Iran

United States of Elite versus Donald Trump : Sunni-Saudi-Anglo-Euro-Jihadi axis towards war.

Posted on August 23, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, Army, China, Communist, economics, economy, Egypt, Hindu, History, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, Pakistan, religion, Roman, Russia, Saudi, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, Trump, UK, Ulema, US Presidential elections, USA, Wahabi |

Postulate One: European consumption levels could historically be only maintained by exploiting resources and productivity outside the self-defined territory of Europe (as in Roman expansion dependent on Egyptian grain and “barbarian” slave labour and fecundity).

Postulate Two: USA is an extension of western Europe as shaped in British state form revised under imagined and reconstructed Roman Republic with perceptions and constructions of both what is “European” and what is not – based on cumulative claims of history, both regional and global.

Postulate Three: Europe prioritizes consumption of its elite over ideology.

Most of what is happening now in the USA, in its politics, its legislative bodies, its government and state institutions – all the way to its attitudes towards and handling of or engagement with Islam, Middle East, and Asia can be deduced from the three postulates.

The Roman Republic generated several interesting phenomena that is rarely put in perspective when analyzing modern-day politics of the “western” world. The contest between the Plebs and the Patricians was a contest for power and say in state affairs between the increasingly self-aware Plebs (stemming from their co-option into the armies under people like Marius the uncle of Caesar in turn driven by elite hunger for land and slaves in the ever-expanding “periphery”) and the “Patri-cians” claiming descent from leading founding fathers of the historical Roman colony in Italy and who thereby had hogged the material and monetary benefits of the state formation exercise over the centuries. The Romans went through a phase of submission to non-Roman “rule” as well as “kingship” to finally overthrow “dynastic royalty” but evolving or recasting a new form of authoritarianism legitimized by representative bodies of people – closely followed in essence in the process of formation of USA.

All these are pretty well-known in standard history lessons: what is less discussed is how Roman institutions also institutionalized politico-financial corruption together with formation of well-organized coteries that infiltrated, and manipulated the Roman state institutions for combined business, political and power benefits – running almost as “organized crime”. In fact the model of “mafia” now popularized by Hollywood, typically labeled as originating in remnants of old Roman empire in the medieval such as “Sicily” or “Naples”, had their roots in the system of Roman knights/captains put in charge of various zones/districts of historical Rome. The blurred lines between ambitions of impoverished Patricians like that of the Caesars or the still wealthy Patrician Sulla, the stinking rich Crassus, or the yuppie military genius of a country bumpkin-from-peasant-north maternal uncle of Julius – Marius : they all formed a politically-financially-incestuous vicious competition of various groups of “mafia”.

Thus it is crucial to drop the Hollywood imagery of the “Godfather” and expand it in the reality of US politics on the more historical Roman “mafia” of the Republic and transition-to-empire phase of Rome. Such an “extended” mafia can be both “criminally organized” and “patriotic” or more “transnationally minded” just like the ancient Roman “mafia”.

The current phase can be thus understood as a phase of competition between two domestic groups of “mafia” (in the extended “Roman” sense I am using) where one side has grown close to the Sunni-Saudi interests over a cold-war, and inheritance of Indian Ocean geostrategic burdens of defunct British “political” empire (as in every mature and jaded “empire”, the formal fall of empire-state leaves behind a network of transnational finance and elite of ex-colonies connected firmly to an integrated shared “interests” with the ex-empires successor). This means this side shares the political and hence even religious biases of the Saudi Sunni axis which grew up under British imperial patronage as a supposed barrier to restrict the Ottoman grasp over the “passage” to India. This in turn led to panic scramble by then Russia and Europeans powers wary of the British to try and gain access to Indian Ocean aligning a veritable rivalry between “western” (France/UK) and “eastern” (Germany/Russia) Europe to push to the Persian Gulf. However the ancient contest for supremacy between the west and east of Euphrates that had once ended the Greeks and Cyrus’s house allowing Rome to grow, and similarly exhausted Byzantines and Parthians to allow Islamic jihad to flourish in the “frontier” no-mans land between the two sides – continued in the Arab versus Iran contest, and was used by the completely emasculated remnants of Arab tribes to reassert claims against the “east” and try to repeat their 7th century success using the British and French need to secure the Gulf.

Discovery of oil has gradually shifted the balance of power within the front of  Sunni-Saudi-“western” axis, and WWII drew up an extended “frontier” of two hostile “fronts” running roughly North-East – South-West from Balkans through Syria-Iraq into Persian gulf.

The “western” Anglo fear of Russian breakthroughs in this sector combined with Arab jealousy of the more pre-Islamic nationhood retaining Iran with all consequent better human capital not destroyed as much as in Saudis under mullahcracy – drove the US attempt at wooing Communist China away from USSR, in return China extracting economic entry into global capitalist flow, and an attempt to ring-fence Iran and central-Asian routes from Russia down south by encouraging Islamism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

However even if this strategy largely succeeded in weakening USSR and led to its overthrow, two problems had been created for US “mafia”: the immensely financially networked with US Saudi lobby’s growing influence among the “mafia” and China’s capture of the US consumer market using its totalitarian state economy and control over Chinese labour. After US had to necessarily engage in the mop-up operations consequent to fall of USSR and Sunni-Saudi lobby’s grasping the opportunity to expand its long-held jihadi ambitions to revive Caliphate style re-conquest of the Middle East, and beyond, parts of US mafia must have realized the growing threat of China’s economy.

However during the long cold-war era, Sunni-Saudi axis had been allowed to become politically entrenched in influencing US foreign policy and thus in the US state institutions and its political class as well as in the instruments of ideological hegemony of modern states – like the media, academics of “humanities”. The faction of US mafia that realizes the supreme importance of China as a threat to their interests (by disrupting the mafia’s finger in the global – “outside of territory” economic exploitation) was the force that allowed someone like Donal Trump to come through. Looking from this perspective, it becomes clear why he had to be “promoted” – they needed an “outsider” or “outcast” or deemed “dilettante” political actor, therefore less likely to have been compromised by the existing pro-Sunni-Saudi pro-China cliques.

That the majority of US state institutions are waging a virtual but desperate war to remove “Trump” from power is simply a manifestation of the failure of the “cold-war” legacy portion of the administration and ideological establishment to grasp the drive and perhaps even realpolitik “sense/pragmatism” of the anti-China “patriotic mafia” as the need of the hour for “US” interests just as overthrow of USSR was in then US interests.

So Trump is being driven to make superficial “compromises” while he is trying to protect the underlying agenda of cutting China down to size. However the pro-Sunni-Saudi US mafia does not want China to be cut down to size as both the Saudis and the Chinese favour each other as hedges for their respective geostrategic ambitions. Saudis do not really want Pakistan to be cut down to size as Pakistan is most helpful in delegating tasks of wahabization and radicalization that serves Saudi geo-strategic ambitions while China does not want Pakistan to be harmed as Pakistan provides a corridor to Indian ocean as well as a useful jihadi counter-balance to India whose territory and population the Chinese see as an obstacle to their own imperial ambitions.

