Open Thread to discuss “this, that and the other”
Dear All: I am opening this thread to carry forward the discussion generated on the guest post by Sh Krishen Kak. Please use this thread for all comments that may not be directly related to the post. Thank you.
***
1. Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park:
@Sid
Come – this should be obvious. When parents kill their adult children from marrying whomever they please, is that not a violation of the principle “Do what you want as long as you harm no one?â€
When the crazy “darul ul uloom†tells women not to do this or that isn’t that another violation?
Let me know if you want me to clarify further.
***
2. Comment by Kaffir:
BJP, here you go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society
so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsaɪɪti/ Show Spelled [suh-sahy-i-tee] Show IPA noun,plural-ties, adjective
–noun
1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
2. a body of individuals living as members of a community; community.
3. the body of human beings generally, associated or viewed as members of a community: the evolution of human society.
4. a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members: American society.
5. such a system characterized by its dominant economic class or form: middle-class society; industrial society.
6. those with whom one has companionship.
7. companionship; company: to enjoy one’s society.
8. the social life of wealthy, prominent, or fashionable persons.
9. the social class that comprises such persons.
10. the condition of those living in companionship with others, or in a community, rather than in isolation.
11. Biology. a closely integrated group of social organisms of the same species exhibiting division of labor.
12. Ecclesiastical. an ecclesiastical society.
***
3. Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park:
@Kaffir
None of these show how the concept of “society†is meaningful in our discussions.
People are real. I can observe them. You have to show me what I gain by just giving a group of people a new name called “society.â€
***
4. Comment by Kaffir:
BJP, seems to me that you want to intentionally continue being dense, so this is my last comment regarding this. Society doesn’t exist in a physical sense which you can see, or taste, or hear, or feel – it is not tangible, just like a “country†or “nation†is not tangible. It is an abstract concept, just like “fascism†and “right wing†which you are so fond of using – which also are not “real†(in the sense you use the word) and you cannot observe “fascism†or “right wing†– unless you go bird-watching. If you open your eyes and free yourself of the self-restraints you have imposed on yourself, you will start seeing plenty of evidences of societies – or that other popular term – communities – around you. Just because there are abstract concepts or words that you cannot see/hear/feel, doesn’t negate their existence. That’s being intentionally stupid, and I credit you with at least a bit more intelligence. Then again, people are free to be whatever they want to be, right?
***
5. Comment By Sid:
@Bhagwad Jal Park (#1 above),
Disclaimer: This is not in defence of honour killing or Fatwa. In following paragraph, I have tried to explain the mindset behind honour killing or Fatwa. Then I would also look at why I think your theory has inherent flaws.
When parents resort to honour killing, they believe that they are harmed. It is their social standing that has been harmed. At least that is what the belief is. Flawed it may be, but I will invite you to observe that almost all societies that has an epidemic of honour killings share following common straits:
1. A rigid feudal structure that forces every family to conform to a owner-and-property template,
2. A backdated and very oppressive concept of “honour†which is often manipulated by the elites to achieve their goal,
3. A strong belief system that “fragile†women should stay under the protection of “macho†male (father/husband/brother) whose job is to do what they do best: being macho.
and
4. Lack of education that enables men to think.
So, point 1 forces parents to think that their daughters are a property, so when the property shows the audacity to think for herself, point2 kicks in and honour is at stake. So, the “protector†(as in point 3) swings into action to salvage the honour and point 4 provides a supportive social environment.
So, yes, that was pretty big leap of logic.
Below is an abstract reasoning on why there is a flaw in your context:
When you do “something†(an action), the environment you are in is impacted in short or long term. So people who has a stake in keeping the environment static, would believe that your action would harm them. Whether you perceive such action as harmful to anyone or not, is not the point here, but every action that brings in change does harm someone’s interest. And every action does bring in change, in small or large quantities, in short or long term.
So, there are not many places you can apply your sentence as agreeable as it can be.
***
6. Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park:
@Kaffir
Even abstract constructions have uniform properties and observable traits. The word “society†is usually nothing more than just a word used to control people.
The fact is that you can name the properties of all the different groups you’ve just outlined like “right wing†etc. They’re clearly defined.
Society on the other hand has no such cohesive attribute and is usually used by lazy people who don’t want or can’t take the trouble to argue a principle the way it should be.
@Sid
A good analysis of honor killings. And this is why we also need to define “harm.†We can’t allow just anyone to use their own definition as and when they please. Otherwise, some mullah will feel he’s also being “harmed†by a woman wearing jeans for example.
So we need to restrict “harm†to what is common to everyone and undisputable. Usually this means actual physical or financial harm. Hurting someone’s “honor†may be perceived as harm by some people, but as a society we can’t allow people to retaliate in ways that cause “actual†harm. Let them try and retaliate by “harming†the other persons’ honor if they wish!
