Does Islam Need a Makeover?

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has issued a joint communiqué. The communiqué addresses the dispute over Kashmir, commends Pakistan for its rapprochement with India, calls for stability in Afghanistan and improving the image of Islam. Curiously, it omits or does not pay much attention to the Arab Spring and the orgy of murders taking place in Syria on a quotidian basis. This omission is remarkable given that the future of the Arab Muslim world is at stake and a grand historical process is panning out. This, however, is not the core thrust of this piece.

The piece is concerned with the burning issue of the day: the perception of Islam by the world and OIC’s assertions to improve Islam’s image. The OIC does not state why and how Islam’s image can me improved and who is to be responsible for this. This raises a set of questions: does Islam really need a makeover? Or is the OIC mistaking wood for the trees and missing out on the bigger picture? That is, is it Muslims who need to improve their image or is it Islam that needs a makeover? Should this be in the nature of a public relations exercise or should comprehensive reform of the Muslim persona and collective self be the bedrock of this? And , last but not the least, what should this entail?

Let it be clear from the onset: Islam does not need a makeover. It is what it is. However, it is the interpretation of Islam and its practice that needs a review. This means a struggle for the struggle of Islam’s soul which is claimed by various contenders with each vying for supremacy. The Salafi’s, the shi’ites, the Ahl al hadith, the Ahl al Sunna, the Wahhabi’s and the Sufi’s , the Deobandis , to name a few , each claim a monopoly over truth within Islam. This cacophony of contention and competition leads to a jumble where the essential message of Islam- peace and amity and a spiritual quest- gets lost. In this din, the world of Islam then does not and cannot present a coherent portrait of Islam to the world. The question that should be nagging the powers that be in the world of Islam should be to arrive at a consensus over the nature of Islam and then present that to the world.

The question then is who will bell the cat? That is, who does the onus of this consensus and the attendant reform fall on? The answer is Muslims themselves. The problems that define the Muslim world-authoritarianism, lack of democracy, poor economic growth, abysmal living standards, political decay and the manifestation of these: terrorism- are all self made. There is no enemy out these determined to push back and denigrate Islam. The problem lies within and the solution to this also has to come from within.

What should be the gravamen of this solution? First and foremost, both the personality of the individual Muslim and the collective Muslim self has to change. This means vigorous introspection both at the individual and collective level. This, in turn, can accrue once Muslims are empowered. Empowerment in today’s world comes from education and economic growth. Both, in sync, can potentially lead to the questioning of accretions that have latched on to Islam and an approach that is open, vibrant and not insular. The world view that will stem from this approach will naturally be the one that is open minded, salubrious and salutary. This will then impact the nature of Muslim societies and how they relate to the world. Political decay may be reversed and the Muslim world will engage with the world in an idiom that is healthy and that redounds positively to it and the world at large.

Once this dynamic gets crystallized, the ‘image problem’ will naturally dissipate. A process of osmosis wherein the Muslim world absorbs the best that the modern world has to offer will take place and in the process, stability –within and without- will ensue. It is to this that powers that be in the Muslim world must dedicate themselves to. Declaratory statements from toothless and politicized organizations are not the antidote to the problems that bedevil the Muslim world. It is vigorous introspection followed by action that will take the Muslim world out of its self imposed morass. The timing for this cannot be more propitious. Let reform, introspection and action be the new slogans for the Muslim world and let these be the response to the manifold challenges that the world of Islam faces.

The Sweet Gale of Reason from Tunisia: Notes on the Arab Spring and Democracy

The Sweet Gale of Reason from Tunisia: Notes on the Arab Spring and Democracy

 

The Tunisian president, Moncef Marzouki, has stuck out his neck and promised a crackdown on extremist forces in Tunisia. Marzouki, in his New York Times op-ed piece also offered an eloquent and passionate defence of the Arab Spring, terming the ongoing struggle as Islam’s struggle for democracy, presenting it as Islam’s compatibility with democracy and critiquing Orientalist tropes about Islam and the Muslim world.  Marzouki also asserted that the Arab Spring was not about the west. The president also called for Arab intervention in Syria. In sum, Marzouki is making the right noises and presenting a portrait that appears to be an accurate reflection of reality. And he, in making these statements is donning the mantle that should have been adopted by the Egyptian president, Morsi.

 

All –except the crack down on the Salafists and other assorted extremists- is welcome. The Muslim world needs modern, moderate and articulate spokespersons who present a balanced and nuanced portrait of Islam and the politics of the Muslim world. This space filled by either autocrats or extremists has to be filled by centrist forces that fill the ‘missing middle’ of the politics of the Muslim world.

 

Marzouki’s set of assertions raises manifold questions. The salient of these are: Are Marzouki’s assertions in the nature of a public relations exercise? Do these constitute spin-pure and simple?  How should Salafist and other extremist forces be dealt with?  Should force and repression be the method employed to deal with them? Was the nature  and intent of the protests following the distasteful and disrespectful move, ‘The Innocence of Muslims’ indicative of the much touted ,’ Clash of Civilizations?’ Is Islam inherently anti western? Is the denouement and trajectory of the Arab Spring going to lead to hostile relations between Islam and the west?  Or will it potentially lead to the efflorescence of democracy in the Muslim world?

