Wednesday, July 19, 2006

Contemporary Reflections...

I’m not easily given to write about politics. Let me , however, illustrate two examples from contemporary world and share my thoughts on them.

[1]It’s a mystery to me to see that a race whose average IQ is about 120 permit itself the same mistake again and again. How amazingly incongruent it is to find the people who are known to be exceedingly thoughtful in most spheres suddenly fail to see how they are becoming the victims of their own defensiveness. To put it plainly, this nation did not exist a few decades back and since its inception has been engaging or made to engage in repeated political conflicts one after another. And given the history of persecution, if at all anyone , it is them you expect to realise the futility of the course of their action- this is the third time Israel is officially entering Lebanon and the conflict is nowhere near a feasible solution, in fact one easily can see the trammelled repercussions in the near future. With the vulnerable geopolitics of the region, it is only prudent for Israel to understand the fact it cannot ensure the security of her subjects by bringing herself under the umbrella and to continuously engage in reactionary acts of questionable morality.

Israel has to, in the larger interest of the Jewish race, regard herself as a nation willing to progressively exclude herself from the troubles of her neighbourhood and thereby work towards a lasting solution which can be achieved only by concerted peaceful talks. Simply because, as we all know, parting the sea does not happen quite often.


[2]The second , perhaps the more entertaining example is the response of Indian Blogosphere to the apparent ban on a dozen websites allegedly perceived as a threat to national security. I say apparent because I lack reliable information regarding the exact nature and the premise of the ban. Except for one news-piece, all my sources are friends and other bloggers.

To me, the greatest surprise is bloggers arguing against the ban calling it unlawful and against the principles of democracy. I found a few others writing sarcastic notes stating how their art, movie or culinary posts may lead to compromise of security. And that tickles me no end making me wonder if such populations who have never been outside democracy actually deserve to be in a democracy. It has been my observation for over a period of time that , just because they have a a English medium education and a modem , Indian blogs rant their self righteous opinion right left and centre with a conviction as fixed as a lamp-post to the ground. I reckon very few people in India actually understand the concept of democracy, for the rest it is phrases like free speech, free rights etc..and more dishearteningly, all this in a nation which practised the best ever seen form of democracy in the human history to gain her independence. Esp. the 1920s-An active civil disobedience aimed at highlighting the injustice and not to embarrass the opponent.
Its all sad.
Surely, democracy entitles one to free rights and speech et al, but that does not necessarily mean you can say or act whatever that crosses your mind; that only leads to anarchy. There is nothing illegal about a democratically elected government choosing to ban a number of portals in the interest of her subjects. Neither anyone has been singled out unjustly for writing about art/movies nor anyone’s freedom of speech has been curtailed. No one has been discriminated against, it is a blanket ban and some people are affected , for no fault of theirs. It is rather unfortunate if you are to lose out in the process, but we all have to play our part in the national issues.

But yes, you are completely justified in challenging the reasons behind the ban or questioning the need for ban at all. And writing a blog claiming it as undemocratic is not the way to go about it. That amounts to nothing but airing and sharing your frustration, which in fact could be argued as misdirected practice of democracy.
PS- I personally have no view on the ban as of now, but as a matter of principle, I am for a completely justified ban by the state accountable to her subjects. When I mean justified- I mean one, based on reason and not on prejudices.

16 comments:

Sumita said...

Hi Sunil

While tension in the middle east has existed since the second world war, it seems that slowly we are reaching a point of culmination where this issue will be settled only by direct conflict. Not to be fatalistic, but both sdes beleive in confrontation and violence as the only mode to express an opinion. I dont see that as changing. and am not sure what the implications are.

2. The ban on blogs was for a day, on right wing sites, which a certain govt official thought, might be instrumental in fanning exptreme emotions after the Mumbai bomb blasts. Honestly, the immatre way poeple respond emotionally to everything in India, specially the younger crowd ( viz Ran de basanti) I thought it was an act of geat initiative in some ways.

However, since blogger was bloacked, which means our harmless blog was bloacked too, I can onmy be amused.

(smile)

Sumita

Rajesh said...

1. "..lasting solution can be achieved only by concerted peaceful talks"

you mean peace talks with Hezbollah, Hamas and Ahmedinejad? Israel understands what it is to be hated by a killer who doesn't care or even know about consequences. What happens when reason dies and hatred is screaming for fulfillment? Frankly, I don't envy Israel to find a solution for this. Their military is largely succesfull in containing the killer instincts of motivated jehadis who want nothing less than the decimation of Israel off the earth. With nothing left and on the brink of complete lumpenisation, Palestinians and their sympathizers have complete faith in their mission and perceptions of their religious drives.

