The Speech for the Defence
Maryam Sakeenah
It is so saddening___ after over a half a century of our national existence___ to come across morbid questioning regarding the validity of the Pakistan ideology. Agreed, we are all entitled to have our own views, but what really concern me are the grounds on which the ideology usually is attacked.
The ideology is abhorrent to us because the Islamic element in it makes it but natural that the edifice of this nation-state should be erected on the foundations of Islam. A large chunk of our writers and thinkers, who unfortunately have monopolised the print media, tamper with the ideology and twist it the way it pleases their pseudo-westernised tastes. They claim that Islam never was a basis for demanding independence from Hindu India. Pakistan was created, they say, merely to give constitutional safeguard to a minority. It may well be true, for all the highbrow intellectual reasoning, but then, if the ‘safeguard’ theory was the only reason for creating Pakistan, I daresay it wasn’t a very bright idea after all, because more than half the Muslim population of India never availed the ‘safeguard’ they had been provided with. (Let me clarify here that Muslims who remained in India did not do it by choice. They inhabited Hindu-majority provinces of India which were not to become parts of Pakistan. Migration for these impoverished masses living as dispersed groups in far-flung Hindu-majority areas was almost impossible, keeping in mind the socio-economic clime of that time. They could not but remain back there). Let us face it then, that if Pakistan was made only to give basic constitutional rights to a minority, this goal remained largely unachieved. If our ideology is only this, why, it failed in its very objective. But no, the reason why Pakistan was created was deeper and more meaningful than merely this. It was precisely to implement Islam at the level of the State. If only a constitutional safeguard was needed, separate electorates or a Muslim majority state within the Indian Union at best could have served the purpose.
This kind of a secularism-inspired interpretation of our ideology makes the entire struggle for Pakistan pointless. It is a debasement, a vilification of the glorious Islamic ideology of Pakistan. Shorn of its Islamic ideology, Pakistan, lets face it, is a mere ring of smoke; a mere speck of territory on the map won by separatists. If our founders toiled so hard for the establishment of a secular state to give basic rights to Indian Muslims, they sadly did it all in vain, for they could very well have professed their secular ideals in a secular India. It is almost ridiculous that a nation demanding separation on the basis of their religious identity should merely be clamouring for a secular state. If Pakistan was only made as a hurried-up asylum for a minority, it was not worth all that__ the struggle, the sacrifice, the horrendous massacre described as ‘more horrible than anything we ever saw’ by the British.
No, Pakistan is worth all that and much more. Pakistan is the culmination of the wishes and ideals of a nation of a hundred million who took to the streets chanting ‘Pakistan ka matlab kiya, La ilaha illallah!’It is the mighty cause that made them willing enough to relinquish hearth and home; it was the vision of Iqbal and the fiery passion of Jauhar; it was the Will of Allah. Quoting the Senior Bhutto, in one of his charismatic speeches at the apex of his political career: ‘Pakistan is not a man-made country. It is a God-made country… it is the creation of the surge of Islamic nationhood. It is the product of an earth-shaking idea. It is a revolution cut out of the Heart of History… Pakistan is a live revolution’.
The great tragedy at partition was an unforeseen disaster caused by the mindless whipping-up of anti-Muslim hatred by the Hindu leaders. It was not a choice that the Quaid made, but a rude shock hurled at him to tarnish the rationale behind his struggle. It was a tragedy insidiously engineered by those who injected the poison of communalism in the frenzied masses. Sad, that it blemished the whole process of Pakistan’s creation. But we need to see facts in their true light, lest it mislead us into mistaken judgement. It will also be relevant here to consider that since partition, 16,000 anti-Muslim riots have occurred in India, and over 7000 mosques have been demolished. It just lays bare the Islam-hatred that is endemic in the body-politic of India, despite its empty boasts of secularism. The failure of ‘secularism’ to diffuse this atmosphere of fanatical hatred against Muslims proves the absolute inability of the two widely different religions to coexist in normalcy. It vindicates the raison d’etre behind what our leaders deemed imperative for our existence in 1947. It proves the foresight, wisdom and judiciousness that inspired the Pakistan idea. Should we not revel in the fact that we have a homeland of our own? A home where we can live without the rankling fear or insecurity that our less fortunate brethren across the border had to suffer in 1992 and recently this year, simply for professing their religious beliefs?
The actual process of the ground-laying of the ideology had begun centuries ago. In the words of the Quaid e Azam: ‘Pakistan was created the day the first Indian national embraced Islam.’ This process reached its culmination and got enrichment from Iqbal’s visionary idealism. The pan-Islamic content of his message makes it clear that he stood for the establishment of an Islamic State. His 1930 speech at Allahabad also proves the point. It was this essentially Islamic ideology that laid the basis for the Pakistan Resolution on 23rd March, 1940and gave impetus to the movement in its final phase.
The Quaid e Azam said: ‘The Musalmans are not a minority. They are a nation by every definition.’ It just makes me wonder: What is it that makes us greater than a mere minority crying out for a fair deal? What is the basis of this nationhood of ours? What lifts us above the bounds of race, ethnicity and culture? What was it that galvanised us from ‘a frustrated mass of people’ into ‘a nation with a future’? It was the Islamic Ideal, which, according to the Quaid is ‘…the relationship that knits the Muslims into one whole… the formidable rock and the sheet anchor providing base to the Muslim Millat.’
The historical 'rebuke' that the fall of Dhaka poses on the Pakistan ideology is also an oft-used reasoning to show that the ideology was 'drowned in the Bay of Bengal in 1971.'
Truth, however, is far removed. What was exposed in 1971 was not the weakness of the ideology, but the myopic vision of the then rulers who thought an equitable parity of the two wings as entirely redundant. As for the current state of affairs, (which to many is indicative of the Pakistan idea being wrong at the very outset), it only lays bare a lack of integrity, sagacity, and commitment on the part of the faces that enter and exit the political stage. That and not the wrongness of the ideology is what lies stripped to nakedness.
The following statement by the Quaid is significant in dispelling the claim of the secularists: ‘Pakistan not only means freedom and Independence, but also the Islamic Ideology which has to be preserved, which has come to us as a precious gift and a treasure.’ And that is not all: ‘In Pakistan lies our deliverance, defence and honour. If we fail, we perish and there will be no sign or symptom of Islam left in the sub-continent.’ Can anyone deny that he was fully conscious of the Islamic content of the Ideology, to realize which he strove so hard? If Quaid e Azam had wanted a secular Pakistan, it beats me how he could then play Iqbal’s ‘Khizar e Rah’ (Guide to the Way). Surely, Iqbal never wanted him to ‘guide’ the Muslims to secularism when he wrote to him: ‘The Musalmans of India look up to you to guide them out of the storm that is coming to India’. How could the two leaders__ one of whom was a Pan-Islamist through and through__ collaborate for the realization of Pakistan, if their ideological views were so irreconcilably disjoint? Quaid e Azam never wanted a theocracy, true. But then, a true Islamic State never is a theocracy. It is not like the archaic Roman Papacy with its exploitative clerical hierarchy which ironically, was ‘divinely anointed’, and hence past accountability to the masses. An Islamic State, as opposed to that, is a practical, modern, forward-looking entity based on the unsurpassed egalitarian principles of Islam which to date serve as a beacon-light for mankind. In the words of the Quaid: ‘…I am sure that our constitution is going to be of a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam. Today, these are as applicable in modern times as they were 1300 years ago. Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught us equality of men, justice and fairplay to everybody…in any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocracy to be ruled by a priest...’
