Post Osama Assassination Blues: Reflections on the US Pakistani Relationship
A theme that cuts across Pakistan’s trajectory as an independent and a small nation state is its attempts to keep the west (or the United States) engaged. The means that it has chosen to do so have been to play up its geo strategic position and as a bulwark of Islam. During the Cold war, this entailed playing up the Cold war and being on the side of the west. Lately this has meant positioning itself as a ‘frontline ally against the ‘global war on terrorism. This posture has naturally entailed twists and turns and implied a ‘double game’ in the eyes of many in the west. Lent credence by the presence of Bin Laden in Pakistani territory allegedly shielded by a section of the power structure of Pakistan, this posture is now redounding against Pakistan. And it has serious implications for Pakistan’s relations with the United States.
What are the options available to the United States in ‘dealing’ with Pakistan? The gut and reflexive reaction following Bin Laden’s assassination would be to ‘punish’ Pakistan. Or in other words disavow relations with Pakistan and leave it in the lurch as punishment for playing a double game. While it may sate the emotional needs and revanchist or retributive impulses of many in the US, it, as a policy posture is rife with disaster. Pakistan can potentially retreat into itself and this condition given its nukes and geo strategic position can have negative fallouts in other dimensions. Pakistan, for instance, can play a spoiler in Afghanistan or even in Kashmir , where despite the success of the Indian Counter Insurgency, Pakistan still retains some clout and can, one, draw out the ‘peace process’ for as long as it can or, second, send its youth bulge to fight a Jihad against India. It is the author’s understanding that Pakistani restraint in not pushing armed irregulars into Indian Administered Kashmir is premised upon an understanding arrived with the United States after September 11 and the linkages of the issue with Afghanistan.
A ‘spoiler’ state in a dangerous and unstable neighborhood or what has been termed as the ‘arc of instability’ is not something that the United States or the west should bring about by a policy of either omission or commission. The stakes, to paraphrase the eminent Dr. Kissinger, are too high. Deserting it and leaving it to the vagaries of the neighborhood and to its own devices would be a disaster. It will, to repeat, retreat into itself and its fears about western ‘duplicity’ will be validated. And it will then naturally be either an obstructionist entity at odds with itself and the world or a spoiler state that throws a spanner into peace and stability in the neighborhood and perhaps even abroad. The latter may entail proliferation of nuclear weapons and exporting nuclear technology to an already volatile middle east where Iran appears to be on the verge of the nuclear break out option. And where other states may not trust the ‘extended deterrence’ offered by the United States and may seek nuclear weapons. A churlish and isolated Pakistan may be a willing partner to ‘help’ these states in their quest for nukes.
So what policy options or recourse does the United State have? Continued engagement with the country should be the policy mantra as well as premise. However, a caveat is in order here. Short termism should, at all costs, be avoided. The tenor of the new engagement with Pakistan should go beyond the ‘war on terrorism’ and the security needs of the United States and the west. It should be demonstrated to Pakistan it is a valued and a long term ally. And that its salubrious path would be, ipso facto, goof and salubrious for world order and given its nukes, for the international system as well. The engagement should go beyond aid and also focus on trade. The benefits of an open market economy and free trade should be extended to Pakistan and its political economy be gradually opened up and linked to the global economy. The focus of both the aid and trade should be the people of Pakistan and not its elite. As such, the thrust of this policy should be on human security or a combination of national and human security. The long term thrust of the policy should be to translate what has long been western rhetoric towards Pakistan- Pakistan’s transformation into a modern and democratic nation state-into reality. This can only happen through engagement and not dissociation. Pakistan is too important both strategically and in terms of humanity to be discarded and disengaged from. The onus lies on the United States to continue engagement with Pakistan.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Is the Conflict Over Kashmir Overssadowing Environmental Degradation?
The gory murder of an environmental activist in Kashmir by an alleged cabal involving the Army, timber smugglers and some Forest department functionaries is a metaphor for contemporary Kashmir. The conflict has spawned a cottage industry of or a cabal of vested interests that are making hay out of the conflict. In the process are lost precious lives like the one in contention here. The larger point-with due respect to the brave soul that resisted this plunder- is that irreparable damage is done to the environment in Kashmir. And with the focus only on the dimensions on the conflict, the very important environmental aspect is ignored. This is something that Kashmiri’s can ignore at their peril. There is, to state the obvious an indelible and organic relationship between the natural environment and living conditions. If the current state of affairs if allowed to continue, harrowing conditions of life may accrue. Life may then be not as tolerable as it is for future generations.
What can be done about the environmental degradation occurring in Kashmir? First and foremost, a vigorous campaign to make people aware of the consequences of environmental degradation needs to be launched. It is a shame that the non governmental organizations (NGO’s) operating in or concerned about Kashmir only have a very narrow focus. That is, on the ramifications of the conflict and the victims that it exacts. These organizations with the funding they receive should expand their agenda and focus also on the environmental degradation the conflict has spawned. Naming an shaming works in that part of the world too and if NGO’s with clout can take recourse to this, a degree of restraint by the environmental criminals is to be expected.
Complementing this approach may be educating the people about the perils of environmental degradation and how it can affect their lives and progeny. This may help in creating bottoms up pressure and make the environmental criminals cringe and make their lives difficult.However, in the final scheme of things, the onus of protecting and enhancing the natural environment of Kashmir may lie with the government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the author’s contention that nothing beats state power and its bearing on issues than the state and its various apparatii. As such, a clear cut message sent out by the state government to the perpetrators and potential perpetrators underlined by vigorous threats of action against them may be the best option available. A combined effort by the state and the NGO’s complemented by people power on this issue area may lead to such pressures on environmental criminals that they cease to ‘tread on grounds where even the devil fears’ so to speak.
The alternatives are too bleak to countenance. Gradual environmental degradation coupled with global warming may lead to a situation that no one wants. This would be a bleak situation where Kashmir will gradually lose its forest cover. Bizarre weather and climactic patterns would follow. And in the process, Kashmir would lose much of its pristine beauty and would become a shell. This is a situation that , to repeat, no one wants.
Now a word on our environmental martyr: his death should not go in vain. And it is pertinent and important that criminals complicit in his murder be brought to the book. This is important for two major reasons. One, it is in the interests of justice important for the departed soul’s family to have and attain closure. Second, bringing the criminal is important in terms of setting a precedent. If his murder goes the way of other unexplained murders in Kashmir, environmental criminals and other assorted criminals may feel emboldened and audacious to commit crimes with impunity in the future. However, if his murderers and those behind the murder are brought to book, then this may act as a deterrent and prevent such ungainly acts in the future.
The onus again is on the government to demonstrate its resolve and commitment to protect the environment in Kashmir and send a strong message to criminals. It should create multi stakeholders as identified in this piece and bring them on board to stop something that has a crucial bearing on the future of Kashmir. In the governments’ scheme, the focus on the environment should be part of its good governance. A concerted effort to halt the environmental degradation now would mean damage limitation and conserving whatever is left. It is about time to be serious on this issue. We owe it to our future generations.
