 |
Editorial
|
| o | |
| Institution-Building--The Philanthropic Approach
Dr. Nadeem- ul- Haque |
| o | |
| Punjabi Language From A Perennialist Perspective
Ejaz Akram |
| o | |
| Gandhi Prisoner of Hope
by Judith Brown Yale University Press; New Haven and London 1989 (430 Pages) Book review by Julian Samuel |
India-Pakistan Peace Negotiations
Last month's meeting between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan failed to produce any substantial results. In that, it was not different than myriad of other such encounters. As for their agreement to take action to end border hostilities in Kashmir, the Line of Control there has actually been exploding with gunfire both before and after the talks.
This escalation seems to have been calculated to frustrate any efforts which may produce concrete results. It is quite possible that prime minister Gujral's weak governing alliance in India cannot afford to be seen 'soft' on Pakistan. It is also equally plausible that although prime minister Nawaz Sharif leads one of the strongest civilian governments in Pakistan, the army establishment there is retaliating against any prospect of a non-aggression treaty with India being proposed by the prime minister. For, if any such treaty is signed and fully implemented, it will drastically reduce Pakistan's defense expenditure and, heavens forbid, it might actually lead to the army's diminished role in the country's power structure.
With fanfare and patriotic jingoism, the two countries just finished the festivities of celebrating 50th years of their independence. Now that the 'tamasha' is over, both countries have to come back to earth in order to face the daunting challenges facing them. Eradicating poverty, equitable distribution of wealth, education, health are only few such challenges. Equally important is a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two countries that has seen 3 major wars. There is strong belief that only with peace in the region, the two countries can face up to the challenges at home. The conflict between the two countries not only deflects necessary resources needed to meet their social and economic challenges. More cynically, it has been used by the two countries as an issue to hide behind.
Over the years, Pakistan has built its expectations of Kashmir as high as the valley's Siachin glacier. Among other things, it fully expects India to hold a plebiscite under the UN auspices to decide whether the Kashmiris should join Pakistan or India. In the event, Pakistan has neither the military capability nor the requisite international support to force India to hold such plebiscite.
Two earlier wars did not resolve the Kashmir issue. Advent of the nuclear weapons provokes a doomsday scenario and provides at the best Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD. Thus the war option for achieving its goals in Kashmir is foreclosed.
On the diplomatic front, Pakistan's efforts to secure international support have been pathetic. Lately, its only qualified support has been some resolutions on the issue from the Organization of Islamic Countries. This is the same organization which has been for decades threatening Israel if it does not give Palestinians their legitimate rights. As for the US, although it has indicated that it wants to play a stronger role in negotiations between the two countries, India has reportedly elicited assurance from the US not to intervene on behalf of Kashmir.
Pakistan's present stance on Kashmir has not changed much since the 1980s. Initiated by Zia, this strategy is supposed to emulate an Afghanistan like scenario in Kashmir. A low key insurgency in Kashmir with relatively low cost for Pakistan, according to this strategy, will keep the Indian army embroiled there. Pursuing this line of argument to its logical conclusion, India one day would crash under its own burden, just like the Soviet Union did after its blunder in Afghanistan.
This however is very perilous and costly policy. Since the insurgency started in 1989, at least 30,000 mostly young Kashmiris have died there. The Indian state does not even remotely resemble the ex-Soviet Union, and neither does the Afghanistan model inspire any confidence. Pakistan is already paying heavily for the continuing carnage in Afghanistan and its residual effects inside Pakistan itself. The scenario of a Taliban like movement rising the frontier region of Pakistan can not be ruled out. Actual cost of Pakistan's Kashmir policy is not only whatever material support it gives to the insurgent groups. Besides its engagement over the Line of Control in Kashmir, it has to keep its defense forces beefed up in case of a full fledged war.
Leaving aside the legal and rhetoric altercations of Pakistan on the status of Kashmir, India's own actions there have come to resemble that of an occupying force over the last decade. It has pursued the insurgency in Kashmir with ferocious impunity. A list Indian atrocities there, according to the Amnesty International (AI, September 1996) includes, arbitrary detention, torture, deaths in custody, extra judicial executions and "disappearances" perpetrated by its security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Its moral isolation there is nearly complete, and its political conduct amounts to little more than manipulations.
In the September 1996, India held local elections in Kashmir. Designed to bring peace to the turbulent valley. The elections created only more confusion and more killings. They became something of a travesty in which, by manipulation, the Indian government was once more able to impose its chosen government. While claiming it was restoring the democratic process, India rejected all requests of foreign observers to monitor the elections.
Although the cold war ended six years ago, the Indian sub continent has yet to see a peace dividend of any kind. On the contrary, both Pakistan and India are continuing to spend heavily on their defense layouts. After having joined the nuclear club, the two countries have now embarked on a new round of arms race in the strategic missiles field. More ominously, warheads for these missiles are not going to be of conventional type, they will inevitably be modified to carry the nuclear warheads.
Currently Pakistan's annual defense budget is close to $3 billion, which is 25% of its total revenues and 5.3% of its GDP. Comparable figures from India are $8 billion, representing close to 22% of its total revenues and 2.7% of its GDP. As a percentage of total revenues, both countries are spending more or same than their 1990 levels. Moreover, these figures represent only the direct defense expenditure, and does not take into account the money being spent on various peripheral infrastructure. Hostages to their history, the two nations have so far failed to see that the new global currency of power is sustained economic growth, and not the nuclear weapons or strategic missiles.
The two prime ministers are said to meet again latter this year. This would be third such meeting. It signifies desire on the part of the two leaders to calm down the current military hostility and then proceed to negotiate a lasting peace settlement. If they are to succeed, they have to tackle immense opposition in their respective countries. In Pakistan, such opposition comes from the hard line sectors of the military establishment. It also comes from its religious fundamentalists, both with in the ruling party and other smaller but influential religious parties. In India, the politics of Hindutva by BJP, won 35% of the last parliamentary vote, and would challenge any peace initiative by India. Similarly, India's stubborn refusal to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a non-aggression treaty with Pakistan, reflects hardened attitude of India's own military establishment.
