10-16-2003, 08:45 AM
Somebody dreaming- Read carefully
The E.U. and a South Asian "superstate"
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Judging from what you have written in the past, I presume that you
> feel that South Asia can be integrated along the same lines as
> Europe; i.e, the same techniques that were used to create the
> European Union can be used to create a S. Asian "superstate". I beg
> to differ:
>
> We have to keep in mind the fact that the - successful - drive
> towards European integration only took place in the aftermath of
> World War II, AND in the shadow of the danger that Soviet
> expansionism posed to Western Europe. Proposals had been written by
> various intellectuals before World War I and during the interval
> between the two World Wars on the issue of creating some sort of
> European federation, but, they were unsuccessful, as the necessary
> INCENTIVES - the devastation of a continent-wide war, AND the
> looming presence of a relatively gargantuan (whether real or in the
> minds of many Western Europeans) COMMON enemy - were absent.
>
> Well, the situation in South Asia, today, is very similar to the
> situation in Europe BEFORE the World Wars;
>
> (1) Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have no common enemy (except
> poverty itself), in fact Pakistan and China maintain very close
> relations (while India and China are wary of each other), and China
> takes every opportunity to drive a wedge between India and
> Pakistan. All of the countries of the S. Asian subcontinent
> maintain relatively close relations with the United States.
>
> (2) Also, part of the purpose of creating a S. Asian "superstate"
> is to forestall the outbreak of a nuclear war on the subcontinent
> (and any conventional conflict between India and Pakistan will,
> probably, lead to an exchange of nukes): A nuclear conflict will
> not only destroy lives (through the direct effects of nuclear
> blasts, and things such as, radiation poisoning-related diseases
> such as cancer etc, starvation - since food supplies will be
> destroyed, and agricultural land, especially in Punjab, will be
> poisoned) cultural artifacts (the Taj Mahal comes to mind), the
> economy and infrastructure (the economies of India and Pakistan
> depend a great deal on the contribution of urban centers such as
> Bombay, and Karachi) of the two countries, but, it will also invite
> foreign intervention (and who knows how long they will decide to
> stay), and WILL completely destroy SECULARISM in the subcontinent.
> After all, the Sangh Parivar has consistently tried to present
> Muslims as being the 'other'(S. Asian Muslim fundamentalists are
> doing the same thing with regards to Hindus), what a chance they
> will get in the aftermath of a S. Asian nuke war! Partition was a
> fillip to the cause of S. Asian fundamentalists, now the "war on
> terrorism", but, a nuclear war will be a VICTORY for S. Asian
> fundamentalism. Just imagine, all those pictures of dead bodies -
> with the skin torn off their backs etc - in Indian and Pakistani
> cities being distributed by Sanghis and Muslim fundamentalists. We
> will have communal riots, and 'ethnic' cleansing, the likes of which
> will make it seem as if what happened during partition were mere
> schoolyard fights. So war is out of the picture, that can't be used
> as an incentive for integration in S. Asia.
>
>
> THREE - Nationalism
> -------------------
>
> I'd suggest that India and Pakistan (and, in my opinion, Bangladesh)
> are failed nations (not failed states), what we have in India and
> Pakistan, today (and during the freedom struggle), is nationalism
> without a nation (see, "Nationalism Without a Nation in India" by G.
> Aloysius and "Pakistan : Nationalism Without a Nation?" edited by
> Christophe Jaffrelot).
>
> Here, for the benefit of members who are not familiar with these
> terms, I will quote Ernest Gellner who was (now, deceased) one of
> the foremost theorists of the causes and nature of
> nationalism: "Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which
> holds that the political and the national unit should be
> congruent." Nationalism as a sentiment, or as a movement, can best
> be defined in terms of this principle. Nationalist sentiment is the
> feeling of anger aroused by the violation of this principle, or the
> feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. A nationalist
> movement is one actuated by a sentiment of this kind" ("Nations and
> Nationalism", Chp 1). And what is a nation? Well, this concept is
> rather controversial, and a bit ambiguous, but, things like a common
> culture, identity, language, history, territory etc are often quoted
> as indicators of a shared nationhood. Recently, some "progressives"
> have also made distinctions between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic
> nationalism" (in their view, the former is "good" nationalism, while
> the latter is "bad" nationalism"). A definition of civic
> nationalism would be; it "maintains that the nation should be
> composed of all those - regardless of race, colour, creed, gender,
> language or ethnicity - who subscribe to the nation's political
> creed. This nationalism is called civic nationalism becuse it
> envisages the nation as a community of equal, rights bearing
> citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of
> political practices and values" (Ignatieff, M. 1994. "Blood and
> Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism", pp. 3-4). In ethnic
> nationalism, on the other hand, things such as "race, colour, creed,
> gender, language or ethnicity", history etc come into the picture.
