Kamalshah, son of Pahlawanshah, son of Said Ahmad Faqir, a resident of Laqlick, stormed into the shari'a court of the remote Afghan district of Kunnar in February 1886, demanding justice.
His wife Qalandar Bibi, Kamalshah told the qadi, or religious judge, had eloped with another villager and was pregnant with his son. But, it turned out, that wasn't the problem he wanted dealt with.
“This woman has jewels belonging to me,” he declared, “two necklaces, one bracelet, one hundred and ninety pins and one pair of golden earrings — the price of which amounts to sixty rupees.”
“I want my things,” Kamalshah complained, “but she refuses to give them up.”
Eight years before Kamalshah appeared before the qadi of Kunnar, journalist Howard Hensman, embedded with British forces during the Afghan war of 1879, offered a somewhat different account of the culture of Afghan men.
The Afghan woman, he claimed — though he never met one — was “shut up and kept from mischief within the four walls of her master's harem.”
The men were “particularly jealous of their women”; insults to their honour were certain to be “confronted by some buck Afghan with a knife in his hand and an oath in his mouth.”
Kamalshah's subversion of our stereotypes of the Afghans offers a prism through which we may reflect upon the intellectual foundations of an extraordinary project that will be key to United States foreign policy in the first decades of this century: its effort to undo the seismic ruptures opened up by 9/11 by seeking a rapprochement with the global Islamist movement.
Envoys from Ennahda, the Tunisian Islamist party, met with key lawmakers and State Department officials in Washington DC in May. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has also said she would welcome dialogue with those of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, long reviled as irredeemable fascists, “who wish to talk with us.” In Afghanistan, President Barack Obama's administration is locked in a secret dialogue with the Taliban.
America's secret romance with the Islamists has a disturbing history — and its renewal ought be a real source of concern for those concerned with democracy.
America's Islamist project
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's appointment book for 1953 bears the record of a meeting with “the Honourable Saeed Ramadhan.” Mr. Ramadan, as his name is commonly spelt today, had travelled to the U.S. as part of a delegation of three dozen religious scholars and political activists, who its government hoped to cultivate to promote its anti-communist agenda in newly independent Arab states.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts, declassified documents show, described Mr. Ramadan as a “Phalangist” and a “fascist.” In the Cold War, these weren't necessarily disqualifications.
“By the end of the decade,” journalist and historian Ian Johnson has recorded, “the CIA was overtly backing Ramadan. While it's too simple to call him a U.S. agent, in the 1950s and 1960s the United States supported him as he took over a mosque in Munich, kicking out local Muslims to build what would become one of the Brotherhood's most important centres.”
British geostrategic doctrine likely had something to do with the making of this alliance. Francis Tucker, the last General Officer-Commanding of the British Indian Eastern Command, believed that the creation “of a new Muslim power supported by the science of Britain” would “place Islam between Russian Communism and Hindustan.”
From Dennis Kux's book, Disenchanted Allies, we learn that John Foster Dulles — Eisenhower's Secretary of State and a key architect of the United States' wars against democracy in Iran, Guatemala and Indo-China — believed that the Gurkhas were Pakistani Muslims, and wanted men he believed were racially-superior fighters to be on the anti-communist side.
In the wake of the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan, the U.S. would use those connections, funnelling arms and logistical support through Pakistan to the jihadists it is now locked in war with. President Ronald Reagan famously described the Afghan jihadists as “freedom fighters”: he and others on the American religious right saw in them, not without reason, ideological soulmates.
Less well known are the U.S.' efforts to rebuild bridges with Islamist groups after the horrific events of 9/11. During President George W. Bush's second term in office, the U.S. reached out to Muslim Brotherhood-linked organisations in Europe. In 2006, for example, the State Department organised a conference in Brussels, bringing together western Islamists.
The objective was to play on the fissures within the Islamist movement: Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's successor, was bitterly opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood, and its cadre were engaged in pitched battles with al-Qaeda-linked organisations in Palestine, Egypt and Iraq.
