miscellaneous posts
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 125207 +0600
Subject: Re [Shetubondhon] Re A Personal Clarification
[...]
All of my Q/A assumes that India did intrude into Bangkladesh territory and that
BDR personnels did impale BSF personnels with poles and and paraded them in
impaled position. Verifying the authenticity of which is a technical issue and
should be dealt with separately.
1. Does Mac think think that it is an inhuman and barabric thing to impale humans
and parade their dead bodies on poles regardless if those dead bodies belong
to intruders?
2. Would Mac be willing to condemn such acts of impaling human bodies ?
3. Does Dr. Sen believe that it is wrong to intrude into other's territories and that
if an intrusion does occur then it is the right of the victim to defend itself and fight
off the intruder and that such fight will inevitably involve casualties?
4. Would Dr. Sen be willing to condemn the act of intrusion of Indian forces into
Bangladesh territory as an attack on the sovereignty of an independent nation
and thus wrong ?
If the answers to all of the above are YES (By the respective parties) then we
have significantly narrowed the scope of the their personal contentions. Let me
add some clarifications in case the answers are qualified yes. ( "Yes, BUT..")
1. Territoriality is a primitive biological imperative of all animals including humans.
Guarding one's territory is one of the basic imperative. Even blood brothers are
not spared. Protecting one's home/land and fighting off intruders is a basic
imperative. Here in civilized USA, an intruder can be shot at and the defender
can get away with it. Territoriality is not affected/influenced by religious/ethnic
factors. One does not have to be anti-Hindu/anti-Indian to fight in DEFENSE
against an Indian intrusion. I am sure every Indian (secular/fanatic alike)
would like to defend every inch of Indian soil if Pakistan or mighty US invades
Indian soil, he/she need not be anti-Islam/pakistan, or anti-Christian/anti-US .
The driving instinct is PROTECTING my land. I can be staunch (And I am)
secularist and still fight against India to protect every inch of my territory. I
may love my brother, but I will not allow him to disposses me of my righful
inheritance by force or deceit (I may choose to give it to him out of love).
2. There will be normal casualties in a war of physical violence. Thats unavoidable.
It is the right thing to preach against war and for peace philosophically. But once
there is a war where both parties are armed and prepared for it, then it is not fair
to condemn the usual causalties on one side only that result from it. It is also not
fair to glorify the casualties of one side only that result from it.
3. Pacifism as an ideal is commedable. I also subscribe to it. But it is not an ideal world,
and it will probably never be (Because territoriality between nations is a collectpve
manifestations of territoriality between individuals rooted in biology. If culture ever
wins over gene it may be possible to dream of an ideal world someday) , so it is foolish
to expect one party to let down its guard while others don't. The fact that one party
may be far superior in might than another is irrelevant here.
4. If a war does take place, it is OK to pay tributes to those who risks their lives to defend
the land and fight off the intruders in a defensive way. It is NOT OK to pay tributes to
the acts of sadism committed by either party on the other, and worse yet, to glorify
such sadistic acts. It is unrealistic to insist on puritanic adherence of pacifistic ideals
and abstain from paying tribuites to the fighting forces on the respective side. Even
civilized US compliments its boys for fighting in Iraq, an unfair war which was not
even truly defensive and was fought outside US soil. But it should be still clearly
understood that war is a necessary EVIL when paying such tribute.
5. A war between nations need not turn into a war between persons, religions etc.
A war inevitably is a result of misunderstanding, wrong policies and hatred of SOME,
so it should not mark a permanent division beween them. The long war between
the British and French did not create a permanent hatrred between them. They are
still allies in many ways. So India-Bangladesh clash of interests (and any occasional
skirmishes that follow from it) should not be a basis of Anti-Indian/Hindu attitude, or
anti-Bangladesh/Islam.
thats all I can think of for now.
From me Sat Apr 10 1999 14:31:57
To: Members%[email protected]
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] ON NATIONALISM: CONTESTING
DR ASIM DUTTA-ROY'S SYNTHESISATION OF
TAGORE AND GANDHI
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 16:54:55 Neelu Hasnat wrote:
[...]
>It is a great shame that the most profoundly Bengali poet had a conscious
>and subliminal mind that was in a state of darkness and disorganisation:
>he was also a passionate lover of superstition. Rabindranath may be part
>of our heritage, but as such he is not an asset. Like Dr Ahmed Sharif, I
>too wish to express my deep passion for Tagore's creative works,
>particularly for his songs, but Tagore's devotion to metaphysical concepts
>of "jivandevata" and other superstitions, and his anglophile conviction
>for British imperialism must remain unacceptable.[5]
^^^^^^^^^^^^
[...]
Its the use of words like "unacceptable" which worries me. All conclusions
about Tagore are results of subjective analysis and many are likely to
differ with (And indeed do) these conclusions. They are equally right in
their conclusions as these also, since all are results of subjective perceptions.
I definitely do not find anything UNACCEPTABLE in "Tagore's devotion to
metaphysical concepts of "jivandevata" and other superstitions" etc. I may not
agree with it either. An uneasy question question remains in my mind. What
does unacceptable mean? When we hear "unacceptable" by people in power we
get worried as we know it will/may be backed up by tangible actions. When we
hear this from people with no power now we get worried also at the potential of
what actions may result if such people are endowed with power later. This
"unacceptable" word conjures up a lurking thought police underneath.
Tagore is primarily an artist/litterateur. His works deserve a literary
critique/discussion rather than accepting/rejecting his personal beliefs
/superstition (If at all they can be proved conclusively). You may find
only his "songs" creative and so acceptable. But for many others Tagores's
devotion to metaphysical concepts of "jivandevata" may be more appealing.
Thats a perfectly acceptable basic human rights to me. What does your
"unacceptable" imply for them? Would appreciate your clarificastion.
cosmic thinker
From me Tue Apr 13 1999 12:29:10
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: ON NATIONALISM: CONTESTING
DR ASIM DUTTA-ROY'S
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:10:56 Parvez wrote:
[..]
>First, I am not a Tagore expert though I am fan of Tagore. However, I understand your
>concern. Now I have two questions. What terminology should one use other than
>"Unacceptable" if he finds something "Not Acceptable"? Then where does the word
>'Unacceptable" exactly fit without potential policing, if at all there, as you
>mentioned?
Finding some opinion/belief as "Not Acceptable" is itself being questioned here. Its
not a question of terminology. "Not acceptable" carries a portent of a tangible action
(Suppression/Persecution etc). There is an expression "Let us agree to disagree". This
statement assures that the speaker is not going to follow up with any tangible action
to enforce his/her belief or oppose that of his/her adversaries, an expression of
respect for differences. "Unacceptable" does not carry with it that assurance or
respect. So that answers your question as to what one should one say instead of
"Unacceptable".
[..]
>True but the personal belief comes in particularly when it greatly influence his works.
The influence, if any (I doubt if a real tangible influence exists, other than sheer
awe and pleasure that one derives from enjoying Tagore's work) is due to the conscious
acts of OTHERS, not Tagore himself. The ultimate responsibility of any action rests on
the perpetrator of the action, not a subjectively perceived ethereal influence by
someone else. (This is a general statement). One has to learn to take responsibility
on oneself instead of shifting it conveniently on others to exculpate themselves of
any negative consequences of any ACTION by themselves.
>The author will answer this question as I am not able. But I would point out that
>another critique might find everything acceptable. That by no way prevent this
>critique from denouncing anything in Tagore as "Unacceptable". This is where the
^^^^^^^^^^
>concept of diversity in opinion, understanding and analysis comes in.
^^^^^^^^^
"Denounce"?? Now I am more worried. This is an ominous consequence of
"Unacceptable". Denouncing someone for their artistic beliefs and works?
Smacks of Unacceptable->Denounce->Who knows what (Censorship/persecution
etc). We all know for some artists/writers/poets what that denunciation eventually
led to: A cash award on their head.
"Diversity" also implies tolerance, which means allowing one to write and think in
the way he/she choses to even if you don't AGREE with it, well exemplified by
statements like "I agree to disagree, or You are free to express your ideas even if
I don't subscribe to it" etc, not by statements like "I denounce you, or Your ideas
are not acceptable" etc. The former statements imply no intent of any tangible
action. The latter does carry a veiled intent of an ACTION (Censorship/Persecution
etc). Thats why it is so important to be politically correct, since some
words/statements reflect a latent intent of some wrong action, even though the words
themselves are innocuous (Just acoustic vibrations of air molecules).
cosmic thinker
From me Tue Apr 27 1999 18:42:51
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Why feel good?
On Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:11:31 [email protected] wrote
in reply to Mr. Parvez:
[...]
Your two stories about drunk father and the dog was based on two mutually
exclusive and coexistent traits (One good and another bad) and the simple
rule that one can praise one and decry the other at the same time. So far
so good. But the DU case as analysed by Parvez was questioning the the very
objectivity and significance of the good part. it was not a fair comparison.
The good part being the rank of DU. The point was that DU ranked high mainly
due to the selection criterion of admission. This doesn't command much credit
as it is inevitable due to demand supply situation. Its like revelling in
Dhaka being ranked high among the big cities just due to its sheer large
population. It requires shoving all the poor villagers to repair to Dhaka
(Which they do anyway) to claim this coveted(?) rank. Many emotional people
were convinced that Jamuna bridge is the longest in Asia. But Their being few
Universities in Bangladesh and DU being in Dhaka city and the seat of Politics
all the HSC graduates from all over the country vie to get in, so naturally DU
authorities have to set the selection criterion high. But we also know how
this crietrion is also bypassed by backdoor means. But thats a different issue.
So my understanding is that Parvez was cautioning (Justifiably) about getting
too self complacent of this ranking. We all know self complacency is the
biggest impediment of self improvement. Self criticism (Objective)is not
necessarily negative. parvez didn't call it wrong (neither do I) to be elated
at any good news about things that are from Bangladesh. But
>
>If you ask me to provide you with logic about their good feeling, I will not
>reply to your mail. I will not reply, because I will not be able to give you any
>logical explanation. For the same reason I can not provide you any logic for the
>daughter�s pride for the father who bit her mother, or for my neighbors
>happiness for the barking dog.
>
If the scale of good feeling is in proportion to the real achievement then
the good feeling is "logical". If not then it is "illogical". I think the
DU ranking can justify a lower level of good feeling than is being displayed.
>
>Often many Bangladeshi react badly if someone says anything good about
>Bangladesh and immediately jump to prove how bad Bangladesh is. Usually they
This was not the case with parvez's posting. I don't beklieve it ever is
the case that one just tries to prove how bad Bangladesh is (After
all there is nothing to gain from it. Ultimately all actions are motivated
by some form of gain) but one just lets out the feeling of frustrations by
pointing out the bad things that do exist. So the crticism is a reflectiion
of the frustration/sadness at the negatives, NOT a reflection of jubilation
.Again, self criticism (or criticsim by others) sometimes is needed and can
act as a strong catalyst and motivating factor for change.
>about DU and published in an international magazine. The magazine may publish
>trash news and faulty research articles, but do you think you have the right to
>put forward your well-researched and well-written posting only to shatter the
>happiness of these people?
Real happiness cannot be shattered. In fact if it IS shattered then
that will identify the happiness as NOT real, but based on on inflated
perception of reality. Lot of naive people were raving about Jamuna bridge
as being the longest in the world. Is it wrong to shatter their perceived
happiness by pointing out that it is not even second or third longest but
eleventh longest in the world?
In conclusion, I guess it ties in with our ingrained values where we are
discouraged from a constructive self criticism and not to ruin the party
even if the party is based on an exaggerated feeling of accomplishments.
But the important point we seem to forget is that the only effective way
for self improvement is not by being emotionally attached to a degree that
we suffer from an inflated sense of complacency and ignore/deny the
deficiencies but by being self critical and recognize them objectively
and then go about improving/correcting them. Sometimes the rude awakening
(The fact that things are not a good as we would like to think) helps to
provide the much needed challenge/impetus to act and redress this. We only
take serious note of our deficiencies when we are humiliated through
exposure of our genuine weakness/deficiency. The example of famous boxer
Joe Louis (Although I am no fan of boxing, just using it as an example),
who took defeat as the incentive to improve and became famous is a good one.
cosmic thinker, Portland.
From [email protected] Mon 3 May 1999 15:21:55
Date: Mon, 3 May 1999 15:21:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Destruction of Property in the Name of Protest
This is a very opportune topic for discussion as the level of mayhem and
destruction in Bangladesh in the name of any protest (even the most trivial
ones) has jumped from infinity to 2*infinity. I have been visiting Bangladesh
for the last 5 years off and on and I have sadly witnessed the masochistic
destruction of private and public properties OF Bangladesh BY Bangladeshis
and no public ourage being displayed at those destructions. One sad
thing to note is that the scale of destruction of hartals now is much higher
against elected Governments of Bangladesh (BNP and AL) is much much higher
than it used to be against the oppressive colonial Government of Pakistan.
This is another of the many insults being meted out to the memory of the
martyrs of the Liberation war. Chittagong port was closed down by
Hartalmongers during hartal against BNP which was unprecedented in the History
of Bangladesh and caused the greatest damage to the economy and the people
at large. This kind of destruction can only be conceived of in a liberation
war against a foreign occupational power. Those who argue in favour of such
destructions as temporary and necessary should note one point that if that
was the case then this would have been universally adopted as the time tested
and morally justified means of realizing political or social objective across
the nations. But we don't see the kind of masochistic destruction of private
and public properties in any poltical protest/movement against an elected
civilian governement anywhere in the world. Not even in India which is very
simialr to us in the socio-political background. There is simply no precedent
for this anywhere. So we will be alone in this unique belief in the justification
of this destructive method of internal political change. To cite some ridiculous
incidents of protest going beserk, last year a student of Dhaka university was
waiting for the bus near the Tejgaon area (Far from DU campus) when she was hit
by a speeding public bus losing control. On hearing about this incident, the
excited students of Curzon hall indiscriminately demolished all the cars parked
in the Curzon Hall/Supreme Court area and any cars that happen to come by. As
much tragic as the death of this student by the monster bus was, it was caused
by one reckless bus driver, but the punishment was given to many car owners
(And ultimately to public as governement does have to spend foreign exchange
for the cost of import of such cars) who had nothing to do with the bus driver
and were by any logic equally outraged by the reckless driving of that bus
driver. It shows how much divorced from rationality and sense a visible segment
of the present youths of Bangladesh are.
One will be hard pressed to agree with the school which says that the
destructions of protests are temporary and necessary for greater good. The
fact is all the destructions in Bangladesh are motivated not by a noble
conscious desire of a better Bangladesh but by a morbid sadistic/jealous
instinct and the perversre pleasure of seeing other's properties being
destroyed. To solve this problem we have to address how to cure this
social malaise by force or by social engineering. One way to start is to
solve the very problem of cavalier call of Hartals which give rise to these
wanton destructions and which gave rise to the culture of destruction in any
form of protests (If I remember correctly even the internees of medical College
were demolishing cars while demonstarting in favour of their demands). I and
many others have made suggestions to this effect. If the cycle of hartals
are reddressed that will in turn will have positive effect on all the other
destructions in the name of protest by small groups for every conceivable
reasons.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Thu 6 May 1999 13:29:17
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Statement from BUET student
On Wed, 5 May 1999 21:06:22 - Shahriar Khan wrote:
>always, every society, there are culprits/ weired/unproportionate/abnormal
>peoples. But always (even in Bangladesh), their numbers are far less than
>those of normal people.
>
Some general coments, not a response, as the BUET student is not Alochona
member and I agree with his/her comments in a general way. While it is true
that what is being said above, but the important difference is that in Bangladesh
the acts of these minority group are extremely vocal and powerful and any attempt
to punish their acts are rewarded with a more vindictive and violent retaliation
and they affect the majority in a BIG way and the majority are very passive and
let the minorities get away with these heinous acts, for two possible reasons:
1) Fear of retaliation by the minorities if any action is taken against
them by any majority member and no protection to the majority member
is offered against the retaliation by the remaining majority members.
2) Any punitive measure against a minority action (which is committed in
the garb of a protest/movement, nomatter how violent/shocking) is always
perceived as politically incorrect and paradoxically, the measures
generates a counter reactions which snowballs into a mass movement
which is paradoxically joined by the majorities themselves.
So we cannot provide ourselves any absolution by the affirmations that we
are like all other societies. Any redress to this problem of violence and
destruction by minorities has to face this dilemma of how majority can
effectively deal with it. In India in most states, for example, if a rape is
committed, the whole village identifies the rapist and his family and ostracizes
them or hands him over to police. In Bangladesh the rapists are backed up by
powerful weapons and muscle and face no real resistance from the scared majority.
The majority has to be more vocal and united and form committees like vigilance
committee, neighborhood watch. Guardian's angels etc. Unfortunately the only
example of majority action is some isolated incidents of "Gono Pituni" where
the victim is an insignificant criminal like Pick Pocket or a vendor selling
fake items etc and the mob frenzy is unleashed just to vent their own pent up
angers of their daily life. If some small minority of students can unite to commit
such large scale damage then why not majority of the remaining students unite to
form a powerful deterring force? We need to this soul searching in my opnion.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Wed May 12 1999 18:06:32
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 18:06:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Accusations against Grameen Bank
On Wed, 12 May 1999 17:32:20 "Keramot Ali Miah" wrote:
>
>Commercialization of Bangladesh and Grameen Bank
>
>For long, big corporations in America have looked for new markets for their
>products. Having already spread over most of America, they have looked at
>creating such markets abroad. These organizations pay much money in order to
[..]
>Dr. Yunus's Grameen bank has recently been promoting such negative
>commercial forces, at the cost of eroding the family ties that have been the
>cornerstone of rural Bangladesh. Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton, (with
>the backing of Corporate America) has congratulated Grameen Bank for its
>work.
[..]
The above is a very unfortunate paranoid stereotypical allegations against
them "west" exploiting/depriving us "East" of our culture, traditions, etc
etc. How insecure and unsure one has to be about themselves to be so
paranoid to a ridiculous scale. In this age of global village cross
acculturization is taking place freely and voluntarily. Bangladeshis are
migrating in herds to US/Canada/Australia and many of them are adapting to
many western traditions/values while still preserving many indigenous ones.
Many Westerners are taking to Buddhism, Hinduism, orthodox Islamic beliefs
and practices. Vedanta society has been active ever since Vivekananda visited
US. Finding a conspiracy theory in Dr. yunus's grameen bank as aided abetted
by US/Hillary Clinton or the NGO's and commercial organizations indulging
in subverting our culture and family is simply pathetic. At the worst there
can be a motive of profit but it has to be a win win situation. China is
wooing Multinational Companies. They are not paranoid about the west are
they? Nobody can forcibly destroy another nation's heritage/culture/values.
Nobody can sell their product by force. You lose some other way if you refuse
to buy. Its a give and take. We have a choice. Japanese and Koreans exercise
that choice and suffer trade sanctions and isolations. But even they
decide to be trade other times. India also tries to seek market in bangladesh.
Nothing wrong with it. WE decide whether we we will buy it or not.
Women have been treated subhumanly in our society for long and were never
given the minimum respect a human deserves Now when grameen bank is doing
something positive about this pitiful state of our women its all the west's
falt destroying our values? What did those values do to our women for
all this time?
On the other hand take the example of Corporacion Estetica, who is helping
all the acid burn women victims. Rather than being ashamed of not being able
to prevent or do something about it, when others do it and if they happen to
be western its all a conspiracy and an attempt to destroy our values.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Fri Jul 2 1999 17:49:16
Subject: [ALOCHONA] On MIG Purchase
Recently there has been a hysteric knee jerk reaction by some readers on the
reported MIG-29 purchase by Bangladesh. The typical hue and cry asks "why spend
money on this purchase" when the country is... etc etc. This seems to be
a misdirected lament. I could have understood if the issue raised was Why MIG-29
and not less costly MIG-25 or various mid-tier fighters between F-86 and F-16
etc etc. But to raise a hue and cry over the sheer "purchase" of "8" fighters
(A pitifully small number for an airforce virtually existing on near zero equipments
since birth in 1971) is laughable. India has over 1000 fighter aircrafts, Pakistan
over 400. And Bangladesh almost zero. Since 1971 until todate it has got some
antiquated Chinese fighters at giveaway price (Chinese version of Russian MIG-19 etc).
The 8 or 10 MIG-21 donated by Russia in 1972 are mostly unserviceable. Under these
circumstances buying only "eight" more aircratfs hardly qualifies for provoking a
hysterical outcry.
According to 1996 statistics the defence expenditure as a % of GDP for
various countries are(Listing selected few for making the point, From CIA
world fact book):
Country Defence budget as % of GDP (1996)
Burundi 2.6%
Bangladesh 1.7%
India 2.7%
Pakistan 5.3%
Sri Lanka 5.7%
Notice that this figure represents % of GDP so it is a uniform benchmark, doesnt
matter how large or small, poor or rich a country is. Also note that if population
is ever a factor then that would put more weight on BD in favor of a higher number
for this figure.
It is a romantic idealism to question why we (or any country) should have
army/navy/airforce etc? Why not be totally devoid of armed forces? But to accept
the existence of defence forces and then object to having a minimum of equipment for
its symbolic existence is contradictory. It is also interesting how minds can be
influenced by the way facts are presented. Just because this purchase was *announced*
with a fanfare (Normally this kind of routine purchases by other goverments and
previous BD governments are never formally announced, The Chinese fighters or the
tanks purchased from China were never announced) it drew so much hysterical reaction
from these readres and critics. If one has to be so utilitarian as to ask why
spend on defence when there are many other urgent problems besetting the country then
they better be consistent and ask why do we have arts council, why have dept. of history,
Bengali, English etc in the Universities, why build Martyr's memorials, Museums, zoos,
etc costing money to sustain them where they have no practical value for the problems of
poverty, hunger etc. One may say we need them to symbolise our cherished values and
memories of our heroic struggle and past culture. Well, by the same token a defence force
also symbolizes our spirit of being a free and sovereign nation and an airforce sure
needs some finite number of fighters to symbolize its existence. In fact all the countries
of the world have airforce/navy/army and which posses equipments worthy of the their
names and most countries don't necessarily have enemies (much more powerful or weaker)
surrpounding them. Its just a given fact that any airforce/army/navy should have modicum
of equipments to even deserve being called one. So yes, we can debate as to the cost
effectiveness of purchasing one fighter class over other but to question the very act of
acquiring small number of aircrafts just to make the the airforce worthy of even being
called so is pathetic.
Secondly, if hypotheticaly if the money spent for the acqusition was held back, one
will be naive to assume that it would have been spent on other noble causes by the
eternal corrupt political and state machines. It is better that the money be spent on
some symbolic value to our freedom and sovereinty than lining the pockets of corrupt
polticians.
Thirdly, the amount of money being spent is paltry compared to the amount that is
wasted through the mayhem and destruction during the regular Hartal/Bhangchur. Yet
those destructions do not seem to generate the slightest anguish and pain amongst these
puritans. I think their criticisms and angers would be better directed against the
billions of dollars wasted through corruptions, destructions brought about by the
political leaders, unruly mobs and youths and suggest redressing those problems instead
of lashing out puritanically against routine purchase of armed forces.
cosmic thinker
Date: Thu Jul 22, 1999 7:12 pm
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: Please visit us at the Dhaka Sheraton
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 17:39:52 "Zafar Sadique" wrote:
[..]
>thinking about how to house and rehabilitate evicted prostitutes, who
>basically have no where to live, and then we have extravagant exhibitions at
>four-star hotels that only the privileged few can afford to live in. Alas!
Those priviledged few are 100% foreigners who are in BD to help BD in the
projects to improve its infrastucture. No locals saty in these hotels. Even
if a few local affluent do live there it didn't matter if to the impoversihed
rest if thgey didn't live there since they that money would have stayed in
his bank (or some other wasteful pursuit) instead of going to the charity
for the poor.
>Could some body please explain to me the rationality of having Sheraton,
>Sonargaon and Holiday Inn in an impoverished nation like ours? What the heck
>do we need �em for? It�s a sign of unaffordable opulence and unnecessary
Well, the situation of Calcutta (Or any major third world metropolis) is
no different. How do you justify Taj Bengal. Grand Hotel, etc etc? Surely
the Marxist West Bengal (Now Bangla) government would have closed down these
luxury (They are more luxurious than Sheraton) hotels with lightning speed if
doing so would have benefitted the wretched poor. But they are smart enough
to know how much foreign currency and local revenue (aside from the
employment)
they generate which ultimately adds to the pot for state's benefit (Not that
it is always that ideal, but in principle it is).
By the same stretch of argument one can say why live in cement buildings,
why not in huts and thatches, sure that would cost lot less. Why have Chinese
restaurants, why eat chicken (so expensive in BD), Why have airconditioned
mini buses in Dhaka and to Calcutta, Why have all the expensive cloth stores
in Elephant Road/Ramna and not everyone wear cheap pants/lungis and
simple cotton Saris. Why have jewlry stores selling gold ornamnets, why...
Once someone aquires enough wealth (Honestly or by deception) to be able to
afford to live in a luxury hotel, it doesn't matter to the poor if he/she
actually stays a luxurious hotel or not. One would be barking up the wrong
tree to trace/connect the poverty of BD to the existence of luxury hotels.
>Even today's tourists and foreign business folks can live in cheaper
>government-run facilities since they're already familiar with luxury
>accommodations elsewhere. Let�s take care of the needs of our people first
Idealistic pipe dream. In a competetive market driven economy
implementing these idealist visionary schemes would sure lead to
disaster. Tourists/foreigners do not travel/visit with puritanic
marxist belief. They would chose to go to Nepal, Burma, SriLanka
instead. This recipe is guaranteed to deprive BD of much needed
foreign currency. What a naivette!
>Today�s tourists (back-packers, baby-boomers and �Generation Xers�) come to
>Bangladesh to experience our way of life, our culture, our standard of
>living, etc. (See �Lonely Planet�). They're not gonna get that living in
>classy hotels, eating lavish buffets and being served hand and foot. If it
The are one facet of the multifaceted tourist profile. Sure there are
cheaper hotels in Dhaka (Like Bankok, Calcutta) for those segment of
tourists. So whats the issue? Their staying in cheaper hotels does not
make the conditions of the poor any better or worse.
>Whilst our people are hungry and begging at the gates of Sheraton, inside
>they�re serving everything from caviar to Chardonnay to the rich and famous
>and the elitists among us. That kinda shows us where our priorities are
>right now.