What can be done about the environmental degradation occurring in Kashmir? First and foremost, a vigorous campaign to make people aware of the consequences of environmental degradation needs to be launched. It is a shame that the non governmental organizations (NGO’s) operating in or concerned about Kashmir only have a very narrow focus. That is, on the ramifications of the conflict and the victims that it exacts. These organizations with the funding they receive should expand their agenda and focus also on the environmental degradation the conflict has spawned. Naming an shaming works in that part of the world too and if NGO’s with clout can take recourse to this, a degree of restraint by the environmental criminals is to be expected.
Complementing this approach may be educating the people about the perils of environmental degradation and how it can affect their lives and progeny. This may help in creating bottoms up pressure and make the environmental criminals cringe and make their lives difficult.However, in the final scheme of things, the onus of protecting and enhancing the natural environment of Kashmir may lie with the government of Jammu and Kashmir. It is the author’s contention that nothing beats state power and its bearing on issues than the state and its various apparatii. As such, a clear cut message sent out by the state government to the perpetrators and potential perpetrators underlined by vigorous threats of action against them may be the best option available. A combined effort by the state and the NGO’s complemented by people power on this issue area may lead to such pressures on environmental criminals that they cease to ‘tread on grounds where even the devil fears’ so to speak.
The alternatives are too bleak to countenance. Gradual environmental degradation coupled with global warming may lead to a situation that no one wants. This would be a bleak situation where Kashmir will gradually lose its forest cover. Bizarre weather and climactic patterns would follow. And in the process, Kashmir would lose much of its pristine beauty and would become a shell. This is a situation that , to repeat, no one wants.
Now a word on our environmental martyr: his death should not go in vain. And it is pertinent and important that criminals complicit in his murder be brought to the book. This is important for two major reasons. One, it is in the interests of justice important for the departed soul’s family to have and attain closure. Second, bringing the criminal is important in terms of setting a precedent. If his murder goes the way of other unexplained murders in Kashmir, environmental criminals and other assorted criminals may feel emboldened and audacious to commit crimes with impunity in the future. However, if his murderers and those behind the murder are brought to book, then this may act as a deterrent and prevent such ungainly acts in the future.
The onus again is on the government to demonstrate its resolve and commitment to protect the environment in Kashmir and send a strong message to criminals. It should create multi stakeholders as identified in this piece and bring them on board to stop something that has a crucial bearing on the future of Kashmir. In the governments’ scheme, the focus on the environment should be part of its good governance. A concerted effort to halt the environmental degradation now would mean damage limitation and conserving whatever is left. It is about time to be serious on this issue. We owe it to our future generations.
How Not to Lose Pakistan?
The United States’ threat to withhold a tranche of aid monies to Pakistan comes at a delicate moment: the downward spiral of bilateral relations. The backdrop to this is the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, the killing of Pakistani youth by an alleged CIA operative and other small things that have over time built up cumulatively. The US decision appears to stem from pique and appears to be aimed at punishing Pakistan or in the least the threat of punishment is implicit in it. Pakistan’s predictable reaction of threatening to stop cooperating with the United States in the border areas and looking to its ‘fair weather friend’, China is ominous and rife with negative consequences. The implication of the latter statement is the validation of the worst fears of the Pakistani establishment: the United States is an unreliable ally. And that of the former, Pakistan’s turn to China. (This, obiter dictum, from a macro perspective, in a curious twist validates the Clash of Civilizations theory)
The most salient question that should be nagging the minds of sober policy makers on both sides should be how to salvage the relationship. And set it onto a salubrious path. This is important for both the United States and Pakistan. The United States should not lose interest in Pakistan and think of abandoning it in the wake of Osama’s assassination. Osama’s end, even for one moment does not mean that the ‘war on terror’ is over. Osama, if anything, was a brand and Al Qaeda the franchise that latched onto failed states like Afghanistan to pursue its ends. The equity of this brand may be enduring and while the franchise may be weak, it is by no means dead. So the United States should not be complacent and smug about it and deem Pakistan’s utility to it as flagging.
The real prize in the ‘arc of instability’ is a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan and Afghanistan. The former on account of the nature of its conceptual underpinnings and convoluted trajectory is the, in the jargon of international relations, a pivotal state in the region. And its health, focus and orientation will determine the health of the latter, that is, Afghanistan. The United States should not lose sight of this. The only way to bring about a salubrious Pakistan at ease with itself and the world is to keep on engaging it. It is all about means and ends. That is to say, the nature , tone and tenor of engagement with Pakistan should not premised on mutual predation or the , you scratch my back while I scratch your, short term self defeating formulation. It should be the national interest of the United States to see a healthy Pakistan that can hold its own and stand up as a valued member in the comity of nations.
It is equally important for Pakistan to introspect deep and hard and review some of its policy postures and orientations. It may do well to disengage from Afghanistan and reach a modus vivendi with India over some kind of settlement over Kashmir. While it may not afford to completely or comprehensively disengage from Afghanistan for security reasons, it could opt for a minimal engagement and assist in stabilizing the country. This would far in the overall stability of the region and might even lead to a new security order in South Asia. It would among other things allow Pakistan to refocus its energies and direct them to areas where most needed: education, consolidation of its sovereignty and nationalism, health and other like such areas. Gradually, a focus on these areas or domains with assistance from the west, especially the United States, Pakistan may morph into a well functioning Muslim democratic state. It is by focusing on these salubrious ends mentioned here that Pakistan can not only become a confident entity but also reclaim the mantle of moral and political leadership in the Islamic worlds. And in the process correspond to the original vision of its founder.
In short, instead of mutual recrimination and an ungainly relationship, the whole tenor of the alliance between Pakistan and the United States should be revamped. The kind of revamp that is needed is one that disavows short termism and is premised on mutual respect, understanding and esteem. The stakes are too high to take recourse to rhetoric, threats and tit for tats of the sort we are witnessing. Not all is lost. Prudent statesmanship on both sides can set the relationship on an even keel and healthy trajectory. Both the United States and Pakistan owe this to the world.
The most salient question that should be nagging the minds of sober policy makers on both sides should be how to salvage the relationship. And set it onto a salubrious path. This is important for both the United States and Pakistan. The United States should not lose interest in Pakistan and think of abandoning it in the wake of Osama’s assassination. Osama’s end, even for one moment does not mean that the ‘war on terror’ is over. Osama, if anything, was a brand and Al Qaeda the franchise that latched onto failed states like Afghanistan to pursue its ends. The equity of this brand may be enduring and while the franchise may be weak, it is by no means dead. So the United States should not be complacent and smug about it and deem Pakistan’s utility to it as flagging.
