Monday, January 2, 2012

Muslim cleric unites small parties in UP [state in India] - By Mohammed Anas - The Sunday Guardian

Muslim cleric unites small parties in UP

MOHAMMED ANAS  NEW DELHI | 1st Jan
A prominent Muslim cleric, Maulana Salman Nadwi, who is a teacher at Darul Uloom Nadwa seminary, Lucknow and a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, has assembled 13 small political parties in Uttar Pradesh, to form a joint front, Ittehad Front. Ittehad will contest all 403 Assembly seats in the upcoming polls in the state.

The front will be headed by the Peace Party. It will include the Indian Justice Party (IJP) of Dr Udit Raj, Apna Dal of Anupriya Patel, Om Prakash Rajbhar's Bhartiya Samaj Party, Qaumi Ekta Dal of Mukhtar Ansari, Ittehad-e-Millat Council of Maulana Tauqeer Raza Khan, Bundelkhand Congress of Raja Bundela, Gondwana Gantantra Party of Devendra Gaur, Bharatiya Lokhit Party, India National League, Rashtriya Parivartan Morcha, Bharatiya Yuva Kalyan Party of M.A. Siddique, National Loktantrik Party of Arshad Khan, Rashtriya Parivartan Morcha of Bhagwan Singh and Bharatiya Jansewa Party of Swami Luxmi Shankaracharya.

Talking to The Sunday Guardian, Nadwi made it clear that his seminary had nothing to do with the political alliance. "Darul Uloom Nadwa will not have any say in the functioning of the front. But it definitely enjoys the blessings of the elders of the seminary," he said. When asked whether after the Darul Uloom Deoband, Nadwa was emerging as the epicentre of Muslim politics, Nadwi refused to comment.

Dr Mohammed Ayub, the chief of the Peace Party, said that the front has been formed to challenge the hegemony of the mainstream parties. "Our front will be free of caste and religious influences. We are a platform of alternative political forces in the state. Our target is to unite voters of backward and very backward sections of all communities," said Ayub. Ayub claimed that the front will win so many seats in the state that the next government will not be formed without help from it.

No mean feat, this - By Seema Mustafa - The Free Press Journal, Mumbai, India

http://www.freepressjournal.in/news/40721-no-mean-feat-this.html

logo


No mean feat, this
  • By Seema Mustafa
  • Jan 02, 2012

It was because of Hazare and the support he had got from the people that the government had been forced to strengthen its earlier Lokpal Bill

The politicians from the ruling party and its allies in government consoled themselves by ridiculing the ageing Gandhian Anna Hazare sitting on fast in Mumbai; the media that has long ago stopped thinking for itself joined the finger pointing, writing and talking about the 'fading glory'of the Hazare movement as the crowds had not turned out in expected numbers. But in the process both forgot that it was because of Anna Hazare and the support he had got from the people that the government had been forced to somewhat strengthen its earlier Lokpal Bill and extend the winter session of Parliament to table the legislation, discuss and pass it if possible.
This was no mean feat, and has to be factored into any analysis of the high voltage drama the country has been experiencing over the last few days in particular.

There can be no two opinions that the Lokpal Bill needs to be strengthened.

And that in its present form it will not serve the purpose of setting up a high powered, independent authority that can impartially and fearlessly probe cases of corruption till the logical end. For this it is imperative that the government hold on the appointment and removal of the Lokpal under the present Bill is relinquished to a representative body comprising renowned persons from the judiciary, Parliament and perhaps even other walks of life that can be expected to act impartially, without fear or favour. It is also necessary to bring the cases falling under the purview of the Prevention of Corruption Act to the Lokpal for investigation and adjudication, which basically means that the independence of the Central Bureau of Investigation ( CBI) has to become subordinate to the Lokpal Authority on these matters. It is no secret that the CBI is used by the party in power to take revenge and control political foes with the proverbial carrot and stick policy helping run coalition governments. The governments unwillingness to bring the CBI under the Lokpal Authority is an indication of its unwillingness to give up its control, and stop using the CBI as a weapon to settle political scores.

The Congress party lost power in several states across the country in the 1980s because of an inherent authoritarianism that undermined the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.