> France is usually held out as the epitome of a civic nation. Well,
> the reality is very different. The French government -
> historically - has always used strong elements of ethnic nationalism
> in its nation-building initiatives. Governmental resources and
> steps were taken to ensure that French became the common, and
> dominant language, a particular version of French history was taught
> to students, a common culture was imposed on all citizens of the
> French state. Peasants and others were turned into Frenchmen
> (see, "Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France
> 1870-1914" by Eugen Weber). Well, basically, what this means is
> that the idea of "civic nationalism" has no real basis in historical
> fact, it is ethnic nationalism that has really been the norm in all
> nation-building states. Also, read:
> [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/divers.htm"]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/divers.htm[/url]
>
> Ethnic nationalism is always predicated on the notion of
> an 'other'. This basically means that categories are created to
> divide the world into "us" and "them", "insiders" and "outsiders"
> (hence my use of the footer that mentions the HUMILIATIONS since
> Plassey. I understand you're point that the "logic of redressing
> historical humiliations has had grave consequences for South Asia
> over the last few decades", but, in my views, the critical
> difference is that the "humiliations" that the Sanghis seek to
> redress never really occurred, and their pursuit of this goal
> DIVIDES South Asians. What I have put in the footer, in fact, seeks
> to UNITE South Asians, and redress their humiliations not through
> militaristic goals etc, but, by bringing economic prosperity,
> progressive social mores, etc to the region). The Sangh Parivar and
> Muslim fundamentalists are trying to do exactly this, today. And,
> unfortunately, as I have show in past messages at this forum, it was
> not only Jinnah, and the Hindu Mahasabha, but, also the Indian
> National Congress that 'set this ball rolling' (see,
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2729"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2729[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2672"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2672[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2925"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2925[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2882"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2882[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2916)"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...a/message/2916)[/url]. Also,
> since 1947, the Indian government has Sanskritized Hindustani, I'm
> not sure whether the Pakistan government has tried to further
> Persianize Urdu; well, the words of the Pakistani "national anthem
> were intentionally written in Persianized Urdu to set it apart from
> [the] common Urdu of [the] Lucknow or Allahabadi variety": see, "The
> Long Lost Brother Finally Cometh!" by Abul Kasem, "The Daily
> Observer", Dhaka, Bangladesh (July 28, 2002), para 2. Also, this
> extract (para 10):
>
> [url="http://www.duncanchowdhury.com/belavista/culture_heritage/language_qu"]http://www.duncanchowdhury.com/belavista/c...age/language_qu[/url]
> estion.htm
> "Communalism had entered the languages as well. The Hindu middle
> class had tried to Sanskritize Bengali; in reaction the Muslim
> middle class wanted to persianize it, if possible. The attempts
> often took on an absurd character. For example, over-enthusiastic
> believers in the religion-based nationalism of Pakistan tried to
> introduce the Arabic script for Bengali on the plea that the
> existing script was of Sanskrit origin. Their efforts included
> editing even the works of Kazi Nazrul Islam, who they had declared
> to be very dear to their hearts, in the light of Pakistani
> nationalism. They would have loved to introduce a division in the
> cultural history of Bengal on the religious line."
>
>
> FOUR - Secularize South Asian Culture
> -------------------------------------
>
> So what are our options? I'd suggest that we need to create a South
> Asian nationalism, and in the process of doing so, we need to rob
> Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists of their 'other' (i.e, we need to
> erase cultural - as opposed to fundamental religious - differences
> between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent).
