Land of My Dreams
Islamic liberalism under fire in IndiaAs it became clear that Pakistani Muslims perpetrated the horrendous terrorist attacks in Mumbai last November, many feared a wave of violence against India’s own Muslim community. The community, which represents 13.4 percent of Hindu-;majority India, suffers from poverty and systemic discrimination, as the government’s recent Sachar Commission report documents. It has also been targeted by the Hindu right, which, in 2002, murdered as many as 2,000 people, mostly Muslims, in the state of Gujarat.
That violence, like the violence of Hindu-;right mobs against Christians in the eastern state of Orissa in 2008, surely deserves the name of “terrorism.” Yet, in India as elsewhere, the word “terrorism” is now frequently confined to the actions of Muslims, and Muslims are suspects almost by virtue of their religion alone. There was reason, then, to fear that mobs would take the Mumbai blasts as the occasion for a renewed assault on an already beleaguered minority.
This assault did not materialize—largely because India’s Muslim community strongly condemned the terrorist acts and immediately took steps to demonstrate its loyalty to the nation. Muslim cemeteries refused burial to the perpetrators. Muslims wore black armbands on Eid, showing solidarity with mourners of all religions and nationalities. The world saw a deeply nationalist community, one loyal to the liberal values of a nation that has yet to treat it justly.
It was not the first time India’s Muslims have demonstrated a peaceful embrace of the country’s founding values. The personal experience of Mushirul Hasan exemplifies the same commitment. A leader of the community, Hasan has been at the center of controversy for his liberal, secular views and has weathered attempts to force him out of his job as Vice-;Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, a pluralistic university closely linked to Muslim contributions in India’s struggle for nationhood. His story illustrates three aspects of Indian and Muslim life that concerned Western observers regularly ignore.
First, the values we associate with classical liberalism—such as the defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and procedural due process—are not exclusively Western values. During the independence movement in India, they were reinvented by a colonized people who had seen just how little their Western masters honored such norms.
Second, these values are not tepid and centrist, as we sometimes hear, but rather, truly radical in a world of nations increasingly under pressure both from external violence and from internal quasi-;fascist forces.
And finally, Hasan’s story shows that there is a distinctive and genuinely Islamic form of liberalism, long-;lived and drawing inspiration from religious texts and their central concepts.
Hasan was born on August 15, 1949, exactly two years after the cohort of “midnight’s children” whose birth coincided with that of modern India on August 15, 1947. He spent his childhood in cosmopolitan Calcutta (now Kolkata), and later moved North with his family to the Aligarh Muslim University, where his father, a well-;known historian, had accepted a post. From early childhood, Hasan encountered the variety and plurality of Muslim life in India.
Then, as now, Muslims were respected as equal citizens by the nation’s laws and by some of its citizens, those who followed the lead of Gandhi and Nehru. But Muslims still encountered ubiquitous suspicion and discrimination, and, despite his middle-;class upbringing, Hasan was no exception. He once recalled to me how he and his brother were refused when they tried to rent a flat in South Delhi on the grounds that the smell of beef from Muslim kitchens would disgust the local (Hindu) inhabitants.
Hasan received a Ph.D. in history from Cambridge University in 1977 and quickly became one of India’s most accomplished and respected historians of the nationalist movement and the modern nation. At the age of thirty-;one, he was the youngest historian ever named to a professorial chair in India. He took a teaching position at Jamia Millia Islamia and has published a dozen or so well-;regarded books on the nationalist struggle, the Nehru family, and the ideas of Gandhi, Nehru, and the liberal Muslims who joined with them.
Hasan addressed the student body, telling them that “the answer to this is to be more secular, to be more liberal in your outlook, to be more enlightened in your perspective.”
In spite of its name, Jamia has never been a Muslim university. Its location, in a predominantly Muslim residential area, and its historical association with secular liberal Muslims who took leading roles in the independence struggle have made it, over the years, an appealing place for Muslim students, but there has never been preferential admission for Muslims—the admissions form does not even ask the religion of the applicant—and the guiding values of the institution are firmly secular and pluralistic. Today about 60 percent of Jamia Millia Islamia’s students and 75 percent of its faculty are Muslim, but inclusiveness is the watchword (as it often is not in Hindu-;majority institutions, where both Muslim and lower-;caste students routinely suffer stigmatization and harassment).
Rumki Basu, a Hindu woman from West Bengal who currently chairs the university’s distinguished Political Science department, explained to me that she never encountered any discrimination or disparagement—even though, right after she got there, she proposed a radical revision of time-;honored syllabi, the sort of thing that usually drives at least some colleagues crazy. At Jamia, however, department discussions were always democratic, respectful, and cordial. (“No,” she says, “I am not making this up.”) “Jamia,” she concludes, “has busted a lot of unfair stereotypes and myths others hold about Muslims in modern India.” “Debate, dialogue, and discuss,” these are the principles that define Jamia—and that should be more common at other Indian universities.
In October 1988 Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was banned in India. Hasan spoke out publicly against the ban, defending the freedom of speech. A group of radical students in the university, attempting to stop him from teaching, assaulted him physically, inflicting minor injuries. While pressing criminal charges against his assailants, Hasan, who was then Pro-;Vice-;Chancellor of the University, was forced to work from home. He was unable to resume administrative and teaching duties for more than four years. During this time he wrote the excellent book Legacy of a Divided Nation: India’s Muslims Since Independence.
Eventually he returned to the university, and the values for which he stood—always the institution’s dominant values—began to prevail even among its more radical students. Hasan dropped the criminal complaints against the ones who assaulted him (justice moves slowly in India, so by the time Hasan returned to Jamia, they were long since graduates with jobs and families to support), and his mercy made him a popular figure among students of all types. When the Congress Party took over in 2004, the President of the India, following the advice of a three-;member selection committee, asked him to become the Vice-;Chancellor of the university, equivalent to a U. S. university president.
In September 2008 police investigating a bomb blast in Delhi that had been tentatively linked to Islamic radicalism arrived at the off-;campus apartment of some Jamia students. In the ensuing violence, two suspects were killed, one a Jamia student; a police officer later died of his wounds. Two Jamia students were soon arrested on suspicion of aiding terrorism.The students were too poor to pay for competent legal counsel, and, while India’s constitution guarantees cost-;free legal assistance to “ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities,” public defenders are low-;grade, and many had recently received threats of violence should they take any case associated with alleged Islamic terrorism. With no hesitation, Hasan said that the university would pay for their legal counsel. The university had done this in other cases, just as it pays students’ medical fees. No one objected on those earlier occasions.
But the political charge in the air ensured that this time would be different. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the political wing of the Hindu right, decided to make an issue of the legal support. Accusing Hasan of misusing public money (Jamia, like all Central Universities in India, is government-;funded), they demanded his resignation. Education Minister Arjun Singh quickly came to Hasan’s defense, noting that the money he was using did not come from the government, but from student activity fees and private donations. Like Hasan, he pointed out that the accused are innocent until proven guilty and have a right to a fair trial.
“What do you want us to do?” Hasan asked, “Stand on a terrace and announce that we are liberal Muslims and that we want to proclaim our loyalty to the nation?”
Meanwhile, Hasan addressed the student body, telling them that “the answer to this is to be more secular, to be more liberal in your outlook, to be more enlightened in your perspective.” He then led a peace march on the campus, a march so silent, so nonviolent and orderly, that even the press could find no incident of bad behavior to sensationalize. The national media have been decidedly unenthusiastic about Hasan’s defense of procedural due process and constitutional norms; they suggest, repeatedly, that he is part of some sinister Muslim cabal. (An honorable exception is The Hindu, India’s best daily, which published an editorial putting the matter in a balanced perspective; the Indian Express and Kolkata’s Telegraph published valuable op-;eds.)
