Abbott's Pride and Prejudice: Why the former Australian PM is wrong

Tony Abbott- the deposed Australian Prime Minister- has, in a reference to Islam, stated that ‘not all cultures are equal’ and that the West should assert its superiority over Islam’. This crude and vulgar ethnocentric remark reflects two things: one, what Abbott had all along thought about Islam-his ‘inner world’, so to speak. Second, it reflects ignorance of the crassest variety about Islam and the world. In terms of the former, Abbot could not have made these ignorant remarks whilst he was in power; now that he is a ‘nobody’, he can afford to say what many Australians may deem as ‘politically incorrect’ but paradoxically correst.. Abbott is then speaking both his heart out and playing to the gallery. [caption id=“attachment_2381050” align=“alignleft” width=“380”]  Tony Abott. AFP[/caption] Let me take Abbot on his crude remarks. First, ethnocentrism and cultural chauvinism is a disease- the kind that is bound to aggravate difference and lead to conflict. Second, what West and Western values is Abbott talking about? The one whose essence and gravamen was imperialist or cultural marauding-destroying and robbing people of their lives, dignity and looting resources? Or the outpost West which ‘settled’ on other peoples’ shores and homes , stole their children to ‘civilize them’, destroyed their culture and livelihoods , held these people to be pests who, in the schema of colonials, were meant to be exterminated? The obvious reference here is to the Australian Aborigines. Abbotts party, it may be noted, refused to extend an apology to the Aborigines of Australia. Or , is Abbott referring to the West that exterminated and eliminated hundreds of thousands of people in the name of religion? The Catholic and Protestant wars spring to mind here. Or , is Abbott referring to the West that burnt ‘witches’ for speaking out the truth? Or banished scientists for asserting what was contra the then hierarchical societies of the West? Or, is Abbott, referring to the Post Renaissance West which in modern and recent history employed weapons of precision and lethal technology to kill members of the fellow West? Or is Abbott referring to the ‘sterile’, hyper individualist West wherein the credo and motto of society is Social Darwinism or survival of the fittest, where compassion is dead? Or the many Wests that fall under the broad rubric and tent of the West? Yes: I am nit picking here and Yes, I am pointing out the dark underbelly of the West here. But the aim is not to demean the West and its singular achievements. I am trying to inject a sense of proportion and perspective to Abbott and his fellow travelers. The world of Islam is not a monolith (precisely the way the West is not a monolith). I am from Kashmir – a place and locale imbued by the Sufi ethos of Islam; I derive my world view and psycho-emotional complex largely from my Kashmiri Sufi ethos and background. A Muslim from the Middle East will have a different world view and approach; so will a Muslim from North Africa. Yes: the common denominator that will define each us will be Islam but it will be overlain by culture, formative experience and state society relations. Consequently, despite being undergirded by a more or less common value system, each of us will have a rather different world view. Now let me touch upon some generic issues pertaining to Islam and the world of Islam. The world of Islam contemporarily is in the midst of deep, structural, crises. But Islam is a world historical civilization whose crystallization in the Deserts of Arabia was a supremely creative event- both in the material as well as spiritual dimensions. I will not spell out the achievements of Islam but merely ask if Islam, as is implied by Abbott, a regressive force, what explains its spread and acceptance in and around the four corners of the world? If it was the Sword, what explains its longevity? The Mongols who marauded the world of Islam and created a structural crisis for the religion, could not sustain their ‘hard power’ assault’. Therefore, even though this assertion is inferential, there must be something about Islam. Yes, there are huge problems within the world of Islam which warrant deep introspection on part of Muslims and even action to remedy some of the major problems. Muslims cannot afford to be in denial about issues and problems which bedevil the world of Islam. But to attack Islam and assert cultural superiority over it is churlish, ill thought and conceived and even motivated. Why then did Abbot say what he said? There appear to be many reasons. First, browbeating Muslims and denigrating Islam has become fashionable these days. It is in sync with the times. Unfortunately, some Muslims or the actions of some Muslims give ammunition to the detractors of Islam; this is not to indict merely the critics of Islam and exonerate Muslims but put things into perspective. Abbott is then being fashionable. Second, Abbot- after his humiliating exit from the Liberal Party’s pedestal and Prime Ministership of Australia- wants to be relevant. What better way than to speak what many think has become unspeakable and politically incorrect: denigrate Muslims and Islam and assert cultural superiority. All this is a pedestrian, run of the mill , prosaic approach for a politician to stay in the news and hence relevant. But the problem is that there are consequences- consequences of sparking inter racial hatred and inter cultural misunderstanding- a development that can exact innocent victims. And, it is alarming that a man who spews irresponsible remarks was the Prime Minister of a Western democracy.