Thank you, Ralph, for inviting me to join this forum and for saying those kind words. As regards the lizards, I claim complete ignorance of the matter. Google is not your friend. I had a first post in my head about blogging when I should be writing my dissertation but something caught my eye that should interest the readership of this blog.
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MMRI) has translated an op-ed by Dr. Ahmad al-Baghdadi which appeared in Kuwaiti Daily, al-Siyasa. Dr. al-Baghdadi gained international attention in 1999 when he was imprisoned by the Kuwaiti government for an article he wrote that offended the clergy. The sentence was commuted after 14 days. On other occasions, he has spoken out against the Arab press, Arab intellectuals and Arab states and decried the lack of women participation in the social sphere.Obviously, he is a man used to speaking his mind.
In the op-ed, entitled The Favor Western Orientalists Did Muslims, he praises Oriental scholarship for being grounded in academic discourse, critical methodology and scholarly analyses. Instead of embracing this Oriental scholarship and having the works of Western scholars translated into Arabic, the East has chosen the opposite - rejecting it on the spurious basis of Orientalism's relationship to colonialism. As a result, the scholarship coming from religious seminaries or Arab universities is ignorant of this rich Western tradition and filled instead with blind hatred of Orientalism. It is only when a student from a Muslim country comes to the West to study are his eyes opened to that reality:
"What is important during the period [of study] is that when they read, the students are given an opportunity to compare the complexities of Western thought with the primitive nature of Arab and Islamic thought, as compiled by the scholars on each side. On top of this, they [the Arab and Muslim students] come to know the enormous body of scholarship by [Western] Orientalists in Islamic and [Arabic] literary studies, [which these Orientalists accomplished] by way of translation, or by exact scholarly philological editing, or by critical methodology.I cringe at most of the gross generalizations (primitive Arab thought?) but his larger point remains valid for discussion. Is the East ignoring Orientalist scholarship? If it is, is it doing it at its own peril? I know only of universities in Pakistan that seem not at all lacking in reading and consuming Western scholarship. Is the case different in Cairo? In Istanbul? Actually, I can also attest to Istanbul from being in classes with my Turkish colleagues who had read Hodgson before I ever picked him up. I have more to say but I have prattled on too long.
Monday, June 28, 2004 - 20:14
Comments
Department of Homeland Security is forging ahead with Highway Watch- a program to train truck drivers to spot terrorists on the road. Amanda Ripley reports in the Time that the program hopes to ultimately recruit up to 400,000 people. It is an off-shoot of Operation TiPs (DOJ) that urged people to keep an eye out for suspicious people. The Department of Homeland Security is conducting workshops where truckers are instructed in the fine art of terrorist-watching:
After the session in Little Rock, two newly initiated Highway Watch members sat down for the catered barbecue lunch. The truckers, who haul hazardous material across 48 states, explained how easy it is to spot"Islamics" on the road: just look for their turbans. Quite a few of them are truck drivers, says William Westfall of Van Buren, Ark."I'll be honest. They know they're not welcome at truck stops. There's still a lot of animosity toward Islamics." Eddie Dean of Fort Smith, Ark., also has little doubt about his ability to identify Muslims:"You can tell where they're from. You can hear their accents. They're not real clean people."That we live in a world that forces vigilance upon us for our own safety is undebatable. But we also live in a world where people get shot for wearing turbans or get arrested for saying"bring it down" at a Shoney's. Forget that the terrorists have no club rule that states membership is only for smelly, bearded arabs. Instead what alarms me is that hatred and suspicion is being legitimized by the State within civil society. These truckers are not public servants. They are ordinary citizens who will bring their now-validated prejudice to their communities. Wherever they interact with their fellow brown Americans, they will keep an eye askance. A member of the"Islamics" group, I am about to take a road trip for the 4th of July weekend. I will keep you posted if I see anyone suspicious.
