As I have shown in my previous essay how American Exceptionalism played a great role in shaping the American mind from the early Puritan colonists to the American independence.
As promised I will tell the story of American Exceptionalism from the framing of the constitution till the American civil war.
As we all know that following the victory of the American colonists in the American revolutionary war against the British, George Washington, a war hero, went on to become the first president of the newly independent Unites States of America.
In the concept of the American Exceptionalism we can start to see two separate camps of ideas emerging out among the exceptional elite. One of these groups will be the men who were progressives in nature and used to believe that “all men are equal before their creator”. These will be the people who would go on to become the “Abolitionists”, the movement that would later go on to fight for abolition of slavery in the United States. Another important group of people among the American elite were the “statists” a group represented by people like Alexander Hamilton who believed in a powerful , centralized state with a strong military , a powerful central government , a robust , national exchequer and rapid industrial and land expansion. This group of exceptional elite believed in rapid land expansion of the United States for a growing population. They believed America as an exceptional nation should push outwards to convert other peoples in the world towards American ideas.
The other group to emerge among the exceptional elite was the traditionalists and the conservatives who believed that only white, English-speaking Americans are the owners of the America. This group generally consisted of two elements i.e. the rich, white landowners of the Southern states like South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia and the fiercely independent-minded Libertarians. The white landowners supported slavery since their cotton business was dependent upon the use of slave labor. The libertarians resented any strong central authority and they were particularly critical against the taxes imposed upon them by the American government. The libertarian Americans used to have strong hatred against the British rulers for imposing taxes now that hatred gradually turned against the new American government. Their basic demand was that government should stay away as much as possible from the daily business of the people. They even resented the creation of a permanent national Army and a permanent national bank. Among one of these fierce libertarians was Thomas Jefferson who repeatedly clashed with the ideas of a powerful statist like Alexander Hamilton.
If one looks at a map of the United States in the late 1700-s and the early 1800-s, he will find a pattern. The progressives and the statists usually came from urban centers like New York and Boston which were going through rapid industrialization. The traditionalists and the libertarians were generally from more agrarian and rural states like the two Carolinas and Virginia.
The clash of these two different versions of American exceptionalism would ultimately determine the future of America in the 19-th century.
But when it came to the matter of the Native Americans both the camps held the same belief that America should expand and rapidly expropriate Native American lands since it was a divine right by the white, English-speaking Americans to do so. This can be understood very well from the following writing of Thomas Jefferson. In an 1803 letter to William Henry Harrison, Jefferson wrote:
“To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.... In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us a citizens or the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.”
The ruling elites of the United States were willing to expand greatly in the Indian lands for a rapid expansion and industrialization of America. There was a growing consensus among the ruling American elite across the political spectrum to push the remaining Native Americans across the river Mississippi and claim their land for industrial and agricultural expansion. The famous painting “American Progress” by John Gast in 1872 tells us about the attitude of the American elite towards the Native Americans. In this painting we can see Columbia, intended as a personification of the United States, leads civilization westward with American settlers, stringing telegraph wire as she travels; she holds a school book. The different economic activities of the pioneers are highlighted and, especially, the changing forms of transportation. The Native Americans and wild animals flee. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/American_progress.JPG
By the early and middle 1800-s the Native Americans had adopted various aspects of European-American culture, including Christianity. Some of them even fought alongside the US army in some of the military campaigns against some other Native Indian tribes. But this was not going to be enough for their American rulers who were eager to take the lands of the Native Americans away with a religious fervor.
The congress passed the formal “Indian Removal Act” in 1830.Andrew Jackson was the first of the American presidents to start the forceful removal of the Native Americans, a task which will be followed by his successor, President Martin Van Buren.
The Native Americans tried to resist against the mighty American exceptionalism but to no avail. In the beginning they went through the legal recourse. The Cherokee tribe approached the Supreme Court against what efforts of the US state of Georgia to expropriate their lands. But when the Supreme Court judge John Marshall gave the verdict in favor of the Cherokees, President Andrew Jackson said the following about the verdict "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it! Build a fire under them. When it gets hot enough, they'll go.” The Cherokees’ homes were burnt down and their property destroyed and plundered. The White settlers very quickly took over the land. Private Soldier John G. Burnett later wrote "Future generations will read and condemn the act and I do hope posterity will remember that private soldiers like myself, and like the four Cherokees who were forced by General Scott to shoot an Indian Chief and his children, had to execute the orders of our superiors. We had no choice in the matter."
In the winter of 1838 the Cherokee were forced to begin the thousand mile march with scant clothing and most on foot without shoes or moccasins. The march began in Red Clay, Tennessee, the location of the last Eastern capital of the Cherokee Nation. The Cherokee were given used blankets from a hospital in Tennessee where an epidemic of small pox had broken out. The authorities used the tactic deliberately to finish off as many Cherokees as possible before their final removal. Because of the diseases, the Cherokees were not allowed to go into any towns or villages along the way; many times this meant traveling much farther to go around them after crossing Tennessee and Kentucky, they arrived in Southern Illinois at Giaconda about the 3rd of December, 1838. Here the starving Cherokees were charged a dollar a head to cross the river on "Berry's Ferry" which typically charged twelve cents. They were not allowed passage until the ferry had serviced all others wishing to cross and were forced to take shelter under "Mantle Rock," a shelter bluff on the Kentucky side, until "Berry had nothing better to do". Many died huddled together at Mantle Rock waiting to cross. Several Cherokee were murdered by locals. The killers filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Government through the courthouse in Vienna, suing the government for $35 a head to bury the murdered Cherokee.
Martin Davis, Commissary Agent for Moses Daniel's detachment wrote: "There is the coldest weather in Illinois I ever experienced anywhere. The streams are all frozen over something like eight or twelve inches thick. We are compelled to cut through the ice to get water for ourselves and animals. It snows here every two or three days at the fartherest. We are now camped in Missippi swamp four miles from the river, and there is no possible chance of crossing the river for the numerous quantity of ice that comes floating down the river every day. We have only traveled sixty-five miles on the last month, including the time spent at this place, which has been about three weeks. It is unknown when we shall cross the river...."
Finally the removed Cherokees settled near Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
This forceful relocation of the Cherokee tribe is known as “the trail of tears”. It is estimated that 4000 Cherokees died during their forceful removal from Tennessee to Oklahoma.
Some of the Native Americans tried to resist their forceful relocation by taking up arms against the US government but ultimately they also failed. A set of wars, called the “Seminole Wars”, between the American military and the Native Americans took place during this time which ultimately sealed the fate of the Native Americans. A Native American leader Osceola fought bravely for freedom but ultimately failed. Osceola was seized at the orders of Gen. Thomas Jessup when he appeared for a peace meeting under a white flag. Osceola died in prison, probably of malaria. With the death of leaders like Osceola, the Native American resistance eventually petered out.
With these defeat the Native American fate ultimately sealed. A fiercely proud people who had lived freely in the American lands for centuries now stood on the verge of extinction. Their fate would ultimately take them to be preserved like rare animals in different reserve forests called “Indian preservation centres”, located around America.
Two important concepts that dominated the foreign policy of the USA were the “manifest destiny” and the “Monroe doctrine”. Both these two concepts were based upon the belief among American exceptional elite that America is the god-given land of purity and the concepts and ideas of the “old world” i.e. Europe should not come to the sacred soil of America. Another important belief among the American elite was that America should expand it’s ideals to the whole of the North American continent as part of a divine plan.
The “Monroe Doctrine” came to effect in 1823. The doctrine states that further efforts by European countries to colonize land or interfere with states in the Americas would be viewed by the United States of America as acts of aggression requiring US intervention.
The doctrine was issued at the time when Latin American colonies of Spain were revolting against Spanish rule. Had the Latin American countries succeeded it would have meant that there will be no pre-dominant European power in the Americas. In that situation the USA could easily have access to these free Latin American countries’ markets.
The American elite saw a great chance in being the hegemonic power in the Americas if the Latin American colonies become independent of Spanish rule. This is the background behind Monroe doctrine.
The manifest destiny was another important concept used by the American elite of the time. The American journalist John Louis O'Sullivan was one of the pioneers behind this idea. He called the US government in 1845 to annex Texas and Oregon County from Mexico and Great Britain, respectively. He wrote in 1845 “And that claim is by the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.” As I did mention earlier the basic belief behind the idea of “Manifest Destiny” was that since American ideals are divine and more virtuous they should be spread around the world as part of a divine plan to civilize the world. In this way O'Sullivan could be considered as the predecessor to the modern day American neo-conservatives who also sought to expand American system in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We can see that both “Monroe Doctrine” and “Manifest Destiny” are very much interrelated. The American exceptional elite saw a great chance in expanding their hegemony and to spread their influence throughout the Americas particularly at a time when Latin American Spanish colonies were revolting against Spanish colonial presence in the continent. The American elite thought that they would fill the vacuum when finally the Spanish would depart. They also believed that all these are part of a divine plan for exporting American ideals throughout the American continent.
Manifest destiny also influenced the policy of American government at the time towards the Native Americans. The American intellectual elite wanted the Native Americans to abandon hunting and adopt agriculture as a means of civilization. Hunting was considered as a primitive occupation. It was believed that by adopting agriculture, the Native Americans will be civilized i.e. “Americanized”.
There was a white supremacist attitude also included in the “manifest destiny” idea. A portion of the American exceptional elite believed that American land and nation were only meant for the White English-speaking Americans and the presence of large Native Americans or other non-White; non-English speaking people would pollute and dilute the divine mandate given to the White; English-speaking American people. This was expressed in the following remark by the politician John C. Calhoun in 1848 on the issue of whether America should annex and colonize the whole of Mexico.
“[W]e have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind, of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race.... We are anxious to force free government on all; and I see that it has been urged ... that it is the mission of this country to spread civil and religious liberty over all the world, and especially over this continent. It is a great mistake.”
The inherent idea of Manifest Destiny which is to expand a state’s influence beyond it’s own borders also appealed to some other overseas ideologues. It left a profound impact on the German geographer Friedrich Ratzel who visited North America beginning in 1873. His ideas would later go on to create the German idea of “Lebensraum” which would go on to become the chief ideology of the Third Reich.
I mentioned earlier in this essay that after the American Independence, two separate groups emerged among the American exceptional elite. One of the were progressives who believed that all men were equal including the Negro slaves of the white population and the other were the traditional libertarians who believed that a white man is superior over the negroes and he certainly has the god-given right to keep them as his slaves.
The clash between these two separate ideas over the issue of slavery ultimately led to the gradual polarization of the whole American political map into two distinct parts; the north which was dominated by the progressives and the abolitionists and the south which consisted of the rich cotton farmers and conservative libertarians.
The main reasons behind the north-south divide could be considered as following:
1. The north was more densely populated and dependent completely upon industry whereas the south was more sparsely populated and dependent completely upon the production of cotton. As a consequence the north did not need slaves as much whereas the south being dependent upon agriculture needed the slaves for farming the precious cotton crop.
2. The northern people were influenced more by progressive minded Christian Churches such as the Quakers and the Methodists. Some of the Quaker leaders had earlier fought legally and constitutionally alongside the Native American Cherokee tribes for their rights. This led to a moderate and progressive and thereby anti-slavery attitude among the northern people. The south was more influenced by more fundamentalist Christian Churches like the southern Baptists who believed that slavery was a curse upon the Negroid people as a continuation of the Biblical concept of “curse of Ham”. The southern Baptists thereby supported slavery by justifying it with Biblical quotes.
3. The people in the southern states of the USA tend to be generally more conservative and traditionalist in nature. Alike their Puritan ancestors they generally tend to be more suspicious towards central government authority and they are particularly hateful towards the taxes. In the 1820-s and 1830-s the central government in Washington enacted a set of tariffs which were very unpopular among the free-natured southerners. They resented the Washington-based US central government. The whole US freedom movement against the British was based upon resentment upon the tariffs imposed by the British monarchy. Now the southern hatred of taxes and the central government found a new enemy, the Washington-based central government.
4. The founders of the US constitution did not have any clear understanding of the coming great division on the issue of slavery. In fact some of the famous founding fathers of the USA like the first three US presidents i.e. George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson all owned slaves. These founding fathers did not build any constructive constitutional mechanism to resolve the issue of slavery. They left it to individual American states to decide the issue of slavery among themselves. The southern states thought it useful to continue slavery whereas some of the northern states who thought slavery was a morally corrupt and regressive idea, banned it. So there was a great division among the individual states of the American state on the issues of slavery.
5. The fierce and proud libertarians in the south considered any law opposing slavery, passed by the government in Washington D.C. as a grave intervention in the rights of individual states by the central government. They were always eager to secede from the American Union each time any new anti-slavery legislation was passed by the federal government in Washington.
Added to this was the Zeal showed by some in the abolitionist movement like John Brown who sacrificed his life to free slaves in Kansas. The pro-slave media considered people like John Brown as terrorists. Writer Benjamin F. Stringfellow of the southern newspaper Squatter Sovereign proclaimed that pro-slavery forces "are determined to repel this Northern invasion and make Kansas a Slave State; though our rivers should be covered with the blood of their victims and the carcasses of the Abolitionists should be so numerous in the territory as to breed disease and sickness, we will not be deterred from our purpose."
These southern denunciations did not deter abolitionist movement’s premiere volunteers like Frederic Douglas or Harriet Beecher Stowe. They kept pushing for emancipation of all slaves in the USA and the banning of slavery as a practice in the USA.
Among their opponents in the pro-slavery camp stood men like the famous South Carolina Politician James Henry Hammond or the famous lawyer William Harper who believed that non-whites should do the menial jobs so that the Whites can make progress in civilization. They also supported slavery based upon a belief that a paternalistic slave-owner takes care of his slaves in their old age, thereby helping the slaves. They also believed that slavery protects the slaves in south from northern industrial exploitation.
Ultimately the two camps came to a final showdown when Abraham Lincoln was elected the president of the Unites States in 1860. Immediately the American state of South Carolina declared independence from the American Union. In the following year Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Texas followed suit. They were later followed by Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina. The secessionist states came together to form “the Confederate states of America”.
