A Great Game...

Well not really, as you've probably picked up I've become rather obsessed with a period stretching from 1813 to 1945 and has (arguable) begun once again known as the Great Game. Well that's great but what is it? Glad you asked! The Great Game classically refers to strategic armed rivalry between the Russian and British Empires over the region of Central Asia.

I don't get it either 

 It was a rivalry over territory, particularly spark by the Russian Empire's continued march into Central Asia towards Afghanistan. England viewed this movement as a direct threat to the power in the area, and more importantly, India. So, in response, England launched the First Anglo-Afghan war (which was a glorious catastrophe) and kicked off one of the world's first cold wars. 

What are we doing today Victoria?
The same thing we do ever day Disraeli my dear:
Ruining everything

The Games went on in such a fashion with England and Russia trying to out compete the other (Old Vicki was crowned Empress of India so she'd have the same political footing as the Tsars) and actually caused England to invade Afghanistan not once more, but twice. In fact it went on for so long that it had several books written about it, or used it as a background setting, or as some other sort of plot device, Kim by Rudyard Kipling perhaps being the most definitive and critical of them all.

Its as awesome as it sounds

So what does this have to do with Islam? Well a lot actually. Remember how last week I brought up that Sufism (and Islam in general) has been branded as fundamentalist, extremist, or overly violent by Europeans as a way of defaming and delegitimizating resistance to their rule? And how much of that behavior that Europeans defamed existed because of Colonialism in the first place? Well this is part of that Colonialism which gave rise to much of that resistance.

As I often point out it is important that too the victor goes history, and here is no exception. In many ways Russia lost the great game long before England did (as they had a revolution and everything) and while there was a brief rematch with the USSR, England got to write the history of the game down. Therefore, much of the rhetoric of the game has been critiqued as being a smoke screen for England subduing the native people's of India and Central Asia. Because of this the game provides an overarching context for what I described in my previous post. 

Which raises the question of who was playing the Great Game? Was it just England and Russia, or are there more players to be accounted for? I would personally say yes, and it is rather important to include this 3rd side of sorts in an a more accepting way. After all it is a 3rd side made up of those who paid the true cost of the great game, so can you really blame some of those taking up arms, or protesting the game through other means? its an important aspect to consider, especially since the great game has resumed once more between the US, China, Russia, and a few others. 

Because as Rudyard Kipling said "When everyone is dead, the Great Game is finished. Not before."

  

Till next time, 

Jacob 

sources

Karsh, Efraim. Islamic Imperialism: A History. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2007.

Meyer, Karl E., and Shareen Blair Brysac. Tournament of Shadows: The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint, 1999

Rashid, Ahmed. Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.