A fool's brain digests philosophy into folly, science into superstition, and art into pedantry.
-George Bernard Shaw
As EC finalized the polling date today, Prakash Karat announced he is still looking! Yes, he is still looking for a one or more secular partner for a live-in relation after all communism is so pure- permanent wedlock is out of question. And he is looking for a secular partner since the collapse of his failed attempt to discover Leninist imperialism in US-India nuclear deal. Sad that his prospective secular match in Mayabati or Jaylalita didn't materialize after all in Indian politics, secularism is a mere calmoflage to lure Muslim votebank. So this gentleman thinks he is at the helm of affair of the Indian lefts! His power and status is a result of hardworks of Bengal comrades whose dedication has given him recognition in Delhi or else his status would be no better than a commoner given his level of political maturity and wisdom. And when he spoke today that he is looking for a truely secular party to partner, I recalled Plato-Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Therefore, I thought it would be apt to remind Prakash Karat how his meaningless persuit of third fornt is jeopardizing CPM's future in India which is already bleak among the Indian youths.
Three decades back CPM would be certainly having at least one or more MPs from almost every major state where as now, they would not be able to fight even Panchyet election in many of those same states. We can take a look of how CPM is dessicating from Indian political map in last two decades.
This is overall situation:
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Political literates versus Rahul Gandhi
Being raised in a leftist family of Bengal, I often stumbled across the two worlds of reality about Gandhi family. While Indian leftists assessed Rajiv and Rahul as politically illiterate emperor of Gandhi dynasty, I wondered why these "illiterate" Gandhis made far too less mistakes compared to so many political pundits of leftists put all together. More importantly I also failed to understand how power has corrupted and transformed CP(I)M into a fascist monster in West Bengal where as despite being in power in the whole country and for a longer time, Gandhi doyens have been able to maintain democracy in whole India-an unique feature among all third world countries, for which, India has been applauded in high respect all over the world. I travelled across Europe and North America. I noticed my westerner friends respect India for our ability to uphold democracy in this diverse and unique nation. But in a small state like West Bengal, democracy has been lynched to death by political pundits who are proud to be leftist and claim to have the best political knowledge of the world. Isn't that an irony? Or is there a science behind it?
To me, it was bizarre and absurdity at best.
Therefore I did thorough soul searching as to why Rajiv was more successful than his seasoned political rivals. Even today, Rahul Gandhi is also scoring high over his political counterparts in BJP and CPM despite their acclaimed political maturity and knowledge. I will not say that Rajiv Gandhi committed no mistake at all-indeed he did with Sahabanu case which paved the way for rise of Hinduvta and fanatic Muslim force. But overall, Rajiv was first to galvanize this nation with political and economic reform which catapulted India into center of the world both economically and politically after a long stagnation. Why then Rajiv was successful to transform this nation while political pundits could not? Even today, we see Rahul is propounding the vision of future while our old and the best political pundits are trying to extract water out of quagmire.
This led me to a deeper question about political theory and ideology. Does empiricism-attempt to formulate laws out of past political experience works at all in practice? In philosophy of social science,
this has been made extremely clear. Very few of the social observations can be said to be manifestation of laws of the society or history. To give you an example-let' s talk about historical materialism of Marxist school-a vision of history that formulates evolution of history and every social event as manifestation of class struggle. Or let say Leninist vision of imperialism-which he formulated as the highest stage of capitalism from famous work of British political theorist Hobson.
Now see the troubled part of this kind of empiricism. With technological evolution in USA, my housemaid, who cleans my house twice a month, drives an old Mercedes. She earns more than my wife who is a law clerk. By classical Marxist definition, my wife is a Bourgeoisie and my housemaid belongs to proletariat class! Yet this proletariat is materially better off because of technological revolution as she is no more an ordinary housemaid-she knows how to run the state of the art cleaning machines and works as a proud cleaner. As the more technological revolution would take place, robots would replace most of the works done by the proletariat and the proletariat would transgress into expert machine operators for which they will work as independent or skilled workers. Of course in democracy there will be conflict of different interest groups but by no means, in a functional democracy such conflicts can not be resolved through ballots. Bottom line-Marxist reductionism of class is at best a fuzzy suggestion and class struggle is even a furthest stretch of political fiction.
To me, it was bizarre and absurdity at best.
Therefore I did thorough soul searching as to why Rajiv was more successful than his seasoned political rivals. Even today, Rahul Gandhi is also scoring high over his political counterparts in BJP and CPM despite their acclaimed political maturity and knowledge. I will not say that Rajiv Gandhi committed no mistake at all-indeed he did with Sahabanu case which paved the way for rise of Hinduvta and fanatic Muslim force. But overall, Rajiv was first to galvanize this nation with political and economic reform which catapulted India into center of the world both economically and politically after a long stagnation. Why then Rajiv was successful to transform this nation while political pundits could not? Even today, we see Rahul is propounding the vision of future while our old and the best political pundits are trying to extract water out of quagmire.
This led me to a deeper question about political theory and ideology. Does empiricism-attempt to formulate laws out of past political experience works at all in practice? In philosophy of social science,
this has been made extremely clear. Very few of the social observations can be said to be manifestation of laws of the society or history. To give you an example-let' s talk about historical materialism of Marxist school-a vision of history that formulates evolution of history and every social event as manifestation of class struggle. Or let say Leninist vision of imperialism-which he formulated as the highest stage of capitalism from famous work of British political theorist Hobson.
Now see the troubled part of this kind of empiricism. With technological evolution in USA, my housemaid, who cleans my house twice a month, drives an old Mercedes. She earns more than my wife who is a law clerk. By classical Marxist definition, my wife is a Bourgeoisie and my housemaid belongs to proletariat class! Yet this proletariat is materially better off because of technological revolution as she is no more an ordinary housemaid-she knows how to run the state of the art cleaning machines and works as a proud cleaner. As the more technological revolution would take place, robots would replace most of the works done by the proletariat and the proletariat would transgress into expert machine operators for which they will work as independent or skilled workers. Of course in democracy there will be conflict of different interest groups but by no means, in a functional democracy such conflicts can not be resolved through ballots. Bottom line-Marxist reductionism of class is at best a fuzzy suggestion and class struggle is even a furthest stretch of political fiction.
Now notice the peril of Leninist reductionism. Indian lefts opposed US-India nuclear deal citing imperialistic design of United States which undoubtedly resulted from Leninist theory of imperialism. But in reality, although US has a long history of imperialism, that deal was simply a civilian trade deal that India badly needed for her energy security as Nuclear energy would dominate the world in next couple of decades.
Last example would show political ideology is actually a hindrance than a help. West Bengal today is one of the worst state in India in terms of industrialization, education, public health and political violence. This all happened because ruling left wanted to run West Bengal according to obsolete Leninism and in process industries fled from the state. This state is a glaring example that political ideology does not work at all or worst, how political ideology can ruin a state. It didn't work for Russia or Iran-neither will it ever work anywhere in the world. Reason is simple. Any empirical political law is a kind of reductionism. We try to reduce some set of observations to laws and try to apply that empirical experience elsewhere. Like our communists tried to import Russian Bolshevik experience to India. It never worked in caste infested Indian society as admitted by CP(I)M times and again. Reason is simple. We can formulate physical laws of water because water consists of water molecules that are identical in its property and behavior. But society is composed of human beings where everyone of them is different in their aspiration and objectives. Therefore, no such statistical laws can be formulated around a society and at a given time, to solve a social problem, best alternative has to be adopted without any preconceived bias of ideology.
