As a means of focusing our attention, let us
consider two questions:
1) What is the Identity of Fundamentalism? For example: Is Religion equal
to Nationality?
2) Who is more eager for the Central Asians to be "fundamentalists?"
Now, we can consider a population in 1990, exhibiting the following
confessional attributes: 35,0481 operating churches,
clustered in 219 denominations; 58.6 % of the total
population maintaining church membership; 335,389
pastors in parishes; 537,379 total clergy. This country
has 203 seminaries with 52,025 students enrolled. One
sect alone operating 8,913 schools, not counting other
denominational parochial schools. These figures do not
include resources devoted to overseas evangelical and
missionary activities. This political entity has 3.5
million square miles of territory and 145,383,738 out
of a total population of 248 million are church
members.
The political entity in question, of course,
is the United States.[1] There are no comparable
statistics with respect to Central Asia, which has a
land mass akin to that of the U.S., but its population
of approximately 80 million is clustered in several
irrigated patches separated by uninhabitable expanses.
From the late 1930s until 1990 there were only two
seminaries in Central Asia, with a student body not
more than several dozen students in attendance.[2]
Total number of operating mosques, according to varying
Soviet statistics, numbered around one hundred. The
holy book Koran was published less than half a dozen
times until 1984 in limited quantities.[3] The entire
clergy was under the total control of the state. The
bureaucratic apparatus of the center selected the
seminary students for training and the graduating
clergy were then assigned by the state apparatus to
practice religion who paid them monthly. All "official"
clergy reported to one of the four Moslem Spiritual
Boards.
In Central Asia the US type evangelical TV or
radio stations are not indigenous. In the earlier
periods, such as between the 12th and 16th centuries,
the propagation medium of religion and legitimation of
a new ruler was literature, especially poetry. Instead,
especially during the past two centuries, Central Asia
has been a target of proselytization, both Islamic and
Christian, rather than a jubilant exporter of religion.
The sources of these efforts to variously Islamicize or
Christianize Central Asians are diverse, and now
continuing with renewed vigor.
At this point, it may be
useful to remind ourselves of a fundamental difference
between Christianity and Islam: Christianity generally
operates within a set administrative church apparatus.
The Christian sects have a hierarchy, with a church
pastor answering to a bishop of his denomination as
well as the congregation. The bishop, in turn, answers
to a higher level cleric, and so on. And, some of the
denominations maintain a world-wide spiritual leader,
with a suitable supporting state apparatus. None of
this is the fundamental case with respect to Islam. A
prayer leader only answers to his congregation. This is
because Islam believes that there ought not be any type
of mediation between a soul and God, a thought that
fueled the Christian Reformation in the 16th century.
Each individual will communicate with the deity at his
own personal level and receive unconditional salvation.
Again, in its original form, Islam did not make a
distinction between the spiritual and the profane
worlds; religion and statecraft are of one fabric. That
is, when the mosques are not under the control of the
political state, be it the 8th century Caliphates or
the 21st century sovereign states. As mentioned above,
on the other hand, the Soviet Union totally took over
religion and placed it firmly under state control.
Nothing religious, regardless of sect, could take place
without the knowledge or permission of the security
organs. The purpose, as demonstrated in related
literature, was to remove this religious influence from
the ruling equation, to make the population more
pliable in general to the demands of the state. After
all, a religion usually has legitimation issues
involving the ruling strata and may support or oppose a
political system or politician.
Much has been written
about the rise and fall of Islam as a political
movement, military power and distinct civilization. A
great majority of those commentaries aim to view Islam
as a monolith. Indeed, some of the practitioners and
even opponents of Islam wish to portray it as such --- each for its own benefit.[4] One look at the record
indicates that, much like Christianity, national
interests have always taken precedence over that
putative unity. Christian Europeans have killed each
other by the tens of millions during the 20th century
World Wars under various grievances. Likewise, Islamic
states also went to war with each other during the same
period. Were all those wars fought in the name of
religion? At the time of the fighting, the combatants
claimed so. Further, all parties insisted that theirs
was the true religion, and the belief of the opposing
party was nothing but heresy. But, everyone, deep down
their hearts could at least sense that there were other
reasons. These are as varied as the desires and dreams
of all humans. Some can be lumped together under
economic, even political sub-headings.
