Midweek Review

Vira Alakeshvara’s PlightSignals from the Past

Published

4 years ago

2021/04/28

by Sasanka Perera
South Asian University

I have a clear recollection of one of my teachers in the Advanced Level Sinhala class narrating the story of how a Sri Lankan ruler was kidnapped by a Chinese naval commander in the Kotte period. It was not part of the subject matter of his class. But as a well-read man he knew the story and wanted to make a point about power and political interference. I cannot now remember what the exact context was. Over time, I also forgot who the Chinese belligerent was but always remember the local kidnap victim as Alakeshvara. In the annals of Sinhala heroism, Alakeshvara or Vira Alakeshvara comes up as an able military leader who is credited for establishing the fortifications of Kotte, which later became the main kingdom of Lanka and for bringing invading soldiers from the kingdom of Jaffna under control. He later captured power in Kotte and became the king and ruled for 12 years. But Alakeshvara’s plight at the hands of the Chinese is not part of this heroic discourse. ‘National defeats’ are hardly a part of public national memory anywhere in the world and not simply in Lanka. Moments of ‘shame’ are often forgotten or consciously erased in preference to what can be more easily and happily celebrated. As such, there is a deafening silence on the Chinese belligerence in the 15th century even though there are adequate references to the incident from records of the time as well as from the work of latter-day scholars such as Edward Dreyer, Louise Levathes, Senarath Paranavitana and others. All these sources collectively offer a reasonable sense of what happened not only in Lanka, but the overall contexts and politics of Chinese naval expansion in the 15th century. It seems to me an understanding of this past is quite important to the present as well, given the way in which this ancient incident is embroiled in diplomatic, military and commercial interests.

Zheng He and the Ming Treasure Voyages

Recent readings reminded me that the locally forgotten story’s main character was Zheng He, who is sometimes also referred to as Cheng Ho. He was a well-known Chinese naval commander. According to existing reports, Zheng He and his fleet arrived in Lankan waters as part of what is known as ‘Ming Treasure Voyages.’ The seven voyages under this naval scheme took place between 1405 and 1433. This was the brainchild of Emperor Yongle of the Ming Court, who began setting up this fleet in 1403. These voyages, employing a large fleet, thousands of personnel and resources were undertaken on behalf of the Ming Dynasty and particularly on the instructions of Emperor Yongle to expand China’s military, political and commercial authority across the oceans. The main intention of the seven voyages was to find local allies and establish Chinese spheres of influence if not complete control in different parts of Asia, parts of the Middle East and places like Mogadishu and Mombasa in East Africa. It is in this context one also can understand the politics of the trilingual inscription (Chinese, Persian and Tamil) discovered in 1911 in Galle that refers to the endowments Zheng He had presented to the Vishnu shrine at Devinuwara, Sri Pada, and to a mosque (perhaps in Galle). This is a subtle but obvious way of appealing to the socio-political sensibilities of large and important communities in the island at the time. All these interventions were made to ensure the safety and stability of maritime routes for Chinese vessels.

Unfortunately, Alakeshvara turned out to be an irritant in this grand global scheme simply because he did not perceive the overall and expansive agenda of the voyages but looked at them only from the perspective of his immediate local political circumstances. As a result, he was hostile to Chinese intentions in Lanka, particularly the attempts at expanding Chinese trade. Chinese trade was a key factor in the Lankan economy for a long time. As Prof Sudharshan Seneviratne has reminded me, the largest collection of overseas coins discovered in Yapahuwa is of Chinese origin. And it is no accident that Yapahuwa was right in the middle of the main trade route connecting the western coast with the spice and gem regions of the hills. In this context, Alakeshvara launched what are generally referred to as

‘piracy’ attacks against Zheng He’s fleet in local waters. But to do this, one has to assume he had the support of some of the local ‘maritime powers’ from Mannar to Galle, who were mostly Muslim merchant chieftains because Chinese trade expansion might have impacted their margins of profit too. All this happened in the First Treasure Voyage of 1405. Given the nature of this local hostility, Zheng He took a strategic decision to leave Lankan waters. But as latter events would indicate, he did not forget what he considered Alakeshwara’s lack of courtesy and insulting behavior towards him.