>
> (1) For example, it would probably not be very difficult to use a
> fused and slightly altered version of the Devanagiri and Nastaleeq
> (or Naskh) scripts to write the language that is spoken by so many
> people on both side of the border. Also, people (in India and
> Pakistan) can be familiarized with the Persian and Sanskrit loan
> words that are currently used in Urdu and Hindi. I don't think that
> we would need the co-operation of our governments to do this, if
> secularists start a strong organization that can promote the use of
> this modified language... Of course, we have to make sure that
> people understand that the 'new' language is the logical end result
> (thwarted by the advent of British imperialism) of pre-(Delhi)
> Sultanate South Asian and post-Sultanate South Asian linguistic
> elements, NOT a linguistic fusion of the 'linguistic symbols' of two
> diametrically opposed religious communities (the latter
> understanding would have the same detrimental effect as the use of
> the phrase "Hindu-Muslim" unity by Gandhi).
>
> (2) Also, places of worship throughout the subcontinent could be
> built in a similar architectural style (again, a fusion of the
> styles used in building mosques, gurudwaras, and temples of the
> North and the South Indian variety) - a powerful symbolic testament
> to the unity of the subcontinent.
>
> (3) We also have to secularize South Asian names, and destroy the
> fact that the religious affiliation of people in the subcontinent
> can be identified by their names. Instead, foreigners should be
> able to tell that a person is South Asian by glancing at their
> names. "Umair Deepak", "Deepak Muhajir", "Sabahat Choudhary"
> and "Satinath Ashraf" - this should be the wave of the future in S.
> Asia (at least as far as 'name-giving' goes).
>
> (4) We should also deal and get rid of religious dietary
> restrictions such as injunctions against the eating of beef and
> pork, the wearing of the hijab (and other religiously-motivated
> differences in dress). Perhaps, the pracice of circumcision should
> be stopped. After all, if, during communal riots, people are
> stopped by mobs, asked to eat beef or pork (and don't refuse), their
> lungis are torn off to determine whether they are Hindu or Muslim
> (no difference in ...), then where will religious fundamentalists
> find their 'other'?
>
> FIVE - Cultural Pluralism, the Sangh Parivar etc
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I know that you have a strong conviction that the preservation of
> South Asia's cultural pluralism is a desirable thing, and that "once
> one compromises on pluralism, then intellectually one hardly has a
> legto stand on when it comes to opposing Hindutva, or other
> authoritarian and oppressive ideologies"(msg # 1754). However, I'd
> argue that you're wrong on both counts. First, there are plenty of
> other concerns that one can raise to oppose Hindutva; concerns, that
> in my opinion will resonate far more deeply with the vast majority
> of moderate Hindus in India, than the notion that it is necessary
> that Andamanese and Naga cultural distinctiveness be preserved in
> order for secularists to be successful in the war against Hindutva
> (I'd like to point out that the Nagas and the Andamanese may be
> culturally different from other South Asians, but, that most other
> South Asians share A SINGLE CULTURE, with many SUBCULTURES embedded
> in that single culture). There is the fact that a lot of the ideas
> and practices that the Sanghis are selectively dredging up from
> South Asia's cultural past are/will be detrimental - in the long
> run - to India's quest for great power status (and the acquisition
> of a relatively high standard of living for the vast majority of its
> citizens); things like
> (1) The promotion of Vedic astrology and 'Vedic math' in India's
> educational institutions (see,
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2747"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2747[/url]
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2771"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2771[/url]
> (2) The erosion of the country's democratic institutions (witness
> what has happened in Gujarat; even the courts there are no longer
> impartial); this will be bad for India's political stability.
> (3) A rise in gender inequality and the denial of rights etc for
> Dalits.
