Elephant v/s Dragon – a repeat of 1962?

Elephant v/s Dragon – a repeat of 1962?

In recent months a very disturbing trend can be observed in Indian foreign policy establishment. The whole Indian foreign policy establishment has been buzzing with news about border violations by Chinese troops into Indian territory, the Indian media outlets have been beaming with breaking news of Chinese troops breaking out in territories like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttaranchal and Ladakh. Some Indian commentators have been busy predicting that China will be going to a War with India by 2012.There have been comments from official Indian spokespersons calling for China to show restraint. The Indian Air force Chief recently went as far as saying that China has replaced Pakistan as the number one enemy in the eyes of Indian establishment. In the middle of all this there has been some not so fruitful talks between Indian and Chinese officials about the disputed border areas between the two countries. In short there has been a feeling of antipathy towards China in India that only resembles 1962, the last time when these two countries went to war.

Let us analyze the reasons behind this frenzy about China in India. India and China do have existing boundary disputes between themselves. The region of Tawang, which falls under Arunachal Pradesh, is claimed by China as a part of it’s Tibetan region while India always considers Tawang it’s own territory. In recent months China has upped the ante on Tawang, it very recently pushed the World Bank in canceling a multi-million dollar loan to India as that loan was to be spent on Arunachal Pradesh by India. China and India are actually holding dialogue with each other without any results on the future of Tawang.

In recent years a section of Indian establishment and elite has certainly become very confident and Zealous about themselves and the future of India. This group believes that India is destined to become a great power in very near future. Recent Indian economic growth and successful nuclear bomb related experiments might have spurred them into this view. This group considers China as a natural competitor to India’s coming greatness hence there is a reason that this group will try to influence the Indian public opinion against China so that it can mobilize Indian popular opinion against what this group believes an ensuing Chinese attack on India.

This above-mentioned section of Indian population considers the United States of America as a natural ally of India and henceforth a partner against China in the Asian geo-politics. This is the same group, which lobbied hard for the recently concluded Indo-US nuclear deal both in India as well as in USA.After the recent election of Barrack Hussain Obama as US president, the current US administration unlike the previous one under George W Bush, has not given India the same attention as it has done to China. This could be one of the ways by the above-mentioned group to bring back US attention towards India This could be another ploy to appeal towards US arms industry for more future Indian purchases of US weapon systems.

Another couple of possible scenarios could be analyzed behind the recent events. US under Obama administration has given more importance in fighting Talliban militants in Afghanistan. To succeed in Afghanistan the US needs the help of Pakistani military and intelligence establishment. That is why it wants the Pakistani military to start fighting more forcefully in the tribal regions bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Pakistanis whom consider India as the most serious threat to it’s existence told the Americans that they can not fight with full force against Afghanistan as long as the threat from India remains on it’s eastern border. The US certainly have pushed the Indians towards a diplomatic détente towards Pakistan since it does not want an escalation of tension in the broader south Asian region when it is busy in Afghanistan. Now the modern Indian mindset is based upon two facts one is a sense of superiority over Pakistan and another is a sense of inferiority over China. Our readers will do well to remember that there was a terrible terrorist attack by Pakistani terrorists in the Indian business capital of Mumbai in November 2008 and the entire Indian nation was baying for Pakistani blood.

Now this whole incident took place at the same time around the election of Barrack Obama as US president. So when the Obama administration had pressed on India to maintain peace with Pakistan the Indian government had to divert the attention of it’s citizens who were angry over the inaction of their government regarding Pakistan. Playing the China card is certainly a very good option by the Indian leaders to divert the attention of their public from Pakistan to China.

Whatever reason could be behind this recent anti-China frenzy in India the Indian government must tread carefully when it comes to China. A look at the map of region will ensure that to the readers. India is surrounded by neighbors whom the Chinese can use with effectiveness in case of an all out war. In the western border of India, there is Pakistan which is an all-weather friend of China, on the northern border lies Nepal where in recent times China has created a lot of influence with it’s alliance with the local Nepali Maoists. On the eastern front China has gained influence in Bangladesh and Myanmar China has been able to gain a foothold even in Sri Lanka. Overall assessment ensures that in the case of warfare Chinese allies may well surround India, which is nothing short of a strategic nightmare for India.
A further look at the international scenario will present bleaker picture for India. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russians has been cozying up to China as a bulwark against what it considers US interference in areas of Russian influence. In case of a large-scale War between India and China, Russian support will probably be with China than with it’s cold war ally, India. Support from the United States on which Indian establishment is relying upon, might be not that forthcoming. China owes US billions of dollars in debt and as the biggest lender to the USA, the Chinese has got the leverages over US to ensure it’s complete neutrality in case of an all out War against India.
Another important matter is that in terms of both conventional as well as non- conventional military aspects Chinese Military is far superior to Indian military. In a large-scale war it will be impossible for the Indian military to prevail over the Chinese.

After an overall look at the situation between the two countries, Indian establishment will be well advised to take a very careful approach in it’s border disputes vis-à-vis China. Recent Indian government moves do not aspire much confidence in it’s decision making. Some Indian media sources have been reporting that India has been thinking of parading the Dalai Lama in the Tawang area to give legitimacy to Indian claims on this region. If this news is true then one has to say that this decision is both unwarranted and incorrect.
China has been calling Dalai Lama a secessionist for a long time. Now not only this move will substantiate those claims but the Tibetan people could also consider Dalai as an Indian puppet.
In the conclusion one has to argue that the Indian government will do well to take a balanced and well-thought out approach regarding China. Any mistake on this regard might result in a greater tragedy than 1962.

