Salman Rushdie joins a group of prominent intellectuals & public figures in an anti-“Islamist” manifesto published in the now famous Jyllands-Posten (reprinted here in full because I agree with it so much) –
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.
The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.
Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man’s domination of woman, the Islamists’ domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.
We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of “Islamophobia”, an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.
We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.
We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.
Cosigning with Salman is another SM profilee – Irshad Manji.
As the old saying goes, even a doctrine of tolerance requires certain things that you’ve gotta be uncompromising and, uh, intolerant about. Freedom of expression certainly fits that bill. And when everything that can be nudged around has been, what’s left is an essential clash of values – piety vs. discourse. Traditionalism vs. Women’s Lib. And so on.
Until recently, most of these values were wrapped up in the not-quite-appropriate moniker of Westernism. But, as Rushdie et. al. succinctly point out, to ascribe a name that’s also a place to these values dramatically understates their universal appeal. One of my favorite bloggers, Belmont Club, eloquently observes the origins of this particular declaration –
The intellectual gauntlet has been flung full in the face of Islamism by an unlikely group which includes a Somalian woman, Bangladeshis, exiled Iranians, Lebanese, fugitive British writers of subcontinental origin and an assortment of individuals with a vague left-wing background, none of whom would have been granted admittance to a London gentleman’s club in the 19th century.
Locke, Smith, and Mill would be proud of these Enlightenment children – born a continent away.
Sahej,
Since certain people seem to be unable to accept that the basic concept of “rights” is not a purely Western notion, and in fact has indeed been defined often as separate from “duty” within Indian history itself, perhaps you should explain what Guru Tegh Bahadur died for (for example)…..
Jai – Are you suggesting that Guru Tegh Bahadur and the Muslims were using the same notion of rights? Even if you take the politics out of it and look at it purely from an ethical perspective the fallacy of regarding this as a rights issue becomes clear. In any case, the thrust of the topic here is the universal applicability of nonsense notions churned out by the west – an individual has a right to be happy for example. This right was handed down by God we are further assured. Really? Asian cultures on the other hand tell us being happy requires hard work, self control etc. etc. It’s not a freebie handout from God at all.
Dharmaserf – Oh, I don’t feel picked on – I’m always up for a healthy debate. And while we’re nitpicking issues because we can, I know we’re in agreement over much of what we think about much of this stuff. I feel like we should just go early-80s, pick up a couple of foam bats and whack each other around with them – what do you think? That, or play winner-takes-all online texas hold ’em.
Divya,
You’re not being clear about exactly which aspect of Guru Tegh Bahadur’s definition of the right to freedom of worship you disagree with, at least with regards to the Western notion of rights in this matter. I cannot answer your question unless you clarify your statements.
There are also basic, universal human rights enshrined within Sikhism in a number of different areas. In some ways, the core Sikh ideals are not so different from the US Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, along with many aspects of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I believe that the exact concept, at least in the American sense, was that an individual has a basic right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”.
I do not see why a person should not have the right to be happy in their lives, without untoward interference from others (especially individuals/groups who have their own nefarious agendas, even more so if these individuals/groups are in some kind of position of power over the person concerned), obviously as long as their happiness is not as a result of grossly self-destructive actions or maliciousness towards others. Perhaps you are living in the wrong country if you disagree with this basic American principle.
It’s not a matter of blindly believing whatever “Western culture” or “Asian culture” (both broad terms and by no means homogeneous) may tell you. You have to use your own critical faculties, as objectively as possible and as a human being first and foremost, not as someone theoretically allied to either “camp”. What do your own intelligence, emotions, and instincts tell you ?
Perhaps the real truth, regarding the human “right to happiness”, is actually a combination of both Western and Asian concepts ?
brownie–
I’m so down for the Texas hold ’em. In fact, I’m have a poker/oscar night tonight at my place. Wanna join in?
Serf – I’m down. You payin’ for cab and um, plane fare?
I’ll bring the booze and smokes.
Jai – Freedom to worship is an issue only because certain religions did not or do not permit others to have this freedom. Therefore, if one is to go about beating oneÂ’s chest about freedom of rights to worship, shouldn’t we dig a little deeper and find out why this is an issue in the first place? What context did the issue of freedom of religion develop in? If you take away the context, the concept ceases to make any sense. This talk of freedoms only diverts the focus from the real issue which is the inherent intolerance in the dominant religions.
The Asian traditions also seek happiness. They refer to it as a goal rather than a right. This is a very important distinction. Implicit in the notion of a goal is a sense of striving. The UN Charter leaves me unimpressed. Such thoughts can be found all over the globe but the UN’s complete failure in this regard speaks volumes. Colonization with all its cruelties happened after the so-called Enlightenment. That makes it all that much worse because people flaunt their lofty thoughts on one hand and hide behind them while looting and raping at the same time.
