OIC’s Kashmir tantrum

By K.N. Pandita

In a jibe, Dr. Farooq Abdullah has made light of the Kashmir tantrum of OIC. Representatives of 57 Islamic countries to the 38th session of its Council of Foreign Ministers began their work on 28 June at Astana, Kazakhstan. On its side lines Dr Ekmeleddin, the Secretary General, was chairing the meeting of OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir. His Special Representative on J&K, Ambassador Abdullah Abdul Rehman Al-Alim was present. In his address to the Contact Group, leader of the “True Representatives” of the Muslims of Kashmir Valley, Agha Sayyid Hassan Al-Mousvi – a pro-Khumeini Shi’a leader -, updated the meeting on “Indian brutalities and human rights situation in Indian Occupied Kashmir.”  OIC hangs the board of NO ENTRY for the World’s second largest group of Muslims in India. 

OIC is a religious and political organization. Close to the Muslim World League of the Muslim Brotherhood, it shares the Brotherhood’s strategic and cultural vision: that of a universal religious community, the ummah, based upon the Qur’an, the Sunna, and the canonical orthodoxy of shari’a. Its structure is unique among nations and human societies. The Vatican and the various churches are de facto devoid of political power, even if they take part in politics, because in Christianity, as in Judaism, the religious and political functions have to be separated. Asian religions, too, do not represent systems that bring together religion, strategy, politics, and law within a single organizational structure.

Not only does the OIC enjoy unlimited power through the union and cohesion of all its bodies, it also adds the infallibility conferred by religion. Bringing together 57 countries, including some of the richest in the world, it controls the lion’s share of global energy resources. The European Union (EU), far from anticipating the problems caused by such a concentration of power and investing in the diversification and autonomy of energy sources since 1973, acted to weaken America internationally in order to substitute for it the U.N., the OIC’s docile agent. In the hope of garnering a few crumbs of influence, the EU privileged a massive Muslim immigration into Europe, paid billions to the Mediterranean Union and Palestinian Authority, weakened the European states, undermined their unity, and wrapped itself in the flag of Palestinian justice. In their Charter (2008), Member States confirm that their union and solidarity are inspired by Islamic values. They affirm their aim to reinforce within the international arena their shared interests and the promotion of Islamic values. They commit themselves to revitalizing the pioneering role of Islam in the world, increasing the prosperity of the member states, and — in contrast to the European states — to ensure the defense of their national sovereignty and territorial integrity. They proclaim their support for Palestine with al-Quds (Jerusalem), as its capital, and exhort each other to promote human rights, basic freedoms, the state of law (shari’a), and democracy according to their constitutional and legal system — in other words, compliance with shari’a.

The OIC supports all the jihadist movements considered to be resisting “foreign occupation,” including those in “occupied” Indian Kashmir, and condemns the “humiliation and oppression” of Muslims in India.  But one can note that Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, accused of genocide committed in Southern Sudan and Darfur, and has not been troubled by the Islamic Court of Justice. His colleagues at the OIC do not consider him in any way a criminal and receive him with great respect, as does Turkish PM Erdogan. They will not condemn the broad day killing of the chief of Jamiat-e Ahl-e Hadith in Kashmir, Maulana Showkat Ali.

Within its organization, the Charter presents characteristics similar to those of the EU; however, in terms of its spirit, functions, principles, and objectives, it is the EU’s very antithesis. Present-day aspiration of the ummah to submit to a caliphate which embodies a combined political-religious institution can only surprise the Westerner and highlight the gap that separates the two. Rooted in individualism, Europeans cultivate the search for happiness and cherish freedom of thought and of rational, scientific exploration, which are perceived as a human being’s greatest privilege and finest adventure. Conversely, aspiring to the Caliphate indicates the longing for a supreme authority owing its infallibility to Allah and his intermediary.  According to Ibn Khaldoun, this institution placing politics at the service of worldwide, religious expansionism was created as instrument for the mandatory Islamization of mankind. However, non governmental agencies speaking in more realistic terms have found vital contradiction in the word and the deed that direct OIC.

Human Rights Watch says that OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the United Nations Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. For example, when independent experts reported violations of human rights in the 2006 Lebanon War, “state after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hezbollah’s as well.” OIC demands that the council “should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.” The OIC has been criticized for diverting its activities solely on Muslim minorities within majority non-Muslim countries but putting a taboo on the plight, the treatment of ethnic minorities within Muslim-majority countries or regions, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Hazars in Afghanistan, the Baluchis in Pakistan, the ‘Al-Akhdam’ in Yemen,  the Berbers in Algeria and the Pandits in Kashmir.

With all said and done, the tone and tenor of the address of the host, President Nursultan Nazabayev of Kazakhstan, who chaired the session, must have come like a bolt from the blue for the Caliphatists when he said, “There is a serious imbalance in development among the OIC countries. For example, GDP per capita between the most developed and least developed states differs by more than 100 times.” He asked:  Why are Islamic countries – with their immense natural and human resources, and financial capacities – at a modest level in the hierarchy of the global development? Why are Islamic universities not in the top leading higher educational institutions of the world? Why have there been no world scale discoveries in natural sciences and technology in Muslim countries over the last twenty years? It is impossible not to notice these realities. Apparently, neither money, nor rich natural resources will play a defining role in achieving innovations and the development of Islamic civilization. But the intellectual environment and socio-political climate will”, he asserted.

Links:

Organization of The Islamic Cooperation OIC, their Homepage;

OIC on en.wikipedia:
1): OIC disambiguation,
2): the article.

Comments are closed.