America’s Frankenstein Monsters

Dost-mittar #121: I tend to agree with what you have stated.

Having said that, I think Pakistanis actually do attach themselves, with their land, historically, quite a bit more than most Indians give them credit for, and realize. And I think Indians do tend to historically use religion (Hinduism or Indic religions) as a defining point of a single historical civilization quite a bit, as well (something your post seems to be pointing to, also).

This (incorrect, in my opinion) historical view is based more on concept of a Hindu, ``ummah`` of sorts, and not a civilization, with a unique culture, language, physical features, land etc........It would be equivalent of saying that the whole Muslim ummah is one civilization............

South Asia is actually a continent of nations and civilizations. It resembles Europe. It has never been one civilization. Calling it one civilization would be like calling Europe one civilizaiton, just because everyone is and was Christian. Had the British not conquered South Asia, it would, today, probably look like Europe - a larger group of independent states, based on different civilizations, cultures etc., that shared a couple of common religions............

This has always been the historical tendency of the area.....

Also, it is incorrectly assumed that South Asia was invaded again and again by people from the outside. And that South Asians never invaded others. I am not an expert, but the only area of South Asia that seems to apply to is the Indus civilization area. This area, has only now, finally, reached a stage where it is being ruled by its own inhabitants. Other than that, over 2500 years, barring Ranjit Singh and Sher Shah Suri, it was ruled by invaders from North, West and East. I am trying to highlight that those from the East were invaders of the area, also. And this fact should be accepted and not glossed over, just because those from the East happened to be Hindu invaders (or Jains or Bhuddhists).

The Indus Valley did not go out and invade others. Probably because they were too weak. However, all other areas of present day India were invadees and invaders.

I have started reading about Chandragupta Maurya, quite a bit. It is interesting to note that he, and his next generation, invaded present-day Afghanistan and conquered parts of it. So the Ganga civilization invaded Afghanistan area, before Afghans invaded the Ganga.

There is another interesting fact,

``In the course of his wanderings, he met Alexander the Great and, according to Plutarch......encouraged him to invade the Ganges kingdom by capitalizing on the extreme unpopularity of the reigning monarch.``

So Chandragupts basically encouraged the Greeks to invade the Ganga (his own homeland), through the Indus area. He then later attacked the Greeks, himself, and conquered Punjab. So the Punjabis became victims of a joint Greek/Bihar conspiracy (squeezed by two groups who are at opposite ends of the world!!).

The other interesting point is the speed with which the Mauryan empire spread. It is unprecdented, till today, in South Asian history. Within the time of two generations, from Chandragupta to Ashok, it ruled from Afganistan to the Arabian Sea and Bay of Bengal. The only other group that I can think of who spread so fast are the Mongolians under Genghis Khan.

The Mauryans had one hell of an Army.........and they did far more, ``invasion`` of South Asia, than anyone before or after them......

Re: # 115 majumdar

``As a Bengali Hindu, I may attempt an answer. When I was married, the priest chanted some shlokas from Vedas (which of course I couldn`t make head or tail of), these were composed on the banks of the River Indus. ``

You couldn`t make out anything thing out of it is because you don`t know sanskrit, it doesn`t matter where they were composed. Sitting in america a mumbaiya marwari can understand a marathi song composed somewhere in maharashtra.

#123:

Hello chusni/echoboom

coffee?

finally a post without any profanities or vulgarities

now go and discover that ayah that mentions why in His wisdom he has divided mankind so they can distinguish amongst themselves...

``If you have to search for your identity, you have no identity`` Echoboom

Cerificates, Passports, Degrees, Citizenship Cards etc etc OR any instrument which proves your status are simply conventions. If something can be granted, it can also be nullified and cancelled.

Only those criteria which cannot empower anyone , other than one`self allowing it, to change one`s status is anyone`s identity: birth place & time, mother, tribe etc. Beyond this you are what you profess to be , no matter what the ``authorities`` decree for you. It is only you who can decide to change your status, no matter how much the others disagree.

``jo tUlUb pey ehd-e vafaa kiyaa, toa voh qadr-e rsm-e vafaa gaee
sUr-e aam jUbb huay muddaee, toa savaabe sidqu-O safaa gayaa``

``when they demanded allegiance, then the whole concept of fealty went out the window``


No one but no one can decide one`s identity. This social-engineering has become a pastime of unemployable, unemployed, and tenure seeking tweedled professors. Unless Artsy/Fartsys are kicked out of paid jobs such confusing & confounding of IQs would continue--and more Licenced Dubba-Peers (psychobabblers) will continue to wreck & ravage civilisation.

