Tilak and Gokhale

Yehuda #138 Israel and Pakistan are the only countries in the world formed in the name of providing a homeland for people of a certain religion. One can question the rationale behind this (my Indian brothers on chowk would no doubt have lots to say on this), but the fact is that they are both here and they are not going away and dont need any rationale for their existence any more.

My question (and you should be a knowledgable person as a lawyer from Israel on this) then is: What is the relationship of ``religious law`` as determined by the rabbis to the laws passed by the legislature? How do you reconcile the two?

This is a big issue in Pakistan where religious (or shariah) law sits alongside regular laws, thanks to Gen Zia who introduced it a couple of decades ago.

shammi #124 ``dowry deaths are now treated very seriously (burden of proof has shifted to the in-laws in the case of any suspicious deaths)``

I dont think dowry deaths are as common in Pakistan as in India. There are of course ``honor killings`` by fathers and brothers of women who marry against their wishes, and while these get a lot of press they are restricted to certain areas and are not that large in number in think (if for no other reason than the fact that it is obviously harder for a father to kill a child in the name of tradition than for a bridegroom to kill a recently married stranger, and the profit motive that drives dowry killings is also missing, as is the fact that while a spouse is replacable a grown up daughter is not).

``and now women are struggling to get to get 1/3 of Parliamentary seats set aside for women.`` In Pakistan they already got them - 1/3 incumbents the local governments have to be women.

I dont mind India-Pakistan competition in the road to progress, and it is in that spirit that I present the above. I recognize of course that it is a long road we have to travel before a decent life can be lived by the majority of women.

I remain convinced though that the biggest enemy we have in India and Pakistan is poverty - fix that and a lot of social evils get fixed.

shammi#122 ``But, countries like Saudi Arabia, Gulfdoms, HAVE had affluent middle classes.`` A person belongs to the middle class if he/she has to work to earn a living and is financially comfortable. The former condition is not met by the Saudi class in power, and so the culture of democracy and freedom of expression has not found root.

``It was not the poor or the fundamentalists that created the three conditions in Pakistan (Hudood ordinance, gender inequality, usurpation of democracy) that I mentioned in an earlier post.`` Depends what you consider Zia to have been - he was clearly a fundamentalist in my view. If he had had his way, Pakistan would have been like what Afghanistan had become - as the US ex-Ambassador Kux correctly writes his book on Pakistan, Zia tried to introduce Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan but was forced to tone it dow due to domestic opposition and so moved his ambitions into Afghanistan by building up the fundamentalists there - Afghanistan does not have the same kind of middle class. One of the proudest things I feel as a Pakistani is that when Zia tried to implement his evil punishment of amputation for theft, NOT ONE doctor could be found in Pakistan who was willing to carry it out and he had to give it up.

On women`s equality, I think the roots are poverty which makes women dependant on men to survive. Pakistani women from the middle classes are in fact very much part of economic life (no more and no less than Indian women from the middle classes, I think).

Ylh # 229

Dear Yasser

If all your friends from the other side stop interacting on this site, this site will lose its charm, its eyeballs and its clients. These are the people who make it possible that Article written by you notch up impressive number of posts. Do you think site owners will like to lose business? Where is your economic sense? So, young man, bear with it and remember they certainly show you that side of the picture which you refuse to look at. no doubt this applies to them also. So, welcome them with humility!

Best of luck for your career and enjoy life!

hamidm ji

View from the wrong side and that of `devils` is:-

East or West, Gandhi is best:)

Jay will of course give a better summary.

Regards

YLH, you have kept your word!

You promised to rip the loincloth off the half-naked fakir`s bottom if the hated Hindus don`t stop claiming that Gandhi was better than Jinnah.

You have taken the first step in the direction.

As opposed to 1086 interacts, you will be posting 1086 articles on the heavyweight championship fight between Jinnah and Gandhi. (Featherweight might be more appropriate, considering the frame of the contenders for the crown.)

The Hindus will soon be overwhelmed by your logic, your valiant arguments in support of the secular Jinnah who created the secular nation of Pakistan (or, would that be state? Can you explain once again the difference?) and your quotes (from Ayesha Jalal, the only PhD from Pakistan) against the rabidly anti-Muslim Hindu fundamentalist Gandhi.