Mr. Obama was mocked when, in 2009, he began reaching out to what was called the “moderate” Taliban: David Rothkopf, writing in Foreign Policy, imagined the CIA being tasked with seeking men who “advocate stoning unfaithful women to death with only small rocks and pebbles,” and “offer Bin Laden refuge in his home only during inclement weather.”
Now, though, Mr. Obama's Islamist efforts at Islamist outreach form the stuff of America's new consensus: there is, more than one commentator has said, no other way.
Part of the reason for this is tactical. The U.S. allied with reactionary regimes throughout West Asia — as it did in South America — in an effort to beat back nationalism. Egyptian rulers from Anwar Sadat onwards flirted with the Muslim Brotherhood, in an effort to legitimise their power — all the while cracking down ferociously on democratic opponents. In Pakistan, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq pursued a similar trajectory.
Now, as popular dissent evicts American-allied despot after American-allied despot, the U.S. finds it has no credible secular-democratic partners to engage with.
There is also, however, an ideological foundation for America's new policies: the notion that Islamists, unlike secular democrats, are in some way authentic, organic representatives of their peoples and cultures. The idea is tied profoundly to the role of religion in America's own civic life. In his 2009 speech to what is often called “the Muslim world,” Mr. Obama repeatedly invoked the common traditions of religion to legitimise his defence of democratic rights — not the secular traditions of the Enlightenment, from which they emerged.
Back in 1978, scholar Edward Said pointed to the pervasive influence essentialist ideas about faith and identity had on western thought. The notion of that Islam explained the workings of societies as diverse as Algeria and Indonesia suffused not just scholarship, but also popular culture: Charles Deveraux's novella Venus in India, first published three years after Kamalshah approached the qadi of Kunnar, is replete with images culled from Hensman.
Intellectuals belonging to quite different traditions projected on Islamic societies their own fantasies. Deborah Baker's superb biography of Maryam Jameelah, an enormously influential American-born writer, shows she saw in the reactionary ideas of Islamist ideologues Sayyed Qutb and Abul Ala Maududi a means of resistance against modernist materialism. French philosopher Michel Foucault's uncritical support for Iranian Islamism, Janet Afary and Kevin Anderson have shown, rested on similar propositions.
Even now, the ideas survive: historian William Dalrymple, no reactionary, described the Taliban as being “in many ways the authentic voice of rural Pashtun conservatism.”
Claims like these have in fact at best problematic empirical foundations. In a nuanced 2010 essay, scholar Thomas Ruttig noted that three decades of conflict brought about dramatic changes in the structures of Pashtun society. Education, generational change and urbanisation also brought transformations — as did ideology. Even though Taliban leaders were rooted in tribal societies, Dr. Ruttig noted, “their self-identification, the balance between being Pashtun and being Muslim has changed, as in the case with many Afghans.”
Little of this nuance, though, informs reportage or scholarly writing: a few minutes with an internet search engine will demonstrate that the word “fierce” and its variants preface references to ethnic Pashtuns with mind-numbing frequency. The word, needless to say, almost never presages discussions of European nations where killing has taken place on an industrial scale.
Islamism is thus almost never understood as just one of several competing modernist movements — its influence a consequence not of its organic character, but of the geopolitical patronage.
Even though Islamists have moderated their positions in recent years, their politics remain disturbing. The Muslim Brotherhood ideologue, Youssef al-Qaradawi, for example, says he appreciates music and supports the right of women to work — but also describes the Holocaust as divine punishment of Jews. He remains committed to “the spread of Islam until it conquers the entire world and includes both the East and West which marks the beginning of the return of the Islamic Caliphate.”
In the decades to come, it is possible that the rigours of democratic politics will compel figures like al-Qaradawi to temper their positions: to engage in the kind of alliance-based politics that has allowed the American religious right to work within the democratic system.
The U.S. patronage of the Islamist cause, however, will legitimise and strengthen it — not allow the regeneration of genuine, competitive democracy. Its current course threatens to compound the tragic consequences America's anti-communist crusade had for the lives of millions across the world.
It is no secret!
And Besides the article, albeit interesting and thought provoking, was too hastily written together as random grandiloquent facts.
I really like Lekshmanan T.S comment. History of today is because history of yesterday.
Author carefully wants to portray the emergence of Islamism with a youth sprit is a consequence of geopolitical patronage.
