On Cufews, Desecration and Social Peace in Kashmir: A Conversation with our Collective Self

The latest incident of unspeakable desecration has prompted the government to impose curfew in parts of Srinagar. The desecration appears to be an attempt by nefarious forces to disturb the peace and amity that obtains in Kashmir. Lest the attendant outrage morph into an ugly situation, the government has imposed curfew as a pre-emptory measure. This is a prudent measure. However, it raises a set of questions: do we Kashmiris need to be under a curfew lest our arguments take a violent turn? Is our collective ego so fragile that we can be provoked my mischievous elements in a jiffy? What does all this tell us about the nature of our social and cultural ethos? Should we be taking recourse to the values that define us-tolerance, mutual respect and accommodation or should violence be the arbiter of all our arguments-social, religious and political?

Let us consider our social and cultural ethos first. Nurtured and nourished over centuries, our social and cultural ethos was and continues to be defined by tolerance, acceptance and respect for all. This is wired into the Kashmiri psyche. This then means that we are essentially a peace loving people and accommodative of diversity and plurality of opinion. What then explains the tendency to take our arguments-political, religious and cultural-on the streets?

This may be explained by the fact that our collective selves and sensibilities tend to be hurt by what are either slights or insults to what he hold dear and value. All is this well and good. We have the right to and should feel outraged to what are assaults on our values and what we hold dear. However, what is alarming is that this outrage take a violent turn. This is alien to our ethos and culture. If this constitutes an aberration and is alien to us, what could be done to obviate and negate this?

What we perhaps need to do is introspect. We need to delve deep into our collective self and have a conversation with our collective self. This means that we think through and thoroughly why we reach a tipping point and then take our arguments out on the street. This exercise will not only be cathartic but also revelatory. It may reveal that we have become overly sensitive and we vent out in ways that are alien to our nature and psyche.

It is not for one moment even implied here that we should not feel angry or outraged over scurrilous and outrageous incidents. What is meant here is that we should calmly see through the agendas and mischief behind these outrageous acts and then offer a calm, self- assured response that silences both our detractors and mischief makers. If we opt for violence then this means handing our enemies and mischief makers a victory on a plate- a gratifying victory which validates their cynical views about Kashmir and Kashmiris.

We are not a violent people. Violence is alien to use. We attracted the best of Sufis because of the beauty of the vale and our temperament and disposition. We evolved a unique syncretic dynamic where respect for human dignity, values and opinion was the norm. This has been a centuries old process and phenomenon. Islam was superimposed on this structure of values and beliefs very seamlessly and we became an example of peace and amity. It is this legacy that we are giving short shrift to by resolving arguments through violence. And it is against this that we must be eternally vigilant.

We are a capable, compassionate, intelligent, sensitive and kind people. It is these fine qualities that we must take recourse to when we feel outraged or when our decency is assaulted. Our collective self has been bruised by the violence of the past couple of decades. This self needs healing and it can only be healed when we become the paragons of peace, abstain from violence and answer our detractors, enemies and mischief makers with calm, rational argument; not violence. We would then be being true to our- selves and nature.

And it would do us a lot of good. Calm , dispassionate analysis of our problems and issues will lead to solutions that will redound positively to our society. Violence, to the contrary will only aggravate them. So let us with all sincerity and conscientiousness have this conversation with ourselves and then look each other squarely in the eye and ask: Is this really us? Do we need curfews to impose peace? The answer will be a resounding no.

Multiculturalism, state and the nation

On multiculturalism, the state and the nation

A few years ago, while strolling down the beautiful esplanades of Copenhagen, a group of young children noticed me, looked intensely and remarked,’ look, a painted man’. I had been travelling across Western Europe and had acquired a bit of a tan. I was amused. I smiled and waved and the children waved back bemused at having seen a brown skinned person who was very different from what they were exposed to. This did not come as a surprise to me: Western Europe, especially Scandinavia, was not (and is not) like the Anglophone multicultural countries where I had lived. The brown, black and yellow man was still a novelty and considered exotic. This was a far cry from Anglophone and Anglosaxon countries like the United States, Australia and Canada or neo wests where difference was no longer an issue and different peoples formed and comprised the respective firmaments of these countries. Respect for and even appreciation of difference and diversity was and is the norm in these countries.

