March 2012

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Human Reason And The Political Order


Introduction:
            Since the beginning of time, there had been a fierce debate on the subject of a flourishing political order and its link with the human capacity to reason. Many prominent political philosophers have tried to address the question that whether this notion of confidence in human mind is misguided or not, and has the political leadership used reason as a tool to achieve their objectives?
           
For the purpose of addressing this question and consideration of relationship between these concepts in detail, this paper includes the works of three prominent Western political philosophers, namely Thomas Hobbes, Immanuel Kant and Herbert Marcuse. Despite the fact that the views of these philosophers on the subject of the relationship between reason and political authority vary greatly, they have still made a considerable impact on the modern frameworks of the society.
            
This paper starts with the explanation of key concepts of the philosophers chosen to address the question. This paper then presents a comparison and critical analysis of the concepts of these political theorists. Finally after critically assessing and analyzing the political theories, it presents concluding remarks.


Thomas Hobbes:
            Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) in his famous book “Leviathan “proposes two basic concepts, the natural condition of mankind or the state of nature and the sovereignty. He explains that initially the mankind essentially existed in a war like situation. He presented three causes of quarrel which existed in the nature of men. First, competition where an individual invades for gaining another individual’s belongings. Second, diffidence where men become violent to defend themselves, and third, glory where men become violent for gaining reputation. “Man is free and equal in this state of nature given that there is no law to regulate his actions, and enjoys absolute liberty “(Hobbes, 144). Assuming that man is inherently self-interested, the state of nature is not sustainable because due to the uncertainty regarding protection of life and property, eventually man would want to get rid of this insecure state of nature and will seek protection and perpetual peace.
            
The passion, Hobbes argues, which inclines men to peace and establishment of such a political order, is the fear of death and reason suggested convenient articles of peace upon which men can be drawn to agreement known as “Laws of Nature”(Hobbes, 145). These laws of nature are general rules found by reason, which emphasize self preservation of life and suggest every man to endeavor peace, seek peace and follow it to defend ourselves. For Hobbes, to avoid perpetual unrest and uncertainty which exists in the state of nature, the creation of a sovereign is necessary. The sovereign is the representative of people and people give up some of their rights and transfer those to the sovereign to pursue peace and security by entering into a contract. Hobbes favors monarchial absolutism and argues that “the powers of the sovereign should remain undivided; no matter sovereign is a single man or an assembly of man” (Hobbes, 152). He argues that there are two ways in which the sovereign can acquire power. First, by natural force or acquisition and second, by forming a common wealth. The sovereign is justified in whatever he does because his will is the will of the people and the political authority is absolutely conferred upon the sovereign. The people cannot breech the covenant, and those who violate it must be left in the condition of war where they might be destroyed. On the other hand, although the sovereign is the judge of whatever policies he thinks are necessary for peace and security, he cannot commit injustice. The rights of the sovereign range from declaring war and peace, defining civil law, to control the ideas that he might think can be destructive to peace.
           
                  In the state of nature, man can pursue his own interests and is free to do whatever his reason suggests, which Hobbes defines as “the absence of external impediments” (Hobbes, 143). However, in the commonwealth, the people alienate their political liberty, and for the pursuit of peace made artificial chains called “Civil Laws”. But even in this case, Hobbes argues that in the cases where the sovereign has prescribed no law, the subjects have the liberty to do whatever their reason suggests, which defines political liberty under a commonwealth. Also the obligation of the subjects to the sovereign lasts as long as the sovereign is able to protect them, for when the sovereign fails to provide security and protection, men have a right by nature to protect themselves and the covenant thus stays void then.

Immanuel Kant:
            Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), one of the most important thinkers of the Enlightenment period, proposes that human beings are rational individuals, and they possess the ability of thinking and acting on their own. They think and act rationally and this is the basis of Kant’s Enlightenment Philosophy. For Kant, human beings are autonomous and they possess the faculty of reason and are able to use reason to achieve enlightenment. Comparing the public and private use of reason, he argues that “public use of reason is free and unconstrained, while private use of reason is narrowly restricted but does not hinder the enlightenment progress” (Kant, Enlightenment, 42). As every man possesses the autonomy of using his rational capacities, there should be no constraints over freedom and there should be liberty to use reason in all the matters publicly.
          
                    Kant’s conception of the political authority is somewhat similar to that of Hobbes’s, and he argues that to avoid the insecurity and enduring threat which is in the state of nature and to establish a political order, “there should be a state of peace based on the republican form of government” (Kant, Peace, 111). Kant favors republican form of government in achieving perpetual peace because in that system, the consent of the citizens will be required in the decision making, and in deciding whether to go on war or not. Another important feature of a republican form of government is that in this system executive and legislature are separated. Kant argues that because of this separation of powers, the general will of the public is considered.
        
                     While exploring the political liberty, Kant establishes a link between politics and morality. According to him there is a difference between a moral politician and a political moralist. A moral politician interprets the principles of political prudence coherent with morality, and is obliged to conform the constitution to the conception of natural right. A political moralist on the other hand, “forges the morality in accordance with the interests of the sovereign” (Kant, Peace, 128).Kant emphasizes that there should be no constraint on the political liberty being granted to the citizens and the public use of reason should be unconstrained. People must have freedom to use their rationality in all the matters.

Herbert Marcuse:
            Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) is well known as the father of the new left. In his famous book “Eros and Civilization”, he puts a philosophical inquiry into Freud and explores the effects of the modern culture on the isolation of desire and free will. He argues that renunciation and subjugation are pre-requisite to human progress. In the technically advanced society, although the goal to get delayed pleasure has been achieved, as the needs and desires of a great number of people are now fulfilled, but this intensified progress comes with the intensified unfreedom of human mind. The development of concentration camps, atomic bombs and world wars has only been seen in the height of civilization.
           
