The War Within turned out every bit as clichéd as the Voice critic had said. It is indeed a high-def film (thanks, Mark) and not as muddy as the typical DV release. (I have two quarrels with the early days of digital filmmaking: one, regular DV doesn’t yet simulate the saturation, crispness and ‘movie look’ of film, though it inevitably will; and two, digital projection really hoses those who sit up close, like me, because of pixelation. We want to be the first to receive the images from the screen, said Bernardo Bertolucci’s pretentious Dreamers, but unlike a French cine buff, for me it’s simply about max res. And always-available seats.)
This plot, penned by lead actor Ayad Akhtar, is as single-threaded and simplistic as anything you’d see on the nature channel. And that’s not just due to budget, it’s due to writing. Compare to the richness of the action in the low-budget Monsoon Wedding.
Whenever you see a character running around with a white SO and a bottle of whiskey, you know s/he’s a Bad Muslim. Hi Pardes, hi Purab Aur Pachhim! Venerable jungle fever hottie Sarita Choudhury, who in Mississippi Masala ignored the no-smoking-in-bed rule, is surprisingly believable as an older auntie. But she struggles with her Urdu accent — are there really no desi accent coaches? Shelley Malil in The Forty-Year-Old Virgin had just as hard a time. I smell opportunity for some underemployed dramati.
Nandana Sen, in all her Porsche-eyed, Nubian-profiled glory, is given little to do. Firdous Bamji, who plays the terrorist’s unsuspecting batchmate, looks like a wounded, Trojan Eric Bana. Ajay Naidu and Aasif Mandvi appear in only a single scene. When you bend Naidu’s reflective cranium over a mirror, you see a tattoo saying U. BIQUITOUS; after this movie, it reads WASTED.
The movie suffers from amateurish acting and slack editing that leaves seconds ticking in between characters’ reactions. In a pivotal scene toward the end, the baby-faced killer’s reaction seem totally implausible. This flick doesn’t just telegraph its intentions, it puts out a press release, posts them to a blog and pings IceRocket.
The movie’s subject matter left me totally conflicted. On one hand, there’s the inevitable exoticizing of Islam, not by Akhtar but by an American audience’s gaze. It reminds me of the idiots who post frothing, right-wing rants in our comments quoting wingnut Web sites. Try taking off the white hood, provocateur pusses. Dammit, we’ve lived among a hundred and fifty million Muslims in India. Unlike you, we know them, we understand them, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends; and except for those whose conservatism is near-Hasidic, most are utterly unremarkable.
On the other, it’s discomfiting seeing a fantasy where Grand Central gets blown up. It’s too close to home to pen a script where the real-life desi ghetto of Jersey City, home to IT workers innumerate, turns into a terrorist breeding ground. Don’t march red arrows over a map of my city. Don’t put me inside the head of a fuckup who believes in violence, slaughter of innocents and collective guilt. Don’t mess up the South Asian brand launch by associating it with criminality. I already ostentatiously flip open my bag every day to fish out a book in front of the subway police, and I left the movie expecting looks of disappointment of the ‘you people’ kind.
Most depressingly, don’t prove that terrorism, not business, is the successor to the Indian trifecta of myths, hippies and poverty. Not only does terrorism seemingly provide most new roles for desi actors, it’s the biggest new cottage industry for Muslim comedians and telepundits.
The Mississippi Masala cast has longevity beyond its years. In Proof, Roshan Seth plays the gently disapproving Professor Bhandari, while Gwyneth Paltrow plays a math prodigy in his class stricken by her father’s mental illness and recent passing. It’s Paltrow’s run at Russell Crowe and A Beautiful Mind, her attempt to prove she deserved her Oscar for that light-hearted Shakespeare trifle. She wears little makeup, and there’s a sex scene which never moves south of the neck; the stripping of glamor is the donning of clothes. The movie is somewhat bleak, and Jake Gyllenhaal is never believable as a math geek. Shall I compare thee to a Prinze Fred-day? Thou art more pretty and more emasculate. Sad Sir Hopkins barely stirs to phone it in. But the film’s tight dialogue and snappy one-liners betrays its theater roots. Like The Shape of Things, it’s an adapted talkie that sings. Q.E.D.
Strings pull my strings, whether it’s the violins in INXS’ ‘Never Tear Us Apart’ or the stirring crescendo in the Bombay theme. Like the proto-human wail of L. Subramaniam’s melancholy violin, the Mumbaya instrumental texts me chills. It was surprising to hear a decade-old A.R. Rahman Bollyjingle in the soundtrack of a new movie, Lord of War (watch the trailer). This is one great flick, Bombay theme or no, and Nicolas Cage nails its epic pitch. The opening sequence of the life cycle of a bullet is astonishing, the poster visually arresting, and the rest of this Künstlerroman lives up to billing. It’s a hustle movie about an international arms dealer, Catch Me If You Can with a high-powered scope.
