The Place of Debate

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nation, Under Vishnu

In the most religiously diverse country in the world, why should God get the only plug?

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Friday, June 28, 2002



To hell with the separation of church and state. Forget the Pledge of Allegiance and ``under God`` and all this bipartisan puling about prayer in schools. Maybe we`ve had it wrong all along.

Let`s try this instead: Maybe there should be no such separation at the school level. Maybe God and Vishnu and Kali and Astarte and Dionysus and Allah and Zarathushtra and Lao-Tzu have not only a vital place in the educational system, but also a fervent need to be heard and felt and imbibed, just like cafeteria Coke and meatloaf and badly written textbooks and nonexistent sex-ed and the capitals of all 50 states.

Maybe barring religious practice from our national places of learning is just about as ignorant and small-minded and spiritually degenerative as, say, bombing another country over oil or land or power or ego. Let`s just say.

Ah, but maybe you agree with Dubya that America is Christian country and its ``rights were derived from God.`` Maybe you think the current, adorably hypocritical separation of church and state, with its sanctimonious mentions of a patriarchal Christian God everywhere, is the righteous path, the common wisdom, the properly loving sentiment expressed by many a fervent patriot as we drop our bombs and thump our Bibles and let God sort `em out.

You would be wrong.

Because America is also the most religiously diverse country in the world. America is teeming with saris and yarmulkes and monk`s robes and funky prayer beads and glorious ornate temples of every shape and size. There are more Muslims in the U.S. now, for example, than there are Jews or Episcopalians. America, spiritually speaking, is not what most people think it is.

A quick look inside any apartment building in any major city outside of, say, Vermont or maybe Montana reveals a veritable kaleidoscope of faith and divinity: Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Jew, Atheist, Wiccan, Pagan, Sikh, Atheist and Buddhist, living side by side and borrowing cups of sugar or sticks of Nag Champa from each other, stealing each other`s newspaper and bootlegging each other`s cable TV. It`s a beautiful thing, really.

But nowhere is religious funk and spiritual diversity more prevalent and visible than in the classroom, which since the mid-`60s has seen an explosion of immigrant cultures and beliefs, a dazzling and unprecedented intermixing of faiths and backgrounds and languages and deities and kids with names that give your tongue a workout.

And hence it would seem to require negligible rationale or subtlety of mind to see that ``under God`` is really rather inane and exclusionary and insulting to a vast and increasing chunk of the soon-to-be-voting populace.

Alas, Conservatives still believe little Johnny should be kneeling in school and praising Jesus (and no one else) for the glory that is his math quiz every day, whereas Liberals believe he should keep that sort of thing in the church or risk warping his little mind.

Meanwhile little Daniel and Sunjat and Tenzin and Amir and Uma Das Gupta and Moonstarr and Ling Tso sit idly by, rolling their eyes and sighing sadly and wondering why there`s so much intolerance and misunderstanding in the Land of the Free.

So maybe there should be prayer in schools. A lot of prayer. Say a half hour a day, every religion allowed its rituals and practices, quirks and screams and chants and head-bobbings and blood sacrifices to the great Lord Zorkon.

Immediately followed by a class on religious appreciation and diversity, with each kid talking about his/her beliefs and traditions and occasionally uptight dogmas and beautiful similarities and why the hell they have to wear that funny thing on their head and can`t eat bananas on Tuesdays.

Maybe every major religion gets one week during the school year where the kid and the kid`s family and their rabbi or priest or guru or teacher come in and share stories and teach everyone their traditions, and everyone eats that culture`s food and recites that faith`s prayers and everyone learns to tie a turban and decorate a robe and dances and laughs and learns.

It`s what famed author and Harvard professor Diana Eck, in her book ``New Religious America: How a `Christian Country` Has Become the World`s Most Religiously Diverse Nation,`` termed ``religious pluralism`` -- more than mere tolerance and acceptance of other`s religious beliefs, an active and dynamic engagement in the public sphere, classrooms and workplaces and fetish dungeons, an ongoing dialogue, a spiritual exchange.

It`s messy and complicated and imperfect; we are trained to be suspicious, we resist change, we fear the unknown and erect walls and barriers of all kinds to keep foreigners and strange people out. Anxiety is our cultural modus operandi, and many spiritually uptight believers -- Christians in particular -- are loath to allow their kids to be ``tainted`` by exposure to other beliefs.

But this is the only way it will ever work. People of all religions must intermix and communicate and share ideas and find common ground, and there is no one better to take us there than children, as yet untainted by their parent`s prejudices, their government`s ideologies.

Lack of such integration and communication means cultural stasis, social breakdown, prejudice, ignorance, hatred, violence, zealotry, terrorism, war, increased and inexplicable proliferation of the Bush clan. Not necessarily in that order.

