There has been a new wave of anti-Christian communal violence in Pakistan, with a riot involving as many as 20,000 people in the town of Gojra, west of Lahore.
We normally use the phrase “communal violence” in the Indian context, but reading the particulars of this story in the New York Times, the idea of “communalism” (a particularly South Asian expression of communitarian religious hostility) seems to fit. The recent riots were not on a huge scale — 100 houses belonging to local Christians were burned (compare to 3000 homes of Christians burned in the violence in Orissa last year) — but it’s still frightening and sad.
There is a history of this kind of violence in Pakistan. I don’t know the history in great detail, but Wikipedia has links to several similar incidents in just the past few years. (It often starts with the claim that someone has desecrated the Koran.)
One oddity in the Times coverage was the way they described the size of the Christian community in Pakistan, as comprising “less than five percent of the population.” I gather the number is more like 1.6% — why not simply say, “less than 2%”? Maybe that’s a nitpick.
As a response, the Christian schools in Karachi are on strike for three days. A number of arrests of those involved in the attacks have been made, and President Zardari has strongly condemned them. The Daily Times newspaper has a story with a subheader that the DPO (police chief) in the district has been “booked” as well, but the text of the story actually states that authorities are at this point just thinking about charging him with failing in his duty to keep the peace.
Incidentally, the town of Gojra is in the Toba Tek Singh District of Punjab, an area made famous by Sa’adat Hasan Manto’s story about Partition, “Toba Tek Singh.” Though we’re no longer talking directly about partition, that story about the madness that can sometimes overtake people in the name of religion still feels relevant. Here is a translation of the story, and Professor Fran Pritchett has both the original Urdu and a Devanagari version of the story linked from her site: here.
Re the classification of people as dalits is problematic because the many communities that constitute the definition on paper have rarely if ever seen themselves to be a single community. There is considerable evidence from Ambedkar’s own writings that he was unaware of the weight of oppression on the communities at the lowest rungs of the ladder, the tanners, cremation workers, and sanitation workers. Ambedkar was a Mahar, a community that had begun to emerge from the margins around the time he was born, and had already begun to carve out a space in civil society for itself founded on its long history of military service. But Jagjivan Ram was a tanner (I shall not use the equivalent term in Hindi) and had to take a tougher path to prominence. Of course his being a brilliant student at Benares Hindu University, being a outstanding (community) organizer, and also catching the eye of that great scout of talent, Gandhi, saw his found the Depressed Classes Association of India and bring in many talented party workers into the mainstream, such as the peerless nationalist Kakkan in Tamizh Naadu. Unfortunately the Hindus of India abandoned the dalits of Pakistan and Bangladesh during the Partition. When the Partition riots in Pakistan reached the safai karamchari neighbourhoods and the exodus began, Jinnah is said to have sent the police to put down the rioters and keep back the safai karamcharis – all Hindus – because in their absence no non-Hindu could be found to take over. Since then a large number of the safai karamcharis of Pakistan have embraced Christiantiy, but it is said – entirely anecdotal – that the vast majority among them are still Hindu, as it is in Bangladesh. The dalit underclass of Pakistan live in the shadows of shadows, and there is little that emerges a out their status. Even a committed and devoted reformer like Dr. Bindeshwar Pathak, who since Independence has done more than anyone to transform attitudes towards untouchability and sanitation and has freed 1000s of the oppressive burden of untouchability, has not to date turned his attention to the travails of safai karamcharis of Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Everyone who is anyone of consequence in Pakistan has studied at the Christian run schools of Karachi, Lahore, and Pindi. So these beutiful institutions may not suffer violence when it breaks out. But the vulnerable are the folk who live in the smaller towns and must go about their business without the protection of the law, as is the norm not only in Pakistan but in any developing society. In India it helps that there is a vigourous political culture where rash and violent actions have consequences. In Bangladesh too despite the proclamation of an Islamic republic, the people at large do not reject their Bengali heritage or teir Hindu roots. In Pakistan there isn’t any brake whatsover on such excesses and despite many well meaning individuals and a fairly balanced English press, the outlook for the country’s minorities is bleak.
The Pope has got their back, which is good for them:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/03/pakistan-christians-shut_n_250166.html
It matches the American affection for secret Muslims, the Brit fondness for Pakis, and the Indian affinity for Christians.