The director, Andrew Niccol, probably got his hands on the musical piece via a story he wrote that’s still in production. Paani / Water is a dystopic sci-fi flick involving Rahman, Shekhar Kapur, Vivek Oberoi and yes, Deepak Chopra. The instrumental is apropos, opposites are apposite: Cage is arrested by Interpol and stranded under a wide African sky, his hands cuffed and his bird stripped for parts. The lyrical chaser to Hindu-Muslim riots sounds right for a scene promising violence of more intimate provenance.
Manish you’ve scythed down my immediate filmmaking aspirations by calling DV muddy. Muddy! All my films are muddy!
Film vs DV is a debate that’s raged for about a decade. I never really got it. One looks different to the other, so? DV is better for some things, film for others. People fail to comprehend just how much more expensive film is than using DV. If one is unwilling to be receptive to non-35mm formats, it is effectively excluding all but those with big studio backing. Many people have no tolerance for change and most are unwilling to watch something that strays from the usual warm curves of film. Bowling for Colombine and 28 Days Later were made with the camera I have. A documentary – fine, people expect digital (for now). A dramatic film – flop.
(I wouldn’t classify Monsoon Wedding as low budget. And what’s a white SO?)
Dude, I’m the #1 fan of disruptive innovation and simpler, faster, cheaper. Desktop post-production? Awesome. But someone needs to run high-def footage through an effect filter so it looks less like bad TV, in scenes where grandness is the goal.
I wasn’t specifically referring to you not getting the prices involved, just that people in general assume it’s just the camera that’s more pricey. They forget the miles of film and added crew.
But you’re right, it totally depends on the scene. DV would be all wrong for many many things; I don’t know what the War Within ‘feels’ like. Even the best post doesn’t make the grade – all the Magic Bullet-esque/de-interlacing software makes for interesting effects but it’s not film. Things like this are interesting – haven’t tried. HD is almost there…I’m investing my future in that. (Although apparently NASA are working on some super-duper high res format which will make HDTV obsolete…Abhi?)
I want to do some 8mm stuff. It looks fun and not too outlandish in price. Here are some popular movies you can look at to find out about different formats:
Pi (AWEsome film and more Ajay Naidu!) – 16mm blown up to 35mm (typically grainy). Also Tetsuo (mental Japanese flick).
Lock, Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels – Super 16 blown up to 35mm.
28 Days Later, Grizzly Man & Battlestar Galactica TV series – DV.
Slacker – Super 8.
<
blockquote>This flick doesnÂ’t just telegraph its intentions, it puts out a press release, posts them to a blog and pings IceRocket.
<
blockquote>
Mrreow!
Oh! a lesson in tolerance from the whiz (Vij)himself. He ,as opposed to us knows them!
Unremarkable in what – their worship of OBL ? Their hatred of the infidel ?
Have you been reading the polls done recently in Islamic countries?
Could you pray tell why you had to include the above line. Oh! Yes, provocate. Lot more comments.
Now you know how British Indians feel after the London bombings by Pakistanis from Yorkshire (now knowan as Shaheedshire)
OBL has created a new employment category… his lookalikes seem to be finding work these days too:
Osama look-alike joins Lalu’s camp
“Unremarkable in what – their worship of OBL ? Their hatred of the infidel ?”
Hmmm, wing nut I do believe your moniker may have been well chosen…relax, it’s Saturday
Okay, once and for all, shut the f@#k up about Muslims from South Asia (i.e. born and raised). I don’t care if you’re desi in the United States or desi in India or desi in Pakistan–if you don’t have friendships or relationships or some kind of personal in depth knowledge with more than 10 people who fit the description, then just be quiet. Or better yet, go read this–if you can handle reading philosphy from someone who participated in the Iranian revolution but is hella smarter than you. F@#king morons.
sorry, lost the link. here it is:
reason, freedom, and democracy in islam.
Saurav, it’s no use. We’ve tried. If you don’t get it then you don’t get it.
Let us make a deal. I will read the book. Why don’t you comprehend and explain the polls in the meantime. Being smart and having read great phiosophers this should not be difficult.
If you need some real philosophy, remember Ockham’s razor. KISS.
The key to resolving this problem is not more understanding as you define it. it is tough love and some truth. dismissing people who disagree with you as morons is a sign of your intelligence, I am sure. Keep going to your tribal meetings and continue feeling superior.
saurav
Why the nervous mental breakdown and the foaming at the mouth fanatical anger?
And what does that book have to do with the problem of Muslim fanatics randomly blowing themselves up and murdering dozens, hundreds, thousands of people at a time? In New York, London, Madrid, and today in Bali?
Take a chill pill and dont raise your blood pressure, stop the posturing and think about the problem or else you look ridiculous in your undignified outburst of offence and swearing.
Wing Nut: in response to Manish’s comment about 150 million Muslims in India, your response focuses on “polls done recently in Islamic countries.” It isn’t more valid to elide distinctions between people in Morocco, Bali, Dhaka and Lucknow than it is to do so between people in Belgrade, Warsaw, London and Nebraska.
people in belgrade and warsaw are likely to share slavic culture and people from areas of Enland outside London and Nebraska are likely to share part of an Anglo saxon culture
whereas people from Morrocco, Bali, and Dhaka would suggest to be much more different culturally
not that this has anything to do with what y’all are debating, of which i haven’t paid much attention
“…whereas people from Morrocco, Bali, and Dhaka would suggest to be much more different culturally …”
Raju: my point exactly
Umair,
I wish I could agree with you. If second generation muslims in Britain and other western nations were really different from the muslims in Pakistan and other middle east muslims I would have been here saying exactly what I think you are saying i.e., the extreme behavior is more regional/cultural than religous. But I and you are aware that it is religious.