The real prize in the ‘arc of instability’ is a stable, prosperous and democratic Pakistan and Afghanistan. The former on account of the nature of its conceptual underpinnings and convoluted trajectory is the, in the jargon of international relations, a pivotal state in the region. And its health, focus and orientation will determine the health of the latter, that is, Afghanistan. The United States should not lose sight of this. The only way to bring about a salubrious Pakistan at ease with itself and the world is to keep on engaging it. It is all about means and ends. That is to say, the nature , tone and tenor of engagement with Pakistan should not premised on mutual predation or the , you scratch my back while I scratch your, short term self defeating formulation. It should be the national interest of the United States to see a healthy Pakistan that can hold its own and stand up as a valued member in the comity of nations.
It is equally important for Pakistan to introspect deep and hard and review some of its policy postures and orientations. It may do well to disengage from Afghanistan and reach a modus vivendi with India over some kind of settlement over Kashmir. While it may not afford to completely or comprehensively disengage from Afghanistan for security reasons, it could opt for a minimal engagement and assist in stabilizing the country. This would far in the overall stability of the region and might even lead to a new security order in South Asia. It would among other things allow Pakistan to refocus its energies and direct them to areas where most needed: education, consolidation of its sovereignty and nationalism, health and other like such areas. Gradually, a focus on these areas or domains with assistance from the west, especially the United States, Pakistan may morph into a well functioning Muslim democratic state. It is by focusing on these salubrious ends mentioned here that Pakistan can not only become a confident entity but also reclaim the mantle of moral and political leadership in the Islamic worlds. And in the process correspond to the original vision of its founder.
In short, instead of mutual recrimination and an ungainly relationship, the whole tenor of the alliance between Pakistan and the United States should be revamped. The kind of revamp that is needed is one that disavows short termism and is premised on mutual respect, understanding and esteem. The stakes are too high to take recourse to rhetoric, threats and tit for tats of the sort we are witnessing. Not all is lost. Prudent statesmanship on both sides can set the relationship on an even keel and healthy trajectory. Both the United States and Pakistan owe this to the world.
Mumbai Blasts: A Sense of Deja Vu?
The serial bomb blasts in Mumbai-the financial capital of India and the erstwhile gateway to India -are ominous. These come in the wake of the foreign secretary level talks between India and Pakistan. Terrorism apparently had not figured much in the talks. The reflex of most denizens of India and in particular Mumbai would be to apportion blame on Pakistan or Pakistani inspired and supported proxies like the Lashkar e Toiba(Let) and their native supporters. However, it may be too soon to apportion blame onto the known terror groups. In the murky atmosphere that unfortunately defines both India and Pakistani politics; the real culprits may not be the usual suspects. However, speculating on the real culprits detracts from the real and the larger issues. The salient among which are , one , the relationship or the tenor of relationship between India and Pakistan, the relationship of the Muslim minority to the dominant Hindu majority and last but not the least Kashmir.
The clear cut and manifold agendas of the perpetrators appears to drive a wedge between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority of the state, crystallize mutual antagonisms and suspicions between them and also widen the gulf between India and Pakistan. Sobriety thus demands that knee jerk responses should not be taken recourse to and a calm but firm attitude be held and then deal with the fallout accordingly. The broader set of issue and themes that the terror attacks raise are that terrorism is now to stay with the world and may even become a fixture, no security system is foolproof, and that there are entrenched elements in both Pakistan and India to whom a hint of peace and amity between the two traditional antagonists is anathema.
Coming to agenda number one, it would appear that the perpetrators are bound to be disappointed. India or the idea of India-pluralism, tolerance and secularism- and the concomitant-consolidation of Indian nationalism –are now so entrenched and woven into the fabric of India that even the most appalling and garish acts of depravity cannot bring about a communal conflagration and division of the country. Post 2008 Mumbai and Mumbai’s attitude and reaction to it is one example of this phenomenon. However, insofar agenda number two is concerned, it would appear that the perpetrators may be said to be successful. Regardless of the nature of the perpetrators, the finger of blame is most likely to fall on Pakistan. If it comes to light that the perpetrators were members of the Let, then there will be bottoms up pressure on the India polity and government to do something about it. The demands may take the form of demanding action along the lines of Operation Geromino and ask for the scalp of Let leaders who apparently are shielded by the Pakistani power structure. This will unfortunately be exploited by the India’s major opposition party who will paint the Congress led dispensation as weak and wobbly in the face of consistent and constant acts of terrorism by Pakistan or Pakistan inspired groups. While an operation like Geromino may be unlikely given that it may constitute and act of war on Pakistan and Pakistan, which while facing structural weaknesses, is no a pushover, the relations between the two countries will go on a down ward spiral. And this will manifest and get reflected in the Kashmir imbroglio where India as the status quo power will , more likely for domestic reasons mentioned in the piece, become obstructionist and unyielding. All in all a scenario laden with gloom and doom.
So what does prudence-the kind that defeats the agendas of the perpetrators- dictate at this hour? First, a calm and rational response is required in dealing with the immediate fallout of the attacks. Second, the Indian establishment should reach out to its Muslim minority and reassure them that they are a much appreciates and wanted part of the Indian nation. Measures-economic, political and social- should be taken to make them as part of project India. Last, and counter intuitively India should thank Pakistan for the condolences that it has sent and elicit a statement from the highest echelons in the Pakistan power structure that India and Pakistan will jointly work against terrorism.
Acting on these pointers and suggestions may be the antidote to this nefarious and cowardly act of terrorism. It will send a strong message to the perpetrators that come what may, the state will not act disproportionately to the gravest of provocations and that their nefarious agendas will be defeated. It will also validate and consolidate the idea of India wherein peoples of different communities have potentially an equal stake in the polity and the nation. A knee jerk , reflexive and a populist response, on the contrary will play right into the hands of the perpetrators. It is time that sobriety and rationality takes over atavism and irrational passion. Both India and Pakistan owe it to their citizens.
The clear cut and manifold agendas of the perpetrators appears to drive a wedge between the Muslim minority and the Hindu majority of the state, crystallize mutual antagonisms and suspicions between them and also widen the gulf between India and Pakistan. Sobriety thus demands that knee jerk responses should not be taken recourse to and a calm but firm attitude be held and then deal with the fallout accordingly. The broader set of issue and themes that the terror attacks raise are that terrorism is now to stay with the world and may even become a fixture, no security system is foolproof, and that there are entrenched elements in both Pakistan and India to whom a hint of peace and amity between the two traditional antagonists is anathema.
Coming to agenda number one, it would appear that the perpetrators are bound to be disappointed. India or the idea of India-pluralism, tolerance and secularism- and the concomitant-consolidation of Indian nationalism –are now so entrenched and woven into the fabric of India that even the most appalling and garish acts of depravity cannot bring about a communal conflagration and division of the country. Post 2008 Mumbai and Mumbai’s attitude and reaction to it is one example of this phenomenon. However, insofar agenda number two is concerned, it would appear that the perpetrators may be said to be successful. Regardless of the nature of the perpetrators, the finger of blame is most likely to fall on Pakistan. If it comes to light that the perpetrators were members of the Let, then there will be bottoms up pressure on the India polity and government to do something about it. The demands may take the form of demanding action along the lines of Operation Geromino and ask for the scalp of Let leaders who apparently are shielded by the Pakistani power structure. This will unfortunately be exploited by the India’s major opposition party who will paint the Congress led dispensation as weak and wobbly in the face of consistent and constant acts of terrorism by Pakistan or Pakistan inspired groups. While an operation like Geromino may be unlikely given that it may constitute and act of war on Pakistan and Pakistan, which while facing structural weaknesses, is no a pushover, the relations between the two countries will go on a down ward spiral. And this will manifest and get reflected in the Kashmir imbroglio where India as the status quo power will , more likely for domestic reasons mentioned in the piece, become obstructionist and unyielding. All in all a scenario laden with gloom and doom.
