United Muslim Ummah A Mere Dream or Reality
English Essay on "United Muslim Ummah A Mere Dream or Reality"
The concept of the Muslim community as an Ummah with a common sense of destiny and deep commitment to a shared set of immutable values is as old as Islam itself. Through the ups and down of history, this concept has found fulfillment or denial in one form or the other. Some saw its fulfillment in the stunning speed of early conquests crumbling in their path the two pre-eminent pre-Islamic civilisations; others perceived the climax of the concept in the glory of later empires which sprang up all over he known part of their globe; still others saw its consummation in the beauty and grandeur of the sciences, arts, and architecture which has been universally identified as Islamic. The concept of Ummah remained essentially above and beyond race, colour, language and geography. There were only three interconnected points of reference: one Book of guidance, i.e., the Quran; one personality whose example to follow i.e. the Holy Prophet, and one place to face for worship, i.e., Makkah.
In the current age, while many scholars and academics have tried to identify true ingredients of the concept of Ummah, some others have questioned thievery rationality or historical legitimacy of the concept. However, the mere fact that a powerful, impulse of togetherness and a shared sense of destiny has existed throughout the ages, encompassing all Muslim communities spread far and wide, should be enough to ‘prove’ the existence of a valid and legitimate concept philosophical ambiguities notwithstanding the only question was how to give a shape and a form to this concept in the contemporary political context.
The current quest for a shape and a form begins with the 18th and 19th century colonial expansion as a result of which Muslim states and communities went under the colonial subjugation. The colonel power wanted not only to rule over the resources of these subjugated communities, but also planned to alter the souls of the people.
Seeking a viable Muslim response to Western political and economic dominance, the 19th century witnessed the emergence of some powerful personalities, thinkers and reformers, notably Jamal-ud-Di Afghani (1839-1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Allama Muhammad Iqbal and others who developed and articulated the political theory of pan-Islamism.
At the end of World War I, he League of Nations came into being with a proper charter, lull-fledged secretariat and well defined rules of business, demonstrating that a formal and permanent multinational organisation was feasible. This contemporary experiment gave the leaders of the Muslim community a new hope of creating a permanent platform for airing collective concerns and for assembly and assertion of the identity of the Ummah. In their thoughts and heats, they, were planning a transcendental and supranational system based on the principle of collective sovereignty.4essays.blogspot.com If they ever though of an inter-governmental organisation, it was assumed that the governments would be Islamic in essence and character, that the government would truly and comprehensively reflect the aspiration of the masses, and that they would poll their sovereignty, or certainly a part thereof, to create a reservoir of intellectual, moral and physical resources for the common good of the whole of Ummah.
These great men with greater mission began promoting the idea of Muslim congresses, but the first one was not held until 1962, that is nearly thirty years after death of Jamal-ud-Din Afghani. First meetings of this congress were held in Cairo and Makkah. Amazingly, these first congresses were not against the colonial-imperial powers as such, but came about primarily as responses to Kamal Ata Turk’s abolition of Khilafat. Correctly or otherwise, the fall of Ottoman Empire and its substitution by a secular national government in Turkey was considered a great calamity, notwithstanding the fact that the Usmania Khilafat was an archaic institution, Ead for long Tost its vitality, and had no more than a mere symbolic relevance to an idea otherwise so noble and impelling as Ummah.
At the same time, the Bal four Declaration, setting up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, came as a staggering shock to the Arabs in particular and Muslims everywhere. Ramifications and implications of this declaration continue to dominate the political landscape of not only the Middle East, but also the rest of the Islamic world until today. A congress was held in 1931, specifically to address the protection of the rights of Palestinian Muslims and the holy places of Jerusalem. We will see later that from the congress of 1931 to the Islamic summits of today, the Palestine issue continues to dominate all debates and discussions.
In the 50s the political map of the world started to change dramatically. As a result of the exhaustion suffered by the imperial system consequent to the World War II, the classical colonial system started to crumble. Dozens of colonies gained independence. Most of these newly independent countries were in search of their ‘roots’ and a historical identity. For the Muslim states this quest could find ready, even lofty fulfillment in such a great and noble concept as Ummah. The time perhaps had come for a supranational, inter-governmental forum based the principle of shared sovereignty. But not quite yet. The new power elite in most of the newly independent Muslim countries consisted of secularist, socialists and regional nationalists who were not yet prepared to rise above their differences and forge unity on the basis of their common beliefs.
The situation changed dramatically after the 1967 Arab Israeli was in which Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and occupied large tracts of Arab territory. The entire Muslim world was shocked, more so by the Zionist occupation of holy places in Jerusalem, among others the sacred Al-Aqsa Amin Al Hussaim and King Hussein of Jordan, strongly supported by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and President Ayub and his successors from Pakistan, to call an Islamic Summit; the response was good, and the time was ripe, as the issue involved was urgent as well as highly emotive. In these changed circumstances the Arab nationalists could no longer ignore this bold initiative.
The initiative started to gain momentum. Less than two years later the final catalyst come when an arsonist set fire to a part of Al-Aqsa Masjid; out of this tragedy was born the first Islamic summit held at Rabat in September 1969. At that moment of history the leaders who were assembled were convinced that their people formed an indivisible Ummah and were determined to exert their united efforts to defend their legitimate interests. This resolve gave birth to the concept of Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), formally proclaimed in March 1972.
In the birth of the OIC, the Muslim world saw actualization of one lingering but live historical impulse, and, in terms of time and space, one local imperative. The first was consolidation of the Ummah in one potent organisational network, even though this network was to be a conglomeration of national governments based on geographic boundaries. The second matter related to the right of statehood of the Palestinian people, restoration of the previous status at Jerusalem, and vacation of occupied Arab territory. Because of its catalytic character at the moment of setting up the 010, the second matter immediately dominated the discussion as well organisational culture and character of the OIC. The PLO arid those aggrieved or directly t1iretened by Israel’s aggressive capabilities perceived the OIC as a one-item-agenda organisation and desired it to act as such. Benevolently, through the platform of the OIC, the PLO acquired the status of a legitimate freedom movement and respectability amounting to a state, even though without a territory. The OIC kept the Palestinian issue, the PLO and President Yaseer Arafat, politically speaking, alive and at the centre stage of international Muslim politics. That is great contribution of the OIC. A strong case can b built to prove that without the OIC the shape of things for the PLO would have been very difficult and very different. However, ironically, whenever the moment of decision on basic issues related to the settlement in the Middle East arrived, whether at Camp David or fifteen years later at Oslo, the OIC was not only left out of the loop, but it stood shocked, baffled, bewildered and fragmented, then as now, unable to cope with monumental character of emerging realities. Member countries are manifestly inclined to take separate decisions dictated by their own perception of the global situation and national self-interest. Today’s ground reality shows that despite all the rhetoric’s, resolutions, noise and resolve of the OIC, a substantial number of members of the OIC continued to recognise Israel; some have established full diplomatic relations; at least one country is knows to have offered setting up its diplomatic mission in Jerusalem! Mercifully, late, better sense. prevailed. Py March 199, twenty countries had recognised Israel, one had opened a liaison/trade office, three had declared intention to do so; only 27 member states have not established any relations.
Another implication of the capture of the platform and imagination of the OIC by Palestine and its connected issued, is that the OIC became not a vehicle but a captive of this issue, important though it was. Having developed a very strong position within the Secretariat, and playing upon the emotional content of the sue everywhere, the PLO would not permit other issues to be brought at par with the issues related to Palestine. A case in point is the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The strong pro-Palestinian lobby thought that introduction of the Afghan issue, or for that matte Kashmir issue as core issues of concern to the entire Ummah, was a distraction from the only core issue, as they perceived it. The PLO, Syria, Iraq’ and some others repeatedly cold-shouldered the Kashmir and Afghanistan issues. Were it not for the fact that Afghanistan issue had influential states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as its supporters, the ease would have been pushed to the periphery of OIC though. But thanks to the skill of Pakistani diplomacy and solid support of Saudi Arabia, in the case of Afghanistan an emergency meeting of Islamic Foreign Ministers was held in Islamabad soon after the Soviet invasion. This meeting did an essential service to the issue, and produced at least a facade and semblance of solidarity which Pakistan, under intense strategic pressure, so urgently needed at that pint in time. Later, throughout the decade of the 80s the 010 platform remained quite helpful in securing favourable resolutions in the UN General Assembly, year after year. When the Russian withdrew from Afghanistan, there was yet another window of great opportunity for the 010 to demonstrate its capability in a new sphere such as peace-making and peacekeeping in Afghanistan. In 1989, the UN and the USA were quite prepared to involve the OIC to bring about peace in Afghanistan it was informally agreed that USA would provide logistic support and the UN would place its peace-making and peace-keeping expertise at the disposal of the OIC. The idea developed for a short while, and the OIC, with a mixture of enthusiasm and awe, took some tentative and exploratory steps, but soon withdrew in face of daunting difficulties inherent in the situation.
The darkest moment and period in the life of OIC was the start and continuation of the Iran-Iraq war for eight years. The OIC could play no role whatsoever; having been labeled and charged by Iran as pro-Iraq. It is equally ironical that despite Iran’s repeated stand that the UN is merely a vehicle to promote American interests, the cease-fire resolution which Iran (and Iraq) finally accepted was a UN Security Council Resolution! It is equally sad to note that this resolution of the Security Council served Iranian interests no better than several early proposals developed by three successive Heads of state committees of the Islamic Summit formed for the specific purpose of bringing about cessation of hostilities between Iran and Iraq. After the cease-fire in 198S the OIC tried once again to make purposeful intervention in respect of humanitarian issues, especially those relating to the exchange of prisoners of war, but, sadly failed to make any headway. In a similar situation of cataclysmic nature which developed due to and after Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 in which the sovereignty and statehood of a member state was swiftly and brutally extinguished by another member state, the OIC remained quite incapacitated, played no significant role and showed no capacity or resolve to vacate the aggression. The matter soon went into the hands of the UN Security Council, and of souse the USA. The military power of America and its coalition partners had to do this job, to the utter humiliation and shame of the Muslim community and the OIC.
After the collapse of the Soviet system, Muslims of the former Yugoslavia were gripped with a tragedy of unprecedented nature in the annals of human history. The central location of the tragedy in the heart of Europe, the spotlight of the Western media upon .the gory and gruesome details of ethnic cleansing, and a massive exodus of refugees towards neighboring European countries, shocked human decency everywhere, and stimulated serious concern among the West, and great passion among Muslims everywhere. In that hour of their grief and unbelief, the OIC was something which the Bosnian Muslims desperately needed to clutch on to It must be admitted that OK solidarity shows with Bosnia was a matter of great spiritual comfort to the Muslims of Bosnia and the government of Alija Izetbegovic.
In addition to that, the financial and material support given by the member states, though as yet unquantified, certainly was not of any mean proportion. But, once again, at the time when the final peace plan was drawn at Dayton, USA, the OIC was nowhere in sight, though in this particular case one cannot blame the OIC , it being a party to the dispute in the sense that the OIC’s full and wholehearted sympathies lay with the , Bosnian Muslims anti the legal government of Bosnia Herzegovina against that abominable monstrosity called Karadic. Mercifully for the issue itself, the OIC or its other member states were in blissful ignorance of the intricacies, nuances and shades of difference between a formidable array of technical and jurisdictional issues and options involved. This intellectual incapacity led the entire Ummnah, hawks and cloves alike, to let the Bosnians themselves decide what was best for them. Thus the, signatories of the Dayton Accord escaped the fate meted out to the signatory of Camp David Accord!
The foregoing is an overview of the genesis and role of the OIC in the context of some of the major political issues which appeared during the last twenty-four years of the OIC’s life. An organisation such as the OIC is judged, more than anything else, on the basis of its performance in resolving political disputes and promoting security and well-being of the states and people. There the record is not enviable. Whereas the concept of Ummrah has become stronger among the masses, the ability of Muslim national leader to forge unity on the basis of gradual pooling of national sovereignty (example: the European Union) to create a strong and effe1ctive central authority has become even weaker. At this point in time, when the Western Christian world is preparing for a titanic ‘clash of civilisation’, the Muslim world structure exemplified by the OIC, based upon geography-bounded nation-states stubbornly wanting to protect their national sovereignties, stand out less as a living force and more as a curios compound. The member states of the OIC are a conglomeration of staggering disparities in terms of size, population, wealth, human development, state of political evolution, and political systems. The regional issues end local conflicts, domestic tension and vulnerability to external interference have further weakened the collective resolve. Except for Bosnia, member states have failed to orchestrate a coherent policy through the medium of OIC. Yet the fact that were it not already there, it would be impossible to invent an OIC under the prevailing situation amounting to chaos. Therefore, the OIC, despite its manifold weaknesses must be preserved.