And while other elitists keep typing away at the keyboard of their
Pentium 400Mhz computer in the living room of a house or an airconditioned
office in the most affluent nation on earth posting articles in discussion
forums..
>The simple but improbable solution would be to nationalize the hotels, turn
>them into productive factories/businesses and employ and house the
[..]
Tell that to the Russians, to the Chinese and see how they respond. :):).
From me Fri Apr 2 1999 15:44:43
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Hartals in Bangladesh
Re: [ALOCHONA] Hartals in Bangladesh
On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:52:18 "Chisti, Ishtiaq A" wrote:
Some of my thoughts on this problem.
I think their is no conventional solution. Enacting and enforcing laws to
prevent hartal is a farce as the enforcement of LAW (Ultimately through
police action) itself will trigger further call of Hartal and it snowballs
into a mass movement against a putative "Oppressive regime" etc. So this
option is out. There is another side to this issue. AL came into power
by ousting BNP by pure Hartal. (Like wreaking havoc on Chittagong port, an
act not even conceived of against the opressive Pak regime before independence).
Many believe that people voted for AL in the last election in order to
avoid further Hartal mayhem by AL if BNP was reelected. Now since AL has
created a precedent that a Government can be ousted by sheer destructive
power of Hartal then this is a very tempting means to follow by whoever
is in the opposition. So BNP is following the same recipe that AL
pioneered. Now preventing BNP to do reap this fruit of Hartal seem to be
unfair even if one is neutral. So whats the solution? I can see two. The
first one would require some large heartedness from BNP to let go of
its unfulfilled right to reap the same fruit of Hartal that AL got and
agree to a public Oath together with all other parties (including the
party in power AL) over TV and Radio to be followed up by open air oath
taking in Paltan Maidan/Suhrwawardi Udyan in front of millions for not
resorting to Hartal from now on no matter what the issue is. If this
solution seems to be unrealistic then a second solution comes to mind.
This derives from the actual force that makes Hartal work. The fear of
mob frenzy. Hartals succeed because people are afraid of the Street
urchins and hooligans who are bribed by the Hartalling party to burn
cars/shops/inflating tires etc. Now if a larger number of urchins/hooligans
are bribed (By Government, Big Business, public contribution) to terrorize
and lynch the other group of urchins/hooligans bribed by the Hartal party
This I believe can be effective, although its sad that we have to engage
in a nonproductive expenditure just to avert a wilful act of destruction
by fellow citizens.
The last and most desirable means is possible but relies on an aspect of
mass psychology which may or may not work. The question is who or what can
trigger that psychology. This derives from an animal trait that is seen
among the migrating hordes of African wilderbeasts. When the hordes of
wilderbeasts come across a river full of aggressive crocodiles the
wilderbeasts pause and hesitate to cross the river. They wait for sometime
and then someone takes the plunge and gives the cue and all the other
wilderbeasts plunge into the river and creates a hell in the river confusing
the crocodiles. Some wilderbeasts do fall prey to crocodiles but the rest
do cross safely. If by some magic cue the ordinary mass also flood the streets
with all the bus, cars, rickshaws and pedestrians plying in full force and
massively defying and resisting the Hartalites then eventually the tide
will definitely turn against the forces of Hartal. But alas who is going to
give the cue and would the rest plunge in like the "wise" wilderbeasts?
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 16:18:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: HARTAL ALL HARTALS
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 09:37:02 - "Wali Alam" wrote:
>
>My request: Please show us how to hartal all hartals.
>
>
>I f you do not know how to hartal all hatals, I suggest that we think about
>the root cause or causes of hartals. Maybe we should see if we can figure
>this out. then we can figure out how to hartal all hartals.
>
>Actually, I would like to rephrase it and say: How to eliminate hartals from
>Bangladesh.
>
First my take on the root cause of Hartals:
There are two side to this Hartal psyche. One is the caller of hartals (Opposition
Political Parties of course). And the other side is the enforcer of the calls,
i.e the hired mastans/urchins/hooligans who actually does the dirty work of
burning vehicles, tearing down shops, uprooting railway tracks, etc (Too many
ingenious acts to list). The cause of the first side is simple: It works. Most
Hartals have brought down governments and have paid dividends to the opposition.
JP was overthrown by Hartal, BNP was overthrown by it, so why not hope that AL can
also be brought down? The interesting part of is that even though realistically
speaking it is BNP who will be the beneficiary if AL is overthrown by Hartal but
ALL opposition party chips into this project overthorw. Their root cause is simply
: If I cannot be in power, then vandalize whoever is in power. So JP, Jamat and other
smaller parties will always align itself with whichever party 'X' is in opposition
to overthrow whichever party 'Y' is in power. The root cause of the second side
of this psyche is pure morbid sadistic/jealous instinct and the perverse pleasure
of seeing other's properties being destroyed. These Mastans/Urchins don't have
anything to lose by indulging in these devastating acts of destruction, but only to
gain a feeling of thrill (Of course the cash bribe to boot) and getting a sense of
fulfilment in an otherwise dull and directionless life.
Next my take on the possible solution of this problem:
I think their is no conventional solution. Enacting and enforcing laws to
prevent hartal is a farce as the enforcement of LAW (Ultimately through
police action) itself will trigger further call of Hartal and it snowballs
into a mass movement against a putative "Oppressive regime" etc. So this
option is unrealistic. There is another aspect of this issue. AL came into
power by ousting BNP by pure Hartal. (Like wreaking havoc on Chittagong port,
an act not even conceived of against the opressive Pak regime before independence).
Many believe that people voted for AL in the last election in order to
avoid further Hartal mayhem by AL if BNP was reelected. Now since AL has
created a precedent that a Government can be ousted by sheer destructive
power of Hartal then this is a very tempting means to follow by whoever
is in the opposition. So BNP is following the same recipe that AL pioneered. So
whats the solution? I can see three. One is to amend the constitution so that
every instance of a Hartal by a party is assigned a negative score to be used
against it in the next general elections. In other words the winner in a general
election will be decided by combining the votes obtained in the election and some
consistent scaling down of the votes of all parties based on the number of Hartals
called by each opposition party. This would be fair to all parties. This first one
would require BNP to let go of its unfulfilled "right" to reap the same fruit of
Hartal that AL got and agree to a this new principle. This amendment can be followed
by a public Oath of all parties (including the party in power AL) over TV and Radio
not to engage in Hartal anymore and then an open air oath taking in Paltan
Maidan/Suhrwawardi Udyan in front of millions. This solution crucially hinges on
the assumption that all the parties actually dislike Hartal and are forced to do it
against their wish. If this assumption is incorrect then it will not work. The
second solution derives from the actual force that makes Hartal work. The fear of
mob frenzy. Hartals succeed because people are afraid of the Street urchins and
hooligans who are bribed by the Hartalling party to burn cars/shops/inflating tires
etc. Now if a larger number of urchins/hooligans are bribed (By Government,
Big Business, public contribution) to terrorize and lynch the other group of
urchins/hooligans bribed by the Hartal party. This I believe can be effective,
although its sad that we have to engage in a nonproductive expenditure just to
avert a wilful act of destruction by fellow citizens and it uses the unsavoury
principle of plucking thorns with a thorn.
The last and very desirable means is possible but relies on an aspect of
mass psychology which may or may not work. The question is who or what can
trigger that psychology. This derives from an animal trait that is seen
among the migrating hordes of African wilderbeasts. When the hordes of
wilderbeasts come across a river full of aggressive crocodiles the
wilderbeasts pause and hesitate to cross the river. They wait for sometime
and then someone takes the plunge and gives the cue and all the other
wilderbeasts plunge into the river and creates a hell in the river confusing
the crocodiles. Some wilderbeasts do fall prey to crocodiles but the rest
do cross safely. If by some magic cue the ordinary mass also flood the streets
with all the bus, cars, rickshaws and pedestrians plying in full force and
massively defying and resisting the Hartalites then eventually the tide
will definitely turn against the forces of Hartal. But alas who is going to
give the cue and would the rest plunge in like the "wise" wilderbeasts?
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:56:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: HARTAL ALL HARTALS
On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 "Rahman, Emanur" wrote:
[..]
>of hartals is in fact a democratic right. The principle is correct. The
>problem is that in our country they are called at the "drop of a hat".
If an act is a democratic right then it can in principle be exercised
any number of times and for any excuse big or small. So you cannot
declare Hartal as democrtaic right and then talk about challenging its
legality. Even "Strike" is not mentioned as a democratic right in
Bangladesh constitution let alone "Hartal". What is mentioned in the
constitution is the "right to assembly and protest". Strike has been
assumed to be a de facto democratic right in all democratic countries
including Bangladesh. But strike means refusing to go to work or participate
in daily public business (riding a bus, keeping a shop open etc). It does
not refer to "coercing" others to do the same or "destroying" public or
private property. Strikes are very clearly exemplified in the advanced
democratic countries and even in India, where Tram fare could not be
raised many times as people refrained from riding it when the fare was
raised. What is done in Bangladesh in the name of Hartal is clearly a
violation of constitution. The origin of Hartal came from the "Bandh"
(civil disobedience) concept in colonial India. It was adapted in its
present form as a mass movement (or revolution) to overthrow an colonial
occupational regime like Britain and Pakistan and is invariably implies
coercion, destruction of private and public property etc. This is clearly
illegal under the constitution and also violates fundamental rights of
citizens. Even under a non democratic but non-occupational regime
(e.e JP 1981-90) the destructive aspect of Hartal (i.e the violation of
individual rights) is still illegal as the constitution still applies.
Only the civil disobedience aspect of Hartal is admissible. But then all
these make sense if the law of the land rules. In Bangladesh it is the
law of the Jungle that rules when it comes to politics, so talking about
law, legality etc becomes purely academic. As I said even if a poolitical
leader calling Hartal is arrested legally, it only needs another party
henchman to declare a Hartal to libertate the leader from the "oppressive"
government and the Hartal will continue with added vengeance. So it will
back to square one.
The fact is if the constitution was faithfully followed then all Hartals
would have led to arrest and imprisonment of Hartal callers and Hartal
enforcers. The constitution of India and Bangaldesh is not very different.
Why is Hartal not a pressing problem in India but in bangladesh? It cannot
be just law, but the enforcement of it and also to a great extent the
national character. Bangladeshi politicians and the restless youth care
less about destruction of state properties than their Indian counterparts
and also tend to call Hartal at the "drop of a Hat" as you said.
>
>The only real solution against this genre of hartal is the law. There are
>(to my knowledge) no legal way of challenging the hartals. But there should
>be.
Again as I elaborated above its not the law, but the enforcement and
compliance of the law by the people (i.e not calling/follwoing a Hartal to
protest an arrest due to illegitimate call of another Hartal. This will lead
to an infinite loop).
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: Recent observations from Bangladesh Mon, 19 Feb 2001
In all fairness to Ms. Munmun I don't think that "did not do justice to the
poor country" was a proper characterization of her post. I think the
repeated mention of "poor" while referring to Bangladesh was a gratuitious
self-humiliating characterization.
Was it needed or relevant? Secondly the issue of always gratuitously
bringing in USA at every mention of crime in Bangladesh. It is quite clear
from reading the original post that Ms. Munumun, like many others was
expressing her genuine frustration and concern at the demoralizing effect of
crimes in Bangladesh on sincere intentions of many citizens (local and
expatriate). How on earth can that be considered doing injustice to
Bangladesh baffles my imagination. And why mention USA? If Ms. Mumun's
article was on a comparative study of crimes in Bangladesh and USA against
Bangladesh's favour then the response above could have relevance and
justification (If confirmed by statistical data against USA's favour).
But nowhere in her post was such an unfavourable comaparison made or
implied. The response would also have been justified if an American (Well
you decide if he/she has to be white to be relevant) was finger pointing
Bangladesh for its crime and denying its existence in USA. But that was not
the case either. So what is the point of mentioning USA here? Does the
existence of crime in USA (or country "X") make the crimes in Bangladesh
irrelevant and not worth feeling frustrated about? Can we console the
parents of a two year old raped girl by saying that nothing to feel bad ,
in USA also there are crimes also. I don;t think one can produce statistcial
data between nations of crimes in ALL category, to make a decisive
conclusion or imply that crimes are higher in one or the other. But an
overwhelming amount of crime reports coming routinely from Bangladesh
depicting the most shocking crimes (child rape, gang rape, tendon cutting,
routine stabbing of the victime by muggers even when no resistnace is
offered , acid throwing etc) is serious enough worth being concerned about
and lamenting and bringing to the notice. It doesn't help to sweep it under
the rug, and trivialize it or to point to USA.
It is an insult to the victims and their dear ones to minimize such heinous
crimes and bury one's head in the sand pretending not to see it. Raising
enough consciousness about these crimes and discussing ways to eliminate
them is more relevant and vindicates the poor victims of such crimes. It is
really unfortunate to jump to a negative characterization of any remarks of
genuine frustration and concern about the crimes and evils that do exist
undeniably.
Aparthib
(Not Posted)
Re: [ALOCHONA] Re: Recent observations from Bangladesh Sat, 24 Feb 2001
Dr. Mizan epressed his eagerness for comparative staistitics of crimes between
Bangladesh and USA. Lets be clear that this issue of comparative statistics was spawned
by the assertion in response to Ms. Munmun's lament about the crime IN Bangladesh
, that crimes in Bangladesh is less than in USA and issuing the challenge to prove it
otherwise . Apart from the illogicallity of making such an assertion and posing a
challenege in respsonse to a mere lament, another point worth clarifying is that since
the issue of comparative statistics was raised by the assertion that crime in Bangladesh
is less than USA, the burden of showing the statistics to prove that also lies on him.
I will make it easy by producing some statististics from Bangladesh. Anyone are
welcome to provide similar statistics from USA if they also like to join the challenge.
It should be noted nobody including myself ever stated that crime in bangladesh is
higher than in USA, so they don't have the burden to produce any statistics.
Second point is about the judgment on Ms. Munmunn's post. It is unfortunate
that one tries to read the mind of the messenger and make a conclusion (negative)
about messnger through a message that was stated purely factually. One should
not study the "tone" of a message, only the contents. A second reading of
Ms. Munmun's post does not reveal any different content. And the content was
a lament on the reality of crimes in Bangladesh which nobody disputes.
Third, AGAIN, bringing in the dreaded name, USA. People are fleeing in USA.
Its ridiculous. More people are fleeing elsewhere much easier to migrate/infiltrate.
Bangladeshis are migrating all over the world, including Pakistan (Its nemesis of
1971) and India (Also another nemesis). Japan, Korea, you name it. Hordes of
immigrants are entering into canada. Its not so easy to go to USA. He also remarked
(His words): All the "observations", "frustrations" and "feelings" about this Leads to one
conclusion - This country is not liveable; and Justifiy one action - Go to America,
and do not return. It is clear that it is HIS conclusion. It is not wise to make
conclusions on another's behalf. Let everyone speak for themselves. A lamnet need not
imply so many conclusions. When parents lament that their children are hopeless they
don't really abandon hope or leave them in the cold. But anyway, So what? What point
does that make against the original post of Ms. Munmun or my earlier followup? I agree
with the moderator that we should be thankful to those including Dr. Mizan who are
helping the country. But does helping the country should prevent one from
recognizing and bringing to notice the ills that plague the country? This is a Bangladeshi
forum. This is not a forum to plug Bangladesh to the outside world to attract tourists. So
it is quite relevant to discuss the problems of our society. No need to hide and look for
cover. We can and should be candid to talk about our negatives. Our positives should
be self-evident and draw applauses from outside world to inspire us. It is absurd to derive
inspiration from self-applause. We should not lapse into a mutual admiratin society within
ourselves. I hope this thread will close after the realization that nobody wishes bad for
the country. It is only due to the fact that everytime someone laments about the negative
reality of Bangladesh someone reacts by implying that such criticisms reflect an ill-will for
Bangladesh that the issue stays alive. Can we agree that we all want the good of
Bangladesh irrespectiuve of how much we talk about its negatives or sound pessimistic?
Why is it that pessimism is equated with unpatriotism among many Bangladeshis, where
such association between perssimism/(un)patritotism is not seen among others including
Indians? Why are we so touchy? A question to ponder.
Here is some statistics from Bangladesh. More details on crime reports can be seen
at (http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/banglanews.html):
================= 1. BHRB Report 2000 ====================
BHRB report, 2000
Courtesy: New Nation, Dec, 26, 2000
3267 people murdered, 615 women molested
A total of 3,267 people were murdered and 615 women molested while 161 fell
victim of acid throwing across the country in the passing year, disclosed a
crime-watch body on Monday, reports UNB.
Also, 1,355 robberies occurred in the country during the year 2000.
The grim pictures of human-rights violation and deterioration of law and
order were depicted in the report of the Bureau of Human Rights Bangladesh
(BHRB), released at a press conference.
Narrating overall degradation of law and order and human rights violation of
BHRB expressed grave concern over the "dreadful scenario".
According to the report a total of 6,234 people have been killed and 40,116
wounded in different incidents, like hijacking, theft, robbery, terrorist
activities, acid throwing, rape, abduction, repression for dowry, campus
violence, political killings, suicide, death in police custody and natural
disaster, since January 1 to December 25 in 2000.
Of the 3,267 murders, two grisly ones occurred in court premises-the killing
of Adv Habibur Rahman Mondal and top terror Murgi Milon. Journalist Shamsur
Rahman of Janakantha was brutally killed in his office in Jessore.
A total 615 incidents of raping, including 303 gang rapes, left 84 dead. A
total of 99 minors were raped and police violated 15 women during the
period, says the report.
Terrorist activities like toll collection increased sharply and 50 people
were murdered in at least 283 such felonies.
"Unusual rise in snatching across the country, especially in the capital,
panicked people," it said, citing as example 60 people murdered in 900
snatching incidents.
A total of 146 people were killed and 1717 wounded in 1355 robbery incidents
across the country during the outgoing year.
Despite tough law being there, a total of 181 women fell victim of acid
throwing, seven of them were killed, while 81 hapless women died falling
victims of dowry.
Abduction for ransom also increased in the country and 38 were murdered in
423 kidnapping incidents.
"Though the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition are women, a
total of 272 were murdered in 384 incidents of women and child repression,"
the BHRB told newsmen.
A total of 90 people were killed in police custody and 41 in safe custody of
jail.
Releasing the report the bureau executives said the actual picture could not
be presented as in some cases there were no police and newspaper records.
Among others, President of BHRB justice Abdur Rouf and its secretary general
Adv Mohammad Shajahan, former PSC chairman Dr SMA Faiez were present in the
press conference.
==== 2. UN Reports on Spousal Abuse (Bangladesh ranks second worst) ======
(From http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/dec/14/nv4n78.htm#A5 )
UN report says: 47 pc women assaulted by their
male partners in Bangladesh
Forty-seven per cent of adult women in Bangladesh
are physically assaulted by an intimate male partner in
any relationship, according to a UN report, reports
UNB.
UNICEF in its annual report "The State of the
World's Children 2000", launched across the world
yesterday, disclosed the women's predicament
quoting a database of the WHO.
However, the report, compiling violence against
women from 1984 to 98, says the assault doesn't
include sexual abuse or rape.
According to the UN agency, percentage of prevalence of violence against
adult women in different countries is as follows (country studies are
not necessarily comparable):
Uganda : 57.9
Papua New Guinea :56.1
Bangladesh : 47
Ethiopia : 45
Egypt : 34.4
Nigeria : 31.4
United Kingdom : 30
Canada : 29
Mexico : 27
United States : 22.1
Netherlands : 20.8
Colombia : 19.3
Norway : 18
Switzerland : 12.6
Paraguay : 9.5
Philippines : 5.1
=====================================================
Regards to All,
Aparthib
Date: Mon Apr 16, 2001 8:57 pm
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Ullash - An honest dictator?
This is in reference to Amdad Chowdhury's folowup on Deshipola'smessage. The
point being missed here is it is not an issue of a choice between "democracy"
and dictatorship. There cannot be no debate that it is "democracy" that is the
choice. I put it in quotes to emphasize that it has to be democracy in its true
sense.
Now if the issue is the choice between the kind of dishonest oligarchy "in the
name of democracy" vs. "honest dictatorship" it is not at all obvious what the
preferred choice (i.e the lesser evil) between the two is. Talking to common
man on the street in Bangladesh and also others it seems like they would prefer
the latter.
We don't have true democracy in Bangladesh,never had (except only for a brief
moment during Justice Sattar's rule). All we have is state terrorism,
repression of press and opposition, intimidating people into voting for the
opposition
through the fear of devastating hartals. People voted for Awami League in 1996
mainly to avoid the Hartal that plagued the country for majority of the five
year rule of BNP.
Now it is the same with the role reversed (Except that BNP probably hasn't
outdone AL yet). If the Hartal of BNP can be as devastating or more than that
of AL then sure once again people will vote for BNP. But then even without the
Hartal there is the question of massive rigging and use of violence in the
polls. So democracy is an illusion.
Those who do believe in democracy (like Kamal Hossain's Gonoforum) will
probably never get any vote. They don't have the werewithals and force to
survive in this tough battle of the show of forces and money. If we truly
respect the view of majority as being democracy then it is more likely that in
an honest plebiscite as to what the majority of the people would prefer,
existing mainstream political parties or an honest dictator(can be Military
dictator), the majority of the people will in all likelihood vote for a strong
military dictator. Personally I would prefer a neutral caretaker type
governemnt like that Habibur Rahman consisting of technocrats. In that case
would the popular wish be respected as being Democratic?
The puritanic defenders of democracy are ignoring the reality of Bangladesh
where it is more likely that the true spirit of democracy will never be
practiced by the existing political parties whose daily dealings are based on
party goons, mafias, and terrorizing oppositions, press etc and also where it
is very unlikely that people will be able to vote for their favourite party
(ie. the least evil one) without the urgency to vote for that party which
minimizes the chance of further Hartal.
So in Bangladesh the pertinent question will never be "democracy" or
"dictatorship". It is an issue of whether we wish to live with all the
undemocratic practices of the existing parties and live under fear and total
lawlessnes with no securityof life, OR, live under a strong dictatorship that
can at least bring some peace to daily life for common man with no poltical
goons and mafias terrorizing the populace. Let us have an unrigged plebiscite
on that. The outcome might surprise many.
There are many idealists who prefer civilian party (no matter how corrupt and
undemocratic they are) over even honest military rule, arguing that eventually
people's wrath will bring down all such undemocratic parties and true democracy
will be established "Someday" by the "people". It is clear they are living in
some fantasy world. After all these years, it hasn't happened. When will it?
At least if there was a positive trend one could console oneself. The trend if
any, is for the worse. The question is how long will the public endure such
sufferings in the hope that someday the undemocratic parties will magically
"disappear" and truly civilized democratic parties will emerge. If at all, any
revolution that these idealists envisage will lead to either Taleban style
extreme rightists, or Khmer Rouge type extreme leftists. There is no hope of a
bloody revolution leading to a gentle, civilized democratic party like Kamal
Hossain's Gonoforum.
In the meantime if people have choice of a dictatorship which can bring some
stability in social life, odds are they will welcome it. Let the people speak
their mind instead of some ideologues speaking for them. So to conclude: TRUE
DEMOCRACY CERATINLY PREFERABLE TO HONEST DICTATORSHIP, but..
Aparthib
From me Thu Jul 8 1999 17:26:29 1999
To: [email protected]
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Enemy within
There has been a series of postings full of idealistic rhetorics decrying
the purchase of MIGs by BAF which have drawn ditto responses full of nodding
"amens". While such idealistic rhetoric does appeal to populist psyche and
attracts cheap popularity and applause it lacks in a realistic appreciation
of contemporary geopolitical formalities that every nation conform to.
While all the posting reflected this populist view I have to be express my
contrarian view notwithstanding my own idealistic pipe dreams of a borderless
world free from arms race, war, hunger, prejudice etc. First of all let me
me point out that all the posts have questioned the very act of the "purchase"
of MIG fighters. They didn't debate as to the cost effectiveness of purchasing
MIG-29 vs MIG-X or F-X etc (which would have been a valid moot point point
for a debate). Instead they have challenged the very act of routine purchase
of small number (8) of fighters for an airforce (A pitifully small number for
an airforce virtually existing on near zero equipments since birth in 1971) is
laughable. India has over 1000 fighter aircrafts, Pakistan over 400 and Bangladesh
only a few. Since 1971 until todate it has got some antiquated Chinese fighters
at giveaway price (Chinese version of Russian MIG-19 etc). The 8 or 10 MIG-21
donated by Russia in 1972 are now mostly unserviceable. Under these circumstances
buying only "eight" more fighters hardly qualifies for provoking a hysterical
outcry. I could have understood if the number of purchases were 50 and one had
questioned, why 50, why not 10 etc. But 8 is not that big a number for an airforce
rtepresenting a nation with a population of 130 million and being in existence fro
28 years with virtually no serviceable fighters. One should have felt pity at the
sorrow state of the equipment of the airforce of a sovereign and free nation
instead of being amazed/shocked at this token procurement which was long overdue
(Although the efficacy of the choice of MIG-29 may be disputed. There is some
allegations already on the political motive behind this choice. But thats a
separate issue).
It is inconsistent to accept the existence of an airforce and then to oppose any
procurement of aircrafts necessary for its being worthy of being called an airforce
even symbolically. It is an insult to the members of our airforce who are part
of our national heritage and symbol of our free and sovereign spirit.
The same remark can be made about the other wings of the armed forces.
If one has to be so utiliarian as to question the very act of equipping the
armed forces citing pressing need of the country in alleviating poverty, hunger
then by the same token why not be consistent and question all such
non-utilitarian establishments like Bangla Academy, national museum, Zoo,
Arts Council, Dept. Of Bengali/English/History etc in all the universties,
Building of Martyr's memorials, Stadiums, Mausoleums etc etc (Can add many more
such in the list). After all, substantial funds are spent for the constaruction/
and subsequent maintenance of all these. One may say we need them to symbolise
our cherished values/ideals and memories of our heroic struggle and past culture. Well,
by the same token a defence force also symbolizes our cherished spirit of being a
free and sovereign nation and an airforce sure needs some finite number of fighters
to symbolize its existence. (Banglar Akash Rakhibo Mukto would otherwise reduce to
an inanity). It is interesting that the intellectuals of only BD seem to be
so cynical in opposing any expenditure towards maintaining of a token size army.
