BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Kolkata
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0530
TZOFFSETTO:+0530
TZNAME:IST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20250822T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20250808T124300
DTSTAMP:20260508T163600
CREATED:20250901T012234Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250901T014356Z
UID:93563-1755840600-1754656980@idsa.in
SUMMARY:MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar: Messianism – Concept\, Features and Geopolitical Manifestations
DESCRIPTION:The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a Fellows Seminar on 22 August 2025\, where Dr. Adil Rasheed\, Research Fellow\, presented his paper titled “Messianism: Concept\, Features and Geopolitical Manifestations.” The session was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, Director General\, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Talmiz Ahmad\, former Ambassador to Oman\, Saudi Arabia and the UAE\, and presently Distinguished Professor at Symbiosis International University\, Pune\, joined as the External Discussant. The Internal Discussant was Dr. Ashok Behuria\, Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the South Asia Centre\, MP-IDSA. \nExecutive Summary\nThe Seminar explored how the belief in a Messiah or a saviour figure at the end of times continues to shape politics\, societies\, and state behaviour. Dr. Rasheed argued that messianic ideas\, which include apocalyptic and utopian mythologies\, are not limited to religious beliefs but even influence modern nationalist\, ideological\, and secular movements. Drawing on examples from Iran\, Israel\, ISIS\, Pakistan\, US-based dispensationalists\, Russia\, and China\, he stressed that these narratives mobilise followers and leave a global geopolitical impact. The discussion highlighted the dangers of messianic myths when tied to power\, violence\, and geopolitics\, while also emphasising the need for careful analysis to distinguish between genuine theological traditions and opportunistic uses of such rhetoric. \nDetailed Report\nInitial Comments by the Chairperson \nAmbassador Sujan R.Chinoy \nIn his opening remarks\, Ambassador Chinoy explained that messianism is both a spiritual and a political force. While it inspires devotion\, history shows that it has also provoked wars and upheavals. He pointed out that the Abrahamic religions\, Judaism\, Christianity and Islam\, have been most associated with messianic traditions\, but these ideas have also influenced secular ideologies like Fascism\, Marxism\, and Neo-conservatism. He stated that Dr. Rasheed’s paper might help provide a framework to better understand how messianic themes might influence international geopolitics. \nPresentation by Dr. Adil Rasheed\nDr. Rasheed began by defining messianism as the belief in the arrival of a Messiah\, a redeemer who establishes justice and peace at the end of times. Though strongly present in the Abrahamic faiths\, he stressed that similar ideas have emerged across societies\, including secular thought. Movements such as Fascism and Marxism\, he argued\, drew on utopian and redemptive impulses that resemble religious salvation. \nDr. Rasheed explained how contemporary religious and political movements have woven messianic themes into their agendas. Examples include Salafi Jihadism\, Shia Mahdism\, Evangelical Dispensationalism\, Revisionist Zionism\, Neo-Conservatism and even Slavic nationalism. Once politicised\, these narratives do not remain abstract but influence state policy\, militant strategies\, and interstate relations. \nWest Asia\, he noted\, is one of the main theatres where such politics is visible. Iran’s former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad invoked the Hidden Imam during his UN speech in 2005\, and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei declared that Israel would not survive beyond 25 years. Tehran even installed a countdown clock in the capital to reinforce this message. While Iranian leaders claim to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism\, the rhetoric still fuels fears of an eventual religious conflict. \nSunni groups also make use of such themes. ISIS portrayed itself as the beginning of a prophesied caliphate\, citing the Syrian town of Dabiq as the site of an end-time battle. By linking itself with apocalyptic prophecies\, the group tried to legitimise violence and attract recruits. \nDr. Rasheed then discussed how Jews\, despite being the originators of the messianic idea\, often became its greatest victims. He traced centuries of persecution\, from massacres in Alexandria in 38 CE\, to the Crusades\, expulsions from England\, France and Spain\, the Black Death pogroms\, the Spanish Inquisition\, Russian pogroms\, and ultimately the Holocaust. Even in modern Israel\, political leaders still draw on messianic themes. He mentioned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ties with Rabbi Menachem Schneerson\, who was revered as a messianic figure and had once predicted Netanyahu’s rise. Biblical references in Netanyahu’s speeches\, he said\, also illustrate how such narratives enter modern politics. \nDr. Rasheed further highlighted the role of Christian Zionism. In the United States\, many evangelicals believe support for Israel is