So even if Trump announces a troop increase in Afghanistan, the reality of the situation will simply help Saudi strategy for the zone. The Sunni jihadi assets were first tested on Syria – seen as a rival Shiite state, and on Iraq – but it quickly spiraled out of control revealing the extent of jihadism that Saudis have unleashed which even they can no longer fully control. Russian backing stalled overthrow of the Syrian regime, so that means the “western/European” and Saudi-Sunni jihadi assets need to be “saved” and protected by the pro-Saudi-mafia/European elite from total destruction so they can be unleashed against the real intended targets – Iran and Russia. This means there will be an attempt to carve out a “sovereign” protectorate style enclave for those dubbed “free Syrian army” on the eastern parts of Syria, thereby giving them breathing space and regrouping recouping as well as a Sunni buffer which in turn faces a Kurdi enclave on the east – thereby balancing each other and buffering each other. However the jihadis will be most effective in the greater anonymity of northern Afghanistan and even frontiers of Pakistan to be effective against Iran and Russia. Hence the bulk of the ISIS jihadis will be “helped” by “west” and Saudi-Sunni lobby to “escape” to northern Afghanistan.

US boots on the ground , in the hands of local networks of politics remaining from British imperial days – will effectively be a force that facilitates – willingly or unwillingly – the fall of the “north” to jihadis, while a “progressive” regime will gradually shrink to the south and east of the country around the big cities in the south even while under US “protection”.

The Saudi-Sunni penetration of the US state implies that Trumps “threat” to Pakistan will in effect have little impact. The Sunni-Saudi lobby has slightly different geo-political ambitions compared to what even the pro-Saudi lobby thinks it has. The Sunnis want a repeat of their seventh century jihadi performance – they want one sweep of continuous jihadi territory from Arabia through India into Indonesia in the east, and all the way to Gibraltar in North and Sub-Saharan Africa.

For myself, I see benefit in the expansion of Sunni jihad across Afghanistan and Pakistan and towards India. Jihad destroys pre-existing nationalisms – even the artificial and opportunistically foisted ones like that of Pakistan. It will also weaken the part of the modern Indian state that is ideologically and for other reasons, similar to the pro-Saudi lobby within US “mafia” and which can use state coercive resources to protect the Islamist interests against the non-Muslim majority of the country.  Any genuine resistance to jihad can only come from the vast non-Muslim populations of India but only when their state power actively is no longer able to protect the Islamic infrastructure and allows new state forces to come up that can resist and roll back jihadis back to where it started – in the deserts of Saudis. Jihadis expanding in north Pakistan and Afghanistan will also finally roll-back Chinese presence and effectiveness in this zone.

So the future is bleak and bright.

 

 

 

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Looking back on “Assadfall” and the future of Middle East

Posted on March 10, 2017. Filed under: Afghanistan, Arab, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Shia, Sunni, Syria, Taleban, Turkey, UK, USA |

About six years ago, when the Syrian “civil war” started off, I had already been used to frequently writing and debating on an online forum. There was a poster apparently from India, but claiming intimate knowledge of the Gulf states and having access to “higher levels” of policy-making and decision makers in both Gulf Saudi allied regimes and in India. He often gave out timelines for fall of Assad, overthrow of the Syrian regime, or even sometimes how Saudi forces were preparing for the final assault that will annihilate Syrian government, and occasionally the imminent victorious or successful battle plans of Israel, USA and others against Assad. Sometimes it was about how in the following weeks the Russians were going to abandon Assad to his fate.

I had already clashed with him on his whitewashing of the history of Palestine in favour of Islamic occupation of the Levant following Byzantine withdrawal, or the legitimacy of the claims of the Jews on their current lands (leading to the series I wrote on this blog on Palestine and Islamo-Judaic relations). So when he declared that Assad was going to “fall” in the “next two weeks”, I thought I would have some fun by contradicting him on his “sure” predictions on Syria, (this led me to coin the term “Assadfall” – something that is promised to happen the next day or next week but never happens even in years) and proposed,

(1) If Assad could  hold onto the narrow ridge highland that separated coasts from the eastern trough before the vast eastern plateau he was not going to fall. Not in two weeks. Not in two years.

(2) Syria was going to be partitioned one way or the other and the Kurds were going to get their independent homeland.

(3) Russia was not going to abandon Assad, and Israel was not going to move against Syria.

I was of course laughed at just like the time when I had predicted that the US forces will be withdrawing from Afghanistan, that the British forces would make no headway against the Taleban, and that the Taleban were going to re-emerge as the main power in Afghanistan. My reasons for predicting the resurgence of the Taleban is perhaps material for another post, so skipping it now.

Returning to this six-year old issue, I can see that my reasons for predicting the outcome of the Syrian adventure by Sunni-Saudi-West have not really changed. But the fallout needs to be fleshed out in further predictions. So what will be the major trends for the future for the region?

(a) I find that there is a remarkable lack of awareness of the historical reality of the Kurds among western audiences and perhaps even so-called think-tanks. The Kurds, after Islamization, were at the vanguard of Islamic expansionism, with the most famous example perhaps being the forces around Salahuddin the expeller of crusaders. Kurdis were also implicated as the main forces used by the Ottomans to “manage” the Armenians which later came to be seen by non-Turkish scholarship as the Armenian genocide. Ironically, it was this cooperation with Ottoman regimes that helped coalesce military strength around family, clan and regional lines among the Kurds. The Kurds were not free of Islamist theological-political admixture with leadership held within pseudo-dynastic frameworks.

(b) With the break up of the Ottoman empire, this Kurdi nucleus of state formation around charismatic and pseudo-dynastic clan leadership in one particular remote terrain among all the regions inhabited by the Kurdis, began to pursue political independence more vigorously. Like with Saudis, western powers toyed with but dashed their hopes of political sovereignty. But Ottoman failure also led to soul-searching by new generation of Middle East’s muslims, and one section of Kurdis, like all over both Arabs and non-Arab population in the zone, began to explore “Left” approach. This tendency eventually led to the modern PKK.

(c) The current Kurdi assertion is split between the “Leftists” in PKK and its armed wings, which have fought alongside the more “mainstream” Peshmarga, the forces around the “clan”. The Peshmarga will compromise on independent state-formation as its leadership will be more interested in keeping their personal control over Kurds, which might be less assured at current stages if the dissenting factions come into a sovereign state where other national governments cannot be tasked with reducing this opposition.

(d) Given that Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and even Iran would not like an independent Kurdi nation being carved out as it would bite into each of their current territories, at this stage, its Turkey which stands to lose most and the other countries involved may concede a little just so that the major portion of the new Kurdi territory is taken out of Turkey.

(e) Since the forces around Peshmarga are likely to be softer on independent state formation, and the balance of forces would like to see Turkey being cut down a bit, it’s the PKK led faction and its forces which are likely to gain increasing political support from within Kurdi populations, and they will gradually replace the political predominance of the current clan based framework that Kurdis have.

(f) Turkey, Saudis and Qataris or Kuwaitis, who most likely supplied and deemed the ISIS as deniable assets of an army of expansion, will seek to carve out a territory for the ISIS assets. This Turkey, European powers, are going to try to do by overtly representing it as an autonomous or independent region of “Sunni” “moderate rebels” just south of Turkish borders. In fact this could also be a part of a deal in which both Kurdis and ISIS re-packaged as “moderate rebels”  have each their adjacent “independent states”. Turkey may accept this as a check against Kurdis and as temporary compromise to protect its jihadi assets. Saudi money might also work behind the scenes in western corridors of power to create pressure to accept this model.