So what does prudence-the kind that defeats the agendas of the perpetrators- dictate at this hour? First, a calm and rational response is required in dealing with the immediate fallout of the attacks. Second, the Indian establishment should reach out to its Muslim minority and reassure them that they are a much appreciates and wanted part of the Indian nation. Measures-economic, political and social- should be taken to make them as part of project India. Last, and counter intuitively India should thank Pakistan for the condolences that it has sent and elicit a statement from the highest echelons in the Pakistan power structure that India and Pakistan will jointly work against terrorism.
Acting on these pointers and suggestions may be the antidote to this nefarious and cowardly act of terrorism. It will send a strong message to the perpetrators that come what may, the state will not act disproportionately to the gravest of provocations and that their nefarious agendas will be defeated. It will also validate and consolidate the idea of India wherein peoples of different communities have potentially an equal stake in the polity and the nation. A knee jerk , reflexive and a populist response, on the contrary will play right into the hands of the perpetrators. It is time that sobriety and rationality takes over atavism and irrational passion. Both India and Pakistan owe it to their citizens.
Monday, March 21, 2011
The Idea of India and Greater Autonomy for Kashmir
The obvious conclusion to draw from the US ambassador, Timothy Roemer’s visit to Kashmir and choosing to meet its elected representative, Omar Abdullah, and snub the entire spectrum of the separatist leadership is that the United States, through the prestige of the Ambassador’s office, is lending its weight onto Greater Autonomy for Kashmir. This sensible approach accrues, at a macro level, from the overall and broader situation in the region-Pakistan’s inexorable drift into quasi anarchy and a fragile state, the structural problems of Afghanistan and the attendant implications and spillover for Kashmir or the inverse. It also means explicit recognition of the fact that ethno nationalism in this day and age is passé and the formation of new micro states premised on ethno nationalism is a non starter and that the international system cannot bear the burden of new states especially after the drift of some decolonized states into state failure. And that disputes arising from ethnic mismatches and incongruent borders that went under the rubric of self determination are better resolved within the state paradigm. While this realism may go against the principle of self determination articulated by Wilson, it is, in this day age, perhaps the only antidote to problems engendered by ethno nationalism and the self determination conundrum or paradox.
Insofar Kashmir is concerned and at a micro level the Greater Autonomy plank or stance has been held by the ruling party, the National Conference since its inception and more poignantly since its towering leader, the late Shaikh Abdullah, entered into an Accord over Kashmir with the Government of India, in 1975. Resisted by powers that be in the Centre, greater autonomy also came to be sidelined during the heyday of insurgency in Kashmir. The separatist leadership would settle for nothing less than maximalist demands-secession from the Indian union freedom for Kashmir which was , at least for a substantial chunk of the separatists a Trojan horse for eventual merger with Pakistan. However, gradually and inexorably, on account of attrition, the changed extraneous political environment after September 11 and the structural problems that Pakistan faced, the insurgency could not be sustained and it gradually ebbed. Followed by a lull and an interlude of relative calm, the people of Kashmir, in a sense, fed up with political impasse and gridlock, took to the streets and rearticulated their grievances against the Indian state in the idiom of freedom. This maximalist demand obscured the real problems, that is , a political gridlock and foot dragging by the Government of India over resolving the Kashmir problem for good and its preference for a precarious status quo where the GoI took the defeat of the insurgency by the Indian state as validation for its approach towards Kashmir. The result was that the street became the theater of politics where the alienated youth bulge of Kashmir spewed their rage and angst at the Indian state, de nouveau. So in a sense, the situation in Kashmir reverted to square one in terms of the alienation of people and their demands. This is the micro backdrop to the Roemer visit and the US preference for greater autonomy for Kashmir- a sane and the only practical solution to the vexed problems
Now the question is what impediments could the greater autonomy paradigm or formulation face in India and second what would it mean in practice for Kashmiris? The resistance to greater autonomy is more likely than not to come from the Hindu Right smitten by the Hindutva bug. The Hindu Right in the past has tried to make political mileage from the special status bestowed to Kashmir, Article 370 of the Indian constitution and ,by twisting and putting a spin on it, has presented it to the people of India as a blot on India and accused its proponents of pandering to the minorities and ‘pseudo secularism’. However, real issue is larger than this one. Greater Autonomy for Kashmir is about the Idea of India: the idea that Nehru had in mind and the one that is making the world notice India: its deeply entrenched secularism and liberal democratic nature. Greater autonomy for Kashmir, in effect, validates this Idea of India: a confident, vibrant and plural India at peace with itself and not squeamish about its sovereignty. It is about an India that nurtures and respects its minorities and places them at a pedestal that in the final scheme of things can only enrich India. Au contraire, the alternative idea of India put forth by the Hindu Right and its schemes for Kashmir only negate this idea of India and condemns India to what is essentially alien to it: regression, distrust, and a monofocal view of India. It is to the former idea of India that the powers that be in India should revert to and crystallize and Greater autonomy in this schema becomes central to it. One implication pregnant and rife with positive consequences is that this idea of India makes Kashmir the part of India on account of soft power and not the hard variety: an approach that is in the final analysis help India achieve what it has hitherto failed in: winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s for good.