In order to
better understand this puzzle, it may be helpful to
delve into the identity of the belief systems, stripped
of their outer garments. It is commonplace to have a
person or polity to have more than one identity.
Political (political party preference), economic (fee
market or restricted forms of daily economic activity),
belief systems (for example, Buddhist or Christian,
etc). But, choices and occurrences do not stop there.
We, as individuals cannot choose our birth order, an
occurrence that also contributes to one's identity,
much like being a parent, member of a particular social
or service club, or a graduate of a specific school.
This complexity of identities certainly contributes, as
a package, to the outcome. Within the foregoing
framework, therefore, it may be necessary to
investigate the needs of various identities and the
interactions among those needs, and associated costs.
GOVERNANCE
The statecraft of Central Asia has deep
roots, with surviving manuals from the tenth century
and even earlier. The nature and identity of political
systems of the region have evolved according to the
needs of the populace and ecological environment. As it
always is the case, a certain "ruling exhaustion" (born
of long term governance) had already set in by the time
outsiders first "discovered" Central Asia. These
outsiders began publishing their understanding of the
events, institutions and practices. However, the
visitors --- whether they were traveling in an invading
army, or collecting intelligence or peddling commercial
wares --- had arrived with pre-conceived notions. These
prejudices included both expectations of what to find
and also their own perceptions of personal worth and
capabilities. Unfortunately, those published works
served to establish the bases for foreign policy
options of a number of neighboring and far away states.
This practice produced disastrous consequences for all,
born of a mismatch between what is expected of the
central Asians and the conditions that existed in
central Asia.
Most of those issues are still alive and
well. When the polities that come under pressure from
outside sources to modernize, open up to global trade,
their long standing local values are disrupted. These
disrupted polities will wish to preserve their
identities as a means of preserving and maintaining
their life styles in many manners they think
appropriate. After all, they realize, this is war by
other means. Anytime a problem is defined, the mind
wanders about casting for an answer or solution. There
may not always one ready to hand, other than the
invisible hand that apply to economics. That is not to
say that there ought not be any communication whatever
among polities. Rather, the question is at what level?
And, what ought be the qualifications of those
communicators? And their numbers, intentions,
objectives? If the designated communicators are there
with the pre-conceived notions, to impose their will on
the other side, the entire enterprise fails, and the
hostilities commence once again.
It has been suggested
that peace, enduring peace, can only be devised by
global participation of all polities. This is difficult
to defend or demonstrate. Some governance systems are
designed for perpetual conflict without which they
cannot survive. To quash such particularistic systems,
other polities must arm and wage real war. The
necessity to establish additional forces and logistics
for the purpose eventually recalls Napoleon's
dictum: "One can do everything with a bayonet, except
sit on it" The federative model of governance is a
solution advanced to check the excesses of a overly
centralized and overly authoritarian world government.
In that case, the laws enacted, rules promulgated with
executive decree in the name of the majority (it those
indeed reflect the clear decisions of the majority),
presumably for the good of all will not suit the needs
and aspirations of the minority or minorities. Will
that mismatch not constitute a violation of rights
pursued by the majority as well? Will the minority be
forced into submission into a set of circumstances, for
example, buying a certain product, for the sake
of 'efficiency?' If the producer of, say, genetically
engineered agricultural products have the right to
engineer and market them, should not the consumers also
have the right to accept or reject them?
BELIEF
Assaults on belief systems are not uncommon to Central
Asians, who, in the course of a millennium, have braced
themselves against a number of major campaigns.