The extremely divergent and often conflicting perceptions of Pakistanis and Indians about themselves and about each other, have rendered any possible solution to the conflict between the two countries to merely a zero-sum game. A lasting peace in the South Asia will require bold initiatives by the leaders as much as changing these perceptions. Smaller steps, like opening up the bilateral trade, cultural and academic exchanges will inevitable shake some of the stereotypes. In time, these activities will strongly supplement smaller peace lobbies in each country.
Although the chances any immediate major breakthrough may in fact be bleak, there seems to be a window of opportunity for the two countries to embark on peace. Both leaders are said to be genuinely interested in such outcome. The US secretary of State will be traveling to the region this year and President Bill Clinton visiting there later next year. All this indicates a renewed interest by the US in the Indo-Pak peace settlement. Finally there is a growing realization in the two countries that if they want to participate fully in the international community and develop economically, they must deal with the Kashmir and other such disputes, and cooperate in leading South Asia to the growth and development that it needs and deserves.
In This Issue …
The success of a country is predicated by the strength of its
economic, judicial, educational and host of other institutions.
Conversely, the weakness or absence of such institutions is often
cited as a major impediment in the development of poor countries.
Historically, such institution building in the third world has
largely remained the domain of their governments, augmented by
multilateral agencies such as the UN or the World Bank. Looking
at the results, such approach needs much to be desired. In his
article 'Institution-Building--The Philanthropic
Approach' Dr. Nadeem- ul- Haque examines the problem
in another way - that is, by tracing the history of more successful
institutions of the west. In particular, he examines the origins
of the University of Chicago, an American educational institution
which has produced world leaders in the fields of economics, physics,
and management, among others. In doing so, he raises several issues
and questions the traditional approach to the institution building.
The conflict between traditions and modernity - or modernism to be exact - is perhaps as old as the Renaissance. Punjabi culture and its manifestation as a language is one such victim in this rush to modernity. In 'Punjabi Language From A Perennialist Perspective', Ejaz Akram suggests that Punjabi language suffers as well from inadequate study and analysis of language and its various links to the society it emanates from. In his article, Ejaz Akram, proposes an holistic approach to the study of language and culture, rather than a compartmentalized methods of modernism.
Finally, Julian Samuel reviews 'Gandhi
Prisoner of Hope' written by Judith Brown. Although
both book and its review are old, in this golden anniversary year
of India as well as Pakistan's independence, it remains critical
to analyze the history and the people who played an important
role in it. Deification of Gandhi, as Samuel analyzes the book,
has not only shrouded his role in politics, but also has conveniently
ignored other less laudable aspects of the 'great soul' himself.
| In the April 1997 issue of Sangat, we published 'Dr. Feroz Ahmed - The Passionate Intellectual' by Hamza Alavi. There were several factual mistakes in that article. Justifiably, quite a number people, including his wife and numerous friends, were offended and hurt. Although belatedly, Sangat sincerely regrets the anguish and grief inflicted by the article. |
In the post war world, numerous attempts at all levels--multinational, bilateral and domestic-- have been made to foster growth and development in the low income world so that these countries could catch up with their richer brethren from the industrial countries. Why has growth not been faster? What can be done to make these countries achieve a more balanced and sustainable growth? These are the important questions of the day that are preoccupying all serious positive social science and development policy making. To a large extent, many of the answers that are being derived relate to the failure of these countries to develop key institutions. Most practitioners and thinkers are now in agreement on this issue but remain perplexed at what is required to develop these institutions. Public sector's attempts at developing the institutions within its fold have not succeeded. The fostering of non-governmental institutions also remains fairly uneven in its results. Donor funding for institutional support too has had very limited results in view of the extensive history of sectoral and institutional reform supported by substantial financial technical assistance resources now has not yielded the expected results.
One area that the practitioners and thinkers in the area of institution-building seem to be paying little attention to is the origins and development of more successful institutions in the world. Most of the institutions that command international respect are in the western industrial countries. These include major universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Chicago, think tanks such as the Brookings, Carnegie, Rand, court systems, Stock exchanges and central banks etc. How did these come to be established and develop to gain respect of the society around them? What was their contribution to the society in which they were situated? These are important questions that may allow us to understand the difficulties with institution building in the low-income countries.
1. The University of Chicago
The University of Chicago (UofC) offers us a wonderful opportunity to look at institutional development in modern times and at a rapid rate. The traditional universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, and Harvard have along history of development. UofC, on the other hand, was set up in 1892 and had established itself as a major research university by the turn of the century and was a few years later had begun to contribute to key economic policy issues such as the setting up of the Federal Reserve Board and to major advances in science such as the splitting of the atom. Let us review the essential ingredients of this success.
2. The Philanthropist/Institution-Builder
The birth of university was the result of a happy circumstance where a major philanthropist, John D. Rockefeller (JDR), was supported and joined by the entire educational community of the time to in the venture to set up a major higher education establishment in Chicago. JDR, the richest man of the time and given to very aggressive business practices, remains one of the most important philanthropists of all time. In his life, he gave some half a billion dollars to various institution-building enterprises and set in motion a tradition that his children are continuing to date. This is an even larger some of money if we adjust for amount of inflation that has taken place in the last 80 years or so since his death. In today's prices, JDR would have given away something like $ 7.7 billion.
