Non-Reformist but Non-Cleric

Re: # 15
Yes, it is a legitimate question to ask: Do we want to be in a state that is relatively stable and progressive but lacks basic freedoms or in a state that allows freedom of expression but is instable and backward and completely arbitrary.

I have great regard for Faiz. But would I want to live in the Soviet Union he adored? Probably not. Definitely not!

Though today’s isn’t as clean cut a case, I would probably not want to live in the freedom restricting Iran of the Ayatollahs.

However, your comparison of the President being a stooge of the Ayatollah and Shaukat Aziz being the stooge of the Army Chief is entirely misplaced and you know it! Shaukat Aziz couldn’t get two votes if it weren’t for the Army Chief.

Ranjit’s post was good. However, I am convinced Pakistan’s inability to function in a democratic set-up is entirely the result of the meddlesome Army. It has nothing to do with the lack of intellectual depth that other Islamic nations face. Yes, the lack of intellectual depth persists, but that is not responsible for the zeal of the faujiz. They are in it cause they don’t want to lose out in the decision making process.

iron_mask

To be the best of my understanding, you are exactly right. :)

This is a great and topical subject. One day we should discuss it in detail.

Behram1

The best judges of the quality of a country`s democracy are its people. So, Pakistanis can reach their own conclusions about their system.

Please don`t take Ranjit`s opinion to heart. By now you must have figured out that most of us Indians think very highly of our country. :)

Behram1

The best judges of the quality of a country`s democracy are its people. So, Pakistanis can reach their own conclusions about their system.

Please don`t take Ranjit`s opinion to heart. By now you must have figured out that most of us Indians think very highly of our country. :)

Re: # 16
Wheel of Time (ok to call you that), you make an interesting observation. Sometime back I was having a discussion with a few friends (one of whom you know on this site). What was suggested was that the islam and muslims made giant strides forward only when the camel riders met a civilising influence. As in Iran, Turkey, India etc. This is where the most advanced Islamic Civilisations lie. The rest are just renteers and time wasters. The fight is on between the renteers/timewasters and the creators of new civilisations and thoughts within the islamic world. Hence the scraps in Palestine, Lebanon, and other places. Unfortunately the Indic lot have come uner the influence of the renteers/timewasters and got screwed in Afghanistan.

There is no true islamic civilisation - for that you have arabia. What we see as islamic civilisation around the world - India, Iran, Turkey, Spain - is a synthesis of the local (a more advanced civilisation) with that of the invading here and now mentality of the arab. This synthesis has taken the local civilisation to heights unknown before - that is why there was a sense of peace and acceptance of the new force in India (till the English arrived) - think Aurangazeb (the boogie man) would have become history in India anyway and his undermining of the traditions of the Mughals would have been small pertubations in the 1000 year story.

Re: # 18

Dear kaalchakra:

You responded with..{Unfortunately, ....} That suggets that like all of us you were disappointed.

You comment..{There are inherent problems in democracy. It works well over the long haul, although at any one moment in time, it may appear irrational and quite crazy.} Of course it would take a longer time in India than in any other country merely due to the size of that country. Would you not agree?

I am not suggesting for one moment that democracy is not good for the people of any country. Democracy has its own system of governance. But, who is to suggest that India`s democracy is better that say China`s. Both of them have their own way of electing their representatives. Also, we had elections in Iran and Turkey. I wonder what is that specific barometer that one can suggest is the absolute? Is it the one that is in the US? or the one in Canada? or the one in UK? or the one in West Europe?

Using any of these barometers, I would humbly suggest that India is no where close to these democracies. Therfore, one must refrain from the self aggrandizing characterization of one`s country. In my opinion, the proof has always been in the pudding...Let those years arrive, where India has a genuine democracy. A democracy where you will see approximately 200 million dalits vote becuase they know that this is their riight, where there is equal rights for all citizens of India regardless of their religion, etc.....you know the EEOC stuff that we talk about in the US.

Oh yes, you are right, India`s democracy does appear irrational and quite crazy. And for that same reason, I would not go claiming what we are not.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

behram1

Unfortunately, the people of Gujrat did accept the mass killings of muslims some year back, and put Mr. Mody back in power.

There are inherent problems in democracy. It works well over the long haul, although at any one moment in time, it may appear irrational and quite crazy.

Re: # 14

Dear Ranjit,

Your self aggrandizing comment about India`s democracy is amazing. As you very well know most enlightened people consider India as the most populous democracy and that`s it. But to suggest that in India`s democracy every single individual`s right to vote is protected is really a stretch.

You write..{A true democratic society has the maturity and the wisdom to reject extreme ideologies and has a self-correcting mechanism to determine the right course of action.} Is that why we still have Narendra Mody? Are you suggesting that the people of Gujrat accepted the mass killings of muslims some year back? Did the US not reject the visa of this killer of muslims some time ago?

Is this what you call...``The ordinary people in their collective wisdom determine their destiny``...what is the wisdom in creating a killing field?

Your comment about...{basically muslims as a people are not evolved enough to have a truly independent democracy where the will of the people is supreme...} is correct. But this is not only amongst muslims. Being a Zoroastrian, I see that almost all of us from South Asia are not evolved enough to understand the intriacacies of democracy.

I tend to agree with your comment...{Islamic civilization is backward and lacks the intellectual depth and maturity of other civilizations..} However, please do not make such harsh comments...{No wonder everyone else looks down on muslims.} As an Iranian, I will be bold to suggest that Iranians looks down on hindus as well as muslims, and the arabs are likewise. So who is this everyone? For the west, it seems that we are all the same... and they look down on us regardless of who we are?