I do agree with you about a lot of Indian (not Pakistani) muslims. They are pretty normal. There is an extremist element there but the vast majority are pretty normal.
An interesting article on the motivations and culture of suicide bombers:
Humiliation a Factor in Suicide Attacks
Wingnut: In my view we should draw a distinction between conservative Muslims and elements of a radicalized generation. I think the latter are interestingly MORE to be found in Britain, France, Holland, etc. than they are in Pakistan (to take that country as an example), one reason why even in Pakistan the political parties representing more radical forms of Islam have traditionally never won elections. These parties DID win the most recent elections in two provinces in the country, but what the Western media did not focus on was “enlightened moderate” (and arch-liar) Musharraf’s role in that process: by a process of selective application of Pakistan’s electoral laws, bribery and outright intimidation, the most popular candidates of the parties expected to do well– the PPP, the PML(N), and (in the 2 provinces where the radicals won) the Awami National party– were barred/disqualified or made to pipe down. The end result was that the MMA did better than expected, which suited them just fine (as a credible anti-Musharraf voice), and Musharraf himself just fine (it sure gets pesky pro-democracy Western governments and human rights activists off your back if you can say: “hey, you think I’M bad, but if it weren’t for ME, you-know-who would win…”).
The radicals in European countries seem to me of a different mould: alienated young men who for all their fanaticism seem to have little interest in theology, but every interest in a fascistic cult, a type one is sadly familiar with from the sad history of the twentieth century. I think it is a mistake to lump disparate elements together: (i) because I believe it is playing into the hands of the likes of OBL, who PRECISELY wants to posit a united “ummah”; (ii) radicals more generally, who are always trying to pass themselves off as “merely” guardians of tradition; (iii) I believe it to be an error in analysis.
[Aside: the Islamist rhetoric, since it recognizes only a Muslim/non-Muslim distinction, runs up into a problem when it comes across an “other” who is also in some sense a Muslim; hence the “solution” is to define that “other” as beyond the pale of Islam– Shiites, Ahmediyyas, etc.– which itself raises the question of what sort of ummah it is if a large % is perennially being defined out of it].
To put it another way: the RHETORIC of Islamism is that there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn except between “Muslim” and “Non-Muslim,” and the more we accept this rhetoric the more we are advancing their cause. As an aside, with all due respect I think even Manish (perhaps inadvertently) fell into this trap when he said that “we” have lived “with” 150 million Muslims and hence understand “them.” But who’s the “them”? Indians have lived with other Indians, 150 million of whom happen to be Muslim. That one has lived in some sense “with” an Allahabadi or Malayali Muslim says nothing at all about the Iraqi, the Indonesian, the Moroccan, etc., not to speak of divisions within those countries…
Speaking very quietly and politely
With all due respect, it would probably be more constructive and beneficial if any negative comments against Islam or some of its adherents were not met with knee-jerk responses of “right-wing ranting” or “morons”, and so on. This is exactly the kind of attitude and behaviour which resulted in the recent London bombs apparently being such a “surprise” to so many people in the British media and political circles.
One can defend the right of people to practice their faith without harrassment, without necessarily having to simultaneously defend the faith in its entirety or refuse criticism of the more negative tenets and scriptures it consists of, along with the subsequent actions these tenets may trigger.
Again, I am saying this very politely, so please no flaming, blood-pressure-raised replies. Calm discussion, however, is of course always welcomed.
Thank you.
PS– I think the link below is relevant to my previous post:
http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2005/08/on-historical-relationship-between.html
and Jai: I agree that knee-jerk reactions are bad, but I should note that the characterization of Muslims as united “in their worship of OBL” and their “hatred of infidels” was not just a “negative commen[t] against Islam or some of its adherents” but a sweeping generalization. I don’t disagree with your post, but question your selective application of it to those who might have had “knee jerk” reactions against what is hardly anything other than a “knee jerk” view itself.
My comments were in response to Manish’s original article in general, along with some of the subsequent comments by other participants on this thread and several previous conversations on SM on this topic which have followed the same pattern in some ways.
I think Wing Nut has expanded upon/explained his/her original somewhat controversial post, so I don’t need to condone or attack what appeared to be a generalisation in that message.
Manish writes: >>It reminds me of the idiots who post frothing, right-wing rants in our comments quoting wingnut Web sites.
Et tu, Manish? I did not know that you were also afflicted with high-brow self-styled intellectual’s disdain of popular perception.
One Libertarian-Hindu’s views on the Muslim “problem” is discussed briefly here.
M. Nam
PS: It was a right-wing web site that brought down Dan Rather’s for his lies.
