Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Losing Sight of the Moon, One Rock at a Time!
My reworking of an Associated Press story that ran on Sept 15. A good read, if I do say so myself, and I will (conceited, isn't it) :D
How the world is losing its (moon) rocks
A few words about the founder... Jinnah Sb ko SALUT!
Yesterday, I found myself (unwittingly) in the middle of a mini-debate on Jinnah. It was the latest in the series of drawing-room discussions (albeit over Facebook and gmail, the drawing rooms of today and the coffee houses of tomorrow) in the post-Jaswant's-groundbreaking-new-book world. On one side, an Indian professor at Brown University, and in our (read Jinnah's) corner, YLH, my perennial friend and a most vocal (and oft militant) proponent of our great leader. I don't blame him, in fact I admire his courage and commitment. I won't even say I doubt his methods, because they've kept the idiot 'arbit' Indians off our collective backs on blogsites and chowk dot coms worldwide.
So, I have the privilege of posting here the original article, that appeared in the Indian Express, and YLH's scathing reply. Makes for good reading. Enjoy!
What if Jinnah had won
By Ashutosh Varshney
INDIAN EXPRESS
The current debate over partition is radically incomplete. The debate has been framed around Jinnah’s desire for a federal but undivided India, in which the states would have been more powerful than Delhi. In contrast, Nehru’s preference is said to be for a centralised polity, with Delhi given more powers than the states. It has been argued that the latter was responsible for India’s partition.
What is wrong about this way of framing the discussion? Contemporary political theory suggests another perspective on Jinnah. Historical research has not wrestled with a fundamental theoretical question: was Jinnah in favour of what political theorists call “consociational democracy”? It is a term I will explain in a moment. But its grave real-world implications can be stated right away: if Jinnah’s argument was indeed consociational, then partition was inevitable and Jinnah was as responsible for it as anybody else. For the Congress party to accept a consociational argument would have meant denying everything India’s freedom movement had stood for. Nehru could not have possibly agreed. Nor, incidentally, could Gandhi
A consociational democracy opposes liberal democracy on at least three counts. First, according to consociational theory, groups — religious, linguistic or racial — are the unit of politics and political organisation, not individuals. As we know, strategising about groups is a pervasive feature of politics, whether in the US or India. The consociational theory goes far beyond that. It says that the constitution should allocate political power and offices to different religious or ethnic groups — 50 per cent of offices would go to group A, 30 to group B, 20 to group C, etc.
Second, each community would be represented by a political organisation of that community only, not by an organisation that claims to be multi-religious or multi-ethnic. This is the “sole spokesman” idea: that only the Muslim League would represent India’s Muslims. LTTE made similar claims about the Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Third, minorities would have a veto in governmental decision-making, and consensus should be the basis for governmental functioning. If the Muslim League did not like something that others wanted Muslims to consider, the deliberation would not go any further.
The consociational theory is not simply an abstract exercise. In books after books, Arend Lijphart, a Dutch political scientist, has demonstrated that consociational democracy was used in several small European countries after World War I: Holland, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. More controversially, he has also argued that a consociational democracy is much better for multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies, for it allows disaffected groups to develop a sense of security.
Outside Europe, too, there are examples. Consociational versus liberal democracy was a matter of serious debate during South Africa’s transition after apartheid. Lebanon after 1943 opted for consociational democracy. Malaysia today has a semi-consociational model.
A key question about Jinnah is this: was he a consociational or a liberal democrat? We don’t know the answer conclusively, for that is not the frame within which historical research has been conducted. But the hypothesis that Jinnah was consociational, not liberal, is profoundly plausible. Consider three different points in the evolution of his argument.
First, it is after the Lucknow Pact of 1916 that, in a pre-theoretical moment of political exuberance, Sarojini Naidu called Jinnah an “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. One should, however, note that the Lucknow pact was fundamentally premised upon separate electorates for Muslims, and also on one-third of representation reserved for Muslims in government.