However, even more interesting is the manner in which JDR made his gifts to allow the flower of an institution to grow. JDR was not a distant or an overbearing contributor or interested in receiving accolades. He took a keen interest in selecting the man who it was generally believed could undertake such an enterprise--William Rainey Harper. JDR lacked the arrogance that came of power and money. He would not expect Harper and others who were interested in the 'proposed college at Chicago' to come to him. He would not summon them as he could given his wealth and power. Instead numerous letters written by Harper to others involved in the project show that JDR would undertake lengthy journeys to visit him in places like Poughkeepsie and New Haven and as Harper records 'he seemed to have nothing to do except to talk with me.' He would even wait while Harper taught his class so that they could resume the discussion.
When the university started functioning, JDR announced through Gates, his close associate in most charitable and personal investment and business matters, 'While he (JDR) is, of course, closely interested in the conduct of the institution, he has refrained from making suggestions, and would prefer in general not to take an active part in the counsels of the management. He prefers to rest the whole weight of the management on the shoulders of the proper officers. Donors can be certain that their gifts will be preserved and made continuously and largely useful, after their own voices can be no longer heard, only in so far as they see wisdom and skill in the management, quite independently of themselves, now. No management can gain skill except as it exercises its functions independently, with the privilege of making errors and the authority to correct them.' Goodspeed, another member of the group involved in setting up the university also records that 'Mr. Rockefeller, never, under any circumstances, could be induced to recommend the employment or dismissal of a member of the faculty or give any advice whatever regarding the teaching force.' JDR resisted the overbearing management of and interfering benefactor who drunk on his wealth presumed to know it all. In fact frequent references to his restraint and respect for professional management can be cited.
JDR was not interested in accolades or praise. When the university opened its doors in 1892, he was invited to a formal opening ceremony with pomp and show, but 'he advised against any formal opening ceremonies and thought it would in any case be hardly possible for him to attend.' He did not visit the university till he was finally persuaded to attend the quinquennial and the decennial celebrations those being the only two occasions that he visited UofC. His sentiments are best captures by his own speech at the quinquennial celebration, 'why shouldn't people give the University of Chicago money, time and their best efforts? Why not? It is the grandest opportunity ever presented. Where were gathered, ever, a better Board of Trustees, a better faculty? I am profoundly thankful that I had anything to do with this affair. The good lord gave me the money and how could I withhold it from Chicago?' He noted that he had merely made 'a beginning' and said that 'you have the privilege to complete it.' The institution-building philanthropist realized that his money was only a part of the process and without the main participants doing their bit, his donation no matter how large would not bear fruit if a dedicated management did not emerge to develop an outstanding academic environment. He was therefore conscious of not exaggerating his role and therefore stifling the venture.
3. The Visionary and His Plan
JDR's respect for academics and professionalism, and his skill as an institution-builder again shows up when he decides to give complete autonomous control to Harper who was the major visionary of the time. JDR was hoping to set up a college with a few hundred thousand dollars. Harper wished for a university and with an emphasis on research and graduate education at a time when even Harvard was a mere undergraduate institution. Harper's plan was much larger in scale than that envisaged by others who were involved in the project. As Rockefeller biographers, Harr and Johnson note, 'he wanted to rival Oxford and Cambridge, the great German Universities, and the best schools in Eastern United States.' Harper's thinking prevailed because JDR always maintained that he was merely providing the money and he did not wish to involve himself in running a university.
Harper set himself the task of 'organizing an institution of a distinctly new type' and considered it to be an 'educational experiment' that had to prove itself. From the beginning, he planned a university steeped in original research and investigation. He encouraged publication and developed the concept of a university press. As a result the now famous University of Chicago press, the publisher of the Encyclopedia Britannica was founded. To encourage research, departmental journals were encouraged. Among those that were founded then, several such as the Journal of Political Economy are now among the leading research publications in the world. He encouraged continuing and extension where part-time education was encouraged. To make education more convenient for the student, he developed the quarter system with continuous graduation, thereby breaking away from the tradition of graduating only in the summer.
The success of Harper's experiment is evident in the following. First, almost all his ideas are universally accepted now with all major universities adopting the themes that he propounded. Second, UofC remains one of the finest universities in the world claiming among the largest number of Nobel recipients on its faculty. Third, UofC's name has been associated with many of the important academic events of this century.
4. Hiring the Best Faculty for a Fine University
Harper set about hiring a faculty before the university was established. He wanted to get the very best and in particular was looking for 'head professors' who would develop their own departments. Goodspeed notes that 'He sought big men, men already established and recognized as exceptionally able.' Harper worked very hard to get the faculty he wanted. He was willing to increase the salaries of people he wanted by substantial amounts. Harr and Johnson note that 'he (Harper) wanted to assemble the most brilliant faculty in the world by paying an unheard-of salary of $7,000 per year.'
Harper knew that in order to attract a good faculty, he must provide them with an atmosphere to flourish. Though himself an academic of considerable achievements with many books and publications and numerous important university appointments, he was not in competition with his faculty. He recognized the need to encourage and develop his faculty. 'He rejoiced in the growing reputation of members of the faculty as though they were his own. Every distinction they received gave him pleasure. Every book they published was a source of satisfaction to him...he was proud of the honors they received and he watched the development of growing scholars with joy and pride.'
Harper's principle was to hire the best, attracting them with incentive pay packages, and allow them to do their research and writing free of restraints.
5. The Donation and the Results
An undertaking of this size was not possible without major funding. Between 1892 and 1915, JDR provided a princely sum of about $35 million to the UofC in keeping with his vision of participating in 'the grandest opportunity ever presented.' In today's dollars, this is equivalent to about $536 million. It was a large and liberal grant that allowed the academic vision of Harper to flourish. To place this in perspective, consider some of the loans arranged by the World Bank which is a large multilateral development finance institution finances the development of education in developing economies for the reform of the entire education sectors in developing countries. For example, in Paksitan, the World Bank arranged a Social Action Program, part of which is education, with financing of $200 million in 1994. Similarly, a sector loan for the reform of the 'middle schooling' was provided for $115 million in 1992. Contrast with JDR's donation, the numbers are worthy of further thought.
