Another One Bites The Dust CHOWKIES - Indian Foreign service officer and intellectual, M. K. Bradrakumar warns, in his ``The post-modern world & South Asia``:

``In the South Asian region, there could be more than one country which does not match the altered substance of the post-modern states.`` What`s a post-modern state?

IS ANYBODY THINKING OUT THERE? - With our ``tribalism`` torn to shreds, ``Faithless`` and lost, more slaves than ever before, affraid to take our destiny in our own hands, the ``Victims`` of others ideas, others experience of shaping their world - we need to think where it is we are and if we shall survive, what will be the terms of that bargain, Esteemed Prof. Kwaja Masud offers insight:

``Uncertainty rules heterotopia

Prof Khwaja Masud

The writer is a former principal, Gordon College, Rawalpindi

kmasud@isb.sdnpk.org

``Post-modern world is heterotopia i.e. a place where things are different and a collection whose members have few intelligible connections with one another.``

Michael Foncault

The airport of a metropolis is the emblem of our turbulent times. It may be considered as a social force in its own right -- a metaphor of related technologies and social developments. Travellers from every corner of the world streams in and out, travellers with cultural baggage and economic interests that bear no relation to those of their fellow travellers. The passengers may not have anything in common; but, for airports to work, workers and passengers alike must understand and adhere to a complicated combination of rules and regulations. There may be cut-throat competition between airlines which nevertheless must adhere to traffic and safety regulations without which air operations could not be possible.

The international airport is both an agent and a symbol of the new global economy that is eclipsing the nation-state, but from the passport and customs control to air traffic control and international aviation agreements the airport is one of the places in our society where the power of nation-states is most keenly felt. The airport is also of man`s triumph over the forces of nature; yet, quite often subject to the vagaries of the weather.

Michael Foncault, the postmodernist French philosopher has a one-word description of the airport -- heterotopia. Utopia is a place where everything is good. Dystopia is a place where everything is bad. Heterotopia is a place where things are different i.e. a collection where members have few intelligible connections with one another. This, increasingly is what we perceive our world has become: to feel this perception is to enter the mostmodern world.

Some see a utopian future of mass affluence made possible by the third wave of capitalism (the third wave is surging ahead after the collapse of the Soviet Union). Others see a despotic future in which political power and economic inequality defend themselves through their control of new techniques and information networks.

The nation-state itself is the subject of sharply contrasting predictions. Some point to the erosion of national sovereignty by international market forces and the multinational companies and to the decentralising effects of the electronic highway which pierces through every boundary -- geographical, political and ideological.

As a consequence, some proclaim the imminent demise of the nation-state. Others look at the intensification of ethnic loyalties and see a revival of ethnic chauvinism and national rivalries. Some see a future of unlimited abundance based on humanity`s increased control of natural forces, others think that the earth is on the verge of Malthusian disaster and an ecological apocalypse.

The dominant feature of postmodernism is not only that all these scenarios are plausible, but also that no one is sure. The prevalent mode is that of uncertainty -- uncertainty which leads to scepticism ending in anarchy or fundamentalism i.e going back to the past in search of a panacea.

Taken together these experiences of powerful but opposing historical currents constitute the basis of the phenomenon of postmodernity. In our age, contradictions intensify but are not resolved. We have lost the confidence that our ancestors had that the contradictions would be resolved in due course. Hence our ancestors had faith in progress, which we, the denizens of the post-modern have lost. We live in a hetreotopia. This is how the post-modernists who believe that our world has become a heterotopia, describe the contemporary reality.

Francis Fukuyema has declared the end of history because liberal democracy has triumphed over Marxism, and, ideologically, there is no going beyond that. Alternatively, the French social critic Jean Bandrillard argues history may have ended because we have realised that progress was an illusion from the beginning.

The unresolved debate is whether heterotopia is a utopia or dystopia. The optimist of the right sees postmodernism as the triumph of laissez faire capitalism. The post-modernists of the left sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as an opening up of new prospects of liberation. As the structures and myths that perpetuate social control and conformity disappear, the new autonomy of ethnic minorities; and, above all, the new freedom of women, appear to point towards a more humane and open future. Some of them interpret post-modernity and the end of contradiction as the collapse of the quest of justice and social emancipation. They see post-modernity not as a triumph over oppression but as the triumph of oppression.

None of these positions does full justice to the post-modern world. Postmodernity is a very complex condition and its relationship to collapsed socialism is more dynamic than either its fans or critics appreciate. Postmodernism is not the end of history; rather, the moment in which observers become aware that modernity has given way to something new. It is a moment in both the chronological and philosophical senses of the term. It is a short period of time and it is a stage in a larger process of dialectical change.

Postmodernism is less the manifestation of the solution of the world`s problems than a statement of them. It is less the finale of the past age than the overture of the next. What is the role of the leader in the postmodernist world? First of all, the leader must understand the dynamics of the postmodern world. Only then the leader will be in a position to guide the people through the intricacies of the post modern world. By leadership is meant leadership at all levels, not merely confined to the top.

