Peace and Justice Post

Nasir Khan,  August 3, 2013

In a Facebook comment Rahul Banerjee offered his views on Marxist dialectics that I thought needed my brief reply.

Nasir Khan: Mr Banerjee, as a casual reader of Marx and Marxian concept of dialectics, I find your views on dialectics interesting on a number of points. But if I understand you correctly, then your notion of dialectics seems to me mechanistic and deterministic; it has little in common with what Marxist dialectics stands for. No wonder the question of thesis and a ‘matching antithesis’ in ‘natural or social developments’ you have summed up falls in that category! I don’t know how you have arrived at the view that for Marx the process of thesis and antithesis inevitably is ‘progressive’. I have not found anything like that in my reading of Marx’s texts. What you say does not represent Marxist concept of dialectics. No, Sir; Marx did not expound such a view. Another puzzling thing is that you name quantum physics and molecular biology to elaborate on the social development of society. In my view any advances in physical sciences do not lead to the negation of dialectics, which essentially is a model to analyse social change.

Rahul Banerjee: what marx took from hegel was his version of dialectics. now this form of dialectics too is shabby stuff that is not borne out by reality at all times. there is not always a thesis and matching antithesis in natural or social development and the synthesis that results even if there was such a pair may not always be of a progressive kind!! instead the process of change in the real world is of a very chancy kind and not deterministic and linear as envisaged in the dialectical method. now that we have a better understanding of this chanciness due to advances in quantum physics and molecular biology and the unpredictable development of society, we need to move on from what Hegel and Marx could surmise in their day.

by Nazim Hikmet (1902-1963)

I come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead for I am dead

I’m only seven though I died
In Hiroshima long ago
I’m seven now as I was then
When children die they do not grow

My hair was scorched by swirling flame
My eyes grew dim my eyes grew blind
Death came and turned my bones to dust
And that was scattered by the wind

I need no fruit I need no rice
I need no sweets nor even bread
I ask for nothing for myself
For I am dead for I am dead

All that I need is that for peace
You fight today you fight today
So that the children of this world
Can live and grow and laugh and play

Nasir Khan, August 2, 2013

The mixing of Islam with the politics of Pakistan has been a recipe for disaster for the people and the political system of Pakistan. It is obvious to all of us what people say in matters of faith is full of controversies, divergent interpretations and inter-sectarian conflicts that result in much bloodshed and social polarization. While every sect repudiates other sects in doctrinal matters while maintaining its own version to be the only genuine and legitimate one!

As long as Pakistan does not follow the principles of a peoples’ democracy and separate religion from politics, more and more disasters and mayhem will follow. I think, one important step for Pakistani secular activists is to show the importance of the separation of religion and the State. When this is made possible then the people should follow whatever religion or sect they choose or reject in their personal lives. That should be their option and no one should interfere with that. The State should be neutral in religious matters. When this happens, religion (Islam in the case of Pakistan) will stop being a power that poisons the body-politic of Pakistan as it also does in many other Muslim countries.

.

Exclusive: For more than a decade since the Iraq invasion, President Bush, Prime Minister Blair and their senior aides have stuck to the story of innocent intelligence mistakes and evaded accountability. But the code of silence may crack if top British spy Richard Dearlove tells his story, says ex-UK intelligence officer Annie Machon.

By Annie Machon

In a surprising statement last weekend, the former head of Great Britain’s foreign intelligence-gathering agency, MI6, suggested that he might break the code of omerta around the fraudulent intelligence case – including the so-called “dodgy dossier” – that was used as the pretext for the Iraq War in 2003.

Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 and current Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge, contacted the UK’s Mail on Sundaynewspaper to state that he had written his account of the intelligence controversy in the run-up to the U.S./UK invasion of Iraq and indicated that he might release it in the near future.

Sir Richard Dearlove, former head of Great Britain’s MI-6 intelligence agency.

With the much-delayed official Chilcot Enquiry into the case for war about to be published, Dearlove is obviously aware that he might be blamed for “sexing up” the intelligence and former Prime Minister Tony Blair might once again evade all responsibility.

In the months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the British government produced a couple of reports “making a case for war,” as Major General Michael Laurie said in his evidence to the enquiry in 2011: “We knew at the time that the purpose of the [September] dossier was precisely to make a case for war, rather than setting out the available intelligence, and that to make the best out of sparse and inconclusive intelligence the wording was developed with care.”

Continues >>

The European Union has proposed new guidelines for how it will do business with the state of Israel that will require any Israeli entity seeking funding or cooperation from the E.U. to submit a declaration that it has no links to any of the occupied territories. Any agreement between the E.U. and Israel would need to include a section stating that its settlements in the territories are not part of Israel. The guidelines, obtained by the Israeli daily Haaretz, state that “only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be considered eligible for consideration.” Human rights organizations like B’Tselem and non-governmental organizations like Peace Now that work to promote peace will be exempt from the requirement not to have links to the occupied territories.

Continues >>

.

The following exchange of views took place between Farzana Khan and me on Facebook.  In an exchange of  our views she  raised some important points  and objections to the role of Islam in Pakistan.  Now I am posting my  last comment  with slight changes only in the first line along with her comment.

Nasir Khan, July 16, 2013

I quite understand the reason for Farzana Khan’s strong emotional reaction and response to the role of Islam within Pakistan or of other religions in other countries. When some socially-conscious Pakistanis see the negative role Islam and Islamists play in Pakistan then all the anger and frustration in her comments makes sense. This much I readily admit. However, my critique of religion as such is more than an emotional outburst.

