LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND MINORITY RIGHTS

[Joe Shearer]

you wish to direct those to me?? please do, by pm i presume.

No, no, for general consumption. I don't quite know how pm works here.

 

[VCheng]

No, no, for general consumption. I don't quite know how pm works here.

I think I still have your email address to which I just sent an email.

 

[jamahir]

No, no, for general consumption. I don't quite know how pm works here.

well, then the only possible stoppage will be whether that mailing-list will object to their comments being reproduced on this open forum.

maybe you can do it by removing the names.

 

[Bang Galore]

I would like to reproduce some of the remarks made, not on the forum I mentioned, but on a very private restricted Indo-Pakistani mailing list.

Please do. Would be interested.

 

[Joe Shearer]

well, then the only possible stoppage will be whether that mailing-list will object to their comments being reproduced on this open forum.

maybe you can do it by removing the names.

I've anonymised it with the original names from PTH, when we were all members (oops, nearly all), and I'm awaiting permission.

Meanwhile I want to post this single, very thoughtful post by one of those whom I like reading the most, even more than Gorki: when you read it, @Bang Galore , please note that HP reminds me of some on this forum, but not of you:

Gorki, I believe India and Pakistan are at different places of what is ultimately an ideological battle against their own citizens who hold or are attracted to a fundamentally different world view to a liberal multicultural society recognising individual rights. In India the struggle is commencing.


The vast majority of our populace lives in a world where political, religious and economic coercion is the only norm which they experience. They therefore do their politics that way. Our ultimate victory will be when that mindset changes.

Pakistani liberals have been longer in this struggle. Perhaps we have acquired a certain insight into how long it takes the penny to drop even amongst liberals, how these things play out in practice, how the other side is sponsored and gathers strength, what the other side's talking points are, what the opposition's strength and weaknesses are, how quickly one needs to respond etc. In that sense, we are a little ahead of the game on insight but not necessarily on obvious victories. In fact, the victories as they are represent slowing the trajectory of extremism. Recently PA has proven what liberals were saying that the real trouble makers are relatively fewer and can be tackled with resolute will and force. Extremist violence is dramatically down after actions in n. Waziristan and Karachi. The SC confirmation of the conviction of Salman Taseer's killer and the killing of Malik Ishaq are milestones. Civil society does not have the might of the military but it has an important influencing role.

In India, Kulkarni is a hero for refusing to be cowed down and so are those writers who are returning their medals. Swapandasgupta says the writers are smug and out of touch exaggerating and insulting India.

In Pakistan we have countless folks in academia, religious leaders, lawyers, politicians, journalists, students, doctors, the military, social workers, polio nurses who have paid with their lives in this battle. Their efforts go unrecognised but these are all heros because they stood in the way.

I don't wish any such trouble on India but unfortunately I foresee quite a few parallels emerging to Pakistan unless this problem is not tackled hard and early. Pakistanis were in denial about the problem for at least two decades. As such the events this year may be the beginning of a long fight back for India's liberals. I see much denial. Reading HP gives me the shivers. He is a rational person, highly knowledgeable and yet he believes in Hindu nationalism. He probably has no malice yet he does not understand what destructive effects on society Hindu nationalism will have given that the pervasive norms in society are intolerance and coercion. He has brought the ephemeral appeal of a society that is ruled by a religio-cultural identity which asserts itself against other nations and identities.


I don't think Pakistani liberals are in a position to help Indian liberals other than in an observational and superficial sense. We can point to what's coming because we recognise some patterns but the solutions and responses will be your own. At a policy level, civil society can get together through workshops and think tank structures in places like Dubai, London and discuss practical initiatives that can help counter extremist and religious nationalist narratives but it's likely to attract ire and confuse the public unless it includes other countries in the region with similar issues.

The first stage is to recognise the influencers such as HP who are in denial and try to bring them back so that they do not spread the disease. Not easy. He thinks he is winning in debates.

Pakistan is still in the middle of this. There is hope though. I see a reversal. A personal example is that one of my family who flirted with the dark side eventually realised the hollowness of the vision. He is now stuck somewhere in the middle but at least not actively on a destructive course. I have seen the halting of the slide into extremism of others. The conscience, if there is one, can sometimes kick in. The Dadri incident may have turned few people away from the course they were on but conversely may also have acted as a siren call to others to jump on the extremism band wagon. It's hard to say. The media and political response was mostly good but it's early early days.