The Pakistani Christians are mainly of the choora “sweeper” caste. I know this cos I grew up amongst many people of choora caste in UK. I knew a guy who had relatives in Pakistan – he told me his niece was kidnapped by muslims and never seen again. He told me that Christian women being kidnapped by muslims was a common occurence.
I’m of chamar caste, which also untouchable, and my uncle told me that as a kid the chamars & chooras were treated like shit by higher caste Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. Nobody ever gave a shit about the lower castes.
Manpreet – I am the same way – have never understood how the most macho of my fellow Punjabis can go around (usually while hammered) bellowing how “Jatt” they are as if it was a statement of Sikh pride, yet not understanding the antithesis of their meaning in relation to the principles of the religion. So ridiculous.
SomeBodyUK – You are so right: lower castes in India/Pakistan are discriminated against by Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs and, at least in India, by Christians. Yes, Dalit Hindus who convert to Christianity and Islam hoping to finally escape centuries of discrimination, soon learn that their new co-religionists do not treat them much different than their previous ones. A college friend who is of Syrian Orthodox stock, told me that her mother, an ex-Indian Ambassador to an EU capital, and a self proclaimed fabian socialist, would prefer an upper caste Hindu son in law over a dalit convert to Christianity. Such is the hold of this cancer on our society. Disgusting.
i believe like muslims in india, hindus in bangladesh, christians in myanmar, etc., christians & hindus in pakistan complain about census undercounts meant to marginalize them. i think this explains some of the vagueness as to numbers.
re: caste & christianity, i have heard the same thing as others. that being said, i am interested in the fact that many of these christians have “muslim” names. that suggests either assimilation to majority naming conventions, or the possibility that some of these are the descendants of those who converted from islam before partition (when this was possible).
Wonder why those lower caste Hindus converted to Christianity instead of Islam? If being a Hindu in Pak is tough, then how is being a Christian any easier? I am sure some of them are Christians due to faith, but the choice to go to the “safety” of Christianity is puzzling.
No one (apart from conspiracy theorists) has complained about undercounts of minorities in India. The census in India is an uncontroversial business and does not require irresistible force as the elections do to be completed. Preparations for the 2011 Census are already underway and apart from the frequent demand to count jati-based groups (across religions) there have been no other controversial demands. Conspiracy theorists are found not only among the minorities, but also among the Hindus! As for the decline of the proportion of Hindus in Pakistan, I am not sure how much of an absolute decline it is. While before Partition Hindus and Sikhs were about 20% of the population (or 7 million) of modern day Pakistan, today they account for only about 2% or about 3 million. If the Hindu/Sikh exodus was very large about 6 million(?) leaving behind about a million (?), it would mean that their population has tripled since then compared to the total pouplation that has increased from 37 million to 175 million – more than a fourfold increase. I am not sure of any other trends wrt to comparative vital statistics etc. Declining fertility rates due to violence and deprivation have been reported among the expelled Kashmiri Pandits, who currently are the only refugees anywhere in their own land. And my numbers are from memory. Corrections welcome.
As for Muslim names, or Arabic/Persian names, Christians do add the honorific Masih to their names, or the messiah. Beyond that Pakistani Christians aren’t doing anything different that Lebanese/Syrian/Palestianian/Iraqi/Iranian Christians aren’t with their names Here’s an interview with Gp.Cap. Cecil Choudhry, PAF (Retd), one of the best known Christians of Pakistan and another one
interesting
As a Pakistani Christian myself, I have innumerable (probably too emotional) responses to the various comments. Perhaps I should work my way backwards.
Thamizan says
The easy way for some isn’t the right way for everyone. Thankfully, in America at least, we have a choice.
Somehow I doubt the pope has much influence in rural Pakistan.
Suki Dillon wrote .
Not racism. But yes. Christians and non-Christians in the west have been working for years to influence policy/legislative decisions in Pakistan. But we need more help.
Well if you come from an area where the upper caste Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims treat you like shit, then why would you want to be a member of their faith? Christians never did Punjabis any harm on a relgious basis, so that’s why some converted to Christianity. A lot of chooras were Sikh and Muslim too. Some of them still have names that would be considered Muslim – e.g. Faizal. A lot of chooras families have been Chiristian for over 100 years.
Converting to Christianity doesn’t work in terms of social uplift anyway – if somebody tells me that they know a Punjabi Christian, the first thing that crosses my mind is the he/she is probably a choora.
Even my US born cousins get mad if you call them “Hindu”, even though they technically are, they’d rather be known as Punjabi!
