Strategic Depth at Home

temporal #120 Good to see your posts again on chowk, and welcome back. Thanks for the url to the Jang article. On reading it, I was reminded about what was said of the French Bourbons after they were restored to power after the fall of Napoleon: They (the Bourbons) had learnt nothing (from the French Revolution) and had forgotten nothing. The same can be said for the writer of this article.

The article basically presents the same pie in the sky talk about muslim unity and propaganda against muslims that certain quarters in Pakistan have been repeating since the 1950`s. The fate of such an ``ideology`` will be no different than the ideology of the ``Divine Right of Kings`` of the Bourbons or of any other ideology that fails to recognize todays realities and tomorrows probabilities.

Arjun_m

Pakistani Muslims in UK or UK Muslims are not doing well - not because there is institutional impediments or hostility towards them, but because they have yet to internalize the values of the post traditional society. The fact that they have not done well or are not doing well, does not preclude the possibility that they may become aware that education is the engine of upward social mobility, regardless of one`s religion. Please read my post #23 - the kinds of attitudes we see in the inablity or unwillingness to comprehend and succed in the post traditional society have an intellectual foundation - once that foundation is examined in light of present day knowledge the kinds of changes we seek may have a better change of coming about. And your ctiricism is most apt.

As for seperate homelands - I think if more persons were to internalize and espouse the intellectual foundation that forms attitudes you express, such a possiblity may well become an eventuality.

Sadna

Exactly. My post #23 is call to discuss and debate what are the intellectual foundations of a traditional and post traditional society - This is way Urstruly`s post about values and character is pertinent and also why Sameer`s idea an ideological ghetto - not because it is ideological, but because it`s premises do not hold true - neither ``scientifically`` nor emotionally.

We cannot ``progress``, cannot negotiate societal ``transition`` unless we first understand the intellectual foundation the ideas, values, ethics that animate and differentiate the traditional and post traditional societies.

For any transition, serving values must change first, or the force of the transition is such that it becomes an imperative for the serving values to change simultaneously with social values. In this regard Mr. Musharraf`s focus and most recent call for increased funding of science and technology is most pertinet to this discussion.

Sameer`s idea disregards any notion of what propels change? He`s critical of Mr. Musharraf and calls him a despot and dictator, and in tthe same breath wants him to act of the agenda Sameer outlines. Sameer proposes that the function of the Majlis is not to legislate, but to be a ``reservation``, the embodiment of ``affirmative action`` - justification he offers is ``historical injustice``. Let`s examine this claim in the context of the ideology Mr. Sameer finds compelling and see if it is indeed, ``scientific`` or is it ``historicism`` - I`m not suggesting that he`s not motivated by conscience but that his premises are wrong.

The manner in which persons define themselves and their relations with each other is governed by the way they make a living - Modes of production argument. The history of women has been produced by the interaction of four viewpoints: women’s perception of themselves; women’s perception of men; men’s perception of themselves; and men’s perception of women. These four viewpoints have created a system in history as a whole that is known as the patriarchal system and, in this system, women have been subjected to injustice. (Of course, on the basis of this analysis, it may be impossible to speak of it as an ``injustice``, because, when something is an inevitable consequence of the circumstances, how can it be described as unjust?) If we want to see a change in the area of relations between men and women, these four viewpoints have to change. This is ultimate realism.

It is these points that Sameer is innocent of, in this work. That is say we are back to modes of production.

I am quite surprised that neither you nor Samina have voiced a strong concern at the patronizing, polarizing nature of Sameer`s analysis and presciption. After all, why is it appropriate to separate society, the political procress and the legislature, on the basis of gender, but not on the basis of caste, color, or religion?

Why is Mr. Musharraf a dictator and despot but it is OK to ask him to act on issues of concern to us? If it is OK for him to be our ``son of a ___``, then why is it not OK for him to be someone else`s ``Son of ...``? What`s the principle here?

If change is desired in a particular direction, should we not concentrate on the kinds of things that propel change in society - any change that has endured is one that is evolutionary in nature and ``serves`` a percieved need, which itself is evolutionary. No ``feel good`` prescriptions will suffice.

RE: Reply #: 116 arjun_m

``On one hand i read in the new york post about the paki-american who went to fight for the taliwankers....and on the other hand i read about the indian co-founders of hotmail, sun micro, i2 etc....