Hasan’s fight for basic principles has been won for now, but he still faces a fight in the court of public opinion for the reputation of his university and the honor of its students and teachers. Stereotypes of the violent Muslim are so prevalent in India—as elsewhere in the world—that it is virtually impossible for Muslim liberals to be taken at their word when they say that they believe in free speech, pluralism, nonviolent persuasion, the rule of law, and the right of each person to a fair trial. ’Oh yes, a screen for darker motives,’ is the typical response, pervasive on Hindu blogs and common even in the mainstream press. You say you are a liberal, and that proves you are a radical Islamist.
Meanwhile, hooligans of the Bajrang Dal, a youth movement associated with the Hindu right, have been on a rampage in Orissa, murdering Christians who refuse to reconvert to Hinduism, but the media never refer to this carnage as “terrorism.” Nor did they use the term “terrorism” for the Gujarat pogrom. For the media, as for so much of our world, “terrorism” just means Muslim terrorism. To a skeptical Hindu journalist who had asked him why Muslim intellectuals do not condemn terrorism, Hasan (who had just finished condemning all terrorism, Hindu and Muslim alike) replied:
You probably don’t hear those voices because you don’t want to hear those voices. The media doesn’t represent those voices because the media is only interested in strident voices. They are not interested in the sane, liberal, rational voices. . . . What do you want us to do? Stand on a terrace and announce that we are liberal Muslims and that we want to proclaim our loyalty to the nation?
Hasan is a remarkable person, but his convictions are hardly sui generis. They are deeply rooted in Jamia Millia Islamia’s history: a home-;grown, tolerant, liberal pluralism has defined the institution from its anti-;colonial inception.
The university was born in internal struggles at Aligarh Muslim University, then a conservative institution very much under British control. Many wanted this situation to continue, holding that the mission of Aligarh ought to be to make Indian Muslims “worthy and useful subjects of the British Crown.” A group of younger intellectuals, however, inspired by Gandhi’s ideas and increasingly involved in resistance against the Raj, sought change. Part of their zeal was for Islamic politics: they took a passionate interest in the Khilafat movement, which worked to protect the Ottoman caliphate and sacred Muslim sites from British hijacking. But the Khilafat movement was inherently a campaign against British imperialism, and before long the young radicals of Jamia joined their Turkish concerns to Gandhi’s non-;cooperation movement, becoming apostles of nonviolent resistance to the local British rulers.
The campus soon split into two camps. The old guard, backed by the British, drove out the young radicals in 1920. Sir George Campbell, the district magistrate, confronted Mohammed Ali, one of the radical leaders, saying, “You want to bring up these students as disobedient boys.” Ali responded by reciting a verse of the eighteenth-;century Urdu poet Mir Taqi Mir that neatly epitomized the behavior of the Raj at this period (though tactfully omitting its heinous acts of violence):
To taunt and sneer and wound and speak unkindly,
She has all these accomplishments, my friend;
Friendship and love and graciousness and kindness
Are things she could never comprehend.
Jamia Millia Islamia was opened the following year. After a short time in Aligarh, it moved to Delhi.
Jamia was born radical. Its curriculum emphasized the study of nationalism as well as the study of Islamic history and the Qu’ran; its admissions policy welcomed male and female, Hindu and Muslim; its pedagogy emphasized debate and contestation in the teaching of all subjects, including religion, denouncing the mere “passive awareness of dead facts.” The school had strong links with theorists of progressive education such as Bertrand Russell and Rabindranath Tagore and thus gave substantial weight to the arts and vocational education. This philosophy was applied early, since the university included a residential primary school, where “learning by doing” was the progressive norm. One founder summarized: “We believe that formal instruction should serve as a support for the exercise of initiative, that the child’s mind should be active and responsive, not passive, that the body should be made efficient along with the mind.”
Older students, meanwhile, learned that the national ideal of independence from colonial domination could also become a personal ideal, as Ali stressed:
Jamia’s objective is that Muslims should [not] follow blindly the previous ‘fixed’ path . . . the Jamia has instilled hatred in the heart of every student—be he a Muslim or a Hindu—against subjugation by foreign powers. It has kept its air free of transgression and prejudice. For these reasons, the Jamia is both Jamia Millia Islamia and a national university.
The Jamians insisted that identity politics, with its preference for insiders, was foreign to Islam’s ideal universal brotherhood.
Jamia was coeducational from the start, but initially the number of female students was small. By 1930, however, the arrival of distinguished female faculty prepared the way for full integration. A later Vice-;Chancellor wrote of the way in which the university has helped women “not only break into the spaces which are male preserves, but also . . . fight back against male tyranny and violence.” Today, women compose about 25 percent of undergraduates, but more than 50 percent of those at the master’s degree stage.
Meanwhile, the institution’s progressive educational vision led to a stream of visitors from abroad. A distinguished British observer spoke of Jamia as having “an international breadth of vision” that most Britain-;oriented Indian universities lacked. Jamia’s degrees were not recognized by the British, but they were recognized in Germany, France, and the United States.
Teachers at Jamia report a glut of detentions and arrests of students. Politicians, the media, and the police try to paint a picture of the university as a hotbed of terrorism.
Jamia’s early years were marked by recurrent financial crises. To keep the young institution afloat, a group of distinguished scholars pledged to serve Jamia for twenty years, taking only a token salary. Chief among them was Zakir Hussain, an economist trained in Germany who became Vice Chancellor in 1928, serving for twenty-;one years (and who much later served as the third President of India). A man of tireless energy, enthusiasm, and self-;sacrifice, Hussain furthered both the university’s educational vision and the nationalist ideal, and did so in close conversation with Gandhi, who viewed Jamia as an important part of a tolerant India. In one letter to the university in 1930, Gandhi wrote:
Islam enjoins upon us tolerance towards others’ religions. It doesn’t say that other religions are false. He alone who does good to others is a true man. This is the principle of the [Qu’ran] as also the teaching of other religions. The students of the Jamia, I hope, will spread the message of unity and freedom throughout the country.
The teachers and students of Jamia were passionate about these ideas, as Gandhi acknowledged, saying, “When I come to the Jamia, I feel I have come home.” Again and again, the faculty wrote about the sort of nationalism they intended to foster: not “the jingo nationalism of the German or Italian type,” but “nationalism as a step to internationalism,” “nationalism of a liberal type.”
After Independence Jamia remained a favorite of the national leadership, Nehru in particular. In a letter of 1952 to Zakir Hussain, Nehru characterized Jamia as a pet project of Gandhi’s that he was committed to nurturing. He added a gloomy coda:
Whatever I can do for Jamia, I shall endeavour to do. The world seems a very dark, dismal and dreary place, full of people with wrong urges or no urge at all, living their lives trivially and without any significance. All the more, therefore, we seek the few sanctuaries and causes and try to derive sustenance from them.
And yet Jamia’s financial woes continued. Although some of its degree programs were recognized in 1945, and it achieved nationally recognized university status in 1962, it was only in 1988 that the university was recognized as a Central University, giving it access to more government funds. Having begun as a group of rebels departing from a government-;controlled institution (Aligarh), Jamia had finally achieved full recognition by the government of the independent nation.
When Hasan arrived at Jamia, it had a glorious past, but faced many contemporary challenges. Even after it began to receive funds from the central government, it had a hard time becoming the sort of first-;rank, cutting-;edge university that could compete successfully for students and faculty against Delhi’s other prestigious Central Universities, Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).