In the Indian context “Communalism” seems to have come out partly from a deep set reluctance to call a spade a spade and partly to demonize Hindutva parties. To the best of my knowledge, it was not used commonly before the post Ram Jamnabhoomi rise of the BJP in the late eighties / early 90s.
Communal in any other country’s context has different, clear meaning. It is bad enough that it is used in India, but why spread the use of this stupid use of the word to other countries –especially countries with a substantially different view of religion and rights?
Why not just say, “rioters targeted Christians” instead of “anti-Christian communal violence” ?
I’m currently in Pakistan (Lahore) and reading the newspapers and blogs here, it’s clear that people are shocked and appalled by this incident. In today’s DAWN (August 4), the editorial argues that the blasphemy laws themselves should be repealed because if all citizens of the state are meant to be treated equally than it doesn’t make sense to have faith-based laws which are inherently discriminatory. It is absolutely true that even the very accusation of “blasphemy” is often used to oppress others, even other Muslims. It’s very difficult to prove whether someone has or has not committed blasphemy and of course it becomes an emotional issue for people and they cease to behave rationally.
However, I don’t think this is simply a Pakistani issue. Minorities all over the subcontinent have faced opression and violence. Amardeep was absolutely right to point out the violence in Orissa. Demonizing Pakistan or Islam isn’t going to help here (not saying anyone has done that so far, but just making a point), we have to understand the reasons that anti-minority violence takes place in the subcontinent and in other places in the world.
It’s not that puzzling. Christians are “people of the book”, fellow monotheists. Hindus are, by contrast, heathens fit only for elimination. People of the book are given greater “protection” in Islam.
Jyotsana, great comments. Please consider starting your own blog with a compilation of your posts. They’re really enlightening.
Perhaps they were not lower-caste Hindus, but lower-caste Muslims? Or have been Christians for many decades? Or migrated to the area from elsewhere?
I don’t know the answer but the evidence that caste structure exists in many religious communities in South Asia today poses a lot of problems for assuming that they were not Muslim or something else beforehand.
I think Christians all over the world (where they are minorities) tend to have names with one of the first or middle names reflecting the local cultural naming conventions and the other name a Biblcal name. I think this is a way to feel like part of mainstream culturally as well (same as Hindus / Chinese in US having short Christian names).
That’s right. India,Pakistan, Bangladesh.. it’s all the same, no difference.. India has blasphemy laws to prosecute someone saying/writing/indulging in anything against Hinduism. 🙂
That’s true. I don’t think anyone gave a shit about lower castes before the concept of one man one vote democracy when numbers started to make a difference. I think you should add Christians to the list. If you read about the Christian missionary movements in the 1800s they had different strategies for converting different categories of heathens and some were actually indifferent to converting the lowest among the rung and discouraged those conversions.
That’s true. I don’t think anyone gave a shit about lower castes before the concept of one man one vote democracy when numbers started to make a difference. I think you should add Christians to the list. I
I don’t think that’s true at all Ponniyan. There have been so many movements in south asian history (including the advent of buddhism and sikhism) and movements within Hinduism that specifically addressed the oppression of your fellow man b/c of caste. I am a product of that – I’m from a lower caste that was deeply oppressed in Kerala, but a spiritual movment about a 100 years ago really changed the socioeconomic condition of not only lower castes but the culture and govt of that area as well.
In India nearly EVERY COMMUNITY is a minority. And most have their grievances, that sound legitimate. Marathis complain of collusion and discrimination against them in Mumbai (which is why they support Shiv Sena), Bihari’s and UP Bhaaiyas in Mumbai face harassment and extortion. South India has been often discriminated against by Center in the course of allocation of the budget and Central Services (industry, etc), and other regions can claim the same. The North East were exploited because of their natural resources. Farmer’s have been discriminated against, by price controls, and closed food markets in an economy with high inflation and open markets (leading to poverty/ suicides). And that’s without even coming to Caste, where even the favorite bugbears of most Pakistanis, Brahmins, have faced discrimination (since as far back as the 1930’s when a whole lot of Tamil Brahmin’s dropped their surnames and/or moved to different parts of the country to avoid discrimination in getting jobs)
Amardeep was trying be “balanced”. And in doing so, portrayed a false moral equivalence.