>
> Also, more importantly, industrialization ENTAILS cultural
> homogenization. I'd suggest that you read "Nations and Nationalism"
> by Ernest Gellner (perhaps, the most respected and widely-quoted
> theorist on the phenomenon of nationalism); in it he argues that the
> emergence of cultural homogenization is a necessary part of the
> structural change from agro-literate to advanced industrial
> society. Its no wonder that Gujarat and Maharashtra, the most
> industrialized states in India, are also the most religiously
> polarized ones. What this basically means is that South Asians will
> not have the freedom to choose either (1) the preservation of
> cultural pluralism and (2) a Hindutva-Muslim fundamentalism driven
> homogenization, they only have the freedom to choose between (1) a
> secular-driven homogenization and (2) a Hindutva-Muslim
> fundamentalism driven homogenization. Of course, South Asia will
> never be as homogeneous (in linguistic terms) as say, France, or
> Poland. We will never have only one language in South Asia (like
> French in France), but, what we should have in the South
> Asian "superstate" is a (2 +/- 1) language constellation (i.e, major
> regional languages such as Tamil, Bengali, the Devanagiri and
> Nastaleeq fusion, Punjabi, Sinhalese, Pushto, Assamese etc, and a
> new indigenous national language (not Hindi or Urdu) - to be spoken
> by every South Asian - created out of a 'mix' of these major
> regional languages). Minor languages such as Nagamese, Andamenese
> etc should be erased. English, of course, should not assume a place
> as the de facto national language of the "superstate". The benefits
> of all this? Well, right now the use of the current language
> constellation (with English at its head) has led to a wide
> divergence in world-views between India's english speaking elite
> and the vernacular masses; and secularists cannot hope to sway the
> Indian masses away from Hindutva without being fluent and at ease in
> the language that the masses speak:
>
> [url="http://www.littlemag.com/viamedia/robinjeffrey2.html"]http://www.littlemag.com/viamedia/robinjeffrey2.html[/url]
> (excerpt; 4th para from the end)
> 'The mass politics, which grow with mass markets and the newspaper
> revolution, will favour Hindu chauvinist exponents until those who
> have other ideas find an effective vocabulary in Hindi. It appears
> that not enough of those of the `secular' persuasion write well
> enough or often enough in Hindi. I was once at a seminar where,
> after listening to a very distinguished scholar from one of India's
> finest universities, an exasperated hill Brahmin, who was a teacher
> of Hindi overseas, said, "But Professor Blank, you never write in
> Hindi, and when they translate you, it doesn't read well."'
>
> I hope you reconsider your position on the footer issue, or, at
> least post a rebuttal of the points that I have raised here (if you
> still don't reconsider your position). Everyday, when I read news
> about the growth of Hindutva and S. Asian Muslim fundamentalism on
> the web, I get alarmed, and I never fail to recall Churchill's
> words: "We must act decisively and we must act now"..."If we do not,
> history will cast its verdict with those terrible, chilling
> words, 'Too late.' "
>
> Sincerely,
> Deepak Modak
The E.U. and a South Asian "superstate"
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> Judging from what you have written in the past, I presume that you
> feel that South Asia can be integrated along the same lines as
> Europe; i.e, the same techniques that were used to create the
> European Union can be used to create a S. Asian "superstate". I beg
> to differ:
>
> We have to keep in mind the fact that the - successful - drive
> towards European integration only took place in the aftermath of
> World War II, AND in the shadow of the danger that Soviet
> expansionism posed to Western Europe. Proposals had been written by
> various intellectuals before World War I and during the interval
> between the two World Wars on the issue of creating some sort of
> European federation, but, they were unsuccessful, as the necessary
> INCENTIVES - the devastation of a continent-wide war, AND the
> looming presence of a relatively gargantuan (whether real or in the
> minds of many Western Europeans) COMMON enemy - were absent.
>
> Well, the situation in South Asia, today, is very similar to the
> situation in Europe BEFORE the World Wars;
>
> (1) Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have no common enemy (except
> poverty itself), in fact Pakistan and China maintain very close
> relations (while India and China are wary of each other), and China
> takes every opportunity to drive a wedge between India and
> Pakistan. All of the countries of the S. Asian subcontinent
> maintain relatively close relations with the United States.
>
> (2) Also, part of the purpose of creating a S. Asian "superstate"
> is to forestall the outbreak of a nuclear war on the subcontinent
> (and any conventional conflict between India and Pakistan will,
> probably, lead to an exchange of nukes): A nuclear conflict will
> not only destroy lives (through the direct effects of nuclear
> blasts, and things such as, radiation poisoning-related diseases
> such as cancer etc, starvation - since food supplies will be
> destroyed, and agricultural land, especially in Punjab, will be
> poisoned) cultural artifacts (the Taj Mahal comes to mind), the
> economy and infrastructure (the economies of India and Pakistan
> depend a great deal on the contribution of urban centers such as
> Bombay, and Karachi) of the two countries, but, it will also invite
> foreign intervention (and who knows how long they will decide to
> stay), and WILL completely destroy SECULARISM in the subcontinent.
