Old Mac

Marxists Unsure If They are Fairies/Women

2006-11-06T19:41:00.000-06:00

>>Old Mac has been bitch-slapped to hell again. Good.

You are the bitch, either male or female, who has been slapped to a point where you went to being a whimpering punk-ass bitch.

Outlook Editors' Crackup

2006-11-02T16:59:00.000-06:00

We could always tell that Outlook Editors cannot edit from the dreadful copy they put out. Now, we know they cannot write or even argue. If that’s not enough, they are deceitful.

I had been posting on Outlook for couple years. Except for a handful of thoughtful posters, it attracts mostly one- or two-dimensional obsessive characters. Most posts are embarrassing clichés written in substandard English. Anyway, I got into a posting war with a militant Marxist who is certain of her Marxist tropes but uncertain on being a woman or a gay man. For slapping her around a bit, Outlook revoked my ID. As Outlook was getting dull, I decided to test the Outlook Editors. My conclusion: amateurs used to hawking magazines to cars waiting at traffic lights who accidentally wandered into editorial offices. Platitudes, officious and turgid prose is best that these head-wagging “arts stream” flunkies who know “saar, saar, pleeeease, saar” have to offer.

The test started with my request to have my ID reinstated; mainly to engage in a colloquy. The exchanged ended with their credibility collapsed. What was hilarious, however, is their ham-handed attempt to sanitize the sequence of events. Those intrepid souls initially allowed the posts below. Perhaps realizing the self-inflicted damage to their credibility, they removed their own execrable posts.

********

Part I of II

“Feedback” writes: (10/31/2006 10:08:07 PM (#55 of 57))

>>Well, the above inference is "interesting" indeed.

I am ready to retract my inference if you have an actual policy of requesting posters who attract web traffic. And that you had actually requested some posters in the past. I can stoically accept the most arbitrary and capricious judgment that I don’t measure up. Otherwise, I infer what I infer. Especially, when you use the very method that I popularized on the board by quoting a poster with “>>” so as to give readers context and relevance of a response.

>>We do believe people deserve a second chance, but expect them to adhere to posting guidelines when they re-register.

guidelines such as...no ad hominem attacks. Very well. Let’s examine your impartiality in action.

>>Ad hominem attacks and needlessly picking on other readers seems to be a rather juvenile way of seeking attention.

“juvenile way of seeking attention?” My substantive posts responding to columns, authors and issues stand in their own stead compared to some of the authors you pay and print.

"picking on other readers"? Once a person opines in a public domain, that opinion is subject to criticism. That’s the other side of the free speech coin, in case you were unaware. There are a slew of posters whom I respond to respectfully whether I agree or disagree. Some I read; others I merely scroll by.

But, let’s peruse the archives, shall we? “Old Macaque,” "your forte father," (fourth father?) some vague connection to priestly pedophilia and various sundry gems…all somehow manage to pass the muster of your alleged posting standards against "ad hominem attacks." For the record, I never even winced let alone complain about them. To some I respond, and others I brushed-off as so feeble as not worth responding. So, if I can be a big boy about it, why not others? Now, if you are tacitly admitting that my posts carry effectiveness and sting of a different order of magnitude, well….thanks for the compliment. Otherwise, let’s see your impartial expectation “to adhere to posting guidelines…” in action to the gems I mentioned above. As they say where I come from, talk’s cheap.

Part II of II

>>Such posts do not an interesting board make.

Perfectly fair opinion. But, I happen to have facts on my side. Such as posters who characterized my posts as “always on point,” "funny," "fresh/different perspective" etc. In contrast, you cast your lots with whiners who want to punch but can’t take a punch back, metaphorically speaking. So, these brave posters want to thrown their punches from behind your pant legs. I suppose the irony that most of them hate “affirmative action” is lost on most. And shockingly, you oblige!

>>Not having paid much attention in the past, we had wondered about the persistent complaints about extremely delusional and shamelessly brazen behaviour. Now we don't.

If the "persistent complaints" were about "extremely delusional and shamelessly brazen behavior," what is there to wonder about? Curiously, does that constitute an “ad hominem attack” on me violating your own posting guidelines? While I didn’t melt, I digressed. That’s right. You weren't paying much attention. That may explain why you failed to notify contemporaneously about specific complaints referencing specific posts along with reference to specific posting guidelines that were allegedly breached. We could have resolved it to mutual satisfaction. For future reference, culture-coded nonsense like “shameless” as a scolding device rolls off my back like water rolls off a duck’s back.

In conclusion, Lesley Gore sang, “It’s my party, I can cry if I want to.” In that spirit, it’s your board, you can be arbitrary if you want to. But if you are going to run articles questioning the judiciary stifling legitimate scrutiny through arbitrary use of contempt power, perhaps you should set an example by subjecting yourself to legitimate scrutiny. You might manage to hold the high ground when defending yourself.

***********

Before deleting the above post, Sundeep (or as Russell Peters might say “suck deep”), the website editor, worked up enough courage to have a lackey respond to it. Curiously, THEY DELETED THEIR OWN POST as well. Perhaps, they realized how poorly it was argued. My response to their now deleted post is below.

***********

Part I of II

“feeback” writes:

>>>>I am ready to retract my inference..if you have an actual policy of..requesting posters who attract web traffic

>>"Requesting posters who attract web traffic"?

>>We think nothing more needs to be said.

As if that were an argument. “If,” as the sentence stated, you had such a policy and didn’t invoke it in my case, I said I would be ready to retract my inference. Since we know you don't have it, I infer what I infer. Somebody's reading comprehension needs a little brushing up.

>>A mere look at the sequence of events should make it clear as to who "requested" and what was said.

That’s right…I requested to make a discussion item out of it. Your users would have been completely oblivious to the change but for my disclosure using the same ID. You can’t infer any intent to deceive! You can check posts before and after the meaningless “ban.”

>>"The user is free to post from his other registered address from which the above post was made; the withdrawal of posting privileges to the address in question stays.

Translated: other than the 30 seconds or so it takes to register a new ID, nothing further. But we want to be seen as decisive in a meaningless ritual.

>>If this is inferred as a "request" by us for any presumed reason, or as "Indian-speak for "please keep this board interesting.", we frankly do not think that any further comment is necessary.

An actual journalism school taught you to argue like that? After all, arguments are never persuasive with incantation of magic words like “we frankly do not think that any further comment is necessary”! That explains the dreadful copy.

>>Also, if one has aggravated someone else and then in turn feels insulted by a user's choice of invective in retort, being a "big boy" about it would either mean a mature dismissal or if it persists, to bring it to our attention,

I can fight my own battles. I rather not rely on those can’t advance beyond elliptical, circular, ponderous and prolix reasoning.

>>but to nring in references to one's "scholng", for example, while talking to someone identified till then as a woman user, is not something that we would ever approve of or encourage. (these dipshits couldn’t even spell)

Apparently, “someone identified till then as a woman user” use of phrases like “little wee-wee” has your approval or encouragement? You take the word of poster with an axe to grind at face value without doing your own research? The issue is double-standards, arbitrary and hypocrisy after adjusting for whatever gallantry needs you have to fulfill towards a poster on the border between a woman and a gay man.

Part II of II

>>It is exactly this kind of sexist behaviour that discourages many women readers from participating.

Except for few, you have a poor record of attracting women posters. But that is your problem. However, to conclude that one altercation as an explanation of your dismal record must be very self-comforting. Review my exchanges with a woman poster, Lakshmi Srinivas. Always courteous whether I agree substantively or not.

>>In addition, we have all been witness to what the same person, when he identified himself as gay, had to put up with.

Yes, let’s weep for a woman who still persists in a pitiful lie and who is no slouch in hurling invective…either as “Sundari” or “Tinkers” (most likely a round faced sasquatch with a hairy upper lip, over-active sweat glands and a serious body odor problem)

>>In any case, we really do think it is futile to "engage" anymore with someone who seems to suggest what they do about the age-old e-mail and bulletin-board convention of using ">>" in quoting messages.

A simple perusal of the extent of its use by other posters before and after I began is a simple objective test.

>>We neither have the time nor the inclination to try and moderate all these "debates". We or our other staff on the Rants and Raves section get involved only if there are persistent or serious complaints, and before taking action we do peruse the thread to satisfy ourselves if the impugned posts are actually offensive. It is arbitrary to the extent that we take action only when complained to, apart of course from randomly monitoring those who in the past have had their posting privileges withdrawn. This particular user happens to be one such.

That’s a lot of words to say you only grease squeaky wheels.

Except for crybabies who lose a punching match that come running to you. Then you charge in…

>>Ideally, we would want the boards to become self-regulating, but we would urge all to NOT respond to messages that are found abusive and offensive,

Could that be the very reason why I never complained about ad hominem attacks on me?

>>Lastly, yes, we do welcome our reader's criticism and are more than open to the idea of subjecting ourselves to legitimate scrutiny -- which is why messages such as the above in two parts are allowed to remain on the discussion board. But we definitely do not want the discussions derailed because of personal animus or ad hominem attacks.

Talk is cheap. Especially, 396 words of it.

***********

And boy was I proved prophetic! Suck Deep subsequently removed the above posts…and his mind about “more than open to the idea of subjecting ourselves to legitimate scrutiny.” Liar!

Not content with that response, they posted yet another “general comments and clarification” which is still up but with my response deleted.

***********

“feedback” writes:

>>Now some general comments and clarifications:

396 words not being enough, 487 more…

>>We or our other staff on the Rants and Raves section get involved only if there are persistent or serious complaints, and before taking action we do peruse the thread to satisfy ourselves if the impugned posts are actually offensive. It is arbitrary to the extent that we take action only when complained to, apart of course from randomly monitoring those who in the past have had their posting privileges withdrawn. This particular user happens to be one such.