Shades of Panipat and Plassey!

The banias and the brahmins will turn tail and run away from Chowk.

Can Chandni Chowk be far behind for our conquering hero Yasser Latif Hamdani?

In closing, let me just say:

Pakistan Zindabad!

Hindustan Murdabad!

The only secular democracy in Asia is Pakistan.

India is has been and always will be a Hindu fundamentalist country.

Pakistan is a shining beacon for all people. If you don`t believe it, look at all the Afghans in Pakistan.

Ethnic and religious minorities enjoy the full protection of the constitution, the courts, the state machinery such as the police and public support only in Pakistan.

In India, the hated Hindus actually go out in the night hunting for Muslims so that they can be sacrificed to Goddess Kali.

Thank Allah the hated Hindus don`t eat meat, otherwise they might rape even more Kashmiri maidens.

The only comparison in world newspapers is between China and Pakistan`s political systems.

Pakistan is showing the path to a glorious secular democratic future to the Muslim Ummah.

(Let us see whether Chowk editors will follow the brave Islamic warriors of the past and screw up enough courage to publish this.)

YLH,

In 203, macgupta has given the reaction of gandhi to the conversion of his son to islam. This cleearly shows the sexist nature of the gandhi, by addressing ``musalman`, he has left out half the muslims, that is muslim women. If gandhi were such a great saint he shouldd have addressed as ``musal man and women``. In addition there are several gramatical errors which even temporal can find out, and even the spelling errors could not have been that of macgupta. What is important is the following quote, the words of another person when a woman coverted to islam. `` worshipping fire is a pagan act, leaving the dead bodies for the vultures to eat is dastardly and any religion that attributes god to the above acts is evil. It is the duty of people from noble religions to save these souls, one at a time, through marriage and conversion so that the progenies are saved from the evil religion``. That is from `` Freedom at Midday`` by Santa Weerappan, aka stanly wolpert.

regards and best wishes for a careful read of 203.

jay.

Hamidm 234,

For you non-pig eaters a country is nothing, that is why you dropped half of it a quarter century ago. For we hindus, bharat is out mata ( mata means mother, you urdu speakers will not know), and that mata has been cut initially to two and later to three, i.e. india pakistan and bangladesh, fragments like nepal, burma, bhutan, ceylon etc dont count, ( dont forget sikkimisation). We in India are mathematicians, arybhatta, ramanujam to name a few and we also believe in febonacci, who said that natural processes like division of countries will follow the series, 1,2,3,5,8.... So the next stop is 5, add sindh and kashmir, at least we can make febnocci happy. That is what we are after, you can defend pakistan and we will support the proof of mathematics.

Countries are created by men, mathematics is the way gods think, what ever be the name of god.

regards

Jayaprakash,

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

ylh #236

I said ``the inevitable point at which self-rule begins in earnest has been put off repeatedly in Pakistan using the same excuse repeatedly : that the masses indulge in ruinous populist sentiment inimical to `broader` national interests.``

You say ``On the contrary, every ruler has feared the Mullah street power``

ylh, by masses I didnot mean Mullah street power. Did you?

By masses, I mean the Pakistani voters. When have Pakistani voters been allowed to rule without interference ? Their choices are still being second-guessed by those who talk of sham democracy. Talking of the last 10 years willnot do, what of the precedents of the 40 years preceding ?

Throwing the unfettered electoral process baby out along with corrupt politicians bathwater means that masses are still not trusted to make their own decisions about national and provincial affairs. The masses are still being kept at arm`s length.


``Secondly the Islamic Element, led by fanatics and fundamentalists felt that in Pakistan their importance would be lost (as time and electoral process has shown to some extent) since fundamentalism feeds off of insecurity.``

ylh, thats exactly what I am saying, the masses were never allowed unfettered electoral process.

The institutions of mass empowerment (a Constitution, legislatures, executive branch, electoral process, political organisations, unfettered freedom of expression) were always sidelined using the excuse of `higher` priority tasks like `safeguarding national interests`.

The spin on national interest this time round will be `to prevent Mullah takeover`, I am guessing.

