A fascinating tale from Egypt: hurriya, hurriya, adalah igtimayyia – freedom, freedom, social justice.

 

The media has long repeated the mantra that Israel is the Middle East’s only democracy. Combined with serious doubts regarding the Arabs’ readiness for democracy, the conclusion offered is: Israel carries similar values to the US, the West, the First World, the civilized hemisphere, and the Arabs epitomise all the ailments of the world. It matters little that Arab regimes were made ‘powerful’ by the backing of their western benefactors, or that oppression – in the name of fighting the enemies of peace and progress – was urged, financed and orchestrated with western interests in mind. The fact that the bullets and canister teargas that killed and wounded numerous Egyptians had the following words inscribed on it in Arabic: ‘suni’a fi al-wilayat al-mutahida al-amrikyia’ – Made in the United States – was also deemed entirely irrelevant to any discussion on how and why Egyptians were being suppressed or why the Arab Lion must never find its roar.

 

“The much-feted Mossad was taken by surprise,” wrote Uri Avnery. The CIA was too, although US lawmakers are trying to determine “whether the CIA and other spy agencies failed to give President Obama adequate warning of the unfolding crisis in Egypt” (as reported by Greg Miller in the Washington Post, February 4). Senator Dianne Feinstein who heads the Intelligence Committee, accused the intelligence community of ‘lacking” performance. The CIA should have monitored Facebook more closely, she suggested.

 

But there can be no telling when a nation revolts. Most of the chanting multitudes have no Facebook accounts. They don’t tweet either. In Tahrir Square, a man with a moustache, dark skin and handsome features carried a cardboard sign on which he had written, rather hurriedly: “I want to eat. My monthly salary is 267 (Egyptian) pounds – approx $45 – and I have four children.”

 

Others want to breathe the air of freedom. Others still want justice. Dignity. Equality. Democracy. Hope. How can such values be measured, or safeguarded against?

 

There is a very popular word in Egypt – al-Sabr. It means patience. But no one could predict when the patience would run out. Arab and Egyptian intellectuals didn’t see it coming, and even the country’s opposition parties were caught by surprise. Everyone tried to catch up as millions of long-oppressed Egyptians erupted in astounding unison: hurriya, hurriya, adalah igtimayyia – freedom, freedom, social justice. 

 

Ramzy Baroud in Radiance Weekly. More Here.

Real test for Muslim Brotherhood has begun now!

 

The anti-Islamic, self-proclaimed messiahs everywhere argue their non-case, passionately warning that “deluge after us” and if the Ikhwan comes to power, there would be anarchy, chaos and total disorder. To quote from an editorial of The Hindu, Jan. 20/11: “After an absurd attempt to blame the Ikhwanul Muslimeen or Muslim Brotherhood the Mubarak regime turned to violence with the police and semi-official thug militias, using tear gas and rubber coated steel bullets against protesters.”

 

ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY

Let the prophets of doom come forward to substantiate maligning of the Brotherhood, on whose shoulders however now an onerous responsibility rests. They have to prove how a caliphate proves better than a democracy; how the interest-free banking proliferates welfare in an Islamic state; how the divine-oriented politics creates poise and equilibrium in society; how the dignified gender-norms create conditions in which a lonely woman can all alone travel fearlessly from Lidmorts to Mogadishu, and Mauritania to Sinkiang. If, Heavens forbid, they fail, the upholders and advocates of Islam will lose face for no fault of theirs.

More strength to the elbows of the strugglers!

 

Dr Ausaf Saied Vasfi in Radiance Weekly. More Here.

Egypt fallout: The days of American hegemony are over?

All of a sudden it is Washington, not the Middle East, that appears stagnant. The revolts in Tunisia and Egypt – and the proliferating signs of unrest in the American sphere of influence in the Middle East – have occurred in spite of American power, not because of it, and they have left the US looking confused and isolated. America’s closest ally in the region is an expansionist, increasingly chauvinist Jewish state whose friendship is as much a liability as an asset. If Obama’s assiduous efforts to rebrand the American empire have made little headway, it is in part because they have not been accompanied by any serious rethinking of these strategic priorities: the grandeur of his rhetoric barely masks the poverty of his vision.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, the Egyptian revolt is the latest expansion of a new dynamism. A Hizbullah-backed coalition government has come to power in Lebanon by constitutional means, upending Washington’s calculations and deepening Tehran’s influence; Turkey, under an Islamic government, has been pursuing an ambitious foreign policy that ignores the Washington grid. Even in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US can no longer count on the deference of the governments it helped to create.