There is no comparison between India and its neighbors. India discriminates against Hinduism legally (I have pointed out the articles in the constitution and laid out examples on how this has worked against Hinduism several times previously), while its neighbors protect their
In Orissa, the Christian community has been rather aggressive, to put it charitably. They have engaged in a slew of illegal activities, including murders and assassinations and collusion with Naxalites.
In most countries, liberal or not this will lead to a backlash
The only difference is when something like this occurs in Western Democracies, the governments take action against the non-traditional / outside influence swiftly and firmly before it gets to this point. (Scientology, the Osho Movement, the blind mullah, the free love Osho Movement,etc).
Let’s look at the oft quoted Staines case. In a western democracy, Graham Staines, with his high profile in the locality, would have been deported (it had been years since his visa had expired.) In an Islamic country, he would have been put in jail a long time back. In a communist country, hewould not have been let in at all. Only in India, with its vote back politics, would things have been allowed to simmer.
‘m currently in Pakistan (Lahore) and reading the newspapers and blogs here, it’s clear that people are shocked and appalled by this incident. In today’s DAWN (August 4), the editorial argues that the blasphemy laws themselves should be repealed because if all citizens of the state are meant to be treated equally than it doesn’t make sense to have faith-based laws which are inherently discriminatory. It is absolutely true that even the very accusation of “blasphemy”
Thanks Kabir for letting us know some of the reaction in Pakistan. I’m glad people are shocked and appalled and I hope it will lead to more protection of all religious minorities (legally and culturally) in ur country and that possibly they can have the same rights, including socioeconomic, political, financial and legal rights as your fellow Muslim.
As you can see from my comment I completely disagree with you as far as the numbers game. I do agree with you that we have to “understand why anti-minority violence” happens anywhere. B/c when you try and understand why? you bring in cultrue, history, laws, socioeconomic power, political power, and again history and there are vastly different conditions that minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh face than in India. even if you read what happened in Orrissa, it’d be difficult to see this as a religious matter but something different. Also we know that Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, Hindus who are low-caste, all have the same legal rights (some have surprising more legal rights)- India has a long a way to go to improve and live up to the best tenets of its culture and constitution but we are at least on the right path.
Amardeep was trying be “balanced”. And in doing so, portrayed a false moral equivalence.
well said dizzydesi – everything about ur comment.
PS,
I’m guesing you are talking about Sree Narayana Guru and the upliftment of ezhavas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Narayana_Guru
I’m quite aware of that. But in that case, Sree Narayana Guru is born into the Ezhava community (not one of the elite castes).
Being disempowered and being a minority are two different things. To take a very transparent example, women are usually the majority in most countries, but generally disempowered. That’s why although there are certain issues that relate to majority/minority status (e.g. how much representation the Tamil elite could possibly seek to gain in the Sri Lankan Parliament through the political system), the focus should be to put that in the context of power / disempowerment and understand that there is a social framework of hierarchies operating in which individual people can be up on one, down on another, down on many, up on many, etc. This has little to do with numbers except insofar as liberal democratic theory uses numbers to convey legitimacy of a group’s interests.
Another way to look at this is to look at this as such: White, heterosexual, male, able-bodied, upper class, citizen people are a distinct minority in the United States but as individuals will enjoy better life outcomes, all else equal. The group of people that on one or more of the adjectives above (to which you could add others) doesn’t fit the description is an enormous majority (but is less powerful).
So that’s one way of viewing the way society is organised in the United States. But you can always reorganise the way you look at things: Black, same-sex attracted, female, disabled, undocumented working class people are a distinct minority in the United States, but as individuals will enjoy worse life outcomes, all else equal. The group of people that doesn’t fit the description above is an enormous majority (but is more powerful).
In reality, most people are in neither of these two extremes, and even on these adjectives, its not binary – which makes more of a matrix – e.g. South Asians, Chinese people, Japanese people, etc. on the racial hierarchy ALONE are probably better off than Black people and worse off than White people.
Another complication is that most people may be up – maybe even at the top – of one social hierarchy – but much lower on others or maybe int he middle of many or maybe at various points on all of them.
A third complication is that different hierarchies may carry different weight at a particular point in time and contexts. It is now easy for straight Black people, all else equal, to gain the legal and social rights of marriage, but difficult or impossible for non-Black LGBT people. Conversely, it is easier for nonBlack LGBT females, all else equal to walk into a store without being followd around by the clerk, while it is harder for Black heterosexual males.