Second, the Lahore Resolution (1940) made the case that Hindus and Muslims were not simply two distinct religious groups, but two different nations that required separate political roofs over their cultural heads. In the words of Jinnah, “Hindus and Muslims belong to... two different civilisations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”. In comparison, the argument of Maulana Azad, a deeply religious Muslim and a Congress leader, was dramatically different. “I am a Muslim and proud of that fact... In addition, I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality... Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp... This joint wealth is the heritage of common nationality.”
Nehru’s view of the nation and politics also departed radically from Jinnah’s. This is what he wrote in The Discovery of India: “There was a fundamental difference between the outlook of the Congress and that of religious-communal organisations. Of the latter, the chief were the Muslim League and its Hindu counterpart, the Hindu Mahasabha. These communal organisations, while in theory standing for Indian independence, were more interested in claiming protection ad special privileges for their respective groups.”
1946 is the third key point in the evolution of Jinnah’s argument. Unless future research proves me wrong, Jinnah by that time was wholly consociational. He was not only talking about a federal India with greater powers for the provinces. He was also emphatic about the Muslim League being the “sole spokesman” for India’s Muslims.
Even if the Congress had accepted the idea of a loose federal state, how could it have agreed that Congress was only a Hindu party, not different from the Hindu Mahasabha, and it could not represent Muslims at all? There were undoubtedly some Hindu nationalists in Congress, but they never took control of the commanding heights of the party. At least since Gandhi burst on the scene in 1919, the Congress was always committed to the idea of a composite nation. Agreeing with Jinnah’s consociational argument would have meant fundamentally denying the ideological commitment to the possibility of a multi-religious politics and a secular Indian nation.
Finally, would consociationalism have really brought peace to an independent India? The available comparative research is quite clear. Consociational democracies have worked well in richer European settings. In lower income postcolonial scenarios, consociationalism has actually been a recipe for endless troubles. Lebanon’s case is the best known. The fundamental problem is that a polity so exclusively group-based only deepens group identities. It does not make groups secure. In the end, it undermines national feeling.
It is hard to imagine a post-1947 India, which had separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims, which allowed only one communal party representing each religious group, which apportioned political offices strictly on the basis of religion, and which nonetheless had peace. Partition was a horrific event, but it is not clear that a consociational India after 1947 would have fared better. Nehru’s critics must confront the consociational puzzles about Jinnah’s ideology and conduct
YLH'S REPLY:
I am afraid this is simply hogwash written by Ashutosh Varshney (whose well researched but badly argued “Hindus and Muslims Ethnic conflict” I have read and found to be rather limited in thought even if thorough in research)… even if it comes from a professor at Brown (which proves my earlier point about American universities sadly).
1. Jinnah was in principle against the separate electorates. He had opposed them when they first came around. He offered to give it up on several occasions… provided other safeguards were met. Even his 14 points speak of eventual discarding of the separate electorates. This point comes out clearly in terms of Jinnah-Gandhi talks where Jinnah says ofcourse joint electorates are the preferable.
2. Consociational Democracy: The concept has worked well in Netherlands, Switzerland and several other nations. But the prime modern example of Consociational Democracy is not in Europe … Ashutosh Varshney will never accept it but all political scientists looking at things impartially will… it is India… yes your so called Modern Secular Liberal India.
The irony is that India post 1947 adopted the consociational model but jettisoned the modernist Muslim leadership that could have given it meaning. Who are India’s Muslim consociationalists today? Darul Uloom Deoband.
I submit that the consociational solution presented by the League was not all that different … indeed it was more democratic. It certainly did not solve the communal conflict by presenting communal solutions… it presented federal solutions and confederal solutions for communal conflict.
Groupings would have created three sub-federations…. in these sub-federations, it was open to the provinces to leave after the legislative elections. The principle of separate electorate was most likely to be given up by Jinnah – who disliked the idea of communal electorates but had accepted the idea only as a necessarily evil given Congress’ refusal in 1929 to accept residuary powers clause which was a sine qua non for settlement according to Punjab and Bengal’s Muslims. The impulse behind Congress’ rejection was not any fear of consociationalism but simply hunger for power and land grabbing instincts.