essential for the fulfilment of prophecy and the Second Coming of Christ. This theological conviction has become politically influential\, shaping US foreign policy. Statements from leaders like US Senator Ted Cruz\, Dr. Rasheed argued\, reveal how messianic worldviews can translate into real political commitments. \nSouth Asia too is not free of these currents. In Pakistan\, both military and political elites have used religious prophecies such as Ghazwa-e-Hind to justify policies and rhetoric. General Asim Munir’s speech in April 2025\, shortly before the Pahalgam attack\, described Pakistan as a divinely ordained state\, which Dr. Rasheed said was evidence of messianic framing within its national identity. \nBeyond the region\, he also drew attention to Russia’s “Third Rome” idea\, neo-Nazi movements in Europe\, and aspects of Chinese strategic thought that sometimes present themselves in civilisational\, quasi-messianic terms. \nDr. Rasheed then explained the theological foundations of messianism in Judaism\, Christianity and Islam. For Jews\, the Messiah is a descendant of King David who will rebuild the Temple and restore Israel. For Christians\, Jesus Christ is already the Messiah\, whose Second Coming will bring the Kingdom of God. For Muslims\, Jesus is also the Messiah\, but his return will be preceded by the Mahdi. He briefly touched upon non-Abrahamic traditions too\, like the Hindu belief in the Kalki Avatar and the Buddhist expectation of Maitreya\, though he noted that these ideas have not yet taken militarised forms. \nHe drew on Anson Rabinbach’s typology of messianism\, restorative\, utopian\, apocalyptic and expectative. He contrasted quietist forms\, which wait for divine will\, with activist forms that seek to hasten the Messiah’s arrival through deliberate action\, even conflict. He concluded by noting that India must take these ideological undercurrents into account when dealing with states where such ideas shape political culture. \nComments by the External Discussant\nAmbassador Talmiz Ahmad \nAmbassador Ahmad began by recalling how his own study of messianism had grown out of research for his book Children of Abraham at War. He explained that he first turned to the subject while trying to understand why Judaism\, Christianity and Islam had been repeatedly caught in violent conflict. Through this\, he found the deep traditions of messianic expectation across all three. \nHe explained how Jewish messianic hopes were shaped by centuries of exile and persecution\, while European anti-Semitism\, from the Crusades to the Black Death\, fuelled repeated invocations of redemption. He then traced how Protestant premillennialism in the 19th Century laid the basis for Christian Zionism. For American evangelicals\, support for Israel became tied to their eschatological vision\, creating political alliances that were convenient for both sides. \nOn Islam\, he argued that messianism was historically less central but grew in importance after the Arab defeat in 1967. In times of despair\, he observed\, societies often turned to prophecy for hope. Still\, he stressed that groups like al-Qaeda were pragmatic and strategic rather than deeply messianic. Shia traditions around the Hidden Imam carried more weight\, but he warned against equating faith with politics. \nHe then offered a frank critique of the paper. He suggested that too many themes need not be grouped under messianism. Nationalism and racism\, he argued\, could not meaningfully be seen as messianic. He also felt that references to non-Abrahamic religions or leaders like Putin stretched the argument.  Instead\, he suggested\, the focus should remain on the Abrahamic core. \nHe further argued that messianism should not be overstated as the main driver of conflict. Geopolitics\, nationalism and identity are stronger forces\, with messianic rhetoric often serving as a tool rather than the cause. He gave examples such as George W. Bush’s religious imagery during the “War on Terror” and the selective use of scripture by Jewish extremists. \nIn conclusion\, he urged Dr. Rasheed to sharpen the framework\, distinguish clearly between theology and politics\, and avoid placing too many movements under one label. \nComments by the Internal Discussant\nDr. Ashok Behuria\nDr. Behuria\, began by emphasising that research in social sciences thrives on diverse perspectives rather than absolute truths. He praised Dr. Rasheed’s effort and argued that messianism should not be restricted to the Abrahamic religions alone. Non-Semitic traditions\, he noted\, also contain messianic themes. He pointed to the Bhagavad Gita\, where Lord Krishna promises to return in different eras to restore balance in favour of ‘Dharma’\, as an example. \nHe welcomed Dr. Rasheed’s reference to thinkers such as Carl Jung and Giorgio Agamben. Jung’s ideas of archetypes and the collective unconscious\, he noted\, offer a useful way to explain how symbols and myths continue to shape culture and politics. On Agamben\, he highlighted the distinction between “messianism” and “messianicity\,” as well as the notion of “inoperativity\,” which describes how existing structures can be suspended to allow new possibilities. \nAt the same time\, he advised that if the paper intends to go beyond Abrahamic cases\, then examples from Hinduism and Buddhism should be