My two cents in response to Jiten Roy
1. Neither Dr. Bain nor I have suggested that Britain should not compromise on the principles of "freedom" and "secularism" even if not doing so involves the risk of a "complete defeat". It is not clear defeat of whom/what against what and in what front. I am assuming Dr. Roy is referring to "complete defeat of British culture" against aggrerssion of alien cultures. It is unfortunate that Dr. Roy himself being a beneficiary of multiculturalism detests it and says in a complaining tone that "it's those liberal politicians who introduced multi-culturalism in the USA to please recent immigrants-------." We need to note that the seed of multi-culturalism was sown in the American constitution in the very beginning. Not the "liberal politicians", it was the Civil Rights movements of 60s and 70s that emphasised the importance and justifiability of multi-cultaralism. Also it is not only about "recent immigrants" as has been claimed by him, it is about immigrants in general and also various minority groups within the USA. Every culture brings with it many good things. Openness to these good things enriches the society.
2. "Openness" is a key word. Openness of mind is a good things, but emptiness is not (Ambedkar). Freedom and secularism must be tied to another key phrase named "human rights". Any culture---domestic or alien--- must not be a threat to human rights. Polygamy or showing disrespect to women in other ways, for example, can be acceptable in a certain cultural group, to which a free and secular country must show zero tolerance. If such a country fails to do so, we have to say that the systems in that country are corrupted, flawed, or are full of loopholes. The policy and law makers, intelligentia, and the political parties must rise above narrow politics of power, hatred, and appeasement to fix their systems. Policy of sacrificing the concept of multi-culturalism cannot be a solution. We may try to understand the problem in the contexts of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.
3. "Superfluous adherence" to religions is not monopoly of the immigrants. Without going into details I just want to say that American people also share it.
4. Recent riots in Britain cannot be fully explained by a single factor called religious discrimination. Problems are more deep-rooted. Primarily, illiteracy, poverty, living conditions, etc. that have marginalized the immigrants can be better explanatory variables. Looks like Britain has now too many immigrants (definitely many illegal immigrants included suggesting loopholes or corruption in the system) to be able to handle efficiently. Quite distinct from the impoverished immigrants, there are groups many of whose members were born and brought up there. They are educated. They are politically indoctrinated, and their politics thrives on failures of the secular and democratic forces here and there. These movements will not die down until the democratic and secualr forces throughout the world get stronger and united not only in actions but also in voice against all sorts of injustices.
My two cents in response to Sukhamaya Bain
5. I agree on the basic nature of capitalism. There is a fundamental difference between state capitalism and private capitalism. There are reasons for the former to be inefficient (unless remedial measures are adopted) and the latter to be efficient. The latter loves to operate freely without any restrictions from the government. It loves to do so in every area including procurement of labor force. To maximize profit, the private businesses may violate and lobby to relax immigration rules. But the developed countries need immigrants for other reasons too. They need varieties of professionals to keep the system running. They also need brains from underdeveloped countries for research and innovations (scientific and non-scientific), arts, literature, and so on. They have other constitutional obligation too, for example, in the form of giving political asylum. Khomeini, the father of the Islamic revolution of Iran, was in France, not in a Shiite ruled country. Marx was in England.
6. Dr. Bain is right that formulation of immigration policies and implementation thereof could be done in a better way. But "bad" politics and corrupt and inefficient systems involving interests of diverse groups are there to keep the wish unfulfilled.
