Identity and Intolerance

I was reading a review of Amartya Sen's book 'Identity and Violence'. According to the reviewer, the book argues for the reasonableness of the violence of identity. Quoting few paragraphs of review here will be necessary to form basis of mine essay.

"He (Sen) takes aim at what he calls the 'solitarist' approach to human identity, which sees human beings as members of exactly one group. In a related vein, Sen criticizes the solitarist approach to civilizations. Influential texts like Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order" take a drubbing for assuming monolithic Western and Eastern civilizations.

The originality of this critique is that it eschews trite appeals to the common humanity of those in savage conflict. Instead, Sen invokes the myriad identities within each individual. Because all of us contain multitudes, we can choose among our identities, emphasizing those we share with others rather than those we do not. Sen acknowledges, as he must, that such choices will be limited by external circumstances. Still, to concede that identity choices are constrained is a far cry from the claim that identity is destiny.

The strength of Sen's argument lies in its intuitive nature: "In our normal lives we see ourselves as members of a variety of groups." Its weakness lies in its failure to explain why, at critical junctures, we disown that knowledge."

I am puzzled by such intricate relation of identity, tolerance and violence while going through this piece only. Identity is the one of the basic cultural aspect that is inherited and believed by an individual in any society. Most of our identities can be communal, religious, regional, ethnic, national and even sectarian in the nature. Belonging to fanboy clubs or to the political party establish ours identity in the society.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam as religions based on sacred books, all want the whole world in their own image – this is their identity, to which all alterities must – they so wish – yield. This monotheistic vision has led to the crusades, holocaust and many wars among the believers. Even in the today’s Europe, with its increasingly bland, homogenized culture, there is little room for those who want to march to the beat of a different drummer. Whether it’s Muslims who dress differently, or gypsies who want to live according to their traditional way of life, more people in the West are insisting that they don’t want to live with communities who do not conform.

While the eastern religions celebrate diversity, they have their own pitfalls. Despite of several years of co existence, there is an unwritten rule of not mingling through marriage of one religion or caste. The caste system by associating certain identities- upper caste denominations like with power and privilege while disempowering untouchables has in fact institutionalized violence on a daily basis in Indian society.

There are beliefs attached to the institutions that each one perceives regarding 'others' those who don't share their customs and perceptions. The idea of untouchability, the idea that woman is a temptress and inferior to man, and the idea that homosexuality is a mortal sin that is punishable by death, are not benign private beliefs. So is not the idea that apostates, blasphemers, and unbelievers can, and should be, exterminated. Even few victims of such nonsense beliefs became part of mainstream, fewer raise their concern. Most of them are done muted by institutional propaganda.

Basically, tolerance is not practising someone else’s rituals. It is taken as accepting someone else ritual should have same respect as yours. Tolerance is a tool to defuse violent religious conflict and reduce persecution of cultural, racial, ethnic, and sexual identities. Tolerate is not to affirm but to conditionally allow what is unwanted or deviant. Heavy with lofty norms and consolidating the dominance of the powerful, tolerance sustains the abjection of the tolerated in such societies . The core differences are never resolved even after passing of long time and co existence does not solve the problem.

Identities such as developed, developing and backward have played a key role in the shaping of economic and social policies in formation of modern world with all the negative consequences of such policies being brushed aside as a trade off for achieving prosperity or civilizing others. That is another aspect of the violence and exploitation done in the name of the cultural supremacy and development.

Book Reviewer ask us few questions about identities that are still unanswered in my mind : Is it because human cognition tends to trade in binaries? Is it because violence creates identity as much as identity creates violence? Is it because human beings fear the choices or solitude a more cosmopolitan outlook would force them to face?

Blind Faith - Denialism

Continuing our exploration of the blind faith, this part of essay will focus on Denialism. First part of the trilogy was on Prohibition. Generally, Denialism is taken as choosing to deny reality as a way to avoid an uncomfortable truth. It is much more than that. Denialism is not simply the knee-jerk refusal to accept the truth, it is a deliberate and often sophisticated attempt to create a kind of pseudo scholarship.

