It seems a little anti-climactic to say it, but given how long we’ve been arguing talking about M.I.A. here, it probably needs to be addressed: M.I.A’s “Paper Planes” has been nominated for “Best Record of the Year.”
She’s up against Robert Plant and Alison Krauss, on a groundbreaking country music collaboration, and Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida.” So she has no chance of winning (the Grammy’s usually favor established artists and veteran rock stars over rappers, even innovative rappers). Still, chica has come a very long way since she started out a few years ago.
I also wanted to take this opportunity to wish her and her fiancé the best for the child they’re expecting. There’s something profoundly humanizing and clarifying about becoming a parent, though it also changes how most people approach their work and career. (Whatever happens, I do hope that M.I.A. will show up on Noggin and do a song for Yo Gabba Gabba! like The Ting Tings recently did. Perhaps a child-friendly version of “Galang Galang”?)
Speaking of raising children, and on a somewhat more serious note, it seems worth saying that the story that moved me most this (terrible) past week was the story of the Indian ayah, Sandra Samuel, who risked getting shot by cocaine-snorting, steroids-injecting, Islamofascist psychos, to rescue little Moshe Holtzberg at Chabad House in Mumbai:
I was pleased to see that the Israeli government has given her a high honor for what she did. She deserves it.
147 · louiecypher said
Ok, well I’m not stupid and I do have a fair understanding of history. According to what I understand (and I have talked with the older generation about this) is that West Pakistan was oppressing East Pakistan, deciding that they needed to use Urdu as the official language, not letting the assembly be called in Dhaka, etc. Thus, this was a war for ethnic independence, not a religious war. The muslim majority in West pakistan would presumably not have had any issues with the muslim majority in East Pakistan in terms of religion. In a war situation, many outrages are committed (Iraq anyone?) Of course, the independence of Bangladesh basically destroys any argument about Pakistan being a nation for all of the subcontinent’s Muslims. I personally would love for Pakistan not to be defined on the basis of religion, but unfortunately that’s not going to happen in the near term.
Secondly, I don’t think you understand my position on Kashmir, so I’m going to state it here. I believe that a plebescite should be held and the Kashmiri people should be asked whether they want to join India, Pakistan, or become independent. If I were them, based on how they’ve been treated by India, and the state Pakistan is in, I would want independence. As Mercutio says in “Romeo and Juliet”, “A plague on both your houses”. Anyway, it’s up to the Kashmiri people to decide. Whatever, the end result, I believe that there must be some sort of solution and soon, or else these terrorist acts will continue occuring more frequently. Now that I’ve stated my position, I don’t appreciate anyone making assumptions about my motivations. Just because I’m Pakistani doesn’t mean you know me as an individual and understand my positions. Thanks.
132 · A N N A said123 · Nibu Achar said
thanks for saying this.
honestly, dude, stfu when you talk about other people’s struggles unless you know what you’re talking about. The 1971 struggle was the culmination of many many things, including the Bengali language movement, the disenfranchisement of East Pakistanis, the economics of Pakistan after independence, the elevation of the military and the bureacuracracy to the determinet of constitutional law, the recency of the Pakistan nationalist movement, that India owed Pakistan a shitload of money and didn’t pay it immediately (to the best of my recollection), British-American rivalries, and eventually the metastization of the conflict into the results of the election just before 1971 – the idea that it somehow the Hindu-Muslim dynamic was the dominant relevant one HERE is absurd – Ayub Khan and Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were hardly Islamists along the lines of Zia, whether you like them or not. And it goes without saying there’sa ll the colonial political economy’s stuff that got in – so Punjabis were allegedly a martial race, etc.
what happened subsequently in Bangladesh is an entirely different matter – but even there, there is a reason why there were anti-Hindu pogroms in Bangladesh after there were anti-Muslim pogroms in India (i.e. Babri Masjid). This dynamic is REGIONAL not national – and it always has been, just as it is lcoal. It is only a state conflict between India and Pakistan and there involves all the other nonsense that state conflicts generally involve as well. If you want to sympathize with Bangladeshi Hindus (and Christians and Buddhists) your best bet is to ally yourself with Indian Muslims and christians and Buddhists and dalits and adivasis and with Pakistani Ahmadis and Hindus and others – the problem is majoritarian violence under the guise of a Hindu-Muslim conflict. You might also throw in the distinct lack of a broadbased organized and pro-poor feminist movement in all three countries as a major problem (though moreso in Pakistan and India probably).
This analysis might not be compeltely correct – it’s off the cuff – but it’s a vast improvement over this ideological drivel that’s being promoted and using Bangladeshi Hindus as a political football.