`` Jiss cheez meiN shUkk naa ho, savaal paidaa naa ho, aur kisi kee raai kaa ehsaan naa uthhanaa paRRay, aur jo aap khuud upnee marzee sey badal leiN--bUss vohee app kee shanaakht(ID) hai``--echoboom.

The last frontier of freedom is ones own mind & body, -``-Laa rai b` fee hai huda` lin muttaqueen``. It is for those who do not have any doubt whatsoever.

Majumdar/kaalchakra : ``Mor generally I think its OK for anyone in the Indian sub-continent to take pride in achievements of any particular sub-region, irrespective of the religion/location of either the present day inhabitant or the people of the past. Becoz,irrespective of who or where we are, our present day culture draws something or the other from the past from all over the sub-continent.``

I don`t agree with this. And this is the anomaly I am trying to highlight. How is this any different from a South Asian Muslim attaching himself to Saudi Arabia, or to invaders from Afghanistan? This is a complaint that many Indians have against Pakistanis, i.e. Pakistanis base their roots solely on religion. I think there is some legitimacy in this complain, in many cases.

Yet, whenever, I have discussed the same issue with Indians, I have always seen them associate the South Asian, ``civilization`` based on religion also. Your comments highlights that as well. The present-day culture of one part of the Indian Sub-Continent didn`t, ``draw`` something from all other areas. Other than religion. Much like the present day culture, of Pakistan, and to some extent India also, draws religion from Saudi Arabia.

In fact, how do you define Sub-Continent to begin with? It is not one nation or one civilization. And it never was. It was rarely ever even under one govt. It consisted of different empires, which ruled over various nations under different situations. Bengal was (still is?) as differrent from Sind as England is from Italy. Bihar was as different from Taxila as France is from Sicily.

South Asia has always been a Sub-Continent, like Europe, of various different nations, all of whom had distinct feature of a civilization like language, physical features, culture etc. The only common thread being religion. Based on this, when someone started conquering the place, they conquered other people and other nations. Just because the other people had the same religion, cannot be used to legitimize the conquests.

Yet it is used to legitimize them..........

I currently live in the heart of the Indus civilization, Taxila (i.e. Islamabad). This area was conquered from every direction, by people from every religion. From the West by Persians and Greeks, From the North by Afghans and Central Asians. And from the East by Biharis (amongst others). Not to mention the South, by British and Arabs.

As a present-day citizen of the civilization, shouldn`t I be equally offended by each of the invasions? None of the invaders did this to help the locals. They were all carried out to spread empires, be they from Bihar or Kabul.

Yet I find a unique distinction. The Muslims have no qualms about Mohd bin Qasim invading the area, and consider him a hero. While the Hindus have no qualms about Chandragupta ending up there, all the way from Patna, and make him a hero. Both were invaders, apparently viewed differently depending on which religion people belong to............

This brings us back to the core question of what is a civilization. Should religion be the defining factor? Or should it not? If it isn`t, then any South Asian conqueror who stepped out of his own backyard, should be considered an invader, regardless of religion..........

Romair#112:

There is a number of ways in which one can look at this issue. At a very simple level, it is a case of how history is taught. In India, Indian history continues to be the history of the subcontinent as it was taught during the British period, so Indians do not feel the same kind of link to Sri Lanka (or to Man Sarover in China or even to Nagaland in India) although it is a big part of the Hindu epic of Ramayan. A Punjabi feels connected to Ashoka as much as a Bihari or a Bengali, just as a Bihari/Bengali feels as much connected to Porus and Prithvi Raj Chauhan as a Panjabi, regardless of the fact that the progeny of Prithvi Raj and Porus is probably almost all Pakistani and Muslim. Conversely, Pakistan`s history books pay little or no attention to the history of its land before the landing of Mohammad bin Qasim in Sindh, so there is more linkage to Islam in general and Islam-in-India in particular.

Secondly, it is difficult to say what part religion plays in all this because as far as the Hindus are concerned, geography, culture, religion and civilization are all closely intertwined. But to the extent it does, it has to be the Indic religions and not to the Hindu religion as we understand it today. This is why the Hindus felt hurt by the destruction of Bamiyan Buddhas even more than the Buddhists in other parts of the world because the identify with the Buddhist/Gandhara civilization even more than they identify with the glorious temples built by the South Indian Chola kings.