Unfortunately, it has not learnt from the past experience and rarely misses an occasion to diminish the independence of the Indian states that make up the Union of India. An interesting aspect of the debate in Parliament has been the strong opposition from the regional parties to the provisions of the bill directing them to set up Lokayuktas, according to set guidelines. This, representatives of the regional parties pointed out one after the other, cut into the Constitutional provisions allowing the states full jurisdiction on such and related matters.

The CPM moved a good amendment to resolve this issue, whereby through an additional clause the bill would re- establish the autonomy of the states on this issue, without taking away from the Centres desire ( as expressed through the bill) for similar bodies to be set up in the states. MP Sitaram Yechury explaining this pointed out that with just an additional clause of a couple of lines, the government could ensure that the states were able to take their own decision on this issue within a span of six months.

But while the debate continues under the watchful eye of Anna Hazare and his supporters across the country - it is important to keep the background against which the Lokpal Bill is being discussed in and outside Parliament.

Corruption has never been so rampant, and can be directly traced to Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs economic reforms that have given the space for crores of rupees to exchange hands illegally, and in the process generate a parallel economy based entirely on black unaccounted money. Bribes that the corporates like to call commissions determine government decisions today, with ministers ( some in jail but most still outside) greasing their palms as they bring in policies to enable 'reforms'and furbish corporate coffer through lucrative deals.

Hundreds and thousands of farmers have committed suicide, and even today the levels of desperation in affected states have not abated. Poverty continues to take a heavy toll on lives, with the gap between the rich and the poor widening as levels of poverty deepen. 

It is true that a strong and effective Lokpal Bill will not be the panacea for all ills, and will not erase corruption but in a country where governments balk at any kind of action on this issue, it is at least a beginning. And a good beginning if some of the excellent amendments are pushed through, and the legislation becomes stronger and far reaching in its scope.

The debate in the Rajya Sabha has been largely on substance, and less on the kind of absurd issues raised by Lalu and his ilk in the Lower House.

The issue of reservations for Muslims for instance was just a ruse to derail the bill by hyping emotions and bringing the minorities into conflict with the rest. Fortunately the start of the debate in the Rajya Sabha moved away from such absurdities, with the political stalwarts making it clear that they wanted a good, sound piece of legislation that helped the country address the issue of corruption.

In its present form the political leaders outside the Congress were agreed, the bill was merely giving more powers to the perpetrators of corruption and not to the Lokpal Authority.

Anna Hazare has finally decided to save his energy for a political campaign across the country. He called off the fast partly because of failing health and partly because of the poorer than expected response in Mumbai. But even if the journalists do not know, he should know that the support has not diluted and people do want action against corruption.

The media and sections of the ruling party have been ridiculing his decision to campaign during the Assembly elections in five states, almost as if he does not have the right to do so, and that by being political he is somehow compromising himself. Strange reasoning as he, and everyone else in this country, is free to campaign for or against candidates and political parties. And if he can make a difference in the manner he hopes, well more power to him and his team. Meanwhile, let us wait for the government and Parliament to prove itself.

Huntington’s Clash Revisited - By DAVID BROOKS - THE NEW YORK TIMES



Op-Ed Columnist

Huntington’s Clash Revisited

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 3, 2011
Samuel Huntington was one of America’s greatest political scientists. In 1993, he published a sensational essay in Foreign Affairs called “The Clash of Civilizations?” The essay, which became a book, argued that the post-cold war would be marked by civilizational conflict.
Josh Haner/The New York Times
David Brooks
Go to Columnist Page »

