Depending where or in which family someone is born, he is definitely proud of its culture, and of course, civilization related to that culture. Of course, why shouldn't anyone be? And anything happens which promotes goodness of this culture makes him walk a inch higher over the ground. If looked closely, it is true in such places where nationalism or patriotism hailed high. Where it could be found? In those places where people are struggling to appear in international arena, where that country or community is trying to be more powerful, or where people have longer history than other presently high profile countries. This explains some way present development of nationalism in USA, China and India, among more influential.
It is interesting to see decline and opposition of nationalism in european countries, although some efforts by french government made for France, no such proudness of own culture can be found. It seems that USA has become representative of western civilization, not Europe which is real representative. With faster developing economies, huge population and really oldest preserved history in account, India and China are representing asian culture, which overshadows the yet economically powerful Japan. Although having shared cultures, ideas and developments for centuries, unfortunately dues to late colonization of european kingdoms in Asia, it has changed geopolitical makeup in Asia, where each nation sees others as threat to sovereignty. And it is here, where nationalism is propelling misunderstanding in communication.
Well, it can be thought that more prosperous and less hostile a nation, less nationalist its people would be, but USA isn't exception as such, it is a example that it wouldn't be possible that way. A country where media has become a profit-making business than educators of the society, it won't be a surprise to see nationalism as big business too.
But this nationalism is some way also a cause for ignorance of other civilization. It can be understood that in India people are less educated about other civilizations, due to low literacy rate and still the same mindset preserved from British India times and in China, the same thing due to complete control of government over communication (meant not bad, if considered with USA, but limited access to knowledge of outside world). But this ignorance causes accepting any good from other civilization. For example, in India one can see reluctance to accept the fact that other civilization was developed parallel to us with prosperity, hindering our own development using their idea. There is no point in sitting back praising age-old civilization and dreaming still for comfortable life. It can be seen that people in rural areas are mostly less educated and conservative. It is some way political matter. Any development of nation is possible through the development of rural areas, i.e. educating them exactly the same way as in urban area. After all everyone strives for material pleasure, which is easily accessible in Cities. Unfortunately it is seen that prosperity of nation lies in Cities and Cities defines the civilization. But in ancient India, each village was self-sufficient and it had more autonomy, but now problems of rural areas are solved by the people living in big cities, how can they make rural areas vibrant? Civilization should be represented by whole nation not just by handful of cities. Otherwise most of the population which live in the rural areas will be left with their pride for their own civilization and ignorance of other civilization.
As shown months ago in German media that most of the people don't know more than where nearby railway station is located, how can they understand the problems and benefit of harmony of other civilization? Nationalism is pure tool to unite whole nation for one cause. Fortunately, in developing countries it is used for development, but unfortunately, also to prove the darwinism, the survival of the strongest. Who knows, but coming years will see real clash of civilization, after whole earth is globalized enough.
I'd say, it doesn't matter if you are nationalist or patriot, but just don't ignore other civilization!
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Please don't hurt the majority!
There may be many reasons which causes communal violence, mostly due to political interest, but sometimes politicians itself are influenced by another root-reason or sometimes they use at least this reason to cause such violence. This root-reason is imbalance of treatment to majority and minority. This division can be of any sort, based on religion, classes, ideologies, etc. Here one can introduce another division, take notice, which is no way a social division, but it is of being conservative and liberal. Well, they can be found in majority as well as in minority.
Now the point of this text is concession or special social benefits given to minority. Well, conservatives and liberal in minority will definitely applaud these benefits, but it isn't a case in majority. There only liberal will be happy with it, but not necessarily the conservatives. Since I'm saying here that liberals from both side are ok with this setup, but not the conservatives of one side, that means it is classic problem of failure of secularism. Now that majority conservatives are more in number than minority conservatives, that means they are ready for any kind of extreme action. And which sometimes result in bloodshed violence, unfortunately not verbal violence, which can be contained in any democratic context. I understand that motive behind giving benefits to minority is to let them integrate well in the society, but it can be the only reason which triggers anger in majority conservatives, which leads to communal violence. The examples I could cite is from India itself, with violence between Hindu-Muslim, even higher castes-lower castes. I simply deny 'the policy of secularism'. Being secular doesn't mean necessarily being liberal, no way. In fact, secularism divides the society and mostly hurt are poor people.
In case of India, this policy created social imbalance and less productivity in social and economical output. I simply oppose different civil code available in India for different religions and castes, there should be uniform civil code contemplating same civil sense among all people. The biggest mistake of secularism in India is to carry forward the british concept of naming all those people Hindu which does not practice Muslim, Christian, and all other recognized practices, which are often characterized from 'the concept of sects'. Since Hindu hasn't been any religion as such and never will be, since it is just bunch of all sects which practices in their own way in indian subcontinent. Hindu was regarded as a person who lives in India, but now it has been modified according to pseudo-concept of dividing society on religious basis and looking to all of them from their own accepted perspectives. This concept is from western world, which won't work well in India, as said by Mark Tully, a famous BBC Reporter. In India, people have been living harmoniously without such division, why was there need to implement it? Just to show others that we are liberal, but the fact is being secular doesn't mean being liberal.