But they have no right to cause real harm as retaliation for harm that is unique to them alone.
***
7. Comment by Kaffir:
=>
Hurting someone’s “honor†may be perceived as harm by some people, but as a society we can’t allow people to retaliate in ways that cause “actual†harm.â€
=>
Uh, looks like someone is being “really lazy who doesn’t want or can’t take the trouble to argue a principle the way it should be.â€
Seems to me that you’re conflating “society†with “collective†(i.e. ‘collectivism’ as defined under objectivist philosophy).
Your last comment didn’t make any sense at all. And what exactly do you mean by “the way it should be� According to whom? According to what? You? The books you’ve read? Is there a specific plan according to which things should be??
***
8. Comment by Bhagwad Jal Park:
@Kaffir
“Seems to me that you’re conflating “society†with “collective†(i.e. ‘collectivism’ as defined under objectivist philosophy).â€
Huh? What is this obsession with Ayn Rand?
According to whom? According to what? You? The books you’ve read?
The only sort of harm that is punishable is one which interferes with constitutionally defined rights in the country I live in.
***
9. Comment by Kaffir:
Well, BJP.
Earlier you said that the concept of “society†doesn’t exist because it is man-made, but then you yourself use that same word and concept. 
And here’s your comment that I was referring to:
“Society on the other hand has no such cohesive attribute and is usually used by lazy people who don’t want or can’t take the trouble to argue a principle the way it should be.“
Your response to it:
“The only sort of harm that is punishable is one which interferes with constitutionally defined rights in the country I live in.â€
makes no sense, because in your previous comment to me, you were talking about the principle of society and not harm.
***
10. Comment by Sid:
I am interested to continue this discussion in any relevant place of discussion. This is thoroughly out-of-topic
So we need to restrict “harm†to what is common to everyone and undisputable. That is where things go murky at best.
Usually this means actual physical or financial harm. – Why would you rule out psychological?
Hurting someone’s “honor†may be perceived as harm by some people, but as a society we can’t allow people to retaliate in ways that cause “actual†harm. Let them try and retaliate by “harming†the other persons’ honor if they wish! – This begs a question: who constitutes the soceity and who decides what is harmful for it? I am trying to judge this question from the point view of sociology and morality, not legal perspective. Is it the rule of the majority? That would not eliminate honour killing in next two centuries. Is it the rule of the few enlightened souls? That would be aristocracy and that is not welcome even when it means a group of liberal or conservative aristocrats. My favorite would be to allow willing social activists to work in this area to prepare the social ground needed to discourage the practice.
***
Please continue the discussion via the comments box below.
Please refer my initial comment [#21 dt 5-Aug-2010], which was truncated by the moderator, -obviously due to limitations of space [NB: original article plus comments now stands at 48+ pages !] Some of my fellows commentators here have pointed out & raised certain valid points about the Japanese /Chinese experiences /economic model and their attachment to their “mother-tonguesâ€;—-I had elaborated on this & related matters in my originally referenced web-site article = http://www.scitechfuture.com/sk_keynote_statement.html?p= [probably not read by the commentators OR overlooked !].In my opinion, there is much hype regarding the [post-Maoist] Chinese & Japanese economic evolution/status. Maybe my perspective on these 2 “Oriental†civilizations will enable alternative thinking !
[@ B.Shantanu: I would appreciate your permission to post [on your new comments page] the truncated portions, plus the subsequent passage as this is relevant to the subject under discussion: [trust that the matter below this will not be considered as too long;—-I leave it to your discretion; thanks! ]
Truncated text:“[and needless to say it is their background in English which enables Indian students (to the extent that they studied to English medium schools and to the extent they had parents/peers who were not “mother tongue chauvinistsâ€) in US /UK colleges to excel and occasionally do better than local students in their academic pursuits].I predict that within a few decades English will become the universal language of earth; and many of our existing languages are destined for philology-anthropology researchers. All 3rd world countries as well as non-English speaking European countries (France, for example may have severe ego problems on this issue; though other European nations appear to have a more positive attitude.) may well realize that the earlier they become proficient in the English language, the better it is for them. And if you need to look for historical precedents, recollect Kemal Attaturk’s attempt to mordenise Turkey in the 1920’s-; it may interest you to know that the Arabic language of modern Turkey is written with English alphabet. I expect that Japan and China will change to English alphabets in due course for written communication; and within a few decades phase out their hereditary languages in the same way that Turkey did. The ground swell of an individual level desire to become proficient in the English language is already being felt in these countries and also in other areas such as the middle-east, the former soviet bloc etc./ (technologically savvy language chauvinists throughout the world are hoping to create an ‘universal translator’,-a digital / AI device to enable instantaneous translations between multiple languages;-the market for such a product/system is doubtful; but as usual there may be spin-off benefits from the research involved;-scientific research is always a win-win process in the long run.)//â€