Zheng He’s Revenge

The revenge of the Chinese came as part of the Third Ming Treasure Voyage. The main purpose of this voyage after its arrival in Lanka was to defeat Alakeshvara militarily. The confrontation with Alakeshvara took place in 1410 or 1411. Zheng He and his troops attacked Kotte and captured Alakeshvara, his family and key political figures allied with him. They were taken to China as prisoners. Yang Rong writing in 1515 in his text, Yang Wenmin Gong Ji (or The collected Works of Yang Rong) describes the battle in Kotte and its aftermath in the following somewhat disparaging words, referring to the locals as ‘noxious pests’ and ‘insignificant worms’: “Straight-away, their dens and hideouts we ravaged, and made captive that entire country, bringing back to our august capital, their women, children, families and retainers, leaving not one, cleaning out in a single sweep those noxious pests, as if winnowing chaff from grain. These insignificant worms, deserving to die ten thousand times over, trembling in fear did not even merit the punishment of Heaven.” Zheng He’s action in Lanka and the kidnapping of one of its most powerful leaders of the time comes close to what contemporary military writers might call a ‘surgical strike,’ an attack with clinical accuracy in a short period of time to achieve a very specific objective. Crucially, this attack took place in a broader socio-political context using power projection across oceans that contemporary scholars would describe as gun-boat diplomacy. However successful Zheng He’s operation might have been, it is unlikely that this expedition would have gone this smoothly without considerable local support even though there are no references to this in surviving Chinese records. But this was clearly a time of significant political turmoil within the powerful Alakeshvara family itself in addition to other powerful political actors including the family of the future king Parakramabahu the Sixth who were all looking for means to gain power.

In 1411, Zheng He brought his Lankan captives to the presence of the Ming Emperor Yongle, who later pardoned Alakeshvara and retuned him to Kotte. This pardon is described by Yang Rong in the following words: “Thus the august emperor spared their lives, and they humbly kowtowed, making crude sounds and praising the sage-like virtue of the imperial Ming ruler.” But this debacle ensured that Alakeshvara’s political prestige and power was lost forever as was the political influence of his extended family. Consequent to Alakeshvara’s defeat, Parakramabahu the Sixth ascended the throne in Kotte. This is where we can see that Zheng He’s 15th century surgical strike was much more than avenging an insult from a local leader. It was part of a broader plan to enact regime change and ensure that a ruler more amenable to China’s intentions of the time was in control in Lanka. According to Chinese records referred to by Senarath Paranavitana and C. W. Nicholas in their book, A Concise History of Ceylon: From the Earliest Times to the Arrival of the Portuguese (1961), Parakramabahu the Sixth was chosen to be king by Sinhala emissaries present in the Ming Court at the time, nominated by Emperor Yongle and effectively installed by Zheng He using the military and naval power at his disposal. Irrespective of what might today be called ‘foreign interference’ in ensuring Parakramabahu the Sixth’s consolidation of power, he went on to become Lanka’s last ‘great’ king under whose rule the island was politically ‘unified’ which also ensured political stability and a phase of significant cultural revival. But more important to what I have described so far, he also created a political alliance with the Chinese that allowed expansive political projects such as the Ming Treasure Fleet easy access to local waters as well as local political support. But in Lanka, this important episode in our history is almost completely forgotten.

Signals from the Past

As I said at the beginning, this was a story initially narrated to me and my class by an erudite teacher in the early 1980s. It came back to my mind not only because it is an intriguing story from a time we have mostly forgotten or because one cannot easily find such well-read schoolteachers or even scholars in our country today, but because it says much about the present as it does of the time in which these incidents actually happened. I cannot shake off a feeling of déjà vu when I read this story today and look around to see powerful nations of contemporary times engaging in very similar activities in various parts of the world much of which are located in what is now known as the ‘Global South.’

