Civilizations:
Clash Or Alliance
By Ram Puniyani
06 December, 2006
Countercurrents.org
During
last two decades World has seen the rise of politics based on religious
identity. Particularly after the 9/11 2001 WTC disaster there is a widespread
feeling that Samuel Huntington's thesis, that after the end of cold
war the current time is the one of Clash of Civilizations (Clash), is
true. One has witnessed many a controversies where religion has been
dragged into the murky world of politics. Osama bin Laden talked of
Jihad and George Bush responded to the WTC attack by uttering that it
is going to be Crusade for him. He and his associate Blair both gave
divine reasons for attack on Iraq. Multitude of controversies veered
around Danish cartoons, Pope's statement about Islam, the banning of
burqa in some Western countries, the rise of acts of terror in the name
of Islam with the epithet coming that all terrorists are Muslims, has
become popular in the social thinking at broad layers. Superficially
it is projected as if it is the clash between the Islamic culture and
the Western civilization. Here in India also attempts were made and
are underway to project Islam as a religion of violence and Muslims
being fanatics out to stick to the medieval social norms. The overall
impact of the events and acceptance of this Clash thesis by Huntington
has worsened the problem and is widening the intercommunity rifts.
As such the term clash of
civilization was put forward by Bernard Lewis and later on converted
into a thesis by Samuel Huntington, whose essay in a journal, Foreign
Affairs 1993, became more popular after the 9/11 2001. At the end of
cold war Francis Fukuyama postulated 'End of History', which stood for
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War,
or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end
of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological
evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
final form of human government." (quoted from "The End of
History?", 1989) This was in response to the philosophy of Karl
Marx, whose Historical materialism propounded that the struggle between
the classes is the cause of progress of society, leading to the classless
society and end of History, i.e. beginning of classless, commune based
society, communism
In the backdrop of Fukoyama's
'End of History', Huntington postulated that while the age of ideology
(Marxism, classless society) has ended with the collapse of Soviet system,
the World has only reverted to the state of cultural conflicts. As per
him the primary axis of conflict will be along cultural religious lines.
The principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations
and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilization will
dominate global politics and fault lines between civilizations are the
battle lines of future. As per him, "It is my hypothesis that the
fundamental source of conflict in this new World will not be primarily
ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind
and the dominating source of conflict, will be that the cultural. Nation
states will remain the most powerful actors in world Affairs, but the
principal conflicts of global politics will occur between Nations and
groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate
global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle
lines of the future."
Many did approve of this
thesis and the accompanying classification, whose main criterion is
religion. This thesis did create an anxiety and confusion adding to
the problems of the nations all around. It is in this context that Kofi
Annan, Secretary General of UN launched an initiative co-sponsored by
Prime Ministers of Spain and Turkey for an Alliance of Civilization
in August 2005. This initiative nominated a high level group cutting
across different religions and nations to come up with an understanding
of the world today and to recommend the measures to restore the amity
of civilizations, cultures and people of the of the World. The report
has been recently (Mid Nov2006) submitted to the Secretary -General
(http://www.unaoc.org/repository/report.htm)and it's a landmark in more
ways than one.
It debunks the Clash thesis
to bring our attention to the alliance between different cultures, nations
and people at all the levels, social, political and economic. It is
not only in current times but since the times people started migrating
and interacting that the alliance has been the undercurrent of the societal
life. The report points out that Clash theory has distorted the terms
of discourse on the real nature of predicament the World is facing.
The history of relations between cultures is not only one of wars and
confrontations; it is also based on centuries of constructive exchanges,
cross fertilizations and peaceful co-existence. One is reminded here
that India's ex-president, Dr. K.R.Narayanan, in response to the Clash
thesis, said that Civilizations don't clash, it is barbarisms which
clash. In Clash thesis, Cultures and religions are identified with the
religions of the kings and their wars are presented as clash between
religions or civilizations. The Hate ideology spread by communal group's
right here in South Asia also bases itself on the wars between Kings
of different religions and these kings are presented as symbols of that
religion. The whole aspect of cultural interaction is missing in this
discourse. For example in India while the atrocities of Aurangzeb are
the core of building the Hate ideology, the confluence articulated by
Dara Shikoh as one can glean through his book Majma Ul Bahrain, India
being a confluence of different cultures, is missing in this mindset.
Similarly the rule of Muslim Kings in the subcontinent is taken as the
point for legitimization of Islamic nation.
The worst part of this Clash
thesis is that by propagating that cultures are set on collision course,
it helps in turning the negotiable disputes into seemingly intractable,
identity based conflicts and this is what has taken control of popular
imagination. The report is based on the multipolar perspective and the
UN Charter of Human rights. Significantly it points out that there is
no hierarchy amongst cultures as each of them has contributed to the
evolution of mankind. While the core problem remains poverty and deprivation
of vast sections of mankind the rising trend of terrorism cannot be
dealt with by seeing it as a mere law and order problem or having its
roots in religion. On the contrary terrorism itself is a product of
political circumstances, which need to be solved on urgent basis. In
societies if some groups are discriminated against the violent repercussions
come up and are perceived as libratory by a section of people while
the same is seen as anti national by the state and other set of people.
The durable solution to the causes of terrorism does not lie in attacking
some countries or increasing the role of armed personnel in that area
but in addressing the roots of resentment.
It traces the roots of current
violent responses in the partition of Palestine and formation of Israel,
and latter's occupation of part of Palestine and other Arab territories,
which has come to be seen as a sort of colonialism by vast mass of people.
While Jerusalem remains Holy for Jews, Christians and Muslims, the support
of Western powers to Israel's highhandedness is perceived as the collusion
of West with the expansionism of Israel. The committee is very clear
on the point that no cause can justify the killing of civilians, non
combatants. It does call for freedom of religions and takes a strong
stand against desecration of holy places, irrespective of the majority
minority religions. The report does recommend several measures in the
arena of education, youth programs, community actions aimed to promote
alliance, peaking it with the recommendation that a forum of alliance
of civilization under the auspices of UN should be established and this
should be promoted at all the levels, national, societal and what have
you.
The humane spirit of the
repot is visible all through. However the point is, in current times
when the very authority of UN has been undermined by the powers that
are arrogant, can we look forward to the era of Alliance and Amity so
that the real problems gnawing the vast numbers of human kinds are properly
addressed to, i.e. march in the direction of better world, i.e. struggle
for human rights. To put it in another way, is it possible to think
positively, to think that 'Another World is possible', a World where
Human rights of all of us are adhered to.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights