CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS : A MYTH

             Everything seems coloured to a jaundiced eye. A goblet with a little wine in it can appear half filled to some and half empty to others. It is but a very natural thing for a person holding a chair of security advisor to view the happenings in the diplomatic scenario as a triumph of one and defeat of other, a progress of one bloc and the recede of the other and hence a total ‘clash of civilizations’ contending and striving for the acme. Under these state of affairs, one miserably fails to appreciate the beauty of inter-civilization interactions, cross-culture, pluralistic values and trespass of traditions and cultures. Lines and boundaries become more pronounced and cross-cultural buffer zones become hazy.  
              
             People unaware of repercussions of rifts and schisms will find Huntington s’ Clash of Civilizations enjoyable with the page turning urgency while the people of pacifist nature and those who advocates the principle of peaceful co-existence and reconciliations are left appalled. Taking into account the well- known and much hyped book of such a person holding the charge introduced in the beginning------------Samuel Huntington-----------it is quite mandatory to follow value free and pragmatic approach to prevent to get misinformed. While going through the pages of book in mention, it is much confirmatory conclusion that Huntington somehow agrees with Francis Fukuyama in the thought that there will be no ideological clashes after the collapse of USSR. But Huntington explores out a new possibility of clashes in the world i.e. clash of civilizations where cultures and religions will be the prime sources of conflict in international relations. He was about to proclaim the “crucial, indeed a central, aspect” of what “global politics is likely to be in the coming years”. Without a second thought he pressed on: “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic.

            The great division among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principle conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilization will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be battle lines of the future.” In his study, among all the civilizations he assumes two civilizations to be most contending in the possible clash i.e. Islamic civilization and Western civilization and the base of his arguments is that the Islam and Western civilizations are potent ones and moreover comes antagonistic to each other in the way that both of these are missionaries in nature having their own systems.

               Both of these also believe in the universalisation of their respective religions. Besides this, demographic explosion and resurgence of Islam, wrote Huntington, are the most recent factors which will lead to west-Islam conflict. The book is aimed at providing concerned leaders and government officials with a formula for prioritizations i.e. what issues, conflicts should be given more attention or considered more seriously than others. In short, the challenge for western policy makers, says Huntington, is to make sure that west gets stronger and fends off all the others, Islam in particular. The book, as was expected, came under intense and heavy criticism. Many of Huntington’s detractors (such as the former Iranian President Khatami) reacted by promoting the term ‘dialogue among civilizations’, as a counter-measure to the idea of a possible or imminent ‘clash’ or ‘conflict’ between different civilizations. Critics like Edwards are right in pointing out that there are places where Huntington succumbs to bigoted displays of (gratuitous) chauvinism and xenophobia, especially in his description of, and prescription for, the Confucian, and more importantly the Islamic threat. Said (one of the critics) points out that Huntington diverts more energy and space to discussing the Islamic civilization and the demographic problems/challenges it poses than any other civilizations, including the western civilization. In an article explicitly referring to Huntington, Amartya Sen points to that “diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world, Western civilization is no exception. The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern west is largely a result of the consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution and particularly in the last century or so. To read this as a historical commitment of the west ------over the millennia-------to democracy, and then to contrast it with non-western traditions (treating each as monolithic) would be a great mistake”. Huntington is very conscious about the preservation of Western civilization. He writes, “to achieve greater political, economic and military integration and to coordinate their policies so as to preclude states from other civilization exploiting the differences among them or playing one of them against the other……” This is a big give-away, especially for the non-Western readers who until having read this, perceived the West to be a perfectly harmonious and united bloc, whose members are so well connected and close knit that it is virtually impossible for a non-Western power or agency to find or exploit any potential or real differences between them. But this statement reveals and shows the vulnerability of the West and also indicates that creating division, discord and disunity within the Western powers is not only something doable or achievable for a non-western player but also that it is such a strong and plausible possibility that the West needs to be specially and specifically cautioned about it .This manifests and expresses the weakness of the Western bloc. The author, in the light of such an approach to reading and interpretations, ends up defeating his own purpose, and subverting his own aims and objectives. It should be mentioned here that the common notion that 9/11 signifying the indication of beginning of Clash of Civilization between two civilizations i.e. Islam and West is not a credible one and cannot be regarded as the indicator of clash between Islam and West. Sylo Tarako in his essay ‘Are civilization in collision?’ states “This kind of rhetoric from western leaders and also the media has contributed to presenting Islam against the West and Western values. One of the consequences of using theories of Huntington’s type in describing this conflict could also be that people from Muslim world to a large extent start seeing this conflict a Western war against Islam.” It should be borne in mind that Al-Qaeda is not the representative of Muslims in anyway. The condemnation of attack by Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan also challenges the validity of this notion. This justifies Khatami (one of the critic) who says that ‘dialogue between civilizations’ is also a possibility in International relations. Hence it can be  regarded as propaganda by Huntington to demonize Islam with the reference of ‘Green Peril’ analogous to that of ‘Red Scares’ used to outrun USSR in the similar way. At last, I think all Huntington did was to highlight the danger and threat posed to humanity by wars and conflicts that are inter-civilizational in nature. And this is why he set out to arrange, organize and build a conceptual framework (which he called civilization paradigm) within which, and from the vantage point of which, politicians and policymakers/advisors should view global affairs, and in light of which they can formulate their strategic plans and responses to events and happenings around the world.

-By Imran Ahmad Kichloo, M.A. Political Science, AMU