Secularism and Pashtuns....the panacea for all the ills of Pashtuns. - 02-23-2011, 01:15 PM
Democracy counts the votes of individuals. It doesn't let their unelected faith leaders speak for the whole group.
Democracy allows individuals to express their opinions in the privacy of the voting booth where they are protected from group pressure.
Democracy doesn’t have them ‘represented’ by powerful faith leaders whom they may not dare to challenge, for fear of being punished in this world or the next.
Secularism: A definition | National Secular Society
I think that secularism is the cure-all for all the problems of Pashtuns as what we see today , one of the main reason for all the problems is the mixing of religion with the state and giving the political and other powers to religious people instead of professional persons.
Lets be precise, succinct and constructive in our approach and we must reach a unanimous decision after the discussion of few weeks or months and having about 20 pages of discussion here.Then we should conclude the topic that this forum is of the opinion that secularism is bad for Pashtuns or good.
Lets have a meaningful discussion on secularism in the context of Pashtuns with all possible evidences, proofs, logic and valid arguments. We can take our time if we have to search for proofs but may not fill the pages with personal remarks or writing with out real substance.
02-23-2011, 05:17 PM
For instance, interest banking, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc are viable economic industries and modalities without a doubt. A multi faith military may have certain advantagous elements to it. I am no expert in economics or military matters so I will defer to common sense and say that there is an industry that can be reaped from these aforementioned industries and matters. A society that permits the building of mosques, churches, synogogues, buddhist temples, satanist cathedrals, wiccan gardens is probably a pluralist society that encourages a variety of contributions from all the aforementioned parties.
Then there is democracy Osho. Its a system that can also be decoupled to secularism, coupled with it, etc etc. The secularist mentality found an accelerated adherence in the enlightment period that Baygham lala wishes to occur for our Pashtunistan. Democracy on the other hand was around in Athens and was not decoupled from the mores and religious ideologies of the people (i.e. you could not throw feces at at a statue of Zeuss and expect to simply get away with it). So the two, democracy, and secularism do not go hand in hand. The fact that a military junta was able to sustain secularism in Turkey is enough practical real world proof for that I think.
But the issue I have with your ideologies, and perhaps that Toramana was trying to warn you about in your posts is that these sorts of sweeping statements do no justice to your cause. The idea that secularism is the panacea to all the Pashtun world's ills is an opinion laced and absurd statement. It requires evidence that fits the bill. The Pashtun world is a complex world if tribal allegiances, a strong religious fiber (as misinformed it may be about the actual constitution of its religion), maliks and warlords, localized economy, land locked state, etc.
In my opinion, its about foolish as the idea that "All you need is Love" or "All you need is faith" or "shariah saves." I cannot, in good faith, make a sweeping comment that Islam shall elevate and save the Pashtuns from all their ills.
My contention with you has been the following: So you believe that stable secular democracies are the light, the way, and pride of the world; why impose it?
Let us say your view is 100% correct (that it would benefit the Pashtuns to a wonderful affect) and avoid the angst of reinventing the wheel. However, imposing an ideology of any sort, whether it is Islam or whether it is secular democracy is bound to reap bad results. Human nature is averse to imposition. The general trend is to preserve memes that represent our genetic heritage and repel those that appear to threaten survival of the race. So As Toramana pointed out regarding Barelvi, Syed Ahmad's attempts to impose shariah backfired and alienated the Pashtun Yusufzai Maliks. In a time of war they utilized him, but once some modicum of peace was obtained and once he began to threaten their traditions, ideologies etc, he was quickly eliminated. It is the same with the Taliban phenomena as it stood with KP Pashtuns. KP Pashtuns were generally living in stability compared to their colleagues in Afghanistan. When Fazlullah and others attempted to hoist something upon them they accepted it at first per their view of the failed court system, but quickly viewed it as an imposition. However, what Omar Hotak bought to the Afghan side of the border was order and stability. There are multiple references from Afghans in Qandahar I have provided on this site to that affect and you can search them out.
So the point you need to prove to me is that imposition of secular or democratic regimes on a people, by an outside, nonMuslim, nonPashtun power will be the panacea for all Pashtun ills.
I think, if you, Baygham Lala, and others quit seeing the IslamoFascist Monster hiding under every bed and in every corner, that you would see we are reasonable people and are requesting a reasonable answer to the bolded question above. The answer ought to fit the situation (i.e. Pashtunistan is not the ruins of the grand Ottomon Caliphate with a receptive urban elite... Pashtunistan is the place of legends... where still fight from places on high... a place that one US soldier once told his mother was like a place straight out of the Old Testament.)