It seems almost surreal that Arafat once came to the UN with an olive leaf. I don't see that ever happen again at least given what we have seen for now.

2. I wasn't following the news at all. Was it only for a day? Got a mail from Dev about this. It brought a smile to think that the government is after all reading some of these blogs :)

Drawing parallels at least in practices between civil disobediance during colonial period and democratic values of "blogging" during elected government rule is contextually unrealistic. We do not have such leaders who can dream up the political behavior of Indian society. We have whip lashers of religiuos/ideology/casteistic identity among us that lead to conflicts.

I still can't imagine blogs written by partisan "english" educated fanatic spark communal violence. But some of them does expose the doublespeak of State and the communal and ideological a-la secular nature of the political entities that form the govt. I am convinced that blogs are democratic in essence and sometime they reveal what the "free press" doesn't or want us to believe. My firm belief is that Indian media do not have an equitable representation from the people.

However the caveat is that 9/11 changed our perception about free society and exchange of ideas.

Sunil said...

Thanks for your comments Sumita,
I must suggest that perhaps we are overlooking few fundamental reasons why the middle east is volatile. esp after second world war. Obviously they cant be expanded upon here. Given those reasons, I’m of the opinion that direct conflict would never enable anyone to find a solution as we have learnt before(1967) and from history, all you would expect from such a confrontation is humbling of one party into defeat and submission. This only adds further instability and danger considering the nature of religion endemic there.
My expectation is for Israel to understand this and work for a more feasible premise for both parties than poking into her neighbours once every few years and then standing guard watching out for suicide bombers in Tel Aviv.
Of course there is another school that argues about a stronger lobby within trying to sustain the conflict ? Who knows?

About the notorious ban, yes amusing indeed. The response that is.
I’m ignorant about two things you have mentioned, a) right wing blog bans b) certain government official. Has b) been proved (with evidence)? That the whole ban was a fancy of a single person? In which case , there is clear case for legal action against him. But I reckon that was perhaps one of the emotional rumours spread by blogging community without much thought. Yes I can imagine if there is top babu who might be careless with his tongue in public, but the idea that someone made up the ban one day just for heck of it sounds too fantastic! Even for my taste.

And may I also say that you should not be under the impression that our blog here is harmless ;)

Sunil said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sunil said...

Rajesh, Thanks

As I see the whole charade is to send across an American message to Iran n co, something which the Israelis have been pushing for since February.

But, I don’t agree with your statement that Israel understands what it is to be hated by a careless killer. which is precisely why I have used the word defensiveness. In the past few decades we have witnessed many intense conflicts between nations, religions and ideologies. And most of the times it has ceased only by compromise of some values by one or both the sides. My view is Israel simply cant hope to escape participating in a peace process by accusing the terrorists of violence and herself bombing civilians indiscriminately in order to ‘protect her rights’. Whatever be the reasons, bombing civilians without declaring a state of war is a shame to any army.
It would be unfair to speak of Hezbollah and Hamas in the same breath, in fact since hamas are elected now to represent it is only fair to speak of them on par with the state of Israel, besides both share a liking towards violence towards innocents. Therefore talks must be committed to the sequence, outcome of course is subject as always to time and shifting priorities. I think in this context Israel with all the means of self preservation inclusive, has a larger role to play.
The other point is I have strong reservations to label the whole drive as purely religious as you have done so categorically. This is because of the historical fact that both Jews and Muslims have lived peacefully together for centuries without any major conflict until the arrival of ‘European faith’ to the holy land. Moreover throughout the Muslim rule of medieval world there has been no instances reported of the persecution of Jewish race. Facts often overlooked by historians and scholars alike, and understandably by the American media.
When it comes to middle east, Ive often noticed strong intellectual views expressed from both sides involved, often unwilling to look at the other perspective, I think, therefore, the solution must come from a different country?