I agree with sb #245 `s very-wellput comments:

``I have more trust and faith in the earthiness of a common man/Muslim than the people at their helm, who write about these people alternately pointing out their backwardness and seeking concessions for any organized extreme behaviour. (but of course, it pays to whine)


ylh, we`ve heard your views very often. Can you now describe what you think most other Pakistanis want? If they could change anything, what would they change? If there is something they just cannot live with, but are unable to do anything about, what is that?

I donot mean what leaders say and wellknown intellectuals and their published thoughts, or even the views of yourself anad your immediate circle, I mean what you observe from the people around you, from ALL socio-economic backgrounds and of ALL ages.

scout:

I didn`t get Zahra`s #223. I`d ask her to explain, but risk being snubbed. :) Maybe you could explain in what way it was a ``Good reply``?

rgds,

PM

Dear Yasser,

Upman`s #242 was indeed interesting, for it exposes a side of Jinnah that can scarecely be said to be `secular` by modern standards (which you clearly seem to tout). Jinnah called for the contitution to reflect the spirit of Islam, by which he was no doubt referring to the transcendant values of social justice and equity, which, as we have seen, was admired even by Gandhi (in Islam, I mean).

I hope this will make you think a little about the necessary relationship between religion and state (at least in the subcontinental context), and perhaps pause for a moment to consider that, in the end, Jinnah`s call to bring laws ``in accordance with the spirit of the Qur` an and Sunnah`` is not so different from Gandhi`s reliance upon his religious traditions for a conception of a more successful polity. Neither were blind followers by any strech.

As for your #227 deriding Gandhian principles, well, it would seem to me you are thoroughly sold on the Western ``tech=progress`` equation. Gandhi would`ve outlawed Cable TV if he had the chance? So what? Can you think of a more corrupting influence on Pakistani kids than Star TV? (And i`m not referring just to the concerns about sexual mores)

----btw, upman, your #248, far from painting Jinnah as a possible precursor to the Taliban, only indicates what a fine conceptual line there is between inspired religosity, which is all-inclusive, and the sort of obscurantism and bigotry displayed by the taliban, hammas or FSI.

But I am glad you produced those quotes. Perhaps YLH will be forced to view Gandhi`s affirmations of his Hinudism in a different light, since he is compelled to do the same for Jinnah.

------

Yasser, getting back to your post deriding Ghandian socio-economics, I thought you might find this excerpt of interest. It is from 1989 preface to that seminal 1959 book on `economics as if people mattered`, ``Small is Beautiful``. The writer of the preface has this to say about the author. Please read, as I have taken the trouble (poor ol me!) to type out the type it all out. I think this book might be more than of a little relevance to anyone interested in a career in Develeopment Eco.

begin quote

E.F Schumacher’s economics is not part of the dominant style. On the contrary, his deliberate intention is to subvert the “economic science” by calling its every assumption into question, right down to its psychological and metaphysical foundations.

Perhaps this sounds like a project that only a brash amateur would take on. But this book is the work of as professional and experienced an economist as any who bears the credentials to the guild. Schumacher has been a Rhodes Scholar in economics, an economic advisor to the British Control Commission in postwar Germany, and, for the twenty years prior to 1971, the top economist and head of planning at the British coal board. It is a background that might suggest orthodoxy, but that is exactly wrong. For there is another side to Schumacher, and it is there we find the vision of economics reflected in these pages…

The first example of Schumacher’s work I came across was an informal talk he gave in the mid-sixties on the practicality of Gandhi’s economic program in India. I was at the time editing a small pacifist weekly in London and was on the lookout for anything about Gandhi I could find. But there was a viewpoint I had never heard expounded by Ghandians, most of whom brushed over Gandhi’s concern for village life and the spinning wheel as if it were the once regrettable folly of an otherwise great and important man. Not so of Schumacher. Step by step, he spelled out the essential good sense of a third world economic policy that rejected imitation of Western models: breakneck urbanization, heavy capital investment, mass production, centralized development planning, and advanced technology. In contrast, Gandhi’s scheme was to begin with the villages, to stabilize and enrich their traditional way of life by use of labour-intensive manufacture and handicrafts, and to keep the nation’s economic decision-making as decentralized as possible, even if this slowed the pace of urban and industrial growth to a crawl.