What about the thugs who blew up the WTC. Are they Conservative or radicalized. Educated in good western schools with a reasonably bright future ahead. One of the London bombers was a teacher. What was he alienated from ?
Please ! give me a break. Yes, my rhetoric was probably a little bit harsh but common the more you try to “understand” these people the more you are encouraging them. They sympathize and worship a thug (probaly we should understand why OBL is the way he is!). Let me try to explain what I think ! There is evil in this world . The modern psyche is taught not to judge but this is the only reasonable explanation. To call it by it’s real name can sometimes help matters. Remember the evil empire and how calling it that quickened it’s demise.
Again, let me clarify. i do not think there is anything wrong with Islam. In fact, I am not qualified to talk about Islam. I only have problem with the majority of people who practice it today, not the religion itself. A minority non-vocal observant muslims are surely just like the rest of us.
In an earlier post, someone said that you should know atleast 10 muslims (I am sure it hurt him when he was trying to pull that out of his you know what)before you say something about them . I grew up in Hyderabad and know and like more muslims than what a second generation twit who went to some fancy pants university will ever do.
wing nut, Occam called. He wants his Gillette back.
KISS is not quite the same thing.
Since there is a Q.E.D. in this post, I am making an effort to keep things logically clear and consistent in the name of science and whatnot.
On another note, those polls are conducted under duress and not always representative of the truth. So I will take a page out of ‘Yes, Minister’ and frame a poll-type question for you. Imagine if you will, that you are in, ummm…Syria, and the friendly neighbourhood pollster who is employed by a government that stones non-believers to death asks you the following
Q. Who do you think is a bigger hater and more bigoted?
(i) George Dubya (ii) Ayatollah K (iii) Spongebob Squarepants (iv) the Dalai Lama
(iii) and (iv) are null choices. You pick (ii) and die. You pick (i) and immediately, the pollster puts you in the list of “Voted most likely to kill for the Faith” and leaks the statistics to TIME.
If he knew that a Texan would start interpreting him he would have kept it simpler.
Can the the modern man invent and imagine entities. For further proof, see the second half of the Dude’s post.
KISS and the razor at their core mean the same.
My feeble straight shootin’ Texan intellect does not quite fathom what thesis and what proof you present with the second half of my post.
The very few in government are likely to be radicals. The rest are just toeing the line to keep out of trouble.
From the Occam wiki,
Yes it is always best to remain ignorant. I think many of us get your perspective.
Abhi writes: >>Yes it is always best to remain ignorant. I think many of us get your perspective.
What is your perspective on what happened today?
M. Nam
“understand” was in quotation marks for a reason.
It is simple let me try and explain. I am sure you understand (see no quotations !) patterns. An anectode is an anecdote but enough anecdotes make a pattern. Israel, WTC 1993, 9/11,Bali, Madrid,London and let us try this slowly now, what is the commonality.
Did you get it or do you want a clue ?
wingnut,
Sure, radical Islam is a serious problem, something like anarchism or other extreme causes from past. How do we solve it?
a) Try to understand the problem, and see how to make the cause/ manna useless. Empower, the means where the muslim world as a whole does not have to resort to violence to make their point.
b) Attack the beehive (radical islam) and get stung by all of them.
Kush, I disagree. Empower the muslim world! In what way. In what way was Atta different from the middle class 1 st generation westerner. A degree from a prestigious school. Middle class parents back in the homeland. I do not believe it is a poverty or a democracy issue. Israel is just a nice excuse.
According to me the radical preachers create the difference. It is important to root them out, even if one has to use force. Then dealing with the already converted (radicalized) has to be a priority. All governments should use the patriot act as a model.
Rhetoric is an important tool. Reagan showed that. Calling extremism by it’s real name helps. We should also seek out any and all Isliamic moderates who are willing to fight the good fight. This might be a long struggle but it is important. But it is essential that governments also make sure they are consistent. Other forms of extremism (religious, sectarian) should be condemned as well. But always remeber nothing is as widespread as the Islamic one right now!
I was planning on watching Lord of War. Now that I have a positive review …
I thought that the main charactor is like Manucher Ghorbanifar of Iran-Contra fame.
BTW, Ghorbanifar is back in action, in Iraq this time (Basra) as per Prof. Juan Cole ‘s this update
Roshan Seth
WAHOOO!! 😉
I’d certainly be curious to hear suggestions regarding exactly how they should be empowered.
My own thoughts regarding how the problem of radical Islam should be solved:
i) Speak softly, but carry a big stick. ii) Trust in God, but keep your powder dry.
I hope everyone understands what I’m trying to say here.
Following on from that…
If the response to the initial overture, of course, is “We have nothing to say to you”, or (even worse) “What we want is for you all to submit to our version of Islam”, of course you then have to consider other options. But at least it would be worthwhile to attempt a dialogue, even if you get knocked back. Any subsequent military action should also be accompanied by continued attempts to initiate/encourage direct negotiation, ie. “We can all stop the violence and talk if you are prepared to do so at your end too.”
