In his famous book ‘The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order’, Samuel P. Huntington has focused that whatever new identity is appearing, is of total groups, kingship and diaspora and civilizations. Both the words are interrelated. Diaspora was used for the first time for groups of Jews living in the entire world. Later, the word became famous for every unit of nrivansh in the world. Indians living in the world are called Indian Diaspora. Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi also repeatedly used this word in his international addresses. Huntington has termed many regional and national clashes being launched among various groups in the world as fault line war which is the incorporated word in his own approach. Since he terms both the world wars as the main war and discusses it with an approach of tension and preparation of possible world war on the basis of civilization in the future. Therefore, he terms war between the second world war and possible third world war as fault line war. It means that if a group or nation is waging war over the claim of other nation then it is called fault line war.

Huntington says that this fault line war turns into massive wars and every stakeholder wants expansion. It either stops other’s expansion or intervenes in other’s internal matters. Both the stakeholders seldom arrive at an amicable solution during these wars. Generally, they start at a particular issue and continue to aggravate due to other issues. A long series of actions and reactions starts. Diversified identity of nations and societies gets centralized as either one or two identities. It becomes the main point of clashes. According to Huntington, therefore, all the fault line wars are ‘identity war’ (war related to identity or pride). Clashes between ‘we’ and ‘they’ appear and both the stakeholders request for their own separate pride or identity.

In the chapter 11 of his book, Huntington describes this process and says that the communists were as small groups with farmers and other groups in Soviet Union. But ‘hate dynamics’ was aggravated. At last, suppressing soft farmer leaders and intellectuals, violent communist groups snatched the power. Similar process is adopted in ‘fault line wars’. He has cited many examples with reference to it.

The first example is the Muslim revolt in Christian state Philippines. Rashtriya Muslim Mukti Morcha was formed in favour of Muslims. Later, a highly aggressive Islamic Mukti Morcha left behind Rashtriya Muslim Mukti Morcha. Later when the Philippines government was talking with these groups for ceasefire then Abu Sayyaf (an aggressive Muslim leader) appeared and cancelled all the dialogues.

Sudan is another example. The Sudan government had been influenced by a soft Islam. But in 1980, aggressive Islamic thought appeared and continued to increase its impact in governance. After a decade, the Christian rebelbecame influential. They started to seek a separate nation South Sudan in place of autonomy.

The third example is of Israel. The Arabic groups were clashing with Israel. But at the same time, they were holding discussions with it. Philistine Mukti Morcha was the main front of the Muslims. It was holding dialogue with Jew government and accidently an extremist group Hamas came to fore. It started to put question mark on the integrity of Philistine Mukti Morcha itself. It increased violent activities. Meanwhile, many aggressive organizations started developing to oppose Muslims. They started blaming their own Jew government for adopting a lackadaisical approach in protecting the Jews.     

Chechnya is the fourth example of it. The Chechnya nationalists continued to engage in clashes with Russia and aggressive Muslims started to dominate the Dudayev government slowly and oppose peaceful dialogue with Soviet Union.

Tajikistan is the fifth example where democratic nationalists used to rule the country in the beginning. But soon aggressive Muslim leadership developed and started running violent activities by organizing poor and youths. New young leaders started to say that ‘we have to take decisions on the battlefield instead of a table of diplomatic dialogue. Russia has indulged in atrocity in our homeland. We have to unseat them’.

Bosnia is the sixth example where violent Muslim leadership developed instead of democratic Muslim party.

Therefore, Huntington says that initially clash starts with multidimensional identities and it later gets centered on a main identity. He says that it’s religion which is the reason behind all these clashes. Religion makes a great impact on the mind of groups concerned. Therefore, religion plays an important role in it. Religion claims for a separate civilization and therefore this clash is called the clash of civilization. Because, it becomes easy to get international support on the basis of it. For example, when two traditional kabila engage in clash, then it’s called a fight of kabila. But if one of the kabila says itself as Muslim and other terms itself as Christian, then both the factions get international support.

For example, if an African kabila claims to be Muslim, it will get financial aid from Sudan. Afghan Mujahidin will support in the fight. Iran will also dispatch weapons and military advisors. Similarly, if a kabila claims to be Christian, it will get financial, legal, political and diplomatic support from European countries and the US.