The Hindutvadis will try to pack the state organs and institutions with their supporters. They will generate their own media . They will make extra efforts on the young and at universities. This is how the Islamists do it. They have to be resisted at each step. This can only happen efficiently if liberal forces are better organised and individuals are not left to fight lone battles. Capture of the state organs has to be absolutely resisted.

One of the early problems I see is that the right in India constantly has a refrain that minorities are being appeased when that is fundamentally untrue. The secular response to this untruth seems to be absent to me. Too often this argument is given a free pass, devoid of countering facts and argumentation forcefully. It helps creating the perception amongst the populace that there is a problem that needs to be solved and only the extremists can do this.

In Pakistan liberals are on the back foot not countering the changes in school syllabi because the banner of Islam and Islamic culture is raised. It's bloody difficult but that is where the hand to hand combat occurs. The state's ambivalence and incompetence makes it infinitely more difficult. It's also bloody frightening because one can lose one's life standing up. It's not doubt an ideological struggle and it's mostly being conducted at civil society level. Although in Pakistan, under general shareef, the mullahs have virtually disappeared from the front pages of newspapers for now. A more progressive vision is coming to the fore. It's amazing to see Salman Rushdie's new book get a neutral review in the Nation (an English paper that people used to consider the mouth piece of the deep state). Mush's greatest gift was freeing the media (even though the deep state is schizo about it). Perhaps the penny has dropped more widely. There is reason to be hopeful in India and Pakistan.

I look forward to reading your future articles on PTH. I hope you can get them published in more widely read newspapers and blogs

 

[Bang Galore]

@Joe Shearer

I'm very aware of the dangerous rise of the nutters and remain deeply troubled by the rising tide of intolerance. I'm also deeply troubled by the answer given by the "liberal"/ "secularists" to every question that crops up, regardless of the nature of the question - that it is all Modi's fault. There is no doubt that Modi's rise to power has led to emboldening of a certain loony fringe among his supporters who also seem to misread the mandate of 2014 as somehow being a victory for their cultural outlook. One needs to be careful in formulating a response to such attitudes & actions resulting from it. However when those opposing the rise of such groups, some of who might have political reasons for doing so, lay everything at the feet of Mr.Modi, they are already guaranteed to lose that battle, and allies. Trying to pin each & every act directly on Modi, who remains not only hugely popular but also thought to targeted excessively & maybe even unfairly, ends up being dismissed as the rantings of "ideological opponents". There may well come a time when Mr.Modi should be held directly responsible for something but none of the incidents thus far qualify. The ranting & railing against Modi does a great disservice in a more fundamental manner, it gives the loony fringe a free pass when Modi & not they are blamed for their actions. It also assures them of a cushion of support which comes their way because of the perception of Modi being unfairly targeted & even those who might be deeply uncomfortable with the incidents wondering whether the real issue is lost in political & ideological mud throwing.

It is with great regret that I have watched you too go down that route. Your antipathy (to put it mildly) to Modi & the BJP is well known but your reactions to incidents happening now seem less to do with the correct apportioning of blame where it is due but more of a visceral reaction to the persona of Modi himself, i.e. of your opinion of him predating his rise to becoming PM and not of his acts of omission & commission now. That is extremely unhelpful & while it is your prerogative to look at any matter through the prism of your choice, may I suggest that it is counterproductive & renders many of the more valid points made, more easily dismissible on account of an irrational bias.

There are few members here that I hold in greater respect than you, indeed there are few who bring to this forum more wealth of knowledge & experience, but when I saw you, as I did, on another thread defending/dismissing the Godhra incident in the manner you chose, it made me wonder where your compass was & whether a fair perspective was too high an ask. There is too much of the George Bush philosophy at work here, on both sides, - "either you are with us, or against us".

There was an interview of Ramachandra Guha yesterday when he made the point that the "left wing" intellectuals by their actions of being silent and being supportive of the actions of the loonies of another type & of government inaction in such cases gave cause & excuse to the rise of the "right wing".