The fact of difference being the defining feature of most societies dawned upon me again recently. This was driven home to me by the remarks of a Kashmiri friend and a colleague from Jammu. The Kashmiri friend , whilst travelling with me in my car remarked that there was nothing in common that Kashmiris had with the people of Jammu. Everything- customs, religion, language, mores and worldviews- was different. This observation was eerily echoed by a colleague of mine who is from Jammu. However, both set of peoples found themselves bound by a common state framework where they interacted on a functional and need based basis. Whilst there was reaction against multiculturalism by disgruntled elements in the Anglophone west, this was more or less cancelled by the broad acceptance, recognition and appreciation of difference and diversity in these countries.

What lessons does it hold for non -western cultures and societies like ours defined by tremendous diversity and difference as they are? Broadly speaking, what this mean for the state and the nation and nationalism? And how should the state everywhere respond?

Diversity and difference is not unique to the west. It is ubiquitous. Witness even a small, homogenous place like Kashmir: people of different shapes, sizes and features form the Kashmiri firmament. This difference is subsumed by a common language with different accents and dialects, common customs and culture. Or , broadly speaking, consider India. The country is many countries rolled into one. A Maharashtrian is as different from the Punjabi or the Assamese or the Tamilian as chalk from cheese in terms of culture, customs, mores or even religion. Yet they all comprise the firmament called India. However, while as the state recognizes difference and diversity, multiculturalism as a socially accepted concept and reality is not that strong. There is an element of distance –emotional and psychological-between various cultures and sub cultures. This must change. People must see people as people first and Punjabis, Kashmiris, Tamilians later. The same should and must hold true for other countries defined and marked by diversity and difference. This is the essence of humanism and human rights.

Broadly speaking, this means that the model of nationalism that animated countries – a model which saw the nation (a homogenous entity ) coterminous with the state should change. Assimilative straitjackets should not be foisted and forced upon people. It should be perfectly okay for different identities of a person- primary, secondary and tertiary- to be in harmony and in accord with each other. A Sindhi from Pakistan should be as comfortable with being a Sindhi as he/she is with being Pakistani. Or a Tamilian equally comfortable with being Tamil and Indian at the same time. The same should hold true for different peoples forming the western firmament. There is no reason tension between the various identities of a North African Muslim living in Australia. He/she can be Tunisian, North African, Muslim and Australian at the same time. This has practical and prudent effects: it can potentially obviate the estrangement and alienation that defines many immigrants in different societies. Consequently, then, to twist the Andersenian phrase, new communities have to be imagined.

Nationalism premised on homogeneity and sameness is passé: it does not speak to the contemporary condition. Multiculturalism has to be the new mantra. However, this should not lead to the narcissism of small difference where minor differences are amplified and magnified leading to deleterious consequences. The modern or post-modern state should respond by promoting multiculturalism and making it a reality. This should be followed by acceptance, recognition and appreciation of multiculturalism and its concomitants diversity and difference by society. It is perhaps only when the state and society are on the same page regarding difference and diversity that can lead to peaceful and prosperous societies. And it is then that I ‘wont be seen as a painted exotic species in Denmark and my friend from Kashmir and the colleague from Jammu will recognise and appreciate difference as well as the sameness inherent in all of us.

O Palestine!

Israel’s air offensive in Gaza has cost around 100 lives. The world is mute to this carnage and brazen assault. The regional bully-Israel- is preparing for a ground offensive which would drag the region into war. Its prime minister- Benjamin Netanyahu- the smooth talking , snake oil salesman like person who likes to charm the Americans with nonsense and hate filled bile has his eyes firmly on the impending elections and is using cynically the offensive to shore up support for himself. America has made some noises about the carnage but essentially dares not upset and offend its regional ally.

All this then leaves the trajectory and denouement of the conflict to the regional players like Turkey, Egypt and the mini statelet, Qatar. This is an interesting and a novel development. Saudi Arabia is not in the picture; neither is Iran. This then means that the region’s power equations and dynamic are changing and new configurations emerging. Turkey, hitherto the only Muslim ally of Israel has also made some interesting remarks which essentially put or deepen the distance and gulf between it and Israel. Turkey may not be entirely rooting for the Palestinians on account of altruism. It may be trying to insert and involve itself in Arab Muslim affairs and looking eastward; than westward. Egypt with whom Israel has a peace treaty is now governed by the Muslim Brotherhood. It may be Egypt and Turkey in combination that may exert diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop the invasion and the bloodshed. This is because both states are now important players and have or hold some leverage over Israel. Israel may not want to lose the only vestige of support it has in the Muslim world and it may be keen to keep the peace treaty between it and Egypt intact.

