The Chicken Hawks Of Pakistan

sadna # 374

Thanks again. I really must read up.

sadna # 374

Thanks again. I really must read up.

Re Shankar#

...i wouldnt agree with your comparison of the US army attitude to civilians in vietnam with Indian army in Kashmir.... many details and i`m too lazy to type...

``When innocent civilians are being killed, its incumbent that Indians should be more balanced in their outrage.``

....that i find valid...indeed..

..i honestly do not think anything will come out of this current offer for talks....there`s no meeting ground....i mean even i cannot think of giving up Kashmir just because we`ve been blackmailed all these years, and i consider myself quite liberal......wonder what the rest of the spectrum of opinion in India would feel about it....remember the consternation in India when reversal of J&K to the pre-1953 status was proposed.....and ``azadi`` is the minimum pakistan wants....my reasons for feeling this way are many, and not occupation of some more land- if anything we deserve to retain Kashmir and kashmir deserves India....a decision to join Pk- if ever taken, is something Kashmiris will regret within a couple of years....when all the bonhomie created by an accident of religion dies down, and hard economic and social facts come to the fore, things will look very different...i had read a comparison of the economic and human development parameters in the Kashmir valley and ``azad`` kashmir by a BBC journalist (? Andrew Whitehead) in 1995 , when already 5 years of miltancy had taken its toll- it was like a comparison between the first and third worlds....just the incidence of some unemployment or a few less-than-ideal elections (which is true for the rest of India too) doesnt justify secession ....most kashmiris are aware of these facts, but i`m also aware there is some recent bitterness...its a confused state of affairs for them no doubt...

sadna#

``btw, I wonder what they (I actually mean N Ram) make of China inviting the Kanchi Shankaracharya to visit, this move might have throw him into a real tizzy:).``

N Ram evokes strong reactions from people...if you meant that he is extremely anti-religion/ pro-china, i`m not very sure....i mean Hindu still has a last page Religious Discourse page...he has his blind spots, but i admire his convictions for sticking on to his beliefs, which is so obviously unfashionable and on top losing him money (Frontline)...

Eklavya my post #364
I found this reference very informative and concise in its summary of who said what in the Constituent Assembly 1946-49 and elsewhere with regard to `secular` provisions in the Indian Constitution and in throwing light on where and why lie the seeds of many controversial issues today.
So I am taking the liberty of re-advertising it to all interested:
http://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484%20chiriyankandath.htm
Constitutional predilections
James Chiriyankandath

Shankar bhai, (re: 366)

No need to get cynical :)

Who knows that better than you?

BTW, whether you call yourself Amriki, Indian, or XYZ, I very much appreciate your contributions to Chowk (and that despite the fact that I think you probably are a far better psychologist than you are a strategist. I hope you wont mind my saying that! LOL).

Please do keep posting here. And I do agree with you that you don`t need to be all rational and proper here after dealing with wackos the whole day long! :)



Here`s my happy prediction about this coming Vajapayee-Musharraf lovefest. Nothing will come of it except more trouble for India. It is silly to think that India will gain anything by talking peace with Pakistani military. Perhaps time for Vaju to retire...

oooops....was that cynical?!

As in the case of those brainless ceasefire extensions, we will see again :)

sadna # 364

Thanks for the link. I have become very much concerned about the nature and sustainability of Indian secularlism. So I will do my best to read up when I find time.

Just to share my concern, I think Indian secularism is losing its steam (not very fast or even steadily, but slowly and in fits) in a way that is hurtful to the minorities. I dont think Indian secularism is ever going to disappear...I just think there is a need to strengthen it. And that will occur only if we re-thought the nature of our secularism. Our founding fathers were great guys, but I don`t believe even God can create systems that are perfect for all times to come.

hobbyty,

As an non-scholar, I will try to keep up with the logic of your posts. Perhaps I can be a bit more `scholarly` and you a bit less, and we all may well have a dialogue going about the logic of things (if not about academic references, of which I am completely ignorant).