The right cause for all of us post the M.M Kalburgi murder was to pile on the pressure on the Karnataka government to bring the persons guilty to book. Should have also applied pressure on the government to look at the actions of certain right wing groups & asked for a hard message to be delivered. Not doing that but attempting to bring Modi into it only takes the pressure off from the Karnataka government to do its constitutional duty while turning this into a political & ideological circus. The Maharashtra government has taken some steps in arresting some of the guys behind the earlier murder of Govind Pansare who seem to have connection with the Sanathan Sanstha. The Karnataka government too is looking at that organisation. Pressure would be far better applied & may get results if it was directed at a meaningful target than when thrown, akin to a pissing contest at the sky, at Mr.Modi.

We have as a nation been playing this game in the communal cauldron for ages, whether it was Mrs.Gandhi with the Khalistanis or Rajiv Gandhi with the Muslim & then Hindu pandering, whether with caste based pandering of heartland parties or whether the direct pandering of the BJP. When "secularists" / "liberals" stop looking at the caste based parties as being secular, when they oppose the appeasement politics of the soft communal parties like the Congress & the AAP, when they stand up for a Uniform civil code (the SC has given everyone another chance to be rid of this pathetic excuse for people to target the Muslims) and when they oppose all communal politics, only then will there be a chance for India to completely jettison this type of inflammable & dangerous rise of intolerance. Till then, all we will be seeing is a defence of "our" bastards.

 

[Joe Shearer]

@Joe Shearer

I'm very aware of the dangerous rise of the nutters and remain deeply troubled by the rising tide of intolerance. I'm also deeply troubled by the answer given by the "liberal"/ "secularists" to every question that crops up, regardless of the nature of the question - that it is all Modi's fault. There is no doubt that Modi's rise to power has led to emboldening of a certain loony fringe among his supporters who also seem to misread the mandate of 2014 as somehow being a victory for their cultural outlook. One needs to be careful in formulating a response to such attitudes & actions resulting from it. However when those opposing the rise of such groups, some of who might have political reasons for doing so, lay everything at the feet of Mr.Modi, they are already guaranteed to lose that battle, and allies. Trying to pin each & every act directly on Modi, who remains not only hugely popular but also thought to targeted excessively & maybe even unfairly, ends up being dismissed as the rantings of "ideological opponents". There may well come a time when Mr.Modi should be held directly responsible for something but none of the incidents thus far qualify. The ranting & railing against Modi does a great disservice in a more fundamental manner, it gives the loony fringe a free pass when Modi & not they are blamed for their actions. It also assures them of a cushion of support which comes their way because of the perception of Modi being unfairly targeted & even those who might be deeply uncomfortable with the incidents wondering whether the real issue is lost in political & ideological mud throwing.

It is with great regret that I have watched you too go down that route. Your antipathy (to put it mildly) to Modi & the BJP is well known but your reactions to incidents happening now seem less to do with the correct apportioning of blame where it is due but more of a visceral reaction to the persona of Modi himself, i.e. of your opinion of him predating his rise to becoming PM and not of his acts of omission & commission now. That is extremely unhelpful & while it is your prerogative to look at any matter through the prism of your choice, may I suggest that it is very unhelpful & renders many of the more valid points made, more easily dismissible on account of an irrational bias.

There are few members here that I hold in greater respect than you, indeed there are few who bring to this forum more wealth of knowledge & experience, but when I saw you, as I did, on another thread defending/dismissing the Godhra incident in the manner you chose, it made me wonder where your compass was & whether a fair perspective was too high an ask. There is too much of the George Bush philosophy at work here, on both sides, - "either you are with us, or against us".

There was an interview of Ramachandra Guha yesterday when he made the point that the "left wing" intellectuals by their actions of being silent and being supportive of the actions of the loonies of another type & of government inaction in such cases gave cause & excuse to the rise of the "right wing".

The right cause for all of us post the M.M Kalburgi murder was to pile on the pressure on the Karnataka government to bring the persons guilty to book. Should have also applied pressure on the government to look at the actions of certain right wing groups & asked for a hard message to be delivered. Not doing that but attempting to bring Modi into it only takes the pressure off from the Karnataka government to do its constitutional duty while turning this into a political & ideological circus. The Maharashtra government has taken some steps in arresting some of the guys behind the earlier murder of Govind Pansare who seem to have connection with the Sanathan Sanstha. The Karnataka government too is looking at that organisation. Pressure would be far better applied & may get results if it was directed at a meaningful target than when thrown, akin to a pissing context at the sky, at Mr.Modi.