The fact is the so called “War on Terror” is fading and America is being overwhelmed by its own policies. As the future is with these Islamists hand, America’s romance with them is inevitable.
Mr Praveen Swamy and his supporters should understand that as the Hindu organizations, Christian mssionaries and all other idealogies believe that they want to spread themselves all over world , similarly Islamists too want to spread thier idealogy through out the world.
The article is completely esoteric and i think that makes it very good!
Lolz !
The author tries to sound that he knows the Muslim politics like the back of the hand. The truth is that his articles are based on some baseless stories. There are millions of fantastic stories of 19th century America and Europe. If you are biased person you would dub such articles as very good. Any objective reader would call them just figment of imagination, far from the fact etc. Swamy should learn to be more objective, only then he would be considered as objective writer.
A very scholarly article whose meaning as the comments suggest will not be fully comprehended by people or coloured by their worldview. It is one of those articles that breaks us out of our insulation and confronts us with a world in the vice like grip of certain powers that have been creating havoc with the world while advancing their claims with chilling professionalism.
I agree with Farzan, this article seems to be very biased and does not provide a complete picture. Putting your head in the sand does not solve any problem
The people with Muslim names who've commented on this article seem to prove the author wrong - that Islamism (and prejudice that follows) is indeed organic, and not originating of geopolitical patronage.
Farzan, could you elaborate on how Mr. Swamy has shown malice in this particular article? His point of view is that giving undue importance to Islamist organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood can be counter productive for the whole world as they dont necessarily represent the will of the majority Muslim population in those countries. It would be akin to India starting a dialogue with the terror supporting LeT/JuD in Pak, just because they have done some charitable work within Pakistan.
There are enough signs in Egypt to show that as the Ikhwan (brotherhood) gets more assertive, Egypt is moving further away from the open, secular democratic nation that people might have hoped for post Mubarak. By the way, 'freedom of expression' should be allowed - especially when it comes to exchanging ideas, however uncomfortable one might find them.
Yet another leaflet of the already drum beaten topic. Can we let Muslims, Hindus, and all others live according to their tradition and beliefs. Who is Mr Swami to criticise the way Afghans or for that matter Mulims of the middle east live and behave. It's because of these writers that we face the wrath when we work with otherwise pacified Muslims in the middle east and Malaysia.
America is acting on the principle of self interest.If it is necessary to bond with the devil, she will do so if it is to her advantage.This is also true of all other nations.The difference is that America is the only super power,and her actions resonate throughout the world.The happenings in the South China Sea is another area where America is taking a keen interest to counter the claims of China for the resource rich islands in the Spratleys.She wishes to get out of Afghanistan and Iraq as opposition by the American public and the huge cost of engaging the Taliban and Al-Qaeda both in human lives and materially is a huge drain on her resources.Her national debt is now in trillions of Dollars.When she leaves the area in the Middle East she has to ensure that friendly governments are in place and what better allies than the present setup in the middle East.The democracy movement in Egypt is now at a standstill and the situation there is back to military domination minus Mubarak.
The problem with Americans is that they never reach out to anyone or anything without an interest at heart and could never understand Islam the way William Dalrymple understands it. In a nutshell, no American President has read Muslim history. The Middle East conservatism is different to say that of Afghanistan. Here, in the 1800s, among the reforms sought to be imposed by King Amanullah, who tried to modernize Afghanistan by creating diplomatic relations with other countries, brought in secularization of thought, was an ardent supporter of women's education and did not make the veil compulsory. But the elders and religious leaders rebelled against the latter two reforms and alienated themselves from it. Even Karzai today cannot insist on these two reforms. What the Americans have to understand is that Kabul was not and even today, does not represent Afghanistan as a country. Simply put, the Taliban imposed what the people wanted.
I wouldnt doubt Obama's intentions in his dialogue with the muslims in his first term, he lived in Muslim parts of Asia and understood that islam isnt a Bogeyman out their to get America and so until the Gallop polls showed his falling rating, he had to go back to drone attacks and some appeasing stuff to do. However, this is going to be an unending romance, since islam is growing in Europe and slowly in North America, thanks to a stable family structure among Muslims,reversion, immigration and from Azan in dearborn Michigan to Zaytuna Institute in Bay Area California, the 1st islamic school in America, Islam will continue to be part of the coffee table discussion to State of the Union speeches .