And in continuation of the theme above I had elaborated my view on Japan & China growth pattern. Thus:
7=Mordernistion/Westernisation: Experiences of Japan and China,-two other Oriental civilisations:
The case of Japan’s mordernisation is worthy of note: Japan realized the need for mordernisation as early as the 1860’s [the recent Hollywood movie-“The Last Samurai†captures the spirit of Japan in those early days –the clash of values between the traditional ways of the Samurai and Meiji Emperor’s raison’d’etat –the urgent necessity to mordernise and catch up with the US and Europe. The Emperor and his advisers (who are NOT the heroes of the movie) correctly realised that the alternative is national extinction.] Japan went ahead with mordernisation; albeit unfortunately- in a partial way.=> They adopted the technology and commercial methodologies of the West (USA) , but chose to retain various contradictory elements in their national psyche, -resulting in a revival of militaristic ttraditions (the return of the Samurai-?!!) paving the way to their international military ambitions,- teaming up with the Nazis, and their misguided mania to make war with USA (Pearl Harbor- WW-II). After their rout in 1945, they did another level of self-searching and the resulting metamorphosis is the hi-tech Japan of today;-a commercial, scientific and technological powerhouse of innovation. [It is true that they still continue to emphasise upon and retain some of their traditions, but from an operational point of view, Japan is a highly westernised developed country; but sad to say, it may take another generation before they too finally purge their psyches from the left overs of their past. Let India and other 3rd World countries take note of the Japanese experience and learn from it.].
The situation in mainland China is a more peculiar and an unique phenomenon; China was another ancient Oriental civilization steeped in tradition and culture and under normal circumstances their development path would have been similar to that of India and other 3rd World nations. However history tried a different approach in this case;-Drawing parallels with the emergence of the Iron Curtain in post WW-I Russia ; the bamboo curtain of this people’s republic shrouded the massive population of China for almost half a century after World War-II. These 50 years of the Chinese version of communism enforced by a harsh and fundamentalist group of dictators, brought about a significant break in the continuity of Chinese history and civilisation. The Chinese communist party came to the conclusion that religion (Buddhism; an ascetic outgrowth of Hinduism.), culture and traditions of ancient China are incompatible with their ideology,-as expounded by their gurus- (Marx and Engels, Mao etal.); and they decided to clean up the slate, to provide a ‘tabula rasa’ for their massive socio-economic experiment. The ‘cultural revolution’ was apparently quite ‘successful’, and in the process a few generations of ‘ideal’ communist citizens were cloned,-including the group currently holding the reins of power. [the Chinese had the experiences of Stalinist Russia to model upon;–the enormity of the sufferings caused to individual citizens of their countries are of no relevance to such dictators; but that is an entirely different subject].——-However the last two decades of the 20th century saw the withering away of the communist dream. [Marx is supposed to have said that ultimately, – “the State will wither awayâ€;-however it is his own offspring that has withered away]. Their ideology reached its logical and obvious terminal stage as foreseen decades earlier;- Poland was the first unit of the communist empire to collapse (early 1980’s), to be followed on by others of the group, one after another leading up to the complete balkanization of the soviet bloc; the evil empire ended as a damp squib, with hardly a whimper. The USSR = CCCP disappeared into oblivion, and the free world breathed in relief!! [In her magnum opus-‘Atlas Shrugged’,-written in the early 1950’s,- American philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand had predicted and chronicled the sequence of the process by which a collectivist state reaches its terminal stage.—however those new to her works are advised to start with her earlier novel ‘Fountainhead’ ] .—— The Chinese leaders understood the writings on the wall and concluded that change was critical to ensure that they remain in political control, and that communist fundamentalism –(Mao’s little red book version)- must be replaced or amended. And in true dictatorial style they have imposed and implemented an about-turn (almost overnight as historical periods go !) in their state policies; —–China presently has an unique form of state imposed capitalism (a contradiction in terms), a collectivist version of free enterprise (another contradiction in terms) with all the necessary bells, whistles and symbols, including a functioning stock exchange, commercial banks, commodity markets, posh hotels, English speaking business executives in western suits, beauty contests, high-rise buildings with plush regional offices of transnational corporations.;—-they have thrown overboard their isolationist self-dependence and have been successful in convincing the international companies into making massive investments to mordernise life inside the erstwhile bamboo curtain.(high risk consequences hang over these western corporations- and shareholders may be in for bitter disappointment, but I leave that for another day).