More on Joy's HIR Article
http://unheardvoice.net/blog/2009/04/26/wazed-and-ciovacco-a-missed-opportunity/
The analysis above in the blog - Unheard Voices - is a thorough point by point analysis of the original HIR article by Wazed and Ciovacco. Since the publication of the article by Joy, much has been made about the value of the HIR as a journal. I am inclined to believe that if Joy was not the son of Awami League Leader, and also claiming to be her adviser, I doubt he would have seen this article accepted in the journal. Nor should we forget that it it is not an academic journal, and does not have a credible peer review board on articles. No wonder, as the Drishtipat author in the above blog has cited, there are many inconsistencies, not just with missing citation of sources of information - credible references but even with wrong English, composition, etc. The journal with the Harvard name (although nothing to do with the Ivy League school - Harvard University) nonetheless has been able to attract articles from many politicians and policy makers around the world and is distributed around some 70 countries. It is also a pace-setter on many controversial subjects.
HIR, according to Wikipedia, was founded in 1979. In its own website it claims: "The HIR features underappreciated topics in the international affairs discourse and underappreciated perspectives on more widely discussed topics. The HIR aims to serve as a trend-setter among similar publications by directing rather than following the public’s attention.... The HIR is more a source of analysis than a source of news or editorial commentary. Its main purpose is not to present facts previously unreported elsewhere. The HIR distinguishes itself primarily by serving as a forum for academic debate, rigorously applying theory to case studies, analyzing historical trends, and making informed predictions."
As the Joy and Ciovacco - article has demonstrated, the HIR does stir debate with its contents. I shall make some observations (by no means a complete or thorough one; my comments soon appeared after the original article was published, and may still be viewed in my own blogspot). The authors had clear agenda to go after the so-called Islamists in Bangladesh, and tried to paint their picture accordingly in a careless fashion that would somehow show its connection with Jamat-e Islami (JI). {We see a similar trend in Mubarak's Egypt with Ikhwan. Every Islam-centric organization - political and non-political including the NGOs - is deemed to have connections with the Ikhwan.} It is like killing two birds with one stone! Forgotten in that context was that the JI might not have any connection with such organizations, ideological or whatsoever (after all, JI believes in constitutional democracy, much like Ikhwan in Egypt, and not something those terrorists stand for through violent overthrow of the government).
Terrorism, no matter how local-centric, may sometimes be influenced by non-local events more as an expression of its anger or frustration that is vented out locally. In an electronic world of our time, it is therefore quite difficult to fight such a brand of terrorism. Examples are plenty to support my point here, from 9/11 attack in the USA to attempts on tourists in Egypt. So, the only way to fight that form of terrorism will require redressing the root cause that gives the impetus for violence.
As to the burqa or more correctly hijab issue, I believe that it is a global phenomenon seen worldwide today. The entire world is seeing a resurgence among believers to go back to their religions. It is no wonder that more than 80 million Christians in the USA today claim to be fundamentalists, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, second coming of Jesus, Armageddon, killing of non-Christians, etc. In the last ten years, the Muslim world has also seen her share of troubles vis-a-vis the powerful non-Muslim world: how e.g., the Judeo-Christian-Hindu triangle of extremists (Likudnik-Christian Right-Sangh Parivar) has tried to undermine Muslim interest throughout the world. [Many Pakistanis, e.g., believe that India is behind much of instability in Pakistan today.] This has created a psychological pressure to look inward for many conscientious Muslims, esp. those living outside the so-called Dar-al-Islam. Many feel challenged or motivated to show their Islamic identity. Interestingly, it has also been found that women wearing conservative dress, e.g., hijab, are less likely to be harassed by others. I am sure many Muslim women can testify of the same in our crime-prone cities across Bangladesh. So, if they don hijab, it is not necessarily a statement of Islamism or fundamentalism, but may be more due to their choice of looking beautiful and yet modest, while being less harassed by loafers and goondas.
We are also seeing a polarization on social norms within much of our urban population. This is creating much confusion among the policy makers of major political parties in Bangladesh that don't want to be identified as either this or that. Thus, in spite of claims by either netris as being leaders of secular parties, they don't like appearing in public without their ghomta on. That is, both are cognizant about importance of religion or its sentimental values on wider public. Such a behavior, often viewed hypocritical, has not been uncommon in our subcontinent since the days of the Swaraj Andolon in the pre-Partition days of India. M.K. Gandhi himself exploited such religious sentiments for the sake of politics. As we can all testify, the end result has not been what Gandhi had hoped for. It was a divided India along the religious line. This is something that all leaders of the future and today need to take a serious look into.
