Dhokha and Being a Muslim in India Re: # 88
dear tahmed

I have not been Chowk editor for several years--in fact I have nothing to do with banning you. All I can say is that Chowk has to take a stand sometimes to keep order intact, so cut them some slack!.

All the best!

Saima

Dhokha and Being a Muslim in India Dear Mir

In your review you have asked questions that strike at the root of the Hindu Muslim divide. They are excellent questions. Why do Muslims have to prove loyalty, is because they have betrayed the Hindu's trust by dividing his land--the core of his identity into 2 or 3. Hindus never saw Muslims as outsiders until they decided to divide the mother. Imagine if someone were to go to Mecca and divide it into two? Well, that's the level of grief for an average Hindu about the division of India. Monotheistic religions replace the love of the land with other ideas--love of christ, love of allah etc., but Hindus have remained fundamentally the same over centuries. It is quite a feat, and to appreciate it, you have to understand the Hindu psyche. For him, we never die, we only reincarnate. This idea is so powerful. The Hindu is the most responsible person on the planet. His true priorities are his land, his authentic self and his tradition. He feels betrayed because others do not have the same reverence for life and have invented a death that holds no responsibility to life on earth. For the Hindu committment is about 7 generations. And you think Hindus are modern? Not so. For the Hindu, his life is merely a blip in continuity. he has deep rage and a sense of betrayal against people who converted to other religions. They have permanently blighted Indias integrity. However, he accepts it by thinking that these people are still part of the ethos of India. Then these people go ahead and make separate countries. Now that is unforgiveable. They have devided their mother into two. They have not appreciated their true history. Hinduism as an idea is open source. Which means that Islam, christainity et al eventually fold into it as minor programs. The bollywood movies that you see tackling Muslim identity are merely the culture's attempts to sublimate the separateness into the larger whole of Hinduism.

The most interesting intersection is Americanism and Hinduism. Both have interesting parallels. Both are similar in the way they accept, sublimate and celebrate diversity, while at the same time amalgamating into the spirit of Americanism or the land of India. The difference is that one sublimates into a spirit and the other into reverence for the land. They both are in love with each other because of the tremendous similarity. We don't know how long the love affair can last and if a conflict can arise. For sure Hindus must be noticing the shallowness of American culture. For now it seems to be fun, but later we don't know.

Muslim ideas are diametrically opposite to both philosophies and the entire clash centres around that. Muslims are essentially nomads, their history has evolved around invasion of other lands and amalgamating through the idea of Allah. Its integrity comes from that simple truth. it does not care about anything else. There is no loyalty to land or any ideology other than Allah. What is Allah? Allah is the sound of a deep sigh. A letting go. A sublimation of the ego into the energy of the cosmos. However, Muslims have little understanding of their spiritual truths. They have killed people for saying 'I am the True One'. Muslim history is bloody, with distortions of their message and instead of sublimating the ego to find the one truth, Muslims have perished at the alter of their ego. In this situation, when the Muslim himself has no idea what it means to say Allah, when the Hindu is so attached to his land that he cannot see that it does not exist, that it is after all his ego and the American is so confused because he has sold everything and can't find anything else to sell, we are in interesting times indeed.

The Global Self-Help Addict Re: # 17

Hi Hassan

Glad to hear you are category 1. Good for you:) Keep at it, wish you all the best in your dreams. Remember that only those with courage stand up in a crowd and say what their dream is, the rest blame everybody else. The difference between Luther King and the US President is abundantly apparent. What gives me goosebumps to this day--is, 'I have a dream', I literally sob every time I hear his speech. It isn't just the black man he talked about, he talked about all humanity. He had the courage to speak his truth. He said 'I'. Not 'I have come to save you' (like many others). Or 'They did this to us, so we will bomb Iraq.'

The Global Self-Help Addict Re: # 1
Dear DrSohail,
Why are we so critical of negativity? It is part of the gigantic Chi around us. Self-doubt is as essential as self-believe. The human soul has seasons. It is all part of the great cycle of life. As for taking responsibility for one's pain, yes I agree. However, I don't like pseudo positive thinking. There is way too much glossy, unreal happiness going around, too many people telling us how we ought to be. Psychology and all the related mental health sciences have value judgements that fit into the ideal personality for the corporate environment--these have resulted in modern people's obsession with being successful rather than authentic, natural, honest and real. People hesitate to speak their personal truth, trying to be somebody else other than themselves because it is the right/better thing to do.

Enlightened Mediocrity Very creative, satire, humor and insight. Keep writing.

Punish Rioters, Not Writers Sardarji jokes are racist. So are the Santa Banta jokes. They make fun of all people who come from a certain community based on nothing but prejudice. Freedom of speech means what? that people can descend to the lowest common denominator? I think the rioters, the offended sikhs and castes are making a very key statement about egalitarianism. What's right for the goose is right for the gander. Just because the rioters don't have words, doesn't mean that writers can riot on paper. Instead of using big monolithic ideas such as 'Islam' Sikh, Mochi, Sonar, it is time to respect the individual as an empowered entity in himself or herself rather than part of some vague idea of a community.

