[Reader-list] Hindu families in Pakistan feel scared, India grants Visa

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Taha
 
You had written " Now my question to you is this- Do you actually believe, India is Not a Nation State? lol (All the brooding anarchists on this list must sit up and take notice)"
 
That 'lol' of yours was arrogant patronising.
 
Either you take me for a complete idiot or you have no idea what you write. Being a smart-ass and playing around with words and justifications might be an amusing thing for you and it might feed your intellect in some deviant manner, but you must consider the possibility of the other person having at least some intelligence even if yours is far superior, as it surely is when compared to mine..
 
If you do not know how and where to punctuate conversation with a 'lol', then please do not use it.
 
Look at your latest gem in telling me " what you wrote was more like revisiting a nervous system of concepts which were pulled together to rule India." A highly flawed gem.
 
I had simply expressed my reading of how the 'sharing and caring' attitudes of people change when the availability of resources for distribution change in their quantum. It is not particular to India. It is true of people in any part of the world.
 
Nor had I anywhere given any such value judgment that you ascribed to me (in your earlier post) as "just and unjust distribution and eligibility of recipients with respect to any such distribution." and then went on to sneer at it being "  political theory 101 and political philosophy 101 "
 
Your presumption of my articulation is in fact a fabrication of your own mind. Nowhere did I comment on Nation States being good or bad, desirable or undesirable. 
 
In fact, to start with the mention of "(majoritarian) nation states" was injected by you into the conversation. To that I had responded, that (previewed on basis of religion), India is not a Nation State whereas Pakistan is.
 
Thank you for sharing words from Proudhan. I have no idea who that is. 
 
I am not obsessed with the topic of Nation States (as many on this List seem to be) so any theorising on it is of little interest to me. 
 
This Proudhan seems to have expressed an opinion on Nation States. Good luck to him. You say that  "he argues that a nation state is an instrument of Governance." I have no conflict with your certification. Like I said, I have little interest in the theorising on Nation States.
 
In general I do not pay much attention to such extracts or quotings. It never tells me what is the context and what precedes and what follows. That is true of these words of Proudhan too. The words also do not tell me how Proudhan describes or what he understands by the term Nation State.
 
I did notice though that what you described as " nation state is an instrument of Governance" does not suggest that Nation State is the only instrument of Governance or that Governance is not possible without being a Nation State.
 
But, to repeat myself I have very little interest in the theorising  on Nation States.
 
 
Kshmendra
 
 
 


--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Hindu families in Pakistan feel scared, India grants Visa
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 9:16 PM


Dear Kshmendra

I have often smiled a lot while reading your witty responses so this time I thought it appropriate to include non-verbal reactions in my reply. As is clearly evident there seems to be some discomfort in that, hence I will try to refrain from using non-verbal language in future. 

It pains me to see that what was clearly plain speak is translated as arrogance or sarcasm. It was far from that Kshmendera I genuinely thought what you wrote was more like revisiting a nervous system of concepts which were pulled together to rule India. It was interesting and I hugely enjoyed reading it. Please don't take it otherwise.

In fact your articulation on states reminded me of Proudhon's take on nation states, wherein he argues that a nation state is an instrument of Governance. Please allow me to share with you a quote from Proudhan-

'To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. 

To be  governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. it is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of general interest, to be placed conder contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; 

then, at the slightest resistence, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, diarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemend, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonered. 

That if Government, that is its justice and that is its morality'

Please let me know what do you think of this view.

Warm regards 

Taha 

--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Hindu families in Pakistan feel scared, India grants Visa
To: "Taha Mehmood" <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 2:03 PM

Dear Taha
 
The answer to your question is a Yes.
 
It is interesting that you should be reduced to articulating yourself with a
'lol'.
 
This patronising arrogance is also evident (unless I registered it wrongly) in
the sarcastic reference to "political theory 101 and political philosophy
101".
 
Kshmendra

--- On Wed, 3/18/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Hindu families in Pakistan feel scared, India grants
Visa
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 18, 2009, 9:14 AM


Dear Kshmendera

Thank you for a thought provoking mail on political theory 101 and political
philosophy 101 with respect to the idea of just and unjust distribution and
eligibility of recipients with respect to any such distribution. It was most
instructive to go through your thoughts.

I have only one question and I do not even desire a justification of your
position on this one. 

In your response you articulate, 'India is not a Nation State.'

Now my question to you is this- Do you actually believe, India is Not a Nation
State? lol (All the brooding anarchists on this list must sit up and take
notice)

Warm regards 

Taha

PS: While answering, A simple yes or no would suffice.









On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:31 PM, Kshmendra Kaul
<kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:






Dear Taha
 
In any situation, when the resources are 'more than plenty for
everyone' we might see the humanistic face of sharing and caring. That
humanist attitude gets relegated when there is a shortage of resources. People
then first look after the needs of 'our own'. This is logical and
understandable. 
 
The 'our own' could be immediate family as the smallest social unit or
on a larger scale the 'our own' identification could be on the basis of
religion; or ethnicity; or citizenship; or caste; or gender; a whole range of
possible identity groupings. 
 