> After all, the Sangh Parivar has consistently tried to present
> Muslims as being the 'other'(S. Asian Muslim fundamentalists are
> doing the same thing with regards to Hindus), what a chance they
> will get in the aftermath of a S. Asian nuke war! Partition was a
> fillip to the cause of S. Asian fundamentalists, now the "war on
> terrorism", but, a nuclear war will be a VICTORY for S. Asian
> fundamentalism. Just imagine, all those pictures of dead bodies -
> with the skin torn off their backs etc - in Indian and Pakistani
> cities being distributed by Sanghis and Muslim fundamentalists. We
> will have communal riots, and 'ethnic' cleansing, the likes of which
> will make it seem as if what happened during partition were mere
> schoolyard fights. So war is out of the picture, that can't be used
> as an incentive for integration in S. Asia.
>
>
> THREE - Nationalism
> -------------------
>
> I'd suggest that India and Pakistan (and, in my opinion, Bangladesh)
> are failed nations (not failed states), what we have in India and
> Pakistan, today (and during the freedom struggle), is nationalism
> without a nation (see, "Nationalism Without a Nation in India" by G.
> Aloysius and "Pakistan : Nationalism Without a Nation?" edited by
> Christophe Jaffrelot).
>
> Here, for the benefit of members who are not familiar with these
> terms, I will quote Ernest Gellner who was (now, deceased) one of
> the foremost theorists of the causes and nature of
> nationalism: "Nationalism is primarily a political principle, which
> holds that the political and the national unit should be
> congruent." Nationalism as a sentiment, or as a movement, can best
> be defined in terms of this principle. Nationalist sentiment is the
> feeling of anger aroused by the violation of this principle, or the
> feeling of satisfaction aroused by its fulfilment. A nationalist
> movement is one actuated by a sentiment of this kind" ("Nations and
> Nationalism", Chp 1). And what is a nation? Well, this concept is
> rather controversial, and a bit ambiguous, but, things like a common
> culture, identity, language, history, territory etc are often quoted
> as indicators of a shared nationhood. Recently, some "progressives"
> have also made distinctions between "civic nationalism" and "ethnic
> nationalism" (in their view, the former is "good" nationalism, while
> the latter is "bad" nationalism"). A definition of civic
> nationalism would be; it "maintains that the nation should be
> composed of all those - regardless of race, colour, creed, gender,
> language or ethnicity - who subscribe to the nation's political
> creed. This nationalism is called civic nationalism becuse it
> envisages the nation as a community of equal, rights bearing
> citizens, united in patriotic attachment to a shared set of
> political practices and values" (Ignatieff, M. 1994. "Blood and
> Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism", pp. 3-4). In ethnic
> nationalism, on the other hand, things such as "race, colour, creed,
> gender, language or ethnicity", history etc come into the picture.
> France is usually held out as the epitome of a civic nation. Well,
> the reality is very different. The French government -
> historically - has always used strong elements of ethnic nationalism
> in its nation-building initiatives. Governmental resources and
> steps were taken to ensure that French became the common, and
> dominant language, a particular version of French history was taught
> to students, a common culture was imposed on all citizens of the
> French state. Peasants and others were turned into Frenchmen
> (see, "Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France
> 1870-1914" by Eugen Weber). Well, basically, what this means is
> that the idea of "civic nationalism" has no real basis in historical
> fact, it is ethnic nationalism that has really been the norm in all
> nation-building states. Also, read:
> [url="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/divers.htm"]http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/divers.htm[/url]
>
> Ethnic nationalism is always predicated on the notion of
> an 'other'. This basically means that categories are created to
> divide the world into "us" and "them", "insiders" and "outsiders"
> (hence my use of the footer that mentions the HUMILIATIONS since
> Plassey. I understand you're point that the "logic of redressing
> historical humiliations has had grave consequences for South Asia
> over the last few decades", but, in my views, the critical
> difference is that the "humiliations" that the Sanghis seek to
> redress never really occurred, and their pursuit of this goal
> DIVIDES South Asians. What I have put in the footer, in fact, seeks
> to UNITE South Asians, and redress their humiliations not through
> militaristic goals etc, but, by bringing economic prosperity,
> progressive social mores, etc to the region). The Sangh Parivar and
> Muslim fundamentalists are trying to do exactly this, today. And,