The upshot of this marriage between a generous grant from a non-interfering philanthropist and a talented visionary for rearing the institution created a marvel in the academic world. The university started in the year 1892 with a very strong faculty of 128 members who were to teach 594 students with 276 in undergraduate departments. 'Harper succeeded in attracting extraordinary faculty and a large and impressive student body and in establishing important innovations in higher education.' Over the years, the university has been among the foremost contributors to fundamental research in many areas. Many notable academics, Nobel prize winners, path breakers in their own subjects have been associated with the UofC-- too many to enumerate in a paper such as this. In academics, the UofC established a name for itself very early in its life and retained a position of eminence, thanks to the ingenuity of its founders. And that is something that we should try to learn from.
References
Among his signs is the Heavens and the Earth, and the variations in your language and your colours: verily in that are the signs for those who know.
(30: 22) The Romans in Al-Quran,
Introduction
Why is even the topic of Punjabi language a subject of discussion? Why would the Punjabis be even worried about the future of Punjabi language? And most importantly why is Punjabi so important to the Punjabis? Any reasonable person would assume that today it would be more important for the sake of material benefit to learn English rather than Punjabi. English is the language of the world cognitive elite, the preferred global lingua franca, language of science and technology, both in India and Pakistan and abroad. So any attempt to preserve Punjabi language means that it is threatened to extinction, and any attempt to revive it would mean that there is a resistance by its speakers to prevent that from happening.
If one analyzes even a remotest concern about the need to preserve Punjabi language, one finds a chain of factors like cultural preservation, identity preservation, the link to one's primordial tradition and so forth. Punjabi identity is threatened as modernity engulfs the Punjabi language, it also gobbling up all the hundreds of years old wisdom that is manifested in our custom, tradition and cosmology. Modern processes will make us which what we never were and not quite sure if we want to become like that, for it may cost us what we are, and the loss of self is undoubtedly the greatest loss. There are many theories of language and linguistic change. Phonetics explains language as the available sound while phonology sees it as organized sound. Semantics worries about the meaning and sense whereas pragmatics focuses on meaning and context. Language as a written medium is studied as text and spoken medium as conversation and interaction. Within the taxonomy of linguistics you can move a plane higher and relate the language theory to the theory of mind in form of psycho linguistics, or to neuro linguistics for the study of language inside the brain. Further yet, it is possible to use pathology of language while studying the breakdown of language. For the study of language and behaviour, the anthropological linguistics, and for the language and society the sociological linguistics, are the accepted methods.
Study of language as above has suffered from the compartmentalization of knowledge and atomistic approaches that are the very characteristic of modernism and its philosophy of logical positivism. Such methods make no attempt to study language in which its link with the divine reality is not severed. There is however the original theory of language that rests on the tenets of Philosophia Perennis, a view that holds the origin of language is sacred, just as all knowledge is sacred and so is the art. All knowledge, the languages which express it, and the art they can create has certain aesthetics and meaning and that meaning is conveyed through the use of certain symbols. Thus it is the scope of this paper to view Punjabi language as an important part of a sacred Tradition that is being radically transformed under the pressures of modernity and globalization. The crucial question is whether it will survive these pressures and sustain its primordial link to life's connection beyond the superficial materialist ideologies. It is difficult to decide when a language will die out. It may be a gradual restriction of the language's ability to function, or of the ability of speakers to use it, so it is difficult to predict whether Punjabi will die out or live.
It is important also to distinguish between modernism and modernity. Latter is a dialectical process of new over the old whereas Modernism is one of those ideologies which has unrelenting faith in a kind Modernity that arose from the "project enlightenment", and sought to undermine religion by jettisoning the divine reality and ostracizing the spiritual from the material. It was a radical break from thousands of years human history which heretofore saw the origin of man, language and knowledge as sacred.
Philosophia Perennis is a holistic way at looking at things for what they are, in their totality. Without discounting the material reality it restores what had been taken away from that reality. Modernism reduced the reality to just a physical phenomenon, while the perennialist method explains things fully, thus positive science methods have concealed more than they have revealed. By lending the perennialist perspective to the study of Punjabi tradition and its implication on the future of Punjabi language and culture, it will remove the clouds of superficial change that modernism has cast upon it and help restore its organic connection and understand its primordial link. This is the method of the Traditionalist school.
Like all other languages, the origin of Punjabi language is also sacred. This view of sanctity of language is accommodated by all major religious traditions, may that be Hinduism, Sikhism or Islam. Although these religious traditions have their own world views, they are also shaped by a Punjabi world view, which has an inherent possibility of making Punjabiyyat one of the unique platforms of commonality, understanding and interfaith dialogue. It is the Lingua Sacra and a Lingua Franca at the same time. But this function of Punjabi discourse is being rapidly replaced by English/ Urdu/ Hindi as Lingua franca and Modernist-Scientific discourse as the 'Lingua sacra'.
If you stop and ask any Muslim Punjabi as to who he is, you will most certainly get an answer that he is a Muslim first and then anything else and perhaps the same response for the Sikh or a Hindu. Thus what their religious traditions say in regards to their languages may be important to them as to how they view their language. Quran says: And among His signs is the creation of Heavens and the earth, and the variations in your language and your colours: verily in that are the signs for those who know (30: 22). Similarly the Upanishads reiterate the need for reflection on the nature of speech as it is divine: " If there were no speech, neither right nor wrong would be known, neither true nor false, neither the pleasant nor the unpleasant. Speech makes us understand all this. Meditate on Speech".
