Rethinking Disability in the Third World
Re: #14 by sr56 on February 16, 2007 2:25pm PT

>>>``Tahirqazi, obviously you`re knowledge is limited, if you had bothered to research to the matter, disability or any other such subject that causes anguish is actually a test from Allah``.

Your comments about my limited knowledge are correct. I am not up on research on this subject for past 3 years or so because I am no longer involved in teaching disability and handicp. I used to teach ``Hollistic Approach`` for treating patients. I hope my old residents and fellows must be carrying the torch.

Do you think, my knowledge is limited about you assertion that anguish is a test from Allah? By the way, this assertion is 180 degree opposite to your previous interact #8? I would be grateful if you could elaborate it a little more and please point out where else I need updates?

I would readily admit that I am really unaware of current situation in Pakistan or India and of course, my perespective is limited to US and Canada only.

Regards

Tahir

Rethinking Disability in the Third World
I wish I could add a few more words to the discussion on disability-handicap. Religious and societal attitudes are certainly important holdups to integration of persons with disability into mainstream but the real story is more complex that that. Allow me to touch on it very briefly. There are several theoretical models that can be broadly categorized as:

Mentalistic Theories emphasize cognitive aspect of internalization of disability. Internalization of disability serves as a mental block to learning as to how to overcome limitations imposed by disability. Social and/or Behavioral Theories bring into focus events external to the individuals with disabilities.

People tend to assume “Sick Role” or an “Illness Behavior”, which could be an additional reason for maladjustment.

Salubrious outcome of disability is a long and protracted struggle punctuated by countless snags. Neither medical model nor social-political model alone has the capacity to change the outcome, which is integration of individual into the society in a productive fashion and helping that individual enjoy life in a meaningful way, perceptually.

Coping with a disability is a multi-prong approach with lots of road block. Nonetheless, religions have no role in creating a meaningful environment. As a matter of fact, religions have been providing simplistic condescending reason only to accept disability and assume more of a sick role as predicted by behavioral model.

Even though disability has not been described in Koran (According to my limited knowledge) as a punishment but it is also a reality that God has only wrath and punishment principle to make up for the wrong deeds of individual. Therefore, the religionists who creatively surmise that any disability is a punishment from God for presumed sins are not far off the mark.

Keeping in mind that there are lots of obstacles in the way of disabled people, I think it is important that general public be primed to accept meaningfulness of life of disabled person, at least. The perceptive attitude of general public is hard to legislate. This is the job of education where everybody has a responsibility to share ideas and ideals.

I want to make this discussion on disability neither political nor purely religious but its not a bad idea to compare monetary resources ear-marked for war-machinery in almost all 3rd world countries with the money for education and welfare. Is there any alternative way of thinking a better utility of the same resources?

(I am wondering if our friends who have been talking about political economies in previous discussions would come up with good ideas how to find resources for managing disabilities).

Regards,

Tahir

Rethinking Disability in the Third World
Interact #3:

Ooooops .... Somebody has pointed out a typo:

It led to American With Disabilities Act 1990 has helped a great deal removing bearers and has mandated societal and environmental facilitation.

Please read as: It led to The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. It has helped a great deal removing barriers and ......

Rethinking Disability in the Third World
Dear Naveed:

Excellent! Your article is well argued and adds a real-life perspective to the issue of disability and societal attitude. These issues need serious discussion to bring about a change in the mindset of society, as you have rightly pointed out.

Conceptually, few technical but important considerations for sake of meaningful discussion; this is what WHO (World Health Organization) defines three related terms:

Impairment is any loss or abnormality of a psychological, physiologic or anatomical structure or function. For example, loss of a limb or weakness etc.

Disability is any limitation of a person’s ability to perform a task or activity. Problems at the person level as a whole whether physical or psychological. Examples are limitation of performance.

Handicap results from interaction of environment on a person with disability.

Even though, understanding of impairments and disability is important but focus on handicap is what is most important to change the societal attitude.

For exaple, a person who has lost a leg would not be limited and without a handicap if fitted with an artificial leg or wheelchair, whichever is necessary. If the building where he/she lives or works does not have a wheelchair-ramp for access or elevators would be really handicapped but such an access would remove handicap altogether.