All other countries of the world routinely equips their defence forces with no
hysterical outcry from their intellectuals.In fact all the countries of the world have
airforce/navy/army and which posses equipments worthy of the their names and most
countries don't necessarily have enemies (much more powerful or weaker) surrpounding
them. Its just a given fact that any airforce/army/navy should have modicum of equipments
to even deserve being called one. So yes, we can debate as to the cost effectiveness of
purchasing one fighter class over other but to question the very act of acquiring small
number of aircrafts just to make the the airforce worthy of even being called so is
pathetic.
According to 1996 statistics the defence expenditure as a % of GDP for
various countries are(Listing selected few for making the point, From CIA
world fact book):
Country Defence budget as % of GDP (1996)
Burundi 2.6%
Bangladesh 1.7%
India 2.7%
Myanmar (Burma) 10.6% (1993)
Pakistan 5.3%
Sri Lanka 5.7%
Notice that this figure represents % of GDP so it is a uniform benchmark, doesn,t
matter how large or small, poor or rich a country is. Also note that if population
is ever a factor then that would put more weight on BD in favor of a higher number
It is a romantic idealism to question why we (or any country) should have
army/navy/airforce etc. Idealists/Pacifists always dream of a borderless,
armsless world of one nation. Thats good as an ideal. Why not cryo out for a
world free of armed forces? But to accept the existence of defence forces and
then object to having a minimum of equipment for its symbolic existence is
contradictory. It is also interesting how minds can be influenced by the way
facts are presented. Just because this purchase was *announced* with a
fanfare (Normally this kind of routine purchases by other goverments and
previous BD governments are never formally announced, The Chinese fighters or
the tanks purchased from China were never announced) it drew so much
hysterical reaction from these readers and critics.
Secondly, if hypotheticaly if the money spent for the acqusition was held back, one
will be naive to assume that it would have been spent on other noble causes by the
eternal corrupt political and state machines. It is better that the money be spent on
some symbolic value to our freedom and sovereinty than lining the pockets of corrupt
polticians or wasting it some other non-productive and non-symbolic sector.
Thirdly, the amount of money being spent is paltry compared to the amount that is
wasted through the mayhem and destruction during the regular Hartal/Bhangchur. Yet
those destructions do not seem to generate a comparablet outcry and pain amongst the
puritans. I think their criticisms and angers would be better directed against the
billions of dollars wasted through corruptions, destructions brought about by the
political leaders, unruly mobs and youths and suggest redressing those problems instead
of lashing out puritanically against routine purchase by armed forces. After all if
we could have withstood the billions of dollars of wastage (Through masochistc self
destructions like uprooting railways, destroying trains, halting ports, smashing cars,
buses etc) we sure can take the minor dent of some millions of dollars for something
that have a symbolic value. I believe my views expressed are not extreme but if it
does sound so it is only to put a balance on the extremely cynical views expressed by
the opposing views.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Fri Jul 9 1999 10:39:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Enemy within
On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 13:53:54 + "Ali, Rintu" wrote:
>
>Putting aside the question of whether the money should be spent on this
>rather than more urgent needs, lets look at this from a military point of
>view. Bangladesh only has two neighbours. What possible use are 8 planes
>against 1000? Any air war between India and Bangladesh would last about 20
>minutes! A good example is what was seen recently in Kosovo. The Serbs had
>I think the lesson is pretty clear. If you want to spend $115M on defence
>spend it on men and equipment. Not eight utterly useless planes.
You missed my point. My point was not about win or lose. Of course 8 planes cannot match
1000 or even 100 planes. But its the spirit I was talking about. Offering a token
resistance symbolizes a powerful spirit and acts as deterrents. It is seen in our daily
lives too. If there is a cost (Whatever small) that can deter aggressive acts in many
cases. Even criminals and gangs hesitate to attack their innocent victims even when the
victim is outnumbered but where the victim displays resoluteness in its resistance.
Even powerful US calcultates the cost before it decides to attack an easy pushover
like Kosovo. It decided to go ahead only after making sure the cost is zero or neligible.
Besides a resistance itself carries some moral symbolism to stir world response against
an aggression by the strong against weak.
Your point of spending the money for men and equipment is well taken except I have to
add that it makes sense after a minimal arming of airforce. remember the purchase of 8
Migs are not an annual event. Its a ONE TIME purchase which was long overdue.
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 15:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Two Mig-29 reached in Dhaka
On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 23:51:45 Rabiul Alam wrote:
>
>Who are the BAF going to use these aircraft against? and what possible
Who are the Burmese Airforce, Sri Lankan Airfoce, Botswana, Ethiopia,Tajikistan
airforce going to use their weapons against? No nation selects target countries
before establishing their army, navy or airforce. It is the symbol of soveriegnty
of a free nation. And an airforce without aircraft is not an airforce.
>effect would eight russian jets have against any other reagonal airforce in
Another illogical question to ask. Aircraft numbers are never equal between
any two nations. If number is/should be the issue then most airforces of the world
should have ceased to exist since their number of aircrafts are less than their
neighbors or others. Each nation maintains the size of its armed forces consistent
with its resources, population size and strategic importance etc.
>the area? All this money could have been better put to use on some poverty
>alleviation or employment project. For instance, building some housing for
Another wrong IF/THEN statement. Does/Did the the government (present or past)
prudently spend money for the good of the country? If it doen't spend on
'X' (Example:Mig) does that guarantee it will spend on 'Y' (Example:Housing for Poor)
Here's a fact. The government is not spending money building many things it could
possibly have, for example, a science park with Omnimax theater (Calcutta has one),
a planetarium (Calcutta has one), A five star hotel (Dhaka has none, Calcutta has one).
Did that guarantee that all the unspent money went towards the welfare of the people?
Are the poor slum dwellers of Dhaka better off than Calcutta because the government
didn't spend on those projects? NO. IN fact we can take a bigger picture. The defence
budget of Bangladesh is lower than many third world countries (on percentage of GDP
basis). Did that guarantee that Bangladesh has higher per capita income than those
countries? NO. If at all the unspent money will/have gone to line the pockets of the
party leaders and their touts/ministers etc. And this lining of pockets happen so
silently without a senstaional news items (Mig Purchase etc) that no body makes a big
fuss about it. We just accept it as part of our national life. The same way we accept
the billions lost in the Hartals as part of our national life. But here we are
shuddering at the thought of spending on 8 MIGS.
>Don't you think the biggest enemy for a contry like Bangladesh is poverty
>or illeteracy and not some phantom army or airforce hiding around the corner?
True. But again it does not have to be one or the other. Bangladesh is resourceful
enough to own "8" MIGS and address the housing of the slum dwellers. If Bangladesh
can afford to suffer billions of Dollars of loss through Hartals (Which are supported
by all parties and tolerated by the people as evidenced by their compliance with the
call of Hartal and their reluctance to take law in their own hand to oppose it) and
millions of dollars in the corruption of political leaders and partymembers then sure
it can afford to spend millions on MIGS (At least the MIGs are symbols of a free
nation and owned by the nation, not by any party).
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Wed Jul 14 1999 11:02pm
Date: Wed Jul 14, 1999 11:02pm
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: AGITATION OVER PLOT ALLOTMENTS.
[email protected] wrote:
original article:http://www.egroups.com/group/eshomabesh/200
[..]
> our country or not. How long either son, daughter, wife or nephew of
> ex-leaders will continue to screw up the country? The leaders should be
> elected on the basis of qualification and capability who can bring the
> desired change in the whole system and NOT on the basis of some distinct
> relationshp to the ex-leaders.
[..]
If we assume the last two governments were democratically elected, then here is
the problem: 1. People chose the two leaders based on their relationships to
the ex-leaders. 2. Notice that the ex-leaders themselves were not "elected" based
on their relationships with other ex-leaders or based on any qualifications.
(Further problem: How does or should people judge the "qualifications"? Who
decides that? If people, then obviously people seem to have decided on relationship
as the qualifications in the last two elections, so what can you or me do about it?).
Your "should" above is obviously directed at the people. So at best
that is an idealistic hope you are expressing since in a democracy we cannot
dictate people's choice.
Lastly, it doesn't seem to matter much if people chose relationship as
the eligibility factor since other leaders who don't have relationship to
ex-leaders are no better either. In fact all the politicians/leaders of
our political system are basically rooted in village politics and lack in
visions and knowledge required to run an independent nation
(Economics,international politics, technological gumption etc). Most
importantly none have the genuine selfless desire to improve the nation as a
whole but are more interested in furthering their party and relatives. It is
a sad fact that we are given with three or more bad choices to make in electing
a government. It is also true that if and when some new breed of politicians
come with some fresh new concepts they are ignored by people, like the party
of Salman Rahman (I guess they called themselves Progressive party emphasizing
technocracy, very much in the vein of Ross Perot), but lost miserably in the
last election. So our people seems to be stuck on the main three: AL, BNP, JP
and so this cycle of corruption, favouritism will go on forever. Unfortunately
it seems like the last alternate to these three are the extreme radicals on
the right and left.
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: ABC 20/20 for Bangladesh
On Wed, 03 Nov 1999 19:56:05 "Nazmul Ahsan" wrote:
>
>Madame prime Minister would surely have nothing to say about it because she
>capitalizes on the people who practices acid throwing, I should say most of
>the political leaders.
>[...]
Madame or Monsieur is irrelevant when it comes to BD political (mis)leaders.
The problem is not the capitalization of acid throwing, but the ACT of
throwing itself. It doesn't matter to Miss Bina whether anyone capitalizes
on the acid thrower AFTER the act of acid throwing, what matters to her is that
it was not PREVENTED and she suffered from it and that "Dano" was not arrested
and hanged to act as a deterrent to other such scums lying in wait. Our
(mis)leadersd don't capitalize just Acid throwers but anything that their
imaginative minds can conjure up. So that is not the main issue. We should really
look at big picture, it is not Hasina, Ershad or Khaleda who is behind this
acid throwing. We tend to blame all our ACTS of social malaise on individual
personalities. That is what these scums are praying for. If I was an acid
throwing scum I would be feeling a gloating pleasure to see Hasina, Khaleda
or others bearing the brunt of the blame instead of me. It is not the act of
acid throwing of the criminals, but the act of "not punishing the criminals"
for acid throwing that we should be blaming Hasina/Khaleda/.. for. Acid throwing
is perpetrated by some subhuman creatures. The efective way to deal with this
problem is through prevention. And prevention can come first and foremost
through the family teaching and upbringing. If those scums were taught and
brought up with care by their parents, peers, relatives, school etc how to
respect women and behave with dignity in society and their demeanour monitored
and subjected to accountability then that would have reduced the odds of this
happenning. Of course at a deeper level much of it has to do with the way the
genders are segregated and women not being accepted in day to life in all walks of
life in the same way as men. We don't even accept men and women to travel in
bus in a coed fashion, unlike in Calcutta and many other eastern cities.
. Of course all these factors still do not justify such heinous act but
changing this social mindset might diffuse these negative instincts of such
scums. And this applies not just to acid throwing but the entire assortment of
gender crimes that routinely happen. And the next effective prevention is swift
and effective enforcements of punitive measures for such acts. The society
(or that segment of it who reared thes scums) are to be blamed for failure on
the first count. Of course Hasina/Khaleda/Ershad..etc has to take the blame on
the second count. The unfortunate fact is that all our leaders and their parties
thrive and survive on a powerful Mastan/Mafia base. Doing the right thing will
certainly displease their Mastan base and endanger their own survival. And they
are not idealists who will commit political suicide for the right thing. This
is the sad reality.
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: ABC 20/20 for Bangladesh
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 15:52:28 E [email protected] wrote:
>am just wanted to know why ABC 20/20 is so interested about the bad thing
>about my beloved country wasting one hour that mean millions of dollar of air
>time they spent to criticizing and hampering Bangladesh's attitude toward the
>rest of the world like they did it before about calling bottomless basket,
^^^^
Who are "They"? It was Kissinger back in 1973. And the then Bangladesh
Government worked hard to force Kissinger to make such a comment (He
was too busy a man with an important job to bother about trifling
with a third world country otherwise). Is Kissinger = "ABC 20/20 ?" And
how is Kissinger's remark relevant to acid throwing?
>cruelty with the child labor, Taslima Nasrin and the fundamentalist,and such
>and such. Now I have to explain again to my non Bangladeshi friends that as a
>guy I am not an acid thrower or something or whatever.Last time I have to
I doubt anyone seeing this program would have called YOU an acid thrower.
One should not try to read the mind of every Non-Bangladeshi viewers and
assume that they will sterotype all Bangladeshis as acid throwers. So why
hasten to a self-defense?
>whatever. Even most them those people know (specially the American) they are
>the most cruelest people in the world, before go to work they need to
>f....their own mother or sister or brother, get a baby by her own father or
>brother or the unabomber or the innocent 12 yrs old girl sell themself
Thats the most unconscionable stereotyping and generalization I have
ever seen on the net. Lets focus on the first part where it says
that Americans are the "most cruelest" people in the world. I assume
the grammatically incorrect double superlative was intentionally used to
emphasize the intensity of this characterization. Now you have implied
ALL Americans. First of all are you implying all American citizens ? there
are many American citizens of Asian/Arab origins. There are some members
of eshomabesh who are American citizens but bangaldeshi by birth. Are you
including them also? Or are you referring to the "white" Americans only?.
If so then thats a crass racial stereotype. Secondly if the acts of some
sociopaths entitle you to incriminate the entire nation as being cruel(est)
then consider the following news items that were published in Bangladesh
newspapers some time ago. It may be difficult for you to believe these
news. It was for me when I read them. Its not difficult anymore. I come
across this kind of news routinely whenever I visit Bangladesh.
1. On December 20, 1996, in Keramatpur village of Noakhali district a
a labourer named Ruhul Amin snatched his own 6 month old daughter Rina
Akhter from the lap of his wife and killed her by slamming her on the
floor. Why? because his wife refused to come home with him from her
parents place.
2. On May 1998, Hazrat Ali(420, of Manikganj raped his own daughter China
Akhter(13) at dagger's point.
3. On may, 1998, Six youngsters grabbed an old man Belayet Ali (65) took him
in a school maidan killed him by breaking his limbs in front of hundreds
of people in Uzirpur, Barisal. No body came to the old man's rescue and
the six youngsters left gleefully after the ghastly killing.
4. On Jan 96, Fakir Ahmed(25), of Ilishpur village in Satkhira, chopped his
own old mother(65) to death with a sickle(Dao). Why? Because she told
him not to cut the bamboo trees in the backyard without his brother's
consent.
Do the above acts seem cruel to you? They do to me.
I have only listed three. there are more. Now basing on these news would you
take the quantum leap and declare that Bangladeshis are the "most cruelest"
people on earth? I wouldn't. By declaring Americans as the most cruelest based
on individual incidents you have entitled an American to make a the same
declarations about Bangladesh. A stereotyping cannot be countered by another
stereotype. This can only create an infinite cycle. You cannot commit the same
wrong (stereotyping) that you are accusing others of. When each of us have our
own baggage of social stigmas it is not proper to make sanctimonious remarks.
It doesn't make any point or address the the very problem that is moot,
it merely creates a diversion to hide behind for face saving.
It is true that USA is a violent place. As is Bangladesh and many other countries.
A country/society is labelled violent wher violent INCIDENTS occur. But to take
thses incidents and paint the entire nation with a broad brush is not an act of
good conscience. We can address violence of each nation (USA or anyother) in its
proper context. It is disingenuous to bring it in here when the issue is Acid
throwing in Bangladesh, which IS happenning and ABC 20/20 didn't exaggerate or
make it up. This problem is already a news for quite some time and it has been
reported/publicised by Bangaldeshi media. Any shocking news can be and are
reported routinely by other news agencies in the world. This is also true for
positive news. The Merican TV networks have featured the success of Grameen bank
projects quite a few times before. Bangladesh newspapers and TV also report
crimes (like Oaklahoma bombing) in US.
>interested about our poor country. I am very proud of myself about my own
>heritage, that I am from better culture, even in this melting pot( USA ) me
>and my fellow Bangladeshi are really the best in everyway and they need to
>learn the family value from us.At least the statistic say.
You can feel proud, its your personal feeling. But to declare that you are
from a "better" culture is not a fair statement. It is a condescending statement
towards others. Everyone may wish to beleieve in their heart that their
culture/religion etc.. are better than others. But there is no objetive way to
establish that universally. There is no international contest on cultural
supremacy, and who is going to be the judge anyeway? So this kind of statement
makes no point or serve any useful purpose.and is also insensitive.
Please lets deal with the issue and talk about its possible solution and more
importantly its prevention and do some soul searching instead of venting our
frustration/anger on the reporters. Strike at the origin, not the messengers.
Connie Chung and the helpful people who are sponsoringg the treatment of Bina
and others are showing genuine concern and compassion. Indulging in this this
kind of America bashing doesn't show any concern for the poor victims of acid
throwing. Stereotyping Americans may conveniently provide some distraction from
the ugly truth of acid throwing but it contributes nothing to its solution and
doesn't make any points either. If we could have eliminated the curse of acid
throwing from our society then we would not have to bear the pains of watching
it on ABC 20/20. And if we are unable to do anything about it then let others
know about it through 20/20 or any other program and do something about it to
mitigate the suffering of these unfortunate victims.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:35:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Taslima Nasreen Might Seek for Political Asylum
On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 23:05:38 "Mahbub Kamal" wrote:
>1971 (not 26th March as B. N. P. claims), but later on betrayed with the
>spirit of Liberation War by denouncing secularism - its basic foundation.
>
To be fair on late Zia, he did not "denounce" secularism. Those who
witnessed the turbulent period following Nov 7, 1975 will remember
he declared amidst thunderous applause in a huge meeting in race course
just after he was rescued from confinement by the soldiers and catapulted
into power through a chain of events, that Bangladesh is and will reamin a
secular country. He declared that to enlist public support to oppose his
other powerful colleague the then Air Force Chief Tawab who insisted that
Bangladesh be declared Islamic republic and align itself with Libya. If he
really was against secularism at heart then he would have never declared
that against his powerful colleagues taking a big risk. Unfortunately later
he omitted article 12 on secularism in 1977 under pressure of affluent Islamic
countires to receive economic assistance. Principle gave way to pragmatism,
although he did believe in the principle, he inducted women in active police
duty giving them equal status and other progressive steps. Secular spirit
was killed between the time 1981-1990, after Zia's death, specially by the
insertion of article 2A, eighth amendment of the constitution in 1988 (below)
and the constant emphasis of religion in all their speeches and the
appeasement of religious forces, withdrawing of the women from active police
duty introduced by Zia etc.
[2A. The state religion.
The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be
practised in peace and harmony in the Republic.]
Although it is still far from declaring an Islamic republic and still
declares freedom of other religion, but it places a preferential
status of Islam over other religions in an official way by the mention of
Islam, which is contrary to the concept of secularism (Separation of State
and religion). And the JP party leaders never ever championed secularism in
the way Zia did before succumbing to the pressure from Mideast. Their
amendments came from the heart and not due to yielding under the pressure
from Islamic countries ulike Zia. Also after Zia's death BNP became more
non-secular in nature.
Just to set the history and perspective right.
Sincerely,
cosmic thinker
From: cosmic thinker
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [eSHOMABESH] Re: Rabindranath Tagore featured on CNN
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 17:54:12 "Zafar Sadique" wrote:
>(All I can say is that thank God that his bio was written buy one of our
>people, and not by some wanna-be orientalist scholar from some snooty Ivy
>League college!)
Once again a cynical contemptuous stereotype. This kind of contemptuous
remark does injustice to many sincere and genuine Western scholars about
oriental culture. It goes either way. There are many oriental scholars
on Western litterarture, history and such like. Sometimes a scholar from
the other side does better scholarly work. And just because the schoalr is
from an ivy league college does not make them less scholarly than a non-ivy
league college. In this day of global village this kind of parochial frame
of mind ridiculing cross cultural interests is really pathetic. Even in old
days there was wnough cross culturaization between the East and the West
and were welcome by either side. There are too many examples to list.
cosmic thinker
From me Tue Jul 23 15:10:27 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: Family values, homosexuality, East, West etc
Some recent postings by Dr. Farooq, Soma Syed, Dr kaushik Sen et alia in response
to an original article has generated some interesting discussions on East/West
differences on marriage, family, divorce, homosexuality etc. I wish to add my own
two pennies. I have to note that as usual some myths and fallacies are noticeable
in these reponses not to mention the blatant stereotyping present in the original
article.
The first fallacy is confusing "accepting/tolerating" with "promoting/glorifying".
Just because in the West "homosexuality/homosexual marriage" is being tolerated
and accepted (to a limited extent, its only accepted in 2 out of 50 states, give
and take 1), does not imply it is being PROMOTED/GLORIFIED. One has to distinguish
public stand vs. private views. In a democratic society the democratic culture
teaches one to accept/tolerate ideas, values that one finds disgusting privately
as long as it does not interfere/harm anyone else
This tolernace vs. promotion myth can be noticed in the post refering to the
Secular Humanists' stand on homosexuality. Secular Humanists do not promote or
glorify homosexuality or homosexuali marriage. They state as a principle that all
differing ideas, practices should be tolerated and not vicitmized just for their
being different, as long as those ideas and practices do not infringe on the
rights of others who do not believe/practice them. If ever such a belief practice
does interfere/infringe on others then civil laws can take over and deal with it
just as any regular offense.
The second erroneous perception is that the concept of family is not valued by the
majority in the West. The fact is that in the West, it is very much true that the
majority still do value family. Its just the fact that unlike many Eastern
societies, divorce is tolerated/accepted (not promoted) by the majortiy (in the
spirit of democratic tolerance) in the West giving the illusion that divorce is a
predominantly Westen feature. Of coures this tolerance does contribute to its
higher rate in the West than in the East, but this number difference is not
significant and it is also not an absolute fixed but changeable with time and
region. Besdies it is also a function of urbanization in both the East and the
West. The divorce rate in Mumbai is significantly higher than say in a small town
in a Mid West or Southern state here in USA. The same can be said about number of
couples living together without formal wedlock or the number of homosexuals. I
read in Thikana (Bengali newsweekly from New York) few months ago that there are
estimated 1000 couples living together in Dhaka outside marriage. So much for East
vs. West myth.
Thirdly I noticed the biased association of the West with immorality and the East
with virtue because of this relative difference of tolerance of homosexuality
bewteen them. Although homosexuality as a life style or marraige option is not
tolerated in the East like in the West, that does not by any means imply that
homosexual ACTS are less in Eastern societies. There it is comitted without much
fan fare or speaking about it. In the middle East it is still not uncommon, and it
has been rampant in the past. Even in Bangladesh it is no secret that many
influential men have their private supplier of young boys. These men are married
(in the much eulogized eastern sense) heterosexually in the traditional way. I
have heard of one such man who is a owner of a garments factory who has his
regular supplier. Now these acts are not viewd with too much seriousness in our
society and is pretty much tolerated or ignored. Now my question is which is more
serious a social issue, the tolerance of the society of a small minortiy of adult
homosexual couples not interfering with the others or a heterosexual man violating
young innocent boys with impunity for their delight? Such acts here would be
criminal offence and society here has zero tolerance for such acts even though it
tolerates (although limited, 2 states out of 50) homosexual marriage.
Finally I would like to add my favourite angle on thius isse. The angle of the
recent insights of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology on the issue of marriage,
infidelity, divorce etc. According to this new paradigm, human species is a mildly
polygamous one. The fact that a man on the average is 20% heavier/bigger than
woman points to a 20% chance of polygamy. So when polygamy is banned by law (as in
USA) then nature will seek its vengeance through serial monogamy (marriage1-
>divorce1->marriage2->divorce2..). When polygamy is allowed (formally as in Middle
East) or informally (via extramarital sex with concubines, mistresses, maids,
slave girls etc) divorce can be prevented. So the fact that divorce is less in
East than in the Wast has to do with the difference in the relative ease with
which sex outside marriage is possible. In primate species that are strictly
monogamous the males and females are physically indistingishable. Anyway this was
just a cursory allusion to the insights that sociobilogy is bringing on to this
age old social issues. BUT nobody should make the fallacy of elevating an "IS" to
a "SHOULD". Explaining a trait in terms of a more basic bilogical concept does
not make that trait morally defensible or desirable. Morality is dictated by the
pragmatic needs of a society and can override the biological impertaives in many
cases. I can suggest the following books for those posters who are interested in
the topics of male female reelationship, marriage, divorce infidelity etc. These
books are written by scietists who have done years of research and come up with
these remarkable insights in the light of the fundamental lessons of Biology,
genetics etc.
1. Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray
- Helen Fisher (1995)
2. Sex on the Brain : The Biological Differences Between Men and Women
- Deborah Blum 352pp (1998)
3. Why Sex Matters : A Darwinian Look at Human Behavior
- Bobbi S. Low 328 pp (2000)
4. Beast and Man : The Roots of Human Nature - Mary Midgley.(1995)
5. Myths of Gender : Biological Theories About Women and Men -
Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992)
7. What's Love Got to Do With It? : The Evolution of Human Mating
- Meredith Small (1996)
6. The Alchemy of Love and Lust : How Our Sex Hormones Influence Our
Relationships
- Theresa L. Crenshaw 368 pp (1997)
8. The Moral Animal - Robert Wright (http://www.clark.net/pub/wright/)
Best regards to all,
Aparthib
From me Tue Jul 25 12:13:27 2000
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The race in exaggeration
Note: Explicit URLs were edited out in the post
This is in reference to Sohail Ahmed's query:
--- In [email protected], "sohail ahmad" wrote:
> USA has a population around 250 millions. India and China
> both has more than 1 billions. Could you kindly tell me why all
> these gays and lesbians are born in USA not in India or China.
> Had the homosexuality been genetically determinded - I would
> definitely expect at least around 100 or 150 millions gays and lesbians
> in India or China.
>
>
Gays and lesbians are not born in India or China.? LOL. Here's some
surprising or shocking revelations for you and those who seem to be
totally immersed in myths. I am quoting excerpts from several web
sites in this post. For details click on the links cited for each.
Not only India, China gay and lesbionism is an Asian phenomenon now.