Indian blogosphere---I do definitely realise the positives that the blogs bring along and frankly the stage of debating the blog as a medium has passed. My view was solely on the nature of kneejerk responses of the so called quality Indian blogs.I can imagine an entire Indian generation browsing and blogging from 9-5 while at work (there after as well) and claiming to be voicing the opinion of the nation while most of the country is blissfully ignorant of the issue. Expressing discontent by blogs is never effective for that reason amongst others. if it is for general vent out and camaraderie then it’s a different story.
Moreover what is the nature of the response/? crude emotional and momentary just like the eve teasing hysteria( not my term;) that was referred to me few months earlier. For all the claims I’ve never seen this translate into any real mass movement.
And the democracy bit being restricted is actually too naïve to spare time. How many blogs did you see debate the no negotiations with hijackers law passed by the Indian government last year? My parallels with independence movement was to highlight the lack of homogenous majority and lack of understanding about democracy. It would be amusing to even suggest a smilarity forget comparision between that and this.
My view on the Indian blogosphere can be best symbolised in a analogy,
Its an old college quiz question which goes on the lines that what came into being when sir Isaac Newton was delayed stuck in a traffic to attend a royal society meeting… etc?
It is the legal enforcement of one way traffic.
Now imagine a few people opening their windows from the high raising buildings of central London and shouting slogans saying that the governemnt has no democratic right to control traffic as soon as it is announced.
That situation sums up the Indian blogosphere splendidly for me.
You can as well add a slap the ban logo;)
cheers

Rajesh said...

Sunil, I would pass up on the quality and relevance of Indian blogosphere for now.

However I do have a few thoughts on Israel given what I understand from your response.

I heard even Hezbollah was surprised to see the "disproportionate" response from Israel for their routine raid across the border to kill 8 and abduct 2 soldiers. You see, Indians never resort to disproportionate retaliation to ragtag terrorists from across our borders (Pak and Bangladesh).

You may have your reservations about tacit and direct support of Americans to this "undeclared" war. However I would like to look at this war from another angle.

First of all I would like to take exception on equating Israeli military to Palestinian or other terrorists. Your painstaking effort to soft-pedal on Hezbollah and Hamas in terms of democracy does not hold water. Their ethos and raisson detre have been the politics of religion. If you discount this aspect of their campaign against Israel and other countries in the world, I guess you are speaking out of your conviction, which I don't share.

Hezbollah is a fully armed outfit who thought its fun to have a few folks in Lebanese parliament. You think Hezbollah's values are democratic? Average Lebanese are either scared or willing participant of Hezbollah whose agenda is mandated from Iran and Syria.

Modus operandi of terrorists to hide among civilians and strike when it is convenient for them. I see that you are drawing a moral equivalence between Israeli military and terrorists. The fight between Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli military and common people are asymmetric. You can't go kill Israelis who are dining in a restaurant and hide amongst Palestinian ghettos and cry hoarse when you are rooted out of your human shields. The collateral damages on willing or forced individuals are sad outcomes of this asymmetric war.

You said I have categorically termed the drive as pure religious. I would like to question the use of "categorical" and "pure" in this context. The religious muzzle of political movements in Middle East and other Islamic states need no further explanation. To me Islam is borne out of and feed off of its entity as political group. I am not a scholar or even know much of its spiritual aspect or history. However I have observed the use of religion by Muslim brethrens in India and the sustenance of parties like Muslim League and PDP, NDF and other splinter groups especially in Kerala (more than 30% of total population). All the parties are led by clerics and their party constitutions are Islamic in nature and composition. . They have a great sway among the community unlike their counterparts in other minority religions and the majority Hindus. The only difference between them would be the degree of radicalization.

Regarding Arab or Muslim persecution of Jews or lack of it, I think again you are discounting the fact that America most of all abused Islam as counter tool against Communist regimes in Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan and other parts of the world. I think the watershed event was the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh by CIA and the perpetual trouble maker Britain. For them this was just another adjusting historical aberration like they have been doing in Africa, South America and else where (remember the Congolese nationalist, Lumumba? Allende? Imre Nagi?). But they didn’t realize that the monster they fostered would grow to become this gargantuan hydra spitting fire all over the world. Now they have to deal with it whose driving force is the political ambition of a few clerics and fanatics.

The big question is what are the minimum geopolitical and social conditions necessary for a real peace process to take place? How many of Palestinian grievances sought solution that is realistic and not fancied under pan-Islamic hegemony? How many more Itzshak Rabins will it take for Israel not to sell expansionist promises to the radical electorate and understand peace with Palestinians, Lebanese and Syrians are not illusion?

Moving forward how much ever we distinguish ourselves from Israelis, we have a lot to learn from this. Because radicalization of Islam is near completion and the time bomb is already set off. I think there is an ever growing awareness of helplessness and distrust. We are not isolated from it and judging Israel would lead us and the world to peace or destruction.

Thanks for allowing me to ramble a bit.