However, shamanism is the earliest known belief system,
based on spirituality, courage, physical prowess,
hospitality and generosity. It has two discernible
basic branches: one of the earliest known monotheisms,
the Tengri; and the dual diety Erlik and Dirlik (Sky
and Underground gods, respectively). Over time, the
Turk shamanism came into contact with neighboring
belief systems, such as Zoroastrianism, Buddhism,
Mithraism; and exchanged tokens (images and lores) or
significant eschalatological aspects. The entry of
Islam into this Shamanist territory created new
traditions, and in some cases seriously eroded the
basics of both belief systems. There are myriad poems
and stories demonstrating the shamanist resistance to
Islam, from all over Central Asia.[5]
For example: A
Turkmen rider encounters a dismounted kinsman. The
latter had stuck a twig in the ground, in the vast
expanses of the bozkir (semi desert, arid-lands) to
create a semblance of private space, and is performing
namaz (ritual prayer) behind it. The rider chides the
worshipper: Anan, atan işidr arpmak, yıkmak, talamak.
Kim kodu sana pe tapmak, toprak yalamak? It is the
tradition of your forebearers to strike, to raid. So,
who induced you to worship the twig and lick the dirt?
In another instance, precepts of Islam were being
explained to a gathering of Kazaks. The preacher,
attempting to review and reinforce his message, puts
the question to the assembly: "And, how will the Kazaks
enter paradise?" To which an attendee responds without
hesitation: "On horseback." [6] Among some of the Turk
groups, reverence is articulated towards the ancestral
superstars in poetry: Kk kmbezin krldetip, rktme
bizni Biy Temir; Qaraqaş taşın qımıldatıp, Qorkutma
bizni Biy Temir Do not scare us Bey Temir By making
your blue dome thunder; Do not frighten us Bey Temir By
moving your black stone Haris Sisenbay, c. 1922 [7]
Of
course, many an ode was written to Islam as well as
Christianity.[8] The following is a rare 'fusionist'
(combining Turk Shamanism with Islamic doctrines) poem,
somehow attempting to merge the two. Bir kapıdan Baba
Ilyas ıktı Ayak ıplak
baş aık sine ryan Erenler
katında ulu kaıktı
Yarı İslm idi yarı
şaman [9] Baba Ilyas emerged from a door Barefeet, open headed, bare
chested Among the saints, a grand ole holy fool Half
Shaman, the other half Islam. Perhaps the Turk
proverb "Avcu nice al bilse, Adk anca yol bilr" (As
many devices the hunter knows to hunt with, so does the
bear to escape) is still meaningful.
ECONOMICS
In the
recent months, works on 'influence of modernity' on
Central Asia began appearing. According to this
observation, capitalist consumer goods flooded third
world countries as a part of the globalization process.
This caused an outflow of capital from essentially poor
economies to wealthy ones, leaving the poor countries
even more destitute. Artisans, merchants and others
became unemployed reducing income generation. Poverty
deepened. The foregoing can be either a Marxist or a
Capitalist view. Only the proposed solutions differ.
The Marxist demand that all outside intervention to
cease, foreigners to go home. Capitalist require loans
to be made from their financial institutions to the
countries at hand. Economic, political and military
institutions form an inseparable trivet. Does any one
of these have an absolute superiority over the other
two? Not even in absolute regimes can they be
separated. This, however, does not stop absolutists
from trying. Marxists demand and fund national
liberation fronts, while the Capitalists ---
by now
having been converted into Mercantilists monopolists ---
insist on joint-ventures and free trade. Both parties
will also desire a military solution, involving the
basing of troops, previous withdrawal demands
notwithstanding, from both sides on the soil of the
third party. So far, as it is noticed, suggestions and
demands have been pouring from out side in. No one yet
consulted the populace that became a target of outside
theories, generally hatched without reference to the
practices followed in daily life.