If Egypt and Turkey are successful in halting the orgy of violence, it is all well and good and will be welcomed by all. However, the essential question of Palestine and the conflict remains. The diplomatic flurry to stop the violence will then be in the nature of a palliative and a balm: it will stem the blood flow but not the rot within. It is this question and conflict that the international community should be devoting itself to. The latest flare up-whatever the immediate catalyst and reason- is just the symptom; not the disease. It then is irrational to merely attend to the symptoms.

So what should the international community be doing? First, we should disaggregate the international community. The international community is the United States and the regional Arab Muslim players insofar the Israel Arab dispute is concerned. There is no such thing as a European international presence or foreign policy. The European Union is a joke insofar international politics and relations are concerned. Yes: it makes noises on and off , but making noise just makes it feel good and assuage its collective ego. So essentially, it is the United States along with the new regional players that can, in the final analysis, lead to a final and lasting settlement of the Israel Palestinian dispute.

The United States should assert itself again and inject life into the now moribund peace process. This may even constitute America’s national interest given its low standing in the Arab and Muslim worlds and the widespread anti Americanism prevalent in the lands. It is not implied that here that the country bend its back backwards but rather it leans on its ally in the Middle East: Israel. The United States should essentially be telling Israel that it gets is act together and seriously negotiate a peace deal with the Palestinians. The Israeli response will be usual: the old , sterile and hackneyed one that it has no one to talk to. Israel will point out to Hamas , call it a terror outfit bent on destroying the state of Israel. It will also cast Hamas as an anti -western entity and depict the conflict between Israel and Palestine in civilizational terms. The United States should call Israel’s bluff , see through it and insist on restarting the peace process.

Similarly, the United States should quietly open communications with Hamas and ask the organization to be open to negotiations. The country could use the good offices of Egypt to convey its desire to restart negotiations with Hamas. The issue here is more broader and wider than the Israel Palestinian conflict. It is , at some levels, a metaphor for the alleged conflict between the West and Islam. The United States unqualified and strong support for Israel’s policies is viewed in the Muslim world as an example of the country’s hostility towards Islam. This is untrue but perceptions matter. (Israel plays this up and presents itself as the West’s face and outpost in a hostile orientalist environment).

The United States would do well in discarding its assumptions about the Israel Palestinian dispute and give the peace process a shove. It should see the situation and the conflict objectively and then do the requisite. Both Hamas and Israel should reciprocate sincerely. This will not be palatable to many in the United States but prudent and sagacious statecraft is not about pandering or pleasing people or lobbies. It is about cold national interest and peace. It is with this in mind that the United States should approach the conflict and bring about a solution that is satisfiscing. A lot of good will come out of it.

Good Governance: Between the State and Markets;

Years ago, when I was in Scandinavia, I was struck by the nature of Scandinavia’s political economy, the social peace that obtained there and the attendant fantastic living standards that people enjoyed. Being an amateur economist, curious and wondering if the Scandinavian model could be replicated in non- western societies, I delved into the nature of Scandinavia’s political economy. The reasons for Scandinavian success disappointed me: their model was premised on social democracy wherein the state, among other things, deemed itself responsible for the comprehensive welfare of its citizens. The state essentially took care of its citizens from the cradle to the grave. It nannied its people and was paternalistic in nature.

My disappointment may sound counterintuitive and bizarre given that it would seem outlandish to argue against state benevolence and generosity. However, there was (and is) a dark side to Scandinavian social democracy: its paternalism, for one, denies people the freedoms that people in liberal democracies take for granted. The state was coercive and the social contract that bound the state with society was oppressive in many senses. The other dark and glaring feature of this was that Scandinavia was homogenous , frowned upon and excluded the outsider or the foreigner. The bounty of the place was only to be for Scandinavians. It could be shared only under exceptional circumstances-say, for instance, refugees fleeing to Scandinavia could be given some succour and relief. Barring this, Scandinavia was a closed system and fortress like.