Sunil said...

You are welcome to share your thoughts Rajesh. I’ve always found speaking one’s thoughts very helpful, even if we want to call it a ramble. So it’s my turn to ramble;)

It is obvious from our comments that we both are becoming increasingly polarised in our views. There are several layers in our discussion here; lets peel one at a time.

First of all I must start off with an admission that I have stopped following any form of day to day media long back in favour of what I call open thought. Therefore, All my news is a hotchpotch of radio 4 listened while travelling or shaving and a bit of guardian here and there. And I’ve said that for two reasons 1) I don’t know about eight Israeli soldiers killed during the raid, I only know of 2 abductions.
2) I think most of your views are largely influenced by the popular American media. Of course I might be wrong on the latter.


The bone of contention is the difference in our views concerning Israeli action. Just to summarise your view, You believe Israel is justified in her action to ‘attack’ a neighbouring nation because that nation is ghost governed by a non democratic armed outfit whose ethos and raisson deetre is politics of religion’ and the named outfit also carries out hostile actions against Israel on a regular basis with encouragement from Syria and Iran. Also that all of these nations have a pan Islamic hegemony sharing an eventual agenda to destroy Israel and later take on the whole world. Hence America and UN are justified in their silence or delay to act effectively.
Also you think-In this confrontation or war, which you term asymmetric Israel reserves right to strike at will aimed to seek and destroy purported terrorists hiding behind human shields and the consequent damages are collateral and sad but non punitive.
The second major issue of disagreement is with regard to Islam. We shall come to that later.



For now,
I believe that Israel attacking Lebanon and Palestine at the same time is not in itself a reaction to any anti Israeli action but a mean, calculated and ruthless act by a hostile state under a convenient pretext. The word disproportionate is a media invented euphemism to sustain what is a barbaric state sponsored aggression.
And far more importantly it is a arrogant violation of international laws and bodies setting a bad reference for other nations.
I do not identify myself with the Hezbollah action or principles and do not expect it to go unpunished. Hezbollah by choosing violent means and claiming innocent lives qualify as terrorists and as I’ve stated above have to be dealt accordingly. But what is the rationale behind invading a nation by land, water and air raining bombs at civilians deliberately destroying infrastructure in a self declared effort to trace covert terrorists is inexplicable to me ? If direct action was the answer for such problems we have two glaring results of similar efforts before us- one at the brink of civil war and another almost pushed into puppety oblivion.
The world we live in is split into fragments based on beliefs--religion, castes, economies, parties etc, and differences based on these values exist in real world however we wish otherwise. what is that which makes you believe that politics of religion is worse than politics of economics( liberally practiced by first world over the third world) or politics of caste( say uttar Pradesh or kerala). And how such a perceived exploitation of religion gives any nation enough grounds to invade another ? Imagine Pakistan invading Gujarat because Modi favours politics of religion!

I was not meaning to soft pedal Hamas or Hezbollah parties in terms of their democratic values, I only meant that since hamas(not Hezbollahs,)[1] are the elected representatives Israel cannot decline to engage in a conversation with Palestine because they believe Palestine has not been deservedly represented.

Moreover what does democratic values has to do with this all? China doesn’t have a democracy neither does Pakistan in a true sense, so following that logic either or both of these nations should have no weight and if you extend your idea are eligible to be violated.
Its not the politics of religion or lacking in democratic values per se which is the problem with the middle east, but resorting to violence to aid their politics. That, unfortunately is Hezbollah’s moral descent - since they are violent they are almost deceiving their principles any respect even if they can be assumed to be credible. More or less the same applies to the Israeli army. I fail to imagine how could a group of 50 less than 10 year olds children killed ( last weekend?) or 30 odd poor kurd farmers killed working in their farms (today) by deliberate Israeli air force bombardment possibly turn up with explosives in Tel Aviv clubs and restos had they not been killed? By my rough estimates it would take about 100 suicide bombers with 50 kilo each tied to their bodies to be even compared to the damage caused by single regular load off F-16. Israel does en masse what Hezbollah n co attempt with every other possible chance. As I see it there is nothing asymmetric about it. For those reasons, I must take exception for you taking exception about the comparison. Still If you believe Israel is not comparable to the militant states by virtue of undertaking all such actions as a part of what you call containing of highly motivated jehadis in her attempt to counter a pan Islamic conspiracy against her, I can only ask you to make our own judgement of periodic massacres one classical example would be shabira shatila[2].

