The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan

Re Upman #357

As we are both readers of ``The Hindu``, a excellent discussion of caste and racism in the opinion colum dated March 10, 2001 and April 10, 2001. This caveat - We all have baggage, it doesn`t make us better or worse persons. Just persons with baggage.

I want to reproduce some portions below and encourage you to read the articles in their entirety (I need a spell check so bad).

from U.N., racism and caste II by Gail Omvedt date 04/10/01

``Neither caste as a social system nor ``racism`` are based on actual biological differences among human being. Both, though are systems of discrimination that attribute ``natural`` or essential qualities to people born in specific social groups. In other words, while caste has nothing to do with ``race``, the justifications of caste discrimination have a lot to do with the social phenomenon of ``racism``.

``...linguistic similarities among many of the languages of India and European languages were linked to groups such as Aryans, identified as racial types, and using the notion of an ``Aryan conquest``, the argument was made that the three Varnas were descended from indo-European ``Aryans`` and the Shudras, Adivasis and dalits from non-Aryan indeigenous people...however, what has to be answered is why this ``Aryan theory`` proved so attractive to Indians themselves. Why interpreting caste in terms of race has been so pervasive. The reason is preciely because of its resonance with indigenous themes of caste. For caste, like race, is based on the notion that socially defined groups of people have inherent, natural qualites or ``essences`` that assign them to social positions, make fit for specific duities and occupations; it is their swadharma to carry out these duties.``

``This denial of innate, inborn differencees between jatis contrasted with arguments in the Manusmriti that, for example, Shudras were by essence, by nature, designed to serve, that they were created as servants. Thus, because such notions of ``natural`` differences lay behind the justification of the varnas, it is perhaps not so surprising that when the British put forward their racial theory of caste, it was accepted by so many Indians also. The original theological justification - varnas created out of the Purusha - could be replaced by a pseudo-scientific justification. Thus caste is not based on race, but the theories justifying caste, or caste as an ideological construct, were similar enough to racism to allow a racial interpretation of caste.``

``In a global age, fighting racism, caste discrimination and similar phenomenon mean global alliances and international as well as national policies. there is no reason for a government representing the Indian people to fight this; if the government does so, that means it is representing very different interest``.

krashid #358

...when i said that castes are an a priori fact, i was responding to hobbyty`s statement- ``A bunch of things in India are against the law, caste is outlawed, isn`t it? ``( i guess he meant discrimination based on one`s caste)- and not conferring genetic legitimacy to it....what you say is like saying that the linguistic difference between a punjabi and bengali is not valid just because it does not have a genetic basis...

...i`d have to qualify that as differences in caste may after all have some genetic basis...it is however true that notions of superiority and inferiority are man made concepts....you might be interested to know that the origin of the caste system was purely utilitarian- without discriminatory notions- and that it degenerated down the centuries...I`m aware that Islam as a religion does not have caste system and stresses universal brotherhood- an almost revolutionary concept to originate a thousand years ago in arabia....but i`m not sure about how well its been practised, especially in an unchanged feudal setup as that exists in pakistan...

Re Eklavya #352

Sadna

Is an English - Head of church and state type thing workable for us?

I don`t know, I`m inclined to think that it is not. After, what are known as four righteously guided caliphs, a monolithic moral compass has been missing within Islamia. A Caliphate movement has earned resonance in Pakistan and Afghanistan. I think we need to perhaps formally establish the four schools of Islamic law, with a view to producing multidisciplinary scholarship and intense civil debates, to arrive at solutions to present day problems. More scholarship, increased levels of education across the board, equality of opportunity, opportunity to construct a dignified life, limiting the influence of materialism, individual civil and intellectual liberties, and a limited role of government in the economy are for me, priorities, we should pursue.

I also feel we need to define our terms - ``Liberal``, ``Secular``, ``Liberalism`` and ``secularism`` - to get us on the same page.

