Muslim integration in India
There are urgent reasons to look at the position of muslims in India pro-actively: 26/11 and the spate of attacks in in other cities in 2008, the growing instability in Pakistan, the mutiny in Bangladesh, and the coming national elections.
There is a raft of issues preventing muslims from being properly integrated in this country.
1. Muslims have a separate set of laws applicable to them in India, and kashmir has a separate status, something most Hindus resent. This feeds into the feeling that partition left a half-baked state of affairs. Jinnah's party claimed that partition was necessary because muslims were not safe in India, yet a lot of muslims stayed behind in India. That meant that India lost territory, but still has a sizable muslim population, almost the same as the population of Pakistan. This is viewed by many as inconsistent, even though it is no fault of the muslims who are here, most of whom were born post partition anyway. It has left a bit of a dis-equilibrium, especially with the new muslim state (now two) providing an increasingly malign presence, providing a constant reminder. This has had an impact on the politics of the country, and the unfortunate effect is of greater polarisation.
2. Where all other minority communities are better integrated, eg christians, sikhs and buddhists, muslims tend to hold themselves separate until they break into the middle class. This is no different to the behaviour of muslim communities elsewhere in the world. This has been well studied and documented. At a meeting in Vienna in 2006 European muslim religious leaders exhorted the community to better integrate and participate more fully in all aspects of European society - a positive sign. Muslims who have not integrated can be characterised by the intensity of their religious identity. They tend to be more devout, many praying several times a day.
The combined effect means that the muslim community comes across as concentrated in large groups which display religious intensity. This leads to a fair amount of suspicion (even fear) and discrimination by the other communities, even though it is not meant as intimidation but is just part of the muslims' basic identity. This diminishes the employment prospects for muslims - a vicious cycle.
3, The rate of growth of the muslim population is higher than for Hindus: decadal growth of 30% vs 20% (round numbers). This creates insecurity amongst Hindus.
4. While there has been no real indigenous Islamic militancy in India, there has been strong militant activity mainly in Kashmir and mainly from across the border which has cost more lives in India in the past few years than anywhere other than Iraq. This has now found some roots in India, with connections abroad (Pakistan, mainly) and has spread beyond Kashmir. At least part of this can be blamed on the the excesses of the military and police in the valley, and possibly also on the events in Gujarat. While the numbers of militants in India is small at present, probably no more than a few thousand out of 150 million this situation could get worse. A large, poor muslim population, discriminated against by others and at the receiving end of the antics of people like the saffron brigade makes us targets for militancy fomented from beyond our borders, even if the majority of muslims here want to live a life of peace. All you need is a sparse but committed network with a few recruits willing to kill themselves, and you get militancy of serious proportions.
In considering these issues, we need to look at the facts regarding islam in India.
1. Until the 7th century, there was no islam. This means that if you traced back the family tree of muslim families in India, many of them must have been hindus who chose to convert, while possibly some were converted forcibly during muslim rule. Either way, they share a common lineage with hindus in this country. Maybe some Hindu extremists even share blood with some muslims....
2. There are about 150 million muslims in this country. That is the third highest number of muslims in any country (after Indonesia and Pakistan) and is a number that can neither be wished away nor chased away.
3. Muslims in this country have not chosen their religion , and neither have Hindus. They were both born to it. That in a way, makes the two the same. Both feel their religion is superior, not because they have carefully chosen between available alternatives, but because of an accident of birth.
4. Every religion has its extremist fringe, a militant faction. However, Islam currently seems to have more than others. The religion allows no separation between state and church and also pretty much seeks to prescribe how you must live all aspects of life. Its hold is reinforced real time more strongly than any other by calling on its members to pray several times a day through a muezzin's call that seeks to be heard by any muslim anywhere.
There is a dream amongst extreme factions of islam in the region to create a caliphate which will rule large parts if not all of the world. These extreme sections of islam have an 'us versus them' attitude towards other religions. The koran has weighed in on both sides of this argument in three passages. One, dubbed the 'passage of the sword' is highly militant, the second 'the tribute verse' is also intolerant but suggests a more moderate view towards 'those who have been given the book', ie Jews and Christians, and the third, the 'no compulsion' verse basically is truly tolerant. Though in a small minority, enough muslims are inclined towards the intolerant and more militant attitude to be able to create problems in the world. This is compounded by the strong hold of the religion and its insistence on following a 1400 year old book to the letter. This has left islamic states and people less educated, less progressive and consequently poorer than others in the world, and therefore more easily manipulated. Some misguided muslim clerics revel in this.