There lies success of Rahul Gandhi. He entered into Congress and observed perennial weakness of Congress organization in terms of nepotism and frustration of its grass root workers. He realized organization needs democratic reform so that grass root workers can select their own leaders. This is only thing CPM does perfectly about their party organization. Also it is extremely clear Rahul is resolved to take this country out of casteism and communalism. He has emphasized Muslims as human beings and Indians rather than alienation as Muslim. Even leftist leaders could not show this level of resolved courage fearing reprisal from fanatic Muslim community leaders who want to retain Muslim identity to benefit from their community leadership.
Overall, Rahul remains truthful to his own conscience and experience. This is the most important quality for a leader. Besides he also has truly western character of exploring the situation in person and he does not form opinion unless he investigates the incident by himself. This is an extraordinary scientific ability because as I said, instead of forming opinions swept by ideology, for a better tangible solution, a leader has to probe the problem like a true doctor-that is to inspect the patient by eyes and ears. That's where Rahul Gandhi stands as the best.
Unfortunately, Congress worker's off-balance enthusiasm about Rahul is harming his image. After Rajasthan election, Congress supporters were shouting about Rahulji where as true architect was Gelhot. Same happened in Delhi. This sent out a reactant message and insipid taste to majority of Indians who love Rahul Gandhi but is not fanatic to the extent that they would not spell out who deserves more credit. Such fanatic behavior of Congress supporters about Rahul Gandhi only exposes intellectual bankruptcy of Congress abrogating extensive hard work of Rahul to lift the party and the country.
One must be thankful to Gandhis to keep this nation on right path. If we would have gone to extreme left, we would be awarded with a West Bengal like situation-unemployment and tragic condition of economy. On extreme right, you may get a Gujrat where despite wealth, it's literacy rate remains average. Therefore, only a balanced approach to business and society or a harmonious vision between society and business where growth happens without disparity is the need of the hour. Right now, Rahul is the only sane voice for that delicate balance that India needs. He has rightly pointed out that future India lies in technological advancement in rural area. Best thing about him is always about how he investigates the problem being with people without being carried out by any baggage of ideology or pundits.
He is a traveller with a bag and without a baggage. That's the destination of a true traveller. Young India would certainly love to travel with him with a bag and without baggage.
Last example would show political ideology is actually a hindrance than a help. West Bengal today is one of the worst state in India in terms of industrialization, education, public health and political violence. This all happened because ruling left wanted to run West Bengal according to obsolete Leninism and in process industries fled from the state. This state is a glaring example that political ideology does not work at all or worst, how political ideology can ruin a state. It didn't work for Russia or Iran-neither will it ever work anywhere in the world. Reason is simple. Any empirical political law is a kind of reductionism. We try to reduce some set of observations to laws and try to apply that empirical experience elsewhere. Like our communists tried to import Russian Bolshevik experience to India. It never worked in caste infested Indian society as admitted by CP(I)M times and again. Reason is simple. We can formulate physical laws of water because water consists of water molecules that are identical in its property and behavior. But society is composed of human beings where everyone of them is different in their aspiration and objectives. Therefore, no such statistical laws can be formulated around a society and at a given time, to solve a social problem, best alternative has to be adopted without any preconceived bias of ideology.
There lies success of Rahul Gandhi. He entered into Congress and observed perennial weakness of Congress organization in terms of nepotism and frustration of its grass root workers. He realized organization needs democratic reform so that grass root workers can select their own leaders. This is only thing CPM does perfectly about their party organization. Also it is extremely clear Rahul is resolved to take this country out of casteism and communalism. He has emphasized Muslims as human beings and Indians rather than alienation as Muslim. Even leftist leaders could not show this level of resolved courage fearing reprisal from fanatic Muslim community leaders who want to retain Muslim identity to benefit from their community leadership.
Overall, Rahul remains truthful to his own conscience and experience. This is the most important quality for a leader. Besides he also has truly western character of exploring the situation in person and he does not form opinion unless he investigates the incident by himself. This is an extraordinary scientific ability because as I said, instead of forming opinions swept by ideology, for a better tangible solution, a leader has to probe the problem like a true doctor-that is to inspect the patient by eyes and ears. That's where Rahul Gandhi stands as the best.
Unfortunately, Congress worker's off-balance enthusiasm about Rahul is harming his image. After Rajasthan election, Congress supporters were shouting about Rahulji where as true architect was Gelhot. Same happened in Delhi. This sent out a reactant message and insipid taste to majority of Indians who love Rahul Gandhi but is not fanatic to the extent that they would not spell out who deserves more credit. Such fanatic behavior of Congress supporters about Rahul Gandhi only exposes intellectual bankruptcy of Congress abrogating extensive hard work of Rahul to lift the party and the country.
One must be thankful to Gandhis to keep this nation on right path. If we would have gone to extreme left, we would be awarded with a West Bengal like situation-unemployment and tragic condition of economy. On extreme right, you may get a Gujrat where despite wealth, it's literacy rate remains average. Therefore, only a balanced approach to business and society or a harmonious vision between society and business where growth happens without disparity is the need of the hour. Right now, Rahul is the only sane voice for that delicate balance that India needs. He has rightly pointed out that future India lies in technological advancement in rural area. Best thing about him is always about how he investigates the problem being with people without being carried out by any baggage of ideology or pundits.
He is a traveller with a bag and without a baggage. That's the destination of a true traveller. Young India would certainly love to travel with him with a bag and without baggage.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Corporate Socialism for better corporate Governance
Amidst the maddening ruckus of Satyam episode, Indians got their fair share of growling-as if they are all but modern avatar of Gandhi while Raju is the only black sheep in IT fairyland of shining India. Even today we learned World Bank barred Wipro for offering bribes to their employees--which, although legalized in USA in the name of friendly share option, nevertheless a variant to influence contractual decision in favor. While thousands of words and blogs taking on ailment of corporate Governance in India, what we are missing here is a big picture of corporate Governance embalming traditional Indian culture of business-compromised ethics and reduced human values for employees. However there may be a better scoring point over their American counterparts-better job security.
While discussion on ethics is useless in business- as at the end of the day, ethics is also an integral part of the product offering. Falling short of good business practice purports to suicide by slow poison, I would rather reflect upon the second part-profit over people. Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Satyam-they all did one great thing-perfected art of exploiting their employees with gross disregard to US labor regulation. Recently Infosys paid a whopping fine of millions of dollars to its employees for unpaid overtime in US soil-I feel pity for their Indian counterparts who probably slogged even harder while law of the land could not ensure them any protection from exhausting work. Infosys human resource was even callous to the extent of not maintaining a proper guidance of sexual discrimination- as a result of which, their highest paid employee of 2000-2001 & VP of sales in USA,Phaneesh Murthy, was accused of sexual advance to female employees- a case Infosys was forced to settle out of the court losing a few millions while tightening their discrimination guidelines. All the employees of Infosys, Wipro, Satyam and TCS are treated like cattle in the matter of relocating them from one part of the world to another-company barely gives them a flight ticket and that's all. Rest of the relocation, coping up with adverse and alien environment-is all left to the employees. Even a week's hotel cost is not paid as relocation. Typically any standard US company would agree to pay $10,000 minimum for relocating from coast to coast in USA where as for any worker employed with any of these crown jewels of IT-India gets only a flying ticket to their client's office! One may argue, well, they are in the game of outsourcing-where the mantra is always about an operational model of cutting the cost. But I do not buy that argument when I see they declare quarterly result with billions of dollars of profit while their workers do not get any relocation and picks up TV /sofa either from dustbin leftover or thrift store for bare minimum survival. Still they do not complain because they are earning better than their parents and Indian counterparts. Also they are more loyal to their company as well since Indian companies guarantee a better job security. While visa frauds are highly common and under senate scanner now, as an Indian, I am more concerned about an Indian IT worker walking on snow in upstate New York's freezing zero because his company didn't give him proper accommodation while declaring millions of dollar profit for its shareholders and fat bonus to CEOs. I call that profit over people and that is the disease that has plunged Indian IT industry where as in Auto or conventional industry, profit is made and shared with employees -both in Japan and in USA.