You cant dispute the facts, can you?``

How about Atiq Raza of Nexgen/AMD/Raza foundries fame, or Safi Qureshi (sp?) of AST fame? Both are Pakistanis who`ve done extremely well in the entrepreneurial field in the U.S.. All it proves is that anyone who is driven can excel if provided the resources and a level playing field. Atiq Raza partnered with Vinod Dham at Nexgen and AMD while Raza foundries bankrolled the company of a friend of mine who is Indian (amongst other Indian founded companies), which also proves that people who excel park their prejudices in their home countries.

Shridar,

{{I am in US and love this country. My reason for being in US is economic. I am here for the opportunities and the money. I am not here because it is a great cultural place.}}

Are you going to raise your kids here?--obviously yes! I`m seeing a lot of cultural clashes between children & their parents. Our children are growing up in the US & imbibing US values.

Let me burst your bubble. Those parents who insist that their children are exposed to Indian values, religion & cultures are the ones who are getting a lot of resentment & clashes from their children. Now these ``clashes`` may not be outright fights--its more a subtle passive-aggression!

I`m already seeing this in my practice. The more sheltered they are, the more rebellious they get! Dont get fooled by that ``demure`` Indian teenage daughter who wears ghaghra-choli & saris at Indian functions. They are just as ``boy-crazy`` as their American counterparts. They are just as likely to get a huge thrill to smoke & drink away from the sight of their parents.

Dont go by ``face value``. Human beings project one image in society & another in their pvt lives. Heck, people thought OJ & Nicole Simpson were a ``perfect`` couple. Please dont tell me that thats a US phenomenon. When it comes to sweeping our garbage under the rug--Indians are the BIGGEST experts.

So when Indians boast in public how well behaved & ``cultured`` their darling sons & daughters are; I feel they are in for a very rude shock. Right now their children are still emotionally & financially dependant upon the parents. They dont tell their parents half the things that they are doing!

One reason is communication factors. In the Indian culture, the father is Lord & Master. His word is LAW! To even question it is a mark of disrespect. So if children (esp teenagers) have a difference of opinion; they keep it to themselves because they feel arguing with their parents (esp futile) is futile.

The US culture ENCOURAGES a person to think independantly, as an individual, to question authority. You will rarely find Indians criticising their leaders & authority figures in public as blatantly & ``rudely`` as Americans do.

Let them get older & be on their own two feet. Dont underestimate the power of the US cultural melting pot. If not your children, your grand & great grandchildren will DEFINITELY become Americans in their values, culture & outlook. OK, they may like to eat idli-sambar or masala dosas; but thats going to be the extent of their ``Indianness``.

So; if you have come to this country just for economic reasons, let me give you some unsolicited advice. Either you & your spouse accept the inevitable & start appreciating the US culture for what it is (warts an` all) or SERIOUSLY think about sending your kids to India & have your relatives raise them.

You can console yourself by pointing to how XY or Zee`s children have not lost their Indian values. Maybe, as a shrink I`m seeing just the worst cases. However, assessing their parents leads me to conclude that their ``family values`` are typically Indian.

I dont have all the answers as to why I see this happening..just a personal & professional observation...

re: rsridhar

{{Being ethnic and religious, they tend to congregate more (certainly more than the Indians).}}

that`s a pretty stupid thing to do, isn`t it?....so whose fault is it?...

in the US, for example, most of us Indians (and Chinese) arrived with hardly any money, but we integrated - at least economically and educationally - and moved forward...socially we do tend to form ghettos, and that`s unfortunate...but hopefully it will change...

re: prem

{{I know I am equally guilty.}}

good then, let`s all agree to be as stupid as we wanna be

Re: Sridhar #100 and Akash #101 and others

You can probably attribute at least some of the British Muslims` backwardness and less-than-desirable social characteristics as being due to the fact that so many of them were Mirpuris from AK who moved in there in the 1950s as unskilled labour. Having no education, etc., their progeny are understandably less likely to do better economically or to value education. The Indians (Hindus and Muslims) who moved to the UK might be from a higher socio-economic status (value education, have more educated people in the house, etc--I`ve heard of studies where the number of books in the house is a reasonable predictor of children`s future academic performance!). But we can continue to say that its not their fault. See, they are poor ignorant working class slobs (actually I would say they are a part of the lumpenproletariat) who are being ground down by the system.