Attacks on scientific consensus employ the simulacra of scholarship and a deceptively readable idiom. Those who debunk the deniers tend to be old-fashioned rationalists or committed activists. Neither group are particularly well suited to looking at the deeper reasons behind denialism, warns Keith Kahn-Harris. We can better read about denialism in this essay Unreasonable Doubt in much precise analytical way. Just quoting one paragraph here -

But one of the most serious failings of a rational, scientific enlightenment is its propensity to be turned against itself, as when a firm scholarly consensus is attacked in the name of scholarship. You can find this subversion of enlightenment in quasi-academic claims that there was no Holocaust during World War Two, that other genocides such as the Armenian genocide never happened, that man-made climate change is a myth, that HIV does not cause AIDS, that evolution is a lie. More broadly, you can find it in the attempts of vested interests – industries, politicians and elites – to refute inconvenient scientific findings.

Basically according to this mindset, one should not introspect and work towards seeking constructive feedback of one's actions and instead find similar faults of others and indirectly justify ourselves. This holds true from nation to individual. Conspiracy theories blooms in such environments led by elites turning backs to any sort of criticism.

Let us take example of or suicide bomb attacks in Pakistan recently. But, instead of seeing the cause of the terrorist acts, the Denial Brigade of Denialistan assert that this must be the doing of anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan forces, or of elements within the regime, such as intelligence agencies. The basic strategy is to mention the names of India, America and Israel for any wrong done in order to fuel the revulsion that already exists in Pakistan against them and to discredit the other argument not by presenting valid arguments but by presenting excuses. The complete denial of failing of Pakistan as a nation due to Talibani and Wahabi forces has already created a havoc situation in Pakistan. State of Denial And Apologetic Defense by Raza Habib Raja clearly describe the situation denial has created in a nation form on the religious faith only.

It is evident that the more one deny own moral and ideological failings, the more aggressive and prominent the physical expressions of our inner most religious and ideological prejudices and hypocrisies become. As this attitude leaves practically no space to the liberals and silent reformers. A failed state doesn't allow any grown-up internal debate, or any appeal against the divine edict. This will swiftly accelerate to an even more failed state and then a rogue one because its limitless paranoia and self-pity must be projected outward.

The tendency to blame external elements for all problems can only be countered by efforts at transparency and seriousness about conflicts. I would like to end this by dedicating the following quote as David Aaronovitch explains in his excellent guidebook Voodoo Histories: "If it can be proved that there has been a conspiracy which has transformed politics and society, then their defeat is not the product of their own inherent weakness or popularity, let alone their mistakes; it is due to the almost demonic ruthlessness of their enemy."

State Violence

Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a privilege that must be earned before it can be enjoyed. It's a quote by a 19th century English cleric and writer, Charles Caleb Colton, which can be found in his 1820 publication "Lacon, or Many Things in Few Words, addressed to those who think".

When a state become involved in any cultural or physical warfare, the identities of people began to change in the public. New symbols have to be waved loud and pertaining to exhibitionism. There is always persecution of people with different opinion that party high command found is seen in every communist nation. Ethnically targeted state repression in Balkan countries where Slovak, Czech, Muslims, Serbs Croats and Roma people are targeting each other based on demographic strength. While the worse form comes in the military dictatorship where authority exploit the majority for their like in Burma and North Korea.

There is nothing to compare with the courage of ordinary people whose names are unknown and sacrifices pass un noticed. The courage that dares without recognition, without protection of media attention is a courage that humbles, inspires and re affirms our faith in humanity. They are the carriers of endurance and struggle against unjust system.

There is an intimate and indissoluble link between intellectual and political freedom. There will be no security for dissidents and their families as long as freedom of thought and freedom of political action are guaranteed by the law of the land. We want to have public policies with a view to promoting an open, secure political system based on confidence and credibility. Those believed in intellectual freedom and justice should be vanguard of democratic movement.

What about democratic Indian state in violence against minority ? Let us take the case of state of Gujarat . Majority of voters are Hindus and they have chosen Narendra Modi due to his efficient application of administrative policies and communal polarization of votes. Despite all his baggage and hate agenda, Narendra Modi may have been the first politician to demonstrate his voters how market works better than any corrupt subsidy system. But what is the choice of minority, either to die in hunger like BIMARU states or with communal hatred in the most prosperous state ?

Richard Holbrooke said with reference to the Yugoslavia of the 1990s: Suppose elections are free and fair and those elected are racists, fascists, separatists — that is the dilemma. Nationalism on the wave of such parties need to be resisted, for they promote daydreaming and they blur our idea of justice, equality and fraternity.

If bad people with the state power hurt someone I love, how far would I go to punish criminals back? I assume that I will go for non violent path through judicial courts initially. If I will have no option left, surely will take arms against repression. And thus will betray my own stand in the power of non violent means, this is mine personal dilemma.

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