developed more fully\, rather than dealing with them briefly. He also noted that certain movements\, such as American Israel Public Affairs Committee (IPAC)\, were cited but not explained in detail. Expanding these\, he suggested\, would give the work a more balanced scope. \nHe concluded by describing the paper as a valuable primer on the subject and encouraged Dr. Rasheed to refine it further. \nQ & A Session\nDr. Rajiv Nayan praised the choice of topic but said the definition of messianism needed greater clarity. Was Dr. Rasheed restricting it to the Abrahamic faiths\, or taking it in a broader sense? He also urged that claims about its influence should be backed by data\, and asked whether messianic politics truly mobilises large groups today\, given declining religiosity in some societies. \nDr. Saurabh Mishra recommended a stronger methodology\, suggesting historical as well as contemporary analysis to show how messianic beliefs affect politics. He said exploring figures like Sri Krishnadevaraya could provide useful insights. \nDr. Arnab Dasgupta asked how a messianic leader or state might be identified in practice\, and how societies could move on after such leaders—a process he termed “demessianisation.” He also raised a question related to Pakistan\, pointing to General Asim Munir’s speeches after the Jaffar Express attack in March 2025\, where he used religious references.  He asked how such rhetoric should be situated within the broader framework of messianism. \nComments by the Chairperson \nThe Chairperson\, Ambassador Chinoy\, offered his reflections\, noting that while the paper should not become overextended\, parallels from history and ideology could be useful. He cited Donald Trump’s survival after an assassination attempt\, which he framed in religious language\, and the Spanish conquest of the Americas\, which carried strong messianic zeal. He contrasted this with the British Empire\, which avoided such religious fervour. He also referred to Marxism and Maoism as movements with utopian\, quasi-messianic claims. \nSharing further thoughts on the subject\, Ambassador Ahmad\, reminded the participants that religion has often been a tool of political mobilisation. He gave examples from the Crusades\, Nazi Germany\, Ahmadinejad’s presidency\, and Israel after 1967. He also drew parallels between Pakistan’s idea of itself as a “second Madina” and the Zionist project. He concluded that while messianic zeal persists\, it does not single-handedly drive global politics. \nDr. Rasheed responded to the questions and thanked the participants. \nReport was prepared by Mr. Harsh Yadav\, Intern\, West Asia Centre\, MP-IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/mp-idsa-fellows-seminar-messianism-concept-features-and-geopolitical-manifestations
CATEGORIES:EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20250825T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20250825T053000
DTSTAMP:20260508T163600
CREATED:20250917T225546Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250917T225606Z
UID:93726-1756099800-1756099800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Report of the Monday Morning Meeting On “Locating Jordan in the Israel-Palestine Conflict”
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Hirak Jyoti Das\, Research Analyst\, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (MP-IDSA)\, delivered a presentation on “Locating Jordan in the Israel-Palestine Conflict” during the Monday Morning Meeting held on 25 August 2025. Dr. Deepika Saraswat\, Associate Fellow at MP-IDSA\, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, Director-General of MP-IDSA\, attended the meeting\, along with scholars from the Institute. \nExecutive Summary\nThe presentation offered a detailed analysis of the role of Jordan in the Israel-Palestine dynamics and how it has navigated through the conflict. The discussion also covered the trends in Jordan’s Palestinian Policy\, ties with Israel\, position towards Hamas\, and its role in the Israel-Hamas War. The presentation also thoroughly covered Jordan’s concerns and its security cooperation with Israel. \nDetailed Report\nInitial Comments by the Moderator\nIn her opening remarks\, Dr. Deepika Saraswat noted that Jordan\, though often understudied\, has significant influence in West Asia. As one of the few monarchies outside the Gulf\, its strategic location gives it weight in regional affairs despite limited resources. She highlighted Jordan’s complex history with the Arab–Israeli conflict\, including its occupation of the West Bank from 1948 to 1967 and renunciation of claims in 1988\, while its custodianship of Islamic holy sites like the Al-Aqsa Mosque keeps it central to regional developments. Dr. Saraswat also noted Jordan’s security cooperation with Israel through the Peace Treaty\, while pointing out the challenge posed by the Israeli proposal\, supported by President Trump\, to displace Palestinians into Jordan. \nPresentation by Dr. Hirak Jyoti Das\nDr. Hirak Jyoti Das began his presentation by situating Jordan as a middle power with limited resources\, which has lacked a strong economic base\, with Jordan heavily relying on external support initially from Britain\, then from the United States (US). Despite being surrounded by powerful neighbours\, it has managed to protect its interests and