What would this autonomy mean in practice for Kashmiri’s? It should, first mean an expansive identity that does not need the abstract state to fructify and reach efflorescence and second, it should mean real and significant empowerment of all Kashmiri’s. This can only happen when the terrain of the struggle shifts on the domain of rights and entitlements-political, economic and social. Rendering tangible these sets of rights should, in the final analysis, render Kashmiri’s empowered and confident and this can only happen if flesh and substance is accorded to Greater Autonomy for Kashmir and it is not merely a shift in nomenclature and a glorified name for the same old politics. In today’s globalized world, where the state, while remaining the basic unit of politics, has however in some areas transformed itself and shed its queasiness and squeamishness about some attributes of sovereignty , devolving chunks of power to constituent states just means being aligned with significant global trends and not going against their gravamen. And it should, for a state like India, which has positioned itself in the arterial system of globalization not be difficult. In a rather counterintuitive way, Greater Autonomy for Kashmir also means validation of being a Great Power-an aspiration that India holds. Rightfully. The US ambassador’s visit is confirmation of the factors enumerated in this article. So for a better future for all , peace within and without, let us make haste slowly and grasp the opportunity
Insofar Kashmir is concerned and at a micro level the Greater Autonomy plank or stance has been held by the ruling party, the National Conference since its inception and more poignantly since its towering leader, the late Shaikh Abdullah, entered into an Accord over Kashmir with the Government of India, in 1975. Resisted by powers that be in the Centre, greater autonomy also came to be sidelined during the heyday of insurgency in Kashmir. The separatist leadership would settle for nothing less than maximalist demands-secession from the Indian union freedom for Kashmir which was , at least for a substantial chunk of the separatists a Trojan horse for eventual merger with Pakistan. However, gradually and inexorably, on account of attrition, the changed extraneous political environment after September 11 and the structural problems that Pakistan faced, the insurgency could not be sustained and it gradually ebbed. Followed by a lull and an interlude of relative calm, the people of Kashmir, in a sense, fed up with political impasse and gridlock, took to the streets and rearticulated their grievances against the Indian state in the idiom of freedom. This maximalist demand obscured the real problems, that is , a political gridlock and foot dragging by the Government of India over resolving the Kashmir problem for good and its preference for a precarious status quo where the GoI took the defeat of the insurgency by the Indian state as validation for its approach towards Kashmir. The result was that the street became the theater of politics where the alienated youth bulge of Kashmir spewed their rage and angst at the Indian state, de nouveau. So in a sense, the situation in Kashmir reverted to square one in terms of the alienation of people and their demands. This is the micro backdrop to the Roemer visit and the US preference for greater autonomy for Kashmir- a sane and the only practical solution to the vexed problems
Now the question is what impediments could the greater autonomy paradigm or formulation face in India and second what would it mean in practice for Kashmiris? The resistance to greater autonomy is more likely than not to come from the Hindu Right smitten by the Hindutva bug. The Hindu Right in the past has tried to make political mileage from the special status bestowed to Kashmir, Article 370 of the Indian constitution and ,by twisting and putting a spin on it, has presented it to the people of India as a blot on India and accused its proponents of pandering to the minorities and ‘pseudo secularism’. However, real issue is larger than this one. Greater Autonomy for Kashmir is about the Idea of India: the idea that Nehru had in mind and the one that is making the world notice India: its deeply entrenched secularism and liberal democratic nature. Greater autonomy for Kashmir, in effect, validates this Idea of India: a confident, vibrant and plural India at peace with itself and not squeamish about its sovereignty. It is about an India that nurtures and respects its minorities and places them at a pedestal that in the final scheme of things can only enrich India. Au contraire, the alternative idea of India put forth by the Hindu Right and its schemes for Kashmir only negate this idea of India and condemns India to what is essentially alien to it: regression, distrust, and a monofocal view of India. It is to the former idea of India that the powers that be in India should revert to and crystallize and Greater autonomy in this schema becomes central to it. One implication pregnant and rife with positive consequences is that this idea of India makes Kashmir the part of India on account of soft power and not the hard variety: an approach that is in the final analysis help India achieve what it has hitherto failed in: winning the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s for good.
What would this autonomy mean in practice for Kashmiri’s? It should, first mean an expansive identity that does not need the abstract state to fructify and reach efflorescence and second, it should mean real and significant empowerment of all Kashmiri’s. This can only happen when the terrain of the struggle shifts on the domain of rights and entitlements-political, economic and social. Rendering tangible these sets of rights should, in the final analysis, render Kashmiri’s empowered and confident and this can only happen if flesh and substance is accorded to Greater Autonomy for Kashmir and it is not merely a shift in nomenclature and a glorified name for the same old politics. In today’s globalized world, where the state, while remaining the basic unit of politics, has however in some areas transformed itself and shed its queasiness and squeamishness about some attributes of sovereignty , devolving chunks of power to constituent states just means being aligned with significant global trends and not going against their gravamen. And it should, for a state like India, which has positioned itself in the arterial system of globalization not be difficult. In a rather counterintuitive way, Greater Autonomy for Kashmir also means validation of being a Great Power-an aspiration that India holds. Rightfully. The US ambassador’s visit is confirmation of the factors enumerated in this article. So for a better future for all , peace within and without, let us make haste slowly and grasp the opportunity
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
To Egypt, With Love
The neo conservative –the ideology or worldview that the Bush Administration after the Sep 11 terror attacks heartily professed and espoused-assessment and analysis of the ills that plague the Arab Islamic world have a striking resonance in the protest movement gripping the very important state of Egypt. Briefly, neo conservatives attributed the ills of the region largely to the authoritarian nature of governance and the striking absence of democracy and freedom in much of the Middle East. And, perhaps more importantly and significantly, they held that freedom was the fundamental aspiration and longing of every human being or that it-the idea of freedom-was and is universal. Nothing more validates the neo con assessment, to repeat, at the risk of sounding tautological, than the rumblings of change or the protest movement directed against the power structure put in place by the ageing gerontocrat and autocrat, Hosni Mubarak and his power clique, and perhaps inspired by the bottoms up change in Tunisia. While it is too soon to call the protest movement a revolution, it is, given the cunning that Arab autocrats have held and clung to power in the Middle East and the strategic position that Egypt holds, incredibly difficult to prognosticate on the implications and significance of the movement on the power dynamic of the Arab Muslim Middle East. Having said this, the protest movement is, however, an ode to the idea that determines history: the idea of freedom and its concomitant democracy. The protest movements, originating in Tunisia, also point out to the ‘potential return of ‘siyasah’(politics)-hitherto monopolized by the autocrats and the dreaded mukhabaraat(intelligence services) in the region and more broadly, to borrow a phrase,’ the return of history’ in the region.
The protest movement may unfortunately die, on account of fatigue and the remarkable staying power of established power structures in Egypt, who may take recourse to cosmetic change to keep their grip on power. However, it, on the positive side inaugurates the idea of freedom and democracy in the Arab Muslim world and the deep yearning for it by the ‘hoi polloi’, in the process not only validating the idea of either as universal but also discrediting the bleak image and picture painted by the Orientalists of the Arab Muslim world as being gripped by past notions of glory and stuck in that. The inference that the Orientalist’s and their neo Orientalist scribblers want us to draw is that authoritarianism is inherent to the Arab Muslim world, the ‘Arab street’ is inert, and dances to the tune of power thereby deflecting anger onto Israel, and that given the reactionary attitude and torpor induced by the loss of imperium, that has gripped the collective unconscious of the Arab Muslim world, the only idiom that the Arab Muslim world can engage with the world is terrorism- a point of view , unfortunately lent credence by the sordid saga of September 11. Now this notion stands discredited as the desire and yearning for freedom by the Arab street is on vivid and eloquent display. This may be the most significant message that is sent out or relayed by the protests.