President Abraham Lincoln had no option but to call in the American army to bring the rebellious states back to the fold. It was clear that the prior motivation behind the southern states to secede was their feeling of racial superiority. This was clearly mentioned in the following excerpt of the Cornerstone speech by Alexander H. Stephens, the vice president of the Confederate states.
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”
The white supremacist attitude mentioned in the above speech is clear. It will be interesting to note that not even Abraham Lincoln was a believer that the Negro and the white are equal men. Indeed he maintained throughout the civil war that his most pressing concern was preserving the unity of the union and not abolishing the slavery.
So we can see that the American civil war was indeed a war between the two different ideas of American Exceptionalism. Ultimately, for the betterment of the United States of America and the rest of humanity, the progressives won. Emancipation for the slaves throughout the United States was declared on 1862 by President Lincoln.
But the plight of the Negroes did not end even though slavery had ended. Indeed the belief that Negroes were not the equal to their white counterparts, had already taken deep root among the people both in the south as well as in the north. The deep distaste of the Whites towards the blacks was institutionalized through many different laws in the southern states whose main aim was to keep the black and white populations, separate. Though the south could not keep the Negro slaves but they could still prevent the Negroes from being equal citizens, by law. The post-Lincoln central governments in the Washington did not want to further take on the southern states for fear of igniting another civil war.
The discriminatory laws against the blacks would continue to reign until the Civil rights movement, a century later.
Meanwhile the American exceptionalism through it’s ideas of “Monroe doctrine” and “Manifest Destiny” had taken it’s first steps towards the next level of American exceptionalism; the American Empire.
In my next essay I would discuss how American exceptionalism influenced American psyche from the end of the American civil war to the beginning of the First world war.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Sunday, April 18, 2010
A brief reconstruction of American Exceptionalism-Part 1
“The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one.”
Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy in America “
Individual human beings have always tended to consider themselves unique or exceptional in their own way from other individual. I might tend to think that I can play cricket better than some other boy in the street and that boy may tend to think that he can write love poems better than me. These are all small feelings of uniqueness or Exceptionalism that we as human beings tend to think about each other. This feeling is as normal as any other human emotion such as love, hate, fear, shame, pride or fear. It is normal for us human beings to feel in this way since we can think for ourselves unlike other animals those cannot.
Like individuals, nations also do tend to think that they are unique or exceptional than others. This has been true in particular for all the major nations who had created vast empires for themselves. The Greeks used to think themselves as the only civilized men and the rest as barbarians. The Jews call themselves as the “Chosen People” and the rest as Gentile or Goyim. The Romans called their empire “Pax Romana” and they also thought the German tribes as “barbarians”. The British used to think that sun will never set on their empire.
But what happens when every aspect of a nation’s culture, politics, social norms, commerce and foreign policy is based upon the sense of exceptionalism? This is exactly the case with the most powerful nation in the late 20-th and early 21-st century i.e. United States of America.
I will try to discuss in a series of writings how the sense of exceptionalism has been the most potent issue which has effectively influenced the policies (both domestic and foreign) of the USA from her birth to the very present day.
I will focus in this particular essay how American Exceptionalism shaped America from the early puritan settlements until American declaration of independence.
Let us go to the beginning. What today most of us call the United States of America(USA) was formed largely by a group of English-speaking , fundamentalist Christians whom we now a days call “Puritans”. This was a people who had strong sense of what they considered “good and evil”, these people used to have complete blind faith in Christian doctrines and did not use reason or rational thinking to understand Christian scripture.
These puritans were driven by two other characteristics,
1. A militant resistance towards progressive thinking and change.
2. A great sense of fear and hatred towards anyone whom the puritans considered “non-believer” towards their beliefs.
3. A great belief that they are the “Chosen people of God” and the US is the new land of Israel. The belief signifies that the importance of the US is to the Puritans is same as the importance of Israel to the ancient Israelites.
4. Invoking of divine providence in all the works of daily life. This explains Puritan justification of colonization of Native American lands on biblical grounds since Joshua also colonized the Palestinian lands in the Old Testament.
5. A belief that the USA is the only hope for salvation for an immoral humanity and the USA has a god-given mandate to convert the whole of humanity according to her values and ideas. This concept is also called “manifest destiny”.
6. A sense of superiority of the American nation, American values and American way of life over all the other nations.
I will now try to give examples from the past as well as that of the modern times to emphasize how the above mentioned behavior have influenced American policies in both home and abroad and how it may continue to effect them in future.
Let’s start from the beginning. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts colony, was the first of the American leaders to propagate some ideas akin towards modern American exceptionalism when he gave the famous “city on a hill” sermon to the people of the Massachusetts colony in 1630. In this he was the first to start the tradition of thinking that the USA has been chosen by divine providence for great things in the world.
Things started to move gradually from there. As the English colonialization started to take effect, the Native Americans who have been living in the Americas for centuries before the coming of European colonists , slowly but surely started to feel the heat.
The new arriving English settlers first started to encroach upon the land of the natives then they started to convert the natives into their different versions of Christianity and after that it was followed by Europeans spreading diseases that would kill the natives by hundreds of thousands. If the native Indians tried to fought back they will be silenced in strong military actions perpetrated by their English overlords. The native survivors of these wars were always sold as slaves.
The colonists justified their actions by explaining that God has given them the Native American land as a chosen people.
On May 26, 1637, the English Captain John Mason burnt down the village of Misistuck (present day Mystic) killing all but 7 of the 700 inhabitants of the village, mostly old men, women and children. This event is called “Mystic massacre”. In the aftermath of the massacre Captain Mason had the following to say about the whole thing: “the attack against the Pequot was the act of a God who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to scorn making [the Pequot] as a fiery Oven . . . Thus did the Lord Judge among the Heathen, filling [Mystic] with dead Bodies.”
The Puritan colonists had the following to say after the destruction and extermination of the Pequot Indians in 1637.
“Let the whole Earth be filled with his Glory! Thus the LORD was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts and to give us their Land for an Inheritance”.
Although one must admit that the English puritan colonists were not the first to commit these sorts of massacres upon the Native Americans. Long back Christopher Columbus had the following to say upon seeing the Tarawa Indians of the Bahamas,
“They would make fine servants. With fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever we want.”
do whatever we want".
The mystic massacre was by no means the end of the plight for the Native Americans. In 1644, At New Amsterdam (present day New York), John Underhill, an English mercenary and a veteran of the Pequot war, hired by the Dutch, repeated the “Mystic massacre” strategy of burning a sleeping village, killing about 500 Indian people.
While analyzing these above atrocities committed against the native Indians we can find some common points among them.
1. Rapid colonization and expropriation of Native American lands.
2. The justification of this colonization with divine and other supernatural reasons.
3. The de-humanization of the Native Americans by the colonists which ensures that the Native Americans are treated no better than the animals which can be sacrificed at the alter of new-born American exceptionalism.
The oppression of the Native Americans by the English settlers can be considered one of two greatest ironical tragedies of History when an oppressed people go on to become oppressors themselves. The puritans were themselves heavily oppressed by the British Monarchy for Puritan beliefs and practices which challenged the traditional Anglican belief system as well as the regal authority. Many of the puritans came to the new world to survive from the persecutions at home. The fact that these people who would ultimately go on to oppress and annihilate the Native Americans is a tragic twisting of history. There is only one precedent in history for this scenario where the oppressed become oppressors themselves. The Jews who were brutalized and massacred through the Holocaust went on to create the state of Israel by displacing and oppressing the Palestinians.
Slavery was a common practice in those days. The Atlantic slave trade was in full swing. The colonists for their rapid colonization of the American lands needed massive proportions of labor to fulfill it’s needs for industrial and agricultural expansion. Slaves from Africa were going to be used to fulfill those labor shortages.
From this point onwards in History the colonial intellectual elite started thinking in terms of a new philosophical concept “Libertarianism”. The American elite were most impressed by the writings of the English philosopher John Locke. Thomas Jefferson ranked him alongside Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton as three most influential persons in his life.
American exceptionalism also took a new turn from this time. Thomas Paine in his book “a common sense” expressed for the first time that America was not just an extension of Europe but a new land, a country of nearly unlimited potential and opportunity that had outgrown the British mother country. These sentiments laid the intellectual foundations for the Revolutionary concept of American exceptionalism and were closely tied to “Republicanism”, the belief that sovereignty belonged to the people, not to a hereditary ruling class.
The English King had introduced some new tariffs in this time around which also made him unpopular among the new American intellectual elite. Some other decisions by the English monarch was to place foreign mercenaries (i.e. German and Dutch troops) onto American soil for fighting the French in neighboring Canada or cutting deals with some of the Native American tribes to secure the frontiers were very unpopular among most American religious leaders. They used to belief that American land was a gift of the God towards the American colonists. The coming of these foreign troops was to them a pollution of their sacred land. This is reminiscent of Osama Bin Laden’s objection of American troops on Saudi soil.
The mood in these times can be understood from the story “The Gray Champion” by Nathaniel Hawthorne who uses supernatural overtones in this story where an American town is saved from the oppressive rule of its English ruler by a supernatural American patriot.
Some important characteristics of these libertarian Americans at this time were a deep sense of paranoia and a hitherto unseen zeal for action.
All these came to be seen in the events of Boston Tea Party in 1773 when after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor.
Even someone like Benjamin Franklin who at the time of the event was in Europe, trying to negotiate a solution for the issue of high taxes with the British, was overwhelmed by this situation.
All these events culminated in the declaration of American Independence in 1776.
The religious exceptional overtone can be seen very frequently even during the American revolutionary war also.
Benjamin Franklin who was not a very religious man had the following to say about the war in 1787:
“ ... In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: ...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help, America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for 1,000 years.
An independent historian will be surprised to see the amount of religious overtone in the American Revolution when considering that the French revolution which took place within a decade of the American revolution, did not have any explicit religious overtones like the American one. Another irony is that in both the revolutions the intellectual elites of the revolution were followers of the same set of liberal beliefs which were proposed to the world by philosophers like John Locke.
American colonists won their war with the British (with the help of the French) in 1783.
The American constitution was adopted in 1787 and George Washington went on to become the first US president in 1789. The colonists had now become the masters in the land which they had conquered from it’s native inhabitants.
The colonists might had won the war and gained independence from their mother country but the plight of the Native Americans and the African-American slaves were not over.
Although the makers of the American constitution had included very lofty and grandiose goals and ideals like liberty, equality and pursuit of happiness and beliefs like “All men are created equal” but obviously these ideals did not include any provisions for the slaves and the Native Americans.
Indeed the issue of slavery will play an increasingly greater role in the coming years of the American nation.
I will discuss the role of American exceptionalism in the next chapter of this essay where I will cover the time from the American independence till the American civil war.
Alexis de Tocqueville
“Democracy in America “
Individual human beings have always tended to consider themselves unique or exceptional in their own way from other individual. I might tend to think that I can play cricket better than some other boy in the street and that boy may tend to think that he can write love poems better than me. These are all small feelings of uniqueness or Exceptionalism that we as human beings tend to think about each other. This feeling is as normal as any other human emotion such as love, hate, fear, shame, pride or fear. It is normal for us human beings to feel in this way since we can think for ourselves unlike other animals those cannot.
Like individuals, nations also do tend to think that they are unique or exceptional than others. This has been true in particular for all the major nations who had created vast empires for themselves. The Greeks used to think themselves as the only civilized men and the rest as barbarians. The Jews call themselves as the “Chosen People” and the rest as Gentile or Goyim. The Romans called their empire “Pax Romana” and they also thought the German tribes as “barbarians”. The British used to think that sun will never set on their empire.
But what happens when every aspect of a nation’s culture, politics, social norms, commerce and foreign policy is based upon the sense of exceptionalism? This is exactly the case with the most powerful nation in the late 20-th and early 21-st century i.e. United States of America.
I will try to discuss in a series of writings how the sense of exceptionalism has been the most potent issue which has effectively influenced the policies (both domestic and foreign) of the USA from her birth to the very present day.
I will focus in this particular essay how American Exceptionalism shaped America from the early puritan settlements until American declaration of independence.
Let us go to the beginning. What today most of us call the United States of America(USA) was formed largely by a group of English-speaking , fundamentalist Christians whom we now a days call “Puritans”. This was a people who had strong sense of what they considered “good and evil”, these people used to have complete blind faith in Christian doctrines and did not use reason or rational thinking to understand Christian scripture.
These puritans were driven by two other characteristics,
1. A militant resistance towards progressive thinking and change.
2. A great sense of fear and hatred towards anyone whom the puritans considered “non-believer” towards their beliefs.
3. A great belief that they are the “Chosen people of God” and the US is the new land of Israel. The belief signifies that the importance of the US is to the Puritans is same as the importance of Israel to the ancient Israelites.
4. Invoking of divine providence in all the works of daily life. This explains Puritan justification of colonization of Native American lands on biblical grounds since Joshua also colonized the Palestinian lands in the Old Testament.
5. A belief that the USA is the only hope for salvation for an immoral humanity and the USA has a god-given mandate to convert the whole of humanity according to her values and ideas. This concept is also called “manifest destiny”.
6. A sense of superiority of the American nation, American values and American way of life over all the other nations.
I will now try to give examples from the past as well as that of the modern times to emphasize how the above mentioned behavior have influenced American policies in both home and abroad and how it may continue to effect them in future.
Let’s start from the beginning. John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts colony, was the first of the American leaders to propagate some ideas akin towards modern American exceptionalism when he gave the famous “city on a hill” sermon to the people of the Massachusetts colony in 1630. In this he was the first to start the tradition of thinking that the USA has been chosen by divine providence for great things in the world.
Things started to move gradually from there. As the English colonialization started to take effect, the Native Americans who have been living in the Americas for centuries before the coming of European colonists , slowly but surely started to feel the heat.
The new arriving English settlers first started to encroach upon the land of the natives then they started to convert the natives into their different versions of Christianity and after that it was followed by Europeans spreading diseases that would kill the natives by hundreds of thousands. If the native Indians tried to fought back they will be silenced in strong military actions perpetrated by their English overlords. The native survivors of these wars were always sold as slaves.