The vulgarity associated with driving profit margins for inflating share price must be stopped and penalized or else we will see more of Satyam kind of scandal hitting our reputation and savings to rock bottom. I strongly demand a law to distribute any profit over 5% equally among all the employees to stop the management making profit over people. IT employees must organize themselves in unions to raise this demand in Indian parliament for a better India and better corporate Governance. Greed of corporate management can not be checked without laws that enforce equal distribution of profit among all of its employees irrespective of rank an hierarchy. Corporate socialism is the only way for better Corporate Governance.
While discussion on ethics is useless in business- as at the end of the day, ethics is also an integral part of the product offering. Falling short of good business practice purports to suicide by slow poison, I would rather reflect upon the second part-profit over people. Infosys, Wipro, TCS and Satyam-they all did one great thing-perfected art of exploiting their employees with gross disregard to US labor regulation. Recently Infosys paid a whopping fine of millions of dollars to its employees for unpaid overtime in US soil-I feel pity for their Indian counterparts who probably slogged even harder while law of the land could not ensure them any protection from exhausting work. Infosys human resource was even callous to the extent of not maintaining a proper guidance of sexual discrimination- as a result of which, their highest paid employee of 2000-2001 & VP of sales in USA,Phaneesh Murthy, was accused of sexual advance to female employees- a case Infosys was forced to settle out of the court losing a few millions while tightening their discrimination guidelines. All the employees of Infosys, Wipro, Satyam and TCS are treated like cattle in the matter of relocating them from one part of the world to another-company barely gives them a flight ticket and that's all. Rest of the relocation, coping up with adverse and alien environment-is all left to the employees. Even a week's hotel cost is not paid as relocation. Typically any standard US company would agree to pay $10,000 minimum for relocating from coast to coast in USA where as for any worker employed with any of these crown jewels of IT-India gets only a flying ticket to their client's office! One may argue, well, they are in the game of outsourcing-where the mantra is always about an operational model of cutting the cost. But I do not buy that argument when I see they declare quarterly result with billions of dollars of profit while their workers do not get any relocation and picks up TV /sofa either from dustbin leftover or thrift store for bare minimum survival. Still they do not complain because they are earning better than their parents and Indian counterparts. Also they are more loyal to their company as well since Indian companies guarantee a better job security. While visa frauds are highly common and under senate scanner now, as an Indian, I am more concerned about an Indian IT worker walking on snow in upstate New York's freezing zero because his company didn't give him proper accommodation while declaring millions of dollar profit for its shareholders and fat bonus to CEOs. I call that profit over people and that is the disease that has plunged Indian IT industry where as in Auto or conventional industry, profit is made and shared with employees -both in Japan and in USA.
The vulgarity associated with driving profit margins for inflating share price must be stopped and penalized or else we will see more of Satyam kind of scandal hitting our reputation and savings to rock bottom. I strongly demand a law to distribute any profit over 5% equally among all the employees to stop the management making profit over people. IT employees must organize themselves in unions to raise this demand in Indian parliament for a better India and better corporate Governance. Greed of corporate management can not be checked without laws that enforce equal distribution of profit among all of its employees irrespective of rank an hierarchy. Corporate socialism is the only way for better Corporate Governance.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Birth of a new Bangladesh: Joy Bangla
Although today I am overtly delighted with landslide victory of progressive force of Bangladesh, I shared same anxiety of
secular people of Bangladesh ever since, I was introduced to Bangladesh eforums late back in 2004, when there was a hue and cry among rank and files of secular groups in Bangladesh that secularism is on retreat in the golden land of Bangla which boosts a poetic harmony for mankind from time immemorial. It is a land of Lalan Fakir, Rabindranath Tagor and Nazrul Islam who spoke of undivided humanity at best and broke the fallacious barrier of being a Muslim or Hindu. This is a land which spoke human being and humanity above all and everything. Unfortunate as it is, with birth of Muslim league, communal harmony of Bengal plunged into rock bottom in the beginning of last century. Perhaps many of my readers do not know, that in 1946, Bengali Muslims actually got caught up with sinister design of two nation theory for exploitation of Bangla by Punjabi Muslims and therefore, along with Hindu leaders like Sarat Bose, Bengali Muslim leaders actually pressed for an united Bengali nation refuting Jinnah's Pakistan and favoring Bengali nationalism over Islamic identity. This was turned down by Muslim league and Congress alike. Although Bengali nationalism in Bangladesh was nipped in the bud in 1947, it took them another 24 years before breaking up with falsehood of Islamic nation theory of Pakistan paying an untold cost of three million people-largest genocide since Holocaust. Although a secular Bengali nation was born in 1971 led by Seikh Mujibur Rahaman, soon military coup d'e'tet took over in 1975 killing the forces of secularism and modern Bangladesh reversing back to Islamic nation. Since these coups were aided by US-Pakistani nexus who were apprehended by Indian-Russian influence over Bangladesh which, at that time, was full of socialist zeal to reorganize the country in Soviet fashion, Ziaur Rahaman took no time to bring back Islam into politics because it is only in Islam, he would have created a new alternative power circle against Bengali nationalism. Like any other military general, Zia started off with populist measure but reversed the momentum of modern Bangladesh into Islamic Bangladesh. After General
Ershad took over, he cunningly balanced the country between Islam and Bengali nationalism. However, he was so corrupt to begin with, he too failed the aspiration of common people and was deposed subsequently by a bloodless democratic coup. Since 1991, three elections were held in which BNP led by widow of General Zia and Awami League led by daughter of Seikh Mujibar Rahman shared their power and again failed common people's aspiration for a modern affluent Bangladesh by mindless corruption and complete collapse of state system. However, it is during this democratic time of '91 to 2006, independent media flourished in Bangladesh. This is the biggest gain
of democratic era which would prove decisive during present election of 28th December, 2008.
Ever since Bangladesh politics was torn between bitter battle of Bengali versus Islamic nationalism, poor and marginal people of Bangladesh were increasingly frustrated who were asking for food and job rather than anti-Indian or pro Islamic jingoism of BNP or "living in the past ideologies" of the Awami League. It is only in Dec,2008 election, for the first time, Awami League recognized the need for a future looking vision and the fact that young generation is not looking forward to Islam or India or Bengali but a better material living. Their strategy paid off handsomely against the backdrop of outdated conspiracy theorists turned corrupt leaders of BNP and Jamati Islami. Added with it, was empowerment of women voters who outnumbered male and was well aware of danger posed on them by Jamati Islami through Sharia law. They thrashed out all the Islamic parties sending clear message to them that they want Islam as spiritual religion and they do not want criminals
as torch bearer of Islam.
Today's victory of Bangladeshi secular modern force is a decisive victory over Islamist extremist force with 4/5th majority and after this, they can not have any excuse of why they could not turn around a modern a Bangladesh with all needed mandate with them. Now they have the opportunity to root out reactionary force that opposed Independence of Bangladesh. As Leon Trotsky once said "
in a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be magnanimous at an inopportune time"- I believe, for progressive force in Bangladesh, that time is now to eradicate poverty and malice of religious extremism. If they fail to listen to marginalized people once again as they did in 1996-2001, they too, will be trashed in history.
