The Hindu Business Line : Islam and international politics

The dilemma that Islam faces today is seen to be in no small measure due to illiberal and intolerant attitude that some of its constituents and those who lead them exhibit through word and action. Equally, the Western world is often guilty of paranoia, especially post 9/11, and must refrain from tarring all with the same brush, says G. Parthasarathy.

SHORTLY after the Cold War ended following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Harvard Professor and former National Security Council member Samuel Huntington alluded to new "fault lines" in the global order in his writings and in his book The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of the World Order.

Huntington held that civilisations are the highest groupings of people. They are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and traditions. His basic thesis was that global politics is entering a new era where "the fault lines of civilisations will be the battle lines of the future". "Western Civilisation" uniting the US and Europe (minus the Baltic countries and Russia) in his view would be united by the "shared foundation of European culture and western Christianity".

While Huntington dwelt on the differences between "Western Civilisation", on the one hand, and Confucian, Japanese, Hindu, Slavic Orthodox, Latin American and African civilisations, on the other, his main focus was on a coming conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds.

After dwelling on the Islamic expansion into Europe, the Crusades, and the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire, Huntington claimed: "These centuries of military interaction between the west and Islam is unlikely to decline. It will become more virulent." He added: "Violence also occurs between Muslims, on the one hand, and Orthodox Serbs in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Philippines. Islam has bloody borders."

Coincidentally, Osama bin Laden soon gave credence to Huntington's views when he formed the International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders (IIF) in Kandahar in February 1998. The IIF brought together separatists from Chechnya, the Balkans and the Philippines, with disgruntled religious extremists from the Arab world and South-East Asian countries such as Indonesia and Myanmar making common cause with the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Sensing this development as an opportunity to give an international dimension to its jehad in Kashmir, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) encouraged five jehadi groups supported by it to join the IIF. The common targets for all these groups were, however, the US and Israel.

Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, the US President, Mr George W. Bush, described America's forthcoming war against terror as a "Crusade". Anti-Islamic sentiment in America was on the rise even before 9/11. On September 10, 2001, 500 Islamic Web Sites run by the InfoCom Corporation the in Texas were raided and closed by an anti-terrorism task force.

With the passage of the Draconian "Patriot Act" by the US Congress and growing manifestations of jingoism throughout the country, Muslims in the US felt increasingly besieged. Muslim organisations and mosques came under scrutiny and surveillance.

Muslims from countries such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had to register with immigration authorities and notify their moves to the immigration.

Hate crimes against Muslims increased. When I referred to these developments to an American friend and pointed out that it was wrong to think of all Muslims as terrorists his response was: "Yes, all Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims". Rational debate in such circumstances is difficult to sustain.

Muslims in the US have found scant understanding from the courts, but won support from such organisations as the American Civil Liberties Union. But the Muslim community has not helped its cause by supporting such groups as the Hamas, or by the rabid rhetoric of some of its preachers.

Surveys by Muslim organisations have shown that one in every four Americans holds anti-Islamic views. These American Muslim organisations called for a "protest vote" against Mr Bush, alleging that, "today American Muslims are treated like second-class citizens". But Muslim organisations recognise that little will change and that the Patriot Act will not be repealed irrespective of who is President.

The rise of anti-Islamic prejudices is not a feature of the US alone. It has spread across the countries embracing what Huntington describes as constituting "Western Civilisation".

The French President, Mr Jacques Chirac, has imposed a ban on Muslim girls wearing head-scarves in state-run public schools. The measure has widespread public support. Several states in Germany are preparing to take similar measures.

Europe is set to become a continent of aged people with a declining labour force. It feels besieged by fears about the increasing Muslim immigration from North Africa and Turkey. Anti-immigration parties are gaining strength across the continent. Turkey is being denied entry into the EU primarily because of the anti-Islam phobia that now afflicts the continent.

Even in a country like the UK that is endeavouring to build a genuinely multi-cultural and pluralistic society, the Government has introduced civic lessons and an oath of allegiance for all those seeking British citizenship. Events like the recent terrorist attacks in Spain have only strengthened the anti-Muslim paranoia in Europe.

While Huntington's thesis has obvious flaws, one has to guard against it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Osama bin Laden's Islamic Front has not been joined by a single Iranian or Indian Muslim.

The ideological and sectarian divide between Iran and Saudi Arabia naturally led to Iranian distaste for the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Saudi Arabia considers Iran a greater security threat than a nuclear-armed Israel.

In a recent interview, the former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Mr Charles Freeman, stated that King Fahd had told high-level US officials that Saudi Arabia would need a nuclear deterrent if Iran developed nuclear weapons. The violence unleashed by Osama bin Laden's associates across the world largely derives its ideological base from Wahabbi extremism and Saudi Arabian funding.

This is a challenge that can be overcome only when respect for pluralism and diversity is strengthened in democratic societies like India, the US, the UK and France. There also should be a process of genuine introspection in Islamic countries for enhancing peoples' participation in governance.

Muslim countries should also seriously consider whether they enhance understanding and goodwill by mustering OIC support for religiously-oriented separatist causes in pluralist societies.

While Christian and Buddhist countries have not formed any international forums based exclusively on religious lines it is anachronistic for Islamic countries to establish an exclusivist club such as the OIC where they seek to pass judgment and undermine national unity in pluralist societies, where Muslims are in a minority. Does the introduction of religion in international affairs not strengthen the arguments of those who speak of a "clash of civilisations"?

The dilemmas that the Islamic world faces today were perceptively summed up by Washington-based Pakistani journalist Khalid Hasan. Hasan noted: "The whole point is that the hostility being shown towards Muslims is in no small measure due to the illiberal and intolerant attitude some of them and those who lead them exhibit through word and action.

The Saudi Arabian Government, whose institutions and practices have caused Islam to be seen in a harsh light, can begin the process of reform in two ways.

It should stop public beheadings of those pronounced guilty of capital crimes and it should permit non-Muslims who are living and working in the Kingdom to build churches, synagogues and temples where they can worship.

Under Saudi law this is not permitted, and it flies in the face of the true spirit of Islam, because no such prohibition existed in the time of the Holy Prophet".

In these circumstances one can be proud of the fact that there has not been a single case of an Indian national being involved in an international terrorist attack in such places as New York, Washington, Madrid or Bali.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)