So What you have essentially started with is labelling people terrorists and volleyed a further argument. What has been suitably overlooked is why people are violent and keen to blow themselves up? I believe it is not entirely their own making and responsibilities have to be shared, as evident from above. if Israel is not willing to do that then the only option for her is to wipe out this so called pan Islamic hegemony which includes many nations and populations. The lack of wisdom in that idea is easy to grasp primarily because as I’ve mentioned before, you cant just overthrow hostile governments and declare things are fine henceforth. More importantly Israel( and America) have no means to distinguish a terrorist from a moderate peace loving Muslim. And as a sad side effect, more of latter would transform into former which means The fight would have its moments for both parties, but no conclusive end.[3]


Then, if you consider the all of the above as collateral then you must admit New York and London as quite natural. USA , the all moral, all democratic, all governing well-wisher of the nations couldn’t restrain herself from targeted violence when she was attacked , how do you expect a group of extremely anguished youth to react under similar circumstances? And if they are violent you label them terrorists and therefore refuse to engage them and vow to wipe them off.
Sometime in the week gone, Israel penetrated deep into Lebanon to ‘capture’ and not ‘abduct’ a dozen Hezbollah militants to be taken to Tel Aviv killing many ‘Lebanese‘ in the process. But that to you is not remotely comparable to Hezbollah action although the motives, means and the results are same, simply because Hezbollah are terrorists. I personally cant find a single difference ? Israel is as unaccountable to anyone as Hezbollah. Israel is not even going to present the captured to international peace force(which surely is somewhere in the pipeline) or treat them according to any agreed conventions. To me, that smells of inconsistency?
Sadly, What all such bias leads to is to convince more native moderates to identify with the extremist views on both the sides, which means more threat for the both the parties. [4] That line of action never helps, The results of Jenin[5] elections is a wonderful example.

I think what Israel, aided with UN lethargy and the utter disregard shown for humanitarian aid (at least initially) has done is to lay the platform to choose the next major city as a terrorist victim?? Pardon me for sounding unsympathetic but it makes me wonder who would be crying hoarse then? I have a feeling it would be CNN’s reporter ? Violence only breeds violence. After all, there is no hypocrisy there.
If you believed it was only my conviction I have tried to explain what lies behind it.

Lastly I just wanted to comment on you remark about India not following hot pursuit in Bangladesh and Pakistan. I was not in favour of it because as I see, it would have only be momentarily heroic but wouldn’t have successfully solved problem in any respect and even if it was pursued India lacked the media and political will to stand shoulders with the act. Moreover, It would have been a daft thing to do with booming economy. The real reasons however, for not carrying out was imminent sanctions threatened by USA and buddies along with UN token statements even when the plan was on the desk. Something which for some strange reason never happens when Israel is involved.

[1] I meant Hamas and Hezbollah cant be politically the same in my earlier comment. Pardon me for not being clear enough.

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_Massacre, it is just one example and im of others of such massacres by both the sides. Im quoting it to support my views that IDF is not largely different from so called militants.

[3] A problem which I think, overlooked by the America while declaring the now obsolete so called war on terror in her haste to respond to 9/11. Nothing concrete has been achieved.

[4] as I type this Im hearing increase in support for the Hezbollah from Christians and moderate Lebanese following a large scale Israeli bombardment on Christian rich communities in Beirut.

[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenin the town which had no influence of hamas has turned into their stronghold after 2002.This only adds bones to Hamas structure.

Sunil said...

Next for very relevant topic to the above, Islam as a religion. Obviously we can interpret only on our inclinations and experiences. So we can have our personal views on Islam. Islam seen as a religion is only a concept to me. So is Buddhism, Christianity and many others, they have their goods and bads subject to the times and contexts. They have their own basis for their births, Islam perhaps was built with an element of inherent violence just like Hinduism was designed by cannabis ,and Christianity was built on lies. Islam perhaps heeds to baser emotions and therefore is a mass swayer. That has little relevance, I mean celebrities sway fans with charm, media with their campaigns, political parties with their promises, etc so as a tool of mass-mobilizer Islam cant be accused of any higher crime. However I admit with this attribute and its inherent accepted violence makes Islam dangerous esp. so in the wrong hands. The perfect word is vulnerable, both under clerics you have mentioned ( power desirees) as well as CIA( was it any less power desiree?).
The way to go about dealing with such a problem is to systematically alienate the powers of Muslim clergy from the masses just like what had happened with the Christian institutes over last few centuries. It will take its own twists and turns but would eventually settle down. capitalism shall seep through drop by drop. What you don’t want to do is-
-paint the entire canvas of Islam by one brush
-Just open grounds for more recruitment by the clerics… just what Israel did.