We have as a nation been playing this game in the communal cauldron for ages, whether it was Mrs.Gandhi with the Khalistanis or Rajiv Gandhi with the Muslim & then Hindu pandering, whether with caste based pandering of heartland parties or whether the direct pandering of the BJP. When "secularists" / "liberals" stop looking at the caste based parties as being secular, when they oppose the appeasement politics of the soft communal parties like the Congress & the AAP, when they stand up for a Uniform civil code (the SC has given everyone another chance to be rid of this pathetic excuse for people to target the Muslims) and when they oppose all communal politics, only then will there be a chance for India to completely jettison this type of inflammable & dangerous rise of intolerance. Till then, all we will be seeing is a defence of "our" bastards.

I readily acknowledge the soundness of your criticism, and am addressing it very seriously. Let me leave it at that for the time being. In Herrick's words, which I quoted recently, "Deeds not words shall speak me".

Your frankness and transparency is admirable. That does not mean I agree at all points, but it does mean that I trust your opinion as being objective and intended to be constructive.

@Joe Shearer

I'm very aware of the dangerous rise of the nutters and remain deeply troubled by the rising tide of intolerance. I'm also deeply troubled by the answer given by the "liberal"/ "secularists" to every question that crops up, regardless of the nature of the question - that it is all Modi's fault. There is no doubt that Modi's rise to power has led to emboldening of a certain loony fringe among his supporters who also seem to misread the mandate of 2014 as somehow being a victory for their cultural outlook. One needs to be careful in formulating a response to such attitudes & actions resulting from it. However when those opposing the rise of such groups, some of who might have political reasons for doing so, lay everything at the feet of Mr.Modi, they are already guaranteed to lose that battle, and allies. Trying to pin each & every act directly on Modi, who remains not only hugely popular but also thought to targeted excessively & maybe even unfairly, ends up being dismissed as the rantings of "ideological opponents". There may well come a time when Mr.Modi should be held directly responsible for something but none of the incidents thus far qualify. The ranting & railing against Modi does a great disservice in a more fundamental manner, it gives the loony fringe a free pass when Modi & not they are blamed for their actions. It also assures them of a cushion of support which comes their way because of the perception of Modi being unfairly targeted & even those who might be deeply uncomfortable with the incidents wondering whether the real issue is lost in political & ideological mud throwing.

It is with great regret that I have watched you too go down that route. Your antipathy (to put it mildly) to Modi & the BJP is well known but your reactions to incidents happening now seem less to do with the correct apportioning of blame where it is due but more of a visceral reaction to the persona of Modi himself, i.e. of your opinion of him predating his rise to becoming PM and not of his acts of omission & commission now. That is extremely unhelpful & while it is your prerogative to look at any matter through the prism of your choice, may I suggest that it is very unhelpful & renders many of the more valid points made, more easily dismissible on account of an irrational bias.

There are few members here that I hold in greater respect than you, indeed there are few who bring to this forum more wealth of knowledge & experience, but when I saw you, as I did, on another thread defending/dismissing the Godhra incident in the manner you chose, it made me wonder where your compass was & whether a fair perspective was too high an ask. There is too much of the George Bush philosophy at work here, on both sides, - "either you are with us, or against us".

There was an interview of Ramachandra Guha yesterday when he made the point that the "left wing" intellectuals by their actions of being silent and being supportive of the actions of the loonies of another type & of government inaction in such cases gave cause & excuse to the rise of the "right wing".

The right cause for all of us post the M.M Kalburgi murder was to pile on the pressure on the Karnataka government to bring the persons guilty to book. Should have also applied pressure on the government to look at the actions of certain right wing groups & asked for a hard message to be delivered. Not doing that but attempting to bring Modi into it only takes the pressure off from the Karnataka government to do its constitutional duty while turning this into a political & ideological circus. The Maharashtra government has taken some steps in arresting some of the guys behind the earlier murder of Govind Pansare who seem to have connection with the Sanathan Sanstha. The Karnataka government too is looking at that organisation. Pressure would be far better applied & may get results if it was directed at a meaningful target than when thrown, akin to a pissing context at the sky, at Mr.Modi.