Leadership at all levels must not lose sight of the zeitgeist (the spirit of the age) i.e. the idea which is dominating at a particular stage of history. There are differences between the creative process in science and art and the creative process in statecraft. One is the question of timing. Science and art cannot be hurried. Statecraft is always under the clock. The statesman is the victim of emergency, the prisoner of crisis and even in normal times, the servant of the deadlines. He must often seize ideas before their time and use them without knowledge of consequences. Worse the statesman often confronts situations in which if he waits too long to be sure about facts, he may lose the opportunity to control developments.

The statesman is for ever coming to terms with others. In a democratic polity in the post-modern world, the dialectic of compromise prevails all the way down, as post-modernism is characterised by eclecticism. While artists, writers and scientists reject compromise, march ahead on their own and bet on the consent of the future, the leader requires consent now, if he is to achieve anything. The artist and the scientist have time and space, the leader has little enough of either especially in the post-modern world. Humanity has never needed great leadership more urgently than it does in the post-modern world characterised by complexity and uncertainty and leadership has never more urgently needed the collaboration of an ardent and informed people living in heterotopia.``

Another One Bites The Dust Here we Go again!

All the so called ``liberal`` and ``open minded`` on Chowk reveal their true colors - They ask that some Chowk posters be censored - they disagree with the content of these posts - and as they are ``open minded`` - they cannot tolerate a plurality of ideas and opinions - it`s their way or the hiway.

It is a disgraceful shame that there are even such an intolerant melieu on Chowk - Let the market place of ideas and opinion, function! Censorship? of hate speech? let`s discusss it - let`s avoid demands to censor posts that offer ideas that should be discussed, debated.

On Hate

Sadna

``If i am not mistaken, you are saying you are not against armed jihad in faroff places in principle( the theology behind armed jihad is sound), its just that you want the citizens of only a future prosperous egalitarian Pakistan to take it up.``

Yes, in my opinion, Jihad is morally sound - a request, please do not bother to go into what Jihad means - we`ve done that and we are not talking about wars of conquest or conversion but of self defense and freedom.

But if it justified, why not act now? because we must first build a consensus and secondly a Pakistan populated by a more educated population, may wish to engage the entire issue differently.

``Does this condition you are adding on have basis in theology or its your personal opinion?``

I can`t speak of theology except to offer an opinion.

``And just how would you decide when the requisite amount of Liberty, equality and education has been reached to make a consensus on armed jihad acceptable?``

society can only do so after discussion, debate, awareness of the implications of action - followed by more debate and discussion - In any society in which Liberty is a value, grows the awareness, that it does not stand alone and that if it can be threatened in one place, it will be threatened in another. A more Egalitarian society, not an ``equal`` society -no communist rubbish, please - we can work to build a more egalitarian society - the day it becomes an ``equal `` society - Liberty will have been extinguished.

``You havenot replied about his comments on the Muslim/nonMuslim division``

Can you please refresh my memory about his comments and specifically, exactly what about the comments?

On Hate

Sadna

The author of the article from which you have quoted is one of the great young intellectuals to come out of Pakistan in the recent past. He is a man of wide breadth of learning and intellectual endeavor - learned, young, accomplished, a scientist and a religious scholar and I like to think that I am his friend.

On Shandana`s board, I have posted a piece, actually several pieces, about the ``religiosity of emulation`` - I invite you to read them and comment - also my opinion of where the awakening of women in Muslim/Islamic society stands and what is required to invigorate this awakening.

The author of the article you have posted has taken a position against the kind of analysis and interpretation I find compelling. I am be wrong or perhaps he is wrong or we may be both wrong - however; it is clear to me, that we must be conscious that we are not operating in the framework of a single intellectual concept - and while one may not have the the right to issue religious edicts, it does not necessarily follow that the ideas or opinions one holds or expresses, are by that virtue, invalid, incorrect or just plain ``no damn good.``

In the article you quoted, both the author and the General, are agreed on doing the ``good`` - but choose to describe that ``good`` in different terms, reflecting different priorities. Were Pakistan a country that was overwhelmingly egalitarian in the opportunities, the life chances, it enables her citizens to have, were it`s citizens among the most highly educated in the world, were there a consensus that the Liberty and equality of Pakistanis and Muslims better served by accepting the sacrifices in ``far off places`` - such a difference in positions would be meaningless. On this issue, at this time, I tend to agree with the General.

BTW Sadna, also on Shandana`s board I have posted an article from the ``Hindu`` newspaper, written by an Indian foreign service officer - please comment - I think it is most pertinent, events will soon come to a head and the implications are horrific.

Another One Bites The Dust From ``Business Recorder`` - Dtd May 10, 2002

``Brutal homecomings for Muslims in Gujarat

BARODRA (May 10 2002) : More than 100,000 Muslims displaced by India`s worst communal bloodshed on minority for nearly a decade are facing a hostile and often brutal reception as they try to return to their homes.

Even as the blood continues to flow in Gujarat state, where nearly 1,000 have been killed in more than two months of communal unrest, some of those who fled for the security of relief camps are doing their best to go back.

But more often than not, the homecomings are being marked by severe beatings and threats to conform to a Hindu way of life or be banished from villages forever.

Mohammadbhai Isakbhai Soni, 48, ventured back last week with some friends to his home village of Panvad, some 80 kilometres (55 miles) form the Gujarati city of Barodra.

