On the Nature of the Principal Civic Contracts

Institutionalized methods for separation is what I see the author calling for.

There are two things that I`ve seen or been exposed to so far.

One is that entities or communities or sub-national groups who are forced to live under a government (that has usually diluted the original `contract` of the country for it`s own agendas) cannot be held by force forever. More importantly, if force is the main instrument to keep the self-serving contract alive, then it is like the government shooting itself in the foot. In time, the pain will become unbearable.

On the other side, the main force to hold the contracts or form new contracts between communities is through economic integration. This naturally envelopes political and social aspects as well. But the driving force is economics- as we are taught- Prices determine behavior. That behavior can be favorable towards an old contract if it provides the `economic freedom` or it can press for a new contract. If we all strive for a better life, than the methods and paths that help us attain that life are more important in the long run than emotional desires of freedom.

Examples pointing out the different aspects in context of article and response could be:

slovenia`s desire to integrate economically with EU after fighting a war to sucede from Yugoslavia, India`s failure to integrate Kashmir and it`s general population`s discontent, the struggles of the Kurds who are spread across four different countries (and contracts).

But an equally important case i see is that of the overwhelming number of young and old alike desiring to leave Pakistan so they can gain the `economic freedom` in another land where they may not have any other ties or contracts with.

I think a piece called ``Guess what the `A` and `H` Stand For`` woulda gotten more hits.

re: Tehsin Abbasi # 8

There is a fundamental disconnect here that the author simply does not understand.

Groups can not exist unless there is some sort of social contract among individuals. Therefore, contracting takes place at the individual level, NOT at the group level. No matter how hard it may be for some people to accept, group-level contracting is a derivative phenomenon, not the primary one.

I think the basic confusion I see in your social contract theory is the Eastern and the Western version. In the East the opposite of freedom is slavery, where as in Western terms the opposite of freedom is tyranny. Freedom from a Western perspective means liberty. These notions were discussed, clarified, published incorporated into legal codes after the French Revolution and the American War of Independence. Liberty, justice, pursuit of happiness address precisely what you are writing about.

The purpose of the social contract is not to give an individual or a party to rule, but to be the guardians/preservers of the citizen’s rights of liberty, justice and pursuit of happiness. This also clarifies the term of “Public Servant” not “Ruler”. Unless and until we as a people do not grasp these concepts we will continue to be terrorized by despots, tyrannical rulers who rule on whims rather then laws.

To sum it up:

- We do not need Rulers only public servants – whose job is only, to safe guard our freedoms from any body who violates them. Beyond that we expect them to leave us the heck alone.

- Nobody is above the law – an active independent judiciary implements laws over the public servant, the industrialist, the landlord, the army, the medicine men - every body.

This would allow for referendums to happen where any idea can be put up for vote and even if it means the separation and creation of an independent state it would be implemented. Imagine that!

i can`t get myself to read this article due to the title....you really know how to grab a reader`s attention don`t you?

can you please re-name and re-submit this article.

NYC CHOWKIES, FYI:

A Hindu right-wing group is planning to demonstrate during a staged reading of Shashi Tharoor`s novel `Riot` at the New School for Social Research on Tuesday, the 21st of May, between 5:30 and 7:30 p.m. They have been

circulating a hysterical and slanderous document about Shabana Azmi (see below) for the last few days.



You probably know of Shabana Azmi, Bombay actress, social activist and member

of the Upper House of India’s Parliament (Rajya Sabha). Shabana has always been an outspoken opponent of both Muslim and Hindu fundamentalists in India.

One of the few Indians to publicly take issue with the conservative Shahi Imam, Shabana has earned the ire of Muslim fundamentalists for her consistent support for a uniform civil code in India based on principles of gender justice. She has also been targeted by the Hindu Right for raising her voice for the rights of India’s religious minorities. After the recent killing of

over 2,000 Muslim men, women and children in Gujarat and the dispossession of another150,000, she has been one of the leading critics of state complicity and participation in the violence.



There will be a counter-demonstration at the same time: PLEASE COME, AND BRING MANY OTHERS. It is crucially important to tell the truth about what has happened in Gujarat, even as the Hindu Right tries to obfuscate the issue.



See you there!



This is the document that`s being circulated:



INDIAN AMERICANS FOR TRUTH AND FAIRNESS IN MEDIA



41-67 Judge Street (#5P) Elmhurst, N.Y. 11373



(718) 478-5735



PROTEST DEMONTRATION AGAINST SHABANA AZMI IN NEW

YORK

Shabana Azmi has been invited by some of her Communists-Islamists friends to talk about Ayodhya, Gujarat and Babri Maidan. We have

decided to stage a boisterous demonstration against her with a view to expose her anti-Indian activities.You are kindly requested to participate in the demonstration. We have obtained Police permission to do so. The date, time and location of the demonstration are as under:Date: May 21st (Tuesday) Location: 65 Fifth Avenue, between 13th and 14th

Street Time: 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call the

undersigned.

Brotherly yours,

Narain Kataria



__________________________________________________

Cemmendtaur

``you can say that the lives of modern human beings are spent under two canopies of protection, one canopy encompassing the other. The outer cover we humans live under is that of a country, and the inner cover is that of a government.`` You will note that increasingly, more established countries afford to third world governments and not countries. The difference between ``Modern`` and ``Postmodern`` states.

An excellent piece; Thank you. Can we move further by suggesting that If we shall not move in the direction of Liberty - most certainly the clashes of similar values will assume dangerous, lethal proportions.

