Muslims in India: Communalism vs. Backwardness-Minority Syndrome

Stuka,
Ok, he did not say exactly that, but may be I was alluding to the common practice of heaping the blame on each other, both Indians and Pakistanis indulge in it and I am quite averse to it.

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

Sadna

The process of social and economic integration is going on in Pakistan too, though I am not sure at what scale. As far as Jamali being a Balochi is concerned, I doubt if he has any real power or even if he commands the loyalty of some dominant tribe of Balochistan, say Bugti. In all probability, Mushy has made him PM thinking that he would be less of a trouble than any politician with some ``weight``. Nevertheless, the degree of interdependence of Pakistani states is sufficiently high to keep it united. Let us take the case of Sindh and Punjab. Sindh is dissatisfied as she can not get the water she thinks is her legitimate share. At the same time, she knows very well that she is totally dependent upon Punjab for additional water. Thus it is a cooperative-competitive relationship in which either party will pose as the aggrieved one to maximize its own benefit but will finally compromise to reach some optimum. Secondly, only Punjab and Karachi can steer the economy of remaining backward states of Pakistan. By themselves, NWFP and Balochistan are not only economically unviable but politically unstable too. NWFP, in all likelihood will see a Talibanic revolution if not for a little moderating influence of Punjab. Again, Punjab by exercising its dominant influence can persuade the rival Bugti and Mazari tribes to the negotiating table. Left to themselves, these tribes would annhilate each other in the internecine warfare. Now add to it the strength of Islamic bond and you have a not-so-weak Pakistan. IMO, Pakistan state, despite the gloomy predictions of a few, is actually quite a stable state in political sense, though lawless. Those who think that Pakistan will disintegrate are exaggerating the negative factors and overlooking the balance of power and economic factors that ties the fate of one state to the other. However Pakistan may continue to see the lawlessness for a couple of decades, thanks to the gross socio-economic mismanagement- an inevitable fallout of the corrupt leaders and jihadi culture.

arjun_m

Indeed it is ridiculous to think that muslims are any less patriotic that Hindus or Sikhs. In my various study courses and jobs I have had muslims as colleagues and could never tell the difference. In fact, now..and only now.. I look back and realise that ..Yes!! they were muslims..and now only I sit down to analyse thier behaviour (which was very much like any other Indian). So, we should not just believe the BJP for all its propaganda.
But we do have some elements who believe in muslim brotherhood more than a loyalty towards the country. And these few behave differently.

rsridhar
Why are you unwilling to except that your generalizations can be wrong? And my experience is not restricted to Kerala.


An analogy of the destructive potential of your generalizations- suppose I went around saying I am a victim of Brahmins and Brahminism? I can easy generalize the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few of my Brahmin friends to every Brahmin including you, if I am not mistaken. Then I can twist everything you say and all your attitudes or every known Brahmin`s attitudes and actions to suit this thesis of Brahminical victimisation, even giving Brahminical import to Vajpayee`s vacation and Advani`s breakfast. Would it make sense for me or anyone to do so?

No, and why? For the reason that in reality nothing about modern day Brahmins and Brahminism is simple any more, and EVEN the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few have to be seen in proper context. For example, I have found any insularity among any of my Brahmin friends is not a desire to perpetuate caste heirarchy and persecute or exclude others, it is simply something wholly personal such as cultural pride, including in their traditions, something many nonBrahmins also display.

And there is a lot of individual/group variation in attitudes of `Brahmins` in a given community, or region, add to that the difference in regions and finally all this variety is seen only in single digit percentages of the absolute Indian population. With such a variety of experience, generalizing about `Brahmins`(like some Pakistanis do, for example) would be a totally meaningless and very destructive enterprise.

Similarly NOTHING is simple about Muslims, Muslims cultures and traditions and attitudes of Indian Muslim populations which are much more numerous, so kindly restrain your broad brush hostility. Even Rafiq Zakaria doesnot have the omniscience of god.

Sameer #150
Your Gujarat example is absolutely correct and appropriate.

Re your earlier remarks on Gandhi/Nehru being elitist, well truth be told I find yours and Saima`s attitudes elitist:). Saima asked whether Pakistanis can buy land in India and you are all for putting ones regional loyalities ahead of everything. I think given the way things are, these are elitist concerns.

Firstly, only rich Pakistanis can buy land, anywhere. Currently, the landless, for example are dependent on the goodwill and profitability of large landlords for livelihood. Given this, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to buy land in Pakistan, at least get the title of that which they have tilled for generations, if they so desire, and only then should the question of doing so in India come up. Share the bounty with your countrymen first!

In addition, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to become trade union leaders, mayors, sarpanchs, member of provincial legislatures and member of National assembly and have access and influence in matters in their personal lives, locality and region in their own country before becoming a landowner or voter or consumer of civic utilities and subsidies of another country as well.

Also, if market forces or say large scale mechanized farming displaces the ordinary guy, where is the opportunity for him to emphasize his regional identity and culture? What is the regional identity of someone who will be evicted when his tilling contract expires? Or someone who cannot find a job in his hometown. He will need to migrate out to where he can find a job, or say where water for irrigation is available. They maynot speak his mother tongue or celebrate his culture where he finds all this, the schools may not teach his children their mother tongue, books and newspapers in his language may not be available.

On these matters and others, Gandhi and Nehru both had visions, however incomplete. For example, the Congress had even preIndependence accepted end of landlordism and land redistribution in principle. Gandhiji had a vision for villages to be selfcontained economies, so that noone has to migrate out and there would be minimal environmental degradation. Nehru had a vision for the objective of the state to be to take everyone along economically. India stuck with the Nehru economic model for too long, but it did a lot of what it was meant to do(including giving rise to a middle class) before it became a economic deadweight. Gandhiji and Nehru were much more leftist and and much less elitist in these matters :) and they succeeded in selling their ideas to a huge nonelitist audience for this reason.