The Conversation

Conversation
David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Human beings, Huntington wrote, are divided along cultural lines — Western, Islamic, Hindu and so on. There is no universal civilization. Instead, there are these cultural blocks, each within its own distinct set of values.
The Islamic civilization, he wrote, is the most troublesome. People in the Arab world do not share the general suppositions of the Western world. Their primary attachment is to their religion, not to their nation-state. Their culture is inhospitable to certain liberal ideals, like pluralism, individualism and democracy.
Huntington correctly foresaw that the Arab strongman regimes were fragile and were threatened by the masses of unemployed young men. He thought these regimes could fall, but he did not believe that the nations would modernize in a Western direction. Amid the tumult of regime change, the rebels would selectively borrow tools from the West, but their borrowing would be refracted through their own beliefs. They would follow their own trajectory and not become more Western.
The Muslim world has bloody borders, he continued. There are wars and tensions where the Muslim world comes into conflict with other civilizations. Even if decrepit regimes fell, he suggested, there would still be a fundamental clash of civilizations between Islam and the West. The Western nations would do well to keep their distance from Muslim affairs. The more the two civilizations intermingle, the worse the tensions will be.
Huntington’s thesis set off a furious debate. But with the historic changes sweeping through the Arab world, it’s illuminating to go back and read his argument today.
In retrospect, I’d say that Huntington committed the Fundamental Attribution Error. That is, he ascribed to traits qualities that are actually determined by context.
He argued that people in Arab lands are intrinsically not nationalistic. He argued that they do not hunger for pluralism and democracy in the way these things are understood in the West. But it now appears as though they were simply living in circumstances that did not allow that patriotism or those spiritual hungers to come to the surface.
It now appears that people in these nations, like people in all nations, have multiple authentic selves. In some circumstances, one set of identities manifests itself, but when those circumstances change, other equally authentic identities and desires get activated.
For most of the past few decades, people in Arab nations were living under regimes that rule by fear. In these circumstances, most people shared the conspiracy mongering and the political passivity that these regimes encouraged. But when the fear lessened, and the opportunity for change arose, different aspirations were energized. Over the past weeks, we’ve seen Arab people ferociously attached to their national identities. We’ve seen them willing to risk their lives for pluralism, openness and democracy.
I’d say Huntington was also wrong in the way he defined culture.
In some ways, each of us is like every person on earth; in some ways, each of us is like the members of our culture and group; and, in some ways, each of us is unique. Huntington minimized the power of universal political values and exaggerated the influence of distinct cultural values. It’s easy to see why he did this. He was arguing against global elites who sometimes refuse to acknowledge the power of culture at all.
But it seems clear that many people in Arab nations do share a universal hunger for liberty. They feel the presence of universal human rights and feel insulted when they are not accorded them.
Culture is important, but underneath cultural differences there are these universal aspirations for dignity, for political systems that listen to, respond to and respect the will of the people.
Finally, I’d say Huntington misunderstood the nature of historical change. In his book, he describes transformations that move along linear, projectable trajectories. But that’s not how things work in times of tumult. Instead, one person moves a step. Then the next person moves a step. Pretty soon, millions are caught up in a contagion, activating passions they had but dimly perceived just weeks before. They get swept up in momentums that have no central authority and that, nonetheless, exercise a sweeping influence on those caught up in their tides.
I write all this not to denigrate the great Huntington. He may still be proved right. The Arab world may modernize on its own separate path. But his mistakes illuminate useful truths: that all people share certain aspirations and that history is wide open. The tumult of events can transform the traits and qualities that seemed, even to great experts, etched in stone.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 4, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition.



HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
JIH
Scandinavia
March 4th, 2011
11:34 am
Brooks wrote: "The Islamic civilization, he wrote, is the most troublesome. People in the Arab world do not share the general suppositions of the Western world."

I am not saying he is wrong or right, just remember the fact that the countries with most muslims are India, Indonesia, Pakistan and then Iran after Egypt. Only Egypt is an Arab country.
 Recommend  Recommended by 84 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Neil D
Ohio
March 4th, 2011
11:41 am
Could it be that the clash is within civilizations and not between them? The partisan clash in the USA and the now obvious clash between the old arab dictators and their own people is the better model. I think the clash is (or ought to be) between religious and secular people and between the business elite (crony capitalists and dictators) and the working classes within each civilization.
 Recommend  Recommended by 91 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
paris
March 4th, 2011
11:41 am
I think the imposing role played by women, with and without a veil, in the revolts in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya - not forgetting Iran in the recent past - is a highly significant factor in the debate on whether some cultural values may be universal. The importance accorded to the status of women remains the vital litmus test of a society's desire for real democracy.
 Recommend  Recommended by 56 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
targetsea
Hong Kong
March 4th, 2011
11:43 am
I always thought Huntington became incoherent when he started trying to define his broad cultural generalizations. What is Asian culture? Japanese? Chinese? In what way are those similar cultures? What is Western culture? Italian? American? Ditto. And if you know Indonesia - the wold's largest muslim country with a unique culture - the idea of a common Islamic culture embracing all 1.6 billion muslims looks kind of silly.

