellectual and political battles. Viewing the west from this vantage point may accord us Muslims a perspective that would not only enable us to see the west holistically but help put into perspective some of our own lacunae and faults. I am not for one moment suggesting or implying that we mimic entirely the west’s trajectory and, for instance, disavow and displace God and the Prophet (SAW) from the central position that they occupy in our cosmos. However what we could cull from the west’s experience is to, once again, inject reason or more accurately integrate reason with faith. This philosophical approach would go ways in helping get rid of the morass and the torpor that the Muslim world is afflicted with. And the salubrious news is that this is eminently possible. The world of Islam has a rich and veritable philosophical and political tradition to draw from and all we need to do is open the gates of ijtihad (reform) and throw the gaze of reason onto ossified aspects of our tradition. A detached view of the ossified aspects of our tradition and a deep introspection may reveal that it is not the west or the other that is responsible for our ills but rather the fault lies within.  The fact that we have fallen behind and are wallowing in self pity and in a reactive mode has nothing do with Islam. It is aspects of the tradition that has ossified over centuries that nobody dares touch that is the reason for our regression. So the question is: what and how can this state of affairs be remedied?

The answer, to repeat myself lies in deep introspection and allowing the sweet whiff of reason to sweep away ossified tradition. Or in other words, integrate reason with faith. This is the substance. The form that this may take is democratization of the political systems of the Islamic world, the integration of rights and duties and other aspects of modernity into the corpus of our venerable tradition and a vigorous engagement with the west. When I speak of the west, I have in mind the Anglophone and anglosaxon west. We have to disaggregate the west and look toward the anglosaxon world for engagement. The other west-Western Europe, Northern Europe and Scandinavia-is too warped and steeped in prejudice and racism to even countenance the presence of Muslims within their domain let alone engage with them. So our best bet, regardless of the Iraq War fiasco and the war in Afghanistan, is to engage the doyen of the anglosaxon west: the United States. This may be counterintuitive call me a useful idiot or self hating Muslim but this is the most plausible and germane alternative for us. An immigrant country which is still a work in progress the United States enshrines religious freedom in its constitution and its posture determines the politics of the world. It stands to reason that the world of Islam tries to understand it and then engage with it in an idiom that is shorn of historical baggage and prejudice.

Vigorous introspection, integration of reason with faith and jettisoning the baggage of ossified and decaying tradition will reveal to us that the so called distant crusader and its crusading intent are but an illusion and a chimera. The fault lies with us and within us. It may also be revealed that engagement is a better option than confrontation and that the latter is not only a losing proposition but also a mug’s game. So let’s gird ourselves, embrace reason with vigor and brace ourselves for a future that we all owe to our peoples and faith. Time is not on our side. Let us make haste slowly.

Another American Century: Implications on World Order and Security

The end of structural bipolarity meant the America stood at the apex of power and there was no peer competitor to it. This condition came to the known as unipolarity. Given balancing power is almost akin to a law of international relations, this condition was held to be an aberrant interlude in world politics. It was assumed that world politics would return to equilibrium and the American preponderance of power would be balanced by either a group of states or a peer competitor. The EU was assumed to take over this role by some while as others held that China would be the peer competitor and other pole of power in either a loosely multi-polar or bipolar world.

  

Neither prognostication has turned out to be true. America continues to enjoy pre-eminence at least in the hard dimensions of power. While its soft power may have been dented by the second Gulf war especially its inclination to go it alone if need be and the 2008 economic crisis, it remains peerless in most dimensions and indices of power. The European Union mired in various structural problems relating to its widening and deepening and its structural inability to forge a coherent front in its external relations and foreign policy is a bit of a non player in international politics. It may never be able to throw its weigh and clout around internationally and may be condemned to wallow in the domain of ‘low politics. It is perhaps core Europe-the French German combine-that will ultimately determine the international orientation of the EU.

China is altogether, in a different league. It is, as is well known, an authoritarian regime  and a one party state that adheres to Maxism Leninism but has borrowed aspects of capitalism to manage its economy. Its economic growth and power may give it some authority and influence but in the great game of international politics, economic growth alone does not suffice. Similarly, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) may be modernizing and have developed some novel capabilities, but essentially it lacks the power projection capabilities of powers, say, like the United States. More importantly, China, on account of its nature, lacks that important aspect of power. That is, soft power.

