A Question on Islam

Why "moderate" Muslims almost never admit that Muslim terrorists are doing acts of terror in placing their supreme faith in the Islam ?

I will explain this with a fallacy what is called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, a fallacy of equivocation and question begging. Here it is, from Thinking about Thinking (1975), by Andrew Flew:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again.” Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing.” The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing.”

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of assertion to tautologically exclude the specific case. That is what done by liberal Muslims all over the world on the issue of Islamic terrorism.

In the debate about Islam, all the points are taken from Koran only as it is some sort of scientific journal updated to the latest version daily. No question has been raised on the authority and validity of the Koranic palms written in 600 AD. Instead of quoting Koran as a source of universal wisdom in a logical debate, Koran should be openly, freely and publicly subjected to the kind of historical and philological scholarship. Some interpret it to preach peace while others interpret it to preach hate and both the sections are convinced about their interpretations. There is such manipulation of language and such massive double standards, that goes beyond sound reasoning ground.

Few liberal Muslims often quote the Koranic verse: 'There shall be no compulsion in religion'. For a Muslim wishing to leave Islam this is simply not true. Even few victims became part of mainstream, fewer raise their concern. Most of them are done muted by institutional propaganda. Islam reveals itself as a closed system that precludes any critical thought about itself, as well as any fair and honest dealings with non-Muslims.

While all the dogmas of the religions have been suppressed by society's need to embrace materialistic needs and custom of their non Islamic neighbours, Islam has a great tendency to exclude even after hundred years of co existence in a diverse society. Islamic institution forces Muslims to go back in ghetto on the criterion of piousness and purity mentioned in Koran set as per dark ages. And there is no distinction between teachings of the Koran and the anachronistic 7th century Arabian tribal customs.

Observing a rise of radical Islam in diverse societies, Christopher Caldwell, a journalist reporting on Muslims in Europe concluded : "It was not just that young Muslims were assimilating too slowly into European culture as the generations passed, it was that they were dis-assimilating." What we are witnessing today is a shift from a Muslim to an Islamic identity. The religious self for individual Muslims is being shifted from the private to the public realm. Rather than encouraging their next generation to integrate in the society, Islamic institutes today seek to insulate them from secular values. Some of these young people become quickly radicalised, and seek clarity in the black-and-white world of religious extremism. Unfortunately, too many of them lack the education to realise that ultimately, no set of beliefs or values are inherently inferior or superior to another.

While Islamic fundamentalism is a reaction to political corruption in Islamic nations: modernizing movements failed to provide their citizens with the fruits of modernity and instead developed into authoritarian-style regimes. The only place for resistance and opposition has been the mosque. Nevertheless, the decision to oppose modernity in the form of the West is a sign of weakness.

I personally assume, Muslims as individuals capable of accepting cultural norm of others very easily and Islam as an institution going towards reform very slowly. Still question of dis-assimilation of Muslims from mainstream for separate identity remains. It will lead to coexistence of Muslims in a nervous society that suspects every devout Muslim of being a potential terrorist.

Waiting for Ayodhya Verdict

Using Hinduism or Islam as a badge of cultural identity rather than acting from the tenets of humanism has sown seeds of bigotry and hate in us. We misguided look at the past for golden age to prototype our utopia of the future. Faith dilutes the rational thinking of the people and the destruction of Babri Masjid was one shameful incident of independent India based on such blind faith.

Under the evil ideology, people lose humanity & descend into organized homicidal insane savagery. I sum up the religious glorification concept in this line. One has to unsubscribe to our polite cultural belief of respecting religions. There is a circle of violence in the name of religion going on and there is no pinpoint for me to mark the origin point. Sometimes we evaluate history using contemporary reasoning and perhaps misrepresent the events in our minds. But, the overall look on the development of religion as institutions will help in seeing the corrosion of its principles. Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules, it ceases to be a religion, as it kills responsibility which is an essence of the true religious act.

Repetition, a lack of awareness around sound practices, and varying degrees of commitment inevitably create different rates of success. We don't have to go for the entire cycle of suffering before we look for relief. Crisis gives chance to innovate and make a society seek and make fundamental changes in its thinking and policies. There is always an alternative route to social justice that is more sustainable than the other societies chose. Reforms require key controversial steps but without compassion and love, all the efforts will go in vain. This judicial verdict is the moment in our history that will shape up the future of this secular country.