Al - insan al - kamil

Al – insaan al – kamil: the most influential man in human history
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In modern times if anyone wants to know what is the most common name in the world, he or she will probably be astonished to know the answer; “Mohammad”. I would like to state that it is probably impossible to imagine human history without understanding this personality.

I will discuss in this post from a largely historical viewpoint the influences of Prophet Mohammad in human history and how he is relevant to modern human civilization.

Pre-Mohammad era: Jahiliyah - the Arabian “Dark Age”

When we take a look at the pre-Mohammad Arabia, we will see a region lying between two great empires the Byzantine Roman Empire and the Persian Sassanid Empire. Both the Empires saw this land as a backward region and they never tried to conquer it outright but there are occasions in history where both sides tried to create influence in the region through their Arabian clients. There are two things that can be found in a general Arab: Pride and Bravery. The pre-Mohammad Arabs were very fierce in their pride and were never affected by any foreign cultural influence. They were very proud of their language Arabic. Being situated in a harsh, desert climate they always had to look out for water and other essentials of life and this made their lifestyle nomadic in nature. Fights between different Arab tribes for sources of water were commonplace. The fierce pride among Arabs made sure that sometimes even very trivial issues like grazing of camels on a disputed plot could lead to fierce clashes between tribes, which could continue for centuries. In a society like this one there was always a need for warriors thereby boys were always preferred over girls. Some of the Arabs used to dispose off their girl children in a very brutal way. The inter-tribe, inter-clan and sometimes inter-family conflict was the norm. The Arabs although being brave and fierce fighters always were busy fighting themselves.
Arabs did not follow any particular religion as such. They were mainly nature worshippers; they used to worship many idols of different gods and goddesses and almost every tribe used to have their own god or goddess. Some of them had become Christians and some of them had become Jews. Because the Arabs were always pre-occupied with their present condition in preserving themselves in their harsh climates they never gave too much thought on the concepts like philosophical or religious thought, spirituality or afterlife.
As a result of all these discussed causes the Arabs never played any meaningful role in history prior to Mohammad. Both the Roman as well as the Persian Empires always considered them barbaric savages unworthy of contact.



Arabs: From Barbaric Savages to Enlightened Faithfuls

This was the background before Mohammad came. Now if we look at the Arabs just 100 years after the death of Mohammad, we see a completely different picture. Arabs as a people have changed completely from being nomadic tribes to a world conquering Empire. From being idol-worshippers now they have become devout believers in a monotheistic faith whose great, long march in history is still going on. The two empires the Byzantine Roman and the Persian empires that used to look down upon Arabs with contempt are no longer present. Arabs have not only conquered these two empires but they have also successfully brought their faith upon the people of these two empires.

This Arab success was a real first for the world when a completely nomadic and backward people not only achieved comprehensive military victories over two long established and well advanced civilizations but successfully brought their own faith upon the people of these two empires. This was a permanent and long lasting historical achievement for the Arabs. All these happened because of the teachings and leadership of one man: Mohammad.

There are few precedents in History of a socially, economically, culturally backward people conquering more materially advanced civilizations. For example the Germanic tribes destroyed the Roman Empire and the Mongols conquered China and much of the Muslim Middle East. The Arab conquest is different from these two examples in the sense that unlike the Germans and Mongols, the Arabs successfully converted the population of the defeated empire into their own faith. In case of the Germans and the Mongols they themselves converted to the faith of the defeated people. For example German tribes converted to Christianity and the Mongols converted to Buddhism and Islam. But the Arabs not only held on to their own faith but also brought new people in their faith. Amazing thing is that even after centuries after the Arab conquest the people in Persia (modern Iran) or Byzantine (modern Turkey) are overwhelmingly Muslims, this is the most enduring legacy of the Arab conquests.

The biggest changes that Prophet Mohammad brought are in the Arab mindset and Arab attitude. Let us discuss these changes that are probably most critical to the creation of historical Arab character. As we have seen before Arabs did not have any specific faith , they used to worship different idols and they did use to spend a lot of their energy in infighting. With the coming of Islam, Prophet Mohammad was successful in uniting almost all Arabs under a single faith which is in political terms even by today’s standards is a significant achievement. Because the Arabs were united under Islam now they could focus their energies in much serious issues.
In pre-Mohammad Arab society, the fate of the socially and economically weak was to be trampled under the boot of the mighty and powerful. Now with the coming of Islamic concepts such as afterlife (Akhirat), Judgment day (Qayamat) the Arabs came to believe that those who oppress the weak in the life will be tremendously punished in hell after death. This made a huge impact on Arabic mindset. The powerful tribal chieftains were forced to treat their subjects with compassion since they believed that if they do not treat their subjects with justice and mercy they could end up being tortured in hell for eternity.
The Islamic institution of Almsgiving (Zakat) came in as a godsend blessing to the weak, poor, sick, needy and especially to the orphans. Zakat was crucial for the survival and upbringing of the orphans in the society as the frequent internal wars among Arabs were creating a steady and ever growing army of untimely orphans in the Arab society. Even before Mohammad there were Arab traditions in giving charity to the poor but the difference between those pre-Mohammad Arab practises and Zakat is that since Zakat is a mandatory religious duty for all Muslims so from now onwards whenever an affluent Arab was doing some charity work for the poor he did not feel that he was doing favours to the needy instead he considered it as if it was his normal day-to-day social duty.