As a superb example of ‘triumph of hope over experience, we note with an admixture of excitement and amusement when a seminars and other scholarly forums, people come up with long and elaborate list of recommendations relating to the entire philosophical and physical architecture of the OIC These recommendations cover the entire gamut of OIC’s role, charter, organisational framework, design of the secretariat, and the role of member states themselves. All most important question is whether, at this point in time, there is any noticeable compelling realisation and a powerful upsurge in our individual and collective thought that can force the kind of change which the scholars and the masses expect? Emotions apart, I fail to see any such happening over the near horizon. There lies the responsibility of the scholars and intellectuals in holding fast and aloft the torch set alight by Jamal-ud-Din Afghani sand others of his genre. It is a daunting task indeed, but one which must be undertaken.
In the current age, while many scholars and academics have tried to identify true ingredients of the concept of Ummah, some others have questioned thievery rationality or historical legitimacy of the concept. However, the mere fact that a powerful, impulse of togetherness and a shared sense of destiny has existed throughout the ages, encompassing all Muslim communities spread far and wide, should be enough to ‘prove’ the existence of a valid and legitimate concept philosophical ambiguities notwithstanding the only question was how to give a shape and a form to this concept in the contemporary political context.
The current quest for a shape and a form begins with the 18th and 19th century colonial expansion as a result of which Muslim states and communities went under the colonial subjugation. The colonel power wanted not only to rule over the resources of these subjugated communities, but also planned to alter the souls of the people.
Seeking a viable Muslim response to Western political and economic dominance, the 19th century witnessed the emergence of some powerful personalities, thinkers and reformers, notably Jamal-ud-Di Afghani (1839-1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905), Allama Muhammad Iqbal and others who developed and articulated the political theory of pan-Islamism.
At the end of World War I, he League of Nations came into being with a proper charter, lull-fledged secretariat and well defined rules of business, demonstrating that a formal and permanent multinational organisation was feasible. This contemporary experiment gave the leaders of the Muslim community a new hope of creating a permanent platform for airing collective concerns and for assembly and assertion of the identity of the Ummah. In their thoughts and heats, they, were planning a transcendental and supranational system based on the principle of collective sovereignty.4essays.blogspot.com If they ever though of an inter-governmental organisation, it was assumed that the governments would be Islamic in essence and character, that the government would truly and comprehensively reflect the aspiration of the masses, and that they would poll their sovereignty, or certainly a part thereof, to create a reservoir of intellectual, moral and physical resources for the common good of the whole of Ummah.
These great men with greater mission began promoting the idea of Muslim congresses, but the first one was not held until 1962, that is nearly thirty years after death of Jamal-ud-Din Afghani. First meetings of this congress were held in Cairo and Makkah. Amazingly, these first congresses were not against the colonial-imperial powers as such, but came about primarily as responses to Kamal Ata Turk’s abolition of Khilafat. Correctly or otherwise, the fall of Ottoman Empire and its substitution by a secular national government in Turkey was considered a great calamity, notwithstanding the fact that the Usmania Khilafat was an archaic institution, Ead for long Tost its vitality, and had no more than a mere symbolic relevance to an idea otherwise so noble and impelling as Ummah.
At the same time, the Bal four Declaration, setting up a Jewish homeland in Palestine, came as a staggering shock to the Arabs in particular and Muslims everywhere. Ramifications and implications of this declaration continue to dominate the political landscape of not only the Middle East, but also the rest of the Islamic world until today. A congress was held in 1931, specifically to address the protection of the rights of Palestinian Muslims and the holy places of Jerusalem. We will see later that from the congress of 1931 to the Islamic summits of today, the Palestine issue continues to dominate all debates and discussions.
In the 50s the political map of the world started to change dramatically. As a result of the exhaustion suffered by the imperial system consequent to the World War II, the classical colonial system started to crumble. Dozens of colonies gained independence. Most of these newly independent countries were in search of their ‘roots’ and a historical identity. For the Muslim states this quest could find ready, even lofty fulfillment in such a great and noble concept as Ummah. The time perhaps had come for a supranational, inter-governmental forum based the principle of shared sovereignty. But not quite yet. The new power elite in most of the newly independent Muslim countries consisted of secularist, socialists and regional nationalists who were not yet prepared to rise above their differences and forge unity on the basis of their common beliefs.
The situation changed dramatically after the 1967 Arab Israeli was in which Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan and Syria, and occupied large tracts of Arab territory. The entire Muslim world was shocked, more so by the Zionist occupation of holy places in Jerusalem, among others the sacred Al-Aqsa Amin Al Hussaim and King Hussein of Jordan, strongly supported by King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and President Ayub and his successors from Pakistan, to call an Islamic Summit; the response was good, and the time was ripe, as the issue involved was urgent as well as highly emotive. In these changed circumstances the Arab nationalists could no longer ignore this bold initiative.