Today, a refusal to negotiate keeps us mired in the the ``modern``. Indian thinker and Foreign Service Officer, writing in ``The Hindu`` newspaper has highlighted the danger of remaining mired as ``modern`` states and has contrasted the ``modern`` state and the ``post-modern`` state.

Cemmendtaur, Would you be open to the suggestion that we take present day ``self-determination`` struggles out of the equation, could the article then be characterized as dealing primarily with how societies do and or should deal with change, political change?

In your opinion, is it correct to suggest that in the case of Pakistan and India, that it is the notion of realizing a blueprint, the reconstruction of society wholesale, (Islamization and Hindutva and socialism and pure market mechanism) that is at the core of the misunderstanding of change and of social dissonance? An alternate view of your assertion ``The contracts that are drawn with eyes looking far ahead in the future survive the test of the times``

If it is true that any approach to politics that begins from a blueprint that has to be realized will end up being an arrested society,in the imposition of tyrrany how does the ``idealist without illusions`` proceed?

On Chowk, it is widely held both by those who describe themselves as ``secularists`` and all others including those who may be (a liberty) as fundamentalists of sorts, that before this or that can be changed, society must be changed or before one can change anything, one has to change everything. Then there are others and I include myself in this group, that argue that for any change to be meaningful, in must be rooted and directed towards actual existing circumstances and that regardless of any action taken, there will unintended consequences that may be at odds with the Blueprint (Realists).

Blueprints usually call for sweeping changes to society and we cannot claim rationality for these changes because we cannot claim a degree of detailed sociological knowledge - a knowledge we cannot possess. Can we have required knowledge of society that is continuously changing? As soon as you know what you know, the object of observation has changed. We cannot even talk of means and ends as utopian blueprints call for - it would be misleading would it not? Means would a set of events closer in time to us and ends, more distant set of events - but this would be meaningful only if history stopped - afterall, the distant set of events would only be followed by successive set of events, in an endless chain of events.

What is clear is that the events closer in time to us (for utopians, the means) have a greater chance of being realized in the form envisaged, than any other more distant set of events - making means and ends meaningless. That is to say the more we are oriented to a distant future, the further away we shall be from it?

On ``Problems arise when the form of a government in a country changes, bringing it into direct conflict with the aspirations of the creators and the people of that country. In such instances, when a group of people controlling power has negated the idea of a representative government, then that group has in fact violated the initial contract.``

We can be reasonably sure that people differ on the kinds of society they want and that whatever the nature of the group in power, so long as a blueprint is to be realized, it is incumbent on this group to render opposition to this blueprint, ineffective - though such an eventuality is an impossibility in a ``open`` society - because a ``open`` society simply does not tolerate the imposition of a common social purpose, that a blueprint by definition represents - Gentle Indian readers, do take note of this characteristic of ``open`` society.

What then are the implications, if proceeding to realize a blueprint cannot but be an arrested society, a tyranny - How can change in society be effected? Piece meal changes are the best that we can expect if we are a Liberty loving people.

Let the UN first handle the demographic disasters created by misgovernance of EXISTING countries, like third world debt, illiteracy, famine, poor life expectancy, AIDS before wasting its time and money investing in the creation of new ones. Steps 1 is the prerequisite for solving these problems as well as for good responsive government, which is missing in most countries of the world. If the UN can even get so far as 1, there would be no need for steps 2 and 3.

I`ll have to disagree wirh Prem (No. 2). The writer seems to have conceptual clarity of what is, essentially, constitutional law. It is similar in form to what contractual (both social and otherwise) theorists harp on about. However, it does not refer to them. In other words, it is a new way of thinking, which is good.

Also, as for as the recognition of people as ``groups`` is concerned, both the Indian and the Pakistani Supreme Courts (and, I think, the Bangladeshi Courts) have recognized such a character. It is basis of the ``public interest litigation`` in those countries.

Rafay Alam

Funny, I have thought along similar lines but over an exactly opposite concern.

How can different people live peacefully in a modern society, instead of how we can best separate one group from another? Thus my concern is not so much with geographical boundaries as with human living.

Why is that more important a problem? Because human identity is becoming increasingly more complex, more multi-dimensional. So, it will become increasingly more difficult to keep slicing societies finer and finer.

Basically, the premise of this article is fundamentally wrong. It is infact silly. It speaks of ``groups`` as if they were individuals. It measures individuals along one dimensions.

It is the perfect recipe for fanaticism and fascism under the guise of rights.

History has been at that sorry turn far too many times. What we have in this article is old and useless wine in a new and useless bottle.

1. One should recall the example of the Mayans, who actually had one of the most advanced civilization ever. They abruptly decided that ``civilization`` is not the answer, and basically folded everything up. Many indigenous people were able to live for centuries without ``countries.``

2. Look at life through this example. There is something (god?) on the top of a mountain who has caused an avalanche to form. It is approaching you, as u stand halfway to the bottom. There is a Group of people (country) 100m below you. Now, u can either, hide under a rock and be killed, or try and save the group by standing against the avalanche (and be killed). That dreamer sh1t doesnt fly.

3. Those who take power from those who have it will oppress again. This is the eternal cycle. It cannot be stopped, only minimized. Malcolm said ``the price of freedom is death.`` No jokez. If u want it, be ready to die. The only way out of this cycle is to REAL EYES that you are neither the oppressed, nor the oppressor. That no one can fukk with you, cuz ur God.

4. Stop the non violence vs violence. Use the most appropriate strategy. One should be ready to kill and ready to die (someone explain this to gandhi). Do not fukk with the wrong people, they will send u to the cemetary.