Similarly, religion becomes a form of sagotra and religious groups start to appear as a gotra instead of the main unit of total groups. Apart from it, Huntington also describes the appearance of the identity of diaspora. He says that diaspora of various countries started to live in the entire world like Jews. They have great affection for their fundamental dynasty. Therefore, they extend support to their own countries. Huntington has cited various examples of it.

Huntington says that the Muslims take major support from international communities in the name of religion. The Muslims declare any family feud or kabila fight as Islamic clash to get wide support. Saddam Hussain is the best example of it. Saddam was a modern socialist leader opposing religious thoughts. His Bath Party was an Arabic socialist party. In fact, his party was called as Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party. Later, Iraq engaged in clashes with Iran and Kuwait. Consequently, the US had to intervene to check Saddam Hussain’s monopoly in disobeying international norms. Not only Saudi Arabia, entire Muslim countries like Pakistan, Malaysia Indonesia, etc started to oppose America. Astonishingly, Iran itself termed US intervention as illegal. It opposed those countries which extended support in case of need. It should be obliged to America for this deed. Therefore, it’s the best example of religious sagotra or Muslim sagotra. Therefore, Saddam Hussain was opponent of Islam and socialist. He became the main identity of his Muslim states due to his Iraqi or Turk ancestral. They extended support to Saddam Hussain.
Similarly, people of Azerbaijan engaged in regional fights with Russia. But Azerbaijan played Muslim card and they started to get international support from Muslim communities. It’s the best example of religious sagotra. Similarly, one group of Tajikistan claimed to be fighter for Islam and started to get international support.

People of the North Caucasus region have been fighting with Russia since 19th century. But Muslim youth leader of Caucasus Shamil declared to be fighter for Islamic religion and dozens of Muslim groups started opposing Russia.

In Chechnya too, Dudayev adopted the same trick. He declared his fight against Russia as in favour of Islam and many priests started supporting him. Similarly, orthodox Christian church became active in favour of Yeltsin. They started making slogans of Allah au Akbar and Christians started to chant ‘Our Lord Jesus. The entire regional fight turned into international war.

Huntington also cited an example of Kashmir. International Islamic extremist groups publicized Kashmiri Muslims as the part of world Muslim community and religious country of Pakistan to wipe out Kashmiri identity of Hindu-Muslim unity. Movement was launched to eradicate Kashmiri identity of Hindu and Buddhist. Only Muslim identity was highlighted. In the beginning, comparatively soft Muslim leaders appeared. They used to keep coordination with Hindus but soon the extremist Muslim groups turned Kashmir issue as issue of Islamic victory.

Huntington also cited an example of Bosnia where there was no such separatism in the communities. Serbs, Croats, Muslim, etc used to live as good neighbours peacefully. They used to marry among themselves. Religious faith was not dominating rest of the social behaviours. But after disintegration of Yugoslavia, religious leadership developed and Serbs, Croats, Muslim, etc engaged into clash. Before this fight, Bosnian Muslims used to say themselves as European and stay with various religious people of the society of Bosnia affectionately. In 1990 elections, an extremist Muslim party led by Izetbegović got majority by instigating new emotions. The communist regime put him behind the bar on the religious charge. After the end of communism, he now became the popular leader of Muslims. Huntington came on the conclusion that if the Muslim emotions get strengthened, they failed to stay with non-Muslim communities lovingly. They indulge in violence to set up Muslim rule. For this, they start to appoint radical extremist Muslims in health and communication sectors. Slowly, they engaged in violence by creating an atmosphere in favour of religion. Butchering of Muslims and exodus of non-Muslim communities are their strategies. Bosnia also witnessed the same incident. First of all, they said that there will be representative state of various cults and religions in which Muslim will have greater say. Although, the Muslims had no majority there. When the non-Muslims requested Izetbegović to reject Muslims’ demand for separate Islamic state, then Izetbegović turned down the demand, creating fear among the non-Muslims. Violence erupted and Serbs and Croats people started to stay outside Muslim dominated regions because they were threatened. Those people who didn’t leave the region were given no responsibilities in the social institutions. They were removed from the prestigious government posts. The people started to advocate for Muslim nationalism in communication system and oppose mixed culture. They wanted to set up Bosnian language dominated by Turkey and Arabic language which were different from Serbs and Croats. The traditional telecast of Serb music was discontinued from communication mediums and national channels. Marriage between Muslims and non-Muslims was condemned. Those non-Muslims who had already married with Muslims were forced to accept Islam. Islamic religion was given priority at every level by the government. Muslims were given priority in government jobs. Around 90 percent seats in the military were filled up by Muslims in Bosnia by 1955. Tradition of offering namaj became popular in the military. Muslim signs and symbols were used in the military. Muslims made their presence felt in every institution in the country. When Croats and Serbs opposed it, then Izetbegović turned down all such oppositions. Ultimately, the state and the military came into total control of extremist Islam.
Therefore, Bosnia which was called Switzerland of Balkan region became Iran of that area. Serbs and Croats opposed this vehemently and these fights turned into religious and civilizational wars. Serb started to say that Islamic extremists have been trying to threaten Christians for centuries, therefore it’s impossible to hold dialogues with them and we will suppress it.