Despite its uncontested military supremacy in the region, Washington can’t seem to translate its power into real influence, its dominance into lasting hegemony. Its help is rarely even sought in resolving disputes such as the recent tensions over Lebanon’s new government: a distinct preference for regional mediation has emerged.

The best that can be said of Obama’s Middle East policy is that he hasn’t got in the way of this trend as much as his predecessor did. He has been prevented from encouraging it by his own cautious instincts, and by the alliances with Israel that he inherited, the terms of which he is unwilling or unable to revise. The days of American hegemony in the Muslim East are not over, but for the first time in years, from Ankara to Cairo, from Tunis to Beirut, the outlines of a post-American Middle East can be glimpsed.

Adam Shatz in London review of Books. More Here.

Egypt uprising: Is it internet driven?

The western and the Indian media, have blown the role of Facebook and Twitter so much out of proportion as if there would have been no revolution without them. What they tend to forget is that the ideology, the leadership, the zeal and motivating factors are more important than means.

There seems to be a grand design to undermine the very message of the revolution. There is a need to explode the myth of internet in bringing about the revolution. It is true it played its role, but attributing the revolution just to internet is simply unacceptable. Egypt still has a big number of computer illiterates, who took to streets on their own.

Much less is being actually written about the ideology, which motivated Tunisians and Egyptians to take to streets for so many days till they ultimately succeeded in getting rid of Ben Ali and Mubarak respectively. Yes, the movements were against the dictators and Tunisians and Egyptians eagerly wanted to have government which enjoyed people’s mandate. But they wanted more than that, which the media didn’t highlight.

There is strong element of anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism in these big upsurges, but this aspect is deliberately being ignored or underplayed. In case of Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood factor is being highlighted but sometimes with the element of doubt. The West once again wants to project that the revolutionaries are impressed by democracy in Europe and the United States and so, one way or the other, want to adopt their version of Democracy.

The truth is that the concept of government based on people’s mandate is much older in Islam than the West, which partially introduced it with hardly any success for the first time after the French Revolution of 1789. In fact what they now call as liberal democracy is fairly a recent development with countries like France, the so-called nursery of democratic change, permitting its women to vote for the first time in 1945. Even in the United States and several other countries this total democracy is a recent phenomenon, in which all its citizens, including Blacks and women were allowed to vote. In fact in Australia hunting of aboriginals was legal till only half a century back, not to speak of giving voting right to them. In fact India gave voting rights to all its citizens much before several western countries––Spain, Portugal are a few examples.

So when they talk of Muslim Brotherhood, it needs to be highlighted that its concept of government having people’s mandate, has its roots in the immediate aftermath of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and not that of the western democracy of 20th or 21st centuries. The Brotherhood was formed in 1928, much before many western countries became democratic. From its founder Hasan-al-Bannah to Sayed Qutub and Mohammad Qutub––all of them are no more alive––have dealt in great details about Islam as a way of life in their writings.
The emergence and subsequent electoral victory of Hamas in Gaza has more to do with this idea rather than of the western democracy. In fact the champion of modern democracy, the United States, has always been opposed to the election victory of Hamas in 2006 and the West never gave it legitimacy.

The western writers, journalists, and other public opinion-makers are trying to take some credit for whatever is happening in Egypt or in other Arab countries, but there is no scope for it. Had the Communist ideology been powerful as in the past, they would have some satisfaction as after all it is also a western idea. Now that they have made no contribution they are repeatedly playing up the internet theory.

True Egypt is yet to see the emergence of leader like Erbakan in Turkey or Ayotullah Khomeini in Iran, but the ideology of Islam has played a big role in bringing the people to the streets. With large number of woman-marchers clad in burqa and demonstrators offering namaz (prayer) give fair amount of idea that the revolution has Islamic color.

But the problem with the western media is that over the years, they have distorted the image of Islam so much that it has become a sort of synonym to terrorism. How can they now say that Islam believes in peaceful political change like the one which is happening now?

So if the revolutionaries refused to resort to violence in spite of provocation by Mubarak’s agents, the West was quick to conclude that those who were protesting were modern-minded liberals who wanted a western democracy.