Quaid e Azam was a thorough democrat.__ I cannot see why his commitment to democracy implies a secular aspiration. Can anyone say that a religion whose Khalifa was open to question or even blatant allegation of unscrupulousness by the most obscure ordinary is undemocratic? In a time when tribalism and hereditary rule were en vogue, Islam first came up with a system of majority voting for deciding matters which could be referred to public consent. Islam has in it the true spirit of what democracy stands for. It lays immense stress on equality, civil liberty, justice and the provision of security and basic rights to all. It does not take inspiration from man-made Western parliamentary democracy with all its loopholes__ a system which edifies itself on the ignorance and unawareness of the easily swayed ordinary. Islam’s democracy is a class apart, for it does not condone demagogism or populist tactics, nor does it allow its God-given Law to be tampered with by self-serving autocrats. It takes inspiration from its own moral code as laid down by the Creator, which holds forever and for all. That is what the Quaid meant when he spoke his historic, ideology-setting lines: ‘ It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet (SAW) of Islam. Let us lay the foundations of our democracy on the basis of true Islamic ideals and principles. Our Holy Book has taught us that our decisions in the affairs of the State shall be guided by discussions and consultations.’ This statement clearly rules out any hint of secularist aims that may be ascribed to the Quaid. It distinctly alludes to the essentially Islamic idea of governance by consent and council.
Quaid e Azam looked forward to a State where all were equal, irrespective of religious differences. That is exactly what an Islamic State aspires to, unlike the ‘secular’ regimes of today which shamelessly condone the boorish denunciation of minority creeds and sacrilege to their worship-places. How can a religion whose Founder (SAW) equated unjust harm done to a zimmi as harm done to his own self, ever allow religious discrimination under its jurisdiction? Islam guarantees complete freedom of religion and security of life and property to all its law-abiding citizens, regardless of religion. The meticulous rule of the Four Caliphs serves as evidence for all to see.
Advocates of secularism detest the synchronization of ‘religion and politics’. When religions that have difficulty in looking forward are endowed with political dimensions which they intrinsically lack, a spurious mishmash results. Yet Islam is not a religion but a ‘Deen’. A Divine Law Code encompassing ALL aspects of life, ranging from the personal, spiritual and individual to the social, political and economic. Divorcing it from politics will be like mutilating it. Islam is all about justice, rule of law, peace within and peace without__ and that is exactly why it is important for it to stay together with politics. When implemented in its wholeness, Islam adds a moral dimension to politics, transforming it into selfless statesmanship__ almost public servitude under the All Seeing Eye of the Almighty. In this way, it purges away immorality and unscrupulousness from politics and ensures that morality instead of expediency remains at the heart of politics. Therefore, it is imperative for Islam to remain wedded to politics. For if not, the starkly realistic prophecy that Iqbal made so many years ago will doubtlessly prove true: ‘Juda ho deen siyasat say to reh jati hay changezi’. (When religion is separated from politics, only tyranny remains).
I will give Quaid e Azam the last word on it, for sadly, his ideological views are most grossly misread, misunderstood, misinterpreted and abused:
‘Every Muslim knows that the injunctions of the Quran are not confined to religious and moral duties… everyone except those who are ignorant knows that the Quran is the general code of the Muslims. A religious, social, civilizational, commercial, military, judicial, criminal and penal code, it regulates everything… and our Prophet (SAW) has enjoined on us that every Muslim should possess a copy of the Quran and be his own priest and guide. Therefore, islam is not confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life collectively and individually.’
To people who would still like to believe that Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam, let it be known that is not all that easy to improvise and manipulate the past. Our glorious history is indelibly carved out in the hearts of our people. Let it be known that yes, unsavoury though it may be, the basis of our nationhood is Islam, and that religion is a very, very potent power which you cannot conveniently choose to ignore or shy away from. It can build nations out of mere populations, it can change boundaries, it can never be lopped off from the social structure, never extorted from the hearts of men.
To those whom our ocean of post-partition difficulties turns sceptical of the ideology, let me quote a saying of the Quaid-e-azam:
" It is by resisting, by facing disadvantages, hardships and suffering and maintaining your true convictions and loyalties that a nation will emerge, worthy of its past glory and history, and will live to make its future greater and more glorious in the annals of the world."
This is the idealism of our founding fathers that we failed to rise up to. We betrayed that vision. The pioneers bequeathed to us the legacy___ a strong, promising ideological basis for development; a glorious dream to build reality on… we failed them.
Yet now, we shamelessly whine about the founders being wrong at the very outset. It is interesting to consider the fact that had Pakistan been well on the way to the progress that the ideology aimed at, we would never have thought of questioning it. We sit back complaining and haranguing over things because manna didn't drop into our mouths unasked. The ideology was never wrong, we wronged it, we sinned against it, we betrayed it.
Then what right do we have__ we, who are merely fair-weather companions__ to speak against what we ourselves misappropriated? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is like the kettle calling the pot black; it is like biting the hand that fed you. We are because of that ideology; we owe our existence to that same ideology which is now so odious to us__ and 'odious' because things didn't happen our way. We have chosen to belie our own existence; we have chosen to discard our own identity; we have chosen to bite our own noses to spite our own faces; we have chosen to humiliate our own name, much to the glee of our enemies who will fully capitalize on this fact. We just did not deserve to be the proud bearers of that glorious ideology built on the noble principles of justice, peace, equality and freedom as enunciated in Islam.
It is deplorable that we are unable even to see this simple fact that in order to make the ideology translate into visible success, we shall have to begin by valuing it truly. This will be our stepping-stone to that 'tangible gain', the absence of which disturbs us to the extent of turning us sceptical. Then let us light the candle, come what may, to the idealism of our founders who won us our home. Let us do our bit, lest darkness pervade all over, distorting our judgement, clouding our vision.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
The Panacea for Our World
THE PANACEA FOR OUR WORLD
Maryam Sakeenah
The Age we live in offers a poignant illustration of ‘Might is Right.’ Man’s eternal aspiration to create a just, civilized society and an enduring peace on the planet has proven an elusive chase. For, we today are as far away from the Ancient Ideal as our early ancestors who used to live in caves. In fact, things have worsened considerably. We live at the basest, meanest, lowest level of the Humanity that Allah created in His Image__ we have proven ourselves true to the word the Quran uses for fallen Man__ ‘Asfalasaafileen’__ ‘The lowest of the low.
We have poisoned our lives with materialism, disdainfully banishing from life ‘Faith’, which is the ‘force of life’. The ethereal for us holds no significance at all, for our Revered Deities are all terrestrial. In the Childs play we call politics, the overriding principle is of the godliness of the Powerful and the slavish obedience of The Rest. ‘It is better to be feared than loved’ said Machiavelli__ (that lucky man is the wisest sage humanity has ever produced)__ his maxim holds true for our day as well as ever. What can make one feared by the weak is his formidable might__ a might that is always right; a might that abuses, exploits, tyrannizes, oppresses, victimizes__ and yet is Always Right. Full Stop.