Another important change that came to traditional Arab attitude was to the Arabian identity. Arabs were always used to identify themselves in terms of their tribes and clans and families. Islam created a completely different sort of identity for the Arabs. For a Muslim the highest level of loyalty lies with that of Allah and every other identity is inferior to this identity. From being divided in numerous tribes, the Arabs were brought together into a single community. All the Arabs from different feuding tribes, from different backgrounds and different social positions came together under the banner of Islam. All these people came and worked together since they believed that they were brothers in the same faith and they were worshipping the same true God.

Islam was very simple and easy to understand. Prophet Mohammad talked about a faith where there were no priests, no hierarchies, no special privileges, no castes, no sacrifices, and no lavish ceremonies. In Islam every common man or woman comes directly into a covenant with Allah. There is a direct relationship between Allah and the individual. No intermediatory, no medium and no idols are required in Islam. All the existing tribal loyalties, all false gods, all distortions were swept away by the tide of Islam. Mohammad created a unified community from the people who had not a single common thing among them. Some of Mohammad’s companions included people as different as Bilal the Ethiopian, Solman the Persian, Suhaib the Roman and Abdullah ibn Salam the Jew. Mohammad spoke about creating a unified community of all the Muslims regardless of their background, ethnicity, culture or social status. This concept of such community is called Ummah.
The creation of this community meant that Islam was always getting a large pool of committed people who were ready to sacrifice everything for their faith and belief. It was a great advantage that Muslims held over other non-Muslim Arabian tribes who were still bound by their ancient tribal loyalties. When it came to difficult situations like war and persecution the Muslims always showed much more vigour than their non-

Another important aspect of Islam was in the warfare scenarios of the Arabs. Muslims always thought they were fighting for Allah whenever there was a battle whereas other non-Muslim Arabs fought for their tribal chiefs. This ensured that Muslims were always better disciplined, more united, better organized and more zealous in fighting than their fellow pagan Arab counterparts. Muslims believed that they were going to heaven if they died on the battlefield. This meant whenever fighting they could always fight with that much more vigour, zeal and ferocity. Mohammad himself showed all the inspiring leadership skills during these wars. He always led from the front. He was ready to share the same fate that of his followers. Moreover he was always compassionate towards the defeated enemy who had surrendered. This can be seen when he forgave the whole Meccan leadership (who were his sworn enemies) after he had conquered Mecca. This was a unique experience for the Arabs since they were not used to seeing the victor forgiving the vanquished. Undoubtedly this led to rapid spread of Islam throughout the wider Middle East.

Changing the tide of human history

Till the time of Mohammad the most influential and popular idea in the world was certain Christian concept of Original Sin. This concept used to think that all the human beings are born sinners and they are destined to doom unless they convert to Christianity. The basis of this concept begins with the incident in Bible where Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and were expelled from the Garden of Eden. This concept draws the conclusion that all the human beings are sinners of the crime committed by Adam and Eve since all the human beings are children of Adam and Eve. A human being can only be cleared from this sin if he/she converts to Christianity.
Mohammad’s idea challenged this concept in a formidable way. Mohammad taught a completely different thing. According to his teachings, there is no original sin. Adam and Eve did commit the crime of eating forbidden fruit and they were equally guilty of it.
(Note: Christian tradition has always blamed Eve more for this sin whereas the Quran says both Adam and Eve are equally guilty) But since both of them repented to Allah Allah forgave their crimes. And so all the newborn babies are innocent and logically in no ways the crimes of a man/woman can transmit to his/her progeny.
Mohammad’s ideas and teaching against Original Sin were so liberating since it completely frees a man/woman from thinking that he/she is a sinner from his/her birth. This was the reason that gradually even the great Christian communities in the Middle East (some of whom dates back from the time of Jesus) embraced Islam, one after another. Mohammad actually wiped the concept of Original Sin out from the innocent mind of humanity.

Prophet Mohammad always presented himself as the last in the line of the biblical prophets. He always taught the core of biblical teachings. He created a great precedent in setting how to do religious discourse or religious debate. He taught that in a religious debate a man must be humble and respectful of his opponent’s faith and he should never condemn/criticise the faith of his opponent. One of the amazing legacies of this idea of Mohammad is that whenever there is a religious debate between Muslim and non-Muslims say Christians, Christians invariably will criticise and condemn the very character of Mohammad whereas the Muslims invariably praise and show respect to the character of Jesus. This is a great legacy that Muslims should be proud of. There is no doubt that this is a direct result of Mohammad showing the way himself in his religious debate with non-Muslims.

The Islam that Mohammad preached is indeed the religion of peace but this peace is not the peace of timid and submissive. Indeed it is very clear from the Prophet’s example that one should do his/her utmost to attain peace but peace is only for the brave, just and righteous. Weak and submissive can neither attain nor maintain peace. You cannot attain peace with your enemy when your enemy is arrogant and bullying while you yourself is weak and begging for mercy. Indeed this is a thing should be learned and followed by today’s people.