Thanks for clarifying the non-guidelines you use…They are crystal clear.

>>It is routine for us to receive requests to restore the posting privileges for blocked addresses.

Especially, when it is so easy to reregister…

>>Even with this particular user, this is the second time, as noted also by another reader, that we have had to withdraw his posting privileges and then also similar "threat" about not participating in Rants and Raves was made in private message to us.

You have a psychological or verbal block to simply say, don’t participate? Then why refer to a “threat” obviated by your subsequent “the user is free to post…”?

>>But such messages are not responded to in private emails, as a matter of policy -- not out of any arrogance, but simply because it is not practical for our staff to respond to such messages and "issues".

You actually have a policy on anything? Hard to believe!

>>Now, it is a matter of fact and we are aware that many users have repeatedly re-registered (in case of some users, it is a daily routine) under the old or new assumed IDs. They are all welcome to do so, but to repeat once again, only as long as they refrain from abuse of the posting privileges.

>>We are aware that there are many messages which on perusal might be found to be abusive, and many posters who do it routinely, but our intent is to keep our interactive areas unmoderated to the extent possible. Ideally, we would want the boards to become self-regulating, but we would urge all to NOT respond to messages that are found abusive and offensive, and to report those to us at the mailing address: freespeech at outlookindia dot com (in the appropriate e-mail format, this spelling out is to prevent email harvesting by robots). Such mails should have COMPLAINTS (in capital letters) in the subject headers to enable filtering so that our moderators can act upon them.

While your editorial judgment is in doubt, there is no doubt on cut and paste abilities.

************

The last comment relates to “general comments and clarifications” which was pretty much a cut-and-paste job of response to my post which they are too embarrassed to leave on the board.

And His Life Should Become Extinct by Arundathi Roy

2006-10-26T20:35:00.000-05:00

A substantive criticism of her article is that she dwells on conspiratorial insinuation and irrelevant factors to Afzal’s role in the attack on the Parliament.

She insinuates that the previous government (NDA) mired in a corruption scandal was a political motive to fabricate a case against an innocent man and send him to the gallows. She notes the unusual speed with which Delhi police claim to have solved the case. That is merely suspicious but not facts about Afzal’s role in the attack. Besides, there is no minimum time to complete an investigation. Some cases are fast, some slow and some never solved. Does she have any facts to show the case was precooked against these individuals?

The fact we don’t know the identities of the five killed terrorists raises concerns about Delhi police’s lack of professionalism. There might be a political reason to keep it under wraps. If the connection to say Pakistan is strong, then the right-wingers might clamor for war. Nothing good can come of that. But it is irrelevant. What would be relevant is whether Afzal had an alibi, boinking his girlfriend or the like, at every stage of the planning and attacking the Parliament. Does he have an innocent explantion for the incriminatory evidence that the cops collected? That India went on a war-footing against Pakistan is irrelevant to this case. The laughable “home ministry sticker” is an ambiguous piece of evidence. It is just as likely a put up job by Delhi police as by the terrorists who compete with each other furiously in the not-too-bright sweepstakes.

Her implicit criticism that an entire case must be made by a single piece of direct evidence just means she is no lawyer. The fact that the Indian Supreme Court is addicted to vacuous dicta raises no factual issue of his Afzal’s guilt or innocence. She is wrong in analogizing capital punishment to lynching because the former has due process while the later has only mob passion. She is wrong to be shocked by the lowest comedy from the highest court because that is the norm rather than an Afzal exception.

Criticism of capital punishment on moral or effective grounds is irrelevant to Afzal’s role in the attack. Advani’s eagerness or Kashmiri backlash is irrelevant to Afzal’s role in the attack. It’s not just the Kashmiris. Even I don’t trust the courts or police. But that is the only system we have for the time being and everyone else is subject to its casino style justice. Afzal was not unfairly singled out.

Even though I agree with Roy that we look bad in Kashmir, that is in no way relevant to Afzal’s role in the attack. Another criticism is that each case is judged on its own merit and is unaffected by other cases. That the alleged co-conspirators’ cases imploded means nothing to Afzal’s case. Whether Afzal is a Dragon or just a Dragon’s dropping, if he legally aided and abetted the attack on the parliament he bears criminal liability. I'd hate to for his kid to grow up without a dad but he should have thought about Ghalib, “his angelic looking little son” before he broke the law. Besides, there were several dead guys on the parliament grounds whose offspring are equally angelic and orphaned.

What the newspapers print in their headlines doesn’t affect the facts of Afzal’s participation in the attack.

Whether the attempt on Geelani’s life was by miffed cops, private vigilantees or co-conspirators trying to sever link to the attack is pure speculation and irrelevant to Afzal’s role in the attack. If there is some evidence, then that raises broader issues leaving the conviction undisturbed.

Geelani’s opinion of Afzal’s fate has no more weight than any other citizen’s opinion. That Afzal didn’t have “top lawyers” is irrelevant since there is no constitutional right to “top lawyers.” ACP Rajbir Singh’s lack of professionalism and obvious amateurism is irrelevant to Afzal’s role in the attack. He might be an embarrassment to the Indian Police Service but the conviction depends on facts proven in court.

That Roy might assess the evidence differently is not surprising. But the court's decision is what governs. Everyone else's opinion is just that, opinion that is irrelevant to Afzal’s role in the attack.

Vinay Lal

2006-10-23T22:23:00.000-05:00

The Not So Nobel Prize

Lal takes a cheapshot with, “any dividend of this kind must be a great boost to economists, who cannot be accused of any significant ethical, political, or professional investment in questions of peace, distributive justice and equality.” I wonder if economics would be a better science if wishful thinking is substituted for analysis of how people actually make decisions at the margin.

Instead of blaming chronic mismanagement, bad policies and plain neglect for the suicides of farmers, he blames the discipline. Apparently, there are no sociological and psychological factors of shame that go into the brew of such fateful decisions.

Lal takes another cheap shot that economists might get good publicity when they don’t deserve it. As an economic illiterate, he thinks the champions of capitalism try to put on a happy face of rapacious greed with a few philanthropic examples. Get this through your thick head, Lal. Capitalism is moral because it doesn’t waste resources.

Then he starts counting up the number of women who have won the prize for economics. Whether women tend to go into that profession or not is an irrelevant intermediary point for his analysis. In conclusion, he lays this egg. He wants a “peace activist” to win the Nobel Prize in economics. May be then we can aspire to where “social justice” activist will win the Nobel Prize in Physics or Molecular Biology. Such is the towering heights of discourse from professors of “History” from the Subcontinent.

A Clash of Fanaticisms by C.M. Naim

2006-10-22T14:26:00.000-05:00

Does a man standing knee deep in gasoline (petrol) have a right to light a match? Of course he does. But he alone bears the blame for its explosive consequences. Similarly, did a Danish paper have a right to print blasphemous cartoons about Muhammad? Of course it did. But it alone bears the blame for the conflagration it ignited.

Let’s get some factual context. Initially, a right-wing paper published the cartoons in Denmark that is ruled by a conservative government with an openly anti-Muslim coalition partner. This government passed laws forbidding entrance of even Muslims married to Danish citizens. Presumably, Flemish spouses are still welcome. With this general hostility as background, the paper explicitly said they published the cartoons to protest “the rejection of modern, secular society” by Muslims. The issue here is not secular governance, which I support and which the Chaddis on this forum deride as “sickularism.” However, the issue is secular philosophy; which relegates all gods and sacred things to a dusty closet where they won’t bother us in our daily lives. Therefore, the publication was a calculated, deliberate and defiant provocation that Muslims must be coerced into submitting to a European secular philosophy.

After the cartoons have been published, local Muslims complained and sought a meeting with its Prime Minister. Both the paper and the government unsurprisingly brushed them off with platitudes of free speech. Muslims responded with a boycott. However, in the name of press solidarity, when French, Spanish and German press plastered the cartoons on Page One, they deliberately and provocatively lit a match. The Muslim world obliged by exploding. So exactly what did the lunatics of the Europress accomplish?

As someone who strongly believes in free speech, I find the European platitudes about it transparently hypocritical. If the Europress published holocaust cartoons, Jews from around the world would rightly come down on them like a ton of bricks. These are the same Europeans who made it a crime to spout anti-Semitic remarks when their favorite Semites are targeted; unfavored Semites like Muslims apparently are fair game. British Historian David Irving sits in Vienna jail awaiting a trial for the thought crime of doubting the holocaust in a speech he made 15 years ago in Austria. Skeptics, deniers and doubters of the holocaust (or its extent) are routinely prosecuted, fined and jailed with wild enthusiastic support of the Europress. Furthermore, the same Danish paper turned down cartoons satirizing Jesus as “offensive” and “unfunny.” Germans promised to arrest anyone at World Cup match who gave the Hitler Salute or goose steps imitating German soldiers and put in prison for 3 years.
http://www.thesun.co.uk...0,,2-2006060530,00.html In other words, when European sensitivities are at stake, they are ruthless censors. My point is simply that European bromides about free speech are selective, self-serving and unpersuasive.

While this controversy serves the purpose of those on both sides hankering for a “clash of the civilizations,” the divisions between Europe and US (Europeans will be “Euro-weenies” in U.S) and between Sunnis and Shias (they kill each other with clockwork regularity) are too deep to overcome any temporary rapprochement.

Let’s get this straight. The world can and should engage the Muslims on a whole range of important issues that touch on their social and political pathologies. One can make fun of Muslims and they make fun of us…..viciously and to the limits of our imaginations. But only juvenile idiots would think that trampling on their sacred things would elicit no response. When the Chaddis accept printed pictures of Ram or Krishna on underwear or footwear without any whimpering, they can lecture Muslims on free speech and artistic freedom.