–Maybe I have digressed on my theme of this particular paragraph;- the point I wish to highlight is that the communist rule during the four decades after WW-II (1950 to 1990’s) resulted in a complete break from the culture and traditions of China’s past;—— and when the party made the volte-face during the 1990’s and went gung-ho for mordernisation (i.e. westernisation), individual Chinese were able to make the transition without the inertia or the leg-irons of their past culture, religion and civilisation. The younger generation in particular has soaked up the life style of US teenagers;-TV and internet assisted in the process. The timing was near perfect; (historical cause-effect analysis of this unique social phenomena can provide research opportunity for enterprising social scientists.) [the present situation in China is to be contrasted with that in India;— here the younger generation is still shackled by family, religion, society and political parties; and ironically certain elements of the younger generation are conspicuous in their anti-Western/ anti-American stance, and often violently vociferous about what they consider to be ‘decadent’ western values,-inconsistent with Indian culture. As examples, note the fuss that leftist-feminist organizations create about beauty contests, the Valentine’s Day violence and lootings by the youth wing of fundamentalist political parties; and also dress-code for women being sought to be imposed by communal elements in certain northern states; —-such problems are conspicuous by their near total absence in present day China; and the reason for this is the discontinuity created by the half century old communist dictatorship.] [it may please be noted that my above observations and comments should not be construed as approval of the Chinese path to mordernisation;-nothing could be further from my values and the theme of this message;- the rapidity of China’s westernisation,-(thanks to the cultural discontinuity),- was an unintended but beneficial consequence of the communist dictatorship;—- the present and future generations of Chinese can enjoy the fruits ;—however nothing can justify the pain and the sufferings of the billions who slaved under the yoke for the best years of their lives and passed on without even seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.] In conclusion I wish to add that the Chinese path to westernization has far too many built in contradictions and omissions;-legacies of the state controlled economic system. The western corporations presently investing in China should do well to think twice, exercise due diligence, and hedge their investments; let them understand that business, commerce and industry,- as they are used to in their own countries can flourish only in conjunction with other components of Western civilization such as individual rights, rule of law, political democracy, a free press, commercial institutions (banks, insurance companies, accounting and audit firms etc).Unfortunately as of now, there are many missing links in China.-If I were to be consulted by a potential investor on ‘country risk’,- my answer would be obvious.!!- Hold it for the present! Wait for political reform, right-wing political parties, free elections and democracy, transparency in government, open education, a free press and an independent judiciary;–in short look for the emergence of the checks and balances that are the sine qua nons of a free country.// However we can hope that wisdom will dawn on the Chinese leaders and these institutions may evolve and take roots within the coming years.]//
Thanks for reading!
Regards
Sasy Kumar
7-Aug-2010
I think there were a lot of interesting points made in this discussion. Too bad I’m jumping in late, but better late than never. My 2 paise:
1. “We need a common language to be able to communicate across India!” This is true, but most often what is demanded is not just a language for bare communication. English and Hindi are proposed as primary languages that everyone must have a full 12 year education in, become expert at, read the literature in and so on — not just learn well enough to communicate.
2. “National integration is only possible if everyone is made to learn Hindi!” Actually, I think forcing everybody to learn Hindi is one of the most divisive factors in India today. I think basic communication between people of different states is done more in English than Hindi (unless of course you’re talking between Hindi speaking states). I don’t think Tamil Nadu and Orissa communicate in Hindi, and neither do Assam and Meghalaya. I’ve seen anti-Hindi sentiment in at least two states, but never seen, say, anti-Gujrati sentiment. This is because no one imposes Gujrati on a non-Gujrati population.
3. I think this emphasis on Hindi and English is at the cost of all other Indian languages. I’ve heard people saying this isn’t true, but I can’t see a valid justification for that. Only a few states, like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal (and lately Maharashtra — but in a bad way), are holding out.
4. We may say that no one is forcing anyone else, but force comes in several forms. When the resources devoted to English and Hindi are greater than the resources given to all other Indian languages combined (I’m not sure about this, but it certainly seems so) it is, de facto, force.
5. I think this English-Hindi emphasis is a form of chauvinism and is dangerous. History teaches us that Indian languages are quite fragile because we traditionally lack institutions that work to preserve them. The historical model for language development in India was patronage, which has mostly died out. In the 19th century Telugu was close to dying out, its literature scattered and about to be lost, until an Englishman began collecting and cataloging it. If we don’t rescue our languages from second class status they will become untenable soon.
6. I think most Indian subcultures have already lost vigour because of lack of language support. The languages are still carrying on, but there is very little significant new literature or music or language-defined art styles. When surrounded by a flagging culture, it is natural to look towards an alternative culture that is robustly selling itself, evolving and advancing all the time. I think this is a large part of the reason why Indians are “West-crazy” — not just language-wise but also culture-wise.