Another important teaching of Mohammad was to perform Justice in all conditions in all circumstances. One interesting example is that two men came to Mohammad for Justice, one of them was a Muslim another one was a Jew. Now Mohammad listened to the viewpoint of both of them and decided in the favour of the Jew. The Jew was so astonished that he immediately embraced Islam. Indeed this tells us about how just Mohammad was as a Jurist. One of the prime tasks of any Islamic state is to provide equal justice and rule of law to all of it’s citizens, whatever their backgrounds may be.

If one has to summarize the character of Mohammad one has to say that here was a man who preached those ideas what he deeply believed. Mohammad could easily have led a very comfortable, family life like other wealthy men of his tribe but he did not. He had an idea that he thought would eventually make the way his people live better and he persisted with his ideas throughout his life against all odds. He had to face a lot of problems: his own tribe wanted to kill him, many of his close followers were brutally tortured and murdered, the Jews and Christians whom he thought as “fellow children of Abraham” rejected him because he was an Arab. But in spite of all this he never flinched from what he believed in. Indeed such was his conviction and faith. This is something that any people can and should learn from Mohammad that if one has believed in certain idea he should persist with it and should not desist from it even if the whole world could be up against him.
An idea can survive as long as people can easily identify with it. The most compelling reason of the success of Islam is that it is very easy for one to identify himself with.
If anyone asks a Pakistani or an Iranian or an Egyptian or a Malaysian or a Turk who he most likes and loves, the answer will be “Mohammad”. Indeed this is the most enduring legacy of Mohammad that even after more than 1400 years after his death a great number of people still identify themselves with his ideas, teachings and beliefs. Indeed one has to say that if one wants to know who is the most influential man in history, the answer is: Mohammad.

Looming crisis - Russia-Georgian tentions and it's implications

Historical Background

It has been a year since the war between Georgia and Russia ended with Russian victory and de – facto Russian annexation of Georgian territories South Ossetia and Abkhazia. There has been an uneasy peace between the two countries with some border skirmishes and periodical hot rhetoric from both sides.

To understand more of the situation we need to get into a little background of the events. Historically Georgia has been subjugated under subsequent foreign empires for a long part of it’s history. Russia was the last of the foreign powers, which conquered Georgia. Paul I, then Czar of Russia, annexed Georgia into Russian empire in 1801.Georgia was a part of the Russian empire until the Russian revolution in 1917.Georgia declared it’s independence following the revolution and civil war in Russia. It maintained it’s independence till 1921 when it came under Soviet Union’s rule. During this time, two sons of Georgia, Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili and Lavrenty Beria went onto rule the newly created state Soviet Union. Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili is known to posterity as Stalin. Beria headed the soviet spy agency KGB. Soviet rule continued till 1991 when Georgia declared independence with the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union.
Eduard Shevardnadze, the former foreign minister of the Soviet Union became the President of Georgia in 1992. Meanwhile ethnic tensions between Georgia and two of it’s regions Abkhazia and South Ossetia flared up which resulted in the positioning of Russian troops as peacekeepers inside these territories. The Georgians elected a new president, Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004 , following a popular revolution known as the “Rose revolution”. The rift between Georgia and the separatist territories continued to widen with time eventually resulting in an attack by the Georgians against the South Ossetians in July 2008. This resulted in the Russian military involvement in the area.
Russian forces quickly moved in and the Georgians had to retreat form the territories. A ceasefire was eventually declared with the mediation of the European Union and the personal intervention of the French President Nicholas Sarkozy, in particular. The terms of truce allowed Russians to maintain their military presence in the Abkhazian and South Ossetian territories. Eventually later in the year 2008 the two breakaway regions, supported by the Kremlin, declared independence from Georgia. As of now an uneasy truce lies between Georgia and Russia, which can anytime burst into another violent conflict.

Underlying Issues

There is a list of underlying issues behind this conflict. First of all we have to acknowledge the historical issue. As we know for much of it’s recent history, Georgia was ruled from Moscow. This came to an end in the early 1990-s following the breakup of the Soviet Union. Ever since then Georgia, to maintain and strengthen it’s independence, has tried to move into the Western sphere of influence. It has repeatedly tried to court the west particularly the US. Since becoming the president of Georgia in 2004, Mikhail Saakashvili has tried to court the US and tried to move his country into the western alliance, NATO. Now Russia which has considered Georgia as part of territory under it’s influence, was angered by this. It always wanted to bring back Georgia under it’s influence. Hence the Russian military has maintained it’s presence in the breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia ever since it forced the Georgians out of these areas in 2008.

Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union was weak and dependent upon the western world for it’s survival. Henceforth it could not defend what it has always considered it rightful interests in the former Soviet ruled areas like Georgia. But ever since Vladimir Putin came to power in Moscow, he has tried to strengthen Russia, both financially as well as militarily. The oil boom helped Russia in this direction. So now Russia is showing a lot of assertiveness in pushing it’s point to the world.

The post-soviet Russia not only wants to be recognized as a great power once again but it also is deeply suspicious and hostile to what it considers Western encroachments in once Russian ruled territories like Georgia. Although Vladimir Putin is no longer the president of Russia, but his policies are continuously being pursued by the new president Dmitri Medvedev without any great change. So we can expect a lot of assertiveness from Russia in defending it’s positions in the once Soviet-ruled territories.