For a long time secular intellectuals groused over reversal of attainment of '71 freedom struggle-well people of Bangladesh has given them back what they wanted. So ball is in their court to take Bangladesh to 21st century. I hope with decimation of Islamist force, Hasina, now can be assured that people are asking for "dal vat" (lentil-rice) and they do not want religious appeasement politics which is a contagious virus in whole south Asia. I am also glad that people of Bangladesh realized hunger is the real enemy and propaganda of Islam or nationalism is a tool for the rulers to mislead them from their fundamental right for food and future.
Joy Bangla!
Friday, December 5, 2008
At the root cause of Islamic terror in Pakistan
“Democracies don't go to war against each other, and by and large they don't sponsor terrorism. They're more likely to respect the environment and human rights and social justice. It's no accident that most of the terrorists come from non-democratic countries.”-Bill Clinton
While cause of terrorism is multi-faced, terrorists on the other hand are always unique in their background-ideologically guzzled, citizen of autocratic states and almost invariably exploited by foreign policy makers. While our leftist friends could not recuperate from American conspiracy theory, undeniable nemesis of rise of Islamist ideology and associated fundamentalism in south Asia needs more focus on failure of leftist politics in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. From its birth, Pakistan has been ruled by a few handful families in old tradition of Islamic family centric power politics and this group of elites ruined Pakistan for retaining their power. Worst of this case happened in 2nd December, 1978, when General Zia-Ul-Haq captured the power in a promise to set up true Islamic republic of Pakistan. Secular syllabus was overhauled and general directed Islamic brainwash from the buds-Official school texts of Pakistan started emphasizing glory of Islam and doom of polytheist Hindus in horror Casteism and Sati burning. Note that this anti-Hindu, anti-India propaganda started a year before United States got heavily involved with Mujahidin in Afghanistan at the backdrop of Russian aggression. For Zia, it was a golden opportunity to bolster his power base since he was son of a farmer and didn't belong to power broker aristocratic families of Pakistan. He saw anger among Pakistani poor people against these western educated elites and metamorphosed that anger by feeding them Wahabi Islam to consolidate his basics with added blessing from Ronald Regan, who used the general to counter Soviet in central Asia. Therefore Islamic brotherhood was call of the day since in no other way Pakistan would have been inspired to fight in Afghanistan given long history of animosity between two countries.
When Noor Muhammad Taraki of Marxist PDPA assumed power in Afghanistan in 1978, he started modernization of Afghanistan by land reform and eliminating local landlords. At the beginning, he enjoyed mass support of the poors and the military. But United State found the situation unacceptable as another country falling in the hand of communists. Therefore, US backed up feudal landlords using Pakistan as base. A mass insurgency against PDPA in whole Afghanistan was hatched using Islamic sentiments of the poor Afghans who was actually benefitting from PDPA's land reform. But atheist communists were portrayed as enemy of Islam in Afghanistan and in order to do so massive Islamic machinery was set up in Pakistan which is intact even today. Remember this started even before Russia officially marched in Afghanistan. Many a times, we find, USA has used the pretext of Soviet aggression but in reality, CIA was actively planting Islamism in this area to depose PDPA blessed by Soviet Union. From 1978 since withdrawal Russian troops in 1988, Jamat-e-Ulema-i Islam, a Deobandi school of Islamic scholars, led the task of mushrooming Islamic millitants including Talibans in Pakistan. Given by the present insurgency level in Pakistan, attempt to reverse this militant Islam since 9/11 met with very little success and the gruesome event in Mumbai reminds us once again, strength of ideology can not be reversed unless political leaderships is truly willing for eradication of Islamism. As I said before in another editorial, even if we enhance our security, our flaws against Islamists ideology would remain as permanent seed for causing more terrorism in the future. And at this point, even BJP would not be touching this sensitive issue of virus of Islamic brotherhood which is creating hell in the whole world. Instead, they would be more interested in blame game to reap harvest in voting season. Worst is the double standard of world politicians when we hear, these terrorists are rootless exception among peace loving Muslims, wolves in the herd of the cow, and rest is fine. That's why we don't see even a single protest against Osama Bin Laden in the Islamic world where as even if an order is passed to secularize immigrant Muslim in Europe, the whole Muslim world burns in anger. It never occurred to the Muslims that in Saudi Arabia, all other religions are officially banned. It can never unsettle a Muslim, that in the land of their greatest enemy, that is America, he can open a Mosque, gets his hallal meat and if wishes, he can be a senator as well where as in Saudi Arabia, Bible is burned and religious police looks out for idols in the households of the Hindus. In Middle Eastern countries, only Muslim can be citizen and such gross violation of human right never dodges a Muslim mind. However, thousands of miles away even if a Kashmiri dies in India, their feelings of brotherhood exalted them into terrorist attack on India.
Thanks to overwhelming anger of the Indians, we now know everything about perennial security flaws. But security by definition is like a porous pot-no matter how you tight it, it can always be breached. On the other hand, we can ensure our fight against virus brewing this trouble-that is the ideology of Islam which is expansionist and intolerant. And this fight must be a fight from secular and scientific perspective without giving away to right wing ideology since all the religions in the world are merely a product of sociological evolution and construct of anthropological need and nothing more. I know a religion can be interpreted in thousands of different ways and Islam is not monolithic but when human beings are attempting genetic revolution for immortality and setting out for other planets in solar system, unquestioned loyality of the Muslims to their outdated ideals is becoming anti-thesis of the civilization. Muslims must remember their glorious past of Mutazilas, the free thinkers of ancient of Arabs who questioned Islamic theology and in that critical reasoning, they excelled to be foremost civilization of their time. A society, a religion can not get better without criticism of its past and ideals since we are all evolving with changing mode of production triggered by computers, internets and genetics. That's why Nobel Lauriat Prof Abdus Salam said greatest crime against Islam has been committed when Muslims stopped questioning Quran and its principles like Mutazila-prosecution of the free thinkers among Muslim was the end of Islamic domination in the world. But right now their choice is limited-accept modern ideals or face consequence which our diplomatic leaders will not be able to deter for a long time as the experience of Mumbai would continue to happen.
While cause of terrorism is multi-faced, terrorists on the other hand are always unique in their background-ideologically guzzled, citizen of autocratic states and almost invariably exploited by foreign policy makers. While our leftist friends could not recuperate from American conspiracy theory, undeniable nemesis of rise of Islamist ideology and associated fundamentalism in south Asia needs more focus on failure of leftist politics in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. From its birth, Pakistan has been ruled by a few handful families in old tradition of Islamic family centric power politics and this group of elites ruined Pakistan for retaining their power. Worst of this case happened in 2nd December, 1978, when General Zia-Ul-Haq captured the power in a promise to set up true Islamic republic of Pakistan. Secular syllabus was overhauled and general directed Islamic brainwash from the buds-Official school texts of Pakistan started emphasizing glory of Islam and doom of polytheist Hindus in horror Casteism and Sati burning. Note that this anti-Hindu, anti-India propaganda started a year before United States got heavily involved with Mujahidin in Afghanistan at the backdrop of Russian aggression. For Zia, it was a golden opportunity to bolster his power base since he was son of a farmer and didn't belong to power broker aristocratic families of Pakistan. He saw anger among Pakistani poor people against these western educated elites and metamorphosed that anger by feeding them Wahabi Islam to consolidate his basics with added blessing from Ronald Regan, who used the general to counter Soviet in central Asia. Therefore Islamic brotherhood was call of the day since in no other way Pakistan would have been inspired to fight in Afghanistan given long history of animosity between two countries.