Apart from his massive fundraising efforts, for which he has a gift, Hasan has insistently emphasized the institution’s pluralistic, secular character, making it clear to faculty and students from all regions and religions that it can be a very good place to be. One of his successes has been to put Jamia on the map as a dream university for students from some of India’s poorest states and regions. Such students might lack the preparation required to get into JNU, but talent and ambition could get them a place in Jamia. Another way Hasan highlights pluralism is by naming buildings after individuals from other nations and religions—including the aforementioned Hindu politician Arjun Singh, who, as Education Minister, has strongly supported the growth of the institution. Meanwhile, empowering faculty such as Basu sends a signal of religious pluralism and sex equality that aids both student and faculty recruitment.
In regard to curriculum, Hasan has strengethened specific areas in which Jamia can compete with the best: thus, a renowned Academy for Third-;World Studies (founded in 1988, but bolstered under Hasan’s leadership); an unparalleled human rights program; and both core and optional courses in public administration, social work, education management, and journalism that are not available in any other university in Delhi. Finally, as Basu emphasizes, Hasan has pushed for an educational climate of tolerance, debate, and difference that few Indian universities, where students raised on rote learning all too often find more of the same, can match.
Hasan’s own scholarship has often focused on Jawaharlal Nehru and his accomplishments, so it is not surprising that he sought, for Jamia, the Centre for Jawaharlal Nehru Studies, the first institution of its kind in the country. The Centre opened in October 2004 (shortly after the electoral defeat of the Hindu right and the victory of Congress), with Sonia Gandhi, Congress Party chair, in attendance. In his dedicatory speech, Hasan said that Nehru’s legacy is more important in India now than ever because Nehru “argued for the moral value and legitimacy of nationalism in a form compatible with liberal democratic principles and institutions.” Hasan said that he feels it particularly important to honor Nehru at Jamia, in order to break with the tendency to partition India’s heritage by “saying to each other, Azad is ‘yours,’ Nehru is ‘ours,’ Tagore is ‘ours’ because we are Bengalis,” etc. “This must stop . . . . We should teach Mir and Ghalib in Bengal, and Tagore and Nazrul Islam in north India.” The Nehru Centre should be a reminder of India’s identity as “tolerant and inclusive,” through its invitation to contemplate Nehru’s “own eclectic and broad-;minded outlook and the liberal and scientific temper he created in a society that had strong illiberal and authoritarian traits.”
But Hasan also understands, as did Gandhi, that liberal values and nonviolence need to be alluring, not just morally right. Unlike Gandhi, however, Hasan is thoroughly secular, a bon vivant who has a great interest in Urdu poetry and literature. The home he shares with his wife, Zoya, a leading political scientist at JNU and a member of the National Commission for Minorities, is full of beautiful art. And both, as hosts, exemplify Mir’s notion of “graciousness and kindness.” Closer, then, to his hero Nehru, who, despite the bleak tone of many of his letters, was famous for wit and zest at dinner parties.
Hasan, in short, exudes the kind of joyfulness and playfulness that make peple feel that moral principles are not only a duty, but a delight. That is a gift, unfortunately lacking in most of the giants of the Western Enlightenment, though Martin Luther King, Jr., surely had it. Liberal politics is based on respect for the person, but if it does not have something else as well, something more akin to love, it will not capture the hearts of people who long for meaning.
In May a national election may bring to power a coalition government in which the Hindu-;nationalist BJP will play a leading role. If that happens the BJP will no doubt continue their current agenda: attacking moderate Islam, trying to convert what exists at Jamia into the bogeyman of their rhetoric. Only determined public pressure can save the day, ensuring that someone who shares Hasan’s commitments, if not he himself (since his term ends this summer), is at the helm during a crucial period of growth and transition for the university.
The story of nonreligious terrorism (for example, the Tamil Tigers) is underreported, and Hindu terrorism against both Muslims and Christians has yet to appear on the American radar screen.
Other needs are even more pressing in the short term. The National Human Rights Commission has notified the Delhi police that it is investigating the bloody September 2008 incident and wants a complete report. The police write-;up is, indeed, full of inconsistencies and gaps. For example, the police arrived at the student dwelling without backup and without bulletproof vests, as if they were not preparing to encounter armed terrorists—yet, in retrospect, they say this is exactly what they were doing. The dwelling where the policeman was shot had only one entrance, yet we are supposed to believe that, with police lined up at the door, two students managed to escape unharmed. The students in the house had submitted the usual residential questionnaire with correct names, dates of birth, etc., all rather odd if their student identities were a ruse and they were really members of a widespread Muslim terrorist organization (the Indian Mujahideen), as is alleged. Finally, the two students whose legal fees Jamia is paying have a clean record, and all who know them describe them as peaceful, even dreamy and impractical. So we urgently need to know the quality of the evidence linking them to the case.
Meanwhile, teachers at Jamia report a glut of detentions and arrests of students. Politicians, the media, and the police try to paint a picture of the university as a hotbed of terrorism, and large numbers of students in off-;campus housing have been asked to vacate their flats by landlords who fear police reprisals. Police presence all around the campus is distressing, disrupting the climate of instruction. The unfairness of disturbing an entire university of 14,000 students over the alleged actions of two of its members is obvious, but hardly anyone is complaining about it, apart from the teachers and students themselves.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the Jamia case is the atmosphere surrounding those who provide legal counsel to people accused of terrorism. One after another, bar associations in different parts of the country are announcing boycotts of terror suspects. In Madhya Pradesh, two suspects were forced to hire counsel from a different state after all local lawyers refused them. A leading state BJP official supported the boycott, saying that “a distinction must be made between criminals and terrorists.” So much for the presumption of innocence. In Uttar Pradesh, lawyers have been faced with threats to their safety if they take on terror cases. Legal and social activists believe that the Hindu right has profoundly infiltrated the mechanisms of criminal justice making it very difficult for Muslims to get a fair trial. Often, moreover, Muslims remain in detention without trial for years. Muslims constitute 18 percent of convicts in Indian prisons, 21.8 percent of those whose cases are currently being tried, and 37.2 percent of those in detention awaiting either trial or specific charges.
When the legal system works this badly, essential constitutional rights become mere words on paper. Moreover, the rhetoric of the Hindu right, which constantly equates arrest with conviction, suggests at best a tenuous commitment to the rule of law. The contention that offering legal aid means being “soft on terrorism”—a ubiquitous charge against Hasan, despite his repeated condemnations of terrorism in any form—is a communitarian idea that betrays impatience with the very idea of due process. When lots of people in a democracy think this way, there is danger. In India its source has been the same for decades: a Hindu right that never accepted the liberal values of equal respect, due process, and religious non-;establishment.
Hasan’s ordeal leaves us with four conclusions.
First, we should mistrust stereotypes of the violent Muslim. Current preconceptions, combined with media sensationalism, lead to selective reporting (in India as elsewhere). Stories of Muslim liberals, provoke boredom or skepticism. But the failure to report only confirms the preconceptions. Meanwhile, the story of nonreligious terrorism (for example, the Tamil Tigers) is underreported, and Hindu terrorism against both Muslims and Christians has yet to appear on the American radar screen. As Hasan points out, we need more prominent stories of Muslim nonviolence:
A whole auditorium can be filled up with books on Islam and violence but what about Islam and nonviolence? What about Gaffar Khan [a Muslim associate of Gandhi’s, who developed a philosophy of nonviolence using Islamic sources]? Does he not exist or is he of no consequence because he does not fit the stereotype that some people wish to create and perpetuate about an entire community?