 

Marzouki analysis and the set of assertions that flow from it are germane and apposite. He is neither playing to the gallery nor merely saying what the world (or the west) wants to hear. The confidence undergirding this assertion is premised upon the nature, pattern and denouement of history. There is a certain discernible pattern and trajectory to history. This pattern corresponds and either moves in sync or is the driving force of history. This driving force is modernity and the major component of modernity is democracy or more accurately liberal democracy. (This insight is attributed to the scholar of scholars and the doyen of doyens , Professor Fukuyama).

 

It is a world historical trend and an overwhelming force. The tsunami of modernity and democracy overcomes all resistance and its sweep is global and appeal universal. The question for cultures and societies still caught in the warp and woof of tradition and non liberal values is how best to accommodate and adjust to this force. Resistance is futile and chimeric. This applies to the Arab and Muslim world whose politics have either been colored by and lurches between extremism and authoritarianism of various hues. The Arab Spring and its convolutions, from a grand historical perspective and sweep, is but a reflection of the teething troubles towards democratization of the Muslim world. This is how it should and has to be seen. Any other prism to view and put into perspective this revolution is flawed and jaundiced.

 

These jaundiced views are reflective of Orientalist tropes and canards about Islam, Arabs and the Muslim world. These canards were dished out by vested interests , in thrall to power , and constituted attempts to justify colonialism and the employment of crude measures to perpetuate colonial rule in the Arab Muslim world. Repetition of these tropes and justifying these from the reaction to ,’ The Innocence of Muslims’ film is gratuitous and mischievous. Freedom, liberty and the quest for rights-social, political and economic- is a universal quest and need. The Arabs and Muslims are no exception. The Orientalist myth will be debunked by the final denouement of the Arab Spring which , in the author’s view will be Islam’s tryst with democracy.

 

Reason –the bedrock of modernity and democracy- is not alien to Islam. However, over the years, on account of accretions and convolutions, reason got sidelined and other factors and themes gained salience in the world and universe of Islam. It is the tradition of the integration of faith with reason that needs to be revived. This is doable and has many precedents in the history of Islam. Integration of faith with reason will mean and lead to synthesis between Islam and democracy and give short shrift to the notion of Islam’s incompatibility with reason. The sweet gale of history will envelop the world of Islam and there will be efflorescence of democracy in the Muslim world.

 

The immediate question for the new regimes of the Muslim world is how to deal with their opponents: the extremists. Force and repression is a non starter. Both lead to disaffection and can by default provide legitimacy and support to the extremists. Driving  them underground, only adds to their mystique and aura and historically , this would then be a throwback to days of yore when authoritarian regimes would kill and harass their opponents. The best antidote and way  to deal with extremists is to co opt them. This can ameliorate them and also in some sense expose them given that their prescriptions for governance are dated and obsolete.  Association of the new regimes with the west will color both democracy and modernity and impinge upon them negatively.

 

It is this that may crystallize a broader reaction against the west and render the Clash of Civilizations real.  Islam is neither anti western nor anti modern.  It can potentially be compatible with democracy. There is no real reason for a societal or civilizational clash between Islam and the west. Prudent leadership  from both sides of the alleged divide will obviate stereotypes and misunderstandings and lead to a bold and beautiful world where all stand to benefit. It is this world that has to be brought to fruition. Moncen Marzouki’s words are then a gale of reason emanating from a sober statesman. A warm welcome and good wishes to him.

 

 

Zardari's Speech at the United Nations: Who was the President really addressing?

 

The president of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari’s speech at the United Nations was interesting on a range of levels. Zardari drew attention to Pakistan’s contribution(s) in the global war on terror(GWOT), the sacrifices Pakistan had made in this war and how Pakistan had suffered and become a victim of terrorism as well. He then made a plea ostensibly to the international community: he requested that given Pakistan itself had become a victim of terrorism and given how the country had been at the forefront of GWOT, it should not ‘ be asked to do more’. Zardari then meandered onto the core sticking point between India and Kashmir.

 

 He highlighted and emphasized the obvious and posited, among other things, that, ‘Kashmir remains a symbol of failures, rather than strengths of the United Nation’s system’.  He further added that outstanding disputes and conflicts between India and Pakistan would be resolved in an environment of cooperation. And those interconnections and linkages between the countries of the region would be salubrious. Zardari then went on an elegiac on the past nature of relations between the United States and Pakistan. He implicitly accused the United States of having supported dictators whose rule in Pakistan had been disastrous to both the Pakistani state and society.

 

Analysis and breakdown of these assertions yields interesting insights and a set of questions. The major insight is that Pakistan is telling the world that it has embarked on course correction and review and is serious about it. The set of questions that these assertions give rise to are: who is President Zadari really addressing and why is he doing so? What really is the import of these assertions? And what should the international community (read the United States) read into this and consequently do?

 

The real audience for/of Zardari’s speech is the sole superpower, the United States. Zardari- probably mouthing what the power structure of Pakistan wants him to- is incorporating the changes in world politics, the impotence of the United Nations and in recognition of the United States’ power and influence is hinting to the US that Pakistan will conform and correspond to a conflict resolution process that the United States is happy with. He appears to be suggesting that while Kashmir remains a dispute it will be attempted to be resolved amicably between India and Pakistan. This is a salubrious development and powers that be in India should deem this as an opening. And, in the final analysis, it appears to reflect a change in the foreign policy stance and posture of the Pakistani state.