It means situations like the Middle East, full of checkpoints and barriers and razor wire and children being trained in hate, without ever learning the viewpoint of the other side.

It means we continue like we are right now, segregating ourselves and living in relative ignorance of who lives down the hall, looking over our shoulder suspiciously at the guy in the silk gown or the woman in the head wrap, wondering what crazy thing they`re always chanting about.

So yes. Dump the inane ``under God`` provision of the Pledge. And maybe replace it with ``One nation, under whatever noble and/or beautiful belief system you want, or maybe nothing at all, or maybe a little of this and that, just don`t be a freak about it, because this is America and we`re nothing if not about religious freedom, even though that may be difficult to believe right now, but just bear with us, indivisible....``

Sure it`s a little verbose. But it sure beats the religious status quo.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2002/06/28/notes062802.DTL

Zafar

Boy, when you give tasks, it`s not just one or two items, you want the dissertation.

Open up any newspaper, review the stories, articles - you will note the primarly player is member of the elite - I don`t mean the so called ``human interest`` story/article, but the news/business articles.

As we were talking about Indus civilization a while ago, lets use it as an illustration of our point about elite interaction being the engine of societal progress - An Indian Phd candidate, from a university in Mumbai/Bombay - my apology but I cannot recall her name - anyway, in pointing out elements of state development in Indus civilization, she points to long distance trade in Lapis Lazuli as providing the impetus for development from tribe to state.

If you enjoy studying MesoAmerican civilizations, as I do, you will no doubt be familiar with the famous Teotehuacan Ambassadors portrayed in Maya works - the relevance here is that it`s again evidence of elite interaction - that is large scale effects on societies of elite interaction.

If we were to make elastic our definition of elite, we can make statements to the effect that artisans and craftsmen who produced the articles which were traded, also enabled long distance trade by their production, we could make statements to the effect that the ordinary Mayan father`s efforts to satisfy the imperative to seek husbands for his daughters similarly created conditions conducive for long distance trade to exist - yes, we would have to make our definition a lot more elastic - however; we were inclined not to stretch our definitions, that is to say if were we inclined not to change facts to fit theory - we will have conclude that elite (a small, privilaged element of society) generally has produced societal results far greater than their size in society would suggest they be able to produce (I know that last sentenced was labored)

Reply Hobbyty # 457

“Elite interaction is the engine of civilizational, societal, cultural interaction. It is the elite who commission the production of intellectual, aesthetic and economic activity. It is they who control the means, ``modes of production`` - An epoch that will see the diminishment of the elite is not one usually associated with civilization, which of course does not preclude this as a possibility.”

Hmmm….I am open to persuasion. Please give itemised (a) logic of position and (b) examples. How would we define civilisation? How would we deine, and then measure the strength (or level of control) of, an elite? What about non-elite interactions? Would one dominate inter-group and the other intra-group? Which is more important to civilisation (vis a vis def you will have given me…)?

Zafar

The interests of Pak army are not served by the present confrontation - quite the opposite, as a matter of fact. The salaries you mention would have to go on regardless of confrontation. No army`s interests are served if it is put in a confrontational posture that it is not prepared to dominate.

Elite interaction is the engine of civilizational, societal, cultural interaction. It is the elite who commission the production of intellectual, aesthetic and economic activity. It is they who control the means, ``modes of production`` - An epoch that will see the diminishment of the elite is not one usually associated with civilization, which of course does not preclude this as a possibility.

Reply Hobbyty # 454

“On Elite interaction - I think you are taking a ideological position. What evidence do you think I need to consider, that I have not.”

Mera logic yeh:

The Armed Forces may benefit from an ongoing posture of confrontation with India wrt how much money is spent on the military, military salaries, etc.

Poor Pakistanis suffer because of dollars spent on guns instead of development.

This is a divergence of the interests of the Faujis and of poor Pakistanis.

If the poor perceive confrontation with India as more important to them than development of Pakistan, this is a victory that the elite has won, in that it reinforces support across society an approach which benefits the elite.

re:Reply #: 435

shankar,

Agree with everything you said in this post except the last sentence. India is not as much fukced up as Pak. If it were, not many of us (including me)would be willing to return to India someday. There is hope still in India. There is little hope for Pak.

I do not have to post comparisons. It has been done adnauseum in chowk in the past.

Sridhar

``YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT TOO.``

Ok, Ok, I take your point, perhaps it`s not easier done than said.

On Elite interaction - I think you are taking a ideological position. What evidence do you think I need to consider, that I have not.

Reply Hobbyty # 449

“Interests converged? When? How? What are those interests?”

Money not spent on jihadis/counter-insurgency can be used for development. India and Pakistan are both full of poor people who would benefit from development. You work it out.

“As a student of Cultural Anthropology, my understanding is that it is elite interaction that shapes interests.”