You have said ‘With nothing left and on the brink of complete lumpenisation, Palestinians and their sympathizers have complete faith in their mission and perceptions of their religious drives‘. I think very few statements in the context can be as absolute as that. Hence my calling it categorical. Let me expand, Is the war that is going on in the region purely religious (or its perception) ? Has it no political and geographical bearing what so ever? If your answer is yes, then I have to show you the history of Jewish Islam confrontation, which is largely absent for about 1200 years and was only initiated by the involvement of alien powers around early 1900s.And It started with the claim for the holy land as its basis. Next, how many conflicts have been documented between the parties outside the claimed area, in other continents either in history or now?? I see, you have been magnanimous with few other absolutes like radicalisation of Islam is complete and time bomb is set off which adds to my statement about why you have been categorical.
I think if you label it thus, you unfortunately overlook/ignore millions of other peace loving Islam practicing populations in the world. And also it hijacks the geopolitical significance of the conflict , which I believe is a sad outcome of the concerted efforts of western media.
Perhaps you mean that Islam has been used as a tool to further the drives of few clerics. As I’ve said, I agree with that largely, but again there is a significant western contribution both active and indirect which we conveniently forget. America and allies have abused Islam for needs and still seem to distort reality to further their interests blatantly ignoring sovereignty of many Islamic nations in the region. Only an hydra can beget an hydra, spitting fire all over the world is hereditary perhaps?
Your are with us or them, how seducing it is for a battle cry if only it was 16th century? Who is them? - the multilinguist technist who flew into WTC or the shy and brilliant teacher who blew himself up in central London?

I do not agree with statements like radicalization(of Islam) is complete and time bomb is set off. It sounds like I’m reading an American newspaper. Does that mean that my Islamic colleagues are going to exterminate me or our scientist soul sitting in Rastrapathi Bhavan dissolve the government and declare the nation Islamic? We are fortunate to be not influenced by religious absolutes like other generations, but such media construed truths continue to unfortunately have powerful bearings.

And Rajesh , probably I’ve missed something or that I’m stupid, but I did not get the relation of America abusing Islam to the absence of Jewish persecution during medieval Islamic rule. Please could you explain for the poor chap?



To conclude,
There are building blocks which have contributed to the escalation of the conflict, religious, geopolitical, policies etc, we need to review for our own interest
1. Islam the nature and practice , as a religion as a tool, role of fundamental clerics and violence brought about hence.
2.Western policy towards middle east , including Israel.
3. The question of detaching the religion tag from this so called war on terror.


Elements in Islam are weak and vulnerable to resort to violence which needs to dealt with aptly but also with wisdom to debilitate the influence of clerics and compartmentalising Islam into moderates and militants than foul calling the whole religion because of it being exploited by few rogues. That is the only option and not media campaigned covertly aided regular army action because as we all know from history that no race or religion can simply be wiped out. Furthermore world is not a naïve place anymore to believe in seizures up the mountain as holy and sending a flock of locusts as divine.

I have to say I’m not taking sides, I don’t share any ideology with religion or group or neither do I have any sympathy for one single nation or land. What I wish is peace and in this regard I’m fairly convinced that direction of the action Israel is undertaking will never bring about any semblance of calm forget peace , what Israel can do though is to let go off this victim perpetrator game that is going on for a while now with little purpose and look at realistic options for a peaceful coexistence of Israel along with her neighbours. That however distant it seems now, is possible by talks and talks alone. Because war is a war from any angle.

Thank you for the discussion Rajesh, been a while I had written anything of such length for a comment or even a blog. I just wanted to exploit our disagreements Rajesh, because we seldom disagree;) Pardon the misuse of Vancouver references, occupational hazard;)
Cheers
sunil

Rajesh said...

Sunil, its getting really interesting. Crossing words on our perceptions and indignation at stereotypes being identified risking the quality of this discussion. I had to use "stereotype" since I couldn't find a better word to describe the positions and views on this Israel-Islam issue.

I would largely agree with your summary except that balanced my ambivalences and doubts to their logical ends.

Israel uses its military to counter its security threats posed by unorganized but motivated groups who target civilians and in turn does the proverbial state sponsored "terrorism". I also remember that Arial Sharon led Israeli military to Lebanon earlier and provoked Palestinians when he entered their holy mosque in Jerusalem.