The consociational argument if any can only apply to CMP and that to by stretching and drawing analogies. And it certainly does not gel with Post-1947’s Modern India which is for all purposes as consociational a state as CMP India would have been.
But what about 1929? What about 1937?
The truth is that Ashutosh Varshney probably knows deep down that he has laid an egg… and we shall expose him for this.
So, I have the privilege of posting here the original article, that appeared in the Indian Express, and YLH's scathing reply. Makes for good reading. Enjoy!
What if Jinnah had won
By Ashutosh Varshney
INDIAN EXPRESS
The current debate over partition is radically incomplete. The debate has been framed around Jinnah’s desire for a federal but undivided India, in which the states would have been more powerful than Delhi. In contrast, Nehru’s preference is said to be for a centralised polity, with Delhi given more powers than the states. It has been argued that the latter was responsible for India’s partition.
What is wrong about this way of framing the discussion? Contemporary political theory suggests another perspective on Jinnah. Historical research has not wrestled with a fundamental theoretical question: was Jinnah in favour of what political theorists call “consociational democracy”? It is a term I will explain in a moment. But its grave real-world implications can be stated right away: if Jinnah’s argument was indeed consociational, then partition was inevitable and Jinnah was as responsible for it as anybody else. For the Congress party to accept a consociational argument would have meant denying everything India’s freedom movement had stood for. Nehru could not have possibly agreed. Nor, incidentally, could Gandhi
A consociational democracy opposes liberal democracy on at least three counts. First, according to consociational theory, groups — religious, linguistic or racial — are the unit of politics and political organisation, not individuals. As we know, strategising about groups is a pervasive feature of politics, whether in the US or India. The consociational theory goes far beyond that. It says that the constitution should allocate political power and offices to different religious or ethnic groups — 50 per cent of offices would go to group A, 30 to group B, 20 to group C, etc.
Second, each community would be represented by a political organisation of that community only, not by an organisation that claims to be multi-religious or multi-ethnic. This is the “sole spokesman” idea: that only the Muslim League would represent India’s Muslims. LTTE made similar claims about the Tamils of Sri Lanka.
Third, minorities would have a veto in governmental decision-making, and consensus should be the basis for governmental functioning. If the Muslim League did not like something that others wanted Muslims to consider, the deliberation would not go any further.
The consociational theory is not simply an abstract exercise. In books after books, Arend Lijphart, a Dutch political scientist, has demonstrated that consociational democracy was used in several small European countries after World War I: Holland, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. More controversially, he has also argued that a consociational democracy is much better for multi-ethnic, multi-religious societies, for it allows disaffected groups to develop a sense of security.
Outside Europe, too, there are examples. Consociational versus liberal democracy was a matter of serious debate during South Africa’s transition after apartheid. Lebanon after 1943 opted for consociational democracy. Malaysia today has a semi-consociational model.
A key question about Jinnah is this: was he a consociational or a liberal democrat? We don’t know the answer conclusively, for that is not the frame within which historical research has been conducted. But the hypothesis that Jinnah was consociational, not liberal, is profoundly plausible. Consider three different points in the evolution of his argument.
First, it is after the Lucknow Pact of 1916 that, in a pre-theoretical moment of political exuberance, Sarojini Naidu called Jinnah an “ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity”. One should, however, note that the Lucknow pact was fundamentally premised upon separate electorates for Muslims, and also on one-third of representation reserved for Muslims in government.
Second, the Lahore Resolution (1940) made the case that Hindus and Muslims were not simply two distinct religious groups, but two different nations that required separate political roofs over their cultural heads. In the words of Jinnah, “Hindus and Muslims belong to... two different civilisations that are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. They have different epics, different heroes and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state”. In comparison, the argument of Maulana Azad, a deeply religious Muslim and a Congress leader, was dramatically different. “I am a Muslim and proud of that fact... In addition, I am proud of being an Indian. I am part of the indivisible unity that is Indian nationality... Eleven hundred years of common history have enriched India with our common achievement. Our languages, our poetry, our literature, our culture, our art, our dress, our manners and customs, the innumerable happenings of our daily life, everything bears the stamp of our joint endeavour. There is indeed no aspect of our life which has escaped this stamp... This joint wealth is the heritage of common nationality.”
