Get off her back…

DM:

My connections, however limited, with the Pakistani military were a long time back but I can`t ever recall seeing regular army, as opposed to SSG, marching in the manner you describe. Were the men you saw double-timing with a pretty exaggerated stride (i..e, lifting the knees up very high, to something approximating chest level)? If so, they were SSG. The regular Army never does that and the SSG is much more gungho about everything, including religion, than is the Army. If they were just doing a regular jog and chanting, I`m not sure what was up.

Romair is right. Brit patterned armies do not sing Judies while marching; that is a peculiarly American military tradition and one that only dates back to WWII.

Romair#374:

I did not mention air force platoons anywhere? Or that they were singing. ``Huq-hoo, alla-hoo`` that I observed was merely a substitute of ``left-right, left-right`` routinely used during march by soldiers (I believe even NCC) in India.

I think that I have revealed quite a bit about myself in my interacts. I am mostly retired now, but take consulting assignments if they are offered to me without looking. I also do some voluntary work, especially with a facility for out-of-town patients and parents of sick children, especially those with oncology and cardiac problems. I like to read a lot. Cyber-reading seems to be replacing real reading these days although I still like the touch and feel of real books and turning real pages, incstead of clicking the browser scroll.

Hope that it helps.

Re: # 367

Re- Semantic Jugglery Comment:-

Let me put the disagreements with Samina in the proper perspective. I thought that the difference between the ``act of creation of the text by the author``, ``the text`` and the ``understanding of the text by the reader`` are as important as the difference between the ``signifier`` and the ``signified`` and would be well understood by Samina as one who shares the same horizon (jargon/paradigm) of the western literary theorist community. (You know what I mean- `the hermeneutic circle`` , ``difference``, Gadamar-Habermas debate etc etc...)

Let me first speak of my horizon which follows Gadamer :

``For Gadamer, understanding is a social activity, or as he says in Truth and Method, a “sharing in a common meaning” (292). Gadamer posits that the human being is always understanding and understands by participating in a conversation with what he or she experiences. In regard to the reading of texts, then, the significant event for Gadamer is the understanding that occurs between reader and text, or the conversation that takes place between them.``

As well as his attack on the philosophy of presence in the ``meaning`` of the text:

``For hermeneutics, ``truth`` no longer signifies the ``correspondence`` of ``mental states`` to ``objective`` reality, and ``meaning`` is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being ``discovered`` and ``represented`` by a mirroring mind. ``Truth`` and ``meaning`` refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply ``representational``). Hermeneutical truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning, as hermeneutics understands it, is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or ``the world.`` Truth and meaning have nothing ``objective`` about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the ``event`` of understanding itself, are inseparable from, as Gadamer would say, the ``play`` of understanding.

In reconceptualizing truth and meaning in this way, hermeneutics thereby also reconceptualizes the pivotal notion of ``knowledge.`` What is called ``knowledge`` is not, as Derrida would say, the possession of a ``transcendental signified,`` a translinguistic ``essence`` (this is the metaphysical or logocentric definition of knowledge, a definition which, it may be noted, Derrida uncritically accepts). ``Knowledge,`` for hermeneutics, is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. For Gadamer, understanding ``is a process of communication.`` In reconceptualizing matters in this way, and in insisting on the ``communicative`` nature of human understanding, hermeneutics offers us something more than does deconstruction, i.e., something more than the mere cacophony of everyone`s parodying, fanciful interpretations of things (the ``private fantasies`` of Derrida that Rorty speaks of).``

I hope that clarifies why I disagree with your ``semantic jugglery`` comment on my re- formulation of Saminasha`s thesis of ``text as a social action``. The meaning-horizon dependence is what differentiates those who insist upon a ``correct`` understanding of the text (as a reified pure entity existing apart from the community of readers) and those who insist that it is not the text but the horizons of the community of followers that ``creates`` the meaning of the text in the social act of understanding of the text.

