Picturing Saudi Arabia in Words: Part 1

This quote is ascribed to Napoleon, "A picture is worth of a thousands words", but the problem with pictures are that, they only show skin-deep of reality. To see what is under the skins, we need the assistance of words. This is why books still matter, despite of ease, access, affordability and convenience of taking  and presenting, pictures and videos. The problem with words is that, they are easily manipulated and are open to interpretations. Still, the words can picture things that no camera might ever be able to ... Just for sake of comparison, I like to put two pictures of orientals side by side, one in words, and another with a camera, by legendary British female archaeologist and spy Gertrude Bell from her book, "Syria: The Desert & The Swan (Find it at the  bookshelf's history section)

"The Oriental is like a very old child. He is unacquainted with many branches of knowledge which we have come to regard as of elementary necessity ; frequently, but not always, his mind is little pre- occupied with the need of acquiring them, and he concerns himself scarcely at all with what we call practical utility. He is not practical in our acceptation of the word, any more than a child is practical, and his utility is not ours. On the other hand, his action is guided by traditions of conduct and morality that go back to the beginnings of civilisation...."

The history of South and Central Asia is shaped by great games, cold war between super-powers and now cold wars between regional powers. One of the regional power is Saudi Arabia, and it is important to learn about her, in order to understand, a lot of whys, that might arise from news of the region. As I am not an expert in the subject, I try to present some of the pictures that I get through books. So here are some pictures in words by Robert Lacey from his book, "Inside The Kingdom" (First a picture of the country's geography and history)

1. Why Al-Saud Family Matters?

"Think of central Arabia as being in three parts- the oil fields in the east, the holy cities of Mecca and Madina in the west, and largely barren desert in the middle. At the beginning of the century, and for most of the previous centuries of the Arabian history, those three geographical units were separate countries and, to some degree, cultures. It is the modern achievement of the House of Saud, through skilled and ruthless warfare, a highly refined gift for conciliation, and, most particularly, the potent glue of their Wahhabi mission, to pull those three areas together so that, by the end of twentieth century, the world's largest oil reserves were joined, sea to sea, to the largest center of annual religious pilgrimage in the world- and to their capital in the wahhahi heartland of Riyadh. That is the historical significance of the Saudi camel jockeys. If it were not for Ibn Saud and his sons, the oil fields now called Saudi would probably be another overly affluent, futuristic emirate like Kuwait or Dubai along the Persian Gulf coast, all lagoon estates and Russian hookers.... "

2. Why House of Saud adapted Wahhabism?

"Born in the Islamic, or Hijrah, year of 115 (1703-4 in the Western, Gregorian Calender), Mohammad Abdul Wahhab learned Koran at an early age. Traveling to holy cities of Mecca and Madina as a teenager, he went on to Basra, in Iraq, to continues his religious studies. By the time he came to dry and austere area of Qaseem, north of Riyadh, in A.H 1153 (A.D. 1740), the thirty-seven-year-old preacher had come to feel that the Muslims of his time has gone grievously astray. People gave superstitious reverences to domes and tombs, even to rocks, caves, and trees that were associated with holy men; they dressed luxuriously, smoked tobacco, and indulged in singing and dancing that did not accord with his own austere reading of the Koran.

Ibn Abdul Wahhab condemned these practices as shirk (polytheism). Calling on true Muslims to return to the central message of Islam, "There is no god but God," he led campaigns to stop music and to smash domes and gravestones in the name of God's Oneness. He and his followers liked to call themselves muwahhidoon, monotheists. They did not consider themselves as separate school of islamic thought- they felt they were simply going back to the basics. But their critics derisively called them Wahhabis, and many of Najd's settlements rejected preacher's puritanical attacks on their pleasures.

Then the first Wahhabi encountered Mohammad Ibn Saud, the ambitious ruler of Dariyah, a small oasis town near the even smaller oasis of Riyadh. History was made. In A.H 1157 (A.D 1733) the two Mohammads concluded a pact. Ibn Saud would protect and propagate the stern doctrines of Wahhabi mission, which made Koran the basis of government. In return, Abdul Wahhab would support the ruler, supplying him with "glory and power". Whoever championed his message, he promised, "will, by all means of it, rule lands and men."

So it proved. In the following year the preacher proclaimed Jihad, holy war, to purify Arabia, and after a series of bloodthirsty military campaigns, the Wahhabi armies swept into Mecca in April 1803 (A.H. 1218), extending Saudi authority from Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. For a moment the House of Saud controlled more territory than the fledgling United States".
   