I will offer the following definitions, please feel free to correct or add to or refine these:

Liberalism - a political movement within modern protestantism, deriving guidance from the spirtual and ethical content of christianity. the belief in the essential goodnes of human beings, the economic autonomy of the individual. A belief in competion within a free market economy.

(if you have not read it, Max Weber`s The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, is fun reading and could be constrcutive to our conversation) How do we as Muslims and Hindus fit in to this? If secular is to be taken to mean worldly, or not orthodox, how does it relate to the concept of Ijtehad?

Secularism - indifference or rejection or exclusion of religion or religious consideration. Do you feel this is a correct or complete definition? It`s not that should religion play an important role in our lives, the fact is that it does.

Would you agree that while previously secularism was not overtly hostile to religion, that it seems to have been hijacked by what to me seem, radicals, who express open hostility to the idea that religions have a role to play in the affairs of organized society? Witness the case of Algeria, in a meliu of economic stagnation and the resultant decline in the morale of the peoples, a Islamist party wins elections. Then the party is not allowed to take power, as liberals (really conservatives, in the English as opposed to the American sense) backed by France, claim that once in power the Islamist will ban the ballot. Damned if you do and damned if you don`t. Similarly the case in Turkiyeh (this time backed by the US) with premier Erbkan and Islamic welfare Party. While in europe Christian Democrat parties are not only not outlawed but govern or are coalition partners. Witness the US, where is this issue has been termed the culture wars.

Would it not be more useful to try and understand why it is that Islamist have appeal?

If I may digress and crow; In my posts, I have suggested that time has come for a negotiated resolution. The invite to Mr. General Musharraf is just the beginning and a fragile one. I called for the creation of an intellectual and emotional space where in Indians and Pakistanis and kashmiri may deposit hope and begin to change the tenor and content of their conversation. All of us have a responsiblity in this and owe it to ourselves to allow and encourage this to begin to work. Sermon over - feel free to kick my behind.

upman #357

The caste and race are not same thing as you are trying to portray.

Caste is based on superiority of birth and has no genetic or scientific basis.

While race is based on birth and has genetic and scientific bases.

In Islam there is no superiority of any person based on race.

There is no caste in Islam.

Re Hobbyty # 352

``you suggest that anti defamation, respect for religious sensibilites are hall marks of Indian newspapers. you suggest that legal action may be iniated against them. A bunch of things in India are against the law, caste is outlawed, isn`t it? But it`s still a potent and widspread phenonom, is it not? Are you suggesting that ethnic, religious and lingusitic, cultural antagonism are non existant in india? We Pakistanis are dumb, but yet you guys persist in challenging our limited reason``

... castes are something that exist, an a priori fact, just like different races.....if you mean discrimination on the basis of castes- that is illegal in India, and though it may still happen in rural outposts, its increasingly disappearing in urban India. and yes, there have been several convictions since independence for such discrimination....however, the caste identity still remains- at times strong, as manifested in the recent militant politics of the backward castes....unlike many others, i do not view this development as negative and it just shows the vibrancy of democracy in india....see, there are some benefits of being a democracy after all....its a much better scenario than in pakistan where the deeply entrenched feudal setup makes it impossible for the underprivileged sections to make a difference- inspite of a religion which has justice as its motto....

``you say, `` If your starting point is Islam, then India is Anti Islam`` because it is secular. If my starting point was Hinduism, would it hold that India is anti hindu? ``

...you`ve hit the nail on the head....just like a narrow interpretation of Islam (a letter-but-not-the-spirit kind) would make secularism inconsistent with religion, the same applies to hinduism- and if you have read the various newspapers that you mention- the various half-nuts and their ideologues say that state policy in India, esp. secularism, has been anti-Hindu ( though i must add that in Hinduism it would be difficult to locate even the letter)...

...anyway, i think you got the import of my post and are quibbling abt details....i.e. its amazing that state policy in India has been able to be so fair under very difficult circumstances....