I have already referred to US as the chief agent-provocoteur of unrests in muslim and non-muslim worlds. That their understanding of world order and ethnic cultures still lie the cowboy hatchets. They are reaping the rewards for their quixotic vision of terrorist-ridden iraq and taliban country as we speak. They learnt the real worth of CIA intelligence after they allowed Colin Powell to humiliate themselves and subsequent hire and fire of a dozen intelligence directors.

I tried to portray the scenario where political exploitation of islamic religion is rife and its vulnerabilities to give itself a chance to redeem. I have not been able to see the political practice of which is given way to introspect and admit shortcomings. Or let's say the media around the world sees their bluster and threats on stolen videos at Al-Jazeera. It's alright if I fail repeatedly in convincing you that the traditional Islamic world sees things differently and their louder representatives to the external world look insensitive and menacing. This the US and its cohorts' media managers exploit to the hilt.

Then there is another view on this: Liberal and anti-american media in europe and south east asia bashing israeli acts but engages in unsolicitated justification of the acts while parroting adversarial stand on geopolitical conflicts. Perhaps the most unpalatable of all these is their patronship of all moderate muslims in the world when (according to me)all you need to see is a categorical denunciation of terrorist acts - nothing more nothing less.

When terrorists hijack a religion, community and genuine socio-political causes reason dies. Let me go back to my original statement : The big question is what are the minimum geopolitical and social conditions necessary for a real peace process to take place?

I am looking forward to a convincing answer from Palestinians, Hezbollah and Israel and USA. War is but a distraction from the political issue and a curse on common people like you and I.

btw I would rather like to take back my "absolutist" statements than defend them further and degenrate this debate at all :)

Some trivia:
You mentioned about Jews and Muslims coexisting peacefully forever till 1900: Please check out Jews role and events of imortance during First and subsequent Crusades. Their collective history -jews, chrsitians and muslims are murkier, tragic and unbeleivable.
My sources from American media: I am sure you heard about www.npr.org which I listen to while driving to and back from work. I don't watch cnn. I do have surya and karali tv (Mu. Karunanidhi and CPM owned) respectively for my daily dose and yes a bit of Fox TV since its free on Dish network and funny :) and ofcourse this funny guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Stewart

I have nothing much to add to your take on islam faith. Except the fact that I love the islam that my beloved Vaikom Muhammad Basheer (I promise I will blog about him sometime) wrote in his stories, Amir Khusru, islamic gharanas, M.S. Baburaj, gibran sang and the light I saw on the face of mammo (I am sure you must have seen that movie) and the life of a displaced fellow citizen's family in Sathyu's Garam Hawa.

There is also another tidbit I would likt to share: This cousin of mine brought his friend to my house who happened to be a muslim. After a few exchanges of words I was taken aback to see his conviction to wipe out infidels in America and Isreal in near future. I guess was 15 and he was 16.

Sunil said...

Rajesh,
Thanks for the comments.
I’m quite aware of deficiencies of Islam more so in the post modern society. In my view, it is the old Hegel thingy- a reaction to preserve identity in the wake of a compelling threat. It invariably has happened with almost all of the value systems (say Christianity vs. renaissance or acceptance of love marriages in traditional south India), things eventually settle down with a understood middle stance. I believe same is happening to Islam from within, a faction which desperately wants to stick to ancient values and another which is slowly catching up with the rest of the world. The most unfortunate problem is the value-conflict, unlike before, easily takes the form of violence to express itself. This sad development and its subsequent response by the west is, as you know, beyond both of us to control. The media of course have their own motives. It is only now that few of us are able to see clearly the dynamics and developments inherent and work towards an answer in the context of the aforementioned intricacies. Both the parties have to give something to the process. Denouncing violence would be a great start. So if violence is self deprived and talks are initiated , the answer to your question would come sooner or later. It only depends on the understanding of the grand futility of violence by both the parties. For now , it seems such a wisdom is not on the horizon. Next 20-40 years could be interesting coz it might be all slow acclimatization or a full scale third war. That we have to wait and watch.