We have as a nation been playing this game in the communal cauldron for ages, whether it was Mrs.Gandhi with the Khalistanis or Rajiv Gandhi with the Muslim & then Hindu pandering, whether with caste based pandering of heartland parties or whether the direct pandering of the BJP. When "secularists" / "liberals" stop looking at the caste based parties as being secular, when they oppose the appeasement politics of the soft communal parties like the Congress & the AAP, when they stand up for a Uniform civil code (the SC has given everyone another chance to be rid of this pathetic excuse for people to target the Muslims) and when they oppose all communal politics, only then will there be a chance for India to completely jettison this type of inflammable & dangerous rise of intolerance. Till then, all we will be seeing is a defence of "our" bastards.

I readily acknowledge the soundness of your criticism, and am addressing it very seriously. Let me leave it at that for the time being. In Herrick's words, which I quoted recently, "Deeds not words shall speak me".

Your frankness and transparency is admirable. That does not mean I agree at all points, but it does mean that I trust your opinion as being objective and intended to be constructive.

Let me now ask you a question of my own.

You have seen the influx of rabid right wing supporters. Why is it that you maintain an austere silence during their rampages and attacks, and why is it that you only find fault with the admittedly excessive responses to them?

Please take this as an honest question, and not as an attempt to pick a fight. I hope I have earned that amount of credibility

 

[Bang Galore]

Let me now ask you a question of my own.

You have seen the influx of rabid right wing supporters. Why is it that you maintain an austere silence during their rampages and attacks, and why is it that you only find fault with the admittedly excessive responses to them?

Please take this as an honest question, and not as an attempt to pick a fight. I hope I have earned that amount of credibility

Fair question. You are right that there has been an influx of some very nasty creatures here. You are also right that I generally avoid interacting with most of them. While I usually make my point clear about any incident, I find it very non-productive to get into a slanging match with all of them. That is been how I have operated here right from the beginning, I remember telling you on PM very early on about pigs & wrestling...and I'm not about to make personal, a debate on the internet , or get into a long discussions, especially with those I have not formed a connection or have a healthy respect for. I have joined issues with many here though I almost never allow any disagreements to influence future posts. This is not just with Indian posters, it is true generally of my interactions with many of the Pakistanis here too.

I have rarely joined issue even with you on matters regarding your opinion, I ask what I ask of you because our larger outlooks (non-political) are more similar than not. I have no objections to any response of yours (have a healthy admiration for your stamina) whether or not I think they are excessive or otherwise. I only brought it up in the context of the discussion here. With you, I can hope to have a debate with, can appeal to a sense of fairness and can ask for perspective not to be lost, many others don't offer that opportunity.

On an online forum, I have found it best to debate the argument, not the person. I also do not consider vitriol an argument, preferring generally to avoid giving such people what they seek & to stick with the topic. I post less & less because there is less space to post as much as before and because the nature of this forum as well as its members has changed. The old Kannada saying comes to mind - "just because you think your head is strong, you can't really go banging it against boulders". I prefer to pick & chose when & where I make my arguments. It is, to me, the only sane way of doing this.

 

[Joe Shearer]

i stopped reading at this sentence because the author fails to realize a basic point but also through that failure confirms/answers those his below words...



the so-called democracy ( "representative democracy" ) that is much touted by western governments is not democracy at all but multi-party majoritarian dictatorship, fake-democracy, whether in a generally singular culture society like what britain was in say 1940 or in a multi-culture society like india... what this system leads to is not unifying of people for progressive collective welfare of all citizens but pandering to some vested interest over another.

the ideal political arrangement of society is without any political party, not even the single-ruling "communist" parties inherent to some societies.

once we have such a system and guided by socialism, there won't be sparks of discontent about "majority vs minority" or "rich vs poor".

without this, we can keep talking for the next 20 years without solution in sight.

edit : pre-1947 india did not evolve a truly democratic political system so the partition happened... this was entirely a intellectual failure.