Re: Hobbyt #348

``however, how do events and conclusions reached about the American civil war, relate to Kashmir. Is India the same as the USA? Are Kashmiri slaves? and Does pakistan get to play the Saaoouth?``

India is placed similarly as the Union was in 1860 -- a secessionist war was thrust upon it. Kashmiris are not slaves -- Pakistan`s support of insurgency makes the jehadis equivalent of the secessionist Southerners. Pakistan is trying every tactic to insert itself into the secessionist movement, and is thus placed similarly vis a vis India, as the South was vis a vis the Union. No predictions can be made about the future, but Pakistan is playing a dangerous game, much like the South was in 1860-1865.

Re: Hobbyt #348

Was the reason that I advanced for Chinese disapproval of Kosovo not the same as yours #2 and #3? You appear to have misunderstood my post. And is reason #1 `non-interference in internal affairs` not applicable to India-Pakistan as well?

hobbyt #350
You brought up suicide and its sanction in Islam, not myself. I was only responding to a point you raised. I still believe death is bad irrespective of the religion of the one who is dead. If I had been a Muslim, you would have replied my point on its merit, not called me anti-Muslim as you have done. THATS what I meant.

I may not be able to convince someone not to commit suicide by religious sanction, but I would expect him(and you) to understand that his frame of reference is binding on him and not on me. Then how can my point of view against suicide be considered anti-Islam?

Are you saying only those nonMuslims who accept the Islamic frame of reference as binding on them, too can escape being labelled anti-Islam by you? Thats why I asked about jizya and equality for all under law and you didnot reply.

``Indian society is divided by caste and divison of labor``
First I am hearing that the Indian Constitution is imposing caste divisions on us. The historically disadvantaged castes and tribes ARE listed, but only for affirmative action. In fact the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a case brought by an individual recently denied the validity of caste identity in the sight of law.

Chowk walle

Just read news of decison to invite Mr. General Musharraf to Dehli for talks to seek a resolution to Kashmir conflict. Good news for all.

Now to the task of building that ``intellectual and emotional space``.

Re Upman7626 #344

Upman, let me begin by saying that I`m delighted by the responses to the post.

You suggest that my reading skills may require sharpening. Perhaps.

you suggest that anti defamation, respect for religious sensibilites are hall marks of Indian newspapers. you suggest that legal action may be iniated against them. A bunch of things in India are against the law, caste is outlawed, isn`t it? But it`s still a potent and widspread phenonom, is it not? Are you suggesting that ethnic, religious and lingusitic, cultural antagonism are non existant in india? We Pakistanis are dumb, but yet you guys persist in challenging our limited reason.

Religion Vs scular liberalism:

you say, `` If your starting point is Islam, then India is Anti Islam`` because it is secular.

If my starting point was Hinduism, would it hold that India is anti hindu?

An example of the kind of sentiment, I am refering to is the fact that as head of state and head of the church of England, you seem to have no problems with the english state- but the hairs on your back begin to curl, once Islam is in the picture. Friends, reflect!

You say of Islam ``appriciate it`s iconoclastic origin in a tribal wasteland, it`s initial reformist and egalitarian zeal (this too because I grew up in India-sounds surprising?-In America I would have been indifferent``.

Why have you given up on reform and egalitarianism? So many have not. And why just the initial reformist and egalitarian zeal? many in America are not indifferent. Thanks for the input. cheers.

hobbyty # 340

Thank you for a calm reply to a posting that assuredly was not the best mannered.

First, let me assure you that I don`t have `grudging respect` for Islam, I have enormous respect for it. Since I am not a Muslim, I can not prove my assertion with impressive religious refernces. You will have to take my word for it.

Hobbyty, as a `liberal secularist` I do not deny the legitimacy of the Islamic frame of reference. Neither do I question the legitimacy of any other frame of refereces - hindu, christian, sikh, buddhist. But I do flatly, completely, and unambiguously refuse to privilege any one frame of reference over another.