Witness the story of Kasab, the terrorist caught live after 26/11. He left home because basically there wasnt enough money for all, joined his brother in a career of petty crime, joined a terrorist training camp hoping to improve his skills for crime, and was brainwashed with stories of how islam was in real danger, muslim women were being raped and killed, to the point where the recruits, young men (boys) were moved to tears and swore to protect the religion. It is doubtful he was a true blooded muslim to start with, thieving is certainly not an accepted profession for a good muslim - witness what happens to thieves in the middle east. Even so there was enough in his weak set of beliefs to push him over the top to the point that he was willing to lay down his life.
So here is the bottom line. Muslims are here, and they are as much a part of India as Hindus or anyone else. They are our muslims, not imported from some other country. And, while the large majority of Indian muslims are no problem at all, full blown islamic militancy in the region does pose a problem, and as poverty, discrimination and incidents of violence and ill treatment weigh down on the muslim community in India there is potential for more problems. Especially so with Pakistan more than willing to export and foment trouble. To deal with this issue requires a lot of maturity, with a separate strategy for external militancy such as from Lashkar e Taiba, and a different one for not creating conditions internally that drive people to extremism.
The political arena isn't helping. We have two potent forces, one seeking to maintain status quo, and the other to make it worse. I mean our two major national political parties. One, perhaps damaged by its internal lack of democracy and unsure of its electoral appeal for that very reason, is clinging to its vote bank policy of appeasement of the influential, more conservative sections of muslims. The party's commitment to improve the lot of muslims is less obvious. The other is part of a 'parivar' that seems to have a strong antipathy towards muslims, and that attitude and the actions it leads to makes things worse not better. When you push people into a corner they fight back. You cannot expect to bully 150 million people into submission - neither should you want to.
Our current bi-polar approach, 'appeasement' and 'bullying', isnt working, so what will? It doesnt take a genius to figure out that nothing will bring about change like economic progress. I have many muslim friends and acquaintances, all reasonably well off, all reasonably progressive in their attitudes. At core, all religious books tend to reflect the mores of the times in which they were written. If enough individuals change, it doesnt matter if the clergy clings to the past. The vatican doesnt support birth control, but the majority of christians, even catholics, do.
So the key issues to be addressed are integration and economic progress and one follows the other. The follow on question then is: how do you encourage economic progress amongst muslims? Lets not depend on the government. What can we do as citizens? Anyone who is in a position to hire anyone - at work, at home, ask yourself - have you ever hired a muslim? Especially in a work situation? At 13.4% of the population, that's one in 8. Look around you at your work place. Amongst domestic employees in your neighbourhood. Do you see 1 in 8? 1 in 16? 1 in 32? The answer will be sobering. So here is a suggestion. Hire one muslim. Thats all. Its not a lot, but its a start, and addresses both the key issues. Imagine if everyone who could hire people hired just one muslim, then would we not have a bit of momentum behind integration and also help the muslim community along the road to progress and prosperity? This is actually so simple, it may sound simplistic. But think about it. Integration begins in the mind. Eventually we have to get past 'us' and 'them', get past our prejudice.
The acid test will be, if 5 or 10 years down the road we are in the same situation or worse, that will be a shame, a failure. Sitting back and playing a smug blame game will not work. We need to tackle this with wisdom, maturity and responsibility as individuals, as Indians, and find solutions.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Has Darwin Evolved?
Has Darwin evolved?
There has been a strange, almost surreal debate about evolution vs intelligent design in recent years. That debate needs to be taken up a notch or two, to bring it into the realm of logic, and past simple minded expressions of faith. The first step is defining what intelligent design does not mean. It does not mean that the world was created 7000 years ago with Adam, Eve, a snake, an apple and wild sex in a garden.
Darwin's theory makes immense sense as far as it goes. The thing is, it doesn't go far enough. It begins with the onset of life on just one planet. Our planet. That is but one short paragraph in the evolution of the universe, and even that paragraph is not quite complete. What happened between the Big Bang and the onset of life? What is it which brought the explosively white hot point of energy into existence, what led to the unreal big bang which in 0.008th of a second filled up space close to the present size of the universe, what led the energy to congeal into particles and different forms of energy and forces, and then to atoms, molecules, matter, planets and stars, galaxies and solar systems, inorganic matter, organic matter, and finally the emergence of life which then allowed the mechanism of natural selection to set in? Darwin's theory covers an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of years of's the world existence. What determined the emergence of the universe into a shape that allowed for Darwin's theory to operate - surely there was no question of survival and natural selection in the pre-life formations described above? What drove that development?