7. I agree that the powerful countries did not do enough to save the Bamiyan Buddha. There could be some options on the table. Probably they did not care because it carried a little value to them. Probably a handful of members of the intelligentia throughout the whole world wept at the irreparable loss the same way as subsequently they had to weep after seeing the destruction by American indiscriminate bombings as well as lootings of valuables of the Iraqi museums.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments (Re-sending with a Corretion)
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments (Re-sending with a Corretion)
I know what you are saying. The problem is money and politics. Now-a-days, one cannot be an effective politician without corrupt mind. Let's think about - 'multi-culturalism', instead of age-old 'melting-pot' principle in the USA. It's those liberal politicians who introduced the multi-culturalism in the USA to please recent immigrants, even though - it is not beneficial to the immigrant community. In my view, one of the principal causes for underdeveloped countries to be so is their superfluous adherence to their religions and religion-based cultures. The fact is - religion gets much more credit there than it really deserves. Yes, it has some place in life, but too much of it is bad. That balance is not maintained in the underdeveloped countries. They play politics with religion. When recent immigrants, clinging to their radical religious-cultures, realize they are lagging behind in a developed country, they cry discrimination, and find justification to trigger violence. Then there are others who are purposefully channeling this sentiment to achieve a defined goal. This is what is going on in Britain and other parts of the free societies.
You may opine that – Britain, being a free and secular society, should not compromise on their principles, even if it brings total defeat. That's not what politics is all about. There is no last word in politics. When you are playing a soccer game, you have to analyze opponent's strategy and device a counter-strategy accordingly, which could deviate from your usual fashion. I guess - that's what David Cameron just did.
Jiten Roy
From: Sukhamaya Bain <subain1@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments (Re-sending with a Corretion)
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 24, 2011 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments (Re-sending with a Corretion)
I am not sure what drives the Americans and the Europeans. It does puzzle me that they take in corrupt and religious fanatic people from other parts of the world. May be, it is irresponsible capitalism for short-term benefits for the rich system; they do need people to do their odd jobs, for which they have a shortage of manpower. Of course, they are civilized, and their system does not allow perpetual servitude by the immigrants; and the next generations of the immigrants do have all the rights.
The problem is, their system requires them to treat the corrupt and the fanatics with all the rights. As a result, they face the prospect of infesting their societies with incivility, such as women being forced to marry against their will, corruption in everyday affairs of life, disharmony between religious and ethnic groups, etc.
I think, if America and Europe were doing it in a more responsible way, they would be selective about what kind of people could get immigration to their countries. They would do screening to weed out the corrupt and the religious fanatics within the newcomers to their societies. They could also insist that the potential new immigrants would pledge to adhere to the civilized values of the societies that they are going to, leaving a lot of nonsense behind. However, the pledges probably would not work very well, as adult minds generally do not change too much, and the pledges would likely to be broken.
I think, the problem with selfish capitalism is that it is too much bent on interests, often short-sighted, as opposed to principles. The way I see it, the civilized world should have taken strong principled actions to prevent the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by Islamic fanatics in early 2001. I believe, that would have provided better education for the fanatics than the multi-trillion dollar wars in Afghanistan and Iraq after September 11, 2001.
Sukhamaya Bain
From: subimal chakrabarty <subimal@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments
Whatever the case, it would be improper for sitting PM of a secular country to defend a particular religion or a religious group against any kind of cultural aggression, particularly if the perceived rival is another religion. If the cultural influence is potentially harmful, that has to be faced differently (education, arts, humanities, philosophy, ethics, etc.) The principle of separation of church and state came from Europe. England was a great partner in that endeavor. Light came from them for the modern world. It would be unfortunate if they now forget what they taught the world one day. They need to be fair: no appeasement, no aninosity either.
From: Jiten Roy <jnrsr53@yahoo.com>
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments
To: "mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com" <mukto-mona@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [mukto-mona] David Cameron says UK is a cristian country - my comments
You are right – nobody is forcing them to embrace Islam. The threat is not from the conversion, it's from the cultural side. Islamists want to shape their societies, wherever they are, in their own way through Sharia Laws and other traditional cultural practices. No one can blame them; it's a part of their religious obligations/rights. Such cultural changes are bound to clash with the host cultural traditions, which is like a clash of civilization. This problem is beginning to show up in all free societies around the world.
A free society has to allow religious rights of others, while preserving their own cultural and traditional identities. This is an insurmountable problem, and it could end all amenities of a free society, as we know today, and polarize it strictly toward its traditional cultural roots. Signs are already visible in many countries around the world. It will only get stronger in the future, unless all parasitic cultures stop their invasive practices sooner than later.
Jiten Roy
__._,_.___