Well, the same argument can be stated if it is other way, i.e. to give more benefits to majority. In this case, majority conservatives shows their power by suppressing the minority, which we see in some african countries. But here I'm talking about democratic institutions where it is happening. Since there are more liberalism going on in European countries, we don't see such violence when the authorities are giving more benefits to the minority. Since there the secularism works. But the question why it is happening in world's largest democracy, in India? Maybe there are many majority conservatives than majority liberals, or maybe majority conservatives are more powerful. But after all it is the fact that more benefits to minority creates angers in majority. Apart from India, history shows: how it was in Nazi Germany where minorities (Jews) had more benefits or to say precisely, that minority was having more comfort than majority, at least majority conservatives thought that way. Same is true in India.
So, my final word is to retain stability in democratic institutions, please don't hurt majority!
Now the point of this text is concession or special social benefits given to minority. Well, conservatives and liberal in minority will definitely applaud these benefits, but it isn't a case in majority. There only liberal will be happy with it, but not necessarily the conservatives. Since I'm saying here that liberals from both side are ok with this setup, but not the conservatives of one side, that means it is classic problem of failure of secularism. Now that majority conservatives are more in number than minority conservatives, that means they are ready for any kind of extreme action. And which sometimes result in bloodshed violence, unfortunately not verbal violence, which can be contained in any democratic context. I understand that motive behind giving benefits to minority is to let them integrate well in the society, but it can be the only reason which triggers anger in majority conservatives, which leads to communal violence. The examples I could cite is from India itself, with violence between Hindu-Muslim, even higher castes-lower castes. I simply deny 'the policy of secularism'. Being secular doesn't mean necessarily being liberal, no way. In fact, secularism divides the society and mostly hurt are poor people.
In case of India, this policy created social imbalance and less productivity in social and economical output. I simply oppose different civil code available in India for different religions and castes, there should be uniform civil code contemplating same civil sense among all people. The biggest mistake of secularism in India is to carry forward the british concept of naming all those people Hindu which does not practice Muslim, Christian, and all other recognized practices, which are often characterized from 'the concept of sects'. Since Hindu hasn't been any religion as such and never will be, since it is just bunch of all sects which practices in their own way in indian subcontinent. Hindu was regarded as a person who lives in India, but now it has been modified according to pseudo-concept of dividing society on religious basis and looking to all of them from their own accepted perspectives. This concept is from western world, which won't work well in India, as said by Mark Tully, a famous BBC Reporter. In India, people have been living harmoniously without such division, why was there need to implement it? Just to show others that we are liberal, but the fact is being secular doesn't mean being liberal.
Well, the same argument can be stated if it is other way, i.e. to give more benefits to majority. In this case, majority conservatives shows their power by suppressing the minority, which we see in some african countries. But here I'm talking about democratic institutions where it is happening. Since there are more liberalism going on in European countries, we don't see such violence when the authorities are giving more benefits to the minority. Since there the secularism works. But the question why it is happening in world's largest democracy, in India? Maybe there are many majority conservatives than majority liberals, or maybe majority conservatives are more powerful. But after all it is the fact that more benefits to minority creates angers in majority. Apart from India, history shows: how it was in Nazi Germany where minorities (Jews) had more benefits or to say precisely, that minority was having more comfort than majority, at least majority conservatives thought that way. Same is true in India.
So, my final word is to retain stability in democratic institutions, please don't hurt majority!
Monday, April 18, 2005
India-China past and future
For more than 2000 years, two of the world's ancient cultures shared their ideas, science, knowledge and expertise, providing new dimension for human social development. But it is the very recent history of few decades which shows complete different picture. Both nations, regarded one as largest democracy and one as largest communist nation, have seen each other with skepticism thru' gunpoint. Democracy (the modern one) and communism, both are western ideologies, which still divides Asia geopolitically. Without taking a side of particular nation - more precisely particular ideology - I'd like to present some articles I've found on Internet, which summarizes the conflict between India and China, a more product of misunderstanding and mistaken indian policies than true clash between ideologies.
In the following I have collected three article series, which precisely describes what happened really in 1962 India-China war:
The battle for the border
Peace with China
Although talking contra-China, India has every reason to see every step taken by China with doubts, since even very recent events from last decade mostly taking place in South-eastern Asian economies. It mostly looks like some sort of Marshall Plan to many asian countries from China, which is enlarging its Might, which transcends one that of mere military or political. One that comes close to aura of fake fairness created by USA after second world war. China's geopolitical activities can be understood from the articles from Claude Arpi:
Aksai Chin for Arunachal?Is China encircling India?
The pessimism don't shape the future. The fact that China is recognizing the potential and mutual benefit in friendship which remained neglected for longer period, might create perceptible change in China's foreign policy. Skepticism will prevail, but considering the solid political system in India and better evolved sovereignty in India after harsh lessens of 1962 war, there are few reasons to think otherwise. I think this issue is better communicated by Colonel Anil Athale in his series:
Future friends?India & China: The alliance of the future
Pro & contras of Indo-China relationship provided by many writers can be found on the following collection:IndoChina
“Be careful what you water your dreams with. Water them with worry and fear and you will produce weeds that choke the life from your dream. Water them with optimism and solutions and you will cultivate success. Always be on the lookout for ways to turn a problem into an opportunity for success. Always be on the lookout for ways to nurture your dream.”
--- Lao Tzu quotes (Chinese taoist philosopher, b.600 BC)
[posted with
ecto
]
Friday, April 08, 2005
The First
।। ॐ गं गणपतये नमः ।।
हि माझी पहिली POST अाहे. माझ्या विचारांचा संच करण्याचा हा चांगला उपक्रम अाहे. गणपतिच नाव घेवून याची सुरूवात करतो.
।। श्री गणेशाय नमः ।।
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