For this reason, one of Hasan’s current priorities is the creation on Jamia’s campus of a museum of the nationalist struggle, devoted to the history elided at other museums: the prominent role played by Muslims in the nationalist movement. While we wait for the museum to be built, the book Partners in Freedom, which Hasan co-;authored with Rakhshanda Jalil, tells the story in both text and photographs.
Second, the stereotyping of Muslims as violent, when combined with economic and political discrimination, engenders among Muslims a justified anger that can all too easily spill over into unjustified violence. Gandhi knew well that the rage of his followers against the British had legitimate roots, yet he was able to convince people that the best response to oppression was nonviolent protest.
Mushirul Hasan follows Gandhi’s program. In fact, I am tempted to say, somewhat hyperbolically, that virtually the only place in today’s India where Gandhi’s ideas are being duly honored is on the campus of Jamia. But Hasan knows, like Gandhi, and like Martin Luther King, Jr., that anger will not go away, will not cease to create the possibility of violence, unless the subordination that fuels it is brought to an end.
Therefore, while working to promote nonviolence, one must also work to eradicate political and economic conditions that nourish the desire for violence. Noting the economic discrimination suffered by India’s Muslims (the lack of basic social services, such as clean water, in the poor residential areas surrounding Jamia is one ugly example)—now compounded by widespread political discrimination in the form of round-;ups on suspicion of terrorism (India’s analogue to the odious American tradition of racial profiling) and, more worrying, threats against lawyers who defend people accused of terrorism—Hasan says to that same skeptical reporter: “The fact that they are still liberals in this sort of situation—caught between the devil and the deep sea—you should give them a Padma award.” (The Padma Shri award is given by the Indian government each year to people who have performed some meritorious service to the nation. Hasan was awarded the Padma Shri in 2007.)
The third conclusion to be drawn from these events is the Gandhian one: the importance of the nonviolent response. Speaking about Muslim communities more generally, Hasan insists that the solution to Muslims’ problems lies in nonviolence and a grass-;roots demand for democracy:
The stranglehold of the orthodoxy, especially in its political and religious form, has to be loosened and slackened. The answer lies in more and more Muslim communities moving towards democracy. There is no short cut to democracy. . . . There is no place for pharaohs in the modern world.
Hasan thus joins such anti-;theocratic Muslims as Akbar Ganji of Iran in calling for a restructuring of Islamic nations through a popular demand for democratic self-;government, prominently including a commitment to the equality and empowerment of women. And he immediately adds that the move to democracy has been very much impeded by attempts on the part of the United States to impose democracy by force.
The final, and perhaps most important, lesson is that, following Gandhi, we must all rethink our understandings of strength and weakness, courage and timidity. Real strength, in an individual, is not manifested by bashing people over the head. Who does that? Only someone who feels threatened and weak. Real strength is manifested by the ability to show respect to others, to treat them as equals, and not to try to impose one’s will by force. Real strength in a community or a nation, similarly, is manifested not by a willingness to dispose of liberal values whenever violence seems easier or more fun, but by a commitment to them that does not bend when the going gets tough. That is radical. And if being radical means going “to the root” of the matter, it is the liberal, who subdues the violence and greed of the self, who is the true radical, while left and right communitarians casually allow the banal and constant desire for domination to carry the day.
In a world where so many anthems call for blood and equate manliness with abuse, here is what Jamia’s founders wrote for its students to sing as the official anthem of the university:
Here conscience alone is the beacon, . . .
It’s the Mecca of many faiths,
Travelling is the credo here, pausing a sacrilege, . . .
Cleaving against currents is the creed here,
The pleasure of arrival lies in countering crosscurrents.
This is the home of my yearnings,
This is the land of my dreams.
A radical song indeed.
Comments
About the Author
Martha C. Nussbaum teaches philosophy and law at the University of Chicago. Her most recent book is Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality
Related Articles
Martha C. Nussbaum,
The Mourner’s Hope
Body of the Nation
Tragedy and Justice
This article is part of a
special issue on democracy and Muslim minorities.
BR Footnote:
Boston Review’s intern blog
Indian Union was split by Indian muslims citing the exclusivist nature of islam. It was a violent movement that intiated ethnic cleansing and death of about million people.
In pakistan, where Hindu population was ~20-25% in 1947, now less than 1% Hindus recide.
In India, where the muslim populaton was ~8% in 1947, now ~15% muslims recide.
This one fact more than anything explains who are tolerant - Hindus or muslims.
Obviously people with motivated agenda like miss nussbaum would not ask questions and reveal facts that are contrary to their agenda.
Nussbaum talks about Orissa and attacks on local christians. Native Indian beliefs and its followers have been a subject of attack by catholic church in an organised and predatory way. Native Indian traditions and its followers have neither the funds, nor the government support to face conversions that are typically carried out using deceit and lies. A native Indian saint was attacked by groups allied with church in Orissa triggering violence. Some perspective on what goes on in India can be understood here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvNf_TudjEk
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B91269FBF105548A
Mushirul Hasan wanted to defend terrorists using Government funds not his personal money. Imagine Government funds used to defend khalid ahmed (the man who plotted september 11 attack). BJP rightly protested misuse of government funds by a university to defend terrorists.
Islam in India remains a deeply regressive force. Muslims in India are represented by forces like these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSit8zu0JMY
(Ms. Niussbaum may call such people liberal, most will not)
P.S.-Please get your facts right...I can (on request) point out a million glitches and factually incorrect info in this Sham of an article.... Its like If I (who has never been to states) start cooking up story about American Socio-politico structre....or something like that.
Or is it Nussbaum's Hindu-baiting business as usual?
Judge for yourself. This is what Hasan wrote in the immediate aftermath of 9/11:
" Islamic militants have broken free from the shackles of the past in order to rebuild a world free of Western aggression and exploitation. Doubtless, their perspectives are often distorted. Doubtless, their emphasis on taqlid (strict adherence to the letter of the law) stifles internal dissent, dims the chances of innovation and interpretation (jehad), and impedes the emancipation of women. At the same time, they are not the rustic Bedouins to be herded by a Lawrence of Arabia, but skilled, sophisticated, urbanised professionals (invisible, of course, in India) trained in the metropolis. For right or wrong reasons, they offer hope to a tormented millat-i-Islamia (community of Islam."
http://www.indianexpress.com/res/web/pIe/columnists/mush/20011018.html)
And he follows Gandhi's program? Pigs fly, for sure.
if u read the indian express article in full, u'll know what he is talking about.
Idris
Islamic liberalism under fire in India- Read as ‘Islam is in danger’,The typical wailing of Muslim fundamentalists in India & elsewhere, (this is also the tag line of Mr. Bin Laden & the Taliban) –Even the Mumbai 26/11 terrorists cited the same reasons for their ‘holy’ actions.
Gujarat riots! Somehow they always conveniently forget mentioning that the muslims triggered the riots by setting ablaze women & children in the Sabarmati Express massacre & are blissfully unaware of the Moplah massacre.
Orissa! An age-old tribal enimity of which incidently one’s converted to christanity is desperately being highlighted with sinister motives of instigating the Christian readers – never ever mentioning the funding by the proselytizers to the Maoist as protection money & contract killings which led to the clash.
“…aspects of Indian and Muslim life that concerned Western observers regularly ignore.”
--- Clamoring for western observers to view the outside world through the lenses of Islam.
This Hasan guy, Vice–Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, a state-funded university for Muslims, who’s being eulogized by the author, is blatantly using taxpayers’ money to provide legal & community aid to terrorists’ organizations like the Indian Mujahidin’s etc. & openly hold anti-India demonstrations when the police accost any terrorists, like the one’s who planted bombs in N. Delhi, the heinous blasts in which a hundred innocents lost their lives. Later a police officer, Mohan Sharma, attempting to arrest them was shot & killed & then they escaped, shielded by the local Muslims under who like the author & ilks, sympathize with their ‘holy’ cause.
