Issue 42 Vol II, June 30, 2007

F E A T U R E S

Reason, sympathy and human relations
Ishtiaq Ahmed

CAN one agree on a principle that can serve as the basis for the establishment of genuine peace and harmony in the world? Some people think that if the whole world became good Muslims or good Christians, it would create true brotherhood and sisterhood. Now, considering that both groups comprise more than a billion each (Islam in its various sectarian forms is given as 1.3 billion and Christianity 1.9 billion) converting one to the other may take a very long time.

Also, we would still have 650 million Confucians (mainly Chinese), 700 million Hindus (including the upper castes, the other backward castes and the scheduled castes and tribes), 400 million Buddhists, 20 million Sikhs, 13 million Jews and then smaller groups such as the Bahais, Ahmadis, Jains, animists (if any have been allowed to survive) and others who have no specific religious affiliation or who choose to denounce their religious beliefs. To make humanity as a whole adhere to one comprehensive religious faith with its doctrines and dogmas is impossible.

One need not be very clever to realise that we will have to find a principle that does not require total conversion of people to a particular belief or detailed code of conduct in order to establish mutually respectful relations among all groups and individuals within them.

We very often tend to believe that within groups strong emotional bonds and ties of solidarity exist. This is a myth and has always been a myth. Except for very small communities comprising a few households close contact between people does not take place and when it does it is not always friendly and deeply loyal. We therefore need a principle which is simple and practical and one that everyone can accept as fair on the basis of which the foundations of mutual respect and peace can be laid.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) proposed the 'Categorical Imperative' as the overarching principle that can serve such a purpose. The categorical imperative says that one should act only on those rules of action that one wants to be made universal laws. It would declare as immoral a rule of conduct that implies that one person may do something but another, in similar circumstances, may not. In other words, it demands consistency. In other words, what's alright for me is alright for you if our relevant circumstances are similar.

Therefore, one cannot legitimately demand a ban on one religion without demanding the same for other religions, but one is perfectly justified in demanding that human rights violations should not occur in the name of religion and that should apply to all religions. Similarly if I can occupy someone's home then it is alright for the other bloke to try to do the same. But of course I would not want him to do that, so it would be wrong for me to do the same.

The categorical imperative also states that one should treat humanity or rational beings as an end and never as a means only. Human beings are uniquely capable of reasoning about their choices and therefore are inherently valuable and worthy of respect for this reason. For human beings to realise their inner worth it is important that they enjoy meaningful autonomy vis-à-vis state and society. Autonomy makes it possible for us to make rationally and morally correct choices, which according to Kant is all about protection of our basic interests.

If such a principle were to be made not only on the basis of conduct between human beings but also states then the occupation of Iraq by President Bush and his allies would not take place. On the other hand, it would be perfectly correct to wage war on those who are responsible for 9/11. The categorical imperative is not a one-sided application of a principle. It requires that everyone complies with it in their own interest.

But others argue against rationality alone as the basis for claiming and enjoying rights on grounds that there are human beings who are not able to reason in accordance with a conventional understanding of rationality. These include children and those suffering from impairment of their reasoning abilities. Also, not very long ago women, working people, and some ethnic and racial groups were also considered incapable of acting like rational human beings.

The emphasis on rationality is, therefore, not the true basis of rights. It can confine the right to enjoy rights arbitrarily to some groups or class of people. Therefore, it is asserted, that the true basis of peace among human beings has to be human sympathy and solidarity, or in other words, the human conscience.

Proceeding along such lines some argue that the right to rights should not be confined to the Homo sapiens: animals and nature should also be embraced because specie-ism (that is privileging one's own species) is irrational and immoral. Moreover, it is argued, from a practical point of view that humankind's supremacy over other forms of nature is untenable in the long run. We have to learn to live as part of nature and in communion with it.

Some people go further and urge that we have to start working on this principle now. Global warming is the wakeup call we must heed and change our lifestyles to recognise that human beings, animals and nature in general have to live in communion and harmony with each other. Thus, the age of rights has to be re-defined in the light of the objective reality around us.

The philosophers are extending the theoretical horizons and frontiers of discussion on rights in directions which are as yet unclear, but I would argue that concern for the rights of human beings and the organisations and institutions that represent their interests should remain of paramount concern because even if a paradigmatic shift from the rights of human beings to the all-inclusive idea of the rights of different forms of nature may be on the way, it need not be seen as a mutually exclusive arrangement.

Whatever we think about who should and who should not have rights is after all dependent on the human conscience because neither animals nor other forms of nature are burdened with the problem of being at ease with one's conscience. It is a human predicament and not a predicament of all living things or for that matter of nature.

[The writer is professor of political science at the University of Stockholm, Sweden. Ishtiaq.Ahmed-@statsvet.su.se.  courtesy News International, Pakistan]

BACK

Please use your liberty to promote liberty
Why Aung San Suu Kyi is still under arrest?

ON June 19 pro-democracy leader and Nobel Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, marked another of her birthday in prison. This valiant woman is now 62 and has spent much of the last two decades either imprisoned or under house arrest at the command of a repressive army junta now controlling Myanmar This time she has nearly 12 years in detention. She lives in complete segregation in a peeling lakeside villa on Rangoon's University Avenue, and no one can dare visit her. Her phone line has been cut and her post is routinely intercepted. The current detention of this democratically leader of the Burmese people began on 30 May 2003 when her convoy was attacked by a militia backed by the regime. She escaped the attack, but lost around 100 of her supporters.