Soft power is more than the ability to attract. It flows and accrues from a nation’s inherent attributes and qualities. It can neither be bought nor purchased. It can only be cultivated  and developed delicately through a nation building exercise and an international orientation that is so compelling that others(nations and peoples) feel drawn to the nation that displays such attributes. The United States has and can draw upon reservoirs of soft power. This, conversely to China, accrue from its very nature. An immigrant nation and a liberal democracy state that is predicated upon what Thomas Paine called the rights of man, and whose foreign policy can dictate the rhythms and gravamen of world politics, soft power is inherent to the idea of the United States. Its openness and the buying of the ‘American Dream’ by a host of diverse peoples is one indication and reflection of its soft power.

Further, the United States, after the second Great War, it could be said became the hegemon by default. It exercised this benign hegemony by building a world order and system from the ashes of war. The Marshal Plan in Europe, injecting life into international institutions and rebuilding Japan were all components of this liberal order building project. The heart of this liberal project was to build a system wherein nations and states developed a stake in the system and a voice in it. This accorded the American led project legitimacy and a leadership position was given to it willingly by other nations.  This could also be an aspect of American soft power and was built with great foresight, diligence, prudence, leadership and statesmanship.

This order has endured and may, among other things, have been one reason for the external dimension of the end of the Cold War. The question is what is the future of this order in the next century or so? What should be America’s role in it? And what are the implications for world politics?

All word orders are inherently fragile. The history and trajectory of the Westphalian system is testimony to this. So the world order brought to fruition by the United States in the aftermath of the Second World War needs to be carefully nurtured. And it is only the United States that can do this. This is because of the fund of both hard and soft power available to it. Whilst there are no peer competitors in sight to the United States, this condition may not hold indefinitely. An axis like power combination that brings together Iran, China and other revisionist powers may arise to challenge this order. The watch word is prudence and eternal vigilance.  The United State’s role and orientation becomes indispensable in this schema.  It can neither afford to afford to retreat into fortress America not scale back its foreign ‘entanglements’.

The country will remain peerless and at the apex of power for decades. However, it is the use of this power that may determine the future of the world order it helped bring about. It must pull back and peer into history and heed its lessons. One insight that it could do well to employ is that legitimacy is a cardinal principle of politics and by making its power legitimate to others, the country not only ensures its position of primacy but also help maintain world order. This legitimacy obviates obstructionism and churlishness by other states and helps them develop a stake and voice in international politics. Undoubtedly, given the power available to the United States, this may be reflexively difficult. However, it is the only prudent way and method. If the United States becomes a ‘listener’, is sympathetic and gives voice and space to others, then it may a fund of legitimacy to draw upon. And in the process, others will gravitate to it and seek its leadership.

This has implications for world order and politics. Specifically and concretely, it means expanding the system of alliances it has build and accommodate rising and emerging powers like India, perhaps Brazil and making China into what Bill Clinton called a stakeholder in the international system. This requires astute diplomacy and sagacity and is by no means impossible. The future of the world order may come to depend upon this.

  

Alarmist prognostications of American decline are hogwash. The country is not in decline and its imprimatur on world politics is indelible. However, for the sake of world order and maintaining its position of primacy, it behooves the United States to stock take , review and reassess. World order and peace may depend upon United State’s role and orientation. And this can only be the country’s national interest. There is no one  out there who can either take over or supplant the indispensable nation. Let the country make haste slowly and rededicate itself to a role that falls on it by default.

What Does the Twenty First Century Bode: Clash of Civilizations or the End of History?

What Does the 21^st Century Bode: Clash of Civilizations or the End of History?

A decade has transpired since the United State’s invasion of Iraq. This inaugural decade of the 21st century saw an unprecedented attack on the territory of the United States followed by the world’s sole super power going to war against a country ruled by a psychopathic despot, an economic crisis that elicited parallels with the Great Depression, and then the assassination of the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks. These were then overlain by surprising developments in the Middle East where the hitherto quiescent Arab masses rose in rebellion against authoritarian regimes. This unprecedented and unexpected development which came to be known as the Arab Spring may have lost some of its momentum but in the main it may be said to crystallize a movement which , to say the least is salubrious. Almost all these events could be said to be of historical import and cumulatively their denouement is still an ‘unknown unknown’.

However, what could be reasonably inferred from these events is a pattern. This pattern corresponds to what the political philosopher, Professor Fukuyama, called the’ The End or History’. This thesis which informed the neo con decision to commit the United States to social engineering in the Arab Muslim world competed with another paradigm displacing theory and thesis. This thesis came to be known as the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ thesis. The question is which of these competing theories and theses best corresponds to events that inaugurated the 21st century and what implications does it have for the sole superpower’s foreign policy and future orientation and broadly speaking the West.