Expressing concerned over it, Russian leadership said that we term radical Muslim state inside Yugoslavia as danger and we won’t tolerate it.

Huntington says that in the international clash, every nation or fighting stakeholder gets financial aid from the diaspora of its fundamental country. Diaspora staying in the entire world raise funds and make it available to their own groups and satogriya people.

Entire western Europe and the USA provided financial and other support to Croatia on the basis of religion. There are many complexities in it. When Croatianarmy attacked the Serb, thousands of Croats people staying in Canada, Germany and Austria provided financial support, workers, and training facilities to Croatia. The Croats people residing in the USA also supported Croatia. Under immense pressure from them, the USA paid no attention over breach of UNO directions by Croatian army. Meanwhile, orthodox Christians supported the Serb people. Russia also supported it. Therefore, Croats and Serbs people engaged into scuffle. But both the stakeholders became active against Muslim domination and declared them as common enemy. Although Croats were catholic Christian and Serbs were orthodox Christian. They were clashing with each other.

Although Islam or Muslims advocate for Muslim unity and brotherhood at international level and raise slogans of jehad or war globally for Islam, such war can be waged under leadership of a central state. But at the same time, there is no ‘core state’ of Islam. Saudi Arab, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, Iran and Malaysia, etc have been making their claims. But no country wants to do something under the leadership of another state. They have no option but to provide financial assistance and weapons to the fighter groups. But at the same time, it was USA which provided financial help, weapons, etc to the Muslim groups in the beginning. Therefore, USA and western Europe have great penetration in these groups. All the countries are well aware of these groups. Therefore, they oppose the western countries only in slogans. They devise strategy for victory of Islam. They competed for domination. They try to make their mixed identity as religion or civilization. But there is great cult disagreement on the level of religion. There are various types of cult like Shia, Sunni, Vahabi, Ahmadia, etc. They failed to unite due to this. Therefore, Islam’s slogan of worldwide brotherhood is against the present units of nation. No ruler is ready to lose his domination in favour of international millat. Because millat has no proper shape. It’s a perception. Slogans have been raised on the basis of violence and hatred against others. But so far, no international millat fought war with any kafir country. No Muslim country came forward to fight with Israel. There is great tension and clash among Baluch Muslim versus Punjabi Muslim or Jat Muslim, Pathan Muslim versus Punjabi Muslim or Irani and Kurd or Turk and Arab or Persian and Turk Muslims at the level of Iran and Iraq or Afghanistan and Pakistan or sub-nationalities. Similar is the case with various kabila of Africa. Therefore, there is nothing like an international millat.

This is also true regarding Christianity. Huntington himself has described immense clashes and disagreements among orthodox Christians and Catholic Christians. Apart from it, the Christianity is full of clashes among Kalvin versus Lutheran or Jacobite. Apart from it, Angles, Sekshan, Jut, German, Vandal, Gal, Slav, Pol, Kelt, Hangar, Serbs, Croats, etc have their own prides, thousands of years old memories and equations of friendship and enmity. Therefore, the people try hard to strengthen their base by terming these clashes as religion. Similarly, identity and memories of kabila are functional.

Whatever Huntington talks about the struggle of civilizations, is a wise effort of uniting Christians. For this, Huntington has tried to provide a clear identity to these clashes.