Old habits die hard for the Europeans. Their dormant anti-Semitism has found a fresh set of Semites in Muslims. They feel as righteously indignant about Muslims as they felt about the Jews earlier. Predictably, the parasitic dregs on the Indian subcontinent have jumped on this bandwagon. The hope of these dregs that Europeans will somehow carefully distinguish between white and saffron turbans is charming. After September 11, an ignorant nitwit in the US killed an elderly Sikh mistaking that his turban made him a Taliban.

In conclusion, I disagree with the author spreading the blame around. It is unsurprising other actors pile on to advance their own political agenda. That’s merely taking advantage of a situation. However, the blame lies with the Danish paper.

The Dialogue of Cultures?

2006-10-01T22:19:00.000-05:00

The Pope’s speech can be one of only two possibilities. Either it was a case of an egghead academic with a tin ear for politics and naïve at the media game of his new job. Or it is a case of Machiavellian stratagem. I think it is the former, but only by 51-49 odds.

His spokesman naïvely states that his comments were meant just for the university students. Like any academic, the Pope wanted to talk about a recent book he read as a way to introduce his theme. Prof. Khoury’s book contains a colloquy between the Byzantine Emperor and a Persian intellectual. The context was Constantinople under siege by Turkish forces. The Pope characterizes it as “brusque” but doesn’t endorse it. The Pope made it clear he was quoting the Emperor. So, it may be he was so wrapped up in introducing his theme; he forgot he was the Pope and not a professor delivering a dry academic lecture.

On the other hand, it could be a Machiavellian stratagem. After all Vatican politics make old Kremlin politics look like schoolyard play. It’s unlikely a bumpkin will rise to the top. First, he quotes the Emperor. So, it is an undeniable historical fact that the Emperor said it. The Pope quotes the context of Muslim military expansion.

Second, while he didn’t endorse the Emperor’s view, but he doesn’t condemn it either.

Third, naturally everybody is going to research the incident. The facts will show to be the Emperor was lamenting under a fierce Muslim military attack. And he seems reasonable. Of course, “there is no compulsion in religion” in one surah when the Prophet was powerless. But as he gained power, that takes backseat for conquest.

Moreover, the Emperor’s comment was true. The highly respect 15th century Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun, the father of modern historiography, says “In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Fourth, after a news reporter and cameraman were kidnapped and released after being forced at gunpoint to “convert” to Islam, the Emperor’s words, “ Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..." seems impeccably well timed. Add to it Abdul Rahman who faced execution for apostasy in Afghanistan, Muslims have a modernity issue.

Finally, the Pope might be counting on reaction from at least some segments of the Muslim population. With serious legitimacy problems, Muslim governments are always on the lookout for distractions. What’s better than defending Islam? It’s the only institution left with any credibility in Muslim cultures. The perception of Muslim wackiness begins to spread beyond anti-Islamic bigots.

I am firm believer in being fair to Muslims as being true to liberal universal values and acknowledging their humanity. In affirming their humanity, we reaffirm our own. That includes respecting their right to practice their religion. And being fair has nothing to do with whether they “deserve” it. Even if Muslim ruled countries don’t reciprocate, that says more about them than us. However, among liberal values, there is no right to win or be immune from criticism of beliefs, including religious beliefs. But if a religion wants influence, it has to go about it by the dialectic. When a religion claims to be universal and aspires to world conquest, it has to tolerate and patiently respond to withering criticism from any direction, including similar claimants of universalism, without shrieking like a girl who sees a lizard. Otherwise, it has only an infantile sense of entitlement mentality. If it responds with violence, the other guy can run non-stop express trains to paradise around the clock with deadly efficiency.

Clarification:

The emperor's comment being "true" was meant to refer to spread of Islam by sword as confirmed by Ibn Khaldun.

The part of the Emperor's comments about "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman," needs more detailed treatment.

Over the whole period of Islam from 7th to 21st century, that is most certainly false. Over Islam's entire lifespan, I agree with Bernard Lewis who states, at its best, "Islam is one of the world’s great religions. It has given dignity and meaning to drab and impoverished lives. It has taught men of different races to live in brotherhood and people of different creeds to live side by side in reasonable tolerance. It has inspired a great civilisation in which others besides Muslims lived creative and useful lives and which, by its achievements, enriched the whole world."

However, sitting in 14th century without 7 additional centuries of experience, with the turkish army bearing down on Constantinople, things might have looked a little different to the beseiged Emperor.

The Bavarian Provocation by Tariq Ali

2006-10-01T22:03:00.000-05:00

Tariq Ali’s piece is a great opportunity to affirm an important liberal principle. On the one hand, we defend his right to state his opinion as inviolable. On the other, his opinion is subject to criticism. Both have been always critical. In this context, particularly so because of Abu-Musab al-Suri, a Syrian jihadi theoretician who served on al-quaeda’s inner council.

Suri was born into a middle-class family (there’s that middle-class link to extremism again). A black-belt in Judo, he married a Spaniard became a “citizen.” He fell out with Bin Laden for all the wrong reasons. It wasn’t because of a Road to Damascus conversion. But, because losing a base in Afghanistan was a Jihad setback. Most critically, he questions Bin Laden’s opposition to democracy. Suri advises to “secretly use this comfortable and relaxed atmosphere to spread out, reorganize their ranks, and acquire broader public bases.” In many Arabic states, there is a predictable cycle of official tolerance and savage repression, which can work in favor of the Islamists. If the Islamists “open the way for political moderation,” Suri writes, they will “stretch out horizontally along the base and spread. So they once again exterminate and jihad grows yet again! So then they try to open things up once again, and Islam stretches out and expands again!” In other words, democracy is another means to jihad. He apparently forgot such openness comes with withering scrutiny, at least in the West. As for democracy in the Middle-East, while I am not ready to write them off, I am not sanguine about its digestibility at this stage in their political maturity.

http://www.newyorker.co...articles/060911fa_fact3

Without accusing Tariq of doing Suri’s bidding (but neither ruling it out), let’s look at some tantalizing clues in his essay.

After a self-serving prelude, Tariq writes, “the Muslim world with two of its countries…” Parse it more: the “Muslim world” and “two of ITS countries.” Keep in mind the ownership implication of his words. As an aside, whose world does Tariq live in? What are “ITS” countries?

He continues, “in a neo-liberal world suffering from environmental degradation, poverty, hunger, repression,…the Pope chooses to insult the founder of a rival faith.” This is too precious to let it slide. In a neo-liberal world, nobody looks to the “Muslim world” and “its” countries for answers to any such problem. They’d be happy if they just didn’t add to that list…although throwing in “repression” was a funny joke. I don’t think Tariq wants to keep tabs on “insults” for his own argument will suffer.

He writes, “The reaction in the Muslim world was predictable…but depressingly insufficient” although without the irony that his own column is depressingly predictable. Insufficient in what way? Insufficient fury? “Islamic civilization cannot be reduced to the power of the sword.” Perhaps. However, its vocal and the quiescent parts are doing a stellar job of reducing it to the rule of the insane mob. As a true fan of Islamic civilization, I have to look for it in history books.

He continues, “It was the Catholic Church that declared War on Islam in the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily.” Apparently the Andalusian passions (of a self-proclaimed atheist!) still burn bright…impeaching our very own Ghulam’s testimony. However, I believe that the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily was primarily motivated by politics with a religious kicker thrown in for good measure. If so, how is it an irreversible tide? Or must we remember that “Muslim world” and “its” countries are immune from the ebb and flow of world politics. Let’s brush aside the complexities and stipulate the Catholic Church conquered it back. So? How is the reconquest a “war on Islam?” Go sell crazy elsewhere, we are all stocked up here.

We get a high schoolish polemic about how the leadership of the Church “collaborated” with fascism (all those trains to concentration camps were driven by priests!) and did not speak up against the “judeocide or the butchery of the Eastern front.” Tariq, you shouldn’t speak ill of Nazis who were nice enough to make Arabs (by extension Muslims by Tariq’s brand of slipshod logic?) “Honorary Aryans.” It could be misconstrued as ingratitude.

He writes, “Islam does not need pacifist lessons from this Church.” Okay. Let’s ask a general question. Does it need pacifist lessons at all?

He continues, “violence was and is not the prerogative of any single religion…” Certainly not. But, with clockwork regularity, some Muslims violently insist on its peaceful character….with majority of others choose to be either mealy-mouthed or navel gazers.

Before ending with a whimpering allusion to Bush, Tariq concludes with Loyola. The Pope created the Jesuits to meet the challenge of Reformers. The Pope was getting his brains pummeled in every theological debate. Loyola, however, would have chuckled at Tariq’s inference of shutting down his brain from a literary expression to distinguish his personal opinion from the absolute authority of the church. In that vein, without intending the shia/sunni difference, the West is grappling with whether distinguishing black and white turbans worth the effort. I think it does...for now.

What Happened to Free Speech by Harsh Pant

2006-09-29T20:06:00.000-05:00

I didn't think Harsh was capable of writing a cogent essay. So, this essay is a surprise.

Harsh points out the gauntlet that the Pope threw not just to Islam but also to the philosophical secularism in the West. He also challenges Protestant understanding of faith as "primordial" and other "Asiatic" religions where mysticism, not reason, holds sway.

Particularly, he chastises the secular parts of the West. The Pope says excluding the divine from universality of reason means treading on other cultures' most profound convictions. In other words, secular Western stance that God is make-believe is illogical with the alleged respect for non-Western cultures who don't think God is make-believe. The Pope hits the western seculars in the solar plexus. They are usually the loudest and most articulate to protest that Christianity or Western Culture being imperially imposed on non-Western cultures. The Pope asks, "What about your notion that God is make-believe? Isn't that a "Western" secular intellectual arrogance imposed on non-western cultures who don't think God is make-believe?" In short, the Pope argues, entering into dialogue with another culture is hell of a lot more than just watching an hour of television programming on Discovery Channel and saying "wow."