But only the future would let us know if we were capable of reading the signals from the past accurately and were intelligent enough to refashion our present.

All News Advertisement

Midweek Review

General election: The choice before the electorate

Published

7 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

The key issue at the forthcoming parliamentary election should be economic recovery, based on the IMF formula, or whatever an alternative solution that the President AKD-led government can come up with if the existing remedy, already negotiated by the previous regime with one of the twin sisters of Washington, is far too difficult to swallow. All political parties, including the JVP represented in the last parliament, however, agreed to adhere to the IMF formula by endorsing the Economic Transformation Bill. Unfortunately, sufficient attention hasn’t been paid to the primary issue at hand at all as the NPP sought to consolidate its political power. The challenge before the executive and the legislature is how to turn around the ailing national economy to pave the resumption of debt repayment in 2028. None of the political parties in the fray seem to be prepared to face the daunting challenge.

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The National People’s Alliance (NPP) and Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) are the main contenders at the forthcoming parliamentary election. At the last general election, held in August 2020, the NPP won just three seats, including one National List (NL) slot, whereas the SJB secured 54 seats.

The breakaway UNP faction, the SJB that had been registered under controversial circumstances in early 2020, but emerged as the second largest parliamentary group, with the UNP, the Grand Old Party that was reduced to a humiliating one seat and that, too, coming from a NL slot it managed to scrape. The SJB, in its inaugural electoral contest at the previous general election, managed to grab 54 seats, including seven NL members.

The Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP), that won the election, secured a staggering 145 seats, including 17 NL slots.

But within five years, the NPP has turned tables on traditional middle of the road parties that clearly lost their grounds due to succumbing to political expediency for too long, which caused much of the electorate to lose their trust in them, with the NPP rightly playing up all the political chicanery they had been up to over the years. But it has to be mentioned that the NPP is still very much an old wine in a new bottle with its bulwark being the JVP that cannot easily erase its bloody past.

It is now poised to win the parliamentary elections, scheduled for Nov. 14. The NPP intends to win it primarily on the strength of NPP leader Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s (AKD) comparative superlative performance for a Marxist, despite so much fearmongering, rightfully or wrongly, from the established order at the presidential election, even though he couldn’t obtain 50% + 1 of the total number of valid votes.

AKD polled 5,634,915 votes (42.31%) while SJB leader Sajith Premadasa (SP) obtained 4,363,035 votes (32.76%). AKD and SP received 105,264 and 167,867 preferences, respectively. With the preferences, their respective tallies were AKD 5,740,179 votes and SP 4,530,902 votes.

Therefore the masses definitely wanted a break with the past without further political horse dealings and a clear stop to ingrained corruption that is eating into every fabric of our society. In that sense the NPP can now start with a clean slate after the general election, if it maintains the no-nonsense discipline it has shown since the unlikely victory at the presidential election.

At the last parliamentary election, the SJB received 2,771,980 votes, whereas the NPP obtained just 445,958 votes and secured fourth place in terms of number of seats won. NPP’s elected members were (AKD, Vijitha Herath and NL member Dr. Harini Amarasuriya). Although Parliament has been dissolved in the wake of AKD’s victory at the presidential election, Herath and Dr. Amarasuriya constitute the caretaker Cabinet, with AKD as its head.

If we go by the presidential election result, the NPP will be able to obtain 105 seats. If it happens the NPP wouldn’t have at least a simple majority in Parliament. In other words, AKD will be at the mercy of the Opposition. Former SJB parliamentarian Mujibur Rahuman recently declared that the SJB-led Opposition could form a government under the premiership of their leader Sajith Premadasa. The Colombo district contestant asserted that the NPP would end up with 105 seats whereas the combined Opposition could obtain 120 seats. Rahuman is certainly not the only ex-lawmaker to think so. Unfortunately, that would be nothing but wishful thinking. For one thing indications are some key Tamil parties are likely to be in the AKD-led government, after the general election, as they to see the winds of an inevitable and much needed change. EPDP leader Douglas Devananda has already declared his intention to back an NPP government.