                     Talking about instinct, Marcuse argues that Freud’s theory about human instinct is the most irrefutable indictment and unshakable defense of Western civilization. There is no doubt that Western civilization is a dominant civilization, but civilization puts some constraints on reason and thought. However this cultural constraint is the very precondition of progress because if it is left free to pursue its natural objectives, it may end up in destruction. “The uncontrolled Eros is just as fatal as his deadly counterpart, the death instinct” (Marcuse, 11).  

 Under laws of governance of civilization, immediate satisfaction changes to delayed satisfaction, pleasure to restraint of pleasure, joy to toil, receptiveness to productiveness and absence of repression to security (Marcuse, 12). Freud describes this process as transformation from “pleasure principle” to “reality principle”, and argues that there are two mental apparatuses; conscious and unconscious. The unconscious mind is driven by pleasure principle and strives for nothing but for gaining pleasure. But it comes into conflict with the natural environment when individual realizes that painless gratification of his needs is not possible. Here the consciousness gains ascendency and the reality principle supersedes the pleasure principle. “Man learns to give up monetary, uncertain and destructive pleasure for delayed, restrained but assured pleasure” (Marcuse, 13). The human being develops the function of reason under the reality principle, and it learns to distinguish between true and false, good and bad. But still there is just one mode of thought which stays committed to the pleasure principle and remains free from the rule of the reality principle, which is “Phantasy” (Marcuse, 14). Marcuse argues that this conversion from pleasure to reality principle is eternal primordial struggle for existence persisting to the present day.

The transformation of the pleasure principle to the reality principle is the great traumatic event not only in the development of genus which Marcuse terms as “phylogenesis”, but also in the development of the individual termed as “ontogenesis” (Marcuse, 15). Phylogenetically, it occurs when the primal father monopolizes power and enforces renunciation on sons. While ontogenetically, it occurs during the childhood period when reality principle is enforced by parents and teachers. For Marcuse, this change is a continuous process indicates that the ascendency of reality principle over the pleasure principle is never complete and secure, because the pleasure principle is always retained in the unconscious mind. So the drive to acquire that ultimate freedom and happiness still remains in his “Cognition” (Marcuse, 18).

Comparative Analysis:
            This exposition presented the salient features of the understanding of Hobbes, Marcuse and Kant and what they believe is the best system of governance. The explanation of their conceptions about a just and flourishing political order and its link to the human capacity to reason, and whether or not it served as a tool to further the interests of the wielders of political power, is hereby presented.
          
                For Hobbes, establishment of a just political order is related with the existence of peace and justice in the society. To avoid the state of war, unrest and violence which exists in the state of nature, and to seek protection, reason suggests him to enter into a covenant and give up some of his rights for the welfare of the entire society. For Kant, however, there should be no constraints over the reason, and for a just political order everyone should have absolute freedom in using his reason publicly. Marcuse links the height of the present civilization and culture with the intensified unfreedom of human mind and argues that despite the fact that the current progress has fulfilled the desires of most of the people, yet it puts some constraints on the human thought and reason.
          
                The views of these philosophers also vary on the subject of sovereign authority and the use of reason to achieve their political goals. For Hobbes, the existence of a sovereign power is mandatory to establish peace in the society. Without the sovereign, every man will rely on his own strength to seek protection from others and they will go into war for their particular interests. To avoid that state of violence and insecurity, they confer their power upon the sovereign, who is responsible for the defense of his subjects. Although he possesses absolute authority, he still can’t use it to achieve his objectives because if he fails to provide security to the subjects, men are no longer obligated to obey him. Marcuse, on the other hand, argues that in the reconciliation of general and particular interests, the political authority cannot be rational. The authority lies with the proletariat class and people will not be alienated. Kant also agrees to Hobbes’s notion of a sovereign authority to establish a peaceful society. He, however, disagrees with Hobbes on the notion of one sovereign ruler possessing all the powers, and argues in favor of a republican system of governance where the sovereign may be an assembly of individuals. The distinguishing feature of this republican system is that it separates the legislative and the executive powers. As the general will of the public is considered in this system, the sovereign can be held accountable.
        
                         On the notion of reason and political liberty, for Kant political liberty is considered in relation to morality and concept of rights. Hobbes, however, argues that subjects have the political liberty only on the occasions when the laws enacted by the sovereign are silent. Considering the conception of reason and human freedom, Hobbes presents a negative conception of freedom while Kant entails a positive conception. Marcuse on the other hand denies it and argues that to achieve delayed but assured pleasure, it is necessary to put some constraints on the human mind. If the human mind is free to pursue whatever it wants, it would end up destroying everything for acquiring personal interests and fulfilling its desires.

Conclusion:
            After considering the views of these philosophers on the role of reason in establishing political order and whether or not reason has served as a tool to further the interests of the power holders, it is explicitly established that this is a never ending debate. Kant on one hand stresses on the public use of reason and morality, and considers a republican government having separate legislative and executive powers where opinion of the masses is considered and the sovereign can be held accountable. Hobbes and Marcuse on the other hand present a negative conception of human freedom and political liberty, where Hobbes stresses that to establish a political order in compliance with the reason to seek security, a sovereign authority with absolute powers is needed, and Marcuse emphasizes against Kant’s notion of unconstrained human reason and argues that to achieve real pleasure some constraint on human mind is necessary. So considering their political systems to be legitimate, the relationship derived by them on the subject seems agreeable.

Written By: Motahar Saleheen


The Politics and Aftermaths of Partition: Comparative Analysis of Historiography and Creative Writing


“We are a nation of a hundred million, and, what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life. By all canons of international law we are a nation” (M.A. Jinnah) (Toor, 319).

The partition of India and the creation of nascent state of Pakistan for the Muslims of India on the basis of distinct culture and religion has been the subject of fierce debate since long. The two nation theory, according to which Hindus and Muslims are two different nations, has been challenged by many historians and many theorists have been invoked to address this issue and elaborated on the causes and consequences of the two nation theory. Some argued in favor of a separate homeland for the Muslims, while others denounced this notion of Muslims being one nation.  Although the opinion of different theorists on the question of demand of Muslims for a separate homeland varies, yet it is believed that this partition was one of the most drastic and tragic event in the entire history, and it resulted in the loss of lives of millions of people on both sides of the border.