7. We may say “let market forces decide”, but that’s not necessarily optimal. I find myself wishing I’d learned Sanskrit in school, so I could read the primary sources myself to understand various debating points. I would guess many others are in the same boat. There is a demand for Sanskrit which surfaces about 10 years after people are done with their career-defining years (ages 13 to 25 in India). The problem is only immediate concerns are used in deciding education. Additionally, by insisting on specific languages like English and Hindi, we are modifying those market forces in favour of those languages.
8. Bottom line: I think we should drop the idea of Hindi as a unifying Indian language. From a practical point of view I don’t think we can do the same to English, though it should be demoted somewhat in importance. Resources should be given to various local languages to help them develop.
@Sid
This is a good start Sid. You hit at the nub of the problem. Question is “just a few” or “the majority.” Both have problems as you said.
In my view it should be neither. We should restrict “harm” only to those that everyone agrees is harm – not the majority, but everyone. Since there will hardly be anything that everyone will agree to, the list of “harms” becomes very small.
Physical and financial harm is something everyone will agree on. Psychological harm can is dangerous but the question is one of tort. Is one culpable for causing psychological harm without causing physical or financial harm? If so, how? And is it justified. My gut feeling is that it’s too difficult to define, too difficult to show actual harm caused etd.
Moreover, one assumes that we’re dealing with adults of reasonably strong mind. They can’t be so weak as to get upset over a girl wearing jeans.
So while it’s true that it’s tough, I think we can reach a reasonable consensus on what constitutes culpable harm.
@ Sasy and Armchair Guy: Comments related to the original article can be posted on the same thread.
This thread is for all the discussion that branched out of the main topic (as you can see from the comments reproduced above and Bhagwad’s follow-up) Thanks
@Bhagwad,
Is one culpable for causing psychological harm without causing physical or financial harm? If so, how? And is it justified. My gut feeling is that it’s too difficult to define, too difficult to show actual harm caused etd.Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_trauma
I had an aunt who used to tell her children before their school exam that if they score below expectation she would not be able to show her face in the neighbourhood. The same person tried to commit suicide when my cousin married a Nepali girl instead of any Bengali girl. So, psychological damages can be caused without physical harm. Was she justified in her action in using emotional blackmail for exams or trying suicide?
The point here is that human mind is a very complex instrument, we never know what action would hurt what sort of mind. But just because we can not formulate a theory around it does not mean that psychological damages or a need to stop it would not exist.
Moreover, one assumes that we’re dealing with adults of reasonably strong mind. They can’t be so weak as to get upset over a girl wearing jeans.– Reasonable is a subjective word. What Pravin Togadia thinks as reasonable Shantanu B would not find that reasonable. What you think is reasonable, I may not find it reasonable. Plus, I do have an issue with strong/weak mind theory. To understand why I resent strong/weak mind theory, be sure to check the history of eugenics and how it contributed to the development of nazism as well as helped revive almost-dead racism in 1930s in the west. Let us not get into strong/weak minds type theories, it is a hell we should avoid.So while it’s true that it’s tough, I think we can reach a reasonable consensus on what constitutes culpable harm.– A whole good section of philosophy and religion is devoted on this subject. In fact, if you try to look at common law (the basis of a lot of modern constitution including our own) and the laws that evolved from it subsequently, you will notice that the entire history is sort of an impression of huge effort human intellectual devoted to understand what the word “harm” actually means.@Sid
I’m not questioning the concept of psychological harm (even though it is subjective to a degree as I’m sure you’ll agree.
What I’m questioning is culpability. It’s difficult to prove intention and actual damage which sets the bar very high for psychological harm punishments – and rightly so.
There has to be overwhelming evidence of actual harm caused, intention, and most importantly, no arrogation of the perpetrator’s own rights – such as the rights of an adult to marry or wear clothing like jeans.
So it has to be balanced with all this. In my opinion, psychological harm should a very small role in our justice system. It has its place, but not a big one.
@Bhagwad (#6),
culpabilitymay be a good word. Some legal systems strictly define the scenarios where psychological harms are considered to be committed though grey areas seem to exist which later become the playground of maverick lawyers. Apart from the legal challenges of establishing the psychological harm, as far as I am seeing psychological harm is as important (or as unacceptable) as physical harm.@Sid
I feel that because psychological harm is difficult to verify, it’s open to abuse – meaning a person can claim psychological harm when in fact, there is none.
Also, since there’s no standard way to measure it, anyone can claim to be psychologically harmed by anything. So I’m sure you can see why we should be hesitant in punishing someone for causing it.
There are times when people cause measurable physical harm to those who they claim have harmed them psychologically. This is like honor killing where the parents feel their children have caused them psychological harm, and so cause real harm instead.
