Why Did Aylan Kurdi Have To Die Like This?

Col. (Dr) Tej K Tikoo (Retd.)

The dead child, Aylan Kurdi’s picture, became as much symbolic of the disastrously violent situation existing in war- torn Syria/ Iraq and Middle East (generally), as the picture of the young naked girl running away from the exploding napalm bombs in Vietnam had become nearly five decades earlier. Both pictures brought forth the horrors of war right into the public conscientiousness, in all their hard hitting and poignant starkness. That women, children, old and the infirm become major casualties of such conflicts, could not have been as aptly brought out as was done by this one picture alone.

The four-years-old boy was part of a group of refugees running away from the war-torn town of Kobani in Turkey, with the ultimate objective of reaching Canada, where the little boy’s aunt was living. The rubber dinghy, with a capacity of 6 persons, was carrying 16 persons, in the Mediterranean, when it capsized. Except the father of the child, Aylan Kurdi, his mother and another brother, perished. After a couple of days, the body of the child was washed ashore where the above picture was taken. Ever since photojournalism became a tool of information dissemination, such iconic pictures have sent powerful messages across the world. In the process, these pictures, which speak more than a thousand words, have influenced the public opinion and decisions of policy makers in a big way.

Aylan Kurdi, the innocent young boy who knew nothing about what his elders were doing in his country, and who contributed in no way in determining his own fate, paid the ultimate price; for no fault of his. His death, as of many others in the conflict- ridden war zones of West Asia, throws up many questions for which the Muslim world in particular and the international community in general, have to find answers. However, the fundamental question is; why should Muslims be running away from their homes in Syria and Iraq, which according to the Muslim theology, are Dar-ul- Islam ? The related question is: Why should they be seeking refuge in non-Muslim countries, which are described by them as Dar- ul-Harb (territory of conflict)? Aren’t Syria, Iraq and other countries in the Middle East, Islamic countries in letter and spirit, having been established to underscore the glory of Islam? Then, why should their own Muslim inhabitants abandon their countries and embark on a treacherous journey to reach Europe, a land of Kafirs, whom Muslims despise?

Islam enshrines a strict code of conduct for its followers (generally referred to as ‘believers’) and expects them to live a life as dictated by Quran and Hadith. Whereas the code is given by Allah or as practised by his messenger, Prophet Mohammad, the interpretation of this code and its implementation is done by the human beings. And it is here, in the interpretation of this code and while supervising its implementation, which creates situations pregnant with violent consequences. Coupled with the fact that Islam is not merely a religion, but a political philosophy too, such differences in belief and Islam’s practices, lead to conflicts with strong political undertones, resulting in serious confrontations between the belligerents and finally to open war. Eventually, the religious part of such conflicts is relegated to the background and the confrontation becomes entirely political. It is, of course, a different matter that all parties to the conflict swear by the tenets of Islam as their ideological bedrock to motivate its people and cadres to execute such a war; a holy war, called Jihad. In fact, establishment of true Islam becomes the clarion call, nay the raison de etrefor fighting such wars.

Islam’s breathtaking expansion between the seventh and sixteenth century BCE was driven, partly, by its desire of religious proselytising and partly to capture more lands, a purely political and economic objective. But all along, Islam as a religion, always served as a rallying cry to motivate and mobilise the faithful to achieve what were mainly political objectives. Between the seventeenth century and the winding up of the British empire in 20th century, it was the western world, led by its desire to conquer more lands for controlling world’s natural and human resources, that brought about conflicts, the like of which had not been seen before. Industrial revolution created weapons with far greater range and lethality, which eventually led to the creation of weapons of mass destruction (Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1945). The birth of fascist and Marxist philosophies around the same time, created conditions which eventually resulted in the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc. These wars had profound effects; Britain, having been substantially weakened, was left with no option but to wind up its empire and hand over the leadership role of Western world to America; Europe was nearly cleansed of the Jews. Between the seventeenth and 20th century, Muslims and Islamic states were pushed to the background.

Decolonization, which resulted due to the eclipse of British Empire, also let loose a chain of events, whose repercussions continue to be felt to the present day. In the Middle East, while leaving, Britain divided the land among various Sheikhs, Princes, Kings, tribal chiefs, etc. The main consideration which had an overwhelming influence on the final outcome of the politics and geography of the region was to preserve Britain’s own interests in the region (mainly the oil fields from the Czarist and later Soviet communist expansion southwards). This they did by retaining the local tribal and clan loyalties which exercise enormous influence on the region’s politics and the way of life. Many of the region’s present day social contradictions, problems, conflicts and intra- regional power struggles, trace their roots to the policies and decisions taken by the retrieving British Empire.

