In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one

Home > Edits & Columns > Back to Vietnam Indian Express: Monday, August 27, 2007
A weary people demand more of President Bush than war without end

The Vietnam war is still such a divisive episode in US history that comparisons to Iraq are sure to be clouded by emotion. But President Bush tossed analogies around capriciously this week before the Veterans of Foreign Wars and added a few more from World War II and Korea. Since he broached the subject, it’s reasonable to take the comparisons to places he might not want to go.
Here’s one: It would have been better to surrender South Vietnam to the North Vietnamese communists in the early 1960s than to engage them in a struggle that cost 58,000 American and millions of Vietnamese lives before it ended in 1975 with the same result: victory for Hanoi and the suppression of non-communist opposition in the south. Would Bush agree that, similarly, it would have been preferable to allow Saddam Hussein, notwithstanding his evil regime, to remain in power than to engage in a more than four-year war that has torn Iraq apart ...?
At least in Vietnam, there was a clearly defined enemy. The Nixon administration was able to negotiate an agreement with Hanoi in 1973 for an American withdrawal. Similarly, the US knew the capital cities of the enemies in World War II and Korea. But what is the address of the enemy in Iraq, a nation fractured into sectarian fiefdoms and murderous gangs? Despite the worry that defeat in Vietnam would have a domino effect, toppling non-communist regimes elsewhere, the damage was limited to Indochina. The communists who took over Cambodia in 1975 in the wake of the American defeat did prove to be genocidal sociopaths. Bush tried to use their example as a caution against a pullout from Iraq, but no one knows whether a bloodbath of this proportion will occur among the warring factions there. “If we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home,” Bush said, setting up the ultimate domino. Analogies are of no help when predicting the fate of Iraq. Its location on the Sunni-Shi’ite fault line, huge oil reserves, and forced involvement in the US struggle against Islamic terrorism have no parallels to Vietnam of the 1960s.
The Iraq war is now nearly 4 1/2 years old. Bush didn’t mention the war-weariness that afflicted Americans as the Korean war dragged on for three years and as World War II passed the 3 1/2-year mark. After 4 1/2 years of intense American involvement in Vietnam, Nixon began pulling out the troops. “In Iraq, our moral obligations and our strategic interests are one,” Bush said. The United States is not winning this war, and there is no strategy in place analogous to Nixon’s to get the US troops out and devise a diplomatic solution involving neighboring nations. A weary people demand more of the president than war without end.
Excerpted from an editorial in the ‘Boston Globe’, August 24 editor@expressindia.com

In 1907, Tata Steel undertook a groundbreaking journey into unknown and uncharted territory

In an interview with Ambar Singh Roy,Mr B. Muthuraman, Managing Director of Tata Steel, speaks of the company’s aspirations, focus on employee engagement, ongoing projects, manpower challenges facing the steel industry, the imperatives for co-operation between industry and academic and research institutions and the need for adopting new technologies in the steel industry. Excerpts from the interview: Business Line Sunday, Aug 26, 2007

How does it feel to be at the helm of affairs of an institution called Tata Steel when the company is completing a hundred years of its existence?

Our journey through the last 100 years has been a story of corporate governance; customer delight, creation of wealth and sustaining the well being of our society and nation. Tata Steel, India’s first integrated steel company has achieved numerous landmarks and accomplishments following the principles laid down by the founder and will strive towards reaching greater heights in the years to come. To constantly grow and evolve was the dream of our founding fathers when they started their journey of steel making for the first time in India. I feel honoured as we celebrate 100 years of following the enduring values propounded by Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata.

How would you describe the company’s existence in the last 100 years, and what vision do you have of the company in the global steel firmament in the next 50 years or so?

More than a chronology of events, the Centenary of Tata Steel is a celebration of enduring values as propounded by our founder, Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata. It is a story of a global citizen, committed to embracing common cultures based on sustainability. In 1907, Tata Steel undertook a groundbreaking journey into unknown and uncharted territory. It succeeded beyond all expectations, due to the all-encompassing vision and philosophy of our founder and those who followed him. As Tata Steel was the first steel company to be set up in India, everything from manufacturing to the process of steel making had to be learnt and developed from scratch. Spurring this pioneering effort was Jamsetji’s dream of building modern India through industrialisation and putting it firmly on the road to development. As a mark of its unprecedented efforts to excel in steel making, World Steel Dynamics has ranked Tata Steel as ‘No. 1’ steel company in the world, for three consecutive years. The company has also achieved the EVA positive status in 2003 and since then, has continued to be an EVA positive company. The company was declared the ‘Lowest cost producer of steel in the world in 2001.

Today, Tata Steel has completed 100 glorious years of its existence; this is a momentous occasion and we take pride on our performance and take stock of the challenges that lay ahead of us. As Tata Steel, sets off on another 100 year journey, it is well placed to reap the benefits of the domestic as well as the global steel sector with its gigantic spread across the globe from European countries to South East Asian countries. With a substantial hold on high technology Long products in South East Asia to a considerable hold on the high quality Flat products in Europe, Tata Steel is in a favourable position to take up the challenges arising in the next 100 years. We are currently ranked the 6th largest producer of steel in the world with a capacity of over 28 mt. By 2015, Tata Steel will have over 50 mt annual capacity. At the same time, we will simultaneously draw out the road map with key milestones to realise our dream of becoming a 100 million tonnes company in the near future.

Libertarian conservatives regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust

Neoconservatism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia According to Irving Kristol, the founder and "god-father" of Neoconservatism, there are three basic pillars of Neoconservatism.[13]

Economics
"One of these policies, most visible and controversial, is cutting tax rates in order to stimulate steady economic growth [...] It is a basic assumption of neoconservatism that, as a consequence of the spread of affluence among all classes, a property-owning and tax-paying population will, in time, become less vulnerable to egalitarian illusions and demagogic appeals and more sensible about the fundamentals of economic reckoning."

Domestic affairs
"Neocons do not like the concentration of services in the welfare state and are happy to study alternative ways of delivering these services. But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on 'the road to serfdom.' Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable... Neocons feel at home in today's America to a degree that more traditional conservatives do not. Though they find much to be critical about, they tend to seek intellectual guidance in the democratic wisdom of Tocqueville, rather than in the Tory nostalgia of, say, Russell Kirk.

"But it is only to a degree that neocons are comfortable in modern America. The steady decline in our democratic culture, sinking to new levels of vulgarity, does unite neocons with traditional conservatives--though not with those libertarian conservatives who are conservative in economics but unmindful of the culture. The upshot is a quite unexpected alliance between neocons, who include a fair proportion of secular intellectuals, and religious traditionalists. They are united on issues concerning the quality of education, the relations of church and state, the regulation of pornography, and the like, all of which they regard as proper candidates for the government's attention. And since the Republican party now has a substantial base among people who consider themselves to be 'religious', this gives neocons a certain influence and even power. Because religious conservatism is so feeble in Europe, the neoconservative potential there is correspondingly weak."

Foreign policy
"First, patriotism is a natural and healthy sentiment and should be encouraged by both private and public institutions. Precisely because we are a nation of immigrants, this is a powerful American sentiment. Second, world government is a terrible idea since it can lead to world tyranny. International institutions that point to an ultimate world government should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. Third, statesmen should, above all, have the ability to distinguish friends from enemies...