When Noor Muhammad Taraki of Marxist PDPA assumed power in Afghanistan in 1978, he started modernization of Afghanistan by land reform and eliminating local landlords. At the beginning, he enjoyed mass support of the poors and the military. But United State found the situation unacceptable as another country falling in the hand of communists. Therefore, US backed up feudal landlords using Pakistan as base. A mass insurgency against PDPA in whole Afghanistan was hatched using Islamic sentiments of the poor Afghans who was actually benefitting from PDPA's land reform. But atheist communists were portrayed as enemy of Islam in Afghanistan and in order to do so massive Islamic machinery was set up in Pakistan which is intact even today. Remember this started even before Russia officially marched in Afghanistan. Many a times, we find, USA has used the pretext of Soviet aggression but in reality, CIA was actively planting Islamism in this area to depose PDPA blessed by Soviet Union. From 1978 since withdrawal Russian troops in 1988, Jamat-e-Ulema-i Islam, a Deobandi school of Islamic scholars, led the task of mushrooming Islamic millitants including Talibans in Pakistan. Given by the present insurgency level in Pakistan, attempt to reverse this militant Islam since 9/11 met with very little success and the gruesome event in Mumbai reminds us once again, strength of ideology can not be reversed unless political leaderships is truly willing for eradication of Islamism. As I said before in another editorial, even if we enhance our security, our flaws against Islamists ideology would remain as permanent seed for causing more terrorism in the future. And at this point, even BJP would not be touching this sensitive issue of virus of Islamic brotherhood which is creating hell in the whole world. Instead, they would be more interested in blame game to reap harvest in voting season. Worst is the double standard of world politicians when we hear, these terrorists are rootless exception among peace loving Muslims, wolves in the herd of the cow, and rest is fine. That's why we don't see even a single protest against Osama Bin Laden in the Islamic world where as even if an order is passed to secularize immigrant Muslim in Europe, the whole Muslim world burns in anger. It never occurred to the Muslims that in Saudi Arabia, all other religions are officially banned. It can never unsettle a Muslim, that in the land of their greatest enemy, that is America, he can open a Mosque, gets his hallal meat and if wishes, he can be a senator as well where as in Saudi Arabia, Bible is burned and religious police looks out for idols in the households of the Hindus. In Middle Eastern countries, only Muslim can be citizen and such gross violation of human right never dodges a Muslim mind. However, thousands of miles away even if a Kashmiri dies in India, their feelings of brotherhood exalted them into terrorist attack on India.
Thanks to overwhelming anger of the Indians, we now know everything about perennial security flaws. But security by definition is like a porous pot-no matter how you tight it, it can always be breached. On the other hand, we can ensure our fight against virus brewing this trouble-that is the ideology of Islam which is expansionist and intolerant. And this fight must be a fight from secular and scientific perspective without giving away to right wing ideology since all the religions in the world are merely a product of sociological evolution and construct of anthropological need and nothing more. I know a religion can be interpreted in thousands of different ways and Islam is not monolithic but when human beings are attempting genetic revolution for immortality and setting out for other planets in solar system, unquestioned loyality of the Muslims to their outdated ideals is becoming anti-thesis of the civilization. Muslims must remember their glorious past of Mutazilas, the free thinkers of ancient of Arabs who questioned Islamic theology and in that critical reasoning, they excelled to be foremost civilization of their time. A society, a religion can not get better without criticism of its past and ideals since we are all evolving with changing mode of production triggered by computers, internets and genetics. That's why Nobel Lauriat Prof Abdus Salam said greatest crime against Islam has been committed when Muslims stopped questioning Quran and its principles like Mutazila-prosecution of the free thinkers among Muslim was the end of Islamic domination in the world. But right now their choice is limited-accept modern ideals or face consequence which our diplomatic leaders will not be able to deter for a long time as the experience of Mumbai would continue to happen.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Is present concept of secular state flawed?
Is present concept of secular state flawed?
-Biplab Pal
California 1/8/07
Idea of secularism in 19th and 20th century
In the simplest and precise form, by secularism we mean separation of the church and the state-that religion has no business in the matter politics, governance and law. Holyoake, Nietzsche, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are undoubtedly the greatest philosophical motivation behind the concept of secular state as one may find in Holyoake’s treatise on secularism: (English secularism, 1896)
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.
Despite the existence of International humanist and ethical union (IHEU) and the secular humanism it is professing, it is more than clear that a lot more number of people are finding their meaning of life in religion than that of secular humanism. Also, religious leaders are becoming more and more vocal against the concept of secularism except with a few notable exceptions like Dalai Lama who adhered to secularism by stating "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things”.
I have been thinking deeply on this serious issue-why secular ethics is only welcome to a few limited literate elites and not as welcome as religious ethics to the most of the young generation? And also why the concept of secular state is getting cornered as a result of denial of ‘man-made’ secular ethics and laws? We might talk about American influence, capitalist conspiracy etc. but in my view that will be dilution of an extremely serious issue which will determine the future of secularism.
Is secular state compatible with existentialism?
What do I mean when I utter the word ‘I’? Does it mean a mind and a flesh ?
Not really- the existence of ‘I’ is broken into multitude of sub-existence as father, son, husband, friend, employee, engineer, citizen etc. etc. I am all of the above packed together. Then what does it mean when I say I am a Hindu or a Muslim?
If I pray five times, go to the Mosque, perform Hajj and do all the rituals, can I be a Muslim? Which part of my existence needs these rituals?
None.
I go to Durgapuja, offer the sacrifice to Kali and take bath in Proyag. Does that make me a Hindu?
Nope.
Then what is it that makes me a Muslim or a Hindu? How is this religious identity born?
Clearly not the rituals that have no link with my existence as social being-a son, a father, a husband, a friend. Rituals only render a mask of identity as Hindu or Muslim and do not get deeper into our existence because it’s not linked with it!
But think of these-a Muslim any where in the world has a feeling for a suffering Muslim in Iraq –he does not have any for the Tamils in Shrilanka. In the case of a Hindu it is reversed but the matter remains the same- we strongly feel for the group that forms our supporting system. Of course a supporting system can be a city, can be a state but for believer of Hinduism or Islam, feeling of sympathy arose from the primary cause of religion -- to self-organize our society by forming a supporting system.
Yes, now you must get the point. One becomes a Muslim only when he/she tries to perfect his behavior as a father, as a son, as a husband/wife and as a friend according to his religion or its interpretation he/she believes in. Following rituals does not make him/her a Muslim. In a secular state, the laws of divorce, the laws of treating a woman are governed by secular ethics and not by religious verdicts. So one can not be a true Muslim or a true Christian unless laws of the land are derived in accordance with their religion. That is why Muslims in a dar-ul-haram demand for a separate Muslim personal law as we have seen in the recent events of Canada, UK and Denmark. Or for that matter, the reason is the same as to why the Christian religious leaders are bitching against the secular state as a destabilizing factor for Christian way of life in America, UK, France and Italy.
Therefore, the concept of secular state and religious way of living can not survive side by side and the clash is imminent and inherent in a system.
But what is the common ground? A way out?
Option one: Have red revolution and wipe the religion out for ever and for good! But the concept of communism turned out to be such a draconian experience, this one is already a forgone conclusion-neither feasible not advisable.