In spite of so much information explosion, the world perhaps knows more about the role of the Google executive Wael Ghonim in bringing people to the streets than about the Supreme Guide of Muslim Brotherhood Mohammad Badie––not to confuse it with Nobel Prize winner Mohammad El-Baradei.
Badie, 68, is himself a professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Beni Suef and was named by the Egyptian State Information Service in its annual listing as one of the top one hundred Arab scientists. He is also the founder of the Higher Veterinary Institute of the Arab Republic of Yemen. Yet the name of this great scholar is hardly visible in the western media as he does not fit in the western scheme of thing.

Soroor Ahmed in Two circles. More Here.

Could our Jantar Mantar become our Tahrir Square?

Those of our political leaders who have paid attention to the protests in Tahrir Square must be spending sleepless nights. Not because a floodgate of public rage is about to burst open in Delhi or Mumbai but because the reasons for the rage are so familiar to us who live in the proudly democratic republic of India. Allow me to list a few similarities. Open loot of public money. Political leaders who become fabulously rich while ordinary people remain horribly poor. Dynastic succession. In our case this idea has roots so deep and wide that there is almost not a single political party that is not a family business. Then, as in most despotic Arab countries, we have followed economic policies that have created a small super-rich elite while the majority of our people live on less than $2 a day. And, just like Egypt we have a huge population of young people most of whom will move to cities and towns in the next twenty years. 

From Tavleen Singh's article in Indian Express. More Here.

Could it happen here? The leaderless revolution in Egypt has caused some anxiety locally over whether the wretched of our earth could come out to challenge their rulers. Conventional and unconventional wisdom has it that the answer is an emphatic no. We have a vibrant democracy, regular elections, a free media, an alert judiciary—all these checks and balances, it is fondly assumed, provide a safety valve through which the above-mentioned wretched can ventilate their frustrations. It is a cosy and comforting thesis but it needs to be tested. Not just to shake us out of complacency, but to force us to ask some hard questions.
One could in fact argue that it is already happening here. The injustices the protesters at Tahrir Square are raging about—corruption, no jobs, rising prices, appalling governance—are rampant in our blessed land. The tribal population of India, over three times the size of Egypt’s total population, lives daily with hardships ten times worse than those faced by the aam aadmi in Cairo. The per capita income in Egypt is four times the per capita income of adivasis in Dantewada. Moreover, under the influence of the Maoists, our destitute have taken up arms in a do-or-die struggle against the Indian state. Altogether, we are confronted with a situation infinitely more dangerous than the one prevailing in Egypt. Indeed, in contrast to the carnival and celebratory atmosphere in Tahrir Square, our deprived and desolate are waging a grim and violent battle. India is already at war with its own people. If you asked a bow-and-arrow-wielding woman to throw down her weapon because she possessed a wonderful thing called “democracy”, I shudder to think what her response would be.
Shining India, fortunately, does not have to watch pitched clashes outside the street on which it lives. However, unless we wake up, that prospect is fast approaching. Supposing, 2,00,000 of our citizens march into Jantar Mantar demanding regime change or immediate redressal of their grievances, how will the Indian state respond?

Vinod Mehta in Outlook. More Here.

Lessons from Egypt for the Islamists in India..!

Lessons from Egypt for the Jamaat-e-Islami Hind people.
This is in response to a request from my friend and guide to shed light on the lessons from Egypt.

What lessons could we learn from the mass uprising in Egypt? India is not Egypt. And we do not have any Hosni Mubaraks here. We may have our share of bigots like Narendra Modis and L K Advanis. But still we do not have Hosni Mubaraks here, by the grace of Allah.

As I reflected on the demonstrations in Egypt and news of the events that followed, it occured to me that there were FOUR vital lessons for the Islamists here in India that need to be highlighted.

Lesson No. 1: 

The agents of change are always the youth. If we want to bring change in the society, we have to capture the minds of the youth and mould them in the Islamic way. The Egypt revolution may have been scripted and drafted by the seniors, but it was executed by the youth. Youth were in the forefront and they took the plunge when it mattered most. Without the active involvement of the youth the brutal regime could not have been toppled so smoothly. It is amazing that the Ikhwans were able to nurture, train and groom such a large number of youth under the very nose of the tyrant Pharoah.