Wednesday, June 30, 2004 - 16:11
Alan Wolfe, in NYT, has a nice, kinda snarky review of tomes from the likes of Moore, Coulter, Hannity, and many others. He argues that the current crop of"political" books and blogs are no better than pamphlets of 18th and 19th century America. Having read my fair share of pamphlets from c. 19th India, I am in complete agreement. The driving force is not logic, reason or argumentation but demonization of the Other and blatant preaching to the choir. Next, he argues that there is no"filtering" going on in the public sphere by university professors or the publishing execs etc. to judge the merit of these books leading to the anarchy of rabid opinion that rules the NYT non-fiction bestsellers list. He longs for the good old 50s and 60s when the political writers had gravitas and there was The Establishment-"a bipartisan group of bankers, politicians and journalists who shaped the contours of national opinion" - which looked out for rational debate.
Still, Wolfe would permit us these pamphleteers:
For all their ugliness of language and unpersuasive fury, then, the current crop of political pamphlets bears a striking resemblance to the increasingly democratic culture in which they flourish. If their authors are poorly versed in American history, so are the young executives talking about the election at the airport bar while waiting for their connecting flights. If these books treat their side as good and their opponents as evil, so do the sermons in our booming evangelical churches. The style is melodramatic, but that is also true of ''Troy.'' Our political culture cannot be immune from the rest of our culture. The model for political argument these days is not the Book-of-the-Month Club but TruckWorld.com. If the only choice we have is between no politics and vituperative politics, the latter is -- just barely -- preferable.Two observation came to my mind: One, does he have to be so condescending? We live in a polarized political landscape mired in foreign policy turmoil. People want to have opinions. These books are fast-food opinions (crack open any one and examine the typography) designed to be read quickly, in short bites and with key conclusions underlined and bolded. The historian in me shudders but the populist says,"So what?". This pamphleteering started during Clinton years and has continued. If Kerry wins, I think it will lose its steam. Kerry seems like a hard person about whom one can have a strong opinion. If Bush remains in office, we should see it escalated to Hatfield-McCoy territory. Second, given that the adult reading population is dwindling, what does it mean for us academic types who may want a piece of the general, non-fiction pie? Is there any room on B&N's main display left after all these books? Will there be even an audience left? Wouldn't a liberal or conservative reader, accustomed to the pamphlet-style book feel awkward when confronted with an actual work in popular history or politics? Would we be required to be more judgemental, polemical and accusatory in our writing...because that's what that sells? That is, what are the long term effects of these screeds on the publishing and reading worlds?
Saturday, July 10, 2004 - 11:58
I saw a religious man, who had fallen in love with a fellow to such a degree that he had neither strength to remain patient nor to bear the talk of the people but would not relinquish his attachment, despite of the reproaches he suffered and the grief he bore, saying:You may think that the conservative cultural forces arrayed against gay union(or marriage) in the US present a formidable challenge. They do, but look around you and you will find a culture that has made remarkable progress in the last 30 years in terms of gay acceptance. A look at a society where gay life hides in shadows and secrets is provided in Boston Globe's article, Open Secrets, on gays in Pakistan. Let me first state my objection to the tone of the essay which I find rather alarmist and hyperbolic in its attempt to present Pakistan as a Talibanized society repressed under religious law. The fact is that the Shari'ah Laws exist largely on paper and the society as a whole is perhaps the most liberal in the Islamic world. In Islamic history, you have a duality that is not even acknowledged in the article. Yes, the few verses of the Qur'an that address gay sex revolve around the fate of the people of Sodom and are fairly unforgiving. But at the same time, there is remarkable acceptance of homosexual love from both pre-Islamic and post-Islamic Arabia. Given that, the article is pretty accurate in its depiction of gay individuals in Pakistan. However, I would like to elaborate on two distinct aspects of gay experience that are only hinted at in the Globe piece.I shall not let go my hold of thy skirt I once reproached him, asking him what had become of his exquisite intellect so that it had been overcome by his base proclivity. He meditated a while and then said:
Even if thou strike me with a sharp sword.