First, a few comments regarding your definition of things. For, definitions are very important.

In general, I accept your defintions. However, I have two related suggestions:

1. I prefer (strongly) not to tie liberalism/secularism closely to particular religious/civilizational traditions. Whether these ideas arose first within Christianity or any other religious tradition is immaterial to our tasks (besides, those assertions are highly debatable, Max Weber notwithstanding). The great disadvantage of defining anything with respect to particular religious traditions is that of the halo effect.

2. I suggest our definitions focus not on past political movements but on current individual attitudes and outlooks. I belong to no formal political/social movement either of today or yesterday, but call myself liberal/secular. It is inevitable that past political movements have shaped the thinking of all of us, but my concerns and challenges are entirely current. So, why complicate our definitions with an additional layer of interpretation regarding past movements?

Knowing very little, and caring even less, about past political/social movements, I define liberalism and secularism as follows:

Liberalism - the belief that places a great deal of premium on individual liberty and freedom, and therefore strives to protect the individual from the heavy hand of all coercive social institutions. A liberal does not seek to eliminate all social control, he or she seeks to limit its reach to the extent necessary to promote individual safety, opportunity, and progress.

Secularism -

the belief that the public affairs of any society should be organized according to the considerations of common weal and not particular religious traditions.

Now, as you noted, secularism can be motivated by two very different considerations:

1. The progressive belief that no religion at all can be a good basis for organizing a human society: Secularists recognize that much in religious traditions can promote common weal. Yet, secularists are alive to the fact that religious traditions tend to be more about the past and the traditional than about the future and the rational (one solution for all time and all places syndrom). Consequently, all religions have a great deal of lethargy and irrationality built into them. This lethargy and irrationality will seep into any society that decides to base itself on ANY religion whatsoever.

2. The liberal belief that no ONE tradition should be the basis of organizing a multi-cultural society: This is the simple logic of human equality and human decency. Liberals believe that any system that formally sanctions massive discrimination against sections of populations is clearly one for the Neandethals. Liberals hold that social systems that self-consciously organize themselves on the principles of particular religious traditions and yet avoid massive and structural discrination against large groups of populations exist only in theory and people`s imaginations (Ram Rajya, The Original Caliphate, God`s Kingdom on Earth).

More later...

BTW What is Itjehad? And how good, do you think, Max Weber`s understanding was regarding non-Christian (Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist) traditions?

Dear Mr Shankar (hum Desi`s gotta address Mr American with respect),

If you are so proud of being american why do you hang out at this board? why arent you on the ``American Spectator`` website denouncing that turncoat Vermont senator or worrying why your favorite baseball/football/(dare I say hockey?, btw have you ever seen a non-white hockey fan?) is not doing well. Is it I dare say you feel some vestigal parts tugging?

upman7626 #365
I used to enjoy reading the Hindu, too, including the weekly Art Buchwald column.
btw, I wonder what they (I actually mean N Ram) make of China inviting the Kanchi Shankaracharya to visit, this move might have throw him into a real tizzy:).

Layman,

{{I`m glad you are no longer Indian. India is better off without bigots like you.}}

You really mean that?! Gee..thanks!!

Saxena,

Bit subdued these days arent you? Where`s the fighting spirit of the Saxena that I love/hate? C`mon you can do better than one liners..esp if I`m unravelled!

Tahmed,

I wish I could understand Urdu. Perhaps you could be kind enough to translate the interchange between qalander & you.

upman7626,

{{..didnt appreciate your description of Malayalam...am a mallu :)}}

Thankyou for taking my statement in the right spirit:) Your post does prove my point that you guys are pretty intelligent--er except for Jay. In a mudfight, sometimes bits of mud splatter on to people that I have no quarrel with. Sorry about that.

I may be wrong, but I think you are relatively new to Chowk. I have criticised both India & Pakistan for what is happening in Kashmir.