Finally, this too is not enough in understanding social hierarchies because it’s dynamic (e.g. see ‘How the Irish Became White’) and different identities can move up and down the ladder on a given hierarchy. And the weightings of all these can change.
All this is to say that it’s both complicated and comprehensible at the same time- but you have to look at these identities in terms of what they mean about social power in context and over time, not in terms of absolute numbers, in order to make any sense of them.
🙂
I think these ideas that one can compare violence in India and Pakistan and Bangladesh as completely discrete things are not that analytically valid given that they’re interconnected and have to do with a lot of other features as well as what state they’re a member of, but additionally, it’s really just not helpful. Instead of saying ‘Pakistan has communal violence, but India does too!’ or ‘India has communal violence, but Pakistan does too!’ it makes more sense to me to say that ‘Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh all have communal violence’ because the point is not which state is better, but that there are people being subjected to communal violence in all of them (and that includes both the obvious victims as well as the entirety of society that is affected by these issues in a variety of ways).
Proponents of states with a liberal democratic ideology will always point to laws and the existence of that liberal democratic ideology to justify inaction on social conditions. That is exactly what happens in the case of India. It doesn’t mean that India is better or worse, but that there are serious on the ground issues which affect various groups of disempwoered people, including on religious identity, caste, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, race, and other ways of grouping people. It’s those issues we should probably pay attention to – just as in Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Proponents of states with a liberal democratic ideology will always point to laws and the existence of that liberal democratic ideology to justify inaction on social conditions.
No, this is not why I’m pointing out the very huge difference of the laws, culture and history of Christian minorities in India. As Dizzy Desi has pointed out, there were very different dynamics that had less to do with oppression of Christians, but rather about violence, support for a group that condones violence, etc.
Proponents of states with liberal democratic ideology use this political system to bolster change, as can be seen in India and the US. And the INdian govt and it’s people and press are a lot more scrutinized and self-critical of themselves and the liberal democracy thing allows this scrutiny.
It’s a shame that because India has the cultural self-confidence to create a liberal democracy, and therefore welcomes criticism and scrutiny by its very laws, that is then lumped in with the rarely self-critical govts (b/c freedom of speech and religion is so much more circumscribed b/c these govts lack any confidence in their societies) of other South Asian or other Asian countries.
I remember speaking to a Kurd who’d given a talk on the oppression of Kurds in Turkey – he felt the formation of a separate Kurd nation was the correct route to take. I asked him, could he not work within Turkeys political system, as happens (and yes, I understand, just like in the US India is flawed) to enact change. And he specifically said, no, it’s not like India (addressing me), we don’t have the legal and political avenues that make such change possible as in India.
But in that case, Sree Narayana Guru is born into the Ezhava community (not one of the elite castes).
I am talking about Sri Narayana Guru – but what does his being part of a lower caste contradict what I said? Maybe I’m not following your point. My point was that, even w/o this thing called votes in modern India, (course Indian/South Asian culture does have a long history of something like “representative democracy” at certain times and certain regions; though in school this is never mentioned and unfortunately we only learn about Greece) there have been social movements. I’m not saying that these spiritual movements, whether led by Guru or Buddha or Sufi Saints, did not also involve social, political and economic influences.
I think it’s far too easy to look at this violence through the lens of religion, because on the surface that’s what it seems to be about. The perpetrators are Muslim and the victims are Christian. However, could it not be that the perpetrators have chosen to attack the victims under the pretense of “blasphemy” for other reasons, not connected to religion? As commenters have pointed out above the anti-Christian violence in Orissa was perhaps not primarily religiously-motivated. It’s too early at this stage to say why precisly Gojra occured, but I would resist the temptation to argue that there’s something inherently wrong with (some) Muslims who are by nature intolerant. We don’t know the dynamics of this particular village.
As regards the “In India, nearly every community is a minority” arguement, it’s right to an extent though in the religious dimension the country is overwhelmingly Hindu just as Pakistan is overwhelming Muslim. There have been many instances of anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, etc, violence in India. The point is not which country is better or worse, but that communalism and majoritarianism are problems that are common to both. We need to understand the root causes of this phenomenon, of which the religious dynamics are not necessarily always the most salient.
PS
I was responding to somebodyUK
I meant higher caste Hindus/Muslims/Sikhs/Christians and Narayana Guru is not one among them.
Very clever. Using this logic any instance of violence can be explained away.
