logo
How Did The Muslim World Go So Wrong?

How Did The Muslim World Go So Wrong?

NDTV20-06-2025
You often run into people who look down upon the Muslim world, pointing at the chaos, armed terror groups, militia rule and dictatorship to conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong with Muslims and their religion. Others take the opposite view, arguing that the Muslim world's present-day turmoil owes much to the West's repeated interventions and historical injustices. Both arguments offer partial truths, but they miss the broader reality: much of the Muslim world, especially in West Asia, lies in ruins. The causes are complex and layered, but the evidence is undeniable.
From the shattered boulevards of Tripoli to the bombed-out alleys of Aleppo, from Baghdad's sectarian heartlands to Gaza's crumbled skyline, a common image emerges - of nations torn apart, societies hollowed and futures stolen. This devastation is neither natural nor inevitable. It is the cumulative result of decades of war, opportunistic foreign interventions, proxy conflicts, repressive regimes and colonial legacies. And in all of this, ordinary people, displaced, disillusioned and discarded, are the ones who suffer the most.
Aftershocks Of Empire
This is not about defending despots or absolving extremists. It is a plea for consistency, justice and memory. It is a call to understand how historical interference, political hypocrisy and selective moral outrage have turned one of the world's richest cultural regions into a perpetual battleground. The story of the Muslim world's chaos is not just about religion or governance. It is about the aftershocks of empire, the exploitation of oil and ideology, and a world order that has failed millions.
In the 1920s, Winston Churchill famously quipped that he was not in favour of allowing 'the Arab tribes' to control their own affairs in Palestine. This imperial disdain wasn't just personal opinion; it was policy. Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France carved up West Asia through the Sykes-Picot Agreement, drawing arbitrary borders and installing loyalist rulers. These new 'nation-states' were not crafted with local realities in mind but were designed to serve European interests - strategic positioning, oil pipelines and control of trade routes.
This era of manufactured states and manipulated societies set the stage for future instability. Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, each is a product of imperial drawing boards rather than organic nation-building. As regimes collapsed and identities clashed, these fissures widened. The West may have formally exited the region in the mid-20th century, but its legacy never left. Instead, West Asia continued to be haunted by postcolonial trauma, Cold War alignments and economic dependency.
Sea Of Ruin
Take Libya. Muammar Gaddafi ruled it for over four decades with an iron grip. He was a tyrant, but he also provided free education, healthcare and relative stability. NATO's intervention in 2011, under the guise of humanitarian protection, toppled him but offered no plan for what came next. Libya descended into chaos, with rival militias carving up the country. Weapons looted from Libyan arsenals flooded Mali and Syria, fueling other wars. Gaddafi's fall wasn't the birth of democracy; it was the opening act of a long, bloody disintegration.
Iraq offers an even starker example. The 2003 US-led invasion, based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction, dismantled not only Saddam Hussein's regime but also the entire Ba'athist (party) state structure. The de-Ba'athification programme purged thousands of civil servants and military officers, creating a vacuum that was quickly filled by sectarian militias and, eventually, the dreaded and bloodthirsty Islamic State. Iraq went from dictatorship to a failed democracy haunted by car bombs and assassinations. Once a cradle of civilisation, it now struggles to keep the lights on.
Syria, too, became a battlefield of global ambition. What began as peaceful protests in 2011 soon morphed into a full-scale civil war, drawing in Russia, the United States, Iran, Turkey, Israel and countless non-state actors. While Assad's brutality is undeniable, so too is the damage inflicted by competing foreign agendas. More than half of Syria's population has been displaced. Cities like Aleppo and Raqqa have become modern ruins.