I agree that a guerella war is difficult for any military. The US army committed many atrocities against innocent civilians in Vietnam. Its easy for soldiers to lose their heads; esp when they see their buddies blown to bits by people dressed as civilians.

When innocent civilians are being killed, its incumbent that Indians should be more balanced in their outrage. Blaming everything on Pakistan & the mujahadeen,like Indian bigots are doing is certainly not balanced. That doesnt mean I agree with the Pakistani bigot who proclaims that Indians are deliberately raping & murdering Kashmiris, as a matter of policy.

If Pakistan is part of the problem, then India should talk to Pakistan. Until a few days ago, India was steadfastly refusing to have anything to do with them. Sulking about the ``Kargil betrayal`` is getting fewer & fewer returns. I`m glad Vaju has had a change of heart.

The fact that there are so many bigots on both sides, even among the ``educated elite`` has perhaps made me cynical. So I dont have too much hope that the Kashmir problem will ever be resolved. Be that as it may, if this visit improves relations with Pakistan in areas other than Kashmir, it`ll be a win win situation for both sides.

I was doing a psych residency in India when my immigration papers came through. But youre right, psych residencies are easier to get into than other fields. Unfortunately, I`ve seen too many collegues in my field who hate what theyre doing because they would have made excellent internists/surgeons etc, but had no choice but to go into psych. The most poignant example is a good friend of mine, who was a practicing ophthalmologist (& a damned good one) in England, but was forced to go into psych because ophthal is closed to FMGs.

Re hobbyty #361

``We all have baggage, it doesn`t make us better or worse persons. Just persons with baggage.``

....i couldnt agree more...since you mention The Hindu, you might be interested to know that this publication that is so strongly against Brahamanical exploitation and political Hindutva in general is run by undoubtedly the most conservative management in India- a family of brahmins...it was this paper that pioneered effective investigative journalism in india with the Bofors revelations in the late 80`s.....it takes one of the most principled stands in Indian politics and I`d anyday agree with their byline ``India`s national newspaper``.... i think its name and its editorial policy reflect the essential attitude of hinduism...

Eklavya, hobbyt
This may also be of interest re history of secularism in the Indian Constitution:
http://www.india-seminar.com/1999/484/484%20chiriyankandath.htm

And re talks between India and Pakistan:
IMO, nothing much will come of it, India will get egg on its face and Pakistan will say India is not sincere, but still I think its a very heartening development.

hobbyt #359
I am posting this reference the second time on chowk which has some interesting thoughts on secularism in general and meanwhile it sheds light on the defination and history of the term `secularism`, also as related to India and the intentions of the writers of its Constitution:

http://www.here-now4u.de/eng/secularization_and_cultural_di.htm

Secularization and Cultural Diversity
John R. Mayer

He essentally says in his introduction(which is the portion of interest to me, and pl read it as there is plenty of explanatory detail) that the evolution of `secularism` as an ideal in the Indian Constitution was with the intention of safeguarding India`s multitudinous religious heritages by celebrating all as equally key, while European secularism essentially evolved from trying to wean the dynamics of the state from the irrationality of religious dogma.

What is most suitable for a state like Pakistan (which has diversity of its own) is worth pondering over.

btw, just something I`ve been wanting to ask:
After seeing the Jang new item hariharan #163 has also posted(even though perhaps its not even authentic news), I took a look at a section of the Pakistani Consitution to see if the ordinance mentioned could be shown to be unConstitutional as being against ``freedom of worship and religious observance`` or something like that. I cannot tell whether it can or not, or whether I am even looking in the right place, can you or anyone possibly comment on this further?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/pakistan/pakistan/constitution/part2.ch1.html
Here is what I found:
`` 20. Subject to law, public order and morality:-
(a) every citizen shall have the right to profess, practise and propagate his religion; and
(b) every religious denomination and every sect thereof shall have the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions. ...``

``...22. (1) No person attending any educational institution shall be required to receive religious instruction, or take part in any religious ceremony, or attend religious worship, if such instruction, ceremony or worship relates to a religion other than his own....``