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.

Muslim, Democrats, and Prime Ministers..OH MY

So earlier this week David Cameron (British Prime Minister) took a trip to Indonesia and stated (among many other things) that: “What Indonesia shows is that in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, it is possible to reject this extremist threat and prove that democracy and Islam can flourish alongside each other.” Which in someways makes sense.

This guy

not this guy

 But the Guardian was quick to counter point and critique Cameron, claiming that he left out a few convient facts. Like that confessing monotheistic belief is required, or that the president is a military general, or that in many ways Indonesia is an oligarchy. Which all may very well be true, however what raised my ire was when Indonesia's problems were compared along side and claimed as the most likely potential of the Arab Spring: "In fact, Indonesia's trajectory might suggest a rather different message – and likely outcome"

sigh...okay lets unpack this

It may very well be true that both Egypt and Indonesia are both Islamic, and it may very well be true these democracies were born out of the violent overthrow of a (EUROPEAN IMPOSED) military dictatorship. But that does not, DOES NOT, mean that they are the same Guardian.  I'm mean for fuck's sake this is exactly what I was talking about last post. The west has a catastrophic assumption that Islam contains within it a dangerous bias (or even extremist intolerance) against everything that isn't Islam. The Guardian is taking these structural problems of a post colonialist system and blaming them solely as the responsibility and consequence of Islam. They are forgetting to take into account that many of these problems were caused by European Colonialism in the region, in the first place. Corruption, oligarchy, and other issues in Indonesia may be in someways supported by certain interpretations of Islam but that doesn't inherently mean that what has occurred in Indonesia will happen in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, or anywhere else in the Arab spring because they allow Islam to participate in their democratic process.

GAHHHHhhhhhHHHHhhhHHh

And people wonder why I'm angry all the time....Gods. 

Till next time

Jacob 

Articles mentioned

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17686174

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/12/indonesian-democracy-scrutiny-david-cameron?newsfeed=true

http://dawn.com/2012/04/12/cameron-praises-indonesia-as-model-of-democracy-and-islam/

Branding of the State: Labeling certain sectors of Islam as Extremists is so passe

Seriously though it is. No really it is, I'm just as surprised as you are really. So for this week's little project I decided to look into modern day issues surrounding Sufism and I managed to dig up some rather interesting tid bits. Most primarily the interplay between Sufism, Colonialism, and the State. How exactly, well a you hopefully well know at one point in time Europe ruled a majority of the world

notice how everything is in the process of being ruined 

and if it wasn't outright controlled it was in someway being used as a playground for a few great powers. Such as Britain and Russia in the form of the Great Game, which depending on who you talk to may or may not have existed. The game was a form of geostrategy and politics revolving around increasing tensions between the two powers in the middle east. Notice on the map how the only thing between Russia and India (which was the crown jewel of the British Empire) was Afghanistan and Persia (and they still barely touch).

Lions and Afghans and Bears...wait that isn't right

So as the two major powers played their games real people on the ground dealt with the fallout as always. One of the responses to the game and to Colonialism throughout the middle east was resistance by the Sufism surprising right? Well actually if you think about it, not all that much. The Sufism were made up of large spread esoteric networks of Teacher and Students which in many ways the making of an underground network for resistance. However, because these groups were made up of a single teacher with many followers adhering to their principles the European Empires (which was rife with Orientalism and had (and to a good degree still does) very little understanding of how non-Christian religions worked) very quickly essentially Sufism to one thing: fanaticism.

Sound familiar? Cause it really should. In fact this trend of essentializing Islam to fantaicism, extremism, or blind faith lead by ideological or personal charisma is pretty old (Marco Polo accused the Hashashin of such).  

Hashashin = Win

And it is interesting that it is almost an essential part of the Western Christian World's discussion of Islam. Never discussed are issues such as Islam contributions to medicine, science, or mathematics. Never discussed are issues such as Islam's overwhelming message of non-violence and peace. And, of course, never discussed is the fact that more often then not violence by Muslims towards the West has been a direct response to the Crusades, Colonialism, or Neo-Liberalism. All of which are parasitic systems of exploitation and domination. 

So next time when you hear the media talk of Islamic Extremists, remember the Sufis (who many Westerners speak of as not being truly Islamic and therefore acceptable in modern worship) were once considered to be that too.

Till next time 

Jacob 

Sources: 

Ernst, Carl W. The Shambhala Guide to Sufism. Boston, Mass: Shambhala, 1997.

Renard, John. Knowledge of God in Classical Sufism: Foundations of Islamic Mystical Theology. New York: Paulist Press, 2004.