With that said, there may be much in common between what you seek and what I seek. I have come to believe that Nehru style secularism that sought to delegitimate all religions is very difficult to implement and sustain over a long period of time. What we ideally need is a system that does not deny to ``religions a role in the affairs of organized society`` but does so in a non-discriminatory manner to as large an extent as possible. We need a human system in which men and women, Shiyas and Sunnis, Hindus and Muslims, Ahamadis and Sikhs, blacks and browns can all be a more of less equal part.

You note that the Queen of England is Head of state and Head of the church - defender of the faithful. Is British system the way for us all to go? What do you think?

Re Sadna

``It`s very sad that you choose an example of violence and death``

Nothing better illustrates my point that among Indians, a general anti Muslim sentiment has taken hold.

Violence and death are what Indian soldiers and Kashmiri freedom fighters are facing everyday. The question i raised impacts their lives and those of their kin, directly. It`s sad that instead of realizing that you have choosen to respond as a pampheteer, by relating violence and death to Islam. But that`s your choice and you have a right to make it.

If someone says they are taking a action such as a suicide squad in Kashmir and provide you with what they claim is Islamic sanction (devil made me do it) - can you convince them not to do it from a non Islamic point of view? Their frame of reference is what they claim to be Islamic, whereas your would be, presumably, secular liberal. A conversation betweem the deaf and the dumb.

``Islamic point of view`` is unfortunately not a monolith. Schools of Law, Quran, hadfith and for me, most importantly ijtehad, among others, are oceans of conflicting scholarship. Arriving at, winning general acceptance of a concensus on any given issue of law, morality and ethics is a time consuming, intricate exercise, which will eventually have an impact on the thinking and behaviour of Muslims.

``...acessablity to fair and just laws``. Yet again you betray the anti Islamic bias. You assume Laws inspired by the ethics and morality of Islam are inherently unfair and unjust.

You then lecture us children of a lesser God, that ``...imposed divisions are considered unacceptable, inhuman and against all reasons. presumably, that is why Indian society is divided by caste and divison of labor, secular is it?, well, liberal then?

Re: Layman

``shankar #308:

A neat diversion - you didn`t really respond to RSaxena. Well, you are beginning to unravel, aren`t you?``

Headshrinker unravelled a long time ago. He`s plain pathetic...

Re Shammi 341

Re India - China relations and why can`t Pakistan - India relations follow a similar trajectory

First of all I wish they could and would. Relations between China and India are devoid of the baggage of independence and the bitterness both Pakistan and India feel towards each other.

Secondly China does not have a political constituency that supports the freedom struggle as the political constituency in Pakistan does. All pakistani governments have been/are conscious of this pressure.

China hold Indian territory and also Indians are aware that they are not ready to take on China, but feel they can militarily take on Pakistan, especially, as Pakistan is under heavy financial constraints and the fact that a civilian regime does not exist in Pakistan.

In my opinion these are the primary reasons Pakistan india relations have not tracked the same trajectory as those between China and India.

Your knowledge of the intracacies of the American civil war are impressive; however, how do events and conclusions reached about the American civil war, relate to Kashmir. Is India the same as the USA? Are Kashmiri slaves? and Does pakistan get to play the Saaoouth?

Regarding China`s disapproval of Nato action in Kosovo. Your conclusion is flawed. China has three reasons, it choose to oppose Nato action:

1. chinese adherence to the principal of non-interference in internal affairs. A principaled stance on this is ofcourse in their advantage, what with Tibet, Xingshiang and Taiwan.

2. That the action sets a, to them, dangerous precedent.

3. Their internal security situation could suffer, ala Tianamen square. Would dissident elements thinking they can depend on western support, miscalculate, iniate a provocative action, the state would respond harshly and

considerable dammage be done to the image and standing of the state.