However in the long run, this will just be an interim redrawing of Middle Easts borders. The main objective of Europe, and Saudis will be to transfer the jihadi assets developed in the plains of Iraq and Syria into two directions – east and north against Russia and Iran, and further east towards Afghanistan, Pakistan and India. We may already see the beginnings of this policy in increased activities of claimed ISIS operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, even within that, its India’s north that is the target.

Enticing them into India is the thing to do. As I have been projecting for years, any such jihadi incursion will create the conditions for eventual erasure of Islam and jihadism.

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Say No to theological demands for immunity from criticism

Posted on September 22, 2012. Filed under: Antisemitism, China, Christians, Hindu, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jew, Jihad, Left, Marxism, Muslims, neoimperialism, Pakistan, religion, Russia, Syria, Taleban, terrorism, USA |

As the so-called movie-protests continue with random and sometimes what appears as organized violence, here are a few thoughts :

  • Claim: The protests are not based on ideology/religion. They are expression of hatred against America and the West and Israel.
  • Reality : Muslims have been violently protesting against claimed insults to their religion or to their prophet, from the time of the prophet himself – according to Muslim core texts. Intolerance for any criticism of any Islamic claim is built into the theology. The case of assassinating a mother of suckling baby, for being a poet and composing verses that were irritating to the prophet – is one among many but not unique, iconic examples of the Islamic doctrine  of extreme intolerance of the spoken or written word.
  • Reality : If the protests were really against America and the West, why is Saudi Arabia or Saudi monarchy spared the loving expressions of outrage? A key factor in the West’s dominance of the globe is its linkage to Saudi oil and petro wealth. Saudis collaborate effectively with Israel against Iran. But nothing happens against those in the Islamic world who collaborate with and are helped in turn by the West.
  • Reality : Afghan Taleban and assorted islamists, Pakistani islamists, Yemeni islamists, Nigerian or Sudanese or Somali or Niger islamists, Iran and Iraq in their war against each other, or continued proxy conflicts in Iraq or Syria between Sunnis and Shias – all are about Muslims repressing Muslims, Muslims torturing, raping, massacring Muslim men, women and children. But no violent Muslim protests happen against them.
  • Claim : The reason for hating America, West and Israel, is because of their “mistreatment” of Muslims.
  • Reality : Russia “mistreats” Chechen and Daghestani Muslims. China violently represses Uyghurs. No protests happen against Russia and China.
  • Fact : Intolerance of the written or spoken word of criticism is built into the core theology of Islam. Even under the rule of the founder himself, the attested cases of execution of women are known to have been about claimed “mockers” of the prophet or Islam – as in the case of when Mecca was “conquered”.  These parts of the story – where poets- women or men were specifically targeted by Islamists, are quietly dropped in even the modern western dramatizations of these stories.
  • Fact : Islamic vitriol and denigration of other religions, primarily Christianity [even if use of Jesus in Islamic texts is always cited in apologetics], Judaism, and Hinduism – exist all over the web. The language of the vitriol range from the sophisticated to the vilest gutter versions ever imaginable. Perhaps they reflect more the state and hidden desires or psychological disorders in the repressive Middle Eastern societies, but in terms of cold hard printed or written word – they are worse denigrators of other religions and their respective beloved icons.
  • Fact : Christian leadership of the more established church organizations are and will remain ambivalent towards this intolerance, perhaps because some of them also feel the need for protection under neo-anti-blasphemy laws. Ideologies which know they have serious weaknesses in their foundations, resort to ideological as well as physical coercion to enforce their authority.  Their ultimate tool is the demand for silencing of critical voices and doubts – because the fear is that such words would expose the underlying vicious hunger for power masquerading as concern for the “spirit” after “death”.
  • Fact : Marxists too will be ambivalent towards this intolerance, because part of them look upon Islamists as a useful tool against their so-called neo-imperialists, or as potential allies against their infantile rage against their more-liberal-than-islam birth societies. Theirs is a search for the mythical golden pre-tribal age of primitive societies assumed to be egalitarian. For the Marxists who are more pragmatic, it is a case too of protecting their dogma and pseudo-religion against critical thinking – the reason Leninist party discipline was primarily seeking to gag dissent being made public, and the public getting uncomfortable ideas.
  • Fact : Fighting against the demand for this protection of intolerance, protection or immunity from the assailant “word”, is a crucial aspect of protecting all the gains that human civilization has made over the last five hundred years from the Renaissance. If we retain the right to freely criticize and express our dissent from any dogma, any theology, any ideology, any hypothesis, except the hypothesis of “right to criticize freely” – we can always regain whatever we lose through temporary reversals of the human civilization.
  • Appeal : do whatever is needful, democratically, freely, openly, publicly – to preserve the right to criticize, the right to freely speak and express, regardless of any dogmatic claim to the contrary.  Do not let any government or legislature of the free world accommodate the Islamist lobby in this regard. This is about freedom and all about not letting totalitarianism raise its head again.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

When Iran and Aarb League agree: revolutions are bad if they are not under their control

Posted on March 20, 2011. Filed under: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Islam, Israel, Left, Muslims, Palestine, Russia, UK, USA |

When do we hear the Arab League and Iran agreeing on something? Now both do not like the actions undertaken under the no-fly-zone agreement. One is trying to condemn “indiscriminate” bombing, and the other warning against allowing western dominance. Both groups want the popular uprisings (they are popular, by all indications) to serve their agenda, rise and fall and bark according to the sweet wills and paranoid ambitions of the ayatollahs and sheiks and emirs. They are as much scared of revolutions as Americans or the West are. This is the key to understand the statements being made and potential behaviour from the existing leaders of the Arab world and Iran over the Libyan action.

Americans should not have said that they were leading it but allow UK or France to do the honours. Moreover they have a short window in which to decimate Gaddafi’s forces, and restock the opposition.

As for Russia, India or anyone else mumbling and playing it safe, it is important to realize that historical turning points do not stay on forever. It is a tendency in Indian analysis of situations to be confounded by complex contradictions in political developments and get stuck in an overemphasis on “nothing is entirely black and white” which then becomes the excuse for decision paralysis. On the other hand it is this same “nothing is black and white” mindset to stick to paradigms and never update even with real experiences. Thus it appears that policy-makers of India have a rigid mindset to think that the Islamic regions do not have forces and dynamics of change within themselves that are not entirely mullahcratic.

It is critical to support the non-mullahcratic component against the mullahcratic component in the uprisings or movements that at the moment have converged on the point of common hatred against their ruling regimes. If we don’t support the more modernizing trends within these movements, the elite of Islamic systems will hijack this popular sentiment into their pet agenda – hatred of the “qufr”, wallowing in the Sharia, and erasure of the Jews as a first step towards erasure of all perceived obstacles to their absolute mullahcracy.

The West once made the blunder of encouraging Islamism and authoritarian dynastic or dictatorial regimes in their short-sighted strategy of tackling the so called Red-Menace. As a result the world suffers from the genocidal and totalitarian mindset of the mullahcracy.