Now after having laid out the ‘abstracts’, I would venture on the domain of amateur punditry by first touching on the potential fallout of the protests and then offering or attempting to offer some prescriptions for the policy making elite of the power that matters and will continue to do so for the indefinite future and whose bearing and orientation toward the protests will have enduring significance: the United States. It stands to reason, to repeat myself, that the staying power of the Egyptian regime is immense and that while the protests may rattle it and the power structure put in place, we may not witness long term and lasting change in Egypt. The only fallout or significant fallout that I see panning out is a bit of the ‘shuffling of cards’ to impart an illusion of change to the regime and its politics. This may take the form of changing electoral rules of conduct and allowing hitherto marginalized and excluded political forces and giving them a wee bit of voice.(El Baradei and his cohort and perhaps the more moderate wing of the Islamic Brotherhood spring to mind here).Some economic changes –tinkering with subsidies and inflation- that take care of the prosaic and mundane needs of the people may also be taken recourse to. Beyond this I see no significant change to the tenor, style and method of politics in Egypt. Having said this, it would be naïve to not see the protests as harbinger of real change in the future. A crack in the power edifice has appeared , the door for political and then economic change is ajar and it would be a travesty if this is not further exploited. This is where the role and orientation of the wounded hegemon, the United States, becomes pertinent. It would be prudent for the United States to adopt a ‘wait and watch’ approach, review its traditional assumptions about the Arab Middle East, and then carefully and delicately encourage forces of change in the region. The reviewed approach may have tangential (but much needed) impact on US diplomacy and the nature of its engagement with the Arab Muslim world. Hitherto held in thrall by the needs of the Cold War and flawed representation of both Islam and the Arabs, the United States, it could be fairly said, has not really figured out the Arab Islamic world and much of its foreign policy rested on flawed constructs. These constructs-lent salience and validated on the Arab Muslim side, by the regimes and mullah’s usurping the power of representation- have, I daresay ,contributed to much bad blood between the United States and the Arab Muslim world.(Sep 11 was but one ghastly and gory reminder of this bad blood). A prudent, careful and farsighted approach toward the Middle East may thus have ramifications and implications for both world order and peace. Much, depends on the United States. We all hope and pray that the wounded hegemon stays engaged, sees the protests as a cry for change, rise to the occasion and stay true to its creed. This , in the final analysis is what we all expect from the United States and world peace and order may ultimately depend upon it.
The protest movement may unfortunately die, on account of fatigue and the remarkable staying power of established power structures in Egypt, who may take recourse to cosmetic change to keep their grip on power. However, it, on the positive side inaugurates the idea of freedom and democracy in the Arab Muslim world and the deep yearning for it by the ‘hoi polloi’, in the process not only validating the idea of either as universal but also discrediting the bleak image and picture painted by the Orientalists of the Arab Muslim world as being gripped by past notions of glory and stuck in that. The inference that the Orientalist’s and their neo Orientalist scribblers want us to draw is that authoritarianism is inherent to the Arab Muslim world, the ‘Arab street’ is inert, and dances to the tune of power thereby deflecting anger onto Israel, and that given the reactionary attitude and torpor induced by the loss of imperium, that has gripped the collective unconscious of the Arab Muslim world, the only idiom that the Arab Muslim world can engage with the world is terrorism- a point of view , unfortunately lent credence by the sordid saga of September 11. Now this notion stands discredited as the desire and yearning for freedom by the Arab street is on vivid and eloquent display. This may be the most significant message that is sent out or relayed by the protests.
Now after having laid out the ‘abstracts’, I would venture on the domain of amateur punditry by first touching on the potential fallout of the protests and then offering or attempting to offer some prescriptions for the policy making elite of the power that matters and will continue to do so for the indefinite future and whose bearing and orientation toward the protests will have enduring significance: the United States. It stands to reason, to repeat myself, that the staying power of the Egyptian regime is immense and that while the protests may rattle it and the power structure put in place, we may not witness long term and lasting change in Egypt. The only fallout or significant fallout that I see panning out is a bit of the ‘shuffling of cards’ to impart an illusion of change to the regime and its politics. This may take the form of changing electoral rules of conduct and allowing hitherto marginalized and excluded political forces and giving them a wee bit of voice.(El Baradei and his cohort and perhaps the more moderate wing of the Islamic Brotherhood spring to mind here).Some economic changes –tinkering with subsidies and inflation- that take care of the prosaic and mundane needs of the people may also be taken recourse to. Beyond this I see no significant change to the tenor, style and method of politics in Egypt. Having said this, it would be naïve to not see the protests as harbinger of real change in the future. A crack in the power edifice has appeared , the door for political and then economic change is ajar and it would be a travesty if this is not further exploited. This is where the role and orientation of the wounded hegemon, the United States, becomes pertinent. It would be prudent for the United States to adopt a ‘wait and watch’ approach, review its traditional assumptions about the Arab Middle East, and then carefully and delicately encourage forces of change in the region. The reviewed approach may have tangential (but much needed) impact on US diplomacy and the nature of its engagement with the Arab Muslim world. Hitherto held in thrall by the needs of the Cold War and flawed representation of both Islam and the Arabs, the United States, it could be fairly said, has not really figured out the Arab Islamic world and much of its foreign policy rested on flawed constructs. These constructs-lent salience and validated on the Arab Muslim side, by the regimes and mullah’s usurping the power of representation- have, I daresay ,contributed to much bad blood between the United States and the Arab Muslim world.(Sep 11 was but one ghastly and gory reminder of this bad blood). A prudent, careful and farsighted approach toward the Middle East may thus have ramifications and implications for both world order and peace. Much, depends on the United States. We all hope and pray that the wounded hegemon stays engaged, sees the protests as a cry for change, rise to the occasion and stay true to its creed. This , in the final analysis is what we all expect from the United States and world peace and order may ultimately depend upon it.
On Globalized Islam
Globalized Islam is a fact and a ‘fixture’ in most western societies now. Delinked from culture, and deterritorialized, it presents both an opportunity as well as a threat to both western societies and itself. The former because shorn of the influence of the mullahs whose esoteric scholarship and the endless world of fatwa’s disconnected from modern reality has ossified the Islamic traditions which are badly in need of reform, the prospects of Ijtehad(or enlightened reasoning) can perhaps only take place in the west. The latter because alienation or what David Cameron has aptly called ‘rootlessness’ can lead to a security as well as a social problem for western societies and also globalized Islam has the potential of transmogrifying or mutating Islam into an unrecognizable ideology in spite of the reassurances held out by the eminent Scholar Olivier Roy that globalized Islam will ultimately and inexorably go the way of Reform Judaism. This is rendered poignant and salient by the question of,’ Who Speaks for Muslims or Islam? Is it the imported mullah’s or mufti’s who can only speak in the idiom of madressah’s? Or modernist intellectuals who have made a name for themselves in their host societies but are estranged from fellow Muslims on account of either acculturation or other reasons?