``When we went to check our homes, we were beaten up by local tribals who had been hired by Hindus,`` Soni said.

``The village heads say we can only return back if we live in accordance to the conditions set by them,`` he added. Those conditions include withdrawing rape cases filed against Hindus, shaving off their beards, allowing Hindus to travel in their vehicles, applying the Hindu ``tilak`` mark to their foreheads and vowing not to compete with Hindus businesses.

For Soni and his friends, the choice was simple: they went back to the relief camp where they have been living for the past eight weeks.

Anti-Muslim riots erupted in Gujarat following an attack on a train carrying Hindu activists in Godhra on February 27, in which 56 people were killed. Muslim families were raped, killed and burned out of their homes across the state.

``We want our village to be a village of (the Hindu god) Krishna,`` said Jagdish Chandra Babbar, a Hindu tailor in Panvad.

``These Muslims do not know how to live in brotherhood. Only it they agree to follow our Hindu way of life can they return back.

``Even if the military escorts the Muslims here, we will not let them stay,`` Babbar said.

More than 20 Muslim houses were burned down by Hindu mobs in Panavad in the first week of March.

Babbar said the Hindus had always lived peacefully with their Muslim neighbours, but that had changed forever with the train attack in Godhra.

Those Hindus who promote a return to normality and communal harmony find themselves the targets of the extremists.

Kaderbhai Kadri, a Hindu shopkeeper in nearby Tejgarh village woke one morning to find his shop front daubed with warnings: ``Do not buy or sell goods to Muslims. Those who are caught doing so will be beaten.

Devhart village was one of the few untouched by the initial communal unrest after it`s head, Lalsinhbhai Rathod, refused to give in to the demands of some villagers to drive the Muslim residents out.

However, Muslim villagers said some of their Hindu neighbours then conspired to kill a cow and raised a hue and cry saying it was the work of Muslims.

``Our house was set on fire,`` said 40-year-old Dilawat Amirbhai Makrani.

``Now, they are not letting us go back to our homes. Whenever we try, they chase its away.``-AFP

Another One Bites The Dust Urstruly, ROmair, Progressive, Nasah, Prem, Shankar, hamidm, Tahmed - anyone else interested

I hope that the rest of the world learns quickly from the US about the value of ``self-interest`` - remember, we are here talking about interests of nation states, of international relations - nation-states may themselves be an endangered concept .

Recently an article appeared in the Indian Paper ``The Hindu`` - a most interesting article, with implications we need to become aware of and discuss appropriate responses to:

From The Hindu – Dated Wednesday May 08, 2002

``The post-modern world & South Asia

By M.K.Bhadrakumar

In the South Asian region, there could be more than one country which does not match the altered substance of the post-modern states.

A SPECTRE haunting international relations is that of a new internationalism and a new doctrine of humanitarian intervention, which would place limits on state sovereignty. In a nutshell, the doctrine can be characterised as the capitalist world`s version of Trotskyism. Seductive in its simplicity, it holds the potential of re-charting international life and current history.

In the debates over the doctrine in recent weeks, an outraged left has labelled it as the Magna Carta of a new liberal imperialism for the 21st century, and a justification for double standards in foreign policy. But the fact remains that the doctrine is being relentlessly advanced as evident from the strategy on Afghanistan or in faraway lands such as Zimbabwe and Iraq.

The most coherent insight into the thinking behind the doctrine is available in an essay titled ``The post-modern state`` written by a serving senior British diplomat, Robert Cooper. Mr. Cooper has been regarded as the foreign policy guru of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and Mr. Blair has doubtless steered Britain`s trans-Atlantic ties with successive U.S. administrations to new heights.

The doctrine predicates that the world order, which came into being after the Thirty Years` War of 17th century Europe and prevailed until the collapse of the Soviet Union, is inexorably giving way to a new pattern. The old order was chiefly based on nation-states rooted in the principles of state sovereignty within well-defined geographical jurisdiction. Balance of power or hegemony provided the underpinning for these states to preserve international order through the centuries. Whenever counter-balancing alliances failed to deliver, disorder prevailed. Implicit in the balance-of-power system was the constant threat of a relapse into chaos but even within this inherent instability, the stasis of nation-states survived. That is, until the cataclysm of 1989.

Out of the debris of the post-Soviet space in international life, the doctrine analyses, three new types of states emerged. To quote Mr. Cooper, ``there are now states — often former colonies — where in some sense the state has almost ceased to exist; a `pre-modern` zone where the state has failed and a Hobbesian war of all against all is under way``, for example, countries such as Somalia or Afghanistan. ``Second, there are the post-imperial, post-modern states which no longer think of security primarily in terms of conquest.`` Examples are not difficult to seek since they are few and can be counted on the fingertips — member-countries of the European Union, Canada, Japan and the United States despite its reservations over global interdependence or its unilateralism. Mr. Cooper says, ``and, third, of course there remain the traditional ``modern`` states which behave as states always have, following Machiavellian principles; one thinks of countries such as India, Pakistan and China``.

In this neat compartmentalisation, given the reality that the locus of power is overwhelmingly wielded by post-modern states, it will be edifying to assess their value system. First, they do not recognise any distinction between domestic and foreign affairs; second, they are votaries of mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs; third, they reject the use of force to resolve disputes; fourth, they consider national boundaries as irrelevant in an increasingly global village; and finally, they insist on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability in the conduct of international affairs.

