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.

A giant has awakened after long centuries of slumber.

This genuinely democratic, watershed change is almost impossible to derail now, no matter what the scheming Israelis and their nervous patrons think.

What makes this movement that has captured the world imagination truly historic is the fact that it has rediscovered and revived the confidence and unleashed the fighting spirit of the long demoralized and dormant Arabs.

As an Arab writer wrote last week, the Arabs haven’t witnessed any significant victory or memorable achievement since the glorious victory of Salahuddin Ayuubi (Saladin the Great), the conqueror of Jerusalem, 800 years ago over the Crusaders. The legacy of the great warrior king lives on in the proud falcon that is the insignia of Egyptian Army, and that of numerous Arab countries.

Those marching on the streets of Egypt and elsewhere in the region give hope and a sense of purpose and direction to the faceless, long repressed multitudes across the Arab-Muslim world and beyond!

Suddenly, it’s cool to be an Arab, easily the most vilified, dehumanized and demonized character in Western popular culture. Those young people — and old — standing their ground at the Tahrir Square day after day with a simple yet defiant finality make you proud. (Who says democracy and Islam can’t be the best of pals?)
The Tahrir Square has elbowed out the Tiananmen Square and will remain seared in popular imagination for years to come, long after Mubarak is gone. No wonder people around the world, from Americas to Australia, are increasingly standing up to make common cause with the people of Egypt.

In his much quoted 2009 Cairo speech, and before that in the profound Inaugural address, President Barack Obama had reached out to the Arabs and Muslims, seeking a “new way forward.”
And people of the Middle East have given him just that: A new way forward! Yet all you’ve heard from Washington — and from other Western capitals — over the past two weeks is either deafening silence or diplomatic gobbledygook that means nothing. As usual, the best emanates from Israel. Netanyahu warns: “When there are rapid changes, as it happened in Iran, an oppressive regime of radical Islam will rise. Such a regime will crush human rights and will not allow democracy or freedom, and will constitute a threat to peace.”

Now we need lessons in democracy, freedom and human rights from those who have stolen someone else’s land imprisoning its population! Hillary Clinton seconds Netanyahu arguing, “revolutions have overthrown dictators in the name of democracy, only to see the process hijacked by new autocrats.”

What’s the West really afraid of? What’s it about Islam that so terrifies the champions of democracy and freedom of faith? But it’s not Islam, as Chomsky argues, but independence of the Middle East that worries the West.

In a fine dispatch this week from Cairo titled, Tehran 1979 or Berlin1989?, Roger Cohen pleads with the US and Israel to not handle Egypt the way they dealt with Iran after the revolution. He plumps for a more “nuanced approach” that helped the West bring down the so-called evil empire and regimes across Eastern Europe. So what’s it going to be? Tehran 1979 or Berlin 1989? Whichever way Washington and London go, it’s not going to be the Egyptians’ way. Gone is the time of the empire ruling by proxy. It’s time for the people of Egypt – and the Middle East – to chart their own future without the expert advice or promptings of the empire. Call it Islamic resurgence, Arab revival or whatever but a giant has awakened after long centuries of slumber. Change is in the air.

Aijaz Zaka Syed in Arab News. More Here.

Obama's bagman in Egypt

From inside the bowels of Washington's power elite, Frank Wisner emerges, briefcase in hand. He has met the President, but he is not his envoy. He represents the United States, but is not the Ambassador. What is in his briefcase is his experience: it includes his long career as bagman of Empire, and as bucket-boy for Capital. Pulling himself away from the Georgetown cocktail parties and the Langley Power-point briefings, Wisner finds his way to the Heliopolis cocktail parties and to the hushed conferences in Kasr al-Ittihadiya. Mubarak (age 82) greets Wisner (age 72), as these elders confer on the way forward for a country whose majority is under thirty.

Obama came to Cairo in 2009, and said, "America does not presume to know what is best for everyone." Those words should have been cast in gold and placed in the portico of the White House. Instead, they drift like wisps in the wind, occasionally sighted for propaganda purposes, but in a time of crisis, hidden behind the clouds of imperial interests (or those of Tel Aviv). America presumes to know, and presumes to have a say equivalent to those of the millions who have thronged Egypt's squares, streets and television sets (one forgets about the protests of the latter, too tired to get to the square, nursing sick children or adults, a bit fearful, but no less given over to anger at the regime).