India’s neighbors, like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka fare considerably worse than India in a global ranking of “risk of genocide, mass killing or other systematic violent repression.” (Bhutan does better.)
The Christian community in Pakistan (just like the Hindu community) is bifurcated. There are urban, well-educated, English-speaking Christians in the cities, and there are poor, lower-caste origin, Punjabi-speaking Christians in the villages (for Hindus, substitute “Sindh” for “Punjab”). Your average Dawn reader meets only the former (same for the average commentor at PakDefenseForum — I think). Elite social attitudes about Christians are shaped by their personal experiences.
Comment 75 is about right — but I think in this case, different parts of the minortity community are empowered and disempowered.
I don’t follow you. How does pointing out the difference in logic between looking at the size vs. the relative amount of power that different groups in societies have explain away an instance of violence? It’s just another way to look at it, and in my opinion, more helpful, so you can make sense of the fact that the U.S., for example, has not had a woman president and has not even close to parity in the U.S. Congress. How does that have any correlation to violence, which is a tactic that different groups for different purposes use?
That’s not why it’s being lumped in. It’s because it shares a history with Pakistan and Bangladesh, one that can go a long way in explaining the roots of communalism in all three places (the practice of categorising and stereotpying of people, the attacks on syncreticism through tools like the census, the competition for resources in a position of scarcity, the manipulation by elites in whatever identity to mobilise people on the basis of certain kinds of factions to secure power and resources, the use of national borders to drive wedges among people like Punjabis, Bengalis, poor people, lower caste people, etc.).
That doesn’t mean there aren’t differences or that they haven’t followed three different trajectories- it just means that there are some things that are similar, though they might take different forms. It also exists in a world where tearing down a mosque in Ayodhya will lead to violence against Hindus in Dhaka, because politicised religion used to increase the level of violence doesn’t stop at a border when there’s a common history. The common thread is the way in which religion is being used and its relationship to politics, social oragnisation, and violence, not the religions.
This is one of the reasons I believe the Hindu Right is not even pro-Hindu, when you consider Hindus as people, just like the elite that created Pakistan- many of whom were from Muslim-minority provinces- can’t really be said to have given enough thought to the welfare of the Muslim people they left behind. This is also why, whether from a religious or a secular framework, communalism as escalating violent conflict by various communities – needs to be rejected and social cohesion within and across borders emphasised instead. Not in the name of a secular ideology, but in the name of human beings and their welfare.
And many people do do this, regardless of what the dominating state ideology is in their county of residence, citizenship, or or origin.
I agree with some of the comments above that when minorities in India are killed or their property destroyed, it is because they asked for it. Staines should be grateful he was burnt to death only once. It really shows how kind the majority is.
I blame the Congress Party for this.
Why is this piece of information useful except for parlor trivia? Is it accurate and what does it mean if it is? What effect is it intended to have on the conversation? Does it have those effects, and if so, are they beneficial or counterproductive in a broad strategy of reducing violence, communalism, and overall mistrust among people (whether South Asian or otherwise)?
Why is this piece of information useful except for parlor trivia?
LOL, DrA, I think it’s much more important than vapidly pointing out that in this particular Pakistani Christian oppression 100 homes burned but in the Indian Orissa Christian oppression 1,000s burned.
I don’t know what to say to you. We are talking past each other.
As for the Ayodah incident, how silly once again, in this argument that you bring that incident as an example of the all-encompassing communal violence, w/o understanding the history behind it.
As for you description of the communal violent similarities of South Asia, that can be used to describe the situation from East to West north to South in the African continent, or many regions in Asia, Middle East, Europe (god the continuing violence and the recent genocide in eastern europe, an area always caught inbetween conquering empires) – if you are going to describe communal violence in that way, it encompasses the world, where there’s been continued genocide of ethnic and religious groups unlike what has happened in India.
My final point on this matter is that I believe Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (and Indians with a false sense of equality) need to stop comparing themselves to India, and look at the cultural and legal chauvinism that goes hand in hand with a state created by a certain brand of religion, their situation will not improve. Until they start looking at the uniqueness of their own communal problems, and not pointing to India and saying “hey but 3000 homes were burned here”, they miss the opportunity to bring some human rights to their own people, who just want to exercise their religious rights, socioeconomic rights, political rights just like their countrymen, who practice the right type of Islam. They need to think of their solutions based on their unique situation and stop pointing to the US and India and saying things like “blacks are oppressed in the US”, “Muslims can’t practice their religion freely in the US – the US is a hypocrisy”; “indian dalits are oppressed!” – they need to deal with the uniqueness of their own damn problems that unfortunately continually seep into India.