"Finally, for a great power, the 'national interest' is not a geographical term, except for fairly prosaic matters like trade and environmental regulation. A smaller nation might appropriately feel that its national interest begins and ends at its borders, so that its foreign policy is almost always in a defensive mode. A larger nation has more extensive interests. And large nations, whose identity is ideological, like the Soviet Union of yesteryear and the United States of today, inevitably have ideological interests in addition to more material concerns.
"Barring extraordinary events, the United States will always feel obliged to defend, if possible, a democratic nation under attack from nondemocratic forces, external or internal. That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical calculations of national interest are necessary." QUOTE IS MISSING HERE

Usage and general views
The original neoconservatives were a band of liberal intellectuals who rebelled against the Democratic Party's leftward drift on defense issues in the 1970s. At first the neoconservatives clustered around Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat, but then they aligned themselves with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans, who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.
The term has been used before, and its meaning has changed over time. Writing in The Contemporary Review (London) in 1883, Henry Dunckley uses the term to describe factions within the Conservative Party; James Bryce again uses it in his Modern Democracies (1921) to describe British political history of the 1880s. The German authoritarians Carl Schmitt who became professor at the University of Berlin in 1933, the same year that he entered the Nazi party (NSDAP) and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck were called "neo-conservatives".[14] In "The Future of Democratic Values" in Partisan Review, July-August 1943, Dwight MacDonald complained of "the neo-conservatives of our time [who] reject the propositions on materialism, Human Nature, and Progress." He cited as an example Jacques Barzun, who was "attempting to combine progressive values and conservative concepts."
In the early 1970s, Socialist Michael Harrington prominently used the term in a manner similar to the modern meaning. He characterized neoconservatives as former leftists -- whom he derided as "socialists for Nixon" -- who had moved significantly to the right. These people tended to remain supporters of social democracy, but distinguished themselves by allying with the Nixon administration over foreign policy, especially by their support for the Vietnam War and opposition to the Soviet Union. They still supported the "welfare state," but not necessarily in its contemporary form.
Irving Kristol remarked that a neoconservative is a "liberal mugged by reality," one who became more conservative after seeing the results of liberal policies. The term "neoconservative" also refers more often to institutions like the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Commentary and The Weekly Standard than to the Heritage Foundation, Policy Review or National Review.
Some observers name political philosopher Leo Strauss as a major intellectual antecedent of neoconservativism, mostly because of his influence on Allan Bloom and the influence of Closing of the American Mind.

Overview
Historically, neoconservatives supported a militant anticommunism [15], tolerated more social welfare spending than was sometimes acceptable to libertarians and mainstream conservatives, and sympathized with a non-traditional foreign policy agenda that was less deferential to traditional conceptions of diplomacy and international law and less inclined to compromise principles, even if that meant unilateral action.
There is a widespread impression that domestic policy does not define neoconservatism [citation needed]— that it is a movement founded on, and perpetuated by, an aggressive approach to foreign policy, free trade, opposition to communism during the Cold War, support for Israel and Taiwan and opposition to Middle Eastern and other states that support terrorism. [citation needed]
The movement began to focus on such foreign issues in the mid-1970s [citation needed]. However, it first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture."[16] Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservatism than any other single factor."[17] Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.[18]
According to Peter Steinfels, a historian of the movement, the neoconservatives' "emphasis on foreign affairs emerged after the New Left and the counterculture had dissolved as convincing foils for neoconservatism . . . The essential source of their anxiety is not military or geopolitical or to be found overseas at all; it is domestic and cultural and ideological."[19] Neoconservative foreign policy parallels their domestic policy. They insist that the U.S. military must be strong enough to control the world, or else the world will descend into chaos.
Believing that America should "export democracy," that is, spread its ideals of government, economics, and culture abroad, they grew to reject U.S. reliance on international organizations and treaties to accomplish these objectives. Compared to other U.S. conservatives, neoconservatives may be characterized by an idealist stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and a much weaker dedication to a policy of minimal government, and, in the past, a greater acceptance of the welfare state, though none of these qualities are necessarily requisite.
Aggressive support for democracies and nation building is additionally justified by a belief that, over the long term, it will reduce the extremism that is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorism. Neoconservatives, along with many other political theorists, have argued that democratic regimes are less likely to instigate a war than a country with an authoritarian form of government. Further, they argue that the lack of freedoms, lack of economic opportunities, and the lack of secular general education in authoritarian regimes promotes radicalism and extremism. Consequently, neoconservatives advocate the spread of democracy to regions of the world where it currently does not prevail, most notably the Arab nations of the Middle East, communist China, North Korea and Iran.
Neoconservatives also have a very strong belief in the ability of the United States to install democracy after a conflict - comparisons with denazification in Germany and installing a democratic government in Japan starting in 1945 are often made - and they have a principled belief in defending democracies against aggression. This belief has guided U.S. policy in Iraq after the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, where the U.S. insisted on organizing elections as soon as practical [citation needed]...

Conflict with Libertarian conservatives
There is also conflict between neoconservatives and libertarian conservatives. Libertarian conservatives are ideologically opposed to the expansiveness of federal government programs and regard neoconservative foreign policy ambitions with outspoken distrust. They view the neoconservative promotion of preemptive war as morally unjust, dangerous to the preservation of a free society, and against the principles of the Constitution. Rep Ron Paul, a Republican libertarian who holds a Texas district, and is a 2008 Presidential candidate, has spoken out harshly against the Bush Administration's foreign wars on fiscal, moral, and constitutional points advocating non-intervention.[28]

Any diversity audit must consider ways to assess the space for diversity of life styles

We the peoples Suhas Palshikar Indian Express [August 24, 2007]

As India celebrates the diamond jubilee of its independence, it may be worthwhile to take stock of its diversity record. There does not exist any comprehensive state policy to monitor diversity. The following four principles can be considered for evolving a framework for such a diversity audit.

One, at the minimum, any society should ensure a firm commitment to protect any and all groups from extermination. India may take pride that it has not, after Partition, witnessed mass killings or ethnic cleansing though, of course, Gujarat 2002 came close. One has also to take into account instances of exclusion and marginalisation that may be used against linguistic groups, and smaller tribal communities. Treatment of the Pandits by Kashmiri insurgents is an instance of exclusion.

Two, we need to ask: is our public life generally - as a matter of routine - pro-diversity? Much too often there is a tendency towards homogenisation. In the name of our great tradition', one segment of the heritage masquerades as representative of all. For instance, the many rich north Indian traditions of the Hindi language are drowned in the din for one formal Sanskritised Hindi language for official purposes.

Or take the Mahatma's all-religion prayers. Many certified secularists have ridiculed these. They worry about the display of religiosity involved in these prayers. They miss the intent of underscoring symbolically the multi-religious social reality and avoiding the public predomination of only one religion. Gandhi knew well that symbols matter in public life and they need to be inclusive of diversity.

Also, how much does our public policy encourage diversity pro-actively? Public interest' is often defined in a sanitised manner as if it refers to an abstract category called people', oblivious of their myriad diversity.

The fate of the Indian languages testifies to this: have we ever thought of giving special encouragement to the student who would learn an Indian language other than her mother tongue? While learning of foreign languages thrives - and it should - we have allowed our education policy to become a prisoner of linguistic chauvinism.

Three, the pressure of democracy has made us somewhat alert to the need to make our political' power structures more diverse in character but this awareness has yet to penetrate the insulated portals of the bureaucracy, military, judiciary and so on. Some time ago, senior women IAS officers from the Maharashtra cadre formally wrote to the CM that women officers normally do not get key postings involving policy-making and governance. Surprisingly, there has been no public debate on this at all.

Besides, we are almost shy of talking about the diversity profile of our non-state public institutions such as the corporate management, media and voluntary sector. One suspects that these are the least diverse sectors of our public life, but the entire focus is limited to structures of the state. And this is not only restricted to issues of caste or religion; women, persons with rural background, those from the Northeast, are some other segments that may be inadequately represented in our public institutions - both state and non-state.