Optione two: Censor the religion and transform it into a dynamic process of self-quest like a sufi or saint. Of course someone can be adhyatamik ( I can not use the word spiritual-because I want to mean study of self and its objective) and yet be a secular person but a person believing in Islam or Hinduism or in any other religion can not be a truly secular person for the said reason of existentialism problem.
It is not possible to censor Koran or Gita in a democracy-one will not find a single believer who wants to dilute Koran even if it tells you to beat your wife-they would rather find logics and reasons to either follow so no matter how idiotic that can be or decent people would find an interpretation that would rationalize the Ayat as obsolete from historical perspective when humanism was not so much of a prevailing idea. Irrespective of religious background, no religious person would support any less of their religious texts because their rational sense is already curtailed and lost in their crisis of theist existentialism. That’s why you will find so many devout Muslims with PhD degree would still believe in Koran rather than in secular humanism.
Only an autocratic government can force it through state education system and machinary-but this is neither a feasible option in democracy not it is advisable to institute an autocracy to implement a change.
Option three:
Clue to the failure of two is theist existentialism-which prompts to provide a stronger alternative to theism that would meet the needs that theism provides to the common people. On my quest to science and religion, I found science can answer all the philosophical questions of religion more satisfactorily than God oriented religious scriptures. The idea that religion and science have different realm is flawed and Richard Dawkins was very right to point out S J Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) between science and religion is nothing but a sweet political move to balm the theists. Indeed science can be a complete alternative to religion if it is expanded and promoted in that fashion. I am convinced we will achieve nothing by proving religion is wrong or opposed to science unless we provide an effective alternative to emotional need and quests of human beings- answering and defining their spiritual quests through science or proven empirical method.
So looking at all the possibilities, I found third one is the only feasible way out to secularism. It is not enough to prove a religious belief is rotten , inhuman or unscientific. It won’t help because religion is about interpretation and apologetics will always bring about the best of humanism from religion to prove that other interpretation exists and that the problem in religion has to do with its wrong interpretation. And we will lose the game because trusting in ‘right’ interpretation in religion would serve more purpose in common people.
I am citing an example from Imrana case. When the case exposed the ugly face of Sharia and Indian media was all over for imposing uniform civil codes on the Muslims, comes the balming face of All Indian Muslim Ulema who started a propaganda stating that Deoband Ulemnas erred in this case failing to understand Koran!
The issue abated since then. Note that this professor –while advocating Sharia based on correct and diverse interpretation, has no concern over the fact that the right interpretation of religion needs a strong secular background. If the people like Deoband ulameas who belong to the most prestigious school of Islam in whole Indian subcontinent can issue a fatewa like this, what will be the condition of thousands of rural muslims women living in obscured part of the subcontinent? Can he ensure right interpretation of Koran by the illerate Mullahs when the most literate like Deobands are issuing a fatewa like this?
Therefore, we are left with no alternative but to provide a scientific alternative to religion. Because science is objective truth that does not change with interpretation. We need to provide more satisfactory answer from science meeting the emotional need-specially on the purpose of life. One can not continue to live without knowing what is the purpose of his/her birth into this world.. We don’t do that and let religion takes the precedent in this important philosophical question, secularism is already out the door. Please do understand that we can not rely on Awami League or CPM for implementing secularism on our behalf- I bait we would achieve nothing for secularism and instead of cornering fundamentalists we would get thrown out from state system as it has already happened in Bangladesh.
Some people also reverie in utopian idea that humanism can replace religion. No it can not. When you are attacked by an enemy humanism does not and can not tell you what to do but religion does. That is the whole concept of Jihad or crusade. We may hate this religious product but what else other than a call to arms would have liberated Bangladesh against the oppressors? Both Koran and Gita advocate armed uprising against oppressors and consider that as an essential part of religion. On paper, Jihad is a perfect concept but on history, both the Hindu and Muslim rioters in great Calcutta killing were motivated by the same Jihad or DharmaYudha. Hence again we are back to the vicious circle of interpretation, interpretation and interpretation! And that is the reason why we do need science to replace the religion-so that we do not chase the ghost of interpretation anymore and the social laws be firmed on an objective and empirical method.
However humanism can replace one strong aspect of religion- a support system of life but unfortunately I am yet to see secular humanists are sacrificing their career in numbers to support poor kids in Africa or Asia which we find in God inspired Christian missionaries.
Therefore, I am of the strong opinian that in order to set up a true secular state, one can not ignore the demand-supply aspect of religion in the emotional journey and realization of human being and the support system it forms around its follower. If science can not be a part of that realization and support system, it does not serve any significant purpose just by proving God does not exist or religion is vile. There will not be mass taker of rationalism except a few intelligent beings-not enough to form a political force. And unless we are a part of a strong political force, concept of secularism will be out from the self-organization of human society.
In the last century, communism was replacing religion and gaining political power because it was addressing those basic questions that otherwise religion is left to handle. And in the history of mankind, nothing could raise a stronger idea of a true secular state than communism. But it failed because, it misconceived the the question on purpose of life and deviated from the basic method of science that demands that there is no better alternative to democratic system. It is only with the opposing voice, opposing force can be developed which is the most important aspect of dialectic materialism-without it, there can not be any evolution of the society. Also, you can easily see either in communist North Koria or in Cuba, political power is inherited by a family and not the people as promised. You may ask why? Simple, because the purpose of human life is to continue its genetic code and definitely this drive is stronger than the idea of establishing socialism as supreme objective of life! Hence denying this basic purpose of life, we can not build a movement or a political philosophy that would aim to set up a secular state.
We can not expect the people to derive their objective of life from religion and the same person would support man made laws-that is an inherent contradiction of secularism we are trying to promote. And as a result, secularists are losing all over. Hence we have to provide some alternative to religion or else the idea of secularism is destined to lose its political weight.
-Biplab Pal
California 1/8/07
Idea of secularism in 19th and 20th century
In the simplest and precise form, by secularism we mean separation of the church and the state-that religion has no business in the matter politics, governance and law. Holyoake, Nietzsche, Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill are undoubtedly the greatest philosophical motivation behind the concept of secular state as one may find in Holyoake’s treatise on secularism: (English secularism, 1896)
Secularism is a code of duty pertaining to this life, founded on considerations purely human, and intended mainly for those who find theology indefinite or inadequate, unreliable or unbelievable. Its essential principles are three: (1) The improvement of this life by material means. (2) That science is the available Providence of man. (3) That it is good to do good. Whether there be other good or not, the good of the present life is good, and it is good to seek that good.
Despite the existence of International humanist and ethical union (IHEU) and the secular humanism it is professing, it is more than clear that a lot more number of people are finding their meaning of life in religion than that of secular humanism. Also, religious leaders are becoming more and more vocal against the concept of secularism except with a few notable exceptions like Dalai Lama who adhered to secularism by stating "We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things”.
I have been thinking deeply on this serious issue-why secular ethics is only welcome to a few limited literate elites and not as welcome as religious ethics to the most of the young generation? And also why the concept of secular state is getting cornered as a result of denial of ‘man-made’ secular ethics and laws? We might talk about American influence, capitalist conspiracy etc. but in my view that will be dilution of an extremely serious issue which will determine the future of secularism.
Is secular state compatible with existentialism?
What do I mean when I utter the word ‘I’? Does it mean a mind and a flesh ?
Not really- the existence of ‘I’ is broken into multitude of sub-existence as father, son, husband, friend, employee, engineer, citizen etc. etc. I am all of the above packed together. Then what does it mean when I say I am a Hindu or a Muslim?
If I pray five times, go to the Mosque, perform Hajj and do all the rituals, can I be a Muslim? Which part of my existence needs these rituals?
None.