From the standpoint of conventional economics, this sounds like a prescription for starvation. It is not that at all. Schumacher’s point was that Gandhi’s economics, for all it’s lack of professional sophistication (or perhaps for that very reason) was nonetheless the product of a wise soul, one that shrewdly insisted on moderation, prservation, and gradualism, on the assumption that to seek “progress” by releasing cataclysmic social change is only a way to demolralize the many and make them the helpless dependants of the rich and expert few. And even then it may not be the way to feed the hungry. Gandhi’s economics started (and ended) with the people, with their need for strong morale and their desire to be self-determining – objectives which headlong development can only thwart. As Schumacher points out, “poor countries slip, and are pushed, into the adoption of production methods and consumption standards which destroy the possibilities of self-reliance and self-help. The results are unintentional neocolonialism and hopelessness.”

It is typical of Shcumacher that he should take Gandhi’s economic principles seriously, as much in dealing with the advanced industrial countries as in discussing the third world. In doing this he endorses much of what his profession has written off with unexamined self-assurance. But then, economists, for all their purported objectivity, are the most narrowly ethnocentric of people. Since they are universally urban intellectuals who understand little of rural ways, they easily come to regard the land, and all that lives and grows on it, as noting more than another factor of production.

Hence it seems to them no loss, indeed, a gain, to turn all the world’s farming into high yield agri-industry, to depopulate the rural areas and to crowd the cities to the point of chronic breakdown and crisis. Since they inherit the conception of work from the darkest days of early industrialization, they find it impossible to believe that labor might ever be freely-chosen, nonexploitative, and creative value in its own right. Hence it seems to them self evident that work must be eliminated in favour of machines or cybernated systems. Worst of all, since their worldview is a by-product of industrialism, they automatically endorse the stupidities of industrial man and his love affair with the terrible simplicities of quantification. They thus overlook or distort the incommensurable qualities of life, especially Schumacher’s holy trinity of “health, beauty and permanence.”

end quote

Dear YLH



You have very well educated us about your viewpoint on Jinnah(and Gandhi) through numerous writings on Chowk. There is little doubt that we have academic differences on this issue, but I dont see any reason why we cant respectfully disagree. I have a suggestion to make, although I am afraid that is a gratuitous one. Let us leave the personalities ie. Gandhi or Jinnah out of discussion and place ``ideas`` on centertable. As I essentially see, on an ideological level there is little difference between us(yourself and many Indians). If you talk about secularism, economic progress there is little scope of any difference between yourself and any well meaning Indian( and this includes McGupta, Sadhana, upman, etc for they are reasonable people). It is time to invent an independent line of thought consistent with modern era, though you may seek your inspiration from Jinnah, and Indians may seek spiritual solace in Gandhi. Till the core ideas are reasonable, I dont see any essential conflict. We know that you harbour a desire to go back to your country and participate in politics. If you are successful in at least raising your voice in its(secularism`s)favour, you can count on the support of all well intentioned Indians(including me). If you can honestly follow Jinnah`s speech in Constituent assembly, you will vindicate Jinnah. Actions speaketh more than any high sounding words. However if your sole aim is to denigrate Gandhi, a figure revered in the whole world as an apostle of peace and non-violence, you would be wasting your talent. Whether you agree or not, his influence in shaping many of the glorious non-violence movements throughout the world will remain undeniable. Nelson Mandela, who I think also has done an in-depth study of Gandhi, would still call him ``A Sacred Warrior``. In the upcomming century his ideas of non-violence and Satyagrah will keep on inspiring several Lech Walesas and Martin Luthers whether one likes it or not. Hence let us keep ideologies and personalities at the back burner and discuss only about ideas. Let us not try to persuade the other to accept one`s viewpoint. Please get over your obsession with ``Gandhi Vs Jinnah``.Any viewpoint that has its basis in honest intentions and reason is equally valid and can produce only good results. Let me reiterate that if you can even partially contribute towards promoting the cause of secularism in your country, you will find many of us(Indians) willing to support your efforts whole heartedly.

Sincerely

PS: I would request all the interactors (including my fellow countrymen)on this board to avoid statements that can be construed as a personal attack, because ``ad hominem`` is the surest way to defeat one`s purpose.