Dost-mittar #365: OK. (By the way, Air Forces don`t have platoons. They have flights, squadrons and wings. Platoon being an army concept. And they don`t sing songs, while marching. The march to the music of the songs, while keeping perfectly quite. Singing while marching is a US tradition. While British-ly inclined militaries, don`t sing. They just march to the music).......

Anyways, as an attempt to initiate a move away from solely religiously and secularly inclined discussions (which this interaction with you is also based on; haq ho, allah ho, jihad etc.), I have decided to ask the following questions: I have always wondered what you do for a living. What are your areas of expertise etc.

It is kind of odd that you and I have been interacting for three years or more, on a daily to weekly basis, yet I have very little idea about what you do. The only issues we have discussed seem directly related to religion and secularism (and Indo-Pak politics). Primarily because that is where all the topics on this site tend to funnel the discussions.......

I think it is time to move away from that........I doubt if we were to meet in real life, on a real Chowk, we would be discussing everything under this umbrella of these two topics.....

297 FV writes
Re. 16. “Seems Farzana thinks that Arundhaty is `The One` with the divine right/knowledge to preach others and get on every body`s back, mind, conscious and all.”

No. I am incapable of hagiography. I have already explained wrt Amulya Ganguli the context of getting off her back…ditto the Narmada Andolan. Of course, people must counter her – when they can. Rather silly that this has to be stated. Insecure?

---

Insecure ? who me or you
there is a news papaer Asian Age (definitley not among top newspapers in terms of readership in india)
there is a columnist there Amulya Ganguli
He writes a critical piece on another author Arundhati Roy

and you get offended by it (or may be felt insucre ...) and wrote a long article here defending Roy. And now you are brazen enough to call me names`` ... Rather silly ....... Insecure?

If you just wanted to rebut Amulya Gnaguli , you should have called him up and settled the matter amongst yourselves or let Roy defend herself. But you wrote the article here perhaps because this is sort of your own turf with lots of admirers like dost-mittar etc. It reminds me of the saying ``apni gali mein .... bhi sher``

if you really care about people poor, operessed, women, marginalised or otherwise than ``walk the talk``. Spend yr money and time and career for thier well being. Wrirting articles ,making AVs dosen`t help anybody except you.

Stand in elections , write the Civil Servces exam , take up an office , take responsibility . Or become a doctor or some `Grameen Banker` like that guy in bangladesh and then when you have done yr bit then come back to me or all people here.

Then I will not laugh on being called Insecure, Silly , stupid or whatever but take it seriously and try to emulate you.

and btw the image on chowk icon still has the map of pakistan.

Re: #368 by Uncompromising Intellectual

[but ayone who opposes child marriages, sati, devadasi system in the small towns and villages is applauded. No one asks when are we going to see this change in cities.]


How many incidents of child marriages, sati and devadasi systems have thou come across in cities?

Re: #364 by Romair

[It is as useless as discussing whether India is better than Pakistan, or Pakistan better than India.]


Yes, this is true. That`s because it is very difficult deciding which state is better.

Let`s see now.

Pakistan - Undemocratic, ruled by dictators and feudal lords, fundamentalist Islamic, madrassa-infested, the fountainhead of world terrorism.

India - Democratic, secular and at the forefront of education in the world.


This is indeed a difficult choice.

No use wasting time trying to decide.

Farzana,

Well....I dont know how to take that palpable absence comment, lol....esp since I`ve come back and seen reams of heated grandstanding on everything but the girl and the book...and your absence-you such a strict board keeper normally...

Needless to say, it is a great book and this piece was long coming! Hope to read more soon.

Quick notes:

Harimau:

Oh dear...so now Muslim women raising their voice in a backwater town is not enough for you? I think this is a strong signal...pardon my saying so, but ayone who opposes child marriages, sati, devadasi system in the small towns and villages is applauded. No one asks when are we going to see this change in cities.
- - -
Samina:

Most of my post addressed to Ballukhan was in response to his response to your comments. ``Semantic jugglery`` appeared in that context where he mentioned `understanding` of the text as opposed to the text itself.

The one point where I disagreed with both of you has been clearly spelt out.