A Tribute to Nelson Mandela

I may not need the approval of neuroscience to state that, experiences change behaviors (if I am not in the position to say, they change brain), as I have observed all around me, and have noticed and been aware of my own "growing up". Still, neuroscience tells us that experiences actually do change the brain structures and functions (called neuroplasticity). My experiences might change my brain, that somehow may translate in changing my behaviors. That is important to me, and might be important to some linked with me, like my siblings and close friends. And it is not just me. We all go through these processes. However, there are some men who stand out in this process than rest of us. The changes that comes through their experiences do not remain limited to their brains, or those immediately linked to them. They change the structure and functioning of institutions, and even more important the worldviews of people around the world. The bitter experiences of Apartheid South Africa  did change Mandela BUT in response, Mandela changed not only the Apartheid South Africa, but his struggles resonated across the globe to change the worldviews of people from societies, with totally different bags of experiences. I really like the way Jesse Jackson describes the changes in Mandela, "Suffering breeds character. Character breeds faith. In the end faith will not disappoint." Yes, Mandela died and injustice still lives on, but so is his legacy, teachings and struggles. RIP Mandela 

Magnificent Delusions: Part 2

While reading the first chapter of the book, I felt like I am watching the "Games of Thrones TV series". I felt as Game of Thrones is not just a fiction. It is real and it has happened and is happening. The very familiar historic figures turned to appear mostly as the two characters of the series, Littlefinger and Varys. Varys who believes in the "Realm" and tries to protect it and Littlefinger who thinks of Realm as a shadow on the wall and has a Social Darwinian outlook. I felt as Littlefingers were the dominant drivers of the history in the Af-Pak region and it is just the combination of historical-geographical tragic continuity that provide a fertile soil for Littlefingers. There is a scene in the series, where Varys and Littlefinger has a conversation and Littlefinger tells Varys, “Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. But they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.” I felt as Littlefinger's explanation describes very well most of the history and current situations (of course, the players)...

OK, let me come out of my feelings, and explain a little bit, why I felt so... Let me begin with Afghan story as chronologically, it comes first. This unfortunate land has never seen a period of peace. All her history, it was a battlefield. But why? The simplest answer is that, it is not a natural country, with a natural boundary. It was created via plays of superpower aka great games and is maintained by great games. Just the players have changed, nothing else. Haqqani briefly mentions the great game which created her modern boundaries: "......During the nineteenth century Britain and Russia competed for influence in Central Asia in what came to be known as the Great Game of espionage and proxy wars. Britain feared that the Russian empire would expand southward, threatening its control over India, the jewel in the British crown that had been progressively acquired at great expense over more than a century. The two empires settled on recognizing Afghanistan as a buffer between them, thus saving them from military confrontations with each other. Previously, the British had lost precious lives in their effort to directly control Afghanistan. But by accepting a neutral and independent Afghan Kingdom, they sought to pass on the burden of subduing some of the lawless tribes to a local monarch, albeit with British economic and military assistance...." Then Amir acted as a Littlefinger in subjugating the "lawless tribes" for strengthening his throne and used Afghani nations against each other which resulted into a historic animosity and distrust between Afghanistan's nations and it is still dominating her political landscape. It is the same mistrust that Afghan Loya Jirga approves US-Afghan Security Pact, to prevent the come back of Taliban and civil war, but Karzai acts as a Littlefinger and rejects their approval and calls US warning of complete withdrawal as a bluff (just for a little while to bargain for more: the ladder is real). Using the fear of Taliban for bargaining at home and outside is Littlefingers real bargaining tool both in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In short, this region has been and is the real land of Westeros and Essos.

Mr. Haqqani mentions about ideological and economic troubles that baby Pakistan was facing but in lines also mentions about two early Varys and Littlefingers: "The need to justify their country at an ideological level was only one part of the challenge Pakistan's founding fathers faced; they also needed resources to sustain the country. Although some men like Liaquat and Abol Hasan Ispahani gifted some of their property to the new state and had no plans of returning to India, for several years after independence some of Pakistani elite acted as if their country was temporary. For instance, Jinnah told India's Prime Minister Nehru, through India's ambassador to Pakistan, that he wanted his house in Bombay kept in good condition so that he could retire there. Pakistan's first ambassador to India, Muhammad Ismail, assumed his responsibilities without migrating to Pakistan and at one point claimed that he had not ceased to be an Indian national by becoming Pakistan's diplomatic representative. And well-to-do Muslim politicians and officials went back and forth, trying to figure out where their careers might prosper more; some wanted to become Pakistani without losing the benefits of being Indian. It took several years for Pakistan to define its citizenship laws in regard especially to migrants or Indian refugees."....

And about US-Pak relations: "...After asking probing questions about Jinnahâ's plans for the new nation's constitution, Bourke-White sought his views of relations with the United States. Jinnah replied that America needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs America. He then told her: Pakistan is the pivot of the world, as we are placed, and went on to state, the frontier on which the future position of the world revolves . Russia is not so very far away. He spoke of America interest in arming Greece and Turkey and expressed the hope that the United States would pour money and arms into Pakistan as well. .......... This account of Pakistani thinking within weeks of its creation offers perspective into the vagaries of US-Pakistan relations over the last six-and-a-half decades. Amid frequent Pakistani charges of American betrayal, few Americans remember that Pakistan initiated the US-Pakistan alliance primarily to compensate for its economic and military disadvantages.".... Reading this commentary about the relation of Pak-US soon after her creation and reading today's Pakistani newspapers, I don't see anything has changed. Imran Khan (PTI) is protesting against US drone attacks by blocking NATO supply lines, launching FIR against recent drone attacks and unmasking CIA chief in Islamabad, BUT his government is also receiving aid from US more than any other province in the country.