Afghanistan was a theatre of invasion and war, resulting in total collapse of the existing system. First it was the Communist USSR that invaded the country in the late '70s. It was ultimately ousted with the American money, muscle and machine guns after a decade of misrule. Then, the US-led allied forces invaded it in 2001, claiming to install stability and democracy. The experiment failed miserably. The ousted Taliban made a dramatic comeback in 2021, with Western forces making an inglorious retreat. They have left the local population, women and children, at the mercy of the extremist Taliban.
Iran's Turn Now?
And now it is Iran, dangerously poised to be on the road to ruin. It has been subjected to cycles of isolation, sanctions sabotage, and now, open threats of regime change. Its current hardline government owes its survival not just to repression but also to an embattled nationalism born from decades of foreign pressure. From the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)-backed 1953 coup that ousted Prime Minister Mossadegh to present-day nuclear tensions, Iran's story is as much of external meddling as of internal strife.
Meanwhile, regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar continue to enjoy Western patronage. These nations are no less autocratic, no more democratic. Yet, their wealth and alignment with Western strategic interests insulate them from criticism. Human rights violations, censorship and state-sponsored religious extremism are quietly tolerated. The West does not oppose dictatorship, it opposes defiant dictators.
This selective morality has real consequences. When Western powers punish some regimes while shielding others, they lose credibility. Worse, they stoke cynicism and anger across the Muslim world. Young people see the hypocrisy. They see the bombs dropped in the name of freedom and the silence that follows when friendly monarchs crush dissent. In that silence, extremist narratives take root; terror groups do not emerge from cultural voids, they are born in environments of injustice, humiliation and betrayal.
Even Sudan, often omitted from this conversation, has a familiar story. Its colonial past, where the British pitted ethnic groups against each other, laid the groundwork for later divisions. Post-independence governments, often backed or sanctioned by foreign powers, struggled to hold a fractured society together. The current infighting isn't just a power struggle, it is the delayed detonation of a colonial time bomb, exacerbated by modern meddling from Gulf rivals, the West, and even Russia.
Gift Of Nostalgia
Amid all this, it is the ordinary people who pay the highest price. Families displaced across generations. Children growing up without schools or safe drinking water. Doctors operating by flashlight in makeshift clinics. Artists silenced. Intellectuals exiled. Hope becomes a rare commodity. In Gaza, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, to name just a few, the future has become just a concept.
In such an environment, the past - even a past ruled by dictators - can seem strangely preferable. Say what you will about Saddam or Gaddafi, many in their countries recall the order, security and predictability of life under their rule. That nostalgia isn't about love for tyranny but about despair at what followed.
What the Muslim world needs isn't more interventions, more bombs, or more regime-change fantasies. It needs principled action from the global community. It needs investment in peacebuilding, infrastructure and local civil society. It needs space to breathe, heal and rebuild.
The West Learns No Lessons
This is not an ode to the past. It's a warning. If history continues to repeat itself, it won't just be West Asia that suffers. Instability radiates. Refugees flee. Radical ideologies spread. And global trust erodes. The price of selective intervention is paid not just in Baghdad or Tripoli, but in Paris, London and New York, too - mostly in boats full of refugees and immigrants.
It's time to move beyond the tired binaries: West vs. East, Islam vs. modernity, stability vs. chaos. The real battle is between integrity and hypocrisy, between memory and amnesia. Only when Western powers hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others can we begin to imagine a different future for the Muslim world.
Let that future be written not in the language of conquest or control but in the vernacular of justice, sovereignty and dignity - and hope for a better future for the Muslim world.
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Russia Exits Nuclear Treaty With US After Submarine Threat, Cites American Weapon Deployment
Russia Exits Nuclear Treaty With US After Submarine Threat, Cites American Weapon Deployment