The same blunder should not be repeated. It is important for the younger generations within the uprisings to be aware that both the Arab and Iranian leadership, the Islamic organizations, as well as the West, or even say China, (Russia and China are more scared of getting burnt unnecessarily and therefore non-intervention) are scared of independent popular uprisings. They want these revolutions to serve their own desires. Iran wants to paint these revolutions as anti-Israel and will rant and rail and turn against the revolution if that does not happen. Arab league wants to maintain their filthy rich lifestyles of their emirs and their sheikhs and the network of feudal patronage and arbitrary power. The west wants a pliable regime popular or not.

For the West or less-sectarian countries like India, it is crucial to realize that it is in their interest to encourage the modernizing sections within these revolutions. Next time around there will be little opportunity left to correct such errors as made in wiping out modernizers in Afghanistan, Iran or Iraq or even Saudi Arabia.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The geopolitics of the Gaza adventure

Posted on June 5, 2010. Filed under: Arab, Gaza, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Jihad, Kashmir, Left, Marxism, Muslims, Pakistan, Palestine, Politics, Russia, Syria, terrorism, Turkey, UK |

The recent fiasco in the “Gaza adventure” throws up in sharp light the current tomfoolery that is being played on Asia. Since the fall of USSR there was a temporary lull in pandering to Islamist violence from the west. Within that space, the Jihadis consolidated and turned their attention from Russia towards their real objectives in Asia – Israel and India. They intensified their campaign against India with Jammu and Kashmir, and their rocket/bombing campaigns against Israelis, from both within Lebanon and the Gaza strip.

Their real ambitions is for global domination, and the real long term targets for Islam – militant Jihad and Ghazwas to convert, loot, rape and take over non-Muslim majority nations. This became clear to the racially and colour blinded ideology of the west only when the Jihadis turned their attention directly to pricking the west, as part of their global strategy to tie down western forces away from any protective interest the west may develop for Israel and India.

The calculations were quite clear and as consistently seen in the tactics of Islamist groups ranged against their Asian targets.

(1) Carry out terrorist outrages against both military and civilians of Israel and India, so that the military of these nations are forced to react. Use the terror attacks to stimulate survivor instincts within the civilians in the hope that they will create political pressure on their governments not to retaliate. Use the internationally conformed limitations within which national armies have to work as a tactical field advantage.

(2) Pressurize Muslims living within the territory of these nations to take sides, which in the ultimate analysis has always been historically proved to be on the position that “jihad cannot or should not be opposed violently” by Muslims anywhere. In every situation of war or conflict where Islamism has taken up arms to subjugate non-Muslims among them or beside them, the Muslim population has never ever really taken any effective steps to resist such Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims. In Middle East, in now Pakistan occupied western India, or in then East Pakistan now Bangladesh in 1971, large Muslim populations which apparently showed all outward forms of communal amity did not do anything to stop Jihadi outrages on non-Muslims and in many instance took advantage of the situation to possess land, wealth and women of non-Muslims. This practice is consistent with the basic line of Islamist expansion as formulated in their core texts.

(3) Simultaneously carry out a publicity campaign among western nations – especially those in academia and media who for various reasons have had anti-establishment fantasies all the while being sustained by the establishment. There have always been a toying undercurrent with Marxist thinking in the west, especially in the British universities beginning in the post war radicalism phase of 60’s. Probably this was maintained out of two tactical considerations by the authorities – as a honey trap to confine radical intellectuals so that they did not go out to do more damage in the outer world, and at the same time work as a captive experiment where the Leftist thought process could be observed and manipulated. Problem with this game is that it basically creates a reward system for radicalism and anti-establishment sentiments which over time will draw more and more opportunist political activists who will use this legitimacy to carry out their personal political agendas.

The Islamists used this sympathetic base from within the western establishment. It was natural that with the fall of the USSR and an overtly nationalistic and dictatorial redefinition under Putin the western establishment radicals were without a cause to champion. This they now found in championing the cause of supposedly repressed Islamic communities under Israel and India.

(4) To drive home the Islamist representation of reality, Islamists selectively targeted western institutions with violence. Having placed a pro-Islamist radical western sympathy base among the very vocal academia, media, NGO’s, charities etc, such targeting could be used to pretend that all this was because the west was not doing enough to destroy Israel and India or dismember these countries so that the Jihadis could occupy the dismembered portions. The general risk avoidance of the civilian populations of prosperous economies would ensure that there would be a backlash against any government retaliation.

(5) Once the western core of governments or regimes realized the new trends, the policy formulated was perhaps two pronged : give the Jihadis a new target of shifting attention towards Russia in Chechnyia and adjoining Muslim dominated areas sensitive for Russian security, and towards Eastern Turkmenistan currently under Chinese occupation. Simultaneously, overt pressure would be put on both India and Israel to concede more towards Islamist demands. It is possible that the first hesitant and obviously confused (read secret intense debate and therefore indecision) implementation of this policy was in the Balkans with the ultimate creation of a Muslim homeland within Europe.

(6) The success of the Croatian case showed the Jihadis the way forward, and they now know almost all the manipulative strings that they can use to pressurize the west into conceding more and more Islamist homelands carved out of non-Muslim dominated areas, from where they will launch more and more Jihadi campaigns.

The western strategists are losing this game. It is crucial that Israel and Indian people do not get confused by the manipulative propaganda and representations of Islamists and their non-Muslim sympathizers, and see to it that regimes capable of resisting western pressures are put in government.

The national armies and even special intervention forces have to work under international forms and restrictions that will be stringently applied by Islamists and their sympathizers for their ulterior motives. In both countries there should be targeted erasure of the sources of support for Jihad, or all anti-state terror under forces that do not officially exist. Forces which also have strong ideological indoctrination to add that extra armour to manipulation. Forces which do not exist and therefore are free of formal restrictions of so-called one-sided humanitarianism.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Islamist universalism to regionalism to imperialism to jihad

Posted on June 5, 2010. Filed under: Arab, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Jihad, Muslims, Pakistan, Syria, terrorism, Turkey |

The history of transformation of the revealed traditions is the history of empires. Most of the inspiration for empire building appear in communities that are not much productive in knowledge/technology terms themselves, but who are located on the major trade routes that carry continental level economic exchanges. Ambitious among them, see the potential in transforming an ideology that can help them mobilize to impose greater control over this flow and preferably the hotspots also.

The Jews opted out of the empire game early, perhaps because of factional experiences and therefore thinking of non-kin communities as unreliable. So that after this stage of national evolution, they became much more strictly endogamous and ceased proselytizing or converting to any significant level. However with the Islamists, one can easily see that the main centres of Islamic ambitions are exactly those which had empire ambitions also in pre-Islamic periods. The Qureshyi Mecca that produced the founding fathers of Islam are not exceptions in this regard, since the area had been at the periphery of major empires as well as quite close to major trade routes. The Nabateans and Sabateans lined the Red Sea trade routes right into the Arabain Sea as well as the trade routes connecting the Mediterranean to the CAR and India overland.

The two other ambitious Islamic centres are Anatolia-Syria, and Iran-Persia. Perhaps Afghanistan-Pakistan satisfies the criteria of being on the trade route while not being that productive themselves. Each of these centres thought that their imprial ambitions could be spurred and supported if they could use the universalist pretensions of Islam to justify imposing their regional rule on other territories under Islam.