Tradition maintains the sanctity which unites all languages but it is also accommodative of difference and variation, thus despite the biological similarities in people there are considerable differences within the same dialects of a language. But when we talk of a certain tradition of speech its important to know how one deals with the issue of linguistic normativism and linguistic relativism. If you ask a Punjabi of 200 years ago to come and have a hermeneutically successful discussion with the Punjabi who learned his Punjabi in California ten years ago there may be considerable confusion.
Linguistic relativity is a concept that is used to indicate that structure of every language exercises a differential influence on the thought of every speaker in a way in which he conceives reality and the way in which he behaves in front of it. Punjabi's capacity to affect our thinking is shrinking every day and conversely our ability to conceptualize and memorize English is increasing everyday. If this approach holds ground then we will become less and less Punjabi and more and more English or 'modern'. Secondly, often about Punjabi language one comes across the problem of Asl Punjabi, Thaith Punjabi or Sahih or Khalass Punjabi, which deals with the concept of normative aspect of linguistics. In any language there are certain essentials that are embedded in the essentials of culture which are to a large extent embedded in the essentials of religion. However it is very difficult to determine what Punjabi ought to be. Punjabi may be different for different speakers of Punjabi. When we talk about this then the critical and evaluative element enters into the philosophy of language as opposed to merely the phenomenological. This ultimately leads us to the problem of linguistic validity which ultimately takes us to the notion of an idealized form of language with a certain form of expression and certain form of notation. To borrow an example from the case of USA, is Ebonics acceptable as an idealized form of language? What are the objections to it by the speakers of English language, why are they so outraged about the idea of Ebonics? There is of course a dissonance in our example as English is the state language and Global language and Punjabi is neither. Nonetheless the problem of relativity remains in Punjabi also specially when it comes to the textual Punjabi, and possibility of a median dialect to serve as the formal lingua franca. Many already feel that Pahari, Lahnda or Saraiki dialects are already outside the folds of Punjabiyyat.
Punjabi And Culture
It is important to stop and examine the nexus of language and culture. First of all, culture has a plethora of definitions in various social sciences. In materialist terms culture has been sometimes defined as a web of significance that the human animal has spun upon himself, or a realm that is exclusively socially constructed. What is meant by culture here is a medium of shared meanings and shared practices. It is not free of its divine link either, and just like the man himself, his art, his language, social class, caste and gender, it is has a metaphysical dimension to it, as well as it is socially perceived and reproduced. Secondly, before Punjabi culture can be defined one has to define what Punjab is. One can go on to define Punjab historically, ecumenically, in socio-economical terms (agriculture) or geographically. What is understood by Punjabi here is a sphere which is not restricted to geographical boundaries anymore and is rather ecumenical. There isn't anymore one Punjab or two in terms of time and space, now it may be possible to speak of a south-hall Punjab in the lap of Britain or in the Kenyan diaspora. It is problematic to ascertain whether operative ideals in California or Mianwali are the same in Amritsar or Ludhiana.
The sacred truth or the divine reality are all in a hierarchical relationship with culture. There is a two way relationship between self and one's identity, they can be mutually constituted. On a second tier one's consciousness of identity can shape the language and vice-versa. Similarly, language and culture can form each other. But above everything is the Absolute reality which only has a one way relationship with the ones below. In case of Islam for example, it is Islam that can affect the culture, whereas different cultures may interpret the divine message but cannot change it. There is a realm that is Absolute and there is a realm that is ever-changing. All religious traditions have a cosmology that reflects the message of the Absolute in their world views, whether mythological or revelational they stay messages that are of eternal significance which address the perennial problems of man and his existentialist dilemmas.
The most important thing that must never occur is the severing of the vital connection between the Absolute and the ever-changing. If that link is severed there is a disjuncture of that language with its metaphysical source of inspiration which will bring about the loss of spirit and its emotional charm. It does not mean that all modern languages (like French, German, English etc.) are all Godless languages. The ideology of materialism which is inspired by Modernism has a Tamasik or a Makru affect on the discourse of sanctity of languages, due to which their primordial charm and innocence is lost. This aroma which comes from Punjabi primordialism may now be a matter of nostalgia, as its perfume was the function of pre-modern existence. It is possible to retain the Punjabi spirit but may not and have never been possible to sustain a single form of language that will stay identical over the years. Even Arabic of Muslims today is a lot different from the original Naskh.
Central to the preservation of that primordialism is the resuscitation of the Punjabi tradition, which cannot be done without the use of language. And it cannot be done without religion: Cultures are not free of religious world view and the values, ethics and system of law which religion imparts on culture. For example the idea of 'Rab' in Punjabi discourse, in its literature and the oral tradition of Sufis is central to defining the pivotal aspect of Punjabi culture and is a key to understanding the Punjabi tradition of mysticism.
Cultures have a transcendental link through which divine reality distills itself in form of language. So language is not only a mind for the society but also a vehicle for the sustenance of its soul. Different religious traditions have a different affect on Punjabi. For the Sikhs it has a special honorific value because of their religion and the future of Punjabi language is perhaps the most secure in the Sikh tradition. Islam has a different affect on Punjabi when it comes to interplay with it. The message of Quran has been most effectively carried out by many Suffiya-i-Karam in Punjabi language, but in the long run Islam has the tendency to reduce culture to custom. It is visible most notably in the Urban middle classes and specially expatriots from the Gulf. In the Pakistani Punjabi wedding for example, the customary practices are very much those as in the rest of the Punjab but it is also possible to speak of an Islamic culture and its tradition in Punjab. As the society Islamizes it becomes increasingly important to learn and understand Arabic and although one may speak Punjabi but its formal learning as a subject has become less important. Islam compromised to many societies it came in contact with, but it also had a homogenizing effect on them. That is why it has had the ability to form sophisticated state-systems on an ideology that is based on lot more than just language. This has not been the case with Sikhism and Hinduism, although Ranjit Singh built a martial Punjabi state, its language of court remained Farsi.