Any guesses why then they have to resort to such desperate CBM’s as stated by the author-
“India’s Muslim community strongly condemned the terrorist acts and immediately took steps to demonstrate its loyalty to the nation.”
**
Martha, who are these many and why did they fear a wave of violence? Is there a precedence of such violence in the wake of Pak-sponsored terrorist attacks? Or are you simply projecting on to some unknown and invented "many" who live only in your imagination without any basis?
--------
"..the admissions form does not even ask the religion of the applicant.."
**
Clearly, this is meant for naive Americans, as anyone in India knows there's no need to mention religion since in 99.9% of cases, religion can be easily deduced from a person's name. That's why people take off their name-plates when there's a riot.
-------
"In October 1988 Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses was banned in India. Hasan spoke out publicly against the ban, defending the freedom of speech. A group of radical students in the university, attempting to stop him from teaching, assaulted him physically, inflicting minor injuries."
**
A group of radical students? Of which religion? Christians? Hindus? No, must be Jains. Tsk..tsk..tsk, such sleight of hand, Ms. Nussbaum. I mean, you have no problem mentioning the word 'Hindu' with radical behavior, then why such double standards?
-----------
"Meanwhile, hooligans of the Bajrang Dal, a youth movement associated with the Hindu right, have been on a rampage in Orissa, murdering Christians who refuse to reconvert to Hinduism, but the media never refer to this carnage as “terrorism.”"
**
Are you really unaware that what happened in Orissa was caste-related, and having to do with benefits given to SCs and STs, as well as long-standing rivalry between Kondh-Pana/Kui over resources? Oh right. None of the "journalists" bothered to dig up the facts which I was able to do so by spending 2 hours on the internet, because, well, it's fashionable to pin every act of violence on "saffron brigade" whether true or not, and without bothering to investigate the reasons. Such underlying reasons and justifications are only reserved for poor Muslims who are forced to take up terrorism because of their socio-economic situation, poverty and exploitation, notwithstanding many examples of well-off Muslims taking up terrorism. Such intellectual laziness!!
-----
"Stereotypes of the violent Muslim are so prevalent in India—as elsewhere in the world—that it is virtually impossible for Muslim liberals to be taken at their word when they say that they believe in free speech, pluralism, nonviolent persuasion, the rule of law, and the right of each person to a fair trial."
**
I guess you were visiting Mars when the whole Danish cartoon controversy and resulting global violence took place. Or when Taslima Nasreen was physically assaulted and abused by some Muslim men in Hyderabad - the clip is available on youtube. Or when the cartoon strip in the US was pulled to avoid offending Muslims. Or the reason why the author of comic strip 'Jesus and Mo' writes anonymously.
As for taking Muslim liberals seriously, two reasons:
1. If they spoke out unambiguously and consistently against violent acts, we'd believe them.
2. The concept of al-taqiyya that's there in Islamic theology.
So, why blame non-Muslims?
By the way, if it's really so easy to become a famous and respected scholar based on such shoddy research, I sure picked the wrong profession to be in.
I didn't expect Martha who worked with my favourite Amartya sen , to bring such an article without a quality research.
I backed up my comment with facts. Feel free to point out any errors if you can find them and rebut my points.
It's intellectually lazy to dismiss every criticism under the guise of "Hindu nationalists."
By the way, why is Hindu nationalism wrong in your view? What framework are you using to reach that conclusion? Are you, by any chance, a coconut, and is that why you're ashamed of Hindu nationalism?
If India were indeed secular and Congress party serious about implementing it, we wouldn't have seen communal incidents like banning of 'Satanic Verses', Shah Bano case, Taslima Nasreen etc. So, only someone who's deluded would think that India is a secular state. I could give many more instances, though you seem knowledgeable enough to likely know them already.
I'm laughing at all this invective. Don't you raving fools realize that you're proving her point? She's talking about how nationalist Hindus assume that every Muslim is a terrorist, and here you all are, apoplectic, freely conflating ALLEGED terrorists with actual terrorists, condemning people for something they haven't been proven guilty of while bending over backwards to justify massacres on your own soil.
There's definitely some hagiography in this article, and it makes me suspect the author's motives. But at the end of the day she's talking about how the state of India doesn't respect its own laws of due process and equal treatment. That's the key issue even if it gets lost in weepy exhortations.
Political parties in India are busy pandering to their respective vote banks. BJP is no better; why are extremist groups taking the law into their own hands in Karnataka? Why have the guilty officials in India not been prosecuted speedily despite a Supreme Court report that has found them negligent in performing their duties during the Gujarat riots?
All political parties are feeding a convenient script to their vote-banks; we Indians seem only too eager to believe their morally bankrupt agenda. We should be punishing our politicians and public officials for non-performance, but we are directing our energies toward maligning fellow-citizens (whose community leaders also act in solely in their own interest).
So BJP is your favorite whipping boy, even though the rot was started by Congress as well as precedence set by them. Has any Congress leader been brought to justice for their actions in communal riots (Meerut, Ahmedabad, New Delhi '84)? Or were all communal riots in India started by BJP while Congress and other "secular" parties escape accountability?
Are you incapable of reading? I implicate all political parties in exploiting communal and/or casteist politics. You're so mired in defending BJP that you overlook its faults. There is no question that our political system is rotten. Rather than accept the fact that our particular party too is at fault, we point the flaws in another one. The problem, as Pratik mentions, is a toothless constitution. The truth is that a majority of Indians today live in abject poverty -- while our attention is diverted from that glaring problem by political parties which continue to exploit the apathy and prejudices of the chattering classes. Today the spokesperson of the NCP is on TV declaring that a "'Marathi Manush' will be the king of Delhi." First, in a democracy there is no place for kings and that comment itself is insulting to voters who are electing accountable representatives. Second, each coalition should talk about nominating the most capable politician as the prime ministerial candidate, rather than about regional considerations.
These people are openly ruining our country and mocking the electoral process to our faces. All we do is defend these corrupt, hateful, and divisive individuals and buy the agenda they're peddling.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum/
and the author of:
The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future (2007).
I dont think anything she has written smacks of racism or tokenism or anything else. I think its OK to disagree with her on beliefs - for example, may muslim indians practice a kind of soft-islamism and to some extent Mr. Mushirul Hasan has also participated in that - but please lets not go down the road of name-calling and congress vs. bjp etc.
I've read Professor Nussbaum's cogent writing on India -- and I find it to be balanced and mature in general. It is up to you to analyze her work and see if it matches your expectations. I've scrutinized her credentials plenty and am satisfied.
Her writings portray a continuously invidious and demonic portrayal of Hindus. In her world view, Hindus are incapable of any human emotion other than hate and murder of non-Hindus, that Indians are dangerous conspirators with world-conquering ambitions (sounds kinda like Nazi-antisemitic propaganda, doesn't it?) and that their singular goal is the extermination of non-Hindus.
It's all a lie. India is the most successful experiment in democracy and liberalism in the developing world. Hindus are staunchly secular and believe in the separation of religion
and state. There is no international conspiracy by Hindu Nationalist to eat your precious brains. Don;t believe a word of her vicious, racist, hate-filled lies!
She circulated a racist and demonic article during the Yale Conference on antisemitism denouncing all Hindus as anti-Semites (even though Hindus are the biggst supporters of Israel in the developing world, and it was the anti-Semitic Congress Party that catered to India's Muslim vote bank and took an anti-Semitic stance against the Jewish state).