The colonists justified their actions by explaining that God has given them the Native American land as a chosen people.
On May 26, 1637, the English Captain John Mason burnt down the village of Misistuck (present day Mystic) killing all but 7 of the 700 inhabitants of the village, mostly old men, women and children. This event is called “Mystic massacre”. In the aftermath of the massacre Captain Mason had the following to say about the whole thing: “the attack against the Pequot was the act of a God who laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to scorn making [the Pequot] as a fiery Oven . . . Thus did the Lord Judge among the Heathen, filling [Mystic] with dead Bodies.”
The Puritan colonists had the following to say after the destruction and extermination of the Pequot Indians in 1637.
“Let the whole Earth be filled with his Glory! Thus the LORD was pleased to smite our Enemies in the hinder Parts and to give us their Land for an Inheritance”.
Although one must admit that the English puritan colonists were not the first to commit these sorts of massacres upon the Native Americans. Long back Christopher Columbus had the following to say upon seeing the Tarawa Indians of the Bahamas,
“They would make fine servants. With fifty men we could subjugate them and make them do whatever we want.”
do whatever we want".
The mystic massacre was by no means the end of the plight for the Native Americans. In 1644, At New Amsterdam (present day New York), John Underhill, an English mercenary and a veteran of the Pequot war, hired by the Dutch, repeated the “Mystic massacre” strategy of burning a sleeping village, killing about 500 Indian people.
While analyzing these above atrocities committed against the native Indians we can find some common points among them.
1. Rapid colonization and expropriation of Native American lands.
2. The justification of this colonization with divine and other supernatural reasons.
3. The de-humanization of the Native Americans by the colonists which ensures that the Native Americans are treated no better than the animals which can be sacrificed at the alter of new-born American exceptionalism.
The oppression of the Native Americans by the English settlers can be considered one of two greatest ironical tragedies of History when an oppressed people go on to become oppressors themselves. The puritans were themselves heavily oppressed by the British Monarchy for Puritan beliefs and practices which challenged the traditional Anglican belief system as well as the regal authority. Many of the puritans came to the new world to survive from the persecutions at home. The fact that these people who would ultimately go on to oppress and annihilate the Native Americans is a tragic twisting of history. There is only one precedent in history for this scenario where the oppressed become oppressors themselves. The Jews who were brutalized and massacred through the Holocaust went on to create the state of Israel by displacing and oppressing the Palestinians.
Slavery was a common practice in those days. The Atlantic slave trade was in full swing. The colonists for their rapid colonization of the American lands needed massive proportions of labor to fulfill it’s needs for industrial and agricultural expansion. Slaves from Africa were going to be used to fulfill those labor shortages.
From this point onwards in History the colonial intellectual elite started thinking in terms of a new philosophical concept “Libertarianism”. The American elite were most impressed by the writings of the English philosopher John Locke. Thomas Jefferson ranked him alongside Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton as three most influential persons in his life.
American exceptionalism also took a new turn from this time. Thomas Paine in his book “a common sense” expressed for the first time that America was not just an extension of Europe but a new land, a country of nearly unlimited potential and opportunity that had outgrown the British mother country. These sentiments laid the intellectual foundations for the Revolutionary concept of American exceptionalism and were closely tied to “Republicanism”, the belief that sovereignty belonged to the people, not to a hereditary ruling class.
The English King had introduced some new tariffs in this time around which also made him unpopular among the new American intellectual elite. Some other decisions by the English monarch was to place foreign mercenaries (i.e. German and Dutch troops) onto American soil for fighting the French in neighboring Canada or cutting deals with some of the Native American tribes to secure the frontiers were very unpopular among most American religious leaders. They used to belief that American land was a gift of the God towards the American colonists. The coming of these foreign troops was to them a pollution of their sacred land. This is reminiscent of Osama Bin Laden’s objection of American troops on Saudi soil.
The mood in these times can be understood from the story “The Gray Champion” by Nathaniel Hawthorne who uses supernatural overtones in this story where an American town is saved from the oppressive rule of its English ruler by a supernatural American patriot.
Some important characteristics of these libertarian Americans at this time were a deep sense of paranoia and a hitherto unseen zeal for action.
All these came to be seen in the events of Boston Tea Party in 1773 when after officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed tea to Britain, a group of colonists boarded the ships and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor.
Even someone like Benjamin Franklin who at the time of the event was in Europe, trying to negotiate a solution for the issue of high taxes with the British, was overwhelmed by this situation.
All these events culminated in the declaration of American Independence in 1776.
The religious exceptional overtone can be seen very frequently even during the American revolutionary war also.
Benjamin Franklin who was not a very religious man had the following to say about the war in 1787:
“ ... In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. -- Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of superintending providence in our favor. ... And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance. I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: ...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”
The Revolution strengthened millennialist strains in American theology. At the beginning of the war some ministers were persuaded that, with God's help, America might become "the principal Seat of the glorious Kingdom which Christ shall erect upon Earth in the latter Days." Victory over the British was taken as a sign of God's partiality for America and stimulated an outpouring of millennialist expectations--the conviction that Christ would rule on earth for 1,000 years.
An independent historian will be surprised to see the amount of religious overtone in the American Revolution when considering that the French revolution which took place within a decade of the American revolution, did not have any explicit religious overtones like the American one. Another irony is that in both the revolutions the intellectual elites of the revolution were followers of the same set of liberal beliefs which were proposed to the world by philosophers like John Locke.
American colonists won their war with the British (with the help of the French) in 1783.
The American constitution was adopted in 1787 and George Washington went on to become the first US president in 1789. The colonists had now become the masters in the land which they had conquered from it’s native inhabitants.
The colonists might had won the war and gained independence from their mother country but the plight of the Native Americans and the African-American slaves were not over.
Although the makers of the American constitution had included very lofty and grandiose goals and ideals like liberty, equality and pursuit of happiness and beliefs like “All men are created equal” but obviously these ideals did not include any provisions for the slaves and the Native Americans.
Indeed the issue of slavery will play an increasingly greater role in the coming years of the American nation.
I will discuss the role of American exceptionalism in the next chapter of this essay where I will cover the time from the American independence till the American civil war.
Asymmetric Warfare and it's effects on the nation state
The end of 20-th Century saw a meteoric rise of a special kind of political actors in the global stage. These political actors can not be categorized under the traditional western term of “nation state”. These political actors themselves can not be categorized into a single category. Some of them call themselves “revolutionaries” e.g. the Maoists in Nepal or the FARC in Columbia, some of them call themselves Mujahids or “holy warriors” like Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba etc , some of them call themselves “national freedom fighters” like Hamas in Palestine , Hezbollah in Lebanon , ETA in Spain or the Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria. Although all of these groups have different set of goals and all of them adopt different methods to achieve their goals but they have one thing in common. All of them pose a significant challenge to the existing global order and the existing political system of “nation state” in particular. We will discuss the reasons behind the birth of these groups and will also try to analyze and understand what could be the effect of these groups on 21-st century global politics. Although it is very difficult to categorize so diverse set of groups in a single name, I will call them “non state actors” for the benefit of the readers throughout this essay.
Goals and tactics of the non-state actors
------------------------------------------------
Now let us have a look at the goals of some of these non-state actors.
Maoists in Nepal have long fought for the abolition of the monarchy , authoritarian big landlords and what they perceive as colonial Indian interference in that country and replacing the prevailing system there with what they call a “People’s republic”. Similarly the FARC in Columbia has been fighting the Columbian government for quite sometime for replacing it with a government which they say will look after the rights of the peasants , workers and indigenous people in that country.
Groups like the Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba consider the existing pro-western governments in the Muslim world as apostates and they want to destroy these regimes and bring Islamic Jurisprudence rule or Sharia in the Muslim World. Some of them like Al-Qaeda want to go further and seek the overthrowal of the western governments and replacing them with states ruled under Islamic law.
The groups like Hamas, Hezbollah wants to end Israeli occupation from all parts of the Middle East. Apart from that Hamas wants to overthrow the existing rule of Palestinian authority in the West Bank and replace it with a state ruled by Islamic law. Hezbollah wants to ensure a gradual and peaceful end in Lebanon’s parliamentary voting system, a legacy for French colonial rule in Lebanon and replace it with a one-man, one-vote parliamentary system.
Other groups such as ETA in Spain have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Basque people in southern Spain against what they call “colonial Spanish rule”. Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria wants to ensure an enhanced share for the local Niger delta people in the profits that come from Nigel Delta oil and gas.
So if we analyze the goals of these different non-state actors we can see a common trend.
All of these non-state actors seek to overthrow the existing order in which they operate and they also seek to replace it with something they believe will be better than the existing ones in which they operate.
Now if we analyze the background to these non-state actors we can see some other commonalities among them. In the case of Maoists or the Farc we can see that these movements came about as a result of authoritarian, oppressive regimes which have been backed by outside powers. For example the Monarchy and the various political parties like the Nepali congress and the Communist Party of Nepal have been backed by India.
In Columbia the United States of America (USA) backed the various right-wing dictatorships which ruled Columbia for much of the 20-th Century.
So in both these countries, a group of progressive minded people gradually took up arms against these regimes which they considered unjust and puppets used by foreign puppet masters.
These progressive minded people are the ones who have become the Maoists in Nepal as well as the FARC in Columbia.
Al-Qaeda has a different background to it. The concept of nation state has been a colonial legacy in much of modern Muslim world. Most of the modern Muslim majority states were created by the Western imperialists to further their political interests. Their goal was to create small states which are easier to control. These western powers for their benefit created a ruling class in these newly formed countries which continue to rule the people in these countries in a way alike their colonial masters. Access to modern technology as well as access the modern education has ensured that a lot of affluent people in the Muslim world are aware of their problems. They blame both their oppressive ruling elite as well as the West for their plight. Some of these people like Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri went on to form groups like the Al-Qaeda. Ironically the USA used many of these people for it’s war on the Soviets in Afghanistan for quite considerable amount of time.
Hamas and Hezbollah were groups which came as a result of Israeli military policies in the nations of Palestine and Lebanon. Hamas was created in the late 1980-s as a response to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the six-day war in 1967. Hezbollah was created by the Shiites in Lebanon after the Israeli military invasion of that country in 1982 which was called “Operation Peace Galilee”. Both these groups started as Muslims resisting the brutal occupation of their countries. Apart from that both these two groups also wanted to reform their own societies in an Islamic way.
If we look at the use of tactics these groups have tried, we can see a common pattern. The Maoists in Nepal and the Farc in Columbia have tried to use guerrilla warfare based from the remote parts in their country. They have used the remoteness of their terrain to useful advantage like hiding from the more powerful government troops and ambushing them certainly whenever an opportunity arises. This tactics has given some successes to both the parties. The Maoists managed to control the countryside in Nepal and were able to build a virtual parallel administration in those areas. When it came to the negotiating table after the fall of the monarchy in 2006, it negotiated fro ma position of strength.
Although the Farc has faced a string of military setbacks in the more recent times but still it deserves the credit for holding up against the US-backed mighty Columbian government for quite a long amount of time.
The Al-Qaeda has taken the concept of asymmetric warfare into a completely different level. The Nepali Maoists have most of the times directed their attacks on the government structures like police stations or what they perceive corrupt capitalist outposts like soft drink manufacturing plants. They have seldom attacked the civilian population since they consider that they are the ones fighting on behalf the civilians. Al-Qaeda, on the contrary has used the technique of suicide bombings particularly on civilian targets and especially with a rather blunt and indiscriminate way.
Al-Qaeda has always looked to terrorize and sow the seeds of fear and despair among the populations it is working in. Whether it is in the US on 9/11 or whether it is in Pakistan or Iraq they have always been very eager to use suicide bombing as a tool. Their objective is to create a sense of despair and panic among the civilian population as well as proving to the civilian population that their governments are impotent to protect them. They believe this will lead to the downfall of the pro-US Arab regimes.
Another key difference between the Al-Qaeda and the Nepali Maoists is the difference in the kind of cadres these two groups are having with. The Maoist leadership as well as general cadre generally comes from the rural, peasant classes of Nepal. To these people rebelling against a government which is tyrannical is sometimes the only choice to do something meaningful in life.
In the case of Al-Qaeda, most of it’s leadership as well as individual cadres come from well-to-do upper or middle class families. The people like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadhan, John Walker Lindh or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had proper skills as well as educational qualification to fit into a decent job and start a family of their own. But still they decided to choose the path of what they consider holy war because they did not like living like they have been doing in the early years of their lives. They can be categorized under the category of men who are never happy with what is happening all around him and wants to do something to change the world that he lives in.
However Al-Qaeda’s tactics of rampant suicide bombings has not endeared it to the global Muslim population. It is true that most Muslims do sympathize with Al-Qaeda’s ultimate aims like toppling the pro-US brutal dictatorships in the Muslim world as well as ensuring the end of all hegemonic American influence on the Muslim world. However they do disagree with the tactics of killing innocent civilians in such a huge number and in such a heartless and cruel manner.
Hamas and Hezbollah have taken a more traditional approach in fighting the forces of Israeli defense forces. Initially both the groups used suicide bombings but later they decided to create effective militias which are able to fight conventional battles. As a result since 2006, Hamas have not performed any suicide operations inside Israel. But it has tried to effectively create an organized military force instead. It has met some success in the process. The military wing of Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) successfully ousted the rival US and Israel backed Fatah militias from Gaza in 2006 as well as managing to survive against all the might of the Israeli Defense forces in 2006 as well as in 2008.
Hezbollah switched to conventional guerilla warfare well in the late 1980-s. It’s militia successfully managed to liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli defense forces as well as the Israeli-backed Southern Lebanese Army militia in the 2002. Hezbollah successfully managed to survive 34-days of Israeli assault on itself thus becoming the first ever Arab army not to lose a battle against the Israeli defense forces since the 1967 war.
Hezbollah also maintains a well-organized social welfare network in the Shiite dominated areas of Lebanon. Immediately after the devastation of the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah went into reconstructing the destroyed parts of Lebanon with a zeal which is similar to what they showed during the war. This has created a strong support base for Hezbollah in Lebanon which not many leaders in the Arab world can think about.