The abhorrence with which these post-modern states would regard the goings-on in the corpus of nation-states becomes self-evident. Mr. Cooper explains: ``The threat from the modern world (eg., India, Pakistan or China) is most familiar. Here, the classical state system... remains intact, and continues to operate by the principles of empire and the supremacy of national interest. If there is to be stability it will come from a balance among the aggressive forces. It is notable how few are the areas of the world where such a balance exists. And how sharp the risk is that in some areas there may soon be a nuclear element in the equation.``

The cutting edge of the new doctrine of liberal imperialism lies in its frank admission that the post-modern world has a right, even an obligation, to intervene in the modern and pre-modern states in this era of global interdependence. Arguments of resistance or protestations in terms of state sovereignty or inviolability of established territorial boundaries cannot be allowed to come in the way whenever intervention is deemed necessary. In this serious business, ethnic domination or ethnic exclusiveness (cultural nationalism) or centralised absolutism of the nation-states will not deter the post-modern world either. What are the forms that such intervention by the post-modern states can assume? Mr. Cooper says, ``when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the post-modern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era — force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the 19th century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.`` Preferably, what is called for is evidently a new kind of imperialism, which is acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. This can be in the nature of the `voluntary imperialism of the global economy` enforceable through instrumentalities such as an international financial institutions. ``Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance.``

In the South Asian region, there could be more than one country which does not match the altered substance of the post-modern states, or more appropriately put, which poses a challenge to the post-modern vision of ``cooperative empire`` — an empire where governing principles are not ethnic but legal, an empire where a ``secret race`` for nuclear weapons is a perverse act, an empire where each state would have a share in the Government of the other, in which no single country dominates, a commonwealth where the amorality of Machiavelli`s theories of statecraft have been replaced by a moral consciousness both in international affairs as well as in domestic affairs.

Mr. Cooper`s essay acknowledges Afghanistan as a first serious case study of the efficacy of the doctrine of new imperialism. He calls it ``defensive imperialism``, euphemistically of course since the most logical way to deal with such chaos as the Hindukush breeds would have been outright colonisation, as ``the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the 19th century``. What are the elements of strategy in Afghanistan? The Bagram air base, north of Kabul, housing 7,000 troops of NATO powers. The terrorist syndicates; countless, nameless aberrations such as drugs or crime endemic to any failed state; a country too weak to secure its home territory — is there need to go too far to justify intervention? And, equally so, through this troubled land will eventually run the Trans-Caspian gas pipeline. Like Rome, the post-modern world feels obliged to provide the Afghans with some of its laws, some coins and the occasional road.

(The writer is an IFS officer who has served in Islamabad, Kabul, Tashkent and Moscow.)``

On Hate Prem

``It`s like this, hobbty: there is no THEORETICAL or PRACTICAL reason to believe that the missing X variable is NOT orthogonal to the included X variables. That means the parameter estimates are UNBIASED.``

Rubbish! You are not being asked to believe anything - you are being encouraged to include pertinent factors in the data to assess your conclusion.

The premise was that Brahmins give up their caste ID quicker than other lower castes - What`s being measured? The rate/speed at which respondents would give up their caste ID as Brahmins? how do we measure that if they become aware of the querry at different times?

Had all the respondents become aware of the question at the same time - we could then say, based on our data - such a premise is unsupportable - however; this was not the case and clearly, the conclusion you have reached is unsupportable by the data.

Shankar

Indeed, as Muslims, especially in Pakistan, we have failed ourselves - but a tremendous silver lining in included in this soul searching - success or failure is not the ultimate in the quest to seek meaning as a Muslim, in my opinion, it is being conscious of striving, struggling, to continue to seek meaning as a Muslim.

When it comes to the question of caste or any question of conscience - one`s failure, regardless of religion - must never infuse a paraylsis, or abandonment of conscience. Because one has been unable to live or create a more egalitarian, as opposed to less egalitarian society - does not mean that one shall cease to confront the evil of caste.

The response of so many Hindus and Indians has been to say ``well, what about you in Pakistan or what about you as Muslims`` - I think such a response misses the point of the discussion, which was caste, and it is an attempt to avoid the discussion by shifting attention elsewhere -Whenever such an attempt is made by persons who begin to feel insecure or defensive - if one`s interlocutor(s) had a malevolent intent, they would indeed be gratified - it ensures that the opposition remains, at it`s core, weak and empty. You decide whether that is to be the course of your choosing.

Another One Bites The Dust

``Neo-colonialism`` - of shopkeepers no less! WHO better or who worse?

Chowkies, why are some ``Sawar`` while others give ``Sawari``?