Lastly, discussions of diversity should not stop at representational issues. We also need to think of ways to protect diversity of lifestyles. Often, nationalism is an obstacle in diverse lifestyles. Indian nationalism was aware of this danger and its early leadership tried to avoid the rise of a homogenising nationalism.

Capitalism produces the anti-diversity effect without engaging in any formal discourse of homogenisation. It reduces the diversity of cultures, lifestyles and choices. Any diversity audit must consider ways to assess the space for diversity of life styles.

As democracy becomes more entrenched, there is a danger that it will become only procedural and formal. Efforts to make it more substantive must address the issue of diversity. This alone can ensure the deepening of democracy as a norm that governs social relations. It is necessary that we evolve public awareness of the symbiotic relationship between democracy and diversity and develop an institutional mechanism to monitor and audit diversity in our public life. The writer teaches political science at the University of Pune

It's Now or Never

TODAY'S EDITORIAL: It's Now or Never TOI, 25 Aug 2007, Write to Editor

In the interests of its survival the government might have slowed the process of negotiating a safeguards agreement with the IAEA. But it doesn't have much wiggle room. With the safeguards agreement in place, New Delhi will have to approach the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) for a waiver, for which purpose a special session can be convened in September or October.

After that the deal goes to US Congress for approval, a process that ideally ought to be completed by early 2008. The US goes into election mode that year and domestic political considerations will kick in. The Democrat-controlled Congress may not want to hand George Bush a victory on a platter as presidential elections approach.

Dithering and indecisiveness on New Delhi's part is bound to encourage the enemies of the deal, who will try their utmost to kill it. While placating the Left, therefore, the government must not allow itself to be blackmailed into sacrificing the deal for the sake of its survival. It's not just the Congress, the Left too has a good deal at stake.

There are rumblings within the Bengal CPM, in particular, in response to the ideological brinkmanship of Messrs Karat & Co. The Left's current tally of 60 seats in the Lok Sabha may well be a historical high; there's little hope of reaching this figure if elections are held at this stage. The Left may not want a close strategic partnership with the US, and they will find others who share their misgivings.

But in taking the government hostage on the nuclear deal they have picked an issue which enables three decades of technology sanctions imposed by the international community on India to be lifted. If the deal is approved it would raise India's stock and enable high-tech collaboration not just with the US, but also with France, Germany, Japan, Russia and South East Asia. It may be against China's immediate interests, but if the issue comes up at the NSG where China is a member, it is unlikely to stand out alone in holding up the waiver if most other countries are convinced of India's case.

But Beijing can scotch the deal before it comes up at the NSG through the ideological hold it has on Marxist parties in India's domestic politics. All the more necessary, therefore, for the government not to let the deal fail. The prime minister should stick to his stated position, and continue to dare the Marxists to bring down the government. Make TOI your home page 10:04 AM

The man who sowed the seeds of communal division and mooted the idea of partition was Lord Curzon

Lord Curzon ignited the spark of partition of India (1905)

60 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE Anand MOHEEPUTH www.lexpress.mu

India celebrates its 60th anniversary of independence this week and Pakistan the 60th anniversary of its creation. Pakistan was carved out of the Indian Territory to form a separate state for Indian Muslims with the unequivocal support of the British. Indeed, the idea of partitioning India did not emanate in the 1940s at the height of communal violence when India was pressing hard for independence. Nor could it be said that Mohammed Ali Jinnah described as “Quaid-i-Azam” or “Great Leader” was the first initiator of partition resulting in the creation of Pakistan. The man who sowed the seeds of communal division and mooted the idea of partition was Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, way back in 1905. That was the time when Indian nationalism, spearheaded by the Indian National Congress, was fast gathering momentum but, fortunately for the British, the frenzy of nationalism touched mainly the intellectual class whose action was limited to mere rhetoric. The large Indian masses were still kept out of the mainstream of that fervour until Gandhi strode on the stage in the 1920s and roped them in. Lord Curzon took fright by the spirit of nationalism manifested by Hindus and Muslims alike. Realising that a display of patriotism could spell troubles ahead in India, he set in motion the divide-and-rule tactics, which the British so skilfully deployed in the imperial days. That was one way, he felt, of ‘assisting the Indian National Congress to its peaceful demise’. The Nawab of Dacca, Salimmullah, a rich landowner, was picked up like a puppet to vindicate claims and press for the share of the Muslims. By trying to woo the Muslims and agreeing to make concessions, while at the same time inflaming Hindu sentiments, Curzon dashed into pieces the unity of the Indian people. Even Gandhi, though hailed as having hastened the downfall of the British empire, later failed to mend the terrible fissures. The first move of Curzon was thus to resort to the partitioning of India with the creation of the state of Bengal as a homeland with a Muslim majority, detached from India and making Dacca its capital at the expense of Calcutta. The British therefore hoped to bring about “a unity of Mohammedans of Eastern Bengal, a unity, which they had not enjoyed since the days of the old Muslim Viceroys and Kings.” So, when the people of Bengal woke up one fine morning of October 16, 1905, they were shocked to learn of Curzon’s partition scheme.

No communal intention at face value

But Curzon’s plan taken at face value did not smack of any evil or communal intention. It looked quite innocent. Yet it was cunningly laid out under the cover of an overhauling exercise of the administration of Bengal, which with its population of 78 million was found “unquestionably too large a charge for any single man”. The proposed detachment of Bengal from India and investing it with Muslim rule came as described by Nayana Goradia, author of Lord Curzon: last of the British Moguls, “like a bombshell upon an astonished public”. The nationalist leaders, among whom Aurobindo Ghose was the most outspoken and virulent critic, feeling “insulted, humiliated and tricked,” began organizing mass protests boycotted and burnt British goods. Not a day passed without agitators staging violent demonstrations against the British, demanding in particular the resignation of the Lieutenant Governor of the Eastern province, Sir Bampfylde Fuller, and threatening to tie a garland of old shoes round Fuller’s neck if he did not resign. When Fuller’s resignation came from popular pressure, Salimmullah showed how true and loyal a servant he was by organizing a mass rally of 30,000 Muslims at Dacca where a resolution was passed deploring Fuller’s resignation. From then on, the wedge in the relationship between Hindus and Muslims driven by Curzon kept widening and developed in a vicious and unparalleled circle of hatred. Salimmullah finding a fertile communal ground to breed launched, with the support of Sir Sayyid Ahmed Khan of the Aligarch group, a platform for Muslims to voice their strident calls for separatism.

Showering blessings and promising safeguards

Thus, in December 1906, the Muslim League saw the light of day. The new Viceroy, Lord Minto, showered his blessings, promising the Muslims safeguards and protection of rights. Minto went further in what was viewed as a treacherous act. He endorsed the principle of separate electorates, which the Muslim League was to use as a plank to arouse the tide of communal feelings. In a retaliatory move, the nationalists decided to strike at the root of the British power. As Dr Rafiq Zakaria has pointed out, among those who publicly denounced the British and the Muslim League for the ‘harm’ that would eventually entail to the Muslim population was none other than Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a protégé of the firebrand Congress leader, Gopal Krishna Gokhale. Although the scheme for the partition of Bengal was revoked in 1911, the simmering mistrust between Hindus and Muslims was kept at boiling point and the Muslim League, after a comatose existence in the 1920s, was given a fresh lease of life in the 1940s when Jinnah, the staunch Indian nationalist and a Congress leader early in his political career, having shed his erstwhile ideological baggage used it as a platform to milk thoroughly his “religion-based politics” and advocate a “Two Nation theory.” Jinmah’s problem in the Congress started with the advent of Gandhi and the latter’s quick ascendancy in the 1920s with the support of mass politics overshadowed all the senior Congress leaders. The two men saw things from a different angle. Furthermore, the frequent clashes between Jinnah and Nehru and Gandhian loyalists like Maulana Azad, on the other hand distanced Jinnah from the Congress fold and threw him in the lap of the vindictive Muslim League he had so bitterly condemned on account of its communal agenda. The partition of India in 1947 with the creation of Pakistan as a separate homeland for Indian Muslims, though celebrated with joy by Churchill (he hugged Mountbatten warmly for that) for having shattered Gandhi’s dream of ruling over the whole of India was not Jinnah’s brain child. It was Lord Curzon who had shaped in a way Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. The credit should go to Curzon for having been the inspiring genius of the partitioning of India in 1905.