Apparently, Harsh's Ph.D. from a papal university (Notre Dame) isn't a waste after all. Bravo!

The Jihad & The West by Riaz Hassan

2006-09-24T19:56:00.000-05:00

http://www.washtimes.co...060920-090612-3074r.htm

Until a decisive majority of Muslims share similar opinion to my link as opposed to this article, Islam and Muslims are going nowhere. Given political and economic impotence of Muslim countries, they will be buffeted by others’ whim and caprice.

This author writes an article full of clichés, bromides and self-pity. He utterly lacks any introspection, evaluation or honesty. He attempts to deceive and succeeds only in self-deception.

He claims a dialogue as crucial. But, on what? Where is the demonstrated desire on the Muslim side? Are these debates held under the constant threats of rent-a-mob with hair trigger sensitivity? While dialogue doesn’t harm, it won’t do any good. What is needed is a critical self-examination and reflection on Islam by all Muslims.

In his next two paragraphs, the author gives us the usual song and dance on jihad. His clumsy dig only betrays his attempt to shift blame “…the pontiff’s stature sees jihad as an Islamic holy war in the Christian tradition.” In other words, Muslims are only imitators. He announces, “In Islamic theology, war is never holy…” yet doesn't wonder why it is so quickly resorted to. Non-Muslims don’t care about typology or nuance of “jihad.” Non-Muslims only care about violence apparently inspired by its theology.

If contemporary jihadi actions are to be understood as “political,” then any Western response has to be seen the same way. Unless the Muslims equate Islam with jihadis, they cannot possibly confuse war on one with the other. If they do, they implicitly acknowledge Islam is little more than a violent jihad.

The author credits defeat of Russians solely to the Mujahadeen. Before stinger missiles, Russian Hind Helicopters were mowing them down like grass. The issue isn’t credit but self-delusion of martial excellence capable of defeating superpowers with AK-47s and suicide bombers. The author says after then jihadis turned their attention to other “occupied” countries. In other words, anything not ruled by their nutty theology including other Muslim countries. The asymmetry of economic and military superiority of the West will inspire the Jihadis to improve their weapons and strategies? The theological basis for their motivations, perceptions, successes, failures, egoes etc. count for nothing in that formulary.

I agree with the author that Muslims have a sense of humiliation. That is real, tragic and inevitable. Other than complain and blame others, what exactly have the Muslims done for themselves?

He argues, “their jihad is fundamentally a political action through which they pursue the establishment of a just society as ordained in the…” By that definition, killing them and anyone who supports them is a jihad too. Killing them and their theology is the first step to establishing a “just society.” Ordinary Muslims, however, should settle for reclaiming their religion.

However, even if they succeed at reclamation, I am not very optimistic. Islam has a theological crisis. It cannot reconcile Koran’s promises of worldly success with chronic failure of Muslims in general. The glory days are long gone. They need a radical reformation. They need a Muhammad Luther. He has to recast Islam as a spiritual struggle rather than means to worldly success. If the boat of Islam scrapes off all the barnacles of its retrograde cultural and tribal origins, then it may yet become seaworthy.

Transforming India's Mental Landscape by Amit Varma

2006-09-10T23:06:00.000-05:00

Another soul who sees partly what I see.

What's Next After Mumbai by Harsh V. Pant

2006-09-10T22:53:00.001-05:00

I guess the key to earning a doctorate from Notre Dame is to be able to write over a 1,000-word essay without saying anything. How did he manage to clear high school with such poor writing is a mystery to me. Summarized, Pant calls government response weak and he supports a Bombay bandh. How incredibly original! This man is addicted to disconnected generalities like it were opium. After a series of bromides like “value the lives of our citizens”…”suffering this recurring onslaught of violence,” he asks what next? What next indeed. Criticizing the lack of a coherent policy, he implicitly proposes a policy of lashing out everything and everyone in sight. There’s a winning policy!

He writes, “it would not take much to destroy the liberal ethos of this country if the citizens of this country feel that they are never secure.” Let’s see. If the attacks are as innumerable as he suggests, inevitably followed by a namby-pamby government response as he further suggests, wouldn’t the citizenry already feel insecure? If so, Pant has a problem. Either India has already lost its “liberal ethos,” if it ever had one or that his analysis is bunk or both.

He poses a series of questions and prescribes a more militant version of the same kind of response he criticizes: words. Of course, his words are in the form of “an unequivocal stance…” He makes hortatory comments like “India cannot be blackmailed into changing its foundations of its political system” blah blah blah “contrary its national interests.” Changing foundations of India’s political system? He wants a government “that is able to stand up and make sure that this message gets out….” In other words, more words admittedly this time made “stand[ing] up.”

I think the terrorists have already made major strides by watering the ubiquitous seeds of suspicion. How else does one judge “there’s a home-grown element to this problem too that requires addressing.” Why stick with generalities? Just say it. Muslims. So what are we to make of the implicit foreign-grown element? I think the fanatics are already ahead in this game of sacrificing the “too powerful”..”idea of India.” Panting for a policy to lashing out at everything in sight, Pant and his kind might end up being the useful idiots (for those terrorists) that Lenin talked about.

Muticulturalism & Its Discontents by Harsh V. Pant

2006-09-10T22:40:00.000-05:00

Compared to Pant’s last article, this one is not too bad. While he raises pertinent questions, he makes no persuasive argument. The US beats the Iranian drum, Israel beats the Hezbollah drum and Pant beats the British-Muslim drum.

Let’s examine Pant’s statistics; not the numbers themselves but the inferences he draws and expects us to draw. In the Pew poll, 81% of the sample saw themselves as Muslims before British Citizens; a statistic that supposedly should astonish us. Did the Pew sample screen for legal citizens? After all, one can be a legal resident without being a citizen. Asking non-citizens if they feel like citizens doesn’t yield anything meaningful. Next, he presumes those two choices are mutually exclusive. What if the response was 100% to a hypothetical question whether one can be both a good Muslim and a good Briton? How do other immigrants compare? How many ethnic Indians consider themselves as Hindus, Sikhs, Gujaratis before Britons?

He cites that half of the 30%, who prefer to live under Sharia law, would move to such a country if given a choice. Is that 15% being held at gunpoint to stay in Britain?

How does the belief among 1/3rd of the Muslims that the West is decadent compare with non-Muslims immigrants and natives?

Aside from his amateurish statistical set up, he raises a valid question: why are British-Muslims more radical? Though he provides no basis for an increase, let’s concede it for the sake of argument. He observes that London bombers as mostly middle-class to counter the argument those Muslims have no stake in the society…as if all alienation must exclusively be economic. (Incidentally, I have been arguing for months, that radicalism, whether Muslim or Hindu, has more cache with the middle-class than the poor.) Pant argues the alienation argument is bunk since foreign policy rationale is included.

Pant explains Islamist Terror with a false choice as either “misguided” foreign policy or a global ideological threat. Does one choice preclude the other? I believe many Muslims are troubled by western foreign policies. What makes Pant think that Jihadis would refuse to include such an argument for good measure? If for nothing else, to convince themselves they are the good guys. That is not to say terrorists are cuddly creatures. They ought to be hunted down and killed like animals. However, such a task is easier with most Muslims on our side than against us, even if only psychologically. It was the Sunnis who gave up Al-Zarqawi; it was an alert Pakistani policeman who tipped off the London plot. Demonizing Muslims in general is self-defeating since the same Pakistani policeman might look the other way next time.

I was waiting to see when and how the Pakistan train arrives. Like clockwork, it arrives on cue with “Pakistan-born” clerics. However, Pant commits a Chaddi heresy that L-e-T’s has a purpose other than making Kashmir miserable for India.

Pant writes foiling plots aren’t enough but must confront the radical ideology. True. Then he says, “While the attempts by the British authorities not to try to demonize an entire community are laudable,…..” He puts that idea in a subordinate clause as though basic fairness is a less important British value; the vindication of which is somehow secondary. He then writes, “It is true that all Muslims do not subscribe to extremist views or support global jihad against infidels but a substantial number that is ready to kill and get killed does, and is being goaded to do so by the belief rooted in a perverse interpretation of Islamic theology, endorsed by the clerics.” This sentence is worth pondering. He starts with a grudgingly obligatory not all Muslims are blah blah blah. But then in a curious construction that lies somewhere between sloth and malignancy, he continues “but a substantial number that is ready to kill and get killed does…” Unlike Pant, I think all who are ready to kill buy into that perversity. But the issue has always been how many of the whole are ready to kill/die. Not the misleading “substantial numbers” contrast with “all Muslims” in that sentence.

He writes “the paranoid view” of “west is out to destroy the Muslims” must be demolished. But, he makes no suggestions. Moreover, how is their interpretation of current policies patently untrue? He further writes, “the cry of Islamic radicals worldwide” of “muslim humiliation” is a red herring. Pant can’t separately analyze Jihadis’ transparent attempt to legitimize themselves with such claims and legitimate Muslim concerns. I suggest to address all Muslim concerns to the extent they don’t compromise any important British value. That means treating them with fairness, even-handedness and dignity. On the other hand, the wild-eyed constituency yearning for Sharia or caliphate or dhimmi status or oppressing women is out of luck. Such yearnings are are dismissed with one-way return tickets. I don’t think the issue is even one particular policy or another. Muslims are grownups; they know countries look after their own interests first. Instead, if the West stays true to its values and approaches the relationship with respect, the jihadi problem will be minor blip. With a cordial relationship, ordinary Muslims may rat out the bad guys who taint their entire ummah with crime. If they don’t, no need to waste money on expensive smart bombs…the cheap dumb ones will work just fine.