Nehru’s view of the nation and politics also departed radically from Jinnah’s. This is what he wrote in The Discovery of India: “There was a fundamental difference between the outlook of the Congress and that of religious-communal organisations. Of the latter, the chief were the Muslim League and its Hindu counterpart, the Hindu Mahasabha. These communal organisations, while in theory standing for Indian independence, were more interested in claiming protection ad special privileges for their respective groups.”
1946 is the third key point in the evolution of Jinnah’s argument. Unless future research proves me wrong, Jinnah by that time was wholly consociational. He was not only talking about a federal India with greater powers for the provinces. He was also emphatic about the Muslim League being the “sole spokesman” for India’s Muslims.
Even if the Congress had accepted the idea of a loose federal state, how could it have agreed that Congress was only a Hindu party, not different from the Hindu Mahasabha, and it could not represent Muslims at all? There were undoubtedly some Hindu nationalists in Congress, but they never took control of the commanding heights of the party. At least since Gandhi burst on the scene in 1919, the Congress was always committed to the idea of a composite nation. Agreeing with Jinnah’s consociational argument would have meant fundamentally denying the ideological commitment to the possibility of a multi-religious politics and a secular Indian nation.
Finally, would consociationalism have really brought peace to an independent India? The available comparative research is quite clear. Consociational democracies have worked well in richer European settings. In lower income postcolonial scenarios, consociationalism has actually been a recipe for endless troubles. Lebanon’s case is the best known. The fundamental problem is that a polity so exclusively group-based only deepens group identities. It does not make groups secure. In the end, it undermines national feeling.
It is hard to imagine a post-1947 India, which had separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims, which allowed only one communal party representing each religious group, which apportioned political offices strictly on the basis of religion, and which nonetheless had peace. Partition was a horrific event, but it is not clear that a consociational India after 1947 would have fared better. Nehru’s critics must confront the consociational puzzles about Jinnah’s ideology and conduct
YLH'S REPLY:
I am afraid this is simply hogwash written by Ashutosh Varshney (whose well researched but badly argued “Hindus and Muslims Ethnic conflict” I have read and found to be rather limited in thought even if thorough in research)… even if it comes from a professor at Brown (which proves my earlier point about American universities sadly).
1. Jinnah was in principle against the separate electorates. He had opposed them when they first came around. He offered to give it up on several occasions… provided other safeguards were met. Even his 14 points speak of eventual discarding of the separate electorates. This point comes out clearly in terms of Jinnah-Gandhi talks where Jinnah says ofcourse joint electorates are the preferable.
2. Consociational Democracy: The concept has worked well in Netherlands, Switzerland and several other nations. But the prime modern example of Consociational Democracy is not in Europe … Ashutosh Varshney will never accept it but all political scientists looking at things impartially will… it is India… yes your so called Modern Secular Liberal India.
The irony is that India post 1947 adopted the consociational model but jettisoned the modernist Muslim leadership that could have given it meaning. Who are India’s Muslim consociationalists today? Darul Uloom Deoband.
I submit that the consociational solution presented by the League was not all that different … indeed it was more democratic. It certainly did not solve the communal conflict by presenting communal solutions… it presented federal solutions and confederal solutions for communal conflict.
Groupings would have created three sub-federations…. in these sub-federations, it was open to the provinces to leave after the legislative elections. The principle of separate electorate was most likely to be given up by Jinnah – who disliked the idea of communal electorates but had accepted the idea only as a necessarily evil given Congress’ refusal in 1929 to accept residuary powers clause which was a sine qua non for settlement according to Punjab and Bengal’s Muslims. The impulse behind Congress’ rejection was not any fear of consociationalism but simply hunger for power and land grabbing instincts.
The consociational argument if any can only apply to CMP and that to by stretching and drawing analogies. And it certainly does not gel with Post-1947’s Modern India which is for all purposes as consociational a state as CMP India would have been.
But what about 1929? What about 1937?