Due to competitive and confrontational politics Parliament finds itself disabled in the discharge of its essential functions

Independent India at 60 Features: Magazine Literary Review Life Metro Plus Open Page Education Plus Book Review Business SciTech Friday Review Young World Property Plus Quest Folio Independent India at 60 PARLIAMENT Six decades of parliamentary democracy SOMNATH CHATTERJEE In spite of shortcomings, Parliament can claim the maximum credit for creating conditions for democracy to flourish

One of the greatest challenges before the Founding Fathers while preparing the framework of self-government of Independent India was to come up with a viable system of governance and an administrate structure that would involve the active participation of all sections of the people and one that would reflect and represent the diversity of India and be capable of meeting the challenges faced by a resurgent nation. The country adopted a parliamentary democratic system after a purposive and elaborate debate among our visionary and sagacious national leaders who were in the forefront of our long-drawn struggle for freedom. The members of the Constituent Assembly adopted the Constitution with the conviction that it best suited our ethos and culture and the specificities of our nation, while the world around us expressed scepticism about our ability to operate a democratic system successfully.
To my mind, the most significant achievement of the first six decades of freedom, in many ways, is that we have sustained the vibrancy of our parliamentary democracy, which has survived in spite of the prevalence of what seemed to be inhibiting factors that were not conducive to its healthy functioning — like

• the division of the country on communal lines that was perceived to have had a debilitating effect on the functioning of our democratic system.
• Besides, our poor economic conditions,
• low literacy,
• the hierarchical social structure, and
• multiple ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages,

were all potent factors that could inhibit and weaken the democratic fabric.
Today, having come through 14 general elections and experienced a good degree of political stability for almost six decades, we can say with confidence that Indian democracy has come of age and that democracy is here to stay. This democratic consolidation — preserving and protecting the unity of such a heterogeneous country with one billion-plus people practising different religions, and speaking innumerable languages, and which is home to a wide variety of customs and practices — has indeed been a gigantic challenge that post-Independence India met successfully, to the envy of many.
The driving force behind Indian democracy is our people — the vast electorate that has shown to the world its unquestionable capability and commitment to work the democratic system that the Constitution has provided for governance. They have brought about changes in government, with an enormous sense of responsibility and uncanny wisdom, on six out of 14 occasions that we went through general elections — in most cases proving even political pundits wrong. We have seen in the past that whenever the people perceived divisive or anti-people activities that contributed to political instability, they have punished those responsible. Whenever they perceived the popular mandate being misused to undermine democracy from within, they exercised their judgment at the earliest opportunity to safeguard democracy. The faceless voter of India is someone no political party can take for granted and is Indian democracy’s best guarantee today. India’s experiments with democratic governance have received universal recognition and our hugely multi-cultural society is seen as an example for those struggling to cope with the complexities of race, religion, language and culture.
Any discussion on India’s parliamentary democracy, when we are completing 60 years of freedom, calls for some honest introspection among all sections of our society, particularly among the political class, about the health of our political system today.

The Constitution clearly lays down the institutional foundation for a functioning democracy. It has established a structure of power relationships based on the system of distribution of powers between the Union and the States and of separation of powers between the three organs of the state. No doubt, it is Parliament that has contributed the most to the consolidation and strengthening of democracy in the country. Over the years, Parliament has come to be identified, both in theory and in practice, and rightly so, to be the pivot of our political system.
The early Lok Sabhas, for example, had to grapple with many issues and problems germane to a newborn Republic that emerged after centuries of foreign rule. The priorities of a Parliament invested with the responsibility of consolidating the freedom and laying down the institutional foundations of a new Republic had to be different from those of the subsequent ones, which have as their primary task the sustenance and perpetuation of institutions created by the Constitution and the laws of the land. Understandably, independent India’s first Parliament has the distinction of having spent the maximum time, out of its total sittings, on legislation. In the early years Parliament discharged its function of charting out the path of social engineering with the utmost sense of responsibility, in the process earning the admiration and respect of the people.

Facing criticism
But such is the phase of competitive and confrontational politics today that Parliament finds itself disabled in the discharge of its essential functions. There is a growing perception among some sections of our people, particularly the youth, that democratic institutions are not functioning as they should. While the public perceives a general decline in all our institutions of governance, it is Parliament and the State Assemblies that have come in for strong criticism. Debates and discussions, the hallmarks of democracy, are being overshadowed by disruption, confrontation and other non-democratic alternatives. Many well-meaning critics have started pointing out that confrontational politics have accentuated religious, linguistic and casteist divisions in society and that unfortunately political power has got polarised around identities of caste, religion, and language, thereby making the political system an accentuated reflection of the existing social inequalities.
Today, questions are being asked about the utility and relevance of Parliament in our polity and, indeed, about the workability of our democratic set-up based on the parliamentary system. If Parliament does not function effectively and loses public trust, parliamentary democracy too will begin to wilt. Parliament is the fountainhead of the people’s desires and aspirations. To raise Parliament’s esteem in the people’s eyes, we urgently need to address the issues of declining quality of debates, falling attendance of members, indecorous and unruly behaviour and the increasing tendency to stall parliamentary proceedings to register dissent. We should devote more time to law-making and make the committee system more effective to better oversee the government’s functions and to scrutinise effectively proposed legislations. What is needed most is total commitment to our Constitution and to the smooth functioning of Parliament and of the Legislatures, which are all constituted by the people. To be successful, Parliament must not only be representative, transparent, accessible, accountable and effective but should also function in a manner that will further cement people’s faith and confidence in the great utility of the institution itself.
The perceived aberrations in the functioning of our democratic institutions, however, should not make us overlook our achievements under a parliamentary democratic system in the past six decades. It should be everyone’s endeavour to highlight our achievements also and thereby seek to enhance our people’s faith in the system. The media and the judiciary, two offshoots of democracy, have a special role in this. It is through the exercise of democratic rights that the traditionally disenfranchised sections of society are acquiring a new voice and role in India’s governance.

Parliament has indeed worked as a vehicle of social engineering. Its initiatives through the years in enacting laws have to be viewed from this broad social perspective. The enactments include those to bring about social change, to enlarge opportunities for education, to implement comprehensive land reforms, and to help provide just and humane conditions of work. Other enactments include those to ensure maternity relief, to provide protection to women at the workplace, to broaden the base of women’s participation in politics, to safeguard the vulnerable sections against social discrimination, violence and atrocities, to act against child marriages, to eliminate the evil practice of dowry, to provide a conducive environment for the development of children, to put an end to the sexual exploitation of women and their indecent representation, to protect women from domestic violence, to promote the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of our society – including women, children and the minorities — to ensure and guarantee rural employment and thereby to address rural poverty, and so on. Several laws have been passed over the years prohibiting practices that are inimical to societal development, and for the creation of a civilised society.
The expulsion of 10 Members of Parliament in 2005 in the ‘cash-for-query scam’ was a watershed event in parliamentary history across the world; nowhere have so many elected legislators in a national Parliament been expelled for misdemeanour by a vote of the House. The three-month suspension of four members of the Lok Sabha in 2006 for their role in irregularities related to funds earmarked for the Member of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) demonstrated the resolve of the House to cleanse itself and to lay down new standards of conduct for its members. Both measures won the people’s resounding approval. However, that process of self-cleansing must continue and the recent allegations against some members about their alleged role in human trafficking are now being investigated with the deserving seriousness by a committee of the House that as Speaker I set up.
As a nation we have undoubtedly made considerable progress in different spheres. The participative democratic structure and an open society, which we are enjoying, are what our Constitution has provided. Today India is becoming an economic power in the world and we possess an enormous pool of talented young men and women who have the potential to effect a major turnaround in the country’s economic fortunes. There is no reason why we should not be able to fulfil our still incomplete task of becoming a developed nation demonstrating, at every level, standards of healthy political culture and collectively addressing the grave issues of hunger, illiteracy, disease and exploitation.

