Why Chavez embarrasses me.

While many of my fellow left-wing liberals have great things to say about Hugo Chavez, I am less enthusiastic about him. Most of their excitement seems to come from the lone fact that Chavez is very obviously opposed to US foreign policy in general,and this administration in particular. While I may share this very broad stance of his, the affinity ends there, and it just isn't reason enough for me to hold up the Chavez banner.

The incessant meddling of the United States in matters that do not concern them for an invariably self-aggrandizing purpose riles me to no end. However, I defend my indignation by attempting nuanced, reflective and well-though out critical discourse, as much as it is within my capacity. And I make sure that any point I make against any country's government, its foreign policy or its leaders is not a blind indictment, but a considered critique.

And this is exactly where Chavez and I part ways. There is no complexity in his stance, no nuance in his statements. His worldview seems to reflect a notion that American politics and its current administration is inherently evil, hence the references to Bush as the devil. Taking recourse to the discourse of evil does not solve any problems, nor does it clearly define these very urgent and pressing issues of global importance. He also seems to be of the firm belief that his enemy's enemy is his friend. Thus, the extremely poor human-rights record of the Iranian government notwithstanding and regardless of the truly reprehensible statements that Pres. Ahmedinejad is in the habit of making, Chavez chooses to make displays of friendship and heartfelt camaraderie towards Iran and its figurehead leader.

Chavez takes all the intelligence out of the Left, and it embarrasses me to be assigned the same political labels as he.

Where have all the moderates gone?

The recent uproar over Pope Benedict's statements is troubling. Having read the speech, I acknowledge that he really put his foot in his mouth. He didn't do his homework for one: he makes a few factual errors egarding Islam. Second, he quotes an obscure medieval work that frankly is only marginally relevant to the content of his speech: so he could well have made his point without taking a rather ill-disguised swipe at Islam.

All that aside, however, his speech hardly warrants the sort of response that we have seen over the past week. Quoting an over-zealous medieval king, however ill-advised and imprudent this may have been, does not warrant the burning of churches and the murdering of a nun in Somalia. It is indeed ironic that these folks are protesting the implication that Islam is inherently violent with violence. Surely there is a better way to make your point.

This of course begs the question: Where have all the moderates gone? Over the past week or so, while I have heard many spokespersons for political and religious think tanks and scholars of religion and the Middle East condemn the Papal choice of quotes, I have yet to hear the unequivocal voice of moderate Islam calling for an end to the egregiously disproportionate response from the Muslim world.

There are moderates out there. But unfortunately, we barely ever hear from them. Amidst the calls for death to Pope and Christians, the withdrawal of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and bigoted rhetoric that equals that of our now oft-referenced medieval friend, Manuel II, I see no group of moderate Muslims protesting vociferously for reasonable and open dialogue. There may be a feeble article here, a humble press-release there. But isn't it time that moderates, in all religions, claimed what is rightly theirs: a bigger stake in the political, theological and ethical discourse of our time? Isn't it time that moderates shake off their cloak of complacency and address the pressing and critical issues of our times with some sense of urgency and seriousness?

Research, ranting, redemption

My summer in India was exhausting...emotionally exhausting. As a person who comes from a Hindu (mostly nationalist) family, most of the things I hear about Muslims is derogatory and pejorative. And as a person who is doing research about minortiy sects in Islam, and is working closely with Muslim, it is hard to shut up about it. But after having corrected, or clarified or refuted the statements of many of my relatives, I think, to them I had taken on the role of a champion of Islam, a defender fo the Faith. But truly, all I was trying to defend was a more complex view of the world. Encountering such ignorance, and to be honest, distrust and distaste, towards Islam and Muslims, was frustrating and infuriating. It had always been around, but only now, since my entry into the world of Islamic Studies and the Anthropology of religion, has the sheer scale and intensity of it become clear to me. It's almost as if, to my family, I have become the messenger, the embassador from the court of Islam, if you will. And it is to me that their defense of their distrust and distaste is to be now addressed. They point at temple walls defaced by marrauding "Muslim invaders" from the north and say, "Try defending that!" But it is not the actions of some faceless loot-seeker, and defacer of magnificant works of art that I seek to defend. All I negate is the notion that the only reason those temples were defaced was because the invaders were Muslim; that somehow within that act, there is no politics, no economics, no history, no temporally situated context. And I found myself saying this over and over again...and just as my insistence was undaunted, so was their insistance that the presumed crassness of the other's religion was all that was to blame. I came away from it all drained of the emotional smugness I used to feel when I wa swith family, a complacency that I prized so much.
If I am avoid such emotional fatigue, I may have to pick my battles. But by doing that, by restrainign myself, I risk my sanity.