Take your time...thanks anyhow for making your imminent absence from this board seem so palpable...can`t speak for Ballukhan, but one reads what one wants to...or perhaps, Habermas is no substitute for a real-time interaction!

Farzana, Ballukhan

Having been away for a few days, I have just noticed post 297. I do take issue with some of the characterizations of my comments, ``semantic jugglery`` being a disingenious phrase that doesnt actually engage with what text as social action means....nor do I think that women cannot be the worst perpetrators of patriarchy-Mammachi and Baby Kochamma being perfect examples....

However, this is going to have to wait until I have some time and the inclination. In the meantime, you might read some Habermas while I`m away!

#365 by dost-mittar on September 18, 2005 10:19am PT

If you remember a few datails like some words he used or the title of the thread or something, you can use google search with a site:chowk.com

Not too hard if you know a little about google search

For example, it took me 2 seconds to find what you said about Capt Clueless` comment about the t-shirt with a paki flag...

Ibtidae ishq hai rota hai kya

Aage aage dekhiye hota hai kya

You may be right but it`s too early to tell. The crucial question is that supposing Musharraf is able to deliver OBL, will that be enough? My hunch is, no. I think if the Americans are looking for long term solutions, they will (and must) insist on closing all Madrassas in Pakistan training jehadis. That`s when the cookie will start to crumble.

Romair#364:

This was how I remembered something you said a few years ago during a discussion of Pakistani military. I do not know how to retrieve that comment, so I would accept your statement as the true version.

As regards my observation, I have stated what I saw; if I had seen the platoon singing ``Jimmy aa ja re aa ja`` while marching, I would have reported that.

kaalchakra #354: ``The only time other issues can be discussed independent of religion is when all discussants share broadly the same views toward religion. It`s silly to think that that can or even should be done on Chowk.``

I ran across this comment, while going down the list.

I have always felt that this site is far too obsessed with religion and its twin sister secularism. Every single discussion turns into a shouting match between religions or between secularism and religion. And so many of the articles tend to rotate around these two topics. In addition, people have set these two concepts as the criteria for goodness, wellness, morality, progress etc, i.e. one group suggests that if you are not religious, you cannot progress, be good, be humane etc. Another group suggests that if you are not secular, you cannot be any of the above......

Neither group will ever agree to move the discourse to other topics. All topics must be tied in with religion or secularism. One stating that a country cannot advance, in say, Computer Science, if it is not secular. The other stating it cannot do so if it is not secular. Pakistan, at the moment is less secular than Iraq under Saddam, yet has a better CS base. While Iran is more religious than Pakistan and has an even better CS base. And Malaysia is more secular than Iran and has a better one than Iran......

If someone asked me one thing to remove from Pakistan`s govt. system, it would not be religion or secularism. It would be financial corruption. Yet if you asked most people on this site, it would be either religion or secularism.........

Such obsessiveness with only two topics, amongst people who, come hell or high water, will never change their minds on the subject, is bound to create abuse, verbal violence, humiliation etc. Which is what Chowk has eventually turned into.

Added to this, is the fact that this leads to inter-religion rivalry. I never discuss Hinduism on this site. Nor really Sikhism. The moment I get into a discussion on that, I know it could turn into a religious conflict. I will never say that India is good or bad, because it is Hindu or Sikh, or secular. It will be a pointless debate.

Any debate which one can never win, and will never agree to lose, is a pointless debate. Such is the debate between these two groups........I have debated with both, and both are fanatically convinced that the whole world and its solutions solely evolve around religion or secularism - be it economics, poetry, finance, education etc. Obviously this is a nonsensical and limited approach to the world.

I have written 15 articles on this site, over six years. Not a single one is on religion or secularism. In fact, I have deliberately attempted to highlight ideas, which are independent of both. Yet, invariably, I find myself in heated one-sided debates with people who want to impose their ideas of religion or secularism onto everyone. They are each convinced that they are right and the other one is an idiot. And, yes, to this day, I have not seen any of them convince the other........Nor change his/her own mind......