Magnificent Delusions: Part 1

The first book that I chose to read in geology was "great geological controversies". Somehow, my gut-feeling told me that the best way to have an insight about something unfamiliar is learning about controversies in that thing. To Albert Camus, unfamiliarity is the absurdity and familiarity, however unreasonable, is meaningful. Ironically, the controversies that I am most familiar with are from, and about Pakistan, as not a day passes without some dosage of controversies that I like my countrymen get through media. In other words, I had a delusion that because of my long and regular overdoses of controversies out of Pakistan, I must have a deep knowledge of the country. However bitter it may be, I am not alone in that delusion. In fact, controversies are so familiar that we connect and communicate more through these controversies than anything else. It is how our history has evolved. Let me put this way, In the first Inaugural Meeting of the Pakistani Constituent Assembly, the founder of Pakistan promises (1) to all citizen of Pakistan: " Every one of you, no matter to what community you belong, no matter what your color, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State, with equal rights, privileges and obligations. . . .While you may belong to one religion or caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the State. We start with the fundamental principle that we are all equal citizens of the State. We should keep that in front of us as our ideal. In course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Moslems will cease to he Moslems, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the nation." Well, the time has proved that this speech was no more than wishful thinking as Moslems have not only didn't cease to be Moslems but they have refined their faiths overtime to become specialized Moslems, such as Deobandi, Brelvi, Shia, Ahle Hadith and so forth .... all united on a single agenda of inventing new controversies.... A lot of people scratch their heads to understand, what we get out of these unreasonable controversies? I think, Albert Camus has the answer for it, and that is, we draw meaning from them (That why, each group strongly believe that only their way of life is worth living and even dying for)

The purpose of this introductory paragraph was to introduce Hussain Haqqani's book, "The Magnificent Delusions". Hussain Haqqani is a former Pakistani ambassador to US that became controversial over controversial memogate case. Just like my first book in geology, as soon as I saw Haqqani's book, I just started reading it. My gut-feeling was telling me that there is some new insight in it. I have just finished the first chapter of the book but I couldn't wait, to not share the following two excerpts from the book, one about founder of the country, Muhammad Ali Jinnah (The nation has given him the title of Quaid-e-Azam: The great Leader) and the second about first prime minister of Pakistan, Liaqat Ali Khan (he is given the title of shaheed-e-Millat: The martyr of nation).

"Landlords in Karachi wanted American diplomats to rent their properties and pay in dollars. A job with the US embassy, as driver, clerk, or translator, was much sought after, and store owners pursued Americans as preferred customers. During a quiet picnic with US Ambassador Paul Alling, Jinnah and his sister Fatima suggested that the ambassador buy their property, the magnificent Flagstaff House, for his embassy. Alling politely informed the governor-general that the embassy had already obtained another property. The ambassador then sent Jinnah a gift of four ceiling fans after he complained about Karachi's sweltering heat."

"The Washington Times-Herald covered the secretary white-tie dinner on its social pages, boasting the headline, Came and Conquered. Separately, Assistant Secretary of State McGhee was impressed by Liaquat's ability to consume alcoholic drinks, forbidden by Islam, without appearing to have drunk at all. But Liaquat's social successes in Washington had to be kept a secret from his own people back home."

At the end of Chapter, Haqqani describes the assassination of Liaqat Ali Khan,

"Then, in October 1951, Liaquat was assassinated while addressing a public rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. The lone gunman was a disgruntled Pashtun, motivated by what he perceived to be the prime minister un-Islamic attitude......"

Of course, these two excerpts are unfamiliar to us and they certainly look absurd, as the narratives of our history were composed of cherry picked events.... 

(1) Quaid's promise: Keesing's Contemporary Archive, Vol VI: pdf 

The Oil Kingdom

There was a time, when the stories was simple. The world was divided into ideological blocks and countries were looked through those blocks. We live in a post-ideologue world, where contradictions make it really hard to make a sense of a country. For the time being, I am getting more convinced that exports of a country has more to say about a country than anything else. My guess is that this notion fits better to Saudi Arabia than any other country. We know only two things out of Saudi Arabia, salafism to Muslim world and oil to the rest of world . So, all I could imagine of Al-Saud family was of religious salesmen. Christopher Dickey's article blurred that perception by narrating King's long time messenger to Washington in these words, "Bandar bin Sultan smoked fine cigars and drank finer Cognac." CBS' 60 minutes documentary about oil kingdom blurs that common perception even further by showing an island of "free world" in the kingdom's conservative society where recently, the women's right to drive has become a buzz in the media. I thought, hmm, it seems interesting and I need to learn more. Meanwhile, I thought, someone else might also be interested to know more about the kingdom: 

Following is the first part of the report: