The illusion of Islamic Caliphate

The dangerously captivating drawing power of ISIS, whose principal objective is the establishment of so-called Islamic Caliphate, has significantly dominated discourses on international relations. As of now, some quarters are predicting that the days of ISIS are numbered and the dreaded organisation will be extinct in the not-too-distant future. In support of such prediction, specific mention is made of the loss of territory by ISIS and the firm resolves of major international and regional powers to wipe out the terror outfit once and for all. Not all, however, subscribe to such an assessment.

Under the circumstances, we will have to wait to see how things shape out in the arena of armed engagement and the impact thereof. This writer wishes to look at the politico-economic realities in parts of the Muslim world, particularly the Middle East, the birth place of ISIS and its brainchild, the Islamic Caliphate, and the apparently illusory scheme of establishing such a Caliphate.

We may start with Syria, the principal theatre of armed engagement. Any discerning observer would perhaps agree that currently life for young Arabs is often a very difficult choice between a struggle against poverty at home, emigration or in extreme cases, the so-called Jihad. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the best-paid jobs in Syria involve picking up a gun. Of particular significance is the fact that the Arab world's large youth bulge and its rulers' failure to harness it for economic development were central to the Arab uprisings of 2011.

If we turn to Libya, we will find that it stumbled on the path to democracy and thereafter fell into a vicious civil war in 2014. Now Libya is divided most notably between East and West, each with its own government, and home to three different branches of the Islamic State (IS). America, Britain, France, and Italy all have troops on the ground in Libya, and are increasingly being drawn into the fight against IS.

Much of Libyan people's anger is aimed at the government of national accord that has struggled to establish its authority, even in the capital. It has mostly failed to restart public services or stabilise the collapsing economy. The oil money in Libya is the target of Western powers that plan to intervene prominently with a view to, at least, splitting the country into regions. In the likely event of Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States, this is a distinct possibility.

If one looks to Yemen, one will find that together with America and France, Britain is now supplying, arming and servicing hundreds of Saudi planes engaged in the aerial bombardment of Yemen. With their governments' approval, Western arms companies provide the intelligence, logistical support and air-to-air refuelling in the attack.

Amnesty International along with other reputed rights bodies have documented the use of Western weaponry, including cluster bombs, to hit scores of Yemeni markets, medical centres, warehouses, factories, and mosques. Some analysts allege that such use of weapons amounts to Western complicity in war crimes. Together with the ground war and the Saudi-led blockade, it has devastated the infrastructure of Arab world's poorest country. In addition, it has displaced over two million people and brought a quarter of Yemen's population of 26 million to the brink of famine. 

Interestingly enough, the war in Yemen has certainly been lucrative. Since the bombardment began in March 2015, Saudi Arabia has spent 2.8 billion Pounds (USD 3.8 billion) on British arms, making it Britain's largest arms market, according to government figures analysed by 'Campaign Against Arms Trade', a watchdog. Reportedly, America supplies even more.

The less said about the plight of long suffering Palestinians, the better perhaps. One example will suffice. On average, they get 73 litres of water per day, less than the 100 litres minimum recommended by the World Health Organisation because Israel has the control over water supply.

Organisationally speaking, there are unprecedented levels of divisions and bitterness among the Arab League members. Before the commencement of the very thinly attended latest summit of Arab League in July 2016, the Moroccan Foreign Ministry put out a statement saying that "given the absence of important concrete initiatives which could be submitted to Arab Heads of State, this summit will only be an occasion to take ordinary resolutions and deliver speeches which pretend to give a false impression of unity and solidarity between the Arab States".

The region-wide strife between Sunni and Shia Arabs and the economic crises caused by the weak oil price are too glaring to overlook. Many young Arabs see the Shia-Sunni divide as a source of conflict.   

Closer to home, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan still does not admit its genocidal attack on fellow co-religionists in 1971. It has purposely distorted history and its doctored textbooks hide facts from its people. The Pakistani establishment is not agreeable to tender an appropriate apology for the crimes committed in 1971 and thus continues to injure the sentiment of Bangladeshis. 

In a scenario as above, how credible is the scheme of establishing the so-called Islamic Caliphate? Notwithstanding the suspicion about the patrons and financiers of ISIS and their game plan, one could wonder if any ruler in Islamic history has been able to command the sole spiritual and political power over all Muslims. Further, can such an arrangement guarantee the survival of any Muslim ruler? Indeed, the current announcement of the Caliphate has been met with derision everywhere except in extremist circles. In fact, no Caliphate in Islamic history has succeeded in uniting all Muslims or created a political entity for the Islamic Ummah as a whole.     

The writer is a columnist of The Daily Star.