T/he Mother Tongue by Prem Shankar Jha

2006-09-10T21:25:00.000-05:00

I agree with some aspects of Jha’s reluctant conclusion but have a different outlook. Though the nation is fractured, I’d rather think of it as yet-to-be-consolidated rather than as never-to-be-consolidated. Perhaps, it’s just my American optimism talking.

Our nationhood was defined in terms of the negative rather than the positive. We didn’t want British rule anymore. However, once that was accomplished, there was no positive vision to equally bind us. The anti-British coalition masked serious differences as to what was to come afterwards. Some obscurantists fantasized about ramraj; some wanted a Hindu nation, some casteocracy; some linguistic or regional autonomy; others a liberal democracy.

Jha asks, “did it not strike someone that forcing people to sing a song that commemorates freedom defeats its purpose? Poor naïve Jha! He is under the illusion that the patriotic stormtroopers have any interest in freedom. They think of it in narrow terms; as free of Brits…not freedom broadly defined. They just wanted to replace British authoritarianism with theirs. There was no consensus on what should replace it. Jha, in a further display of naivete, thinks his question would have been the end of controversy. He himself says, the arguments proffered revealed “enduring faultlines” in Indian society. If they are enduring, singing a song together won’t erase them. Instead, we either come up with a workable solution or give up.

He asks, can anyone tell me precisely which words or lines offend Islam? One need not be a Muslim to recognize the general ethos that permeates the song. The mother, that is being worshiped, is further elucidated as durga/lakshmi in subsequent stanzas. Though they might not be sung, the connotation remains. But more directly, bowing down is an act of worship. And worshipping any object other than Allah is offensive and contrary to Islam. Whether the bowing down to country or indirectly to Hindu deities becomes an academic discussion.

Since Jha’s analysis is wrong, his speculation of motives or sequencing of decision and reasons cobbled together is irrelevant. His speculation descends into low comedy with his Sanskrit explanation. Sanskrit is the language of Vedic religion brought to India by immigrants. On the other hand, Hinduism is an evolutionary amalgam of religions of the immigrants and the indigenous.

Jha incorrectly chastises the Indian state for defining secularism in the Western way—as indifference to religion as opposed to the Indian way of acceptance of all religions. My criticism is exactly the opposite. The state has been equivocal in embracing “western” definition of secularism. “Indian way” of accepting of “all religions” has no relevance to the functions of a State. More practically, such a definition gives no guidance to resolve the inevitable competing claims of truth; especially when the state has no competence in such matters. In light of that reality, the state should scrupulously stay out of religious matters.

I don’t know what Jha means by deracination. If he meant the dictionary definition, exactly how is 85% of the population uprooted? Does their religion/culture avoids uprooting only through paramount political supremacy in governing the state? If so, it is destined to be uprooted. Instead, the state should concentrate on building a common civic culture focusing on the future. Leave religion to the realm of the private opinion where it sinks or swims to the extent they fill the spiritual needs of their respective followers.

Eyes, Ears And Minds Closed by Vinod Mehta

2006-09-05T20:03:00.000-05:00

While I found Vinod Mehta’s opinion piece to be a bit ho-hum, however, the question ”why is India’s middle-class so hostile to the empowerment of the poor?” is worth pondering.

The first difficulty is the word “middle-class.” In the US, that term is associated with income levels. Yet, it provides no insight into their political attitudes. In India, similarly, whatever their income levels, it does not inform us about their attitudes.

The “educated” and “uneducated” dichotomy is also unhelpful. “Educated” in India almost always means narrow technical education. Any knowledge they have beyond their field is really a collection of clichés and formulas from newspapers. In other words, “educated” almost never means those who are liberally educated. This “educated” class specializes in loose definitions, slip-shod logic, breathtaking assumptions, leaping inferences and mindless repetition of clichés. All of it makes public discourse in India so depressingly……well, third worldish.

Therefore, a classification that separates people by how they think is more helpful. There is a large segment that neither cares nor can empathize with another person. This large segment, which incidentally meets the clinical definition of sociopaths, however, can make politically correct sounds. The occasional dropping of the mask in their words is when their moral depravity is laid bare. However, there’s a small segment that can and does think beyond its own self-interests.

Among the sociopaths, the culture’s default instinct to surmise a link between economic poverty and spiritual poverty. This Neanderthal fringe even believes economic status is determined by spiritual status; consider the cracking of a coconut before an economic undertaking. Consequently, they rationalize that they have no obligation to ameliorate the consequences of others’ spiritual infirmity. But generally, Indian mind will avoid thinking/working whenever it can. And, karma and dharma serve to rationalize this characteristic lethargy. Everyone else absorbs such attitudes from the educated. There is a strong case that educated and rich are both intellectually and physically lazy. They need half a dozen people to attend to their daily functions like washing clothes, washing dishes, washing their kids’ asses, cleaning their house, cooking etc. And their intellectual laziness is apparent every time they open their mouths in public.

I think the sociopaths are petrified that their economic and spiritual primacy rests on a flimsy base. They crave respect, honor and primacy in the society without truly earning it. A smattering of technical knowledge in a narrow field is all that is needed to dazzle the throngs of illiterates in a morally backward society. They themselves are oblivious to the fact they are little more than empty heads despite their creased shirts and clean pants.

Manna For Modi by Saba Naqvi Bhaumik

2006-09-03T21:44:00.000-05:00

Mourn, Reflect, Hope...by Pratap Bhanu Mehta

2006-09-03T21:13:00.000-05:00

Mehta reflects none and mourns much even though he claims the Quota policy is an occasion for both.

I knew I was in for a treat after I read his first paragraph. According to him, the policy will, by itself, transform an idyllic paradise into a wretched hellhole by inundating it with conflict, tribalism, cynicism and anti-liberalism where none existed; enough to make angels weep. Surely, I exaggerate; but not by much.

However, back on earth, I mourn for very different reasons. For example, phrases like “perfidious piece of legislation” and sentences like “its arrival will not give proper shape to affirmative action” leave me in tears. Notwithstanding his bad writing, Mehta’s wretchedly shallow essay in itself is a confirmation that the Quota policy is the right medicine for the country.

Political interests, bad ideas or burdensome past don’t weigh down Mehta. So, he is free to critique the policy. Yet, he writes a 2,500 word sophomoric essay without a single substantive criticism of it or the conditions warranting it. Instead, he mentions minutia of staggering or creamy layers. He seems more interested in politics of the policy rather than the idea or the problem behind it. That alone reassures me the policy is right.

The policy may not be clear for Mehta but it is to me. Historically, elite education has been the exclusive citadel of privileged castes. For example, Brahmins, being 3.5% of population, occupy over 78% of the judicial positions and over half of the seats in parliament per Eric Margolis. Their overrepresentation in jobs requiring high-education content is not difficult to extrapolate. Mehta is surprisingly uncurious about such a statistical anomaly. Of course, it’s not an anomaly. It simply reflects that caste’s historic monopoly in education. That was acceptable as long as education consisted mainly of Vedic lore. But where secular education paid by the public purse is concerned, such a monopoly is intolerable. Worse yet, it harms the country.

Therefore, the quota policy pries open the doors to elite education for all Indians. Without it, those doors remain effectively bolted from the inside. Caste inertia should not prevail. The policy helps to overcome sclerotic attitudes of an ossified society engendered by an illiberal civilization. Failure to act is to condone de facto discrimination. Whether it displaces privileged castes or expands a middle class or engenders equal outcomes is incidental. The policy expands access to a broader pool than before. From this expanded pool, we are more likely to draw true talent making elite education and consequently economic participation reflecting Indian diversity.

Mehta disingenuously argues that caste obscures more important factors like income. However, income is a function of job and that is a function of education. Caste, more than any other factor, determines the limits of overwhelming majority of Indians’ idea of human possibility including in education. It is the most comprehensive proxy for the cumulative impact of social, economic, educational and moral discrimination over several millennia; exceptions only prove the rule.

This policy strikes at something more important than poverty, which is not unique to India. It strikes at a main cause of Indian backwardness: institutionalized bigotry endorsed by the gods themselves. In a dynamic, liberal and socially fluid society, this Quota policy would be a poisoned chalice. However, in an ossified, illiberal and socially sclerotic society like India, it’s just what the doctor ordered.

Mehta concedes the central role of caste in Indian thinking. However, he focuses on individual exceptions as opposed to its general malignancy in limiting a person’s potential. Caste is the very matrix through which most Indians perceive and interpret their reality. Not addressing caste is like ignoring an elephant in the room. Mehta’s overall argument is transparent sophistry.

Mehta observes the South has accepted quotas but hasn’t transcended it. The immediate purpose of this public policy is not to transcend it but to render it irrelevant for the effective access a social good like elite education. If Mehta deems the reality of caste and its continued existence as a “canard,” then he is merely an errand boy for privileged caste interests.

After raising several trivial matters, he laments our democracy is no longer about public deliberation. However, there is an energetic public debate that occurs in newspapers, magazines, television and internet. While our parliament lacks Disraeli-Gladstone and Lincoln-Douglas debates, if that process is good enough for nuclear weapons policy, it is good enough for quota policy.

Mehta puts on a good show by bringing a bouquet of flowers, wearing a dark suit and shedding a bucket of tears at idealism’s funeral; after he killed it himself in this essay. He attributes selfish motives to academics, teachers, or administrators who failed to protest a policy he doesn’t like. May be they agree with it or may be they are indifferent to it. Students will protest; but not on the basis of any ideal. There are more than a “few odd” commentators toeing the anti-quota line. They should be dismissed as shills for privileged castes; not for their stance, but for their arguments. The only thing he mentions that comes close to “idealism” is “transcending your identity.” I am not sure what that means.