But at the same time this universalism poses an unsolvable dilemma. Some have observed that each retreat of Islamist power is followed by decades or centuries belated but all-sweeping Islamist reaction. I would like to add that the reaction in fact is a much more complex phenomenon that is both the source of strength as well as the downfall of Islamists. The reaction is actually a cover for other regions within the reach of Islam to rush in in the name of Islam and impose their own regional imperial ambition on an area that has been weakened in fighting with the non-Musilm.

You can see this in noting that the cases that fit such succesful reaction, like the Mameluks, or Turks are all by Islamic armies led or core formed from regions external to the place they ultimately come to fight the “infidel” and clear the land of “kufr”.  Arabs are primarily interested in the riches of the Persian empire, and Egypt. Saladin was a Kurd prancing around in Egypt, Palestine. Mameluks were essentially Central Asians first enslaved and employed as soldiers in the early Caliphate. Seljuk Turks swept all the way from around the Pamirs, finsihing off the northern reaches of Ghaznavids, and ultimately expanding to form modern Turkey.

This is the reason in apparent century level gaps in the cause and reaction. It is not really a reaction, but an opportunistic use of Islamic universalism by regional ambitions to impose imperial extraction of profits from larger regions. However such imperial ambitions also impose a huge drain – economically, intellectually and ideologically – especially because the Muslims are mostly confined to areas which are not that highly productive. Over time, the new imperialist sucks the regional economy dry – and keeps other Islamic regions under constant subversion and suspicion – because it knows that other regions could try to emulate its successful strategy.

This is why in each corner of the Islamic world we find the ambition to pose as the centre of the Caliphate – be it Pakis, or Turkey or KSA or Iran. The more Islam expands the more we will see proliferation of that internal conflict. It is the universalist claims of Islamism that generates regionalism within Islam and which fuels further Jihad.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 4 so far )

Jews and outraged world opinion, “remember Khyber” – thus spake humanitarians

Posted on June 2, 2010. Filed under: Hindu, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Israel, Kashmir, Pakistan, UK |

All anti-Israel forces are celebrating today. There were even chants of humanitarians to remind the Jews of Khyber. Khyber – the symbol of Islamic tactic of  shouting that someone somewhere was against them and planning to attack Islam and therefore liable to genocidic erasure.

This “running the blockade” has perhaps been carefully planned for a long long time that shows political planning of the highest order from people who are used to manipulation of international opinions. So if there are claims that there are members of this “delegation” who are trained or qualified in social “sciences”, or maybe even “professional historians”, then almost surely they have been involved from within academia in lobbying for “pro-Palestine” anti-Israel activism.

This same thinking usually also pretends that what they are driven by are “pure academic” interests and humanitarian concerns. However any criticism of their historical reconstructions are likely to be immediately, publicly, and very loudly denounced as “politically motivated”. When questions about Palestinian, Arab and Turkish Muslim role of anti-Semitism and typical Islamic Jihadism and riots or genocides in the lead up to 1948, denial of Jewish connection to the land, or the Holocaust by Muslims are raised the immediate redneck reaction is “oh dont give that bull**** of Islamic conspiracy”. This is the same general group think that is also obsessed with trying to prove “assimilative, tolerant and non-militant” Hinduism was in the past and how recently “right-wing Hindu fascists” were “revising Hinduism” for their “sinister political agenda”. In such a discourse typically  the plight of Hindu Kashmiri Pundits is dismissed as mere propaganda, and all records or claims by Islamists of iconoclasm, genocide, enslavement and ghazwas on non-Muslims of the subcontinent as propaganda or exaggeration. In fact I had once a long running debate with someone who dismissed even the extent of atrocities by the Pakistani army and their Muslim accomplices in 1971 in then East Pakistan. He wanted to say that what happened was negligible, dismissed all western historians finding support for factuality of genocide, and all others from the subcontinent finding similar “proof” as being politically motivated.

When I raised the issue as to why, if “others” talking history could be driven by “political motives”, what made themselves – the professional historians – free of similar political agenda or motive, I was dubbed a “right wing” activist too.
People sympathetic towards the “Palestinian cause”, do think of the possibility that – the motivations that drive anti-Israel and pro- Palestinian movements in non-Muslim social groups share a certain common underlying political and ideological agenda. Is it possible that those among such “sympathizers” coming from a Christian, European cultural background probably have a twisted and ancient anti-semitic strain masquerading under “humanitariansim”? Those coming from say Indian, “Hindu” background – are doing so from a hidden and twisted interpretation of Marxism? Early Marxists use Christian, and New-testamental memes widely – especially the “activist” Engels.

Fall of Israel is strategically a disaster for India. Israel absorbs a lot of Islamic attention. Once Islamits are free of that thorn in the side, their full loving hands will move towards India. Now, at this stage, any formation of an independent Palestinian state means one more step in the progress of Islamic Jihad. One more step towards eventual overrunning of Israel. One more point bolstering the confidence and clamour in Pakistanis about “Kashmir”.

The new Islamists of Turkey needed an excuse to part ways with Israel, that is all. Turkey is not going to risk a direct war just now. Because that will scare off some in EU – which is the main kicking point Turkey is jumping on – and tie up the hands of pro-Islamist groupings within the EU. However the Turkish Islamists will encourage Iran to go after Israel covertly. It will probably also facilitate such covert support for Palestine from Iran. But Turkey will want Iran and the Saudis to get involved in a tussle over Palestine and Israel and wear each other out as much as possible. Turkish islamists are definitely looking back towards a pseudo-Ottoman revivalism.

Is it possible that the traditional Anglo-Turkish rivalry could be in some twisted EU minds, to encourage the Turks  when UK has been going after Iran? If any covert European sympathy has been behind the Turkish rise in temperatures, then they should think of the long term consequences for Europe of a fall of Israel and overrunning of Israelites. Europe will be next in line, and this time a much larger horde will be knocking at European gates compared to Sulaiman the Magnificent.

They should see again and again the videos where the humanitarians chant asking Jews to remember Khyber. How many Europeans know what these chanters are talking about? Search out, outraged sympathizers of humanitarian politics!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Why is Christianity preparing the ground for Jihadi takeover

Posted on May 3, 2010. Filed under: Buddhists, Christians, Hindu, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, religion, terrorism, UK, USA |

Significantly unnoticed events have taken place over the last last few months :  at MIT a conference was organized by one Omar Khalidi, a staff member of MIT, who advocates separate laws for Muslims such as polygamy etc, different constituencies for Muslims to elect Muslim lawmakers, apparently has issues with Christian nature of USA and is known even by Muslim scholars as someone who selects his data to paint a picture that suits Islamic agenda. Some people are of opinion he is what one can call ‘soft’ jihadi.

The speaker list is a who’s who of  academics known for their soft corner towards Islamism. The keynote speaker is Paul Brass.  He has written several books on Hinduism whihc has been accepted as standard texts on Hinduism by many western universities. A close collaborator and fellow-traveller of the Thaparite school of Indian history (whose main thrust is to deny atrocity on non-Muslims by Muslim regimes and states in India )- is one of the leading academic activists to paint comparative pictures of Hindus vs Muslims antagonism and is supposed to be an authority on Hindu-Muslim violence. His books show an uncanny association of the word “Hindu/Hinduism” automatically with “right wing/extremists/nationalists” in close proximity or as qualifying adjectives. Read them and you will be inspired!