The initiative started to gain momentum. Less than two years later the final catalyst come when an arsonist set fire to a part of Al-Aqsa Masjid; out of this tragedy was born the first Islamic summit held at Rabat in September 1969. At that moment of history the leaders who were assembled were convinced that their people formed an indivisible Ummah and were determined to exert their united efforts to defend their legitimate interests. This resolve gave birth to the concept of Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), formally proclaimed in March 1972.
In the birth of the OIC, the Muslim world saw actualization of one lingering but live historical impulse, and, in terms of time and space, one local imperative. The first was consolidation of the Ummah in one potent organisational network, even though this network was to be a conglomeration of national governments based on geographic boundaries. The second matter related to the right of statehood of the Palestinian people, restoration of the previous status at Jerusalem, and vacation of occupied Arab territory. Because of its catalytic character at the moment of setting up the 010, the second matter immediately dominated the discussion as well organisational culture and character of the OIC. The PLO arid those aggrieved or directly t1iretened by Israel’s aggressive capabilities perceived the OIC as a one-item-agenda organisation and desired it to act as such. Benevolently, through the platform of the OIC, the PLO acquired the status of a legitimate freedom movement and respectability amounting to a state, even though without a territory. The OIC kept the Palestinian issue, the PLO and President Yaseer Arafat, politically speaking, alive and at the centre stage of international Muslim politics. That is great contribution of the OIC. A strong case can b built to prove that without the OIC the shape of things for the PLO would have been very difficult and very different. However, ironically, whenever the moment of decision on basic issues related to the settlement in the Middle East arrived, whether at Camp David or fifteen years later at Oslo, the OIC was not only left out of the loop, but it stood shocked, baffled, bewildered and fragmented, then as now, unable to cope with monumental character of emerging realities. Member countries are manifestly inclined to take separate decisions dictated by their own perception of the global situation and national self-interest. Today’s ground reality shows that despite all the rhetoric’s, resolutions, noise and resolve of the OIC, a substantial number of members of the OIC continued to recognise Israel; some have established full diplomatic relations; at least one country is knows to have offered setting up its diplomatic mission in Jerusalem! Mercifully, late, better sense. prevailed. Py March 199, twenty countries had recognised Israel, one had opened a liaison/trade office, three had declared intention to do so; only 27 member states have not established any relations.
Another implication of the capture of the platform and imagination of the OIC by Palestine and its connected issued, is that the OIC became not a vehicle but a captive of this issue, important though it was. Having developed a very strong position within the Secretariat, and playing upon the emotional content of the sue everywhere, the PLO would not permit other issues to be brought at par with the issues related to Palestine. A case in point is the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. The strong pro-Palestinian lobby thought that introduction of the Afghan issue, or for that matte Kashmir issue as core issues of concern to the entire Ummah, was a distraction from the only core issue, as they perceived it. The PLO, Syria, Iraq’ and some others repeatedly cold-shouldered the Kashmir and Afghanistan issues. Were it not for the fact that Afghanistan issue had influential states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as its supporters, the ease would have been pushed to the periphery of OIC though. But thanks to the skill of Pakistani diplomacy and solid support of Saudi Arabia, in the case of Afghanistan an emergency meeting of Islamic Foreign Ministers was held in Islamabad soon after the Soviet invasion. This meeting did an essential service to the issue, and produced at least a facade and semblance of solidarity which Pakistan, under intense strategic pressure, so urgently needed at that pint in time. Later, throughout the decade of the 80s the 010 platform remained quite helpful in securing favourable resolutions in the UN General Assembly, year after year. When the Russian withdrew from Afghanistan, there was yet another window of great opportunity for the 010 to demonstrate its capability in a new sphere such as peace-making and peacekeeping in Afghanistan. In 1989, the UN and the USA were quite prepared to involve the OIC to bring about peace in Afghanistan it was informally agreed that USA would provide logistic support and the UN would place its peace-making and peace-keeping expertise at the disposal of the OIC. The idea developed for a short while, and the OIC, with a mixture of enthusiasm and awe, took some tentative and exploratory steps, but soon withdrew in face of daunting difficulties inherent in the situation.