Physicists have finally discovered the 'God' particle, which they claim determines the 'DNA' of atoms and molecules - tell which particles to become, say steel and which to become, say oxygen. Most of matter isn't understood at all. What about different forms of energy? What about gravity? There is the whole area of dark matter and dark energy which are a complete mystery and could contain the answers to how an undifferentiated beginning in the big bang became a myriad different things. Once we understand matter - still a long distance away, we then need to begin to understand what 'life' truly is, and after that we have the huge task of figuring out how 'consciousness' came about. From the big bang to consciousness - that is the true journey of evolution.
Taking a completely different tack, where did 'time' come from? That was surely present in the big bang, no evidence of evolution. And finally, there is the whole question of different dimensions beyond the three we know, to take reality as we know it all the way to infinity. "String theory' which Stephen Hawking claimed would answer all possible questions in physics in a few years (my!) believes there are at least 7 or 8 dimensions. That is mathematical modeling for you, and do remember that mathematical modeling in a different form is what gave us the sure bet of derivatives which brought the financial world to its knees. Think 'Black Scholes". But I digress.
Getting down to it, it is entirely possible that there could well be a grand design or at least set of rules which is causing the universe to unfold as it is doing. Remember, if just one element, time were to vanish, everything would coalesce into a single instant. No natural selection, no evolution. Is there chance in evolution? Probably, but how much? Tell me how do you go from immeasurably whiter than white heat to matter to life to a sperm and an egg to and the complexity of human life, its organs, functions, nervous system and brain, and on to Einstein and the theory of relativity? Is all of that truly just natural selection?
Unless we understand where all of existence came from, we cannot get at definitive answers. And who knows that? As the Nasadiya (hymn of creation) says in the Rig Veda (the Sanskrit Hindu book which is the oldest known religious/spiritual text)
" There was neither non-existence nor existence then.....
There was neither death nor immortality then.....
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning....
The life force that was covered by emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.....
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know."
"or perhaps he knows not"!
In a sense, all of evolution, from the big bang to now, has moved from a pretty undifferentiated exploding energy through a lot of complexity to life, and finally life conscious of itself and capable of having such a discussion as we are having. And from a number of accounts starting with the Rig Veda, a consciousness capable of merging with the single true underlying, unchanging reality behind all this change, the first cause uncaused, the prime mover unmoved. God?
If Charles Darwin were still alive, he would have probably added to the theory of evolution, without in any way detracting from the validity of his theory of natural selection. Evolution of life is just one part of a much grander, much bigger process, of which we have so far caught just a little glimpse. Perhaps there is no conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Perhaps evolution moves within preset boundaries, and to that extent is backed by intelligent design. It need not be either-or.
There has been a strange, almost surreal debate about evolution vs intelligent design in recent years. That debate needs to be taken up a notch or two, to bring it into the realm of logic, and past simple minded expressions of faith. The first step is defining what intelligent design does not mean. It does not mean that the world was created 7000 years ago with Adam, Eve, a snake, an apple and wild sex in a garden.
Darwin's theory makes immense sense as far as it goes. The thing is, it doesn't go far enough. It begins with the onset of life on just one planet. Our planet. That is but one short paragraph in the evolution of the universe, and even that paragraph is not quite complete. What happened between the Big Bang and the onset of life? What is it which brought the explosively white hot point of energy into existence, what led to the unreal big bang which in 0.008th of a second filled up space close to the present size of the universe, what led the energy to congeal into particles and different forms of energy and forces, and then to atoms, molecules, matter, planets and stars, galaxies and solar systems, inorganic matter, organic matter, and finally the emergence of life which then allowed the mechanism of natural selection to set in? Darwin's theory covers an infinitesimal fraction of the billions of years of's the world existence. What determined the emergence of the universe into a shape that allowed for Darwin's theory to operate - surely there was no question of survival and natural selection in the pre-life formations described above? What drove that development?