Read up on the other speakers and contributors mentioned and their sometimes not so much aired political positions and leanings : Angana Chatterji, Meenakshi Ganguly, Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi, Chinnaiah Jangam, Ratna Kapur, Omar Khalidi, Shafeeq R. Mahajir, Manoj Mitta, R.K. Raghavan, Balakrishnan Rajagopal, Haimanti Roy, Srirupa Roy, Bish Sanyal, Ornit Shani, Mukul Sinha, Nirjhari Sinha, Arvind Verma.

They serve ironically as great catalysts for “Hindu consolidation” and acceleration towards “right”.  Moorthy Muthuswamy has studied Khalidi for his apparent influence on political parties within India with an obvious agenda of creating a separate state for Muslims within India. This fits in with perhaps a perception among a section of Jihadis and their backers that  for the next stage of Islamist expansion, resources needed can be gleaned from non-Muslims in India since the Pakistan experiment has failed to provide the resources on its own.

Now why this consistent pattern of western support for elements that bring on Islamic Jihad on non-Muslim civilizations? Maybe the key lies in a fundamental weakness of Christianity towards Islam -specifically to the Arabic Sunni sect of Islam. The problem in fact can be traced back to this weakness after we eliminate all other potential reasons.

It appears that both Islam and Christianity had been in competition over the Judaic legacy and therefore each in its own way saw Judaism proper or the community of Jews as an obstacle to this ideological supremacy.  However, ideologically they cannot go too far away from each other in the fundamentals because of this root foundation in Judaism.  The conflicts bewteen Christendom and Islam in the historical period basically starts over this claim of sole legacy and takes the form of imperialist conflict – because, both the proselytizing versions of Judaism emerged out of a practical imeprialist need for expansion.

The conflict therefore took the form of war for territory and control of productive economies and trade routes of others. To maintain the drive for this imperialist expansion, each side needed to identify the other side as “alien” and the “devil”. The peculiarity of common origins and memes however forced them to find racial divide as an identifier of alien-ness and  the enemy.

To date there has been no solid, logical refutation of Islam by Christianity except the claim that Islamics do not recognize Jesus as the sole way to salvation. Even this is problematic because Islam places Jesus as one of the principal prophets and reserves a special role for Jesus in the “end-times”.   So the Christian-Islam conflict has taken the loose and weaker basis of “race” rather than any concrete and profound difference in ideology.

It is this theoretical confusion that is clearly indicated in the responses that Christian dominated west gives to Islamic moves. Contrary to the propaganda that west’s reaction to Islamism is purely determined by economic motives, it is actually Christianity’s secret attraction for what it perhasp considers the “purity” of the Sunni Arabic extension of Judaism. For example the West has studiously cultivated the Arabs since using them  as tools against the competitors of the British  – the Ottomans.  But there would be no reason to continue preferring them over and above the Iranians long after Ottomans have been finished, and both Arabia and Iran sit over oil wealth.  Not that the west does not dip to deal with Iran when needed – as in the Contra-hostage deal.

Where does this put Christianity and Islam in the eyes of other non-revealed-tradition cultures?

In UK, judicial and executive systems enforce the law  strictly when it comes to the case of say liquidation of the “holy cow” of a Hindu temple becuase, reasonably – the cow was diseased. However the same country and system finds desecration of its prized memorial by a Muslim as not being driven by religious hatred and has allowed a symbolic violent form of expression of hatred in Islam – the throwing of the shoe (typically symbolically used against the devil), as a legitimate form of public expression.

In the USA, the California text book controversy showed that the administration and system would be reluctant to withdraw protection to  attempts to represent the non-Muslim past of India in a way that suits the Islamic agenda aginst Hindus. The same system finds a Chief Minister of an Indian state known for his strong Hindu affiliations persona non grata even though he has not yet been convicted on the charges of complicity in Hindu-Muslim violence – the main excuse given to refuse him visas. However the same administration has no problem with Omar Kahlidi’s claims which as Muthuswamy points out are based on dubious scholarship. So the “Hindu” fall foul of freedom of expression but Islamist views do not.

In India, the Christian proselytizers are not known to target the Indain Muslim communities for conversion, but Hindus. Indian Christians are also not seen as active protesters against Jihadi activities or statements by various sections of Islamists.

Alll this shows up as a secret attraction and weakness towards the Sunni-Wahabi form of Islam within Christianity of the west to the Hindus, among whom the mistrust of Christian missionaries and their motives have been increasing. Moreover the gradually increasing intervention of western states in favour of protecting the primary propaganda mechanisms of Islamists, and prevention of movements or expressions of ideological criticisms of Islam, is bound to alarm Hindus or Buddhists across South Asia.

If  Christianity cannot resolve this fundamental dilemma, it will not be too distant a day, when the Azaan will be heard from Westminster Abbey, the British Monarch may well come out of his Zenana Harem to attend Friday Prayers where the Khutba will be read extolling a new Caliph in the middle East, and the USA rechristens itself the United American Emirates.

Yes, absurd perhaps – but just imagine it for a moment and decide!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Is it time for the West to plan for dissolving Pakistan?

Posted on March 12, 2010. Filed under: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, Communist, economy, India, Iran, Islam, Muslims, Pakistan, Russia, Taleban, terrorism, USA |

How many nations of our times are based purely on a religion and recognized by other nations as independent nations? Only two – the Vatican City and Pakistan. Ironically they share in common some traits. Both have helped in the unravelling of the USSR but not of Communism – for it still survives behind the People’s Republic of China and is working towards global dominance. Both have been courted by the USA in its Cold War struggles. Neither has disappointed. Both exert influence on the global politics disproportionate to their actual size, economy, military capabilities, and the capacity to contribute in any meaningful way towards a modern, knowledge based, technological and information society. Both manage to do so by manipulating their historical images as projections into the future.

But there the similarities end. The Vatican’s leadership has made amends to its historical victims, and has shown its flexibility and readiness to change with the times. It has steadfastly refused to underwrite radicalism of the theological variety [the severe castigation of the Liberation Theology for example].  This may change in the future. But the leadership of the Vatican have proved themselves consummate statesmen in the concessions and compromises that they have made while never abandoning the fundamental objective of total global ideological domination. This is an objective that would have been a crime if not from the “one and only true message” for any other “religion” in the times when the Church ruled supreme. But now in the days of “total religious tolerance”, there is nothing wrong in having a declared agenda of “harvesting all souls”. In fact, legal and state coercive machinery can be used to guarantee protection of any proselytizer – even someone swearing by texts that recommend putting the unrepentant unbeliever to the sword.

Where Pakistan differs is not in its protection of organizations claiming the right to practice “Dawa” or spreading of the Islamist beliefs – but in its total lack of statesmanship. Unlike the Vatican, the Pakistani leadership never apologizes to the victims of its Islamists, never acknowledges that it has nurtured Jihadis in its madrassahs, never concedes to modernization in education and social practices, never really allows any land reforms or dismantling of feudal exploitation in its backyard.

