Dear Friends,
The Wall Street Journal recently published an article critical on some comments that I made on CNN and at the same time made some derogatory and personal attacks. Both I and my son, Gotham Chopra, responded and Wall Street Journal has agreed to publish our responses this Friday. In the meanwhile, we are posting our responses in our entirety here and on the Huffington Post. Here is mine:
To the Editors,
I think it does a disservice to the Wall Street Journal's integrity to run personal attacks of the kind directed against me by Dorothy Rabinowitz. Since your newspaper whole-heartedly cheered on the disastrous war in Iraq, I can understand why you continue to mount a rear guard action in defense of the Bush administration's approach to militant Islam.
That approach involves unilateral militant aggression without the slightest care for the effect being made on the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Now that the right wing can no longer continue this discredited policy overtly, Ms. Rabinowitz and her ilk have adopted a fall-back position. Attack anyone who suggests a new way.
I stand by my remarks and have full confidence that the Obama administration will adopt a "root cause" approach of the kind I endorsed. The very thing Ms. Rabinowitz derides is our best hope for peace.
Deepak Chopra
Look for my son's response here on Beliefnet or on Intent.com
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
You have a beautiful family, Mr. Chopra. I know it's what you have to do, but most people have no faith that peace is a viable option. They just cannot imaging how it can work. This says more about them than you. When people say this to me I say"what about Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden, " all are countries not engaged in war. But, why? I think because they have no desire to be "superpowers" or to impose their "democratic" will on anyone. Peace exists...just not here. It is our choice. Here's to a more peaceful future...
And blessings to you and your beautiful family dury this holy season. Peace on Earth, Goodwill towards Mankind. This is what Jesus taught us, no?
I truly hope that Obama surrounds himself with competence, without regard to any ideological tests. And yes, competent people can and should disagree and discuss with the idea of extracting from such discourse good policy.
Mistakes will be made, count on it. None of us are gifted with a crystal ball that enables us to foresee the future. It is always through a glass darkly that we address the issues of the day and plan for the future. Even so, good policy is arrived through due consideration, understanding the biases of friends and foes alike, discovering more of what lies hidden, and then moving forward. No policy should be absolute, though there are times when it must be resolute.
Governing well is a mixture of art, science and instinct. Instinct should not be ignored, but must be checked against fact. Methods to correctly ascertain fact must remain as free of bias as possible. (Remember the decisions made in Iraq that resulted from false intelligence and a desire from on top to see a weapons of mass destruction program where it no longer existed.) Strategic thought, an ability to reappraise a policy in the face of evidence, (in other words an open feedback process that allows policy to be fine-tuned or even retooled) is essential.
This is what I want and expect from Obama.
Now how did that happen.
An earlier message, (a few days ago, suddenly got saved by B-net software.
Here is what I really wrote here:
From the commentary:
Nowhere in this citation of the root causes of Muslim terrorism was there any mention of Islamic fundamentalism -- the religious fanaticism that has sent fevered mobs rioting, burning and killing over alleged slights to the Quran or the prophet. Not to mention the countless others enlisted to blow themselves and others up in the name of God.
The root causes of Muslim terrorism lie in alienation and religious fundamentalism/extremism. The symbols of religion can often be the battle standard to which the disenfranchised swear allegiance. When a person and communities have no vestment in the world, it is not surprising that they look towards the promises of post-life so fervently. This can give tremendous power to the charismatic leader who uses that standard to guide these people towards terrible acts of violence in the name of God. This is especially true when dealing with alienated young men who will, to regain their manhood in the name of God, do the most dreadful things.
For better or worse, the constructive solution, (rather than kill them all, God will know his own), is expensive and takes time. It requires giving people something worth living for. Yes it will not eliminate fundamentalism, but it will push the violence to the edges of the bell-curve rather than having it occupy a place near the centre. It will result in more reporting by the people of those who through their actions endanger the gains they have realised. Give the people something to lose, and they will eschew violent religious expression. Co-opt them into the world, to be merciful, all-forgiving, compassionate and holy in their religious expression, rather than powerful, avenging, creators of death.
If people have little to lose, do not be surprised when they act that way. When people have a lot to lose, they act remarkably differently. To win, win the trust of the people, and that takes time. Mothers will turn in radical sons to protect their other children. Give people something to lose and the fear of that loss will bring peer pressure from within communities to constrain the actions of the zealously violent.
Nor did we hear, in these media meditations, any particular expression of sorrow from the New Delhi-born Dr. Chopra for the anguish of Mumbai's victims: a striking lack, no doubt unintentional, but not surprising, either. For advocates of the root-causes theory of crime, the central story is, ever, the sorrows and grievances of the perpetrators. For those prone to the belief that most eruptions of evil in the world can be traced to American influence and power there is only one subject of consequence.
No, it is not about sorrows and grievances of the perpetrators. It is about co-opting the majority in their communities to bring about peaceful, well-ordered and governable society. It is pushing the diehards to the edges. It is about creating stable communities which can govern themselves and will report the dangerous to authorities. Push out from the centre if you wish to marginalize violent people.
This is in response of the article "Behind the crisis for India's Muslims" by Aryn Baker in TIME. The author has pointed out that the terror attacks in India are the response of ill treatment done in India against Muslims. First of all, surprisingly author's time scale starts from 1857, for a country like India. Reviving history, Mahmud of Ghazni, who looted the Indian subcontinent thirteen times around 1000 AD, was the one who brought Islam in India. The glory of wealth in India allured many more expeditions throughout the history. When Columbus was looking for India and discovered U.S.by chance, Babur was establishing Mogul empire in India. Among Mogul kings, Akbar was the most famous and successful one. He brought whole country under one umbrella with his openness. On the other hand, his great grandson Aurangazeb was a failure who brutally imposed the Muslim religion. British followed the strategy of 'Divide and Rule' while ruling on India and widened the gaps between Hindus and Muslims. Regardless of all this, Indian freedom fighters were not limited to one community. Two nations theory, creation of Pakistan, was the brain child of only some ambitious Muslims leaders who wanted to rule at any cost. Many Muslims willingly choose to stay in India, and even currently, India has more Muslims than Pakistan. On the other hand, even a few Hindus who chose Pakistan were killed or fled to India. Genocides of Kashmiri Hindus throughout 80s, can be compared to the pain of Jews in Germany under the rule of Hitler but dramatically ignored by media. Secondly, is she trying to justify the killing of innocent people worldwide? India has long history of working with religious minorities. India's most of rich people are Sikhs, Parsis and Jains, some other minorities in India. Ratan Tata, an icon of India's progress is a Parsi. Dalai Lama with his follower Tibetans, displaced Budhists from Tibet occupied by China now, live in India peacefully. Even Muslim such as Sania Mirza brought grace to India though Fatwas were issued against her too for wearing skirts while playing Tennis. It does not take hundreds of years for minorities to represent themselves in free India. India's current Prime minister is a Sikh and last President was a Muslim. And in the modern time, which society or religion is perfect and clear? President elect Obama was under the threat of assaults, because of different skin color than majority. India's last 60 years of freedom and democracy has been far better than any other country in the world. Considering the author's arguments, many countries (Japan, Vietnam and Iraq) should never stop fighting against U.S. after being used as showcase of American mass destruction weapons. There are definite problems when the parents do not let their daughters and sons to go to school since they believe that women have no right of education and sons should be taught only one book, written hundreds of years ago. All the Americans, who died in Mumbai terror attacks, were in India to learn about spirituality. If Hindus, 87 % of Indian population, are fundamentalists, why do the Christians and Jews travel to learn about the religions? The author has insulted all the people who lost their lives in this henious act, regadless of their religions and nationalities. The author needs to go beyond her geographical limitation though it is getting tougher day by day to travel with U.S. passport. I am afraid that her skewed arguments can rage the feelings of Muslims without any clue about the greatness of India, so it hurts both sides. Publications of journalists, who try to obtain minutes of fame by misrepresenting the facts, must be banished from the national publications. I ask for a public apology from the author to all Indians.
Though the personal attacks by Dorothy Rabinowitz may not be taken as rhetoric, one cannot igonore the thrust of the article.
Deepek Chopra blamed Americas "right wing" attitude for the terrorist attack on Mumbai! He himself agreed that he is going to stand by his comments.
"What we have seen in Mumbai has been brewing for a long time ..."
"Ultimately the message is always toward Washington because it's also the perception that Washington, in their way, directly or indirectly funds both sides of the war on terror. "
From this post, (reference to "right wing")
"Now that the right wing can no longer continue this discredited policy overtly..."
Wait a minute!
Ironically another guy who hails from a neighboring city of Mr. Chopra's birth place, blamed "cultural left" for attack on 9/11. Check out what Dinesh Dsouza says in his book "The enemy at home" Here is a quote from his website
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html
"In faulting the cultural left, I am not making the absurd accusation that this group blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. I am saying that the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger toward America that is erupting from the Islamic world. The Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks were the product of this visceral rage—some of it based on legitimate concerns, some of it based on wrongful prejudice—but all of it fueled and encouraged by the cultural left. Thus without the cultural left, 9/11 would not have happened."
Whats goin on here? So much to their wisdom!!! or objectivity!!!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.