And Now, The Charter of Demands—The Comedy Continues! This article seems to reflect the perspective of the military establishment--in a nutshell these guys can't run the country, that is why we are here coz they just can't conduct themselves with any extent of responsibility or maturity. This is a valid criticism, but let's look at why that is so.

The political maturity of Pakistani politicians is low because they have never been really allowed to run the country and that started back in the 1960s. For one reason on another (I won't go into conspiracy theories and American ties) the Army has had the greatest resources of Pakistan and the only consistent institution to emerge from the chaos of Pakistan. Why? Once again the answer lies in multinational corporations who support and supply to the Pakistan Army. The Army is nothing if not aligned with neoliberal Capitalist agendas.

If we diss the politicians, let us ask how many times the Army has allowed Pakistani civil society to run the government. We have heard often about why the Army is a third political force in the play and will always have a strong power base. The Army needs weak, corrupt politicians more than the weak politicians need the Army. This is after all the only justification for being around. Once the politicians started getting better and better with their arguments and started to get the ear of the common man, the Army was extremely threatened. It had to quickly shut down the bad politicians to save the semi-quiet civil society for fear of loss of power. Fear of a loss of free hand the Economy, a limitless budget, a status of being above the law and the curbing of territorial expansion and continued control of Pakistan's assets have led to the current Emergency.

So, my question is not if the politicians are loyal to the State of Pakistan or competent (we know that they are immature and incompetent) but if the Army is loyal to the State of Pakistan rather than the weapons manufacturers and the Empire who seeks to strengthen its control of the region's land and resources. Yes, the Army is somewhat more competent at handling Pakistan, but the question is to what end??

So Mr Quraishi, it ain't that easy to get out throwing the blame on the politicians. Turkish people have difficulty with rapid Indian style English and the fact that your precious Army hates to share power with the politicians is more than likely what Mr Gul took back--ironically the same situation is prevalent in Turkey with far more thought control. Despite Turkey's whole hearted submission to the white man's ways, Turkey is NOT part of the European Union. Shouldn't that make you wonder?

Also, businessmen are not the reason why Pakistan exists. They are only the taxpayers. Pakistan exists to provide justice, resources and opportunities for its people. If the businesses like peace above all, a sanitary peace without freedom is never likely to create a modern state. Instead, the Army will only get immature politicians who keep banging on its door for power sharing rather than working at what politicians are supposed to do, building consensus for the mutually decided goals of the citizens of a modern state.

Pakistan at War Thanks for this brilliant summary of what is goign on, and why the current handling of the situation is totally against the end goal. All of Pakistani soceity has to cooperate to end the Taliban menace. This kind of conversation is sadly missing amongs the liberal elements--politicians, media and the ruling government. Instead of uniting against the real threat--militancy and taliban, Pakistan society and politicians are involved in a stupid power struggle.

The Battle for Pakistan http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MPfsxuOZr0

video of Imran's arrest

Neoliberalism and Madrassas: An Unholy Connection On that note, the best schools in India were Madrassahs. Everybody in those days went to Madrassahs. In face the persian culture and the british culture were taught side by side in a very famous college. Eventually the Madrassah was separated from the regular college-it was a deliberate step to create an upper class elite that mimiced the White in all respects so much so that they saw themselves as White. It was done because the British were racist and believed that their way of life was the best and it was the duty of Jesus's followers to educate the rest of the world into following the righteous and true path. It succeeded particularly well because of the Hindu, Sikh, Muslim divide and the partition in which the Muslim populations were effectively separated as 'others' from the rest of the indigenous population. Hindutva and Islamization policies have also helped in furthering colonialism's agendas. Christainity, not Islam has been the most successful homogenizing force that the world has known. Yes, they were bloody smart, on the other hand it isn't working that well anymore.

Neoliberalism and Madrassas: An Unholy Connection Excellent article that makes a very valid connection. It isn't a coincidence that the creation of wealth excludes the have nots or those who cannot price themselves according to the requirements of 'the system'.

The Melting Pot Ejaz, for a colonized people in an imperialist world, marrying into the race that you secretly hate is difficult. I think the discomfort is common in both goras and desis. And the difference in how the issue is stated is linguistic rather than an issue about double standards. For desis everything is expressed in terms of religious identity--even racism. It is a great achievement of the post modern world, that they have unique words to describe racism. However, naming the beast doesnt mean that there is no racism here, quite contrary, there is a lot of racism everywhere.

The great melting pot has quite a few rocks in it. Instead of turning up the heat to melt us all, perhaps the melting pot should pick the rocks out. By rocks I mean the loss of identity that people suffer in the post modern world. The fear of becoming something unrecognizable, the loss of languages, ethnicities, the fact that everything western is mainstream and everything not western is termed ethnic. The fact that the language of colonized people is not their own, that their way is seen as fundamentally flawed and that is justified as a sort of survival of the fittest rather than the brutal annhilation of a civlization which is what it is.