I for one, cannot sit still when I hear what is nonsensical and goes against what all of us have witnessed first hand. Baygham Lala in his own exposes rants about how the overwhelming majority of this people are religious minded to the point of absurdity in his view. You yourself recognized this issue and brushed it aside with the view of: Oh well, we will have to beat it out of them!
I find that repulsive. I refuse to tell a man like Omar Hotak, who lost an eye against the Russians to simply sit by and let some urban, elite, effeminate individual that did nothing for their country when it suffered under the yolk of the Russians (Karzai, Ghani, Prince Ali Seraj, Muhammadzai family, etc) to just sit down, shut up, and be still.
Don't you see that the fault lies with us (or our fathers?). They ran away to the mud baths of Italy, to the comforts of the US, to the guest houses and bungalows of Islamabad, Quetta, and Peshawar while men named Khalis, Hekmetyaar, Mossoud, Omar, etc., men without tribal malikship, men without much land to their name, and men who were the barefoot and the poor made the religion the basis of the moral imperitive:
They fought, bled, lost family members, were massacred, lost limbs etc. They led from the front.
Contrast the behavior of Mr. Karzai and his brother Qayyum, who were busy attending jirgas, drinking shnaay chai, and eating sugared almonds with that of Washington at Vally Forge. Contrast the behavior of the Muhammadzai ruler Zahir Shah in Italy's mudbath with that of Jefferson and Franklin gathering arms. Contrast the immense time Thomas Paine put personally into the Revolutionary propaganda machine against Ameen Arsala's adventures in Virginia. Contrast the sacrifices of Revere and Patrick Henry with Yama Karzai, sitting pretty in Quetta and now throwing the yolk of torture on his fellow Qandaharis. Contrast the fact that none of these men were seen as outsiders by the American insurgents and none of them were imposing something on their brethren.
Do you use rotten meat to make a meal? Do you use molded and parasite laden flour to make bread for that meal? How then do you expect failure laced men, with no accomplishment other than astounding laziness to lead their people to build a prosperous, secular democracy?
So you validate this fairy tale like or magical thinking with the rebuttal of "lets use America's resources" and "lets capitalize on their presence." How Sir? Even your brother in arms Toramana told you that superpowers are rarely benign.
So you come to me to the table to say:
Here is my recipe:
1 secular democracy that produces a G8 level country please.
What are the ingredients Osho?
Oh, I dunno... a superpower, some like minded folks, some brute force.
No Osho it takes:
1) 1/3 cup of Native incentive and acceptance to avoid blowback and tyranny
2) 1/3 cup of Capable leaders that are worthy to lead
3) 1/3 cup of investment/economy
do you have these?
You say: No, but its OK, because I will shut my eyes to reality and squeeze them tight and make a wish on a wishing star.
I say: Good luck, but I think you are going to get food poisoning tonight.
02-24-2011, 01:17 PM
Thanks for such a detailed analysis of the issue. If we agree that secularism is a good idea but may not be imposed then I agree with this. Nothing should be imposed but the people may choose it with their own sweet will and this is democracy. We oppose Taliban for the very reason that they impose their doctrines and practices on others without the consent of the receiving party.
Dictators, monarchs, terrorists impose but democracy let others to choose. Even Islam does not recommend to force things on others thats why we have preaching and convincing others.
The basic purpose of education is to bring proper behavioral modification and we have formal, informal or non formal educational systems. We educate others so they accept the new ideas. I have elsewhere written an essay that the USA lacks public diplomacy. they dont educate others and dont have public awareness programs. They spend billions of dollars on bullets but dont spend hundreds on books. This is a pitfall and there is a dire need that this paucity may be addressed. Yes those who understand only the language of bullet may be dealt in the same way.
Secularism should never be imposed but people may be educated that what is secularism and what are its benefits and how Pashtun society can be secularized.The change should be from the inside not imposed artificially from outside. Minds and hearts should be won not to enforce new ideas at the point of the gun.What we are doing here is education not imposition.We learn and share and I am happy we have great participants here who always have original ideas.
02-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Lets do research that who are the secular and who are the non secular or religious states in the world. According to the following link majority of the states in the world are secular.
Secular state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Following is the list of fully secular countries
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
People's Republic of China
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Federated States of Micronesia
UK and Indonesia ate ambiguous as there appears symbolic religious statements in their constitutions but in reality religion is not a part of their politics or economics.There is a complete religious freedom in these countries.
All the G8 countries are secular.Only UK and Italy mentions religion symbolically.
Some countries only mention religion as their state religion but religion has no important role in these countries.Only 5 not very important countries recognize Roman Catholicism as their state or official religion:
Vatican City (Holy See)
If one visit these countries or read about them even here religion is used as a symbol and never has a deep influence on politics, society, culture or economy.