With luck, we are just beginning to understand the diversity of Arab culture too. just looking at these revolts on the news, it is clear an Egyptian is not the same as a Lebanese or a Moroccan. It makes one quite hopeful that their futures are not predestined.
 Recommend  Recommended by 93 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Paris, France
March 4th, 2011
11:43 am
@ Mike van Horn : Arab crowds want freedom and pluralism : "These aren't American values or Western values, but the things 90% of all people want when they get the chance." Yes, I do agree with you. I would add that these things are exactly what the Enlightment fought for and what religions, Christianisty as well as Islam, have tried so hard to destroy, up to now.
 Recommend  Recommended by 54 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
V L Rao
India
March 4th, 2011
11:47 am
While the tug of Islamic identity is very strong, Muslims do have a strong nationalist outlook. The Malays in Malaysia and Indonesia, the Banglas in Bangla Desh, the Arabs spread over many countries, the Turks, the Kurds again spread over many counties, the Iranians, the Pakstanis- all have stong nationalist urges, in spite of their common religion. The Arab culture of the Qoran does have a strong influence on these peoples, but their nationalist outlook is stronger.
 Recommend  Recommended by 20 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Canada
March 4th, 2011
11:58 am
An interesting column.

One could also look at Japan which pretty much thoroughly "Westernized" after WWII. However, Japan did pick and choose what aspects of western culture it wanted to adopt. So today, though Japan is "westernized", it is still very much Japan.

I think the same sort of thing will happen in the Arab world.
 Recommend  Recommended by 63 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
east of eden
March 4th, 2011
2:01 pm
The possibility that Arab and African cultures might not turn to Western-style democracy and thinking should come as no surprise. The West has supported the antithesis of democratic values by supporting dictators and thugs throughout Africa and the Middle East for decades.

Any intelligent person would view the hypocritical sham of Western liberal thinking and decide to go in a different direction. After having lived under Mubarak and the various other criminals the West has propped up, a reasonable person could only surmise that liberal democracies are really only a shell game created to usurp oil and other resources.

How stupid do you think the Arab and African cultures are?
 Recommend  Recommended by 32 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Joel Bergsman
St Leonard, MD
March 4th, 2011
2:01 pm
I would add that Huntington, and also you David in this column, err in conflating "Muslim" or "Islamic" with "Arab." If I recall H's paper, the things that he (rightly or wrongly) attributed to majority Muslim societies in fact apply almost exclusively to Arab societies -- not, e.g., to Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh...
 Recommend  Recommended by 22 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Paul Green
Washington DC
March 4th, 2011
2:13 pm
A relevant observation that Mr. Brooks does not make in his critique of Huntington's analysis is that the relative lack of nationalism in the Islamic world is, at least in part, a consequence of the fact that the political map of that part of the world is largely a legacy of European colonialism.
 Recommend  Recommended by 46 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Baytown TX
March 4th, 2011
7:06 pm
Analogy:
Guttenberg: Christian Reformation
Internet: Muslim Reformation
 Recommend  Recommended by 19 Readers
HIGHLIGHT (what's this?)
Berlin - Chicago
March 4th, 2011
7:09 pm
I find it interesting that people are so obsessed with discussing whether or not these countries will end up democratic or not, as if it is our concern anyway. Unless we work harder to achieve true democracy in our country, we have no business pushing our brand of "democracy" on others, or even wishing it upon them. I'm sorry to point out, but a country run by the rich, and for the rich is not a democracy. It is self-determined, but self-determination isn't the only prerequisite for a democracy. Until we figure this stuff out, how about we let them build what they want?
 Recommend  Recommended by 32 Readers

Comments are no longer being accepted. Please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration.

Comments posted on TIMES NOW website: Ghulam Muhammed

Monday, January 02, 2012

Comments posted on TIMES NOW website:

Though Congress and other parties did not agree to pass the Lokpal bill, for Team Anna it is an opportunity to revive its protest against the UPA government demanding the Jan Lokpal Bill to be adopted by the entire political class, including BJP, which is playing a cat and mouse game together with Congress and others, to scuttle Anna Hazare's Jan Lokpal bill.

Though Congress is howling about Anna Team's special relationship with RSS and BJP; the stark fact is that even BJP is scared what an independent Jan Lokpal will mean to any governing political party and/or coalition.

An independent Jan Lokpal is the 'monster' that even BJP is dreading and cleverly joining hands with Congress to torpedo Anna Hazare's mission. [So much for Anna's RSS connections]

Ghulam Muhammed, Mumbai