147 · louiecypher said
and p.s. i’m an american desi yet somehow vastly more informed than you about this despite my vast privileges as a religious minority in the united states, which involve watching my tax money go to murder hundreds of thousands of people and deport people because they’re…religious minorities- oh the sheer joy of it. 😉
Thank you Dr. Amonymous! Very well said:)
That depends on what you mean by Kashmiri people. Hindus have largely been shunted out of Kashmir (including my family who chose to leave shortly after independence). It makes no sense to have a plebiscite that does not include Kashmiris who are either not allowed to live in Kashmir any more or those who were forced to flee in the 90’s.
156 · Divya said
too bad. those who decided to stay, get to play.
that India owed Pakistan a shitload of money and didn’t pay it immediately (to the best of my recollection)
Hmm.. India din’t pay the money in late 47 (due to Kashmir skirmishes) and paid it in Jan 48 due to the fasting of Gandhi. Never knew that influenced the oppression of East Pakistanis till now, Too bad. 🙂
i’m an american desi yet somehow vastly more informed than you about this despite my vast privileges as a religious minority in the united states,
that’s right. we can see that. 🙂
Ayub Khan and Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan were hardly Islamists along the lines of Zia, whether you like them or not
If they are not as Islamist as Zia, does that mean they are “secularists” ?. Read this resignation letter addressed to the secularist (??) Liaqat Ali Khan by the first Bengali Dalit law minister of Pakistan who took the secular BS of Jinnah seriously and ended up a sore loser..
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Resignation_letter_of_Jogendra_Nath_Mandal
If there is a game. You are welcome to wait in the rain for one.
“STFU”…LoL! Stay classy Dr. Amnonsense, I’ve seen you say in PTR that you are a thoughtful person but lo and behold you are just like the rest of us. Whatever the sources of the conflict it doesn’t change the fact that the Pakistani army had orders to focus their efforts on certain segments of Bangladeshi society (and for the record I said Beng Muslim intellectuals were a primary target) and Hindus I’ve met were on the receiving end of that with the aim of having them flee to India and solve the root of the problem (i.e. insufficient Muslimness) for good. So if you want to analyze everything through the prism of class go right ahead, you will always be wrong because people are more complex than that. Anyway there is no point in me arguing with you, over the past 7 years people in the world have begun to arrive at a consensus about the “Land of the Pure” and you and Kabir have your work cut out for you. I will say though that your team has some of the best PR talent I’ve ever seen, Haqqani is masterful. If things get really bad I am sure he will land on his feet as country manager of Jambajuice or Cinnabon in the newly created secular neoliberal city-state of Karachistan.
Kabir: “Secondly, I don’t think you understand my position on Kashmir, so I’m going to state it here. I believe that a plebescite should be held and the Kashmiri people should be asked whether they want to join India, Pakistan, or become independent. If I were them, based on how they’ve been treated by India, and the state Pakistan is in, I would want independence. As Mercutio says in “Romeo and Juliet”, “A plague on both your houses”. Anyway, it’s up to the Kashmiri people to decide. Whatever, the end result, I believe that there must be some sort of solution and soon, or else these terrorist acts will continue occuring more frequently.”
Kabir: If we are just talking about Kashmir proper (i.e. not Jammu or Ladakh) and the choice is between staying in India or becoming an independent secular state then I and many other Indians would be in favor of plebiscite with the added proviso that Kashmiri Hindus outside of that territory have the right to return. But a secular state that makes no mention of faith would be a must and based on what you have just said I think you would also agree with me. So then my question becomes, outside of the JKLF which purported to be secular, which of the armed groups involved in the violence are killing and dying for a secular independent nation?
Whatever the long-term goals of LeT/ISI are, I think the dismemberment of Pakistan, simpliciter, is much more likely in the next few years (and, not just me–see the latest Foreign Affairs) than the carving off of Kashmir from India. Economic meltdown: check. India-US-Afghan alliance: check. Failure to control own territory: check. Already being bombed by US: check.
Joolz, I would call them terrorists. The terms “jihadist” and “Islamist” are totally devoid of meaning. They’re a pared down way of saying “Muslims we don’t like” or “Muslims we think blow things up” as opposed to containing any substantive descriptions. Pushing the burden onto “mainstream Muslims” is a convenient cop-out and a way for others who are afraid of calling out stupidity (or afraid of the backlash) to get out of feeling any moral or ethical responsibility. I don’t think the burden is ever on a minority community to shoulder the entire responsibility of correcting the false assumptions or stereotypes of the majority. It impacts everyone; it’s everyone’s problem and everyone’s responsibility.