In fact its is an international phenomena. Regarding the question of
genetic determination of homosexuality its not a simple question as
that. Biologists and geneticists don't ask or answer it in that
simple a way. It is a complex interplay of both gene and environmemt
whose details are still under active research. And it is fallacious
argument to cite the "absence" (which is itself blatantly incorrect)
of gays in Chian or India to conclude that it is not genetically
determined. Even if genetically determined gays in China or India
may be less seen or heard due to social factors, not genetic. The
"absence" is just an illusion generated by the tight social taboo and
lack of publicity and hesitation to assert their existence in a
political active way as is the case in USA. Just because you don't
see or hear (Although I doubt you have done that research yourself to
even make a fair claim like that) about gays in India and China
doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are not born! I will let
the following sample excerpts from the web put the clincher on
this debate:
CHINA
-----
1. From http://sqzm14.ust.hk/hkgay/news/37-arrested.html :
China Arrests 37 Homosexuals
The Associated Press
BEIJING (AP) - Police have arrested 37 gay men in southern China at the start
of a nationwide anti-vice campaign, a rights group and police official said
Friday.
The arrests Monday at a gymnasium in Guangzhou city were the largest detention
sweep against homosexuality yet in China, the official said by telephone from
the city, a thriving provincial capital near Hong Kong..."
2. From http://www.utopia-asia.com/tipschin.htm:
"I am a comrade in China mainland. Today I visit this site. I know some
information about gay. I think I should share it to our comrade. Please
insert to the Web page. This information deliver power for building China
mainland gay network. Thank you a lot, as me and other comrade who need
it, because is difficult to meet a friend!" -- from ShanXi, Sept 14, 1998
March 27, 1998, Southern Weekend edition of the Southern Daily, published
an article titled "If Society Were Tolerant", reporting on the results of
a survey of gay men in all 30 provinces in China.
The survey was conducted by Qingdao Medical College. Nearly 400 responses
were collected and results of the analysis of the first 230 returned
questionnaires followed.."
3. http://sqzm14.ust.hk/hkgay.html (All about Hong Kong Gay)
INDIA:
-----
http://gayguide.net/Asia/
1. From http://www.gaybombay.com/bombay/index.html:
"With just under a billion people in India, the standard figure of 1 in 10 men
being gay means 50 million gay men and somewhat lesser number of lesbians.
And with 15 million people in Bombay, there are by that reckoning
three quarters of a million gay men here..."
2. From http://members.tripod.com/gaydelhi/
"Gay Delhi Party on Thursday, July 20th, 2000 at SOUL KITCHEN.
Exclusive Gay Thursday night with Reduced Drink Prices, House Music
and Dancing. Our very own Gay Club in the Capital! GAY PARTY
ON SATURDAY, JULY 29th AT CL FARMS. Also, party review of the
July 15th bash posted..."
GAY DELHI PERSONALS
GAY DELHI MAILING LIST .." etc
SRI LANKA
--------
1. From http://www.iglhrc.org/world/s_asia/SriLanka2000June.html
"On June 2, the Press Council of Sri Lanka dismissed a complaint by the
Executive Director of Companions on a Journey, an organization supporting
the rights and dignity of lesbian and gay people in Sri Lanka,.."
NEPAL
------
1. From http://www.iglhrc.org/world/s_asia/Nepal2000May.html
Action Alert May 2000
SUMMARY:
IGLHRC, in cooperation with Community Promote--an NGO which advocates for
the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people
in Nepal--urgently requests letters protesting the police detention of two
young women involved in an emotional relationship with one another..."
Now that was an eye opner wasn't it?
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Wed 11 Oct 2000 13:28:00
Subject: Culture - a subjective concept
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: [email protected]
There as been some hysteric responses to a reader's innocuous notice of
a concert by some popular artists. First, does the quality/richness
of a culture need to be proven/established by "feeling" proud about it?
And should "feeling" proud about one's own culture require that one not
mention about any concert from a different culture? or not express one's
liking for an artists from another culture.? There are many Indians who
admire many Pakistani artists and even some Bangladeshi artist (Like
Runa Laila). I don't hear a paranoid Indian crying foul and feeling less
secure of Indian culture due to this and accusing those Indians for
not feeling proud about Indian culture. Why then this puerile expression
of inferiority-complex about Bangladeshi culture when someone innocuously
informs the readers of an oncoming concert by some artists popular on both
side of the border? Artistic quality speaks for itself. Can the belief in
a faith, appreciation of an art or a culture as a whole be legislated?
Isn't the quality of a culture, like the quality of a poem or a story
subjective? Then whats the point of preaching to someone that one "should"
like or feel proud about one's culture etc? What does feeling proud mean
in a precise way? What are the do's and don'ts of feeling proud? Is there
an established guideline?. If a culture is rich wouldn't be recognized
as such? Does one need to be made aware of that by someone? A good artist
of a culture whose artistic skills can impress a wider audience across
national border does not need any plug or "feeling good" by his/her
compatriots. The bottom line is that a culture is not improved by
preaching others to "feel good" about it, or by liking it. The appeal of
an art, culture etc are rooted in subjective feelings, in the heart. And
praising or announcing a cultural concert by artists of a differnet culture
(let alone a similar culture) can never diminish one's own culture. A
culture's worth is in its subjective appeal to its own people and to
others. Patriotism should not be enforced and extended to personal tastes
in art. Rather patriotism means creating an environment and opportunities
for the development of indigenous art forms, not preventing someone from
liking or praising another culture. One can be more appreciative of a
different culture yet be loyal citizen of one's own country. On the
other hand one can be very fond of one's own culture and yet be a betrayer
of one's national interest by compromising sovereignty and economic
interests to another country. One should not mix up the subjective issue
of cultural appeal with objective issue of being a patriotic citizen.
regards,
Aparthib
Date: June 30, 2001
Re: [bdesh] Bangladesh 'heads corruption league
'Why blame the west, when these negatives are our own making?� Blaming�
others to save our face is not going� to solve the root probblem. We cannot
criticize others if they correctly point out our problems. We need such�
rude awakening so we don't suffer from an illusion that all is honky dory
back home. And it is certainly not true that the west only focusses on the
negatives.� many positives are focussed as well, like Grameen projects,
poverty alleviation efforts etc.� We only choose to focus on the negative
criticisms, conveneoently forgetting the praise given when we do deserved
it. Whats so positive about� having two women prime ministers? Does that
really offer such consolation?.have no meaning� at all. Its only due to
accidental fact that Both� Zia and Mujib didn't leave an adult son after
their death. The voting for� Khaleda or Hasina is really a vote for Zia or
Mujib. If a woman was voted to power due to her own merit and then that
would be a tribute to the maturity of the voting public. It is a long
shot(if ever) for that to be true.
Besides,� what does it matter if two women� have been elected as head of
state, if cases of acid throwing, fatwa baji, rampant� rape of minor girls
with impunity etc go on day in day out?� It is laughable to brag� about two
female prime ministers when one's moters, wives, sisters, nieces,� feel
unsafe at home and on the street even at day time and have toi constantly
worry about keeping their sanctity.
Nothing is further from the truth than the remark� that
"Democracy is working in Bangladesh.".
It is a farce. In a nation where journalsist are intimidated by the goons of ruling
party,mutilated and tortured, where radio, TV have to toe the party lines, and
oppositions are repressed and harrassed routinely, it can hgardly be called
democratic
Re:
"It is our responsibility to stop propagating negative things
about Bangladesh and pointing out the positive. No one else
is going to do it for us".
Why stop mentioning the neagtives? We don;t want to be fooled only by
self-admiration. Negative criticism is a way of� improving. we need to
bring out the neagtives so we know about it and can deal with it. At the
same time if their is any positive (And there is, as is true for any nation),
we should also make it public.. Hiding the neagtive and only advertizing
the positive is a loser's game.
Date : 7/18/01
Re: [bdesh] Poverty in developed nations (was: Acknowledging one's nationality)
I don't agree with the part referring to Western media and citing the
problems of West themselves.� There is no justification of� linking in any
way our ills and woes to West's (Or for that matter anyone elses)� or
finding a scape goat for ours by making a bogey out of the "Western Media"�
as painting us bad. That may provide a false sense of relief and� solace.
We� better� face up to our own malaise without any external reference and
learn to accept and live with it or suggest solutions. This "Western media
propaganda",� "tu quoque"� (You too) game to bury our head in the sand� is�
a trite� and feckless one.� Just because the Western media reports it
doesn't make it false.
Why doesn't western media pick on Taiwan, Brunei, Singapore... too many to
mention. Do the western media get paid millions of Dollars� by picking on
Bangladesh? Media is what media is. They report, bad or good.� Western media
DID report good things about BD as well. We don't remeber those, even though
they are circulated with zealousness by many. Unfortunately there are more
negatives than positive. So why blame the media? And it is not� just
"Western" media. Eastern media is no different. The woes of Bangladesh are
reported in HK, India, etc.� Even Bangladeshi media report crimes and
disasters in a particular locality in� Bangladesh.� Shouldn't the local
residents feel slighted and think that the reporter is picking their town
when crimes are being committed elsewhere too? Where would this kind of�
vicitm mentality lead us to ? If we take care of ourselves we wouldn't hear
such reports in media, Western/Eastern/Northern/Southern what have you.�
Have you ever heard the complaint "Eastern media propaganda" always paint
the West with this negative, or with that? Easetrn media is no saint, media
is media as I said.
Aparthib
From [email protected] Wed 12 Aug 1998 11:08:56
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Bengali in West bengal
This is as followup to Abhijit's comment on the status of Bengali in W.
Bengal and the new Bangla evolving in BD. I have my two dollars worth
(Two cents is worthless :) to contribute here. First, I would like to
point out that language evolved as tool out of a necessity to communicate
although it also provided another dimension to culture on the side. Today
substantial resources are invested in learning different languages to
overcome the communication block created due to the existence of numerous
different major languages in the world. It would have been much simpler and
and less expensive if there was one universal language so humanity could
communicate transparently across the border. It is much more a meaningful
wish in this age of global village where instead of wasting time and money
in programs like ESL or interpretations work and software, time would have
been better spent learning the real stuff in our limited life span. Now
having presented this prelude of wishful thinking let me come to reality
of mutilingual world. As it is we have so many different languages so instead
of trying to bridge the language gap why do so many try to go the other way
and attempt to create new languages or distort the existing ones to a totally
new form just to be different? A case in point is Bangla. In BD most feel
that we have to have Bangla different from that in W.Bengal just to preserve
our identity or to impart a uniqueness to it. They are missing the point that
language is not something inherent like our skin color, food habits, etc and
a nation can maintain its distinctness even with a common language with another
one, besides W. Bengal is not a nation, so having an identical language with
it in no way undermines our identity as a nation. A culture can thrive and
be preserved through other ingredients like as I said food , physical appearances,
traditions and values, religion etc. The literature of BD has always reflected
that uniqueness/difference although expressed through the same Bangla as in WB.
So why now create this new activist attitude of CONSCIOUSLY making it different
from the Bangla we have always learned through our high school days? Why keep
on creating new slang words to replace the existing ones and then frown at
someone using the old standard Bangla or call them ....? Plurality of languages
is fait accompli and we cannot do anything about it, but why not preserve the
commonness of language that exists now (although is being threatened now)
instead of willfully trying to create a division. There is a hypocritical mentality
of taking PRIDE(As if ours) in Tagore as a Nobel Laureate and then at the same
time distorting the same Bangla to make it very different. There may be a time
when there will be a considerable confusion where to go to learn Bengali and its
litterature among interested scholars from abroad. It will be unfortunate if
one day when the borders bewteen WB/BD will be more transparent (thanks to better
transportations and business links) to see resources being spent on both sides
to create a program like ESL to familiarize the "Bangla" of one side to the
other. As I said uniqueness/identity of culture is important and can be
maintained indepent of language. Algeria is French speaking so is France. Is
Algeria's cultural identity at stake, or for that matter is Singapore (whose
national language is English) at stake culturally?
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Wed 12 Aug 1998 19:11:14 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Bengali in West bengal
Wed, 12 Aug 1998, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
================================================
First off, I don't see how the border can get any more porous than it
already.
Secondly, if an ordinary Calcuttan or Dhakaiya businessman intends to set
up shop in the others city, then they have to brush up on their Bangla as
it is. The Calcuttan better get used to the local dialect of where hes
going and so should the Dhakaiya. There's no way around it. So when you
speak of classes to "familiarize" oneself with the Bangla across the
border, the need already exists - i.e., if you intend to interact with the
other side. Most dont.
=======================================
I was refering to the official/legal exchanges/immigrations that will
potentially take place in large numbers in future. Localized infiltration
across border due to porousness always existed historically and is
not relevant in this discussion.
In your second point you have correctly presented the reality. I was
lamenting this reality of the overhead of brushing up each other's
Bangla which can be avoided (hence there is way around it unlike as you
commented) if a dogmatic and willful attempt is not made to divide the
standard Bangla that we have learned over centuries. Also in the future
the intent to interact may arise out of socio-economic necessity (more
trade and business links etc, 24 hr Bangla TV channel is an example
that is already a reality) so the "most dont" above really should read
"most don't need to at the present time". This may change in future.
From [email protected] Thu 13 Aug 1998 12:43:48 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Bengali in West bengal
On Wed, 12 Aug 1998 21:51:43 Mohd S. Rahman Wrote:
>Its not entirely true that Bangla in Bangladesh has embedded new words
>and ppl in WB dint.
:
:
>Culture, and of course language, is dynamic. And our culture and WB
>culture aint same. They might breed new words not common and used in both.
>Whats the harm in it?
:
:
>If the whole universe were speaking the same lang...trust me cultural
>enrichment, nourishment would be hindered by several factors.
Since my point was not well taken(or understood) let me try to put the
clincher on this thread (from my side) by succintly stating my points that
I expressed verbosely before. I have no problem any language ADDING new
words in its repertoire. Thats called enrichment of language and dynamism
that you refered to. Examples are "pundit" or "Guru" in English. My problem
is REPLACING an existing word and phasing out its usage by new words wilfully
JUST to be different and expecting all to use the new words and frowning on
the usage of the old word and judging one's background or culture by this usage.
"Pundit" didn't replace the word "scholar" and one is free to use scholar or
pundit and the use of one or the other doesn't cause anyone to judge one's
affiliation of any sort. ADDING is enriching, REPLACING is vandalism.
EB and WB always had its own additional words in use besides the common
set. That was considered normal and still should be. But never before was this
dogmatic stand taken to gradually replace words well in use by new ones just to
affirm ones identity. If we are so paranoid of our identity being at stake then
we better focus on the real issues (economic/social/political/strategic) more to
overcome and address this insecurity.
From [email protected] Thu 13 Aug 1998 20:26:49 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Bengali in West bengal
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Abhijit Mitra wrote:
========================================
Before I say something, a few questions:
Do you believe it will happen and that therefore we should avoid burning
our bridges, or do you hope it will happen and know that burning our
bridges won't help?
If you believe it will happen, what is the reason of this belief?
If you hope this will happen, what is the reason for this hope?
Abhijit
==============================================
Well, actually "yes" to both. I believe because thats the trend in this
new era of information highway, economic cooperation, pragmatism over
ideology. Just before the nuclear explosion, both India and Pakistan
(And BD as well) were getting very close to such pragmatist steps, the
temporary setback will soon be gone, hopefully. In BD, there is alot
going on in the background on joint ventures between BD and WB. You
will see big advertisements of Bangladesh Yellow pages in Street
corners of Calcutta. Nitol and Tata groups, ITT etc are already in BD.
These are all healthy affairs within a sovereign scope between the
two. I see this trend gathering momentum in future. This is also
happening in cultural front. I have already mentioned about the Bangla
TV channel. It will be originating from Calcutta but a substantial
part of the program will be supplied from BD. There has been agreements
to this effect. All these will necessitate exchanges and travels on
increasing scale. Effective communication will thus become more
important.
Secondly , I hope (Here I am being personal), because as a pragmatic
idealist (Oxymoron?, I don't think so)I believe in greater cooperation,
contact, exchanges between nations for mutual benefit. Specifically so
between BD and India/WB (within a sovereign scope of course), because
of our cultural, historical commonality. We both have lot to gain from it.
From [email protected] Fri 14 Aug 1998 08:29:34 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Bengali in West bengal
>On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Mohd S. Rahman wrote:
>couldnt agree more, altho depends on the objective of doing it (I
>understand what you meant and I agree to that).
>
>I would appreciate if you could provide with an example of replacement of
>a traditional word. [..]
Well, I was more focussing on the attitude and mindset from my own
experience in daily conversation on an individual level. I am not
vouching for an official organized program to that effect. I can give
a few examples (Not all that came up in past is coming to mind instantly)
but the point is again is the intent as expressed by the vast number of
individuals. These examples shopuld not be the only factor to look at.
One example is if you use the word "Mangsha" instead of Gosht lot of
Bangladeshis attribute that to a bias for Hindu/WB. Before we used the
word Aya or Jhee or Mother of such to refer to house maids, now a Urdu
word is replacing it (Bua, or something like that). Same is true for Jal
vs. pani. Both should be OK to use. If using Jalabayu(climate) is OK
(doesn't paint one as Hindu Ghesha) then why would Jal? Pani and Jal
should be viewd in the same way as "Pundit" and "scholar". Jal as a word
has nothing to do with religion. I know Bangla academy has invented lot
of new Paribhashik word for technical terms that were already there in
existence as created by scholars like Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee et al. I
can come up with more examples if given more time. Hope you get the drift.
From me Fri Nov 26 15:20:53 1999
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Re: English and Bangla: It seems that some people
On Thu, 25 Nov 1999 01:22:46 [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>I cannot agree here.
[..]
Like Shuronjona, I also cannot agree with the original post. Anyone
who is going to school in this age of information highway and global
village it is important for them to learn some minimum English. I also
don't agree with the use of the word "wasting" appplied to learning
English. Any knowledge is an asset and is never a wastage. Specially
English which is the defacto Lingua Franca of the world. It doesn't take
too much effort to learn basic English. Those who need too much effort
would need too much effort in learning Bangla too. They need some
special attention anyway. The level of Bangla knowledge among current
school students of Bangladesh is not that great either. I don't
understand the antagonism being showed against the English medium
school. It is not compulsory. Bangla medium schools are there too.
If learning English is a wastage then why even complain against English
medium school that it cannot be afforded? If it is useless then it
deosn't matter if it is affordable or not. Why not choose the Bangla
medium school which is more useful and more affordable? (After all,
English medium school are not compulsory). If, on the other hand, if
you believe that it is beneficial to be educated in English then why
gripe against the Engslish medium school? Why not gripe against the
Bangla medium schools for not teaching Engslish effectively and suggest
/demand improvement? If someone uses education in Englsih medium
school as social status that is the problem in the outlook of that
person, not of the English language or the school. Taking on the
English medium schools as a whole for the mentality of some is like
throwing the baby along with the water. Besides why even bother if
someone thinks and behave as though he/she has a higher social status
by studying in English meduium school. Does it really matter? In
real life it is the actual competence, expertise in one's respective
field that counts in career and life. All my classmates from my
Bengali medium high school are well placed professionally in USA and
other counries abroad. None had any problem with English. It is
because even in our Bengali medium school Englsih was taught with care.
(at least in my time). Our English teacher was a Pandit Moshai who
use to punish us for not learning our Englsih lesson right. He was
a poor school teacher barely trying to survive. He or we never felt
that we were learning English for "social" status. The social status
thing is in the mind of those who try to use it or those who even
bother to pay attention to those who try to use it as such. There are
many well established people in society and life with distinguished
career who have been educated in Bangla medium school. On the other
hand I know many English medium educated students ending up
miserable in career and life due to lack of discipline and intention.
"social status" (according to you) didn't help them. So what does this
"social status" thing matter at the end? One should not be so obsessed
with this "social status" thing but rather focus on learning and suggest
improvement of learning (English, Bangla and everything), instead of
a negativist attitude of banning this, closing that..
Regards,
cosmic thinker
From me Fri Jun 11 1999 15:04:39
To: [email protected]
Subject: [eShomabesh] Re: Bangla/ Bengali
On Thu, 10 Jun 1999 15:15:34 [email protected] wrote:
[..]
I agree with Abhijit on both counts (Aglicization of Indigenous terms and transliteration
of Bangla into English). I would however like to make some observations on a deeper
implication of Bangla/bengali issue.
The Bangla/Bengali issue is more than a terminological confusion. I think it
is reflective of an underlying divisive mentality amongst West Bengalis and
bangladeshis. After visiting Calcutta and talking to many people from WB and
BD as well I have a feeling that both have come to think of one of these two
terms as their copyright (Bengali for WB and Bangla for BD) and dogmatically
cling to one or the other just to preserve their distinction from the other.
As it is there is so much divisive factor amongst us (religion, politics etc),
why create one more? As much as I am in favour of a unification of the two
Banglas in spirit (political unification is impossible) I think we should try
to preserve the unity that exist already and not create new divisions. When
Bangladesh was first christened there was some mild exceptions from WB elites
as it seemed to have taken away from them part of what belonged jointly. But
since it was named "Bangladesh" not "Bengal", the objection faded and later
an unofficial copyright(mentality) was attached to Bengali->WB and Bangla->BD
etc. This also reflected the anglophilic mentality of the Classic WB elites
where they are more enamoured of the anglicized names of Bangla rather than
the original ones hence they are willing to let go of Bangla (To BD) but not
Bengal. My personal view on this is that we should be using one official term
for Bangla/Bengali since it is the same. My concern is that Bengali is
already recognised as an accepted language in UN and other relevant world
forums and probably Bangla is also recognized as another language (Language
of Bangladesh) without ever recognizing the two as the same. It may also
create (or has already) confusion for prospective non-Bangla speaking
foreigners interested in studying Bangla/Bengali as they may be associating
bengali->Calcutta only. Besides, clinging to this copyright mentality will
also deprive BD from sharing/inheriting the rich literary legacy of
Rabindranath and other luminouries. So I suggest Bangla be adopted as the
official term for Bangla/Bengali language in WB or that Bengali be adopted as
the official term for Bangla/Bengali language in BD. I recommend the former.
The term "Bengali" can be used in conversation or writings though.
cosmic thinker
Date: Wed Jul 25 13:02:16 2001
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Standard What? - There's only one!
Who said what is unimportant in a discussion forum, like this one,
only the issues debated are relevant, so in that spirit let me just refer
to what was said and what was responded to what was said and then
offer my critical views on it the "Standard What" thread. Of course
alert readers will identify the proponents of each view critiqued. I
hope others would also respond in that spirit, at least when it is
possible. In my experience that seems to keep the discussion on
focus and prevent the undesirable generation of any tangential
issues relating to the personalities of each involved.
The "offending" remark
"Many University Graduates in Bangladesh cannot speak standard
Bangla"
generated among others the following two "offended" statements in
response
a). "This is one of the most offensive statements that I have ever seen.."
b). "What is standard Bangla anyway?"
Response in statement (b) was followed up with arguments to make a
case against the usage of the expression "Standard Bangla" in the
original "offending" statement.
Now let me provide my critique by posing two rhetorical questions
1. Was the meaning of the phrase "Standard Bangla" clear in the
offending statement?
It certainly was. And it is the Bangla that we read in "Bangla"
books, newspapers, hear in Radio and TV newscasts etc.
Now is the use of the term "standard" to identify the Bangla
which I exemplified above that offensive or improper? I see no
reason to think so. This is the version that is read in any book
in any school in any geographical region of Bnagladesh, any
regional radio station, any local signboards etc. What could be
more appropriate other than the word "Standard" to identify such
Bangla that ALL in Bangladesh agree to express with and read,
irrespective of region. Does it matter that this "Satndard" Bangla
traces its origin in among a particular group of people from a
particular city? Does an American feel offended at the mention of
the "Standard English" to identify the English everyone uses and
to distinguish it from the regional variants, like the Southern dialect,
or Brooklyn's version of it, or from "Ebonics" ? Does an American
get offended and retorts "What is Standard English anyway? Wasn't
it the language that the British developed around London/Oxford?"..
etc etc. All languages start from a base somewhere, and gradually
expands/evolves and becomes standard. English is now even
considerd a worldwide virtual "Standard". Is there any offense in
calling it a world standard, just becasue it was originally the language
spoken by some English coterie of people? The aspect of hegemony
is irrelevant to adoption of a standard. A certain group of people may
have been influential culturally or literarily at some point in time and
seem to have imposed a cultural hegemony (If there is such a thing),
but they are a fleeting group, echos of a bygone era, having been lost
in history long since. Holding a grudge against "them" by being
offended at the use of "standard" to identify the current version of
"their" dialect which has been continually modified and enriched by
people (including non- hegemonistic folks from diverse cultural
backgrounds) over centuries to become accepted as standard Bangla
as we now know it, is anachronictic and regressive. Regardless,
whatever be the legacy of Standard Bangla, hegenonistic or not, there
can be no dispute that there IS a Standard Bangla quite in vogue
in Bangladesh for many years and its no point denying the existence of
this or quibble over the use of "standard". There is no better way to
describe something that is used by all officially other than the word
"standard".
2. Was the statement about University Graduates in Bangladesh not being
able to speak "standard" Bangla untrue?
Certainly not. Whether this statement was made with an intent to
disparage Bangladesh or its student is not my focus here, let someone
who specializes in the psychoanalysis of writers handle that. For me
just taking the statement on its face value I find truth in it. If we
accept that there is indeed a standard Bangla as I argued above that
we use to communicate with all in a standard way then is it not
expected that educated people at least should be well-versed in it?
And is it not sad to see that university graduates are not? Should this
expectation be considered "obnoxious"? I don't see why, it is no more
obnoxious than to expect all Americans to be able to speak standard
English, not just Southern dialects or Ebonics. This is only pragmatic
and fair. Standards are always a cost-effective means of
communication in a diverse population. Hindi/English is in India.
English in Singapore etc. The folks of these countries don't seem to
show such offended feeling for that. Many countries have adopted as
standard the languages left behind by their foreign colonizers. These
colonizers cannot be worse than the "cultural hegemonist of historical
standard Bangla". Language being primarily a tool for communication
pragmatism is the relevant factor here. The fact that each dialect
spawned rich regional literary culture does not impart it any extra
practical significance as a tool for communication for ALL. Of course
that regional culture can be kept alive or enriched by the locals
themselves. Others from other dilaects or speaking no dialects can
voluntarily enjoy such local culture, but there is no imperative for all
to relinquish the "standard" and adopt each dialect as "equal"
"standards". It is pointless to argue that had Noakhali been influential
in past we would have Noakhali dialect as standard Bangla. It was not.