This ‘Might is right’ syndrome leads to a most blinding delusion of Omnipotence. This drug dupes the sublunary demi-god until, in a fit of megalomania, he begins to speak in God’s language, commanding obedience from the menial. He alone becomes his entire world, while beneath his Ivory towers all is scum. Since the god has already taken care to strike terror in little, quaking, awed hearts, obedience comes in rather easily.
Such is the state of our world today. It is a world where criminals responsible for war-crimes and genocide become world leaders and torchbearers of the ‘civilized world’; where Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded for holding your peace over the breach of international law; where bloody slaughter of innocents is disguised under the euphemism ‘collateral damage’; where dastardly lies, naked to the bone become Established Law; where justice itself is unjustly and selectively implemented. The ghastly world Orwell prophecised in his ‘Nineteen eighty-four’ has finally materialized, and very, very insidiously. We have gone grossly wrong somewhere.
And this is where. For certain complex reasons (to discuss which is beyond the scope of this article), the West has become disenchanted with their religion (mark the stress on ‘their’). So they have conveniently thrown theology overboard on their mad way to ‘progress’. Progressed they have, in the material sense of the word, but on the deeper level, they have quite visibly degenerated. It is the Freudian ‘id’, the reservoir of all carnal/animal instincts that holds sway over the Ego of the man of the west. It is this same spiritual bankruptcy epitomised in the dirty culture of bars, pubs and casinos that inspires their arrogant international policies that exploit, suppress and oppress. It is all rotten at the centre.
But it is also very brilliantly luring. The developing world eyes the brilliant ‘progresses’ of the ‘developed’ world with awe and appreciation, and a desire for taking the same road to ‘enlightenment’ trodden on by the West. This kind of a slavish outlook has rendered the Third World defenceless to the great tides of enforced ‘development’ sweeping across the ‘lesser’ states. It has led to the growth of treacherous ploys for economic imperialism like the globalization phenomenon. It has also led to a servile and complexed self-perception in the Third World, and an unquestioning obedience of the diktat coming from the west. We too have begun to think of religion as being irreconcilable with ‘modernity’, and as anathematic to whatever is ‘progressive’ (in the West-influenced connotation of the word). This has ingrained in us a kind of apologia and a sense of shame for being identified with something as outdated as religion. It was the Western system of clergyship that corrupted their religion, rendering it beyond reform and practical implementation in statehood. Yet Allah has provided against a similar plight to our religion by making no room for clergyship in Islam. Besides, Islam is Allah’s last and final, hence consummate Deen, and therefore, extremely implementable in all times. Moreover, the Creator Himself has taken upon Himself the guardianship of Islam’s original Shariah. Sadly, though, aping the ways of the secular world, we choose not to realize the extremely adaptable nature of our religion (by virtue of the unique mechanism of ‘ijtehad’). Islam’s potential for providing a strong ideological basis for edifying a powerful, self-sufficient modern state goes painfully unrealized. Religion is not in fashion, so none of it, we say.
And this is where our problem lies__ in the rejection of religion. This is the disease plaguing our bedevilled planet. While some ingenious spin doctors have suggested the casting away of religion as the easiest solution to terrorism, this very idea speaks of a lack of perception and depth of insight on their part. It is precisely the separation of religion from politics that leads to heinous crimes sponsored and condoned by the Powerful to be perpetrated on the powerless. When we call for religion being forced apart from politics, we only show how much we lack in understanding the spirit of Islam and its scope for implementation in any age.
It is only in religion that morality has a well-grounded permanence. It gives morality an eternal validity. Some may argue on the contrary that morality is inherent in us, so the imposing force of religion is not quite required, but let me say that selfishness and an archetypal inclination to immorality to the extent of brutishness is also inherent in us. Minus the imposing force of religion, the animal in man quite often dominates the human. Human history is coloured with the blood of innocents shed by oppressors in power. It proves the rather jarring truth that man is quite an untamed savage when let on the loose. So the only solution is not to let him on the loose__ and Islam provides us with this solution.
Islam places morality at the heart of domestic and international politics, and thus cleanses it from the immoral. It sets up barriers against the commission of excesses. By making morality religious Law and making the trespass of this Law a punishable offence, Islam ensures the flourishing of a society within the parameters of religious values.
Shorn of religion, morality is often likely to be subverted to expediency. It is expediency, then, that becomes the ruling force, and everything else has to bend itself into that mould. Ethical principles then become secondary, often coming into conflict with the exigencies of the changing times. We then hear of immoral and even cruel things being done in ‘supreme national interest’, and sometimes even in the mere personal interest of certain individuals in power.
‘Interest’ is a very changeable concept. Whatever is in your interest today might not be so tomorrow. ‘Interests’ often make you switch loyalties, flout moral codes and give up principle. In fact, the ‘interests’ of a world that feeds itself on aggrandizement and prides itself in hegemony need not always be morally correct. In order to ensure that morality regulates all political manoeuvring and the world still remains a live-able place for ordinaries, we need to keep religion and politics together.
Having established the need for religion and politics to go together, I will now talk about why an Islamic State is essential for a Muslim society. An Islamic state ensures that morality always gets precedence over expediency. Islam, let me clarify, is not mere religion, but a ‘deen’__ a complete code of life in all its aspects. It not only emphasizes the development of a relationship with God, but also lays down a definite scheme of social behaviour to be adopted in result of that relationship. It clearly lays down what is right and what is not, and demands its followers to keep themselves hedged-in within the limits of the Shariah. A Muslim ought to regulate his life in entirety according to the personal and spiritual, social, political and economic tenets of the Shariah. The implementation of the socio-political aspect of the Shariah is only possible in the presence of a law-enforcing authority at the top. This authority has the power to direct all social/political/economic life of a nation. According to the celebrated writer Mohammad Asad:
“A good deal of (Shariah) law can become effective only through a
consciously co-ordinated effort of many individuals__ that is, through a
communal effort… An individual, however well-intentioned he may be,
cannot possibly mould his private existence in accordance with the
demands of Islam unless the society around him agrees to subject its
practical affairs to the pattern visualized by Islam. The creation of such
social conditions as would enable the greatest possible number of people
to live in harmony (is the ultimate aim of Islamic law).”
An important part of Islamic social doctrines is ‘Amr bil maroof’ and ‘Nahi anil munkar’, meaning ‘the enjoining of good’ and ‘the forbidding of evil’. For the smooth execution of this commandment on a larger and more responsible scale, a powerful law-enforcing authority is imperative. This law-enforcing authority can only be an Islamic State, without which this part of the Shariah will always remain largely theoretical.
A common apprehension regarding the amalgamation of religion and politics is that it might lead to the growth of ‘fanaticism’. To allay this fear, let me clarify that an Islamic state embodies the ideological basis for a nation’s development. It is vested with the power to curtail ideological deviation from the mainstream state religion. With a careful monitoring of the ideological aspect, dissent and deviation (including a fanatical and narrow interpretation of religion) will surely diminish. Besides, with the existence of a strong Islamic authority representing the religion and its followers, watching over the interests of all its citizenry, the sense of deprivation and insecurity which fires fanaticism will inshallah lessen markedly.