This thread makes me sick, and I’m not going to spend more time on it. It’s not worth arguing with the Berlin wall about whether or not it thinks it should come down.
If we are talking about terms that cause confusion, I would say “Hindutva” is near the top of the list. I know it when I see it, but I do recall how many of you otherwise well informed people were surprised, no shocked, to find out that many of the founders of that school of thought were agnostic and had more in common with European fascists than with religious fundamentalists. I’ve actually read someone specializing in South Asia ask why she saw a good number of people with the surname “Jain” active in the BJP and I had to roll my eyes.
Camille, What’s with the quick move to invoking “minority community” as if the people in question (i.e., the LeT attackers) are some sort of oppressed group? That sounds like US-campus speak, not having anything to do with power politics in South Asia.
Thanks rob for linking to the “Foreign Affairs” article. I’ve just read it and I think its very reasonable and well-argued. Nowhere does it argue for the dismemberment of Pakistan. Instead, it says that the Pakistani government needs to be convinced that stabilizing Afghanistan is more important than the Indo-Pak rivalry. It also calls for a settlement of the Kashmir issue as well as the Durand Line issue, and for open borders with both Afghanistan and India. I hope that the Obama administration reads it and thinks about it.
i don’t see what the problem is with calling the let and their isi/army enablers islamic terrorists, just like i believe that modi, thackeray, advani et al are hindu terrorists. it’s just calling a spade a spade.
Anna, I didn’t mention anything about her natural features, or her size. In fact, the rounding out actually makes her look better than she usually does all skinny. I specifically referred however to the makeup.
i don’t see what the problem is with calling the let and their isi/army enablers islamic terrorists, just like i believe that modi, thackeray, advani et al are hindu terrorists. it’s just calling a spade a spade.
That seems right.
“I would call them terrorists. The terms “jihadist” and “Islamist” are totally devoid of meaning. They’re a pared down way of saying “Muslims we don’t like” or “Muslims we think blow things up” as opposed to containing any substantive descriptions.”
Likewise the term terrorist is devoid of meaning. The United States is considered a terrorist state by many, for example. Besides, the term terrorist in this case would apply to the 10 young men most of all. It does not capture the vast-right-wing-conspiracy nature of the beast. It is an injustice not to examine all aspects of a problem – and to name them. This to me is fundamentalism of its own kind where you offer no substantive grounds yourself other than a certain touchy-feeliness at the cost of real argument. Flounce off all you want, but you in no way are on morally higher ground. Quite the contrary.
Are you kidding me? When these actions are explicitly framed as being defined by the religion, isn’t it the duty of the religious leadership and the co-religionists to make it clear by word and deed that these kinds of actions have no place in the religion? Much like the Muslim organizations in Mumbai denied burial rights to the terrorists involved in the Mumbai bombings claiming that they had repudiated their religion through their actions. Sadly this kind of strong and definitive action has been missing from a large part of the Islamic world, which has instead resorted to burnings and riots over trivialities like cartoons (the most offensive of which were falsely concocted by radical Imams to further their divisive agenda). There has been more than enough condemnation from non Muslims (and I do not mean neocons who have tarred the term “Islamofascism” with their clash of civilizations rhetoric, and their implicit invocations of the white man’s burden)
This assertion is totally devoid of meaning. With respect, if you think ‘Jihadist’ and ‘Islamist’ has no relevance to the discussion of the phenemonon of terrorism we are seeing arising from the Islamic world, if you think they have ‘no meaning’, it is difficult to take you seriously as an interlocuter in this debate. Islamism is a definable and substantial religious-political ideology that fuels much violence not only in the Muslim world, but in the non-Muslim world too. ‘Jihadism’ is all part of the stated formulation of the terrorists. That is how they see themselves, that is how they contextualise their violence, that is how they justify their violence. And yet you seem to think that to discuss this and scrutinise it is in some way a persecution of a minority.
I find your rhetoric a little bit sinister. In as much as it seeks to circumscribe debate, to limit discussion, to throw a generalising blanket over the issue doused with the knee-jerk waters of the slander of bigotry; the formulation that says that identifying and describing theological justification for acts of violence is in some way a process of collective demonisation. Wish it away, wish it away, the Orwellian new speak of the 21st Century.
Indeed. I have no problem describing Hindutva extremists who use violence as Hinudtva fascists, terrorists, porgromists to describe the specific individuals, groups, and leaders who are in accordance with such actions. But according to Camille’s logic I would be persecuting an entire group of people to do so. This is simply ridiculous.