I am not saying that religion or secularism should not be discussed at all. But one needs to keep things in proportion. Maybe one out of thirty articles on the front page should be one that is directly or indirectly related to the subject. There are, after all, a lot of other subjects to discuss. Subjects on which people can convince each other, through logic.

I think, after five years, it is about time to push these ideas to the background on this site. One has heard everything there is to hear. I can read the name of a person, and know exactly how he/she will reply to a post that I write, based on his/her views on secularism or religion. I can tell you exactly who will vehemently oppose my suggestion. Who will resort to abuse. etc.

There is no way those pushing religion over secularism are going to win on this site. And there is no way those pushing secularism over religion are going to win either. Both groups are too hard-headed (an narrow-minded in my opinion) to ever budge from their respective stances. They are unwilling to live in a world, which has individuals with differing views. It is as useless as discussing whether India is better than Pakistan, or Pakistan better than India. A pointless discussion.....And will always turn into a yelling match....

Hence the solution is to, at least for an extended amount of time, relegate both to the background. So that other more useful discussions can prosper. Chowk should try that for a few months. It will turn into a much better site, with much more useful discussions. Everyone will learn a lot more. And will learn things that they can use practically in life.

For example, I am, at the moment, greatly interested in finding out how investment banking works. How Venture Capitalism works, etc. I would much rather learn that from people here, who have knowledge of the subject, then to debate religion and secularism with them, 24 hours a day. I could care less, if the person teaching me about investment, or investing in something I did, has secular or religious views. Who cares?

Unfortunately, the discussions and articles are so centered around the s and r subjects that one is left with no choice to endlesslessly debate that. Those of us who want to learn and discuss other things are left in the background by these two groups who have, unfortunately, grabbed center-stage, for five years, and are apparently bent upon never letting it go........

Interestingly, ever since I have always proposed taking both topics offline, I constantly receive abuse from both sides - secularists and religionists. That is, when they find time to stop abusing each other......This is, perhaps, the only thing they agree on. Apparently, discussing these two topics is people`s bread and butter. They are easy to discuss. Don`t require much experience. And one can easily find a large group that fanatically agrees with one`s views..........

I think we have heard everything about religion and secularism, that this site can offer. Everyone, including me, has repeated their views a hundred times. Much like we have heard everything about India-Pakistan, Kashmir etc. Earlier, Chowk moved Kashmir to a sideline discussion, which was a good idea. It opened up space on the front page for other discussions. Now Chowk should move religion and its twin secularism to a side topic, thereby opening up more space, for other ideas...........

Both the obsessive religionists and the secularists can declare victory and perhaps we can move on............

Re: # 359

he was ``helped`` in that process by two of his team mates.

Dost-mittar #282: ``Our own Romair once boasted with pride that jihad was used to motivate Pakistani soldiers``

Could you kindly highlight where I boasted of that? And could you also highlighted how you reaced a conclusion that I was, ``boasting`` in the first place. How can you tell whether people are boasting, stating, yelling etc. just from their text?.........

The only thing I remember saying is that the motivation for defending one`s country lies in the pride of one`s unit, the basic motivation to defend one`s own borders and for the Muslims in the military the concept of Shahadat. All of this is quite a bit different that what you stated. I didn`t boast about any of this. I merely stated it as a fact. Which it is........

``. Yours truly personally observed soldiers in Rawalpindi-Islamabad marching to the beat of haq-hoo(?), Allah-hoo, instead of left-right, left-right.``

Pakistani soldiers march to various different marching tunes. They are anything from left-right to various British military tunes to various local tunes to war songs to Mithan`s song, ``Jimmy Jimmy Jimmy aa ja aa ja aa jaa.`` Which falls quite nicely to a marching pace......What exactly do you find wrong with that? Do you think it should be changed? What would you like them to change it to?

You should spend your time on increasing your knowledge about Pakistan, instead of decreasing other people`s knowledge, about the place.

Re: #356 by stuka

[Ajeya: Abay, who made u king to decide which Indians are Islamists and Pakis? I have a feeling u are a Paki troll pretending to be Indian just t give us a bad name.]


When did I give Chinese citizens a bad name? I thought Tianamen Square did that.