The analysis above in the blog - Unheard Voices - is a thorough point by point analysis of the original HIR article by Wazed and Ciovacco. Since the publication of the article by Joy, much has been made about the value of the HIR as a journal. I am inclined to believe that if Joy was not the son of Awami League Leader, and also claiming to be her adviser, I doubt he would have seen this article accepted in the journal. Nor should we forget that it it is not an academic journal, and does not have a credible peer review board on articles. No wonder, as the Drishtipat author in the above blog has cited, there are many inconsistencies, not just with missing citation of sources of information - credible references but even with wrong English, composition, etc. The journal with the Harvard name (although nothing to do with the Ivy League school - Harvard University) nonetheless has been able to attract articles from many politicians and policy makers around the world and is distributed around some 70 countries. It is also a pace-setter on many controversial subjects.
HIR, according to Wikipedia, was founded in 1979. In its own website it claims: "The HIR features underappreciated topics in the international affairs discourse and underappreciated perspectives on more widely discussed topics. The HIR aims to serve as a trend-setter among similar publications by directing rather than following the public’s attention.... The HIR is more a source of analysis than a source of news or editorial commentary. Its main purpose is not to present facts previously unreported elsewhere. The HIR distinguishes itself primarily by serving as a forum for academic debate, rigorously applying theory to case studies, analyzing historical trends, and making informed predictions."
As the Joy and Ciovacco - article has demonstrated, the HIR does stir debate with its contents. I shall make some observations (by no means a complete or thorough one; my comments soon appeared after the original article was published, and may still be viewed in my own blogspot). The authors had clear agenda to go after the so-called Islamists in Bangladesh, and tried to paint their picture accordingly in a careless fashion that would somehow show its connection with Jamat-e Islami (JI). {We see a similar trend in Mubarak's Egypt with Ikhwan. Every Islam-centric organization - political and non-political including the NGOs - is deemed to have connections with the Ikhwan.} It is like killing two birds with one stone! Forgotten in that context was that the JI might not have any connection with such organizations, ideological or whatsoever (after all, JI believes in constitutional democracy, much like Ikhwan in Egypt, and not something those terrorists stand for through violent overthrow of the government).
Terrorism, no matter how local-centric, may sometimes be influenced by non-local events more as an expression of its anger or frustration that is vented out locally. In an electronic world of our time, it is therefore quite difficult to fight such a brand of terrorism. Examples are plenty to support my point here, from 9/11 attack in the USA to attempts on tourists in Egypt. So, the only way to fight that form of terrorism will require redressing the root cause that gives the impetus for violence.
As to the burqa or more correctly hijab issue, I believe that it is a global phenomenon seen worldwide today. The entire world is seeing a resurgence among believers to go back to their religions. It is no wonder that more than 80 million Christians in the USA today claim to be fundamentalists, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible, second coming of Jesus, Armageddon, killing of non-Christians, etc. In the last ten years, the Muslim world has also seen her share of troubles vis-a-vis the powerful non-Muslim world: how e.g., the Judeo-Christian-Hindu triangle of extremists (Likudnik-Christian Right-Sangh Parivar) has tried to undermine Muslim interest throughout the world. [Many Pakistanis, e.g., believe that India is behind much of instability in Pakistan today.] This has created a psychological pressure to look inward for many conscientious Muslims, esp. those living outside the so-called Dar-al-Islam. Many feel challenged or motivated to show their Islamic identity. Interestingly, it has also been found that women wearing conservative dress, e.g., hijab, are less likely to be harassed by others. I am sure many Muslim women can testify of the same in our crime-prone cities across Bangladesh. So, if they don hijab, it is not necessarily a statement of Islamism or fundamentalism, but may be more due to their choice of looking beautiful and yet modest, while being less harassed by loafers and goondas.
We are also seeing a polarization on social norms within much of our urban population. This is creating much confusion among the policy makers of major political parties in Bangladesh that don't want to be identified as either this or that. Thus, in spite of claims by either netris as being leaders of secular parties, they don't like appearing in public without their ghomta on. That is, both are cognizant about importance of religion or its sentimental values on wider public. Such a behavior, often viewed hypocritical, has not been uncommon in our subcontinent since the days of the Swaraj Andolon in the pre-Partition days of India. M.K. Gandhi himself exploited such religious sentiments for the sake of politics. As we can all testify, the end result has not been what Gandhi had hoped for. It was a divided India along the religious line. This is something that all leaders of the future and today need to take a serious look into.
Comments
Post a Comment