Question of faith
We should be able to combat the forces and elements that are trying to vitiate our socio-political culture and undermine our institutions of democracy. It should be our collective endeavour to ensure that issues concerning our people occupy the centre-stage of political discourse in the country and thereby to ensure that our people do not lose faith in democracy as the best system of governance available. Once people lose faith in the system, no force, no army, can help save the system.
Our plural society is best served and sustained in a parliamentary democratic set-up. I believe that it will not be long before our democratic processes acquire the resilience and strength to blur the social divisions of language, religion, caste and class and come to be centred on issues that have a direct bearing on the quality of living of our people. We can already see welcome signs emerging in that direction.
The life of dignity and honour that we are enjoying today as citizens of the largest working democracy in the world is the result of the sacrifices and contributions of our freedom fighters and leaders, who have also been visionary statesmen. As we enter the seventh decade of freedom, rather than allowing our inadequacies so far to dampen our enthusiasm for the future, our people, particularly the youth, should come forward and make their contributions to further strengthen our democracy and our representative system. Today, our challenge is to transform it into the best functioning democracy.
In spite of the various shortcomings, I believe that the institution that can claim the maximum credit for creating conditions for democracy to flourish in the country, undoubtedly, is our Parliament. No other institution can claim to match the collective capacity of our Parliament to be sensitive to the cause of the common masses. At the end of six decades of parliamentary democratic life, the balance-sheet of performance is definitely in favour of this great people’s institution. That, however, should not make us complacent. Eternal vigilance is the price that its participants, the people, have to pay for the sustenance of democracy. Somnath Chatterjee is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha.

Ideology of Diversity exploits a nihilistic, anti-rational strain in our culture

Home Archives RSS Syndication Merchandise Donations Contact About Search

Diversity, Nihilism, and the Anti-Rational Mind By Gary Wolf

American Thinker August 22, 2007

Contemporary Western society is tumbling further and further into the abyss of undifferentiated mediocrity. Much of the blame is due to the ideology of Diversity, which exploits a nihilistic, anti-rational strain in our culture.
The world is now divided into two zones: the zone of culture, and the zone of Diversity. In the former, which still covers most of the planet, there is true culture, organic and deeply rooted. It is also exclusive, to a greater or lesser extent. Even where the territory is shared, one is cognizant of the fact that the cultural space is divided into two or more organic cultures. They may be co-existing peacefully or they may be locked in a struggle to the death.
In the zone of Diversity, true culture is desiccated. The first order of business is to deny the legitimacy of the culture that occupied the space before it was absorbed into the zone of Diversity. What the apostles of Diversity seem to understand all too well is that true culture is unplanned. Cultures develop slowly, layer upon layer, each layer drawing heavily upon all that preceded it. There is no master plan, no roadmap, no legislation. The movement is neither linear nor phased; it does not necessarily "advance." There can be a flash of brilliance followed by deterioration, renaissance, and finally collapse. There are countless variables and actors, with a web of nuances so dense they cannot be fully grasped by a single human mind.

Escaping the inescapable The ideology of Diversity is an attempt to escape the inescapable. Everything that makes us human, that makes life worth living, is largely the result of processes that are beyond anyone's control. Certainly, an individual or group can impact a culture by introducing a novelty, but they are only one factor out of many. Diversity may be the most ambitious attempt yet at planning what cannot be planned, at forcing "progress" to occur, and in the one domain that is perhaps the least amenable to such tinkering.
At this point, we must ask ourselves: Is Diversity a form of nihilism? Looking back over the history of Western thought, we see numerous approaches to the nature of reality. One can be as Lucretius, seeing only the material world. One can be as Pythagoras, tracing existence to the perfection of mathematical laws. One can adhere to the Christian worldview, resting on God and His message. Then there is Descartes, elevating the rational mind to its place in the pantheon.
Though the net is very wide, what all of these approaches have in common is the exaltation of an aspect of reality. Each brings into focus a major foundation of our existence. Competing against each other for our hearts and minds, they create the marketplace of ideas.
But if the advocates of Diversity had their way, there would be no rational mind, no God, no regularity, no tradition, no schools of thought. From the vantage point of Diversity, it is crucial that these obstacles be swept away. They cause the individual to focus on behavior, not on outcomes. His world is filled with restrictions, maxims, and standards. This means that he is free to make history.

Irrational rationality It is ironic that Diversity, which could develop only in an environment imbued with reason, is contributing to its death. The ideologues believe they can redesign society, starting with its smallest detail. One failure after another, even the totalitarian upheavals of the twentieth century, have done nothing to dampen their zeal.
The pattern is all too familiar: A boisterous campaign to control social behavior -- "Diversity in the Workplace," for example -- as the fixers of social injustice squeeze the population into conformity with their perfectly designed rational panacea. But rationality itself cannot flourish and grow without a free and open interchange of ideas. By imposing what seems to be a rational solution, they create the conditions under which reason and intellect wither away.
As Friedrich Hayek puts it,
The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the powers of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.[i]

The mental handicap radio Diversity is nothing if not egalitarianism stretched to the bursting point. We must find a way to break out of this headlock, to return to a nuanced view of this complex topic.
I am not saying that certain aspects of equality cannot be desirable, but rather that they tend to be temporal in their usefulness. This becomes more apparent when we consider that equality involves trade-offs. The greater the equality, the greater the mediocrity, and the lesser the inventiveness. People may, in a given era, decide that it would be to their advantage nonetheless. But they must realize that the trade-off is still there.
In certain circumstances, equality may be entirely incompatible with basic survival. This is the case, for instance, when a group is threatened with invasion and possible annihilation, and must therefore encourage the development of a warrior class.
The challenge of runaway equality was well identified by Robert Bork. The demand for equality, he observes, is insatiable. The more inequality is reduced, the greater the clamor for equality. The government is the only institution that can answer the call, "which means that the egalitarian passion must always lead to greater centralized power and coercion."[ii] Bork cites a story by Kurt Vonnegut that describes, in a colorful manner, what happens when demands for equality are pushed to the extreme:
Americans would achieve perfect equality by forcing persons of superior intelligence to wear mental handicap radios that emit unsettling noises every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace were to be burdened with weights, and those of uncommon beauty must wear masks.[iii]
It would not be an exaggeration to say that Vonnegut's vision is well on its way to becoming reality.
Gary Wolf is the author of futuristic novels that portray worlds in which multiculturalism and political correctness have run amok. He blogs at awolcivilization.com/.
[i] F. A. Hayek (1952) The Counter-Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuse of Reason, Liberty Press, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1979, p. 163.
[ii] Robert H. Bork (1996) Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, Regan Books, New York, 2003 edition, p. 67.
[iii] Ibid., p. 75.