Effects of the “non-state” actors on modern nation state
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If we have a look at all these non-state actors we will see that all of them have a common theme about them. That is all of them want to uproot the nation state structure in which they operate but not all of them use the same sort of methods to achieve their goals. The performance of these different groups indicate that the success in achieving to bring down the nation state concept will vary depending of the tactics used by the respective non-state actor. For example Hezbollah has established very strong foundations in Lebanon thanks to their good work during both the war as well as peacetime. Hezbollah also has made a point to bring together a political consensus among all the different religious and sectarian factions in Lebanon so to bring up a unified Lebanon. As a result of all these good deeds, Hezbollah is well on it’s way to replace the old French-created divisive and sectarian Lebanese state with a new more unified and less sectarian and democratic state.
Al-Qaeda on the other hand due to it’s extreme brutal and indiscriminate killings has alienated large majority of people in key Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. Although it has been able to win many converts from a wide section of population from all over the world but still it has failed to appeal beyond the middle class loners who do tend romanticize about concepts like violence and rebellion.
One thing can easily be understood from the rise of all these non- state actors that the people all over the world are not happy with the traditional nation states. All these nation states particularly in the Muslim world are mostly a product of Western colonialism. Western colonial powers created these states for their political interest. The government in these states is in the hands of a few extremely rich individuals. These elite groups use extremely tyrannical methods to hold on to their possessions. Almost all these corrupt elite are backed by the West. Now when it comes to important issues such as the Israeli blockade in Gaza or the building of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem, these elites normally take a hands-off approach. This leads to a sense of despair and anger among the population in these countries. This causes the rise of non-state actors in the long term.
Although overwhelming population in the Muslim world is against the current system of these nation states but the diverging fortunes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda show us that one needs to take a patient and constructive approach towards the problem of nation states. The people in these states need to think and implement a detailed and well-planed program in not only removing the existing nation states but replacing them with more progressive and more representative states in future. Failure to do the above will only prolong the dysfunctional existing nation states thereby prolonging the agony of a huge amount of people in the world.
Goals and tactics of the non-state actors
------------------------------------------------
Now let us have a look at the goals of some of these non-state actors.
Maoists in Nepal have long fought for the abolition of the monarchy , authoritarian big landlords and what they perceive as colonial Indian interference in that country and replacing the prevailing system there with what they call a “People’s republic”. Similarly the FARC in Columbia has been fighting the Columbian government for quite sometime for replacing it with a government which they say will look after the rights of the peasants , workers and indigenous people in that country.
Groups like the Al-Qaeda, Lashkar-e-toiba consider the existing pro-western governments in the Muslim world as apostates and they want to destroy these regimes and bring Islamic Jurisprudence rule or Sharia in the Muslim World. Some of them like Al-Qaeda want to go further and seek the overthrowal of the western governments and replacing them with states ruled under Islamic law.
The groups like Hamas, Hezbollah wants to end Israeli occupation from all parts of the Middle East. Apart from that Hamas wants to overthrow the existing rule of Palestinian authority in the West Bank and replace it with a state ruled by Islamic law. Hezbollah wants to ensure a gradual and peaceful end in Lebanon’s parliamentary voting system, a legacy for French colonial rule in Lebanon and replace it with a one-man, one-vote parliamentary system.
Other groups such as ETA in Spain have been fighting for a separate homeland for the Basque people in southern Spain against what they call “colonial Spanish rule”. Niger Delta emancipation movement in Nigeria wants to ensure an enhanced share for the local Niger delta people in the profits that come from Nigel Delta oil and gas.
So if we analyze the goals of these different non-state actors we can see a common trend.
All of these non-state actors seek to overthrow the existing order in which they operate and they also seek to replace it with something they believe will be better than the existing ones in which they operate.
Now if we analyze the background to these non-state actors we can see some other commonalities among them. In the case of Maoists or the Farc we can see that these movements came about as a result of authoritarian, oppressive regimes which have been backed by outside powers. For example the Monarchy and the various political parties like the Nepali congress and the Communist Party of Nepal have been backed by India.
In Columbia the United States of America (USA) backed the various right-wing dictatorships which ruled Columbia for much of the 20-th Century.
So in both these countries, a group of progressive minded people gradually took up arms against these regimes which they considered unjust and puppets used by foreign puppet masters.
These progressive minded people are the ones who have become the Maoists in Nepal as well as the FARC in Columbia.
Al-Qaeda has a different background to it. The concept of nation state has been a colonial legacy in much of modern Muslim world. Most of the modern Muslim majority states were created by the Western imperialists to further their political interests. Their goal was to create small states which are easier to control. These western powers for their benefit created a ruling class in these newly formed countries which continue to rule the people in these countries in a way alike their colonial masters. Access to modern technology as well as access the modern education has ensured that a lot of affluent people in the Muslim world are aware of their problems. They blame both their oppressive ruling elite as well as the West for their plight. Some of these people like Osama bin Laden or Ayman Al-Zawahiri went on to form groups like the Al-Qaeda. Ironically the USA used many of these people for it’s war on the Soviets in Afghanistan for quite considerable amount of time.
Hamas and Hezbollah were groups which came as a result of Israeli military policies in the nations of Palestine and Lebanon. Hamas was created in the late 1980-s as a response to Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza following the six-day war in 1967. Hezbollah was created by the Shiites in Lebanon after the Israeli military invasion of that country in 1982 which was called “Operation Peace Galilee”. Both these groups started as Muslims resisting the brutal occupation of their countries. Apart from that both these two groups also wanted to reform their own societies in an Islamic way.
If we look at the use of tactics these groups have tried, we can see a common pattern. The Maoists in Nepal and the Farc in Columbia have tried to use guerrilla warfare based from the remote parts in their country. They have used the remoteness of their terrain to useful advantage like hiding from the more powerful government troops and ambushing them certainly whenever an opportunity arises. This tactics has given some successes to both the parties. The Maoists managed to control the countryside in Nepal and were able to build a virtual parallel administration in those areas. When it came to the negotiating table after the fall of the monarchy in 2006, it negotiated fro ma position of strength.
Although the Farc has faced a string of military setbacks in the more recent times but still it deserves the credit for holding up against the US-backed mighty Columbian government for quite a long amount of time.
The Al-Qaeda has taken the concept of asymmetric warfare into a completely different level. The Nepali Maoists have most of the times directed their attacks on the government structures like police stations or what they perceive corrupt capitalist outposts like soft drink manufacturing plants. They have seldom attacked the civilian population since they consider that they are the ones fighting on behalf the civilians. Al-Qaeda, on the contrary has used the technique of suicide bombings particularly on civilian targets and especially with a rather blunt and indiscriminate way.
Al-Qaeda has always looked to terrorize and sow the seeds of fear and despair among the populations it is working in. Whether it is in the US on 9/11 or whether it is in Pakistan or Iraq they have always been very eager to use suicide bombing as a tool. Their objective is to create a sense of despair and panic among the civilian population as well as proving to the civilian population that their governments are impotent to protect them. They believe this will lead to the downfall of the pro-US Arab regimes.
Another key difference between the Al-Qaeda and the Nepali Maoists is the difference in the kind of cadres these two groups are having with. The Maoist leadership as well as general cadre generally comes from the rural, peasant classes of Nepal. To these people rebelling against a government which is tyrannical is sometimes the only choice to do something meaningful in life.
In the case of Al-Qaeda, most of it’s leadership as well as individual cadres come from well-to-do upper or middle class families. The people like Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Adam Gadhan, John Walker Lindh or Khalid Sheikh Mohammad had proper skills as well as educational qualification to fit into a decent job and start a family of their own. But still they decided to choose the path of what they consider holy war because they did not like living like they have been doing in the early years of their lives. They can be categorized under the category of men who are never happy with what is happening all around him and wants to do something to change the world that he lives in.
However Al-Qaeda’s tactics of rampant suicide bombings has not endeared it to the global Muslim population. It is true that most Muslims do sympathize with Al-Qaeda’s ultimate aims like toppling the pro-US brutal dictatorships in the Muslim world as well as ensuring the end of all hegemonic American influence on the Muslim world. However they do disagree with the tactics of killing innocent civilians in such a huge number and in such a heartless and cruel manner.
Hamas and Hezbollah have taken a more traditional approach in fighting the forces of Israeli defense forces. Initially both the groups used suicide bombings but later they decided to create effective militias which are able to fight conventional battles. As a result since 2006, Hamas have not performed any suicide operations inside Israel. But it has tried to effectively create an organized military force instead. It has met some success in the process. The military wing of Hamas (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades) successfully ousted the rival US and Israel backed Fatah militias from Gaza in 2006 as well as managing to survive against all the might of the Israeli Defense forces in 2006 as well as in 2008.
Hezbollah switched to conventional guerilla warfare well in the late 1980-s. It’s militia successfully managed to liberate South Lebanon from the Israeli defense forces as well as the Israeli-backed Southern Lebanese Army militia in the 2002. Hezbollah successfully managed to survive 34-days of Israeli assault on itself thus becoming the first ever Arab army not to lose a battle against the Israeli defense forces since the 1967 war.
Hezbollah also maintains a well-organized social welfare network in the Shiite dominated areas of Lebanon. Immediately after the devastation of the 2006 war against Israel, Hezbollah went into reconstructing the destroyed parts of Lebanon with a zeal which is similar to what they showed during the war. This has created a strong support base for Hezbollah in Lebanon which not many leaders in the Arab world can think about.
Effects of the “non-state” actors on modern nation state
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If we have a look at all these non-state actors we will see that all of them have a common theme about them. That is all of them want to uproot the nation state structure in which they operate but not all of them use the same sort of methods to achieve their goals. The performance of these different groups indicate that the success in achieving to bring down the nation state concept will vary depending of the tactics used by the respective non-state actor. For example Hezbollah has established very strong foundations in Lebanon thanks to their good work during both the war as well as peacetime. Hezbollah also has made a point to bring together a political consensus among all the different religious and sectarian factions in Lebanon so to bring up a unified Lebanon. As a result of all these good deeds, Hezbollah is well on it’s way to replace the old French-created divisive and sectarian Lebanese state with a new more unified and less sectarian and democratic state.
Al-Qaeda on the other hand due to it’s extreme brutal and indiscriminate killings has alienated large majority of people in key Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan. Although it has been able to win many converts from a wide section of population from all over the world but still it has failed to appeal beyond the middle class loners who do tend romanticize about concepts like violence and rebellion.
One thing can easily be understood from the rise of all these non- state actors that the people all over the world are not happy with the traditional nation states. All these nation states particularly in the Muslim world are mostly a product of Western colonialism. Western colonial powers created these states for their political interest. The government in these states is in the hands of a few extremely rich individuals. These elite groups use extremely tyrannical methods to hold on to their possessions. Almost all these corrupt elite are backed by the West. Now when it comes to important issues such as the Israeli blockade in Gaza or the building of Israeli settlements in Israeli-occupied Jerusalem, these elites normally take a hands-off approach. This leads to a sense of despair and anger among the population in these countries. This causes the rise of non-state actors in the long term.
Although overwhelming population in the Muslim world is against the current system of these nation states but the diverging fortunes of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda show us that one needs to take a patient and constructive approach towards the problem of nation states. The people in these states need to think and implement a detailed and well-planed program in not only removing the existing nation states but replacing them with more progressive and more representative states in future. Failure to do the above will only prolong the dysfunctional existing nation states thereby prolonging the agony of a huge amount of people in the world.
Al - insaan al - kamil
In modern times if anyone wants to know what is the most common name in the world, he or she will probably be astonished to know the answer; “Mohammad”. I would like to state that it is probably impossible to imagine human history without understanding this personality.
I will discuss in this post from a largely historical viewpoint the influences of Prophet Mohammad in human history and how he is relevant to modern human civilization.
Pre-Mohammad era: Jahiliyah - the Arabian “Dark Age”
When we take a look at the pre-Mohammad Arabia, we will see a region lying between two great empires the Byzantine Roman Empire and the Persian Sassanid Empire. Both the Empires saw this land as a backward region and they never tried to conquer it outright but there are occasions in history where both sides tried to create influence in the region through their Arabian clients. There are two things that can be found in a general Arab: Pride and Bravery. The pre-Mohammad Arabs were very fierce in their pride and were never affected by any foreign cultural influence. They were very proud of their language Arabic. Being situated in a harsh, desert climate they always had to look out for water and other essentials of life and this made their lifestyle nomadic in nature. Fights between different Arab tribes for sources of water were commonplace. The fierce pride among Arabs made sure that sometimes even very trivial issues like grazing of camels on a disputed plot could lead to fierce clashes between tribes, which could continue for centuries. In a society like this one there was always a need for warriors thereby boys were always preferred over girls. Some of the Arabs used to dispose off their girl children in a very brutal way. The inter-tribe, inter-clan and sometimes inter-family conflict was the norm. The Arabs although being brave and fierce fighters always were busy fighting themselves.
Arabs did not follow any particular religion as such. They were mainly nature worshippers; they used to worship many idols of different gods and goddesses and almost every tribe used to have their own god or goddess. Some of them had become Christians and some of them had become Jews. Because the Arabs were always pre-occupied with their present condition in preserving themselves in their harsh climates they never gave too much thought on the concepts like philosophical or religious thought, spirituality or afterlife.
As a result of all these discussed causes the Arabs never played any meaningful role in history prior to Mohammad. Both the Roman as well as the Persian Empires always considered them barbaric savages unworthy of contact.
Arabs: From Barbaric Savages to Enlightened Faithfuls
This was the background before Mohammad came. Now if we look at the Arabs just 100 years after the death of Mohammad, we see a completely different picture. Arabs as a people have changed completely from being nomadic tribes to a world conquering Empire. From being idol-worshippers now they have become devout believers in a monotheistic faith whose great, long march in history is still going on. The two empires the Byzantine Roman and the Persian empires that used to look down upon Arabs with contempt are no longer present. Arabs have not only conquered these two empires but they have also successfully brought their faith upon the people of these two empires.