Yes, muslims have to improve their lot. But so do the hindus, the sikhs, the parsis, the jains, the aga khanis, the pathans, the punjabis, the afghanis, the iranians, the arabs, the turks, the uzbekcs, the greeks, the italians....have I left out any body?

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Rozaiba

I am pretty big on subtle but profound and durable influence of cultures. IMO, neither Turkey nor Iran fully share the Arabic mindset. Both have strong local cultures upon which an uncertain layer of Arabic Islam has been placed.

Montag,

As usual, thank you for your kind words and support that you show for my articles and posts on this website.

Inquirer,

Bias is a natural human phenomenon... a way should be found to reduce it but caricaturing the other is not going to help.

Muqaddam,

I did not suggest that all is well in Iran... but that Ahmadinejad`s election is a step forward for the Iranian people, even if a small insignificant one...


Salim,

Thank you :)

Ironmask,

I am afraid my friend it is not a grande army... the Iranian revolution is well contained as long as the pragmatic middle class gets to make the policy... and that is what I think this victory indicates... it must be remembered that Ahmadinejad was NOT the original government candidate.

Behram1,

Thankyou.. :)

The article has a lot of significance for Pakistan as well... because ultimately we too have to break the shackles of the military.

Ranjit,

What you have written is not in contradiction to what I`ve written... yes Muslims have not evolved as a people... but then you have to accept that they are in some way shape or form a people or constitute sub-national groups within accepted geographical nations. It is a long way for the Islamic world to arrive at secular democracy... but it has to... What is your solution to current backwardness of Muslims? kill them all?


Rozaiba...

Ahmadinejad as the mayor of Tehran installed the statue of Simon Bolivar- the founding father of Venezuela, Bolivia etc ... I think that in of itself shows that he is not narrow minded in his thinking... and then there are many other things... he tore down Beckham`s poster a few years ago... for obscenity (ofcourse you would never see women in Iran on billboards... like you do in our Islamic Republic... so there is no question of tearing down billboards with women on it)

I ofcourse don`t see Iran, a partyless Mullah-dominated state, has anywhere ahead of us as such.... The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran is ultimately as big a stooge of the Ayotallah - the rahbar as our Prime Minister is of the Chief of the Army Staff... unlike us there is no criticism of the Rahbar in Iran... in Pakistan we have a rather vibrant press quite critical of the Chief... Turkey has fared better... after 81 years of evolution ... but it too went through its rough patches, hanged its popularly prime minister and today it has a strong Islamist undercurrent...

Read Ranjit`s post... I think it is almost an accurate portrayal of the two states- though he is a bit uncharitable to the Turks...

-YLH

manto:

yes, ahmednejad seems like a good man for iran. that picture also looks pretty cool.

more such studies need to be done to help understand why turkey and iran are where they are in a region that is rather antagonistic towards a democratic dispensation. i feel perhaps visionary leaders willing to fight the circumstances - internal and external - had a large role to play in this.

again, and you may not agree with this, pakistan has ended up with a man who is way too concerned about his own legitimacy to be able to string together a sense of direction.

there could be a comparison of bush and ahmednejad. bush would probably end up being the more conservative of the lot.

This article is totally off the mark. Both Turkey and Iran are failures in democracy because neither country allows free choice to its citizens. In Turkey, if the army moves aside, the people will elect the mullahs to come to power. In Iran, if the mullahs step aside, the people will elect the secularists to power. In either case, the will of the people is forcibly controlled by an unelected group of people whether it be the army or the mullahs in the respective countries.

A true democratic society has the maturity and the wisdom to reject extreme ideologies and has a self-correcting mechanism to determine the right course of action. In India, when the lefties were running amok, people elected the BJP. When the BJP didnt work out, they elected the lefties again. If the lefties do not work out again, the BJP will once more. But that is the nature of the game. The ordinary people in their collective wisdom determine their destiny - not some arbitrary institution that believes that it has the god given right to control everyone.

The experience of Turkey and Iran shows that basically muslims as a people are not evolved enough to have a truly independent democracy where the will of the people is supreme. Islamic civilization is backward and lacks the intellectual depth and maturity of other civilizations where people have been able to control their own destinies. In Islamic countries it is always some unelected person, military dictator or an arbitrary institution that has to control the people. No wonder everyone else looks down on muslims.

I agree with u when you say Iranian revolution was not a step backwards but unfortunately it was soon taken backwards like happens in most revolutions of any ideology.

Dear Yasser,

As usual, you have write well. Thank you. I enjoyed it very much.

I would like to get some comments from Iranian and/or Turkish intellectuals on the subject matter. I wonder if the Chowk staff aggressively markets their web site to these two groups.

Respectfully submitted,

Behram B. Atashband

Mantolives, bhaijaan, there is a small gap in the perspective. Iran and its system is the equivalent of the Grande Army. And the Grande Army has to have a Bonaparte, who can project its wishes and desires onto the world and thus a problem/threat to the world order. If there is a Bonaparte then there is a need for a Wellington to contain the Bonaparte and bring sense and order to the world. No Wellington, is a recipe for Chaos.

Ahmadinejad`s win would be a triumph if he can pursue the interests of Iran within the given world order, even if there is to be a change in leadership it has to be orderly. You cannot have revolutions popping up everywhere.

What Ferggy has said is true, and one should note his statements and understand them.

Re: # 7

It is Cyprus... very different from the doctrine of Cypress...