Physicists have finally discovered the 'God' particle, which they claim determines the 'DNA' of atoms and molecules - tell which particles to become, say steel and which to become, say oxygen. Most of matter isn't understood at all. What about different forms of energy? What about gravity? There is the whole area of dark matter and dark energy which are a complete mystery and could contain the answers to how an undifferentiated beginning in the big bang became a myriad different things. Once we understand matter - still a long distance away, we then need to begin to understand what 'life' truly is, and after that we have the huge task of figuring out how 'consciousness' came about. From the big bang to consciousness - that is the true journey of evolution.
Taking a completely different tack, where did 'time' come from? That was surely present in the big bang, no evidence of evolution. And finally, there is the whole question of different dimensions beyond the three we know, to take reality as we know it all the way to infinity. "String theory' which Stephen Hawking claimed would answer all possible questions in physics in a few years (my!) believes there are at least 7 or 8 dimensions. That is mathematical modeling for you, and do remember that mathematical modeling in a different form is what gave us the sure bet of derivatives which brought the financial world to its knees. Think 'Black Scholes". But I digress.
Getting down to it, it is entirely possible that there could well be a grand design or at least set of rules which is causing the universe to unfold as it is doing. Remember, if just one element, time were to vanish, everything would coalesce into a single instant. No natural selection, no evolution. Is there chance in evolution? Probably, but how much? Tell me how do you go from immeasurably whiter than white heat to matter to life to a sperm and an egg to and the complexity of human life, its organs, functions, nervous system and brain, and on to Einstein and the theory of relativity? Is all of that truly just natural selection?
Unless we understand where all of existence came from, we cannot get at definitive answers. And who knows that? As the Nasadiya (hymn of creation) says in the Rig Veda (the Sanskrit Hindu book which is the oldest known religious/spiritual text)
" There was neither non-existence nor existence then.....
There was neither death nor immortality then.....
Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning....
The life force that was covered by emptiness, that one arose through the power of heat.....
Whence this creation has arisen - perhaps it formed itself, or perhaps it did not - the one who looks down on it, in the highest heaven, only he knows - or perhaps he does not know."
"or perhaps he knows not"!
In a sense, all of evolution, from the big bang to now, has moved from a pretty undifferentiated exploding energy through a lot of complexity to life, and finally life conscious of itself and capable of having such a discussion as we are having. And from a number of accounts starting with the Rig Veda, a consciousness capable of merging with the single true underlying, unchanging reality behind all this change, the first cause uncaused, the prime mover unmoved. God?
If Charles Darwin were still alive, he would have probably added to the theory of evolution, without in any way detracting from the validity of his theory of natural selection. Evolution of life is just one part of a much grander, much bigger process, of which we have so far caught just a little glimpse. Perhaps there is no conflict between intelligent design and evolution. Perhaps evolution moves within preset boundaries, and to that extent is backed by intelligent design. It need not be either-or.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Padma Silly
When recipients of state awards like Padma Shri and Padma Bhushan go up to receive their awards, they are greeted with a 'namaskar'. Rumour has it that a departure was made for Bhajji, who was greeted with a 'teri maan ki'.
It is with a sense of dismay bordering on disgust that I have been looking at the award lists over the years. What do you make of a Padma Shri to a movie star? What exactly is the contribution, especially from actors who's main qualification is good looks, being the winner of a beauty contest, not exceptional talent, professional training and outstanding performances on stage and on screen of say a Naseeruddin Shah? And what about awards given to people who's only apparent 'contribution' is to do their job - head a company, or a government department like the atomic commission? Awards have even been given to people who's only connection to the country is that they were born here, left the country, took foreign citizenship, earned lots of money abroad, and did absolutely nothing in or for India. Isn't it cringe inducing to chase after people to give them awards when they have chosen to have nothing to do with you?
This year there has been some criticism over the selections. The kashmiri shawl trader who got an award. The olympic medalists who didn't. The first shows how little care goes into the selection process. The second shows how apparent lack of consistency leads to a sense of entitlement. The question about the olympians is, if we start to win olympic medals by the score as China has started to and in keeping with the size of our population, will we give scores of Padma Shri's every year? What about all the hockey golds in the past? And talking of consistency, look at Larsen and Toubro. It was set up by Holk Larsen as a world class fabrication and equipment manufacturing company at the height of the licence raj. A huge achievement and a very significant contribution to development. Yet, he didn't get an award till 2001, when he was given a Padma Bhushan. The current head of L&T just got a Padma Vibhushan. Consistent?