Chowk staff, please post this.

rsridhar
Why are you unwilling to except that your generalizations can be wrong? And my experience is not restricted to Kerala.


An analogy of the destructive potential of your generalization here: what if I went around saying I am a victim of Brahmins and Brahminism? I can easy generalize the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few of my Brahmin friends to every Brahmin including you, if I am not mistaken. Then I can twist everything you say and all your attitudes or every known Brahmin`s attitudes and actions to suit this thesis, even giving Brahminical import to Vajpayee`s vacation and Advani`s breakfast. Would it make sense for me or anyone to do so?

No, and the reason is the reality is that nothing about modern day Brahmins and Brahminism is simple any more, and EVEN the insular attitude or rigid habits of a few have to be seen in proper context. For example, I have found any insularity is not a desire to perpetuate caste heirarchy and persecute or exclude others, it is simply something personal such as cultural pride, including in their traditions, something many nonBrahmins also display.

And how much variation there is in attitude of `Brahmins` in a given region, add to that the difference in regions and finally all this variety is seen only in single digit percentages of the absolute Indian population. With such a variety of experience, generalizing about `Brahmins`(like some Pakistanis do, for example) would be totally meaningless and very destructive enterprise.

Similarly nothing is simple about Muslims, Muslim cultures and traditions and attitudes of Indian Muslim populations which are much more numerous, so kindly restrain your broad brush hostility.

Sameer #150
Your Gujarat example is absolutely correct and appropriate.

Re your earlier remarks on Gandhi/Nehru being elitist, well truth be told I find yours and Saima`s attitudes elitist:). Saima asked whether Pakistanis can buy land in India and you are all for putting ones regional loyalities ahead of everything. I think these are elitist concerns.

Firstly, only rich Pakistanis can buy land, anywhere. Currently, the landless, for example are dependent on the goodwill and profitability of large landlords for livelihood. Given, this, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to buy land in Pakistan, only then should the question of doing so in India come up. Share the bounty with your countrymen first!

In addition, ordinary Pakistanis should be able to become trade union leaders, mayors, sarpanchs, member of provincial legislatures and member of National assembly and have access and influence in matters in their personal lives, locality and region in their own country before becoming a landowner or voter or consumer of civic utilities of another country as well.

Also, if market forces or say large scale mechanized farming displaces the ordinary guy, where is the opportunity to emphasize his regional identity and culture? What is the regional identity of someone who will be evicted when his tilling contract expires? Or someone who cannot find a job in his hometown. He will need to migrate out to where he can find a job, or say where water for irrigation is available. They maynot speak his mother tongue or celebrate his culture where he finds all this. His children maynot be taught their mother tongue in their school and he maynot have access to newspapers and books in his language.

On the above two points, Gandhi and Nehru both had visions, however incomplete. For example, the Congress had even preIndependence accepted end of landlordism and land redistribution in principle. Gandhiji had a vision for villages to be selfcontained economies, so that noone has to migrate out and there would be minimal environmental degradation. Nehru had a vision for the state to take everyone along economically. India stuck with the Nehru economic model for too long, but it did a lot of what it was meant to do(including giving rise to a middle class) before it became a economic deadweight. Gandhiji and Nehru were much more leftist and and much less elitist :) in these matters and they succeeded in selling their ideas to a huge audience for this reason.

Sorry for multiple posts.

Pankaj #164
Good post. A cooperative-competitive relationship as you nicely put it, lies at the heart of Indian regionalism vs nationalism too.

And as you point out, the cooperation can be more than hardnosed pragmatism, it can even be constructive. For example, though my father lives in the far south, he has been involved with helping build a Hindi lexicon of technical terms, being invited to do so by local Malayalis who are running this activity! Now how is this possible, that Malayalis will be engaged in building a Hindi lexicon? Paradoxically, its because its been accepted that in Kerala the first and official language is Malayalam, and only after that come the claims of other languages like English or Hindi. Being secure in the status of their own language and institutional support for it, people then feel free to apply their minds to other languages.

sorry friends -- aur bhi gum hain zaman meiN muhabbat ke sewa -- this is more urgent right now -- my apology for the intrusion.

A civilized ex President of MY civilized United States -- speaks out against the FOOLISH WAR -- about to be launched by our FOOLISH President -- at great PERILS to Peace and Security -- at home -- and RULE OF LAW -- abroad.

Here is an Op Ed column by President Jimmy Carter -- from todays New Yok Times:


a Just War -- or just a war?

By JIMMY CARTER


AATLANTA — Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two centuries have earned our nation greatness.

These commitments have been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint.

Our apparent determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards.

This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options exhausted.

In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist.

These options — previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by the United Nations — were outlined again by the Security Council on Friday.

But now, with our own national security not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized nations.

The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

The war`s weapons must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, inevitably results in ``collateral damage.`` Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein`s other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society they profess to represent.

The unanimous vote of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq`s weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade.

For these objectives, we do not have international authority.

Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous economic and political influence (pressure) that is being exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China.

Although Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards (bribes -- a crime) and partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern.

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.

Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home.

Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America`s world standing if we don`t go to war after such a great deployment of military forces in the region?
__________________________________________________

The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory.
______________________________________________________

American stature will surely decline further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations.

But to use the presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq`s compliance with all United Nations resolutions — with war as a final option — will enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice.(NYT)

I feel the issue has been aggravated by the preoccupation of our people with religion and ideology. Why can`t we treat humans as humans and not as muslims and hindus? Or let me ask a more useful question - How can we mature to a state where we can rise above religion in our interpersonal interactios?

Unless that happens, these discussions are frivolous matters and one upping in the tradition of the religious kind.