Blog Entry XII - The Great Game

Not only the title of a book by our good and familiar friend Peter Hopkirk, "The Great Game" is a term that embodies the rivalry and conflict between the interests of the British Empire and interests of the Russian Empire for power in Central Asia. The so-called "classic" Great Game period is generally thought to range approximately from the Russo-Persian Treaty of 1813 to the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907. A second, less intensive phase, the so-called "renaissance," followed the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. The term "The Great Game" is usually associated with Arthur Conolly, who was an intelligence officer of the British East India Company's Sixth Bengal Light Cavalry. The Great Game was almost altogether unheard of in popular culture until it was introduced into the mainstream media by British novelist Rudyard Kipling in his novel "Kim".

It seems as though there is a lot of grey area when it comes to this period in history, and thus it's fitting that there is a book titled "Myth and Reality in the Great Game," by Gerald Morgan, that attempts to clarify the issues surrounding the period. Morgan researched and examined various departments of the British Raj to determine if there ever existed a British intelligence network in Central Asia, and, he concluded that such an organization did not exist. To Morgan, it appears that British efforts to obtain information on Russian movement in Central Asia was limited, and described as "rare", and in the least was not a priority in their Central Asian affairs. It's almost amusing to think that events resembling The Great Game adventures described in "Kim" were shaky rumors that were popular folk-tales in Central Asia, and were applied as much to Russia as to Britain.

The primary interest of the British Empire in India and in Central Asia was to have control of the native population, not prevent a Russian invasion. The latter was certainly just as eminent, however, the former seems to take precedence. According to Connelly himself, this is indeed true, and the proof is furthered by the display of British sympathies toward Christians in Central Asia, a sympathy that the British Empire also shared with the Russians. This pretext does seem like a suitable one, one to disguise the desire of a particular power to control a particular region. Historians don't deny this shared religious interest between the British and the Russians, but it has often been described as somewhat unrealistic, for the reason I've just previously described.

I was unaware that, recently there has been recognition of the idea that The Great Game continues as a conflict between the United States led NATO and the Russia-China led SCO over the Central Asian oil pipelines....

A charicature depicting the Amir of Afghanistan, Sher Ali Khan, between the British lion and the Russian bear, exclaiming "Save me from my friends!" The rule of the Amir Sher Ali Khan was hindered by pressure from both Britain and Russia, though the Amir attempted to keep his country neutral in their conflict.

Blog Entry XI - Bewildering Interdependence

Said's article in "The Nation" highlights the influence that the media has on public thought and opinion in regards to Islam. He brings to light in particular the hostility and ignorance that is diffused through time and space based media alike--television, internet, and newspapers--which promotes an atmosphere of fear and misunderstanding in non-Muslims. It's important to note that the inherent subjectivity of the media is bolstered even further by important nationals and public figures adhering to the notion of "West" versus "Islam," by openly and admittedly deconstructing the complex issues of international relations and "interdependence" to such a base degree that, as Said explains, that their so-called enlightened commentary can be compared in nature to simple catch-phrases like "War of the Worlds." I found that assessment slightly humorous, because in fact, so much of non-Muslim ideas about "Islam and the West" that come from the media are prefaced in such a ridiculous way, and yet, sometimes these ideas are not questioned.

Unfortunately, ideas that mainstream media present to us about Islam are like any other ideas; they are sensationalist and for the most part, are uneducated and uninformed. Living under the umbrella of importance and prominence of the "West" is naturally accompanied by living in a culture where we are constantly compelled to feel threatened, and whether the threat is immediate or not is determined by the media and what the media chooses to transmit. When such a powerful society as the West feels threatened by the unknown, they feel the need to retaliate rather than understand. Retaliation is quicker, simpler, than making an effort to understand, and making an effort to educate the public in this same manner of understanding would not belong to the realm of "quick and simple". The media is known for over-simplified, over-hurried presentation of ideas. To summarize crudely, most public discourse on "Islam and the West" perpetuates a circle of ignorance.

I would like to mention that I couldn't access the full article by Hirschkind and Mahmood, and thus am unable to comment on it!

Blog Entry X - On Islam...

Where to begin? Perhaps by noting that, although in Europe and North America we think we're knowledgeable and understanding in regards to other cultures, we are not as knowledgeable or understanding as we may think we are (I'm speaking on broad terms here, what a coincidence!). When it comes to Islam in particular, we've developed, or perhaps spawned, a multi-lateral culture that ranges from positive interest, to tolerance, to fear. It may be fair to say that the media is mostly responsible for this, yet at the same time, certain scholars and academics are marginally responsible, too. Take for example, Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations", that implies that, once the various civilizations have been eliminated through diverse means, "the West" will be pitted in an inevitable death match against "the Muslim world." Add this and other articles and books on the subject to media portrayals of fundamentalists, and we have a very one-sided, over-simplified approach to Islam.

Most of us know better, or at least, I hope we do. Have the strong economic and political ties between "the West" and "the Muslim world" been forgotten? What about the centuries of rich and vibraint history, of Islamic art, architecture, and literature that is often ignored? What about our Muslim friends, neighbours, and colleagues? The blinders should be removed so that the complexity of Islam can be fully understood and appreciated, just as we in "the West" expect other cultures to do. It's proof of the present when Ernst has to preface his book, "Following Muhammad", with an explanation that by defending Islam (or attempting to clarify the current issues surrounding it) he is neither an impostor nor a traitor, in order to have his book published.