This is where the
Identity issues become clear. Global Trade is war by
other means. It is an attempt at transferring wealth
and resources from the losing party to the victor. The
party that amasses the most wealth will be known as the
most noble. Since Second World War, it has been argued
that a world government is necessary to prevent global
wars. This is in essence an idea first advanced over
two centuries ago, at least in two different major
versions: The Hobbesian variety relied on a strong
central ruler (as in Leviathan) to impose order. In the
other, Mill foresaw a trade based mutually dependent
environment conducive to peace. Kant then made an
attempt to combine the two, by means of cosmopolitan
laws. In all cases, the sovereignty of the nation
states are reduced in favor of cosmopolitan laws. These
writings greatly influenced the present forms of the
United Nations and the World Trade Organization. It can
be argued that both approaches can be associated with a
unique transference of initiative, resources and
sovereignty from the individual to multinational
organizations led by yet to be tested.
One relatively
new experiment on these principles is the formation of
the European Union. In addition to a large bureaucratic
apparatus, the EU also possesses a legislative body
based in Strasbourg. However, the European Parliament
lacks the real means of regulating the multinational
organizations. If, on the other hand, should the
European Parliament acquires such means, there is
always the danger of that body going beyond the
intention of the population ---
that may, perhaps, endow
that body with q stronger charter
--- in general. As one
response, perhaps Consumerism need to adapt, to
consider such agreements as NAFTA regulations where a
grieved person or company, from a polity outside of the
USA may force the closure of a US business; in a secret
meeting, closed to the public.
THOUGHTS ON IDENTITY
The
issue, at once, becomes cultural; thus, a matter of
Identity. Moreover, the tussle and the concern is not
over a specific product, but over the pre-eminence of
ideas and approaches to that intellectual output.
A 'problem' is defined in cultural terms, containing
the seeds of a proposed solution. If a polity is
regarded as the problem, should it be exterminated?
What if the same polity also regards the earlier one in
the same terms? What is likely to transpire? Mutual
annihilation? For example, when the steelmakers of
other polities put the US steel plants out of business,
what was the problem, and its solution? During the
1960's and 1970's waves of international terrorism
swept Europe. Prominent European politicians and
businessmen were kidnapped and killed. When caught, the
perpetrators defended themselves with the assertion
that they had the right to break the law, and such a
right could not be truncated by any authority. Some
judicial organs and Thought Employers [10] understood
the true nature of the claim; it was to stress the
nature of the laws and associated intentions. At the
time, no polity was bombed by the armed forces of any
country. It appears a world government, as has been
proposed, has some issues to resolve yet. The bow of a
boat arrives at its destination first, ahead of the
stern. But, it is the stern that guides it there.
Thus,
Identity is a composite. [11] A great many ingredients
are stirred into a solution, which, from the outside
seems a solid unchanging mass. This makes Identity an
extremely fluid structure, but one with definite
parameters. Shifts in the composition are predictable.
That is, it is definite that anger and despondency will
be exhibited when income reduced or lost. What we do
not know is when this person or better yet a group of
persons in the same set of conditions will take some
firm action, such as revolting by various means.
Identity components are strongly influenced by culture.
Culture, by its original definition, is cultivation of
mind. This is specific to place and time. What was
handed down from the parents from childhood on. A
composite of values transmitted from one generation to
the next determines the general culture of a given
polity. It is both changeable and immutable. This
seeming contradiction is best understood by learning
the specific culture. If a given polity has a culture
of unchanging adherence to certain principles in
personal life, for examples as Amish live, then there
will be a collision, between a given immutable
principle and the society at large. Literally. In Ohio
and Pennsylvania there are regular accidents between
horse drawn Amish carriages and motorcars. Does that
create a certain tension within the community? The
consequences of intergenerational conflict in a large
part of the world have been appearing ever since the
first generation. This shift of emphasis, or change, is
forced by changing conditions in the immediate
vicinity. However, the reception of the depth and range
of change differs from one polity to the next. This is
not because a polity cannot handle the change or its
speed. The priority is attached to the leavening of the
given culture. How and what was learned.