ambitions beyond its capacity due to its pivotal role in Israel-Palestine dynamics and as a critical US ally. Jordan has maintained extensive ties and secret talks with Israel\, and it was the second Arab State after Egypt to sign a Peace Treaty with Israel in 1994. \nDr. Das explained that Jordan’s Palestinian policy has undergone key trends. After the 1948 Arab-Israel War\, Jordan integrated the West Bank\, including East Jerusalem\, granting citizenship to Palestinians to consolidate control. The loss of these territories in 1967 shifted policy toward preserving influence through custodianship of the Al-Aqsa Mosque\, constitutional claims\, and pro-Hashemite ties in the West Bank. The Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO)’s predominance in Palestinian affairs and anti-Jordanian sentiments during the 1987 Intifada led to disengagement from the West Bank in 1988. Jordan has preserved its influence in Israel-Palestine dynamics by focusing on safeguarding holy sites\, supporting the Palestinian Authority (PA)\, and advocating for a two-state solution. \nThe Speaker noted that Jordan’s ties with Israel have a long and complex history. King Abdullah I and the Hashemites maintained secret contacts with the Zionist movement\, sharing concerns over regional isolation and political vulnerability. After the 1948 war\, Jordan viewed Israel as a balance against Nasser’s Egypt and the spread of Pan-Arabism and Marxism\, which it saw as domestic threats\, while Israel trusted King Hussein as a partner and a useful buffer. Jordan and Israel signed a Peace Treaty in 1994\, leading to cooperation in security\, trade\, energy\, and water\, with trade rising from US$18 million to over US$300 million by 2024 and a 15-year energy deal signed in 2016. Nevertheless\, challenges persist over Israel’s attempts to weaken Jordan’s authority at Al-Aqsa Mosque and continuing diplomatic tussles. \nDr. Das opined that Jordan initially saw Hamas as a tool to counterbalance Fatah\, but the relationship soon worsened due to Hamas’ opposition to the Oslo Accords and Jordan’s Peace Treaty with Israel and use of violence to disrupt the peace process. After Hamas took Gaza in 2007\, Jordan’s engagement with the group remained limited. \nJordan’s role in the Israel-Hamas war\, reflects its delicate balancing act in the region. The country has consistently condemned violence and called for restraint. Dr. Das also mentioned the incident when Abdullah II\, King of Jordan\, was a vocal critic of Israel’s conduct and\, at the same time\, condemned the 7 October 2023 attack and kidnapping of Israelis. Jordan has undertaken diplomatic measures and humanitarian initiatives\, providing shelter\, medical aid\, and essential supplies to those affected\, often coordinating with international organisations. \nJordan’s key concern is the displacement of Palestinians\, backed by US President Donald Trump’s offer to rebuild Gaza. The conflict has led to an increase in radicalisation within Jordanian society\, boosting support for Hamas and armed resistance and political consolidation by the Islamic Action Front (IAF). \nDr. Das further noted that Jordan’s security cooperation with Israel is driven by its priority of state stability and the survival of the monarchy. Therefore\, Israel’s efforts to degrade Hamas’ military capabilities align with Jordan’s strategic interests. Jordan’s security\, trade\, and energy cooperation with Israel has remained intact during the ongoing war. Jordan values its peace treaty with Israel and has resisted calls to cancel it\, as this could weaken its stake in the Al-Aqsa Mosque\, reduce leverage in the West Bank\, limit its role in preventing displacement\, and threaten US$1.5 billion in US aid. \nQ/A Session\nAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, Director General of MP-IDSA\, shared that Jordan’s influence declined after the 1920s when the Al Saud family took control of the Hijaz\, ending Hashemite authority over Mecca and Medina\, and was further limited by the Sykes-Picot Agreement\, though King Hussein Ben Ali’s sons briefly held wider regional influence. Today\, Jordan functions mainly as a buffer state\, balancing ties with the U.S.\, Britain\, Israel\, and the Palestinians\, while its large Palestinian-origin population and memories of Black September continue to shape internal policies. He highlighted Jordan’s role in regional security\, such as assisting in intercepting Iranian missiles aimed at Israel\, and stated that Jordan cannot act independently. It could serve in a supportive capacity to stabilise the region rather than leading solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. \nMs. Saman Ayesha Kidwai\, Research Analyst\, MP-IDSA\, asked whether Jordan’s dual approach of supporting Palestinian rights while cooperating with Israel is becoming unsustainable amid rising domestic anger. She also asked if Hamas is genuinely committed to a two-state solution or focused on integrating Palestinians elsewhere. \nDr. Das made a note of the comments and replied to the questions. \nReport was prepared by Mr. Harsh Yadav\, Intern\, West Asia Centre.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/report-of-the-monday-morning-meeting-on-locating-jordan-in-the-israel-palestine-conflict
CATEGORIES:EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR