dec 20th, 2006
this is an excellent example of the way white people have always felt about pathans. they have been intimidated and awed by the violence and primitive brutishness of the tribes. also, the pathans have actually defeated the christists in the british-afghan wars, wiping out their expeditionary force, including the whites and their indian conscripts, massacring them to basically the last man.
therefore the white christists are scared of pathans. they are not scared of hindus, because hindus are not violent. net net, the only people who get any respect are the violent ones. we need some violent people to get respect.
this same fear is seen in the manomohansingh-soniagandhi-arjunsingh type of person in india. thus they will do anything to appease the mohammedans, imputing afghan-type violent tendencies to them. and it is equally fruitless because it simply increases their demands.
not only is it the white guys, but i also believe that certain white females -- such as barbara crossette, robin raphel -- have entertained notions about afghan virility that have clouded their judgment. in this case it is a mixture of horror and fascination about the afghans' well-established preference for anal sex, and for young boys. i have read british colonial-era books too in which the white women had this fantasy-horror-desire about being raped by these very manly and tough pathans.
http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8345531
also, i found this passage remarkable:
To settle disputes, Mr Kuchi has two main options. He can order a guilty party to compensate its victim with cash, a practice known as wich pur, "dry debt", or he can order the two parties to exchange women, or lund pur, "wet debt". By binding the antagonists together—just as in medieval European diplomacy—lund pur is considered more effective. Typically it involves exchanging a 15-year-old, a ten-year-old and a five-year-old girl, to be married into three succeeding generations of the enemy clan. Thereby, and though human-rights groups understandably revile the practice, Pushtuns have peace and happy grandfathers.
i dont think 'lund pur' means exactly 'wet debt', if i remember my hindi/urdu, it is rather more graphic and picturesque than that.
and the white guy writing this seems a little jealous of 'the happy grandfathers', ie. the guys getting to marry the fifteen-year-olds.
this sort of acceptance of extreme chattelization of women betrays the white guy's own semitic perspective that women are worth nothing.
5 comments:
excerpt from Rajeev's article
"the honourable Pushtun embraces two obligations. He will offer hospitality, malmastai, to anyone needing it. And he will give sanctuary, nanawatai, to whoever requests it. Stories of extreme generosity are common in Pushtun places." - are these Islamic/Arabic values?
are'nt these Hindu values - I was suspicious when they said that they would not hand over OBL because he was a "Sharnarthi". If it is a Hindu value then the funny thing is that Afghans and US were fighting over a Hindu value!
How much of it is true how much is just caricaturization by white westerners feeding on their prejudices.
It really galls me to see that we still rely on western journalists, writers etc. to inform ourselves about other fellow non-westerners. We are still set in colonial mind set- If we want to learn about non-westerners, of course we
should read western writers because only they can be objective observers, on the other hand if we want to learn about west, again we should refer to westerners because who could be more authoritative than them, certainly not an ignorant easterner. Here is challenge- when you read western writers notice how many time they quote/refer any eastern author etc. and when you read eastern authors see how much they quote/refer westerners and how much easterners. BTW a nice rejoinder by an afghani woman about the caricaturization of afghanis by westerners in Washington Post:
Guest Analyst
The West Quiets Afghan Women
Sima Wali - Although women have made major strides towards equality in the 21st century, we also see a lingering tendency in the West to restrain these advances around the world. Let's turn to history for a moment.
Although women have made major strides towards equality in the 21st century, we also see a lingering tendency in the West to restrain these advances around the world. Let's turn to history for a moment.
Often dismissed as an anomaly, Afghan civil society blossomed under King Amanullah from 1919 to 1929. Declaring his independence from Britain in his inaugural address, Amanullah's sought to abolish slavery, discourage the veil, empower women, and introduce secular education for girls. Afghanis generally accepted these reforms as in keeping with Islamic law.
But Britain's colonial gatekeepers opposed a secular, democratic Afghanistan. They, in the words of former U.S. Ambassador Leon Poullada, "saw a modernizing of Afghanistan as a threat to British rule in India since it offered an example of the kind of progress free Asians could achieve..."
Afghanistan is still viewed through a colonial lens. Despite real changes that have occurred during the last two centuries, the Victorian mentality -- immortalized by story-tellers like Rudyard Kipling -- obscures the many ways Afghanistan citizens strive for modernity.
