COVER ART: Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group destroyed a mosque belongin...
COVER ART: Takfiri militants of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group destroyed a mosque belonging to Shia Muslims in Diyala province, northeast of Baghdad on 15th August 2014 / SOURCE: IQNA
By Rohit Deshpande
Co-Founder, Rann-Neeti / Strategic Knowledge Partner
By now most of us
have gotten used to stories about militant attacks in certain parts of the
world so much so that we don’t even give a second thought to the obscure column in which they are printed. Stories of attacks in the West Asian,
Maghreb and SAARC belts rarely invite a second look and are often dismissed as
everyday events. It is worth noting that terrorist incidents in certain parts
of the world invite more sympathy and attention from the public and world media
than others. By saying this, the writer in no way means to undermine the value
of the lives lost in any of these incidents but an excellent example to
illustrate this point would be the media blitzkrieg centered around the
‘Charlie Hebdo’ incident. All contemporary media mediums were abuzz with the
latest on the attacks to the extent that even the most poorly connected couldn’t
have possibly escaped a bite or two of what was going on at ‘Rue Nicolas Appert’
in Paris. Around the same time, Boko Haram, a militant group responsible for
the insurgency in Nigeria, carried out a deadly raid on a village which
possibly resulted in the deaths of 2000 people. The mini genocide in Baga
(Nigeria) was eclipsed by Charlie Hebdo incident and the former only received
some attention when candle marches for the latter had ended.
Several other
incidents of global violence do not receive as much attention as they should
despite their scale and the gravity of the larger issues they stem from. The
growing violence between Shia and Sunni (Wahhabi, Salafi) fundamentalist groups
is one such trend. While the rivalry is ancient, it can arguably be said that
it has been reinvigorated and reinforced for political ends in modern times. An
understanding of this divide is crucial for anyone who wishes to come to terms
with the complex political dynamics of the West Asian region. The historic rivalry
between Iran and Saudi Arabia, the Syrian crisis, the power struggle in Lebanon
and Bahrain, the unfolding ‘Houthi’ insurgency in Yemen have all got to do with
this divide which dates back to 632AD.
Origins of the Schism and Modern Tensions
History is
witness to the fact that empires, kingdoms and communities often succumb to
sectarian division when a capable ruler dies without naming a successor. This age
old intra Islamic rivalry is no exception. The origins of this schism are
rooted in the mid seventh century, a time when Prophet Muhammad’s death had
sparked a succession row. The Muslim world was divided on the issue of
succession. Those who believed that he should be rightfully succeeded by his
cousin and son in law ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib’ are now who we call the Shias and
those who vested their faith in his close companion ‘Abu Bakar’ came to be
known as the Sunnis. In the centuries that followed, the fissures deepened.
Records of Shias being intentionally targeted date back to the time of the Sunni
‘Umayyad’ and ‘Abbasid’ dynasties. When an ideological divide lasts for centuries
it becomes much more than just that, over time it starts acquiring cultural
dimensions and separate identities start being forged.
Though exact
statistics are hard to come by, it is generally believed that roughly 85% of
the world’s Muslims are Sunnis and the rest are Shias. Iran, Iraq, Lebanon,
Bahrain, Syria, Yemen have sizable Shia populations and have become hotspots
for sectarian violence. Some West Asian analysts believe that until recent
times, both groups had co-existed peacefully but not necessarily happily with
each other. Their coexistence was possibly out of necessity and circumstance rather
than choice. Modern day tensions are a result of the culmination of several
factors- some of which will be discussed in this article.
A good starting
point to analyse this complex equation would be the ‘Skyes-Picot’ agreement
drafted by France and the United Kingdom in the midst of the First World War.
