The Myth of Autonomy

Ref Layman #: 81

[I wonder what would happen if some researcher discovered that there was some kind of `typo` in the Koran that is being followed]

Since old copies of the Koran cannot be disposed of in any way except by ceremonially burying them, researchers HAVE found various versions of the supposedly authentic Koran. If they so much as open their mouths to talk about it, they are accused of blasphemy so they have learnt to keep their mouths shut.

[that it was not four wives that was permissible but actually fourteen;]

Prophet Muhammad himself had 20 wives. It is just that the rest of the flock didn`t find enough war booty and had to settle for camels.

At least Joseph Smith (the founder of the Mormon religion) didn`t put any limit on the number of wives and thus Brigham Young could have 72 wives, a number quite larger than Osama bin Laden`s papa.

Ref Ferishteh #: 83

[A question to chowk participants - do followers of Zarathusht religion exist in Pakistan -]

Yes, they do. In small numbers.

[I have heard that some Zarathushtis are settled in Bombay.]

SOME Zarathushtis in Bombay? Sweetheart, India has the largest population of Zoroastrians in the world.

A question to chowk participants - do followers of Zarathusht religion exist in Pakistan - I have heard that some Zarathushtis are settled in Bombay.

Also does Pakistani regions have their local cuisine and how different is it from the Moghlai ?

I mean surely Panjab and SIndh must have some differences in food and eating habits.

Thanks

Khoda Hafez

hobbes #80

[quote]

``If Hindu were to connonote as it once did a identifier of a specific geographical and ethnic groups, who would argue - yet once it begins to identify a religion or structures grouped or amalmagated, as a religion and a ethnic and geographical identity, make for a concoction readily exploitable as facism. It is in effect, a enemy making and enemy seeking idea.``

[end-quote]

And what can we say about systems of thought that insist that the divine can only experienced in ONE way and that further there has been one final representative of divinity?

Sounds like dangerously irrational cults to me. Sounds like we should have this nasty systems of ``thought`` exposed and banned for the danger it represents to all humanity.

When it comes to enemy-making and enemy seeking ideas, I am afraid india and hindus are far behind the curve. You could spend your time much more profitably elsewhere.

hobbes #80:

``If Hindu were to connonote as it once did a identifier of a specific geographical and ethnic groups, who would argue - yet once it begins to identify a religion or structures grouped or amalmagated, as a religion and a ethnic and geographical identity, make for a concoction readily exploitable as facism. It is in effect, a enemy making and enemy seeking idea.``

I think some of it is inevitable. With India`s interactions with the outside world and their religions, and the large presence of defined religions (Islam and Christianity) in India, there is definitely an awareness of ``us`` versus ``them``. Also, Indian society is not static. If Hinduism evolves into a religion (as defined outside Hindu society), what`s wrong with it? Maybe the influence of other religions will enable Hinduism to remove some of the social ills, for instance by disassociating the caste system from the religion. There is tremendous scope for reform in Hindu religion / society.

When new religions arose (chiefly Christianity and Islam), they have made space for themselves with the sword (at least partly) and political support (from the rulers). Since Hinduism has a space already for itself amongst the present-day Hindus, there does not have to be large-scale violence. A key question is what kind of relations it would have with other existing religions. Happily, Hindus are not bigoted in saying ours is THE ONLY PATH to realising God, we acknowledge that there can be many paths to God. The very fact that different groups of Hindus worship God in different forms means that they have to be tolerant of other forms of worship! The danger is if the Hindu identity is shaped not by religious leaders, but by politicians and half-baked `sants`, in which case being Hindu becomes not a religious identity of the pious, but a political identity of those who are driven by fear, hatred or insecurity.

On the issue of reforms in religion, can anyone write about reforms in Islam? I am constantly surprised to hear from Muslims on Chowk and elsewhere that such and such thing is acceptable, merely because it is in the Koran, without making an independent check with their own moral values. I wonder what would happen if some researcher discovered that there was some kind of `typo` in the Koran that is being followed - that it was not four wives that was permissible but actually fourteen; or that it was not pork that was forbidden but chicken; or that it was not men but women who were permitted multiple spouses...

Prem

``Faith`` has no role in hinduism. hinduism is a closed system in which ``redemption`` or ``salvation`` is not offered as a consequence of ``faith``.

You and all those who see a tactical benefit in contorting the Hindu religion to fit the morality of the day - and therefore suggest that hinduism seeks structure and concepts from monotheistic religions such as Islama, ought - to remember: ``Be careful of what you wish for, you just may get it.``

Tolerance and pluralism as ideas, can never gain acceptance in society, if we shall contort intellectual and spiritual construts in such a way as to rob them of their difference and create a homogenity that renders these constructs devoid of meaning.