News18

time13 minutes ago

  • News18

Russia Exits Nuclear Treaty With US After Submarine Threat, Cites American Weapon Deployment

Donald Trump earlier said he ordered the deployment of two US Navy nuclear submarines in "appropriate regions" near Russia. Moscow has now ended the Cold War-era agreement with US. In a major retaliatory move to Donald Trump's decision to deploy nuclear submarines near Russia, Moscow announced its departure from the Cold War-era agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, known as the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. The treaty was signed in 1987 by Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and US President Ronald Reagan, aiming to eliminate an entire class of weapons – ground-launched nuclear missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500km. This put a ban on installing short- and medium-range nuclear missiles that reduced the threat of nuclear war in Europe. The US withdrew from the treaty in 2019 during Donald Trump's first term, citing Russian violations. However, Moscow had then said that it would not deploy such weapons, given that Washington also did not do it. However, Russia has also pulled out of the treaty after Trump said that he had ordered the deployment of two US Navy nuclear submarines in 'appropriate regions" near Russia, in response to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's 'highly provocative" comments. 'Since the situation is developing towards the actual deployment of US-made land-based medium- and short-range missiles in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, the Russian Foreign Ministry notes that the conditions for maintaining a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of similar weapons have disappeared," the ministry said, Al Jazeera reported. Soon after this, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev blamed NATO's 'anti-Russian policy" for Moscow's pull out and warned that the country will take 'further steps" in response. 'The Russian Foreign Ministry's statement on the withdrawal of the moratorium on the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles is the result of NATO countries' anti-Russian policy. This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps," he tweeted. Medvedev, who is currently serving as the deputy head of Russia's powerful Security Council, however, did not elaborate on what 'further steps" his country may take. Last week, Trump had ordered two nuclear submarines to be positioned in the 'appropriate regions", after Medvedev's remarks about the risk of war between Washington and Moscow. view comments Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Explained: Presidential Fitness Test, why Obama scrapped it and Trump brought it back to schools
Explained: Presidential Fitness Test, why Obama scrapped it and Trump brought it back to schools

Time of India

time15 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Explained: Presidential Fitness Test, why Obama scrapped it and Trump brought it back to schools