The article seems to be ambiguous, ambivalent even, in terms of making any specific point. Are we to fear the repercussions for the world of a Western rapprochement vis-a-vis the Islamists, or ought the Islamic nations to fear the revival of Western duplicity which is plain for all to see? Who exactly is the 'bad guy' as far as the author is concerned?
This is a reply to Mr. Muzaffar - please note that Indian leadership for independence movement, particularly Mr. MK Gandhi, never did support or condone violence. Please note that he didn't even support Bhagat Singh, neither did he support or endorse Bose, who never really did 'kill' anyone. I consider your point offensive, or any muslim argument that killing is Ok - nope, it's not, not in any circumstances is killing ever justified because if no conflicting party is violent, there is no killing, simple as that. India did not achieve it's independence after violence, it did so after a non-violent struggle - so please do not malign the name of the country, associating Islamic terrorists with Indian freedom fighters. Our freedom 'fighters' used to fight with their pens and philosophy, not guns and bullets. Note this and remember this, Gandhi famously scorned a Hindu who had killed a muslim during partition in an act of reprisal. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Author himself does not able understand the difference between Islam as >religion and its presence in various countries having their own culture and politics which may not be connected to Islam. so it is utter ridiculous to compare a certain group with religion of global presence.
Hindu\Praveen Swami has excellently analysed and dipicted the imperialist America's evil design in Muslim world to tilt balance in its favour! it is a fact that US wants its supremacy in the world by killing socialist and communist voices-that because US plays with Muslims to counter communist , mainly to restore fascist regime in the world.US has definite link with Talibans and hardcore fundamentalist Muslims throughout the globe Rather US encouraging Muslims to be fascists and orthodox fundamentalists and in the process making Muslim Brotherhood its and wants to smoothen relation with muslim world in the wake of killing Osama in Pakistan territory without any inkling to Pakistan by destroying the soveriegnty of Pakistan ! In reality, US will and is number enemy of Islams to bring them in backward direction throughout the globe. Progressive Muslims of the world know the nefarious character of US to keep Muslims backward during this advanced age of development www.kksingh1.blogspot.com
"Now, as popular dissent evicts American-allied despot after American-allied despot, the U.S. finds it has no credible secular-democratic partners to engage with." So does the author think there was someone before who was democratic?? It should be a great relief to Arabs that, likes of Mubarak and Ben Ali aren't there anymore. I have seen people from the Middle east taking pride in the new Movement. It is a great leap forward to freedom and liberalism, rather than being shackled in the smokescreen of democracy.
And why US supported them was simply because those were countries with crony capitalism which very well suited the corporates of US, who more or less dictates the policies of that country.
Articles written on an intellectual National daily should not have a prejudice towards one specific creed/region/religion. Over a long period of time I have read Mr.Praveen Swamy write with a malice towards one. I wonder how it suits him to always twist things, sometimes so obnoxiously that you wonder if 'Freedom of expression should be allowed'.
Go back to the history of the creation of SaudiArabia, period of the first world war,the efforts of Lawrence of Arabia,the breaking of the Caliphate under Turkey sultan.A different perspective will emerge. Still going back to the emergence of Caliphate dominance of the then known WORLD,the blocking of the trade routes in Istanbul/Asiaminor in the 15th century,the beginning of exploration of New World,you can see that all the pursuits were for trade/resources.If it was the spices of India earlier,it is Oil now.Religion is only incidental to this pursuit of riches.The only difference is that America did not exist then-it was a NEW WORLD found out as a byproduct of this pursuit.
A well written article...Anglo-American policies in the Cold war era have cynically made use of fascist elements in Arab and Muslim countries to fight Communism and this unsustainable alliance has started to unravel. Under Saudi-Gulf persuasion, the US is embarked on a risky project of appeasing Taliban which is no more than a front for a host of dangerous groups funded by the Saudis.