Islam claims everything good as already Islamic, thus the most commonly accepted values that don't negate Islam are appropriated by Islam, and those values are embraced because they are Islamic, but not exclusively as Punjabi. The popular Islam bore a colour of Punjabi so as to make it more accessible to the Punjabi soul and wisdom. Increasingly the deepest part of contemporary Punjabi Muslim consciousness is becoming Islamic and not just Punjabi culture, although the latter by no means is reduced to the unconscious. As the society rapidly modernizes the traditional wisdom is in a recession which is often relegated as daqayanussithinking, not progressive but static. And the hegemonic homogenizers (i.e., the bulldozers of Modernism) are out there to level all tradition and differentiation into a faceless, characterless, mass produced entities, in the name of 'progress'.
Punjabi And Modernism
In the modern world religion is considered as an antithesis to modernism. It is seen as a backward form of human consciousness which is a hindrance to an idea of progress, an idea which is essentially linear. This ideology of 'progress' which goes hand in hand with modernism sees a more perfect society in the future and envisions future as the ultimate realization of human potential, while totally ignoring the origin and the importance of origin. In the light of this thinking the project of revitalization of Punjabi is a backward and non-progressive movement to begin with. For all primordial tradition the perfection of origin is important because point of origin is always closer to the source of life the divine shakti that bestows life upon us. Whereas the ideology of modernism's understanding of the present as more superior and progressive than the past, so if today is better than yesterday then tomorrow will be better than today. The seemingly glittering future is a grand illusion as portrayed by the ideology of progress, and is simply Utopian. The creed of Modernism sees societies that are closer to their origin as infant societies that lack maturation and will only become mature after they 'shed the metaphysical and superstitious baggage' and move on. It will be the annihilation of Punjabi language if Punjabi tradition is ostracized from it.
Modern world appears very appealing because of all the material comforts it has to offer, which are manifest as the fruits of modernity such as the air-conditioning, mode of travel, communication, medicine etc., however if one delves into the historical depths of this phenomenon, it becomes clearly visible that the roots of modernity are marred with subversion and bloodshed. The idea of things as sacred is replaced by profanity, social ethos is replaced by anthropocentric view of the world and so forth. Making of the modern state which promises those fruits has been no easy task, in fact it has been a process in which much has been given up. However it is very important to draw a distinction between the fruits of modernity and the roots of it, because here lies the secret of the material progress of the West and also its spiritual bankruptcy. This is also manifested by the utter misery of formerly colonized Asia and Africa in the name of modernism.
The challenge of Modernism is so strong and it is very difficult to fight against that without a matching level of homogenization and organization that is required to have a kind of state that it has produced. It seems like that to beat Modernism at its own game, you have to be more like it, and do what it has done, i.e. try to modernize yourself to the roots from outward in via Western institutions (Nehruvian direction) or in contrast, you shoot for the organicity and preservation of original and primordial reality of Punjabis until they reconcile their tradition with their modernity (Gandhian direction).
As the time goes by modern phrases, concepts, and discourse will gobble up remaining traces of Punjabi language, as finding substitutes for those outside of Physical Punjab would be futile. The fruits of modernity have transformed Punjabi already, if Punjabis embrace the ideology of Modernism then Punjabi language will become bereft of the life force that is its very characteristic. Modernism has sneaked up on Punjabi like the other rich traditions and is silently raping her of her innocence.
Secularism, Nationalism, The State And Punjabi Identity
Attached to the Modernist agenda are also the inroads that it provides for ideologies like Nationalism and Secularism. Perhaps nothing has hurt Punjabi tradition more than the ideology of Secularism. But first it must be defined: Western style secularism is primarily the devaluation of religion. With the devaluation of religion comes the devaluation of the sense of sacred and loss of tradition and its impact on culture as we see today. If secularism means respect of all religions, that is perhaps more in congruence with the natural trajectory of our society. Instead of totally eschewing religion one should comes to terms with it because as long as man faces existential dilemmas of birth, sickness and death, it will always be there. In principle this is how the Indian secularism should be like, but it is quite the contrast form its normative ideal. The western model has no solution for our society, and we need to resuscitate our own tradition of pluralism which accommodates the second type of secularism. Instead of a secularist ideology of tolerance we need to revive whatever little tradition of mutual tolerance we had, before it is completely destroyed by modernism. This potential dialogue between traditions stifled the first time due to the interjection of colonial powers, and will happen again if Punjabis fail to understand their own tradition and the affects of Modernist ideologies.
Secondly the narrow nationalist perspectives have been constructed at the expense of our primordial tradition. We all know how Pakistan's nationalist policy of language has incapacitated the Punjabis to read and write in their mother tongue, and what Indian Nationalism has done to permanently scar the Sikh identity. Nationalism has led to the suppression of local identities and in the case of Pakistan it has always downplayed the Punjabi identity.
Nationalism has also relegated these essential discourses that make up the very social fabric of being a Punjabi to a non-public sphere and many ex-Punjabi urban nationalists associate some kind of shame with one's being Punjabi as a backward and provincial consciousness, same thing that English did with other languages, that now Urdu is doing with Punjabi. They have totally discounted the ability of Punjabi language for the Purpose of Administration, speculation and as a medium of scientific-rational thinking.
If one has to demolish something to create homogeneity and sameness in the name of organizational efficiency, then in a rapidly globalizing world in which balance of power certainly doesn't favour us, one provides grounds to other languages to devour ours to create a more homogenous and a boring world society. The ideology of modernism perhaps aims at doing that anyhow under the presumption that if there is state economy, then there is a state authority and a state language. Similarly if there is a world economy, there will be a world authority and thus by this rationale a world language. Such attempt to homogenize is nothing else but the biggest form of imperialism and Modernist chauvinism.