The Western world after the demise of it’s cold war rival, the Soviet Union , considered the threat from the Russians , was over . But only after two decades of the end of cold war it has seen the situation changing completely. Until now the west has increased it’s influences in ex-Soviet republics with impunity. The west particularly the US thought that it’s power, ideas and influence were invincible in this region but ever since the Iraq war it has been facing a new reality.

After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Russia was the first country in the world to offer it’s support to the US in the “War on Terror”. At that time both countries were enjoying great warmth in their relationship. But everything was changed by the US-led war in Iraq on 2003. With that war the world saw the US as a global bully that was ready to impose it’s worldview upon the rest. Not only the US unilaterally withdrew from bilateral nuclear weapons reduction treaties signed between the US and the Soviet Union but the US also expanded it’s political role in the countries like Georgia. This probably have convinced the Russians that the Americans want to play a hegemonic role in Moscow’s own territory at Moscow’s expanse. From this point onwards we can see the Russians vehemently opposing any policy by the US or the NATO alliance to expand it’s role in countries like Georgia.

Another important issue in the Russia-West equations in the 21-st century is energy. Russia boasts one of the world’s biggest reserves of oil and gas. The west needs these oil and gas from Russia at a cheap price to continue it’s economic well being. Now Georgia is in a very strategic position in this regard. Georgia is situated right in the middle of Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil and gas pipeline. This pipeline was intended to bring oil and gas from the energy reach central Asian states to Europe, bypassing Russia. This pipeline is said to have a great significance upon future energy situation in the European Union. So for Moscow to take control of this pipeline means it will control the economic heart of Europe.

Another interesting cause could be the role of the current Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili in flaming tensions with Russia. Ever Since he came into power, the Georgian president has tried to move his country as close as possible towards US. Georgia supported the US in Iraq war with it’s troops and has wholeheartedly supported every US move to increase western role in the eastern Europe. This has created a lot of bad blood between the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili and some top Russian officials. The government controlled Russian media accused Georgia of committing genocide in South Ossetia during last year’s conflict. Vladimir Putin, current prime minister of Russia, in one of his meetings with French president Nicholas Sarkozy, called for Mikhail Saakashvili to be hanged. The relationship between Georgia and Russia will continue to be tense probably as long as Mikhail Saakashvili is in power in Georgia.




What lies in future?

It is a very difficult and dangerous job to successfully predict the future particularly in a volatile region like the Caucasus. Having said that after analysing all the causes of current tension and conflict in the region we can assume the following points

Russia will try to assert it’s role much more assertively in the region in near future. Russia is much more confident after gaining a swift victory in last summer’s war and might try to repeat the result. Though one feels Russians will not try to out rightly occupy and control the whole of Georgia since it will receive widespread condemnation from around the world but it may want to fight a small and limited war to topple the government of Mikhail Saakashvili and replace it with a more pliant regime.
The West and the European nations in particular will not militarily intervene in this action. The European nations of the NATO alliance do not have enough military resources to defeat a nuclear-armed Russia in a conventional war. Moreover as we have observed previously the energy interests of the European nations will restrict them to take any direct actions against the Russians. The Europeans will probably limit it’s displeasure to verbal condemnations of the Russian actions.
The United States of America, particularly the Bush administration, was an avid supporter of the Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. Even then when it came to the last summer’s war the Bush administration did not help Georgia militarily.
The current Obama administration is also unlikely to help Georgia in terms of any further military conflict with Russia. The Obama administration is very heavily involved in military operations in Afghanistan and it needs the help of the Russians to win that war. Very recently the Americans made an agreement with the Russians to allow Americans air passage and refuelling facilities in Russian air space for American military operations in Afghanistan. So it is unlikely that the US will come to any aid of it’s Georgian ally in case of a future conflict between Russia and Georgia.

4. Although one cannot predict that when and how a future military conflict will take place between Russia and Georgia but one should not be surprised if such a conflict takes place in very near future. The Russians at the moment seems to be holding all the crucial cards and they are giving the appearance that want to force the issue on Georgia. But if the Russians want to go into the conflict they will choose the timing of that conflict to their advantage. So one has to conclude that for any future conflict to happen between Russia and Georgia, Russia will probably start the conflict at it’s own interest and according to it’s own timing and justification.

Contemplations on the Islamic Republic

Background to the revolution

Iran is one of the greatest countries in history of mankind. Very few countries have been so influential in the history of mankind as Iran. Iran has got a very rich history of civilizational accomplishments, a very diverse heritage and a very diverse population than any one can think of. Yet for so many times the history of Iran reflects a struggle, a great struggle between competing ideas and personalities where ultimately no one has the last laugh.

One such example of above mentioned struggle took place in 1979. This is the year when the Iranian nation for the first time in three millenniums decided to end the monarchical rule and govern them as a republic. The pahlavi dynasty, which ruled Iran from 1925-1979, was the one, which first started using the name “Iran” in foreign relations instead of the traditional name “Persia”. This dynasty also bought with it a great struggle, the struggle between the will of the people and the will of the monarch.

The last pahlavi ruler Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was an autocrat in nature, he came to the throne first in the year of 1941, when the Anglo-American invasion of Iran in 1941, deposed his father Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the founder of the pahlavi dynasty. The British and the Americans, who were fearful of Reza Shah’s likeness for Nazi Germany, feared that Iran would be an ally of the third Reich, which would have made life very difficult for British India during the Second World War. So after coming to power on British and American efforts, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi was from the beginning under complete influence of his British and American mentors.