Similarly your conclusion about the ``long leash`` are flawed. You have misunderstood the events of October 12. Not a coup or counter coup, but in a reality a revolution. Mr. General Musharraf and his team are attempting the reorganization and reorientation of the Pakistani state. Structural changes have and will continue to be brought about as lond as, Inshallah, he is at the helm. You will note world bank and IMF are being very cooperative. For the first time in it`s relations with these institutions, The government of Pakistan is behaving in a responsible manner. However; the fact remains that it is a military government and this, there is no doubt, cause distress among world leaders, as most of them are elected politicians.

This, the military leadership, is the prime reason, the Indians are not being publicly chastised for their behaviour in Kashmir, even though, the issue has been brought up with them in private. Should the devolution of power scheme be implemented completely, Pakistanis, for the first time in history will have local elected officials. Transformation towards a civilian government is already taking place. Time will tell, reasonable persons, understand that things do not stay static (unless ofcourse you are a Pakistani feudal or bureaucrat - the real enemies of Pakistan). I remind you that outgoing American ambassador in India, Mr. celeste has publicly stated that there exist in Mr. General Musharraf and mr. Vajpayee, men who are uniquely placed, and disposed, to seek a solution to this fifty year conflict.

As for certain sections with Indian society seeking the destruction of Pakistan? so what`s new? Mr. general Musharraf`s response to such thinking is to remind these people that the armed forces of Pakistan not sitting, wearing bangles on their hands. Pakistanis don`t want war imposed on them and neither will Indians seek to. But they will posture.

Re Shammi #342

The rand corp document you are refering to is not the word of God. It`s one more opinion designed to urge Pakistan to respect American interests and to pressure it in the new American Jihad. By the way did you note that the Guardian paper of England refers to India as America`s new Pakistan. Will Indians opt for such a role. I don`t think so, it will be far more nuanced. perhaps the Tibetans can share the load.

The principal author, Mr. Khalizad, now with the Bush administration, is a known commodity to Pakistanis. From before his Afghan adventure days. ``The sky is falling, the sky is falling`` OK.

rgds

Re Shankar - various posts:

..didnt appreciate your description of Malayalam...am a mallu :)

...i appreciate your stance against fundamentalism in India- but you just cannot equate it with fundamentalism as a state policy, as in Pakistan...

... i think you go a bit overboard when agreeing with our friends across the border reg. Indian army ``atrocities``.......the army has its problems- and there might even be few instances of indiscipline- but its not an organized and calculated policy, as many such posts attempt to portray....Indians are lazy, corrupt and many other things- but being atrocious is not an instinct- and you know that.....propoganda has very good effects -see the Pakis sermonising us about how we are hapless victims of propoganda and everything happening in Kashmir is popular revolt with the terrorist/pak-supported violence just a marginal addendum..

....and dont you see the unfairness of whatever is the popular element in the Kashmiri conflict- unlike the British in India or Tamils in Sri lanka, Kashmiris have been pampered throughout the 50 years (remb, I`m just as anti-RSS as you are, so this is not just an RSS line)....and its not true that only the politicians got the benefits- Ive met and talked to enough Kashmiris in professional schools across India to know that.....

...someone had mentioned Pankaj Mishra`s article in The Hindu (also published in NYT)- it just disputes the official version of events, does not claim to know the culprits...i`ve also read a clarifying, rejoinder column he wrote in Outlook.......anyway Pankaj mishra, arundhati Roy etc represent a kind of anti-establishment writers rare in the thirld world (i would compare Mishra`s article with the gravity of its allegations to the Pentagon Papers, though much less conclusive)

and shankar,there`s another less noble reason why FMGs in the US take up Psychiatry- its the easiest to get...but i agree, its a fascinating subject...

btw, keep up the good fight against fundamentalism...the RSS and cohorts in India ...and also therefore, necessarily, the state and concept of Pakistan...

Ref hobbyty

Your posts have depressed me much more than any rantings and ravings from Urstruly, AA or Jay. If this is what educated elite thinks in the land of the pure what hope can there be?