These causes and consequences of the partition of India have been studied and interpreted differently by the historians and the creative writes. Different approaches have been used by them to describe this tragic incident.  Historians focused on the politics of the leadership of Muslim League and Congress at the time of partition and analyzed the historical events by the critical analysis, while creative writers analyzed the political scenario and the effects of the decisions made by the political leadership on the society and the individuals in the form of short stories, novels and poems.


This paper presents the role of political leadership and the aftermaths of the partition by presenting the difference between these two approaches to describe partition. This paper starts with the literature review and critical analysis of the works of various authors on the subject of nationalism and the history of partition. This paper then presents the findings to address the pre partition politics and the political goals of the leadership.  In the first part, this paper explores the approach of study of partition used by theorists and historians, and presents arguments regarding the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India, the notion of Muslims being one nation and the politics revolving around this notion of Muslims being a separate community.  In the second part, this paper explores the approach used by the creative writers to describe the tragic events which resulted as a consequence of the political decisions made by the political elite, and their effects on the lives of individuals and society. To substantiate the arguments, this paper includes relevant examples, case studies and historical evidence.

Saadia Toor in her article, “A National Culture for Pakistan: The Political Economy of a debate” explains how the demand of a separate homeland on the basis that Muslims are a separate community was void and highly controversial.  According to her the claim of being a nation had been based on cultural grounds, understood as an ethnic Muslim identity, as well as clearly identifiable cultural history. She argues that the state acquired by Muslims on the basis that they are a nation resulted in the division of the very nation because except for those who managed to migrate to this side of the border. There were a number of Muslims who decided to stay in India. So at the demographic level, the Indian Muslim community was in fact divided because of the creation of Pakistan. “The relation of such nationalism to a territorial definition was at best problematic, and rendered further complex by the unnatural division of space and communities wrought by Partition” (Toor, 320).

Asim Roy in his article, “The High Politics of India’s Partition: The Revisionist Perspective” revaluates the politics at the time of partition by presenting the revisionist perspective. He denounces the traditionalist perspective and argues that the traditionalist perspective does not convey the intricacies and nuances and the true nature of high politics. So the historical reconstruction was needed, and this task was taken up by historians like Ayesha Jalal and Abdul Kalam Azad. The revisionist perspective presents an explicit explanation of this battle between Congress and Muslim League, and demolishes the myth of Jinnah’s role in the creation of nascent state of Pakistan presented by the traditionalist perspective (Roy, 104).

Sugata Bose in his article, “The partition of India and the Creation of Pakistan” argues that the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims was never the agenda of Muslim League in the first place. In fact Jinnah wanted autonomy for Muslims within United India in the provinces where they were in majority. It was when Nehru didn’t concede to this demand and after the failure of Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946, Muslim League initiated struggle for a separate homeland. Till that time Jinnah was a follower of Congress’s secular creed, but after Cabinet Mission Plan failed, he resorted to religion as the binding force for the Muslim nation. It was because of the gnawing organizational weakness that Jinnah had to make recourse to the religion to gather popular support.

The historians and the theorists have always been very critical of this notion of Muslims being one nation, and their demand for a separate homeland on the basis of distinct culture and religion. After analyzing the events which took place at the time of partition and the pre partition politics of the Muslim League leadership, they challenged this notion on various grounds. Firstly, the creation of a separate homeland for Muslims had never been the agenda of Muslim League in the first place. Jinnah demanded autonomy for the Muslims within United India in the provinces where Muslims were in majority. For Jinnah this option of having autonomous Muslim majority provinces within India was worthy of consideration because with strong provinces, it was possible for Muslims to deploy their weight at all India centre. They demanded autonomy because they were afraid that the interests of the Muslims under the strong central government of Hindu dominated Congress would be at stake. Also they knew that if they demanded a separate homeland, it would divide the Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal, and a sovereign Pakistan stripped of East Bengal and Punjab will be received by the Muslims, which was an option not worthy of consideration by the Muslim League leadership. According to Cohen, “The Cabinet Mission Plan of 1946 for a three tiered all India federation offered Jinnah something worthy of consideration. Compulsory grouping of provinces handed the League a potential centre, deploying their weight at an all India centre” (Cohen, 149). It was later in June 1946 when Nehru rejected this proposal presented by the Muslim League for a three-tiered federal arrangement in the Cabinet Mission Plan; Jinnah was left with no other choice but to resort to the option of partition of India and the demand of a separate homeland for the Muslims of India. Ayesha Jalal argues that, “ In Jinnah’s opinion the 1946 federal arrangement based on provincial grouping was better, and this was the theme that had been reiterated over and over again by a succession of Muslim League leaders, including Jinnah, in their meetings with Mountbatten” (Jalal, 540).  By keeping the failure of Cabinet Mission Plan, it can be stated that contrary to popular opinion, the greater role in the partition of India was being played by Congress and not the Muslim League. If Nehru had conceded to the three-tiered arrangement plan of Jinnah and the demand for the autonomous Muslim majority provinces within undivided India, Pakistan might not have been on the world map. Asim Roy quotes Abdul Kalam Azad who writes: “I warned Jawaharlal that history would never forgive us if we agreed to partition. The verdict could be that India was not divided by the Muslim League but by the Congress” (Roy, 103).

Another objection which was raised by the historians on the identity of the nascent state of Pakistan was whether Pakistan is an Islamic state or the state for Muslims. Jinnah being a secular leader was never in favor of a separate homeland on the basis of religion. Rather he was supportive of the Congress’s secular creed. Once this question was asked that will Pakistan be a theocratic or a secular state. Jinnah responded, “You are asking me a question which is absurd. I do not know what a theocratic state means” (Haq, 119). It was later after the failure of Simla Conference and Cabinet Mission Plan that Jinnah had to resort to the option of using religious cards to gather support from the Muslims. So the Islamists, who initially denounced the idea of Pakistan, joined the movement for a separate homeland where there is an Islamic law and where they could spend their lives in accordance with the injunctions of Islam. “The struggle for obtaining control over the organs of the state motivated by the urge to establish the Din and the Islamic injunctions is not only permissible but is positively desirable and as such obligatory” (Maulana Maududi, 177).

Creative writers on the other hand analyzed and portrayed the events of partition in a different way. They focused on the impacts partition left on the lives of the individual and the society as a whole. Many short stories, novels and poems have been written to describe the politics of that time, the brutal acts of violence displayed by the characters belonging to different religions, and the disastrous effects of this political decision. The writings of Saadat Hassan Minto, Rajinder Singh Bedhi, Ghulam Abbas, Qudratullah Shahab, Waris Shah and many other prominent writers and poets of that time portrayed different tragedies and consequences of the partition and their impacts on the lives of individuals.
Partition was a historical event; its impacts cannot be measured individually because everyone suffered in one way or the other. Some lost their property, while others lost their families. So different writers conceded it in accordance with their ideologies and attachments, and it was presented in their writings. Saadat Hassan Minto is one of the writers who didn’t focus on one community; rather he portrayed the effects of partition on everyone, irrespective of religion, caste or culture. “Tooba Taik Singh”, “Khol Do” and “Mozail” are some of his short stories written about partition. The stories of Minto revolve around a central character which makes his writings different from others. These central characters portray the image of the crisis confronted by the society. He wrote a masterpiece, “Tooba Taik Singh” set in the lunatic asylum in Lahore at the time of partition. When whole cities were ethnically cleansed, how can the asylums escape? “Bashin Singh” is a lunatic who presents how the lunatics residing in the asylum responded to the decision of partition and to the announcement that they will be transferred to India. He explains that even the lunatics had a sense of attachment to their land, and Bashin Singh was more worried about the location of Tooba Taik Singh than anything else. He was so overcome by rage that when the border is reached, he refuses to go to the other side of the border and dies on the demarcation line dividing India and Pakistan. Tariq Ali writes,” When the real world is overcome by insanity, normality only exists in the asylums. The lunatics have a better understanding of the crime that is being perpetrated than the politicians who agreed to it” (Ali, 10).

Another picture of the tragedies and violence at the time of partition is presented by Minto in his short story “Khol Do”. This short story not only represents the violence faced by the migrants who were travelling to the other side of the border, but also how badly they were treated after migration. There were many girls like the central character of the story “Sakina” who were raped or abducted by the social workers when they migrated. There were many fathers like “Siraj ud Din” who migrated to Pakistan with the hopes that they and their families would be safe here, but never thought that even the very own people will not show any mercy on them. The same violent picture has also been depicted in Qudrat Ullah Shahab’s “Ya Khuda”. The central character “Dilshad” represents all the women who confronted abduction and physical violence because of the partition of two different nations, who have been living together in harmony for a long time. She lost her family, and now there was no one to look after her. She was tortured and raped. By depicting her journey towards Pakistan, Shahab describes the difference between the perception of migrants about Pakistan and the real face. It was the popular perception that like the Ansaar of Madina, the Pakistanis will treat the migrants as their own family. But to their utmost dismay, they were not owned by the residents of Pakistan. There were instances when the migrants died because they didn’t have food and shelter. When there was no other option left, women like “Dilshad” had to resort to the options like prostitution to earn living which they were never willing to and never thought of in this perceived heaven for the Muslims of India.

As a consequence of violence and riots at the time of partition, many Muslim, Sikh and Hindu women were abducted. Later when these women were recovered, their very own families disowned them and were not willing to consider them as their family. Rajendr Singh Bedi’s “Lajawanti” is also one of those unfortunate women who were rejected by their own family, when they returned back home after being abducted. Before her abduction, she was treated badly by her husband “Sundar Lal”, who used to abuse her and beat her. But when she returns back home, he starts treating her with affection and takes care of her. But she does not like this change in his behavior because she starts feeling that he doesn’t love her anymore, and this change in his behavior is merely sympathy, because he does not want to listen to her and she feels that the way he used to treat her before she was abducted was better. Bedi here raises a very important question, why are these women being punished for the crime they didn’t even do? They already suffered a lot when they were abducted, and after they returned back home with the hope that they will be greeted and they will start a new life, their families refused to accept them back. Lajwanti wants to be “Laajo” and she hates being called and treated as “Dewi”.

The historians and the creative writers have used different approaches to describe the partition of India. Historians focused on the politics of political leadership and critically analyzed the history of the political events and the causes and consequences of the political decisions being made by the leadership of Congress and Muslim League. Jinnah was never in favor of a separate homeland for Muslims, rather he demanded autonomy for Muslim majority provinces to save their interested in the Hindu dominated political centre. It was when Nehru didn’t concede to the Cabinet Mission Plan in 1946; Jinnah was left with no other option but to resort to the demand of a separate homeland for the Indian Muslims. Also Jinnah was never in favor of an Islamic state; rather he was supportive of a secular state. Later to gather popular support he used religious cards and became a ‘religious bigot’. On the other hand creative writers presented the historical events, the violence and riots in the form of short stories, poems and novels. Their approach was to analyze the political decision of partition and its impact on the lives of individuals as well as the society. Their works portrayed the tragic images of violence and riots at the time of partition. By using different characters in their short stories, they presented how this decision had left grave impacts on the society. Many innocent people died as a result of violence which was erupted between the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. People lost their properties, women were abducted and tortured. They also depicted how was this homeland imagined as heavenly place by the migrants, and how were they treated after migrating to Pakistan. The women were raped by the social workers, they had to resort to prostitution for earning their living because they were not welcomed here, and the abducted women who were recovered were not accepted by their own family. The partition was thus nothing except the harsh portrayal and depiction of bitter realities of one of the most tragic event in the history of this world.