@Sid
Incidentally Sid, in the recent judgment of the SC removing the ban on the Shivaji book, here is what it said:
“The effect of the words used in the offending material must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded, firm and courageous men, and not those of weak and vacillating minds, nor of those who scent danger in every hostile point of view. The class of readers for whom the book is primarily meant would also be relevant for judging the probable consequences of the writing”
The idea is that we can’t allow just about any sensitive person to go around claiming “harm.” That is the bar we must set for psychological harm…
*** COMMENTS carried over from the Ground Zero Mosque post ***
Pl continue the (somewhat off-topic) discussion below. As always, I reserve the right to edit/delete/modify comments. Thanks.
**** COMMENTS BEGIN ***
# 41. Indian Pundit said:
Comrade Kartik
Meanwhile. I offer Micheal Moore’s video to you to relax after all that hard work you put in. Enjoy maadi.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om4NJoZaPac
He won the OSCARs for this…
*******
#42. Kartik said:
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
>>Another religion in the making, I see!
With your characteristic perspicacity and penchant for sarcastic wit, you raise another excellent point again.
Is Dawkins, or rather, atheism if you will, in danger of becoming a cult of its own? Do we fear that when a 100 years later Jyllands Posten publishes a cartoon showing Dawkins as an extremist, his followers world over will bomb embassies and kill innocent people? I see even some paranoid Hindus asking this question! (though it is Christians and Muslims who have the larger reason to bear a grudge against Dawkins).
There are two reasons this will not happen. First is that Dawkins’ arguments are founded on *reason* and (this might shock you given your wall-pushing theory) *evidence*. Religion on the other hand is founded on blind belief and dogma. The second is that atheism makes no exclusivist claims, and is willing to coexist. This needs more explanation.
All Abrahamic religions (and that includes Communism) share a common trait that puts them inevitably in conflict with both each other and with non-Abrahamic belief systems. (By contrast, Indian/Asian religions get along reasonably well). All Abrahamic religions claim that 1) that they have a monopoly on Truth and 2) that this Truth is revealed by One True God and 3) it is revealed to the good/chosen people and 4) and therefore it is their bounden duty to compel the bad/non-chosen people to bow before this one Truth as revealed to them by the One True God.
An illustration involving the perorations of Dr Zakir Naik, Islamic preacher recently banned entry into UK, is in order. He was asked why is that Muslim countries do not permit the construction of churches, while Muslims are free to build mosques in Christian-majority countries. To which Dr Naik replied, admirably for a theologian you might think, with a mathematical analogy.
Suppose you are hiring a math teacher for your school, he began. There are three applicants. When asked what is 2+2, the first one says 5, second one says 3 and the third one says 4. Which one will you hire? Duh. Shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Religion likewise is the teaching of God, Naik came to the point. Muslims know that only Islam teaches it correctly. So they cannot permit false teachers in their midst.
The point he illustrates in so many words, is that Islam being the one true religion, has no obligation to humor false religions. There are those verses about kufr and kaffirs, no mistaking their intent. Christianity and Communism also believe the same way. That is the reason why Christians can’t be content with minding their own business. They *have to* proselytize and convert all non-Christians to the faith. Likewise whereas communist parties are allowed to exist and contest elections in democratic countries, communist countries themselves are single-party tyrannies, because they *know* with *absolute certainty* as to what is good for their people. In other words, Abrahamic religions are exclusivist, imperialist, expansionist and do not believe in peaceful coexistence. It is therefore inevitable that they fight not only with each other, but with everybody else.
Hope I have acquitted myself well in appeasing your intellectual curiosity. Warm regards.
*******
#43. Ashish Deodhar said:
@Comrade Kartik
Very good effort to divert the topic from “Islamism†and “Islamophobia†to atheism. And “All Abrahamic religions (and that includes Communism)†– seriously, are you on LSD?
Btw, you might like to know that Richard Dawkins is a lefty himself – he votes for the Liberal Democrats! 🙂 You may now want to find other GODs to fall back on!
@Moderator
Not sufficiently off-topic anymore?
@Comrade Kartik
Zakir Naik is as much as an idiot as you are to assume that every Muslim on this planet shares his views and opinions. I have made this clear in my earlier posts and I will say it again for your benefit (since you don’t understand things in first go!) that I don’t endorse or support any form of religion, let alone the most radical form of Islam. But I am not going to fall for the propaganda of your lot to brand every Muslim an extremist.
You can only fool yourselves with it.
Cheers!
*******
# 44. Kartik said:
Dear Comrade Pundjitji,
I am not at all ignoring you. Please do not feel offended.
Well you see, I write a sentence. You reword it and post it back. I offer a video for Comrade Deodhar to watch. You promptly get back with, well, a video. Imitation is the best form of flattery, they say, so I was enjoying the attention and waiting for you to make an original point.