> unfortunately, as I have show in past messages at this forum, it was
> not only Jinnah, and the Hindu Mahasabha, but, also the Indian
> National Congress that 'set this ball rolling' (see,
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2729"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2729[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2672"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2672[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2925"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2925[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2882"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...da/message/2882[/url],
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada/message/2916)"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Mahajanapada...a/message/2916)[/url]. Also,
> since 1947, the Indian government has Sanskritized Hindustani, I'm
> not sure whether the Pakistan government has tried to further
> Persianize Urdu; well, the words of the Pakistani "national anthem
> were intentionally written in Persianized Urdu to set it apart from
> [the] common Urdu of [the] Lucknow or Allahabadi variety": see, "The
> Long Lost Brother Finally Cometh!" by Abul Kasem, "The Daily
> Observer", Dhaka, Bangladesh (July 28, 2002), para 2. Also, this
> extract (para 10):
>
> [url="http://www.duncanchowdhury.com/belavista/culture_heritage/language_qu"]http://www.duncanchowdhury.com/belavista/c...age/language_qu[/url]
> estion.htm
> "Communalism had entered the languages as well. The Hindu middle
> class had tried to Sanskritize Bengali; in reaction the Muslim
> middle class wanted to persianize it, if possible. The attempts
> often took on an absurd character. For example, over-enthusiastic
> believers in the religion-based nationalism of Pakistan tried to
> introduce the Arabic script for Bengali on the plea that the
> existing script was of Sanskrit origin. Their efforts included
> editing even the works of Kazi Nazrul Islam, who they had declared
> to be very dear to their hearts, in the light of Pakistani
> nationalism. They would have loved to introduce a division in the
> cultural history of Bengal on the religious line."
>
>
> FOUR - Secularize South Asian Culture
> -------------------------------------
>
> So what are our options? I'd suggest that we need to create a South
> Asian nationalism, and in the process of doing so, we need to rob
> Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists of their 'other' (i.e, we need to
> erase cultural - as opposed to fundamental religious - differences
> between Hindus and Muslims in the subcontinent).
>
> (1) For example, it would probably not be very difficult to use a
> fused and slightly altered version of the Devanagiri and Nastaleeq
> (or Naskh) scripts to write the language that is spoken by so many
> people on both side of the border. Also, people (in India and
> Pakistan) can be familiarized with the Persian and Sanskrit loan
> words that are currently used in Urdu and Hindi. I don't think that
> we would need the co-operation of our governments to do this, if
> secularists start a strong organization that can promote the use of
> this modified language... Of course, we have to make sure that
> people understand that the 'new' language is the logical end result
> (thwarted by the advent of British imperialism) of pre-(Delhi)
> Sultanate South Asian and post-Sultanate South Asian linguistic
> elements, NOT a linguistic fusion of the 'linguistic symbols' of two
> diametrically opposed religious communities (the latter
> understanding would have the same detrimental effect as the use of
> the phrase "Hindu-Muslim" unity by Gandhi).
>
> (2) Also, places of worship throughout the subcontinent could be
> built in a similar architectural style (again, a fusion of the
> styles used in building mosques, gurudwaras, and temples of the
> North and the South Indian variety) - a powerful symbolic testament
> to the unity of the subcontinent.
>
> (3) We also have to secularize South Asian names, and destroy the
> fact that the religious affiliation of people in the subcontinent
> can be identified by their names. Instead, foreigners should be
> able to tell that a person is South Asian by glancing at their
> names. "Umair Deepak", "Deepak Muhajir", "Sabahat Choudhary"
> and "Satinath Ashraf" - this should be the wave of the future in S.
> Asia (at least as far as 'name-giving' goes).
>
> (4) We should also deal and get rid of religious dietary
> restrictions such as injunctions against the eating of beef and
> pork, the wearing of the hijab (and other religiously-motivated
> differences in dress). Perhaps, the pracice of circumcision should
> be stopped. After all, if, during communal riots, people are
> stopped by mobs, asked to eat beef or pork (and don't refuse), their
> lungis are torn off to determine whether they are Hindu or Muslim
> (no difference in ...), then where will religious fundamentalists
> find their 'other'?