This obviously isn’t a religiously-focused discussion Forum and I certainly don’t want hypocritically to project myself as a very pious adherent to Sikhism — regular Mutineers will have read enough of my posts to be aware that I’m just a normal guy living a fairly typical semi-Westernised life here — but those of you who are familiar with Guru Gobind Singh’s “Zafarnama” letter to Aurangzeb and the subsequent life-altering impact it had on the aged Emperor will know that there is a notable precedent for defensive warfare against Islamist aggression, attempts to initiate a two-way peaceful dialogue, and the ultimate willingness to cease hostilities on the part of the leader of the extremists who did indeed ultimately realise what he was doing wrong.
So if Aurangzeb could change his mind after over 50 years of tyranny and religious fanaticism, perhaps there is still hope for OBL too if the same approach is applied to him. Just an idea.
One or more highly respected Islamic religious authority somewhere in the world reaches a sufficient level of prominence and credibility and denounces the actions of the terrorists and the interpretation of Islam that goes with it as being wrong/heretical/nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality and God. There needs to be a counterpoint to OBL, who has turned into a figurehead and a hero in the absence of someone truly heroic.
Islam is reformed. Again, this is a solution that has to come from inside the Ummah and cannot be imposed from outside.
Islam is discredited. This can actually be done, but as a human being and a Sikh (albeit a (very liberal one) I have severe reservations about any efforts in this regard, due to humanitarian reasons on my part.
Certain heavy-handed military actions; again, I don’t want to go into any details due to the reasons stated in point number 5, but the more strategically-minded amongst you can use your imaginations.
Obviously I don’t personally agree with the last 2 points, but the previous 3 suggestions may theoretically be a viable way forward.
“I’d certainly be curious to hear suggestions regarding exactly how they should be empowered.” Sure, some of my ideas – they are not comprehensive.
Kush,
You’ve made some excellent points and I agree with most of them, except for the one suggesting that the current actions are “not related to a religion, it could happen to any of them over time.” Other immigrant groups have faced the same alienation and racism in the West, including here in the UK (obviously my primary realm of experience) — black people, other South Asians such as Hindus and Sikhs — yet these other groups have not radicalised to this extreme.
It may be a case of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it would also be an extremely good idea for members of the older generation — especially South Asians, and most of all (given the current situation) people belonging to the Muslim community — to refrain from the knee-jerk, unthinking racism against the majority white Western population which we know is quite widesread amongst 1st-Generation desis out here in the West. If someone spends a lifetime hearing “Saala gaura this, saala gaura that”, “Gaure log aise hi hotha hai”, along with constant insults about the alleged corruption and “lack of morals” of white people and Western culture in general, and the tacit or overt pressure to conform to an “us and them” mentality vis-a-vis white people, then it’s not surprising that some of the 2nd-Generation will fall into the trap of radicalism.
Personally I think that, at least here in the UK, there may also be some metaphorical schizophrenia due to the colonial history of the country with regards to the Indian subcontinent — people have immigrated to the very country which ruled their homeland for so long, so maybe there are some guilt & ambivalence issues at work on the part of many of the 1st-Generation if they still harbour resentment (or stronger emotions) against the indigenous British because of all that. Which of course they will pass onto their kids too. This is going to be further exacerbated by the desi tendency to make sweeping generalisations along with thinking in terms of group guilt/collective responsibility.
Just my own subjective thoughts, I’m no expert but am basing this on my own experiences and observations. I’m not sure how 1st-Generation desis over in the US think & behave towards the Caucasian majority there — after all, the US does not have any imperial history with the Indian subcontinent. So maybe there is less guilt about assimilating and “joining the majority culture” ?
Manish wrote:
Dammit, weÂ’ve lived among a hundred and fifty million Muslims in India. Unlike you, we know them, we understand them, theyÂ’re our neighbors, theyÂ’re our friends; and except for those whose conservatism is near-Hasidic, most are utterly unremarkable
I very much appreciate Manish’s admirable and well-intentioned sentiment, but the sentence above still leaves me quite sad. It pretty clearly defines who is ‘we’ and who is ‘them’ at Sepiamutiny.
Then this should make you even sadder… when you see the brainwashing going on in “their” world:
Primers Of Hate
Then this should make you even sadder… when you see the brainwashing going on in “their” world:
Yes, but even worse is you automatic conflation of Indian Muslims and Pakistanis. I’m not crazy about condenscension, but I like Pakistan Jao ya kabristan jao even less. Manish and Vikram appear to be the only choices available to Indian Muslims — is there a third way?
Vikram: don’t see why Manish’s comment about “we” living with 150 million Indian Muslims (which I also took exception to, see my comments above) should lead you to post an article about indoctrination by the Pakistani state. Is your point that all Muslims are fungible? Or that Indian Muslims are somehow tainted by what the Pakistani state is doing?
Ikram: I laso take exception to your comment that Manish and Vikram are the only two options left for Indian Muslims. With all due respect to Manish and Vikram, why this pigeon-holing (no better in its own way than what Vikram was doing in his comment)? As I read your comment, you appear to be saying that “Jao Pakistan ya Qabristan” and a hard “us” versus “them” view are the only options open to Indians who are Muslim, and that is not an accurate view of what it means to be Indian Muslim. That is, that is one of the options before us, but it is false to pretend it is the ONLY option before us. The same “choice” was in a sense put before me in 2003, and I enclose a link to my response:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndiaSeminar/message/3383
Vikram,
You just managed to get this website tagged as a right wing site.