Quite apt for the present times. The US now sees that it has enetered into quagmires in both Iraq and Afghanisthan and needs a face-saving exit option. A battle cannot be won on foreign soil without having a clear understanding of the religio-cultural background of the soil and most cambridge historiography has approached this in an oblique fashion. From Islamophobia of the early years of Bush(Junior)administration and the new-found romance is all a part of the same mistake. With the rise of parallel centres of economic powers across the globe over the last decade, Washington is at rapid loss of its political clientale and now it wants to venmture into the political spaces hitherto uncaharted by it. Egypt and Libya proves amply well US efforts at hijacking the mass movements there. All this perhaps could have been avoided had the US learnt its lesson in Vietnam from Vietnam. However, it believes that it can substitute such learning with its military might.
Mr. Muzaffar has a very valid point. In the era of mass communications at the touch of a button, perceptions still continue to be controlled by very few, through their expert hold on mass media. There is a certain branding of actions by Muslims that reek of double standards, particularly fostered by the USA, and even countries like India do not resist that. There is great danger not only in the alliances of convenience that the USA is famous for, but also in the brands of perception it is unwittingly creating all over the world.
To begin with, an excellent article. It's very rare to see such brilliantly nuanced articles on things as sensitive as Islam. While the US religious right has exerted itself to the fullest to deny this, the American constitution was founded on essentially secular principles; a number of the founding fathers, Jefferson and Paine, for instance, were diests. Freedom of speech is considered to be on of the cornerstones of American democracy, and women's rights have seen great progress during the 60's and 70's. I find the analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood especially intriguing. This is, after all, the orginization that has been responsible for the spread of Wahabi Islam throught large parts of Western Asia and North Africa, funded partly by Saudi oil money. It's indeed unforunate to see the US silently condoning the subjugation of women, religious minorities, and free speech by legitimizing Islamic theocracies as an expression of the will of a people.
USA and Islam do not mix together literally. History is the evidence.
I am surprised that 'The Hindu' can publish such a low grade article. A ninth grader would write this kind of silly random collection of excerpts from many papers. It is so obvious that the author never understood why America is involved in the Muslim world and gives a catchy title 'America's secret romance with Islamism.' And he hopes to convince the readers from quoting a story of a woman in the 19th century- "which we may reflect upon the intellectual foundations of an extraordinary project that will be key to United States foreign policy in the first decades of this century:..." Nuts! He would have got a better perspective had he ever thought of the reason, why America is in Afghanistan and why America was in Vietnam.
Any form of American political maneuvering will ultimately result in major global paradigm shifts and cultural development, it is a super power! Whether it's the Islamists or the hippies, whatever America does or whatever it does not do - will have consequences, it's just too influential of a country today. For the Islamists, there is a severe need for a crack in the myth of the invincibility of the religious warrior. And America is more than capable of cracking that myth, no major muslim minority within or leverage muslim countries hold over it.
Ah lord, you can't please all of the people all of the time, especially when you're number one.
For the USA, chickens have come home to roost.
I don't want to comment on the above text but want to say a simple answer on terrorism. If an Iraq native who is suffering from the cruelty of United States, if he wants to fight against the u.s govt,Is any country helping them? No, not at all is the absolute answer.The UNO is able to see the cruelty of Gaddafi and the Mubarak of Egypt towards the country people but not able to see the cruelty of Israel and U.S,of what they are doing with the people of Iraq and Gaza. Western Nations are ready to support the people of Egypt and Libya,not only supporting but also ready to supply weapons to the country people. Why not these nations came forward at the time of Iraq war.. Now if a Iraqi kills bush then he is considered as terrorist.why? At the time of INDIAN freedom, many Indians killed British police officers and others,for the cause of their freedom and now they are called as freedom fighters. Why what is the reason,we should think about it.
A nice article from Praveen Swamy, where a myriad of facts have been put together, in his typical style, to see things in a different perspective. The geo-political, strategic and anti-communist agenda of US have stifled democracy in middle east (and in surrounding islamic nations) for decades and continue to do so. Their stern alliance with kingdoms and dictatorships and refusal to seriously engage with Shiite countries proves how little they value freedom and rights in reality.
Please Email the Editor