CAUSES AND EFFECTS
in science, determining cause and effect is accomplished by controlling for all but one variable. any changes in development can therefore be traced to that variable. the nature versus nurture debate is tested by the study of twins. start with the same genes and any substantial differences can, by elimintion, be attributed to socialization.
in his wednesday column in the new york times thomas l. friedman claimed that he performed this analysis on india and pakistan and found the determining variable.
the subcontinent provides a rare opportunity to apply this analytical method to social and political development. before partition in 1947 it was ruled over by the british raj with it's liberal political philosophy, civil service and legal structures.
first friedman described the conditions of the common genetic starting point: "people have the same basic blood, brains and civilizational heritage" in both countries; before partition there was a "long history of indian muslims and hindus living together in villages and towns, sharing communal institutions and mixing their cultures and faiths."
and then friedman described the wildly differernt trajectories that the countries have taken since they were born. india is a "teeming multiethnic, multireligous, multilingual country...one of the world's great wonders--a miracle..."
pakistan on the other hand is "50 years of failed democracy, military coups. and imposed religosity...[that] churns out pakistani youth who know only the koran and hostility toward non-muslims."
the difference, according to friedman is democracy. india has it and pakistan doesn't. "if islam is ever to undergo a reformation, as chirstianity and judaism did, it's only going to happen in a muslim democracy."
he makes his argument with the passionate use of repetitive rhetorical questions, "is it an accident..." that no indian muslim was a member of al qaeda? "is it an accident..." that indian-pakistani wars have occurred under pakistani military regimes? "is it an accident..." that only in india did muslim women demand equal prayer rights?, etc. all of these differences he says can be attributed to democracy.
this site has long and consistently argued for actions by the u.s.government that would encourage democracy in the islamic world but friedman deliberately blurs cause and effect. democracy is not the root cause of anything. democracy is dependent on and is the product of a particular social and political philosophy. that philosophy is political liberalism--freedom of thought, expression, assembly, press, etc. values that inform meaningful electoral choice.
the different developmental trajectories of india and pakistan can be traced to the differences in heir social and political philosophies.
the "idea of india" is described by sunil khilnani in his book of the same name: "nehru's idea of india sought to coorrdinate within the form of a modern state a variety of values: democracy, religious tolerance, economic development and cultural pluralism."
syed shahabuddin, an indian muslim quoted by friedman makes the same point that friedman deliberately ignores, "india is a democracy, AND MORE THAN THAT A SECULAR DEMOCRACY...[emphasis added]". "it s precisely because of the 'CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK [emphasis added] here' " that muslims in india don't have to resort to violence.
pakistan on the other hand cast off the political and social inheritance it shared with india for an original position characterized by no seperation of church and state, no constitutional framework, no freedom of thought, expression, etc. and CONSEQENTLY no meaningful electoral choice.
the reason is islam. it is not so much a religion as a totalitarian philosophy. it dictates every aspect of life, from what is taught in the schools to the way science is practiced, to social relations, town planning, achitecture, the economy and which way toilets must face (never with the unit or the user facing mecca).
friedman does not miss this elementary point. that it is not democracy that is the original position, but socio-political philosophy.
he deliberately obscures it because to do otherwise woud be to criticize a whole "religion" and thomas friedman cannot bring himself to do that, no matter that islam is unsurpassed among the world's religions in suppresing it's own people, no matter that it is unequaled in demonizing and dehumanizing non-believers, no matter that islam "has bloody borders" in samuel huntington's famous phrase, no matter that this "religion" is in practice fascism with a godhead, no matter what the evidence. this is what he says:
"people say islam is an angry religion. i disagree. it's just that a lot of muslims are angry, because they live under repressive regimes, with no rule of law..."
"is it an accident..." mr. friedman that those muslims who live in, move to, are educated in, or otherwise exposed to western political values are precisely those that dominate membership in al qaeda?
"is it an accident..." mr. friedman that in this "end of history" world, where the debate over democracy is over, that only in the islamic civilization is democracy virtually unheard of?
"is it an accident..." mr. friedman that in the first fully islamic republic in iran democracy is seen to be a "subjective term" so full of "western baggage" that it is to be avoided like the "plague?" 1
"is it an accident... "that no other civilization deliberately targets innocents as part of it's war strategy?
"is it an accident..." that in no other civilization are women kept is such near-servitude?
"is it an accident..." that after one thousand years islam has not gone through a reformation?
friedman's position is not just the conscious but harmless self-delusion of one man. he is an opinion maker on the biggest stage in the west. he would never say that nazism is not an angry philosophy, that it's just that a lot of nazis are angry, but in the face of a philosophy that kills jews--not just israelis--all of over the world as lustily as any brown shirt ever did, in the face of a philosophy that sacrifices it's young people in suicide missions exactly as tghe japanese did their kamikaze fighters, in the face of a philosophy that is as dictatorial as the soviet union, in the face of all this, thomas friedman, because this philosophy calls itself a religion, for the sake of civility and political correctness, deliberately obscures this evil, appeases this ruthless civilization, and minimizes the nature of the theat that the west faces in conflict with that civilization.
democracy is not the root cause of the differences between india and pakistan or islam and the rest of the world. islam is the difference and democracy will never exist in islamic countries until islam changes.
-benjamin harris