Several Jugantar members were arrested, hanged, or deported for life to the Cellular Jail in Andaman

Jugantar From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Jugantar or Yugantar (Bangla: যুগান্তর) (English meaning New Era or more literally an Epoch in Transition) was one of the two main secret revolutionary trends operating in Bengal for Indian independence. This association, like Anushilan Samiti started in the guise of suburban fitness club. Jugantar carried out many terrorist activities like attempt to murder, murder and looting against the ruling British government. Several Jugantar members were arrested, hanged, or deported for life to the Cellular Jail in Andaman. Thanks to the amnesty after World War I, most of them were released and could give a new turn to their political career, mainly: (a) by joining Gandhi's Non-cooperation movement; (b) Deshabandhu's Swarajya alternative; (c) the Communist Party of India; (d) M.N. Roy's Radical Democratic Party; (e) Subhas Chandra Bose's Forward Bloc.
Contents[hide] 1 Notable members 2 The beginning 3 Activities 4 The German Plot 5 Failure of the German plot 6 After the First World War 7 Cooperation with Congress 8 Unification and failure 9 Neo-violence 10 Later activities 11 References 12 External links [edit] Notable members
Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950)
Barin Ghosh
Raja Subodh Mallik
Khudiram Bose
Prafulla Chaki
Bagha Jatin alias Jatindra Nath Mukherjee (1879-1915)
Amarendra Chatterjee (1880-1957)
Ambika Chakrobarty (1891-1962)
Arun Chandra Guha (b.1892)
Basanta Kumar Biswas (1895-1915)
Bipin Behari Ganguli (1887-1954)
Bhupendra Kumar Datta (1894-1979)
Dinesh Chandra Majumdar (1907-1934)
Ganesh Ghosh (b. 1900 )
Jadu Gopal Mukherjee (1866-1986)
Jiban Lal Chattopadhyay (1889-1970)
Jyotish Chandra Ghose (1887-1970)
Kalpana Datta Joshi (b.1913)
Pritilata Waddedar (1911-1932)
Manoranjan Gupta (b.1890)
Pritilata Waddedar (1911-1932)
Taraknath Das (1884-1958)
Tarakeswar Dastidar
Purna Chandra Das (1889-1956)
Santosh Kumar Mitra (1901-1931)
Santi Ghose Das ( b.1916)
Suniti Chaudhuri Ghosh (b.1917)
Surendra Mohan Ghosh alias Madhu Ghosh(1893-1976)
Upendra Nath Bandopadhyay (1879-1950)
Binod Bihari Chaudhury
Ullaskar Dutta
Debabrata Bose, later Swami Paragyananda
Satyendra Chandra Mitra (1888-1942)

This extremist outfit was established by leaders like Aurobindo Ghosh, his brother Barin Ghosh, Bhupendranath Datta, Raja Subodh Mallik in April 1906.[1] Barin Ghosh was the main extremist leader. Along with 21 revolutionaries including Bagha Jatin, he started to collect arms and explosives and manufactured bombs. The headquarters of Jugantar was located at 27 Kanai Dhar Lane, then 41 Champatola 1st Lane, Kolkata.[2]

A broader Asia, that broke away geographical boundaries, is now beginning to take a distinct form

Home As comrades listen, Abe moots ‘Asian Nato’

Shekhar Iyer, Hindustan Times New Delhi, August 23, 2007

Visiting Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Wednesday advocated a quadrilateral grouping comprising India, Japan, Australia and the US, which aims at strategic and economic cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region.
Addressing MPs in Parliament, Abe said the network would result in a region called “Arc of Freedom and Prosperity” along the outer rim of the Eurasian continent as Japan and India pursue common interests.
Abe said the “open and transparent” network — that has already raised Chinese concerns — would span the entirety of the Pacific Ocean to be called “broader Asia” and allow “people, goods, capital and knowledge to flow freely”.

“Japan has rediscovered India in the recent years... A strong India is in the best interest of Japan, and a strong Japan is in the best interest of India.”

- Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in his address in Parliament

Beijing perceives the formation of the bloc as a move to contain its influence in East Asia and the 10-nation Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN).
Indian Leftists, who are also opposed to the idea and dubbed it the Asian version of the US-led NATO, listened as Abe spoke of it and closer ties between Japan and India in defence, security and economic fields. In fact, CPM leader Sitaram Yechury was later seen at a function organised by India Center Foundation to felicitate Abe.
Though Abe did not mention the word “nuclear”, he promised to help India in the field of energy. Co-operation in nuclear energy is expected to dominate the agenda of talks as New Delhi is seeking Tokyo’s support in the Nuclear Suppliers Group to get the backing for the nuclear deal with the US.
“A broader Asia, that broke away geographical boundaries, is now beginning to take a distinct form,” Abe said. He favoured the early conclusion of a comprehensive economic partnership agreement with India.

Two-party system is contributing to the rapid decay of society

A TWO PARTY SYSTEM OF SLAVERY GOVERNS OUR VOTING CHOICES

By Jim R. Schwiesow January 2, 2006 NewsWithViews.com

Suppose that you had a daughter, a beautiful young lady who was the apple of your eye. And since she was your pride and joy, you wanted only the very best for her. Now suppose that your nubile young daughter was being courted by three eligible young men about town, two of who came from very rich and influential families, but who you knew to be of reprehensible character. In fact one of these was, if possible, a tad bit more reprehensible than the other. The third suitor came from modest circumstances, and although he was not from a wealthy and powerfully influential family, he was nevertheless possessed of wonderful intelligence and character, and was imbued with unquestionable integrity. Would you, in deference to the wealth and influence of the families of the two young men with no moral scruples, encourage your daughter to marry the lesser of these two reprobates, or would you do everything in your power to see to it that your beautiful young daughter, the apple of your eye, was delivered into the capable and loving hands of the young man who would care for her, provide for her, and cherish her?

That should be a simple question to answer. If you chose the former over the latter, then there is something wrong with your thinking. You are not going to reform a reprobate, and if you think that you can, you are in for many years of misery and grief. When we choose a president, why would we not want the very best to represent our interests, and to act as our commander in chief? If we think that we can elect the lesser of two evils, and then reform him once he is in office, we deserve the grief that will surely follow. This should be clearly evident when one assesses the damage done to the people’s sovereignty by the current administration, which is headed up by a lesser of two evils.

The fact is that the political tenets of our national two-party system are contributing to the rapid decay of society, and have been doing so for some time. This necessary and brilliant contrivance ensures that the corrupted will endeavor to limit the choices for national office to a choice between the perverted and the likewise perverted. The differences in the two parties are cosmetic at best. They are horses of the same likeness internally, but with different outward appearances. These appearances are carefully devised and cultured so as to fool the people into believing that they have alternative choices within a limited two-party system. This is brilliant and effective and has serious implications for the nation.

Any of the above named potential third-party candidates would be infinitely superior to those who comprise the long list of prospects of the two national parties. Unlike all of the potentials of the Republican and the Democrat parties they are not internationalists, and are not motivated by a quest for one-world governance. They understand the implications of our continual drift into a socialistic system, and they understand the dangers of flirting with the inducements to abandon a commitment to a governance, which is guided by the principles set forth by the Constitution in order to chase after the godless dogma of international new world order advocates.

Above all else these people, unlike their contemporaries of the national parties, have a sincere and steadfast fixity of purpose in regard to the absolutes of morality, and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. The likes of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and ilk of both parties represent the evil of the godless one-world internationalists. A look at their voting habits on moral issues should convince even the most intractable that they are devoid of moral scruples. Their consistent pursuit of the legalization of abortion under any circumstance bespeaks a deviant soul. Only the most wretched of medical practitioners can coldly, and with human detachment, push a sharp instrument into the soft malleable skull of a fully-formed living baby and suction the brain in the perpetration of a most heinous act of murder. And that political leaders of any persuasion would not only condone, but also encourage, such an act points up an utterly depraved inner being.