Now what do you want me to say about Michael Moore? I don’t know. Today is Janmashtami, believed by Hindus to be the birthday of Krishna and celebrated accordingly. A key component of Janmashtami is night-time festivities. Young men vie to jump and break the treasure pot. Bangladeshi Hindus, now down to 10% from the 25% or so post-independence, have been allowed to celebrate it for several years, because luckily, Banglasdeshi Muslims were not feeling fully pushed to the wall yet. But this year they are over the brink. Their minister has asked Hindus to end celebrations by 5pm, stop playing music and not to use loudspeakers, because this is the holy month of Ramdan.
What is Michael Moore’s take on it? Why does he think Bangaldeshi Muslims are pushed to the wall, ordering their minorities about thus? Is it due to capitalist imperialist American policy? What is the conspiracy afoot?
Like I said, I don’t know what you expect me to say. But as always I can offer you .. err.. .cough.. Sam Harris:
“You could also build an Institute of “9/11 Truth,†[at 9/11 site] catering to the credulity, masochism, and paranoia of the 16 percent of Americans who imagine that the World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by agents of the U.S. government.
Incidentally, any shrine to conspiracy thinking should probably also contain a mosque, along with a list of the 4,000 Jews who suspiciously declined to practice their usury in the Twin Towers on the day of the attack.â€
So Moore is believed by 16% Americans. I’d say therefore that he deserves admiration. Warm regards.
*******
#45. Kartik said:
Comrade Deodhar,
>>@Moderator, Not sufficiently off-topic anymore?
Is that an appeal for censorship?
I respectfully submit that censorship is the weapon of the dogmatic. Sarcastic intellectuals like you have nothing to fear from free enquiry.
Moreover, all of our discussion is completely in line with the subject of the thread: Muslim tolerance. Check out the headline once again, and the blog post itself. Warm regards.
*******
#46. Ashish Deodhar said:
@Comrade Kartik
“Is that an appeal for censorship?
I respectfully submit that censorship is the weapon of the dogmatic. Sarcastic intellectuals like you have nothing to fear from free enquiry.â€
May I just leave this question for the moderator to answer? Thanks for raising it though. I support you wholeheartedly 🙂
On your second point, I will wait for you to convince me that communism and atheism has anything to do with Muslim tolerance.
Cheers!
*******
# 47. Kartik said:
Hello Comrade Deodhar,
I am rather surprised to learn that you have never heard of Communism’s similarities with religion. I’m inclined to believe leftwing seminaries these days are not doing a good job training students to prepare them for countering difficult questions.
The Christians call it catechism, I believe.
All my knowledge of the subject is culled from books read long ago. Yet, when I said “googleâ€, one of the first things that turned up was this paper:
http://svonz.lenin.ru/articles/Kula_Marcin-Communism_as_Religion.pdf
And if ye shall search more, ye shall surely find more.
Warm regards.
*******
#48. Ashish Deodhar said:
@ Comrade Kartik
Read this slowly and carefully. And read it again if you don’t get it in the first go.
H..O..W I..S C..O..M..M..U..N..I..S..M R..E..L..A..T..E..D T..O M..U..S..L..I..M T..O..L..E..R..A..N..C..E..?
*******
Ashish Deodhar said:
@Comrade Kartik
Got your answer to the question on bans?
If you are interested in discussing communism, then come to my blog. I have a current post running there with a healthy discussion on communism and free market. And btw, I don’t ban people there. 🙂
sid,
dhanyavvad fo a very informative writeup on my query on “ground zero mosque”.
your writeup had much info that raised my curiosity as i came across this info for the first time.
1.He did not have a really big kingdom as compared to the other Rajputs.
2…a Rajput confederacy was created to help him.
i would be thankful if you could indicate the sources of these info,although i know that you are giving this info probably out of memory.
*** COMMENT by MALAVIKA ***
Sid said:
“Calling people like Chauhan a Hindu hero gave us a wrong impression that is how heroes are supposed to behave and that needs to change. Chauhan acted like a loser and then lost it. Period.â€
What is even worse is that he failed in his ‘Raj Dharma’, i,e protect his people from enemies. Rama Raya of the Vijayanara empire was even more stupid and suicidal. He promoted two Muslim in his army as Generals and these two Generals promptly turned against their king at the Tallikota war causing Rama Raya to lose. I bet none of them read their Koran.
Indians seem to be afflicted with this sucidal Prithviraj Syndrome. We released 92 thousand POWs for what?
My heroes are Shivaji, Ranjit Singh and Charles Martel.
B.t.w any original references to Christi’s role in the defeat of Prithviraj Chauhan?
@ashwani,
To answer both the questions, you may refer to Dashrath Sharma’s book on Chauhan dynasty. The book is probably out of print, I had a link to a used copy in esnips and I read it two years back. The link is no longer working and google book is permitted to show only few paragraphs of the book. SR Goel’s book on Solankis, Paramars and Shahiya dynasty borrowed from his book but I can not find something relevant to quote from there either. May be this link would help you but this is a very weak reference:
http://books.google.co.in/books?cd=6&id=n4gcAAAAMAAJ&dq=bhandarkar++gurjara&q=mewar+confederacy#search_anchor
BTW, when Chauhan took over (after a power struggle in which he was backed by Sens of Gauda)), his kingdom was constrained to a smaller boundary. His early life is spent in battling Solankis to expand his kingdom. How successful he was in it is very debatable.