Read the works of Professor Nathan Katz sometime. It's far more reliable and accurate than Nussbaum's racist, demonic fraud.
http://www.indiastar.com/wallia28.htm
As an academic myself, I am consistently appalled at a liberal publication allowing her hate-filled rhetoric to go unchecked and uncriticized. It is merely a reflection of the rising tide of racial discrimination and demonization of Indian Americans in the media and academia, and I will do everything that I can to expose, criticize, and repudiate Nussbaum and her campaign of hatred, bigotry and prejudice that I feel is incompatible with the liberal values that are generally espoused in American academia.
"You're so mired in defending BJP that you overlook its faults."
Um, and where did you get that from my comments? You accuse me of being incapable of reading while completely missing the title of my comment # 18, that too in big bold font. Here it is again: "The question was about secularism - I am aware that all parties are corrupt"
What name should I call you, or how should I characterize your failure to read?
According to the Indian constitution it's also mandatory that the state provides legal counsel if the undertrial can't pay or else if unrepresented in a court of law,for any reason, whatsoever, he'll have to be set free.
Apply your mind before jumping to conclusions, in your arrogance you’ve neither understood the context of the topic & have made a fool of yourself by cut, copy, paste the usual mumbo-jumbo (Hindu Nationalist, ALLEGED terrorists with actual terrorists, every Muslim is a terrorist et al), whereas the debate is on a different wavelength altogether , which is anyways beyond the intellectual grasp of quick-fix superficial commentators like you.
1. After gandhi joined with the khilafat movement, and the caliphate was abolished, muslim mopplahs raped and massacred thousands of hindus--for no reason. A simple google search would show that:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=q8a6SYzWEZa8M5WXuJ4P&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=moplah+massacre&spell=1
2. No press effort to call it hindu terror? Dr. Nussbaum, it is obvious you have not been tuning into the indian media. In the lead up to 26/11 that was all that was being blared on NDTV, Times of India, and other english language media. A simple google search would show that:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hindu+terror&aq=f&oq=
3. You left out the godhra fires (which instigated the rioting) in which 58 hindus, almost all women and children, were incinerated by the muslim mob at godhra. also, please get your statistics right: 790 muslims and 254 hindus were killed in the riots.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4536199.stm
4. Here are statistics on UK muslims:
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13186100
Accordingly to your logic, does that mean the london tube attacks should be justified?
5. Anyone who took the time to do basic research on the Orissa riots knows that it was triggered by the assassination of a hindu swami (and his nuns) who, it just so happens, was peaceably reconverting evangelical converts, by maoist hitmen. Moreover, the rioting was primarily about Schedule Caste status, which the christian convert panas were still receiving, which set them up against the hindu kandhas. please get your facts right.
All human life must be valued. Equal justice must be available for all. Violence of all forms must be condemned. Godhra does not justify gujarat--but that does not mean godhra should be ignored or gujarat riot stats falsified. Perpetrating the notion that the Indian state systematically oppresses its muslims is academically dishonest. For future reference, I would recommend this piece to clarify any misunderstanding you may have about the state of affairs in india. Incidentally it originally appeared in the magazine Outlookindia and was written by...an indian muslim:
http://indianmuslims.in/india-secularism/
http://www.hindu.com/2008/11/17/stories/2008111759451000.htm
“The Congress is playing the politics of vote bank due to which terrorism is spreading in the country. For vote bank the Congress coined the term Hindu terrorism [after the Malegoan blast], but the BJP never used terminology like Muslim terrorism,” Mr. Advani said. He was addressing a ‘vijay sankalp (victory pledge) rally’ here.
Nussbaum doesn't care about tolerance or justice. She simply wants to have Gitmo re-opened and Hindus sent there instead of Muslims.
Nussbaum is a vile racist bigot.
First personal disclosure - I am a Hindu male. Your article does make for interesting reading. I do agree with your implication that we are moving to the Hindu right in India, but you do not provide context beyond the 26/11 attacks for this shift - it isnot like a billion people decided to become more focused on their "Hinduness" overnight. However the use of "Hindu Terrorism" is perhaps unwarranted. We have just had 2 quick attacks in Ireland - are we to label that as Catholic terrorism. And please remember we in India have been attacked a lot more than any other country in recent times (from some accounts over 2000 terrorist attacks over the last 2 years). (Please note that I will not reify that strange term "Islamic terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" but the empirical evidence suggests that many of the perpetrators profess their beleif in their version of Islam) That impacts our media just as much it did the US media after 9/11.
But our media does not march to a single drum beat as you have also noted - The Hindu is a key exception. I am also surprised at your complete lack of focus on any of the many "Hindu" liberals who are fighting for secular causes.
I am also concerned that you have found it fit to extrapolate to speak for the large number of people who are Muslims by discussing one institution and one extraordinary man.
So where are we and where do we go - should aggressive focus on areas where terrorism has been seen - such as Jamia Millia - be eschewed even if they are bastions of liberalism? If the state does not protect its citizens from terror attacks then it loses its principal reason to exist. But I do feel that the rhetoric needs to be ratcheted down by many political and media institutions - and we need a lot more aggressive reporting on attacks by Hindus on Muslims and Christians (the role of missionaries in a volatile tribal setting is not completely a-political but that is another discussion). But this large scale smearing of Hindus and Indians as being illiberal and "terrorists" is neither helpful nor accurate and as a scholar a lot more was expected from you.
"She is a highly credentialed scholar at the University of Chicago - more details at
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/nussbaum/
and the author of:
The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future (2007)."
She's a professor of law and philosophy in USA, not India. How does that make her an expert on India and Indian politics and history any more than another average bloke who has read some books on India?
Seriously, we Indians need to stop looking up to white people to be the experts when it comes to India just because they happen to be white. That's racism, or some kind of colonial slave mentality, I think. Either way, it's unhealthy and totally avoidable.
While asking rhetoricals such as "What is wrong with Nationalism" and by accusing others as WHITE or Coconuts, they miss an important historical fact: the nation states (and that would include the the Indian Nation) are a product of the Western Enlightenment. And so if they are buying into the idea of a Nation State and Nationalism, then they are pretty much buying into the Western Enlightenment - perhaps they are the coconuts who again, don't know it yet?
In a similar vein, their limited understanding of anti-semitism just goes on to show how they are unable to read the inherent symbolisms in the academic debate that they are referring to.
And because their mind is so fixated on believing what they wish to, they cannot come to believe that Martha Nussbaum's book demonstrates to a large extent the coverage of the RSS - an organization that most of these people were recruited and brain washed by when they 12.
In any case, they are a poor excuse for nationalism, pluralism and defender of liberal principles - things that they don't know yet and if they remain as closed as they are to an open debate, they will never know.
In this case, the Indian state has not been fulfilling the needs of the Indian nationals and by large, by isolating the muslims in their quest for a better life. And so they are BOUND to not abide by their duties because their rights as citizens are not being fulfilled. Rational? Don't you see?
Also, a sweeping statement such as " most terrorists are indeed Muslims" just go on to show how little and narrow your vision of the world is. Are you even AWARE of the cases of violence and rebel against the government in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Orissa? People are revolting against New Delhi because New Delhi has simply not provided their needs. A nation is not fulfilling its duties and therefore the denizens are revolting.
Therefore, by this measure, every single individual in the Indian State who has been let down by the government is a terrorist.
And if you agree that is the problem then perhaps you should attempt to make the state more inclusive, responsible and accountable.
My answer is with regard to secularism also (vote-bank politics), not about corruption.
"Nussbaum doesn't care about tolerance or justice. She simply wants to have Gitmo re-opened and Hindus sent there instead of Muslims.