VALUES - a concensus on values is what differentiates the colonizer and the colonized - VALUES propel nations/peoples/communities or hold them back. This really is a ``OPEN`` universe, where one really does have choices to make - not making choices is also making a choice. ``OPEN`` means ``INDETERMINATE`` - many confuse this to mean anarchy - quite the opposite is the case. The ``OPEN`` universe has rules - it`s basic rule is LIBERTY - see, it can`t be ``OPEN``, without LIBERTY. And Liberty too, has rules, Disorder in the framework of Order, the freedom to compete - again, this is confused to be anarchy - in reality it is the multiplicity of opinions, of venues, of salvations, of debate, of discussion, of a consensus. An ``Open`` Universe is only concievable in an ``Open`` society - a society of possibilities - this society appears to be organized loosely, seems not have an organic cohesion to it, it`s members seem disconnected from each other - but such an observation only gives away the point of view of the observer. Are not those societies, who are considered ``OPEN`` the ones with the capablity to pursue neo-colonialism - why? because they percieve a threat to their values, to their ``way of life`` - and who are the threat? All those who would deny that the ``OPEN`` universe and the ``OPEN`` society are the ``GOOD`` - Yes, of course the Good`` also depends of the point of view of the observer, couple that with consensus and the WILL to shape one`s experience of the world (the idea of taking responsibility for one`s life) - all of which spells trouble for all those ``HELPLESS`` hundreds of millions, even Billions - who are caught between these two competing visions of the world -these ``FENCE SITTERS`` can no longer live in a world of day dreams - they have a choice to make -they can make it by themselves or one will be forced on them - either way, this is the game - Will they choose to be ``Sawar`` or will they give ``Sawari``. This choice can change the world, has the potential to reverse more than a millenia of tyranny, material and intellectual poverty as it hold the potential for more poverty, more humiliation.

Another One Bites The Dust Tahmed, Hamidm, Nasah

Take from the post what you will, interpret, reinterpret what you want to claim, it`s too long, too short, too this, too that, too hard, too soft, or just right - claim to understand or not - these are just ideas - you find them compelling, great - you don`t find them compelling, great.

Prem

Your ``ideological commitment`` seems to blind yu that the required education is ongoing and it will continue - school children will continue to learn a linear history of wars and kings, etc., but not that of ethics of Hinduism - The longer that Hindus, like somany Muslims will continue to think, in some cases, hope, that Hinduism will be just forgotten myths, the more the rot will continue, and I think, this suits some ``ideologically committed``, just fine.

Re Islam = peace or submission - PLEASE, do not engage in straw man arguments - My post is there for all to see and read, I specifically say the ``root`` of the word - and if you disagree on the root of the word and can back it up I`ll be the first to accept it.

Another One Bites The Dust Tahmed

Some time ago - we discussed that Pakistan is to be subjected to what Beirut and lebanon were subjected to -

This terror attack is most intriguing - both for the mode of delivery and the choice of target.

these two aspects suggest that this is not the work of locals.

just an opinion, It was not the submarine program that was the target, but retaliation for another project - others says it was for the French role in Afghanistan, unless they made an easy target and can be made to leave.

It is clear, that a heavy hand must be shown by the authorities - and this tragedy also provides an opportunity to reshape police and civilian security agencies. The ``war against terror`` has entered a crucial phase and if Pakistan survives, it will be a very different place, in the sense that very different ideas will prevail.

Another One Bites The Dust Nasah

I will try be more careful - perhaps you could cut me some slack, the mistakes are not intentional.

Prem

What`s my prescription for caste - make understanding the ethics in Hinduism a ``good`` or a ``requirement`` for being a Hindu - Respect Hinduism enough to make sure it is studied properly, that inculcated in it are the essential values - caste will disappear - You see, a majority of Hindus are as caught up in a religiosity of emulation, as well.

Hindus argue that caste is not an essential part of Hinduism - that`s a true enough statement - but where do you see it`s truth? you see the exact opposite, don`t you? In my opinion caste was created in response to a problem in society - while that problem may no longer exist - another problem now exist in it`s place and that problem is caste consciouness - this consciousness exist, because it is being percieved as essential to Hindu society - this part is not an opinion, but a statement of fact.

The same is true with Islam - the root of the word being peace - what peace do you see? killing each other, or labeling others as non-Muslim or heretics - why? Because of the most shallow understanding of religious faith possible - the opposite of religious faith.

Many people respond with ``why religious faith``? -I agree that religion no longer has a monopoly as the despository and the distributor of meaning - but for the vast majority, it does play that role.

On Hate ``is it fair for me to proclaim that ``Islam is morally neutered by sect?!``

I think that`s a personal judgement - If you think that what it means - who amn I to object.

``You shameless SOB, when you point one finger at us, there are 3 more pointing back at you!!``

GROUP THINK - you decide how healthy, appealing or convincing that is

Another One Bites The Dust Hamidm, Slink -

Re Hobbyty`s ``formula for women``

``lastly, the barrier to the awaking of women in Muslim and Islamic society, are Muslim women and their relationship to men and to work. If these women`s relationship with men and work changes without changes in religosity or Shariah -women will still awaken, but not as Muslims.``

Women`s view of themselves, regardless of religious faith or affiliation, race or nationality (I hope that PC enough)is directly related to how women view themselves, how they view men, how men view women and how men view themselves - these relationships define women in history - but that`s not the entirety of this definition - the kind of work people do defines their existence - Women relationship to work (no, I don`t mean just house work - why not? because I have in mind work we can measure) is a primary engine of their awakening in not just Muslim or Islamic society but in any society. However, I have added another element ``Muslim`` woman - The answer to what this is, is of course an individual womans answer to what does it mean to be a Muslim.