Parliament consists of 196 elected and 29 appointed lawmakers. Let me remind readers of the allocation of seats in the last Parliament.

The SLPP obtained 145 (17 NL), SJB 54 (07 NL), Illankai Tamil Arasu Kadchi (ITAK) 10 (01 NL), NPP 03 (01 NL), Eelam People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) 02, Ahila Ilankai Thamil Congress (AITC) 02 (01 NL), Thamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) 01, Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) 01, Muslim National Alliance (MNA) 01, Thamil Makkal Thesiya Kuttani (TMTK) 01, All Ceylon Makkal Congress (ACMC) 01, National Congress (NC) 01, Sri Lanka Muslim Congress (SLMC) 01, United National Party (UNP) 01 NL and the Our Power of People Party (OPPP) 01.

Fifteen political parties were represented in the last Parliament. What would be the outcome of the forthcoming parliamentary election? In spite of the Opposition assertion that the NPP may end up even without a simple majority in Parliament, the ground realities seemed to be quite different.

In addition to the main contenders, there are three other notable political parties in the fray in the South. In the Northern and Eastern regions, the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) is the main party, while the Ceylon Workers’ Congress (CWC) contests Nuwara Eliya district under the UNP’s ‘elephant’ symbol.

UNP leader and former President Ranil Wickremesinghe, though not contesting the general election and also not in its NL, leads the New Democratic Front (NDF). That party had its symbol ‘swan’ changed to ‘gas cylinder’ recently to contest the general election. In spite of never having been represented in the Parliament, the NDF is not an ordinary political party. Since the end of the war, in 2009, the UNP fielded three presidential candidates in 2010 – the then retired General Sarath Fonseka (promoted to the rank of Field Marshal in 2015), 2015 Maithripala Sirisena and 2019 Sajith Premadasa.

Actually Sri Lanka’s type of democracy is a mystery. Having been involved in the UNP-led presidential campaigns in 2010 and 2015 and also part of that camp during the 2009-2019 period, the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) discarded its ‘bell’ symbol in 2019 to field AKD on the NPP ticket at the last presidential. Even prior to that, the JVP has had honeymoons with both Presidents Chandrika Kumaratunga and Mahinda Rajapaksa and helped them gain their electoral victories.

SLPP in tatters

The SLPP that won a near 2/3 majority at the 2020 general election is in tatters. The party had been so weakened, that Namal Rajapaksa (NR), widely believed to be the current SLPP Chairman Mahinda Rajapaksa’s chosen successor, sought the protection of the NL. Having polled just 342,781 votes (2.57%) at the recently concluded presidential election, NR must have realized his inability to re-enter Parliament from the Hambantota district by winning the required votes as a candidate.

At the last parliamentary election, the SLPP polled 6,853,693 votes (59.09%), the SJB a distant second with 2,771,984 votes (23.90%) and the NPP a hopelessly positioned third with a paltry 445,958 (3.84%). What really influenced the electorate to give such a mega boost to the NPP at the presidential election five years later?

The issue at hand is whether the NPP can attract more voters at the parliamentary election than it did at the presidential.

The SLPP has been badly divided into three groups, with the largest joining hands with Wickremesinghe, the failed independent candidate at the presidential election, to contest the parliamentary polls under the ‘gas cylinder’ symbol. Another group that included Prof. G. L. Peiris and Dallas Alahapperuma placed its faith in the SJB, leaving only a handful SLPPers with NR. Quite a number of former SLPPers had decided against contesting this time with the curtain coming down on war-winning President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s political career. Regardless of him putting a brave face the other day by declaring that he would be back and the SLPP could secure a simple majority, the dye was cast in wake of the humiliating defeat at the presidential election.

The possibility of the SLPP being reduced to just one NL seat cannot be ruled out. The UNP suffered a similar fate at the 2020 general election. The UNP that had 106 MPs in 2015-2019 (Yahapalana Parliament) was unceremoniously reduced to just one NL seat.