Uthh Dard-Mandaan Diya Dardiya,                    Rise! O’ narrator of the grieving;
Utth Tak Apna Punjab                                           Rise! Look at your Punjab
Ajj Bailey Lashaan Bichiyaan                                Today, fields are lined with corpses,
Tey Lahoo Di Bhari Chenab                                  and blood fills the Chenab
Kisey Ne Panjaan Paaniyan Wich                        Someone has mixed poison
Diti Zahar Rala,                                                       in the five rivers’ flow
Tey Unhan Paniyaan Dharat Nuu                        Their deadly water is, now,
Dita Paani Laa                                                         irrigating our lands galore       (Amrita Pritam)

Work Cited
            Bose, Sugata, and Ayesha Jalal. "The Partion of India and The Creation of Pakistan." Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy. New York: Routledge, 2004. 135-56. Print.
            Cohen, Stephen P. The Idea of Pakistan. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2004. Print.
            Haq,  Farhat. "Pakistan: A State for the Muslims or an Islamic State." Religion and Politics in South Asia: 119-  45. Print.
             Jalal, Ayesha. "Secularists, Subalterns and the Stigma of ‘Communalism’:Partition Historiography Revisited." Modern Asian Studies 30.03 (1996): 1-10. Print.
             Jalal, Ayesha. Self and Sovereignty: Individual and Community in South Asian Islam since 1850. London: Routlege, 2005. Print.
             Roy, Asim. "The High Politics of India's Partition: The Revisionist Perspective.” Modern Asian Studies 24.02 (1990): 102-32. Print.
             Toor, Saadia. "A National Culture for Pakistan: the Political Economy of a Debate." Inter-Asia Cultural Studies 6.3 (2005): 318-40. Print.
             Bedi, Rajendra. “Lajwanti”, Land of five rivers, Orient Paperbacks Delhi.
             Minto, Saadat, “Tooba Tek Singh”, “Khol Do”, Manto Ke Afsanay, 1940
             Shahab, Qudratullah, “Ya Khuda”, 1986

              Written By: Motahar Saleheen

Review Paper on “Insurgency and Terrorism”


This is a review on Paul Wilkinson’s paper “Insurgency and Terrorism”, which explores the arguments presented by him on the concept of insurgency, different types of insurgency in the contemporary international system and the relationship between insurgency and terrorism. This review starts with a brief summary of Wilkinson’s paper followed by critical analysis of his work. To substantiate the arguments, this paper includes relevant examples, case studies and historical evidence.

Wilkinson starts his paper by introducing the concept of insurgency and different types of insurgent movements in the contemporary system. He argues that insurgency is a rebellion or rising against any government in power, which is mostly manifested as a low intensity conflict (Wilkinson, 2).  But then he draws attention towards the exceptional cases where these low intensity insurgent movements have gathered so much support that they turn into conventional warfare. For instance, the Bolshevik forces in the Russian civil war, the Taliban in the latest civil war in Afghanistan and the Chinese communists. He further argues that in the post Cold War world, the difference between the state of insurgency and the state of belligerency seems meaningless. His argument seems valid because if we observe the pre Cold War and post Cold War world, the number of low intensity conflicts in the post Cold War era has increased considerably. Wilkinson (3) illustrates it by presenting a survey of conflicts by PIOOM, according to which high intensity conflicts have declined in number, while the number of low intensity conflicts and the violent political conflicts has almost doubled.


Another important point made by Wilkinson is that the predominant type of insurgency which exists today is motivated by ethno nationalism and ethno religious movements waging armed struggle for achieving ethnic separation. To achieve their goals, they employ mass terror and carry out ethnic cleansing. Wilkinson (6) quotes Christian P. Scherrer, who presents main types of armed conflicts and their frequency in the period 1985-94. According to Scherrer’s report, the frequency (in percentage) of the ethno nationalist conflicts is 44.1. The case of civil war between Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups in Rwanda also reveals that how the Hutu’s turned against the Tutsi’s in 1994 and over 800 000 people were killed in an unimaginable genocide over just three months. Tutsis were systematically targeted by extremist Hutus and killed based on ethnic identity (BBC News). Other than that, after the cold war, ethnic tensions erupted into armed conflicts in the former Soviet Union and the Marxist-Leninist insurgent movements in the Third World lost the support of the Soviet Union.

Wilkinson asserts that religious fundamentalists and their insurgent movements pose a threat to the state. They wage a holy war to overthrow the regimes which they regard as evil, and to restore observance of true religion. This is the most lethal conflict because in most cases, their religious fundamentalism is wedded to a political agenda. For instance, in Swat valley of Pakistan, the government allowed implementation of Shariah, on demand of Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), to restore peace in the region. But then it was forced to withdraw its decision because TTP did not stop and, despite making the pact to withdraw, they moved into Buner district and challenged the writ of the government (Roggio). This combination of religious fanaticism and a nationalistic political agenda can cause intrastate conflict. In Afghanistan, since 1979, over 1.5 million people have died in this conflict (Wilkinson, 7).

While talking about ethno nationalism being the predominant political motivation behind contemporary insurgencies, Wilkinson presents two factors. Firstly, he describes the importance of ethnic identity and argues that despite globalization, ethnic distinctiveness still remains important and it has a powerful influence on human behavior. Secondly, there remains a mismatch between the legally recognized sovereign governments and frontiers, and the demographic map of ethnic groups. By considering the issue of the Durand Line, the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan established in 1893, Wilkinson’s assertion seems correct because the Pashtun nationalists never accepted this border on the basis of ethnic divide between the Afghan, and Pakistani Pashtun tribes. The nationalistic Pashtuns continuously state that the Durand Line is void and that they should have full rights over the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province and Baluchistan. In an article titled, “Pak-Afghan Relations: The Durand Line Issue” by the Institute of Policy Studies, it is stated that, “successive governments in Afghanistan and some intellectuals denounce the Line because it bars tribes of the same race, language and culture from intermingling, and because, in their opinion, it has given rise to disunity among tribes and families. In this sense, one might say, they object to the Durand Line on moral grounds”. Also, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, many ethnic groups started to reassert their identities and challenged the status quo, and pursued various separatist movements by armed struggle.