Thus, in the establishment of an Islamic State, we have an opportunity to rise again to our feet from our fallen state and create a better world to live in for those whom the ‘civilized world’ has ostracized. Sad, though, that in our blind fascination for secularism which we identify with ‘progress’, we love to look at all talk of religion as ‘impractical idealism’ and cry for its dismissal from politics. And so we continue to suffer in the wretched throes of godlessness.
Maryam Sakeenah
The Age we live in offers a poignant illustration of ‘Might is Right.’ Man’s eternal aspiration to create a just, civilized society and an enduring peace on the planet has proven an elusive chase. For, we today are as far away from the Ancient Ideal as our early ancestors who used to live in caves. In fact, things have worsened considerably. We live at the basest, meanest, lowest level of the Humanity that Allah created in His Image__ we have proven ourselves true to the word the Quran uses for fallen Man__ ‘Asfalasaafileen’__ ‘The lowest of the low.
We have poisoned our lives with materialism, disdainfully banishing from life ‘Faith’, which is the ‘force of life’. The ethereal for us holds no significance at all, for our Revered Deities are all terrestrial. In the Childs play we call politics, the overriding principle is of the godliness of the Powerful and the slavish obedience of The Rest. ‘It is better to be feared than loved’ said Machiavelli__ (that lucky man is the wisest sage humanity has ever produced)__ his maxim holds true for our day as well as ever. What can make one feared by the weak is his formidable might__ a might that is always right; a might that abuses, exploits, tyrannizes, oppresses, victimizes__ and yet is Always Right. Full Stop.
This ‘Might is right’ syndrome leads to a most blinding delusion of Omnipotence. This drug dupes the sublunary demi-god until, in a fit of megalomania, he begins to speak in God’s language, commanding obedience from the menial. He alone becomes his entire world, while beneath his Ivory towers all is scum. Since the god has already taken care to strike terror in little, quaking, awed hearts, obedience comes in rather easily.
Such is the state of our world today. It is a world where criminals responsible for war-crimes and genocide become world leaders and torchbearers of the ‘civilized world’; where Nobel Peace Prizes are awarded for holding your peace over the breach of international law; where bloody slaughter of innocents is disguised under the euphemism ‘collateral damage’; where dastardly lies, naked to the bone become Established Law; where justice itself is unjustly and selectively implemented. The ghastly world Orwell prophecised in his ‘Nineteen eighty-four’ has finally materialized, and very, very insidiously. We have gone grossly wrong somewhere.
And this is where. For certain complex reasons (to discuss which is beyond the scope of this article), the West has become disenchanted with their religion (mark the stress on ‘their’). So they have conveniently thrown theology overboard on their mad way to ‘progress’. Progressed they have, in the material sense of the word, but on the deeper level, they have quite visibly degenerated. It is the Freudian ‘id’, the reservoir of all carnal/animal instincts that holds sway over the Ego of the man of the west. It is this same spiritual bankruptcy epitomised in the dirty culture of bars, pubs and casinos that inspires their arrogant international policies that exploit, suppress and oppress. It is all rotten at the centre.
But it is also very brilliantly luring. The developing world eyes the brilliant ‘progresses’ of the ‘developed’ world with awe and appreciation, and a desire for taking the same road to ‘enlightenment’ trodden on by the West. This kind of a slavish outlook has rendered the Third World defenceless to the great tides of enforced ‘development’ sweeping across the ‘lesser’ states. It has led to the growth of treacherous ploys for economic imperialism like the globalization phenomenon. It has also led to a servile and complexed self-perception in the Third World, and an unquestioning obedience of the diktat coming from the west. We too have begun to think of religion as being irreconcilable with ‘modernity’, and as anathematic to whatever is ‘progressive’ (in the West-influenced connotation of the word). This has ingrained in us a kind of apologia and a sense of shame for being identified with something as outdated as religion. It was the Western system of clergyship that corrupted their religion, rendering it beyond reform and practical implementation in statehood. Yet Allah has provided against a similar plight to our religion by making no room for clergyship in Islam. Besides, Islam is Allah’s last and final, hence consummate Deen, and therefore, extremely implementable in all times. Moreover, the Creator Himself has taken upon Himself the guardianship of Islam’s original Shariah. Sadly, though, aping the ways of the secular world, we choose not to realize the extremely adaptable nature of our religion (by virtue of the unique mechanism of ‘ijtehad’). Islam’s potential for providing a strong ideological basis for edifying a powerful, self-sufficient modern state goes painfully unrealized. Religion is not in fashion, so none of it, we say.
And this is where our problem lies__ in the rejection of religion. This is the disease plaguing our bedevilled planet. While some ingenious spin doctors have suggested the casting away of religion as the easiest solution to terrorism, this very idea speaks of a lack of perception and depth of insight on their part. It is precisely the separation of religion from politics that leads to heinous crimes sponsored and condoned by the Powerful to be perpetrated on the powerless. When we call for religion being forced apart from politics, we only show how much we lack in understanding the spirit of Islam and its scope for implementation in any age.
It is only in religion that morality has a well-grounded permanence. It gives morality an eternal validity. Some may argue on the contrary that morality is inherent in us, so the imposing force of religion is not quite required, but let me say that selfishness and an archetypal inclination to immorality to the extent of brutishness is also inherent in us. Minus the imposing force of religion, the animal in man quite often dominates the human. Human history is coloured with the blood of innocents shed by oppressors in power. It proves the rather jarring truth that man is quite an untamed savage when let on the loose. So the only solution is not to let him on the loose__ and Islam provides us with this solution.
Islam places morality at the heart of domestic and international politics, and thus cleanses it from the immoral. It sets up barriers against the commission of excesses. By making morality religious Law and making the trespass of this Law a punishable offence, Islam ensures the flourishing of a society within the parameters of religious values.
Shorn of religion, morality is often likely to be subverted to expediency. It is expediency, then, that becomes the ruling force, and everything else has to bend itself into that mould. Ethical principles then become secondary, often coming into conflict with the exigencies of the changing times. We then hear of immoral and even cruel things being done in ‘supreme national interest’, and sometimes even in the mere personal interest of certain individuals in power.
‘Interest’ is a very changeable concept. Whatever is in your interest today might not be so tomorrow. ‘Interests’ often make you switch loyalties, flout moral codes and give up principle. In fact, the ‘interests’ of a world that feeds itself on aggrandizement and prides itself in hegemony need not always be morally correct. In order to ensure that morality regulates all political manoeuvring and the world still remains a live-able place for ordinaries, we need to keep religion and politics together.
Having established the need for religion and politics to go together, I will now talk about why an Islamic State is essential for a Muslim society. An Islamic state ensures that morality always gets precedence over expediency. Islam, let me clarify, is not mere religion, but a ‘deen’__ a complete code of life in all its aspects. It not only emphasizes the development of a relationship with God, but also lays down a definite scheme of social behaviour to be adopted in result of that relationship. It clearly lays down what is right and what is not, and demands its followers to keep themselves hedged-in within the limits of the Shariah. A Muslim ought to regulate his life in entirety according to the personal and spiritual, social, political and economic tenets of the Shariah. The implementation of the socio-political aspect of the Shariah is only possible in the presence of a law-enforcing authority at the top. This authority has the power to direct all social/political/economic life of a nation. According to the celebrated writer Mohammad Asad:
“A good deal of (Shariah) law can become effective only through a
consciously co-ordinated effort of many individuals__ that is, through a
communal effort… An individual, however well-intentioned he may be,
cannot possibly mould his private existence in accordance with the
demands of Islam unless the society around him agrees to subject its
practical affairs to the pattern visualized by Islam. The creation of such
social conditions as would enable the greatest possible number of people
to live in harmony (is the ultimate aim of Islamic law).”