It’s also a recipe for disaster. It means you deny those within religions and communities the space and rhetoric to oppose the religious or cultural precepts that underly the violence and intolerance fomented by extremists. You just sweep it all under the carpet. This castrates them, silences them. And all the while, the people of violence carry on fomenting extremism using religous rhetoric, mis-interpretation and tools. It’s a complete betrayal of them, a betrayal of progressive forces, forces who want to oppose extremism.
Finally! A sensible op-ed in the NY Times to counter the assorted trope-filled tripe from Dalrymple, Zakaria, Suketu et. al. He doesn’t dignify Pankaj Mishra even with a mention 🙂
So we have a brown chick who got knocked up by a black guy. So she was forced into marrying the black guy. Good job MIA.
165 · Camille said
Camille,
You should listen to Michael Savage. He says it the way it is. You are way to uptight & too PC. The liberal media can’t say radical muslim. Why do you think that the Tribune & NYT are going under.
Do some people have a problem w/ a brown lady getting knocked up by a black man? A strong person like MIA would not go for any arranged marriage or be forced into some relationship.
When people get some maturity, they believe in live and let live.
Can Amardeep please edit the post and remove the word “Islamofascist”. There have been good arguments from many people on this thread as to why that is not the appropriate word (it is offensive and devoid of any real meaning). I have no problem with the use of terms such as “jihadist” or “islamist”, but I really don’t like this particular word. This is not a call for censorship or anything, but since Amardeep initially admitted he wrote what he did out of anger and was later on the fence about the word, he might want to reconsider it. Using such terms just damages his and the blog’s credability. Just putting that out there.
I think if we get remove the word Islamofacist, then out of fairness, let’s remove the words, right wing hindu fundamentalists too.
181 · gm said
There’s nothing wrong with right wing hindu extremists. About the islamofascist word, Amardeep didn’t use it as a slur. Here’s wikipedia’s context of Islamofascism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism . There are similarities between the fanatics who misrepresent the religion. Therefore, i don’t think the word should be banned from the site.
Even Wikipedia admits that “Islamofascism” is considered offensive to many people. If the State Department and Homeland Security have stopped using it, I think SM can stop using it too. Amardeep himself admitted he used it primarily to express his sense of outrage but perhaps his better judgment might have led him to use another word. I think calling them “jihadists” or “muslim fundamentalists” is a better alternative. I feel the same way about their hindu counterparts. “Hindu fundamentalists” is more appropriate than “Hinduofascists” (if that’s even a word). But if Amardeep doesn’t feel the change is necessary, it’s his pergative.
So let me get this straight. You want someone to edit what he wrote because “Even wikipedia says it’s offensive.”
Talk about fascism!
183 · Kabir Altaf said
I still don’t understand why you regard terms like Jihadist or Muslim fundamentalist less offensive. The term Muslim fundamentalist suggests that the fundamentals of Islam are violent and draws attention to Islam’s explicit scriptural license for slavery, violent imperialism, genocide, feminicide, murder of infidels, rape of captured women, the kind of stuff moderate Muslims want to see removed or ignored from the Koran and hadith. The term Jihadist also points to these disturbing associations.
As an aside, Hindu radical could be a meaningful term, but Hindu fundamentalist by contrast is hard to understand since Hinduism has been a pluralistic religion with many Gods, drawn from the Vedas and other sacred books like Geeta, Ramayana, Puranas. It is kind of an anti-fundamentalist religion.
did zardari just call these terrorists islamofascists?
I don’t mind if people call radical hindus as hindu fascists. If people use the term Islamofascists, then hindu fascists should also be allowed to be used. But, boo censorship. We need people to say it like it is.
There’s a difference between making a particular argument and using a word which is offensive and lacks any real meaning in academia and in the policy world. The quote from Zardari’s op-ed makes his point without using the word “Islamofascist”. What would we have really lost if Amardeep had chosen not to use that particular word in this post? His argument would have been the same. Besides the word itself was not the main point of the post, but most of the discussion in the comments is about whether or not it was appropriate (a discussion which I didn’t start, by the way). Also, I only referred to Wikipedia because Rahul S pointed me towards that article for context. If even the Republican-led admin who coined the term has stopped using it, I think that says a lot about the usefulness/appropriateness of the term.
As Amardeep probably tells his students (and as my literature profs have certainly told me), when we write, the words we use matter. It is important to use the word that best fits the argument one is trying to make. Word choice also says a lot about the author. In literary analysis, diction is one of the main tools we use to define the author’s POV. For many people, the fact that Amardeep chose to use a particularly offensive term would reflect badly on him and make it sound like he has a much less nuanced view of this complex phenomenon than he actually has. It’s understandable to throw terms around in anger, but upon reflection, one might want to edit what one has written. There is no shame in that.