Opposition to Quota policy does not appeal to any higher principle of justice other than preservation of the status quo. Instead, it attempts to divert attention with myriad of other failures and injustices in society. No amount of high-soaring rhetoric or euphonic abstractions breaks up the sclerosis in our society. This policy is a crisis only for those who operate on the belief they are entitled to first dibs (a habit from history) on elite education; with leftover “crumbs” thrown from the table to those who eagerly await then. No amount of disguise in the form of merit rhetoric will change that.

One of the photos in this article shows a neatly trimmed and well-fed future physician shining shoes. The palpable disdain on his face and the reluctant way he holds the shoe with his left fingertips bodes ill for Mehta’s exhortation to “Overcoming the Moment.” His advice to protestors is to dress up their bigoted feelings in a more public relations savvy garb. It seems, the young doctor didn’t get the memo. When the country and the doctor see his act as economic rather than ironic, then India will have been transformed. Mehta concludes, “[T]he transformation of caste politics will not be possible without the transformation of India.” I suspect Mehta never wondered why vice-versa isn’t more true. This policy may transform both.

By the way Mehta, I do care about social justice, nation, creative alternatives, marginalized citizens, higher education, correct priorities, democracy and idealism. Precisely because they are important ideas, I reject your stunted interpretation of them. Thus, I support this policy.

Axis of Evil by Vinod Mehta

2006-09-03T21:05:00.000-05:00

Mehta’s poor essay reflects shallow and inadequate thought. Let’s be clear. Exhorting better leadership for the Muslim community and taking up the cudgel against its reactionary elements are both laudable goals.

However, he states, “[leadership] feeds…sense of victimhood.” He then uses the Vande Mataram dustup as an example of such poor leadership. Apparently, this “monumental” blunder “produce[s] suspicious and doubts….about the patriotism of Muslims in India.” This non-issue is supposedly a “trap” laid by BJP. Mehta places a higher premium on avoiding an issue rather than confronting it head on.

Let’s get one thing out of the way first. The source of suspicion of Muslim patriotism is not from what they sing or don’t sing but their Muslim status itself. They are a living reminder of internal psychodrama of Hindu sense of supposed humiliation from Islamic rule. Since history can’t be changed, they make a puerile attempt to “balance the [humiliation] books” on the backs of today’s Muslims. In short, Muslims, by definition, are unpatriotic. However, sending them on a fool’s errands try to prove otherwise might be a sport. There isn’t enough proof in this world to convince a mindset that links religion with patriotism, short of serfdom and abject abnegation.

Mehta should be asking, are incidents, conditions and actions used to “feed…sense of victimhood” fabrications or deliberate misinterpretations? If so, document them. If not, who bears the blame for actually creating those incidents, conditions and actions? Perhaps, Mehta should complain about those making them rather than pointing them out.

As a practical matter, singing a song--any song--is no more proof of patriotism than refusal a lack of patriotism. However, the song raises an unresolved issue, just as well as any, what’s does it take to be an Indian. BJP/RSS/VHP types are eager to pick such a fight because their very raison d’tre/agenda is to make Indian identity Hindu-centric with some condescending add-ons for non-Hindus who must nevertheless pay obeisance to Hinduism however obliquely. The need for such desperate reassurance betrays a profound insecurity about its significance in the world.

However, at another level, a Durga/Shakti/Mathruboomi laced song of dubious origin is less about genuine patriotism and more about a political gambit and religious INtolerance despite the propaganda to the contrary. If Muslims sing it, with all the bowing down and assorted mawkish sentiments, they arguably compromise their faith. If they don’t sing, they are unpatriotic; which isn’t exactly a novel accusation. If they do sing it now, the complaints morph into it wasn’t “genuine” or “heart-felt” enough. Then, patriotism is measured by one policy preference over another. Heads Hindus win, Tails Muslims lose.

Mehta and the other supposed “liberals” should welcome this debate and stomp the hell out of BJP/RSS/VHP types on this issue while meaningfully advancing the debate on the more important issue of what it means to be an Indian. (Hint: it doesn’t have a damn thing to do with any religion or any bowing down).

Consensual Corruption by KPS Gill

2006-09-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

I haven’t picked on the policeman from Punjab in a while. So here it goes. Gill’s analysis starts off on the right foot. He correctly points to a principal cause for Indian backwardness as Brahmanical aversion to enterprise. But, he fails to see that as a natural consequence of its aversion to work in general. Rest of the society chose to imitate the Brahmins in this regard and therefore bears its consequences. Moreover, he fails to explain concretely why profit is a good thing other than having a vague connection to “national…development.” Profit represents the value added to the national wealth from work. For example, if I take $8,000 worth of rubber, steel, plastic and glass and create a car worth $10,000, then the $2,000 profit is the value added to those raw materials by my work. The national wealth increases $2,000. Notice that fraud, corruption and criminality is not in the picture of legitimate profit making.

However, he goes off track when he blames profit for those bad things. Every society is susceptible to them, however, to different degrees. What makes that difference is a moral ethos. India is particularly vulnerable since its culture has an aversion to clearly delineating absolute right and wrong. Gill puzzlingly observes, “If corruption was a moral issue alone, its consequences would not be so grave; but it undermines the very foundations of the tasks of nation building.” He apparently sees no connection between moral ethos and its impact on people’s attitudes and decision-making. Naturally, he wouldn’t connect such decision-making with nation building. Moral ethos, in essence, is the omnipresent un-uniformed policeman, in the absence of a uniformed one. It regulates nearly all the decisions made every day. If an absolute ethic is missing, then selfishness and self-centeredness are just as good guides as any. In short, the moral ethos (or its absence) is what keeps the country down in the dumps.

Such subjective morality allows political and bureaucratic middle men to skim, auction off the nation’s defense secrets to the highest bidder, bribery deciding defense contracts etc and still consider themselves “moral,” “patriotic,” “good Hindus” etc. The last requiring only a coconut and a ritual. What is common to all the horrible things Gill points out is that they all operate in the same cultural milieu; where right and wrong are always negotiable for the right price. The reason why the electorate doesn’t punish such behavior because it breathes the same air, swims in the same lake and parrots the same inanities.

His analysis goes off in a tangent after he explains various insurgencies in terms of this corruption but quickly pulls back lest he excuses them. The topic of insurgencies has added layers of complexity; lack of government responsiveness and lack of control over of their own lives in general.

Shhh...Its a Free Country by Sunil Menon

2006-09-01T23:11:00.000-05:00

Menon's essay is an example where poor writing garbles his trenchant and insightful comments. Here’s my attempt at rewriting it with minimal input of mine.

President Bush’s historical visit to India represents the beginning of a new chapter in Indo-American relations. However, it also is the closing of an old chapter on liberal tolerance in India. “Liberal,” of course, is a term of convenience and meaningful only in relative terms. Bush’s visit portrays an unflattering picture of the general illiberality of India’s political and media culture.

Consider the protest organized by Jamait Ulema-e-Hind in Delhi. By all accounts, it was a peaceful protest; a routine voicing of dissent which would be otherwise unremarkable in a mature democracy. But this is India. The collection of “beards and skull caps” has pushed the limits of liberality of the “liberals” and the political culture.

Despite its rhetoric, most of the elite media slavishly follows an illiberal vision of political behavior and constrained discourse. The initial shot was fired by a TV talking head, “Not since the Khilafat have Indian Muslims got so mobilized on issues that originate outside India.” This shot reverberated on front pages, editorials and analyses with variations and crescendo. Essentially ascribing illegitimacy to a Muslim protest that the liberals didn’t bless. This exercise in democratic protest must be curtailed, out of fear, lest it invite a right-wing reaction.

The most prestigious place where such sentiment was enunciated was in The Hindu by a well-respected commentator. (I wonder if the original article was as meandering and disconnected as its synopsis.) He drew a straight line from rabble-rousing mullahs that put a price on Danish Cartoonists/Bush to the protest he characterizes as “an embarrassment.” We are not sure exactly why it was embarrassing. The argument continues since the protest could not have been a spontaneous expression but “clergy-inspired issues” such as Iran/Danish Cartoons/Abu Ghraib it shouldn’t concern “Muslim masses.” Naturally, the “security agencies” watch for fingerprints of “West Asian chancelleries.” The liberals caution that “religious mobilization” is undesirable since it may provoke a Pavlovian response from Hindutva. One shouldn’t forget the old chestnut about the “foreign hand.” Add a fog of generalized suspicion that relieves the author of any responsibility and you have his main point: it was not a grass-roots protest and orthodox Muslim public expressions on “extra-territorial” matters are essentially illegitimate.

Here’s where we reach limits of “liberalism” of the liberals. First, liberals refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of Muslim collective action through political means available to any group with a common interest. That Muslims can only be a herded like cattle; not capable of thought or independently assess what is important to them. By reducing them to the “masses,” the liberals de-legitimate their democratic choices; as well as any issues whose saliency pierces national frontiers. They are to be caged and fed by “liberals” and protected from “illiberals.”

In any case, are these issues really "clergy-inspired"? Are they so opaque that rank and file Muslims need clergy interpretation? Caricaturing the revered Prophet is not as arcane as Uranium Hexofloride. Cautioning restraint in face of an open provocation may be wise, but disapprobation of peaceful protests is essentially condescending and authoritarian. What are the terms of this Faustian bargain? Do not engage in collective action but rely on the state and its secular elite to safeguard your interests—even if they have a horrible track record, as in Gujarat. India wants a politically neutered Muslim population that serves as a display to reinforce its illusions about itself. Be satisfied with what’s given to you, don’t ask for too many jobs in the intelligence services, and stick to the circus or cricket or whatever. The only unsupervised activity would be the churning out endless supply of Urdu poetry and Shikampuri kababs. In short, stick to the script of Javed Akhtar, who gave us the ‘good Muslim’ in films and real life. Remember the blind maulvi who walked tremulously up the masjid stairs after sacrificing his son for the village? The figure is alive and well and appeared, with necessary outward mutation, in Rang de Basanti: the long-haired dude who wants to come out of the ghetto and played the revolutionary Ashfaqullah. Put another way, play your part and don’t get uppity.