Rubbish. Elites do their best to define their OWN interests as the interests of the country in popular culture. The two are NOT, however, the same. I stand by my assertion that the interests of ordinary Indians and Pakistanis ARE the same.

“…I agree with you about the Indian attitude towards Pakistan, but it seems to me, it does not bring India any benefit – unless that benefit is described as the inability to accept reality. Psychology and emotion are not substitute for realism and the solving of problems.”

Dude, did you read my post? As I said BEFORE YOU RESPONDED:

We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)

How can I be plainer?

“Agreed Pakistan exists and that`s that. Pakistanis are uncomfortable with the partial or self serving ``Truths`` Indians use to define their nationhood.”

You really didn’t read my post, did you? Let me spell it out: YOU NEED TO GET OVER IT TOO. We exists…now deal with it, not with a fantasy of what you think our reality should be.

“Consider, how many Indians, in private or public, accept responsibility for the demand for and creation of Pakistan?”

How am I responsible for the creation of your country?

But in any case, whatever, ok…SO WHAT? Are you going to hang around waiting for a collective apology before you move you country in a positive direction? Face it…we are never going to apologise, or even agree with you, about the why of Pakistan. (You’ll never admit the TNT was totally bogus either.) Why do you want Pakistan to remain poor and underdeveloped because of that? Where is the logic? (This, btw, is where the divergence between ordinary people and the elite who thrive because of the current set up begins.)

“Kashmir accommodation – Is it your opinion that a recognition that accommodation must be reached exist? If such a will does exist, what is the intellectual foundation of such recognition…”

Self Interest. The foundation of many of the policies our elites have supported in the past.

“…and how can it be turned into a public awareness?”

Don’t know. Probably by being repackaged as something else….for India some “SAARC related free trade funda, and look how nicely George W speaks with Vajuji these days…” scam, for Pakistan a “we had to do it, it was the Americans, look we got heaps of aid in return…” snow job. BOTH currently underway.

“…that the continued state of hostility has much to do with our national inability to better the material lives of our citizenry.”

My first point, about Indian and Pakistani interests being essentially the same, stated by yourself, at the end of your post which starts off questioning this point. Bhai Sahib, using big words does not camouflage confused thinking.

Zafar

Prem

I take your point about starting from we both exist and that the concentration should be on the future. Is it your reading of opinion in India that a recognition exist to begin to talk of doing a deal? What will it take for sucha view to gain momentum?

re: Hobbyty # 449

There is a reason we ought to focus ahead and not keep looking back. It is a simple matter of valence.

Barring some exceptional individuals (I have met some of this rare breed), people simply do not possess the ability to handle the whole truth. Most of us get so comfortable with our floss-candy partial truths that we dedicate our otherwise intelligent lives to confirming and justifying our nationally-venerated lies. When these untruths relate to religion and nationality, boom! People might as well be deaf and dumb. As a capable cultural anthropologist, you would probably agree.

Therefore, you are asking for a lot when you say that we must ``acknowledge`` past views other than the ones that make sense to us given our own current world-views, views about humanity, individual intelligence, upbringing, and personal hopes and desires.

There are some Indians who believe that Hindus and Muslims could never live together and therefore Pakistan had to be created. There are some Pakistanis who do not share this view.

That should be enough for us to start building together toward peace. When we begin to value the future a great deal more, irreconcilable differences about the past will become less important. However, if the focus is on the past, then those differences will impede any progress.

Two or three generations ago, people DEFINED our past in oppositional terms. It is almost impossible to reconcile those oppositions (that can be done but only by the rarest of the rare, and certainly by nobody who still treats those oppositions as central to their vision - hence the repeated talk of thousand year wars).

That is why I suggest we restart, declaring: from THIS point on....

P.S. As you can see, I am avoiding discussing some specifics. That is because I would rather not get trapped in endless ``who is right?`` debates. But my overall point remains the same.

re bong_dongs #447

[BChemE `95, were you a hostelite? ]

No. Were you?

Zafar, Prem

Thank you for the thoughtful responses:

“The interests of the people of India and Pakistan have converged for a long time, if they were ever different at all.

What remains different is how our elite defines each country`s interests. And this does stem from how we define ourselves and hence view and understand our neighbors.