In my opinion, this also happens in the attitude towards minorities in a
majoritarian demographic environment.
 
I would therefore not agree that it is always a directed  or designed attitude
to alienate minorities but can simply be a 'less available for many, so let
us first look after our own'.
 
I wrote earlier that it is 'logical and understandable'. But, should it
be acceptable?
 
In the private domain of individuals, or smaller scale sets, one can only
whine about it or argue against it but any legal enforcement to prevent it
would be highly improbable to succeed. 
 
However in all that is in the domain of 'public life', such
discrimination should be unacceptable and illegal not only in the fabric of the
Constitutional Umbrella but in every devolved Legislation or Law applicable to
the functioning of the State, Semi-Govt & Quasi-Govt institutions and any
enterprise that enjoys any kind of a support from 'public money'
(schools, colleges, hospitals, clubs etc).
 
Here we have to take into reckoning the nature of the State, what exactly are
the provisions of and under it's Constitutional Umbrella as far as the
attitudes towards minorities is concerned or any provisions favouring the
majority are concerned. In this design itself India and Pakistan are starkly
different.
 
Before expanding on that, the specifics of the "35 Hindus migrating"
do not suggest that they were driven out  but that they were overwhelmed and
intimated by the increasing sway of the Taliban. The changed environment of
'kya tha aur kya ho gaya hai' (how it used to be and how it has become
now). And yet one comes across 'bites' from Hindus in those areas (FATA
etc) pronouncing how happier they are under the Taliban. These are just 35
Hindus compared to many a thousand Muslims (reportedly) who have emigrated from
those areas (to other parts of Pakistan) for reasons that are similar to
those that the '35 Hindus' have articulated. The State might be
considered to be guilty by neglect and not by design and that too not neglect of
the Hindus specifically.
 
The other news item I posted about 'conspiracy against Hindus in Sindh'
could be construed as neglect by the State of Hindus specifically. It could be
interpreted as the 'design of deliberate neglect'.
 
But this 'design of deliberate neglect' would not be unique to
Pakistan. One could cite quite a few hundred scenarios in India which suggest
such a 'design of deliberate neglect' of minorities that has the
dimensions of the State being susceptible to being accused of being complicit in
the sufferings undergone by the minority.
 
Any non-propagandist recognition of such scenarios in India would reveal that
the identity of the minority varies. Could be Muslims someplace, or Christians,
or Sikhs, or Hindus or any other Minority Identity Grouping in a particular
environment. 
 
Pakistan is a Nation State (Islamic). In Pakistan, it is understandable if in
the Design of the State, there is 'majoritarianism' in both the
Constitution and the Laws and the application of the Laws. That is an aspect
that will be and is seen in any State that declares itself Islamic. It is
peculiar to Islam because only Islam goes beyond simply theorising about the
Divine and specifies societal norms and attitudes. This exclusivist nature of
Islam is further hardlined by the nature of the interpretation of Islamic
precepts that have taken root and concretised through the ages. In any declared
Islamic State the 'alienate minorities on the basis of their ....religious
identities ' is automatically programmed in the design of the State.
 
The same would be true of any Nation State that is Ethnicity based. 
 
India is not a Nation State. No such provision of the Constitution or in Law
comes readily to my mind that could be seen as being dictated by
'majoritarianism'. On the contrary, many Hindu voices whine about
'minorityism' or 'pampering of minorities' being the Law of the
Land. They of course are referring only to religious identities.
 
In India therefore, any 'design of deliberate neglect'  of
any Minority Identity Group becomes totally unacceptable and illegal. Yet it
happens. I know. It is sad. It is disgusting. It is destructive.
 
I have tried to respond best that I could. Hope that there is some
'clarity' in the conveyance of my thoughts.
 
Kshmendra
  


--- On Sun, 3/15/09, Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Taha Mehmood <2tahamehmood at googlemail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Hindu families in Pakistan feel scared, India grants
Visa
To: kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com
Cc: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Sunday, March 15, 2009, 9:40 PM





Dear Kshmendra 

Do you think that this is a predicament of 'Hindus' alone or a general
tendency of majoritiarian nation states to alienate minorities on the basis of
their so called religious/ethnic identities? How different is the situation of
'Hindus' in Pakistan from 'Muslims' of India or 'Hindus'
of Bangladesh or 'Jews' of Germany sometime back or 'Christians'
of Rome a long time back or 'Tutsis' of Rwanda or ' Tibetan
Buddhists' of China or 'Palestianian Arabs' of Israel or 'Blacks
or Hispaniacs of America, when it comes to assertion of dominant ethno-religious
form of nationalism. 

This makes me think about the Asis Nandy's observation about violence and
blood shedding as part of legitimate strategy for nation building. Are we
witnessing another round of 'demonic and seductive'  form a religious
nationalism? Could we read the terrible experience of 'Hnidu' families
as yet another sick rite of exorcism? (the link to this essay by Nandy was
kindly posted by Jeebesh on the reader-list few days ago). Are we witnessing
signs of an 'Islamic' revolution in Pakistan?

 It is indeed sad and disgusting to see sections of pakistan's neo
political class pick on 'Hindus' to make an example of them.

Regards 

Taha