Both, to repeat myself, I am afraid to say, pose insuperable problems or dilemmas for western societies and governments and Islam itself. The focus on the mullahs or imported imams, while comforting for Muslims in host societies, in terms of validation of Islamic principles for their progeny and ensuring continuity in some form of the Islamic traditions in the private sphere is a non starter. Non starter because the needs of globalized Islam are different: born and raised in western milieus, young Muslims need role models who can relate to them. It stretches reason to believe that, say a Pakistani imam trained (or schooled) only in the Deobandi tradition can relate to young Muslims in the west save perhaps the freshly arrived. Inherent in this approach also is the perpetuation of some odious accretions that Islam can do better without. The other option of modernist intellectuals begets problems too largely because these intellectuals speak from a perch that is disconnected from the reality of most Muslims in the west. Fluent in the idiom of host societies, some kind of schizophrenia- success in host societies comingled with a sense of estrangement from fellow Muslims whose problems they allegedly articulate or address- defines or marks these urbane and sophisticated intellectuals. This in a way replicates or is a microcosm of the problem of modernity or the trajectory of modernity in the Islamic worlds where the elite, schooled in the idiom of secular modernity were increasingly estranged from their constituents leading to sclerotic and warped forms of nationalism and secularism in the Arab Islamic worlds. This, in turn, created space for Islamist movements to thrive only to be repressed by the authoritarian states of the Arab Islamic world. In the west, what may happen is, that the ground may be ceded to movements like the Tableeghi Jamaat, whose monofocal emphasis on the five pillars of Islam and activism to make ‘good Muslims’ by focusing on the time of the Prophet (SAW) and mimicking the conditions of the early Muslims may be the only option available to young Muslims in the west. Or in a more extreme rendition, the field may become open for more radical imams or people espousing more radical views. So the question is what can be done or what methods can be employed to render the trajectory of globalized Islam smooth and salubrious?
The solution I would posit is that western governments, first and foremost accept that religion is here to stay in the west and that it is a need for those for whom it is the most significant and meaningful aspect of their lives and second instead of retreating from multiculturalism, which is the latest fashion these days actively, rejig existing institutional arrangements and enter into a partnership with sober and well meaning Muslim leaders. The nature of this partnership should not be along the lines of a quid pro quo but a genuine desire to integrate Islam into western societies on terms that are mutually beneficial. More specifically, this would mean or entail, traineeships for young imams who are schooled both in the western tradition as well as the Islamic one with excellent communication and leadership skills. The kind that would enable them to speak to the conditions of Muslims in the west in an idiom that they understand and more importantly educate young Muslims in the civic virtues of liberal societies and the responsibilities that this entails. Overlaying this may be an emphasis on Sufism or spiritual aspects of Islam which addresses the spiritual needs of Muslims. While this is no foolproof method that guarantees integration of Islam in the west, it may carry some insights that if applied may lead to peace within and without.
Both, to repeat myself, I am afraid to say, pose insuperable problems or dilemmas for western societies and governments and Islam itself. The focus on the mullahs or imported imams, while comforting for Muslims in host societies, in terms of validation of Islamic principles for their progeny and ensuring continuity in some form of the Islamic traditions in the private sphere is a non starter. Non starter because the needs of globalized Islam are different: born and raised in western milieus, young Muslims need role models who can relate to them. It stretches reason to believe that, say a Pakistani imam trained (or schooled) only in the Deobandi tradition can relate to young Muslims in the west save perhaps the freshly arrived. Inherent in this approach also is the perpetuation of some odious accretions that Islam can do better without. The other option of modernist intellectuals begets problems too largely because these intellectuals speak from a perch that is disconnected from the reality of most Muslims in the west. Fluent in the idiom of host societies, some kind of schizophrenia- success in host societies comingled with a sense of estrangement from fellow Muslims whose problems they allegedly articulate or address- defines or marks these urbane and sophisticated intellectuals. This in a way replicates or is a microcosm of the problem of modernity or the trajectory of modernity in the Islamic worlds where the elite, schooled in the idiom of secular modernity were increasingly estranged from their constituents leading to sclerotic and warped forms of nationalism and secularism in the Arab Islamic worlds. This, in turn, created space for Islamist movements to thrive only to be repressed by the authoritarian states of the Arab Islamic world. In the west, what may happen is, that the ground may be ceded to movements like the Tableeghi Jamaat, whose monofocal emphasis on the five pillars of Islam and activism to make ‘good Muslims’ by focusing on the time of the Prophet (SAW) and mimicking the conditions of the early Muslims may be the only option available to young Muslims in the west. Or in a more extreme rendition, the field may become open for more radical imams or people espousing more radical views. So the question is what can be done or what methods can be employed to render the trajectory of globalized Islam smooth and salubrious?
The solution I would posit is that western governments, first and foremost accept that religion is here to stay in the west and that it is a need for those for whom it is the most significant and meaningful aspect of their lives and second instead of retreating from multiculturalism, which is the latest fashion these days actively, rejig existing institutional arrangements and enter into a partnership with sober and well meaning Muslim leaders. The nature of this partnership should not be along the lines of a quid pro quo but a genuine desire to integrate Islam into western societies on terms that are mutually beneficial. More specifically, this would mean or entail, traineeships for young imams who are schooled both in the western tradition as well as the Islamic one with excellent communication and leadership skills. The kind that would enable them to speak to the conditions of Muslims in the west in an idiom that they understand and more importantly educate young Muslims in the civic virtues of liberal societies and the responsibilities that this entails. Overlaying this may be an emphasis on Sufism or spiritual aspects of Islam which addresses the spiritual needs of Muslims. While this is no foolproof method that guarantees integration of Islam in the west, it may carry some insights that if applied may lead to peace within and without.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Musings on the Death of Multiculturalism in the West
Musings on the Death of Multiculturalism in the West
David Cameron’s public statement’s on the nature of ills plaguing Muslim Britain and hence the broader society and polity echo Angela Merkel’s disdain and resigned comments on multiculturalism in Germany. It would, however, be a mistake to see a parallel between Britain and Germany. Britain-proud heir to or perhaps even pioneer of multiculturalism – clearly departs from the condition of Germany where it was the policy problem or conundrum raised by the gastarbeiter(or guest workers) overlain perhaps by the problems engendered by the deepening and widening of the European Union and the structural forces of globalization catalyzed the problem rendering it in the process into a social problem. It would thus, to repeat, be a mistake to view the entire multicultural enterprise as being flawed and introduce an alternate policy straitjacket or paradigm that goes against the gravamen of diversity and pluralism. Having said this, it is about time that some of the assumptions undergirding multiculturalism and its policy implications are due for a comprehensive review.
The consensus or the evolving consensus in the west about the ills or pitfalls of multiculturalism stem largely from the failure of state encouraged or more accurately state patronized multiculturalism to inculcate the ‘we’ feeling among Muslims who have chosen to live or who for other reasons-persecution, refugees fleeing from failed states-find themselves in the west. Or in other words, state patronized multiculturalism has failed to make citizens out of Muslims in the west. This state of affairs, alarming as it is for intrinsic reasons, it must be pointed out, does not accrue from Islam or the nature of the Islamic faith. The failure lies in the lackadaisical approach towards the presence and existence of Muslims living in western societies and in the final analysis is an educational failure. By educational failure is meant that the nature of open societies, the rights, duties and responsibilities accruing from living in open societies has not been adequately explained to Muslims in the west. Having said this, I am not for one moment suggesting that western societies owe Muslims an explanation but it, for reasons of prudence and sagacity, it would have been better, if the nature of liberalism and open societies would have been made clear to Muslims in an idiom that would be understood by them.