(AP Photo/John McDonnell) In the storied annals of American school life, few memories are as unifying or divisive as the Presidential Fitness Test. For decades, it was the gym class rite of passage: Mile runs timed to the second, push-ups counted with unwavering scrutiny, sit-and-reach stretches measuring flexibility like a litmus test of youth. But by 2012, the very programme that once symbolised national strength had quietly disappeared from schools across the country. Now, more than a decade later, President Donald Trump has revived it, and with it, a cultural debate over health, discipline, and the meaning of fitness in America. The rise and fall of a national ritual Introduced under President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, the Presidential Fitness Test was born out of Cold War anxieties. A government-sponsored study had revealed that American children were falling behind their European peers in basic physical competency, a revelation so startling that Sports Illustrated called it 'The Report That Shocked the President.' Eisenhower responded by launching the President's Council on Youth Fitness, positioning physical readiness as a matter of national pride and preparedness. Later, under President John F. Kennedy, the programme took on moral and even patriotic dimensions. In his now-famous Sports Illustrated essay, 'The Soft American,' Kennedy warned that the nation's declining physical standards were a threat to its very fabric. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 20 Unforgettable Cars from the Past Undo Successive presidents followed suit, and the test became a nationwide benchmark, awarding badges, patches, and certificates to students who performed in the top percentiles. By the early 2000s, however, the test had become increasingly controversial. Though it was designed to inspire excellence, many educators and child health experts began to see it as a flawed, outdated measure, one that privileged athleticism over wellness and often shamed students who struggled to meet its rigid standards. Why Obama phased it out In 2012, the Obama administration made a decisive break with the past. The Presidential Fitness Test was formally retired and replaced by the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, a reimagined, data-driven model focused on personal growth rather than competition. The shift reflected a broader evolution in public health thinking. Rather than spotlighting top performers, the new programme emphasised 'personal bests' and long-term well-being. Using the FitnessGram assessment, it evaluated students on metrics like aerobic capacity, body composition, and muscular endurance — but in a way designed to reduce peer comparison and performance pressure. 'The new program has moved away from recognizing athletic performance to providing a barometer on student's health,' the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) noted at the time. It was a deliberate move toward inclusivity, particularly for students with disabilities, varying body types, or low baseline fitness. In Obama's vision, the goal was not to cultivate elite athletes, but to instill lifelong habits of physical activity. Health experts widely supported the change, citing research that early exposure to high-pressure physical tests could contribute to anxiety, body image issues, and disengagement from exercise altogether. At a time when mental health and inclusivity were gaining currency in education policy, the Obama administration's decision appeared both timely and humane. Trump's revival : A new battle for the body But in 2025, President Trump has brought the Presidential Fitness Test back, with all its original rigour, symbolism, and competitive edge. The decision, delivered via executive order, is part of the Trump administration's broader campaign to address what it calls 'crisis levels' of obesity, inactivity, and poor nutrition among American youth. The move follows a blistering report released in May by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which warned that rates of childhood chronic diseases, from diabetes to depression, are accelerating at an alarming pace due to sedentary lifestyles. 'This was a wonderful tradition, and we're bringing it back,' Trump said at the signing ceremony. His new order revives the test's iconic components, the mile run, push-ups, sit-ups, and flexibility tests, and reinstates the Presidential Physical Fitness Award for top performers. In addition, the President's Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition, now chaired by professional golfer Bryson DeChambeau, has been tasked with designing new award criteria and school programmes to incentivize excellence in physical education. For Trump, the decision is not just about health, it's about national character. By reviving a programme steeped in Cold War ethos and competitive spirit, the administration aims to instill discipline, resilience, and what Vice President J.D. Vance called a 'culture of strength.' A divided response The move has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters see it as a long-overdue wake-up call. They argue that a standardized national test can restore accountability in physical education, motivate students, and promote a shared benchmark of health excellence. Secretary Kennedy, who called the award 'a huge item of pride' in his own youth, believes the revived programme can reawaken a culture of active living. But critics warn that the return to percentile rankings and fixed physical benchmarks could alienate students who don't, or physically can't, meet the standards. Mental health advocates caution that such public assessments can heighten performance anxiety and fuel body image issues in increasingly vulnerable age groups. Educators, too, are concerned about implementation logistics and the risk of fostering a punitive environment in the name of fitness. A question of ideology At its core, the debate over the Presidential Fitness Test is about more than push-ups. It's about what America expects from its children, and what it believes schools should teach them. The Obama-era programme privileged equity, customization, and well-being. The Trump revival favors discipline, measurable excellence, and the revival of a competitive, athletic ethos. In many ways, this tug-of-war reflects a deeper philosophical divide, one between public health as empowerment and public health as personal responsibility. And as with so many debates in modern America, the gymnasium has become yet another battlefield in a wider cultural war. Whether this revival will succeed in changing health outcomes, or simply reignite old debates remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: the Presidential Fitness Test is no longer just a measure of physical ability. It's a symbol of who we were, who we are, and who we hope to be. Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!

Why Trump's tariff move isn't likely to shake India's oil ties with Russia
Why Trump's tariff move isn't likely to shake India's oil ties with Russia