We have to do something to groom our own youth. At present we have SIO which has succeeded in mobilising students for the Islamic cause. There is a big gap as far as the Indian youth are concerned. There is no activism. There is no guidance. There is no mobilisation. Youth power is being wasted. There is an urgent need for proper planning in this regard. India has the largest concentration of youth. But the percentage of youth in the Islamic movement is not healthy and the figures presented by the General Secretary of the Jamaat in the recently held All India Members conference is alarming. The number of members of the Jamaat who have not seen thirty summers is very very meagre. Those with grey and white beards outnumbered those with shiny black beards in that Ijtema-e-Arkan. That does not augur well for a movement which strives to bring total change in the society. The success story of Solidarity Youth Movement in Kerala has to be repeated in all over the nation. And that is the need of the hour.

Lesson No 2: 
Patience and perseverance pays. Be patient. Never lose hope. Patience pays and it pays handsomely. Look at the Ikhwans. For 52 long years - more than two generations - they had been patient. They were suppressed and oppressed by the most brutal regime of the day. They bore all kinds of oppression. They were banned and persecuted for more than a half century. But still, they never lose hope. They never threw away their core idealogy. They never succumbed to the pulls and pressures of the brutal regime and its wily sponsor. They were steadfast in their belief and action.

Those who call for drastic changes in our core idealogy should stand and ponder over this phenonmenal perseverence displayed by the Ikhwanis. Let us not be impatient and make hasty decisions which may harm our larger goal.

Lesson No 3:
The Ikhwanis never called it Islamic revolution. They co-opted with others. They worked with other sections of the society. They even shared the struggle with the coptic Christians. Cross and Quran alongwith the Egyptian flag were raised in Tahrir Square. They warmly embraced with others for a common cause. Slavej Zizek has described it as the most sublime moment. I would say it as the most defining moment in the 21st century. In a multi-cultural and multi-racial world that is the most pragmatic approach.

We in India too should such an inclusive approach. We have to identify common goods and goals and join hands with the likeminded noble souls in attaining them. We have to learn from the pact which is known as "Hilful Fuzul" was arranged in the house of Abdullah ibn Jad'in in Makkah by certain important personalities of the time. Later during the period of his Prophethood, the Holy Prophet often mentioned this pact and said that he was still willing to participate in a similar pact and not to violate its provisions. We have vast number of right thinking and noble hearted activists here in India. They are not corrupt. They are not communal. We have to join hands with them and find ways and means to struggle with them towards attaining common good.


Lesson No 4:
Embrace the issues of the people and people would always sit in your lap. The Ikhwanis embraced the issues of the people. They joined hands with them when it mattered the most. They identified the simmering discontent against the regime and used it. They got availed of the opportunity and positioned themselves. They have always been in the forefront in tackling the basic issues of the lay man.

We have to strive for common goals instead of Muslim specific issues. The experience gained through Forum for Democracy and Communal Amity (FDCA) would be useful in this regard. It has to be noted that whenever we took common issues the nation responded passionately and positively. The Human Rights Campaign launched in 2003 and the Caravan for Peace and Justice in this meeqath are shiny examples for this. Similarly the more positive response we got when we took up the cause of anti-liquor campaign in Tamil Nadu could be cited as an example for this trend.

Still there are vast number of issues affecting the aam aadmi here. We have to take them up.

So why are the neocons uneasy?

One cannot but note the "miraculous" nature of the events in Egypt: something has happened that few predicted, violating the experts' opinions, as if the uprising was not simply the result of social causes but the intervention of a mysterious agency that we can call, in a Platonic way, the eternal idea of freedom, justice and dignity.

The uprising was universal: it was immediately possible for all of us around the world to identify with it, to recognise what it was about, without any need for cultural analysis of the features of Egyptian society. In contrast to Iran's Khomeini revolution (where leftists had to smuggle their message into the predominantly Islamist frame), here the frame is clearly that of a universal secular call for freedom and justice, so that the Muslim Brotherhood had to adopt the language of secular demands.

The most sublime moment occurred when Muslims and Coptic Christians engaged in common prayer on Cairo's Tahrir Square, chanting "We are one!" – providing the best answer to the sectarian religious violence.

Those neocons who criticise multiculturalism on behalf of the universal values of freedom and democracy are now confronting their moment of truth: you want universal freedom and democracy? This is what people demand in Egypt, so why are the neocons uneasy? Is it because the protesters in Egypt mention freedom and dignity in the same breath as social and economic justice?