The truth is that Ashutosh Varshney probably knows deep down that he has laid an egg… and we shall expose him for this.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
The same old story... [An interlude]
Taking a break from being my usual self, it's time for a little self-extro and introspection. So here goes my little out-of-body-experience. And no... there will be no parallel astral plane bullshit here, all I need to do is read back through my blog... idiots!
I HAVE gotten meaner. Leaner I may not be, but meaner, HELL YEAH! I'm now officially the Dirty Harry of off-the-cuff retorts... something I used to be too scared to be. Even Sam says so, and she should know! She says it was Karachi, I say it was the life experience... same difference!
Spelling mistakes and typos (here and there) stand out. Chalo, at least it proves I'm human and not some copy editor freak (HAH! I crack me up!). Also tells me (and you) that rarely have I re-read a post written in the flurry of words and emotions, accompanied usually by the song that's running in my head at the time, mostly because it's playing on loop in Winamp while I write that particular piece of my life (for inspiration, of course).
The reason why these last two posts are anomalies (i.e. posted in quick succession, one right after the other in the same sitting - something I guess I've NEVER done before) is because just posting someone else's words, however good they may be, wasn't quite enough. I MUST have the last word... resistance is futile :p
I think I've scared the little one with the hateful comments I posted to her last post. If you're reading this Marina, I'm sorry, it just kinda came out, like most of my writing does. Didn't mean any ill will toward you, honest, cross my heart, (almost) scout's honour!!!! But I did MEAN it...
Re-read my first post too. Didn't really accomplish what I set out to do. Sure, it makes for impressive reading if I need to impress the odd-high brow chick, or score brownie sympathy points, but that's just fucking lame. The original, nobler purpose was to allow the jesters in my life to read my so-called 'journal' so they could understand me better. I didn't think that was gonna happen back then, but nothing like the apathy I've seen in the years that I've been running this blog.
So this goes out to all the anonymous voyeurs... feedback BITCHES!!!!! If just to let me know you've read it!!!!! Isn't that hard y'know... just point and click!
*DOUBLE CLICK*
If this post seems profaner than my normal work, don't hide your children and lock on your chastity belts around your ears just yet. Haven't slept in days and can't really get to sleep now. It's Sunday morning, I'm horny, my 'Sana Anonymous' [perverted SMS 'friend'] is fast-fucking-asleep and there's nothing on TV... life's a peach!
Re-reading this blog is really like taking a trip back in time. But here, I can sit and quietly smile at myself and the bad choices I've made, slap my chrome-dome at the idiot I was and generally chuckle to myself about days long gone. Change I CAN fucking believe in!!!!!
Just don't pretend. Please. As a favour to me. Pretty please with a 14-year-old virgin's cherry on top (is this image disturbing enough yet?). DON'T PRETEND, OK? I FUCKING HATE PRETENDERS!!!!!!! Be real, be assholes for all I care... I know I am one... why can't you be? Assholes, that is. I'll believe you a whole lot more!!!
Oh, and if you're listening up there... I will never surrender. Remember that. There are now just two people in the world that I care about enough to sacrifice my life for... the same two that were standing around when I was born. And if you come near them, you'll never see another sunrise again, even if I have to give up my right to do so too...
Have I said enough yet???
I HAVE gotten meaner. Leaner I may not be, but meaner, HELL YEAH! I'm now officially the Dirty Harry of off-the-cuff retorts... something I used to be too scared to be. Even Sam says so, and she should know! She says it was Karachi, I say it was the life experience... same difference!
Spelling mistakes and typos (here and there) stand out. Chalo, at least it proves I'm human and not some copy editor freak (HAH! I crack me up!). Also tells me (and you) that rarely have I re-read a post written in the flurry of words and emotions, accompanied usually by the song that's running in my head at the time, mostly because it's playing on loop in Winamp while I write that particular piece of my life (for inspiration, of course).