I go to Durgapuja, offer the sacrifice to Kali and take bath in Proyag. Does that make me a Hindu?
Nope.
Then what is it that makes me a Muslim or a Hindu? How is this religious identity born?
Clearly not the rituals that have no link with my existence as social being-a son, a father, a husband, a friend. Rituals only render a mask of identity as Hindu or Muslim and do not get deeper into our existence because it’s not linked with it!
But think of these-a Muslim any where in the world has a feeling for a suffering Muslim in Iraq –he does not have any for the Tamils in Shrilanka. In the case of a Hindu it is reversed but the matter remains the same- we strongly feel for the group that forms our supporting system. Of course a supporting system can be a city, can be a state but for believer of Hinduism or Islam, feeling of sympathy arose from the primary cause of religion -- to self-organize our society by forming a supporting system.
Yes, now you must get the point. One becomes a Muslim only when he/she tries to perfect his behavior as a father, as a son, as a husband/wife and as a friend according to his religion or its interpretation he/she believes in. Following rituals does not make him/her a Muslim. In a secular state, the laws of divorce, the laws of treating a woman are governed by secular ethics and not by religious verdicts. So one can not be a true Muslim or a true Christian unless laws of the land are derived in accordance with their religion. That is why Muslims in a dar-ul-haram demand for a separate Muslim personal law as we have seen in the recent events of Canada, UK and Denmark. Or for that matter, the reason is the same as to why the Christian religious leaders are bitching against the secular state as a destabilizing factor for Christian way of life in America, UK, France and Italy.
Therefore, the concept of secular state and religious way of living can not survive side by side and the clash is imminent and inherent in a system.
But what is the common ground? A way out?
Option one: Have red revolution and wipe the religion out for ever and for good! But the concept of communism turned out to be such a draconian experience, this one is already a forgone conclusion-neither feasible not advisable.
Optione two: Censor the religion and transform it into a dynamic process of self-quest like a sufi or saint. Of course someone can be adhyatamik ( I can not use the word spiritual-because I want to mean study of self and its objective) and yet be a secular person but a person believing in Islam or Hinduism or in any other religion can not be a truly secular person for the said reason of existentialism problem.
It is not possible to censor Koran or Gita in a democracy-one will not find a single believer who wants to dilute Koran even if it tells you to beat your wife-they would rather find logics and reasons to either follow so no matter how idiotic that can be or decent people would find an interpretation that would rationalize the Ayat as obsolete from historical perspective when humanism was not so much of a prevailing idea. Irrespective of religious background, no religious person would support any less of their religious texts because their rational sense is already curtailed and lost in their crisis of theist existentialism. That’s why you will find so many devout Muslims with PhD degree would still believe in Koran rather than in secular humanism.
Only an autocratic government can force it through state education system and machinary-but this is neither a feasible option in democracy not it is advisable to institute an autocracy to implement a change.
Option three:
Clue to the failure of two is theist existentialism-which prompts to provide a stronger alternative to theism that would meet the needs that theism provides to the common people. On my quest to science and religion, I found science can answer all the philosophical questions of religion more satisfactorily than God oriented religious scriptures. The idea that religion and science have different realm is flawed and Richard Dawkins was very right to point out S J Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) between science and religion is nothing but a sweet political move to balm the theists. Indeed science can be a complete alternative to religion if it is expanded and promoted in that fashion. I am convinced we will achieve nothing by proving religion is wrong or opposed to science unless we provide an effective alternative to emotional need and quests of human beings- answering and defining their spiritual quests through science or proven empirical method.
So looking at all the possibilities, I found third one is the only feasible way out to secularism. It is not enough to prove a religious belief is rotten , inhuman or unscientific. It won’t help because religion is about interpretation and apologetics will always bring about the best of humanism from religion to prove that other interpretation exists and that the problem in religion has to do with its wrong interpretation. And we will lose the game because trusting in ‘right’ interpretation in religion would serve more purpose in common people.
I am citing an example from Imrana case. When the case exposed the ugly face of Sharia and Indian media was all over for imposing uniform civil codes on the Muslims, comes the balming face of All Indian Muslim Ulema who started a propaganda stating that Deoband Ulemnas erred in this case failing to understand Koran!
In the Imrana case the father in law forced himself onto his daughter in law. She screamed and shouted for help. Clearly it was not with consent. The father in law is obviously guilty, while the daughter in law is the victim. The above injunction applies only when consent is involved. The Imrana angle has to be viewed from the viewpoint of a number of other injunctions in the Koran that demands compassion and kindness to the victim. I am surprised the Deoband ulemas failed to apply these Koranic commands. Certainly Imrana, her husband and her five children deserve these considerations. By declaring this marriage to be null and void, the final price for this dastardly act will be paid by the victims. That violates the spirit and the letter of the Koran. The Deoband ulemas have erred badly.
Prof J. S. Bandukwala
Vadodara, Gujarat
drbandukwala@yahoo.co.in
The issue abated since then. Note that this professor –while advocating Sharia based on correct and diverse interpretation, has no concern over the fact that the right interpretation of religion needs a strong secular background. If the people like Deoband ulameas who belong to the most prestigious school of Islam in whole Indian subcontinent can issue a fatewa like this, what will be the condition of thousands of rural muslims women living in obscured part of the subcontinent? Can he ensure right interpretation of Koran by the illerate Mullahs when the most literate like Deobands are issuing a fatewa like this?
Therefore, we are left with no alternative but to provide a scientific alternative to religion. Because science is objective truth that does not change with interpretation. We need to provide more satisfactory answer from science meeting the emotional need-specially on the purpose of life. One can not continue to live without knowing what is the purpose of his/her birth into this world.. We don’t do that and let religion takes the precedent in this important philosophical question, secularism is already out the door. Please do understand that we can not rely on Awami League or CPM for implementing secularism on our behalf- I bait we would achieve nothing for secularism and instead of cornering fundamentalists we would get thrown out from state system as it has already happened in Bangladesh.
Some people also reverie in utopian idea that humanism can replace religion. No it can not. When you are attacked by an enemy humanism does not and can not tell you what to do but religion does. That is the whole concept of Jihad or crusade. We may hate this religious product but what else other than a call to arms would have liberated Bangladesh against the oppressors? Both Koran and Gita advocate armed uprising against oppressors and consider that as an essential part of religion. On paper, Jihad is a perfect concept but on history, both the Hindu and Muslim rioters in great Calcutta killing were motivated by the same Jihad or DharmaYudha. Hence again we are back to the vicious circle of interpretation, interpretation and interpretation! And that is the reason why we do need science to replace the religion-so that we do not chase the ghost of interpretation anymore and the social laws be firmed on an objective and empirical method.
However humanism can replace one strong aspect of religion- a support system of life but unfortunately I am yet to see secular humanists are sacrificing their career in numbers to support poor kids in Africa or Asia which we find in God inspired Christian missionaries.
Therefore, I am of the strong opinian that in order to set up a true secular state, one can not ignore the demand-supply aspect of religion in the emotional journey and realization of human being and the support system it forms around its follower. If science can not be a part of that realization and support system, it does not serve any significant purpose just by proving God does not exist or religion is vile. There will not be mass taker of rationalism except a few intelligent beings-not enough to form a political force. And unless we are a part of a strong political force, concept of secularism will be out from the self-organization of human society.