This Arab success was a real first for the world when a completely nomadic and backward people not only achieved comprehensive military victories over two long established and well advanced civilizations but successfully brought their own faith upon the people of these two empires. This was a permanent and long lasting historical achievement for the Arabs. All these happened because of the teachings and leadership of one man: Mohammad.
There are few precedents in History of a socially, economically, culturally backward people conquering more materially advanced civilizations. For example the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire and the Mongols conquered China and much of the Muslim Middle East. The Arab conquest is different from these two examples in the sense that unlike the Germans and Mongols, the Arabs successfully converted the population of the defeated empire into their own faith. In case of the Germans and the Mongols they themselves converted to the faith of the defeated people. For example German tribes converted to Christianity and the Mongols converted to Buddhism and Islam. But the Arabs not only held on to their own faith but also brought new people in their faith. Amazing thing is that even after centuries after the Arab conquest the people in Persia (modern Iran) or Byzantine (modern Turkey) are overwhelmingly Muslims, this is the most enduring legacy of the Arab conquests.
The biggest changes that Prophet Mohammad brought are in the Arab mindset and Arab attitude. Let us discuss these changes that are probably most critical to the creation of historical Arab character. As we have seen before Arabs did not have any specific faith , they used to worship different idols and they did use to spend a lot of their energy in infighting. With the coming of Islam, Prophet Mohammad was successful in uniting almost all Arabs under a single faith which is in political terms even by today’s standards is a significant achievement. Because the Arabs were united under Islam now they could focus their energies in much serious issues.
In pre-Mohammad Arab society, the fate of the socially and economically weak was to be trampled under the boot of the mighty and powerful. Now with the coming of Islamic concepts such as afterlife (Akhirat), Judgment day (Qayamat) the Arabs came to believe that those who oppress the weak in the life will be tremendously punished in hell after death. This made a huge impact on Arabic mindset. The powerful tribal chieftains were forced to treat their subjects with compassion since they believed that if they do not treat their subjects with justice and mercy they could end up being tortured in hell for eternity.
The Islamic institution of Almsgiving (Zakat) came in as a godsend blessing to the weak, poor, sick, needy and especially to the orphans. Zakat was crucial for the survival and upbringing of the orphans in the society as the frequent internal wars among Arabs were creating a steady and ever growing army of untimely orphans in the Arab society. Even before Mohammad there were Arab traditions in giving charity to the poor but the difference between those pre-Mohammad Arab practises and Zakat is that since Zakat is a mandatory religious duty for all Muslims so from now onwards whenever an affluent Arab was doing some charity work for the poor he did not feel that he was doing favours to the needy instead he considered it as if it was his normal day-to-day social duty.
Another important change that came to traditional Arab attitude was to the Arabian identity. Arabs were always used to identify themselves in terms of their tribes and clans and families. Islam created a completely different sort of identity for the Arabs. For a Muslim the highest level of loyalty lies with that of Allah and every other identity is inferior to this identity. From being divided in numerous tribes, the Arabs were brought together into a single community. All the Arabs from different feuding tribes, from different backgrounds and different social positions came together under the banner of Islam. All these people came and worked together since they believed that they were brothers in the same faith and they were worshipping the same true God.
Islam was very simple and easy to understand. Prophet Mohammad talked about a faith where there were no priests, no hierarchies, no special privileges, no castes, no sacrifices, and no lavish ceremonies. In Islam every common man or woman comes directly into a covenant with Allah. There is a direct relationship between Allah and the individual. No intermediatory, no medium and no idols are required in Islam. All the existing tribal loyalties, all false gods, all distortions were swept away by the tide of Islam. Mohammad created a unified community from the people who had not a single common thing among them. Some of Mohammad’s companions included people as different as Bilal the Ethiopian, Solman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman and Abdullah ibn Salam the Jew. Mohammad spoke about creating a unified community of all the Muslims regardless of their background, ethnicity, culture or social status. This concept of such community is called Ummah.
The creation of this community meant that Islam was always getting a large pool of committed people who were ready to sacrifice everything for their faith and belief. It was a great advantage that Muslims held over other non-Muslim Arabian tribes who were still bound by their ancient tribal loyalties. When it came to difficult situations like war and persecution the Muslims always showed much more vigour than their non-
Another important aspect of Islam was in the warfare scenarios of the Arabs. Muslims always thought they were fighting for Allah whenever there was a battle whereas other non-Muslim Arabs fought for their tribal chiefs. This ensured that Muslims were always better disciplined, more united, better organized and more zealous in fighting than their fellow pagan Arab counterparts. Muslims believed that they were going to heaven if they died on the battlefield. This meant whenever fighting they could always fight with that much more vigour, zeal and ferocity. Mohammad himself showed all the inspiring leadership skills during these wars. He always led from the front. He was ready to share the same fate that of his followers. Moreover he was always compassionate towards the defeated enemy who had surrendered. This can be seen when he forgave the whole Meccan leadership (who were his sworn enemies) after he had conquered Mecca. This was a unique experience for the Arabs since they were not used to seeing the victor forgiving the vanquished. Undoubtedly this led to rapid spread of Islam throughout the wider Middle East.
Changing the tide of human history
Till the time of Mohammad the most influential and popular idea in the world was certain Christian concept of Original Sin. This concept used to think that all the human beings are born sinners and they are destined to doom unless they convert to Christianity. The basis of this concept begins with the incident in Bible where Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. This concept draws the conclusion that all the human beings are sinners of the crime committed by Adam and Eve since all the human beings are children of Adam and Eve. A human being can only be cleared from this sin if he/she converts to Christianity.
Mohammad’s idea challenged this concept in a formidable way. Mohammad taught a completely different thing. According to his teachings, there is no original sin. Adam and Eve did commit the crime of eating forbidden fruit and they were equally guilty of it.
(Note: Christian tradition has always blamed Eve more for this sin whereas the Quran says both Adam and Eve are equally guilty) But since both of them repented to Allah Allah forgave their crimes. And so all the newborn babies are innocent and logically in no ways the crimes of a man/woman can transmit to his/her progeny.
Mohammad’s ideas and teaching against Original Sin were so liberating since it completely frees a man/woman from thinking that he/she is a sinner from his/her birth. This was the reason that gradually even the great Christian communities in the Middle East (some of whom dates back from the time of Jesus) embraced Islam, one after another. Mohammad actually wiped the concept of Original Sin out from the innocent mind of humanity.
Prophet Mohammad always presented himself as the last in the line of the biblical prophets. He always taught the core of biblical teachings. He created a great precedent in setting how to do religious discourse or religious debate. He taught that in a religious debate a man must be humble and respectful of his opponent’s faith and he should never condemn/criticise the faith of his opponent. One of the amazing legacies of this idea of Mohammad is that whenever there is a religious debate between Muslim and non-Muslims say Christians, Christians invariably will criticise and condemn the very character of Mohammad whereas the Muslims invariably praise and show respect to the character of Jesus. This is a great legacy that Muslims should be proud of. There is no doubt that this is a direct result of Mohammad showing the way himself in his religious debate with non-Muslims.
The Islam that Mohammad preached is indeed the religion of peace but this peace is not the peace of timid and submissive. Indeed it is very clear from the Prophet’s example that one should do his/her utmost to attain peace but peace is only for the brave, just and righteous. Weak and submissive can neither attain nor maintain peace. You cannot attain peace with your enemy when your enemy is arrogant and bullying while you yourself is weak and begging for mercy. Indeed this is a thing should be learned and followed by today’s people.
Another important teaching of Mohammad was to perform Justice in all conditions in all circumstances. One interesting example is that two men came to Mohammad for Justice, one of them was a Muslim another one was a Jew. Now Mohammad listened to the viewpoint of both of them and decided in the favour of the Jew. The Jew was so astonished that he immediately embraced Islam. Indeed this tells us about how just Mohammad was as a Jurist. One of the prime tasks of any Islamic state is to provide equal justice and rule of law to all of it’s citizens, whatever their backgrounds may be.
If one has to summarize the character of Mohammad one has to say that here was a man who preached those ideas what he deeply believed. Mohammad could easily have led a very comfortable, family life like other wealthy men of his tribe but he did not. He had an idea that he thought would eventually make the way his people live better and he persisted with his ideas throughout his life against all odds. He had to face a lot of problems: his own tribe wanted to kill him, many of his close followers were brutally tortured and murdered, the Jews and Christians whom he thought as “fellow children of Abraham” rejected him because he was an Arab. But in spite of all this he never flinched from what he believed in. Indeed such was his conviction and faith. This is something that any people can and should learn from Mohammad that if one has believed in certain idea he should persist with it and should not desist from it even if the whole world could be up against him.
An idea can survive as long as people can easily identify with it. The most compelling reason of the success of Islam is that it is very easy for one to identify himself with.
If anyone asks a Pakistani or an Iranian or an Egyptian or a Malaysian or a Turk who he most likes and loves, the answer will be “Mohammad”. Indeed this is the most enduring legacy of Mohammad that even after more than 1400 years after his death a great number of people still identify themselves with his ideas, teachings and beliefs. Indeed one has to say that if one wants to know who is the most influential man in history, the answer is: Mohammad.
I will discuss in this post from a largely historical viewpoint the influences of Prophet Mohammad in human history and how he is relevant to modern human civilization.
Pre-Mohammad era: Jahiliyah - the Arabian “Dark Age”
When we take a look at the pre-Mohammad Arabia, we will see a region lying between two great empires the Byzantine Roman Empire and the Persian Sassanid Empire. Both the Empires saw this land as a backward region and they never tried to conquer it outright but there are occasions in history where both sides tried to create influence in the region through their Arabian clients. There are two things that can be found in a general Arab: Pride and Bravery. The pre-Mohammad Arabs were very fierce in their pride and were never affected by any foreign cultural influence. They were very proud of their language Arabic. Being situated in a harsh, desert climate they always had to look out for water and other essentials of life and this made their lifestyle nomadic in nature. Fights between different Arab tribes for sources of water were commonplace. The fierce pride among Arabs made sure that sometimes even very trivial issues like grazing of camels on a disputed plot could lead to fierce clashes between tribes, which could continue for centuries. In a society like this one there was always a need for warriors thereby boys were always preferred over girls. Some of the Arabs used to dispose off their girl children in a very brutal way. The inter-tribe, inter-clan and sometimes inter-family conflict was the norm. The Arabs although being brave and fierce fighters always were busy fighting themselves.
Arabs did not follow any particular religion as such. They were mainly nature worshippers; they used to worship many idols of different gods and goddesses and almost every tribe used to have their own god or goddess. Some of them had become Christians and some of them had become Jews. Because the Arabs were always pre-occupied with their present condition in preserving themselves in their harsh climates they never gave too much thought on the concepts like philosophical or religious thought, spirituality or afterlife.
As a result of all these discussed causes the Arabs never played any meaningful role in history prior to Mohammad. Both the Roman as well as the Persian Empires always considered them barbaric savages unworthy of contact.
Arabs: From Barbaric Savages to Enlightened Faithfuls
This was the background before Mohammad came. Now if we look at the Arabs just 100 years after the death of Mohammad, we see a completely different picture. Arabs as a people have changed completely from being nomadic tribes to a world conquering Empire. From being idol-worshippers now they have become devout believers in a monotheistic faith whose great, long march in history is still going on. The two empires the Byzantine Roman and the Persian empires that used to look down upon Arabs with contempt are no longer present. Arabs have not only conquered these two empires but they have also successfully brought their faith upon the people of these two empires.
This Arab success was a real first for the world when a completely nomadic and backward people not only achieved comprehensive military victories over two long established and well advanced civilizations but successfully brought their own faith upon the people of these two empires. This was a permanent and long lasting historical achievement for the Arabs. All these happened because of the teachings and leadership of one man: Mohammad.
There are few precedents in History of a socially, economically, culturally backward people conquering more materially advanced civilizations. For example the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire and the Mongols conquered China and much of the Muslim Middle East. The Arab conquest is different from these two examples in the sense that unlike the Germans and Mongols, the Arabs successfully converted the population of the defeated empire into their own faith. In case of the Germans and the Mongols they themselves converted to the faith of the defeated people. For example German tribes converted to Christianity and the Mongols converted to Buddhism and Islam. But the Arabs not only held on to their own faith but also brought new people in their faith. Amazing thing is that even after centuries after the Arab conquest the people in Persia (modern Iran) or Byzantine (modern Turkey) are overwhelmingly Muslims, this is the most enduring legacy of the Arab conquests.
The biggest changes that Prophet Mohammad brought are in the Arab mindset and Arab attitude. Let us discuss these changes that are probably most critical to the creation of historical Arab character. As we have seen before Arabs did not have any specific faith , they used to worship different idols and they did use to spend a lot of their energy in infighting. With the coming of Islam, Prophet Mohammad was successful in uniting almost all Arabs under a single faith which is in political terms even by today’s standards is a significant achievement. Because the Arabs were united under Islam now they could focus their energies in much serious issues.
In pre-Mohammad Arab society, the fate of the socially and economically weak was to be trampled under the boot of the mighty and powerful. Now with the coming of Islamic concepts such as afterlife (Akhirat), Judgment day (Qayamat) the Arabs came to believe that those who oppress the weak in the life will be tremendously punished in hell after death. This made a huge impact on Arabic mindset. The powerful tribal chieftains were forced to treat their subjects with compassion since they believed that if they do not treat their subjects with justice and mercy they could end up being tortured in hell for eternity.
The Islamic institution of Almsgiving (Zakat) came in as a godsend blessing to the weak, poor, sick, needy and especially to the orphans. Zakat was crucial for the survival and upbringing of the orphans in the society as the frequent internal wars among Arabs were creating a steady and ever growing army of untimely orphans in the Arab society. Even before Mohammad there were Arab traditions in giving charity to the poor but the difference between those pre-Mohammad Arab practises and Zakat is that since Zakat is a mandatory religious duty for all Muslims so from now onwards whenever an affluent Arab was doing some charity work for the poor he did not feel that he was doing favours to the needy instead he considered it as if it was his normal day-to-day social duty.