Pakistan is basically an anachronism, a nation whose only foundational claim for identity is a religion – in a historical period where the world is leaving behind, exclusive and historical claim based religions. Moreover, that religion is not even unique to the country – it is shared by a host of other nations, some of whom have louder and more well established claims of being the centre for that religion. So Pakistan is based on a type of ideology increasingly irrelevant globally as national foundation, and moreover on an ideology based identity shared with other “nations” – and therefore has no real claims of distinction from other nations. It cannot look at history and culture, for in spite of the best sadistic efforts of generations of  “mullahs” – elements of pre-Islamic cultures lie firmly interwoven in the national fabric, and those elements are shared by its imagined nemesis – India. In fact the pre-Islamic cultural element proved so strong that a part of it broke away in reaction in 1971 as Bangladesh.

So now Pakistan finds itself in a terrible dilemma. To strengthen and give uniqueness to its national foundation, it has to become more Islamic than “others”. Becoming more Islamic means more and more unquestioning obedience to a strict and literal interpretation of the core texts. That in turns means more Jihad with violent means which accelerates the competition between the ruling feudal elite, the army, the mullahs, the commons, the militants – to become “purer” than the others. That means an almost perpetual state of national Jihad. Purer Islam can only be maintained by preventing modernization – in education, productivity, technology and above all the questing mindset. Which means Pakistan will become more and more dependent on largesse from interested external sources and be a drain on the global economy as the sources would spread the cost around.

So the West and the global community should perhaps start thinking of dissolving the entity called Pakistan. Here are the brief reasons :

(1) Dissolving Pakistan saves the West (and therefore the world economy )a huge amount of money and resources needed to keep the state afloat, and a total drain, because none of that capital goes into productive capacities.

(2) Even though the Chinese are now playing second fiddle to the West, it is uncannily similar to the Ribbentrop-Molotov handshake where both sides appear to be buying time. Eventually, Russia and China could come together with Iran (or whatever is left of it even if a so-called revolutionary liberalization and democratization takes place there under non-theologians) to which the CAR will lean. As long as Pakistan remains an independent entity, it can play the prostitute and threaten to kiss the higher bidder or the one more willing to pay.  That is both a security risk and a potential disaster, if everything given to Pakistan lands up in Russian, Iranian or Chinese hands and the West’s presence is virtually terminated in the Afghan-Pakistan frontier. Dissolving Pakistan takes away this worry.

(3)  Dissolving Pakistan and putting up new independent states actually creates new multiple centres where Jihad can be protected and nurtured. One Pakistan becomes many and the western problem multiplies. One of the best bets is to allow India to absorb the populations and the territories.   India is a growing economy which can absorb the costs. It has the capability and the will to manage multicultural groups and religious animosities. Culturally Indians of the western part of the country will be closer to the Pakistanis across the border [Punjab for example shares the language across the border in spite of the state sponsorship of Urdu] compared to any other external ethnicity or country. Moreover the costs of developing infrastructure and the economy or carrying out necessary social reforms will be borne on Indian shoulders and not on the west.

(4) As the price for non-intervention in the absorption, the West could extract concessions from India that it will have assured access and facilities to reach the CAR through channels and routes maintained and developed through Pakistani territories connecting the Karakorum Highway and other CAR approach routes.

(5) The Taliban lose their foster home, and are buffered off from the crucial supply routes of Karakorums and the Arabian Sea. The so-called Kashmir problem vanishes as the Pakistani military and ISI mechanism to foment terrorists inside India vanishes.  So one of the greatest excuses for maintaining Jihad from the Pakistani side vanishes.

India, because of linguistic and unique cultural history, will remain firmly in western and specifically the Anglo-Saxon or Atlanticist orbit for generations to come. There are sufficient fissures in the Indian ruling class for the west to exploit and protect western interests.

It is worth a try – at least the largest source for generating terror of the Jihadi and allied kind (through international crime and other non-religious or ethnic militancy) will be effectively liquidated. At one stroke West no longer has to face Islamist terror, pay for upkeep of Jihad, and instead can profit from a growing economy which bears all the costs!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 5 so far )

Yemen – turning point of Islamism in the Middle East

Posted on January 30, 2010. Filed under: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Communist, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Pakistan, USA |

The Yemeni geo-politics is becoming most interesting, It is a mini cold war being played out to secure on the one hand resources, and on the other, ownership of the “hearts and minds’ of the Ummah. Whichever of the two contestants among the self-styled “original/pure” Islamic “ashrafs” – Saudi Arabia or Iran, gains Yemen, ceases the economic flow between the East and the West, through controlling the mouth of the Red Sea into Indian Ocean Region. So it becomes imperative for Saudi Arabia to prevent Iranian ascendancy in Yemen.

Whereas if Iran gains Yemen, it can stretch out and outflank the USA+Saudi Arabia strategic presence on the western side of the Gulf. Both sides are therefore likely to accuse the other of carrying out a proxy war in Yemen. What is strange is the supposed existence of the Al Qaeda in Yemen, with solid origins from Saudi Arabia and one-time collaboration with USA (Osama’s connections during the anti-USSR AFG war), and the simultaneous supposed Iranian sponsoring of the Shi-ite Houthi’s. But no reports of conflict between Qaeda and the Houthis.

Added complication is the often missed problem of the Al Ahwaz area under Iran. This is claimed to be a primarily “Arab” area and population with the greatest concentration of natural gas/petrol resources of Iran. There is a separatist movement based on this claim, and their spokespersosn find sympathetic ears in Yemen.  It is possible that USA+Saudi Arabia allows Al-Ahwaz separatists to function to pick at Iran, while Iran allows the Shia tribes in north Yemen to function to pick at USA+Saudi Arabia. But a connection between Qaeda and Iran is interesting to the point of absurdity. They obviously can have common purpose – overthrow of the Saudi Royal regime and then wiping off Israel. But how far will this Shia-Sunni collaboration go? Iran can very well think of sponsoring Osama, as an antidote to Israel+USA. But how much will the Arabian Sunnis accept Shi-ite domination? They have accepted “non-Arabic” Islamic over-lordship before though – Ottoman Turks for example. Or is it entirely a representation to tar and feather Iran and Qaeda together? It will be important to see how far Iran digests attacks against Shias in Pakistan and still does nothing against Pakistan.

Being seen as “sympathetic” to theologians in the various Islam dominated countries can appear sweet as a strategy for the moment – but it is much better to think of the future in these countries in the long run. The best bet lies in holding out the hope for a liberal democracy in today’s youth in these countries. If we have to choose sides, lets choose it on the side of the future of these countries. Assuming a blanket trend towards extremism could be realistic but does not help us to divide up these societies so that the theologians do not get all the advantages of a united society behind them!

Interestingly Yemen had a Marxist party almost in power (in a part before unification) just like a similar party in Iran whose antics were hijacked by the Ayatollahs – may with blessings from the anti-communist leaguers of the Cold War days. But a reformed “leftism” could be a good tool to spoil the fun in both Iran and Yemen.

The death sentences against the condemned army- personnel indicted for the assassination of  Sk. Mujibur Rehman in Bangladesh, are most likely to be carried out early this morning. There may not be any immediate backlash against the hangings. But the hangings are likely to convert the executed into icons for the militant Islamists  and their supporters in the Islamic world. The trial and execution already generated several threats against state personnel and politicians, but nothing concrete has yet taken place.  There was a substantial proportion of voters who voted for candidates not belong the Awami League led alliance, and a proportion of this vote would overlap with the “Islamist” vote. The move towards de-religionization of politics in Bangladesh has already brought out the Islamists in protest especially against any move aimed at weakening or delegetimizing “Islamic poilitics”.