After the house of Saud, driven by Wahabi Islamic ideology, captured power in Saudi Arabia in early twentieth century, the Saudi Kings, being the masters of the two most sacred Muslim places (Mecca and Madina) in the entire world, invested heavily in propagating its own form of Islam throughout the world. With large revenues coming in through the sale of oil, whose large reserves existed in their country in abundance, the Saudis left no stone unturned to propagate the Wahabi school of thought, besides spending enormous amounts of money in proselytising. However, while rest of the Islamic world bestowed a leadership role to Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Kings themselves became increasingly dependent on America to keep them (the Saudi Kings) firmly ensconced in their seats. It is this contradiction of running with the hare and hunting with the hound which gave rise to A1 Qaeda and now ISIS.

Today, the Muslim world in general and the Middle East in particular, are paying a heavy price for having encouraged the Wahabi form of Islam to make deep inroads into their societies. It is an open secret that wittingly or unwittingly, they permitted the radicalization of their societies, which resulted in disastrous consequences for their people. To add to their woes, in the Middle East, this potent cocktail of conflict based on religion and politics, has further been accentuated by historical tribal, ethnic and sectarian divisions. What is ironic in all this mess is that all these groups, use Islam to rally their cadres, by emphasising that they alone can interpret the Islamic tenets correctly and therefore, they alone can establish a caliphate based on the ‘True and pure’ form of Islam.

Al Qaeda attracted many volunteers to fight what it called a Jihad when Osama bin Laden said that Muslims were deviating from the path of true Islam and he alone was ordained by Allah to usher in true Islam, based on his own interpretation. Similarly, Taliban was born because it felt that Afghanistan could not be saved from ‘Heathens’ (Soviets) unless Muslims strove to establish the correct version of Islam, as practised by the Prophet himself. A1 Shabab, Boko Haram, LeT, Jaish e Mohammad, Checheyen rebels, Uighur terrorists, Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ul Mujahideen, and many more, are all based on one ideological conviction, i e., to establish a caliphate where only ‘pure Islam’ will exist.

The latest entity to now claim that it alone possesses the right knowledge of true Islamic faith, is the ISIS ( Islamic State in Syria), alias ISIL( Islamic State in Syria and Levant) or its Arabic name Daesh. However, what differentiates ISIS from its earlier avatars is the fact that it controls vast swathes of territory in Syria and Iraq, generates revenue from the oil wells it has captured during its march on Mosul and other cities, and is believed to have foreign exchange reserves of 2 billion $. Abu Bakr A1 Baghdadi, its unquestioned leader, has declared himself as the Khalifa (Caliph) of his territory called Khilafat (Caliphate). With his war cry of fighting in the name of true Islam, he is trying to establish a world-wide Islamic Caliphate. His methods of dealing with the non-believers, apostates and those who don’t agree with his interpretation of Islamic tenets, are extremely cruel and barbaric. He and his companions justify the use of such ruthless methods against his opponents by saying that these are sanctioned by Islamic jurisprudence.

In all the territories the ISIS has captured, the most outstanding feature of its dealing with its opponents is the extreme violence they have meted out to them. Unheard of punishments, like burning, drowning and burying alive, being thrown off from high rise buildings, public decapitation, slaughtering, etc., have become their trademark. At the same time, it has treated the captured women as sex slaves by distributing them among its cadres. It is to avoid these forms of torture, executions and rape, that thousands upon thousands of people are fleeing their homes in villages, towns and cities in threatened areas, likely to face imminent capture by ISIS. What has made the threat so potent, is the speed with which ISIS recorded its stunning victories in Iraq, capturing city after city in a lightning offensive that saw the demoralised cadres of Iraqi Army surrendering to numerically far inferior, but highly motivated cadres. In Syria, which is embroiled in a fierce civil war, the ISIS initially aligned with some rebel groups to establish a foothold there. However, gradually, with its superior economic strength and mastery over the social media, it has now carved out a niche for itself; in the process capturing much territory.

ISIS has been too harsh towards its opponents, mainly, Shias, Kurds, Christians, surrendering Iraqi Army soldiers and generally all those who it feels is not following its version of Islam. This has led to large-scale displacement of people from areas which they have captured and those which are in imminent danger of being captured by ISIS. It was due to this reason that Aylan Kurdi’s family fled and eventually paid the price.

What is so ironic in all this is that, while these conflicts and resultant exoduses are taking place in the name of Islam, the Islamic countries, some of which are among the richest in the world, are themselves not prepared to give shelter to the fleeing refugees. On the other hand, it is the pre­dominantly Christian Europe that has opened its borders to let them in.

DISCLAIMER:

The views expressed in the Article above are Author’s personal views and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it. Copyright Disclaimer under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing."

Courtesy:- Col (Dr) Tej K Tikoo (Retd)  and 2015 October Naad