I don't think desis are that bad or 'abusive'. That characteristic is common across race. Date a gora who drinks and watch what he is capable of. Or not only that watch the kind of movies that make him laugh and then wonder what the heck (e.g., Borat). Or hey, haven't you heard the stories of the gora who after 10 years and a kid, turns around and says I am bored, i want a divorce. Somehow abandoning a marriage and kids for 'boredom' isnt that common (yet) among the desis.

Yes, the discourse is crude rather than real. That sadly it is expressed as 'Muslim' vs. The world rather than, 'O dear, this means that in the future you won't even know what your ancestors were about, that your children will not speak their native tongue, and that though you have a good companion, it means that the very purpose of marriage to perpetuate children and a way of life is negated by this marriage.' And yes, we must grin and bear it, because this is how it is going to be in a homogenous world where we each are just cogs in a machine owned by someone else. That being ethnic is the fashion statement of a privileged few while the rest of us live it out in grey and blue. Today it is you, tomorrow it will be my children. That I am disturbed is true, but I have no platform to talk about my worry and so I must talk to you in terms that you find distasteful, namely, 'Is he Muslim?'

The Reality of Disposable Kids "The wonderful Neo-liberal economical model Pakistan is blindly following does not concern itself with education, child labor, female empowerment and poverty.

Galeano states, ‘twin totalitarianisms plaque the world: the dictatorships of consumer society and obligatory injustice.’
An urgent need is to adopt a new social philosophy centered on human needs and projects, where the freedom of human beings must have priority over the free market and human rights are protected more than property rights, in fact, a society that is concerned with reality and is not indifferent of the gross crimes that it silently participates in."

Well said and true. But how, how and how? New ideas must replace these idiotic economic policies plunging us ever deeper into a violent confrontation and extreme behavior. Where are these ideas? Certainly not in the West, and certainly Pakistanis have to think themselves out of this. But thinking hurts. And who wants pain when they have prayer.

S

A Friend of Feudalism Re: # 29
Jayp, I wondered for the longest time, if the TNT is at heart hatred and concluded not. The TNT was fear, fear of losing a certain way of life, fear of the 'other' who seemed to be siding with the British rather than not. Unfortunately, that fear was not addressed by the politicians of the time and a meaningful solution was not presented--tehre are many reasons, british parliamentary democracy relies on nations and homogienity, with roots in autocracy. In that context, the TNT made sense. However, later on, the influence of Wahabism, and the desire for purity has led to great tragedy. The only way out of the minimimalist/pure Islam was hypocricy--say one thing, do another. That is how Saudi Arabia manages its many contradictions, through lies. Pakistani society is complex, it does not lend itself to easy comparisons, or easy solutions. For a few decades the lies that governed life allowed people to embrace modernity and at the same time oppress the masses. An elite emerged that prescribed Islam for the masses and America for themselves.

I'd like to say that Pakistanis by and large do not hate India, China or any nation. If anything they want the same status and progress as these nations, however their prescription is a pure Islam that further tightens the noose around their neck. You'd say, well why don't they change that?

It is easier said than done, it took many many decades for the wahabi ideology to reach critical mass, it will take a lot of time for enlightened Islam as well. In the meanwhile, Muslims live with a lot of conflict and grief, trying to deal with all this.

A Friend of Feudalism For that matter Pakistanis are equally un interested by Nawaz Sharif. If you ask me, the whole controversy over Musharraf is media generated placed by the super elites who couldn't get power in the current scheme of things. The common guy would be the saddest person to see the stability and freedom that came with Musharraf's government go. Sadly, Pakistan has two spectres to fight against. One is Islamism--the influence of tribal Islam is hard to fight for most people because for the last several centuries Muslims have not had an open dialogue WITHOUT violence to reflect on what Islam really means to them. In that void, tribal Islam is becoming more powerful. The second is unequal distribution of wealth because of the way the country has pursued modernization and industrialization. These are separate issues, but because of the difficulty that Muslims have (after centuries of not thinking in specific and concrete terms) in constructing arguments, they have been mixed into an abstract fight for identity and Godhood. Pakistan is the most dangerous place on Earth right now. Is anybody listening? Alas, no. They are too busy defending their mediocrity.

A Friend of Feudalism Actually, that's not really true. Pakistanis aren't afraid of her 'westernization' because Madam neither speaks Urdu or English very well. Pakistanis are stunned by her incredible stupidity and lack of sincerity towards the common man. The fact that her husband is the greediest man on Earth, is also a factor. But the biggest disappointment is her sheer incompetence. Ms Bhutto is no where near the calibre of her father and alas, she has no principles of ANY sort. That speaks louder than any veneer of sophistication.