The Marxist
culture, for example, equates "enlightenment" with
empowerment, so that individuals can take their fate
into their hands. The opposing camp, the capitalists,
fervently believe the solution lies in "education."
Even if the terminology is somewhat different, both end
up with the same methods and means. So far, however, it
must have become apparent, the real competition is
actually between two groups who interpret and staunchly
practice their ideologies. The target polity is a field
of contention, the prize, or, at best, a testing
laboratory. Then, after a while, the target polity, or
its components, begin assessing these outside factors
influencing and affecting their lives. These alien
thoughts appear to be contrary to their own desires and
expectations, as leavened by their own culture. As a
result, they decide to take action, in order to remove
the outside obstacles to their own lifestyle. The
methods they choose to obtain will vary from one polity
to the next. But they will also learn from the methods
directed at them by all camps. And, they will turn the
tables on alien influences. It will be costly to all
parties involved. Belief systems have always been a
part of human endeavor. In turn, there has always been
a raging competition between belief systems. Is it the
ideas themselves, or the agents they influence and act
upon that compete? How well do the agents understand
the basic precepts of the belief systems? Or, did the
agents deliberately distort those tenets, for pecuniary
interest?
Central Asia has been, and still is, a
battlefield of belief systems, with Islam being one of
the latest entrant into the fray. And, many
interpretations of Islam have been fueled not only by
indigenous interest groups, but also by the outside
players. The latter may have the distinction of
constituting the majority of such initiatives. The
belief systems, once released onto a polity, begin
interacting with the economic, political and military
trivet, leading to a new set of issues and possible
solutions. What complicates this already crowded matrix
is that most, if not all, belief systems tend to have
subdivisions. These internal components of a belief
system may and do contain self-contradictory doctrines
in themselves. The existence of such bifurcations are
an ideal opening for outside forces to exploit, for the
purpose of influencing the affairs of target polities.
When the target polity objects to the outside entities
and their aims and methods, these outsiders may and
will resort to clandestine methods. They will,
essentially, insist on getting their way. All
throughout recorded history one warlike visit begat a
return of the same upon the initial aggressor. As an
extension, when clandestine operations become known---
and they will invariably become public ---
the same
response can be expected. These responses need not be
on the same level of the outside offenders. The
targeted polity will choose its timing and methods.
Even after a long wait, lasting decades. If the
clandestine forces of the outside polities choose to
concentrate on bifurcations of belief, governance or
economic systems to exploit, that does not mean that
the target polity will respond in kind. But, respond,
they will. Both the authoritarian and the mercantilist
systems, while competing against each other, will also
initiate paramilitary operations. At a certain activity
level, these operations will be penetrated and
compromised.
This is exactly the case with respect to
Afghanistan and the rest of Central Asia. Not only the
immediate neighbors of Afghanistan in Central Asia, but
also polities from other regions have been partaking in
this process of exploitation of bifurcated belief and
governance systems. A portion of the targeted
population, originally grieved by economic and
political depredations, will respond decisively to the
provocation. This will be in the direction of military
action. This includes, necessarily, the struggle waged
between the 17th and 20th century struggle between the
mercantilist and the capitalist governance systems; the
latter attempting to change the world, as the former
doggedly resisting. Central Asia, even if the term
implies a block of land, is not a monolith in cultural
terms. Afghanistan has a different history and culture
than Iran or the Newly Independent States of Kazak,
Kirghiz, Tajik, Turkmen, Ozbek. Even within the NIS,
the experience, for example, of Tajikistan is different
than the adjacent neighbor Ozbekistan. For example,
Afghanistan did not exist as a state before the 20th
century. The five states of Central Asia were part of a
much larger entity, named Turkistan. Languages spoken
in Afghanistan, that is, the existence of large
minorities are not the same elsewhere.