If it was, then it would have been. That was a tautology. But then the
same "standard what ?" issue could be raised by someone else
(Non-Neokhalian). This leads to a slippery slope. Historical
counterfactuals cannot be used to make a point for present. "Could
have been, might have been" etc is not relevant now. We have to accept
the defacto standard as fait accompli. We do have a standard. And it is
dialect neutral. So at least it is fair and does not favour one region over
another. Evey district has some distinct dialect. Standard Bangla is
dialect/accent free. Let us not make a case for ruining this last vestige
of a unifying element (In our quest for everincreasing divisiveness)
of our nation by overemphasizing dialects and emphasizing the
"scandalous" origin of Standard Bangla. Lets preserve this standard
and learn it well. There is no such imperative need to preach about
learning or promoting the dialects at a national level. They will be kept
alive and well by locals regardless, for internal communication, no
need of any patronization from others. Its use is relevant locally.
There is no relevance or significance of the dialects at the national
level, other than the optional literary interest shown by ousiders in
that culture and bodies like Bangla Academy etc to preserve them in
print for the benefit of all who may be interested in that particluar
dialect's litterature.
To summarize, since there are so many dialects in Bangladesh, and we
cannot expect a person speaking dialect "X" speak in dialect "Y" or vice
versa, (for fairness and logistical ground) it makes more sense to stick
to an existing standard which has a well established written and spoken
base and resources (printing press, books etc). Besides without this
neutral standard, the issue of some dialects becoming hegemonistic over
others will crop up, we don't need to add another element of divisiveness
to the already existing ones. We have been taught this standard Bangla
and is still being taught in schools. Why not learn it right? In past,
Bangla teachers demanded much higher standard from the
students. It never detracted from the local dialects. They were there.
Learning Stanadard Bangla is not antithetical to local dialects are not .
Let us not fuss over the use of the word "standard" or unnecessarily
create an issue of dialects vs standard Bangla. Each has its own place.
Standard is for all, dialect is for a subset. As simple as that. The latter
can never assume the role of the former. The former is imperative for a
Bangladeshi to learn, the latter is not. Once there is an accepted
(Defacto, if not Dejure) it is useless to raise the question of the
legitimacy of the standard by discovering a negative element in its
historical trace of origin. Rather it is more to the point to enmphasize
learning it for the sake of unity and pragmatism.
Thanks to all for bearing with my long essay.
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2001 14:09:14 +0600
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Standard What? & ""Debotar belai.." - To Dr. Zaman
Before I respond to Dr. Zaman under "Standard what?" thread to save an
extra post, let me point out an unconscionable remark he made in an
message under the thread "Debotar belai leela khela, oporer belai baybhichar",
dated July 15 where he made the following comments:
"I do not share the same aversion to religion - any religion, that
secularists - including hypocritical ones among them, seem to have."
This is a blanket slandering of ALL secularists ( not just the so called
"hypocrites", notice his "including") . By implying that ALL secularists
hate religion, he had put slander in other's heart, even when it does not
apply, in contradiction wth the teachings of religion and humanism.
I can certainly quote myself and safely cite Dr. Kaushik Sen, where it
does not apply. I have explained in detail that secularism is not a blanket
hatred of all religons (No body needs my clarifciation, it is official), most
secularists do not "hate" religion, but believe in showing tolerance and
equal freedom of ALL religion. Many secularists are religious themselves
in a personal way. Examples of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad is a shining
one (One can add more and more). I only hope he clarifies that he did
not mean "ALL". On the other hand it is not that ALL the secularists
"hate" religion, but it is often the case that it is the believers who hate
all the religions except their own. A subset of seculars "hate" (i.e
have aversion towrds) religion, and a subset of believers have
tolerance for other religions other than their own. so one cannot
make a blanket statement one way or the other. Anyway let me
move on to the moot thread of this post.
At 7/27/01 05:29 Dr. Zaman wrote:
>
> I understand the statement from Dr. Bain was about *spoken* "Standard
> Bangla." You are now talking about *written* ("that we read" to quote > you)
> "Standard Bangla."
>
What is a "spoken standard"? How is that standard defined and accepted as standard?
Anyone have any definition?, it seems like it was an invented term by him. I calrified
very clearly that standard Bangla is not only written, but spoken as well, it is what is
HEARD in Radio/TV in serious programs and in official programs. His very implication
that my usage of "standard" did not include a "spoken" then one should ask the question
that why do we learn correct "pronunciation rules" in elementary Bangla grammar
and we are caned by our teachers for any mispronunciation? Are we being taught
correct pronunciation for His nebulous definition of "Spoken Standard" which he
himself curiously defined it as "a curious mixture of Nadia, N. Bengal EXCLUDING
MOST of what is etc" (Readers please stare at it). His very use of "EXCLUDES" (And
"MOST" to boot) invalidates his very use of "STANDARD" (in accepted logic, not
sophistry) I would request anyone just to justapose the words "EXCLUDES" and
STANDARD and stare at it for a moment. "Standard" by definition has to be same for
EVRYONE in a society/nation. As controversial as his definition is . He is basically
implying the very clear fact (not a definition of standard) that there is a dominant of
spoken Bangla in and around
DHAKA and adjoining areas is a De Jure "Spoken "Standard". If he by his
own admission wishes to propagate a regional hegemony of Dhaka city
and adjoining area based (which itself has inevitable variation) dialect by
claiming it as a "spoken standard" then he would be "guilty" of defending
the same game of hegemony that Mr Karim' was so critical of. At least now
we do have and have accepted (grudgingly by some) a genuine standard (As
the same pronunciation rules are taught everywhere and where people would
at least identify as a standard (even though it may not be their pet dialect).
What Dr. Zaman is championing is in disguise promoting a version of
regional dialect comprising some priviledged (due to its proximity to Dhaka)
as the DeJure standard (Which has not been stanfardized formally by any
literary/government body and is not agreed to as "standard" in writing.
Any one's version giving prefernce/dominance to some dilalects CANNOT by
any conscience be accepted as standard by ALL. The other extreme defense
of "ALL ARE EQAUL STANDARDS " is simply impractical, divisive and
costly, since we have been learning "Standard" Bangla since many yers,
ironically even in Pakistani reign where "Islamic" and uniqueness of
Bangladesh was officilally encouraged, the literary bodies never conceived
or promoted such "ALL DIALECTS ARE EQUAL STANDARD" view.
This rise of "Local emphasis" , If only is due to the fact that inherent
laziness and laid back attitude of our national psyche is surfacing that
was suppressed in a competitive environement when ALL Benaglis had to
compete nationally and excell in everything including Bangla (spoken &
written with grammar). I think this laid back syndrome is the cause for
refusal to put any extra effort to accept the long held "standard" as one can
now bypass genuine competetion to excell and impose regional hegemony
(Dhaka for sure as it is the CAPITAL). They are the benficiaries, not the
ones that were "excluded" by the self-serving definition of "Spoken Standard"
It is unfair and divisive to imply that the dilaects of entire N. Bengal (who are
the main granery of Bangladesh and tell them you have no share in the spoken
"standard" of Bangla.
All your examples of Phil Graham, and Red Kennedy are non-sequitar
as they did not DEFINE any standard. They are speaking in their own
accent and VIOLATING an ACCEPTED standard (There is no law against
it!). That does not make it a standard. They are exceptions to a rule.
But the university graduates in Bangladesh are not "EXCEPTIONS'" to
a rule, but a rule of exceptions. Neither of them are championing their
dialect for a nation "spoken" standard. Thats what distinguish them from
Dr. Zaman and Mr. Karim both seem to defy/deny a standard. And one
should preferably speak for oneself whenever making comments
like "nobody" as in in your: "nobody talks Bangla the way it is written (either
"cholito" or "shadhu")." Many do (The cholito version, the real spoken standard),
and for a good reason. Not all need a dialect, or are mandated to speak one,
nor do they have to have one, for many logistic reasons (Constantly being
on the move etc, not growing up in their ancestral homes, specially if both
parents are not from the same region etc). It is easy to speak the language
that one learns in many years of school spending money and (both personal
and public) and time. I do, and I am being a good Bangladeshi by doing so.
Best wishes,
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 09:07:00 +0600
Subject: Re: [Shetubondhon] Standard What? & ""Debotar belai.."
I am not sure what was the purpose of writing a long irrelevant
paragraph and then apologizing for not meaning ALL secularists,
but MANY. Since that was my only contention I see no reason to
add so much verbiage before it other than to demphasize this
omission. Anyway Dr. Kaushik will be relived. I don't care what
your view is about me. I am always talking in general terms. Suffice
it to say that critiquing some oppresive aspects of religion by no
means reflect a blanket aversion for religion itself. It would be a
limitation of one's perception not to realize that.
Now re your comments on Standard Bangla issue. All your verbiage
again boils down to all "standards" are equally acceptable and nobody
should be required to learn any standard. As I argued ther is no
real standard except the cholito version of Standard Bangla. This cannot
be EQUATED with any other so called "standard" placing hegemonistic
preference of one region over another. I am emphaszing again and
again but failed to have your attention that Standard Bangla as I defined
it is learned EVERYONE all over Bangladesh. The same cannot be said
about any other self-seving definition of standard. If it was only for
use in formal occasions then why everyone is taught this Standard
Bangla for year after year to ALL in the school? Saying that one need
not be able to speak Standard Bangla implies that all this years of
Bangla teaching was a waste of national echequer. useless. You are
saying that one need not speak any standard Bangla other than their
own dialect. ("(1) there were more standards than you proposed, and (2)
there was no need to follow any one of them, as far as "spoken Bangla"
is concerned). This is the main contention with our position. By not requring
that one follow any standard that leaves the local dialect. So you are saying
one need not spaek any standard bangla in a cross dialect forum. So it is OK
for Chittagongian to speak to a Sylheti in his dialect and vice versa. Sounds
like an anarchist position.
FinallyI strongly obejct to your characterization as "elitist-reactionary"
a practical suggestion. This is the same cliches used by other liberals
(Imperialistic, colonial besdies reactionary etc). There is nothing elitist
about learning to speak a standard that is open to all to learn (And IS
taught with national money) and which helps to communicate better
between dialects. Of couse dialects can be effective means of
communication withi that dialect. But a small price to pay by speaking
standard Bangla may be worth to bring different regions closer without
having to create an ego problem. Elitism is nothing absolute. speaking
one's own dialects everywhere will invariably lead to Noakhlai elitism,
Dhakai elitism depending on who can exercize hegemonism.
Thanks,
From [email protected] Mon 24 Aug 1998 13:39:42 -0700
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] Software export
On Sun, 23 Aug 1998 11:44:01 Ishaq wrote:
>The secret to Indian conquering the software market is they don't have
>that much brain drain as we have. Poeple get higher degrees in computer
>filed and going back to India to work. As for us we stay here, I myself
>did this. They have the atomospeher for work, software sector in
Signally disagree here. Its not because thet don't have brain drain but its
because they have a steady REGENERATION of quality brains to replenish the
ones being drained away. Indians form a large base in US in Software and
other technical professional. There is also a steady stream of Indian
students and professionals in US from India who are making one way trip
but they are more than compensated by the steady stream of local experts
churned out by private and Govt institutions. In fact it is considered
desirable to have some brain drain so there is no excess brain problem and
all the local brains stay employed. It is a win win situation. In BD the
quality of brains produced are not upto the standard and are not effectively
utilized by the present infrastructure. Also the govt. institutions are
plagued by Hartals/strikes/politics/murders hampering the quality and
continuity of instructions unlike Indian Govt Institutions. In BD few
private schools are beginning to impart quality education with less or no
disruptions but their tuitions are quite high (almost comparable to tutions
of some cheap schools in US) and therefore produce hardly enough quality
brains. So the point it is not brain drain but generation of quality brains
in large numbers and utilization thereof which is the real issue.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Thu 22 Oct 1998 15:48:22
Subject: [ALOCHONA] The debate on Satyendra Nath Bose's and other Bengali
Nobel Prize winners
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 07:39:50 wrote:
>Noble prize is a political prize, and many of the winners recived their
>share not due to the "talent", but cause the swedish government wanted
>to upset or send a message to the prize winner's government.
>[...]
>I'll be only happy when a Bangladeshi holding a Bangladeshi green
>passport will win that prize.
>[...]
>~Deshipola
This seems to have been an overreaction belittling the very credibility of
the award of Nobel Prize. There are objective guidelines that are followed
in the nomination for a Nobel Laureate, specially so in the pure sciences,so
to say it is political is an extremely cynical (unjustified) statement to
make. It wouldn't/shouldn't have mattered and affected any vested interest of
the Nobel committe had Amartya Sen resided in India and had been awarded the
Nobel Prize for the same work he did. The cynical statement regarding
the irrelevance of Amrtya Sen's honor to Bangladesh is sad. On the other
hand I have some reservations in expressing "pride" or "being proud" of
any accomplishments as this is a form of chauvinism. The more appropriate
reaction should be profuse compliments/congratualtions on such an
accomplishments. Pride or being proud is a relative stand vis a vis
others and it implies some sort of superiority over others. I can only
justify mentioning/touting any accomplishments of a "Bengali" (Or for
that matter any species) only as a reaction (attempt to debunk) to a
perception by others of an inferiority or lack of such ability i.e as a
defensive manner and not in an offensive one.
From [email protected] Thu 22 Oct 1998 15:56:24
Subject: [ALOCHONA] Satyendra Nath Bose's Nobel Prize
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 10:40:35 Ranu wrote:
>
>Dear Pappu,
> Jagadish Chandra Bose and Satyendra Nath Bose are two
>different individuals. Prof. S.N. Bose deserved to get a
>Nobel Prize for his works on "The theory of Relativity' but could n't
>because of politics. Thanks. Ranu 10/21/98
>
Prof. Bose didn't work on "The theory of Relativity". He worked on the
distribution properties of intergral spin particles and his theory was
also independently derived by Einstein (Hence its labelled as Bose-
Einstein distribution/statistics). Einstein didn't get Nobel prize for
this particular theory. Many significant theories don't fulfill the
rigorous criteria for a Nobel Award. Stephen hawking didn't receive
nobel prize for his exceptionally brilliant derivation of the
evaporation of Black Holes. On the other hand Chandrasekhar did receive
Nobel Prize for his even more exceptional work on black holes. Do you
see politics here? I don't.
From [email protected] Fri 23 Oct 1998 16:47:55
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] The debate on Satyendra Nath Bose and other
Bengali Nobel Prize winners
I will rspond to two posts in this mail to minimize overhead.
[..]
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998 07:44:54 Shuman wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Oct 1998, Bongo_desher deshipola wrote:
>[ Noble prize is a political prize
>
>is there anyone here who isn't aware of that?:)
>
>[ Dr. Humayun Ahmed said "Every year the time of noble prize isn't a
>[ time to celebrate, but a feel to feel neglected and forgotten"
>
>in a book.. his younger brother Dr Md Jaffar Iqbal was saying.. Dr. Yunus
>upset all the economics' laws by his Grameen Bank project.. by showing the
>unbelievable percentage of return of the loaned money without any
>securities to the bank (sorry, dont know the correct economics/banking
>terms)... but will he get a nobel for that? Nope.. because he isn't living
>in a western world... serving them...
>
>(btw, he didn't say the last line)
My objection is to the use of the word "political" to what is
inevitably a "subjective" decision in the arts and humanities etc.
"Political" has some negative connotation (unfairness etc) otherwise
it would not have been mentioned (as a lament) in all the posts.
There can be a limited number of Nobel Laureates in an award. Not
all the accomplished personalities can be awarded at the same time.
There has to be some subjective criterion to select a few among
them. Besides its always the ones not selected who will call it
a political process. As I mentioned in my earlier post, Dr.
Chandrasekhar received Nobel Prize for his work in Black holes
but Stephen hawking didn't. Did Dr. Hawking call it political? (In the
negative connotation?) I don't think Amartya Sen would have called
it a political award if some other distinguished economist would have
won it (Knowing his magnanimous outlook). By the same token if
Dr. Humayun Ahmed had won the award would he still feel negelected
and forgotten instead of celebrating it? Before labelling the award as
political one has to objectively look at all the criteria set by the Nobel
committee and list which of the criteria was violated in the award. One
has to do one's homework before making such an extreme accusation.
cosmic thinker
From [email protected] Fri 25 Dec 1998 18:59:47
Subject: Re: [ALOCHONA] accepting the present
Agree with the spirit of this posting. Quite an appropriate reminder.
But felt motivated to add some of my own insight in view of the
use of the word "decide" in reagrd to happiness and also the
emphasis on being happy versus emphasis on "not being unhappy" in the
posting. Let me explain:
Happiness is something one cannot DECIDE to obtain. It is a result of
an interplay between an objective reality (external to self) and a
subjective perception (internal to self). There are three ways of
affecting this interplay: 1) By a conscious act to change/create the
objective reality in a way that leads to an interplay resulting in
happiness, or if unable to do so (As things are not always under one's
control and not all are blessed with luck/ability etc), play tricks
with your own mind (self hypnosis, meditation, or just pure auto brain
washing) to change/create the subjective perception again in a way
leading to an interplay resulting in happiness (It is sort cheating
with yourself) and the last way is through pure luck. The rational and
mature approach to take in life is a REALIZATION/RECONCILIATION
with the fact that not everything one wishes has to come true or that not
everything one wishes to get will be gotten (Expectations should also be
proportional to one's capability as well) and that the meaning of life or the
drive to move on in life should not be tied to the fulfilment of ones all
conceivable wishes. In other words the motto should be to learn not to
be unhappy for this or that not being fulfilled and continue living life as
best as one can. As to happiness that is an optional blessed feeling enjoy
it if/when it comes (Through any of the three ways mentioned above).
Wishing happiness to all.
cosmic thinker
From: Aparthib
Date: Thu Oct 19, 2000 1:33am
Subject: RE: [ALOCHONA] Japanese Muslim offers Tk 100cr for mosque in Dhaka
I would have to go along with Shahed Khundkar. The trickle down defense for this
project of religious tokensim is not very sound. Anything in nature is not completely
wasted. Thats a truism. The question is the percent trickled, the quality of the
trickle and the sustainability. In all counts the trickle down effect of this
100crore is of the poorest quality. The bulk of this expense will go into the huge and
expensive structure (possibly containing marblestones) which is not necessary in the
humble act of praying. God doesn't need such Alishan buildings from his mortal
subjects for his contentment. True, a small part of that money will actually trickle
down into the poor labour force. But that will also be a one time deal. Only during
the construction. No sustained trickle down benefit will accrue once the building is
completed. If that money was spent on school the money would have been spent quite
proportionately on building, educational materials etc and a sustained benefit after
the completion of infrastructure would ensue. A five star hotel would also have a
sustained trickle down beficial effect. There are mamny more ways to spend that money
in more productive way. I feel tempted to quote Marx on religion but Marx himself was
a dogmatist, but it is interesting to see how overzealous religious sentiment can
confuse one's judgement of priorities. Bangladesh being one of the poorest countries
in the world, the best thing the Japanese Muslim could think of spending part of his
huge fortune on Bangladesh was building a huge and expensive mosque. Sure he can do
whatever he choses to, and sure he deserves thanks from the beneficiaries, but my
point is that it is not newsworthy. We should be carried away with joy at the inferior
quality of the trickle down effect. Warren Buffet is a Christian as far as we know. He
could have spent millions building a church in some third world country, instead he
has bequeathed most of his fortune for the socially disadvantaged through a trust,
leaving only enough for the education of his children. Professor Abdus Salam donated
part of his Nobel money for the training of the budding young scientists of third
world countries. Those are newsworthy to me.
���
post_add3: (not posted)
re: unscrupulous scientists
True. But anyway,� physicians are really not scientists, much like
engineers except they deal with biological machines.� A mediocre
physician� can get away with the least adherence to scientific method,
A good majority of medicocre scientists are nothing but a skilled
technician with high sophistication designing techniques and taking
measurements, modelling, simulating etc. They don't need the
critical thinking� that is the hallmark of scientific creativity for all the
landmark work of� bilooiusts and physicists. Bucaille specially is a
mediocre physician, quite dated as well. But anyway $ speaks, and
an unscrupulous atheist can be bribed into advocating a particular
dogma, or an unscrupulous religios
Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 11:05:04 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Condition of minority community in Bengal
[..]
���I concur with you� on this. It is a classic� case of minorities trapped
in the vicious cycle of insecurity from just being a minority, stunting their
ability for growth as an� enterprising spirit. And if that minority has no exit
route to a more powerful neighbor� in which they can identify with the
majority then this�sense of resignation gets even more acute. For
Hindus in BD India is the obvious exit route to security. But for WB
Muslims, BD does not offer the lure of a more powerful nation, so they
are resigned to staying back. Pakistan is too far away and� is culturally
remote as well to offer a haven. Many blacks� in USA also have this
defeatist attitude also, not acting to utilize the maximum benefit that they
can legally achieve.� If Mexico was a powerful� black nation� quite likely
many blacks would find an exit route to Mexico.
Anyway the fact that� quite a few WB Muslims, Blacks in USA
do indeed still accomplish a lot� individually, just due to their sheer
ambitious
spirit is testimony to the fact that at least the sytem is not an obstacle,
irrespective
of the social� prejudice (in terms of stereotypical views, reluctance to mingle
socially� etc) towards them by a good portion of the majority.� It is human
nature to look for an easy scapegoat to explain away one's� inertia, inaction,
so as to maintain status quo, afraid of success.� Being able to subsist on a
mimimum level effortlessly,� and also justfying one's reason not to act (acting
certainly involves stress and a less lethargic lifestyle)� to move higher
is having it both ways in some sense.
Even many low income whites in USA resort to the welfare route, not taking
advantage of the government� programs and aids to put them on track.� They
are happy with whatever govt. handouts they get.� Of course there is no denying
the historical fact of genuine racial discrimination (offcial) in past.� In the
case of WB Muslims, I don't think there is any reasopn to justify this inaction.
My own experience in� visiting Kolkata (CCU) and WB , talking to some WB
Muslims, confirms this. I haven't heard any WB Muslim� complaining� against�
any official policy of not providing enough opportunities or� discrimnating them.
hose who want to achieve and are capable, they� achieve, and are not�
complaining (Like many successful� Muslims in� CCU).
Those who want status quo, are staying back in rural WB and are not
complaining either.�� So statistcs is of no significance here.� Again I am not
referring to social attitudes, thats a different issue. I may be wrong here
too, this is my personal observation only.� I would also like to hear directly from
a WB Muslim , if there is any here.
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 21:12:05 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Enthusiast not a Atheist
[..]
� Theists' claim of existence of God not only lacks� any evidence,
�� but the very definition of God suffers from internal
�� contradiction. Atheists' lack of belief in the existence of God
�� has at least some evidence going for it. So they cannot be
�� equal by any logic. There� is no evidence (all evidences cited by
�� theists are circular, begging the question, assumes the very
�� conclusion that it intends to prove) for God at all.� As a faith
�� it is acceptable, not as a concept supported by evidence.
�� Weak atheism (Which just stops at rejecting� theism without
�� making any further� positive statement) however� does not
�� suffer from any such circular logic or contradiction. And is also
�� consistent with observation and evidence. Strong atheism
�� (Which in addition to rejecting theism, also ASSERTS the
�� non-existence of any higher� level of reality than what is
�� observable) is also a faith, not supported or refuted by evidence,
�� but� still does not suffer from not self-contradiction like theism.
��[..]���
������������ Aparthib
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 08:41:50 -0000
Subject: [Aalaap] Re: Islam: A Member Shares Her Personal Observations
Mac's response:
>Will the member be kind enough to substantiate the above arguments with
>specific quotes from the Koran? Please remember that the problems in
>Islam start with its interpretation, as we would much quote from the
��� Women are certainly treated as sub-Man level if not sub-human.
��� sub-human or not� may be a judgement call in the same way whether
��� a slave or a pet, who is well cared for in terms of creature comforts and
��� kind treatment, but� denied any sovereignty over� his/her own life and
��� equal rights as� his/her master, should be judged as sub-human or not.�
��� I think to surrender one's individual sovereignty to another human and
��� being entitled to less rights than others� amounts to being reduced to
��� sub-human level, because those two� are important part of being human,
��� and they are fundamentally recognized basic human right. Now are woman
��� sovereign and entitiled to equal rights as man in the Islamic scriptures?
��� Some verses may answer this question.
�� 1. Verse 2.223:
�����YUSUFALI: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will;
����������� (Here men are being told they can approach them WHENVER they wish to
and HOWEVER they wish to, not vice versa. Does whenever and how jive with
sovereignty of women?)
��� 2. Verse 4:3�
��������� "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry
��������� women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall
��������� not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your
��������� right hands possess, that� will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing
��������� injustice. "
��������
�������� (So men CAN have four wives. It only says try to treat all four of them justly. But
�������� it is never mentioned that the permission of the other wives are needed. The
�������� other� wife/wives have to accept it.� They don't have any say on it.
�������� Does it sound like sovereignty or equal rights/respect?)
��� 3.� Verse 2.282 :
�������� YUSUFALI: "..and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not
two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so
that if one of them errs, the other can remind her..."
��������� Here a woman is worth half a man as a witness, why because she is more
prone to err.
� 4.� verse 4:11.
������ "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male,
������ a portion equal to that of two females."
������ (Women to get half as much as men� in inheritance.)
� 5.� Verse 4:34
���� "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel
���� the� other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women).
���� So good� women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded.
���� As for those from� whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds
���� apart, and scourge them."
���� (So men excel women, and wives should be BEATEN if they are rebellious.)
�����
6. ���Verse 43:18
������� PICKTHAL: that� which is bred up in outward show, and in dispute cannot
������� make � itself plain?
������� SHAKIR: What! that� which is made in ornaments and which in contention
������� is unable to make plain speech!
������� By the way, "That which is" is referring to� women. So women are
������� "Unable to give clear account, make plain speech.."�
7. Not a single verse clearly says that a woman can divorce her husband if he is
���� abusive. Divorce right is clearly mentioned for men though.
I don't wish to make this list longer (There are many mor examples).� Of course
if Hadith is considered part of Islam (Which all purists calim to be) then it gets
even worse. too many hadiths are around that are anti-women.
[..]
>. Lakum din ukum waliadin - 'means unto you, your religion,
unto me mine'.