Militant, hegemonic Islamism has now managed to manipulate “western powers” into getting trapped into a war of attrition which the western mind is bungling because it has failed to understand “Islamism”. The greatest factor in this bungling has been the dominant academic sociological schools of thought – led by various shades of the Marxists – that overemphasized the role of economics as primary motivations for violence and hegemony. This extremely biased and narrow view of societal dynamics that almost completely downplayed the role of “ideologies”, forced public and foreign policies that were completely unrealistic and inappropriate – especially in dealing with Islamic radicalism.

The result has now been an extension of the “west” versus “Islamism” war – from a small zone in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Sudan, into all of Afghanistan and Pakistan, into the Horn of Africa – Mauritania, sub-Saharan Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Yemen, with branches leading into Bangladesh, Malaysia, southern Thailand, Indonesia, parts of Philipines, almost the entirety of Saharan and sub-Saharan Africa, Egypt, and spreading into Central Asia.

For Bangladesh, the executions will probably be used by the Islamists as an indication of the Awami League government’s connections and alleged “dependence” on countries like India and the USA – deemed to be among the “enemies” of Islam – (in spite of the zealous protestations to the contrary from the most vocal sections of Indian society and polity). If Islamism gains in sentiments in Bangladesh, the Awami League government will be forced to depend more and more on India and this will push the polarization further. Such a polarization in itself is not bad for India, if India can see a clear policy towards Islamic radicalism. However, so far Indian reaction has been self-contradictory – as it still mostly holds on to the Marxists myths of  “all radicalsim comes from lack of economic development”. So this part remains uncertain for the future.

The dynamic of the “Islamist politics” is changing. Regimes like the “royal” house in Saudi Arabia will become increasingly identified with and dependent on the “west”. Looking carefully as to how USA is being forced to shift its military attention, from Iraq, to Afghanistan, to Pakistan, back to Afghanistan, back to Iraq, to Yemen – all the while the militancy is gaining recruits across north and central Africa – spanning the two oceans is illustrative. Increasingly the Islamist militancy is taking on its traditional twin front struggle. On the one hand it is the struggle between theologians and temporal rulers for ultimate dominance of the Islamist movement. On the other it is the dream of conquering the whole world in the name of Islam.

In time, the “royal houses” in Saudi Arabia/Jordan or the emirates – will lose their prestige and position if the Islamist movement continues under the radical theologians. On the one hand – there is the exclusivist strand of claims of bloodline/clan connections to the Qureyish. On the other there is the urge to gain popular representation and empowerment irrespective of bloodlines within the “greater” Islamic identity – this is the Iranian trend. Over the long run, the ideals of “democracy” and empowerment prevalent in non-islamic societies will reinforce and strengthen its twisting into Iranian style theocracy dominated “populist” Islamic rule.

The “life span” of the Saudi royal house will be short if the “house” does not make tactical compromises with the “populist Islamism”.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The dream of Teheran : nightmare for Iran

Posted on June 24, 2009. Filed under: Army, India, Iran, Islam, Islamic propaganda, Muslims, Obama, Politics, religion, Russia, USA |

So at last we see the real reason behind getting B. Hussein Obama elected US president – the calculation by the power elite of USA was to use Obama to try and divide the Muslim world into as many fractures as possible. Construct “moderate” versus “extremist”, “modernizing” versus “retrogressive”, etc. Iran is the first gamble after the “coming out” debutante speech of extending a warm handshake to “Islam”. But the Iranian attempt was too quick. Is Obama in a hurry? Or is the US power elite in too much of a hurry? The danger is the possibility of a wave of reaction that the US simply cannot fathom, and will escape from as quickly as possible leaving the hapless neighbours and caught-in-betweens who cannot jump on to the evacuation flight.

In countries like Iran, urban “revolutions” against religious or theological establishment cannot sustain themselves at this stage of economic organization, unless these are staged and led by the armed forces. The rural Iran is still solidly behind the Ayatollahs. If Mousavi and Khatami are not careful they will simply serve as agents for liquidation of a generation of urban youth.

If we go back to Napoleon’s period, then there would be many examples – for example all the urban uprisings in Europe in the 1830’s and the widespread ones of 1848 – all of which failed or actually led to being defeated and creating conditions for more despotic or dictatorial regimes. The Chinese communist uprising is another example whose urban uprising phase failed horribly with the spectacular example of the Shanghai massacre. The crucial factor in urban uprisings is whether the army joins in or stays neutral or not. Consider the Afghan “revolutions”, the Iraqi -earlier Marxist revolution and then the Baathist “revolution”, same for the Iranian ones. Significantly, in Afghan, Iran, Iraq, no revolution/palace coup/ urban putsch succeeded without backing and involvement from the clergy and rural theologian networks.

Iran is no longer going to be pro-west. What the younger Iranians are looking for is a greater freedom to pursue modern “happinesses”. They will remain strongly nationalistic and in fact any overthrow of the Ayatollahs will lead to a stronger nationalistic reconstruction of the foundational values of Iran as a replacement for the “binder” of Ayatollahaic Islamic authority.

The Islamic clergy already senses the change in the mood of the younger generations and they have begun to hedge their bets as Islamic theologians always do historically. They try to dissociate in factions away from established but doomed or unpopular Islamic regimes so that the theologians ultimate hold on the population does not come under attack. In time they will grow back again in military and political power if they manage to survive with their ideological “sanctity” undamaged.

The pivotal changing years in Iranian history in the modern period have been 1919 (post WWI British+US penetration and disruption of Ahmad Shah’s hold – leading to the Pahlavi coup in 21-25), 1949 – the post WWII start of the replacement by a younger Pahlavi more likely to be open to western manipulation – leading to the upheaval of 51-53, 1979 – the Iranian “revolution” led again by “modernizers” and “leftists” giving vent to popular generational anger against the Shah’s regime and its western counterparts but taken over by the Ayatollahs because of their wider support base in the countryside and among rural populations. This was followed by the typical period of crisis from 1981-1983 when Iran won the psychological warfare with USA with perhaps secret Reagan help but forced to compromise and get mauled by Iraq. This 30 year generational cycle comes back in 2009. So the processes that started post WWI will start unravelling in the next 30 years.

Countries in the region like India should cultivate “nationalism” in Iran, and be firmly on the side of democracy. They should look for future populations who are going to increasingly take over the country and not bank calculations solely on the short term adhoc approaches so typical of the regimes in Indian politics. The US influence in the Caspian region is on the wane. Does the “West” want Russia and China to step in completely and fill in the blanks? A cautious but firm ideological commitment to see democracy in Iran cannot harm the “western” or Indian interests. It holds out hopes to the future generations, but it does not immediately threaten the Ayatollahs. But any country in the region or in Europe should be very very careful about being seen by the Iranians to be dealing with the “devil” – that is something that will be remembered.

As I have mentioned before, when popular support indicates anger turning against state authority which in classical Islamic terms is a fusion of theologian+military+executive, then the theologians typically split themselves into factions. One or more factions then disassociate themselves from the existing setup, and allow a change of faces. This is done so that the basic image of the theologians and the theology itself is not delegitimized. In time, when heads cool, the theologians can crawl back to their supreme seats of power.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...