In the past decade or so, it has been recognized that pure medical model does not sufficiently provide for facilitating the function of disable persons. The role of society has also been better understood. It led to American With Disabilities Act 1990 has helped a great deal removing bearers and has mandated societal and environmental facilitation. Legal measures are a must in other countries and societies as well. Education can help provide better understanding but laws must be enacted to assert the rights of disabled persons and remove physical barrier that limit people with disability.

I sometime wonder and worry how to put togther economical resources to enact such a law in 3rd world countries but it does not negate the need for primary understanding of issues involved in disability, at least.

Naveed! With regards to your Mauvi Sahib, well said, “I have since learnt not to trust anyone with a weak backhand”. Religious explanations for disabilities ought to be abandoned because religions have not added much to rationality that physical survival demands. Hereafter! Will cross when we come to that bridge. Humans certainly need some comfort in this world also that has been embroiled in religious quarrels, without much avail, for past some thousand years. But, thats a discussion for another day. Thanks again.

Tahir

Last Gasp of the Imperial Misadventure Re: # 63

Dear ferozk:

I might have misunderstood it but I think the author did not mean to say we are witnessing the death of imperialism. I think the author was trying to opine that the current period is the last gasp of imperial misadventure [in Iraq]. I guess, there is good worth to this opinion.

You are right imperialism will stay alive and well for as long an innate desire for adventure and innovation for producing material in surplus is present in humans.

Regards, Tahir

The Localization Of International Politics
Ferozk, Urstruly & dost-mittar

Very nice article like always and thoughtful comments indeed!

Would any or all of you like to comment on the possibility that Israel is up for acquiring more land, which over the time may become a historical reality regardless just or unjust?

The motive for this expansion being the simple fact that population density in Israel is high as compared to surrounding Arab countries except Palestine; birth rate in Israel is 17.97 births/1000 population whereas death rate is 6.18 deaths/1000 population as estimated in 2006. Does it argue for the desire for more land and current conflict may end up Israeli occupation of some part of Lebanon on the pretext of defence and security?

Regards

Tahir Qazi

How do you Define a Citizen’s Identity?
Dear Mr. Bhasker Dasgupta

Yes. Well done! I’ll try to be very brief while saying the following:

Citizenship is a human civilizational construct whereas identity is a psycho-biological issue as far I know. Identity is intertwined with and is yet distinct from citizenship.

Citizenship may not exist or may actually be meaningless without state. In your well quoted reference, Toynbee seems to be struggling to find meanings for individual while living in a state and Franklin D. Roosevelt appear to define state as a dynamic organic entity.

Anyways, egalitarianism within a state, as an ideal of the state, evolves over course of time as in the US e.g. abolition of slavery, at least theoretically. I do not mean to imply that slowness of the process of abolition of slavery was justified. I think economical realities played as big a part as idealism. Still, you see a step forward towards egalitarianism within a state, in this example

Contrarily, individual in spite of unquestioned citizenship can have confusion of identity. I think it will be unnecessary to go into psychological details, but I would certainly say that strong and singular identity can easily come in conflict with multidimensional reality of every day life and can lead to outbursts of behavior, which can be violent indeed. If strong singular identity is ‘diffused’ to conform to various facet of real life, it may be possible to see more stable and grounded individual. How to do that bears a question mark if it is against the grain of personality, particularly when such elements of human-thought are controlled by chemistry of brain that we understand only minimally (Is this idea the birth place of Eugenics?).

Nonetheless, all social philosophies agree on the idea of social justice while differing on ways and means to get there. Whether we like it or not, one of the biggest contributions to human thought came from Marx. He was able to bring the idea of social justice to this Earth from unforeseen kingdom of heavens. He made it possible to discuss egalitarianism at human level without invoking divine solutions.

Now, the quandary is how to keep majority’s or individual’s impulses from steering the state resources for self-centered gains/fantasies and ensuring that the instrument of state be used for welfare of society? And, on a bigger scale, how to reign in imperial-impulse that always appear to be born out of success of a state? I am not the first one to raise theses questions but all answers are welcome!

With best regards,

Tahir Qazi

ps: What is the reference for Toynbee? I wish to go to the original work for my own pleasure sake. Tx.

American Ambivalence on National Language
Re: Interact #6 by Mohammad Gill

>>”Those of you who picked up East Pakistan (Bangla Desh) and ran away with it, failed intentionally or unintentionally to focus on the topic of the article. The article is about the U.S. and its national language; it`s not about Bangla Desh and the politics which led to the break up of Pakistan”.