It is not possible to effect a change in human constructs or institutions, unless that change is first effect in the individual person, that the ideas that motivate the individual - can it be done only through religious faith? certainly not -but either way, we are talking about conversion, a reevaluation, aren`t we - why not acknowledge that.

Another One Bites The Dust Hamidm, Slink - And any Women who choose to identify themselves as Muslims as well, and Indians

I posted this yesterday – but some kind of snafu prevented it from being posted - I`m delighted that you read the posts and be assured, I`m no scholar of anything, I find these ideas compelling because of my awareness of the darkness of our existence. To my way of thinking, there are man made reasons why we are in the terrible situation we are in – One of the reasons is because we have become valueless, we do not even value ourselves, let alone others. Read below and tell me if you disagree that for us the religiosity of emulation is a curse, of our own choosing and that we CAN and MUST change our choice: As you always complain of the length of my post I will only include expository references(from Soroush) to emulative religiosity.

A ``religiosity of Emulation`` - Emulation, as in imitation, as in to imitate, as in Bandur. Generally speaking the scholarship on this, agrees to three main broad forms of religiosity legalistic, methodistic and idealistic religion or of the religion of initiation, the median and culmination. We can also think of these three broad types as Emulative/pragmatic or utilitarian, Gnostic and Experiential religiosity - each seems to have a direct relationship with the level of education.

Emulative or Pragmatic religiosity is ``mundane, causal (not reasoned), hereditary, deterministic (not arising from choice or free will), emotional, dogmatic, ritualistic, ideological, identity-bound, external, collective, legalistic-juristic, mythic, imitative, obedient, traditional and habitual.

Here, the volume of deeds is the measure of the intensity or otherwise of conviction: performing the hajj numerous times, visiting shrines, praying frequently and so on. Through these actions, the religious person feels more successful and closer to God. Mass rituals and rites nourish this religiosity more than anything else. The frequency of collective prayers, mourning ceremonies, Koranic recitations, retreats, Friday prayers, gatherings and preaching sessions, crowds of believers at shrines and mosques, hordes of fighters in the arenas of jihad amount to the glorification and splendour of this type of religiosity and serve as a source of pride to it. It both stirs up emotions and draws strength from them.

Since this type of religiosity is hereditary and not based on reasoning, since emulation and obedience play the biggest role in perpetuating it, since it devotes itself to deeds rather than thought and reflection, and since it is constructed upon emotion and excitation rather than rational endeavour and inquiry, it gradually becomes tainted by dogmatism and prejudice and loses the capacity to tolerate dissent. It defends set habits and traditions dogmatically and sees people who tend to raise questions and reflect upon things as crooks and heretics. Hence, lowly but surely it goes down the path of casting out and excommunicating people.

This is the religiosity of the clergy, and clerics like to emphasise the importance of submission and emulation and religious passion and the performance of rites and rituals to believers. In this way, a believer’s religion becomes their identity and they defend it in the way they would defend their homeland or property or life, not in the way a scientist would defend a truth. In other words, they want religion so that they can feel like somebody and distinguish themselves from others, not because they want to arrive at some truth.

Believers, in this type of religiosity, are the slaves and God is the master and the sultan (not the God of wisdom, nor the Alluring Beloved). And the Prophet wears the cloak of a commander, issuing orders about what a believer may and may not do, and speaking of glad tidings and ominous portents (not an insightful man of knowledge with exalted experiences, nor a wise and brilliant thinker). And sin amounts to disobeying his orders rather than being something that causes a contraction of the heart. And obedience is part of a deal aimed at accruing some gain or benefit, not something that causes an expansion of the heart, nor yet a participation in a spiritual experience. And following the Prophet means carrying out his commands. Morality is always relegated to second place in this religiosity and is considered to be decorative at best, entailing no religious burdens or duties in itself. Since imitative believers do not have the courage and strength to look at the Exalted for themselves or to tackle difficult concepts, they look for mediators and they find what they are seeking in the form of religious personalities past and present, such that they spend more time visiting shrines than going to mosques. In this type of religiosity, personalities are transformed into myths and lose touch with human history and geography.

Dogmatic distinctions drawn between us and them and believers and infidels, the firm and unyielding categorisation of people, the simplification of the world and the refusal to see the complexities, subtleties and variations of human existence, and, subsequently, engaging in unsubtle behaviour inappropriate to the elaborate and mysterious nature of life, creating strict ideological divisions, seeing people as either heavenly or hellish, viewing God as an impatient avenger, imagining God as one’s own God and the Protector of one’s own sect who is uncaring about everyone else, narrowing the definition of truth and broadening the definition of falsehood, highlighting the differences between sects and seeing one’s own sect as the axis and measure of truth and falsehood and the creator of the true human identity, ignoring the common attributes of human beings and emphasising every small difference in belief, and compartmentalising humanity into so many different sects are some of the characteristics and defining features of this kind of religiosity.