Divya,
This is partially correct, but not entirely. Freedom to worship can also be an issue in militantly atheistic nations, such as the Communist former Soviet Union and (until very recently) Communist China, for example.
However, your point does indeed also apply to certain Abrahamic religions, of course.
Yes but these are events which happened centuries ago. Most of the people who were directly involved in perpetuating colonialism have been dead for a very long time. Speaking as some who lives in the country primarily responsible for India’s subjugation (apart from the Mughals, of course), I can tell you categorically that these matters are not a matter of pride in most quarters of the indigenous population — in fact, in recent times there have been active social and educational moves to hammer home the crimes and injustice of colonialism in order to emphasise awareness of the issue (especially amongst the young) and therefore prevent any recurrence. Also, the British appetite for imperialism was pretty much exhausted due to the horrors of the Second World War, and although one of major reasons they subsequently began relinquishing their colonies was due to unsustainability on their part (as their resources had been massively drained by war), I am sure that being on the receiving end of an attempt of conquest by a truly ruthless foreign power also enabled many people to “see the light”.
Apart from a small minority of right-wing extremists — and such people exist in many countries, including India as we all know — modern-day British people are very different indeed to those involved in the imperial era, especially with regards to those here who have grown up surrounded by Indians during the past 30+ years. So unless you’re referring specifically to the supposedly evangelical-driven agenda and actions of the present US administration, I think it is time for you to let this grudge go. Those days are long gone. In religious terms, most local Brits are only nominally Christian, and certainly not in the orthodox sense of “believe in Jesus or you will go to Hell” — this is a far more atheistic/agnostic nation than the US. And yes they do believe in universal human rights here and, to a great extent, do indeed implement them — it’s the reason why the openly jihadist elements within British Muslim society are able to get away so much with their rantings, along with why there have not been mass deportations or mass riots/lynchings of British Muslims (or indeed anyone who looks “Muslim”, ie. including the rest of us). Furthermore, you cannot underestimate the present furore within British society over matters such as Guantanamo, “extraordinary rendition”, Abu Ghraib, continuing outrages by some Western soldiers, collateral damage, and so on. These things are specifically driven by a genuine concern for universal human rights.
With regards to the “other” major Abrahamic religion, there are unfortunately large numbers of adherents who do indeed aspire to be modern-day Mahmud Ghaznis and Aurangzebs, of course (some of them even hold rallies in central London and appear on the BBC & CNN to openly declare their jihadist and caliphate aspirations). This is a different matter entirely and certainly a very valid matter to be concerned about.
Jai – Thank you for your comments. I’ve only recently woken up to politics so my grudge is fresh. But it’s directed more towards the hijacking of culture (abrahmization of all cultures) than anything else. This is because I seriously seek the proverbial wisdom of the east but find I have to brush off layers and layers of normative junk before I can hope to access any of it. So this is something that is very much relavent today and I am not obssessing on the past. I simply want access to my own culture.
Hey Divya, Your post made me smile. The issue you bring up, about “access” to your own culture is an interesting one. I don’t know if looking to an “Eastern” mode of thought really provides much of an answer. Isn’t that just reifying the categories we’ve been arguing against in the this series of posts? “The Wisdom of the East” is itself an Orientalist construction, no? Cultural appropriation is pretty easy to spot with a little bit of work and some historical research. However, I wonder if we can ever “access” a culture when our intentions are already marked – are we all not creating the objects of our knowledge to some degree? The “West” when it studies the “East” does it continuously and I think we’ve discussed that already in enough detail that I can just gloss it over here. But you and I and everyone else we know shapes “our own culture” by our the very parameters of our desire for “access”. I empathise with your “grudge” because although the days of overt colonialim are over, much of its legacy is not. But, as I am reminded all the time, the question of gaze is not confined just to a bunch of rational white men trying to unearth the “truths” of the East. We (yes, even us brown women) are just as implicated in that continuously interpretive project.