Talking about different forms of armed struggle used by the insurgents, their effectiveness and how they are interrelated, Wilkinson is trying to establish a link between these different forms of insurgencies. He presents some cases and argues that many revolutionary wars have moved through a low-intensity phase, and then developed into a conventional warfare between armed forces. For instance, the struggle between Bolsheviks and white Russian forces in which the whites were defeated. Also, the war between Mao’s Chinese communists and the nationalists, in which the communists defeated the nationalists (Wilkinson, 10). He correctly asserts that the guerilla tactics used by these insurgents are significant, but they are not self sufficient for achieving victory. He calls these tactics “the natural weapon of the strategically weaker side” (Wilkinson, 10).  To make their movement successful, the insurgent need very strong leadership and popular support.  

Contrary to the stance of Wilkinson, who argues that terrorism does not lead to wider insurgency and only a small minority of terrorists exceed in expanding their struggles, terrorism is another tactic used to achieve political goals and this is tragically an effective way of suppressing the opposition. Historical evidence also proves that this tactic has been used by totalitarian regimes and religious extremists to create mass terror or to exert pressure on the government. For example to control and persecute whole population, Nazis used mass terror. Also attacks on shrines, armed forces and public places by the Taliban in Pakistan show us how this tactic is being used effectively.  By establishing a link between guerilla insurgency and terrorism, Wilkinson is right in his assertion that although there are cases in which the insurgent leaders used terror against the civilians, for example, the case of Pol Pot in Combodia, who conducted mass terrorism on the scale of genocide, many guerilla leaders, like Che Guevara and Mao Tse-tung, opposed the use of terror against the population because they wanted to gain the support of the public, on which they depended heavily.

The threat posed by the low intensity conflicts could not be neglected, especially in the post Cold War era when these conflicts have grown to almost double. There are different motivations behind these insurgencies including ethno nationalism and religious fundamentalism. Different forms of armed struggle start from low intensity conflicts and then develop into conventional warfare, and the guerilla warfare used by the weaker side although continues to prove effective in insurgency capabilities, yet it is not self sufficient to achieve desired goals. Terrorism is also used as an auxiliary weapon to create mass terror, yet there are cases in which the use of terrorism by the insurgent leaders has been discouraged in order to gather popular support.

Works Cited
"BBC NEWS | Africa | Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened." BBC News - Home. 18 Dec. 2008. Web. 13 Apr. 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1288230.stm>.
"Pak-Afghan Relations: The Durand Line Issue." Institute of Policy Studies. 2008. 13 Apr. 2011 <http://www.ips.org.pk/international-relation/the-muslim-world/986.html>.
Roggio, Bill. "Taliban move on Buner despite promise to withdraw." The Long War Journal. 10 Apr. 2009. 13 Apr. 2011 <http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/04/taliban_move_on_bune.php>.
Wilkinson, Paul. “Insurgency and Terrorism." In Terrorism Versus Democracy: The Liberal State Response. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2001, 1-18


Written By: Motahir Saleheen

How does inequality exist? How does it affect society?


On the subject of inequality, it is difficult to define within limitations what inequality is, why it exists, how it affects individuals of a community and ways to counter it. In simple terms, inequality exists because individuals in society have different levels of access to resources like food, water, education, health care, etc within a society. This is what creates a difference between people who are rich or poor, well-educated or not, possess more wealth or power in political circles and many others.

These differences in status, existing since the very beginning of time, are now an undeniable truth and a universal element of the very fabric of society in every community, be it at a micro or macro level, spread all over the globe. In this essay, we will see through a number of approaches how they affect society, and how they’ve proved to be a hindrance in developing and nurturing better relationships between people on opposing ends of the social pyramid. In this context, the social differences can be categorized and explained through the unequal levels based on race, ethnicity or gender.

Race, from an anthropological perspective, is simply a social construct. As anthropologists explain, it means that although there are discernible physical differences between ‘races’, they can’t be extrapolated. So if one refers to the term race as pointing differences between groups of people based on their observable characteristic or trait is alright, but there is no reason to extrapolate these differences to mental capabilities. Still the term race has over the centuries connoted mental, moral and cultural differences between the people and not merely physical differences and has been used by racists in quite an offensive way.

The phenotypical differences may give rise to other traits but culture or acquired learning, and not innate ability, is the deciding factor which can successfully account for the wide-ranging differences between groups of people. Thus according to anthropologists, biological determinism is a limited theory and the nature vs. nurture debate heavily tilts in favour of nurture. It is important to emphasize the proclivity of diseases or other physical abilities and not just phenotypes can be biologically determined and some are documented: we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view [1].There is also scientific justification for this division of inheritance of traits in physical (innate) and cultural (acquired) traits as pointed out by Lahn and Ebenstein: These polymorphisms can affect traits such as pigmentation, dietary adaptation and pathogen resistance (where evidence is rather convincing), and metabolism, physical development and brain biology (where evidence is more preliminary) [2].

After seeing that pro-racist arguments have little to no scientific reality we are still confronted with racism or racial inequality: discrimination based on race where race is rather perceived as a social construct and not an objective reality. As Brace points we have to look at the differences in IQ between races not as an evidence to the existence of races but as a woeful reminder that perceived differences in race can lead to a long and persecuted history of one group by another based on phenotypical differences which in turn leads to the disparity [3]. It is this discrimination based on perceived racial superiority which has bred inequality and injustices across the globe, be it in the United States of America before the civil rights movement or in the Republic of South Africa during the apartheid era.