WHAT TO EXPECT
The issue at hand, then, becomes: 1) Will the polity at
hand evolve politically and economically, if left to
its own devices? 2) How much external interference in
whatever form will be tolerated a) by the governance
strata of the target polity b) the people of the
polity? The political systems of the region, prior to
the arrival of outside authoritarianism in the form of
various external clandestine services, were designed or
evolved according to local realities. These "eastern"
or "Oriental" governance systems,
labeled 'unsophisticated,' 'primitive,' and so on, were in
existence for millennia or more, when they were
discovered or designed for the past two hundred years
within the "western" reaches of the world. When
Bismarck, in late 19th century was designing his
Governance Participation Units (factory unions;
workplace representatives, etc) or multi-party and
coalition initiatives were taking place in their
neighborhood, such systems have been functioning in
places such as Afghanistan and in the east for quite
sometime. They were established institutions long
before university based social scientists created books
of terminology to explain them.
All these old and new
systems of Governance Participation Units came into
being for the obvious reason: to share in the
resources, to keep the polity in balance. Every
Governance Participation Unit, through its membership
strength and leadership skills, sought to obtain what
they deemed a fair share of what is available. In terms
of functions, who gets how much water and who gets to
build a golf course or travels to space as a tourist
work on the same principles. One of the implications of
this (often is regarded euphemistically as a resource
sharing arrangement by the outsiders) is that the
polities targeted by authoritarian or mercantilist
polities will assess the relative merits of what is
being imposed on them.
In the end, the target polity
members may reject what is on offer from the outside,
in favor of keeping what is and has been there as far
back as the existence of the polity. The more the
pressure on a target polity, the more energetic the
objections and resultant counter- measures. Corruption,
under many guises will take place, despite prescribed
safeguards. Corruption is basically an attempt at
subverting the rules of governance. It is a dash to
jump the queue, divert resources for the benefit of a
sub-group or individual at the expense of the rest of
the polity. If the polity does not have effective
recourse to enforcement of the rules, corruption will
cause the eventual collapse of the system, and the
polity. Some polities engage their secret services, in
full force, to deal with corruption. To eradicate it.
Other polities' secret services fully cooperate with
the players of corruption and become corrupt
themselves. The entire polity suffers from a range of
ills, including human rights abuses and distortions in
income distribution. When the corruption is exported
along with a political and economic system, the
recipients not only may not appreciate the incoming
product, but also resent the defective nature of the
process and choose to fight it with tools at their own
disposal. The abusers of belief systems are rather
adept at exploiting all of the above ideas and means.
As usual, when a new system arrives, it has to do
battle with the existing one. The new recruits or
converts will be more eager to prove their worth than
the rest who have been in it for a longer period.
Similarly, adherents of an old system will seek
revenge. The methods of the revenge are not necessarily
salient; revenge, itself, is. The so called
fundamentalism is a hybrid. First there exists a body
of disgruntled people. Second, there are individuals
and groups who abuse the belief system for either
institutional or personal gain. Third, the interest
groups from the outside place unwanted pressure on the
same people. The resultant cocktail can well be overly
potent. And, one fundamentalism, regardless of its
origin and location, will fuel others; just like one
armed visit will begat a military invasion in return.
Central Asian political movements emerging at the
beginning of the 20th century stressed a separation
between religion and state, before the coercive Soviet
methods were put into place. This can be observed from
the platforms and programs they issued over time. When
the Bolsheviks militarily incorporated Central Asia
into what became the Soviet Union, all plans for the a
secular and independent Central Asian state were also
postponed.
In closing: to place the issue of
fundamentalism into perspective, perhaps the two
initial questions need to be reiterated: 1) Is religion
equal to nationality? 2) Who is more eager for the
Central Asians to be "fundamentalists?"