I have repeatedly stated my belief that we are on the cusp of tipping over into a communistic form of governance. In fact the unsophisticated internationalists among us, whether they know it or not, promote the doctrines espoused by Marx and Lenin when they advocate for a one-world order. They are, most assuredly being used by the true believers in this evil doctrine, which advocates the destruction of humanity and the institution of worldwide slavery to a Godless system of communism. Too many of our political leaders are unwitting dupes of truly evil men who would build their utopian world upon the carcasses of untold millions of God’s people. And others are not so unwitting; they push for a one-world order knowing full well the consequences.

If you, as a voter, want to hasten the fulfillment of the wishes of the utterly depraved, and usher in that new world order, keep voting for the lesser of two evils, and you will surely help bring to fruition the ultimate destruction of not only this nation, but the slavery of all mankind.

Jim Schwiesow is a retired sheriff with 46 years of law enforcement service. He served with the Unites States Army with the occupation forces in post war Berlin, Germany, and has a total of nine years of military service, which includes six years in the U.S. Army Reserve. His law enforcement service includes: three years in the military police, fifteen years as an Iowa municipal police officer, and twenty-eight years as the duly elected sheriff of Sioux County, Iowa. Jim has written a number of articles, which have been published in various professional law enforcement journals. E-Mail: jimr@orangecitycomm.net 1:15 PM