But learned, pragmatic religiosity is itself of two types: this worldly and other worldly; and, of course, it has important differences with the pragmatic religiosity of the general masses. Here, the central axis is practical rationality, not emotion. And practical reason engages in planning and measures means against ends. But, whatever it does, it is practical and it wants religion for its utility. Since this-worldly, learned, pragmatic religiosity acts rationally, it has no affinity with myths, it does not blow the horn of emulation, it does not rouse blind emotion, it does not spare tradition the rod of criticism, it has no particular fondness for the clergy; nonetheless, and most importantly, it seeks movement rather than truth, which is precisely the main attribute of ideologies. It sees religion as the servant of politics or revolution or democracy, etc. And, concentrating on the ultimate goal or purpose, it tries to pick out what it finds useful in religion and to set aside anything in it that is of no use. The God of this kind of religiosity is an observing, supervising God who expects people to act responsibly. His servants are hardworking, shrewd, reward-minded and responsible employees. His Prophet is a prudent politician and a methodical planner. The other-worldly joy or wretchedness of his followers depend on their this-worldly joy or wretchedness. Its religious personalities are historical and non-mythical, and as subject to criticism and analysis as anyone else. There is no element of wonder or secrets or the inner world in this type of religiosity. Seeing human beings, the world and history in simple, ideological terms remains the order of the day. The collective and demonstrative aspect of religion (apart from its ritualistic dimension) is firmly in place. Political, social, revolutionary or democratic religions are products of this kind of religiosity. Sin is like breaking the law and reward is synonymous with achieving the goal or reaching the desired destination. And obedience to the Prophet is like the shrewd obedience of an employee to a superior, not of a devoted follower to a master, nor of a lover to the beloved. The element of practical endeavour is still prominent, but here it is purposeful endeavour directed towards a this-worldly goal. Religious law and jurisprudence [fiqh] are justified in rationalistic terms. Morality, too, takes on a revolutionary or democratic sense and, ultimately, neither morality nor fiqh are seen as possessing any mysterious qualities or secret and hidden aims. Most modern religious intellectuals and reformers fall into this category and distinguished personalities such as Seyyed Jamal, Shariati, Seyyed Qutb and Ubdah are its prominent representatives in this century.

Most clerics in all religions throughout history have fallen into the opposite category: other-worldly, learned, pragmatic believers. And their only difference with the pragmatic general masses is that what the masses obtain second hand, they obtain from the source. And, in the words of Mowlana Jalaleddin Rumi they are ``well versed in the traditional sciences`` and brimming with historical accounts and narratives. Apart from this, their religiosity is no different from that of the masses in terms of its being causal, hereditary, dogmatic, ritualistic, collective, juristic, mythic and obedient.``

Emulative or Practical religiosity corresponds most clsoely with a society characterized not by ``RIGHTS``, that is, not, by a polity in which citizens are ``rights-carriers`` but by DUTIES, that is, citizens are ``Duty-bound.``

Clearly in such a society, formed by such notion of religiosity - Liberty, Freedom of conscience, Pluralism, Tolerance and Democracy - CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST - Liberty is not just a requirement for secular citizens but is essential for those who seek to find meaning for themselves in the religious experiences. For this to be even concievable - the religiosity of Emulation, which is the underlying intellectual and social force in Pakistan - must change - that is, we must change the intellectual concepts that inform our experience of religion in our society.

Another One Bites The Dust Hamidm - and any Muslim women on Chowk who are interested

Hobbyty`s ``formula for women``

``lastly, the barrier to the awaking of women in Muslim and Islamic society, are Muslim women and their relationship to men and to work. If these women`s relationship with men and work changes without changes in religosity or Shariah -women will still awaken, but not as Muslims.``

Women`s view of themselves is directly related to how women view themselves, how they view men, how men view women and how men view themselves - these relationships define women in history - but that`s not the entirety of this definition - the kind of work people do defines their existence - Women relationship to work (no, I don`t mean just house work) is a primary engine of their awakening in not just Muslim or Islamic society but in any society. However, I have added another element ``Muslim`` woman - The answer to what this is, is of course an individual womans answer to what does it mean to be a Muslim.

Another One Bites The Dust ``A theoretical choice which is overwhelmingly not perceived as a REAL choice is pretty irrelevant.``

The choices I mentioned are not theoretical - they are Real. If I find a particular doctrine or dogma compelling, I can choose to be associated with it, even in a sect - we both know caste does not work that way.

``You seem to be looking for some sort of an acknowledgement that social differences based on caste are more problematic than social differences based on sect or religion.``

Do I? I didn`t think so, in my opinion, caste operates in a very different way - it`s not just about social differences, it`s the inherent inequality of persons. You have argued that other inequalities exist - why should caste be seen as special? I can`t think of another kind of inequality, unless it is apartheid or American slavery - actually even these do not compare - at least salvation exist. caste is based on the proposition that persons are inherently unequal, that among these, are persons so unequal that they may not be touched ? Zafar Sahab - what are you defending? and why? I saw an interview with one ``untouchable`` - she was removing human feces from the street - she had her hands clasped together above her forehead, praying that her children will not be doing what she has done - I can`t see you not wanting justice - not just her, but millions, in past, present and future - no sir, we must be clear - when you suggest that caste can and is equated with sect, you do all an injustice.