Truth is, the whole premise of state given awards is highly questionable. Maybe they should be abolished. And yet, there is no point in saying that, because it will never happen. The cat is out of the bag, the train has left the station, the horse has left the barn....choose your analogy. Those who give the awards have a vested interest in giving them, not just seeking one for themselves, but in terms of power, influence and patronage. They are not going to give that up. Abolition is unrealistic. What is worth asking for is two things.
One, that there be just one clear guiding principle: exceptional achievement. And exceptional achievement doesn't mean the position you have achieved, but what you have done with it. Being 'somebody' is NOT an achievement, 'doing' something exceptional is. In fact a person who doesn't have a high position and yet achieves a lot is far more deserving of an award. A Mahatma Gandhi rather than some other Gandhi. A Sunderlal Bahuguna rather than some other Bahuguna. And nobody at all should get an award for just doing their job, no matter how lofty the position. Or for popularity.
Second, that there be a committee of eminent people, citizens who are of proven calibre and integrity, not bureaucrats. Like Ratan Tata. Amartya Sen. Narayana Murthy. Dr Abdul Kalam. Who will be able to resist pressures from people in power. Who will try and define criteria for measuring achievement, so as to get objectivity. Who will look at the whole process of nomination, to ensure that worthy candidates are not left off the list. And who will not give out awards unless someone truly deserves it. This should not be an allocation game. A national award should truly mean something. Like the Nobel prize. There are some years no Nobel is given in a category, because nobody deserved it.
The basic question is, are the awards about excellence, or about patronage?
It is with a sense of dismay bordering on disgust that I have been looking at the award lists over the years. What do you make of a Padma Shri to a movie star? What exactly is the contribution, especially from actors who's main qualification is good looks, being the winner of a beauty contest, not exceptional talent, professional training and outstanding performances on stage and on screen of say a Naseeruddin Shah? And what about awards given to people who's only apparent 'contribution' is to do their job - head a company, or a government department like the atomic commission? Awards have even been given to people who's only connection to the country is that they were born here, left the country, took foreign citizenship, earned lots of money abroad, and did absolutely nothing in or for India. Isn't it cringe inducing to chase after people to give them awards when they have chosen to have nothing to do with you?
This year there has been some criticism over the selections. The kashmiri shawl trader who got an award. The olympic medalists who didn't. The first shows how little care goes into the selection process. The second shows how apparent lack of consistency leads to a sense of entitlement. The question about the olympians is, if we start to win olympic medals by the score as China has started to and in keeping with the size of our population, will we give scores of Padma Shri's every year? What about all the hockey golds in the past? And talking of consistency, look at Larsen and Toubro. It was set up by Holk Larsen as a world class fabrication and equipment manufacturing company at the height of the licence raj. A huge achievement and a very significant contribution to development. Yet, he didn't get an award till 2001, when he was given a Padma Bhushan. The current head of L&T just got a Padma Vibhushan. Consistent?
Truth is, the whole premise of state given awards is highly questionable. Maybe they should be abolished. And yet, there is no point in saying that, because it will never happen. The cat is out of the bag, the train has left the station, the horse has left the barn....choose your analogy. Those who give the awards have a vested interest in giving them, not just seeking one for themselves, but in terms of power, influence and patronage. They are not going to give that up. Abolition is unrealistic. What is worth asking for is two things.
One, that there be just one clear guiding principle: exceptional achievement. And exceptional achievement doesn't mean the position you have achieved, but what you have done with it. Being 'somebody' is NOT an achievement, 'doing' something exceptional is. In fact a person who doesn't have a high position and yet achieves a lot is far more deserving of an award. A Mahatma Gandhi rather than some other Gandhi. A Sunderlal Bahuguna rather than some other Bahuguna. And nobody at all should get an award for just doing their job, no matter how lofty the position. Or for popularity.
Second, that there be a committee of eminent people, citizens who are of proven calibre and integrity, not bureaucrats. Like Ratan Tata. Amartya Sen. Narayana Murthy. Dr Abdul Kalam. Who will be able to resist pressures from people in power. Who will try and define criteria for measuring achievement, so as to get objectivity. Who will look at the whole process of nomination, to ensure that worthy candidates are not left off the list. And who will not give out awards unless someone truly deserves it. This should not be an allocation game. A national award should truly mean something. Like the Nobel prize. There are some years no Nobel is given in a category, because nobody deserved it.
The basic question is, are the awards about excellence, or about patronage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