“They” know them. Anybody who does not agree with them does not, and a right wing lunatic. Any evidence to the contrary is either proof of you or the source’s extreme nature. Try taking off your white hood as the post clearly states.
** sarcasm end **
Umair: I cannot access you link as I am not a ‘member of the india seminar’. Can you give a summary?
As I read your comment, you appear to be saying that “Jao Pakistan ya Qabristan” and a hard “us” versus “them” view are the only options open to Indians who are Muslim
Not quite. I certainly do not equate the ‘Manish’ viewpoint and the ‘Vikram’ viewpoint. (and they themselves may not hold these views — I don’t want to pigeonhole — its just a shorthand). Manish is far far better. But its still ‘us’ the dominant group versus ‘them’ the minority. Not good enough.
I am honestly asking if there is a third way — fill me in.
No conflation, or no more than Manish’s own conflation. He started the thread by talking about “The War Within”, whose main character is a Pakistani Muslim, and then made the jump to Indian Muslims. I used the same combined logic as the orginal thread seemed to use. Maybe you missed that bit of observation ?
I find it interesting that where is suits people, Muslims are all different, and where it suits them, they are all the same. Perhaps the pigeon holing is because of the mixed messages projected.
OK, apologies for the length, I post the content of the link above (written in 2003):
“I have been asked several times over the last year– by Pakistani acquaintances and relatives, by supporters of the BJP– what I thought about “the status of India as a secular democracy in light of what happened in Gujarat.” Now, I’ve thought a lot about this, since the 1992 Babri masjid demolition, the 1993 pogroms, and in a more focused way since the Gujarat pogroms, and I have to say at the outset that this is a very difficult question. Part of the difficulty lies in the extreme partisanship that underlies so much of the debate over this issue over the past year– indeed I think it no exaggeration to say that most of what has been said on Godhra and the subsequent pogrom is very rarely considered on its merits, but is instead dismissed as “anti-Hindu” by many, “fascist” by others, and “an attempt to justify/excuse/overlook violence” by yet more. I must confess that I find it somewhat shocking that so many should have asked the question “is secularism dead?” in the wake of Gujarat. Consider: two thousand people have been massacred, a hundred and fifty thousand have been rendered homeless (some have put the figure even higher), and some people seem to mourn the “death” of “secularism” far more than the indisputable deaths of such large numbers of people. This is characteristic of the vacuousness, and even callousness, at the heart of so much debate in India– many Indians from the “educated classes” have always concerned themselves far more with abstractions like “secularism,” and in recent years, “Hindutva”) than with flesh-and-blood people [Case in point: contrast the outrage evoked by mistreatment of Muslims, because it implicates “secularism,” with the relative indifference to caste-based atrocities, because that “merely” implicates “caste-ism,” understood simply as a form of “backwardness” or prejudice by many]. The first question to ask is what one means by the term “secularism.” There are several possible answers to this question. Let’s start with something like a dictionary definition: as applied to politics, government, and statecraft, secularism would mean the absolute separation of religion from these aspects of life. In this sense secularism is certainly dead in India, but this begs the question as to whether it was ever “living” in any meaningful sense of the word. It can hardly be disputed that since 1947 India has never been a secular state in this sense. A more interesting question is whether ANY state would pass the test were the bar set so high. For instance, Britain is not even formally a secular state, given that it has an official religion, the head of state also heads the religion, etc.. In the United States, which is formally secular, Christian imagery, symbolism, and rationale pervade political discourse (far more in some parts of the country than in others, obviously)– it’s even debatable whether any Presidential candidate could win these days without professing his religiosity, and it’s highly unlikely that a hard-core atheist would win even at the state- level in the USA (which serves as an interesting contrast to India, where at least one state– Tamil Nadu– has several times elected militantly anti-religious political figures since 1967). Having said that, certainly Britain “feels” like a secular country, as does the USA for the most part. But this is not because of any British legal or conscious political commitment to secularism, but simply reflects the fact that organized Christianity has withered away in Britain (and many other Western countries); i.e. Britain, I would argue, “feels” secular more because the majority of the “Christian” population doesn’t care much for religion one way or another (compared to the USA, church attendance, to use one barometer, is extremely low. Given that Indians (at least in my experience, though I am aware that I am generalizing here) tend on average to be more attached to their religions than Britons are, it is to be expected that religion will play a greater role in public life in India than in Britain (when Brits were more attached to the Church of England, it was not particularly pleasant to be either a Jew or even a Catholic in that country, or for instance a Jew or a Protestant in France). In short, Britain is a “secular” country mainly for HISTORICAL reasons (which histories were of course not inevitable), and India, taking my “hard” definition of secularism as the benchmark, never has been. In the US, the founding fathers made a willed decision in favor of secularism, that is to say a POLITICAL decision. The same sort of political decision was made by at least two of India’s most prominent “founders,” Nehru and Ambedkar. But Nehruvian secularism (in the sense of how Nehru saw the issue, not the term-of-abuse the Congress has transformed it into)and even moreso Ambedkarite secularism was always (well, at least for the foreseeable future) going to be a minority viewpoint in India.