Racial inequality is one of the leading factors in society’s bad performance in socioeconomic indicators as well as producing negative cultural externalities. Societies which are more racially equal tend to do better than those which are not [4]. The inequality among races breeds resilience among oppressed races and eventually leads social disharmony but Wilkinson demonstrates that a racially unequal society not only has bad social factors but also has to contend with stunted economic growth, among a host of other economic factors.

A historical solution to racial discrimination has been affirmative action - the policy of giving quotas on the bases of race to marginalized groups which have been persecuted over time. Although we acknowledge that certain groups have been historically marginalized: be it blacks or women - it is imperative to not discriminate even when one’s intentions are good. For there is no specific agreed upon time up to which affirmative action is agreed to continue, neither does it ensure quality in any institution, rather it most likely reduces it. But most importantly racial discrimination is a cultural phenomenon and as such its solution should also be cultural one and not a top-down forced and institutional one. Furthermore, Staiger analyzes it and concludes that this top-down approach can lead to dangerous, unintended and in his case contradictory results [5].

Thus race, although a slippery term, can be used to describe discrimination of certain groups on perceived differences which are essentially in culture’s domain but are thought by racists as heritable along phenotypical distinct populations. The best way to control or limit racial inequality is through justice and awareness campaigns and not on current policies based on affirmative action which can lead to unintended consequences.

Racial discrimination is not just institutional. In fact it is imperative to note that much of racial hatred is covert. After the civil rights movement in United States and outrage over race-based discriminatory policies, even racists are not too keen to be ostracized by being overt about their intentions. It is the need of the hour to engage anthropologists and implement some much needed cultural measures rather than the top-down approach we observe today. One may say that it is the next phase of eliminating racial inequality. Such measures can prevent children from becoming racists, especially if the parents are racists and the future generation can avoid the outright racial violence. These measures can range from general awareness campaigns to doing fieldwork in racists stronghold by anthropologists such as Alabama or Mississippi in Southern United States.

On the topic of gender, first of all we have to answer the questions - What has caused the difference in men’s and women’s behavior? Is it due to human species’ long struggle for survival, or is it due to cultural mythologies? All these questions are essentially what Frances Mascia-Lees explains as, “gender can be understood as the meanings that a particular society gives to the physical or biological traits that differentiate males and females”.  Gender and Anthropology focuses on this central question and anthropologists interested in finding determinants of gender inequality try to find explanations of these practices.

Generally speaking, gender inequalities are all those ways in which a person gets affected from something based on his or her gender. There is a great debate in anthropology and other fields over the nature vs. nurture controversy regarding prevalent gender inequalities. Supposed natural differences between sexes have been used historically to rationalize and continue systems of oppression and even to determine social policy. For example towards the end of the nineteenth century, it was erroneously concluded that men were naturally superior to women in intelligence because of their larger size of brain. The mental difference that Darwinists claim to exist between the genders is of such a dimension that some evolutionists even divided them into different physical species: men being Homo frontalis and women Homo parietalis. But such hypotheses have now been discarded considering the biases and assumptions employed in these researches. For instance taking Darwin’s view, who described women as inferior, has been discarded because his theory of natural selection was based upon evolutionist preconceptions, and not on any scientific findings.

In anthropology, one of the most important approaches on this issue was taken by Engels. He presented a theory called “The Materialist Orientation” concerning gender oppression. Engels took the idea of oppression from Karl Marx’s work on class oppression and formulated his ideas about gender oppression. In his study, he focuses on how material conditions of life and economic factors have affected gender stratification.

Marx and Engels proposed that “society’s economic base, or infrastructure, determines its superstructure .i.e. the legal, political, social, and cultural institutions, that developed to ensure the continuation of the economic status quo”. Engels took it as a starting point and claimed that the movement away from the communal ownership of property found in early societies towards the private ownership associated with class societies corresponded to the movement from higher to lower status for women. Engels explained this by mentioning the ancient matriarchal societies where women had a greater status. He tried to introduce the concept of lowering of the status of women as the modes of production changed from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural societies, and also the status of women on the basis of her role in subsistence.

But Engels theory has been questioned on certain points like did matriarchies actually exist or not, as Haviland in his article “ Kinship and Descent”  by providing example of The Hopi society in Northern Arizona, argues that even in the matriarchal societies, it is the role of one’s mother’s brother which is dominant. Also do women fare better in society where they are put at the centre of social organization etc, which poses the focus for another debate which is not completely relevant right in this case.

Gender oppression can take place against men too, but as the present day era is patriarchal, that is a male dominated era; one finds most cases of female oppression based on gender. Sexual harassment is one type of gender oppression which women can face at working places. But it is not always sexual in nature. The wage gaps between men and women, lack of job security due to pregnancy etc, are some other ways in which they can get oppressed. Empirical analysis of gender discrimination in labor market in Australia has showed that women receive a lower wage than men with similar productivity-related characteristics, with the unexplainable portion of the gender wage gap resulting in wage deficit of nearly 10 to 20 percent.

There are two main categories of gender discrimination. First is disparate treatment which includes all those ways in which treatment of the employees differs on the basis of gender. The examples given above come under this category. While the second type of gender discrimination is disparate impact. It is a relatively more complex concept. It regards company policies that exclude one gender from a job or from promotion based gender when policies are not designed to do so.

In the US, one needs to sign a gender equality clause before starting a business, and their license is cancelled in case they are not able to do so. Moreover, pregnant women are to be considered as temporarily disable, so there job cannot be taken away on the basis of this. So now we can see some of the steps taken by the US government to overcome the issue of gender inequality, as it is very important for the stability of a society to work on the principle of equality. Taking the example of our own country, the Gender Justice and Protection Project has been initiated by UNDP Pakistan, where sexual harassment complaints could be resolved. Hopefully, this will lead to a better future for the oppressed classes, in this case the women, in our current society.