Layman

I very much appreciate your position. In the debate about the structure of differing religions, of ``secular - ism`` - I certainly do fear, that those who actually regard hinduism as a religion, will find it altered and devoid of it`s spiritual content, in the hands of unscrupulous ``secular-ists``. If Hindu were to connonote as it once did a identifier of a specific geographical and ethnic groups, who would argue - yet once it begins to identify a religion or structures grouped or amalmagated, as a religion and a ethnic and geographical identity, make for a concoction readily exploitable as facism. It is in effect, a enemy making and enemy seeking idea.

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

yes tahmed i have no qualms about identifying myself -- i didnt say that this was a premise or a definition -- just that this is what some people might see it as -- as in, its sometimes more a matter of perception -- some people would say that the suicide bombers of the al aqsa martyrs brigade are doing what they must, others might think that they are being used at best, and at worst are nothing but plain terrorists

Bluemoon12 #61:

``After all - Democracies have never fought wars!!``

You probably mean ``with one another``. But how true is that statement? Check out an interesting analysis at http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm

hobbes #62:

``Those hindu Indians who come across as so desperate to project hinduism to be the same as monothesistic religions, do it a disservice. why can`t you be proud to be who and what you are? why this ``us too``? Why this lie to make something that is not alike, to suggest that it is.

``Is it any wonder the appeal of hinduism is not what it used to be? look to see the obfuscations of the best of intentions.``

Ouch! My own theory or understanding of Hinduism is that it is not a religion in the way Islam or Christianity is, neither does it have a set of beliefs that other religions have. Hindu is the term that Arabs called all people living this side of the Sindhu (Indus) river, irrespective of what we actually believed in. I doubt Hindus (Indians) even had a concept called religion before interacting with people of other religions such as Islam and Christianity. We definitely had the concept of caste, we had several damn good philosophers and philosophies, we had several saints whose teachings people followed, but I doubt if we had the concept of a single, unified religion. Given the freedom that people had to believe what they wanted (from worshipping elements of nature to animals and birds to meditating on the One without beginning, middle or end), all of us have been lumped under a single label called Hinduism. This is not our doing, but that of the Arabs and the Europeans.

At best, Shaivism / Vaishanvism / Brahmanism could be the organised religions among Hindus. Religious conflicts between Shaivites and Vaishnavites, with accompanying atrocities by conquering Shaivite kings on Vaishnavites and vice-versa indicate that we were deeply divided until we accepted the European / Arab / Muslim view that we were all of one religion.

My own definition of a Hindu is a person of Indian origin who is neither Muslim nor Christian not Sikh nor Buddhist nor Jain nor of any other religion.

But the great thing about being Hindu is that I am not intellectually bound to one set of beliefs. If I do not want to worship a stone, I dont have to. If I dont believe in dvaita philosophy and advaita makes more sense to me, I can choose to believe it. It does not change my identity as a Hindu. Unlike a certain_religion_that_shall_remain_unnamed where one HAS TO BELIEVE that there shall be no more prophets after a certain_one_who_too_shall_remain_unnamed, even if God changes His mind and really decides to send one more :-)

re: hobbes # 62

Both Hinduism and semitic religions are changing, and you are right in noticing an increasing convergence of the two. That is an outcome of increased interaction, of learning from each other. That is a good thing.

Like Knowledge and Action, Faith is central to Hinduism. Hinduism, I am sure many other great religions do that as well, tells us that Knowledge, Action, and Faith must balance, live in harmony, or they turn into the force for evil. If these core intellectual and spiritual formulations make Hinduism similar to semitic religions, then that is good for all of us. Our ultimate concern, after all, is the welfare of the human being, the truth, not the welfare of Hindu, Muslim, or Christian tribes; nor the supremacy of the competing cults of Hinduism, Islam, or Christianity.

To understand the importance of faith in Hindu thought you might begin with Chapter XII of the Gita. Chapters before that are titled such as the Yoga of Knowledge, the Yoga of Meditation, the Yoga Action. Chapter XII is titled the ``Bhakti Yoga`` wherein the Lord (to those who have the Faith) tells His followers:

``Fix thy mind on Me only, place Thy intellect in Me; then thou shalt no doubt live in Me alone hereafter.``

Hundreds of years ago, our knowledge of our own religions was hampered by lack of education, and brutalized by filtering through the clever minds of those who sought to save their own lost souls by torturing and saving the souls of others. Today, there is no such excuse. We should read up. Thereby, we will learn the good as well as the ugly (believe me, every religion has the good and the ugly sides) basic facts about our religions. Then we should get rid of our ugly sides; or if we can`t, we should get rid of the oppressive and intellectually dead system of ignorance called religion.

tahmed321 # 70:

`` ....when the underlying Indian society is from all indications at least (and probably much more) as prejudiced and narrow-minded as anything we have in Pakistan.``.

The disease is called “Mine is bigger/better than Yours” syndrome. No matter how long or how cleverly you try to hide the symptoms, I have diagnosed long time ago that you have that disease. In fact, your condition is so advanced and very soon the disease will transform into a more serious condition : Adult YLHitis.

MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK - Pakistan braces!

Us consulate has closed in karachi and section 144 is applicable in Islamabad. Will the government agencies be able to prevent this attack or have they already agrred that they must absorb more punishment?

From DAWN

`` EXCERPTS: The glory of Kot Diji

By Dr F.A. Khan

When some communities from the foothills of Balochistan descended into the Indus plains they founded a civilization that pre-dated Moenjodaro. Dr F.A. Khan writes about this archaeological discovery.

One of the questions posed by history concerns the origin of civilizations. A definition is not easy, but it would be correct to apply the term `civilized societies` to those which had worked out a system for living in a relatively permanent community, at a level above the hunting tribes.

Many ancient societies attained an admirable adjustment to their environment. Once achieved, they had no desire to change their lifestyle. Such societies set the norms in antiquity. But some people emerged who were determined to change, rather than adhere to old traditions.

It is, therefore, difficult to sustain the theory that all ancient societies moved towards civilization as an inevitable process. Indeed the phenomenon, birth of civilization, seems almost a freak development in its initial stages.

Between 8,000-5,000 BC in the fertile regions of the Old World, a swing occurred from subsistence economies based on hunting and food gathering to animal husbandry and agriculture. By the beginning of the fifth millennium BC, the ancient East had areas with a widespread peasant economy based on sufficiently developed agriculture which could support permanent villages and small towns. The innovating tradition continued, gathered momentum and produced the essential milieu for civilization. And there came an age when towns and cities sprouted up of which their inhabitants could be proud of.

Within the towns and cities the people not only developed the skills and trades of the architect, the sculptor, the stone and metal worker, and all the other craftsmen of an active corporation, but through a learned priesthood made decisive steps in social organization, involving the invention of writing.

In the fifth and fourth millennium BC, Baloch village communities lived in the gloomy borderlands, where the Iranian plateau drops to the Indus plain. They had reached the cultural optimum which their rugged environment permitted. Their pottery modified from region to region and age to age, was by 3500-3000 BC of good quality, wheel-turned and well-backed, often thin and attractively painted with geometric or semi-realistic motifs which revealed both their own individuality and their cultural kinship with the societies of the plateau behind them.

They made stone implements amongst which simple chart blades predominated. Contact between one community and another was manifest, but for the most part the early Baloch tribes were self-contained on the basis of the local crops which they raised by controlling the flood water, with or without stone built dams, and herds tended by their women and children.

At the southern-most part of Balochistan, there lay along its flank the great plain of the Indus and its tributaries. This was a plain at that time largely jungle covered, but serving with its waterways as a passable means of communication. These factors prompted the emergence of the pre-Indus culture around 3500 BC.

By the end of the fourth millennium BC, some communities in the Balochi foothills were tempted to embark upon a new venture. Who were the first leaders to take their people down to the wide and jungle-ridden plain and why, we shall never know. But certainly they were bold people, pioneers in the full sense of the word.

Imperfect though our knowledge is, we know enough to recognize the cultural remains of ancient village settlements and towns in Balochistan, Sindh, Punjab, Rajasthan in India, and the Frontier Province which antedate the full blown Indus civilization and were superseded by it. For example, the Kot Diji excavation in 1955 and 1957 revealed a town of the pre-Indus period dated 3300-2800 BC, with a strongly walled citadel....

Seemingly, the attempted colonization of the valley and its adjoining regions by the early pioneers continued for five/six centuries. To appreciate their courageous experiment, it is necessary to visualize their problems.

Among the favourable factors was, of course, the great river-system itself, flanked by wide expanses of natural alluvium which was renewed by the annual flood. Its broad jungles and marshes were indeed infested with wild animals. The rivers were arterial routes. Along them, and along the trackways useful commodities could be transported over long distances. In contrast to the upland Balochistan with its scanty soil for crops, and uncertain water-supply, the prospects for the early settlers in the Indus valley were better indeed.

Over the years...the work at Harappa-Moenjodaro was followed up in all the areas where it was likely that the Indus civilization would have extended. Since the twin cities were first excavated, it was observed that a number of sites yielded antiquities similar to those which were found at Harappa and Moenjodaro. Thereafter, an organized search for them was launched, and in 1929 this work was entrusted to N.G. Majumdar....Majumdar dug a few trenches at Amri in 1929, and thus brought its name for the first time into the scope of pre-historic archeology. Here he identified a specific class of ceramic industry, which has since been called the `Amri ware` found below the Indus level. This discovery provided the first stratigraphical evidence of a culture antedating the Indus civilization.