An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)”

Interests converged? When? How? What are those interests? As a student of Cultural Anthropology, my understanding is that it is elite interaction that shapes interests. On Pakistan aspiration for modernity – it is not useful to use this term, “modernity”–I think, effectively defining problems and seeking their solution and also obfuscating and denying solutions to be effected, is what shapes our environment I agree with you about the Indian attitude towards Pakistan, but it seems to me, it does not bring India any benefit – unless that benefit is described as the inability to accept reality. Psychology and emotion are not substitute for realism and the solving of problems. Millat, Diversity, Secularism, the meaning of Modernity – I wonder – if it is not true that majorities in both countries are extremely pleased with the fact that they are overwhelming majorities – Perhaps because of the gypsy life style that characterized my life in childhood and early adulthood, I find notions of ``we`` or ``us`` uncomfortable - one knows what will follow after either word is uttered or used. Secularism: is the scientification, the rationalization of society – the scope of degree of which is a subject of controversy and debate the world over. I wish you had taken the opportunity to read Urstruly’s post and my response – some think the statements in those post are prescriptive, whereas they are describtive. Modernity? What do you think it means in India or for significant numbers of Indians?

“Similarly, some Pakistanis on Chowk (I do not feel able to make a similar generalisation about Pakistan as I do about India, Indians forgive me :-)) seem to find it hard to take the roots of India`s nationhood seriously because of the way you define your own nationality. Again - why does it matter? What`s important to your future is really who we are now, and who we become. (Who you think we should have been is pretty irrelevant, don`t you agree?)”

Agreed Pakistan exists and that`s that. Pakistanis are uncomfortable with the partial or self serving ``Truths`` Indians use to define their nationhood. Consider, how many Indians, in private or public, accept responsibility for the demand for and creation of Pakistan? – This is IMPORTANT, because it helps shape the present and future. Demonizing movements of the past, does work itself back into the present and the future. This I am sure we will both agree on. As long as Indians refuse to accept responsibility for the creation of Pakistan and see it as a “breaking OUR country” – little movement forward is possible. If you should ever get the chance, do visit Pakistan, not to see how “we are the same” or “it smells the same” – but as something by itself – judge for yourself if some of the notions of what Pakistan is (as presented by Pakistanis and Indians on Chowk) is any longer, meaningfully relevant.

Kashmir accommodation – Is it your opinion that a recognition that accommodation must be reached exist? If such a will does exist, what is the intellectual foundation of such recognition and how can it be turned into a public awareness? I think that some “plain talk” from Musharraf has had the effect of focusing Pakistani thinking on Kashmir and the development of Pakistan, among Pakistanis – I don’t mean to say that the passion or the “Kashmir runs in our blood” does not resonate, but rather, a sense that we have run out of options and run the risk of running out of Kashmiris – that we have to come to a compromise – that the continued state of hostility has much to do with our national inability to better the material lives of our citizenry.

``Anyways, even BHU (BENCO) ``became`` an IIT so that makes 8 . . . of which 3 (Kanpur, Roorke and Varanasi) are within Uttar Pradesh .``

Veeresh Unkil,

take it from someone who has ``matha patkofyied`` on the IIT doors!! Admissions at IT-BHU are though the IIT-JEE but it is not a part of the IIT act. U-Roorkee was changed to a IIT recently (2000?) but admissions through IIT-JEE are only from 2001 (Roorkee ran its own exam before that)

#441

BChemE `95, were you a hostelite?

re: Zafar # 430

``An example: many Indians find it hard to take Pakistan`s aspirations to modernity (including democracy) seriously because we see the country`s foundation based on something we find almost anti-modern (a political order based on millats, which was the precursor to the idea of giving a millat a geographic as well as political and social aspect). Please note: I`m talking about OUR PERCEPTIONS, which flow from our cultural understanding of millats, diversity, and the role of secularism in modernity. We need to get over this in so far as, the fact is you DO exists, and who you are now and the future Pakistan achieves is more important to India than the rights and wrongs of your creation. (The baggage of Partition notwithstanding.)``

Perfectly said. Neither for Pakistanis nor for Indians is it EASY to accept each other as friends and as equals without our individually making serious, conscious effort to bury the bitterness and the arguments of the past.

Many of those arguments are so offensive (perhaps for both Pakistanis and Indians) that continuously harping on them does not and can not bring peace. For those arguments were not designed to bring about peace.

What difference does it make how Pakistan was created or how India was partitioned? Pakistan exists. That is its own justification.

Today both India and Pakistan have minorities again (as every nation always will). Both must keep working to ensure that minority members of all shapes, sizes, and hues, have rights equal to the rights available to the majority, and that minorities of all kinds feel part of the larger national communities. Not an easy challenge, but this is what both nations have to do - unless they want to recede into barbarism.

I don`t think we should try to convince each other to LIKE/admire Gandhi/Nehru or Jinnah/Liaquat Ali. That is a futile and foolish aim. That will not happen. Thankfully, that is not even needed. We can create successful joint futures (and avoid the debilitating conflict) if agree from THIS point on: that the only way to move forward is by establishing multicultural and progressive communities, communities in which the measure of a (wo)man is not his or her religion but his/her ability and other virtues.

We don`t have to think terribly highly of even our in-laws.