An important part of Islamic social doctrines is ‘Amr bil maroof’ and ‘Nahi anil munkar’, meaning ‘the enjoining of good’ and ‘the forbidding of evil’. For the smooth execution of this commandment on a larger and more responsible scale, a powerful law-enforcing authority is imperative. This law-enforcing authority can only be an Islamic State, without which this part of the Shariah will always remain largely theoretical.
A common apprehension regarding the amalgamation of religion and politics is that it might lead to the growth of ‘fanaticism’. To allay this fear, let me clarify that an Islamic state embodies the ideological basis for a nation’s development. It is vested with the power to curtail ideological deviation from the mainstream state religion. With a careful monitoring of the ideological aspect, dissent and deviation (including a fanatical and narrow interpretation of religion) will surely diminish. Besides, with the existence of a strong Islamic authority representing the religion and its followers, watching over the interests of all its citizenry, the sense of deprivation and insecurity which fires fanaticism will inshallah lessen markedly.
Thus, in the establishment of an Islamic State, we have an opportunity to rise again to our feet from our fallen state and create a better world to live in for those whom the ‘civilized world’ has ostracized. Sad, though, that in our blind fascination for secularism which we identify with ‘progress’, we love to look at all talk of religion as ‘impractical idealism’ and cry for its dismissal from politics. And so we continue to suffer in the wretched throes of godlessness.
The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here
‘THE LOVE OF LIBERTY BROUGHT US HERE!’
Maryam Sakeenah
The proud façade of Liberia’s historical monument overlooks war-ravaged Monrovia, reading, in bold white lettering: ‘The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here.’ The city around struggles to keep a tenuous peace after decades of a civil war that ravaged the country. The irony of the words painted on the interface is stinging.
For, Monrovia today is deeply scarred with the aftermath of a terrible, long-drawn war. Refugees living in extreme poverty, most of them shelterless women and war orphans inhabit the many refugee camps and UN shelters. ‘The war has been bad,’ says a social worker here, ‘It has done great damage among us. It’s terrible having no home, no food. People are scattered like that all around.’
The civil war started by rebel leader and former president Charles Taylor has now abated and one finds UN blue helmets everywhere. But peace in Liberia came too late, after the war had raged on for over a decade with the international community especially the US_ that Liberia considers itself closely allied to_ not stepping in to stem the violence despite the nation’s desperate appeals. When peace finally was made possible, there was little left to save.
Liberia, historically symbolizing the liberation and freedom of Africa and being born out of the American Dream, has suffered. A young Liberian student whose family was lost to him in the war says as horrible memories resurface in his mind, “We forgive them for all that happened, but we cannot forget. For the damage it has done to us is all around us, everywhere.”
The war’s toll has been enormous. One wonders, how did it come to this? Especially, when one considers Liberia’s close kinship with the U.S and the long history of association and strong ties with the country. The bond the two nations historically shared is very palpable on the street. One finds teenagers going about wearing shirts carrying the U.S flag, bandanas and baseball caps. Some of them carry telling messages: ‘Be thy brother’s keeper’, a Biblical dictum thoughtlessly cast aside in the cold, hard, all-too-real arena of international relations. “We are born out of America,” says a reflective middle-aged Liberian, “and our education is strictly from America.” Others wonder why with the U.S and all it stands for so vital in that society, the expected intervention of the U.S was so belated, so half-hearted. A sentiment of disillusionment bordering on anger is certainly perceptible. “We want to know why America didn’t help_ we are part of America, and our people died,” says a young Liberian. A tearful woman, being one of the few fortunate ones airlifted into safety by U.S helicopters_ having the privilege of U.S citizenship_ is very vocal about the American policy, “They should have just stepped in and taken over_ everybody expected them to.”
The question turns baffling when one compares it to American intervention in the Middle-East, Iraq and Afghanistan. Expectant, desperate, bleeding Liberia, one finds, happened to be outside the area of America’s newfound strategic interest. An expert on African affairs insightfully remarks: “Liberia has been America’s abandoned mistress. Throughout the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties and seventies, it was essential to what the Americans wanted, but with the emergence of new interests, it was abandoned and neglected. The message Liberians got to hear was that in this world there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests_ a message hard to take, indeed.”
The pieces fall into place as one goes back into Liberia’s past. It all began with America’s slave trade on the West coast of Africa. For years, the slave in America’s plantations struggled under oppression and cruelty. In 1791, bolstered up by the new spirit of freedom in independent America, the slaves sought their chance to turn the tables. There were slave revolts in which angry slaves killed their white masters and won emancipation. It sent waves of fear in the minds of slave owners who felt that those still struggling under slavery might emulate the practice, encouraged by freedom granted to slaves in the northern territories. The apprehension resulted in the formation of the American Colonization Society_ a conglomeration of U.S diplomats, abolitionists and terrified slave owners who decided that freed slaves, instead of being allowed to remain creating desire for freedom in the still enslaved blacks, should be shipped off to West Africa. Ostensibly, they would be repatriated as free citizens in a free African society, thus reducing dangers of slave revolt and spreading the ‘civilizing influence of Christianity to the black continent.’
The blacks had considered freedom in a society that had not accepted their humanity as incomplete. To them, the offer of repatriation to Africa was like ‘God’s Promise’ of final emancipation and a return to the ‘motherland.’
This was, by far, a rosier view of things. The slave settlers on the West African coast brought with them the experience of slavery under Americans. Most of them had been second, third or fourth generation Africans in America and had by then readily internalized the American experience. Here in the African wilds, they could not mingle with mainstream indigenous African life and culture, and looked down upon its rawness as barbaric. They considered the coercive civilization of Africans as a noble mission and carried it out with missionary zeal. More importantly, American supervision and scrutiny of the lives of these settlers remained strict and close. Reports of the conduct of their personal lives were sent home to ensure the settlers lived there as sufficiently American, sufficiently Christian. It is also significant that in building up the place, the settlers devotedly followed the American pattern, naming places after those in America and even copying Western architecture.
Gradually, the settlers rose to a hierarchy of exploiters and oppressors to the locals. It created sharp schisms in the society, and the civil war can be traced down to this bad start. Through the subjugation of indigenous people and their culture, the settlers tried to establish a central ruling elite committed to the making of a ‘Little America’ for the dissemination of civilized, liberal, democratic values, with heavy financing from the U.S.
In this new social order, the locals were as second class citizens at best, under a black ruling elite who carried in themselves the colonizer’s attitude, unleashing a sort of neo-colonialism with black-skinned Americo-Africans at the forefront.
Twenty years later the settlers declared the formation of ‘Liberia’_ an ‘independent African republic.’ It was hailed with fanfare as it was the only black republic in Africa and became a sort of symbol of African independence and freedom, thus the name ‘Liberia.’