Although he was under the protection of the British and the Americans, Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi’s rule was never unchallenged. The biggest challenge to his rule came in 1953. Mohammad Mosaddeq, who was Iran’s prime minister from 1951 to 1953, decided to nationalize Iran’s biggest source of economy, it’s massive oil industry.
At that time, Iran’s oil industry was under the command of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (which was Britain’s greatest foreign investment venture at the time, which in the later years went on to become the famous brand “BP” or “British Petroleum”), which used to receive the lion’s share of the profits, thereby discriminating against Iranian interests. British were angry on Mossaddeq on this issue and they decided to depose him in a military coup. The British enlisted the help of the Americans in this regard. At first, President Harry. S. Truman was opposed to be involved in a foreign coup but the next president Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower gave the green signal to the operation. This was going to be the first involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a foreign “regime change”. The whole operation was codenamed “Operation Ajax”. This operation deposed Mosaddeq and condemned him to a lifelong house arrest and installing Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi as the ultimate authority or absolute monarchical ruler of Iran. Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA officer in charge of the coup wrote in his account of the affair that the Shah has said the following in private "'I owe my throne to God, my people, my army and to you!' By 'you' he [the shah] meant Roosevelt and the two countries—Great Britain and the United States—he was representing. The 1953 coup destroyed any chance of creating a secular, representative democracy in Iran. This also led to creating the general suspicion, anger and hatred among Iranians towards Western policies in Iran as such. In this regard 1953 coup and the involvement of Western powers in it, significantly contributed to the ultimate Islamic revolution in 1979. As per as Iranian oil industry was concerned, an agreement between the Shah and the Western powers in 1954, resulted in US and British companies taking 80% of the profit from Iran’s oil industry and the rest going to the French and Dutch companies. Ironically this agreement was more unfavorable to Iran than the earlier agreement between Iran and the Western powers in the 1930-s.


After 1953, the Shah went on to create a strong totalitarian state, ruled with an iron fist. His secret police the SAVAC tortured, harassed, and eliminated anyone who was thought to be in opposition to Shah’s absolute rule. Shah also made many reforms in what he called “White Revolution” towards modernizing Iran including empowerment of Women, a program of reforms to break up landholdings, allowing the religious minorities to hold public offices. He was the first of any Muslim rulers to recognize Israel. Israel and Iran had a very cordial relationship in this time period. Throughout his rule he received support from the Western powers, United States, in particular. The Shah was considered to be the most valuable ally of the West in the Middle East and a bulwark against the spreading of the atheist Soviet Communism in the region. Not surprisingly, the western countries, United States in particular, overlooked the massive human rights violations, caused by the Shah regime.

Causes behind the revolution
There were many causes behind the revolution; all of the causes can be considered important reasons behind the revolution. Here we will broadly emphasize some of them.
The first cause, which should be considered the primarily important reason, was, a resurgent Islamic movement, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. For centuries, the imams or religious jurists have dominated the socio-political life in Iran. They used to formulate the worldview as well define the lifestyle of the common Iranians. Iranians particularly the rural population tends to be religious, simple and devout in nature. The shah rule, which wanted modernization of Iranian society through westernization, was deeply resented and hated by the pious clergy as well as the common believers. The shah regime gave more importance to Iranian pre-Islamic past, like implementing policies such as changing the first year of the Iranian solar calendar from the Islamic hijri to the ascension to the throne by Cyrus the great. With this "Iran jumped overnight from the Muslim year 1355 to the royalist year 2535." In 1971 when the shah celebrated the 2500-th anniversary of the founding of the Persian Empire, the pomp and extravagance of the ceremonies organized by the regime, was deeply criticized by some of the Iranian religious establishment. One Iranian anti-shah leader , made the following comment, "As the foreigners reveled on drink forbidden by Islam, Iranians were not only excluded from the festivities, some were starving."
It is interesting to note that not all the religious leadership supported Imam Khomeini, in fact there were divisions between the clergy, quite a few of them actually did not support the concept of religious jurists involving themselves in a political situation, some of the religious figures even wanted a gradual reform and democratic change within the Shah’s regime and not it’s overthrowal. Imam Khomeini and some of his followers supported a different viewpoint. They believed that the Western civilization had wanted to dominate, colonize and subjugate the Islamic world by imposing concepts like secularization, atheism, democracy and decadence upon the Muslims through proxies such as the shah regime. So, Imam Khomeini wanted to replace the shah regime with a republic, supervised by a group of Islamic jurists. He believed that this government would stop all incorrect and corrupt interpretations of Islam and bring about a nation without any injustice, poverty or oppression like the one created by Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) at Medina in the seventh century. He called this form of government as “velayat-e-faqih” (guardianship of the jurist).

Imam Khomeini represented the Islamic face of the opposition, but there were strong secular and communist elements involved in the overall opposition movement against the Shah. These elements included the parties like “Freedom movement of Iran” led by people like Mehdi Bazargan who believed a more moderate and reformist government as well as more secular and nationalist parties like “National Front”. These parties were formed mostly from the rich urban population. These parties wanted a constitutional government based on Iran’s 1906 constitution and they did not necessarily believe in the concept of the “velayat-e-faqih”.