��� The expression "To you your religion and to me Mine" can be said
����� by an RSS/Hindutya fanatic to a Muslim fanatic or vice versa without
����� being a liar/hypocrite. It is a tautological statement to make, because
����� it cannot be otherwise. It does not prevent intolerance (And it did
����� not, as we see so clearly around us).� Its like saying "I am Muslim. You
����� are a Jew". or "I am a Hindu. You are a Muslim" . Does that add anything
����� beyond the tautlogy to instil� tolerance?� A clear verse with unambiguous
����� implication of acceptance of all religion is painfully missing.
>One forgets that the sciences he talks about all have firm foundation
>in Islam, whether that be chemistry, algebra, mathematics, geometry,
>astronomy etc - indeed the first hospital's in the world were set up
>by Muslims in Iraq.
��� There is no such evidence of science having foundation in
��� Islam. (No theory of science can be directly and unanimously
��� traced to any verse in Quran or hadith). It is a fallacy
��� to attribute scientific achievement of� Muslims in medieval
��� Arabia to "Islam", becasue those achievements were due to the
��� genius of those� Muslim scientists. Those achievemnts were not
��� due to consulting� some verses of Koran or hadith as user's
��� manual.� Dr Abdus Salam got Nobel Prize in Physics due to his
��� sheer brilliance and genius, not due to his� religion. Scientific
��� achievements should not be attributed to� religious� affiliation
��� of scientists, then one would have to say " E=MC**2" was
��� based on Judaism, or that Law of gravitation was based on
��� Christianity, or that Raman Scattering� (Got C.V. Raman Nobel
��� Prize in1930) was based on Hinduism etc, or that� the unification
��� of weak and electromagnetic force� (Dt. Salam's work) had its
��� foundation on Islam.
���
>About Islamic lifestyle - there is no such thing.
���� This is confusing reality vs. the ideal. Just becasue there are
���� difference between various Islamiuc nations, that does� not
���� mean that they are ALL ISLAMIC, or that ther is no truly
���� Islamic lifestyle.� Islamic lifestyle is defined by Quran and Sharia.
���� (No dispute on� that by anyone knowledgable on Islam). It is
���� becasue there is so much differnce in lifestyles among the different
���� nations of Islam that there is a� constant� clamour among the
���� purists for implementing TRUE Islam.� Religious purists complain
���� that there are no truly Islamic� state . Only Talebans are implementing
���� Sharia strictly. And most islamic experts affirm that Sharia is
���� an indispensable part of� Islam. Without Sharia Islam cannot
���� exist. There is nothing that Talebans are doing that can be
���� proved to be violating Quran or� Sharia. They are literally
���� following it. In fact they have issued a challenge to the Islamic
���� world to prove thenm to be anti-sharia. There challenge have not
���� been refuted yet.
[..]
������ Music has not been banned in Koran, true. But poets have
������ been condemned (Can poetry be tolerated when potes are
������ condemned?). And ther is a very thin line of difference
������ betwenn poetry and a song. A poetry with an instrumental
������ support is a veriatable song. Think of rap music!
������ Here it is:
������ [Sura Ash -Shuara 26:224]
�������������� YUSUFALI: And the Poets,- It is those straying in Evil, who follow them:
�������������� PICKTHAL: As for poets, the erring follow them.
�������������� SHAKIR: And as to the poets, those who go astray follow them.
� Aparthib
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:45:49 +0600
Subject: [Aalaap] Re: Islam: Another Member Shares Her Personal Observations
[..]
Yes, it's a sad, sad, sad world; the horrifying events of black Tuesday
are stark reminders of this painful fact. But these horrors are not just
due to people's mind being made up, but due to�how people ACT ON�how their
minds are made up.� People don't have control over their minds, but certainly
they can have control over their actions. This is the discipline (the
discipline of not succumbing to one's inner desires and temptations and
committing acts that are recognized to be against human values and principles)
that civilization has instilled in humanity as a whole. That's why�certain
principles are etched in constitution that were not based on�public�polls,
and are not changeable by public polls, either, even though public sentiment
may go against that principle taken individually.� The point is it is inevitable
that sense of difference, inferiority of others, exist in�the minds of�a good
number (NOT ALL) of�the�members of any race/religion/nation� etc. But it is
also a fact that a good majority of the members of a�good majority�of�races/
religions/nations do not resort to acts� of human rights violation based on
those perceived differences�and sense of inferiority. It is no different from
a harmless individual perception of�A about the inferiority of�B within the
same racial/religious affiliation. The horrors are caused� by some members
of�certain race/religion that decides to ACT on their perceptions and commit
atrocities�against other, with the connivance and even tacit approval of�a
good number of fellow members from that race/religion. This is not to discount
the genuine grievances that�many are subjected to, but�the manner of�requiting
for such (vicarious retribution through targetting innocent civilians),
certainly is an act of implementation of�the ingrained sense of difference,
hatred and inferiority.
�������
>[..]
The above statements seem to be self-defeating in that they're�perpetuating
the view that they're�called sad in the first place.� There was no need to
make a case against the flaws of a particular religion (and making an
insinuation of racism) when an important� general statement of principle
was being purported.� But since it was�done, then to be fair one need
to be more accurate and not�leave out�other religions. None of the practices
above in Hinduism were declared� to be the word of God and immutable,
unalterable and mandated as such.� They have been scrapped and no one today
(even the�most orthodox Hindus) advocate such practice and is also banned
officially�in India.� I don't see any reason for not�allowing to convert
into Hinduism to treat as racism. But more importantly Hinduism is by
definition an inherited religion, so in strictly semantic sense�one cannot
be a Hindu unless born in it, but that does not prevent somone to be a
PRACTICING Hindu. There are many white, yellow (chinese stock) practicing
Hindus in India and the west, who are actively engaged as practicing Hindus,
doing the usual rituals and accepted in the�Ram Krishna�missions and as members
of�the Vedanata society. So defacto�conversion is allowed, if not dejure
(due to Hinduism's semantic�definition). Besides a membership in a community
is not a basic�human right but a priviledge at best, so not treating someone
as a Hindu is not a violation of human rights as it would be in true racism.
Basic human rights�violation would occur if someone is, for�example, physically
prevented/persecuted for becoming a practicing Hindu(or any religion).�
And regarding the statement that "every religion claims to be perfect", that
may well be in the mindset of all the followers, but officially only one
religion claims� in black and white to be perfect and the only acceptable one
to boot.
~Aparthib.
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:28:10 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] WTC : Some Questions
My intent here is to try to answer Eshon's valid question from an
alternate perspective which normally escapes many. It is not to
defend or criticize the views implicit in the questions, but to try
to explain them. Explanation does not mean justification necessarily.
At 9/17/01 05:11 PM, you wrote:
>
> 1. Why is that America is being regarded as the innocent victim?
>
Mind you the deads were mostly innocent civilians, including some
Bangladeshis. Can anyone provide any example of any� "innocent"
Government? Why do we have so many nations in the world in the
in the first place.? The innocence was broken long back. Because
it is a biological imperativefor humans to herd into groups and
then aggressivley maintain territoriality even at the expense of others.
Can you imagine if the corrupt leaders of Bangladesh politics were to
rule the world as the leaders of the most powerul nation? Judging from
how they are terrorizing our own innocent folks it is not hard to imagine
what they would do to others.Was Soviet Union innocent? WasChina?
The fact is individually theer are many innocent folks or even saints,
but statistically it is almost rare for the leaders of any nation to be all
a bunch of saints or innocents.
>
> 2. Why is that all across the third world countries there is distinct lack
> of sympathy for USA?
>
�� Unfortunately there are two reasons for this of very different natur,
��� so intimately linked that its hard to separate the two and truly judge in
�� an objective way which factor weighs how much. As I said, no nation
��� is innocent and US policy� does have its flaws and element of unfairness.
�� Then add to that, the fact of US being the most affluent and most powerful
��� nation. It is an ingrained human nature to hate the most poweful one
��� irrespective of its character. The other point beingit is almost instinct
��� for the third world (mostly poor, heavily dependent on religion or
��� socialistic ideals) to look at a nation based on secular and free market
��� values, both are viewd as manifestations of crass materialism in human,
��� devoid of compassion and empathy for the less capable fellow humans.
��� Either religion and communism is a symbol of a social safety net for many
��� averge folks. If US was in addition to being the wealthiest and most
��� powerful, a theocratic or communist statethen the� hatred towards US
��� would not�� have been there or as strong. So how much of this lack of
��� sympathy is due to US policies and how much due to US being what it is
��� (A capitalist,� most powerful nation on earth, secular society of mostly
whites) is hard to separate and quantify each. I don't see any logical ground
for third world countries for having any more sympathy for oil rich Arab
nations, specially Saudi Arabia, which treats humans of third world countries
as barbaric and slaves.
>
> 3. Why isn't any one trying to analyse the breeding ground/ environment of
> these terrorists?
>
���� It is not true. All are analyzing. Its just that many differ on the
breeding
���� ground.Every side has their biased view of the where the breeding ground
���� is. And it is bound to be biased in a polarization of this magnitude. It
may
���� very well� be that all sides in this issue are equal party to creating the
breeding
���� ground and its� continuation. But each wants to pointfinger at someone
else.
���� National egotism goes deep and strong in such a polarization.
>
> 4. To what extent the International policies of USA pursued through the
> last fifty years has antagonized the rest of the world (Europe excluded) to
> the point where children celebrate the death of thousands of innocent
> Americans?
>
���� Again, the policy is not as much important, whose policy is it is.
���� The US policy is not very much worse than policy of many other
���� countries, but it is bound to draw much more attention and closer
���� scrutiny for being what it is.��
������ The celebration by children, however is no well-thought out
��� act of the children themselves, but due to indoctrination by the
��� elders of their� society. During Vietnam war, many children in
��� American schools raised funds for the war ravaged Vietnam
�� and the children there. They could have been indoctrinated with
�� a hatred for the commie kids had it been the obsession of the elders
�� and instead they woulkd have celebrated the AMi ALi massacre.
�� Elders have to take responsiboility for poisoning the minds of children.
>
> 5. Why is everyone very conveniently forgetting the fact that Islamic
> fanatic terrorists were created and perpetrated by USA (Isn't it ironic
> that Laden was highly trained by CIA, Talibans were trained and fed and
> equipped by Pakistan under direct supervision of US officers) and the
> Monster thus created has only turned on its creator?
>
�� This is a genuine question to ponder for the average Americans. I
�� thinkUS mistakenly overestimated the evils of socialism and overlooked
�� the evils of religious fanaticism. At that time, religious orthodoxy
(Christian
�� and Islamic) seemed to have a common enemy. We see that in our own
�� turf when AL, BNP, LP forms alliance with Jamat to topple their common
�� rival party in power. Such is human nature.
>
> �
> 6. Have any one kept count of the number of people wiped out by US
> supported regimes in all over the so called Third World countries i.e
> Pinochet, The Duvalleirs (correct the spelling) in Haiti, Mobutu etc? Maybe
> the number should run into millions?
>
��� Again, there were USSR backed dicatatorial regimess as well. And they
��� were notbenign rulers either. They were more effective and ruthless
��� in stifling their opposition, hence not much were heard or reported.
��� But� any attempt to challenge them were certainly met with lightnming
��� precision and snubbed immediately. The number of East Germans
��� and other east Eurpean nations killed by their Soviet backed secret
��� services during the cold war is also not to be underestimated either.�
>
> 7. Specifically to the Bengalis in the forum: What role did US play in the
> liberation war of 71? What beacon of democracy and liberal values did the
> US offer to the countless Bengalis slaughtered like animal in 71?
>
�� Who helped or opposed us is an emotional issue for all Bangladeshis.
�� But does anyone� ever rememberor know even, that Israel supported
�� Bangladesh� struggle and offered military assistance, but Bangladesh
�� responded by not only spurning the offer,but also spurning Israel's
�� recognition (Probably First recognition of� indpendent after India) of
�� Bangladesh�� after the liberation. All BD� passports issued were stamped
�� as not good� for entry to Israel. And� this was all during Mujib. And
��� ironically, all Arab states, even Palestine� not only supported Pakistan,
��� it also refused to recognize BD initially.� And what about China? It too
��� supported Pakistan, and Mujib eagerly accepted� its recognition and
��� even seemed to mimic� its name (People's republic). China may not be
��� symbol of democracy, but it sure was the symbol of people's liberation.
��� After all democracy� does not permit secession which is what it was
��� technically, even though for� us it was a veritable and justified struggle
��� for independence.
>
> 8. Specifically to AK: What role did CIA play in the coup e detat of 75
> that resulted in the murder of Skeikh Mujibar Rahman and his family
> including� pregnant women and his seven year old son?
>
Conspiracy theories are easy to formulate but hard to substantiate.
It isnot uncommon to see CIA in all events (And they were indeed
� involved in many political events overseas). But there is no conclusive
� way toelimintae other factors (Not to mention the disgruntled military
humiliated by some AL politicos, or due to the formation of Rakhi Bahini)
� With no hard evidence available to us no one can say who or what
� was behind it.
>
> 9. Specifically to the freedom fighters (Muktijoddha) of this forum: What
> role did US play in stopping the grain supply under PL-480 to newly liberated
> Bangladesh (a war ravaged country thanks to the scorched earth policy of the
> Pakis who by the way was supported every inch of the way by the spokesperson
> of the free world USA) resulting in famine and death of thousands of people?
�� It was Tajuddin himself who spurned the offer of any US help even
�� before itwasoffered by US. Tajuddin was a fiercely anti-West, pro
�� Soviet politician and an ideologue (It was fashionable then). When
�� Mujib took over he did try to undo that and US helps were more
�� forthcoming. PL-480 is looked as an evil tool of exploitation of
�� imperlism. It isinteresting that not receiving this evil help� is also
�� criticized. Most importantly when thousands were dying of famine,
��� the government never acknowledged theer was one and hence no
��� offer of help came form abroad. National pride overrode all other
��� considerations then.
[...]
>
> 11. Despite the fact that USA alone in the contemporary world possesses the
> capacity of making individual strikes with deadly accuracy why is Saddam
> Hussain still alive and kicking? Maybe because a bogey is needed in the
> region to justify the US presence at the oil rich region?
US does not need an excuse for its presence. Its presence there is due
tooil. It makes no bones about it. They did say "It is all about oil", during
the Gulf war. Killing the head of a sovereign nation by razing Bagdad
� to ground by bombing� may be too far extreme a� thing to be endorsed
� by UN and even US allies. Thats why US wouldn't go that far, not that it
� doesn't want to. It has� tried all other ways to do it. But Saddam's security
� is too air tight to penetrate.
[..]
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 15:52:41 +0600
Subject: Re: [Voop] A Call to Fellow Muslims
I wish to make some suggestions and comments about the issue of how to
address and phrase the points in the Call to the moderate Muslims.� First I
have to make a prelude to make my points clear. So please bear with me.
We often hear "Its not only the goal, but also the means to the goal which
is important" or "How you say it� is no less important than what you say"
etc. In the civilized western society also this paradigm is accepeted and
emphasized. There is some price for freedom and civilization. We have to
pretend in our day to life to maintain and foster an overall stable civil
environment. We greet people with smiles whose company we don't enjoy.
We say things we don't mean always.� It is impossible to maintain 100% logical
honesty in our life, just to be policially correct. But that should not be of
any concern. As long as no basic human values are violated we can live it.
So we utter white lies for� pragmatic reasons as it does not violate ethics.
And it is this pragmatism which demands that if the goal is important, then
adopt any means, any� means� that is WHICH DOES NOT VIOLATE� CORE ETHICS.
Any means which dose not� infringe upon any one's fundamental human rights and
does� not� cause any tangible emotional and material� loss to anyone.� So I
don't see any problem with addressing as "fellow Muslims" even if� it is not
the truth, IF� that increases the odds that those "fellow" Muslims will be
willing to hear out what is being said. That is the most important goal, I
think, and the means� (addressing as Fellow Muslims) does not break any
fundamental ethics. Its small price to pay if it does help in the final goal.
Second point I would like to make is that it is also not� preferable to end
with "ex-Muslims" as that would be read more as an atheist or a convert to
another religion (By many naive Mulsims of course, who are among those being
addressed). But it does not have to be so. I can vouch that I know there are
Muslims who do not believe in such disgusting verses of Quran and Hadith and
are also secularist at heart but nevertheless would pray, fast and would not�
think themselves as apostates, or atheists. So it would be more effective if
instead the letter is signed off as "secular Huamnist/Islamist" as�
representing a broad platform of� both humanists/ atheist/secular Islalmists.
The odds are better that will listen� if they are approached as such rather
than as only atheists, ex-Muslims, etc. Think about all the women you know.
Most of them fall in this category. By insisting that they discard Islam
completely, that would alienate a significant section of the muslims (women
included). And these women are quite protective about their private� faith in
Islam and would rather take the side of the mainstream Muslims when it comes
to an issue of� dumping Islam vs. keeping it personally. Personally I don't
have any problm if the moderate Muslim men� pursue Islam the way women do (
non-thrteatening, non-intrusive, private and personal, with participtation
of� religious festivities).� If women can hold on to Islamic "faith" knowing
about the anti-women verses (They just ignore it, look the other way) , and
don't hate or believe in killing non-believers even if it is� mentioned so in
Quran, why can't men be so? And indeed many men are like these women. They
are� not much different from� the mainstream christians, Hindus, Buddhists in
that case. I think thats what we should be focussing and emphasizing.� In
other words I am suggesting a less confrontational approach to them. BUT make
no mistake, It is imperative that the negative verses� in Quran and hadith be
exposed as there are indeed many� to some who are not even aware of it.�
Because many of them would otherwise live under a false romantic idea of
Islam is all� good and perfect. Disillusionment is a must. But�
disllusionment should not be followed up with a call for total abandonment of
religion. It is an unrealistic� one as much as one would want this to be. If
no other religion can even think of their total disappearance, how
realistically one can expect the same for Islam? Of course I am sure after
the disillusionment, a good number of these moderates will themsleves
question� Islam and turn� away from it.� Therein will lie the success of the
disllusionment. A call is not needed for them. And if some diehard believer
is not affected the by the expose and disillusioned by it,� then a further
call for the demise of islam would, far from adding to any attempt to affect
them positively,� rather add to their Jihadi spirit.� For the rest, a
dispassionate expose of the scriptures itself will serve to issue the call to
them. An explicit verbal� call for total abandonment will only create an
extra baggage by closing the door for many moderates who would not even�
go any further to exmaine the content of the letter� once the see the� call for
Islam's demise. Its a common knee jerk reaction of many to close the book and
refuse to read any further, once they see some catch phrases and expressions
they don;t wish to see. Besides Most Muslims have a romantic idea about�
Islam, and� they look upon it as a symbol of nationalism, if� not for�
personal comfort. The fact this meme of Islam has been allowed to propagte/
expnad and firmly ingrained in the brain for 1400 years, now it is so
deeprooted, and for so many it has become, in addition to being a vehicle for
personal comfort,�a symbol of the meaning of their life, a symbol for
national pride, that at this late stage of the game it is unthinkable to make
abrupt reversal from Islam to "no Islam".� All other religions have a
mechanism of� adaptation, Islam doesn't. Therein lies the biggest dilemma
that need to be addressed. And it is through pragmatic ploys that this
dilemma need to be solved. Because If� Islam is to be� totally discarded,
what� are they going to cling on to? Atheism?�Thats not realistic. Other
religions? that would be distastrous to�ethnic/national pride. Its like
surrendering one's identity to the rival,accepting defeat, crestfallen and
vanquished. A mass desertion from Islam is not forseeable unless such mass
desertion happens from other religion as well, purely from a egoistic reason.
So a call for abandoning religion, if at all, has to be pan-religious
movement.� The call for the demise of Islam is reminiscent of the war of the
crusades to many naive Muslims.� There is no denying to this reality. The
transition from orthodox Islam to ratioanlism is better done through an
iterative process, stage by stage. First from orthodox Islam to "reformed
Islam" (through artful means), as oxymoronic as it may sound, but it is
possible in practice, if not in theory, if the majority of moderates agree to
it and work for it. And it is possible as many Muslims are already reformed
muslims in practice� (even though they can be technically� be called
hypocrites from the strict puritanic standards of orthodox Islam). Many
remformed christians are also hypocrite by strict christian scriptures. But
nobody is making an issue about it. I think Yusuf Quradawi is one such
reformist. Ausaf Ali is another. Once a reformed Islam is accepted and is
implemented, then it will become easier to push further for less and less
Islam. The net generation of� rationalists will then champino the cause for
more liberal views, atheism, skepticism etc, as is the case in christianity.
Trying to go the whole hog in one swoop� has less odds for success. I have
expressed my views impromptu, I may have overlooked some considerations
as well,. But I hope it does provide some alternate factors that may be relevant
in all this effort and help us get closer to a final effective strategy.�
Regarding the role of Freeperson, Bishnu et al, I don;t see any reason for
them to be distinct identity here. We are all humans here, with a common goal.
Defanging Islam is the common goal, as it affects ALL. Our names are
irrelevant. It is the message that is important. We are not even going to
sign off with our real names anyway (Or as I understand only one is going to
sign off for all). So all are equally important and relevant in this.
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:34:27 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] A personal Mesaage to all the Mukto Monas.
At 9/23/01 07:02 PM, you wrote:
>
> Given the above, the world would be better off without Islam.
>
> Fine, what do we offer instead?
>
> Rationality? Humanism? Freethinking?������
>
> What meaning does these high sounding words offer to the thirtyish rickshaw
> puller who lives in the slum quite near my house and everyday shows up on
> the clock to take me to the office?
�������� You got two things confused here. Nobody is suggesting travelling
�������� barefoot among the poor door to door and asking them to give up
�������� religion.� Poverty is social scourge and� in fact religious bigotry acts
�������� as a hindrance to its eliminations as is so evident in Bangladesh
�������� where women empowerment (which is one important means of
��������� poverty elimination), and familiy planning (another) have both
�������� met with aggressive resistnace by the orthodox. Many NGO offices
�������� have been vandalized and women threatened for� getting help from
�������� the NGO's to stand on their own feet.� Poverty elimination, social
�������� programmes are important and both the government and private
�������� agencies can do a lot if they wish to help in this effort. Fighting
�������� religious bigotry and poverty have to be done on separate fronts
�������� . It is not one or the other, or one at the cost of another. Religious
�������� orthodoxy has hindered social progress. All the Muslim nations are
�������� behind in science and technology. If it were not for the oil, Arab
�������� nations would be in a dire social condition. And as you pointed
�������� out , the poor in Bangladesh do not care much for religious rituals,
�������� if it clashes with their day to day struggle to live. It is like glorifying
�������� poverty as fighting bigotry! Thats an unfortunate irony. Because if
�������� the underlying religious orthodoxy ingrained in the society is not
�������� reddressd then if war on only the poverty front is ever won, then
people� would revert to religious obscurantism, since poverty would
no longer� get in the way of religious orthodoxy. So the target of
rationalism, freethought and humanism are not the poor, but people
who are in the position to lead, take charge in responsible positions
to affect the policy of the country which will ultimately affect the lives
�������� of the lowest strata of the socieety. There are many educated and
�������� people like you who are still too steeped in religious dogmatism to
�������� offer any real visionary role in the society. And they are the one
�������� writing and spaeking can change, however slowly it comes about.
�������� You uare are not suggesting they stop writing, and English is not
�������� the issue, nor writing from foreign soils. All can and should
partcipate in this effort. Nowadays, many are writing from
Bangaldesh and their� writings are also being read in Bangladesh.
Internet is and will continue to become an important medium in
Bangladesh, so it should not be sneezed at. Of coiurse again it
should stop someon efrom wrting and speaking on other foruns
and media. the more doiversified it is, the better. But if you prefer
to work in villages, slums, with the poor,� all the power to you.�The
two fronts need not be adversarial or mutially exclusive.����������������� ���
>
> Yet he will not openly oppose a Mullah unless that Mullah clashes with his
> way of living.
> �
>
> Morale?
>
> The change will come from within and from the lowest classes...not from
> statements, not from English writing people on the net showing off their
> mental prowess, not from a cowbow president riding a nation of insular
������ Again it is linking two differnt issues, as I said above. But
������ change, if it was going to come from the lowest classes, it
������� should have come long ago. Their has been lowest class
������� since time forgotten. Rather, it is the lack of a leadership
������� with vision, that has been the cause of this lag. And why
������� bring Bush into all this. He is just acting no worse than any
������� president would when thousands of� civilians are killed by
������� terrorist attack of an unprecdented magnitude.
>
> individuals and proclaiming a Crusade and actually thinking about his
> re-election, not from secularist self proclaimed muslim apostates who jab
> at fanatics from a safe distance, not from individuals who jump at
> soemthing like WTC and gleefully rub their hands thinking ' Gotcha....Uncle
> Sam is going to show all those Muslims this time...we will get rid of
> Muslim fundamentalism at one stroke, the World will be free'.
�������� Its not true. many Americans are not thinking this way.
�������� A destructive act of this magnitude is bound to provoke
�������� some bitter feelings. But there is ample evidence of
�������� call for� prudence and restraint among many Americans
�������� in any possible counter measures by USA. We will have to
�������� wait and see how it unfolds and not be hasty in passing
�������� judgements.
>
> All these women, children I see every morning and evening pouring in or out
> from the Garments Factories, all these rickshaw pullers and day laborers
> [..]their survival. These are the people who will ensure some day that
> religion
> will be kept on a personal level, not some grandiose call to eradicate Islam.
�������� I don't see how they "will" ensure in future, if it has not
�������� happened yet. They indeed keep it at personal level. But
�������� that is not the problem. It is the religious orthodoxy that
�������� resides at the core of the society that� acts as a roadblock to
�������� to progress which is the problem. I agree that just a grandiose
�������� "call" to "eradicate" Islam will not do it. But an accurate
�������� expose of religion and its basic� tenets� that has been acting
�������� as a hindrance to progress can certainly� do a lot by
�������� illuminating the powerful and educated segment of the society,
�������� who will take up important role in the society, government.
�������� Failing to create this awareness of� rationalism against religious
�������� bigotry,� obscurantism and emphasizing the need to keep
�������� religion private� need not be abandoned due to poverty of
�������� millions.
Added in a followup message:
I wrote:
�������� of the lowest strata of the socieety. There are many educated and
�������� people like you who are still too steeped in religious dogmatism to
�������� offer any real visionary role in the society. And they are the one
�������� writing and spaeking can change, however slowly it comes about.