Seriously, even as Mona Eltahawy writes about how many of the Muslim world leaders use Isreal as their opium to keep the constituents drugged so as not to worry about the state-sponsored killings of their own people by their own govts and often non-existent women’s rights, or the state of their immigrant labor, I believe many of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi govts are using India’s problems as their opium and many of their constituents (the majority?) are readily smokin’ it.
I think that piece of information is to point out the truth. 🙂
Dr Amonymous, your tactic of complexification seems only intended to obscure any differences you don’t find congenial. the classic game is complexity, subtly and nuance for thee, but not for me. would you be excited about someone who wanted to contexualize american imperialism in its socio-historical framework ad infinitum when you’re trying to point out real injustices? i doubt it, i am sure you believe some things are true, right and indisputable despite the layers of nuance which might be larded on top of them. complexity does not entail symmetry.
pakistan is not saudi arabia, or even iran, but the muslim equivalent of hindu nationalists long ago won the argument, pakistan is self-consciously an islamic nation. even secular elements who reject sharia as national law won’t dispute that point. that is the political and social consensus, period. there is obviously no equivalent consensus in india about whether india is unapologetically a hindu nation. these superficial differences are surely indicators of average differences in lived experience of religious minorities (bangladesh seems an intermediate case, shifting based which party is in power).
sad…real sad
This has to be fixed, stat! Thankfully, Indian political leaders have learnt to use the specter of Pakistan, invasions from a thousand years ago, or scary migrants to awaken the masses.
Are there any examples of a state sponsored mini-pogrom against minorities in Pakistan? The Muslims saw it in Gujarat 02 and the Sikhs got it in Delhi in 84. No one will dispute the fact that the government was involved in both these massacres. I guess the Pakistani army in BDesh in 71 would qualify though that would be more analogous to the Kashmir situation where the army is trying to put down an independence movement. Any such state sponsored pogroms in Pakistan against the Hindus or the Christians?
I doubt proponents of states with liberal secular democaratic ideology argue sufficiency. They might, however, argue necessity. If they are wrong on that, where are the counter-examples? If human history is too short, what is the vision — stateless world, social conditions changed by a state that is neither liberal nor democratic, social conditions changed by other forces (community/market) despite the best attempts of state?
Razib is right on in # 91 though I don’t believe Dr. A was necessarily trying to do that.
I think it is indisputable that de jure (based on laws enacted by the government) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan (especially disfavored ones like the Ahmadis) is very different from India. I am not aware of any de jure discrimination against minorities in India. De facto (facts on the ground) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan might arguably not be that different than in India or is it? Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Pakistan can talk about that.
De facto (facts on the ground) discrimination against minorities in Pakistan might arguably not be that different than in India or is it? Maybe someone more knowledgeable about Pakistan can talk about that.
i think that this sort of argument going to two major problems:
1) you can cherry-pick indicators which favor your own hypothesis
2) india and pakistan are not symmetrical in terms of diversity & size. i.e., india has around 1 order of magnitude more people than pakistan, so do 100 killed in pakistan = 1,000 killed in india? or perhaps the appropriate comparison is gujarat vs. punjab, in which case there’s more symmetry. india is really diverse, and it seems that the ‘communal’ problems are much less salient in the southern cone, for whatever reasons. OTOH, the “cow belt” has the same sort of tensions which are normal in pakistan. i inspected some vital stats once, and it seems that in many ways the “core” hindi-speaking areas of northwest india cluster with pakistan more than they do with south india.
rimshot
I guess the Pakistani army in BDesh in 71 would qualify though that would be more analogous to the Kashmir situation where the army is trying to put down an independence movement.
Problems in East Pakistan never started as an independene movement.
In 50s, it was a language issue.
In 1970, Awami Laegue won the assembly elections, and the majority in National Assembly. They wanted Sheikh Mujibhur Rahman to be the PM of Pakistan, as per constitutional law and rights.
But Gen. Yahya Khan refused………….miiltary stepped in on March 25th 1972, and independence movement started on March 26th, 1972. Some believe 1-3 million died in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1972 only.
Scales, do we ever keep that context in mind.
Correction: Some believe 1-3 million died in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in 1971 (between March and December) only.