But for how long will these excuses wash? The unwillingness of these Muslims (Pakistanis and Bangladeshis) to do more than just exist on the dole and try to con more money out of the system reveals certain pathologies in that culture. My cousin is a surgeon in Manchester and he has actually gone from being a relative ``liberal`` (by Pakistani standards) to being definitely more ``conservative`` (keeps halal, went on Haj, makes it a point of going to at least Jummah ki namaaz, Roza rakhta hai, etc.) and he has nothing but contempt for most Pakistani British Muslims as far as their sloth, wastefulness, and general uselessness is concerned.

It has certainly nothing to do with Islam as such--my parents are personally devout Muslims who stressed to all of their children that there is nothing more important than a solid education if you want to make something of yourself in life--since there are many ``good`` Muslims who value an education.

So, what is the answer? Who knows.

Why are they so rich and we so poor?

Regards.

hobbyt #93
hobbyt, you make a valid point about a group of people not internalizing the method to negotiate post-traditional society.

I once watched a documentary on child labor in the Indian silk industry and I remember a teacher in a rural school being emphatic on how educational opportunity and poverty are NOT related. He said, these kids fathers donot mind asking me for loans of 2000-3000 rupees to make the yearly pilgrimage to Sabarimala(a shrine in S. India) but they cannot spare the 2-3 rupees required for their childrens` books.

Often the children were pulled out of school and sent to work to help pay down the debt incurred to get their aunts and sisters married. Its surprising (and heartbreaking) that most of the children interviewed were very clear about why they needed to go to school and why exactly they couldnot.

tahmed321 #109:

...specially post `nou-dau-gyarah` the Muslims felt cornered specially in the diaspora ...a related comment by nayyar zaidi in today`s jang...(apologies to those who cannot read urdu)...``Mauj hay darya maiN aur bairoon-e-darya kooch nahiN``...it is at:

http://www.jang.net/editorial/index1.cfm?ed_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2002-daily/21-02-2002/editorial/index.html&top_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2002-daily/21-02-2002/top.htm&cont_fullpath=http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/feb2002-daily/21-02-2002/cont.htm

rgds,

t

re: RSaxena # 106

(you have...why pick on him for it?)

I know I am equally guilty. I have my own bouts of rage and madness (and, you can add, stupidity) when I lose control of my better judgement.

Now, I hope when I write silly things, arjun-m will pay me back in the same coin. He has earned that right.

Interesting bit of news from today`s The News.

Male dominated parties against 33pc women seats

By our correspondent

LAHORE: Male dominated political parties have refused to give 33 per cent seats to women in the national and provincial assemblies and Senate.

Salman Abid, a representative of Civil Society Organisations, disclosed at a workshop held Wednesday. The workshop was arranged by Aurat Foundation on ``Women`s reserved seats in the legislatures``. Representatives of different political parties including Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf, Millat Party, National Awami Party, PML-QA, PML-N, PPP and JI, participated in the workshop.

Salman said they had consulted several political parties for women`s seats. Women-wings of these parties supported them, while the male representatives opposed the idea of women seats.

Mehnaz Rafi was of the view that instead of indirect elections, women should come in legislatures through direct elections. Whereas, PPP`s Sajida Mir demanded that at least three women seats should be specified in each district.

Participants recommended that the overall proportion of reservation for women might be at least 33 per cent of the total strength of legislative body. The reservation must be entitled to all legislative forums in the country, including national and provincial assemblies, Senate, as well as special categories within these bodies (FATA & Technocrat`s seats).

WHY? WHY? WHY? They are all afraid of women creating a caucus and then making coalition with those men members who promise the best for women.

tahmed321 # 109

Your point is very well taken. That was a loosely and hastily structured post that generalized quite inappropriately.

I have gotten to know far too many proud Pakistanis to disagree with what you wrote.

Regards.

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

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

Iranian Site for Rational Thinking

Debate with Ayatollah Ozma Montazeri

http://www.faithfreedom.org/montazeri.htm

Why I Left Islam

http://www.golshan.com/rationalthinking/why_i_left_islam.htm

This is the face of Islam

http://www.golshan.com/rationalthinking/gallery.htm