Anyhow, this is not the core contention of the piece. I was and continue to be concerned with the welfare gains and economic and political freedoms for/of the peoples of the subcontinent. I realized that Scandinavia could afford to be generous and benevolent because of a high rate of taxation. (The high price of even cappuccino’s and lattes and my favourite fruit, bananas, and my indulgence, cigarettes , fell into perspective). The base of taxation was wide and deep and a middle class sizable enough to generate taxes that the state could then redistribute through transfers.( The other flip side of this was that this discouraged entrepreneurship and wealth creation). This was well nigh impossible in poor, non- western countries like India where the size, poverty and structure of the country militated against this.

Aghast, I probed into the nature and premises of the political economy of India. It was then that I discovered that India too was a welfare state of sorts. The welfare function was provided by the state into the form of the massive and huge public sector. Non- farm labour was absorbed by the public sector and this provided a safety net for millions across the country. This could be attributed to Nehru and the mood of the times in decolonized countries: socialism.

While this is all well and good, over time, however, the public sector has become bloated and I daresay inefficient. This has affected the quality of governance. Both the demand and supply side of governance have been affected. This is coupled by the intense pressure on the public sector where most people in India clamour for the security of a government job. The sector can absorb only so much of the labour force and this then leaves many high and dry.

The question is how can the public sector be made more efficient, the quality of governance improved and at the same time sating the welfare needs of the people? This is a bit of a poser. All three are related. Before hazarding an answer, it bears mention here that India or for that matter no non-western country should go whole hog with free market capitalism or market fundamentalism. It is social Darwinist and ruthless. The appropriate solution is a balance between the markets and the state and a mixed economy. At the same time, socialist shibboleths and autarky are non-starters in today’s world.

Having established the philosophical context, I now turn to attempt to answer the question I posed. It would appear that the prudent approach to be adopted by the state would be to streamline the public sector and make it more efficient and hence more productive. This would entail job losses but this should be taken up by the private sector and market forces. For this to happen, the state has to enter the picture again. The state should and must vigorously and seriously made education as a priority in its list of functions.

It must ensure that education is provided to all so that equality of opportunity is accorded to all and sundry. This would not only mean an enlightened and empowered citizenry but also a skilled citizenry ready and equipped with the skills that the markets need and want. The logic of choice and freedom would ensue and people with increased and improved capabilities can embark on ventures and careers that correspond to their potential and talent. It would relieve pressure on the public sector and the private sector would be only too happy to take on board educated, skilled people.

It is perhaps only this-the development of human capital- that can speak to the conditions that obtain in the 21^stcentury. Socialism was a passing fad and given structural limitations India cannot be a social democracy.( Social Democracy’s future in Europe-its birthplace- is a moot point). The state has to ensure that there is a balance between the state and markets and position itself in a way that it becomes a facilitator and enabler. It cannot and should not nanny; nor should it abdicate its responsibilities and functions. It is with this in mind that non - western states should craft and design policies. We live in a different world and this world demands a review of old shibboleths and hallowed policies. Continuing on the same old path would be a disaster: we’d be left as road kill. So let’s dust our clothes and face this brave new world with vigour

The Color of Wisdom: An ode to a Dialogue between Civilizations;

Wisdom can come from anywhere. These were the concluding remarks of the conversation I had with a new friend of mine- an intellectual from Jammu and very typical of his genre: abstract airs about him and lost in the mists of thought and history. As the clouds of smoke from our cigarettes wafted upwards, my new friend talked about the origins of species, the common ancestry of mankind, the branching out of peoples through migrations, and then the reconnection between these sets of people. He talked about learning, synthesis and wisdom and how various civilizations entered into dialogues and mutual learning. This got me thinking. And I basically agree with the implication of my friend’s remarks: ‘wisdom is universal and has no colour, class orientation or nationality’. Understanding and appreciating this may be the beginning of wisdom.

This has special salience in the contemporary world wherein competing truths jostle for supremacy and the condition that obtains contemporarily perhaps best corresponds to what James Rosenau calls ,’fragmegration’ Or , in other words , a condition wherein a dialectic is occurring between the forces of fragmentation and integration. In this fragmegrating world, there are some who posit that the world is going to be divided along the lines of civilizations and others who point out to the resilience of the nation state and its primacy. Others point out to the supremacy, superiority and universality of the western ideals of liberalism and its concomitant democracy. All these are partial truths expanded into theories and theoretical constructs. The reality perhaps stands somewhere in between. The parable of the ‘ six blind men and the elephant’ best explains these divergent and diverging understanding of the contemporary world.