Anyway, I realize I am not really going to convince people who’ve already made up their minds, so I’ll stop this futile, up-hill fight.
Futile is exactly the right word to use, all the branding in the world won’t sell a country that is so deeply flawed by design. And BTW, the Pak army did expend some effort on Hindus in particular during the Pak Civil War, but if Dr. Amnonsense’s exculpation of your country makes you feel better bully for you
Louiecypher,
What? I wasn’t even talking about Pakistan but about the use of the word “Islamofascism”. What are you talking about? And why are we resorting to personal remarks? I’m a US citizen, the US is my country… yes I don’t like seeing Pakistan get all the blame for a complex regional situation for which all parties are responsible, no one is entirely free of blame. But I’m not some unthinking Islamic/ Pakistani apologist… I have a figure of Shiva in my bedroom, I sing Hindustani classical and bhajans…. you don’t know me at all, so don’t go and make assumptions about me which are entirely incorrect. As I constantly tell people in an other context, one can be Pakistani without being Muslim (or one can be culturally muslim, but not religiously observant). I don’t see what your problem is with me. I’ve made all my points respectfully, and I don’t think I’ve said anything really out of line.
190 · Kabir Altaf said
pakistan is responsible for harboring, funding and providing training for the terrorists who attacked mumbai. do you admit that without any caveats, ifs or buts?
well, its an moot point by now, kabir; you’ve essentially won. i think its an apt term, for the reasons i’ve stated and as hitch explains, but the bush admin has stopped using it, i don’t think islamophobes are particularly attached to it, since fascism doesn’t really have any ethnic signifier attached (other than to germans), leaving it the provence of neo-cons like myself, whose opposition to islamic radicalism is rooted in a belief in liberal freedoms and opposition to bigotry, especially the institutionalized type that we see in such regimes as pakistan and saudi arabia. maybe daniel pipes uses it but i don’t even hear it much on foxnews.
ironically, its the hindus who have the most to gripe about, if attaching fascism to a religion is wrong, since hindu fascism has found its way into the respected halls of academia, while islamofascsim has not.
Manju,
when even Eli Lake (who is a great journalist) abandons the ‘neocon’ label, you sir are a brave compatriot of the Podhoretzes, Kristols and Horowitzes of the world (Danny Pipes has transatlantic buddies like Mellie Mell Phillips) and they do need the support. Lakoff your way into the history books, noble neocon of Islamofascia.
193 · Nayagan said
well, “neocon” reached the popular culture in the bush admin, but the first political use of it was to describe former democrats, ronald Reagan and jeane kirkpatrick for example, who abandoned the dem party in part b/c the dems were abandoning anti-communism, which they ironically were largely responsible for creating. these individual were essentially liberals, like myself.
philosophically, the roots are more nebulous, going back to leao strauss and allan bloom, whom i admire. what you have here are again are essentially liberals but they hawk back to classic conservatism, meaning their ideals are mitigated by realpolitck and a respect for the enduring appeal of religion and tradition among the savages, ie the people. their instints are lockean, though not libertarian, but they make sure to include a dose of machiavelli ( whose democratic leanings are often forgotten as his name has become something of a slur) and edmund burke, who famously predicted the french revolution would devolve into a reign of terror.
so, i’m sure you’ve noticed a similar machiavellianess in me over the last few months. thats my version of neocon.
194 · Manju said
except the meaning completely changed despite the use of the same term. i do love me an incomplete history lesson.
195 · huh said
well, not completely, but yeah, that was my point, the word’s meaning has shifted and in fact has multiple usages even within the context of the bush admin. but there are //’s and connections between its original meaning and current usage. wolfowitz is a philosophical connection to bloom and there’s long been a split within hte republican party between what can be described as liberal interventionists, ie neocons (reagan) and realpolitck types (nixon), though they may look the same to those on the outside looking in.
maybe we can just go with islamoneoconism and call it a day.
190 · Kabir Altaf said
I assume his problem with you is that he thinks you’re Muslim. More relevantly, you sound interesting – do you have a blog? 🙂
Dr. A,
I guess that’s his problem too. Any attempt to bring balance to the discussion just opens one up to attack. I’m Pakistani-American, culturally muslim (but I consider my self a secular humanist)… and I get turned into an Islamic apologist…. wierd right?
I don’t have a personal blog, but you can email me, or look for me on facebook:)
199 · Kabir Altaf said
Not weird at all – it’s the proof in the pudding for why you don’t use words like “Islamofascist.” Will look you up – cheers!