Moving on to the topic of ethnicity, ethnic groups are distinctive on the basis of national origin, language, religion, and culture. The contemporary world is replete with examples of newly constructed ethnicities, given the encounters of different ethnicities with the growing age of technology. According to anthropology, ethnic groups are formed when groups of people from different cultural backgrounds come into contact with each other.

Ethnic inequality arises primarily due to intolerance and lack of understanding and cooperation between cultural groups, which lead to a prejudiced form of thought. Prejudice is basically a prejudged attitude. Generally, prejudice refers to negative attitudes, but one can make the case that prejudice also includes positive attitudes.  Prejudice refers to any rigid and irrational generalization about an entire category of people. This prejudiced form of inequality leads to multiple problems in between ethnic groups living in close vicinity such as discrimination, prosecution and perhaps even exterminations in the worst of cases. A method of eliminating these tensions can be done through the judicial system. Affirmative action was first used by LBJ in an executive order in 1967 regarding employment with agencies in the federal government. The order said: "The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

Farley (2000:492) notes that the fundamental argument for making special efforts to hire more minority workers (or to admit more minority students to colleges) is that this practice is the only way to undo the harmful effects of past and present discrimination.

Taking the example of the Anglo Mexicans, their relationships were mostly cooperative with little stratification. Prejudice was the way of explaining exploitative behavior toward Mexicans and a traditional attribute of American South. In inequality cases with all three ethnic groups there was one similar thing, contact with the white people. Through wars, revolutions and annexions the whites got the chance to influx in originally Mexican territories, causing hard competition for land and resources. They already had reach experience of communication with other ethnic groups in this perspective, so they managed to outnumber and overpower these people as well. All factors that had caused inequality before between ethnic groups were present at that time.

Due to many reasons, such as white dominance and economical and political instability in Mexico itself, Mexicans were left no choice but to live the way the white people wanted them to. They were exploiting them and their land. Chicanos were used as a cheap labor power in places not acceptable for whites themselves. So the competitive pattern could be considered to be rigid competitive close to paternalistic. Considering all the facts today, this situation with labor exploitation still exists, and is only partially inherited, because a considerable part of this ethnic group are illegal immigrants, which gives the opportunity to others to use them for the purposes of a cheap labor.

Historical relationships between the British whites and others were formed (such as the black-white relationship) on the basis of ethnocentrism and exploitation. Although it was not the exploitation of Natives labor, but their free will and their land, which occurred as a result of competition for their survival. The British made attempts to enslave the aborigine population, but they were quickly abandoned.

Ethnocentrism of the whites was supported by their religious beliefs, which were used to justify the order of things that occurred. Through the passage of time, Native–Americans were overpowered and forced to give up their territories in exchange for prison-like reservations by the growing population of whites. Later they were even made to live their lives the European way in their own communities since their own way of life was considered inferior and so the Europeans naturally considered themselves superior in all aspects. Somewhat similarly, white paternalism and general effort to press Indians to surrender their own culture, and adopt the white man’s ways had always been a key part of European colonial, and later, is supported by the American policy toward Indian people (Farley 2000; p.127, 128). They were not regarded as U.S. citizens, and they were allowed no input into the running of reservations either, although reservations were supposedly their land (Farley 2000; p.115). This shows that as a result of the inequality some people become marked stereotypes and reaction to them changes with their status in the world.

Ethnic inequality within a nation can end up causing disturbances on a large scale since, despite the affirmative actions being supported globally, there is far less application and our innate compatibility with other cultures and different religions often results in strife.

In pre-partition subcontinent, we observe the constant bickering and conflicts between the Muslim and Hindu communities, which at some point began to turn in to the subjugation and prosecution of the Muslim minority as the relations worsened. As a long term effect of this ethnic strife, not only was the subcontinent weakened significantly enough for the British to take control without any particular use of force, but which also led eventually to the splitting of the nation and creation of India and Pakistan, which was prompted through a movement by the Muslims for a separate nation. Even after the formation of Pakistan, ethnic inequality took form in the political intrigues of the nation, when West Pakistan tried to dominate the political control over East Pakistan, and once again the unity of the nation was challenged, finally leading to a civil war in 1973 in which, due to India’s intervention, the nation ended up being split. This happened as a result of the internal strife within the nation which caused it to be weakened towards outward intervention.

In the prior cases we saw a conflict happen and then resolve itself with a clear outcome. In a worse case, a similar ethnic clash can lead to long-term and lasting zones of conflict within a nation, such as the Gaza strip, the everlasting conflict between Israel and Palestine which is even now ongoing without a clear resolution in sight. The situation has deteriorated to the point that some leaders are feeling that the conflict is being used and manipulated by different parties in order to perhaps achieve their own twisted ends. As a PLO chief has said: “It's impossible to say who has guns in Gaza anymore.” (Saeb Erekat)

From all the examples provided and throughout the course of history, it can be easily seen that in our world today, all forms of ethnic inequality have become so attuned and integrated into our societies that it is almost natural for the stereotypes and discrimination to exist.

To sum it all up, it can be easily seen that inequality has existed in every known social setup, be it an egalitarian or a stratified society. And it has also been observed that a greater level of social inequality poses a greater risk to the delicate balance that exists between members of the social pyramid. But unless we come up with a practical solution for countering this dilemma quickly and effectively, it is a sure thing that as this has continued throughout history and already as it exists in our present day world, it will keep on worsening. The facts every year show that the pattern is going from bad to worse and the gap between the rich and poor is widening slowly but surely. Also from what we can easily see, this level of inequality in society, be it in the form of race, gender or ethnicity, seems to continue into the coming future. 

“To live anywhere in the world today and be against equality because of race, ethnicity or color is like living in Alaska and being against snow.” 
                                                  William Faulkner – Essays, Speeches and Public Letters.