Suu Kyi is much loved by the Burmese people and hated by the military dictators and the result is her long imprisonment.

Her father, General Aung San, negotiated Burma's independence from Britain in 1945 before being assassinated by his rivals. She has not only a resolute democrat, but loves her people. Myanmar has suffered untold misery and the world, particularly countries in the region Indian included just ignored her struggle and suffering the people. Powerful countries, America and United Kingdom and Russia that have invaded other countries to establish ‘democracy’ [Iraq, Afghanistan and what next] have paid little attention the tragedy that has befallen this small beautiful country once ruled by the British and now by a military junta In 1988, 3,000.democracy activists were massacred by the government, Suu Kyi established the National League for Democracy (NLD). In 1990 the regime called a general election. Suu Kyi's party won convincingly, securing 392 of 485 seats, but the authorities refused to hand over power. That year she was awarded the Sakharov Prize, and in 1991, the Nobel Peace Prize, the award being collected by her two sons, Alexander and Kim, in her absence.

The regime has routinely fabricated a range of charges against her. It even accused the Oxford-educated Suu Kyi of illegally avoiding paying tax when she spent the $1.3m award money from the Nobel Prize to establish a health and education fund for Burmese people. Brave Suu Kyi’s husband, Michael Aris, an Oxford professor, was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1997 and was refused a visa for Burma. Suu Kyi was faced with an agonising dilemma. If she left Burma, she would never be to return and or leave her sick husband without her. She chose to stay in Burma, and Mr Aris died in March 1999. What courage is this and she has lived as per her own book, Life Without Fear. Their two sons live alone in England.

Intriguingly despite calls from Suu Kyi for countries to impose sanctions, only the US has imposed a blanket ban on investment. The EU has imposed much more limited, targeted sanctions, which are ineffective. Violence and secrecy also shore up the regime. Regional powers India, China and Russia - all of which have substantial financial and trade links with the regime, offer political support, and supply it with weapons. “In January, China and Russia were condemned for vetoing a UN Security Council resolution requiring the restoration of democracy to Burma. India has been widely condemned for supporting the regime, in particular for its involvement in the massive Shwe gas project, which includes a pipeline to India.  The project will be the regime's largest single source of revenue, providing it with an average of $580m per annum for 20 years, a total of $12bn”, a newspaper report said.

What a disgraceful situation for counties like India, China and Russia and the United Kingdom and many others including the United Nations. The question is not the liberty of one person, but of the people of Myanmar.

BACK

Western Justice:  the War Monger to Build Peace
Blair Unlikely to Clear Bush’s Mess
Dr Sawraj Singh writes from Washington

Mr. Blair was relieved from the Prime Minister’s job on June 27. The Labour Party had asked him to quit and Gordon Brown was chosen to replace him. However, Mr. Blair, along with Mr. Bush, has succeeded in securing a place in history. The pair will be remembered as the two people most responsible for the decline of the West and ruin of people of Iraq and Afghanistan. It is ironical that Mr. Blair has been appointed the Middle East envoy for the US, European Union, Russia, and the UN. He was responsible for implementing the heinous and unsuccessful policies of Mr. Bush in the region. Saddam Hussein was hanged for ordering the death of a few hundred Kurds and Shias, but Mr. Blair is being rewarded for being responsible for the deaths of close to a million people, most of them innocent civilians. Is this an example of western justice?

It is obvious that Mr. Blair cannot succeed as an envoy of the Middle East. He is perceived as heavily tilted towards Israel and the Arabs and Muslims can never trust him. To succeed in diplomacy for a settlement, the first condition is that both sides should feel that the person is neutral. Hamas has already raised questions about Blair’s neutrality. Mr. Blair could never establish himself as an independent thinker. He was perceived by many as a faithful follower of President Bush. Some even called him a peon of President Bush.

President Bush’s Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East policies have failed so badly that now even prominent Republicans have started criticizing them. The latest Republican leader to criticize the Iraq policy is Senator Richard Lugar. More than 70% of Americans do not approve of President Bush’s Iraq policy.

Iraq is going from bad to worse with no hope of stability. Most of the Iraqis are losing faith in the ability of the Iraqi government and the Americans to control Iraq. More and more Iraqis are convinced that the American troops in Iraq are the major obstacle in bringing peace and order in Iraq. These troops are perceived more of as a problem than as a solution. Many Shias are now turning against them.

The situation in Afghanistan is equally bad. Kabul is becoming another Baghdad. Many civilians are being killed by the NATO forces. This is leading to growing resentment for the Americans and the other westerners. Even President Karzai had to passionately condemn the killing of the civilians. A recent UN report showed that the opium trade is the only economy flourishing in Afghanistan. 92% of the world’s poppy crop is grown in Afghanistan. Since the occupation of Afghanistan by the foreign forces, the area under poppy cultivation has grown by 60%.

The situation in Lebanon and Palestine seems to be moving toward civil war. In both instances, the radical forces are poised to win. This will make any compromise extremely difficult if not impossible. The pro-Western regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, and Fatah in Palestine are on the defensive while Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas appear to be on the offensive.

Mr. Blair is unlikely to succeed in cleaning the mess made by the Bush policies. He was asked by his own party to quit. How can he succeed in undoing the effects of his own wrongdoings? The mess they made is too complex for anyone to fix. He certainly does not look like the person who is right for the job.

BACK