There is a fear of reasoning in faith issues as it is the fear of hearing two voices in our head while submitting blindly to the authority for protection is easy. Understanding gives us more reason to co-exist together than to falsely pretend of respecting each other. Unity in diversity has to be the principle of those who genuinely wish to build a country of a variety of languages, cultures, and beliefs. Only a society that tolerant opinions and attitudes different from its own will be able to create a where people of diverse traditions and aspirations can breathe freely in an atmosphere of mutual trust and understanding. We have to give way to love and reasoning than to go for easy labels, stereotyping, and violence. Stereotyping has to go away otherwise how much I raise the voice, it will be dismissed as pseudo-secular and veiled middle class and upper caste opinion rather than a sound view of the citizen.

The ability to empathize is directly is to put yourself in the place of another through consciousness and share the sadness and joy of fellow humans. This random virtue will pull you into the category of revolutionary. I am a revolutionary due to my love for deadly truths than noble lies. In the words of Che Guevara - “Above all, try always to be able to feel deeply any injustice committed against any person in any part of the world. It is the most beautiful quality of a revolutionary.”

Today, Indians think as partisans, not citizens. Today Ayodhya verdict will be delivered by the judiciary. I don't know the future of the nation, but it heavily depends on our reactions and wisdom. We have to be right than righteous in shaping our attitudes towards each other. We all want the world to be free from the conflict and wars haunting us from nomadic times. Let the peace prevails...

"For a successful revolution it is not enough that there is discontent. What is required is a profound and thorough conviction of the justice, necessity and importance of political and social rights." -B. R. Ambedkar

On Writing

Only a fool writes for anything but money, the compassionate and learned can share his knowledge about anything under the sun for hours. One should write for what one stands for and not what the people demands. Writing helps in facing our fears, aspirations, perceptions and illusions about ourselves with a frankness that makes the portraits and stories as engrossing as they are disturbing.

There were three basic parameters for good writers considered by me. They are command over language, observation power and experience.

1- Language is natural fracture across communities and it will always be. I can't boast of proficiency in a foreign language like English without having a good command over my own mother tongue. Learning metaphors in a language is like deep water diving into clean ocean. Gradually, one enjoys subtle humor in generating charm through understanding of medium.

2- I was advised by a reader to observe at least for 10 minutes. I started this in local transport and found faces and hand movements beautiful. This observation was dropped by me further as I only tried to be receptive and become aware of the world around me.

3- I am a poor writer in the fiction genre. The experience is missing in the life, a statement that was aptly put by Werener Herzog about film making. It was just opposite to the world of Thoreau that takes the path of thr woods.

Go out to where the real world is, go work as a bouncer in a sex – club, a warden in a lunatic asylum or in a slaughterhouse. Walk on foot, learn languages, learn a craft or trade that has nothing to do with cinema. Filmmaking must have experience of life at its foundation. I know that so much of what is in my films is not just invention, it is very much life itself, my own life. ---  Werner Herzog

The cultural part is hugely reflected in our writing as it embarks our search of identity. There is a constant state of euphoria in the name of entertainment and dose of reality is always injected to come out of it. Also describing this in words of Czech writer Milan Kundera, an individual need to keep intact personal narratives that the state tears apart by violence, undermines by erasure, and unravels by substituting personal testimonies with official documents.

We should never underestimate power of story and myths. Story-telling, history and memory play vital parts in building this 'whole' Identity of the Individual, society and Nations. That can be the power of fiction in the world full of lies and deception.

There is a quote in Shakespeare play, King Lear : We will all laugh at gilded butterflies. A butterfly is already something of great beauty and functionality. Gold leafing it is an example of human arrogance in thinking that gilding a butterfly makes it better when in fact, it would destroy both its great natural beauty and its ability to fly. In the pursuit of fame and success, save your true nature within...

I will quote Jigna Kothari's article from PFC to end mine opinions:  To sum up what everyone was trying to point out when you don the hat of the writer is:

-Know your culture and stay true to it.
-Don’t be ashamed of your roots because that’s what made you. Reflect that in your story.
-Be sensitive to whats happening around you and try and reflect that in words.
-Don’t think global, think desi. It is not about reaching the audiences far and wide it is about reaching the heart of the person you are narrating to.
-Don’t slot your stories in commercial or off beat arena.
-Write in the language that you understand.
-Believe in what you write.

