Anwar Ahmad

Also, I agree that corporate America through government and media control the US for their own interests. However, the problems with America in my view, go much deeper - Americans as a society have put their fundamental faith not in religion or political process, but inventions as a means to exist. The problem is that they use these inventions in an inhuman way as illustrated by the ongoing aerial bombardment of Afghanistan, or destroying the Alaskan forests to drill and pipe oil, or genetically altering food. It is a self-destructive existence which can only result in increasing exploitation of the finite planet, and especially as countries try to compete with the US (proliferation of lethal arms! detachment from a religious/spiritual outlook on life resulting in disrespect for all life)."

This is not the kind of comment one would expect these days of a "normal" westerner. As it turned out, Stephen Garvey isn't one. Based in Vancouver, Canada, he is an publisher, author and a philosopher who sees the importance of branching out "into world affairs to give the philosophical a practical edge" and sharing "experiences and perspectives" worldwide as "ultimately we must all work together viz through common understanding and respect regardless of race, place of origin, religion, etc."

Not surprisingly, therefore, he is among those who find it "very difficult to get published in the west...,especially after September 11, if your views do not conform to the establishment." A daily reader of The News, Garvey finds it far more open than the western newspapers.

His work focuses "on an accurate valuation of science/technology, since they appear to be grossly overvalued in the West, while they are often the lethal tools of the power-brokers, both in environmental and political senses." The resulting problem, he believes, is deeper than profiteering because "the profit-makers and power-brokers appear to be suffering from an extreme narrow-mindedness which borders on an intoxication. Clearly, the divorcement of spirituality from one's actions coupled (with) the increasing use of increasingly advanced science/technology is a dangerous combination."

Garvey, thus, feels a disquiet about the West's "secular" response to the September 11 terrorism. This, intriguingly, seems to echo a couplet of Pakistan's founding philosopher-poet, Allama Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938): be it a monarchy or democracy, separating religion from politics leaves behind barbarism. Amid the current onslaught that a separation of religion from politics/power is the only panacea for the world's ills, a Western philosopher seems to be suggesting the exact opposite!

But, what if not a "secular" (or, technological?) approach could the US bring to Afghanistan, or any other conflict? An alternate universal spiritual ethos? Christ's compassion? Or, what? These questions are important because, beneath the religious rhetoric, the wholly unequal USA-OBL (as also the Palestinian-Israeli, Kashmiri-Indian) conflict seems the eternal "secular" struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed.

Garvey says the West is "secular in terms of being non-religious, and it has its faith in itself, (self-interest) through the use of science (and technology) and reason. Though as part of its self-interest and in promotion of its self-interest, it may use religion like Christianity, without having true faith in it. For instance, the US reference to 'God' or 'in God we trust', is merely a convenient self-justification of (its) own actions."

Though sections of the western society are truly religious, he adds, the controlling "power-brokers/profit-makers" have a non-religious thrust. He seems again to be echoing Allama Iqbal in concluding that the "western civilisation is on a self-destructive course through secularism and extreme use and reliance on science/technology" in a frenzied and unbalanced "exploitation of the finite planet. The civilisation can only be...redirected through a spiritual revolution of some kind. Remember the west is much younger than the spiritual enriched east."

He sees the seeds of this spiritual revolution "in westerners realising that science/technology or anything else are not absolute truths; rather, everything we apparently know is defined by uncertainty. By accepting this fundamental idea, it would take the arrogance out of the west. Then we add the concepts of inter-connectedness and the finiteness of our existence, and we develop a more humble outlook."

"In application of this spiritual revolution," he says, "the US could have approached Afghanistan not from a position of self-interest and extreme narrow-mindedness..., but from a position of broad-mindedness whereby there was a concerted effort not to bomb thousands of innocent people or to massacre hundreds of PoWs, but to understand the situation and deal with it in a constructive way viz. by acknowledging blame on all sides. (However, if the US were operating from a humble, broad-minded outlook, I do not think September-11 would have even occurred.)"

This is the essence of his message, and the Western dilemma. But, from a practical standpoint, what would be the wellspring of the spiritual revolution? Ideally, the common spiritual-ethical core of all religions. But history warns that this may only give a more virulent twist to the conflicts. The Bush bombardments of Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance, had begun by expropriating God and good on their side, much like the medieval European crusaders' massacres of Muslims and Jews. There is also the long history of intra-religion strife. Thus, separating bigotry from the spiritual essence of organised religions or, alternatively, finding a universal spiritual ethos seem to be the challenges.

A bigger challenge could be selling - for, they understand only material terminology - the spiritual revolution to the power-brokers and profit-makers? Not just in the West, the world over. It is unlikely to make more money for them, or add to their power. On the contrary, it would require them to return the surfeit to the poor and guarantee a dignified existence for all. They won't buy it. Can democracy compel them? Or, would the spiritual revolution sweep everything aside like its politico-economic counterpart and set up a humane world order?

Much needs to be discussed and re-defined here - including secularism, spiritualism, revolution, a humane world order, the real purpose of politics, democracy, power and, indeed, of human existence itself. The scenario more commonly envisaged turns on the simmering reaction to the political, economic and ecological depredation by power and profit mafias. Communism may be defeated, nations and religions divided; but humanity is not. The unity of its interests should ultimately assert itself.

Interestingly, Garvey feels that "the cause Osama represents is anything but defeated" and the Afghan war far from decided. He sees the Afghan, Palestine-Israel and other conflicts "at a higher/broader level" - as "the assertion of power, whereby entities are trying to expand or maintain their power (or existence) through the weakening or elimination of other entities, whereas other entities are trying to protect their power from the expansion of other entities. There is no good or evil entity; rather, there are opposing and non-opposing entities." This seems, paradoxically, to secularise conflicts.

The outcome of the conflicts, he wrote in a recent article, will be determined by the exploitation of each other's strengths and weaknesses. The technological advantage of the US has forced the Taliban to melt into their milieu (their advantage), and "Russia has used its political and military connection to the Northern Alliance" (America's weakness) to capture Kabul. Based on this inter-play of strength and weakness, Garvey postulates that:

* Betrayed by the US in giving an unfair advantage to the minority (and pro-India) Northern Alliance over majority Pashtoons, Pakistan may revert to re-strengthening its connection with them and work for their return to power.

* No matter how effective US military and economic onslaughts may be, they could become weakness due to its secular and non-religious approach (preferring "merciless and inhuman" actions over "forgiveness and compassion") and will yield a corresponding crop of hatred. Its over-stretched power and global interests will invite more lethal attacks because a major US strength, its economy and spending power, is blunted by the inability to buy things like a person's faith.

* The strength of Taliban and Al-Qaeda is their decentralisation. Even so, lacking support of a major entity, they are vulnerable to systematic ground assaults. This will decentralise them further and, given the advantage of their strong faith, keep them alive.

* Meanwhile, the critical struggle to control Afghanistan could trigger a new war between "the Indian, Iranian, and Russian backed Northern Alliance and the US and Britain's Afghan puppets."

In short, no respite for the luckless Afghans. But the USA, like Israel (and, India) may also reap the unintended consequences of its merciless use of destructive power. The US, concludes Garvey, is up against a global guerrilla war which it cannot fight.

The writer is a freelance columnist

aa52pak@hotmail