A number of countries, including Andorra, Argentina, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Italy,Indonesia, Haiti, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru,Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and Switzerland give a special recognition to Catholicism in their constitution despite not making it the state religion.
Gerogia , Greece and Finland consider Orthodox Church as official but again one can see how practically these countries are secular.Other countries may mention religion in their constitution but we dont see no where a religious country in the sense that religion controls the polity, society and other aspects of the life.
Religion as a state religion is common only among the Muslim countries. But here too we have Turkey which is complete secular.Algeria , Tunisia and Indonesia(except Aceh) are de-facto secular countries.There are only 4 Islamic republics(Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Mauritania)
We can see that almost all Muslim countries are not democracies and are developing economies. Except Turkey(secular) and Saudi arabia(Monarchy) there is no one who is even member of the G20 forget about of G8.
Some countries like Thailand and Sri Lanka have Budhist influence but Buddhism is not state religion.
State religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Conclusion is that secular countries are the most developed ones and almost all the countries except few Muslim countries are secular countries in the world.
Pashtuns should learn from this international trend. Religion of islam must remain in the private lives of people but not in political, economic, cultural, social or other aspects of life if Pashtuns really want to become a great nations like the nations of G8.
02-24-2011, 01:56 PM
you support the neocons and their invasion of a country such as Afghanistan and now you are whoring abotu how great seculerism is.
you are worst than seculrist you seem to be a fascist who thinks its ok to kill maim plunder rape as long as neocon agenda is moving forward.
you didnt answer my question.
i can understand since you have no morals and want to act like a wild beast its all fair game to you.
02-24-2011, 02:08 PM
khoga wrora bakhana ghwarham. dalta ba pa secularism ghageegu aw hagha hum da serhaney sara che yaw bal na tsah zda krhu, Qarega ma. zrha ghat sata.da bal khabara lag awra . dagha da neocons khabarey ba pa dagha inwan ke sara kawoo.
I wish here we dedicate only to serious intellectual discussion with possible proofs, valid arguments and not personal remarks or emotional statements. I really undertake these discussions to learn and share without any preconceived agenda or biases. I am learning and changing my ideas where I see some thing really impressive , useful which may be contrary to my approach and ideology.
02-24-2011, 06:37 PM
As a physician I also cannot advocate a sextravaganza when the linkages between promiscuity and diseases like cervical cancer, HIV, etc are clear as day. So I have to assume that these moral controls that are either present because of religion or because of whatever brand of humanistic values one derives are there as a response to these environmental and pathogenic realities.
My problem with comparing a super power like the US, where the moral standard underlying secular humanism has changed with time, and where the gold standard was replaced vs with a third world country that attempts to implement islamic economics is that the confounders that are there are tremendous.
Like I said, the issue that is pressing is that Afghanistan is at war. And the validations being presented for the war originally derived from moral stances. The attempt at deriving some absurd moral basis to fuel a nation building exercise that also enforces something that both you and Baygham have admitted is not being accepted by the populace is what makes no sense to me and the evidence appears to speak against.
02-25-2011, 01:22 PM
Lets have some data on economy that who is the largest Economy and then onwards and see where are secular countries and where are countries who are more religious.Basically except Afghanistan of Taliban, Pakistan to some extent, Sudan, Somalia, Saudi and Iran can be counted the only really existing Religious countries otherwise the whole world is now either secular or tendencies towards secularism.
In the following list we dont see a single religious country or Muslim country
Countries by GDP (PPP)
List by the International Monetary Fund (2010)
Rank Country GDP (PPP) $Million
— World 74,004,249
— European Union 15,150,667
1 United States 14,624,184
2 People's Republic of China 10,084,369
3 Japan 4,308,627
4 India 4,001,103
5 Germany 2,932,036
6 Russia 2,218,764
7 Brazil 2,181,677
8 United Kingdom 2,181,069
9 France 2,146,283
10 Italy 1,771,140
Ranking of the Muslim countries even is not impressive if we go down the list.
Afghanistan is at No 105,Somalia at No 152, Sudan at No 68 and so on.the position of Pakistan at No 26 surprised me but Pakistan being a British colony in the past has a different political and economic system which is just in the name Islamic republic. Taliban are present and active only in Pashtun areas.But in the list according to GDP(nominal) even Pakistan is at No47.Saudi and Iran have good positions mainly because of the God bestowed natural resources.
|The Following User Says Thank You to Badlun For This Useful Post:|
|ills, panacea, pashtuns, pashtunsthe, secularism|