The Times They Are a-Changin'

In 1992 Francis Fukuyama put forth his idea of "The End of History," which said, "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."

 Of course if you are living the rich life in a developed welfare state, it could seem like it was the end of History, as these societies are indeed Dead History Societies. But try telling a Palestinian, a Somali, a Kashmiri, or an Iraqi that it was the end of History and see what they say.

In 1993 Samuel Huntington put forth his idea of "the Clash of Civilizations," saying that henceforth conflicts in the world will be clashes between the major civilizations of the world.  The Western World and the Islamic World were two of his seven major civilizations that were to clash.

And indeed the events of 9/11 brought out this entire notion of "Islam" and the "West" and how the two civilizations were clashing, allowing many to say that Huntington’s theories were coming alive.

In a review paper in which I critiqued Huntington’s ‘Clash of Civilizations’ I wrote, "It may seem that Huntington’s theory (which was formulated in 1993) has been verified by world events in the running decade (Clashes between Islamists and America). However, one has to note that this proof of his theory is what carries the main and fundamental flaw of his argument. Huntington’s theory can be applied to any ‘clash’ between ‘different’ people and in most scenarios can be manipulated to be proven right. And looked closely, Huntington’s paper repeatedly picks out instances of clashes that have occurred in the past (e.g. clashes in the Middle East and the Balkans) and converts their pluralistic, complex nature into specific, rigid structures. In today’s context, for instance, the hostility between America and the Islamists that is a myriad of resource geopolitics, security and self defense tactics, religious clashes etc., can be simplistically viewed as a clash of civilizations due to difference in religious identities."

 In other words, is it really that easy to identify Islam and the West? Are they discrete entities that can be singled out, and are their interactions easily identifiable? And secondly, is America's interference in the Middle East, its aggressive policy, new?

Both Islam and the West do not exist as independent, identifiable civilizations. They are pluralistic, and are surely not sealed off, holistic entities that do not interact and influence one another, overlapping more often than not. Further the interactions between the supposed West and the supposed Islamic World are as complex as the civilizations themselves. These interactions span over centuries beginning with very emergence of the three Semitic religions, and continuing into the colonial world, and the postcolonial world. In contemporary history there exist significant incidents that have shaped these interactions (Suez Canal, Israel, Iranian Revolution, Gulf War I, proxy wars of the Cold War) and continue to shape them. And through all these incidents it is easy to note that America’s aggression in the supposed Muslim World is not new. In fact, America’s role in the Muslim World has been entirely to serve itself (and Israel), as and when required, and to turn the Muslim World or a given Muslim State into a comfortable “other,” when needed.

Thus it becomes necessary to problematise the terms “Islam” and “the West,” and to understand that 9/11 did not change much when it comes to foreign policies of the West and the Middle East.  I learned in a class I took last semester (also called Islam and the West) that the two terms, when taken at face value amount to a false idea of not only history, but also modern-day politics.  And hence, gives us a simple world-view where two discrete civilizations are doing to the other what they think the other deserves.

But if 9/11 did not go down in history as being the day the civilizations began to clash, or being the day, when America decided to fix the Muslim World, was it an event that altered nothing at all?

9/11 made the life of normal civilians, both Muslim and non-Muslim, very different from what it used to be. From things such as difficulties in acquiring visas, to racist violence, from everyday annoyances we face at Airport Security, to gruesome torture and detention. And of course the fear of being in the wrong building/plane/city at the wrong time. To the Iraqi and Afghani civilians 9/11 brought a life of bomb blasts, shattered cities, and bloody war.  Elsewhere, for you and me, ordinary people who had nothing to do with either the foreign policy of the Western Nations, or the grievances that the Muslim World carries, 9/11 has brought in a generation, a life of paranoia.

9/11 more than anything else, made us- the civilians, who go about minding our daily lives, fretting over broken hearts, and lost jobs, and looking forward to cozy dinners with our respective others- bear the burden of selfish, greedy, and inhuman foreign policies that powerful men drafted and executed, and terrifying murderous plots that a few draft and chillingly execute.

If I were to die in a terrorist attack, would these extremists even know how I feel about Palestine? Would they even understand that I too am pro-Palestine, so much so, that I plan to move there and aid the Palestinians in rebuilding their lives? And, no, they won't know or understand. If I were in Taj Hotel on 26 November 2008, I would have been shot in cold blood, irrespective of my views on Iraq, Kashmir, Palestine or Chechnya.

And these effects of 9/11 and its bloody aftermath (that still continues in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places) are why it is easy for the common man and woman to draw distinct boundaries between civilizations and pick sides, without questioning, and without wanting to question.

If problematising the terms “Islam” and “the West” is what will help one understand the history of interactions between the players of current conflicts, as well as the conflict itself- and that understanding that in the grand scheme of things will lead to ending (maybe not entirely) ideas of hatred, violence, and paranoia, then we sure are in trouble.
Because although policies of the West and the Muslim World bring out the complexity of these terms, the repercussions of those policies, and plots to unleash terror and violence, limit our perspective.
They sap the energy out of the ordinary civilian to seek, to know, to understand, and to bring into focus the gray between the black and the white.