Another important change that came to traditional Arab attitude was to the Arabian identity. Arabs were always used to identify themselves in terms of their tribes and clans and families. Islam created a completely different sort of identity for the Arabs. For a Muslim the highest level of loyalty lies with that of Allah and every other identity is inferior to this identity. From being divided in numerous tribes, the Arabs were brought together into a single community. All the Arabs from different feuding tribes, from different backgrounds and different social positions came together under the banner of Islam. All these people came and worked together since they believed that they were brothers in the same faith and they were worshipping the same true God.
Islam was very simple and easy to understand. Prophet Mohammad talked about a faith where there were no priests, no hierarchies, no special privileges, no castes, no sacrifices, and no lavish ceremonies. In Islam every common man or woman comes directly into a covenant with Allah. There is a direct relationship between Allah and the individual. No intermediatory, no medium and no idols are required in Islam. All the existing tribal loyalties, all false gods, all distortions were swept away by the tide of Islam. Mohammad created a unified community from the people who had not a single common thing among them. Some of Mohammad’s companions included people as different as Bilal the Ethiopian, Solman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman and Abdullah ibn Salam the Jew. Mohammad spoke about creating a unified community of all the Muslims regardless of their background, ethnicity, culture or social status. This concept of such community is called Ummah.
The creation of this community meant that Islam was always getting a large pool of committed people who were ready to sacrifice everything for their faith and belief. It was a great advantage that Muslims held over other non-Muslim Arabian tribes who were still bound by their ancient tribal loyalties. When it came to difficult situations like war and persecution the Muslims always showed much more vigour than their non-
Another important aspect of Islam was in the warfare scenarios of the Arabs. Muslims always thought they were fighting for Allah whenever there was a battle whereas other non-Muslim Arabs fought for their tribal chiefs. This ensured that Muslims were always better disciplined, more united, better organized and more zealous in fighting than their fellow pagan Arab counterparts. Muslims believed that they were going to heaven if they died on the battlefield. This meant whenever fighting they could always fight with that much more vigour, zeal and ferocity. Mohammad himself showed all the inspiring leadership skills during these wars. He always led from the front. He was ready to share the same fate that of his followers. Moreover he was always compassionate towards the defeated enemy who had surrendered. This can be seen when he forgave the whole Meccan leadership (who were his sworn enemies) after he had conquered Mecca. This was a unique experience for the Arabs since they were not used to seeing the victor forgiving the vanquished. Undoubtedly this led to rapid spread of Islam throughout the wider Middle East.
Changing the tide of human history
Till the time of Mohammad the most influential and popular idea in the world was certain Christian concept of Original Sin. This concept used to think that all the human beings are born sinners and they are destined to doom unless they convert to Christianity. The basis of this concept begins with the incident in Bible where Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. This concept draws the conclusion that all the human beings are sinners of the crime committed by Adam and Eve since all the human beings are children of Adam and Eve. A human being can only be cleared from this sin if he/she converts to Christianity.
Mohammad’s idea challenged this concept in a formidable way. Mohammad taught a completely different thing. According to his teachings, there is no original sin. Adam and Eve did commit the crime of eating forbidden fruit and they were equally guilty of it.
(Note: Christian tradition has always blamed Eve more for this sin whereas the Quran says both Adam and Eve are equally guilty) But since both of them repented to Allah Allah forgave their crimes. And so all the newborn babies are innocent and logically in no ways the crimes of a man/woman can transmit to his/her progeny.
Mohammad’s ideas and teaching against Original Sin were so liberating since it completely frees a man/woman from thinking that he/she is a sinner from his/her birth. This was the reason that gradually even the great Christian communities in the Middle East (some of whom dates back from the time of Jesus) embraced Islam, one after another. Mohammad actually wiped the concept of Original Sin out from the innocent mind of humanity.
Prophet Mohammad always presented himself as the last in the line of the biblical prophets. He always taught the core of biblical teachings. He created a great precedent in setting how to do religious discourse or religious debate. He taught that in a religious debate a man must be humble and respectful of his opponent’s faith and he should never condemn/criticise the faith of his opponent. One of the amazing legacies of this idea of Mohammad is that whenever there is a religious debate between Muslim and non-Muslims say Christians, Christians invariably will criticise and condemn the very character of Mohammad whereas the Muslims invariably praise and show respect to the character of Jesus. This is a great legacy that Muslims should be proud of. There is no doubt that this is a direct result of Mohammad showing the way himself in his religious debate with non-Muslims.
The Islam that Mohammad preached is indeed the religion of peace but this peace is not the peace of timid and submissive. Indeed it is very clear from the Prophet’s example that one should do his/her utmost to attain peace but peace is only for the brave, just and righteous. Weak and submissive can neither attain nor maintain peace. You cannot attain peace with your enemy when your enemy is arrogant and bullying while you yourself is weak and begging for mercy. Indeed this is a thing should be learned and followed by today’s people.
Another important teaching of Mohammad was to perform Justice in all conditions in all circumstances. One interesting example is that two men came to Mohammad for Justice, one of them was a Muslim another one was a Jew. Now Mohammad listened to the viewpoint of both of them and decided in the favour of the Jew. The Jew was so astonished that he immediately embraced Islam. Indeed this tells us about how just Mohammad was as a Jurist. One of the prime tasks of any Islamic state is to provide equal justice and rule of law to all of it’s citizens, whatever their backgrounds may be.
If one has to summarize the character of Mohammad one has to say that here was a man who preached those ideas what he deeply believed. Mohammad could easily have led a very comfortable, family life like other wealthy men of his tribe but he did not. He had an idea that he thought would eventually make the way his people live better and he persisted with his ideas throughout his life against all odds. He had to face a lot of problems: his own tribe wanted to kill him, many of his close followers were brutally tortured and murdered, the Jews and Christians whom he thought as “fellow children of Abraham” rejected him because he was an Arab. But in spite of all this he never flinched from what he believed in. Indeed such was his conviction and faith. This is something that any people can and should learn from Mohammad that if one has believed in certain idea he should persist with it and should not desist from it even if the whole world could be up against him.
An idea can survive as long as people can easily identify with it. The most compelling reason of the success of Islam is that it is very easy for one to identify himself with.
If anyone asks a Pakistani or an Iranian or an Egyptian or a Malaysian or a Turk who he most likes and loves, the answer will be “Mohammad”. Indeed this is the most enduring legacy of Mohammad that even after more than 1400 years after his death a great number of people still identify themselves with his ideas, teachings and beliefs. Indeed one has to say that if one wants to know who is the most influential man in history, the answer is: Mohammad.
Elephat vs Dragon
In recent months a very disturbing trend can be observed in Indian foreign policy establishment. The whole Indian foreign policy establishment has been buzzing with news about border violations by Chinese troops into Indian territory, the Indian media outlets have been beaming with breaking news of Chinese troops breaking out in territories like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Ladakh. Some Indian commentators have been busy predicting that China will be going to a War with India by 2012.There have been comments from official Indian spokespersons calling for China to show restraint. The Indian Air force Chief recently went as far as saying that China has replaced Pakistan as the number one enemy in the eyes of Indian establishment. In the middle of all this there has been some not so fruitful talks between Indian and Chinese officials about the disputed border areas between the two countries. In short there has been a feeling of antipathy towards China in India that only resembles 1962, the last time when these two countries went to war.
Let us analyze the reasons behind this frenzy about China in India. India and China do have existing boundary disputes between themselves. The region of Tawang, which falls under Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China as a part of it’s Tibetan region while India always considers Tawang it’s own territory. In recent months China has upped the ante on Tawang, it very recently pushed the World Bank in canceling a multi-million dollar loan to India as that loan was to be spent on Arunachal Pradesh by India. China and India are actually holding dialogue with each other without any results on the future of Tawang.
In recent years a section of Indian establishment and elite has certainly become very confident and Zealous about themselves and the future of India. This group believes that India is destined to become a great power in very near future. Recent Indian economic growth and successful nuclear bomb related experiments might have spurred them into this view. This group considers China as a natural competitor to India’s coming greatness hence there is a reason that this group will try to influence the Indian public opinion against China so that it can mobilize Indian popular opinion against what this group believes an ensuing Chinese attack on India.
Some of the leading lights in this group come from both the ruling Indian national congress as well as the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party(also known as BJP). The Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangha which is the parent body of the BJP (also known as the RSS) came up with a list of 10 possible reasons that was preventing India becoming a great nation. Unsurprisingly, China was listed as the number one reason in that list. Indian defense minister at that time, George Fernandez went on to say on the same year that China and not Pakistan was the number one enemy at that time. Immediately after Pokhran nuclear explosions by India then Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrought a letter to then US president Bill Clinton identifying China as the main concern behind the nuclear explosions.
Current Indian Prime Minister Dr. Monmohan Sing has been really aggressive in pushing the nuclear deal between India and the US despite strong parliamentary opposition by the Indian leftist parties against the same nuclear deal. There has been very frequent talk in recent times in both the congress as well as the BJP circles of creating a military alliance involving India, USA and Israel. Undoubtedly any alliance of this sort will see China as the main threat. There has also been talk in certain Indian quarters of encircling China by creating an alliance of pro-US countries like India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. All these examples prove that a certain section in Indian politics has been instrumental in ratcheting up the tension in Indo-China relations.
This above-mentioned section of Indian population considers the United States of America as a natural ally of India and henceforth a partner against China in the Asian geo-politics. This is the same group, which lobbied hard for the recently concluded Indo-US nuclear deal both in India as well as in USA.After the recent election of Barrack Hussain Obama as US president, the current US administration unlike the previous one under George W Bush, has not given India the same attention as it has done to China. This could be one of the ways by the above-mentioned group to bring back US attention towards India This could be another ploy to appeal towards US arms industry for more future Indian purchases of US weapon systems.
Another couple of possible scenarios could be analyzed behind the recent events. US under Obama administration has given more importance in fighting Talliban militants in Afghanistan. To succeed in Afghanistan the US needs the help of Pakistani military and intelligence establishment. That is why it wants the Pakistani military to start fighting more forcefully in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistanis whom consider India as the most serious threat to it’s existence told the Americans that they can not fight with full force against Afghanistan as long as the threat from India remains on it’s eastern border. The US certainly seem to have pushed the Indians towards a diplomatic détente towards Pakistan since it does not want an escalation of tension in the broader south Asian region when it is busy in Afghanistan. Now the modern Indian mindset is based upon two facts one is a sense of superiority over Pakistan and another is a sense of inferiority over China. Our readers will do well to remember that there was a terrible terrorist attack by Pakistani terrorists in the Indian business capital of Mumbai in November 2008 and the entire Indian nation was baying for Pakistani blood.
Now this whole incident took place at the same time around the election of Barrack Obama as US president. So when the Obama administration had pressed on India to maintain peace with Pakistan the Indian government had to divert the attention of it’s citizens who were angry over the inaction of their government regarding Pakistan. Playing the China card is certainly a very good option by the Indian leaders to divert the attention of their public from Pakistan to China.
Whatever reason could be behind this recent anti-China frenzy in India the Indian government must tread carefully when it comes to China. A look at the map of region will ensure that to the readers. India is surrounded by neighbors whom the Chinese can use with effectiveness in case of an all out war. In the western border of India, there is Pakistan which is an all-weather friend of China, on the northern border lies Nepal where in recent times China has gained a lot of influence with it’s alliance with the local Nepali Maoists. On the eastern front China has gained influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar China has been able to gain a foothold even in Sri Lanka. Overall assessment ensures that in the case of warfare Chinese allies may well surround India, which is nothing short of a strategic nightmare for India.
A further look at the international scenario will present bleaker picture for India. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians has been cozying up to China as a bulwark against what it considers US interference in areas of Russian influence. In case of a large-scale War between India and China, Russian support will probably be with China than with it’s cold war ally, India. Support from the United States on which Indian establishment is relying upon, might be not that forthcoming. China owes US billions of dollars in debt and as the biggest lender to the USA, the Chinese has got the leverages over US to ensure it’s complete neutrality in case of an all out War against India.
Another important matter is that in terms of both conventional as well as non- conventional military aspects Chinese Military is far superior to Indian military. In a large-scale war it will be impossible for the Indian military to prevail over the Chinese.
To substantiate this point I am giving the below links:
1. http://www.abytheliberal.com/internationalism/india-vs-china-military-conventional-nuclear
2. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65175.aspx
3. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65122.aspx
Apart from conventional and nuclear forces China has got substantial leverage over India in terms of areas like cyber warfare and space warfare. Chinese hackers have worldwide notoriety in breaking the defense related websites of it’s neighbors. China is also the first nation in Asia to shot down one of it’s own satellites only couple of years ago. In a wide war China could easily exploit these capabilities to neutralize our computer and satellite driven weapons and other systems of mass-communication.
After an overall look at the situation between the two countries, Indian establishment will be well advised to take a very careful approach in it’s border disputes vis-à-vis China. Recent Indian government moves do not aspire much confidence in it’s decision making. Some Indian media sources have been reporting that India has been thinking of parading the Dalai Lama in the Tawang area to give legitimacy to Indian claims on this region. If this news is true then one has to say that this decision is both unwarranted and incorrect.
China has been calling Dalai Lama a secessionist for a long time. Now not only this move will substantiate those claims but the Tibetan people could also consider Dalai as an Indian puppet.
In the conclusion one has to argue that the Indian government will do well to take a balanced and well-thought out approach regarding China. Any mistake on this regard might result in a greater tragedy than 1962.
Let us analyze the reasons behind this frenzy about China in India. India and China do have existing boundary disputes between themselves. The region of Tawang, which falls under Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China as a part of it’s Tibetan region while India always considers Tawang it’s own territory. In recent months China has upped the ante on Tawang, it very recently pushed the World Bank in canceling a multi-million dollar loan to India as that loan was to be spent on Arunachal Pradesh by India. China and India are actually holding dialogue with each other without any results on the future of Tawang.
In recent years a section of Indian establishment and elite has certainly become very confident and Zealous about themselves and the future of India. This group believes that India is destined to become a great power in very near future. Recent Indian economic growth and successful nuclear bomb related experiments might have spurred them into this view. This group considers China as a natural competitor to India’s coming greatness hence there is a reason that this group will try to influence the Indian public opinion against China so that it can mobilize Indian popular opinion against what this group believes an ensuing Chinese attack on India.
Some of the leading lights in this group come from both the ruling Indian national congress as well as the leading opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party(also known as BJP). The Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangha which is the parent body of the BJP (also known as the RSS) came up with a list of 10 possible reasons that was preventing India becoming a great nation. Unsurprisingly, China was listed as the number one reason in that list. Indian defense minister at that time, George Fernandez went on to say on the same year that China and not Pakistan was the number one enemy at that time. Immediately after Pokhran nuclear explosions by India then Indian prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wrought a letter to then US president Bill Clinton identifying China as the main concern behind the nuclear explosions.
Current Indian Prime Minister Dr. Monmohan Sing has been really aggressive in pushing the nuclear deal between India and the US despite strong parliamentary opposition by the Indian leftist parties against the same nuclear deal. There has been very frequent talk in recent times in both the congress as well as the BJP circles of creating a military alliance involving India, USA and Israel. Undoubtedly any alliance of this sort will see China as the main threat. There has also been talk in certain Indian quarters of encircling China by creating an alliance of pro-US countries like India, Australia, Japan, South Korea and Singapore. All these examples prove that a certain section in Indian politics has been instrumental in ratcheting up the tension in Indo-China relations.
This above-mentioned section of Indian population considers the United States of America as a natural ally of India and henceforth a partner against China in the Asian geo-politics. This is the same group, which lobbied hard for the recently concluded Indo-US nuclear deal both in India as well as in USA.After the recent election of Barrack Hussain Obama as US president, the current US administration unlike the previous one under George W Bush, has not given India the same attention as it has done to China. This could be one of the ways by the above-mentioned group to bring back US attention towards India This could be another ploy to appeal towards US arms industry for more future Indian purchases of US weapon systems.
Another couple of possible scenarios could be analyzed behind the recent events. US under Obama administration has given more importance in fighting Talliban militants in Afghanistan. To succeed in Afghanistan the US needs the help of Pakistani military and intelligence establishment. That is why it wants the Pakistani military to start fighting more forcefully in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistanis whom consider India as the most serious threat to it’s existence told the Americans that they can not fight with full force against Afghanistan as long as the threat from India remains on it’s eastern border. The US certainly seem to have pushed the Indians towards a diplomatic détente towards Pakistan since it does not want an escalation of tension in the broader south Asian region when it is busy in Afghanistan. Now the modern Indian mindset is based upon two facts one is a sense of superiority over Pakistan and another is a sense of inferiority over China. Our readers will do well to remember that there was a terrible terrorist attack by Pakistani terrorists in the Indian business capital of Mumbai in November 2008 and the entire Indian nation was baying for Pakistani blood.
Now this whole incident took place at the same time around the election of Barrack Obama as US president. So when the Obama administration had pressed on India to maintain peace with Pakistan the Indian government had to divert the attention of it’s citizens who were angry over the inaction of their government regarding Pakistan. Playing the China card is certainly a very good option by the Indian leaders to divert the attention of their public from Pakistan to China.
Whatever reason could be behind this recent anti-China frenzy in India the Indian government must tread carefully when it comes to China. A look at the map of region will ensure that to the readers. India is surrounded by neighbors whom the Chinese can use with effectiveness in case of an all out war. In the western border of India, there is Pakistan which is an all-weather friend of China, on the northern border lies Nepal where in recent times China has gained a lot of influence with it’s alliance with the local Nepali Maoists. On the eastern front China has gained influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar China has been able to gain a foothold even in Sri Lanka. Overall assessment ensures that in the case of warfare Chinese allies may well surround India, which is nothing short of a strategic nightmare for India.
A further look at the international scenario will present bleaker picture for India. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians has been cozying up to China as a bulwark against what it considers US interference in areas of Russian influence. In case of a large-scale War between India and China, Russian support will probably be with China than with it’s cold war ally, India. Support from the United States on which Indian establishment is relying upon, might be not that forthcoming. China owes US billions of dollars in debt and as the biggest lender to the USA, the Chinese has got the leverages over US to ensure it’s complete neutrality in case of an all out War against India.
Another important matter is that in terms of both conventional as well as non- conventional military aspects Chinese Military is far superior to Indian military. In a large-scale war it will be impossible for the Indian military to prevail over the Chinese.
To substantiate this point I am giving the below links:
1. http://www.abytheliberal.com/internationalism/india-vs-china-military-conventional-nuclear
2. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65175.aspx
3. http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-65122.aspx
Apart from conventional and nuclear forces China has got substantial leverage over India in terms of areas like cyber warfare and space warfare. Chinese hackers have worldwide notoriety in breaking the defense related websites of it’s neighbors. China is also the first nation in Asia to shot down one of it’s own satellites only couple of years ago. In a wide war China could easily exploit these capabilities to neutralize our computer and satellite driven weapons and other systems of mass-communication.
After an overall look at the situation between the two countries, Indian establishment will be well advised to take a very careful approach in it’s border disputes vis-à-vis China. Recent Indian government moves do not aspire much confidence in it’s decision making. Some Indian media sources have been reporting that India has been thinking of parading the Dalai Lama in the Tawang area to give legitimacy to Indian claims on this region. If this news is true then one has to say that this decision is both unwarranted and incorrect.
China has been calling Dalai Lama a secessionist for a long time. Now not only this move will substantiate those claims but the Tibetan people could also consider Dalai as an Indian puppet.
In the conclusion one has to argue that the Indian government will do well to take a balanced and well-thought out approach regarding China. Any mistake on this regard might result in a greater tragedy than 1962.
Looming crisis - Russia-Georgian tentions and it's implications
Historical Background
It has been a year since the war between Georgia and Russia ended with Russian victory and de – facto Russian annexation of Georgian territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There has been an uneasy peace between the two countries with some border skirmishes and periodical hot rhetoric from both sides.
To understand more of the situation we need to get into a little background of the events. Historically Georgia has been subjugated under subsequent foreign empires for a long part of it’s history. Russia was the last of the foreign powers, which conquered Georgia. Paul I, then Czar of Russia, annexed Georgia into Russian empire in 1801.Georgia was a part of the Russian empire until the Russian revolution in 1917.Georgia declared it’s independence following the revolution and civil war in Russia. It maintained it’s independence till 1921 when it came under Soviet Union’s rule. During this time, two sons of Georgia, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili and Lavrenty Beria went onto rule the newly created state Soviet Union. Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili is known to posterity as Stalin. Beria headed the soviet spy agency KGB. Soviet rule continued till 1991 when Georgia declared independence with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Eduard Shevardnadze, the former foreign minister of the Soviet Union became the President of Georgia in 1992. Meanwhile ethnic tensions between Georgia and two of it’s regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia flared up which resulted in the positioning of Russian troops as peacekeepers inside these territories. The Georgians elected a new president, Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004 , following a popular revolution known as the “Rose revolution”. The rift between Georgia and the separatist territories continued to widen with time eventually resulting in an attack by the Georgians against the South Ossetians in July 2008. This resulted in the Russian military involvement in the area.
Russian forces quickly moved in and the Georgians had to retreat form the territories. A ceasefire was eventually declared with the mediation of the European Union and the personal intervention of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, in particular. The terms of truce allowed Russians to maintain their military presence in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian territories. Eventually later in the year 2008 the two breakaway regions, supported by the Kremlin, declared independence from Georgia. As of now an uneasy truce lies between Georgia and Russia, which can anytime burst into another violent conflict.
Underlying Issues
There is a list of underlying issues behind this conflict. First of all we have to acknowledge the historical issue. As we know for much of it’s recent history, Georgia was ruled from Moscow. This came to an end in the early 1990-s following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ever since then Georgia, to maintain and strengthen it’s independence, has tried to move into the Western sphere of influence. It has repeatedly tried to court the west particularly the US. Since becoming the president of Georgia in 2004, Mikhail Saakashvili has tried to court the US and tried to move his country into the western alliance, NATO. Now Russia which has considered Georgia as part of territory under it’s influence, was angered by this. It always wanted to bring back Georgia under it’s influence. Hence the Russian military has maintained it’s presence in the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ever since it forced the Georgians out of these areas in 2008.
Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union was weak and dependent upon the western world for it’s survival. Henceforth it could not defend what it has always considered it rightful interests in the former Soviet ruled areas like Georgia. But ever since Vladimir Putin came to power in Moscow, he has tried to strengthen Russia, both financially as well as militarily. The oil boom helped Russia in this direction. So now Russia is showing a lot of assertiveness in pushing it’s point to the world.
The post-soviet Russia not only wants to be recognized as a great power once again but it also is deeply suspicious and hostile to what it considers Western encroachments in once Russian ruled territories like Georgia. Although Vladimir Putin is no longer the president of Russia, but his policies are continuously being pursued by the new president Dmitri Medvedev without any great change. So we can expect a lot of assertiveness from Russia in defending it’s positions in the once Soviet-ruled territories.
The Western world after the demise of it’s cold war rival, the Soviet Union , considered the threat from the Russians , was over . But only after two decades of the end of cold war it has seen the situation changing completely. Until now the west has increased it’s influences in ex-Soviet republics with impunity. The west particularly the US thought that it’s power, ideas and influence were invincible in this region but ever since the Iraq war it has been facing a new reality.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Russia was the first country in the world to offer it’s support to the US in the “War on Terror”. At that time both countries were enjoying great warmth in their relationship. But everything was changed by the US-led war in Iraq on 2003. With that war the world saw the US as a global bully that was ready to impose it’s worldview upon the rest. Not only the US unilaterally withdrew from bilateral nuclear weapons reduction treaties signed between the US and the Soviet Union but the US also expanded it’s political role in the countries like Georgia. This probably have convinced the Russians that the Americans want to play a hegemonic role in Moscow’s own territory at Moscow’s expanse. From this point onwards we can see the Russians vehemently opposing any policy by the US or the NATO alliance to expand it’s role in countries like Georgia.
Another important issue in the Russia-West equations in the 21-st century is energy. Russia boasts one of the world’s biggest reserves of oil and gas. The west needs these oil and gas from Russia at a cheap price to continue it’s economic well being. Now Georgia is in a very strategic position in this regard. Georgia is situated right in the middle of Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline. This pipeline was intended to bring oil and gas from the energy reach central Asian states to Europe, bypassing Russia. This pipeline is said to have a great significance upon future energy situation in the European Union. So for Moscow to take control of this pipeline means it will control the economic heart of Europe.
Another interesting cause could be the role of the current Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili in flaming tensions with Russia. Ever Since he came into power, the Georgian president has tried to move his country as close as possible towards US. Georgia supported the US in Iraq war with it’s troops and has wholeheartedly supported every US move to increase western role in the eastern Europe. This has created a lot of bad blood between the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili and some top Russian officials. The government controlled Russian media accused Georgia of committing genocide in South Ossetia during last year’s conflict. Vladimir Putin, current prime minister of Russia, in one of his meetings with French president Nicholas Sarkozy, called for Mikhail Saakashvili to be hanged. The relationship between Georgia and Russia will continue to be tense probably as long as Mikhail Saakashvili is in power in Georgia.
What lies in future?
It is a very difficult and dangerous job to successfully predict the future particularly in a volatile region like the Caucasus. Having said that after analysing all the causes of current tension and conflict in the region we can assume the following points
1. Russia will try to assert it’s role much more assertively in the region in near future. Russia is much more confident after gaining a swift victory in last summer’s war and might try to repeat the result. Though one feels Russians will not try to out rightly occupy and control the whole of Georgia since it will receive widespread condemnation from around the world but it may want to fight a small and limited war to topple the government of Mikhail Saakashvili and replace it with a more pliant regime.
2. The West and the European nations in particular will not militarily intervene in this action. The European nations of the NATO alliance do not have enough military resources to defeat a nuclear-armed Russia in a conventional war. Moreover as we have observed previously the energy interests of the European nations will restrict them to take any direct actions against the Russians. The Europeans will probably limit it’s displeasure to verbal condemnations of the Russian actions.
3. The United States of America, particularly the Bush administration, was an avid supporter of the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. Even then when it came to the last summer’s war the Bush administration did not help Georgia militarily.
The current Obama administration is also unlikely to help Georgia in terms of any further military conflict with Russia. The Obama administration is very heavily involved in military operations in Afghanistan and it needs the help of the Russians to win that war. Very recently the Americans made an agreement with the Russians to allow Americans air passage and refuelling facilities in Russian air space for American military operations in Afghanistan. So it is unlikely that the US will come to any aid of it’s Georgian ally in case of a future conflict between Russia and Georgia.
4. Although one cannot predict that when and how a future military conflict will take place between Russia and Georgia but one should not be surprised if such a conflict takes place in very near future. The Russians at the moment seems to be holding all the crucial cards and they are giving the appearance that want to force the issue on Georgia. But if the Russians want to go into the conflict they will choose the timing of that conflict to their advantage. So one has to conclude that for any future conflict to happen between Russia and Georgia, Russia will probably start the conflict at it’s own interest and according to it’s own time and reason.
It has been a year since the war between Georgia and Russia ended with Russian victory and de – facto Russian annexation of Georgian territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There has been an uneasy peace between the two countries with some border skirmishes and periodical hot rhetoric from both sides.
To understand more of the situation we need to get into a little background of the events. Historically Georgia has been subjugated under subsequent foreign empires for a long part of it’s history. Russia was the last of the foreign powers, which conquered Georgia. Paul I, then Czar of Russia, annexed Georgia into Russian empire in 1801.Georgia was a part of the Russian empire until the Russian revolution in 1917.Georgia declared it’s independence following the revolution and civil war in Russia. It maintained it’s independence till 1921 when it came under Soviet Union’s rule. During this time, two sons of Georgia, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili and Lavrenty Beria went onto rule the newly created state Soviet Union. Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili is known to posterity as Stalin. Beria headed the soviet spy agency KGB. Soviet rule continued till 1991 when Georgia declared independence with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Eduard Shevardnadze, the former foreign minister of the Soviet Union became the President of Georgia in 1992. Meanwhile ethnic tensions between Georgia and two of it’s regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia flared up which resulted in the positioning of Russian troops as peacekeepers inside these territories. The Georgians elected a new president, Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004 , following a popular revolution known as the “Rose revolution”. The rift between Georgia and the separatist territories continued to widen with time eventually resulting in an attack by the Georgians against the South Ossetians in July 2008. This resulted in the Russian military involvement in the area.