 

Zardari’s plea to , bluntly speaking, the United States, to not to ask Pakistan, to do more in the war against terrorism and the assertion that Pakistan has suffered   a lot casts Pakistan in the mantle of a victim. This narrative of victimhood, by the way, is a theme that underpins both the formation and nature of the Pakistani state. It then is a travesty that Zardari reiterates and harps on this. More to the point, Zardari’s plea is hypocritical. The Pakistani state nurtured and harbored its youth bulge and its once extremist fringe for use in Afghanistan and against India. This later morphed into a Frankenstein’s monster. The Pakistani state is essentially confronting a monster of its own making. And it should come out of this morass on its own with some support from the United States. The plea then is gratuitous and uncalled for.

 

Insofar as his assertions on the nature of relations between Pakistan and the United States are concerned, Zardari’s accusations are a tad rich. Interstate relations are complex and it cannot really be said or implied that patronage and support by an important power shores up dictators or other odious regimes. Yes; foreign recognition accords legitimacy to a regime but in the final analysis, it is the people of a nation and the nature of a country’s political system that determines the type and coloration of a regime.  Again, if there is entity or power that blame can be apportioned to, it is the state of Pakistan.

 

The United States-the real audience of Zardari and by inference, the Pakistani power structure-, after sieving clutter and noise from Zardari’s speech, should quietly talk and reach out to the power structure of Pakistan. It should be made clear to this establishment that the United States will continue to support the transformation and review of Pakistan’s foreign policy postures. It also needs to be made clear that the United States will be attuned to new developments and watch them carefully. This may lock in the reforms that the Pakistani state is undertaking and these then may be difficult to roll back. The ball is now in the court of the sole superpower. It is hoped that prudence and sobriety inform the approach that it will take in its present and future relations with Pakistan. Pakistan may be at a strategic inflection point. A lot depends on the posture and policy that the United States adopts. Let is adopt the ones that are prudent, appropriate and germane.

Senkakus or Diaoyus: Implications and Lessons of the Japan China Quarrel on India and Pakistan

 

Sabre rattling, protests and somewhat rhetorical posturing over insignificant pieces of rock or uninhabited islands took place between the Japanese and the Chinese. The islands in contention are known to the Japanese as Senkakus and the Chinese as Diaoyus.  It stretches credulity and reason to see Japan- once the cornerstone of the United State’s Asia Pacific security strategy- and China- a wannabe superpower- fighting and squabbling over insignificant rocks. What then explains the quarrel?  How can the quarrel be resolved? Does the quarrel, its transformation into as serious conflict, and its potential resolution hold lessons for the disputes that bedevil South Asia and the subcontinent?

 

According to the Economist newspaper, shorn of speculation , the quarrel between China and Japan over the islands in contention accrues from historical memory, the attendant bad blood between Japan and China and negative nationalism. (The latter permeates China more than Japan). It is then the arousal of historical memory, coupled with negative nationalism that inflates the significance of these islands and leads to furor, din and noise.  It is difficult (but not impossible) to erase historical memory. However, it can be done. Time and circumstance, as the old cliché goes, are the best antidotes to these. What needs to be done is to revisit both the official and the popular narrative of history between these two nations and make it correspond to  a vision that is salubrious and salutary. This means altering the discourse and narrative of nationalism in both Japan and China.

 

 This is doable. Atavistic and primordial nationalism (or for that matter any form of nationalism) is, in the final analysis, a construct. And nationalism, to/for non western societies is an import.  Modern history is littered with the negative and insalubrious consequences of nationalism. Negative nationalism has made enemies where none really existed, gratuitously exacted millions of lives and on account of its false romanticism captured the imagination of millions leading to conflict, death and misery. The irony is that while the countries where nationalism originated from have , by and large, given up on nationalism( read the European Union) or mutated it into a form where its sharp and jagged edges are softened( civic nationalism in the United States), the concept continues to draw and inspire  non western countries and societies. Perhaps both the acceptance of nationalism and then its disavowal is a matter of political maturity and evolution. It is this maturity and evolution that non western societies, especially Asian ones, should aspire for.

 

More specifically and in terms of the cases in contention, both China and Japan should change the narrative of nationalism pervading in the societies –both at a practical and discursive level. This would tone down the stridency of their respective nationalisms and then insignificant rocks would not be vested with such intense emotional significance. The quarrel may then dissipate and never morph into a serious conflict. Does this hold lessons closer home- South Asia and the subcontinent?

 

Yes. It does. The two major antagonists of the subcontinent, India and Pakistan, have been estranged from each other since six decades and more. Historical memory- the scars  accruing from the partition of the subcontinent- coupled with a nationalist narrative that is negative(especially from the Pakistani side)- has lead to a vitiated atmosphere of mistrust, hostility and conflict between the nuclear armed neighbors. And they continue to lock horns over Kashmir- obiter dictum, a land populated by peoples who are not, in the least, insignificant. However, the emotional significance vested onto Kashmir by both the Pakistani narrative-(the incompleteness of Pakistan without Kashmir and a fellow Muslim feeling with Kashmiris) and the Indian narrative( the idea of India being incomplete without Kashmir and disallowing the rupture of the country once again)- leads to investing the dispute with transcendent and sacramental significance. The two sides then get locked into a zero sum position where yielding or compromising is viewed as total and complete surrender to the ‘enemy’.