�������� You uare are not suggesting they stop writing, and English is not
�������� the issue, nor writing from foreign soils. All can and should
I meant to say:
There exist many people who are EDUCATED like you but
unlike you are too steeped in religious doma to offer any real
visionary role in the society. And they are the one who CAN BE
changed by writing and speaking to them, however slowly it
comes about. You are not suggesting that we stop writingto
them in English and in the internet , are you?
Re: [Aalaap] Of Telling the Truth 10/6/01
[..]�����
�� One thing which is time and again clarified yet still seems to be
�� missed by many is that the core principle of secularism is separation
�� of church and STATE, not between church and�INDIVIDUALS/PRIVATE
�� ORGANIZATIONS. This is not too subtle a distinction to understand.
�� And the reason for this principle is very simple, common sensical and
�� fair. Any PUBLIC/STATE entity belongs to and often is supported
�� (through tax) by citiziens� of all affiliations (Atheist,� agnostic,
�� fanatics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hundus..). So for a
�� public/state� institution to promote/allow� specific�religious
�� practice/exhortation in a PUBLIC/STATE affairs or premises� is a
�� tacit�preferential granting of�priviledges to that religion and an
�� explicit breah of secular principle. To be fair ALL affiliations should
�� be given equal priviledge. But�since not all religious groups are
�� equally intrusive or interested in promoting their�beliefs and rituals
�� (Some�even detest such advertizing in public) that would be unfair
�� to them. Besides it would be an extra overhead to grant such�
�� priviledges to ALL. So the sensible option is to not allow such
�� priviledges at all in public/state funded affairs and institutions.
�� Of course it is a truism to say (but nevertheless worth repeating
�� as� it is also missed) that one is free to privately utter /preach or
�� deliver�religious harangues in� public places. So while it is
�� wrong for a public institution to preach/promote religion in,
�� there� is nothing worng for a student in a public school to preach
�� or� sermoinize to his fellow students outside the class. Private
�� religious� bodies can and do rent public spaces for religious occasions.
�� We see that� routinely in public� institutions where auditoriums are
�� rented by� religious bodies� for religious festivities/ceremonies or�
�� individuals� privately� sermonzing� in open squares within a public
�� institutions.� They are� not� breaking any secular law� and those
�� incidents are not� raised as issues by� supporters of secular principles
�� , unlike� the� issues of prayer in public schools or putting up banners
�� or similar clear cases of breach od secular principles.�The important
�� thing to� realize is that it is not the religious�signs or�practices itself
�� that should bother anyone, but the insensitivity shown through breach
�� of� secular principles (breach identified by clear guidelines).� Nobody
��should�be and is bothered (at least externally) by any religious
��exhortations/rites and practices when they are done within the secular
��guidelines.
�����
�� Regarding the "In God we trust" inscription on US currency,� it is
�� against the principle of secularism in a puritanic sense. But that
�� may be the only exception with a good reason (Not for its original
�� decision to inscribe it, but for not doing anything about it now). Note
�� that "In God we trust" does not favour Christians. It applies eqully
�� to Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists (In a philosophical sense for
�� them, a Buddhist maxim� says that whoever loves all creatures loves
�� God). The original founding fathers� may not have atheists and
�� agnostics in mind, or may be they interpreted that all have some
�� abstract sense of a God (Even atheists view the laws of nature as the
�� Ulimate entity, a sort of God). Besides as I mentioned, this dictum
�� is general enough to accomodate all religions. More importantly US
�� constitution explicitly states secularism. So that effectively abrogates
�� the verse in the inscription, if at all one is concerend about the
�� inscription. At least it is not a divine abrogation, but a human one :).
�� Nevertheless, to take�away the� inscriptions� now may be an extra
�� overhead as well.I don't think the cost may be worth it. UNDOING this
�� fait accompli�has a cost associated with and will only benefit the
�� atheists. On the other hand�doing something�which is clearly against
�� secular principles, benefitting only a specific religion, and when "not
�� doing it"� does not� have any cost associated with it, hardly has any
�� reason to justify doing it.
�� Secularism now�has much more relevance and significance in
�� view of the conspicuous� multi religious� nature of US society (with
�� all its shades), so any new� initiative has to be� subjected to a more
�� stringent scrutiny to see if it satisfies the� secular guidlines.
[..]
��Aparthib
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:33:47 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] I miss Bangladesh
Acknowledging the genuineness of the feeling of despair as
expressed below, there is a dispassionate way to look at things
aso that might help. The issue is of racims, both its reality and
its perception.� One thing few of us realize thgat racism has been
accepted and legitimized by ALL by the very act of nation formation.
The very existence of� various nations� primarily based on racial
similarities is a tacit racism in action. Of course, pragmatism, new
economy, technology has forced significant cracks in this dividing
wall. But racism is also a more pervasive entity than one realizes.
It is only a matter of degree and scale.� Look at the way the
Middle East nations treat people of the� subcontinent, like slaves,
Miskins. lower breed etc. Go to Korea, Japan and live there, and see
how they view our race. They will not stare at you (Its not their
habit), but socially/officially you will never be given the same status
as themselves. And how about us? Our folks call the white skinned
foreigners "Red Monkeys/Farangs" etc. One cannot escape it anywhere.
To reductively deconstruct this endemic� aspect of life� one ultimately
would be� led to one's� immediate family. So it all about selfish
genes. Escaping in Bangladesh may save one from one form of racism,
but it will not protect one from the indigenous form of it. Where we
see one region mocking accent of another region, refusing to even
intermarry, uttering sterotypes about the others. (Oh, they are from
Comilla, never marry your daughter/son to their familly..), or "What
can you expect, they are from� Sylhet.." etc.� And then reduce it further,
it will be someone from the same region/village saying� "Oh they are
from that family", never even think of� .. etc. Its never� going to end
until you end at your immdeiate family (Same gene). Tell me where
can you escape racism. At the end the only lament� that makes
sense is� "I� miss my family". Again selfish gene is the buzz word.
Now come to the problem of heightened tension in US after the Sep 11
incident. Heightened bitter feelings provoked by an incident are
not necessarily any more racist than what is already dictated by selfish
gene. After all, as the anecdote below testifoes, before Sep 11, friendly
people were complementating� saris,� salwar kamiz etc.� So this new
feeling is a cause-effect one. Although, it is misdirected in many cases, as
was in this case. Of course, not all are terrorists. By the same token, not all
Americans are� racists (Beyond the biologically ingrained one that we
all are equal endowed with) either. There are equally or more� incidents
of Americans (Of course white is implied here) who are very conscientious
about not misdirecting their outrage and are very cautious to distinguish,
many are openly advocating tolerance and prudence. There may be few
incidents of hate, but many more incidents of non-hate (people of foreign
origins going to work, or other places, being treated the same as always by
their white American collegues/boss, or by their� neighbors, friends ) do not
get noticed or advertized either. The negatuve incidents/feelings� is a
reaction to an action (And a very nasty action) and is very focussed. Blacks,
who are traditionally asscoiated with racism, are not being targetted this
time. I have not heard of KKK exploiting this incident to target agaunst the
blacks. So it would be an overreaction to characterize this as racism,
although it is indeed rooted in the biologocal racism that exists in all of us.
As unpleasant as it feels to be a target of this, we have to understand it
dispassionate in the proper perspective. When I first arrived in US two
decades ago ther was this residual feeling of bittreness towrad iranians
and Iranician looking people after the US hostage incident in Tehran by
Khomeni. One man cam and asked me "Are you Iranian?". I said no. He
walked on and so did I. It did not bother me. I understood it. In few years
it became a dead issue for all foreigners as well as Iranians in USA. It never
had any lasting effect or impact. This time it will be more deeprooted. But
understnding it peoperly is still required. And it may again become a
non-issue if it is not fuled any further by anyone from any side.
At the end, one is free to go back to one's native country, if it does not
work out for anyone. At least one does not have to stay here. One can
always come back anytime they wish to (Most are imigrants and citizens
anyway). Having lived about two decades in US I have never�bothered
about second class citizen etc., nor was it necessary, I have worked in
company, with white, Cuban Black immigrant , and Indian immigrants
as bosses and collegues. In school, as a graduate teaching assistant, I
have been treated with respect by native white Ameican students and
sometimes even held to reverance at a discomforting level (Being called
professor etc, may be due to my glasses). anecdotes don't� establish a
general principle, but they refute a general stereotypical rule by citing
exceptions to the rule.
Re: [eShomabesh] Criticism of K.Armstrong's essay in Time Magazine
10/14/01 (msg# 3827)
I don't see any reason to take personally any contra or favourable views
expressed on an issue. Regarding the views of Karen Armstrong, one can
agree or disagree with her and provide reasons for that. It would be useful
to see some logical counterpoints against the points refuting the views
of Mrs. Armstrong. The response below didn't provide that. Let me address
some selected comments:
>
> 1. Karen Armstrong is not a Muslim. This means that she cannot be biased in
>her writing. Muslims did not ask her to favour them.
Doing a research on the possible motives of one's views is not
a logically admissible route. One can only do a criticque of the
views and points expressed. One's personal background/affiliation
is irrelevant. Affiliation or background does not make a logical
case against or in favour a point. For example being a Muslim is
not a necessary prerequisite for being biased in favour of Muslims.
There can be ten other reasons for being biased. Naivette, and
perceptive limitations may affect critical objective evaluation
of facts among others . Then there CAN BE selfish motives
behind puposely expressing a favourable view knowing the
unpleasdant side of it. Not knowiung which is true one can only
in good conscience focus on the message itself and only provide
points and facts that provide direct logical vindication or
contradiction of her views.
> 2. She is a researcher and has written her article after a thorough study
>of the entire religion and its history.
This kind of logic is unacceptable and is a well-known fallacy of
Ad Verecundiam (appeal to authority). Doing research (gathering
historical data in this case) in itself is no guarantee for an objective
view. Ability to think critically with an unbiased attitude without
naivette is also needed. So again her research is not relevant in
offering any counterpoint against the points refuting her views.
>
>What you are trying to do with her writing and your quotations from the
>Quran can be likened to a person who selectively quotes the judges' sentence
>from court proceedings, "the defendant shall be hung by the neck till dead"
>and calls the judge cruel and unjust. At the same time asks the public to
>form opinions about the statement given by the judge, while omitting the
>background. What would you say of a journalist who does such things with
>news reports? Such a person spreads evil in the society.
The analogy with the judge's verdict, as attractive as it appears, still
fails to provide any logical counterpoint. The "taken out of context"
is a cliche defense and is by itself ineffective, unless the missing context
is presented in a dispassionate factual form. And not all quotes and
citations need a context. The required context is self -evident in most
cases. For example the judge's verdict one does not need to know the
contetual details of the litigation or the jury deliberations. Just being
told it is a judge's verdict is adequate to appreciate that the verdict
is not a case of torture or cruelty. The unacceptable nature of some
of the scriptural quotes can not be diluted by any context, becasue
no context can justify such a quote if the quotes are supposedly
attributable to divine and sublime souirce. It is understandable that
such a dilution is possible for human quotes. An ideal divine sayings
should be far too perfect to need a context to make it appear palatable.
To: [email protected]
Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2001 5:45 PM
Re: Is Islam Truly a Religion of Peace? - Response to M.Mahbub
I will adrress selected comments from M.Mahbub's article (12 of them)
under the "Is Islam Truly a Religion of Peace?" topic. I hope to cover
some general points, not just line by line rebuttal of his article.
M.Mahbub:
1. (a)Mr Kamran let off of some steam and (b) accused Muslims of all sorts of
nasty things.
2. Mr Kamran wants to rid the world of Islam and those who practice it .
3. "It probably it is true that" Mr. Kamarn is a fanatic.
4. Mr. Kamran acted like a raving madman.
5. Mr Kamran is filled with spite
6. "causes" for the very extreme actions of a very small minority of Muslims
not all are "fanatics" like Mr. Kamran.
My Response:
Does 1-6 above ring the bell to anyone with familiarity with logic 101?. If
not let me remind them of ad hominem arguments , which is well-known
in philosophical litterature as a fallacious attempt to cover up weakness
in the arguments by resorting to personal attack. Just by staring at the above
one can infer that not much strong arguments were there in the article. Not
only are 1-6 irrelevant to the discussion but also contain accusations that
are not verifiable, specially the accusations in 1 and 2 above. I don't have to
know Mr. Kamran, but chances are pretty good that he does not accuse the
following (All are Muslims) of "all sorts of nasty things" (as accused in 2(b)
above):
His father/mother/sister/brother/son
Millions of good hearted, god fearing peasants/boatmen/cowherds
etc in rural Bangladesh, working hard to make an honest living, who
pray and fast, but are least bothered about dogmas and political
doctrines of Islam
Now the above two, one could list more does a cover a lot of Muslim
folks to make the accusation in 2(b) invalid (i.e accusing Muslims of all sorts
of nasty things.), unless one argues that the folks covered above are not
Muslims. If one exception breaks a rule then more than one exceptions
certainly does so. Hence I can safely conclude he was not accusing "Muslims"
(with no qualifier prepended or appended) of nasty things. I leave it for others
to go further and discuss who were being accused of nasty things.
Now let me turn to the non ad-hominem part of the article, and see what
lessons of philosophy we can glean from it, if any:
M.Mahbub:
7. Osama Bin Laden was created by Saudi Arabian Government, he
was pushed to new extremes by the most secular and fanatic people in
the Kingdom.
My Response:
This is a fallacy of causal reductionism or complex cause. In logic, a true
cause is identified as the one that is not only necessary but also
sufficient to bring about the effect. Saudi gov. did contribute to OBL's genesis.
But so did OBL's father by giving birth to him. And by induction OBL's
grandfather and so. But none of them are the sufficient cuase, which is provided
by OBL himself by the way he "chose to exercize his free will". He is to be blamed
first and foremost, as well as his abettors. Nobody can turn one terrorist unless
one chooses to be. And we are referring to terrorism that involves INTENTIONAL
targetting of innocent civilians for murder for whatever cause (just or not). Yes,
US is also killing civilians while bombing Afghanistan. But the civilians were
not intentionally targeted. It is an unfortunate and often side-effect, beyond control,
which is regrettable and worthy of condemnation as well, but never as culpable
as the intentional acts of terrorism of OBL and other extremists targetting civilians,
which is a dastardly act. The extremists are pushed to extremism by the
fanatic secularists? What a convenient characterization!. Why not call them
religious hypocrites instead? None of the Saudi ruling class members ever
advocate secularism or does anything in the nam e of secularism. It is an
oxymoron. They are revulsed by the very concept. More on this oxymoronic
characterization in item 10 below.
M.Mahbub:
8. Oppression and the deprivation of political rights breeds extremism. And the
people who are doing the depriving, are always fanatical secularists.
My response;
Not substantially different from 7 above. Just to add that political deprivation
should not legitimize religious extremism which affects innocent civilians who
have nothing to do with the alleged repression. A political repression has to
be countered by a political struggle also involvng mass participation of a
movement against the oppressors. We have seen that with Mandela in
South Africa. Has OBL or other extremists done anything to directly address
any repression by political leadership? Besides a the repression of the Saudi
Gov. is not just a political one, but due to theocracy as well. A theocracy is
not compatible with democracy. It is simplistic to think that OBL is against
the repression of the Saudi Authorities for establishing democracy. He also
believes in theocracy, as radical, if not more than the current one. he is in
favour of replacing one repression for another.
M.Mahbub:
9. Muslims are a very peace full people generally.
My response:
The above implies that a counterstatement to the effect that "Muslims"
are "generally" very violent was made. But was it? Not as far as I know.
This was a red herring fallacy or the fallacy of irerelevant conclusion:
Anyway the point is that what is normally alleged is that there exists
sayings in scripture that extremists can use to legitimize (without much
stretch) their extremist acts. The critics of the extremists who
accuse them of having misinterpreted the sayings can be equally or
more justifiably accused by the extremists as having themselves
misinterpreted them. It is understandable that the apologists who
accuse the extremists of "misinterpretation" are motivated by a
defensive instinct to exonerate themselves (since any criticism of
scriptures automatically implicates its adherents), but the recourse
they take is indefensible.The problem cannot be resolved by playing
the broken record of "taken out of context". Without a serious and
critical look into scriptures, the only defensible recourse which is
imperativeis a consistent and serious punitive measures against
the extremists and their leaders by the religious apologists (and
their spiritual leaders) who accuse them of misinterpreting scriptures.
If the extremists are indeed misinterpreting religion to justify their
heinous acts, then their acts is the ultimate insult of religion, and
they are no less qualified for religious fatwa than the writers who
were also targeted for fatwa for their alleged insult of religion,
but who unlike the terrorists never committed any heinous acts of
extremism through misinterpretation of scriptures. So who is more
qualified for fatwa? Why not the apologists and their spiritual
leaders for once prove their sincerity? The apologists cannot have it
both ways, in one breath criticizing (quite mildly) the acts of
extremists by arguing that such acts are due to misinterpretation of
religion, and in another breath defending the very same acts as
legitimate reaction to repression. The question as to if "Islam is a
religion of peace" is a question that cannot have a theoretical
answer. Its answer depends on observations from reality, not from
interpretations by theoreticians. If the extremists of religion "X" starts
engaging in extremists acts against other religions in the name of
"X" religion, by an ingenuous reinterpretation of scriptures of "X",
with impunity, and no nation, leaders of religion "X" bring them to book,
then by all practical criterian "X" will become identified as a religion of
violence, not of peace. And if scriptures of "X" did have sayings that
could be misinterpreted without much stretch, then the perception of
'X" not being a religion of peace would be even more justified. It would
not matter how much theorizing an apologist of "X" does. When Spanish
Inquisitionists were torturing their fellow Europeans in the medieval times
with impunity, christianity was identified as a religion of torture by its
victims. Not so anymore. So the true answer to this rhetorical question
lies in reality, not in the utterances of any apologist. The bottom line is
that if a religion does not have extremists who by their extremist acts
singularly destroys the peace of the world for all, then that religion is
viewed as a religion of peace, regardless of what is contianed in its
scripture, good or bad. The scripture will be ignored as being of no
significance. On the other hand, if a religion does have extremists
who destroy the peace for all, AND when they are defended as well
while being criticized mildly, and not deterred by the sosciety, religion
to which they belong, from committing such acts, then that religion will
be viewed as not a religion of peace. And in this case, any negative
messages in the scriptures will assume significance and will not be
ignored by the rest or caanot be dismissed by the "out of context"
defense.
M.Mahbub:
10. Out of the 50 wars in the last decade only 2 were in the name of religion.
My response:
And so the implication is the other 48 wars were in the "name of secularism".
Here we have what is known as the fallacy of false dilemma .
It it is not due to cause A, it must be due to casue B, ignoring cause C, D,.. a
host of them. Not only that, the cause B (secular fundamentalism) chosen is
a logically oxymoronic one. There is no "in the name of secularism" clause for
extremism. How can secularism which has no scriptures that can be
misinterpreted to commit acts of extremism?. What is secular fundamenatlism
anyway? Fundamentalism is defined in a general sense as (Merriam-Webster):
"a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of
basic principles"
So "Secular fundamentalism", if at all has to be meaningful and non-oxymoronic
can only be of neutral or positive value, since it only means strictly adhering
to the principles of secularism. Does any principle ever preach
"non-strict adherence? And what does secularism affirm? It mainly affirms
separation of state and religion, equal tolerance towards all religions,
opposes all sorts of religious coercion on dissidents and members of other
religions etc. So how on earth can one launch extremist act "in the name of
strict secularism"? It is a convenient ploy to divide humans into two camps
A and B and then blame an act of crime to B, if it cannot be blamed on A.
One such convenient compartmentalization is, religionist ans secularist
camp. So if an act is not committed due to religious fanaticism, it must be
committed due to secular fanaticism. So if a rapist, mugger, acid-thrower,
extortionist etc is not doing it in the name of religion, they must be doing
it in the name of secularism. What an ingenious way to discredit
secularism. And some naive secularists fall for such indgenious traps.
M.Mahbub:
11. In summary, the greatest threat to humanity are not the religious fanatics
declaring war on America, etc, but the ones who spawn such people.
My Response:
Nobody spawns a religious fanatic. A fanatic is a fanatic by choice,
through exercize of freewill. If at all, a spawner has to be identified
outside the fanatic, then the closest one is religion itself, without religion,
there cannot be religious fanatic, and then one can go further and
identify the creator of religion as the ultimate spawner of religious
fanaticism. Of course then someone will blame the creator of the
creator of the religion. Where does this end?
If a fanatic is absolved by blaming it on a putative spawner, then ANY
crime can be absloved by blaming it on some putative spawner by using
clever sophistry. Shifting the buck conveniently when suits oneself is an
old ploy.
M.Mahbub:
12. Once war occurs Muslims are told to be relentless in their fight to defend
themselves and eliminate oppression, but ony after war starts, not before..
My Response:
Is that really profound? Which religion, race, nation says that once a war
starts, sit back, relax and be a sitting duck? Was that an issue at all for
discussion?. The moot issue was whether a call for religious war is at all
justified against a nation, religion, civilians etc, for whatever cause cited by
the extremists, NOT whether one should be relentless or not in the fight
ONCE it starts. The latter is a non-issue and common sensical. This was
again a case of red herring fallacy.
Aparthib Zaman
post_add18:
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 15:52:25 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] MUSLIM WOMEN HAVE DEFICIENT INTELLIGENT
[..]
[..Lina]
���� well, here are some more translations of 43:18 below:
�� ����� 1. "Do they then like for All�h) a creature who is brought up in
adornments (wearing� silk and� gold ornaments, i.e. women), and in
dispute cannot make herself clear?"
���� ������ As you can see� the translators added the annotation� "i.e woman"�
to leave no room� of doubt here.� ( From� the translations by� Version of At-Tabari,
Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir � By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D and
Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan see
http://www
.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/noble/nobae043.htm)
��� 2. From your favourite Rashed Khalifa:
��� �� [az-Zukhruf 43:18] (They say,) "What is good about an offspring that is
brought� up� to be beautiful, and cannot help in war?"�
�( From http://mama.stg.brown.edu/webs/quran_browser/Versions/khalifa.shtml )
���� Now would you say "brought up in ornaments" and "beautiful" applies
���� to men? hahaha.
[..Lina]
��� No, it is the sequence that is important.� Finger pointing in defense
��� is� justifiable, but not a gratuitious one. To quote Shlomi Tal "Never
��� initiate an attack", only attack "in response". [...]
[..]Lina
������ Its all in the interpretations.� I admiited before that your� personal
������ interpretions (although quite a strectch) are more in line� with
������ humanism and not at all oppressive, but as much credit I give you
������ for that the reality is that the prevalent interpretations which is
������ followed by most moderates (And is the most accurate one, as
������ all interpretators do agree on it) and hard cores are not the same.
������ So� you may be in a small minority camp (The "Having it bothways
������ camp").
�����������
� P.S�� You may very well agree with me and still defending your
������ interpretations� just to have it bothways, or to neutralize
������ the more accurate yet obscurantist interpretations which you
��� ��� dislike. I can understand if that is the case.
Re: [eShomabesh] Criticism of K.Armstrong's essay in Time Magazine
Date: 10/19/01
Khurram Sajid wrote:
>I don't know what this fuss is all about. One's religion is based on
>faith and not pure logic.
���� I agree, religion is based on faith, not logic. This conclusion itself
���� is based on logic though.� If religion was truly accepted as faith
���� only by its apologists, no preaching would be possible. One cannot
���� propgate faith to others by simply staing that "I belive in "X".�
���� Preaching of "X" by A to B involves A' stating as to why he believes
���� in "X" and thereby motivating B to form the faith. Preaching is
���� inherently a propagation of a faith by RATIONALIZATION. Without
���� the rationaalization faith would remain static among those who
���� claimed to have formed it through direct divine source. The very
���� act of preaching demands that one give "reasons" to have faith in
���� religion.� Nobody else will take others' divine experience seriously,
���� unless good reasons are provided to believe in them. And when
���� reasons ans arguments are made, invariably that opens up the
���� possibility (quite justifiably) of a counter argument, contra
���� reason etc. (logic uavoidably comes up.). So, yes, while it is true
���� that faith as formed by those claiming to have formed it through
���� direct divine experience, is not amenable to logic,� religion, which
���� is a result of propagation of faith through rationalization (attempts)
���� loses this immunity and becomes a fair game for logical analysis.
���
>
>
>Mr. Aparthib, I have one objection to your statements. You are *assuming*
>that scriptural quotes coming from God stand on their own and don't need a
>context. This is an assumption just like many assumptions made by many of
>us ;-)
���� If one thinks carefully, it is not a matter of assumption, but
���� one of logical consistency.� And it is a matter of� mixing and
���� matching criteria approprite to� divine being and that appropriate
���� to mortals(humans). The problem I am referring to is one of
���� self-consistency, not a matter of� knowing the historical context.
���� The fact that the verses of the scriptures NEED a human context
���� to make sense or to avoid being interpreted negatively logically
���� points to its human source. A divine verse should not need a
���� context made up by HUMANS. It is self-contradictory. A divine
���� verse should provide it itself, it should be built in. All the
���� attempts to explain a verse by a context relegates this entire
���� exercize as� BY HUMANS, OF HUMANS sort of affair. Only human
���� quotes (less than perfect) do need human contexts. A divine
���� quote by its very requirement of� perfection should not be
���� dependent on a human interpretor. It will lose its divine
���� nature that way. So it is an internal inconsistency which no
���� contexts of� historical facts, anecdotes, events etc can remove
�����
>
>I am a practising muslim. I can say this about Quran: God wanted to
>transmit a divine message but had to transmit it in a man-made language.
>Statement made in *any* language needs a context. For example, a simple
>mathematical� statement like 1+1=2 is true only in a context defined by
>the axioms of the particular theory in question.
��� This anology like the one of� the judge's verdict, is not really that
��� relevant. Maybe we need to redefine what context means :)
��� It is not clear why a divine message� meant FOR HUMAN should
��� have diffculty in being transmitted IN HUMAN language. By the way
��� many aplogists strongly claim Arabic as a God given language, or
��� at least the language CHOSEN by God. Now would all-powerful
��� God choose or send a language with such limitations?� That would
��� be another internal inconsistency. But let me for� argument's sake
��� agree that indeed it is diffcicult� for God� to transmit divine message
��� in a man made language. But then if a human can make it easy to
��� understand the message by providing contexts,� then surely God,
��� much more powerful could do better and provide a better context
��� himself, thus avoiding all the controversies that man made
��� interpretations invariably give rise to. Something to think about.
��� Thanks.