Conclusion
Punjabi historical consciousness is primarily rural. Punjab is not going to be predominantly rural any more, how well can Punjabi and urbanity be reconciled? How much of Punjabiyyat has been lost as the society has urbanized? Punjab was never an industrial society, so how much of Punjabi tradition has been annihilated due to the nascent industrialism? How is capitalism transforming its essential values? Future will provide the answer to these questions but they will be certainly decisive in determining how much of what we regard Punjabi today may change.
In a rapidly globalizing world it may seem like that the future of Punjabi language is at stake. But it is also possible that it is the future of modernism which is at stake. The modernist discourse knows which questions to ask for development and modernization but doesn't know how, whereas Punjabi discourse which is naturally most suited to the Punjabis may be a perfect medium as to how those questions should be asked, but doesn't understand the nature of those questions. Only literacy combined with proper education will enable the Punjabis to understand and ask those questions to address their needs.
If language is merely a tool of communication then one can resort to many kinds of Esperantos. Punjabi phenomenon viewed in its totality is a living organism that continues to form and evolve through the Aryan invasion, Muslim rule, British rule and now it is just like a vehicle with no wheels that is compelled to move and its is feeling the drag and heat that the diabolical speed of modernism is subjecting it to. This organism is thousands of years old and it will create enormous convulsions before it dies. This tension may surface as religious revivalism because religion serves as the ultimate legitimizer of dissent and it will be Punjabi's innate attempt to save its divine connection from being severed at the hands of modernism. With it you will have to kill hundreds of millions of people's identity, their heritage, literature, operative ideals that are a part of their thriving traditions. Iranian revolution for example, according to many studies, has little to do with Islam and much to do with the restoration of the original path of the thousands of years old Persian culture and tradition.
The first instrumental use of Punjabi can be to serve as a platform of inter-communal understanding, and thwart the vulgar Modernist threat to the Punjabi collectivity. There should be unity in diversity because order and chaos are both the sides of the Divine reality. By that rationale not only Punjabi, but all regional languages and their dialects should be viable media of communication, literature and education, notably the endangered dialects of Punjabi language. It should also be written in more than one scripts ( Gur Mukhi, Shah Mukhi and perhaps 'Roman Mukhi') so as to make Punjabi more accessible and easy to learn for most Punjabi people, than to make it difficult, especially the Punjabi youth residing overseas. Punjabi is not a state-sponsored language anywhere, therefore it doesn't need to be homogenized. It can be spoken in different dialects and written in different scripts. It is possible to not let the states destroy our tradition by living our tradition. And also, Punjabi art should be reproduced not for museums but for our intimate relationship with it, through which the Punjabi spirit will survive. However this is an extremely difficult task to accomplish in a capitalist social set up, where art and literature is also meant for commercial consumption in supermarkets.
Punjabi has the extra-ordinary capacity to accommodate very eclectically from all different traditions, languages and there is no reason to discourage that, rather it should be fostered. Any culture or civilization that does not borrow is primarily a barbaric culture, just like humans cannot lead isolated existence, societies which come in contact with each other cannot but borrow and lend. The inferiority complex that Punjabis have is because of preference of non-Punjabi language (which has been the function of state power) over the Punjabi language, and because of that Punjabi formalism has not been permitted to come into being.
Lastly, it doesn't have to be International and national languages versus Punjabi, but English Urdu and Punjabi, as former are very rich and phenomenally important Lingua Francas. Rather it is imperative for contemporary Punjabis to learn English for global use, so that they can be participants in the sharing of global wealth, while perfectionize and textualize Punjabi as the accepted language for local use, moreover popularize the use of Punjabi as the guardian of their culture and tradition. It is very challenging to devise the course of action for the Punjabi collectivity. In a favourable form of globalization, and perhaps under a confederation of the South Asian states it still may not be possible to organize joint efforts for trade and security exclusively on the basis of being Punjabi. If there is no chance of a Punjabi nation-state, it may put Punjabi culture in a vulnerable position vis-a-vis other ideological agendas, but it also frees Punjabi to develop naturally on its own, in absence of any meddling by the state.
What must be preserved is the spirit of Punjabi culture and its primordial nexus. Languages, ethnicities and cultures cannot be preserved as they are because they are highly fluid mediums which are subject to social change. But what can be preserved is the creative spirit that keeps them alive, and this spirit comes from beyond the material level of existence.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was born in 1869 in Porbander, India. He was educated as a lawyer in London. After a failed career in Bombay, he left for South Africa to work for a trading company where he organized Indians in their struggle against the Union Government of Jan Christiaan Smutts.
During the 20's he returned to his native India where, as the leader of Indian National Congress, he participated in and at times lead the drive for Swaraj (Home Rule.) He was famous for his sermons on religious truth, justice, Hindu-Muslim unity and vegetarianism. His feelings were tragically hurt when British India underwent vivisection on midnight August 14, 1947.
During his experimental life he was jailed in 1922, 1930, 1933, and 1942. He was deleted from the Indian scene on 30 January 1948 by an assassin's bullet.
Judith Brown's labour of love meticulously outlines the life of one of the fathers of Indian democracy: the task has not been an easy one. Brown had to wade through tons of newspaper articles, thousands of letters, and several biographies. Also, the interpretative problems of looking at the life of so enigmatic a figure must have proven overwhelming; historical complexities have been very difficult for her. The book is not exactly a scholarly success. (It is littered with typos and some footnotes numbers don't even have details attached to them. But this is a small point.)
The emergence of a savior is phenomenon many countries have had to face. In our very immediate past such religio-political leaders have passed their message on to people in the throes of liberation struggles. Dr. Ali Shari'ati with his tyrannicidal reinterpretations of the Koran was to lay down an insurrectionary procedure for the people of Iran. However, the cotton spinning Gandhi, was a very different Messiah.
