From Tribalism to Humanism

I`ll read your article later ... but just from the title ... just teach me how to change my mother and my father?

Re: # 1
dear zeemax...we are always free to adopt new mothers and mother lands and mother

tongues....

peri parnani kashmir di si...kashmiri boldi si....peri nani amratsar di si...punjabi boldi

si....peri sister lahore rehndi hay tay urdu boldi hay....and i adopted canada as my

motherland....and speak english now....realizing from kashmir to amritsar to lahore to

toronto is the same mother earth...who will welcome us in her heart when we die......dil di

boli sab di maan boli hay...mohabbat di zabaan naheen teh fasaad hi fasaad hay..

zeemax ji..smiles...sohail

its hard to change old generations mentality but if we realize it then we can pass this message to our next generation...if we manage to have one!

I fail to see how and why tribalism is bad and how humanism is a better alternative. Any social structure, in fact, comes into being because of certain demands of internal and external factors that bind a group, circumstances, group dynamics and probably technology. Man will always live where he is more comfortable and safe as long as the circumstances permit; and he will adopt to the changing circumstances; causing the old system to be modified and changed. That is how human beings have evolved in the past 1 million years.

I don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other; the only difference that counts is the ideology and principles by which a society and individual live by. I fail to see why a tribal society cannot practice humanist attributes (which in your opinion are somehow superior) or conversely why a humanistic society (if one will ever exist) would not bear tribal attributes.

I do not see any merit in your thesis.

Re: # 4
dear urstruly...it might seem from your letter that we disagree but from your comment

` i don`t think that any method of living is superior or inferior from the other` reflects we

are closer in thinking. the problem in history is not that one group (tribe) thinks their

ideology and lifestyle is better, they even want to enforce them on others. america

today wants to enforce her ideology on the third world.....in the past christians and muslims

and communists tried to conquer other countries and tried to colonize them.....

we have not evolved to the philosophy of live and let live,,,thank you

for your honest comments....sohail

Amen! Sohail sahib -- alas -- humanism is being replaced by the religion of chauvinism -- no more: shia hai aik aankh to sunni hai doosree....great piece!.

Shore qaum-o deen meiN zikr-e rawaadaari sohail
keya sunnaee day hameiN tujh jaisay deewanay ki baat

Re: # 6
dear nasah...thank you for your kind comments. they reminded me of martin luther king`s

comments that if we follow the principle of an eye for an eye....soon the whole village with

be blind....all the best....sohail

Re: # 5
dr sohail.
the philosophy of live and let live is very simplistic and and highly superficial.when we look into historical process we find that clash is something that is inherent in human beings.it is invetable.why are we always reluctant to accept this obvious fact.every ideaology on this earth is expansionist.democracy ,islam christianity and communism fascism.they all are expansionist.so why should we blame a certain ideology for being expansionist or admire other for being less expansionist.why do we develop our thesis and give judgment on the basis of this rediulous and superficial criterion.human history or society itself is the evidence of human nature.this kind of approach just destroy the seriousness of the issue under consideration.what we should do is to look into the philosophical and technichal grounds of those ideology and then give judgment not the basis of being less violent or extremly violent.
regards

Re: # 9
dear philosopher....i am sorry if i could not clarify my point. what i am trying to say is that

we all have multiple idnetities. my name is sohail. i was born in a muslim family in

pakistan. now i have a choice. i can identify as a muslim and a pakistani. my folks told me

that because i am a pakistani muslim ...indian hindus are my enemies and we need to have

jihad against them. for me to rise above such tribal mentality i believe that hindu men and

women from india are my bothers and sisters. that is how i can resolve my persoanl and

collective conflicts. i feel leaders of religious and political organizations and parties need to

rise above the partisan politics. today in america genuine politicians have to rise above

democratic and republican politics.....alongside the political and historical dynamics there is

a psychological dynamics....every human being who kills another human being has to take

responsibility for his tribal mentality and not be swayed by the charismatic cultish

leader....who is willing to die and willing to kill for his ideology. it might seem simplistic

philosophy but it is the starting point. every soldier of an army and every member of an

extremist religious and political party makes that choice. when you meet people in your

living room, within a few minutes of passionate discussion the tribal mentality surfaces and

a family meeting turns into a war.....you can see that when people decide about their

own or their children`s wedding. how many people marry because of character how many

focus on the tribe...? i believe each one of us has to rise above hundreds of years of

conditioning if we have to evolve as a species.it might sound idealistic but i think it is a

reality of our day to day social and political lives. visible minorities pay more price than

others for such tribal mentality and prejudice.thanks for your comments....sincerely sohail

Dr. Sohail,

Is it fair to say that Mahatma Gandhi symbolized a more humanistic thought process whereas Mohammed Ali Jinnah symbolized a more tribal mindset?!!

Re: # 11bjkumar
is it fair to say that gandhi`s ``humanistic approach``was an attemt to make people of sub-continent submit to colonial their colonial masters and oppression and jinnah`s ``voilent mindset``made the oppressed people of india fight against the ``double standard of shanti philosophy``and their colonial permoters?
regards

#12 Philly yaar

I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question before I even take a crack at understanding your legalese-like stuff.

You are not a lawyer, by any chance?!!

thank you drsab for writing a very relevant article for indian subcontinent, specifically the issue of religious conversion. the hindu tribals feel that christian tribals from abroad have a colonial agenda in supplying cash for conversion, and there will be a new TNT. so hindu tribals are going to tribal areas and setting up tents and hindu revivals.

Re: # 11
dear bj kumar....knowing a little bit of history of chowk readers who are very passionate

about pakistani and indian conflicts and their political leaders, i do not want to step on a

minefield.

in my humble opinion it was ironic that gandhi and jinnah could not resolve their political

conflicts and negotiate with mountbaten in a way to prevent massacres of innocent muslims

and hindus and sikhs. it was one of the biggest tragedies of 20th century. i am a writer and

a therapist not a politician. as a teenager my introduction to humanistic philosophy was by

saadat hasan minto, the short story writer, creator of a masterpiece like toba take singh.

minto wrote ` do not say 100 muslims went to heaven and 100 hindus went to hell. say we

lost 200 precious human lives` for me such thinking separates tribal thinking from

humanistic thinking.

in my book ...prophets of violence, prophets of peace,,,, i have discussed the differences

between triangle of gandhi, jinnah and bountbaten from mandela, butulezi and de clark of

south africa. white south african governement was going to divide south africa in 8

bantustans based on tribes. mandela did not want that so he said...we do not want to

divide south africa in bantustans like india got divided in pakistan and hindustan. mandela

went to see butulezi and swallowed his pride and told him we can prevent the

massacre....butulezi agreed and both leaders made peace and then negotiated with de

clark to prevent break up of south africa.. i wished jinnah and gandhi could have resolved

their conflicts and saved innocent human lives.

while i was reviewing their biographies i was also surprised as a psychotherapist to read

that gandhi disowned his son as he became a muslim and jinnah disowned his daughter as

she married in another faith....both leaders disowned their flesh and blood as they left the

tribe.....how sad...sincerely sohail

Re: # 13bjkumar says;

[I would rather wait for the good doc to attempt to answer my simple question]

you really need doc sohail[psychatrist].