The capital was named ‘Monrovia’ after U.S president James Monroe who had facilitated the neo colonization with heavy financing. The flag was a replica of the U.S flag, as was the government seal. The constitution was drawn up according to the American constitution, idealizing American values and the culture of liberality, freedom and democracy. Quite significantly, any reference to the locals and their rights was entirely absent.
The senate and the government was supported and financed by leaders of the Western world. However, soon the democracy transformed into an exploitative oligarchy which started coercively sending indigenous blacks to America and the European countries for little or no wages, never to return home. It was slavery de facto, but never stated as such. The settler elite made money out of the trafficking while the League of Nations feebly objected. Even at home in Liberia, rubber plantations grew, worked by indigenous blacks in conditions much the same as under the American slaveowners. Rubber turned into Liberia’s ‘gold’ as the growing automobile industry in the U.S created billionaire tyre magnates like Harvey Firestone.
Fast forward to World War II. The Liberian army faithfully served the U.S to guard the African coastline and beat back suspected attacks by the Axis powers. In the cold war years, Liberia again played faithful anti-communist ally and virtually became a ground in Africa for anti-communist propaganda with the Voice of America and the CIA setting up their headquarters here.
On the homefront, Liberia had by now grown steadily to become a two-tiered society. Given its firm fidelity to American Capitalism there was a Westernized, moneyed elite at the top, subjugating a poor indigenous population. This was aggravated by ongoing political turmoil and exploitation by repressive and corrupt military coup leader Samuel Doe’s regime in his desperation to hold on to his unpopular rule and weakening power. As Doe ensured American support by his virulent anti-communism propaganda, dollars flowed in to help Doe safeguard against an imagined ‘possible communist threat.’ President Reagan announced, ‘A firm bond unites us with Liberia.’
The money flowing in was used up by the Doe government officials and cronies resulting in extravagant ways of the corrupt elite. The man on the street was forgotten and as disillusionment and deprivation turned into anger and frustration, Doe resorted to terror and violence as his defence, particularly directed at the tribes enemy to his own. As Doe armed tribes for terrorizing the other, the ugly face of violent tribalism raised its head.
As the country seeped deeper into turmoil and the communist threat dissipated in the early 1990s, the U.S significantly disengaged itself from Liberia. Doe felt threatened and insecure without the U.S, and wide opposition brewed up. Desperately, the president clung on tighter to terror tactics.
Enter Charles Taylor, a charismatic U.S-educated rebel leader who vowed to start a destabilizing armed struggle against the unpopular president. Financing his war with smuggled money from neighbouring Sierra Leone’s diamond mines, Taylor adventured with shocking war tactics. He whipped up massive support of the youth, cleverly recruiting young boys in his rebel army by promising them an AK-47, a baseball cap and a tee-shirt, and a hope that with these they could get all they needed. Golding’s insane world of savage boys in the wild materialized as reckless teenaged boys armed with guns sold themselves to the civil war.
After the rebels gunned down Doe, Charles Taylor was installed as president, quickly followed by a massively rigged election; but the violence and furore he had ignited went on unabated. The trends set by Taylor were quickly taken up by emboldened tribal warlords who did not accept Taylor’s regime. The rebellion against the government was, in fact, a venting out of long bottled-up frustrations for repression of the indigenous people. The civil war widened itself, now directed against Taylor himself_ it became an all-consuming fire, a madness gripping Liberia and shattering it forever. As the country desperately appealed to the U.S to save it from itself, American helicopters came to airlift U.S citizens, but the toll on human lives continued to rise. Whitehouse diplomacy said loud and clear: “Liberia to us is like any other country. We have no real interest there.” James Bishop, a former U.S diplomat reflects: “Liberians assisted us in our worst times, when we were in need, and frankly, we have let them down in their time of greatest need. They look up to the U.S as one might to a godfather or a godmother, but we have been negligent godparents.”
In the absence of help from the international community, it was the Union of African Nations led by Nigeria that rallied to the nation’s plea. The peacekeeping soldiers were hailed as heroes and saviours by the suffering population and their presence created the conditions for a ceasefire and hopes of a return to stability dawned. The U.N eventually moved in with its peacekeeping battalions too. Peace has returned to Liberia, but it is not only tenuous but much too delayed, for the great damage far outdoes the healing.
The toll of the civil war has been humungous. The country’s infrastructure seems to be in tatters, almost literally, but that is by far the least of the war’s corrosion. It has been a tragedy of enormous proportions to the society. A whole generation of Liberian youth were robbed off their humanity, turned into reckless killing machines, brain-controlled and trained to obey power blindly. More than 70% of the rebel soldiers were under 18, committing unspeakable atrocities on their own people. A ruddy-faced teen rebel explains: “We kept ourselves high on drugs. It made us free. Kind of overbrave, for nothing then moves you. You can kill and laugh all day.” These distorted, perverted specimens of human nature are the worst, the irreparable scars of war.
The boy-rebels, long separated from families and having no homes to return to, lived on the thrill, the adventure of shoot-and-kill. Some of them hardly know why they did it. A twelve year old rebel smilingly tells: “I fought cos I like it. No, I am not too young as you may think, for I can kill.” Some have emotional reasons: “I fought Charles Taylor for he killed my family.” Others insist they are not without cause. A young rebel asserts: “Liberians suffered. And I want to tell everyone that we did not fight a foolish war, but a war to liberate Liberians, okay?”
Yet, beneath the touted bravado of the boy rebels lurks deep sadness, the tragedy of their lives criminally toyed with. ‘Dirty Rebel,’ as he likes to call himself, was a rebel group leader proud of his killing track-record. In the days the war was on full swing, he shared private views with journalists at a run-down inn: “The gun is my mother and my father. When I am hungry, it can get me food, and when I am sick, it gives me medicine. So as for now, this is my mother and father. When I in school, I won’t kill, but in the war when I have the gun I do many things that make me to feel bad. Sometimes I cry when I sit alone, but when I am like this with other children who do the same things, I don’t feel bad. During this war, I killed many people… so I will ask for forgiveness. After I turn this gun over, I will register and go to school, and I will not think about killing no more. Yeah.” Today, lots of boys in rags, sunken-eyed and bony, walk about as eye-soring remnants of the war; most have limbs amputated, and have no families or home.
On the other side are the victims with bitter memories, poverty and homelessness to live with. The worst struck are the orphans, widows and the many women raped by marauding rebel soldiers, mostly in gangs. 17 year old Emilia, gang-raped and mother of a three year old recounts her tale: ‘They killed my brother before my eyes and asked me to bury him…I feel very deep sad, sometimes I feel like I am dead too.” But young Emilia has risen from the ashes and aspires to become a counsellor for raped women and a journalist to tell the world her side of the story. “I encourage the people to share their experiences so that the world knows how we feel.”
Hawa, the only survivor of her family, brutally gang-raped has still not recovered from her trauma. “They open the door and came in, threatened to kill if I hollered. The pain was in my body… I bear it. So other one go, other one come. My body was hurting, I couldn’t even get up… and two of them were children. They just used me in ugly ways. I feel bad. I can’t just laugh cos God faces me and asks me to laugh. My heart break in half. I don’t have a home, I don’t have a man. I think God wanted me to stay with them, but I don’t have nobody.”