After thee I have no refuge nor asylum.
To thee alone I shall flee if I flee.'Wherever love has become sultan
Piety's arm has no strength left.
How can a helpless fellow live purely
Who has sunk up to his neck in impurity?'--- Sa'di's Gulistan
First is the sexual act itself between two males which can usually be categorized as pederasty. The romanticization of a prepubescent boy has passed on in Perso-Islamicate culture from Grecian times. Most of Sufi poetry casts the boy as one of the many personifications of the Beloved (God). The romance of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna (d. 1030) and his slave boy Ayaz is part of Islamic legend. Mahmud gifted the throne of Lahore to his young lover. Another example is the grand love of Rumi and Shams Tabrizi. However, it is very hard for the historian to say that this love was physical in nature even if the expressions of longing and desire are often manifested in physical terms. In present day Afghanistan and NorthWest Pakistan, the tradition of keeping a young lover persists. However, in the metropolitan areas of Lahore or Karachi, this relationship is one of exploitation of the lowest classes by the haves. The article does not point out that this exploitation of children is gender neutral and that girls who find work in the homes of middle or upper class urban homes are just as likely to be assaulted and raped. The sad realities of these innocent children is not a gay issue and should be addressed unequivocally.
Second is the issue of those who identify themselves as gay having a safe, public life. This is where Islam-inspired homophobia, repression and denial emerge as overriding public sentiments. Pakistani gays exist closeted, marked by secret signs and settings. You know when someone is gay but you can never acknowledge that because what would be the use? Silence becomes the primary medium. There are many lifelong bachelors and aunts in a society geared explicitly toward marriage and procreation. In many ways, the repression of Victorian era England comes to mind. A stark departure from the pinings for the Beloved that had their space in Perso-Islamicate culture. The only community of fringe-dwellers publicly able to exist as pseudo-gay are the trans-gendered hijira who provide much needed sexual release for the straight males.
Gay Rights, unlike Women's Right or Minority Rights is not on the public spectrum of reformists or moderates in Pakistan. AIDS education is non-existent as well. One necessary step is to eliminate the abuse of children. The rest will be a long march. And some brave souls, like the Al Fatiha Foundation, have started on the path.x-posted on Chapati Mystery
Sunday, July 11, 2004 - 23:21
A highly recommended read today (besides the Barbara Ehrenreich op-ed) is Bill Moyer's Democracy in Balance.
THIS IS A TIME of testing - for people of faith and for people who believe in democracy. How do we nurture the healing side of religion over the killing side? How do we protect the soul of democracy against the contagion of a triumphalist theology in the service of an imperial state? At stake is America's role in the world. At stake is the very character of the American Experiment - whether"we, the people" is the political incarnation of a spiritual truth - one nation, indivisible - or a stupendous fraud.
Thursday, July 15, 2004 - 07:39
I don't watch Fox News (I get all my cable news from The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart, thank you). About a week ago, as I was waiting for a DVD to load, I found myself watching three experts on some FNN show. I have no idea what the show was (around 11 at night) but something caught my ear. The screen was divided into three panels and the first gentleman on the left opined,"We need to take France off our ally list and put them on the Enemies list". Whoa! I said. They seem mad at France. The second gentleman pipes in,"When France refused permission to Ronald Reagan's jets to fly through on their way to bombing Libya, they should have just bombed Paris." Huh! They are really mad. Surely the third person will be the" counter" expert and tell the others to find reason and restraint."What needs to happen is that some Ayrab needs to blow up the Eiffel Tower and THEN these people will understand that there is a war on terrah going on," thundered the last panel on my t.v. screen.