The Pakistani identity is more like that of the descendants of white Europeans in North America who identify themselves with the European culture. The irony is that they are, in fact, more like our Native and Méti (half-breed) christians who take greater pride in their native ancestry than in their christian heritage. In Canada, at least, even the white attitude is changing; thus we have started calling the natives ``First Nations`` and our books and Museum of Civilization in Ottawa-Hull give the pride of place to the Native exhibits.

echoboom/Urstruly:
I must admit that the Urdu columnists in Pakistan are much more fun to read than their English language counterparts. More seriously, we do have a cultural gap here - the word `dog` does not have the same derogatory connotation in the West as it has in our and middle eastern culture.

Aslam644: #117: I would lean towards your definition, as well. I think land is the closest affiliation towards a civilization. The second, in today`s world, is the concept of nation-state.

aslam #117 Well said.

malik #79 I went back and read your response to my original question, and I realize I misunderstood what you had said and as such there was no contradiction in that response. My apologies for that.

As I now understand it, your point was that the number of political parties is not relevant, and that (as you write in this post to dost mittar) ``Each country has its unique requirements and ways of governance.``

While granting that no contradiction, I still think you are going off track here. I say this because there are in fact certain universally accepted principles that serve as benchmarks for governance, as follows:

1. Accountability: The US government is clearly accountable to the PEOPLE of this country, in word and in deed. As Clinton said when he first became president, the president is merely a tenant of the White House - the owners are the people of the USA. This is in sharp contrast to the Iranian government, which (by calling Iran an Islamic State) makes it clear that those in power consider themselves accountable to GOD, and not to the people. This is nothing more than the theory of the Divine Right of Kings that has been used by kings through the centuries and across the world to impose their will on society (from the egyptian kings who considered themselves descendants of Re, the Sun God, to japanese, mayan, european, muslim and so forth). The US is unique in that it shattered this false claim when it first ``fired the shot heard around the world`` against the troops of King George over two hundred years. The rest of the world, starting with the europeans in the 19th century, the japanese and germans and indians in the mid-twentieth century, and over 100 countries around the world today (with large numbers of democracies emerging in east europe, latin america and africa after the 1980`s due to victory of US ideas of the Soviet model) have accepted this principle of accountability to the people.

The iranian government (like pakistan where again Islam is stuck into the constitution as a trick to weaken the power of the people expressed through proper elections) is the laggard. So, far from being comparable to the US in political development (as you would have it), the iranian government is lagging behind even countries like South Africa. It is more like Zimbabwe (where technically there is an opposition, but Mugabe makes sure the voice of the people is suppressed in elections. As in iran.

2. There are other universally accepted principles based on which iran is decidedly primitive: free press (here it lags behind even Pakistan); pluralism (which comes with economic progress); and so forth that I wont get into in order to keep this post short.

Thus, your basic premise, that ``Each country has its unique requirements and ways of governance`` is fundamentally flawed. This is an excuse for one man or group to maintain power, nothing more.

Identities aren’t a zero sum game, they are tied to language, land, culture and religion.
In my opinion all of us have multiple, composite identities. Historically it’s been proven that the identity of land supersedes all other.

I will give two examples
1. Germany and Austria are both german, yet Austria has a distinct identity of it’s own because of the land, the alps, hence a separate country.

2. The American war of independence

The 13 original US states populations was over 80% of British descent, the rest black slaves, germans, jews, dutch etc. The founding fathers of US George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin were of British descent yet they fought bitterly against their mother country, because they had acquired a new identity, of the new land the American identity.

Romair

The root issue is one of POSITIVE EMOTION.

Positive emotion comes from IDENTIFICATION.

Identification leads to CARING, LOVE, PRIDE, ATTEMPTS AT PRESERVATION, even REVERENCE.

Absence of identification causes disregard, neglect, and absence of pride and definite lack of reverence.

A Hindu has little identification with many lands that a Muslim finds of great interest, and vice versa. Each identifies with different, specific lands.

Streets of India evoke feelings of love and reverence in the hearts of many Hindus. Many a Muslim is moved by the thoughts of wandering through different streets.

We identify with our cultural and emotional centers.

---

Do we also begin to love and respect the land we live on? I would argue that Hinduism and Islam advise very differently on this. Consequently Hindus and Muslims should be expected to feel differently toward the lands they live in, and towards the neighbors they live with.

And they do.

---

Some of your questions are such that one wonders about their purpose.