The second evidence of a pre-Indus civilization came from Harappa itself, where in a deep trench dug by Mortimer Wheeler in 1946 35 pots of a non-Indus ceramic were discovered. They were clearly stratified between the base of the Harappa fortifications and the natural soil. The pottery showed individuality which made it distinct from the Indus ceramic. The collection comprised a small group of fine, dark purple-red ware mostly decorated, particularly around the rim, with carefully ruled horizontal bands. This pre-Indus pottery shared with the lower level of Amri a clear claim to stratigraphical priority on an Indus civilization site....

Kot Diji culture

Since 1957, a comparable but more elaborate stratigraphical sequence has been established at Kot Diji. The excavation has uncovered a fortified town under an open Indus settlement. The site showed sixteen successive layers of occupation, of which the last three were typical of the Indus civilization, the fourth was mixed and the remainder represented an antecedent culture named specifically `Kot Diji`....

The recent investigations and excavation, particularly those at Kot Diji and Amri, have made significant additions to our knowledge of the Indus civilization, its chronology as well as its relationship with pre-Indus cultures, thus widening the scope of our study of the major cultural horizons of the Indus valley.

Knowledge of the Kot Diji culture is still fragmentary and incomplete, and further exploration and excavation may yet reveal new and unsuspected aspects of this pre-Indus civilization. It is reasonable to assume that it had its beginning around 3500 BC, when the village tribesmen from the rugged hilly uplands of Balochistan moved across the deserts to the plains of the Indus. Within a few decades of their arrival, these hardy settlers of the valley had learnt to drain the fertile lowlands and thus to maintain permanent farms and villages. During this period, other villagers and farmers from the Iranian plateau migrated into the valley. They seem to have brought with them some knowledge of higher cultures. Perhaps they stimulated the growth of the villages into towns. About 3500 BC, all the elements of early urban life were present in the valley.

Dr F.A. Khan retired as the director of archaeology and museums, government of Pakistan, in 1970. He established several museums in the country and is the author of Indus valley and Iran Dr F.A. Khan retired as the director of archaeology and museums, government of Pakistan, in 1970. He established several museums in the country and is the author of Indus valley and Iran.

Excerpted with permission from The glory that was Kot Diji culture of Pakistan: an archaeological outline

By Dr F.A. Khan

Department of Archaeology, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur

ISBN 969-8584

136pp.

HB Rs1000. PB Rs700``

Tahmed

``A terrorist is anyone who deliberately targets innocent people.``

``deliberately`` targets innocent people. Such a definition is indeed most helpful and I think most can agree that ``deliberately targeting`` innocents is terrorism. Yet if innocents shall be victimized, witness the recent consulate bombing in Karachi (not arguing that the staff of the consulate are conbatants, however; clearly the bombers consider them combatants)- how shall we understand these events, or if in a bombing, innocents shall be killed, as in Afghanistan? Can we claim that as terrorism? clearly innocents were deliberately targetted? Indians have now fired upon civilians in Pakistan with regularity, even if they argue they did not deliberately target civilians, clearly, the dead by and large, repeatedly, have been innocents. If we continue with the definition you propose, will we have taken into account the nature of modern combat? for instance between India and Pakistan, ``deterrence`` is in reality a threat or promise to destroy million of innocents - is that also terrorism? If nuclear dimension or threat to vaporize millions is terror, is it not also terror to threaten/promise to do so with conventional weapons? Indeed, the definition you propose entails the possibility of considering modern war (that is to say, total war and unconventional war) would fit in with the definition of terror? Is terror the same as war? Would the notion/right of self-defense still be valid?

omar qureshi: I see you have the the Indian National Chowk Brigade on your tail. Some of these individuals are pretty pathetic specimen, given to moralizing about their democracy and tolerance, when the underlying Indian society is from all indications at least (and probably much more) as prejudiced and narrow-minded as anything we have in Pakistan. And I give you credit in identifying yourself and that you are on the Dawn staff, whereas the rest of us write anonymously. This places the commitment of responsible writing of posts on you, while most posters (including myself) have chosen not to make that commitment (even though many of us still try to be responsible in what we write).

Having provided some background, I hope, to where I am coming from on this, I would like to say that I dont agree with the premise that ``one man`s freedom fighter is another man`s terrorist``. A terrorist is anyone who deliberately targets innocent people. Period. Please advise what is wrong with this definition.