It would be a travesty if the entire project or enterprise of multiculturalism were to be abandoned because implicit in aspects of multiculturalism is a renewed or a fresh relationship between Islam and the West. Hitherto articulated in the idiom of and colored by colonialism and the colonial legacy and, of course, the historical memory of the crusades, the contemporary encounter between Islam and the west mediated by globalization, offers a meeting point which can potentially be frictionless, from a long duree point of view. And the good thing is that it can be a good for Muslims and by extension the host societies. Good because some of the accretions that have been built upon the Islamic tradition, on account of vested interests and power of the mullahs, and that have stubbornly persisted, may be given short shrift by the contemporary encounter. Or in other words, reform of some of Islamic traditions, long overdue, and resisted by the corpus of mullahs and their patrons, within the Islamic world may actually happen in the west or on account of Islam’s contemporary encounter with the west. The doors of Ijtihad (roughly meaning, independent and enlightened reasoning), frowned upon by the extremists and fanatics may actually be opened in the west- the ancillary benefit of liberalism and the liberal tradition.
An added advantage may be that the virtues of toleration and respect for diversity- virtues that the Quran respects and enjoins- become a reflex among Muslims living in the west. Long used to living in mono cultural societies, some Muslims have, unfortunately lost this virtue and in some cases or instances may even aggressively pursue a majoritarian agenda.(Taliban ruled Afghanistan springs to mind here).Appreciation of diversity, tolerance and toleration, the ability to countenance diverse points of view may accrue only in multi cultural and liberal societies and continuing with the legacy of multiculturalism albeit in a new and reviewed form. In our globalized world, with diasporic movements across cultures, these enlightened Muslims can represent the west as it is than the warped images which reduce the west to a crude caricature. This new model of multiculturalism may take as its starting point the kind of integration which, one assuages Muslims fears, that living in the west does not mean or necessarily entail loss of faith, and second also lays the onus of integrating with the broader society on both Muslims themselves and members of the broader societies too. In other others, review the model of citizenship by rendering it into an active model and allow the impetus of integration come from within by demonstrating the soft power of liberal societies. The alternative-extreme models of assimilation –may send a wrong message to Muslims both within and without. A message that validates the fears of some Muslims that the west is out on an all out assault on Islam and renders the passive majority of Muslims if not open to the suasions of extremists but certainly sympathetic to them. This is a message that does not need to be sent out at this delicate moment of tension between the Islamic worlds and the west. So Mr. Cameron, a review but not a jettisoning of the multiculturalism paradigm is called for.
David Cameron’s public statement’s on the nature of ills plaguing Muslim Britain and hence the broader society and polity echo Angela Merkel’s disdain and resigned comments on multiculturalism in Germany. It would, however, be a mistake to see a parallel between Britain and Germany. Britain-proud heir to or perhaps even pioneer of multiculturalism – clearly departs from the condition of Germany where it was the policy problem or conundrum raised by the gastarbeiter(or guest workers) overlain perhaps by the problems engendered by the deepening and widening of the European Union and the structural forces of globalization catalyzed the problem rendering it in the process into a social problem. It would thus, to repeat, be a mistake to view the entire multicultural enterprise as being flawed and introduce an alternate policy straitjacket or paradigm that goes against the gravamen of diversity and pluralism. Having said this, it is about time that some of the assumptions undergirding multiculturalism and its policy implications are due for a comprehensive review.
The consensus or the evolving consensus in the west about the ills or pitfalls of multiculturalism stem largely from the failure of state encouraged or more accurately state patronized multiculturalism to inculcate the ‘we’ feeling among Muslims who have chosen to live or who for other reasons-persecution, refugees fleeing from failed states-find themselves in the west. Or in other words, state patronized multiculturalism has failed to make citizens out of Muslims in the west. This state of affairs, alarming as it is for intrinsic reasons, it must be pointed out, does not accrue from Islam or the nature of the Islamic faith. The failure lies in the lackadaisical approach towards the presence and existence of Muslims living in western societies and in the final analysis is an educational failure. By educational failure is meant that the nature of open societies, the rights, duties and responsibilities accruing from living in open societies has not been adequately explained to Muslims in the west. Having said this, I am not for one moment suggesting that western societies owe Muslims an explanation but it, for reasons of prudence and sagacity, it would have been better, if the nature of liberalism and open societies would have been made clear to Muslims in an idiom that would be understood by them.
It would be a travesty if the entire project or enterprise of multiculturalism were to be abandoned because implicit in aspects of multiculturalism is a renewed or a fresh relationship between Islam and the West. Hitherto articulated in the idiom of and colored by colonialism and the colonial legacy and, of course, the historical memory of the crusades, the contemporary encounter between Islam and the west mediated by globalization, offers a meeting point which can potentially be frictionless, from a long duree point of view. And the good thing is that it can be a good for Muslims and by extension the host societies. Good because some of the accretions that have been built upon the Islamic tradition, on account of vested interests and power of the mullahs, and that have stubbornly persisted, may be given short shrift by the contemporary encounter. Or in other words, reform of some of Islamic traditions, long overdue, and resisted by the corpus of mullahs and their patrons, within the Islamic world may actually happen in the west or on account of Islam’s contemporary encounter with the west. The doors of Ijtihad (roughly meaning, independent and enlightened reasoning), frowned upon by the extremists and fanatics may actually be opened in the west- the ancillary benefit of liberalism and the liberal tradition.
An added advantage may be that the virtues of toleration and respect for diversity- virtues that the Quran respects and enjoins- become a reflex among Muslims living in the west. Long used to living in mono cultural societies, some Muslims have, unfortunately lost this virtue and in some cases or instances may even aggressively pursue a majoritarian agenda.(Taliban ruled Afghanistan springs to mind here).Appreciation of diversity, tolerance and toleration, the ability to countenance diverse points of view may accrue only in multi cultural and liberal societies and continuing with the legacy of multiculturalism albeit in a new and reviewed form. In our globalized world, with diasporic movements across cultures, these enlightened Muslims can represent the west as it is than the warped images which reduce the west to a crude caricature. This new model of multiculturalism may take as its starting point the kind of integration which, one assuages Muslims fears, that living in the west does not mean or necessarily entail loss of faith, and second also lays the onus of integrating with the broader society on both Muslims themselves and members of the broader societies too. In other others, review the model of citizenship by rendering it into an active model and allow the impetus of integration come from within by demonstrating the soft power of liberal societies. The alternative-extreme models of assimilation –may send a wrong message to Muslims both within and without. A message that validates the fears of some Muslims that the west is out on an all out assault on Islam and renders the passive majority of Muslims if not open to the suasions of extremists but certainly sympathetic to them. This is a message that does not need to be sent out at this delicate moment of tension between the Islamic worlds and the west. So Mr. Cameron, a review but not a jettisoning of the multiculturalism paradigm is called for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)