Kindly, refocus the argument to tell the readers why discussing East Pakistan (Bangladesh) was important while topic of the article was “American Ambivalence ….” And how break away of East Pakistan added to understanding American ambivalence on language issue?

Is author arguing if US chose to declare English as the national language, she should fear secession of some states? It is hard to find reasons for ambivalence of America in author’s argument from subcontinent.

With best regards.

Tahir Qazi

American Ambivalence on National Language
Re: Interact #6 by Mohammad Gill

>>”Those of you who picked up East Pakistan (Bangla Desh) and ran away with it, failed intentionally or unintentionally to focus on the topic of the article. The article is about the U.S. and its national language; it`s not about Bangla Desh and the politics which led to the break up of Pakistan”.

Kindly, refocus the argument to tell the readers why discussing East Pakistan (Bangladesh) was important while topic of the article was “American Ambivalence ….” And how break away of East Pakistan added to understanding American ambivalence on language issue?

Is author arguing if US chose to declare English as the national language, she should fear secession of some states? It is hard to find reasons for ambivalence of America in author’s argument from subcontinent.

With best regards.

Tahir Qazi

American Ambivalence on National Language >>”East Pakistan broke away from Pakistan and one of the prominent reasons of its secession was the language. The East Pakistanis wouldn’t accept Urdu as the national language; they preferred their native language, Bengali”.

Respectfully, this is one of the most superficial explanations whether it is intended to explain break away or to describe the folly of Mr. Jinnah and Bengalis to join in with Pakistan in the first place . East Pakistan and rightly now Bangladesh, is a complex historical issue that I believe Mr. Gill does fully appreciate.

With regard to the US to move legalizing English as the national language, I think it is in the making. The reasons are that a great deal of business in the world is conducted in English whether we like it or not.

Multiculturalism does not mean that unifying cultural denominators cannot be defined at some point even when forefathers did not define it in the first place. I am saying this with the understanding that culture and language are not static but dynamic pillars of a society. I guess there is nothing wrong if language of the majority of Americans democratically chooses to make any language as the working language of the state.

By the way, I am a big fan of the president’s ideas on teaching language because he pronounces “Nuclear” just perfectly. Isn`t it kinda cute!

The Long War: Rethinking American Options in the War on Terror While I have great respect for Mr. Feroz Khan, I have a slightly different take on the very premises of the article and a sense of wonderment about the learned author having being swept by the media description “War on Terrorism” and some of the pragmatics of future of the current conflict. For sake of brevity I shall try to avoid specifics.

War on terrorism, whatever it may mean, I suppose the premises of war are very much economical. In other words, the focus of war is securing flow of oil at a cheap price up until the time an alternative viable source of energy is found and infra-structure is put in place for delivery. By all indicators, this does not seem likely in the near future. Hence, dependence on oil. For example, in 1940s, the US was producing 100% of oil whatever it was consuming. This equation is now 90% of the oil is imported, which necessitates securing the point of production of oil and transports routs, in addition to working on drilling at home (Alaska).

In such a situation, it is very conceivable that continuously brewing conflict in the areas of interest represents the best choice for it falls within the realm of calculations as to how much of price of oil can be paid in form of blood of soldiers, a price that is acceptable to American public. I think it is the genius of policy makers that they have been able to correctly predict that anger against war would not mount to such a degree that the US would be defeated at home, if not in the battle field. I guess, it’s going fine so far and is acceptable to public. This predicts there may be an escalation of use of force. The regional beneficiary of Iraq war, Iran can also be counted as reason for continued presence of military might in that region.

The issue of terrorism is very real but its roots are not as simple as we are led to believe as if it is an ‘Islamic Witchcraft’ exclusively and the myth as if Muslims are monolithic, which they are not despite calls for oneness of “Ummah”. I am reminded of analyses that material realities influence religious ideologies also, which have always been malleable.

I think the issue of terrorism is a many-faced monster where no military solution is going to be successful. In olden times, rebellious sentiments have been present but there were not enough means to inflict pain to the real or perceived enemy at a distance. Modern technological knownedge has made it easy to put a spectacular resistance, if not truly matching, in the real or perceived enemy`s home ground. That is the problem.