The communist element of the Iranian opposition included the groups like “Tudeh Party of Iran”. These parties wanted a communist style government in Iran. They opposed the brutal, corrupt and tyranny of the Shah regime and wanted to overthrow it in a violent revolution. The Shah regime feared this particular element of opposition most. The communists in Iran faced tremendous persecution in the hands of SAVAC. These communist elements during the time of revolution went on to form the group “People’s Mujahidin”(Mujahidin – e- Khalq) which would go on to play an important role both during the revolution against the Shah regime as well as the main opposition against the Islamic republic, created after the fall of Shah.

Although the shah regime had implemented a lot of reforms but the middle and lower classes of Iranians did not have any drastic change in their life standards. Only a very narrow percentage of people who were very close to the shah, benefited from these reforms. The oil boom in the 1970-s did not help the matter; the gap between the rich and poor grew alarmingly as the shah regime did not distribute the wealth among the poor.
Instead the shah regime wasted the oil wealth in meaningless celebrations like the celebration of 2500 years of continuous monarchy in Persia. This helped to create a lot of resentment against the shah regime among most segments of Iranian society. So when the protests that overthrew shah broke out there were just too many people in the streets for shah’s imperial army and SAVAC to control or stop them.


Aftermath of the revolution: Islamic republic's war with Saddam

Immediately after the Islamic revolution, the new Iranian state, Islamic republic of Iran, which came into being after the fall of the shah regime, soon find it’s detractors and enemies, trying to destroy it with all the resources at their disposal.
The biggest of the enemies of the nascent revolution was the western backed dictator of the neighboring Iraq, Saddam Hussain. Saddam wished to become the most powerful man in the entire Middle East and he considered the rising Islamic ideology from Iran as the biggest threat to his rule. Moreover, majority of the Iraq’s Muslims were Shiites and Imam Khomeini started to call the Shiites in Iran to rise up and overthrow Saddam’s regime. Iraq also had a long-term border dispute with Iran over the waters of Shatt-el-Arab and the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzestan.Although the Iranian military was far stronger to that of Iraq but the new Iranian government had purged a lot of top pro-shah Iranian military officers, moreover, Iran’s old military alliances with USA and Israel were broken by the new government, so Iranian military was considerably weaker than Saddam’s army both in terms of professional officers as well as spare parts.Saddam wanted to take advantage of this situation as he wanted to quickly defeat Iran and become the strongest ruler in the middle east.
Iraq declared war on Iran with a massive air and ground invasion of Iranian territory in the September 1980. Iraq was backed by all the western countries and US in particular as well as all the major Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Iran got support from counties like North Korea, Libya and Syria.
The war between Iraq and Iran went on for between 1980 and 1988. This war was the biggest conventional war since the Second World War. The combined loss of life for both the countries crosses more than 1 million, which includes both the military as well as civilian deaths. The combined loss in wealth for both the countries crosses well over 1 trillion U.S. Dollars.
During the war all the odds were against the new Iranian Islamic republic, Iraq was increasingly getting military support from western nations and U.S. as well it was getting billions in petro-dollars from the rich gulf Arab states. Moreover, Saddam has had no moral or ethical problems against using biological and chemical weapons against Iranians whom he considered sub-humans.
On the other hand the Islamic republic has broken the old military alliances with USA and Israel and it was in serious need of military spare parts.
But against all odds the Islamic republic not only survived but at one time it was almost near total victory. The main reason behind that is the Islamic revolution had created deep impression upon the mind of Iranian youth and they went to the battlefields in millions thinking that if they died in the battlefields they will go to paradise as martyrs.
This war was not only between two nations but also between two competing ideologies; the Islamic revolutionary ideology represented by Imam Khomeini’s Iran and the pan-Arab nationalism led by Saddam’s Iraq. Both the leaders were also very different in their approach in leading their respective peoples in this war. Imam Khomeini was very inspiring, courageous and always encouraging his followers to continue fighting despite all odds against them. He did not think that this war was a war between Iraq and Iran but an war between true Islam and heresy. In his own words “"It is our belief that Saddam wishes to return Islam to blasphemy and polytheism. ... If America becomes victorious ... and grants victory to Saddam, Islam will receive such a blow that it will not be able to raise its head for a long time ... The issue is one of Islam versus blasphemy, and not of Iran versus Iraq."
On the other hand Saddam was playing the role of a powerful, arrogant Arab tribal chief who were sending his young men into war for his own supreme personal glory. His own anti-Persian bias also came into play s he saw himself as the vanguard of the Arabs fighting to save Arab pride against Persians. In a visit by Saddam to al-Mustansiriyyah University in Baghdad, drawing parallels with the 7th century defeat of Persia in the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah, he announced:
" In your name, brothers, and on behalf of the Iraqis and Arabs everywhere we tell those Persian cowards and dwarfs who try to avenge Al-Qadisiyah that the spirit of Al-Qadisiyah as well as the blood and honor of the people of Al-Qadisiyah who carried the message on their spearheads are greater than their attempts."
In the end, it was the spirit of Islamic revolution that triumphed over despotism. Iranians were greatly encouraged to fight since they believed that they were fighting for a higher cause whereas the Iraqis went to the battlefields thinking that if they did not fight they and their families will be inside Saddam’s torture chambers. History teaches us that in any war the side that can encourage it’s own society as a whole to take part in the war as part of a higher cause, normally wins. This was exactly the outcome in the Iran-Iraq war.
Islamic Republic (Post Khomeini)
The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988, after both sides agreed to a U.N. proposed ceasefire in 1988.Imam Khomeini did not want to agree to a ceasefire before a total victory in the war and a regime change in Iraq but in the end he simply had to agree to a ceasefire as both the nations were completely exhausted after this brutal war. As a person he was nearing the end of his life. He was coming at the end of a long journey, which took him from the life of a simple village cleric to one of the most influential leaders in the 20-th century. Eventually he died in 1989.
With the death of Imam Khomeini, the Islamic revolution lost it’s greatest mentor. But soon the leaders of the Islamic republic made a decision. With the death of the Imam Khomeini, the revolution’s expansionary attitudes had to be curtailed, the Islamic republic had to be strengthened. The republic and it’s nascent institutions were given more priority rather than expanding the revolution.
Islamic republic has made a lot of good progress in terms of female education, health care as well as distribution of wealth among it’s population unlike some of it’s Arab neighbors. Although because of Islamic republic’s ideological opposition towards the western policies in the Middle East has meant that there will always be antagonism between the west and Islamic republic. Although it did not directly participated in the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the post-9/11 world, Islamic republic has won a lot of benefits in the aftermath of both the wars.
It will be completely unwise to ignore the excesses of the Islamic republic. A lot of people have been put under arrest and unfair jail terms. Some of the basic freedoms like the freedom of expression have been curtailed in last few years. The Islamic republic has been trying to prevent free flow of information by blocking Internet access, to the Iranian people. Another discouraging fact about Islamic republic is that after the 2009 presidential elections, Islamic republic’s policies towards the opposition have been very harsh and heavy handed. It seems to us that at least one innocent person, a beautiful 26-year old young woman; Neda Agha-Soltani was reportedly shot dead by a government militiaman. This particular incident has created a lot of negative impression about the Islamic republic, in the outside world.