 

It is this narrative that needs to change and mutate. Historical memory can potentially dissipate with the passage of time. However, the critical variable undergirding this is the change in the respective narratives of the two states. This matters and is more poignant for Pakistan which has cast India as its perpetual enemy-one that has usurped Kashmir which according to Pakistan’s narratives ‘belonged’ to Pakistan. Other flawed and negative stereotypes about India and Indians flow from this narrative.

 

This narrative then holds hostage the politics of both countries. Grandstanding, zero sum stances, and posturing are the inevitable consequences. As a result, no forward movement on Kashmir is made possible and the two countries remain locked in mutually exclusive positions. Once this narrative is broken and a new one forged, a new paradigm of relations and mutual perceptions will ensue. This will axiomatically take time. However, for the sake of peace, amity and a prosperous subcontinent , this must happen happen. The new narrative, not beholden to the past should smell of roses and will enable the two hostile neighbors to view each others in a different and salubrious vein. Deadly competition may then give rise to cooperation and the impact on the dispute over Kashmir will be sanguine. It is about time then that a vigorous attempt-both at a discursive and popular level- be made to jettison past baggage. Forward movement on all outstanding issues is contingent on this. Let haste be made slowly and the nettles grasped.

 

 

Should Israel Attack Iran?

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Muhammad Ali Jafari has asserted that,’Israel will be destroyed if it attacked Iran’. This assertion comes amidst speculation that Israel may, in an echo of its strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the Syrian one, attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. This, if it pans out, would be in the nature of a pre-emptive strike. Whether the commander’s threat is real or in the nature of a signal of Iran’s preparedness against a pre-emptive strike is a moot point. What is of significance, import and alarming is the consequence of the potential strike on the Middle East and the world.

 

The attack would throw world politics and even world peace into a tizzy. Oil prices would shoot up leading to an economic impact whose tremors would be felt globally, the regional political equations in the Middle East would be thrown into disarray, and there would be strains on worldwide and global alliances. Iran will retaliate and its retaliation would be in the nature of overt as well as covert war. It will activate its proxies especially the Hezbollah, and Syria would also come into the picture. The world of Islam will once again be arrayed against the West, with the attendant anti Americanism running rife across the Muslim world and the positions of various players in Palestine would harden. The Arab Spring will, in the process be a victim of this. In short, there will be global pandemonium. The question then is: is the attack worth it? Should the Israeli attack have American blessings? Or should diplomacy be continued to given a chance?

 

Given the consequences of the attack, there should be no doubt about what course of action should be taken. It is diplomacy that will serve the ends of all parties concerned. While criticisms have been leveled against diplomacy and it has been asserted that Iran is playing the game of diplomacy and trotting out old chestnuts to the international community, vigorous and astute diplomacy is still the answer to the problem; not war. The reasons for the latter option have already been adumbrated. The stakes are too high and the consequences and the fallout too negative to countenance war. The United States should devote its energies towards pre empting war and averting it. This is where it will be tested. The question is what should inform the thrust of American diplomacy?

 

First, the United States should understand Iran’s alleged quest of nukes. Nuclear weapons, as is well known, offer a state the ultimate security. Given the nature of the neighborhood that Iran exists in, the country’s security elite may feel that it is nuclear weapons that will allow it to survive in a hostile neighborhood and maintain the nature of its regime. Iran also suffers from a grandiosity complex. Nuclear weapons will accord it hegemonic status and allow it to preen in pride. In short, it is about respect. Having understood this, the United States should reach out to Iran and convince it that it is neither in the cross hairs of regime change, nor will its legitimate aspirations of being a respected member of the comity of nations be thwarted by the United States. In fact, it should be pointed out that Iran’s contribution to civilization has been immense and if the country becomes a ‘normal’ nation state, it would be welcomes by and in the comity of nations.

 

Having established this, the United States should follow this up by injecting life into the moribund peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. Life should be infused into the two state solution with full diplomatic backing by the United States. The country should the take a stance on the denouement and trajectory of the Arab spring. Mere blandishments and rhetorical support is not enough. What this specifically means is coming on the sides of the Syrian people and helping them get rid of the Assad regime. The United States should also change the nature and tenor of its relationships with the Arab regimes. The old policy of supporting autocrats should be given up and the United States should support the aspirations of the people in the region. This may mean some short term pain but will be salubrious and salutary from a long term perspective.

 

These measures will not only obviate anti Americanism in the region but may assuage Iran’s fears and will take away the props around which Iran’s hostility (and support for this)is premised upon.  The quid pro quo that the United States should extract from the Iranians is disavowal of the nuclear program. This is doable. All is requires is strong will and astute diplomacy. An attack which has American blessing-either out of domestic political compulsions or alliance commitments- will be counter productive. Iran is neither Syria nor Iraq. Its response will have regional and global repercussions. It is these that need to be pre –empted. War, as the wit said, is bad politics. And bad politics is not expected from the sole superpower. The time for diplomatic activity is now. Let it not be squandered and let history determine the politics and  political future of the region; not force.

