Today, West and East again face each other uneasily across a divide that many see as religious war. Jihadis again fight what they regard as a defensive action against their Christian enemies, and again innocent women, children and civilians are slaughtered. As before, Western Evangelical politicians are apt to cast their opponents and enemies in the role of 'incarnate fiends' and conflate armed resistance to invasion and occupation with 'pure evil'. Again Western countries, blind to the effect their foreign policies have on the wider world, feel aggrieved to be attacked - as they interpret it - by mindless fanatics.Against this bleak dualism, there is much to value in Zafar's peaceful and tolerant attitude to life; and there is also much to regret in the way that the British swept away and rooted out the late Mughals' pluralistic and philosophically composite civilisation.As we have seen in our own time, nothing threatens the liberal and moderate aspect of Islam so much as aggressive Western intrusion and interference in the East, just as nothing so dramatically radicalises the ordinary Muslim and feeds the power of the extremists: the histories of Islamic fundamentalism and Western imperialism have, after all, often been closely, and dangerously, intertwined. There are clear lessons here.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
islamic fundamentalism and western imperialism
A day after another horrible suicide bomb attack, this time at the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad, I'd like to quote here some of the last words of a book I just finished: "The Last Mughal" by William Dalrymple. It's a remarkable work about the uprising in India, in Delhi 1857 against the British, which failed and in the end brought down the Mughal dynasty. Dalrymple points out that the British (wrongly) branded this revolt as a kind of global Muslim conspiracy, whereas it was in fact an uprising within the British Indian army which was mostly made up of high-caste Hindus. But this idea of the "Muslim conspiracy" and its fallout have, in hindsight, had dramatic implications for Hindu-Muslim relations in South Asia and probably also for the global relationship between the West and the Muslim world. I cannot go into all the details - you have to read the 500 pages yourselves - just one more explanation before the quote: Dalrymple contrasts the narrow-minded British approach with the tolerant ways of the Mughal court and its last emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks, have been meaning to read the book. Interesting how a similar -- same? -- conspiracy theory broke lose among British policy makers at the end of WW I: fear of the Caliphate. This fear apparently contributed to Britain's decision to go along with the French idea to break the Ottoman Empire into so many pieces. David Fromkin's "Peace to End all Peace" tells that story well.
Thanks for the hint, sounds interesting... In fact, there might indeed be a connection here, wonder if anyone ever explored this in detail... All I know is that there was a big movement among Indian Muslims during the 1920s to bring back the Ottoman Caliphate...
The problem may have stemmed from a tendency of the (Protestant)British to view the Caliphate as having been something akin to a Catholic Pope.
Yet the last Caliphate clerics to have wielded any real power were those of the Abbasid Dynasty way back in 1200s. The clerics of the so-called Ottoman Caliphate appear to have been mainly religious not political.
Post a Comment