Divya,
Well, diving headfirst into research on Indian culture and history is something I did myself about a decade ago (it’s still ongoing), and there’s nothing wrong with that. However, it’s worth remembering that many aspects of Indian culture itself have been “Abrahamised” to some extent already due to the Islamic influence over the last 1000 years. What may often be regarded as “Indian norms and values” are not necessarily Indian in origin at all, despite what the so-called Hindutvas and (for example) all those annoying Saas-Bahu serials may say. I’m sure you understand what I mean here 😉
Trying to get to the bottom of the truth is a tricky process, and hell I’ve gone through it myself, but one does need to be as thorough, objective, and honest as possible. It would also be worthwhile to do as much research as possible on the major religions which have had an impact on various aspects of Indian society — and with all due respect, beware of accidentally lumping them all together into one apparently-homogeneous group termed “the Indian traditions”. In the case of the latter, the commonalities may be more prevalent than the differences, but there are still often huge theological disparities which are not necessarily widely known and which one may not necessarily be aware of. Also, reading up on Islam, its history, and its tenets would also be a very good idea, politically-incorrect as this notion may be, as the values involved here have indeed had a huge impact on many aspects of Indian thinking and behaviour, even if the average Indian isn’t always conscious of this and attributes his/her behaviour and that of the surrounding society to some vague notion of “Indian samaaj” and “Indian culture”. So it’s no longer a matter of “the Abrahamic West” versus “the (Indian) East”; I’m afraid the Abrahamic Middle-East has already exerted its influence on the Indian psyche to a huge extent, in fact to a greater degree than the subsequent British influence, considering the much longer duration of “foreign” rule, the far greater interaction with ordinary non-Muslim Indians right down to the village level, and of course the conversion to Islam by so many indigenous Indians too.
In terms of the European colonial era, yes it was a nasty business which is quite possibly making you furious at the injustice of it all, and I’m sure many of us went through it too the more we found out about the unsavoury historical details and the racist attitudes often involved, but — again — it’s important not to let the completely-understandable indignation become out of proportion and aimed at present-day Westeners who are not responsible for the actions of some of their ancestors (in fact white Americans have no colonial history with India at all). Racism can be a two-way street; we know how a disproportionate number of South Asians (back in the subcontinent and overseas, especially the older generation) are guilty of this too — the whole “saala gaura, saala angrez” mindset can become a knee-jerk reaction — so we have to ensure we don’t fall into this trap ourselves. I can remember British Muslim friends from my college days (about a decade ago) behaving this way just like so many Hindus and Sikhs, and becoming just as furious the more they found out about the colonial era via their own research, and now we have people blowing up their fellow citizens on the train, openly supporting OBL, 40% apparently wanting Sharia law in Muslim-dominated parts of the UK, and people openly campaigning to turn the UK into some kind of caliphate. Prejudice and anger due to historical grievances can be a dangerous road to go down. You can see the behaviour of some of the right-wing Hindu groups back in India in relation to any perceived “negative Western influence”; those people are often so blinded by their racism towards the West that it’s not surprising they seem to have more in common with some of the hard-line Islamist groups, with whom they often share the same ideas. Again, the irony of their own views not actually being Hindu or Indian in origin appears to have passed them by.
With regards to the various declarations of human rights discussed earlier — yes, these high ideals are not being implemented to the degree that they should be, but at least they have been formulated and people/groups here are trying to aspire to them and promote them throughout the world (even if the methods are sometimes highly misguided) — which is certainly more than we can say for the actions of large parts of the rest of the human race. Credit where credit is due.
In any case, it’s not a competition between “the West” and “Indian culture”, a race to see which is more “superior”. Both have their good and bad points, and as the world as a whole goes, indigenous Westerners are a pretty good bunch these days and there are far worse places in the world to live, especially for people of Indian origin (I could direct you towards 57 other countries specifically if you disagree). Compared to most of the alternatives, I think it’s a good thing that the Western influence is dominant in the world today — although of course there is always room for improvement and there is plenty the West could learn from many other parts of the planet (including India in some ways). And vice versa.
Brownfrown and Jai – My frustration is mostly directed at the philosophic or academic level and not at the street level. It’s good to thrash these things out and we are fortunate to have a forum to do this. This is not about competition between east and west. The west gave us the internet after all, and planes to travel all over the world. It has my eternal gratitude for that. Intellectually and ethically however it is near zero.
Even if it sounds orientalist, there is wisdom in the east and this wisdom is increasingly hard to access. To take just one example, this eastern wisdom has now become clouded by the moral “ought” (a Christian import). So no, it is not easy to spot at all because most of us grow up believing in this moral ought. Contrast this with the context-based eastern wisdom which used to prevail – an action was right or wrong to the extent it was appropriate. Each appropriate action is bound to have some inappropriateness built into it. Fallibility is human and ethics is not what God wants us to do. Individuals developed a sense of ethics through stories, not prescribed notions of right and wrong. But this is not true any longer. Remember how fanatically people defended the right to free speech on this very board? Or how fanatically they defend freedom to practice any religion, even if that religion is centered around the belief that there is only one true religion? It has become natural for us to simply take a normative stance on all ethical matters: killing is wrong; lying is wrong; we’re all equal, etc. Why is it that no-one can see the injustice in treating everyone equally? The cartoon film Invincibles seemed to catch on to this notion. Nietzsche too has expressed his contempt for this “culture of mediocrity” as he called it. All of this is very much western and is accepted as the gold standard. And you’re right we’re all implicated in the perpetuation of this. The sad part is that since this normative standard is impossible to live up to it necessarily boils down to a culture of lip service and does more damage to society than anything to protect it.