Nussbaum is a vile racist bigot."
This is a laughable, ad hominem, and completely bogus observation. Nussbaum is a very sympathetic observer of modern India, and one of the few notable American public intellectuals interested in South Asia in a historically informed manner. Read her work on SEWA and Ela Bhatt.
There are a lot of words that Nussbaum's detractors have used to describe her; but even her most ardent critics will admit that she is anything but a 'vile racist bigot.' You claim you are an academic. No worthy academic could indulge in the low ad hominem and intellectually dishonest style of argumentation you've demonstrated here.
Ah yes. Open debate without ad hominem attacks, like dismissing arguments/points by calling everyone who raises them as "right wing", "Hindutva", and "Hindu nationalist."
Nice try.
By the way, which wing do you belong to? The loony left, or the crazy Randroids?
**
That's your mistake - a common one in my experience - in how you perceive and mis-characterize the "right wing" - that to you, it means reverting back to the past, or rejecting everything of the west, or rejecting present realities of the world.
It's about having a say in, and control over self-definition and self-determination instead of giving that control to white people. It's not about cutting oneself off from the rest of the world and its changes.
Depending on where you want to draw that historical line, it can be argued that it was colonialism and looting of wealth from currently "third world" countries and regions that fueled the Western Enlightenment and its prosperity. Because that kind of enlightenment doesn't happen on empty stomachs and when people are struggling just to survive.
But that improvisation is not at all happening. You will never see a large scale protests for scientific education in madarsas, or muslim education in general . All you see is the unruly collective behavior from the Muslims in frivolous cases of Shah bano, Danish cartoon , Taslima etc etc. If Muslims ( I hate generalizations , but I don't have the right word ) make popular only their religious stances , the government cools them only by providing seperate civil laws,travel subsidies and washes off its hands.
1. I did not address you as "Hindu Nationalist" - a term that you seem to have troubles with. I may have referred to your ideological leanings as right wing but if that's where your ideological leanings lie then I don't see why you would consider it as an insult and turn defensive?
On the contrary, you have called me names. Yet another reason why a reasoned and logical debate with you will be unfruitful.
2. Regarding misrepresenting the right wing - it is based on creating an imagery - an imagery which is based on the Ramayana. It is based on "creating" a history to lure populations into mass followings - much like Hitler did with the Holy Grail.
Scriptures are scriptures, it is the way one interprets them that holds the key to understand this. And if the way one wishes to interpret Ramayana is by believing that there is common enemy (which are the Muslims and Christians in this case) that one needs to fight against then unfortunately one has consciously or unconsciously surrendered themselves to the powers of these rookie story tellers.
3. Why do you think that there is suddenly a resurgence in the need for "self determination" after 60 years of independence? Specially given that there has been virtually no threat to the sovereignty of the nation - apart from the threat that is rising from within (such as the problems in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and so on). Perhaps it is because the enemy is being created. The enemy is being created to get your following.
4. Finally, the fact of the matter is that you call them "terrorists" because that is what the Americans call them. Before then, they were referred to as "militants". If the enemy you have been fighting is not new then why is there a new name for it? Because it seems to me that while the problem is the same, the events are being depicted differently to gain a following. To win your vote without providing any other promise. The reforms that the BJP government likes to take the credit for had begun during the early 1990s. (Check Panagariya or Bhagwati for this). They have no other promises for you and so the only promise that they can give you is that you will be secure against this "imagined" enemy.
And unfortunately, it seems like you have succumbed.
There you go again - defining me (at least in your mind) with that explanation of Ramayana when I do not believe in such definition, nor do I subscribe to it. Maybe you should look at your own behavior and how you're so eager to lump me in a single category based only on certain criticisms - "Oh, you criticized this aspect. Only Hindutvadis/right-wings make that criticism. Ergo, you are a Hindutvadi/right-winger." You are defining me when I don't want you or anyone else to define me - let me define myself. It's very basic and simple, don't make it complex, OK?
You and people like you indulge in such behavior because it is easier for you and prevents you from doing some analysis and making distinctions between people and their criticisms. In other words, intellectual laziness and convenience.
Why should I have to believe in everything of a certain wing - right or left? It's your assumption that everyone has to look at the world through the lens of a single ideology and take one side or the other. I don't care for such assumptions that people like you make.
And no, I don't think I called you any names. Please re-read my comment. I do want to clarify that my criticism of name-calling was directed at the general discourse here, and not specifically at you, though you do try to arrogate "rationalism" by your name.
Please feel free to read my comment # 9 and rebut any points you disagree with. I'm done here.
Reason for whom? Martha Nussbaum? She wrote an awful article in LA Times in the immediate aftermath of 26/11 at the expense of India, without even waiting to see who perpetrated the Mumbai attacks. She lost her credibility as a neutral writer that day.
>"This assault did not materialize—largely because India’s Muslim community strongly condemned the terrorist acts and immediately took steps to demonstrate its loyalty to the nation."<
Largely because? - What does that say of Nussbaum and her diatribes both in LA times article and the present one against Indians. She is pitting one Indian community against another - a behaviour very much in the mode of Indian politicians.
She says India is "Land of My Dreams" but she did not show any sympathy for the innocents gunned down on the fateful day on 26/11.
Columnists like Bill Crystal and Christopher Hitchens showed more sympathy and understanding than this person regarding the assault that Indians took on 26/11 and the assaults that Indian have taken before.
Indians stood together as a nation after 26/11– Hindus & Muslims, Sikhs & Parsis, Jains & Buddhists, Christians & Bahai (while Nussbaum worked very hard to divide it as she is still doing).
Please don't let Martha Nussbaum take that away so she can perpetuate her glory or sell her books or whatever it is that she is aiming for. I lost all respect for her after reading her LA times article after 26/11.
Even a cursory search on Google Scholar, using keywords like the names of our states, Dalits, BJP, Congress etc. will show you that most quality research on India-related topics happens in American Universities. It is being done by both migrant Indians and Americans.
The reasons for this are a lack of respect for social studies in India, a deadening and stifling academic environment and inadequate infrastructure.
In fact it is this dead intellectual environment that has contributed greatly to the decline in the quality of public debate in India. And the quality of some the comments above is ample evidence.
And I categorically will not run with Nussbaum's mob of India-murderers simply to escape their wrath. I WILL defend myself and my people from them with every pen, every forum, and every soldier in the world's second largest Army.
Islamic "liberalism" is a myth and fraud invented by western apologists for Islam like Nussbaum who have a vested interest in propagating a pseudoreligion like Islam that actively seeks to undermine and vanquish all non-Muslim civilizations.
There is no "Liberal Islam". There is Islam, then there is death.
I asked a friend who blogs interesting and provocative articles - some of which he doesn't even agree with - on his magazine website as to why he hadn't blogged about this. His answer was revelatory: Someone who fails to understand the responsibility of writing on something as grave as 26/11 should not be given the oxygen of publicity of any nature. I think he said it.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/32600/sec_id/32600
Today about 60 percent of Jamia Millia Islamia’s students and 75 percent of its faculty are Muslim, but inclusiveness is the watchword (as it often is not in Hindu–majority institutions, where both Muslim and lower–caste students routinely suffer stigmatization and harassment).
1. Did she try and find out what percentage of those applying were Muslims and what Hindus? That would be a better test of lack of or presence of bias.
2. Since she says, "the admissions form does not even ask the religion of the applicant," how were the above figures computed?
Lucky guess? Or is someone quietly sitting there looking at the names and making an entry somewhere?
One could go on pointing out how silly and juvenile her whole article is, but more time than that should not be spent on this obviously not very bright "professor".