Yet, in the darkness and the pain, courage, hope and faith survive still. Mariama Brown, a voluntary social worker who herself suffered greatly in the war has adopted 13 war orphans and runs a refugee shelter, counselling and healing hundreds of suffering women. With her characteristic candour, she says, “Women like Hawa are the reason why I started this centre. I said to myself, I have to go for this, I have to learn to counsel these women, and learn to treat victims of rape. We are building a little community, and I feel good for that. My strength comes from those I serve. They are happy, rejoicing, smile on their faces. I feel so good now, so happy, and when I go home, I can sleep deep like a drunken woman.”
Out of history’s wounds, the morass of ‘civilization’, policy, diplomacy, interest, exploitation, tribalism, the missionary zeal for Westernization, power and the ‘love of liberty’, it is the indomitable spirit of selflessness, humanity, large-hearted charity, love, hope and faith that heals; it is this that stands tall and endures above all.
Maryam Sakeenah
The proud façade of Liberia’s historical monument overlooks war-ravaged Monrovia, reading, in bold white lettering: ‘The Love of Liberty Brought Us Here.’ The city around struggles to keep a tenuous peace after decades of a civil war that ravaged the country. The irony of the words painted on the interface is stinging.
For, Monrovia today is deeply scarred with the aftermath of a terrible, long-drawn war. Refugees living in extreme poverty, most of them shelterless women and war orphans inhabit the many refugee camps and UN shelters. ‘The war has been bad,’ says a social worker here, ‘It has done great damage among us. It’s terrible having no home, no food. People are scattered like that all around.’
The civil war started by rebel leader and former president Charles Taylor has now abated and one finds UN blue helmets everywhere. But peace in Liberia came too late, after the war had raged on for over a decade with the international community especially the US_ that Liberia considers itself closely allied to_ not stepping in to stem the violence despite the nation’s desperate appeals. When peace finally was made possible, there was little left to save.
Liberia, historically symbolizing the liberation and freedom of Africa and being born out of the American Dream, has suffered. A young Liberian student whose family was lost to him in the war says as horrible memories resurface in his mind, “We forgive them for all that happened, but we cannot forget. For the damage it has done to us is all around us, everywhere.”
The war’s toll has been enormous. One wonders, how did it come to this? Especially, when one considers Liberia’s close kinship with the U.S and the long history of association and strong ties with the country. The bond the two nations historically shared is very palpable on the street. One finds teenagers going about wearing shirts carrying the U.S flag, bandanas and baseball caps. Some of them carry telling messages: ‘Be thy brother’s keeper’, a Biblical dictum thoughtlessly cast aside in the cold, hard, all-too-real arena of international relations. “We are born out of America,” says a reflective middle-aged Liberian, “and our education is strictly from America.” Others wonder why with the U.S and all it stands for so vital in that society, the expected intervention of the U.S was so belated, so half-hearted. A sentiment of disillusionment bordering on anger is certainly perceptible. “We want to know why America didn’t help_ we are part of America, and our people died,” says a young Liberian. A tearful woman, being one of the few fortunate ones airlifted into safety by U.S helicopters_ having the privilege of U.S citizenship_ is very vocal about the American policy, “They should have just stepped in and taken over_ everybody expected them to.”
The question turns baffling when one compares it to American intervention in the Middle-East, Iraq and Afghanistan. Expectant, desperate, bleeding Liberia, one finds, happened to be outside the area of America’s newfound strategic interest. An expert on African affairs insightfully remarks: “Liberia has been America’s abandoned mistress. Throughout the thirties, forties, fifties, sixties and seventies, it was essential to what the Americans wanted, but with the emergence of new interests, it was abandoned and neglected. The message Liberians got to hear was that in this world there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests_ a message hard to take, indeed.”
The pieces fall into place as one goes back into Liberia’s past. It all began with America’s slave trade on the West coast of Africa. For years, the slave in America’s plantations struggled under oppression and cruelty. In 1791, bolstered up by the new spirit of freedom in independent America, the slaves sought their chance to turn the tables. There were slave revolts in which angry slaves killed their white masters and won emancipation. It sent waves of fear in the minds of slave owners who felt that those still struggling under slavery might emulate the practice, encouraged by freedom granted to slaves in the northern territories. The apprehension resulted in the formation of the American Colonization Society_ a conglomeration of U.S diplomats, abolitionists and terrified slave owners who decided that freed slaves, instead of being allowed to remain creating desire for freedom in the still enslaved blacks, should be shipped off to West Africa. Ostensibly, they would be repatriated as free citizens in a free African society, thus reducing dangers of slave revolt and spreading the ‘civilizing influence of Christianity to the black continent.’
The blacks had considered freedom in a society that had not accepted their humanity as incomplete. To them, the offer of repatriation to Africa was like ‘God’s Promise’ of final emancipation and a return to the ‘motherland.’
This was, by far, a rosier view of things. The slave settlers on the West African coast brought with them the experience of slavery under Americans. Most of them had been second, third or fourth generation Africans in America and had by then readily internalized the American experience. Here in the African wilds, they could not mingle with mainstream indigenous African life and culture, and looked down upon its rawness as barbaric. They considered the coercive civilization of Africans as a noble mission and carried it out with missionary zeal. More importantly, American supervision and scrutiny of the lives of these settlers remained strict and close. Reports of the conduct of their personal lives were sent home to ensure the settlers lived there as sufficiently American, sufficiently Christian. It is also significant that in building up the place, the settlers devotedly followed the American pattern, naming places after those in America and even copying Western architecture.
Gradually, the settlers rose to a hierarchy of exploiters and oppressors to the locals. It created sharp schisms in the society, and the civil war can be traced down to this bad start. Through the subjugation of indigenous people and their culture, the settlers tried to establish a central ruling elite committed to the making of a ‘Little America’ for the dissemination of civilized, liberal, democratic values, with heavy financing from the U.S.
In this new social order, the locals were as second class citizens at best, under a black ruling elite who carried in themselves the colonizer’s attitude, unleashing a sort of neo-colonialism with black-skinned Americo-Africans at the forefront.
Twenty years later the settlers declared the formation of ‘Liberia’_ an ‘independent African republic.’ It was hailed with fanfare as it was the only black republic in Africa and became a sort of symbol of African independence and freedom, thus the name ‘Liberia.’
The capital was named ‘Monrovia’ after U.S president James Monroe who had facilitated the neo colonization with heavy financing. The flag was a replica of the U.S flag, as was the government seal. The constitution was drawn up according to the American constitution, idealizing American values and the culture of liberality, freedom and democracy. Quite significantly, any reference to the locals and their rights was entirely absent.
The senate and the government was supported and financed by leaders of the Western world. However, soon the democracy transformed into an exploitative oligarchy which started coercively sending indigenous blacks to America and the European countries for little or no wages, never to return home. It was slavery de facto, but never stated as such. The settler elite made money out of the trafficking while the League of Nations feebly objected. Even at home in Liberia, rubber plantations grew, worked by indigenous blacks in conditions much the same as under the American slaveowners. Rubber turned into Liberia’s ‘gold’ as the growing automobile industry in the U.S created billionaire tyre magnates like Harvey Firestone.