These are just the superficial problems. The truth is way more insidious than this. All of us are now basically Christian. Jai, please reflect on what theology means and if your “religion” really has a theology. And since you use the word tenet all the time with respect to your traditions, I’d be interested in learning if any of your Gurus really did ask of their disciples to abandon all wisdom and stick to some prescription. Original quotes would help since I am deeply skeptical of your use of this word.
There’d be nothing wrong with any of this, if it weren’t for the fact that we’ve traded gold for glass beads.
Divya,
I have to very strongly disagree with this. Compared with most Middle Eastern states, in terms of governmental and societal “ethics” you are very lucky indeed to be in the West, especially the US. You cannot tell me that your basic human rights, freedom of thought & action, and indeed treatment by other people would be “ethically superior” in places like Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Since you’ve asked me for the Sikh perspective on some other matters :
Yes but in Sikhism some actions are also fundamentally wrong, regardless of the circumstances. There are some absolutes, although not to the extent as in certain other faiths; not only is the context important, but also the motivations for the person engaging in the action. There are degrees of right and wrong; everything doesn’t necessarily fall into black-and-white extremes (although some actions do). Also, the means are as important as the ends.
Fallibility is indeed human but the Sikh ethos is that one should aim to surpass one’s human failings to the best of one’s ability and increase one’s inner spirituality and awareness of God to the exent of becoming genuinely saintly in one’s ethical conduct. Some actions are positive, some are negative, and there is a whole grey area of neutrality in-between; context obviously plays a role, but it is the trap of negative conduct that one is eventually supposed to be able to completely, automatically, intuitively avoid falling into. “Ethics” is therefore very much tied into God’s wishes for us.
Historical predecents for ethical behaviour play a part in Sikhism, but the major principle in the religion is that one develops a sense of ethics intuitively by controlling what the faith terms the metaphorical “5 Thieves” (our Ego being the most dangerous). There are certain other things one is recommended to do as well, in terms of assisting one’s own mental & emotional self-discipline, along with how we regard and behave towards our fellow human beings. The aim of all of this is, again, to gain true mental and emotional clarity and thereby become in touch with our “true” spirituality and the divine essence of God in the universe, so that we are basically “plugged into God” and our sense of right & wrong subsequently flows naturally.
It’s not about treating everyone as though they were the same, but to acknowledge every human being’s intrinsic value and therefore to treat them with a basic, equal level of courtesy and dignity. A diamond is still a diamond, even if there are a billion of them. And if you want the Sikh angle on this, it’s a basic principle of the faith due to the teaching that the “divine light” of God exists equally in every human being equally, regardless of their background, gender, station in life, or outward conduct.
The Gurus never expected anyone to believe anything blindly or to follow anything blindly, including their own teachings. A Sikh is supposed to use his/her critical faculties to independently analyse the topic concerned and then make an informed decision as to whether to accept it or not. There are, however, some basic principles regarding the nature of God, Man, and spirituality that Sikhs are recommended to accept if they are on a genuine quest for “truth”; nevertheless, every single aspect of Sikhism is a recommendation, not a compulsion. Whether one chooses to accept the recommendation is left up to the free will of the individual, but one is also supposed to take responsibility for the outcome of one’s decisions (the repercussions in the outer world and the impact on our souls and psyche). You reap what you sow.
Yes it does, absolutely. However, accepting this theology is recommended purely as a starting point; the aim is to eventually become so in tune with one’s soul and the divine presence in the universe everywhere that one gains a tangible first-hand awareness and realisation of this theology directly. In essence, the Sikh view is that every human being has the potential to achieve “moksha” during their lifetime, to become a “prophet” in the Abrahamic sense of the word and a truly divinely-inspired “rishi” in the Hindu sense.
If you want to find out about Sikh “theology” and “tenets”, you can read the Gurus’ own words first-hand in the Guru Granth Sahib (starting on the first page is a good idea as it’s Guru Nanak’s summary of the nature of God). English translations are available on http://www.Sikhnet.com and http://www.Sikhs.org . Both websites also summarise Sikh theology and tenets, based on the Gurus’ teachings. Sikhism is not as prescriptive or “theocratic” as Islam (especially w.r.t the contents of the Quran and Sharia Law), but there are some matters on which it is absolutely clear and unequivocal.