Indo Pak Rapprochement and Kashmir

 

Pakistan’s foreign minister, Hina Rabbabi Khar, has in a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has averred that, ‘building trust and reversing the negative narrative is key to resolving core issues with India, including Jammu and Kashmir’. She added that normalizing trade with India is a step in that direction. Meanwhile, India’s defence minister A.K Antony asserted that while India is talking to China and Pakistan, there will be no compromise on India’s territorial integrity’.  Antony’s statement is a clear cut indication of the limits, boundaries and extent of negotiations with Pakistan or even China. The reference is to the border disputes with China and the core sticking point between India and Pakistan: Kashmir.

 

Antony’s statement reflects what amounts to a principle in interstate relations and sovereignty: nation states hardly, if ever, cede their sovereign remit and control over a territory or peoples they believe are theirs. So while Pakistan may be making the right noises and even making steps in normalizing relations with India, it should realize and keep this fact in mind. There will be no altering of maps, territory or in a nutshell, the status quo. What options does this leave to Pakistan, the Kashmiri’s and the Indian state?

 

Pakistan has tried wresting away Kashmir from India since it its independence. Three wars, an insurgency supported by Pakistan and a mini war, conducted under the shadow of nukes have been fought over Kashmir. Diplomatic efforts have been made my Pakistan to internationalize the Kashmir issue and seek international intervention. All this has come to naught. At a time when Pakistan finds itself in a weak structural condition and neither has no leverage over Kashmir except through its proxies which are disconnected from the aspirations and the sentiments of the people, Pakistan should read the writing on the wall. What does this mean? The clear cut inference to be drawn from this is no effort- war, insurgency, diplomatic pressure- can make India budge and cede its sovereignty over Kashmir. Or, in other words, the Indian state can countenance any sort and form of pressure to maintain its sovereignty over Kashmir. What options does this leave for Pakistan?

 

 None is the blunt answer. The only option or way forward for the Pakistani state is to drop its Kashmir obsession and focus on its internal travails and maintain its sovereign remit over the territories it has. However, Pakistan may need a face saving exit. This is where the Indian state can come into the picture. The Indian state should adopt a more vigorous approach to Kashmir and explicitly come out in favor of comprehensive empowerment of Kashmiris and embrace a human security approach towards Kashmir. It may also be prudent to accept the line of Control (LoC) as an international border and then seal the status quo. A fresh approach buttressed by sincerity should inform the Indian state’s approach towards Kashmir. The aim should be to win the hearts and minds of Kashmiri’s employing a soft power approach.

 

This constitutes an opportunity or more accurately an opening for Kashmir’s leadership and political class. It should review and stock stake the contemporary condition, read the tea leaves and assert itself. This does not and should not mean confrontation with the Indian state.  The international situation and politics coupled with the regional political dynamic and indications of a fresh approach toward Kashmir by the Indian state should concentrate minds. A sober and a sincere proposal to the Indian state that is informed by sincerity should be made. Again, the premise and the heart of the proposal should be a plea for comprehensive empowerment of Kashmiris and an approach which improves the life chances of Kashmiris. Or, in other words, a human security approach.

 

India is an emerging power and its sovereignty and democracy has consolidated itself over the years. It can and should countenance proposals which accord room for maneuver for ethnic groups constituting its firmament. This room for maneuver would naturally be within the sovereign remit and constitutional framework of India. According this room for maneuver would mean and imply that India is a confident, multi cultural federation which is not paranoid about the so called centrifugal forces eroding its sovereignty. This is the pitch that the political leadership of Kashmir should make to powers that be in the Indian state. Of course, they should be sincere about this.

 

In combination and in concert, the elements and factors identified here may lead to a bold and beautiful subcontinent. The peoples of the subcontinent, especially Kashmiris deserve this. The international and regional equations are propitious. It is time that these are grasped and a new dynamic is injected into the politics of the subcontinent. The opportunity is too good to be squandered. Is anybody listening?

Pakistan US Talks: Portents of a New Order in the Subcontinent?

 

Two women- Hillary Clinton and her Pakistani counterpart, Hina Rabbani Khar- met in the United States today. The context and the agenda of the meeting was a stock taking, review and attempts to improve relations between the sole superpower and Pakistan. The meeting took place against the backdrop of massive protests against the mischievous and provocative film,’ The Innocence of Muslims’ in Pakistan. The country wide protests exacted a death toll of 23 people. In a way, this portrait stands as a metaphor for the contemporary world: a world defined by dialectic of progress and conflict. On the one hand, women- an oppressed lot historically- are, by and large  , becoming more or less equal partners in society in many parts of the world and on the other the conflict and chaos continues to define the human condition. This, however, is not the core thrust of this article.

 

What is of concern and interest here is the implications and consequences of the potential rapprochement between the estranged states of Pakistan and the United States on peace within and without. By peace within, the reference is to peace in the subcontinent- peace within Pakistan (a state that appears to be at war with itself), peace between nuclear armed neighbors, India and Pakistan and peace in Kashmir. The peace without formulation is a reference to global peace and security. Pakistan, its orientation and foreign policy posture figures in all these scenarios. A positive orientation of the Pakistani state is contingent on the nature of its relations with the United States. It , therefore, falls on the United States, to impress upon Pakistan the merits of a salubrious and a salutary approach. The question then is what should inform the thrust of talks between the official representatives of the Pakistani state and the United States- Hillary Clinton and Hina Rabbani Khar?