Nevertheless, wikipedia entries ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Tarain , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Battle_of_Tarain ) have some interesting information but it mostly relies on myth of Prithviraj-Sanykta-Jaychandra for which there is no historical basis. Jaychandra of Kanauj was even part of the first confederacy. Ironically the same man actually campaigned against joining Chauhan’s army during second battle of terrain. Ghori’s capture was not historically sound either, but the fact that Turk-arab army was severely beaten and could have been finished off there was not a myth. Finally, Ghori did not fight alone, he had significant logistical support from Jaydev, the Hindu king of Jammu (or may be a vassal of Shahiyas) during both the battles.
An indirect reference of Rana Uday Singh’s disastrous (because he lost his life in the way) effort to help his friend Chauhan exists in Todd’s collection of Rajasthani tales. Sadly, no-one reads Todd’s collection now-a-days (I once gifted my old copy of “Rajkahaini” written in Bengali based on Todd’s book to my nephew, he could not find time to read it), but it is a good primer in medival rajput history before anyone gets into much-debated history of Rajput resistance and their influence.
It is truly a shame that no definite work exists for Bappa Rawal who in his life time shaped a very powerful kingdom, built a great city (rawalpindi) and founded a dynasty that would remain a significant part of folklore for thousand years.
@Malavika,
While Shivaji and Ranjit Singh were great heroes, you may like to look at this name: Lachit Borphukan of Assam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachit_Borphukan .
sid,
thnx for a very informative response.the 2nd point about rajput kings having formed a confederacy was of more interest,as that was the bane of india’s existence since probably alexander.
but thanks a lot.
“Mumbai cops’ reason for custody: Victim Muslim, accused Hindu”. This is from the Indian Express. If you are dealing with a Muslim be very careful. If you are driving and for any reason you hit a person and he happens to be a Muslim you are done for. Under the new dispensation you will have to ascertain whether the person is Hindu or Muslim. If he is a hindu there is no problem. The law may or may not take its own course. But if the victim is a Muslim that is a valid reason for the police asking denial of bail. Read further to know how the laws are made applicable to different persons belonging to different communities.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/mumbai-cops-reason-for-custody-victim-muslim-accused-hindu/676496/
Can there be any more absurd level to which our so called SECULAR nation can sink.
Can there be any more absurd level to which our so called SECULAR nation can sink.Ohh, wait and see!!! Every time I think this is new low, GoI turns around and lowers the bar of expectation.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/india-muslim-mobs-loot-and-ransack-hindu-shops-and-hindu-temples-beat-up-hindus-torch-public-buse.html
This the start of another “Kashmirâ€
suprised you did not report on it.
The media post about the blog post is:
http://www.ptinews.com/news/934209_Curfew-clamped-nbsp-as-tension-grips-WB-district-
When Hindu reported it earlier:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/states/other-states/article619733.ece?service=mobile
Yes, the headline is, “Youth Killed in Group Clash”
Then the same paper picked up PTI story:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article619400.ece?service=mobile
The real version.
And still people have doubt about media’s duplicity?
I am waiting for spin-this-tv, secular toilet papers of India and Hate-a-hindu-a-day times.
@repo man, @Sid: Thank you for your comments. Pl. see the latest post on this: https://satyameva-jayate.org/2010/09/08/deganga/
Hello Shantanu!
This is just a thought; is it possible to bring ‘like’ and ‘dislike’ button on your blog? I am not sure how it works, but it will sure benefit. Because If I like someone’s comment I don’t have to repeat the same thing for agreeing to that comment,and becomes easy to show the strength of similar views and opinions. Also for those who cannot participate by writing due to lack of time and limited Internet connection; can have easy access to show what they have to say by just clicking the button.
But it also have other side, people may stop writing what they have to say.
Just to bring to your notice if you are missing that feature on your blog.
Adding some relevant links here re. Jaichand’s alleged ‘treachery’ that led to Prthiviraj Chauhan’s defeat and his eventual death.
TLDR: The story of Jaichand’s treachery appears to be just that – a story.
It does not square up to other historical narratives and evidence.
Relevant links:
A Civilisational Slur: Hindumisia In The Story of Jaichand And Prithviraj Chauhan by Shivani Singh, August 2021
To Study the Veracity of Claims that Maharaja Jaichand invited Sihabuddin or Mohd Ghori !
As a digression, here is what happened to Jaichand of Kannauj