From the start, the violence of the protesters has been purely symbolic, an act of radical and collective civil disobedience. They suspended the authority of the state – it was not just an inner liberation, but a social act of breaking chains of servitude. The physical violence was done by the hired Mubarak thugs entering Tahrir Square on horses and camels and beating people; the most protesters did was defend themselves.

Although combative, the message of the protesters has not been one of killing. The demand was for Mubarak to go, and thus open up the space for freedom in Egypt, a freedom from which no one is excluded – the protesters' call to the army, and even the hated police, was not "Death to you!", but "We are brothers! Join us!". This feature clearly distinguishes an emancipatory demonstration from a rightwing populist one: although the right's mobilisation proclaims the organic unity of the people, it is a unity sustained by a call to annihilate the designated enemy (Jews, traitors).

So where are we now? When an authoritarian regime approaches the final crisis, its dissolution tends to follow two steps. Before its actual collapse, a rupture takes place: all of a sudden people know that the game is over, they are simply no longer afraid. It is not only that the regime loses its legitimacy; its exercise of power itself is perceived as an impotent panic reaction. We all know the classic scene from cartoons: the cat reaches a precipice but goes on walking, ignoring the fact that there is no ground under its feet; it starts to fall only when it looks down and notices the abyss. When it loses its authority, the regime is like a cat above the precipice: in order to fall, it only has to be reminded to look down …

Egypt's struggle of endurance is not a conflict of visions, it is the conflict between a vision of freedom and a blind clinging to power that uses all means possible – terror, lack of food, simple tiredness, bribery with raised salaries – to squash the will to freedom.

When President Obama welcomed the uprising as a legitimate expression of opinion that needs to be acknowledged by the government, the confusion was total: the crowds in Cairo and Alexandria did not want their demands to be acknowledged by the government, they denied the very legitimacy of the government. They didn't want the Mubarak regime as a partner in a dialogue, they wanted Mubarak to go. They didn't simply want a new government that would listen to their opinion, they wanted to reshape the entire state. They don't have an opinion, they are the truth of the situation in Egypt. Mubarak understands this much better than Obama: there is no room for compromise here, as there was none when the Communist regimes were challenged in the late 1980s. Either the entire Mubarak power edifice falls down, or the uprising is co-opted and betrayed.

And what about the fear that, after the fall of Mubarak, the new government will be hostile towards Israel? If the new government is genuinely the expression of a people that proudly enjoys its freedom, then there is nothing to fear: antisemitism can only grow in conditions of despair and oppression. (A CNN report from an Egyptian province showed how the government is spreading rumours there that the organisers of the protests and foreign journalists were sent by the Jews to weaken Egypt – so much for Mubarak as a friend of the Jews.)

One of the cruellest ironies of the current situation is the west's concern that the transition should proceed in a "lawful" way – as if Egypt had the rule of law until now. Are we already forgetting that, for many long years, Egypt was in a permanent state of emergency? Mubarak suspended the rule of law, keeping the entire country in a state of political immobility, stifling genuine political life. It makes sense that so many people on the streets of Cairo claim that they now feel alive for the first time in their lives. Whatever happens next, what is crucial is that this sense of "feeling alive" is not buried by cynical realpolitik.

From Slavoj Zizek's write-up in Commondreams. More Here.

Is it a leaderless revolution?

The revolution was successful because it had no leaders, only coordinators of bottom up energy. Its use of social media was brilliantly conceived to meld online organizing with offline action, not supplant it. The inability of older generations to understand the power of this new form of leadership among Egypt's, and ultimately the world's, young people suggests there will be many more such surprises in the future, both at home and abroad.

It's not surprising that the facility of young people in using new technology is the first thing older generations notice and comment upon when talking about "kids today."

Many older people, however, fail to look beyond those surface behaviors to the deeper values that now animate young people around the world. The belief of the emerging generation in democratic values, in the ability of people to govern themselves, free from dictation from above, and in the power of individual initiative to inspire collective action on behalf of the community's greater good, determine the way young people use technology, not the other way around.

All of those attitudes and values were in clear evidence in Egypt over the last few weeks, reminding those clinging to power and outdated perceptions of how to hold onto it, that a new generation has arrived. Like their civic-oriented counterparts in America eight decades ago, this century's emerging generation has a "rendezvous with destiny" and will lead the world in entirely new ways into a new era.

Michael Hais and Morly Winograd in The Huffington Post. More Here.