So, like I said. I don't watch Fox News but after that night, I decided to give my $ 10 to Robert Greenwald and his exposé OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Yesterday, I went to my first MoveOn.org organized screening at someone's house. It was an odd experience but the crowd was really nice and diverse. After the movie, we made some chitchat about bringing down the Man. Ok, I kid. The docu itself was ok. It effectively used the Moody memo's to show how the brass sets the agenda for the"news" everyday and how the other media outlets parrot Fox ("You can't outfox Fox"). The last few minutes were dedicated to the concentration of media in the hands of a few companies (News Corp., Clear Channel etc). I would have liked to see THAT exposé.
Still, the fact that people got together on a sunday to see a middling documentary about a cable news channel tells me something is afoot in this great nation.
So, like I said. I don't watch Fox News but after that night, I decided to give my $ 10 to Robert Greenwald and his exposé OutFoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism. Yesterday, I went to my first MoveOn.org organized screening at someone's house. It was an odd experience but the crowd was really nice and diverse. After the movie, we made some chitchat about bringing down the Man. Ok, I kid. The docu itself was ok. It effectively used the Moody memo's to show how the brass sets the agenda for the"news" everyday and how the other media outlets parrot Fox ("You can't outfox Fox"). The last few minutes were dedicated to the concentration of media in the hands of a few companies (News Corp., Clear Channel etc). I would have liked to see THAT exposé.
Still, the fact that people got together on a sunday to see a middling documentary about a cable news channel tells me something is afoot in this great nation.
Monday, July 19, 2004 - 09:21
I admit that I am a techno-geek. I also spend approx. 4 hours a day in the stacks here at Regenstein. So, this news about robotic librarians has me drooling for the last hour:
I don't see this impacting the role of the librarian but the work of hundreds of work-study students. My question is how will the OCR treat non-English text? And will this intervention of the AI give us newer ways of cataloguing and stacking? Like towers of books reaching skyhigh...
It can read the labels and the position of the book using its image processing and optical character recognition software," the professor said. Once the book is located, it has to grasp it and take it off the bookshelf, which is not a simple as it might seem. For this, the team had to develop special fingertips like a nails, with one nail longer than the other.
Professor Pobil said it was a"real possibility" that teams of robots could, in about five years' time, realistically perform searching and fetching tasks. They could even mill around doing their work at night, working on library inventories, or identifying missing books, or mapping libraries.
I don't see this impacting the role of the librarian but the work of hundreds of work-study students. My question is how will the OCR treat non-English text? And will this intervention of the AI give us newer ways of cataloguing and stacking? Like towers of books reaching skyhigh...
And as to my reference to Historians....
2. Take the algorithm that runs Google News which aggregates information without any human intervention.
+ 2. Add to it Amazon's A9 engine which has hundreds of thousands of books scanned.
= Wait patiently for the AI to improve for the next 5 years.
4. Voilá. A Historian Engine that can process through any set of academic data and spit out a rational, logical arrangement of facts and analysis. No?
Ok. I know I am reaching here but given that most mechanical jobs have or will soon be lost to robotic industry, how long before the Ivory Tower comes under seige? Do the publishing industry really needs a Ph.D. to come out with A Quick Guide to Irish History when a program can arrange the facts into a simple narrative?
We already have the AI to piss off republicans.
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 - 15:29
In this week's Economic & Political Weekly, is a must-read article by Tirthankar Roy entitled, Economic History: An Endangered Discipline. I don't know how long that link will stay, so I will briefly describe Roy's argument.
Roy begins by noting that economic history which once held sway in Indian historiography has found itself battling irrelevance after the 90s. It no longer commands any interest in research universities or public policy, which is in marked contrast to the position it enjoyed in Nehru's India. Roy blames the dominance of"old school" establishment of historians who pushed their particular paradigm of Indian past to the exclusion of all others. When that paradigm failed, it took with it the entire field.
Roy doesn't name names but I'd venture that the"old school" is represented by Dutt, Chaudhri, Gadgil, Naoroji and, of course, Irfan Habib - who does come in for some ribbing. Their idea of Indian past is termed the"imperialist-underdevelopment axis" - which operated on the belief that there is a sharp contrast between pre-colonial and colonial Indian economies:
The paradigm thus tied markets to the centrality of the political state. The nationalist historians championed this vision which was picked up by the Nehru state as public policy. In post-Independence India, Roy states,
The market reforms of the 90s (led in no small part by the current PM Manmohan Singh) changed public policy and that change relegated the underpining historical narrative to dusty bookshelves. In the last part of his analysis, Roy proposes to shift the focus of any history of India's economic past away from politics to structures. This would stress continuity of local and global patterns of change and reform without being beholden to political changes. Capital, labor and risk will be central to this new paradigm.
In a sense, Roy is making a case for making economic history relevant again. The death-knell on the old school was rung not just by reforms of the 90s but by the rise of the postcolonial schools of historiography which changed the focus of Indian past towards cultural and social practices.
The article raises one fundamental question. What happens to scholarship after it goes out of vogue or becomes discredited? And how does one actual do history without falling into that trap? It is a question with far greater relevance than just economic history. How is the current breed of Indian historian to read the Orientalists in a post-nationalist framework? What about the subalternists who knocked so many off their horses, and are facing their own good night? Speaking of myself, one of the reasons I have always preferred histories of process and ideas is that I do not see them contorting evidence to fit a particular mold. Trendy things frighten me.
Roy begins by noting that economic history which once held sway in Indian historiography has found itself battling irrelevance after the 90s. It no longer commands any interest in research universities or public policy, which is in marked contrast to the position it enjoyed in Nehru's India. Roy blames the dominance of"old school" establishment of historians who pushed their particular paradigm of Indian past to the exclusion of all others. When that paradigm failed, it took with it the entire field.
Roy doesn't name names but I'd venture that the"old school" is represented by Dutt, Chaudhri, Gadgil, Naoroji and, of course, Irfan Habib - who does come in for some ribbing. Their idea of Indian past is termed the"imperialist-underdevelopment axis" - which operated on the belief that there is a sharp contrast between pre-colonial and colonial Indian economies:
The old school thesis was that the poor rate of growth was manmade. Colonial policies and the market economy that emerged repressed Indian growth potentials. This approach held that the Indian economy on the eve of colonialism had the potentials to experience rapid economic growth, but those potentials were destroyed by colonialism. It believed in a broad identity of interest between colonialism and the local economic elite, and held that alliance responsible for retardation of the Indian economy in the colonial period.
The paradigm thus tied markets to the centrality of the political state. The nationalist historians championed this vision which was picked up by the Nehru state as public policy. In post-Independence India, Roy states,
Economists and historians agreed that markets and the open economy were instruments that needed to be restrained, if used at all. Historians thereby gave meaning to a regime that intervened heavily to restrain market forces and international relations.
The market reforms of the 90s (led in no small part by the current PM Manmohan Singh) changed public policy and that change relegated the underpining historical narrative to dusty bookshelves. In the last part of his analysis, Roy proposes to shift the focus of any history of India's economic past away from politics to structures. This would stress continuity of local and global patterns of change and reform without being beholden to political changes. Capital, labor and risk will be central to this new paradigm.
In a sense, Roy is making a case for making economic history relevant again. The death-knell on the old school was rung not just by reforms of the 90s but by the rise of the postcolonial schools of historiography which changed the focus of Indian past towards cultural and social practices.
The article raises one fundamental question. What happens to scholarship after it goes out of vogue or becomes discredited? And how does one actual do history without falling into that trap? It is a question with far greater relevance than just economic history. How is the current breed of Indian historian to read the Orientalists in a post-nationalist framework? What about the subalternists who knocked so many off their horses, and are facing their own good night? Speaking of myself, one of the reasons I have always preferred histories of process and ideas is that I do not see them contorting evidence to fit a particular mold. Trendy things frighten me.
Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 16:37
Well, not really. I just made that up. You might remember that little tempest few months back when Kerry supposedly said that foreign leaders support his candidacy. Tom Delay et. al went to town labeling Kerry with endorsements from Kim Jong II and Jacques Chirac. That aside, I have been very curious about how the regions most affected by a Kerry presidency - Middle East and South Asia - think of him. I read the press in South Asia and the Gulf pretty closely after the Democratic Convention to guage their reaction.
Bottomline: Crickets Chirping.
South Asian English press carried coverage from Reuters and AP but no one had any reporters on the ground. We know that al-Jazeera was at the Fleet Center (the DNC had them take their banner down) and they have not been particularly kind to Kerry. The theme seems to be that there is little or no difference between Kerry and Bush and that the imperialist program will continue.
The central point in that understanding is Kerry's support of Sharon and his policies in Israel. It is highlighted that he has distant Jewish ancestory which makes him a complete and utter supporter of AIPAC. Both themes are highlighted in this editorial cartoon from PakTribune.
The Pakistani press (especially the Urdu) remains wary of Kerry - insisting that Republican presidencies are much nicer to Pakistan than Democratic ones. They do have a point. Recently sacked (uh, retired) PM Jamali even called for Bush re-election before HQ stopped his extemporaneous interviews. In an editorial column few days ago, Nawa-i Waqt highlighted the difficulties facing Kerry's bid and painted him as a cardboard stiff. My sense from reading it was that they just re-used the column from 2000 about Gore.
In India, the situation is similiar as outsourcing is a hot topic. With his protectionist platform, Kerry has not earned any free points in most newspapers. Though unpopularity of Bush remains the over-riding motif.
In fact, as I write this, I am convinced that Bush continues to dominate all news analysis and vitriol. Which could give Kerry a relatively clean slate when he begins his tenure.
Bottomline: Crickets Chirping.
South Asian English press carried coverage from Reuters and AP but no one had any reporters on the ground. We know that al-Jazeera was at the Fleet Center (the DNC had them take their banner down) and they have not been particularly kind to Kerry. The theme seems to be that there is little or no difference between Kerry and Bush and that the imperialist program will continue.
The central point in that understanding is Kerry's support of Sharon and his policies in Israel. It is highlighted that he has distant Jewish ancestory which makes him a complete and utter supporter of AIPAC. Both themes are highlighted in this editorial cartoon from PakTribune.
The Pakistani press (especially the Urdu) remains wary of Kerry - insisting that Republican presidencies are much nicer to Pakistan than Democratic ones. They do have a point. Recently sacked (uh, retired) PM Jamali even called for Bush re-election before HQ stopped his extemporaneous interviews. In an editorial column few days ago, Nawa-i Waqt highlighted the difficulties facing Kerry's bid and painted him as a cardboard stiff. My sense from reading it was that they just re-used the column from 2000 about Gore.
In India, the situation is similiar as outsourcing is a hot topic. With his protectionist platform, Kerry has not earned any free points in most newspapers. Though unpopularity of Bush remains the over-riding motif.
In fact, as I write this, I am convinced that Bush continues to dominate all news analysis and vitriol. Which could give Kerry a relatively clean slate when he begins his tenure.
Tuesday, August 3, 2004 - 22:11
In celebration of India (and Pakistan's) Independence, Outlook India - a monthly magazine - is having a stellar series asking historians/journalists and activists to imagine some contrafactuals in the Indian past. What a way to start a weekend!
I highly recommend the ones written by my favorite historians of South Asia:
Shahid Amin imagines an India without trucks:
Modern India is unimaginable without colonialism, and pucca colonialism without the railways, the lines that ran on desi steam for firenghi profit. The railways made all of us Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-Isai what we are. They helped push goods and ideas around, eased pilgrimages to various teerths, and allowed that inveterate passenger, M.K. Gandhi, to carry his message to the thousands thronging wayside stations for a fleeting darshan: the Mahatma had set guidelines for how effusive nationalists were to exercise platform discipline. But the odd steam-gurgling ‘lorry’ aside, the sahib’s simply yoked their steel-rails to our mricchakatikam-style bullock carts. So that Devdas Dilip Kumar’s final train journey to Paro ends dramatically on a creaking bailgari, and the hooch that would lay waste the less affluent came to mufassil warehouses well into the mid-sixties in bonded barrels carted by a pair of bullocks.Irfan Habib imagines a Hindu fundamentalist India:
What if there’d been turning points at which we did become a Hindu state?Ainslie Embree imagines a united sub-continent:
This scenario is so difficult because that means we should have had a different kind of national movement, we would have no Karachi resolution of 1931...you can be counter-factual but you can’t be to such a degree. How the whole national movement was constructed around the Congress and other parties also prevented the formation of a Hindu state. As Gandhiji said,"The nation is not built on religion." And of course, there were other elements in the national struggle like equality of women. Hindu-Muslim unity was not the only touchstone for secularism. Secularism means you rely on reason, not religion.
I would like to suggest that while many of those great ideals have been fulfilled for the Indian people in the India that came into being on August 15, 1947, they might have been more fully realised, not just for India but for all the people of South Asia, had the Cabinet Mission’s three-tier constitutional idea been adopted. It is a very big ‘What if?’And finally Mushirul Hasan takes on the history of communalism in India:History cannot be reversed, but the realisation that there was nothing inherently improbable in a very different scenario in 1946 surely helps in looking at South Asia in a different way in 2004.
- A three-tiered India would have had at least the same industrialisation that has occurred and the areas that are now Pakistan and Bangladesh would have profited from it. It would have been a vast"free trade zone" with no equal in the world.
- It would have been a democratic republic, without military dictators. There would seem to be no reason why Muslim voters could not have exercised their franchise, just as they do in present-day India.
- This vast new India would have been a secular state, fulfilling the dream so often enunciated by Indian leaders both before and after 1947. Nehru’s commitment to secularism can scarcely be doubted. To that must be added a reminder of Jinnah’s speech on August 11, 1947:"You can belong to any religion or caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State. We are all citizens and equal citizens of one State." Would not he and Nehru—and a host of others—have said that for the Three-Tier India?
brilliant.Q. So obviously we go back to the question, why Partition then? And what if Partition had not happened? Of course, the non-serious answer is that we would have had a great Cricket team, but would there not have been obvious problems of governance?
A. Well [smiles] united India was governable under Akbar in the 16th century.
Q. But then it was a different geographical entity and he was busy all those 50+ years in fighting those opposed to his rule and conquests...
A. No, the Mughal Empire was run through a very efficient bureaucratic apparatus. So governability wasn't really a problem. Governability is not the main issue. The man issue is what has acquired salience now. i.e. the distribution of power. Whether it is Mandal or the opposition to reservation for SCs and OBCs. The centrality of distribution of authority and power is the key question in a society that is socially stratified and a society that is so unevenly developed. So in an unevenly developed region, caste antipathies become extremely important. In an undeveloped society, the struggle for loaves and fishes becomes even more intense. So if a young student asks me what Partition is all about, my answer is: Don't look at it as a conflict between two communities, because if you begin to do that you would not understand the struggle for the levers of power and the struggle. That struggle is at a higher level when you and me compete for a position in government, but there are other deeper level of society where the introduction of new institutions create conflicts among people who have lived together for centuries amicably.
Saturday, August 14, 2004 - 12:18
Home | Free Newsletter | Submissions | Advertising | Donations | Archives | Internships | About Us | Privacy Policy | FAQs | Contact Us | All Articles
Paid Advertisements
Find jobs Millsberry Find jobs Web Design Forums Business Gifts 
DHgate.com
http://www.schoolexpress.com| http://www.sciencereviewgames.com| http://www.JoanneJacobs.com|