I am heartened by what you said, “It [US] should allow them choice after giving them the options of experiencing progress with the rest of the world ….”, but million dollar question is, would capitalist war-industry allow such a change of Imperial-heart when Muslims also feed into their own depravity both economical as well psychological? Let me say though I always enjoy your articles.

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

Education isn\'t the Magic Bullet for Terrorists Dear Mr. Dasgupta

I see your article is well thought of. I enjoyed it particularly because of my interest in the subject of violence and peace.

I have only one minor point to make, if I may. Lots of people emphasize on education and socio-economical status of known terrorist, which is fine but I suppose conditions on the ground that provide an impetus to switch to violent mode of thinking and behavior are very important to consider because those in the leadership roles are only faces of a big underlying unrest, without going into the question of legitimacy right now.

I appreciate what you have rightly pointed out that education is a must but only one of the many necessary elements for peace, among which I shall place the reality of social justice rather high. Wondering how do you see it?

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

On death of a Terrorist Dear Salim_Chauhan, ballukhan & VRV

Thanks for elevating the discussion to a higher level.

Ideologies and religions live in human minds. I suspect they have doubtful survival independent of humans. One of the problems with ideologies is ease of their ‘corruptibility’, which in reality is a reflection of human nature.

Spiritual or political Islam (Religion/ideology) whatever the way we look at it, does not ensure that it will not conform to whims of its practitioners. Also, you can easily find verses in Koran and Bible that justify violence and some other verses that speak for peace. Actually, they are contradictory to each other. Which verse one would choose to refer to at a certain time is an individual pick I suppose, but they are there.

I guess it is worthwhile to examine issues related to violence in human nature and desire for peace at a human level, and coming to a mental resolution between two contradictory impulses at a human level, beyond religions and some of the non-religious ideologies also, ultra-nationalism for example & so on. It is a long discussion. Nonetheless, I enjoy reading your perspective. By the way what do you think, is violence part of human nature?

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

On death of a Terrorist Dear ballukhan & VRV, ijaz_gul, majumdar and bjkumar

>>“… the problem lies with political Islam practiced in Pakistan and UAE”

Lately, I have been hearing of `political islam` more often. I do not think you can make a distinction as if there are two Islams: One political and the other non-political. I suppose, dangers lurk in both of these guises and in any religious ideology for that matter.

There is only way out: State ought to be secular with focus on social justice. This will seamlessly and effortlessly work for raising peace consciousness also.

I also think that spider-web of violence problem extends beyond boundaries of one state or the other. Would you consider, efforts for peace-based solutions better defy boundaries laid by states?

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

On death of a Terrorist Dear Sri and friends!

I am sure you are aware of this strange phenomenon of collective human nature, more you try to suppress more forcefully will it bounce back in due course of time.

Force can temporarily suppress but cannot bring about peace, I think. What are your thoughts? Don’t you think peace is a better virtue than violence? I think Mahatma Gandhi got it right when he argued for use of peaceful methodology for sake of peace. Let me know how you guys feel about this.

Regards,

Tahir Qazi

The Modernity Conspiracy Dear Saima Shah

As a young student I read Dostoyevsky and it was many moons ago. The idealist inside me did not like when I read, “Some people have to be killed and made to suffer to keep others fresh and alive”. I thought of it as a tyrannical remark as if he was justifying brutality and suffering. And I did not like it …. But how true was he, I think of it often now!

Except for shifting focus too quickly at some places your article is right on the mark. You feel the societal pulse so well.

There is a two tear system in every system; one for privileged and the other for disadvantaged. The same hold true at the level of nations and countries also. Privilege exists at the expense of someone else - unprivileged. The data is somewhat old but it may still be valid that the US consumed 27% of world resources and created 30% of world garbage much out of proportion its due share on the percentage basis for population. Of course the struggle is how to maintain these percentages.

The point you make about Turkey and its identity crisis is so true. I think the problem is bigger and more diverse. Lots of countries are trying to put great efforts into defining themselves in the era of identity-diffusion thank to our post-modernism. But I am not sure what Ottoman Empire contributed in her late part as compared with last 50 years that you referred to in your article.

You have covered so many points in your article that it would take another article to review it fully. But I feel must I say ….. Bravo!

Tahir Qazi