The question is what is the nature of the world we live in? Should this world defined by heightened and intense movement and contact of different peoples be a world of conflict and chaos? Should it be defined by civilizational conflict or dialogue? Should ethnocentric views and philosophies take centre stage? Or should there be mutual learning and a quest for wisdom (whatever its source) and genesis through osmosis?

Wisdom, as my friend posited, is universal. And it can be acquired anywhere and at any place. Every civilization and culture has something unique to offer. Therefore, wisdom lies in synthesis and osmosis. That is, wisdom can be attained by being open minded and receptive to what civilizations and cultures offer. Historically, this may even be said to constitute a norm and even have been standard practice. However, it is with the advent of particularisms like the nation state –hitherto a closed cultural and political container- that ethnocentric approaches to knowledge, learning and wisdom began to acquire narrow, partilcularistic and ethno centric connotations.

Thus, the nature of the world that we inhabit, is more or less defined by fluidity and uncertainty accruing from the current phase of globalization and overlain by a narrow superstructure of beliefs, views and philosophies that each culture and society claims to be its own. This potentially carries the seeds of conflict and chaos unless it is tempered by an approach and philosophy that sees each culture and society as unique in terms of its contribution to civilization, knowledge, progress and wisdom.

What does this mean? This means that we rewind the clock a little and then take the approach and world view of our forebears as the starting point for viewing the world. Yes: our forebears fought wars and entered into conflict. This, however, was tempered by a natural curiosity and a mutual learning approach. It may, at times, have been the needs of imperium and empire that made them do so. But done it was. In the final analysis, it was civilization that emerged the winner.

How can this approach be inculcated? This approach can be best inculcated by a more open world where different peoples get into contact with each other , an intellectual curiosity about others and openness and receptivity. All this needs to be overlain with humility. Arrogance, of any kind , is a recipe for disaster and conflict. In this melting pot world, peoples would then see that we are all humans and an essential humanness defines us all. Yes: difference too is a defining feature of societies and peoples. However, these differences are induced by culture, customs and traditions. And these or some of these can and should be appreciated and savoured. Essentially, this means a cosmopolitan approach and orientation. And it is this orientation that can improve the human condition and lead to world where progress is not viewed and seen in ethnocentric terms but in holistic ones. In the process, much of the gratuitous conflict will be obviated and civilization rather than civilizations elevated to a pedestal. Let us gird out loins , make haste slowly and do our bit in bringing about this world. We owe it to future generations.

Morsi, Democracy an Islam: Is the Arab Spring doomed?

Protests have flared across Egypt- the focal point and crucible of the Arab Spring-after the Egyptian president Muhammad Morsi gave new and sweeping powers to himself. This is ominous and dangerous: the Arab Spring-now stalled-is in danger of turning into an Arab Winter. That is, strengthening the presidency and donning the mantle of what may be called neo presidentialism, Morsi runs the risk of turning the gains of the Arab Spring and reverting to what is fallaciously held to be the character of the Arab Muslim peoples: authoritarianism. This stereotype has been trotted out by Orientalists and is widely believed –so much so that most people were cynical about the real import and significance of the Arab Spring.

The real question and import of the Arab Spring was and is whether Islam is compatible with democracy. It is this delicate, sensitive question and idea of great import that Morsi with his ill thought decree is giving short shrift to. The question of Islam’s compatibility with democracy goes beyond elections, sharing and wielding of political power in accord with the tenets of democracy. It is also, and perhaps more importantly, about Islam’s compatibility with political freedom and human rights. Whilst there can be no pure democracy in Islamic lands given that the philosophical premises of both Islam and democracy are different, it stands to reason that some sort of synthesis is eminently possible.

A word on the nature of Islam and democracy is warranted here. The latter holds and believes in the absolute sovereignty of God and the Prophet to be supreme and in this schema reason is not be discarded but is held to be subservient to God and faith. The latter holds man and his/her reason to be supreme. As a corollary then, Islam holds that all laws flow from God and His Prophet while democracy gives primacy to man and reason. Prima facie, these profound philosophical differences imply that Islam and democracy can never be reconciled. This , however, is a very flimsy and flawed understanding.