Fair question. You are right that there has been an influx of some very nasty creatures here. You are also right that I generally avoid interacting with most of them. While I usually make my point clear about any incident, I have find it very non-productive to get into a slanging match with all of them. That is been how I have operated here right from the beginning, I remember telling you on PM very early on about pigs & wrestling...and I'm not about to make personal, a debate on the internet , or get into a long discussions, especially with those I have not formed a connection or have a healthy respect for. I have joined issues with many here though I almost never allow any disagreements to influence future posts. This is not just with Indian posters, it is true generally of my interactions with many of the Pakistanis here too.

I have rarely joined issue even with you on matters regarding your opinion, I ask what I ask of you because our larger outlooks (non-political) are more similar than not. I have no objections to any response of yours (have a healthy admiration for your stamina) whether or not I think they are excessive or otherwise. I only brought it up in the context of the discussion here. With you, I can hope to have a debate with, can appeal to a sense of fairness and can ask for perspective not to be lost, many others don't offer that opportunity.

On an online forum, I have found it best to debate the argument, not the person. I also do not consider vitriol an argument, preferring generally to avoid giving such people what they seek & to stick with the topic. I post less & less because there is less space to post as much as before and because the nature of this forum as well as its members has changed. The old Kannada saying comes to mind - "just because you think your head is strong, you can't really go banging it against boulders". I prefer to pick & chose when & where I make my arguments. It is, to me, the only sane way of doing this.

My immediate, spontaneous reaction is to take this as a model to be emulated.

@Bang Galore

At this point, I cannot resist the temptation to reproduce another friend's response to the post reproduced at #20 above. It is so apt.

you say that the primary gripe of the right wing in India is "minority appeasement" and that is true enough. However you also say that it is a false bogey. That last bit is not really true. The right wing in India is concerned with appeasement in as much as it is a function of their bigotry, however they have been provided with real fodder by the left in India. For the longest time, the liberal elite has been lenient on fundamentalism among the other faiths under the garb of secularism. Secularism will find many more willing takers in India if the principle is applied equally for all faiths. You have head leftists governments in the country banning the Satanic Verses(Rajiv Gandhi) by Rushdie, you have had a Marxist government in Bengal banning Taslima's book and then hounding her out of the only city in the world she wanted to live in(Kolkata), you have had the Shah Bano judgement(Rajiv again). None of this is concern for Muslims obviously but envy for the seemingly greater power that certain sections of Muslims hold/held with the governments of the day. This has been used as reason for right wing Hindu expression in the country and if secular governments had not failed in certain key moments in India, then the right wing narrative in India would not have found so many willing takers, that is for certain. Which is why the irritating bogey of pseudo-secularism has proved so effective among so many. Te refrain being that we are not opposed to genuine secularism but that the left has no idea of what that means. Instead of telling us what genuine secularism looks like, the right of course has used the angst and the space the angst created to implement their hindutva agenda in the country for their vote bank.
Using the bogey of appeasement to justify majoritarianism, and the latter is by far the greater threat to the social fabric of the country.
The left and particularly the Congress is certainly not blameless for the current scenario and are responsible for creating the space for majoritarianism.

Our argument now is that appeasement cannot justify majoritarianism and that you(right wing) can only critique past governments of you can boast of a better secular agenda.

 

[scorpionx]

i stopped reading at this sentence because the author fails to realize a basic point but also through that failure confirms/answers those his below words...

In my humble opinion, you should not have stopped reading there. The premise of the article does not rest itself upon the assumed superiority of Western democracy over the ones practiced in Middle East or Asia. Rather it stresses upon the fact that American constitution, as their founding fathers rightly assured would structure itself on principle of checks and balances of the governing mechanism so that the basic rights of the minorities can be preserved. It took them over a hundred years to perfect this system,as we can naturally expect but in a multi-ethnic society this system is rivaled by none.

the so-called democracy ( "representative democracy" ) that is much touted by western governments is not democracy at all but multi-party majoritarian dictatorship, fake-democracy, whether in a generally singular culture society like what britain was in say 1940 or in a multi-culture society like india... what this system leads to is not unifying of people for progressive collective welfare of all citizens but pandering to some vested interest over another.