Set against this background, the specter of a Muslim crowd—not a mob, mind you, but a demonstration—taps one of the most deep-rooted fears in India. The mob is, by comparison, a transient source of fear. While it leaves a trail of violence and destruction, it does not disturb anything fundamental. It is what it is—spontaneous, sporadic, reactive, and ultimately criminal. The absence of criminality and the legitimacy of a political Muslim crowd, on the other hand, make it a more abstract but real danger. The Partition was not the work of men on horses or camels but that of a frail lawyer using foreign tools of constitutional argument within the legitimate sphere acknowledged by everyone. Herein lies the subliminal urge to deny the democratic space to ‘political Islam.’ The desire to control the tenor of another’s politics even within the legitimate frame of political activity is the limits of liberality of Indian political system and its liberals.

This yearning to avoid complexity is apparent in another context. While the moderates were fidgety over ‘Muslim mobilisation’, the Right seemed to be on vacation. One commentator was busy being "charmed" by the vigor of free speech in Britain even on the issue of dog walking. Another reminisced on his experience on the Golden Quadrilateral. One especially smooth stretch in Gujarat lulled him into confessing to "..forget that one was in India". Like the highway, the real purpose of “nationalistic” politics is to escape India as it is. How we long to transcend to a hard European ground of political logic, the precise geometry of the autobahn. And when faced with the ‘blooming, buzzing confusion’ that is real India—its urban snarls, its small-town cul-de-sacs, its messy democracy—to be able to build, as our writer observed, "a bypass to bypass the bypass."

Do the liberals, and those stuck in the cynical world of the 1980s-vintage ‘appeasement’ policies, actually share the Right’s blind spot when it comes to the ‘Muslim issue’? If there is an issue, it is this: citizenship is unconditional. Its rights cannot be bartered in return for extracting your silence on any issue…intra- or extra-territorial. Religious orthodoxy, whether Muslim or Hindu, exists and has a legitimate place at the political table. To squelch it gives it the allure of a forbidden fruit. Only in the arena of democracy with rules that neither fear nor favor them is the possibility of sublimating them. Exploiting orthodoxy creates a constituency of the weak and aggrieved. In the long-term, their condition remains unchanged. Strong-arming it only forces it into the basement to putrefy and occasionally emerge as a disruptive force. Secular vigilantes who patrol the borders of the permissible—not a few of whom became errand boys of the counter-revolution when the BJP seemed set to rule forever—will only deliver them to hands of the Yaqoob Qureishis of the world. And he has before him the glittering example of the last decade-and-a-half, set by his counterparts in political low life, in how to make that amazing journey from political backwaters to the corridors of power.

Tokenism More Than Social Justice by Pratap Bhanu Mehta

2006-08-29T22:46:00.000-05:00

Article originally published in OutlookIndia.com on 5/22/06; my comment on 5/23/06

To
Mr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta
123 Faceless Academic Warehouse
New Delhi, India

I accept your resignation from the National Knowledge Commission (NKC). Upon reflecting on comments in your resignation letter, I agree that you indeed serve no useful purpose on it.

Let us consider the appropriateness of your political grandstanding, especially in light your limited mandate to make recommendations in an otherwise narrow area. It’s clear that you lack basic knowledge about the structure of our government, its decision-making authority, its accountability to the electorate and limited role of any commission, including the “Knowledge” Commission, to make recommendations. As soon as I find the aide who recommended you to be on this commission, I am going to fire his ass.

The NKC was mandated to recommend measures strengthen India’s knowledge. However, you failed to understand such recommendations are to be made within the context of India as it exists; not some abstraction you seemed to be enamored with.

The proposal to extend quotas for OBCs is a policy debate within the government at the highest levels. Until we can expand opportunities, it is meant to allocate limited educational opportunities within our country. As such, it is a complex decision with many factors to be taken into account by elected officials, including but not limited to political grandstanding by self-promoting, media-hogging crybabies who pout at not getting their way.

Let us indeed examine your four cardinal principles of mysterious origins and dubious authority.

1) They are not based on assessment of effectiveness.

Are you satisfied that under current arrangement that the country is benefiting from the full potential of its rich endowment of human resources? Do you suppose that the country will achieve the levels of economic growth and opportunities by systematically keeping out millions of our citizens on economic margins merely for being born in the “wrong castes”? Do you think I know a thing or two about economics? How effective can this country be if it doesn’t overcome the retrograde attitudes of some of our citizens? Without adequate representation in elite professions and institutions, will all of our citizens feel that they have a fair shot at economic prosperity and a stake in the future of this country? Will there even be a country? As you can see, abstract platitudes and concrete policies to fight injustice do not mix.

While your sociological observations on the extent of discrimination faced by OBC in Northern India are interesting, you will pardon me if I prefer to base a policy of my administration on something more solid. As the chief executive of a country with billion people, I don’t have the luxury of setting micro-level policies for one kind of discrimination in one part of the country. I have to pursue a clear, uniform policy for the whole country.

As far as your observation of my premature foreclosure of various possibilities, it is my judgment that they are neither feasible nor adequate for the direction I want to lead the country. You are free to pursue any policy you like when you occupy 7, Race Course Drive.

I do agree with you, however, that we need to increase access and quantity of high quality education at primary and secondary levels. However, a one or two generation solution cannot be used to justify inaction now. Despite the pain for some sections of our citizens, we need a policy that ensures that we still have a country unified in physical reality and purpose.

2) Freedom and diversity of institutions

You seem to forget the policy is for institutions funded by the Central Government. Do you think claims of freedom and diversity of institution trump the oversight and accountability to the government that funds it? Or is the role of the government simply to sign blank checks and allow gas bags to mouth platitudes about freedom and diversity. Do you think without policy mandates, these institutions will reflect the rich diversity of our country? If so, how do you account for their failure despite untrammeled “freedom” thus far? So, in the words of my dear granddaughter, stuff it.

3) More thoroughly politicized education process

Unlike the previous administration, we are not attempting to mandate astrology into medical curriculum. On the contrary, we allow maximum freedom allowable under the law to set standards of excellence and encourage exceeding them. However, the institutions are taxpayer funded. As such, the electorate expects us to be good stewards of their resources to effectuate policies that are just and equitable for the whole nation. Its typical for academic eggheads (don’t feel bad, I am one too) to interpret de-politicized process means blank checks with no accountability for results.

4) Inject an insidious poison that will harm the nation’s long-term interest.

Isn’t that a judgment for elected officials? Do you not think that the electorate has meaningful recourse either to ratify or reject our policies at the ballot box? Do you think large swaths of our fellow citizens shut out of elite professions simply because they were born into the wrong castes is in the nation’s long-term interest or any less poisonous than this policy?

In conclusion, you state that the government makes caste the only reality in India. Speaking of disingenuousness, is there a bigger factor that in general determines not just the future but even the dreams and ambitions of our citizens other than caste?

I accept your letter without regret. If you believe that I would harm the NKC’s mandate just because of one political grandstander, you are a smaller man than I imagined you to be. For someone who readily concedes the possibility of being wrong in his judgment, there is no other proof of political grandstanding than your own words.

Good-bye, Mr. Mehta. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Warm Regards,

Manmohan

Cc: Sam Pitroda,
Chairman,
National Knowledge Commission

Decoding the Pope by Seema Sirohi

2006-08-28T20:02:00.000-05:00

Article originally published in OutlookIndia.com on 6/7/06; my comments on 6/11/06

Delousing Seema

Seema reports that the Pope’s opinion about the constitutionality of anti-conversion laws sends up a few people’s blood pressure. Had they not slept through 9th grade civics class, they would have saved some trouble and might even manage to comprehend his argument.

A Constitution gives power to government and allocates it among various branches. It also lists rights that cannot be infringed in exercising that power. Using the doctrine of Judicial Review, courts guard that line by reviewing the constitutionality of disputed exercises of power. A democracy does not accept the judgment of an unelected, unrepresentative, appointed court because it has superior quality. We accept it because of the legitimacy of the process by which a court arrives at its decisions: legal as opposed to political reasoning.

However, in India, nothing is ever straightforward. The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the explicitly guaranteed right to propagate is not a right after all. This conclusion is unsupported by anything even remotely resembling legal reasoning. It might as well have ruled that the earth is flat using the same method. In a linguistic exercise that rivals “Alice in Wonderland,” the Court states propagate = no propagate. Absent legal reasoning, any of the court’s actions are illegitimate in a democracy. That’s why the Indian Supreme Court remains a third-rate institution even by third-world standards.

What Seema characterizes as “berating a sovereign government,” is nothing more than pointing out that the anti-conversion attempts violate not only the Indian Constitution but also the UN Declaration of Human Rights encompassing Freedom of Religion and Conscience. Not withstanding yogic contortions of the Supreme Court, those rights are absolute and guaranteed to everyone…..no ifs, ands or buts about them.

She asks, what if Indian processes resulted in curbing mass conversions, sometimes obtained with financial incentives? The Pope might respond, because any process that results in violations of its own constitution cannot be legitimate regardless of the stated reasons. Furthermore, the constitution gives individuals absolute right to choose their religion. This necessarily includes the criteria on which one decides and changes mind. It says nothing about that right can be exercised only with “proper” motivation that is almost always arbitrarily defined by some self-appointed interlopers. The only interest the government has is the general interest to prevent actual violence or threat of it that interferes with lawful exercise of any constitutional right. So, blood pressure goes up and Foreign Ministry Spokesman gets frosty. Shouldn’t they be having aortic aneurisms?