The SJB, too, despite putting on a brave face, is facing a huge challenge in at least retaining the same number of seats won at the last election. The SJB, beset by internal strife, may not be able to cope up with another heavy defeat at national level in less than two weeks.

Sarvajana Balaya received quite a significant media attention due to Pivithiru Hela Urumaya (PHU) leader and ex-parliamentarian Udaya Gammanpila’s battle with the NPP government over the refusal on the part of the latter to release two Easter Sunday reports commissioned by AKD’s predecessor Ranil Wickremesinghe.

Gammanpila earned the respect of many for taking an unwavering stand in the continuing controversy but it may not help Sarvajana Balaya at the general election. While the Catholic Church has thrown its weight behind the NPP government in continuing to seek justice for victims of the Easter carnage, without being politically neutral, at least in public, UNP leader Wickremesinghe strongly disapproved of the stand taken by the government and the Church. However, the Church has dismissed Gammanpila’s assertions, as well as the much touted committee reports, out of hand. Therefore, the NPP can be sure of receiving the backing of the influential Catholic belt at the general election.

The outcome of the general election must be examined taking into consideration the unbelievably huge number of voters who skipped the presidential election. About 1/5 of 17,140,354 registered voters refrained from voting at the Sept, election. Although some of them had been overseas, political parties, under any circumstances, cannot ignore the danger in a significant group of electors keeping away from polling booths. Of 17,140,354 electors, only 13,619,916 (79.46 %) had exercised their franchise and of them 300,300 (2.2 %) votes were rejected. The total number of valid votes at the presidential election was 13,319,616 (97.8 % of the total polled).

The NPP is confident that at the forthcoming general election it can definitely improve on its performance at the presidential election. Addressing rallies at Katunayaka (Oct. 20) and Polonnaruwa and Trincomalee (Oct. 23), President AKD called on the electorate to wipe out the Opposition at the general election. The writer was present at an NPP rally at Katunayake where AKD explained why the next Parliament should be overwhelmingly dominated by NPP lawmakers.

The NPP leader, who is also the leader of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (both are registered political parties recognized by the Election Commission), said that the defeat of no-confidence motions moved against Ravi Karunanayake (UNP), who, as a Minister giving evidence in the bond scam probe, claimed he could not remember the name of the person who had provided him with a luxury penthouse, and Keheliya Rambukwella (SLPP), in June 2016 and Sept. 2023, underscored the need to overhaul Parliament. That couldn’t be achieved unless the new Parliament was filled by members of the NPP, the President declared.

The Joint Opposition-led no-confidence motion against Karunanayake over the Treasury bond scams was defeated by a majority of 94 votes. The no-confidence motion received 51 votes in favour and 145 against, while 28 didn’t turn up at the time of the voting on June 09, 2016. Among the absentees were Mahinda Rajapaksa and the late R. Sampanthan.

The no-confidence motion moved against Keheliya Rambukwella, on Sept. 08, 2023, over corruption charges, pertaining to the procurement of medicine and surgical equipment, was easily defeated by the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government. The motion received 73 votes in favour, while 113 voted against it.

AKD repeatedly declared that the actions of the MPs resulted in Parliament earning the wrath of the public and widely considered as the most hated institution in the country.

Elpitiya PS result

Comments on the result of the Elpitiya Pradeshiya Sabha election, held on Oct. 26, indicated that politicians and other interested parties took advantage of the outcome to pursue their own agendas. Some asserted that the Elpitiya result meant that the NPP’s decline has started quite early and portends the likelihood of a significant setback for the ruling party at the parliamentary election.

Others asserted that the SLPP has done well at Elpitiya though the party suffered a humiliating defeat at the presidential polls.

Eight registered political parties, and one independent group, contested the Elpitiya Local Government election. The UNP was not among them. The 30-member Elpitiya PS was shared by NPP (17,295/15 members), SJB (7,924/06 members), SLPP (3,597/03 members), People’s Alliance (2,612/02 members), People’s United Freedom Alliance (1,350/01), National’s People’s Party (521/01) and Independent Group (2,568/02).