Are you sure that it is not just that you personally are comfortable with differentiation based on religion and sect?``

Yes, I`m comfortable with it, Differentiation based on religion or sect is a free decision of an adherent - it is based on the freedom of conscience, and the freedom of association, it is not discrimination - If one is associated with a religion or a sect, one has every right to reflect that association - I`m not arguing that the Hindu does not have the right to be a Hindu - I think of caste as a issue of conscience and I wish to see it promoted as one - a friend tell me that Indians respond to Pakistanis or others bringing up caste, with objection because they themselves are against it and think the issue is being used as a club - let`s agree to disagree - be assured no intention of caste as a club was intended - yes, I have a problem with it, yes, to me it is a issue of conscience. I invite Indians, mostly Hindus and those Muslims who wish to reframe the issue of caste as human rights to think out loud with other Chowkies - Hindu Indians must stop labeling persons with whom they disagree, as being hateful - it stiffles dialogue or any kind of understanding.

``Hobbyty, pretending that caste based discrimination is something it is not – that is to say, unique and totally dissimilar to other discriminations based (in fact) on descent – is hardly a good start to understanding its nature and mechanisms of division.``

Actually, it is you who pretend that Caste is not unique and you need to pretend it. This is reflected in your attempt to suggest that caste and sect is the same thing - whereas it is clearly not. Additionally, no religion proposes that all human beings are created unequal. Some terms of engagment you offer - there is one way to look at this, and it`s a way that does not make us uncomfortable, even if it obscures the issue of caste? You can suffer humiliation and deprivation in a gazillion rebirths - because of what you were born as, what you were created as - you don`t find this unique? It`s not ``descent`` as in family, it`s biology - inequality by virtue of biology - Don`t obfuscate here, caste is not just another form of discrimination - it is a unique form of distributing inequality in which not just the body and the mind, but the soul is held captive. You have argued that women are discriminated against because of their gender and that is biological inequality as well - don`t deny it, but is it the same as the inequality of caste? Does caste account for gender? Does gender discrimination effect the possibility of salvation? Does it make them untouchables?

``..but if the change is to be social in nature, it must be consistent – if caste is not going to be a factor in access to opportunity or services, then why should religion or sect? Why is one immoral and the others acceptable?``

Religion or sect should not be a basis of legal discrimination and it is immoral and unacceptable.

``Hobbyty – we actually DO know how caste and religious based discrimination works. It is not a mystery. What we need to do – and what is happening, slowly, in India – is look at those parts of the country where these divisions are losing their grip on society, and identify the social and economic factors which are behind that trend, with a view to reproducing them elsewhere.``

We know how caste works and yet it continues? If one were to belive that, can one escape that it`s existence speaks to a percieved need? that it solves a problem in society? That it is not viewed as a crime or a sin? I agree that seeing it as sin can be problematic in certain places - I hope you will see that not viewing it as a sin can also be problematic - I don`t think we know how caste operates in present day society or institutions - A caution - I agree that a change in ``values`` predates or is coterminus with social transformation - but something curious or an anomaly that needs to be resolved: Wouldn`t you agree that Gujrat was an area that experienced relatively tremendous economic and social uplift - that is, are there a lot poorer areas of India where such violence has not been seen? Also note that the violence is predominantly in urban centers, though lvillages have been effected - I don`t disagree that with economic uplift and superior education and greater interaction - the possiblity of reducing and doing away with the violence between religious communities is a possibility - but we can`t we ignorant to the fact that these very same also contributed to the occurence of violence - and perhaps we should pay greater attention to values that animate society?

``No Indian will deny that this sounds tremendously familiar. You say this applies to sect based divisions in society. It also sounds like standard MO for religious based divisiveness (eerily close to what happened in Gujarat) and caste based divisiveness (Ranvir Sena etc. in Bihar). Do you see my point about the issue being fundamentally the same one.``

This standard MO of most all political divisions. I do see your point about the use of religion as a divisive issue - but I don`t see how caste is the same as sect - frankly, that`s offensive suggestion.

``What does it mean to be a civilized human being

Precisely – what does it mean in terms of how one deals with other human beings, and how (if) caste, religion and sect come into this. And the answer, IMO, does not subtantively differ according the caste, sect or religion of the person asking it.``

Can`t agree more, persons are persons first - but when faced with caste, in my answer, caste would cease to exist, it would have no basis, no justification to exist, it`s existence a great tyranny, in the values such a creation could not find expression - a sin against man and God.

Yes, everybody has the right to their sense of ethics and morality - that dpoes not mean that I would drown mine - after all if it`s not worth defending as a good, why would anyone hold to such a sense of ethics or morality. Perhaps I am not civilized enough to grasp the nuance - but no dice - civilized and caste donot go together, conscience and caste can never inhabit the same plain. Love and hate are not the same.

If you will allow me, I think you have expended a lot of energy in trying to defend the undefensible - framing it in human rights is most promising because it points to a ``value`` were a ``value``, a primary, guiding value, that all men are born equal, and that all have equality of opportunity of salvation? - I wonder if you see any merit or any motivation in my view of caste as matter of conscience? to be honest, to comprise with it, is not in me. After a series of posts accusing me of hating Hindus and Hinduism and India - it`s still not in me - I think only a change of head and heart can change either of our positions. I hope the day will not come when the availablity of choices is equated with the lack of them, when the possibility of salvation is equated with it`s impossibility.