 

It would be picture perfect for the United States to impress upon Pakistan to change and alter the nature and trajectory of the Pakistani state. This would, at a stroke, change the political, geopolitical and security dynamic in the subcontinent and how Pakistan relates to it and the world. This , however, may not be diplomatically appropriate and prudent at this point in time.  What then, given the impracticality of this macro objective could or should form the thrust of talks from the United State’s side?

 

First, the United States should assuage Pakistan’s fears about being dumped in the post ‘global war on terror’ world. It should be emphasized and relayed to Pakistan’s real power structure through Ms.Khar that Pakistan will continue to be valuable ally; not merely  a partner. This will pre empt Pakistan’s potential turn into a spoiler state in the region and beyond, making its existence and value felt through negative actions. This premise should be followed by demonstrating a path to Pakistan that would redound positively to it , the region and the world. (This should not be in the nature and form of a ‘to do’ list). Pakistan should understand and come to appreciate that this path is in its own interests and would allow it to come out of the self created morass it is in.

 

Specifically, the components of this path should be: improved and better relations with India, disavowal of meddling and propping up proxies in Afghanistan, reorientation of Pakistan’s political economy and its integration into the global economy and a foreign policy posture that is not conflictual. Better relations with India should mean Pakistan dropping its claim on Kashmir and arriving at a modus vivendi with India over the dispute. This may mean crystallizing the Line of Control as an international border, accepting and coming to terms with the political process in Kashmir. This would, perhaps, at a stroke, remove the major sticking point between India and Pakistan and set the rapprochement and the peace process between the two arch rivals in stone.  The carrot or the incentive that the United States could offer Pakistan is its good offices in suggesting to India about fresh thinking over Kashmir. This may mean comprehensive empowerment of Kashmiris. And this may allow Pakistan a face saving exit from Kashmir which it could sell to its people.

 

United States could also make it clear to Pakistan that while its security concerns vis a vis Afghanistan may be genuine  but it cannot and should not mean meddling and propping up proxies in Afghanistan in the name of strategic depth.  A fresh approach toward Afghanistan should be emphasized.

 

In conjunction, these suggestions to  Pakistan and their acceptance by the Pakistani power structure may turn out to be just the conceptual rejiggings that allow Pakistan to morph into a normal state-at peace with itself and the world. The benefits would be obvious: a new paradigm of peace and prosperity will dawn on the subcontinent, the conflictual dynamic may morph into a cooperative one and the region may collectively enter history liberating its peoples from the yoke of perpetual conflict, misery , fear and poverty. This salubrious scenario is worth an attempt. And it is to this that the United States should devote itself to. Time is of essence.  Pakistan may be in a listening mode. It is exigent then that this opportunity not be wasted. Sagacious and wise diplomacy- something that the United States has no dearth of- is the need of the hour. The opportunity is too good to be wasted.

On Economic Reforms and India's National Interest

 

The Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh’s, decision to increase diesel prices and allow FDI in multi brand retail is both symbolic and substantive. It is symbolic because it reflects continuity in the reform process that India embarked upon over two decades ago. And it serves as a signaling mechanism to both the international investor community and the comity of nations. It appears to be aimed at signaling that India is serious about reform and it that will continue to globalize. Its substantive content lies in the potential gains that continuing on the reform path-deep and intensive engagement with the global economy- that will accrue to India. There reference here is not to the economic gains that will accrue from a deeper engagement with the global economy but to the overall transformation of India.   

 

A deeper and more intense engagement with the global economy and globalization can potentially release the energies of the Indian nation.  An international orientation, openness to the forces of globalization and a policy posture that ties India into the sinews and process of globalization can fast track India’s modernization process. Ultimately, it is comprehensive modernity and modernization that will not only unshackle India and redound positively to the teeming masses of India. This has implications on the nature of India’s foreign policy. In this day and age, the nature of power has changed. Power now has different forms and dimensions. It is not longer, to quote Stalin, the number of tanks and brigades that determines the power of a country or nation. Power in a knowledge society (or in a world where there is a premium on knowledge and information is a critical variable) among other things, perhaps stems from an empowered society and polity. Empowerment, in turn, stems from an economically vibrant and dynamic and vibrant society where people have equal opportunities, access to education and knowledge. The causality here runs in the direction of access to education and knowledge but this is possible only when a certain economic well being is pervasive in society. The question is how can or where does foreign policy come into the picture? And what political implications does this have?

 

The answer lies in globalization and its impact on the state and the concomitant impact on international relations and foreign policy of a state. While globalization has not rendered the state  state, it has significantly altered it in many ways and dimensions. The state is no longer the self contained container or entity it was and many of its policy and structural functions are determined by supra territorial and national forces beyond the control of the state. The state has not, against these forces retreated but these forces have significantly transformed the state.   By and large, the state has benefited from these structural changes especially in the realm of economic growth and the attendant improved living standards for the peoples comprising the state.