Economic Times

time19 minutes ago

  • Economic Times

Why Trump's tariff move isn't likely to shake India's oil ties with Russia

Synopsis Donald Trump's threat to hike tariffs on Indian exports over its Russian oil imports isn't likely to move the needle in New Delhi. India, driven by domestic needs and economics, isn't ditching cheaper Russian crude anytime soon. Behind the posturing lies a bigger story, about energy security, shifting alliances, and a clash between political theatre and market reality. This piece unpacks how India is responding to Trump's latest pressure play, and why it's not backing down. Donald Trump has made a lot of noise about India's oil trade with Russia, calling it profiteering and threatening to 'substantially raise' tariffs on Indian goods. But New Delhi isn't reported by TOI, a senior Indian government official put it plainly, 'We will go solely by the interest of our consumers and opt for the best option price-wise. If Russian crude works out cheaper than what we can get from other sources, why should we penalise our consumers?'The Centre has so far not made any move to wean off Indian oil refiners from Russian crude, which comes at a steep discount compared to purchases from west Asia or US. It has not just helped keep domestic pump prices lower, but also benefited European countries, which have been major buyers of diesel and jet fuel from India, sources told economic logic is straightforward. Russian oil has been cheaper than what's available from West Asia or the US. India's refiners are not just cutting costs—they're helping stabilise fuel prices at home. And here's the kicker: Europe benefits too, as Indian refiners export refined fuels like diesel and jet fuel, some of which reach European frustration is spilling over into tariff threats. His core accusation? 'India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine.'He followed that with, 'Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA.'No actual figures were given. But just last week, he'd already slapped a 25% tariff on Indian goods and floated a possible jump to 100% unless India stops buying Russian new deadline is August 7. If Russia doesn't agree to a ceasefire in Ukraine, he's hinted at secondary sanctions on countries that continue trading energy with Moscow. That includes India, China, and these threats are running into hard economic and political the West sanctioned Moscow in 2022, Russia started offering deep discounts on its oil. That's when India stepped in. It now buys around 1.7 million barrels a day of Russian crude, according to Bloomberg isn't just stockpiling it. In the first half of this year, it exported 1.4 million barrels a day of refined fuels. About 40% of that was diesel or gasoil, and 30% was petrol and blending components. Refiners blend multiple sources of crude before producing fuels, so it's not always clear which exports came from Russian barrels. But the volume speaks for the trade hasn't slowed down. Over the weekend, at least four tankers delivered millions of barrels of Russian crude to Indian Ministry of External Affairs had a sharp response.'The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable,' it said. 'Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security.'It also pointed out that the US and EU themselves continue to trade with Russia, even when there's no national position has been consistent. The decision to buy Russian oil was triggered when traditional suppliers diverted their barrels to Europe. It was the US, in fact, that nudged India to continue those purchases—albeit within the G7's price cap. Energy Minister Hardeep Singh Puri told CNBC in July that the Russian crude trade helped global prices stay in check, saying India was advised by Washington to keep buying—'but within the price cap.' National Security Adviser Ajit Doval is heading to Moscow this week. The visit is expected to offer clarity on how India plans to navigate what officials call a 'geo-economic trilemma': cheap energy, political pressure, and long-term security has not made any move to scale back Russian imports. If anything, officials are eyeing additional discounts in light of Trump's business circles in Delhi are calling out the former US president's rhetoric.A statement from trade research body GTRI summed it up, 'India's oil trade with Russia has taken place with full transparency and broad understanding with the US… Trump's decision to raise tariffs on India citing oil trade is not only unjustified—it ignores market realities, misrepresents trade data, and undermines a key strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific.'This isn't just about oil. Trump has also slammed India's involvement in BRICS and the bloc's discussions around alternatives to the US dollar. He's claimed India has the 'most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary trade barriers' and is using tariffs as leverage to open up Indian markets to US agriculture and dairy—an area where India has refused to official noted that despite discussions, India would not allow imports of genetically modified American corn and soybean. Nor would it revise its stand on farm and dairy tariffs, which Trump has repeatedly forced to diversify, India could boost imports from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the US. In fact, last week saw India's largest refiner suddenly snap up several million barrels from the US and UAE—moves widely interpreted as precautionary, not strategic had, during trade talks, shown interest in ramping up imports of American gas, fertiliser, and defence equipment to improve the trade balance. But there are limits. Modi has refused to open up sensitive sectors like dairy, even as the US pushes and Modi were once seen as political allies. That relationship has cooled. The current standoff is the latest in a string of Trump-led escalations over oil, trade barriers, and foreign policy. From threatening to block access to US markets over India-Pakistan tensions, to taking credit for peace deals India denies happened, Trump's combative posture has worn thin in latest push threatening penalties on anyone still paying for Russian oil reflects growing frustration with Putin's unwillingness to compromise. Trump's nuclear submarine move last week, reportedly in response to Dmitry Medvedev's rhetoric, only adds to the India, for now, isn't shifting course. As one Indian official summed it up, 'We are guided by what's best for Indian consumers, not what's best for Washington politics.'And that might be the line that defines this whole saga.(With inputs from TOI)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store