The NPP polled 17,295 votes whereas the seven registered political parties, and the one Independent Group, polled 19,010 voters.

However, pertaining to Elpitiya, the issue at hand is why out of 55, 643 registered voters only 36, 825 exercised their franchise in spite of growing interest in the general election. Of 55,643 registered voters, 18,818 didn’t turn up to vote.

Having compared the Elpitiya PS result with that of the Elpitiya presidential polls outcome, some have come to the conclusion that the SLPP has made a strong comeback by increasing its percentage of votes from 3.56% to 9.89% while both the NPP and the SJB recorded a drop in their respective percentages.

The security scares caused by the alleged threat on Israeli tourists visiting the east coast continues to dominate the media attention, with the Opposition and various other interested parties, too, seeking to exploit the developing situation.

The Opposition found fault with the government over the way the police and higher security authorities had handled the threat, whereas the incumbent administration stressed that the relevant alert was received on Oct. 07 and local authorities were in the process of addressing the threat when the US Embassy issued a public warning, almost three weeks later.

The crux of the matter is whether the Arugam Bay fallout can influence voters at the forthcoming parliamentary election. The issue has to be examined taking into consideration Sri Lanka’s response to the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza and Lebanon and the extremely dangerous developments in Iran-Israel lethal exchanges and the Houthi threat to international shipping.

Unfortunately, those who find fault with Israel for the continuing bloodshed are silent on Hamas invasion of southern Israel in October last year that created an environment conducive for the Jewish State to unleash war on Gaza and then extend hostilities to Lebanan and Iran with the backing of the US and the UK.

Recently, some interested party posted a video of a pro-Israeli march in Batticaloa. The video was meant to deceive the electorate that the AKD government has allowed such a controversial public display of support for Israel in the wake of the ongoing war and security crisis caused by alleged threat on Israelis here. However, inquiries revealed that the video had been taken in 2015 during the Yahapalana administration. A similar demonstration had been organized in 2019 by the same non-Roman Catholic Church group based at No 118, Bar Street, Batticaloa.

The government should be mindful of the accusations directed by the breakaway JVP faction Frontline Socialist Party (FSP), or Peratugaami pakshaya, regarding the government role in facilitating, what the party called, Israeli military tourism. The FSP insists that the project that had been launched during the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa administration posed a major security threat and the new government should re-examine the controversial decision.

The government should pay utmost attention to the developments pertaining to the Arugam Bay security threat or be prepared to face the consequences.

Midweek Review

The Western Gaze: Orientalism and Middle East Conflict

Published

7 days ago

2024/10/30

Sahan Weerasooriya

A file photo of Israeli attacks on Gaza

by Amarasiri de Silva

After moving to the United States a decade ago, I quickly noticed how people from Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim backgrounds were often viewed through a peculiar, almost mystifying lens. In conversations, media portrayals, and even school settings, these communities were consistently depicted as fundamentally different—exotic, foreign, and, at times, dangerous.

Hollywood frequently portrayed Middle Eastern landscapes as barren deserts filled with shadowy figures, while news stories reduced entire cultures to images of conflict and chaos. This persistent thread of “otherness” seemed to frame anyone with my skin tone, a similar cultural background, or shared religious beliefs as unfamiliar and fundamentally separate from the Western norm. Over time, particularly after reading Said’s book ‘Orientalism,’ I understood that this wasn’t coincidental but part of a legacy of Orientalism. This framework has long influenced how the West perceives and engages with the Middle East. Examining the origins of this mindset, I began to see how these deeply ingrained misrepresentations continue to fuel political and cultural misunderstandings that shape conflicts to this day.

The Middle East conflict is a deeply rooted and multifaceted struggle involving political, religious, and territorial disputes that have spanned centuries. At the heart of many modern interpretations of this conflict lies the pervasive influence of Western intervention, particularly through the lens of orientalism. Edward Said’s groundbreaking work, Orientalism, provides a theoretical framework for understanding how the West’s imperialistic endeavours shaped perceptions of the East, particularly the Middle East, leading to centuries of misrepresentation, exploitation, and ongoing strife. By examining the Middle East conflict through Said’s concepts of Orientalism, we can better comprehend how Western ideologies of superiority and domination have exacerbated and, in many ways, sustained this protracted crisis.