 

The foreign policy implications for the state are obvious. The state was hitherto held to be a self contained container in perpetual competition –security, political and economic- with other states. The billiard ball metaphor was an accurate one to describe this competition. However, not that the state is porous given the structural forces of globalization it has had to contend with, this metaphor does not hold. It is cooperation and integration that is the buzzword of international relations. (This does not mean that conflict and war have disappeared from interstate relations). Cooperation between states  and integration with the forces of globalization redound positively to states. The trajectory of the Indian state since 1991 is a classic example of this. India clocked n economic growth of around and above 8% for many years and it elevated the living standards of millions of peoples. India was, as a result, feted by powers that be in the world and became a factor in both international politics and the international economy. There are thus huge dividends to be reaped from tapping into openness, and the forces of global economy. It is here that the foreign policy aspect comes in to play. If India continues to be open, has an outward orientation-economically, politically and culturally- the road to a comprehensive transformation of peoples lives is then a given. Would this have political consequences?

 

The answer is yes. An economically empowered citizenry with access to education and equality of opportunity will, as per the prognostications of modernization theory will lead to an expanded middle class. This middle class will not be quiescent. It will be demanding. It will ask for voice in the politics of the country and will not be led like sheep. This will have an impact on the political system which will have to be responsive. A responsive state and an empowered citizenry will naturally improve the quality of India’s democracy. And this can only be an unalloyed good for India.

 

In combination and in concert, these will lead to a well and truly modern India, unshackled from the encrustations of caste, poverty, and other divisions which stem from economic malaises and ignorance. The path to great power status will be smoother and there will be substantive content to this status. What will underpin and undergird this trajectory and path is continued openness, an outward orientation and a global India. And a global India is possible only if and when there is impetus to reforms and when these are set in stone. It is then India’s national interest to be more open; less insular and more integrated into the international economy and the sinews of globalization.  Prime Minister Manmohan Singh , a darling of both the international and national media only a while ago, copped a lot of flak for ‘policy paralysis’ and inability to pass further reforms. He has, however. Now he has a made a bold and beautiful decision. He deserves support and encouragement for this. Let not partisanship and petty politicking come in the way of this. India’s national interest is at stake and the people of India are owed a better life. This is what the Prime Minister’s decision means and implies for India. Let this not constitute the last sigh of the government but the beginning of a bright future.

 

 

China US Relations: It's Complex Interdepence Stupid!

 

Leon Panetta-the United State’s defense secretary- has assuaged and calmed Chinese fears about US’ encirclement and containment of China. Chinese fears were aroused after President Obama, sought a rebalancing and shift of the United States focus to the Asia Pacific. Panetta asserted that, ‘the United States’ effort to rebalance to the Asia Pacific region is not an attempt to contain China. It is an attempt to engage China and expand its role in the Pacific. These assertions, if taken at face value, suggest that the United States is reviewing its traditional posture in/toward the Asia Pacific where it has been the hegemon by default since the end of the Second World War. It may also reflect that the United States is veering to the idea of co-hegemony in the region. That is, exercise control and influence in the region jointly with China.

 

 

The contours of the emerging relationship between China and the United States then  suggest that a new dynamic is panning out in the Asia Pacific. This dynamic is not premised on the traditional and conventional understanding of international relations and politics. The core and thrust of this view is that rising powers inevitably clash and entre into a conflict with established powers and that conflict is the sine qua non of relations between states. The nature of the relationship between China – an emerging power or a potential superpower- and the United States suggests the obverse. Both appear to be disavowing outright conflict and focusing and working toward a relationship that is an admixture of co-operation, distance, caution and preparation for conflict. What explains this rather paradoxical relationship which defies crude caricature?

 

A range of factors explain this paradoxical relationship. The salient of these maybe that  the contemporary world order and international relations are in a state of flux, uncertainty and fluidity. Unipolarity –an aberrant interlude in world politics- is inexorably and inevitably giving way to either bi polarity or multi polarity. The United States appears to be seizing the moment and the initiative  and in the new or potential grand chess board of international politics making moves that ensure its leadership or more accurately world leadership. Leadership in today’s world does not necessarily accrue from hard power and other indices of power or coercion. It is premised on smart power or a combination of hard and soft power which in turn can lead to or translate into influence. Contextual intelligence, to use Joseph Nye’s term, determines or is a pivotal component of leadership in today’s world. The context is changing. So is the United States approach and strategy.

 

This is the prosaic and the obvious reason for the United States strategic review. There is, however, a more compelling reason for the United State’s review and approach to both the Asia pacific and the world. It stems from what has been termed as ‘complex interdependence’. Put simply, complex interdependence means that states are bound together in a framework (usually economic) in such a manner that their trajectories are interlinked and bound. This framework reduces and obviates the traditional actions and reactions of states- balancing, security dilemmas, and the attendant conflicts- and makes states co-operate. This then becomes the national interest of states or in the least coeval with the national interest of states.

 

The contemporary wave of globalization has brought states of a different nature and complexity into the framework of complex interdependence. The most critical of these relationships and frameworks is the relationship between China and the United States. Both are deeply enmeshed into the complex interdependence paradigm. The volume of trade and capital flows between the two countries has increased by a staggering margin. The oft quoted relationship where China buys United States’ Treasury bills and which in turn impacts interest rates in the United States and ultimately the entire world is perhaps the most compelling and poignant example of this relationship. It is one which serves both countries well and which neither would want to disturb.