Fundamental Characteristics of Islamic revolution
If we talk about the main ideological characteristics behind Islamic revolution the most important point is that the Islamic revolution was and has been the only popular movement in the Middle East, which tried and succeeded to bring down a tyrannical despotic regime and install a new form of government.
Islamic revolution is unique than many other revolutions that in previous revolutions like the Russian, Chinese or French revolutions is that all these revolutions talked about complete removal of human faith from the day to day running of the state whereas Islamic revolution talked about running the state according to the faith of the Iranian people. In this regard Islamic revolution can be considered as a unique example in the history of similar political movements.
Iranian revolution was the first one in the Middle East, which started to talk about the problems facing the people in the region as well as offered a solution to those problems according to an Islamic worldview. Muslims in the region were used to seeing western powers like UK and France from 1920-s up to the Second World War, then USA and the Soviet Union from the 1950-s, imposing their standards as well as their ideas upon the people in the region. Iran in particular had faced intervention from the USA and UK like the 1953 coup against the nationalist Mohammad Mossadeq government. Almost all the governments of the region had become involved in the cold war chess game. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Gulf States were in side of the Americans whereas the Syrians and the Egyptians (until the death of Gamal Abdul Nasser) were in the Soviet side. For the common Muslims there was simply no voice whatsoever to speak for. Islamic revolution changed all of that.
For the first time for some of the downtrodden Muslims in the Middle East like the Palestinians or the Shiites in Lebanon there was a voice to speak for them as well as an ally they can get help from. Islamic republic gave a helping hand to the Lebanese Shiites who were downtrodden in their own country since the ottomans. The Islamic republic was a very needy ally for the Palestinians also. The Islamic republic broke very useful military alliances with both the US as well as Israel and gave a helping hand to the Palestinians. It is interesting to note that Iranian President Mehmud Ahmedinajad because of his speaking for the right of the oppressed Arabs has become one of the most famous Persian speaking leaders in the modern history of Middle East..
Moreover, Islamic republic was a welcome break for the region’s Muslims in other ways also. For decades the leaders in the Middle East were viewed by their own countryman as well as the outside world as corrupt, brutal, tinpot dictators who were completely dependent upon their cold war foreign allies (depending upon the side in the cold war that those leaders were part of) or their coercive state infrastructures for their existences. The impression about these leaders was that they only thought about themselves or their clans, at the best. For the first time, Islamic republic presented something more than just another regime or another government to the people in the Middle East as well as to the developing world in general. It presented some new ideas, some new thoughts, which Middle Eastern people have not heard for a long time. For a long time Middle East could see a bunch of honest, ideologically committed people as leaders during the Islamic republic. These leaders of Islamic revolution, unlike some of their gulf Arab counterparts, did not lead their lives in the ivory tower, away from the views of the common citizen. The Middle Eastern people could easily identify themselves with these people.
In the end one has to say that Islamic republic is an experiment, which tries to establish the fundamentals of a modern republic without compromising on the basic tenets of Islam. It is also an attempt to employ Islamic thought as well Islamic ideas into building a modern nation state. This idea behind Islamic revolution is very ambitious and like many other revolutions before it, this revolution also faces plenty of challenges. In the end, any student of history will have to say that revolutions do not fail because of external enmity but they fail when their ideas are no longer able to attract interest among the common people. It will be interesting to see in the coming years and decades what fate awaits Islamic revolution but it can certainly be said that Islamic republic is certainly going to keep a very long and lingering legacy among the people in the world who does not believe that human faith and politics should not influence each other.