In this essay, I will explore the historical context of the Middle East conflict, focusing on the influence of European colonialism and its lingering impact on modern-day geopolitics in the region. Drawing on Said’s theory of Orientalism, I will analyze how the West’s misrepresentation and dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples have contributed to the perpetuation of violence and instability. Through this exploration, it becomes clear that Orientalism, far from being an abstract academic concept, is central to understanding the ongoing power dynamics and struggles in the Middle East.

Historical Context of Western Involvement in the Middle East

To fully appreciate the relevance of Said’s theory to the Middle East conflict, it is essential first to understand the historical context in which Orientalism emerged. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, European colonial powers such as Britain and France expanded their empires into the Middle East, driven by economic interests, strategic motivations, and a desire for political dominance. The British occupation of Egypt, the French control of Algeria, and the carving up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I are just a few examples of how European imperialism shaped the region’s political and social landscape.

One of Said’s key assertions is that colonialism/orientalism was not just a physical act of territorial expansion but also an intellectual and cultural project. In Orientalism, Said argues that the West constructed an image of the “Orient” as backward, irrational, and barbaric to justify its colonisation. This process of “othering” created a stark dichotomy between the “civilised” West and the “primitive” East, allowing European powers to rationalise their domination over Middle Eastern societies.

The 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement, which divided the Ottoman territories between Britain and France, exemplifies how colonial powers viewed the Middle East as a region to be divided and controlled for their benefit. The arbitrary borders drawn by Western officials without regard for ethnic, religious, or historical realities have had long-lasting consequences, sowing the seeds for many of the conflicts we see in the Middle East today. For example, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most enduring and contentious disputes in the region, is deeply rooted in the legacy of colonial intervention and Western-imposed territorial divisions.

Orientalism as a Justification for Colonial Domination

At the heart of Said’s Orientalism is the idea that the West’s representations of the East were shaped not by objective observations but by a desire to assert dominance over a perceived “other.” Said explains that Orientalism served as a justification for colonial domination by portraying Middle Eastern societies as incapable of self-governance and in need of Western intervention to “civilise” them.

This sense of Western superiority is reflected in many of the cultural artifacts produced during the colonial era, from travel writing to scholarly works. European artists and writers often depicted the Middle East as a mysterious and exotic land, filled with danger and intrigue, but ultimately inferior to Europe’s rational, orderly world. These representations were not mere fantasies; they had real-world implications, shaping public opinion and government policy in ways that reinforced colonial power structures.

Said highlights the work of European scholars and colonial officers who produced knowledge about the Middle East, noting that this knowledge could have been more neutral. Instead, it was designed to reinforce Western hegemony and justify the exploitation of Middle Eastern resources and people. As Said states, “knowledge of the Orient, because generated out of strength, in a sense creates the Orient, the Oriental, and his world” (Said, 1978, p. 40). In this way, Orientalism became a tool for maintaining Western dominance over the region, as it allowed Europeans to assert control over the land and the narrative surrounding its inhabitants.

The Impact of Orientalism on Western Perceptions of the Middle East

Gaza Strip (Image courtesy of BBC, https://www.bbc.
com/news/newsbeat-44124396)

One of the most insidious effects of Orientalism is the way it has shaped Western perceptions of the Middle East and its people. By consistently portraying the region as violent, irrational, and backward, Orientalism has contributed to a widespread dehumanisation of Middle Eastern individuals and cultures. This dehumanisation is evident in the ways that Western media often depicts conflicts in the Middle East, focusing on images of chaos and destruction while ignoring the underlying causes of the violence or the humanity of those affected by it.