Russian forces quickly moved in and the Georgians had to retreat form the territories. A ceasefire was eventually declared with the mediation of the European Union and the personal intervention of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, in particular. The terms of truce allowed Russians to maintain their military presence in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian territories. Eventually later in the year 2008 the two breakaway regions, supported by the Kremlin, declared independence from Georgia. As of now an uneasy truce lies between Georgia and Russia, which can anytime burst into another violent conflict.
Underlying Issues
There is a list of underlying issues behind this conflict. First of all we have to acknowledge the historical issue. As we know for much of it’s recent history, Georgia was ruled from Moscow. This came to an end in the early 1990-s following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ever since then Georgia, to maintain and strengthen it’s independence, has tried to move into the Western sphere of influence. It has repeatedly tried to court the west particularly the US. Since becoming the president of Georgia in 2004, Mikhail Saakashvili has tried to court the US and tried to move his country into the western alliance, NATO. Now Russia which has considered Georgia as part of territory under it’s influence, was angered by this. It always wanted to bring back Georgia under it’s influence. Hence the Russian military has maintained it’s presence in the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ever since it forced the Georgians out of these areas in 2008.
Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union was weak and dependent upon the western world for it’s survival. Henceforth it could not defend what it has always considered it rightful interests in the former Soviet ruled areas like Georgia. But ever since Vladimir Putin came to power in Moscow, he has tried to strengthen Russia, both financially as well as militarily. The oil boom helped Russia in this direction. So now Russia is showing a lot of assertiveness in pushing it’s point to the world.
The post-soviet Russia not only wants to be recognized as a great power once again but it also is deeply suspicious and hostile to what it considers Western encroachments in once Russian ruled territories like Georgia. Although Vladimir Putin is no longer the president of Russia, but his policies are continuously being pursued by the new president Dmitri Medvedev without any great change. So we can expect a lot of assertiveness from Russia in defending it’s positions in the once Soviet-ruled territories.
The Western world after the demise of it’s cold war rival, the Soviet Union , considered the threat from the Russians , was over . But only after two decades of the end of cold war it has seen the situation changing completely. Until now the west has increased it’s influences in ex-Soviet republics with impunity. The west particularly the US thought that it’s power, ideas and influence were invincible in this region but ever since the Iraq war it has been facing a new reality.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Russia was the first country in the world to offer it’s support to the US in the “War on Terror”. At that time both countries were enjoying great warmth in their relationship. But everything was changed by the US-led war in Iraq on 2003. With that war the world saw the US as a global bully that was ready to impose it’s worldview upon the rest. Not only the US unilaterally withdrew from bilateral nuclear weapons reduction treaties signed between the US and the Soviet Union but the US also expanded it’s political role in the countries like Georgia. This probably have convinced the Russians that the Americans want to play a hegemonic role in Moscow’s own territory at Moscow’s expanse. From this point onwards we can see the Russians vehemently opposing any policy by the US or the NATO alliance to expand it’s role in countries like Georgia.
Another important issue in the Russia-West equations in the 21-st century is energy. Russia boasts one of the world’s biggest reserves of oil and gas. The west needs these oil and gas from Russia at a cheap price to continue it’s economic well being. Now Georgia is in a very strategic position in this regard. Georgia is situated right in the middle of Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline. This pipeline was intended to bring oil and gas from the energy reach central Asian states to Europe, bypassing Russia. This pipeline is said to have a great significance upon future energy situation in the European Union. So for Moscow to take control of this pipeline means it will control the economic heart of Europe.
Another interesting cause could be the role of the current Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili in flaming tensions with Russia. Ever Since he came into power, the Georgian president has tried to move his country as close as possible towards US. Georgia supported the US in Iraq war with it’s troops and has wholeheartedly supported every US move to increase western role in the eastern Europe. This has created a lot of bad blood between the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili and some top Russian officials. The government controlled Russian media accused Georgia of committing genocide in South Ossetia during last year’s conflict. Vladimir Putin, current prime minister of Russia, in one of his meetings with French president Nicholas Sarkozy, called for Mikhail Saakashvili to be hanged. The relationship between Georgia and Russia will continue to be tense probably as long as Mikhail Saakashvili is in power in Georgia.
What lies in future?
It is a very difficult and dangerous job to successfully predict the future particularly in a volatile region like the Caucasus. Having said that after analysing all the causes of current tension and conflict in the region we can assume the following points
1. Russia will try to assert it’s role much more assertively in the region in near future. Russia is much more confident after gaining a swift victory in last summer’s war and might try to repeat the result. Though one feels Russians will not try to out rightly occupy and control the whole of Georgia since it will receive widespread condemnation from around the world but it may want to fight a small and limited war to topple the government of Mikhail Saakashvili and replace it with a more pliant regime.
2. The West and the European nations in particular will not militarily intervene in this action. The European nations of the NATO alliance do not have enough military resources to defeat a nuclear-armed Russia in a conventional war. Moreover as we have observed previously the energy interests of the European nations will restrict them to take any direct actions against the Russians. The Europeans will probably limit it’s displeasure to verbal condemnations of the Russian actions.
3. The United States of America, particularly the Bush administration, was an avid supporter of the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. Even then when it came to the last summer’s war the Bush administration did not help Georgia militarily.
The current Obama administration is also unlikely to help Georgia in terms of any further military conflict with Russia. The Obama administration is very heavily involved in military operations in Afghanistan and it needs the help of the Russians to win that war. Very recently the Americans made an agreement with the Russians to allow Americans air passage and refuelling facilities in Russian air space for American military operations in Afghanistan. So it is unlikely that the US will come to any aid of it’s Georgian ally in case of a future conflict between Russia and Georgia.
4. Although one cannot predict that when and how a future military conflict will take place between Russia and Georgia but one should not be surprised if such a conflict takes place in very near future. The Russians at the moment seems to be holding all the crucial cards and they are giving the appearance that want to force the issue on Georgia. But if the Russians want to go into the conflict they will choose the timing of that conflict to their advantage. So one has to conclude that for any future conflict to happen between Russia and Georgia, Russia will probably start the conflict at it’s own interest and according to it’s own time and reason.
Contemplations on the Islamic Republic
Background to the revolution
One such example of above mentioned struggle took place in 1979. This is the year when the Iranian nation for the first time in three millenniums decided to end the monarchical rule and govern them as a republic. The pahlavi dynasty, which ruled
The last pahlavi ruler Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was an autocrat in nature, he came to the throne first in the year of 1941, when the Anglo-American invasion of
Although he was under the protection of the British and the Americans, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi’s rule was never unchallenged. The biggest challenge to his rule came in 1953. Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was
At that time, Iran’s oil industry was under the command of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which was Britain’s greatest foreign investment venture at the time, which in the later years went on to become the famous brand “BP” or “British Petroleum”), which used to receive the lion’s share of the profits, thereby discriminating against Iranian interests. British were angry on Mossaddeq on this issue and they decided to depose him in a military coup. The British enlisted the help of the Americans in this regard. At first, President Harry. S. Truman was opposed to be involved in a foreign coup but the next president Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower gave the green signal to the operation. This was going to be the first involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a foreign “regime change”. The whole operation was codenamed “Operation Ajax”. This operation deposed Mosaddeq and condemned him to a lifelong house arrest and installing Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi as the ultimate authority or absolute monarchical ruler of
After 1953, the Shah went on to create a strong totalitarian state, ruled with an iron fist. His secret police the SAVAC tortured, harassed, and eliminated anyone who was thought to be in opposition to Shah’s absolute rule. Shah also made many reforms in what he called “White Revolution” towards modernizing
Causes behind the revolution
There were many causes behind the revolution; all of the causes can be considered important reasons behind the revolution. Here we will broadly emphasize some of them.
The first cause, which should be considered the primarily important reason, was, a resurgent Islamic movement, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. For centuries, the imams or religious jurists have dominated the socio-political life in
It is interesting to note that not all the religious leadership supported Imam Khomeini, in fact there were divisions between the clergy, quite a few of them actually did not support the concept of religious jurists involving themselves in a political situation, some of the religious figures even wanted a gradual reform and democratic change within the Shah’s regime and not it’s overthrowal. Imam Khomeini and some of his followers supported a different viewpoint. They believed that the Western civilization had wanted to dominate, colonize and subjugate the Islamic world by imposing concepts like secularization, atheism, democracy and decadence upon the Muslims through proxies such as the shah regime. So, Imam Khomeini wanted to replace the shah regime with a republic, supervised by a group of Islamic jurists. He believed that this government would stop all incorrect and corrupt interpretations of Islam and bring about a nation without any injustice, poverty or oppression like the one created by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) at Medina in the seventh century. He called this form of government as “velayat-e-faqih” (guardianship of the jurist).
Imam Khomeini represented the Islamic face of the opposition, but there were strong secular and communist elements involved in the overall opposition movement against the Shah. These elements included the parties like “Freedom movement of
The communist element of the Iranian opposition included the groups like “Tudeh Party of
Although the shah regime had implemented a lot of reforms but the middle and lower classes of Iranians did not have any drastic change in their life standards. Only a very narrow percentage of people who were very close to the shah, benefited from these reforms. The oil boom in the 1970-s did not help the matter; the gap between the rich and poor grew alarmingly as the shah regime did not distribute the wealth among the poor.
Instead the shah regime wasted the oil wealth in meaningless celebrations like the celebration of 2500 years of continuous monarchy in
Aftermath of the revolution: Iran
Immediately after the Islamic revolution, the new Iranian state, Islamic
The biggest of the enemies of the nascent revolution was the western backed dictator of the neighboring
The war between
During the war all the odds were against the new Iranian Islamic republic,
On the other hand the Islamic republic has broken the old military alliances with
But against all odds the Islamic republic not only survived but at one time it was almost near total victory. The main reason behind that is the Islamic revolution had created deep impression upon the mind of Iranian youth and they went to the battlefields in millions thinking that if they died in the battlefields they will go to paradise as martyrs.
This war was not only between two nations but also between two competing ideologies; the Islamic revolutionary ideology represented by Imam Khomeini’s
On the other hand Saddam was playing the role of a powerful, arrogant Arab tribal chief who were sending his young men into war for his own supreme personal glory. His own anti-Persian bias also came into play s he saw himself as the vanguard of the Arabs fighting to save Arab pride against Persians. In a visit by Saddam to
In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those Persian cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts."
In the end, it was the spirit of Islamic revolution that triumphed over despotism. Iranians were greatly encouraged to fight since they believed that they were fighting for a higher cause whereas the Iraqis went to the battlefields thinking that if they did not fight they and their families will be inside Saddam’s torture chambers. History teaches us that in any war the side that can encourage it’s own society as a whole to take part in the war as part of a higher cause, normally wins. This was exactly the outcome in the Iran-Iraq war.
Islamic Republic (after Khomeini)
The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, after both sides agreed to a U.N. proposed ceasefire in 1988.Imam Khomeini did not want to agree to a ceasefire before a total victory in the war and a regime change in Iraq but in the end he simply had to agree to a ceasefire as both the nations were completely exhausted after this brutal war. As a person he was nearing the end of his life. He was coming at the end of a long journey, which took him from the life of a simple village cleric to one of the most influential leaders in the 20-th century. Eventually he died in 1989.
With the death of Imam Khomeini, the Islamic revolution lost it’s greatest mentor. But soon the leaders of the Islamic republic made a decision. With the death of the Imam Khomeini, the revolution’s expansionary attitudes had to be curtailed, the Islamic republic had to be strengthened. The republic and it’s nascent institutions were given more priority rather than expanding the revolution.
Islamic republic has made a lot of good progress in terms of female education, health care as well as distribution of wealth among it’s population unlike some of it’s Arab neighbors. Although because of Islamic republic’s ideological opposition towards the western policies in the
It will be completely unwise to ignore the excesses of the Islamic republic. A lot of people have been put under arrest and unfair jail terms. Some of the basic freedoms like the freedom of expression have been curtailed in last few years. The Islamic republic seems to trying to prevent free flow of information by blocking Internet access, to the Iranian people. Another discouraging fact about Islamic republic is that after the 2009 presidential elections, Islamic republic’s policies towards the opposition have been very harsh and heavy handed. It seems to us that at least one innocent person, a beautiful 26-year old young woman; Neda Agha-Soltani was reportedly shot dead by a government militiaman. This particular incident has created a lot of negative impression about the Islamic republic, in the outside world.
Fundamental Characteristics of Islamic revolution
If we talk about the main ideological characteristics behind Islamic revolution the most important point is that the Islamic revolution was and has been the only popular movement in the
Islamic revolution is unique than many other revolutions that in previous revolutions like the Russian, Chinese or French revolutions is that all these revolutions talked about complete removal of human faith from the day to day running of the state whereas Islamic revolution talked about running the state according to the faith of the Iranian people. In this regard Islamic revolution can be considered as a unique example in the history of similar political movements.
Iranian revolution was the first one in the
For the first time for some of the downtrodden Muslims in the Middle East like the Palestinians or the Shiites in
Moreover, Islamic republic was a welcome break for the region’s Muslims in other ways also. For decades the leaders in the
In the end one has to say that Islamic republic is an experiment, which tries to establish the fundamentals of a modern republic without compromising on the basic tenets of Islam. It is also an attempt to employ Islamic thought as well Islamic ideas into building a modern nation state. This idea behind Islamic revolution is very ambitious and like many other revolutions before it, this revolution also faces plenty of challenges. In the end, any student of history will have to say that revolutions do not fail because of external enmity but they fail when their ideas are no longer able to attract interest among the common people. It will be interesting to see in the coming years and decades what fate awaits Islamic revolution but it can certainly be said that Islamic republic is certainly going to keep a very long and lingering legacy among the people in the world who does not believe that human faith and politics should not influence each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)