No wonder this country's going bankrupt. With "professors" like her exhibiting this sort of amateurish rigour, perhaps we should expect no different.
I grant that she may not be working with any clear anti-Hindu bias. She just seems to be, shall we say, not very bright
And how - or where - shall one begin? Let me just take one arbitrary sentence:
"free speech, pluralism, nonviolent persuasion, the rule of law, and the right of each person to a fair trial..."
Freespeech? Remember the very same Salman Rushdie. Please ask Hasan to say that he wants the ban on Satanic Verses lifted...
Remember Taslima Nasreen? Did Hasan ever speak a word for her when she was being hounded out by the "secular" Congress and Communists?
Remember Danish cartoons?
Pluralism? Remember Pakistan? Bangladesh? Or, more recently, Godhra? Or, Marad?
Non-violent persuasion? Did Hasan tell you how many were "killed" in the "protests" against the Danish cartoons?
The rule of law? Do you read Statesman? Never mind. Did you read about the recent arrest of Statesman editor? Do you know why?
Right of each person to a fair trial? Can we submit that let the Jamia encounter accused be judged AFTER a fair trial that they ARE getting?
Oh puhleez. Go ahead, make my day and call me "right wing Hindu Nationalist Party" or Hindootvaa or whatever nonsense....
Ms Nussbaum, why don't you ponder over some of this and if you have any honesty or integrity, why don't you address these points in another article? Do you want a serious debate? We can have one. We can even concede that it is difficult being a Muslim in India today. But you forget that it is difficult being a poor person in India today. It is even more difficult being a Muslim woman in India today because the Muslim law -- and the Hindu Nationaist Party is not responsible -- is so twisted out of shape against them. And your friend Hasan does not even bother paying lip service to it.
You have committed a grave mistake of equating Hinduism (a varied mixture of extremely divergent philosophies and religions of India, the only common aspect of them being their very liberal and tolerant ideologies) with Hindutva (a nationalist movement based on restoring past glory of India and eliminate alien cultural encroachments of Islam and Christianity).
Most Indians don't subscribe to Hindutva, and they refuse to be identified by such ideology. Unlike Islam, Hindutva is not a religion, but a nationalist movement. If you wish to use the word "terrorism" about political violence committed by subscribers of this ideology, you should use "Hindutva terrorism". Even this phrase is debatable, because as other bloggers have pointed out, the political violence in Gujarat, Orissa etc has seen participants from both sides of the spectrum.
Hinduism is probably the least political of all the major world religions. In Indian religions, a very clear distinction is maintained between politics and spirituality. This is true even for later Islamic movements that originated in India (such as Sufism).
This is the reason why Indian secularism is so successful.
I wonder if Muslims would be OK with allowing a pig farmer (someone who raises and kills pigs) to live in their midst, or someone who has dogs. Or will a person like that living in their midst bring up some feelings of disgust?
If you want to grant Muslims to act based on what they find disgusting, why not grant the same to Hindus? That would be secularism, not your lopsided secularism.
Taste a sample from post – 64, Sarovar.
Sarovar, did you reach that conclusion after taking a poll and analyzing some quantitative data, or plucked it out of thin air? You still haven't rebutted any of the *points* that are critical of claims in Ms. Nussbaum's essay and are answering with vague generalities which sound good but mean nothing.
I could come back with my own conclusion about people like you:
Living in the US, these Indians go out of their way to celebrate festivals like St. Patrick's Day, Greek Day, Puerto Rico Day, Cinco De Mayo and Thanksgiving with much fervor (and that's fine); but would balk at celebrating an Indian day, or go out of their way to put roadblocks in the way of those who do want to have an Indian day like that at a city level. I can only ascribe such a behavior to self-hatred at some level, which is probably the result of a fragile ego that wants to sublimate its Indian identity and become white.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and proving beyong a shadow of doubt what a vile piece of racist trash Nussbaum truly is. I genuinely fear for Indian minorities in the US when so-called "scholars" tout racist hate speech and implicitly derive justorications for racial discrimination against Indians like Nussbaum has.
for me india is an idea, it is not a hindu saudi arabia it is premised on a concept of vasudhaivya kutumbakam ( the world is a community) and sarva dharma sambhava ( all faiths co exist in garmony.
I subscribe to Gandhi ji's philosophy, Nehru's concept of constitutional democracy, the concept of India as enshrined in our constitution and am willing to sanely discuss my position.
I abhor the Wahabi philosphy of hate generated by Saudi clerics, I don't accept states founded on religion, majoritism never succeeds.
I believe the hate on which Pakistan is founded and the vituperation of the radicals, mullahs and army spew is unacceptable.
I find the emotion of hate sweeping through communities visible in the comments above, from a gracious well mannered society we are becoming shrill and jingoistic, certainly not the standards we calim to stand for.
Unfortunately it will destroy the carries of this venom and with it India.
However i know martha nussbaum is right, her depiction of the state of the Indian society is correct and so is her description of professor Hassan.
On a second read she will reveal the strengths of Indian society, I wonder why we are so riled.
There are 170 million Indians who are disadvantaged and happen to be Muslims as revealed in the Sachar Commission report and there are anoter 170 million who are equally poorly off and are Hindus. Of a billion Indians 700 million are disadvantaged ICAER studies will bear testimony to that.
We are a poor nation emerging from years of colonisation, everyone is jostling for a bit of hope.
Hindu and Muslim ? we are fighting between Dalits and the rest, Hindi vs non Hindi. Maharashtrian vs North Indians.
There is no end if we choose to use the language of hate in diverse country like India.
Maybe I am now a minority, but so be it !!
--170+170=340 - 700=360
who are the remaining poor - or are they Rosogollas.
people who think dat india does not treat muslims well.do they know its only muslims who get concessions for HAJ.have you heard any such grants being given for any such hindu pilgrimage.does pakistan or any other muslim country give such grants to their folks.i think IT CAN HAPPEN ONLY IN INDIA.
lets try to live peacefully before its too late.
Thanks for supporting the truth.
Discussion and argument (hopefully polite) are most needed in these cases. Thanks to Mrs Nussbaum from not shying away from what is obviously a very hot topic.
So, I thought I'd google her - skimmed her wiki entry and found a link to her talk on her book "The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future" http://chiasmos.uchicago.edu/events/nussbaum.shtml. In the video she explains the origin of her interest in India. The video also reveals why she picked the topic of anti-Islamic sentiment in the world's largest democracy: she is projecting White-American prejudice onto Indian Hindus. This explains the "many feared a wave of violence against India’s own Muslim community" - it is many Americans who feared the backlash, just as it occurred in their own country after the 9/11 event. Not to mention anti-Japanese hysteria during WWII, which led to large-scale internment of the Japanese-Americans in camps.
This is another example of a well-meaning attempt to explain the situation in India to the ignorant American public that is full of fundamental flaws, as have been pointed out above (e.g. kaafir in post #9, "Clearly, this is meant for naive Americans, as anyone in India knows there's no need to mention religion since in 99.9% of cases, religion can be easily deduced from a person's name.") The problem is that genuinely well-meaning people in the West fall for this sort of biased 'analysis' and the lack of voices to counter their incorrect conclusions means that they are ultimately successful in propagating their warped view. In the video, Nussbaum decries the lack of Western-oriented so-called analytical thinking skills in India, which are the only weapon permitted to us to fight back against this sort of cultural imperialism. I'm afraid this is yet another catch-22 situation set up by the West to trap us and deprive us of our voice. I can only hope that contemporary South Asians will not fall for this kind of bull shit and tell the firangis where they can put his kind of 'analysis'.