During the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, America's journalists reconstituted the old British myths of "fierce tribal Afghan warriors," and today this faux mythologizing is reaching new heights, burying the real yearnings of Afghanistan's people. The movie Charlie Wilson's War now being filmed in Morocco may well further engrain these powerful misconceptions in the psyche of Americans and the world.
Governments and civil society must work to overcome such false image making. We must demand a genuine, honest 21st century mythology from our storytellers. We must stretch our imaginations and construct images of a future that we can all live within. We must appreciate that most of Afghanistan's men and women yearn for modernity, not tribal war.
Sima Wali is the President of Refugee Women in Development (RefWID). She lives between Afghanistan and the U.S.
By Sima Wali | December 19, 2006; 5:12 PM ET
bly243001,
Fundamentally I agree with you that we should rely on our own journalists to understand other peoples.
The problem is this - I do not rely on Indian Journalists to report on India honestly. Why would I trust them when they report on any other country? The problem is that in India we have single, double and triple dhimmis"
1. Dhimmis
2. Chinese Dhimmis (Chimmis?)
3. White Man Dhimmies (Whimmies?) - Macaulayites would be a subset of this type.
You have people in multiple combinations of the above three qualities. Our present PM is a full fledged triple-dhimmi. Mani Shankar Iyer exhibited the qualities of 1+2, but not 3. Mathematically speaking there are nine combinations of the above three variables with PM Lord Sir MoinMohammed Ching at 111 (8) and Savarkar types at 000 (0). There is so much self-loathing present in Indian journos. I do not mind BA pass duffers but at least the person should not be driven by self-hatred. Somebody who is so full of self-hatred is basically useless as an observer or commentator or journalist.
For example if you send Prafool Bhadwai or N Mao Ram to China would you read anything they write? What about if Arundirty is sent to report from Afghanistan (would that not be fun?) would you believe anything she writes - even otherwise if you have 2 or more neurons you would not read anything she writes. Construct your own scenarios with various journalists here to your hearts content. Pretty much anyone who has gone through our education system is infected by this virus. Most of us are recovering after we spent years reading up outside sources to deprogram and disinfect ourselves from the intensive brainwashing that goes on in India. There are very few Savarkar types who were immune to this infection from a very young age.
So what do you do - ignore everything written by westerners or just read it and filter out for yourself? Another option might be for all of us to study written Japanese.
I also question this statement by Sima Wali above
"We must appreciate that most of Afghanistan's men and women yearn for modernity"
If this is the case don't the Indian Muslims have sufficient opportunities to satisfy their "yearning for modernity" - then how come they are so backward - the only yearning they have is for Sharia/jihad/DarulIslum. I submit to you that if everyone leaves the situation if Afghanistan would not be very different.
The article itself reveals the very low status Afghan society accords its women.
Quote
" Then some Bhattani hotheads abducted two Marwat girls; and Mr Kamal went Pushtun-postal. Leading an army of 4,000 Marwat fighters, equipped with artillery, he levelled a Bhattani town, killing 80 people, including the two unlucky, but nonetheless dishonoured, girls."
Unquote
Quote
"Another big difference between the codes is in their treatment of women. In sharia law, there can be no exchange of women as a means to end disputes, and women are guaranteed some rights of inheritance—unlike in Pushtunwali. Nor does sharia law recognise the Pushtun habit of wife inheritance, wherein a widow is forcibly married to her dead husband's brother or cousin. “Such things happen when people are uneducated,” sniffed Maulvi Sayeed. “We don't oppose the system of tribal elders but they must follow the way of Islam. They can convene jirgas and dispense the law, but the law must be that of sharia.”
He's afraid of losing his head, or worse, his own daughter."
So this is a land of endless feuds, murders and rapes. Women are almost universally victims here, to be traded and bartered to keep their men happy or alive.
A truly horrific society.
White man is scared of this and is happy to justify that just to get out alive.
Of course, he can still come to india and say "look how badly you Hindoos treat women"; enough indians will parrot "aye aye sir" to ingratiate themselves to mr gora (like Amartya Sen).
This is an absolute bogus report. Yes, the British did admire Pathans, not at all because of their appearance, only because of their courage and ability to fight, valour etc. The quote you have used about the common black Mohammedan, that is referring to the Nuristani/Kalasha people, not to the Pathans. Kipling was aware of the differences between the aforementioned people. In 'The man who would be king, he HAS mentioned Pathans, but not once did he mention their whiteness or their being akin to the English or white men. He has used this quotation regarding the Kalasha/Nuristani peoples.
Post a Comment