The above definition of secularism does not interest me all that much–more accurately, since I would certainly like my government to not be mixed up in religious matters, I should say that DEBATE on this issue does not really interest me very much, as it seems pretty much like an open and shut case: a country either professes this sort of secularism, or it does not; if it does profess this sort of secularism, various historical/social/political reasons will determine the “secular” nature of its society (think Britain: formally not secular, but “actually” far more secular than many theoretically secular countries like India), and of its polity. Gujarat or no Gujarat, this sort of secularism has not existed in a meaningful sense in India since the founding itself. There is another sense in which people use the term “secularism,” namely that secularism does not mean the absence of religion from politics and government, but that on the whole no one ought to be disadvantaged on account of religion. By whatever label we wish to call the latter, it seems to me a very worthy idea. Now where does this idea of secularism stand after Gujarat? Certainly in the violence-affected parts of Gujarat it would be a cruel joke to tell a Muslim that he/she has not been disadvantaged in the most extreme way because of his/her religion– that is simply not true, and all this talk of post-Godhra “reaction,” and all the various obfuscations cannot hide that fact. Gujarat is not a secular state. Period. As was true of the Sikhs in 1984, or Bombay in 1993, minorities are grievously disadvantaged, because the state itself turns against them in times of crisis, and the very signs of citizenship– voter registration lists being a prominent example–are used to hunt them down, often with active police and politician participation. If this were all that could be said about the position of minorities in India, then even the question of secularism could not arise.
But Gujarat is not contemporary India’s only communal reality. This is not to underplay Gujarat– it is certainly A reality of Indian life, but it is not the ONLY reality. Obviously, the media is structured to report the exceptional, the sensational, and has little incentive to report the innumerable ordinary instances of peaceful co-existence. It is important to assert that Gujarat is the heinous exception to the rule, but also to remember that it is in the heinous exception that disadvantage on the basis of religious affiliation manifests itself in the most extreme way possible. Yet there are also other realities: when I was growing up no state seemed to me more notable for communal violence than U.P.; when my parents and grand-parents were growing up perhaps no city was more famous for communal violence than Calcutta– and yet today both places compare very favorably to Gujarat. There is nothing in Gujarati, Bengali, or U.P. culture that makes communal violence more or less likely– what is different, and what made a difference, in U.P., Bihar, and West Bengal was a certain sort of politics, a politics that actively has tried to lessen the extreme disadvantages of massacre and mayhem based on religious affiliation, and (in U.P.) of systemic disadvantage on the basis of caste to some extent (though not yet on the basis of religion). Take the Left Front in West Bengal– one can criticize that government on a number of fronts (and that would be the subject of some other musing of mine), but I think it is beyond dispute that they have made the fostering of communal, relatively peaceful, co-existence one of their aims. What name shall we give this politics, or the politics of the Samajwadi Janata Party, or Laloo’s RJD, or the BSP, or of the Telegu Desam, or the current Congress government in Delhi, etc.? One such name, I believe, is “secular.” If Gujarat is India’s reality, these other examples are equally “real.” If Gujarat is cited for the death of secularism, then these other places should be cited for the reverse, as places where a “secular” politics is struggling along (not always coherently, not even in a principled manner, but impossible to ignore nonetheless, trying to assert itself. So what does this say about India’s status as a secular country? My answer is another question: what sort of secularism is this, that dies in Gujarat, but seems alive and kicking in Calcutta? Is it fair to judge Calcutta on the basis of Gujarat? No, it is not. But one has to realize that many of those who say India’s claim to secular status is dead after Gujarat are not simply stating a fact, but they too have a political aim. The “two- nation theorists” are not really interested in answering the question “Is India secular or not?” at an empirical level; rather, they already have a set view of what India “is,”–namely, not secular– and given that view it is not surprising that they have seized upon Gujarat, not as a pogrom, not as a manifestation of fascist violence, not even as a tragedy: they have instead seized upon it as revealing the very ESSENCE of India. This is as true of Praveen Togadia–who insists that Gujarat represents a watershed awakening for “Hindu Samaj”– as it is for Musharraf, who insists that Gujarat “shows” that Indian democracy is simply a “bluff.” For both, then, Gujarat makes everything clear. Quite frankly, I have little patience with attempts to read an event as affording special insight into the essence of any country,culture, or religion, particularly of one as fantastically complex and diverse as India. To read Gujarat as revealing the essence of India says more about one’s own ideological position than it does about India. India does not need such champion exegetes to give the Gujarat pogrom meaning–such people are interested only in judgments, not in contributing to anyone’s understanding, because they have already made up their minds. To repeat, if Gujarat shows all of these things, what does Calcutta show? For those of us who feel that Indians have not yet made up their minds, who feel that the country’s future every which way is still up for grabs, Gujarat does not “settle” the issue of secularism, but shows that the way ahead is unknown, difficult, but not hopeless; those who throw up their hands and say “it’s all over after Gujarat” (unless one is talking about the victims: in their situation despair is perhaps the only natural reaction) never had much invested in secularism in the first place. The above should not be misunderstood as a call for complacency– one reason we are at this pass as a country is because, faced with periodic outbursts of violence, the Congress-style secularists often respond with some platitude, such as “the people are basically secular.” This is drivel. “The people” are “basically” neither secular nor intolerant– i.e. “the people” can be tolerant,but they can also be frighteningly intolerant. It all depends on what sort of politics is gaining ground, what politics is being created–and “the people” are not just passive recipients of politics, but “make” politics every day in their own lives. The way to oppose bigotry and fascism is not to resort to abstractions, but to articulate a vision of politics that can effectively counter fascism. If fascist politics spreads everywhere, then no doubt Gujarat can happen in Calcutta, in U.P., in short everywhere; but if we react to Gujarat as if such politics already had taken over everywhere in India, and that the success of such politics is forever assured in Gujarat, then the latter will soon become a reality.