Ironically enough, this is exactly the article was intended to preach. At any cost, to deter a majoritarian rule and to protect the basic rights of the minorities,especially in countries like India and Pakistan. A government won by numbers should not and must not be given power to dictate a policy that is not accepted by those who are numerically inferior. Gorki was just pointing out the visible flaws of Indian democracy, not trumpeting the excellence of western democracy.

 

[vsdoc]

The big difference between the Western model of democracy, and indeed their perception and definition of minorities, vis a vis our own, is that they look at minorities on the basis of color and race, while we look at them on the basis of faith.

France and the US (I will not include the UK on this list) are both hardcore Christian states. The position of Christianity on the top of the heap there sacrosanct.

The fun (and valid comparisons) will begin when they have a viable and significant second faith living alongside cheek by jowl together with them.

I must also take this opportunity to point out that right wing extremism is reactionary and a counter to, and finding an able counterweight in, liberofascist left wing extremism.

People are gravitating away from the center in terms of their narratives and positions in this current game of tug o war.

Even though India largely resides in the center. Its heart remains there, its mind is being pushed centrifugally to both extremes.

Cheers, Doc

P.S. In case someone still has any doubt, I'm a right wing brown shirt (or chaddi) fascist. Unapologetically.

P.P.S. "In India, Kulkarni is a hero for refusing to be cowed down and so are those writers who are returning their medals."

I am largely ambivalent over black face. But the writers, hypocrites of the first order, guns for hire. But seeing as they would shit their pants at the first sign of a fight, make that pens (and awards) for hire. A putrid bunch that deserve to be lined up and have their arses reddened by some good old school Jesuit caning.

P.P.P.S. Its hugely rich for the Pakistani commentator (on behalf of the long-suffering Pakistani liberals) to take the moral high ground of some sort of seniority of tenure (sarkari style) in what they make out to be a common fight.

Rich because the only commonality in this so-called fight is that what we are seeing today, and what they saw yesterday, is because of what theirs sowed the day before.

Light a fire, fuel it enthusiastically, see it grow out of control and get burned, draw back sharply and lick your wounds, meanwhile see the enthusiastically nurtured fire spread wider, then sit on your pulpit, backside still smelling of charred flesh, and preach to others about how bad a fire is, how its going to spread, what signs one needs to look out for, and one should do to prevent it.

There is no neat barb wired line separating the two. Its seamless cause and effect. The same fire.

Because barbed wire does not burn. But people do.

Cheers again, Doc

 

[VCheng]

Light a fire, fuel it enthusiastically, see it grow out of control and get burned, draw back sharply and lick your wounds, meanwhile see the enthusiastically nurture fire spread wider, then sit on your pulpit, backside still smelling of charred flesh, and preach to others about how bad a fire is, how its going to spread, what signs one needs to look out for, and one should do to prevent it.

That, Sir, is graphically poetic and quite true besides!

 

[vsdoc]

That, Sir, is graphically poetic and quite true besides!

Need to dispense with the la di da PTH niceties.

Hum to ganwaar thehre. Hum to aise hi bolte hain.

 

[VCheng]

Need to dispense with the la di da PTH niceties.

Hum to ganwaar thehre. Hum aise hi bolte hain.

Sir, you are not only a self-professed gunwaar, you are dangerous: you ride on the wrong side of the road!

 

[jamahir]

Meanwhile I want to post this single, very thoughtful post by one of those whom I like reading the most, even more than Gorki

it is a generally well-written piece though i have some points to make.

Pakistani liberals have been longer in this struggle.

a basic question is who are these pakistani liberals... do they work within a socialist process or do they keep away from socialist circles??

I don't think Pakistani liberals are in a position to help Indian liberals other than in an observational and superficial sense.

ah, that is a rather defeatist statement... real progressivism is only obtained through internationalism which is automatic to socialist thought.

At a policy level, civil society can get together through workshops and think tank structures in places like Dubai, London and discuss practical initiatives that can help counter extremist and religious nationalist narratives but it's likely to attract ire and confuse the public unless it includes other countries in the region with similar issues.

dubai and london??

in the current world, those who are easily able to afford travel to international conferences are the elitist lot who stay away from making too many concrete dissenting noises... the hardcore dissenters and progressives practically cannot afford such travel.

hence my original question on the pakistani liberals.