 

Does this mean that all is and will be hunky dory and complex interdependence will inevitably lead to harmonious relations between the sole superpower and the emerging one? The answer is no. The prescriptions and political philosophies of the great Thucydides and the eminent Hans Morgenthau remain relevant as well. States view for power and security and take measures to bring these to fruition. What complex interdependence does is inject prudence, caution and sobriety into the calculations and calculus of states. It makes recourse to conflict and war less likely. Or it can be said that conflict mutates into the domain of low politics.

 

It is then an admixture of the tenets of realism and complex interdependence- a curious combination- that explains the United States approach and strategy. This can only be salubrious for world order, peace and amity. Less conflict and the lesser likelihood of war means a peaceful world where people and states are liberated from paradigms that impinge negatively on people’s welfare and security. It is a world that should be welcomed and efforts made to hasten its crystallization. And the catalyst for this is globalization and complex interdependence. The trajectory of both be set in stone. This is owed to humanity and future generations.

Fatima's Revenge: On Flawed Stereotypes about the West in the Muslim World

 

Eight South Africans and four Afghans were killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan. The Hizb e Islami- a ‘veteran’ group in Afghanistan which fought against the Soviets- claimed responsibility for the attack. The group’s spokesperson claimed that the attack was carried out by a female suicide bomber, named Fatima. It was further asserted that the attack was in the nature of a revenge attack over the blasphemous and vulgar film, ‘The Innocence of Muslims’-snippets of which were released on YouTube a few days ago. The ensuing protests have claimed many lives so far. Female suicide bombers came into prominence after female victims of the Russian state’s atrocities in Chechnya took it upon themselves to avenge their humiliation or loss of near and loved ones. This genre of suicide bombers came to be known as ‘black widows’. Apparently, the trend (if it may be called a trend) has now caught on in Afghanistan.

 

The victims of the suicide bombings were South Africans and fellow Afghans. These South Africans may have been white South Africans. They may have been chosen as victims purely because of their skin color. That is, they may have been mistaken as westerners. There are then two aspects to this gory incident: first, profound anti westernism exists in the Muslim world and this anti westernism largely stems from ignorance (about the west and westerners) , and second this leads to a compressed, flawed  and reductive understanding about the west. The world view that stems from this reduces the west and westerners to white, English speaking people who represent and are complicit in  the policies and approaches of western states towards Muslim countries. The chief culprits, in this view, are the Americans and the United States. This is a travesty. It not only leads to flawed and simplified stereotypes about the west and westerners but also gratuitous violence.

 

The question is: why are the Muslim masses and some extremist groups beholden to stereotyping and profiling? What accounts for this? Can this be remedied? And how can this be remedied?

 

This stereotyping is predicated upon a couple of salient factors. The  primary and the most germane one is ignorance- ignorance about the nature of the west and westerners. The second reason is historical memory. Ignorance and historical memory of the Crusades and western colonialism gets compressed and conflated in the minds of the Muslim masses and leads to squeamishness and a flawed, warped and reductive view of the West. Any negative act, real or perceived, emanating from the west, is then judged and assessed from these flawed benchmarks. Lack of real and substantive contact between the west and the Muslim world amplifies these stereotypes. They become real and vivid when films like ,’ The Innocence of Muslims’, the Danish Cartoons, or the Rushdie affair become public. The west as an entity gets implicated in this in the minds of the Muslim masses and the stereotype gets further entrenched and validated. These factors sometimes blend into the politics and political condition of some Muslim state and society and the result is violence. A mind bloc defines the condition of the Muslim masses and no effort at understanding and curiosity about the nature of the West is even countenanced.

 

The question is can this condition be remedied? The answer is a qualified yes. Given that it is largely premised on ignorance, it can potentially be remedied to a large extent. What would it take for this condition to be obviated? The answer lies in a more open world, democratization of the states comprising the Muslim world and vigorous public diplomacy by the state that matters the most in the world: the United Stated. An open world with the attendant people to people contacts can potentially ameliorate if not eliminate the stereotypes about the west in the Muslim world. Exposure to the west can potentially make Muslims see the west in its totality and see westerners as people, with the same aspirations, foibles, and flaws as other people.( There are bold and beautiful people in the west and like in other societies rascals and ignoramii as well)  Democratization will empower Muslims and open their minds, make them think critically and question what is fed to them by either authoritarian regimes or obscurantist Mullahs. This can be aided by vigorous public diplomacy by the power of the day-the United States- wherein the country opens itself to , for want of a better word, scrutiny by Muslims and where the country explains itself to the peoples of the Muslim world over the heads of the governments. This has got to be a two way street. Muslims must get rid of the historical baggage and flawed images/perception of the west and try to understand it.

 

In concert and in combination, application of these prescriptions can go far in obviating the stereotypes about the west and westerners in the Muslim world. This is very important. The West and Islam should not talk at each other. They should speak to and understand each other. The time is ripe. Dilly dallying and delay will cist more lived and entrench stereotypes. Prudence dictates that steps to bring about mutual understanding and amity between Islam and the west be taken.  Till then, expect more black widows and more strife and violence. It is incumbent upon all to stem the tide. Let haste me made slowly to bring light, reason and prudence to all.