The OIC meet in Islamabad, amidst Ukraine-Russia war, only signifies the urge for new world order. In his inaugural address, it was Prime Minister Imran Khan’s attempt to create a new political consciousness to this old bloc of Muslim countries, thereby taking its leadership and remolding it from its past, as per the vision he perceives.
His thrust has been consistent, whether it was a lecture in UNO on Islamophobia or his present address in the conference to give teeth to the OIC so that it is taken as a force to reckon with. In principle, it sounds well, however, his strategy is to handover Muslim world to the lap of China’s control and hegemony.
The OIC session was attended by more than 600 delegates, including Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as a special guest. The address of China’s foreign minister, a core communist in this specific conference, has invoked mixed response, even among the participant delegates.
No doubt, Russia, New Zealand and Canada were the countries that endorsed the need to stop Islamophobia, yet the civilized world wishes that any religious or radical ideologies should have no place in order making of the world. China, in particular, is all against the religious order.
The turn of the conference would mean instead playing the games of the powerful west in the past. It should be now admiring communist powers, China in particular.
Islam believes in unitary concept. It rejects Islamic democracy as communists abhor communist democracy. Its power elite are supreme authoritarian. If Pakistan wants to hegemonise the group, it has neither resources nor power.
It was Saudi Arabia’s funding that imported Wahabi Islam with the tacit endorsement of western world against the then communist USSR. The OIC is mainly controlled by Saudi Arabia, but Pakistan, as the only Islamic country with nuclear weapons, has had a large say since its inception.
Pakistan was a main beneficiary of Saudi funding for spread of Wahabi Islam in the region. Its ramifications have been counter Iranian revolution, and flow of arms and money to counter Saudi influence, both being patronised by USA.
Now Saudi Arabia is undergoing social and political transformation. Its new leadership is on the road of modernisation of western origin.
China has openly come against US in hegemony race, but that does not mean that it would take confrontation with Israel for Palestinian cause and would go with Pakistan to wage a fresh war for Kashmir. Imran Khan’s fulcrum of foreign policy seems to be resting on it.
His contradictions are very deep because of the religious and social landscape of his country. Given inner choice, he would like to make Pakistan a modern civilized country, but power politics and difficult oppositions that are brought out swing Imran in a different direction.
Oil rich Muslim countries have divided interests. Saudi Arabs’ new Prince does not want to be part of any group. He has introduced qualitative changes in the system, including zero tolerance to terrorism.
He does not want Islam to be political, therefore keeps distance from both the competing power groups of the world.
Turkey being the member of NATO has its constraints to woo China and Russia beyond a measure. The color movements from Central Asia to Middle East have further opened out the contradiction of power and competing interests full with sectarian and regional considerations.
The unitary concept in modern world is not only impossible in practice, but to imagine all the Muslim countries falling into the lap of China is too much to imagine. Indeed there is a new leadership in Muslim countries as well but each has its interests and national priorities.
Prime Minister Imran tries to blend Islam and modernity, which in fact is a mismatch, while Turkey and Saudi Arabia are keen to ease the immediate past and bring back its prime traditions. Turkey’s Erdoğan believes in Islamic dictatorship for modernisation.
The UN Resolution with fifty seven member states to combat Islamophobia is a positive side of OIC group, but in siding with the countries, it is hard to follow. India seeks arms from China and technology from Israel.
It has strategic partnership with US and one hundred twenty billion commerce exchanges with China. It is how the countries visualise its interests rather than following black and white rigidity.
The events in this century, still to complete its first quarter, have unfolded hard realities of present world order. The ideological divide might have receded in the background but rivalries over of hegemony have increased more than before. Regional alignments and civilizational contours have surfaced to hint out future course of the world order.
While Imran and Erdogan wish to set its direction for the Muslim world, it is difficult to take for granted Saudi Arab and Iran. The divide is too deep to accept Chinese hegemony that shatters the basic existence of the core Religious edifice.
There is simmering discontent in Muslim countries that Pakistan-China relationship cannot be forced on the entire world. Pakistan in 1970 had made China closer to America and Western world. China, since then, has been its all weather friend, gaining technological and military support from it.
Now Pakistan’s maneuvering to bring China in this conference is connivance, which has more political connotations than a mission of religious unitary group.
It has undermined the Muslim religious sentiment to the extent that it wants China as hegemonic in the region, a rebuttal to US. Falling in China’s lap from US capitulation has been tacitly disliked by most of the delegates in the conference.
China despises religion and that is too severe for Islam, while the west deals with it in Abrahamic tradition. Therefore, this tilt and turning back on west is professed to be suicidal.
Not before long Foucault has shown us how the ‘sovereign power of Leviathan (think crowns, congresses and capital) has over the past 200 years come to confront two new forms of power: disciplinary power (which he also called anatomo-politics because of its detailed attention to training the human body) and bio-politics’.
Thus shifting this way in communist block is to take the clock back through the centuries. Engagement with China and Russia are welcome signs for regional security and international order. The conference theme ‘Building Partnerships for Unity, Justice, and Development’ should be open and involve the entire world.
It cannot be power block oriented or jump from one camp to another. It is fluidity, and is short lived. Therefore, there is a discrete discontentment in delegates. Even to offer any super power advisory and lead role for Muslim world, it is double-wedged walk.
OIC is not a formidable military force or technologically rich enough to dictate terms. Even the oil rich countries are in one way or the other in need of western countries for minor to major dependencies.
It has struggled to formulate unified positions or take a collective stance on any issue that does not have support from super powers. Therefore OIC’s role should be like a supervisory body for the Muslim interests all over the world, including in their own countries.
India’s Muslim population, so significant, has a legitimate role to be at least an invited associate, if not a permanent member. It should be a welfare body to initiate positive religious interfaith discourses rather than to be a bargaining organisation to serve political strategic interests of one super power to another; that in the long run would be nothing to live for or aim for, just a ritual happening.
India has been an invited guest member in the conference a couple of times in the past, but Pakistan made it sure that India is excluded from it. Nevertheless, keeping India away from this conference in the long run would be a loss for Pakistan.
Given the Chinese hegemony in years to come and west’s war-on-terror tune, this organisation needs to be inclusive; otherwise it would keep this organisation under shadow.
Ukraine war has given hard lessons that war is only death, destruction and displacement. A month has gone by; Russia has not achieved its goal.
Ukraine might get completely destroyed but Russia’s concerns will remain unmet. War is no option.
Ashok Kaul is an Emeritus Professor in Sociology at Banaras Hindu University
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author.
The facts, analysis, assumptions and perspective appearing in the article do not reflect the views of GK.