There is a third way in which one can use the term “secularism” in an Indian context. This approach recognizes that there is no hard separation between religion and politics in India, and that minorities are often grievously disadvantaged on the basis of religion (as in Gujarat, by the state itself)– the crucial thing is that secularism on this view is not a fact but an aspiration. We might not be very secular, but we are trying to be moreso, would be its mantra. This is how I understand the Indian constitution’s commitment to secularism: the Framers knew that in several respects secularism only existed on paper– but the paper expressed an ideal, and by virtue of being enshrined as an official ideal, India became more of a secular country than it otherwise would have been. But ideals must be nurtured– all too often, in recent years “secularism” is a word Indian politicians like to trot out only in international settings, to taunt Pakistan and to show the West how much more enlightened and progressive India is compared to its neighbor. At home, the aspirational force of this ideal has certainly dimmed, and a stridency is in the air: “accomodation” and “compromise” have become dirty words where communal relations are concerned (unless it’s the Sangh Parivar insisting Muslims do all the compromising), but there are plenty of people in India (and Gujarat has only highlighted this)for whom secularism (however one defines it) is still a worthy ideal. Will this be enough? I don’t know. But as long as the aspiration exists in some significant way in society, secularism (as defined in this third way) is not dead yet. The day no-one cares about secularism, the day secularism only exists as a stick to beat Pakistan with in international fora, that day secularism will truly be dead. But as long as that day is not here in full force, let us not hasten its coming by writing secularism’s obituary.”
Umair Muhajir/Ikram – I think you guys are misunderstanding what Manish said. I take exception to the fact that you would try to create some kind of equivalency between Manish and Vikram. And Jai singh, as for your comment about Knee Jerk responses, I do agree that at times people do tend to get defensive, but calling a right winger or moron out cannot always be dismissed as a knee jerk response. For every Jai singh or Kush Tandon willing to seriously debate solutions to a real threat to the world (Islamist terrorism), there is a right wing nutjob
I am NOT equating what Manish and Vikram said, I am merely saying that I find both views problematic.
Correct. There is a lot of “group labelling” and generalisation going on here. I think one needs to be very careful and very precise in terms of who one is speaking about when using terms like “we” and “them”.
For example:
Unless you’re referring to SM participants based back in India, with all due respect this is factually incorrect. The vast majority of Mutineers appear to be based in the US, along with a sprinkling of people like me and Bong Breaker who live in the UK. Therefore, “we” have not lived amongst 150 million+ Muslims in India, and so on. As an ethnic group we certainly have a history connected with Muslims going back over 1000 years, and due to our familial and cultural environments we therefore do have a greater level of knowledge and understanding of the dynamics involved than, for example, your average Caucasian person would, even though we live out here in the West. However, beyond a certain point, we are not necessarily in a position to speak for the 800 million+ non-Muslims who live back in India. The same logic applies to the rest of Manish’s paragraph.
Yes. Indian Muslims — on an individual basis — “side” with whoever happens to morally be right, irrespective of their nationality or religious affiliation. Which means one’s “allies” should be individuals/groups who one regards as having the moral higher ground. This therefore means that one does not “side” with another person or group purely because they share the same national or religious affiliation as you, and the converse does not apply either. View everyone as your fellow human being first and foremost and make a decision based on that.
Manish, I respect your work and words which I have had the delight to read over the past year plus. I realize that SM is about accepting and appreciating viewpoints from all around. However, according to SM policy, one cannot make comments that are “Requests for celebrities’ contact info; racist, abusive, illiterate, content-free or commercial comments; personal, non-issue-focused flames; intolerant or anti-secular comments; and long, obscure rants may be deleted. Unless theyÂ’re funny. ItÂ’s all good then.”
I personally don’t find the use of the above words funny. I find it abusive, gendered, violent, sexist, and intolerant. Not to get at you, but when we sit and get angry over the things that leaders of various South Asian countries say about their women, we should not continue to add fire to that flame. I am sure you respect women and men, so I would suggest not using language like that. It makes me, and I’m sure others, uncomfortable to comment because that keeps lingering in the back of their head….