Fast forward to World War II. The Liberian army faithfully served the U.S to guard the African coastline and beat back suspected attacks by the Axis powers. In the cold war years, Liberia again played faithful anti-communist ally and virtually became a ground in Africa for anti-communist propaganda with the Voice of America and the CIA setting up their headquarters here.
On the homefront, Liberia had by now grown steadily to become a two-tiered society. Given its firm fidelity to American Capitalism there was a Westernized, moneyed elite at the top, subjugating a poor indigenous population. This was aggravated by ongoing political turmoil and exploitation by repressive and corrupt military coup leader Samuel Doe’s regime in his desperation to hold on to his unpopular rule and weakening power. As Doe ensured American support by his virulent anti-communism propaganda, dollars flowed in to help Doe safeguard against an imagined ‘possible communist threat.’ President Reagan announced, ‘A firm bond unites us with Liberia.’
The money flowing in was used up by the Doe government officials and cronies resulting in extravagant ways of the corrupt elite. The man on the street was forgotten and as disillusionment and deprivation turned into anger and frustration, Doe resorted to terror and violence as his defence, particularly directed at the tribes enemy to his own. As Doe armed tribes for terrorizing the other, the ugly face of violent tribalism raised its head.
As the country seeped deeper into turmoil and the communist threat dissipated in the early 1990s, the U.S significantly disengaged itself from Liberia. Doe felt threatened and insecure without the U.S, and wide opposition brewed up. Desperately, the president clung on tighter to terror tactics.
Enter Charles Taylor, a charismatic U.S-educated rebel leader who vowed to start a destabilizing armed struggle against the unpopular president. Financing his war with smuggled money from neighbouring Sierra Leone’s diamond mines, Taylor adventured with shocking war tactics. He whipped up massive support of the youth, cleverly recruiting young boys in his rebel army by promising them an AK-47, a baseball cap and a tee-shirt, and a hope that with these they could get all they needed. Golding’s insane world of savage boys in the wild materialized as reckless teenaged boys armed with guns sold themselves to the civil war.
After the rebels gunned down Doe, Charles Taylor was installed as president, quickly followed by a massively rigged election; but the violence and furore he had ignited went on unabated. The trends set by Taylor were quickly taken up by emboldened tribal warlords who did not accept Taylor’s regime. The rebellion against the government was, in fact, a venting out of long bottled-up frustrations for repression of the indigenous people. The civil war widened itself, now directed against Taylor himself_ it became an all-consuming fire, a madness gripping Liberia and shattering it forever. As the country desperately appealed to the U.S to save it from itself, American helicopters came to airlift U.S citizens, but the toll on human lives continued to rise. Whitehouse diplomacy said loud and clear: “Liberia to us is like any other country. We have no real interest there.” James Bishop, a former U.S diplomat reflects: “Liberians assisted us in our worst times, when we were in need, and frankly, we have let them down in their time of greatest need. They look up to the U.S as one might to a godfather or a godmother, but we have been negligent godparents.”
In the absence of help from the international community, it was the Union of African Nations led by Nigeria that rallied to the nation’s plea. The peacekeeping soldiers were hailed as heroes and saviours by the suffering population and their presence created the conditions for a ceasefire and hopes of a return to stability dawned. The U.N eventually moved in with its peacekeeping battalions too. Peace has returned to Liberia, but it is not only tenuous but much too delayed, for the great damage far outdoes the healing.
The toll of the civil war has been humungous. The country’s infrastructure seems to be in tatters, almost literally, but that is by far the least of the war’s corrosion. It has been a tragedy of enormous proportions to the society. A whole generation of Liberian youth were robbed off their humanity, turned into reckless killing machines, brain-controlled and trained to obey power blindly. More than 70% of the rebel soldiers were under 18, committing unspeakable atrocities on their own people. A ruddy-faced teen rebel explains: “We kept ourselves high on drugs. It made us free. Kind of overbrave, for nothing then moves you. You can kill and laugh all day.” These distorted, perverted specimens of human nature are the worst, the irreparable scars of war.
The boy-rebels, long separated from families and having no homes to return to, lived on the thrill, the adventure of shoot-and-kill. Some of them hardly know why they did it. A twelve year old rebel smilingly tells: “I fought cos I like it. No, I am not too young as you may think, for I can kill.” Some have emotional reasons: “I fought Charles Taylor for he killed my family.” Others insist they are not without cause. A young rebel asserts: “Liberians suffered. And I want to tell everyone that we did not fight a foolish war, but a war to liberate Liberians, okay?”
Yet, beneath the touted bravado of the boy rebels lurks deep sadness, the tragedy of their lives criminally toyed with. ‘Dirty Rebel,’ as he likes to call himself, was a rebel group leader proud of his killing track-record. In the days the war was on full swing, he shared private views with journalists at a run-down inn: “The gun is my mother and my father. When I am hungry, it can get me food, and when I am sick, it gives me medicine. So as for now, this is my mother and father. When I in school, I won’t kill, but in the war when I have the gun I do many things that make me to feel bad. Sometimes I cry when I sit alone, but when I am like this with other children who do the same things, I don’t feel bad. During this war, I killed many people… so I will ask for forgiveness. After I turn this gun over, I will register and go to school, and I will not think about killing no more. Yeah.” Today, lots of boys in rags, sunken-eyed and bony, walk about as eye-soring remnants of the war; most have limbs amputated, and have no families or home.
On the other side are the victims with bitter memories, poverty and homelessness to live with. The worst struck are the orphans, widows and the many women raped by marauding rebel soldiers, mostly in gangs. 17 year old Emilia, gang-raped and mother of a three year old recounts her tale: ‘They killed my brother before my eyes and asked me to bury him…I feel very deep sad, sometimes I feel like I am dead too.” But young Emilia has risen from the ashes and aspires to become a counsellor for raped women and a journalist to tell the world her side of the story. “I encourage the people to share their experiences so that the world knows how we feel.”
Hawa, the only survivor of her family, brutally gang-raped has still not recovered from her trauma. “They open the door and came in, threatened to kill if I hollered. The pain was in my body… I bear it. So other one go, other one come. My body was hurting, I couldn’t even get up… and two of them were children. They just used me in ugly ways. I feel bad. I can’t just laugh cos God faces me and asks me to laugh. My heart break in half. I don’t have a home, I don’t have a man. I think God wanted me to stay with them, but I don’t have nobody.”
Yet, in the darkness and the pain, courage, hope and faith survive still. Mariama Brown, a voluntary social worker who herself suffered greatly in the war has adopted 13 war orphans and runs a refugee shelter, counselling and healing hundreds of suffering women. With her characteristic candour, she says, “Women like Hawa are the reason why I started this centre. I said to myself, I have to go for this, I have to learn to counsel these women, and learn to treat victims of rape. We are building a little community, and I feel good for that. My strength comes from those I serve. They are happy, rejoicing, smile on their faces. I feel so good now, so happy, and when I go home, I can sleep deep like a drunken woman.”
Out of history’s wounds, the morass of ‘civilization’, policy, diplomacy, interest, exploitation, tribalism, the missionary zeal for Westernization, power and the ‘love of liberty’, it is the indomitable spirit of selflessness, humanity, large-hearted charity, love, hope and faith that heals; it is this that stands tall and endures above all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)