In the last century, communism was replacing religion and gaining political power because it was addressing those basic questions that otherwise religion is left to handle. And in the history of mankind, nothing could raise a stronger idea of a true secular state than communism. But it failed because, it misconceived the the question on purpose of life and deviated from the basic method of science that demands that there is no better alternative to democratic system. It is only with the opposing voice, opposing force can be developed which is the most important aspect of dialectic materialism-without it, there can not be any evolution of the society. Also, you can easily see either in communist North Koria or in Cuba, political power is inherited by a family and not the people as promised. You may ask why? Simple, because the purpose of human life is to continue its genetic code and definitely this drive is stronger than the idea of establishing socialism as supreme objective of life! Hence denying this basic purpose of life, we can not build a movement or a political philosophy that would aim to set up a secular state.
We can not expect the people to derive their objective of life from religion and the same person would support man made laws-that is an inherent contradiction of secularism we are trying to promote. And as a result, secularists are losing all over. Hence we have to provide some alternative to religion or else the idea of secularism is destined to lose its political weight.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Whom Hindus should blame for conversion?
-Biplab Pal
11/17/2008: Washingtin DC
Recent incidents of ongoing communal riot between Hindus and Christians that resulted in death of more than sixty people in last two months, tarnished the pluralist image of India. We held this sacred image of religious tolerance as our supreme ethos for last two thousands years. Christianity stepped into India with Saint Thomas in first century AD-at a time when Christians were persecuted ruthlessly by the Roman empire . Judaism came to India in 70 AD, soon after they were expelled from their land by Romans. Nathan Katz observes ( Who are the Jews of India) -India is the only country where Jews were neither discriminated nor persecuted. Such tradition of religious tolerance over thousands of years is unmatched in the history of civilization. Magnanimity of Indian civilization radiated from the core philosophy of Sanatan Dharma-Ekam Sat. Reality is everywhere and in every being! Unlike Abrahamic faiths, Sanatan philosophy is not in pursuit of 'perfect belief' but in search of truth accepting personal evolution of individual spiritual quest. The whole idea of Adaitya Vedhanta, at the center of Hinduism, accepts highest level of plurality by Aham Brahman-realization of universal consciousness in individual consciousness in their own way. Therefore, modern Hindu spiritual leader of 19th century, Shri Ramakrishna declared this plurality of Vedanta as Jato Mat Toto Path-as many ways that many paths to realize the truth. In short, this is the true summery of Hinduism-unity in diversity of faiths.
However political reality of India experienced an entirely different version of Hinduism, devoid of enlightenment and encapsulated with casteism supporting Brhamnical supremacy. Question of social identity of lower Sudra caste, who are not considered a Varna( high class) Hindu, happened to be at the root of all communal tension till to date. Hindu epic Ramayan unambiguously promotes casteism and Brahmnical supremacy. However , in Mahabharat, although in Bhagbad Gita, Lord Krishna unabashedly supported casteism, the epic reveals an ambivalence position of casteism in Hindu society. For example, when Ghotakatch, mighty son of Vima, second of Pundav, asked explanation from Krisna-whether he has not been summoned to war because he is not born of a caste Hindu mother and that whether caste Hindu warriors would find it embarrassing to fight with him, a low birth by Hindu caste system, Lord Krishna gracefully replied- caste of a person is not by birth but by his achievement. This seemed to sound a very different note with Pundav's attitude towards mighty "Suta Putra" Karna, who has never been addressed by Pundavas as King of Angada but always by suta-putra (son of Chariot owner) despite Karna exceeded high caste Pundavs in the grace of might and generosity. Based on the numerous evidences in Mahabharat, one but can not fail to see, Hindu's position on castism has always been ambiguous but it was ruthlessly implemented as 'birth based' social system denying the social identity of the working labor class. This ambiguity and sometimes, ruthless denial of human position of lower castes in Hinduism made them vulnerable to conversion. When Islam invaded India, scheduled caste Hindus, specially in Bengal, embraced them as boon against tyranny of Brahmanism. However, Islamic rule didn't create much of a communal tension because majority of Muslim leaders were also supporter of cast based Hindu system and indeed, Indian version of Islam adopted its neo-casteism by attaching their elites to superior ethnicity to distinguish themselves from local low caste Hindu converts. Except for Aurangazeb, who was an Islamic zealot, a very high degree of cohesion between Hindus and Muslims can be found throughout entire Islamic history of India.
When Christian missionaries came to India, they too found their soft targets in scheduled cast Hindus during sixteen and seventeenth century. However, they faced a daunting task of conversion because by then, Hindus were aware, that lower castes may leave Hindu society altogether and therefore waves of reformist movement swept across India to eliminate casteism as a response against egalitarian message of Islam. In Bengal, Shri Chaitanya led the reformist movement through Gauriya Baishnavism where he proudly declared abolition of casteism in fifteenth century. His magic worked among lower class Bengali Hindus who accepted his teaching and mass conversion to Islam virtually came to a full stop. However, effect of casteism was only reduced but never nullified. Nevertheless, success of Christian missionaries in terms of conversion were very limited and they established themselves by social service to common mass. Even today, all the best schools and hospitals in India are run by Christian missionaries. Most of the Hindu elites of today are product of these Missionary schools and none of them would ever complain that these missionary fathers ever made any attempt to convert them. Till Hinduvta movement started swinging in full glory in late 80's , there was no tension between Hindu and Christian community who are almost invisible minority in India. What is then root cause of new wave of communal hatred against each other?
Much of it is hidden in recent rise of Hinduism as aggressive political response to monotheist faiths. Historically Hinduism always responded to Islam or Christianity by reforming its religion. For example, Gauriyo Baishanvism was response to Islam and Brahmo Samaj was Hindu counter response to Christianity. Indeed, in those days, Hindusim took to intellectual and meaningful spiritual response very successfully because it didn't enjoy political power. But this time, since Hinduism is having more political power than ever before, it is stooping to low by responding the problem of conversion politically where need of the hour is to address the problem and isolation of lower caste Hindus who are getting converted because neither they get any social recognition nor any material support by staying in Hinduism. Instead of choosing the most difficult and meaningful path of accommodating vast number of scheduled casts and tribes into the fold of Hinduism by giving them equal social status and material means as Shri Chaintanya did it in fifteenth century, todays' Hindu leaders, devoid of spiritual and intellectual ardor, are more interested in the politics than spiritual quest. They are foxy political leaders who are more after a fortune harvest by playing Holi with bloods of the innocent Christians.
I hear much noise about legal ban on conversion. First of all conversion is a foolish idea and it serves only the purpose of social identity exploited in politics. But question that a caste Hindu must ask first-why even today, position of casteism in Hinduism is as ambiguous as it was during the time of Mahabharata? This simple truth exposes why reformist teaching of Hindu spiritual maestros like Shri Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Dayananda Sarawati could not change Hinduism when it comes to casteism. Why we don't see any strong denouncement of castism by Hindu organizations? In theory, they do and speak of abolition of casteism but can anybody cite me single example of any Hindu caste leader got his children married to a scheduled tribe? Why they are still apologetic like Lord Krishna and never can come out very clearly rejecting it like Vivekananda who condemned it in the harshest language? How long do they think, these scheduled casts and tribes can be fooled by their empty slogan of equal social status in Hindu hierarchy?
Therefore, need of the hour is for another socio-spiritual reform movement inside Hinduism to abolish caste by encouraging wide-spread inter caste marriage. Though, I am not entirely sure, how many of Hindu zealots, who seem so conscious and worried about conversion game, would comply or encourage marriage of their relatives to scheduled cast and tribes. Gandhiji felt this need at his heart but he too, could not take any affirmative position. Therefore, now it is left to consciousness of Hindu mass to realize that conversion is happening because of their failure to eliminate castism which is aptly exploited with material means by Christian missionaries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