This Orientalist framework has played a significant role in shaping Western policies toward the Middle East, particularly in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader “War on Terror.” The United States, in particular, has frequently invoked Orientalist tropes to justify military interventions in the region, framing its actions as part of a broader effort to “civilise” or “democratize” the Middle East. However, as Said’s work clarifies, these justifications often mask underlying economic and political motivations, such as securing access to oil or maintaining geopolitical influence.

The American involvement in the Middle East post-World War II is deeply tied to Orientalism. The rise of the United States as a global superpower after 1945 coincided with the decolonisation of much of the Middle East. Still, rather than marking an end to Western domination, this period saw the U.S. take on the region’s ” protector ” role. According to Said, the U.S. approached the Middle East much like Britain and France, viewing the region as a place to exert control for strategic purposes, particularly in terms of oil. This is reflected in America’s foreign policies, which have often involved backing autocratic regimes in the name of stability or supporting Israel without fully addressing the complexities of Palestinian sovereignty.

The Middle East Conflict Through the Lens of Orientalism

One of the central components of the Middle East conflict is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, a dispute with roots that extend back to the early 20th century, when Zionist migration into Palestine began. Western support for the creation of Israel in 1948 is often seen through a humanitarian lens, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. However, Said’s Orientalism allows us to view the establishment of Israel—and the subsequent displacement of Palestinian people—through the framework of colonialism. The Western powers, particularly Britain and the United States, treated Palestine as another piece of territory to be “managed” and divided without adequately considering the rights and aspirations of the indigenous population.

Moreover, Said’s work draws attention to how Western media and political discourse have framed the conflict. Palestinians, especially during periods of violent uprising, have often been portrayed as irrational and inherently violent, while Israeli actions are justified as necessary for self-defense. This asymmetrical portrayal mirrors the Orientalist dichotomy of a rational West versus an irrational, violent East.

In the broader context of the Middle East, Orientalism has also influenced how the West views and interacts with other nations in the region. The Gulf Wars, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S.-led intervention in Iraq can all be seen as extensions of the Orientalist mindset that views the Middle East as a place in need of Western intervention, whether for “liberation” or “stabilisation.” The dehumanisation of Middle Eastern peoples through Orientalist tropes has allowed Western nations to engage in military actions that have had devastating consequences for the civilian populations of these countries, often with little domestic scrutiny or opposition.

Orientalism and the War on Terror

The events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent War on Terror offer a stark illustration of the enduring power of Orientalist thought in shaping Western policies and perceptions. In the wake of the attacks, the U.S. government launched a series of military interventions across the Middle East and Central Asia, framing these actions as part of a broader struggle between the civilised, democratic West and the barbaric, extremist forces of the East.

This narrative, deeply rooted in Orientalist tropes, ignored the complex political, economic, and social factors that contributed to the rise of extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, instead reducing the conflict to a simple clash of civilisations. The War on Terror not only perpetuated violence and instability in the Middle East but also reinforced negative stereotypes about Muslims and Middle Easterners in general, contributing to a rise in Islamophobia and xenophobia in the West.

Moreover, the War on Terror has had devastating consequences for civilian populations in the Middle East, with millions of people killed, displaced, or otherwise affected by the violence. Yet, these human costs are often downplayed or ignored in Western media, which tends to focus on the actions of “terrorists” rather than the suffering of ordinary people. This selective coverage is a direct result of the dehumanisation of Middle Eastern people fostered by Orientalist discourse.

Conclusion

Edward Said’s Orientalism provides a critical lens through which to examine the Middle East conflict, revealing how Western perceptions of the region have been shaped by centuries of colonialism and cultural imperialism. By constructing the Middle East as the “other,” Western powers have justified their domination and exploitation of the region, often at the expense of its people.

The Middle East conflict, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian struggle and the broader War on Terror, cannot be fully understood without recognising the influence of Orientalism. As long as Western nations continue to view the region through this distorted lens, the cycle of violence and misunderstanding is likely to persist. For true peace and stability to be achieved in the Middle East, it is essential to move beyond Orientalist stereotypes and engage with the region in a way that respects its history, cultures, and people on its own terms.