The darkest moment and period in the life of OIC was the start and continuation of the Iran-Iraq war for eight years. The OIC could play no role whatsoever; having been labeled and charged by Iran as pro-Iraq. It is equally ironical that despite Iran’s repeated stand that the UN is merely a vehicle to promote American interests, the cease-fire resolution which Iran (and Iraq) finally accepted was a UN Security Council Resolution! It is equally sad to note that this resolution of the Security Council served Iranian interests no better than several early proposals developed by three successive Heads of state committees of the Islamic Summit formed for the specific purpose of bringing about cessation of hostilities between Iran and Iraq. After the cease-fire in 198S the OIC tried once again to make purposeful intervention in respect of humanitarian issues, especially those relating to the exchange of prisoners of war, but, sadly failed to make any headway. In a similar situation of cataclysmic nature which developed due to and after Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 in which the sovereignty and statehood of a member state was swiftly and brutally extinguished by another member state, the OIC remained quite incapacitated, played no significant role and showed no capacity or resolve to vacate the aggression. The matter soon went into the hands of the UN Security Council, and of souse the USA. The military power of America and its coalition partners had to do this job, to the utter humiliation and shame of the Muslim community and the OIC.
After the collapse of the Soviet system, Muslims of the former Yugoslavia were gripped with a tragedy of unprecedented nature in the annals of human history. The central location of the tragedy in the heart of Europe, the spotlight of the Western media upon .the gory and gruesome details of ethnic cleansing, and a massive exodus of refugees towards neighboring European countries, shocked human decency everywhere, and stimulated serious concern among the West, and great passion among Muslims everywhere. In that hour of their grief and unbelief, the OIC was something which the Bosnian Muslims desperately needed to clutch on to It must be admitted that OK solidarity shows with Bosnia was a matter of great spiritual comfort to the Muslims of Bosnia and the government of Alija Izetbegovic.
In addition to that, the financial and material support given by the member states, though as yet unquantified, certainly was not of any mean proportion. But, once again, at the time when the final peace plan was drawn at Dayton, USA, the OIC was nowhere in sight, though in this particular case one cannot blame the OIC , it being a party to the dispute in the sense that the OIC’s full and wholehearted sympathies lay with the , Bosnian Muslims anti the legal government of Bosnia Herzegovina against that abominable monstrosity called Karadic. Mercifully for the issue itself, the OIC or its other member states were in blissful ignorance of the intricacies, nuances and shades of difference between a formidable array of technical and jurisdictional issues and options involved. This intellectual incapacity led the entire Ummnah, hawks and cloves alike, to let the Bosnians themselves decide what was best for them. Thus the, signatories of the Dayton Accord escaped the fate meted out to the signatory of Camp David Accord!
The foregoing is an overview of the genesis and role of the OIC in the context of some of the major political issues which appeared during the last twenty-four years of the OIC’s life. An organisation such as the OIC is judged, more than anything else, on the basis of its performance in resolving political disputes and promoting security and well-being of the states and people. There the record is not enviable. Whereas the concept of Ummrah has become stronger among the masses, the ability of Muslim national leader to forge unity on the basis of gradual pooling of national sovereignty (example: the European Union) to create a strong and effe1ctive central authority has become even weaker. At this point in time, when the Western Christian world is preparing for a titanic ‘clash of civilisation’, the Muslim world structure exemplified by the OIC, based upon geography-bounded nation-states stubbornly wanting to protect their national sovereignties, stand out less as a living force and more as a curios compound. The member states of the OIC are a conglomeration of staggering disparities in terms of size, population, wealth, human development, state of political evolution, and political systems. The regional issues end local conflicts, domestic tension and vulnerability to external interference have further weakened the collective resolve. Except for Bosnia, member states have failed to orchestrate a coherent policy through the medium of OIC. Yet the fact that were it not already there, it would be impossible to invent an OIC under the prevailing situation amounting to chaos. Therefore, the OIC, despite its manifold weaknesses must be preserved.
As a superb example of ‘triumph of hope over experience, we note with an admixture of excitement and amusement when a seminars and other scholarly forums, people come up with long and elaborate list of recommendations relating to the entire philosophical and physical architecture of the OIC These recommendations cover the entire gamut of OIC’s role, charter, organisational framework, design of the secretariat, and the role of member states themselves. All most important question is whether, at this point in time, there is any noticeable compelling realisation and a powerful upsurge in our individual and collective thought that can force the kind of change which the scholars and the masses expect? Emotions apart, I fail to see any such happening over the near horizon. There lies the responsibility of the scholars and intellectuals in holding fast and aloft the torch set alight by Jamal-ud-Din Afghani sand others of his genre. It is a daunting task indeed, but one which must be undertaken.
No comments:
Post a Comment