It must be the end of secularism

The Politics of God
18 minutes ago by kristofer August 19, 2007 By MARK LILLA I. “The Will of God Will Prevail” The twilight of the idols has been postponed. For more than two centuries, from the American and French Revolutions to the collapse of Soviet Communism, world politics ...anemicinema - http://anemiksinema.blogspot.com/
The Opposite Shore and the end of histortion
2 hours ago by Tusar N Mohapatra [Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla concedes in "The politics of God", a despairing vision of the political future published in the August 19 New York Times Magazine. [1] It is one of those important statements, like the "end of ...Savitri Era - http://savitriera.blogspot.com/
"Politics of God" by Mark Lilla
2 hours ago I read the essay of Mark Lilla, and found that it had finally answered my question, on why had the US (and other western nations) been able to keep the church separate from the state affairs and policy making. It was the first time, ...Jojo's Site - http://jdrlmca.multiply.com/
Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the divine.
3 hours ago by Prof. Andrew V. Uroskie ... community who have long suspected that there is a change in the zeitgeist concerning "faith" can take some encouragement from the decision of the New York Times Magazine to feature professor Mark Lilla on the cover of the Aug. ...lettrist - http://lettrist.blogspot.com/
It must be the end of secularism
4 hours ago by Rev Ed Crabtree Secular liberalism stands helpless before a new century of religious wars, Columbia University Professor Mark Lilla concedes in “The politics of God”, a despairing vision of the political future published in the August 19 New York Times ...Interfaith Religious News Service - http://crabtreeinternet.com/interfaithreligiousnewsservice
The politics of God
5 hours ago by Nick Humanities professor Mark Lilla of Columbia University has published an incredible essay in the New York Times on the history of God in the politics of the western world. It’s an attempt at helping us understand the ideological and ...Incarnation Instant Breakfast - http://incarnationinstantbreakfast.wordpress.com
Hobbes v. Rousseau
6 hours ago by uvagradsgoods By MARK LILLA. Published: August 19, 2007. After centuries of strife, the West has learned to separate religion and politics — to establish the legitimacy of its leaders without referring to divine command. There is little reason to ...UVA Grad's Goods - http://uvagradsgoods.livejournal.com/
God and Man
7 hours ago by Lorenzo Mark Lilla’s The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics is a superb book of intellectual history. His recently published essay The Politics of God is another tour de force of historically informed understanding, connecting the ...Thinking-Out-Aloud - http://erudito.livejournal.com/
Ask The Almighty?
8 hours ago by Looking in the Distance So I'm looking at religion from the perspective of how knowledge about what people believe in can be useful in terms of trying to resolve the most serious disputes." - Madeline Albright Mark Lilla, professor of the humanities at ...Looking In The Distance - http://lookinginthedistance.blogspot.com/
Notes Upon Notes
8 hours ago by Brandon Mark Lilla has an interesting discussion in the NY Times on political theology, from his new book, The Stillborn God (ht). It makes for interesting reading, and there are some important things right in the discussion. ...Siris - http://branemrys.blogspot.com/
Hitchens takes on Lilla
8 hours ago by nemo God’s Still Dead by Christopher Hitchens, Slate. Reposted from: Dawkins site http://www.slate.com/id/2172468. MARK LILLA DOESN’T GIVE US ENOUGH CREDIT FOR SHAKING OFF THE DIVINE. (more…)Darwiniana - http://darwiniana.com[ More results from Darwiniana ]
#116 Interesting Links XIV
9 hours ago by Alex The author, Mark Lilla, is releasing what looks to be a book-of-the-year type book on Sept. 11 from which the article is adapted. The book is entitled The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. ...Your Own Personal Jesus - http://alexlsilva.blogspot.com/
I suspect the better educated one is, the less theotropic he or ...
10 hours ago by the real eve Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the God myth. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine: "Human beings are pattern-seeking animals who will prefer even a bad theory or a conspiracy theory to no theory at all, ...the real eve - http://therealeve.blogspot.com/
dios en la política 2
10 hours ago [Mark Lilla] El resurgimiento de las teologías políticas en el mundo político. Segunda entrega. ¿Por que existe la teología política? La pregunta se repite a lo largo de toda la historia del pensamiento occidental, desde la antigüedad ...mQh - http://mqh.blogia.com/
part84.blogspot.com/
The renovation, not liberalization, of fundamentalist faith in a ...
11 hours ago ARTICLE: "The Politics of God," by Mark Lilla, New York Times Magazine, 19 August 2007, p. 28. Brilliant piece. Vonne, please get me this guy's upcoming book ("The Stillborn God"), which describes the Great Separation of church and ...Thomas PM Barnett :: Weblog - http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
Hitchens on Lilla
12 hours ago by geoff Good review by Christopher Hitchens of Mark Lilla’s “The Stillborn God“. (You might have caught Lilla’s related piece in last Sunday’s NYT Magazine. Hitchens’ conclusion:. To regret that we cannot be done with superstition is no more ...Geoff Arnold - http://geoffarnold.com - References
God and Belief
12 hours ago God's Still Dead Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the divine.By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, Aug. 20, 2007, at 11:06 AM ET Those of us in the fast-growing atheist com...Michael's MySpace - http://blog.myspace.com/vegasmike433
Hitch On Lilla
12 hours ago by Andrew Sullivan I found Mark's book an enormous relief - a relief that I'm not as isolated as I feared in respecting both faith and secularism, and not so perverse in believing that the Western experiment in secular politics is a terribly fragile one. ...The Daily Dish - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
More on "The Politics of God"
13 hours ago by Michael Perry Siva Vaidhyanathan declares himself a longtime admirer of Mark Lilla's work, which is precisely why he is worried about Lilla's forthcoming book, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West, which was excerpted this past ...Mirror of Justice - http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/[ More results from Mirror of Justice ]
Hopes for an Islamic Renaissance?
13 hours ago by danmurphy I recently read a very intriguing article by Mark Lilla titled “The Politics of God” (). It explores the evolution of Western secularism and reminds readers of how fragile the seperation of church and state still is. ...Dan Murphy's Weblog - http://danmurphy.wordpress.com
The Politics of God
13 hours ago by greenpagan Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University. This essay is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,” which will be published next month.greenpagan - http://greenpagan.blogspot.com/
Rousseau is a religious nut
14 hours ago by projectshave I was lead to Rousseau’s writings by this excellent article by Mark Lilla, who wrote of this book: “It is the most beautiful and convincing defense of man’s religious instincts ever to flow from a modern pen.” Frankly, that’s bull. ...Daily Curmudgeonry - http://projectshave.wordpress.com
God's Still Dead by Christopher Hitchens, Slate
14 hours ago MARK LILLA DOESN'T GIVE US ENOUGH CREDIT FOR SHAKING OFF THE DIVINE.RichardDawkins.net : The Latest Updates - http://richarddawkins.net/ - References
Holy Crap: A review of the Creation Museum
15 hours ago by Author The author, Mark Lilla, describes the fear Hobbes had of a theocracy: And the debilitating dynamics of belief don’t end there. For once we imagine an all-powerful God to protect us, chances are we’ll begin to fear him too. ...Cogitations - http://cogitozone.blogspot.com/
Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the God ...
16 hours ago Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the God myth. - By Christopher Hitchens.random acts of tumblr.ing - http://randomacts.devbear.com/
The Persistence of Religion
16 hours ago by Ryan Columbia professor Mark Lilla wrote a very interesting article in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine which deals with the relationship between religious belief and politics (excerpted from his forthcoming book, The Stillborn God: ...Rumblings - http://rynomi.wordpress.com - References
God's Still Dead
16 hours ago by Hubert Xapiens http://www.slate.com/id/2172468/. "Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the divine" - Christopher Hitchens reacts to the extract from Lilla's The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West .Linkworthy stuff - http://www.badthinking.com/blog/index.php?blog=10
Will of God
16 hours ago by David I just read an essay written by Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities at Columbia University, printed in the New York Times magazine and lifted incidentally, from a book written by Professor Lilla, entitled The Stillborn God: Religion, ...Just Before The Dawn - http://veritas232.blogspot.com/
Atheism and exceptionalism
17 hours ago by Oliver Kamm [W]hen [Professor Mark] Lilla says that the American experiment (in confessional pluralism and constitutional secularism) is "utterly exceptional," he forgets that there had to be many dress rehearsals for this and that only a uniquely ...Oliver Kamm - http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/
Fred Siegel: The Anti-Anti-Islamist
17 hours ago by Fred Siegel Mark Lilla's cover article for the Sunday New York Times Magazine, "The Politics of God" deserves widespread attention. Lilla is one of a number of prominent authors, such as Ian Buruma and Timothy Garton Ash, who write for the New York ...Media on HuffingtonPost.com - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/feeds/verticals/media/index.xml[ More results from Media on HuffingtonPost.com ]
Dire Wolves
17 hours ago by Roberto Rivera Both the Asia Times columnist "Spengler" and Rod Dreher have weighed in on "The Politics of God," by Columbia professor Mark Lilla, which ran in this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine. I have little, if anything, to add to either ...The Point - http://thepoint.breakpoint.org/ - References
Music as Torture: A Dissonant Counterpoint
17 hours ago by Jonathan Bellman (Recommended reading: Mark Lilla’s The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics, which I’ve mentioned before.) I repeat, I’m against torture (a very brave statement for a university professor, I admit). Given its existence, though, ...Dial "M" for Musicology - http://musicology.typepad.com/dialm/
Totalism and Liberalism
17 hours ago by Erdos56 Mark Lilla's exceptional piece, The Politics of God, in New York Times paints an historical analysis that has Hobbes front and center in refashioning the Will of God as a political force into a belief that fear is the driver of men's ...Zeitgeist and Ethos - http://zeithos.blogspot.com/
The politics of God
17 hours ago In this fascinating essay from New York Times Magazine by Columbia University professor Mark Lilla, the religiously based political perspective of the East is compared and contrasted with the rational...Utah News latest RSS headlines - Utah Independe... - http://www.utahindependent.com/index.php/ct/...
The Politics of God---Mark Lilla
17 hours ago By MARK LILLA After centuries of strife, the West has learned to separate religion and politics — to establish the legitimacy of its leaders without referring to divine command. There is little reason to expect that the rest of the ...Texan on the Verge.... - http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-I.iPrvIiaaCPZqbbPHjyBhM-?cq=1
New Bethany Faculty
17 hours ago by Kalle Lilla All I have to see is Mark Ahlseen and I'll know that we're all back from the world wandering that Bethany faculty does during the summer months. We have two new faculty members. Melissa Seacat joins us in Physical Education. ...Lindsborger News - http://lindsborgnews.blogspot.com/
The points Lilla raises should have been in mainstream ...
18 hours ago by Tusar N Mohapatra “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,” by Professor Mark Lilla of Coilumbia University is to be published next month but the points he raises therein should have been in mainstream consciousness years ago. ...Marketime - http://marketime.blogspot.com/
Whig History
18 hours ago by Sheldon The link above will take you to Mark Lilla's article in this past Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "The Great Separation," in which he reminds us that Whigs invented the separation of theology and politics. ...The Weekly Whig - http://sheldonnovick.blogspot.com/
August 21, 2007
18 hours ago by Bahadir God's Still Dead Mark Lilla doesn't give us enough credit for shaking off the divine. Christopher Hitchens. Asia Times SPENGLER It must be the end of secularism ... ... It's in the New York Times! In a despairing vision of the political ...TurcoPundit - http://turcopundit.blogspot.com/
Taking stockWausau Daily Herald - (Pella Iowa) The Samuels Group
18 hours ago by Administrator Pvt. Mark Straube will return to his home just outside Ottumwa. Family in Iowa is his mom and four brothers. His father. Thurman (TR) Dyer Gatesville Messenger - Lilla D. Humes Stouwie Bokhoven of Pella, Iowa died Wednesday, July 4, ...Pella Iowa Local Blog - http://pellaportal.com/pella-ia-blog
Mark Lilla published an awsome op-ed piece in the New York Times ...
18 hours ago by Tusar N Mohapatra 16 minutes ago by maha Christopher Hitchens critiques the Mark Lilla essay I blogged about yesterday, and makes a botch of it. Hitchens’s single biggest howler in this piece is here –. Lilla’s most brilliant point concerns the awful ...Savitri Era Open Forum - http://seof.blogspot.com/[ More results from Savitri Era Open Forum ]
Messianic Hitchens
18 hours ago Christopher Hitchens critiques the Mark Lilla essay I blogged about yesterday, and makes a botch of it. Hitchens’s single biggest howler in this piece is here – Lilla’s most brilliant point concerns the awful pitfalls of what he does ...BlogSheroes - the feminist bloggers network - http://www.blogsheroes.com
Messianic Hitchens
18 hours ago by maha Christopher Hitchens critiques the Mark Lilla essay I blogged about yesterday, and makes a botch of it. Hitchens’s single biggest howler in this piece is here –. Lilla’s most brilliant point concerns the awful pitfalls of what he does ...The Mahablog - http://www.mahablog.com - References
Rousseau had a Hobbes problem, too: he shared the Englishman’s ...
19 hours ago Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page » Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University. This essay is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,” which will be published . ...Jewish recipes - http://ancientsecrets4u.com/blogs/jewish-recipes/[ More results from Jewish recipes ]
Mark Lilla: The Politics of God
21 hours ago An example: In May of last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent an open letter to President George W. Bush that was translated and published in newspapers around the world. Its theme was contemporary politics and its ...TitusOneNine - http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/ - References
Tariq Ramadan (2)
21 hours ago Mark Lilla verdedigt in The New York Times van 19 augustus Tariq Ramadan, controversieel.Volkskrantblog - alle blogs - http://www.volkskrantblog.nl - References
The Stillborn God
22 hours ago by Timothy Stanley This Sunday the NY Times ran an adapted essay from a forthcoming book, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West, by Mark Lilla. The article raises the importance of developing the skills necessary to interpret political ...timothywstanley.com/blog - http://www.timothywstanley.com/blog/ - References