The reason why these last two posts are anomalies (i.e. posted in quick succession, one right after the other in the same sitting - something I guess I've NEVER done before) is because just posting someone else's words, however good they may be, wasn't quite enough. I MUST have the last word... resistance is futile :p
I think I've scared the little one with the hateful comments I posted to her last post. If you're reading this Marina, I'm sorry, it just kinda came out, like most of my writing does. Didn't mean any ill will toward you, honest, cross my heart, (almost) scout's honour!!!! But I did MEAN it...
Re-read my first post too. Didn't really accomplish what I set out to do. Sure, it makes for impressive reading if I need to impress the odd-high brow chick, or score brownie sympathy points, but that's just fucking lame. The original, nobler purpose was to allow the jesters in my life to read my so-called 'journal' so they could understand me better. I didn't think that was gonna happen back then, but nothing like the apathy I've seen in the years that I've been running this blog.
So this goes out to all the anonymous voyeurs... feedback BITCHES!!!!! If just to let me know you've read it!!!!! Isn't that hard y'know... just point and click!
*DOUBLE CLICK*
If this post seems profaner than my normal work, don't hide your children and lock on your chastity belts around your ears just yet. Haven't slept in days and can't really get to sleep now. It's Sunday morning, I'm horny, my 'Sana Anonymous' [perverted SMS 'friend'] is fast-fucking-asleep and there's nothing on TV... life's a peach!
Re-reading this blog is really like taking a trip back in time. But here, I can sit and quietly smile at myself and the bad choices I've made, slap my chrome-dome at the idiot I was and generally chuckle to myself about days long gone. Change I CAN fucking believe in!!!!!
Just don't pretend. Please. As a favour to me. Pretty please with a 14-year-old virgin's cherry on top (is this image disturbing enough yet?). DON'T PRETEND, OK? I FUCKING HATE PRETENDERS!!!!!!! Be real, be assholes for all I care... I know I am one... why can't you be? Assholes, that is. I'll believe you a whole lot more!!!
Oh, and if you're listening up there... I will never surrender. Remember that. There are now just two people in the world that I care about enough to sacrifice my life for... the same two that were standing around when I was born. And if you come near them, you'll never see another sunrise again, even if I have to give up my right to do so too...
Have I said enough yet???
I'd rather not say. Download and sing along, all you pieces of SHIT!
"Keep you in the dark
You know they all pretend
Keep you in the dark
And so it all began
Send in your skeletons
Sing as their bones go marching in... again
The need you buried deep
The secrets that you keep are at the ready
Are you ready?
I'm the voice inside your head
You refuse to hear
I'm the face that you have to face
Mirrored in your stare
I'm what's left, I'm what's right
I'm the enemy
I'm the hand that will take you down
Bring you to your knees
I'm finished making sense
Done pleading ignorance
That whole defense
Spinning infinity, but
The wheel is spinning me
It's never ending, never ending
Same old story
What if I say I'm not like the others?
What if I say I'm not another one of your plays
You're the pretender
What if I say I will never surrender?
In time or so I'm told
I'm just another soul for sale... oh, well
The page is out of print
We are not permanent
We're temporary,
Same old story
So who are you?
Yeah, who are you?
YEAH, WHO ARE YOU?"
The Pretender
---- Dave Grohl [The Foo Fighters]
You know they all pretend
Keep you in the dark
And so it all began
Send in your skeletons
Sing as their bones go marching in... again
The need you buried deep
The secrets that you keep are at the ready
Are you ready?
I'm the voice inside your head
You refuse to hear
I'm the face that you have to face
Mirrored in your stare
I'm what's left, I'm what's right
I'm the enemy
I'm the hand that will take you down
Bring you to your knees
I'm finished making sense
Done pleading ignorance
That whole defense
Spinning infinity, but
The wheel is spinning me
It's never ending, never ending
Same old story
What if I say I'm not like the others?
What if I say I'm not another one of your plays
You're the pretender
What if I say I will never surrender?
In time or so I'm told
I'm just another soul for sale... oh, well
The page is out of print
We are not permanent
We're temporary,
Same old story
So who are you?
Yeah, who are you?
YEAH, WHO ARE YOU?"
The Pretender
---- Dave Grohl [The Foo Fighters]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)