For many in North America, Gandhi entered the contemporary public mind through Sir Richard Attenborough's malignantly flawed film "Gandhi." Also, many people may have come to Gandhi through his popularity among the less passionately driven leaders of the American Civil Rights movement. His repute spins out from the borders of the Indian sub-continent to every country that has been touched by the virtues of colonialism.
England's triumphal march of progress had systematically ravaged the pink areas on older world maps; hence Gandhiji was and is everywhere. He was that important an anti-imperialist: though, for one reason or another many have questioned and dismissed outright the strategic credibility of his "non-violence" against the Raj. Was he a catalyst or a vegetarian hindrance?
Brown is laudatory. Those of us who need to analytically look through the 20s, 30s, 40s, right up to the 15 of August 1947, when the transfer of power from Churchill's chilly England to Jawaharlal Nehru's developing "socialist" India took place, will have to look elsewhere. Brown is not very prone to useful deconstruction. One can however, see the bright side of her hagiographical skills.
This is not a work of vast theoretical judgments. Nor is it sufficiently critical of Gandhi's role in the slow move for Home Rule. There is a not a satisfactory debate on the surrounding circumstances such as the development of the concept and genesis of Pakistan. True, she does discuss Mohammad Ali's Jinnah's role in the Muslim League, but it is done in a way that does not challenge conventional explanations of Partition of 1947. Nor does Brown introduce the options that might have been available for the Quit India movement. (For example the violent potential of Subhas Chandra Bose's tin pot Indian National Army). Instead, we are introduced to Gandhi's personal hang-ups; his suicidal attachment to revolutionary avant-garde diet(s); his obsessions with brahmacharya (celibacy), his sometimes theatrical self-punitory fasts, his days of silence and his 24 hour a day desire for inner peace.
Brown is not devoted to dismantling the myths orbiting Gandhi. Brown's reinforces and perpetuates lofty notions about his immaculate greatness. Gushy admiration makes for old fashioned writing and dull reading. Other thinkers on this period such as Tariq Ali (An Indian Dynasty, 1985) have projected Gandhi as strategist who could not be ignored.
But because of Brown's inexorable bleating about the man's selfless devotion to landless peasants and his selfless work with the Harijans, (untouchables) his quest for inner peace, and the lot, we get an imbalanced view of the man. Brown makes him a total bore which he was not. Some think him a brilliant tactician which at times he was.
He made peasants aware of the concept of land reform but in critical moments countered with; "I shall throw the whole weight of my influence in preventing a class war. I shall be no party to dispossessing propertied classes of their property without just cause. Capitalists are fathers and workers their children." (David Selbourne: An Eye to India: Unmasking a Tyranny, 1977).
Gandhi did indeed have an effect on the politicization of peasants, just as did Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and his daughter Benazir Bhutto. But Brown does not elaborate on Gandji's tactical duplicity, of which there are so many examples that the mind boggles. At times, he appears like a stubborn old anti-industrial-pro-agrarian man in India and at others, a self absorbed saint.
Brown's work is as flawed as Sir Richard Attenborough's. The book has aggrandizements enough to last until the second coming -- stinking to high heaven.
In South Africa we are introduced to a shy man who found it hard to confront the most powerful expansionist machine on the face of the earth. Back then, England was very powerful, very convincing. Then, the many nations living under its august fluttering flags, roaring stony lions and dashing Viceroys wanted out, wanted independence. In South Africa he organized Indians. There is a claim that he was deeply involved with the forging of links between Hindus and Muslims. However, when his son Manilal fell in love with a Muslim woman, "Gandhi argued that such a match was contrary to dharma (duty). He said, "Your marriage will have a powerful impact on the Hindu-Muslim question. Inter-communal marriages are no solution to this problem". He "rearranged" his son's marriage to a "suitable" Hindu girl (pp.201). Such was the initial formation of his early anti-racism and commitment to intercommunal peace. It is cogent to note that in the scores of pages on his South African phase, not one word is spent on Gandhi's lack of connection with the Black struggle for freedom. If Brown can point out this characteristic attempt of Gandhi's Hindu-Muslim unity venture then why did she refrain from critically reflecting on his distance from the black drive for freedom?
As she puts it, "During the Boer War and Zulu Rebellion he volunteered his services as a non-combatant". To demonstrate Brown's skills of silence it is necessary to quote further: "Although his personal sympathies lay with the Boer's and the Zulus in each case he felt that if he demanded rights as a citizen of the empire so it was his duty to participate in its defense". Gandhi sided with empire.
At 38 years of age in 1907, was Gandhi not mature enough to take an articulate position on race and empire? His non-violent devotion to the latter is amply evident. Brown ought to have been clear on this question. Was the Mahatma (saint) disposed to side with Black Africans or not? If not, then what sort of predicative knowledge can we develop on Brown's kind of history?
There is frequent softness; she refers to the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre of 1919 as the Jallianwalla Bagh "firing". It is well known by now that this was General Dyer's very own cold blooded Massacre.
Despite Brown's extremely impressive fluency with the facts, she practices a delicate vice-regal shyness in indexing Gandhi's role in Quit India. In one chapter, "Non-Violence On Trial", where Brown is more critical than usual. But it falls short of other definitive works on Partition. Hamza Alavi's essays for example.
She spends little time spent on his Gandhi's battles with Nehru, and she does not discuss Chandra Bose's attempt to free India from the British with his Indian National Army. Could Bose's bows-and-arrows approach have accelerated the fall of the Raj? His liberation army could have struck Delhi in 1939 when the empire was weakened by yet another European tribal war. What did Gandhi think of this? Brown does not really detail how was he going to handle a Japanese invasion.
The list of analytical underdevelopment goes on.
(Julian J. Samuel has published 'Passage to Lahore' (1995), 'De Lahore à Montréal' (1996))