After displaying such ignorance, Seema delves into the minutia of church administration. This in addition to the papal admonition supposedly says something about the Pope’s negotiating stance; what’s mine is mine and yours is free to evangelize. While I am not sure exactly what is being negotiated here, the Pope isn’t exhorting nations with Christian majority to institute laws to prevent its own people from becoming Hindus or requiring “proper” motivation. But, let’s not let the facts stand in the way of a good story. We are to believe that his comments have absolutely, positively nothing to do with “the world’s largest democracy” telling its citizens what religion they must and mustn’t follow or under what circumstances they can or cannot change their minds. For this dingbat, assuaging the anxieties of some or even many is more important than upholding the “freedom” in India’s own constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

In the next paragraph, her clumsy attempt at alliteration shows. While it’s arguable that civilizations are clashing, are religions really rattling? How does a religion rattle? Besides, if new adherents exclusively motivate the Pope, why would he be so stuck on “conservative creed”? Wouldn’t he modify his offering to appeal to the broadest audience? Shouldn’t he dilute it to the point of being inoffensive to everyone? Seema should be writing a column on Bollywood gossip.

Next, not content with displaying her ignorance in easy matters, she ventures into an esoteric one: religious philosophy. She finds it astonishing that the Pope doesn’t buy into a premise that all faiths to be equally valid. What makes that proposition so self-evident? It will seem so only if you uncritically accepted that premise. If the Pope believes that truth and falsity are mutually exclusive, and also that his way is the one and only true stairway to heaven why would he accept “equally valid stairways” argument? More importantly, what’s the basis to expect that he should accept it? Besides, what does it all have to do with explicitly guaranteed rights violated in India “by its own processes?”

She characterizes pope’s prior role as “curtail free-wheeling debate and bring liberal theologians back to the line.” She must think ecclesiastical organizations are social clubs founded for aimless yakking; that would be the Indian parliament. The Pope has non-negotiable aspects of his creed; one must believe it to be a part of it. Alternatively, you are free to disbelieve and not be a part of it. The incomprehensibility of non-negotiable core bedrock beliefs is understandable in India where everything is negotiable.

She reaches her full ignominy when she claims, ‘the highly controversial directive declared that Christ is the only savior of mankind…” Apparently, this ignoramus doesn’t know that it merely restates what his church had believed for the entire 2,000-year span without exception; those who raised doubts were run out as heretics. She implies it as somehow novel and thus “controversial.” For the Pope, there is no controversy. If you believe it, you are a catholic. If you don’t, you are not. While reasonable people can disagree on which religious path is superior, there is no dispute (at least among sane people) on the inviolability of the right of an individual to choose the path for himself and to prevent others from interfering with that choice regardless of the reasons given.

That she isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer is amply displayed when she thinks an organization that claims to represent God will trade its central belief for “romancing with other religions.” A psyche, entirely built on hierarchy, screaming like a wet cat when Vatican claims to be at the top is so delicious an irony that I can’t verbalize it.

Having flubbed the easy and the esoteric, she next delves into Vatican’s motivations: “attractive [ness]” of eastern religions, their alleged philosophical dexterity, secularization of Europe and syncretistic tendencies of liberal theologians. While its true Europe is secularized and theological liberals tend toward syncretism, it’s not at all clear that eastern religions are “attractive” or philosophically dexterous. Aside from immigrants, who bring their religions along with their bags to the West, where’s the growth to prove the asserted attractiveness? Could she demonstrate philosophical dexterity? What does she base these claims on? Since making unsubstantiated and baseless claims is an Indian pandemic, what is the evidence that these were the motivations behind the document?

She then asserts, “[church] doesn’t have anything to negotiate with other faiths because it considers itself complete.” There are plenty of non-theological items of common interest of all religions: inter-faith dialogue, protecting religious rights of all, advocating justice, condemning evil, speaking out against injustice, coordinating response to disasters etc.

Finally, exactly what should the Pope should “accommodate” on? Should he compromise on the Christological foundation of his faith or should he ignore his divine mandate to tell others about his God? What will he get in return? Magic beans?

A Thousand Flowers by Seema Sirohi

2006-08-28T19:46:00.000-05:00

Article originally published in OutlookIndia.com on 10/24/05; my comments on 11/5/05

This UNESCO story is fascinating. At one level, it is just another trade treaty in a world trending towards free trade. As a result, there is increased global efficiency with more economic actors focusing on their comparative advantage. Additionally, the world has become more interdependent with more economic actors having a stake in world stability than before.

The issue is now whether there should be a “cultural” exception to free trade. It’s easy to dismiss the French, who champion this cause, as transparently unserious. When their definition of “culture” includes cheese, wine and foie gras, it's understandable why Americans would roll their eyes.

But at another level, the whole world seems to back the French on this issue. Why? Anti-Americanism is too facile and unsatisfactory explanation. A more credible explanation lies in the magic word “culture.” To discuss it intelligently, we need to define it. Broadly, culture means anything man-made that doesn’t exist in nature. It ranges from the sublime to the mundane: articulating human purpose, need and possibility to food, clothing and entertainment.

Before I go further, a brief detour is needed to put this issue in context. Universally, Humans are anxious about their mortality. While philosophy essentially dances around it, religion tackles the issue straight on.

Religion offers humans various means to transcend the universal physical death. It separates eternity from transitory by various means of access through grace, faith, revelation or merit through obedience, works, rituals or prayers.

As individuals anticipate their own death, so do tribes, nations and cultures. History is full of such extinctions. It’s estimated of the 6,000 languages, roughly two will die every week. Franz Rosenzweig, a Jewish philosopher-theologian, argued, “the love of the nations for their own nationhood is sweet and pregnant with presentiment of death.” Someday, somebody else will occupy their lands and their own cultures and languages will be destined to dusty library books.

Christianity confronts this extinction of cultures. It calls people out from traditional cultures and makes them part of the ecclesia (the Church). On earth, its believers belong to the “Church Militant” and at death they belong to the “Church Triumphant.” It provides its own higher order functions of a culture while leaving lower order ones to the cultures of its believers’ origin.

Islam, by contrast, has its roots in traditional, tribal society. It attempts to prolong its existence through conquest; either military power or proselytizing or demographics.

Among the pagan cultures, the older pagans went to their deaths confident that their cultures would live forever through their descendants. Later pagans were less confident or more self-worshipping or both. So they attached their cultures to something more transcending. Therefore, Buddha, though from India, acquires Thai physical features in Thailand and Chinese physical features in China. Similarly, Jesus has blond hair, blue eyes in Northern Europe but has black hair and brown eyes in South America. Still other pagans, though aware of the great extinction, have no means to deal with it.

Culturally, the United States is a category-5 hurricane, F-5 tornado and a 9.5 Richter scale earthquake all rolled into one. Global communications flash around the world its material wealth and its ideas of political and social freedoms relentlessly. It drowns out everything else, which seems powerless anyway.

For those defending Islam or pagan cultures, U.S. represents an incomparable existential threat. Though its historical roots was Catholic, France ever since its Revolution fits the definition of such a pagan culture, as most of modern Europe does. Therefore, France sees itself leading the charge against the U.S. cultural tsunami.

I bet Seema thought this was about Goddard versus toothpaste.

The Architect's New Clothes by Chitvan Gill

2006-08-28T18:58:00.000-05:00

Article originally published in OutookIndia.com on 4/6/06; my comment on 5/12/06.

Though Gill’s article suffers from assorted defects such as run-on sentences, it is one of the more trenchant ones written in this magazine. Ostensibly, she critiques post Independence Indian architecture.

Gill criticizes it as merely borrowing of ideas--a blunder. While there is an art to it, borrowing is not entirely bad. For example, the movie “The Magnificent Seven” was a fresh adaptation of Akiro Kurazawa’s “The Seven Samurai.” As brilliantly original was the later, the former pays an homage worthy of the word with a stirring musical score throw in for good measure. However, in the case of Indian architecture, borrowed ideas fit like oversized second hand clothes from a thrift store. In other words, we look bad even after ripping-off others.

It is apparent that Gill is criticizing more than just architecture by quoting Naipaul. While on the surface, architecture is about form, function and aesthetic, it is indeed animated by more fundamental ideas of beauty, grandeur and human possibility. Therefore, the awful concrete boxes (with walls, of shitty bricks & “plastering,” that are never plumb and always crack) littering the subcontinent are a perfectly disgraceful metaphor of a retarded cultural conception of beauty, grandeur and human possibility.

One marvels at the insistence on building non-load bearing interior walls with bricks and cement plaster. With simple-minded illusions of “strength,” considerations such as flexible floor plan, lighter weight, and cost are ignored. This practice is especially astonishing for a culture where cutting corners is high art form. So, it’s unsurprising that the simple-minded illusion of “strength” from impermeable, non-load bearing, interior walls called caste is universally insisted upon. Thoughts such as untapped talents, crushed spirits of hundreds of millions and economic loss to the country are similarly ignored.

Gill wonders why between the architecture of two empires (Mughal & British, I presume) independent India has not created anything that rivals it. How could it? India has been parasitic (Naipaul’s word), with Independent India particularly so. It lacks self-understanding. Worse yet, it evinces no interest in such self-understanding. So, there isn't a whole lot to express through architecture. That is why shoddy thoughts and deeds come through unrestrained in its architecture.

While I share his/her frustration, one of the posters is wrong on one point: art’s function is to envision possibility and inspire not just reflect reality.

Welcome

2006-08-28T18:29:00.000-05:00

This blog collects my posts from Outlook India for now.