HUNTINGTON’S ‘Clash of Civilizations’ is a calculated projection of the views of the diehards in western countries in general and in the US in particular. To dismiss this study as a rush of emotionalism or a theoretical research effort by an academic will be a grave disservice to the learned author. Huntington’s theory — painstakingly weaved and expertly projected — is the part of western realpolitik to put the Islamic states on notice and to keep them under pressure.

It is noteworthy that the ruling elites in the West distanced themselves from the projected ‘theory of clash’ for the undeclared reasons of tactical necessity. The political needs of governments are not necessarily met by the conclusions drawn by academia. The Islamic bloc, despite its imperfections, is too large (54 countries) to be ignored by the world.

Notwithstanding the visible attempts of western countries to eulogize Islam, their reservations about this religion in general and Jihad in particular, reveal a deeply ingrained prejudice against it. Their policies reveal their real intentions. It is not a coincidence that the Muslim countries — from Morocco to Indonesia — face pressure and criticism by the western countries on religious, economic and political grounds. The western bias against Islam exists in varying degrees in the developed world.

Way back in 1990 US Vice-President Dan Quayle stated that Nazism, Communism and Islam posed challenges to the western civilization. With Nazism dead and Communism subdued, the present-day targets of the West are China and the Islamic countries. The western governments and their ‘free’ media aggressively target both. India’s strategic relationship with the US and Israel provide it an umbrella of external support to enable it to implement its own political agenda in South Asia, particularly against Pakistan, and against China. It uses China-card for earning western sympathy and indulges in Pakistan-bashing for reasons well known.

The rise and fall of civilizations and nations is a natural phenomenon through which the US has emerged as the leader in the new world order. It has reached the pinnacle of power with hard work done during the last two centuries. It deserves credit for becoming the most pre-eminent power of this age, a position it is expected to hold for a long while. It is an honour for the US to reach the top of the world’s ladder of power. However, this privilege is not without responsibilities. Logically, only large industrial powers can pose a challenge to the US supremacy in the future — a race in which no Muslim country has a chance to compete. Despite this the political pundits in the West fear that at some point of time the fifty odd Islamic countries might collectively pose a threat to the western civilization. This unfounded and mythical fear is unsubstantiated with reason or logic. It ignores the fact that the Islamic world is so deeply divided from within that it can pose a threat to none else but to itself. Its insensitivity shows rather prominently at the present time when Palestine and Kashmir bleed with acts of state terrorism by Israel and India respectively. With the Islamic Ummah facing crises, the OIC and Arab League are in states of hibernation and shameful limbo.

During his last visit to this continent the Pope said that the twenty-first century would be the century of religion in Asia, meaning that Christianity would be spread here. No eyebrows were raised in the West on the intolerance inherent in this statement where it was well known that the followers of many religions inhabited this region. More recently Henry Kissinger proposed a joint Russian-US attempt to check‘expanding Islam.’ How fair is a civilization that promotes the growth of one religion at the expense of another?

The US policies in South Asia are uneven, be they about the nuclear strategies of India and Pakistan or the Kashmir dispute, or the war against terrorism or indeed the present tense border situation created by an arrogant India. ‘BJP Hindu nationalism has made the conflict more dangerous’ says The Guardian adding, ‘This is the party that, enjoying the direct support of only a fifth of the voters, tested and deployed nuclear weapons, provoking Pakistan into acquiring nuclear weapons too.’

With Advani, Jaswant and Fernandes regularly spitting venom against Pakistan, the Indian Army chief has joined the war-wagon hurling threats of imposing a conventional and nuclear war on this country. These words echo his master’s voice because in democratic dispensations military commanders do not take decisions on issues of peace and war.

The US adopts a multiple track approach in Indo-Pakistan disputes. It soft-paddles a crisis when India starts hurling threats at Pakistan in an attempt to blackmail this country. As the crisis deepens America advises caution and restraint to both India and Pakistan and asks them to settle their differences through negotiations. Now, it voices concern on the horrors of war between the two regional antagonists equipped with nuclear weapons. It strongly applauds the ‘courageous’ role played by President Pervez Musharraf and Pakistan in joining the war against terrorism. Pakistan has also received some economic assistance for the financial losses incurred by it during Afghanistan crisis. The US impartiality ends here. Once upon a time the US had the reputation of supporting subjugated people struggling for freedom against their oppressors. The US has now put the Kashmir dispute on the backburner and projects New Delhi’s line that India and Pakistan should settle their differences, Kashmir included, through bilateral negotiations. The US gives a vague response when asked to draw a firm distinction between freedom struggle and terrorism in Kashmir. It injures its own reputation by looking the other way at the state-sponsored acts of terrorism committed by Indian military and para-military forces that have killed 70,000 freedom fighters in Kashmir. Its silence or meek criticism of human rights violations in Kashmir and elsewhere in India does not bring it respect. The US policy on Kashmir dispute is perceived in Pakistan as pro-India and partisan.

Pakistan condemned in strong words attacks on September 11 in America and on December 13 in India. India blacked-out details about the perpetrators of the crime at the Indian parliament. It remains unclear if this attack was an act of terror or a self-inflicted injury to cash in on international sympathy created in the wake of September 11 incidents.

India exploited it to create a war-like situation against Pakistan. Political and military pressure was exerted on Pakistan. After m