Equally, it is important to be aware of the conditions under which different people reject Islam, Christianity or any other religion. They have different reasons for doing so. Those who have become atheists and humanists haven’t done so only out of hatred towards their respective religions. To assert so is to ignore some important facts.

The rejection by a thinking and inquisitive person of a religion’s teachings, dogmas and customs has more to do with the realisation that all such things are man-made and illusory. They are often ascribed to a heavenly authority in the form of a holy scripture through a human mediator. When we grasp this and explain it to others by logical reasoning then we are opening a channel for ideas and exploration where all truth claims of religions and theologies seem to be misrepresentations of reality. Thus the reasons for such a rejection come as a consequence of rational thinking, not hatred. Hatred in psychological, sociological and philosophical evaluation is merely an emotional reaction under certain stimuli; it has no epistemological significance. There is no place for it in any serious discourse relating to religion and its harmful impact.

When people come to the conclusion by their inquiries into the nature of religion that all religions are created by none but human beings then they know what religions are. This shakes the foundations of religion. Then it becomes obvious to many that the so-called holy books have not been delivered from any heavenly being simply because there is no heavenly being up there or anywhere, who is busy planning, managing, arranging and ‘revealing’ for humankind. When seen in this way, the whole question of accusing a god or what is written in a ‘holy book’ becomes meaningless except that if any charges we make in this connection are towards human beings who created gods, supernatural beings and the so-called holy books.

I think to combat religions and religious consciousness (in Marx’s words ‘obverse consciousness’) atheists in Pakistan should expose what the idea of god in reality is and how it is nothing but the creation of human mind. To attribute action or utterance to him is only a game with words. Moreover, it has to be explained in scientific terms and not as an angry response. When it comes to the social practice and dogmas of a religion, the same scientific spirit should lead the struggle against ignorance and manipulation in a world-religion like Islam.

—————————

Farzana Khan, July 15, 2013

You mentioned, one should criticize all religions, not just Islam. OK, if a Christian from America becomes an atheist, he does not become atheist because of Islam. He becomes atheist because he dislikes Christianity. He dislikes God’s commandments. He dislikes what delusional god wants him to do and subsequently ultimately he becomes an atheist. He started speaking ill of Christianity that are causing hatred, discrimination and racism in his society. He becomes Atheist, because he has read the Bible and understood that it is not God’s words, but it is kinda myth.

Similarly, if a Muslim becomes an atheist, so it is not because of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion. He/she becomes an atheist, because he/she reads the Qur’an with translation and hadiths and he/she realizes, these cannot be the words of Allah or that Allah cannot be so cruel enough to let the Muslims keep fast in quite hot weather (who at the same time claims to love Muslims x 70 as compare to mother) or that he (Allah) wants Muslim girls to be in hijab all the time even in front of their relatives too while staying at home. So, if any of ex-Muslim speaks against Islam, he is kinda oppressed, suppressed and repressed by the Muslims. He/she faces the hatred, injustices and discrimination of Muslims, but not Christians or any other religion that you are talking about.

In a nutshell, one should have complete right to speak ill of religions, as religions keep abusing disbelievers also. The Qur’an abuses, hates, threatens disbelievers and tells their pious Muslims to kill disbelievers. You think, as an ex-Muslim we should be silent? We (Pakistani atheists) have got ample of knowledge about Islam and we are living in Muslim dominated society, so we should target Islam prior, as people are being victimized by this so-called peaceful religion in all the Muslims-dominated countries. If we do not attack on Islam, then what is the use of quitting religion? We are warriors, but peaceful warriors.

by Badri Raina

They had great faith in the gods
Dotting the hills and dales—
Those men and women who
Are now corpses.
Yet, not one among those that
Survived was heard to say
“the gods govern our conditions;
Not the government, not the builders,
Not the hoteliers, not the miners—
None of these are responsible, since
God willed it so.”
All of their moaning suggested
How unstuck they were with the gods
They believed in.
Of all the tangled flesh and bone
That lay mangled among the rubble,
One corpse stood out:
Bang in the sanctum sanctorum,
This young man, dead and askew,
Had open eyes full of consternation
Fixed searingly upon the god-in-chief.
It was as though in his moment
Of dying, his amazement at the deity’s
Uncaring repose was too much to hide.
He might have been thinking, “how
Could you let this happen?”
The bold accusation in his eyes,
Resentfully alive in his death,
Waits for answer.

Published in Outlook.india.com

.

Richard Falk,  July 16, 2013

I find the discourse surrounding the Snowden Affair bewildering. The latest reports suggest that the United States is using maximum political leverage, including coercive diplomacy, to discourage small Latin American countries from granting asylum to Edward Snowden. It is also complaining that Russia is giving Snowden ‘a propaganda platform’ and expressing its ‘disappointment’ with China/Hong Kong for its earlier refusal to expel Snowden back to the United States to face charges once his passport was cancelled.

This anger is misdirected.  Taking the overall situation into account, whatever anger has been generated by the Snowden Affair, should be directed at the United States for expecting other governments under the circumstances to transfer custody over Snowden. From almost every angle of relevant law, morality, and politics the human rights case for protecting Snowden against the long arm of American criminal law is overwhelming. Anyone who commits nonviolent ‘political crimes’ should almost always be entitled to be protected, and should certainly not be compelled to hole up in an airport transit lounge for weeks of anguishing suspense while governments sort out the interplay between dealing justly with Snowden and not upsetting the diplomatic applecart.

Continues >>