The former thesis predicted that with the end of the Cold war, the competition of ideologies was and the import of the Cold War’s end was that the ideas pioneered in the west-especially liberal democracy and all the implications that flow from it- had triumphed over competing ideas or ideologies. Liberal democracy under different permutations and combinations, would come to be accepted as the most legitimate, effective and efficient political idea. No other ideology would pose a threat to this. (The neo cons, it would appear, accepted this thesis and sought to hasten democratization in the part of the world which had proved to be most resistant to it). The Clash of Civilizations thesis, pioneered by the scholar of scholars, the late Samuel Huntington, predicted an imminent clash of civilizations after the end of the Cold war. Different civilizations, according to Huntington, competed and jostled in the political space and that the non western civilizations, ascendant on account of economic growth would challenge the West’s supremacy. And that this would inform the politics of the 21st century.

So which of these two paradigms and theories best approximates the real world or the converse? It would, on balance, appear that Professor Fukuyama had it right. The direction of history appears to be marching on the side of the prognostication that liberal democracy and its concomitant ideas-liberalism and human rights- reign supreme. The Arab Spring –a  movement for human rights and democracy-perhaps best encapsulates this. Other events-September 11, the 2008 economic crisis and the convolutions in Iraq and Afghanistan- may be said to be mere convolutions from a grand historical perspective and may  therefore even be said to constitute birth pangs or teething troubles in the direction of democracy , liberalism and human rights-ideas that form the core of the west. These birth pangs or convolutions do not correspond to civilizations on a war path or clashing with each other. Instead, the civilizational discourse is not about the dominance or prevalence about what/which civilization will rule the roost but corresponds to ideas pioneered in the west. The reference here is to the renaissance ideas and the concomitant corollaries of human rights and liberty. These philosophies –universal in their scope and reach- have caught the imagination of peoples across the world. This points out to their inherent appeal and for want of a better word soft power.

What does this imply for the foreign policy and orientation of the United States? First, consider a broader philosophic point. The prevalence of these ideas means that they have a life of their own and that their intrinsic and universal appeal renders these applicable across cultures, space and time.  And that crystallization and application of these ideas across the world axiomatically have implications for peace and stability. This assertion is, among other things, informed by the democratic peace theory which holds that democracies do not go to war with each other and that citizens of democracies are pacific. Democratization then becomes an American interest or America’s national interest. The question then is , if the end is known and there is consensus on it, what should be the means to bring this about? Should it be the power and might of the United States that becomes the animating impulse of democratization? Or should other means be employed to bring about this end?

America still stands at the apex of power. The world, lets face it, is still unipolar. (World politics may have become multilateral but in terms of system polarity, the United States reigns supreme and there is no challenger to it in sight). However, hard power in the service of an ideal may have unintended consequences and can potentially derail or impinge negatively on the course of history.  And this approach also befuddles the message with the messenger or the medium.  Further, as the trajectory of the west demonstrates, democracy and democratization is more evolutionary than revolutionary. The failure of the neo con project in Iraq may be eloquent testimony to this. So what alternative exists?

Given that hard power or force may not be prudent to establish democracy, it then leaves scope for other policies that creates the environment and context for the establishment of democracy and liberalism. Policies that foster free(r) trade, a more open world, freer movement of peoples and capital or in other words globalization may be more prudent in spreading democracy across the world. Policies that accord a thrust and impetus to globalization may be the best carriers of liberty, democracy and globalization. Admittedly, the process will be slow and not linear, but if history is any guide, these policies in concert could bring about a world that Kant predicted centuries ago.

The power of the ideas of liberty, democracy and human rights is immense. This, to repeat, accrues from their intrinsic merits.  They do not need to be projected by force or the impetus of a powerful state like the United States. But they do need a context. This context can best be provided by the world’s sole superpower and it is to this end that the United States should devote its energies to. The world does not need or await a bare gloved United States with a knuckleduster. It needs to see the face of that United States which is the beacon of liberty and democracy. The world is not divided into hostile civilizations at each other’s throat but is moving to the rhythms or tone set in the renaissance west. All that the United States needs to do is gently nudge these ideas along.  Let the country make haste slowly and bring about a world that is a projection of itself.