Dear YLH



You have very well educated us about your viewpoint on Jinnah(and Gandhi) through numerous writings on Chowk. There is little doubt that we have academic differences on this issue, but I dont see any reason why we cant respectfully disagree. I have a suggestion to make, although I am afraid that is a gratuitous one. Let us leave the personalities ie. Gandhi or Jinnah out of discussion and place ``ideas`` on centertable. As I essentially see, on an ideological level there is little difference between us(yourself and many Indians). If you talk about secularism, economic progress there is little scope of any difference between yourself and any well meaning Indian( and this includes McGupta, Sadhana, upman, etc for they are reasonable people). It is time to invent an independent line of thought consistent with modern era, though you may seek your inspiration from Jinnah, and Indians may seek spiritual solace in Gandhi. Till the core ideas are reasonable, I dont see any essential conflict. We know that you harbour a desire to go back to your country and participate in politics. If you are successful in at least raising your voice in its(secularism`s)favour, you can count on the support of all well intentioned Indians(including me). If you can honestly follow Jinnah`s speech in Constituent assembly, you will vindicate Jinnah. Actions speaketh more than any high sounding words. However if your sole aim is to denigrate Gandhi, a figure revered in the whole world as an apostle of peace and non-violence, you would be wasting your talent. Whether you agree or not, his influence in shaping many of the glorious non-violence movements throughout the world will remain undeniable. Nelson Mandela, who I think also has done an in-depth study of Gandhi, would still call him ``A Sacred Warrior``. In the upcomming century his ideas of non-violence and Satyagrah will keep on inspiring several Lech Walesas and Martin Luthers whether one likes it or not. Hence let us keep ideologies and personalities at the back burner and discuss only about ideas. Let us not try to persuade the other to accept one`s viewpoint. Please get over your obsession with ``Gandhi Vs Jinnah``.Any viewpoint that has its basis in honest intentions and reason is equally valid and can produce only good results. Let me reiterate that if you can even partially contribute towards promoting the cause of secularism in your country, you will find many of us(Indians) willing to support your efforts whole heartedly.

Sincerely

PS: I would request all the interactors (including my fellow countrymen)on this board to avoid statements that can be construed as a personal attack, because ``ad hominem`` is the surest way to defeat one`s purpose.

To Veeresh #

What do u mean when u said Gandhian state?

Cheers,

Jntuece99

To YLH #

I know that there is no point in trying to convince you about the greatness of Gandhi as an individual. But atleast refrain from posting his quotations out of context. Dont think that you can get away with it.

Dear ALL,

Conclusions-Part one

THE QUINTESSENTIAL GANDHI

Having said a lot about Gandhi, I exhort the intersted people to go ahead and find out about Gandhi for themselves. Let us not judge him by oneliners, but by his actions and his ``honesty of purpose``(my preferable term) that is reflected clearly in his evolution from Gandhi, the traditionalist, of 1920 to Gandhi the revolutionary, in the later phases of his life.

He often said his pursuit of truth had caused him to change his mind, and that others too should be open to new findings:

``In my search after Truth I have discarded many ideas and learned many new things.... When anybody finds any inconsistency between any two writings of mine, if he has still faith in my sanity he would do well to choose the later of the two on the same subject.``

NB: The word ``latter`` is used in the sense of time.

Reference: Collected Works, p. 2

Finally in keeping with the spirit of experimantation, let us chart out our own way, to discover our own truth.

In 1940 he urged his followers to go beyond him in this spirit:

``Let Gandhism be destroyed if it stands for error. Truth and ahimsa [renunciation of violence] will never be destroyed, but if Gandhism is another name for sectarianism, it deserves to be destroyed.... You are no followers but fellow students, fellow pilgrims, fellow seekers, fellow workers.``

It is time for us to make use of Gandhi in this progressive way with understanding and concern for truth. Please remember his words, all of us are students here and we have to experiment with ``what we honestly think right``. And this requires a courage and confidence in one`s abilities.

Sincerely

The evolution of Gandhi from ``Sarv Dharma Prarthana`(the prayer for all religions) to Secularism in the later phase of his life:

He said that because religion was a personal matter, it should be confined to the personal plane, and that if officers of the Government as well as members of the public undertook this responsibility and worked whole-heartedly for the creation of a secular state, then only could we build a new India that would be the glory of the world

Reference: Harijan, 1947, P. 303.

Sincerely