The allies were concerned about Ottoman support to Germany and the Central
Powers so they decided to divide the Ottoman Empire into parts and exercise
direct/indirect control over the territories. One common colonial tactic to
keep states under control was to keep tensions between different groups
simmering – the well-known policy of ‘Divide and Rule’. In this particular case, the French and the
British elevated minorities to powerful positions in Iraq and Syria the
aftermath of which can still be seen in the region. Apart from factors such as
external influence, Shia and Sunni groups have displayed political opportunism
and have indulged in sectarian violence when there has been a political prize
in the offing. The fight for regional supremacy between Shiite Iran and
Sunni-Wahhabi Saudi Arabia has its roots in the in the late 20th
century prior to which both groups managed to co-exist without much
sectarianism. The Iranian revolution marked the beginning of the rise of Shiite
political power in the West Asia. Ayatollah Khomeini took some efforts to quell
tensions between Shias and the Sunnis but they did not pay off and relations
between both groups still remain tense. Concerned about the possible spillover
effects of the Iranian revolution into Iraq, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni ruler of a
country with a sizeable Shia population decided to go to war with Iran. He did
so hoping that Iran would be vulnerable as it was recovering from the after
effects of a revolution. He enjoyed the support of the American and the Saudi
government. However, Iran was resilient and the war lasted for eight long years
and ended with a UN ceasefire resolution.
 |
| Sunni/Shia Map Showing Shites Percentage of Muslim Populations (Credit: Pew Research) |
In hindsight,
from the Iranian point of view, the protracted war did more harm than good as
it helped the Ayatollah consolidate his position and authority amongst his
followers. Since then, both countries have been trying to wrestle control of
West Asia from each other. Iran continues to back the Assad regime in Syria,
funding rebel groups in Yemen and militant organisations like Hezbollah while
Saudi Arabia does everything in its power to contain Iranian influence. Sunni
groups have mostly used suicide attacks, car bombing and other asymmetrical
tactics to target Shiite population and places of worship. From empirical
observation, it can be said that Wahabi Sunni fundamentalists are more disposed
to using extreme forms of violence than their Shia counterparts. Pakistan,
Syria, Afghanistan have become hotspots of sectarian violence between the two
groups.
Standing up
against American presence in the region has been a hallmark of Iranian foreign
policy. Iran wants to be seen not only as the leader of the Shia world but also
as the regional super power. Iran has tried to advance its strategic interests
by embarking on an ambitious nuclear program- something that has not gone down
well with the Sunni regional hegemon Saudi Arabia and the other American
all-weather ally Israel. Recent reports suggest that Israel and Saudi Arabia
held several secret meetings to discuss Iran and the region’s future. One can
say Iran’s rise has made for strange bedfellows as is evident from the coming
together of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It also brings to fore the fact that
politics of religion trumps the old Arab –Israel rivalry. Iran’s rise in the
region will be construed by Saudi as a challenge to Sunni hold over Islam
–their very identity. Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon will also be a threat to Saudi
regional supremacy. Some analysts are of the opinion that Saudi Arabia has made
a back channel deal with Pakistan to acquire readymade nukes as a last resort
if Iran crosses the threshold and goes nuclear.
Another disturbing development is the addition to ISIS (Islamic State) to this equation who
claimed responsibility for the recent suicide attack on a Shia Mosque in Saudi
Arabia. Some experts speculate that ISIS may be trying to expand beyond West
Asia and is trying to get a foothold in Afghanistan and is responsible for the
sporadic attacks on the native Shia Hazara community.
Over the years attempts have been made
by several leaders at the individual and the global level to foster harmony
between the Shias and the Sunnis. Forums for discussions between clerics of
both sects, initiatives like the 2007 Saudi Iran summit need to be encouraged.
Politics and religion cannot be separated in Islam so any solution for this
issue, however unlikely, will come through discussion amongst the religious and
spiritual heads of both sects. In countries where there are significant numbers
of Shias and Sunnis, unrest will naturally brew if one sect feels politically
left out. This can be avoided by implementing a model similar to the one which
Lebanon follows. Lebanon’s population majorly consists of Christians, Shias and
Sunnis. Political power is divided such that the president has to be a Maronite
Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of the assembly a
Shiite. Though not fool proof, this strategy of division of political power can
be one of the many measures that can be taken to mitigate tensions between the
Shiite and Sunni population.