Caste in India

I was reading an article about casteism by Aditya Nigam published under Caste Politics in India in an South Asian journal. Quoting a paragraph on Mandal commission will be necessary :

"What was interesting about the agitation and the highly charged public debate that followed, was that it was entirely conducted, from the side of the opponents of the Mandal Commission, in the most immaculate secular and modern language of ‘merit’ and ‘efficiency’. The question was posed as one of dilution, if not the elimination, of merit at the cost of getting in ‘unworthy’ and ‘undeserving’ people simply because they happened to belong to certain castes. 'Would you like to be operated upon by a doctor who had became one through reservations?' 'Would you like to fly by an aircraft that was piloted by a reservation pilot?' Such were the kinds of questions that were asked by the anti-Mandalites in these discussions. Not once was the question of upper-caste and brahminical privilege ever articulated as a question of caste-privilege. Even more interesting was the fact that the more sophisticated among the anti-Mandalites were prepared to accept that there was a question of privilege involved here but that should be addressed in terms of ‘class’: that ‘economic’ rather than caste criteria should be made the basis of reservations. The question was really one of poverty, they argued, rather than that of caste."

A village, normally speaking, is backward intellectually and culturally and no progress can be made from a backward environment. Narrow-minded people are much more likely to be untruthful and violent. - J N Nehru.

This quote about rural areas will take our discussion further.  While chacha Nehru was right in his analysis, he did little to provide basic infrastructure of primary and secondary education in rural areas. Democracy introduced before an industrial revolution takes hold, dramatically tilts power to rural areas. Indian movies of those times where protagonist from cities where evil and villainous if not then unreliable confirms stereotyping ;

Land is an assest in the villages that shows the hold of any caste in the region. The green revolution had come to India and turned many mid level peasant castes into prosperous communities who will form a localized group aspired for political voice matched with new economic strength. Now, this group emerges as more powerful faction and higher caste movement towards cities for better life style started with the backup of resources at the country side. So inequality prevails even after abolition of Zamindari system and rise of service class as reach of education was mostly limited to GE and OBC groups.

More can be read on this issue in Ramchandra Guha book : India after Gandhi; However the political impact of this was visible in UP in 1993. Going with Aditya article only ---

"The problem however, began after the first alliance of the BSP and the Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh Yadav, representing the backward castes formed its government in UP in 1993. Within a short time it became apparent that as soon as the political pact that was forged between the parties moved toward the countryside, sharp conflicts between the two groups began playing themselves out. It was during the panchayat elections that the conflicts became really serious and many Dalit leaders and intellectuals realised that much of their present conflict in the villages was with the dominant backward castes who had consolidated their hold following the post-independence land reforms. In many states, it was these castes, comprising the erstwhile tenants, now become landowners, who were their main oppressors. And they were not willing to change their attitude towards Dalits in everyday matters, even in the face of the political alliance at the state level. In many areas it was they who had been preventing the Dalits even from casting their votes."

Urban areas are politically catalyst for political reforms till now in India. It was in cities that political dissent against imperial rule emerged and where educated middle class began to migrate after the independence. Primary centers of new ideas, intellectuals and university across all fields of art, science and economics are currently working in urban areas. Our romantic and aesthetic view of village is wrong as change in economic conditions of Dalits has not much affected their social status in villages. It is not that urban areas are immune the caste factor but it is less in comparison to our villages. Only political equality has been established through reservation in government, the social equality is a far distant dream today.

Urban or Rural societies much like many other human attributes, occur along a continuum ranging from the dysfunctional to the good. Not all of them in all their aspects are good. Many advantages are inherited than inherent in the upper caste who lives with an air of superiority. Also, norms of quality, merit and talent are governed by market forces not through the idealistic notion of merit and talent.

I have written a poor quality write up on such a serious issue. On Caste Privilege by Namit Sir will explain this caste mentality in a superb way.

My World

I sit in the solitude to become aware of the world and I was preparing in the silence to sail around the world. Brief spot of consciousness has zero thoughts in it. Imagination complete the illusion and fabrication of the memory fills the void of time, it is just wonderful. And when one is faced with the prospect of death very soon, one begin to think very much about everything. One become very creative, not in a survival sense but in a exploration sense. One need to understanding own nature, as many times one can know too much to be able to have a sound understanding. Even good ideas are sometime encumbered by conventional wisdom.

I learn and teach creativity and dissidence. It's not about exchanging one individual for another individual. To change the basis of the system, the basis of patriarchy, the basis of class, there needs to question authority and provision of the solution as well.

Anybody if knows Mark Twain's dictum: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." I bother about culture and various issues because we choose to go into the issues deliberately blind stumbling in the very places the persons, countries and societies before us did, and repeating their mistakes one by one. We can already see from where we stand and can innovate new model for avoiding conflicts.

Naming limit the person, relations and crushes the soul search of identity within. Yayaver is name where one moves and observe life in an unattached way. That may be the path of philosopher, but the greater one is the musings of the poet. As there heart precedes mind and there is only deep peace after a long wandering !

“I'm a stenographer of my mind. I write down what passes through it, not what goes on around me. I'm a poet.” - Allen Ginsberg