>
> FIVE - Cultural Pluralism, the Sangh Parivar etc
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> I know that you have a strong conviction that the preservation of
> South Asia's cultural pluralism is a desirable thing, and that "once
> one compromises on pluralism, then intellectually one hardly has a
> legto stand on when it comes to opposing Hindutva, or other
> authoritarian and oppressive ideologies"(msg # 1754). However, I'd
> argue that you're wrong on both counts. First, there are plenty of
> other concerns that one can raise to oppose Hindutva; concerns, that
> in my opinion will resonate far more deeply with the vast majority
> of moderate Hindus in India, than the notion that it is necessary
> that Andamanese and Naga cultural distinctiveness be preserved in
> order for secularists to be successful in the war against Hindutva
> (I'd like to point out that the Nagas and the Andamanese may be
> culturally different from other South Asians, but, that most other
> South Asians share A SINGLE CULTURE, with many SUBCULTURES embedded
> in that single culture). There is the fact that a lot of the ideas
> and practices that the Sanghis are selectively dredging up from
> South Asia's cultural past are/will be detrimental - in the long
> run - to India's quest for great power status (and the acquisition
> of a relatively high standard of living for the vast majority of its
> citizens); things like
> (1) The promotion of Vedic astrology and 'Vedic math' in India's
> educational institutions (see,
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2747"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2747[/url]
> [url="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2771"]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RisingIndia/message/2771[/url]
> (2) The erosion of the country's democratic institutions (witness
> what has happened in Gujarat; even the courts there are no longer
> impartial); this will be bad for India's political stability.
> (3) A rise in gender inequality and the denial of rights etc for
> Dalits.
>
> Also, more importantly, industrialization ENTAILS cultural
> homogenization. I'd suggest that you read "Nations and Nationalism"
> by Ernest Gellner (perhaps, the most respected and widely-quoted
> theorist on the phenomenon of nationalism); in it he argues that the
> emergence of cultural homogenization is a necessary part of the
> structural change from agro-literate to advanced industrial
> society. Its no wonder that Gujarat and Maharashtra, the most
> industrialized states in India, are also the most religiously
> polarized ones. What this basically means is that South Asians will
> not have the freedom to choose either (1) the preservation of
> cultural pluralism and (2) a Hindutva-Muslim fundamentalism driven
> homogenization, they only have the freedom to choose between (1) a
> secular-driven homogenization and (2) a Hindutva-Muslim
> fundamentalism driven homogenization. Of course, South Asia will
> never be as homogeneous (in linguistic terms) as say, France, or
> Poland. We will never have only one language in South Asia (like
> French in France), but, what we should have in the South
> Asian "superstate" is a (2 +/- 1) language constellation (i.e, major
> regional languages such as Tamil, Bengali, the Devanagiri and
> Nastaleeq fusion, Punjabi, Sinhalese, Pushto, Assamese etc, and a
> new indigenous national language (not Hindi or Urdu) - to be spoken
> by every South Asian - created out of a 'mix' of these major
> regional languages). Minor languages such as Nagamese, Andamenese
> etc should be erased. English, of course, should not assume a place
> as the de facto national language of the "superstate". The benefits
> of all this? Well, right now the use of the current language
> constellation (with English at its head) has led to a wide
> divergence in world-views between India's english speaking elite
> and the vernacular masses; and secularists cannot hope to sway the
> Indian masses away from Hindutva without being fluent and at ease in
> the language that the masses speak:
>
> [url="http://www.littlemag.com/viamedia/robinjeffrey2.html"]http://www.littlemag.com/viamedia/robinjeffrey2.html[/url]
> (excerpt; 4th para from the end)
> 'The mass politics, which grow with mass markets and the newspaper
> revolution, will favour Hindu chauvinist exponents until those who
> have other ideas find an effective vocabulary in Hindi. It appears
> that not enough of those of the `secular' persuasion write well
> enough or often enough in Hindi. I was once at a seminar where,
> after listening to a very distinguished scholar from one of India's
> finest universities, an exasperated hill Brahmin, who was a teacher
> of Hindi overseas, said, "But Professor Blank, you never write in
> Hindi, and when they translate you, it doesn't read well."'
>
> I hope you reconsider your position on the footer issue, or, at
> least post a rebuttal of the points that I have raised here (if you
> still don't reconsider your position). Everyday, when I read news
> about the growth of Hindutva and S. Asian Muslim fundamentalism on
> the web, I get alarmed, and I never fail to recall Churchill's
> words: "We must act decisively and we must act now"..."If we do not,
> history will cast its verdict with those terrible, chilling
> words, 'Too late.' "
>
> Sincerely,
> Deepak Modak