The Republicans have their own ghouls, people like James Baker, who are plucked out for tasks that require the greatest delicacy. They are like diplomatic hit-men, who are not sown up by too much belief in the values of democracy and freedom, but to the imperatives of "stability" and Empire. The Democratic bench is lighter now, as the immense bulk of Richard Holbrooke has departed for other diplomatic assignments. He had been given charge of Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he found little traction. The Taliban could not be cowered, and nor would the Pakistani military. Holbrooke had much easier times in the Balkans, where, according to Diana Johnstone, he instigated the conflict by refusing the road of peace. Wisner comes out of the same nest as Holbrooke. He is the Democrat's version of James Baker, but without the pretend gravity of the Texan.

Wisner has a long lineage in the CIA family. His father, Frank Sr., helped overthrow Arbenz of Guatemala (1954) and Mossadeq of Iran (1953), before he was undone in mysterious circumstances in 1965. Frank Jr. is well known around Langley, with a career in the Defense and State Departments along with ambassadorial service in Egypt, the Philippines, and then India. In each of these places Wisner insinuated himself into the social and military branches of the power elite. He became their spokesperson. Wisner and Mubarak became close friends when he was in country (1986-1991), and many credit this friendship (and military aid) with Egypt's support of the US in the 1991 Gulf War. Not once did the US provide a criticism of Egypt's human rights record. As Human Rights Watch put it, the George H. W. Bush regime "refrained from any public expression of concern about human rights violations in Egypt." Instead, military aid increased, and the torture system continued. The moral turpitude (bad guys, aka the Muslim Brotherhood and democracy advocates need to be tortured) and the torture apparatus set up the system for the regime followed by Bush's son, George W. after 911, with the extraordinary rendition programs to these very Egyptian prisons. Wisner might be considered the architect of the framework for this policy.

Wisner remained loyal to Mubarak. In 2005, he celebrated the Egyptian (s)election (Mubarak "won" with 88.6% of the vote). It was a "historic day" he said, and went further, "There were no instances of repression; there wasn't heavy police presence on the streets. The atmosphere was not one of police intimidation." This is quite the opposite of what came out from election observers, human rights organizations and bloggers such as Karee Suleiman and Hossam el-Hamalawy. The Democratic and Republican ghouls came together in the James Baker Institute's working group on the Middle East. Wisner joined the Baker Institute's head Edward Djerejian and others to produce a report in 2003 that offers us a tasty statement, "Achieving security and stability in the Middle East will be made more difficult by the fact that short-term necessities will seem to contradict long-term goals." If the long-term goal is Democracy, then that is all very well because it has to be sacrificed to the short-term, namely support for the kind of Pharonic State embodied by Mubarak. Nothing more is on offer. No wonder that a "Washington Middle East hand" told The Cable, "[Wisner's] the exact wrong person to send. He is an apologist for Mubarak." But this is a wrong view. Wisner is just the exact person to send to protect the short-term, and so only-term, interests of Washington. The long-term has been set aside.

One wonders at the tenor of the official cables coming from Cairo to Washington. Ambassador Margaret Scobey, a career official, has been once more sidelined. The first time was over rendition. She is known to have opposed the tenor of it, and had spoken on behalf of Ayman Nour and others. This time Obama did an end run around her, sending Wisner. Scobey went to visit El-Baradei. Similar treatment was meted out to Ambassador Anne Patterson in Islamabad. Her brief was narrowed by Holbrooke's appointment. What must these women in senior places think, that when a crisis erupts, they are set-aside for the men of Washington?

Wisner urged Mubarak to concede. It is not enough. More is being asked for. Today, Mubarak's supporters have come out with bats in hand, ready for a fight. This has probably also been sanctioned in that private meeting. It is what one expects of Empire's bagman.

From Vijay Prashad's analysis in Counter punch. More Here 
Also in NYTimes