War on terrorism

Arab girl facing her future. PHOTO: AFP

Firstly, the main language of Islam is Arabic, something that non-Arab Muslims scarcely understand and hence we depend on mullahs to interpret everything for us. Unlike the Judaeo-Christian system, we haven't had "Popes" or Archbishops who had the divine right to change the rules that people live by (e.g. allowing divorce in the English Church was something that the Roman church was dead against). As a result, we have mullahs telling us what to do, based on something that was written in ancient times with an Arab society in mind. This gap between the people who have "the knowledge" and those who do not, is more than a lapse in translation--this is ripe ground for breeding fundamentalists.

Secondly, lets look at the history of the Middle Eastern politics. After the colonial powers left northern Africa the Muslim world plunged into a decade of total 'direction-lessness'. No one knew what to do. There was no outstanding democratic leader, not in Syria, Turkey, Morocco, or in Saudi Arabia. There was no concept of an elected government in Afghanistan and the Middle East (there still isn't in Morocco). This vacuum created an identity crisis that made people insecure. In Iran, the Shah's rule was going well and strong till the early 1970s but that collapsed because of the Ayatollah. In Egypt and Syria, little factions of Islamists began to band themselves together. It all started with Islamic teachings of jihad, interpreted to mean whatever the fundamentalists thought they could make it out to be. This spread in Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia -- all these countries were ravaged by civil war, famine and poverty. Religious extremism was a way out of the confusion and hatred that they faced. At the same time, the poorer Muslim countries were angry with the oil rich ME region for trading with the West.

Thirdly, we need to look at the culture of despotic governments in these countries. The truth is, these little fiefdoms need these terrorist groups. This is very acutely seen in Morocco, where the ruling party has an Islamic party (with its extremist fundamentalist arms) as its main opposition! The cleverest thing they can do is make sure that this opposition party is never destroyed, because then their friendship with the West will be threatened. As long as they can show that these parties exist, it is in the West's interest to keep their government in power with aid money and what have you. Right now, Pakistan is in America's good books because they are indispensable in fighting the Taliban, something that they have had a hand in creating! Similarly, recently Kazakhstan granted Americans an air base there, making them an ally, a position they would have never gotten if that region had no conflicts. Politics is a very dirty game and in the absence of any real democracy, these games will continue. Arms deals will be made and ordinary people will go without food.

I don't believe that in Islamic culture democracy in the western sense will come easily. The Middle Eastern people have been ruled by royal families who can prove their blood ties back to the times of the Caliphs. If not by them, then by various despotic military rulers. Lest we forget, a people only get the government they are mature enough to handle. So how can democracy work in these countries? And what makes America think that they can change hundreds of years of politics? It's an optimism that I cannot share.

Pardon, I have a jaundiced eye

Bilou Gaharpur, Dhanmondi R.A, Dhaka-1205

I was tickled by 'An American Jew's Perception's (Dear Bangladesh, The Daily Star, 16 November 2003). Dr. Richard Benkin was laying it on thick for the hungry Bangladeshis about whom almost nobody has a good word to say. He tried to score in an empty field. All his eulogies--some doubtful, most debatable, others farfetched--were sweet music to my ears.

Why should a handful of Norwegians from cold, hilly, foggy wilderness grab all the credit and fame as peace-brokers, while we the 140 million warm blooded South Asians of balmy, vibrant clime are doing nothing? They have done enough in Sri Lanka. Now it should be our piece of cake.

And we are famously qualified for it, too. We are Muslims. So are the Palestinians. It follows, therefore, that they should eat from our hands. And what should we feed them? Why, as served by the Zionists and packaged by the lone Superpower.

And why should the Israelis listen to us? And why not? After all, the negotiations and compromise formulae are being formulated only for their benefit. They are the 'ubermenschen', the 'chosen people' and deserve the best cut. And it should be our pleasure to serve them so.

What are we hesitant about? Oh, the small matter of dishing out death to Yasser Arafat and erecting wall across Palestine to secure Israel. Doesn't every country has that right to safeguard itself? See, how the US and UK have secured themselves by destroying Iraq!

There is only one small handicap, though. How can we become the arbiter without formally recognising one of the parties? So, in our all-devouring urge to be a do-gooder, we must recognise the state of Israel, Ah, so! Is that the crux of the matter? Yes, Siree!

And not to mull over it too much either. We would not be the first member of the Official Islamic Club (okay, Organisation of the Islamic Conference, if you insist) to do so. There are such lofty examples as a prospective member of EU, Turkey and full-blooded member of Arab League, Egypt. So, why should we feel shy, being a flag-carrying member of SAARC?

My question to Dr. Benkin: If it is a SAARC member he had to pick on, why should not the honour go to India, the Big Brother? it is not only the largest democracy, but also the regional superpower. And for Muslim packaging, it has as much as all the Arab states jumbled together. Its camaraderie with the Arabs is downright hunky-dory. And with Israel, as everyone with a pea-brain knows, the 'entente cordiale de novo' is superlative.

But that will not do? Why so? Because peace is not the issue at all as WMD was not in Iraq. Dr Benkin's intention is to make an inroad of recognition of Israel by Muslim states. Being the impoverished state with the third largest Muslim population, Bangladesh is an apt choice. A hungry monkey will jump at any banana. And if it can be hooked, there goes the credibility of Bangladesh's application for the job of Secretary- General of the OIC.

Sorry, Dr Benkin, your slip is showing. May be your mentor, Mr Sharon, neglected to cloak you adequately or may be he hoped that small leaks will be covered well by the fig leaf of the pontificating last paragraph. I seek your permission to quote with my own paraphrasing.

"Peace is possible in the Middle East, but it will take a special kind of wisdom and courage. [Take a page or two from history: Will it be Babylonian Captivity or Roman Diaspora? ] Most nations are too mired in self-interest, stilted thinking, and ideologies to take that leap of faith. [God forbid, not the Zionist Israel--not even by a long stretch of violation of UN resolutions. It only intends to build Eretz Israel, in it's own design, supervised by Uncle Sam].