��� Aparthib
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 14:43:32 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Re: Who Created You? response to Javacrucian
In response to Ryan:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/3094
=================================================
Important points to note in the contet on the creator� question:
1.�� It is easy to answer a wrong question, because any wrong answer is
�� �as good an answer to a wrong question as any other. A wrong answer
��� is easy to come up with.
2.� It is not always easy to ask the right question, and when it is
�� � possible, the right answer� is often quite hard to come up with.
��� Sometimes the right answer is not even logically possible, and
���� one may never know the answer becasue of� cognitive limits.
3.� Which question is asked wrongly and which one rightly is
� ��a subtle one, but� is easy for those who is fairly analytic and
� ��cares to think logically.
Now come to the crux: The question "WHO created you?"
is NOT the right question.
It does not matter if� individually A or B disagrees with my above
assertion. Professional philosophers, scientists who are employed
in all secular schools supported by tax payers and private sponsors
(ranging form the mediocre to the top notch) overwhelmingly hold
the concensus view that it is not the right question. The right question
is WHAT is the underlying natural cause if any behind the creation of life.
And the answer to that�IS KNOWN. IT IS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. What
is not known is what is the underlying natural cause, if any, behind the
existence of�THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. It is not inconceivable that the Laws
of Physics are there uncreated, from eternity upto eternity. If we claim
limitations of human understanding (Which is conveniently used
by theists to affirm the existence of a creator), then there is no reason
to dismiss the eternal uncreated existence of the laws of physics
which gives rise to all diverse patterns and order in the cosmos.
The nature of the laws of physics is such that it leads to the creation
of life (via the route:
Physics+ the laws of complexity->Chemistry->biology->Life
IF the right set of conditions are met. And only the earth meets
all those conditions within the range of our observations so far.
Whether�the�laws of complexity are a themselves rooted in Physics
or are autonomous laws themselves is not known, but�nevertheless
they are natural laws.�Life is nothing but an implementation of a
code (cosmic code), the origin of the code itself being hidden from
human ken. As a side for those a bit more technically inclined the
aspect of Physics that is most relevant to creation of Life is the
Second law of thermodynamics (via the maimization of entropy)
See http://www.fes.uwaterloo.ca/u/jjkay/pubs/Life_as/text.html,
IF anyone is sincerely interested in learning� MORE (not 100%)
about the mystery of life's creation.
The question "WHO" created you does not make any sense because
the question already assumes an answer, that there IS a creator,
and if there IS a creator then the answer to the question cannot be
but a tautology: The creator created you.� Surely the questioner did
not ask the question to know the name of the creator. So it is a
meaningless question. As I said the right question is WHAT (not WHO)
is the CAUSE of the creation of life, IF there is�any. And the answer� (i.e
te best approimation to the truth) is the one above I gave (And
unanimously agreed upon by MAJORITY of leading Physicists and
Biologists).
And in case anyone still thinks naively as� Bishop Paley did two
hundred years ago that anything that looks designed must have a
designer, needs to wake up and read the following as a minmum
for the wakeup and just try to realize that the most competent
minds have thought through these issues in the last two centuries,
so the views and facts expressed in the following links reflect the
accumulated insights from that collective thoughts, and not to be
dismised by layfolks with subjective thinking in islolation from the
intellectual advancements of the past two centuries. A simple
argument is worth noting: We look at a watch and feel amazed at
its design and immediately assume a designer. That is because we
compare a watch with a heap of dust of shape "X" (To distinguish
this shape from almost infinite other possible shapes) and the
watch APPEARS to us more designed becasue of TWO reasons:
(1) prior� knowledge that the watches ARE designed by human
watcmakers, a heap of dust of shape "X" IS NOT designed by a�
human. designer. So our perception of design/designor is very
subjective and shaped by our� daily experiences. Reality is not
always formulated or defined by our daily experiences. Now
can you design a heap of dust exactly of shape "X" ?� Looks almost
impossible, so is it not amazing to see one ?� Now,�how come I
don't see an urge to see a creator�in this amazement and wonder
when we see a heap of dust of shape "X"? Get the drift? The fact is
that the entire universe with life is a single sample, one shot event,
so you cannot ascribe design to this all encompassing entity, because
there is nothing to compare against which is NOT designed, unlike
the case of the watch and a heap of� dust. We have no choice but
to reconcile� with ultimate ignorance when it comes to the ultimate
reality behind the cause of the�entirety of cosmos and life, other
than understanding�it to the level of the natural laws (The laws of
Physics) which created the observable cosmos with life . That is
quite a feat already. And it is an ultimate irony and disservice to
human intellect to bypass this human underastanding (cosmology
and evolution) and jump to an armchair theorizing about the
ultimate with no intellectual tool and raw materials as a support.
Anyway, there is time for� redemption :). Anyone who sincerely�
wishes to look into this ultimate questions of reality and find out
about it as much as is humanly possible can checkm out the following.
Argument from Design:
1. http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/design.htm
2. http://home.inu.net/skeptic/design.html
3. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4388/design.html
4. http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
5. http://www.stargazer.org/refute.txt� or� http://www.ffrf.org/lfif/refute.html
6. http://www.duke.edu/~sdk2/ooze/skeptic/design.html
7. http://riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm
8. http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/design.htm
9.� http://skepdic.com/design.html
10. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html (Vic Stenger:Cockroaches..)
11. http://reason.com/9907/fe.ks.is.html (Kenneth Silber)
12. http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-03/intelligent-design.html (Taner Edis)
13. http://biomed.brown.edu/faculty/M/Miller/TR/Lifes-Design.html
14. http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_18_3.html
15. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/pigliucci1.html
Aparthib
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 18:45:00 +0600
Reply-To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Creation - 4 Aparthib
[...]
Ryan wrote:�
>
>"IT IS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. What is not known
>is what is the underlying natural cause, if any, behind the existence
>of� THE LAWS OF PHYSICS."
>
>SO, am I correct in asking you that it MAY NOT be the laws of
>Physics? Even though the 'PROBABILITY' may be 99.9%? COULD it be
>that 'SOMETHING' actually MAY have 'made' these laws of Physics? I am
>not an expert on anything, I am only asking you, as I am here to
>learn and exchange ideas.
� The above clearly showsthat my original assertion was not read
� carefully. By�UNKNOWN I was referring to the underlying natural
� CAUSE, IF any, BEHIND the the EXISTENCE of LAWS of PHYSICS.
� That is not the� same� as�saying : "It MAY NOT be the laws of Physics?".
� I said� quite� precisely what I meant. I was referring to our inability
� to say anything beyond the laws of Physics which explains
� reality. Any talk about beyond the reality (both tangible
� like matter, e.g electrons, chair etc� and intangible�like hyperspace,
�superstring etc) is bound to be a vague� metaphysical speculation.
�And any question about the realm�beyond reality may not be even
�meaningful question with a�meaningful answer, BECAUSE an
�unknown cannot be necessarily�discussed in terms of the known
�always. The question/issue� of what is the ORIGIN of�scientific laws
�itself, ( i.e the question as to why does a set of� scientific laws exist
�at all which explains this universe and life so beautifully?) is thus
�not necessarily a meaningful question. This is because an effect
cannot be used explain the cause of the effect.�And an effect may
not always have a cause as we understand it. Besides if the origin
of the laws of Physics (Lets call it superphysics) were explainable
by Physics then that Superphysics would be simply subsumed
within physics, physics will only expand its domain. The origin of
Physics will remain an unknown and logically impossible to explain.
The "Why/How" about ultimate reality assumes there is an answer
and we have a language to express it, thus breaking the cylce of
whys. But this may not be the case. The casue-effect chain may not
end fat all. We don;t know. Physics is the limit of our whys.
We humans find it hard live with the possibility of unexplaianable,
ultimate ignorance,� hence they� artcificially invent circularterms like
God, Creator, etc, without realizing that such innventions of mere
words do not dispel the ultimate ignorance about the origin of
reality. And finally a note on humility. Once Nobel laureate Feynman
said "If anyone thinks he knows Quantum mechanics he doesn't know
Quantum mechanics".
That quote of Feynman was made to� emphasize that Quantum Mechanics
is extremely difficult to comprehend and is not fully understood even now by
any Physicist. Metaphorically speaking,� one needs to understand at least
90 % to know that they don't understand it 100%. It is the most profound
insight of human understanding of nature, and it still has unsolved mysteries,
like the notion of "time", role of observer in� observation to name a few. So
anyone who says he/she understands it does not even understand it 90%,
so in effect does not understand it.� Similarly to appreciate the limits of
human knowledge one need to know and underastand what those limits
are (i.e the laws of Physics) well.� When a theist, who does not know much
about cosmology and Quauntum Mechanics� speaks about limits of human
understanding to emphasize that nothing can be ruled out does not merit
much attention. Because in argument from ignorance nothing can be ruled
in either, not much can be said meaningfully one way or the other.
Now to discuss further the problem of asking the nature of the ultimate
reality, imagine a group of humans� forming a pattern on a large field
each following� instructions as appropriate to form the pattern. An
�� observer on a plane or atop a tall
�� building above can see the pattern formed by the humans
�� below. A particular human below who is a� part of the human
�� pattern can never see the pattern while being part of the
�� pattern. And if that human is never told about the pattern,
�� blindfolded, not knowing he is with some fellow humans
�� forming a pattern, then question as to what pattern he
��� and others around him� are making would not even make
�� sense to him� or enter his mind. Our position in reality
�� is similar. We can understand reality only upto certain
�� level. Anything further beyond that level is pure
�� speculation and mostly meaningless, specially if that
�� specualtion is made without even understnading what is
�� known (the limiting level, i.e science). Thus most of the
�� speculations� of mystics and theists are meaningless
�� constructs and conclusions (to humans racee collectively,
�� not may be to them individually).
�Anyway, Physics�or any science is not a closed book. The frontier
�of science is ever expanding. Science being self-correcting, any flaws in
�it, if any, can only be detected by scientists through the scientific method,
�and are eliminated. The case of� "discovery of cold fusion" serves as a
�prototypical example of that self-correction.�Science has� LIMITS, not
� FLAWS. There is� a huge difference. What is the cause behind the
� existence� of the laws of Physics? Maybe nothing, maybe it is there
�� from� eternity� till eternity uncaused. Or maybe not. Maybe some more
�� fundamental� cause exists� a� layer above it. But thats all it can be said
�� about it.� Nothing more or specific. And saying sa "maybe'" would not be
�� profound anyway, but an acknowledgment of finiteness of our
�� perception.� Please read the following if you want my detailed
�� view� (or formulation thereof) on� this question:
� http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#article10
Next Ryan said:
>Cool, so please explain the PROVEN existence of BLACK HOLES! :-)
>If 'EVERYTHING' is governed by the laws of Physics (which may not be
>the 'be all and end all' as you yourself implied) then please explain
>why BLACK HOLES are NOT governed by the laws of Physics? It has been
>proven that 'NO PHYSICAL LAWS EXIST IN BLACK HOLES' Nothing can
>ESCAPE the PULL of a BLACK HOLE, not even the FASTEST 'THING' in
>EXISTENCE which is LIGHT! So obviously not 'EVERYTHING' is governed
>by Physical laws! :-)���
�
��� First the statement:�
��� "BLACK HOLES are NOT governed by the laws of Physics"
��� is WRONG! Black holes represent
��� an INTENSE gravity in a SMALL scale. The intense requires
��� Full Machinery of General Theory of Relativity. The
��� SMALL requires the Full machinery of Quantum Field Theory.
��� Both are individualy well-founded. But the marriage of the
��� two (Quantum Cosmology) is incomplete. Thats why a full
��� analysis of the INSIDE of a BH is not possible by present
��� mathematical technology. Once quantum cosmology is
��� developed fully, black hole physcs will be in a tractable
��� form. It is the limits of contemporary pHYSICISTS, not
��� PHYSICS that Quantum cosmology is incomplete(to date).
��� So it is not that Physics breaks down, but that the Laws
��� of Quantum mechanics and General relativity separately
��� breaks down inside a BH, but not the synthesis of the
��� two. It is a techical issue among Physicists, and it is
��� interesting to see how layfolks can paraphrase their
��� words to draw vague metaphysical conclusions.
�� BTW, Black holes (i.e singularities) ARE predicted (explained) by
���� the general theory of relativity of� Einstein.�Chandrasekhar�
���� derived it by ingenious work on Einsteinb's equation (Chandra
���� was famous (or infamous) for pushing the limits of equations
���� to extreme by painstking math. It is said that he could write
���� hundreds of lines of math in one stroke on the board without
���� any math.� He predicted Black Hole� 60 years ago. He was
���� vindicated forunately before his death through the Nobel
���� award in physics. He wrote a highly mathematical PHYSICS
���� text on� Black Holes� 650 pages long! And to say that Black
���� Hole is not governed by the "laws of Physics" is to say he wrote
���� nonsense, the� text book taught in prestigious graduate schools
���� by a Nobel Physicist� is gibberish (And FYI no� physicist
���� makes such statment about Black Hole).
[...]
Ryan Said:
�
>So these leading Physicists and Biologists are ABSOLUTELY right? And
>their word is 'law'? Can you not question anything yourself? Could
>they be wrong in 'some' ways? Surely you can think for yourself
> right? :-) You seem to think that 'Science' (I use the term loosely)
>is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Well I can tell you its not! Nor is MATH! But
>Regards,
>
>Ryan
� My challenge to you: quote from any science book, any
�� scientist, the statement that "SCIENCE IS ABSOLUTE
�� TRUTH". I did not "think" that either. I wonder how
�� can one read (or attempt to) anyone's mind through
�� in cyber space :)
� Anyway moving on. It is doubting itself that led to the
� emergence of scientific method and hence science in the
� first place. Science� and doubt (skepticism) go hand in
� hand. So it does not make sense to doubt doubt itself.
� Science is self-correcting. It is the scientists who can
� make statments like "That was the biggest blunder of my life"
� Guess who said that and why? None other than the man of
� the� 20ty century Einstein referring to the inclusion of a
� cosmological constant in his equation of general relativity.
� He was wrong from 1929 upto 1998 when new observations
� about inflatian of space validated his original inclusion
� albeit much smaler in value. The book cited above is by
� Descartes.�Most medieval philosophgers are irrelevant
� today. They are of historical interest to trace the
� evolution of human thought. But even Aristotle is child
� if judged by todays intellectual advancement. So it is an
� anachronism to resort to ancient or medieval philosophers
� for contemporary issues, issues that are sicientific in
� nature. Figuratively speaking, When the average human
� knowledge is 1.5, then an insight of 3.0 is extraordinary.
� But when the average intellect advances to 5.0, 3.0 is
� not worth writing home about. Its all relative.
Here's an interesting quote by Dawkins from his BBC lecture
in November 1996 :
���
� "You could give Aristotle a tutorial. And you could thrill
�� him to the core of his being. Aristotle was an encyclopedic
�� polymath, an all time intellect. Yet not only can you know
�� more than him about the world. You also can have a deeper
�� understanding of how everything works. Such is the privilege
�� of living after Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Planck, Watson,
�� Crick and their colleagues."
���
�� For the remainder of Dawkin's lecture go to:
�� http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/dimbleby.htm
� So, I would rather suggest reading Daniel Dennet,
� Paul Davies, David Deutsch, Robert Rosen and others,
� to get a good glimpse on the latest state of human
� understanding about reality. And to understand the
� limits of science and human understanding I would
� recommend books by contemporary disintingushed
� scientists and philosophers themselves like
� "Doubt and Certainty" by Sudarshan and Rothman,
� (see http://www.california.com/~rpcman/doubtcertainty.htm)
"The Limits of Science" by Sir Peter Medawar and
� another book on the same topic by John Barrow,
� whose� title I can't recall at the moment, but that
� topic is covered also in a chapter in his other book
� "Between inner spoabce and outer space"
� I am not sure what point you tried to make in
� this contet by referring to that book by Descartes,
� it would have been preferable to make the point
� directly and show how it clashed with what I said,
� which reflects the views of contemporay scientists
� and phiolosophers (I am just the messenger here:)
But it will be a travesty of facts to stretch the meaning
of limits to draw the conclusion that there is no objective
truth (If not absolute). Let us take a simple example. A
nuclear bomb is made applying the laws of Physics (Quantum
Physics applied to nucleus). It can be made repeatedly without
fail by aplying those laws of phsyics. Secondly, an airplane
is designed using the basic principle of Physics known as
Bernoilli's principle. Now would you say the principles of
physics behind the making of a nuclear bomb and an airplane
are not objective truths, or why not even absolute truths?
If it feels like absolute truth, if it looks like an absoute
truth, then it is an absolute truth! Can you cite the criteria
to be met by a given truth to be a candidate for absoluteness.
The point is that not ALL truths are absolute by any criteria,
but SOME will be, has to be, otherwise the statement
"absolute truth" itself will cease to be a meaningful English
construct, worth even debating. Humans don't invent words
or expressions that point to any non-existent entity.
It is a trivially true statement that human knowledge
and understanding is and will always be limited. It
cannot be an issue of debate. But our observations
should correctly reflect hat we know and what we don't.
And that is often a problematic issue and worthy of
debate.
Finally, I just want to make this redundant statement
jsut for the not so alert reader that everything I said
so far is consistent with the paradiggm that human mind
(scientists, you and ME anyone) has limitations. Not
all is known that can be known. Ther is lot more to learn.
Aparthib
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:59:49 +0600
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] Islam as a false religion
In response to Muhammad Abdullah:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/2964
==================================================
At 10/22/01 12:05 PM, you wrote:
>
> One has to differentiate between Islam and Muslim. Is
> it Islam that is bad or is it Muslim?�
>
Islam and Muslim is not the same, TRUE. The former is an idea,code, (equation)
,abstract like a computer program. The latter is a human being of flesh and
blood who runs the program. When it is not run, the program is totally
harmless and useless. But if it is implemented(run), some parts of the
program CAN be dangerous. This is because those parts of the code are like
equations whose solutions depend on the boundary conditions (B.C, apologists
label them "context") that you feed into the equations, one B.C may yield
harmless solution to the equation, another may lead to a harmful one,
although by any objective criteria, the ones that yield harmless may seem to
be more valid� for the given equation. And there is the default B.C as well.
That is what the code yields if no context is used, (i.e followed literally).
So� B.C's� having been left open, for each to pick as it suits them, The
apologists will always pick the boundary conditions (often invalid) that�
yields harmless solutions, thus exonerating� themselves from any blame when
extremists apply the the same codes with a diffrement boundary conditions and
arrive at a harmful solution to� jutify their extremist acts.� It si also
true that the default B.C's of those codes in scriptures also lead to
dangerous solutions. Thats why the apologists are so anxious and insistent on
the "proper context". The point is that if an idea/program contains code that
has the potential to yield� harmful results by choosing a set of valid� B.C's
(including the default one), then it� a case of design flaw. And criticizing
the flaw in the code in that case is not necessarily a criticism of the
apologists, who although adhere to the code but exercize their freewill to
pick the B.C that yield harmless solution.� The criticism can only be viewed
as a flag to alert the users that a flaw exist and something be done about it.
>
> The fact that one cannot proof the existence of the
> God, does not mean there is no god.� It means the
> failure for one to proof.�
>
�������� The above statement� does not help in making
�������� any point. It is no more useful than saying that
�������� just because one cannot prove that a mythical
�������� animal called "cowgoat" exists (which is 100%
�������� cow� and 100% goat at the same time), does
�������� not mean it there is no cowgoat.
[...]
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 020413 +0600
Subject: Re [mukto-mona] Re atheism
Fellow Mukto-Monas,
I agree with Rubaiya that freethinking does not and need not require one to
be an atheist. But it is a mistake to characterize atheism as a belief, or to
place atheism on the same level of ignominy as religious dogma. I also strongly
disagree that the objective of atheists , like Avijit is to impose atheism
on others. An idea or view of life can never be IMPOSED. Its an oxymoron.
No amount of persuasion can force a beleif. A belief is a result of change of heart.
One can either accept or reject any idea in free will, no matter how persuasivley
an idea is presented. An atheist is not afraid by the persistent talk of the christian
zealots or the fanatic Muslims trying to persusde him to come to the path of
Islam or Christ. So why should a believer be afraid of an atheist defending
his/her views? Atheism does not require or depend on preaching. Atheism
is antithetical to preaching. After all atheism would not be there if there was
no theism in the first place!. Atheism = A(Not)- theism. Atheism is the plain
and simple response of "No Thank You" to a believer when a he tried to tell
a non-believer "You must believe in the God of our religion, God exists and will
reward you in heaven if you follow our religion and will punish you in hell if you
don't" etc. It is ridiculous to label such a "No thanks" reaction as a "belief". An
atheist never tried to tell anyone "If you believe in God, we will punish you", or
"If you do not believe in God, we will reward you", or "You will suffer in hell .." etc.
Now I will make an unusual claim. My claim is that there cannot be an atheist
in the strict sense if atheism is defined as the belief that there is no underlying
cause of the creation of universe and life and that it is all due to unpredictable
random acts of nature. There can be infidels for sure. An Infidel = a non-believer
of revealed religions like Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc. The reason there cannot
be a true atheist is because the creation of universe and life is in fact the result of
an ordered implementation of the very fundamental laws of Physics. So there is
indeed a root cause that we know. IT IS THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. It is also called the
Cosmic Code (Heinz Pagels). Whether we call it God (or work of God) or not is
a matter of taste. It is certainly not the personal God of the revealed religions which
is portryaed in the image of humans. Such God interferes in individual human lives
(Over trillions of them born so far. I am curious how many humans have been born
since the early history of the hominid species), gets angry, compassionate,
assigns rewards/punishments, talks to chosen humans etc. The God of the "atheists"
(i.e infidels) is a naturalistic one whose attribute is totally unknown except the one
attribute that it (i.e God, whatever its nature) gives rise to the Laws of Physics which
in turn gives rise to universe and life. It is an ignorance of Physics to conclude that
universe is a result of a random act of nature. The Laws of Physics are far from
random. The element of randomness that Quantum theory postulates is a predictable
unpredictability! The chaotic aspect of the laws of Physics follow its own laws of
complexity. So there is still a law (i.e order) behind all natural phenomena. What is
behind this order is a mystery. And its that msytery which can and should provide the
food for a spirtual mind to even an infidel who is appreciative of the profound laws of
Physcis at its most fundamental level. I always loathe being lablled an atheist, as I feel
a tremendous sense of mystery, awe and wonder at the beauty, intricacy and depth
of the laws of physics, which if understood well, can explain the creation of the entire
cosmos with the teeming life in one small planet. I can never imagine that the
superstring theory if and when it finally becomes the theory of everything will make
the creation of the universe seem random. The whole universe is a gigantic computer
and our life is a virtual reality simulation of a cosmic program. Superstring theory may
reveal that ultimate program, but the programmer will always remain hidden, and hence
spirtualism is inevitable. But the God, of Islam, Christian, Judaism? I cannot help but
characterize such beliefs as puerile ideas trapped in adult brains. Anyway, the main
point I am trying to drive home here is that atheism is not about preaching, intolerance
or hatred. Atheism to me is a request to an imposing religionist to leave an ifidel
alone. I don;t see any reason for an atheist to gratuitously pick on an unimposing
believer who practices his/her faith in private. We don't hate kids for believing in
fairy tales. Not only that we buy fairy tale books for them!. When my sister prays
(namaz) I don't hate or ridicule her for that. In fact I feel happy that she finds peace
in that and will be happy to buy a nice jainamaz for her. But I know in my heart
how irrational such prayer is in terms of its underlying premise (Pleasing God).
But such irrational act actually is therapeutic for a believer. It is interesting that our
brain is wired for such placebos through evolutionary process to cope with stress.
So if religious dogmatists left the non-believers alone there would not be this
lingering strife between believers and non-believers. We don't see this lingering
issues between practicing Buddhist and Buddhist born non-believers. The
obvious reason being the absence of the aspect of imposition and coercion
in Buddhism. If Islam was limited to Sufism, or Christianity to gnosticism, and
Judaism to its Jewish equivalent of mysticism(The right word is escaping me), then
the word secularism would not have been found in the dictionary. Let me warn
all my fellow secularists against the ploy by the religionists to demonize/dehumanize
secularists/secularisms by labelling them as atheists devoid of any sense of spirituality
etc. So let us instead emphasize spirituality based on the profound laws of nature and
not emphasize atheism, instead emphasize logic, science, rationalism, and debunk
the obtrusive claims of the dogmatists with cold logic. Thats all for now.
Aparthib
3===
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 12:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: abused women - setting the statistic straight
To: [email protected] (not posted)
This in response to the following statement that appeared in article 659 posted
Tue Oct 3, 2000 10:34pm: (Re: Socially sanctioned sex: a melon progressiveness):
"Statistic says there are more abused women here then Bangladesh
and more rape occurred and surprisingly it is the educated western
world :)."
There are two problems with this statement. First to make a legitimate
point (in this case "that not all marriages can be viewed as socially
sanctioned sex") one does not and should not need to refer to an
irrelevant statement. The statement is not only irrelevant but incorrect
as well. Just as one decides if they have a fever by measuring their own
temperature, not others, it makes no sense to prove that we don't have
a social problem by pointing fingers at others and comparing ourselves
against them. There are two games that are played to hide one's
problems, (1) Play the blame game (We are this way because of "them"),
or (2) play the comparison game (We are OK, because we are better than
"them"). This game playing is not conducive to a genuine reddress of the
problems. Now additionally if the comparison is justified with a wrong statistic
its even more pathetic. I don't know where this statistic being referred to
above was found (or at all it was even found) but existing statistic point
to the opposite. One such statistic is from United Nations Populations fund
in their State of the World Population report 2000 report on gender crimes
around the world.
According to the report Bangladesh ranks second among countries in percentage
of women assaulted by their male partners.
Papua New Guinea topped the list with 67 percent women assaulted. The
percentage is 45 in Ethiopia, 40 in India, and 34 in Egypt, 22 in USA.
For other countries one can look at the entire report in bar chart form
which I have placed in my site at http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/women.gif
One does realize statistic have margins of errors. The actual numbers may
be slightly different, but unlikely to alter the relative rankings.
Does that mean that whoever is better than us in the ranking should
feel complacent about it and point to us? No.
Here are two more reports on abuse of women in Bangladesh, which may not help
us in any comparative statistics (Its irrelevant anyway, as I argued above),
but it does point to the dismal situation in Bangladesh reagrding abuse of women
and belies the complacent attitude reflected in the statement quoted above.