``Is the Indus Valley civilization a civilization of Hindus regardless of where they live (including Bengal etc.)? Is it a civilization of Pakistanis? Is it a civilization of Muslims, since that is who lives there now? Is it a civlization of Sindhis, Potoharis, etc., regardless of religion and where they currently live?``

It is the definitely the civilization of ALL of them, except Muslims, unless Muslims happen to share the land. It IS the civilization of Pakistanis.

---

``Why is an invasion of Indus Valley by Chandragupta, ``accepted,`` while one by someone else not accepted?``


Accepted?

What is being said is that those two are ``different,`` not ``accepted or unaccepted.``

Again, they are two ``completely different things.`` `Acceptance` is a function of what kind of things a specific person is willing to accept.

Re# 108

Romair,

But why would a Muslim or Hindu from Calcutta be attached specifically to the Indus area?

As a Bengali Hindu, I may attempt an answer. When I was married, the priest chanted some shlokas from Vedas (which of course I couldn`t make head or tail of), these were composed on the banks of the River Indus.

Mor generally I think its OK for anyone in the Indian sub-continent to take pride in achievements of any particular sub-region, irrespective of the religion/location of either the present day inhabitant or the people of the past. Becoz,irrespective of who or where we are, our present day culture draws something or the other from the past from all over the sub-continent.

Re: # 113

That was funny and miserable at the same time but reminded me of Patras Bokharis classic ``kuttay``

The merlot maaader-rates and lunlighted ones should actualy be proud that the dog in the cartoon is of a high pedigree. Earlier cartoons showed Tony Blair as a mongrel and the mexican President as a lesser breed than Muttar-ar`f ar`f ar`f .

This column could have been very hilarious, if it was not about that cartoon where the dog was named Pakistan, instead of being called Musharraf.

Yet the caricature of the pipe-smoking kanjaRR is still hilarious.



..............................................................................................................................................................

Dost-mittar #111: ``Generally speaking, Pakistanis/Muslims react very strongly whenever they perceive their religion is being disparaged; Hindians, on the other hand, hardly react about religious criticism but react very strongly when they believe that their country/land/civilization is disparaged. What it means is that for a Pakistani, his religious identity is paramount while for a Hindu, the link with land is more important.``

I would have to say this is probably correct. Muslims tend to be quite sensitive about their religion, especially in the post 9/11 era. Don`t quite know how sensitive Hindus are about their religion. Never discussed it, with any.

When it comes to land, as in country, I would say Pakistanis are very sensitive. As our Indians. Now when it comes to, ``link with the land,`` I am not sure. Though Hindus do seem more attached. But is that because their religion is tied to the land itself? And what are the boundaries of this, ``land?`` Are the boudaries wherever Hinduism spread? If not, then, once again, I have to ask the same question: Why is an invasion of Indus Valley by Chandragupta, ``accepted,`` while one by someone else not accepted?

I think it comes down to the basic question of defining a, ``civilization.`` Is it defined along geographical lines, cultural lines, relgious lines, ethnic lines, national lines etc..........Is the Indus Valley civilization a civilization of Hindus regardless of where they live (including Bengal etc.)? Is it a civilization of Pakistanis? Is it a civilization of Muslims, since that is who lives there now? Is it a civlization of Sindhis, Potoharis, etc., regardless of religion and where they currently live?

``you would rarely see a Pakistani Muhajir visiting India writing in a similar vein, even though many more of them visit India than Hindus visiting Pakistan, because most of them still have family contacts in India.``

This is correct also. Though I think one factor is that Pakistanis, specifically Muhajirs, already know so much about India. A visit is no suprise. While Pakistan is still a somewhat of a mysterious entity for Indians........

Romair:

These are emotional issues involving identity, sentiments and gut reactions, which are not always susceptible to logic and rationality alone. Generally speaking, Pakistanis/Muslims react very strongly whenever they perceive their religion is being disparaged; Hindians, on the other hand, hardly react about religious criticism but react very strongly when they believe that their country/land/civilization is disparaged. What it means is that for a Pakistani, his religious identity is paramount while for a Hindu, the link with land is more important. You have seen numerous accounts by Indians visiting Pakistan including those on chowk by me, Stuka, Parag Khanna and Veeresh (none of whom is Sikh, btw) where that link comes across as almost spiritual; you would rarely see a Pakistani Muhajir visiting India writing in a similar vein, even though many more of them visit India than Hindus visiting Pakistan, because most of them still have family contacts in India.