I agree stereotypical it seems, but Im perfectly at ease with it. I believe man should not be ashamed or guilty if his views match with the stereotypes.
And since you are conscious of quality of the debate, I really don’t know how to respond. I don’t think we are under any obligation to maintain a perceived quality of debate as long as things are reasonable. Disagreements are part and parcel of any discussion. I have no qualms about it as long as the aim is not to coerce the differing into concurrence. And above all, quality is an highly variable and individually abstract perception. What I know is when such attributes are involved its always better to play the game than avoiding it, We may end up depriving selves of a valuable perspectives. At the worst, it could a learning experience. So I cant comment on you withdrawing your statements, it was yours and it is your prerogative to do whatever you like to.
I’m sure you definitely love Islam , perhaps more than I do. But I don’t identify it within my experience , it is a institution exclusive of me. It would continue irrespective of me. That’s my take.

About the bit on crusades, what I emphasised was the absence of direct conflict between Jewish and Islam religions( well settled for centuries prior to crusades) and in other regions including those under Muslim rule. It is a well known fact that Jews were treated better in Arabia n north Africa than in the Europe at that time, hence their widespread settlements in the region.
And coming to crusades as such inc. first one , the Muslims and the Jews were massacred alike as the papal orders identified them as against Christ. There were collusions here and there but no ideological battle between Jews and Islam.

I have far more shocking events of similar nature. It would be a myopic generalisation to extrapolate it to entire Islam, although I admit it is rife with instant reactions and high on emotions. that’s where the war has to be fought.

Thanks again, we stand better understood.

Sunil said...

AS you have guessed, The last paragraph was about tidbit.

Rajesh said...

"I believe man should not be ashamed or guilty if his views match with the stereotypes."

I preferred to disengage on those views not because I changed my stance overnight, but the "stereotype" images and ideas are at war on million newspapers and TV Channels as we speak. I don't have anything to add or inclination to take anyone on. Just as you were inclined to think that I have been influenced by American media I could detect the influence of french liberatti in your counter views too.

As you said just as this war is about high octane emotions, it is about images and perceptions too. The stereotypes of your identity in an arab sreet or a jewish street generates such hatred and I see the danger looming over fast and furious. There would be a time soon enough to take a stand.

Putting onus on Israel to stop escalation and absorb provocations from terrorists are the expectations of "neutral" international community. The same community has no access to the terrorists. I guess thats where the dynamic is evolved.

Ubermensch said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sunil said...

Well, we seem be on a disagreement spree, but I don’t mind at all.

"I believe man should not be ashamed or guilty if his views match with the stereotypes."

I was only speaking for myself. No one has suggested a volte-face ( I did not wanted to use it, but there is no apt counterpart;) . As I’ve said, if you choose to disengage it entirely is by your free volition and choice. For myself, I wouldn’t be worried if my views happen to be stereotypical and hotly debated all over aslong as It is based on reason.

''Just as you were inclined to think that I have been influenced by American media I could detect the influence of french liberatti in your counter views too''.

I’m totally fine with that. In fact glad that my views are said to match with one of the genuinely liberal schools around.Moreover I have acknowledged the chance of being wrong. Also, teh whole influence has no meaning to me as it doesnt stand in regarding the rationale of argument itself.

No one is requesting Israel to swallow provocations. As ive endlessly emphasised earlier im all for a punitive actions against the perpetrators, for e.g. operation bayonet following Munich games( although I consider it aggressive)
But I strongly condemn any hostile military action that carelessly destroys infrastructure and kills civilians with out any accountability. In that regard it I have no doubt that Israel is as responsible as any other violent group in the escalation and spreading of the conflict. This brings back to what I had written in the blog,


With the vulnerable geopolitics of the region, it is only prudent for Israel to understand the fact it cannot ensure the security of her subjects by bringing herself under the umbrella and to continuously engage in reactionary acts of questionable morality.

Israel has to, in the larger interest of the Jewish race, regard herself as a nation willing to progressively exclude herself from the troubles of her neighbourhood and thereby work towards a lasting solution which can be achieved only by concerted peaceful talks.


Because Israel stand to gain more than her opponents and if it doesn’t, sooner or later, it will realise it has to face a more intense enemy and the battle will prolong forever chewing her resources and it is only a mtter of time countries like Japan, Singapore would dictate terms to her.
A fleet of f-16s would look lovely in the hangar.


Next coming to your "neutral" international community. The same community has no access to the terrorists. Well, is this not where we started? How do you define your neutral, the one which had no meddled with any other nation for it economic-imperial ambitions in the last 50 years? Perhaps there is reason why there was/is(till now) no active terrorism in Vienna , Amsterdam or even Paris for that matter.

Talk is the word.

Sekar Puly said...

"Violence can be only be defeated by Violence".

So, its time to act people ..

S

Sekar Puly said...

What I meant is to act as a Nation to defeat the terrorists.