By Syed Osman Sher, Toronto, Canada
Professor Samuel Huntington of Harvard has sketched a blueprint for Pan-Islamic solidarity, and has prophesied that “the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic… The clash of civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.”
Disagreeing with the above, Syed Arif Hussaini rightly says in ‘The Clash of Civilizations’ in Pakistan Link of November 30, that “Given the current trends, religion is likely to play only a marginal role in any future world conflict.” Samuel Huntington has divided the world into Christian and Islamic civilizations. They have been depicted as two cultural super-powers. According to him, the next great clash on global level will be civilizational between Islam and Christianity. Undoubtedly, the Christian world has recently been seen whipping Muslim nations either directly or posing menacingly with ire in their eyes for those who have so far been spared, such as Afghanistan, Palestine, Libya, Iraq, Chechnya, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Somalia. This definitely must have lent credence to the hypothesis of Huntington.
But doesn’t it transport the modern world many centuries back into the dark ages of misunderstanding and intolerance when Islam and Christianity were fighting wars in the name of religion? These days, however, such a situation does not seem conceivable. First, there does not exist any inter-faith conflict in the world today. Second, the world has become enlightened and is not prepared to indulge itself in the stupidity of religious wars. Third, the world has become a community in itself, and has evolved the process of forming opinions about its members. The aggressor, howsoever powerful, can hardly afford to disregard world opinion. Fourth, there are other great cultures too in the world, beside the Islamic and Christian. They are not going to fight, right and left, with each other. Fifth, a Pan-Islamic bloc, if there could be one, cannot be deemed as a match for the western countries so as to engage in a war, unless it is thrust upon them.
Since materialism is fast pushing religion on the sidelines, it is only the economics that has become the most important actor on the world stage. And for achieving economic supremacy, politics will continue to play its historic role. These days, whatever religious discord is being woven around incidents, serious or slight, by the western media and administration has political undertones.
Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher, writes in ‘The Recrudescence of Puritanism’: “Next to enjoying ourselves, the next greatest pleasure consists in preventing others from enjoying themselves, or, more generally, in the acquisition of power.” With the demise of colonialism in the mid-twentieth century, the western world is not feeling at ease by leaving the weaker nations of the world free to handle their own affairs.
Undoubtedly, in modern times, the western countries have become the epitome of scientific knowledge, technological advancement, economic wealth, and military firepower. Intoxicated by this achievement, they have been advancing their own interests as the global agenda through various instruments, like imposing a World Order, shackling developing countries in debt, supporting autocratic rulers, generating coups d’etat around the world, creating rebels against established governments, and dominating over the policies of various international organizations like United Nations, World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organization. Their lust for power and pelf has provided a perception that countries at the lower strata of economic and cultural development are fit only to be dictated by them, and that the latter’s resources are to be harnessed in promoting mainly their interests.
In the backdrop of the above it is not surprising that irritation will continue to exist between the haves and have-nots of the world. With the virtual end of communism as the ideological opponent of the West, the fundamental source of conflict in this new world seems to be ‘primarily economic’. Hence, Samuel Huntington’s hypothesis does not hold much water.