Both , Islam and democracy hold the dignity of man to be paramount and , it may be said that both hold that man is born free. As such, both sets of philosophies , accord primacy to rights. And rights have a clear cut relation with political freedom. This , then, can be the starting point for a synthesis between Islam and democracy. Moreover, procedurally, there does not appear to be a tension between procedural democracy and Islam.

Having established that while there are important and profound differences between Islam and democracy but at the same time , some scope for a common meeting ground, let us turn to the Arab Spring, Morsi’s decision and the question of Islam and democracy.

The Arab Spring set in motion a series of events of world historical significance: the Arabs , it appeared had had enough and began to question and challenge the status quo in the Middle East: that of authoritarianism. The idiom that the Arab Spring was articulated in was that of freedom, rights and Islam. This gave rise to the notion that the Arab Muslim Middle East was finally unshackling itself and rooting for a future that synthesized Islam with democracy and that a new efflorescence and order was shaping up in the Arab Muslim Middle East.

In essence then, this was an eloquent rejoinder and response by Arabs themselves to the detractors of Arab culture and Islam. They were proving that the Arab Muslim peoples had a role in the design and pattern if history and that Islam could be compatible with aspects of democracy.

It is this bold and beautiful design and march of history that Morsi with his decree is giving short shrift to and pouring cold water over. This gives grist to the mill of assertions that Islam is incompatible with democracy, political freedom and rights and vindicates Orientalist tropes about Islam and the Arab peoples. By arrogating power and concentrating it in the office of the presidency, Morsi then not only is giving ammunition to the detractors of Islam but also doing his bit to stall the course and direction of history.

The Arab Spring is a grand historical process. No one can really stop it. However, actions like the one taken by Morsi dull its momentum. It would be prudent if instead of being an obstructionist force, Morsi be a facilitator and enabler. Democracy and Islam, to repeat, may not be entirely compatible but a synthesis of sorts is eminently possible and this synthesis is owed to the peoples of the Arab Muslim Middle East. Let it not be thwarted or obstructed.

Long Live Europe; Europe is Dead

 

Europe or more accurately Western Europe had a decisive, profound and long lasting impact on the world. The intellectual, political and cultural ferment called the Renaissance shaped Europe’s understanding of itself, imbued it with confidence and vigour. This new self-understanding led Europe to embark on crusading adventures which went under the name of Imperialism and colonialism. The post Enlightenment Europe saw, came and conquered, so to speak. The non-western world came under the European onslaught and could not even fight a rear guard action.

The resistance to European rule which ensued after Imperialism had become firmly ensconced and institutionalized was framed in the idiom of Europe: nationalism. Such was the power of Europe or the European idea. Nativist reaction happened when Europeanized native elites internalized the ideas of freedom, liberty, equality and nationalism and used these against the respective imperial metropoles. The European ideas were taken up by people as diverse as the Japanese, the Chinese, the Turks and even the Arabs. To be modern was to be European. (Muslim modernists aimed and aspired for a synthesis between Islam and Western ideas; the Japanese Meiji Restoration successfully did the same).

Europe was held to be the apogee of success and modernity. Everything was articulated in the European idiom. The rest was mere corollary and reaction. In a curious twist of fate or less fatalistically, this Europe is dead. It no longer exists. To quote the American strategist, Donald Rumsfeld, what we have now is ‘Old Europe’.

Contemporary Europe is a pale shadow and husk of its former self. It is a sulking, brooding and inward looking entity that is at best an obstructionist force in world politics and at worst a squabbling entity that cannot get its act together. It broods and its ire is directed either against the immigrant or the United States. It cannot figure out who or what force is its other: Islam or the United States? It is a fortress like entity that is afraid of new and foreign influences. It excludes foreign influences literally and figuratively. The former happens when it looks down upon and excludes the foreigner and the latter when Europe collectively shuts itself to foreign ideas.

What does this tell us about a once great civilization and history? It tells us that civilizational vigour and vitality is not contingent upon place, location or race but rather accrues from receptivity to ideas, bold thinking and cultural efflorescence. And it also tells us that unless a civilization or a society remains true and wedded to these principles, history brutally tramples it.

Is the West dead then? No. The west or the western idea is very much alive. It has, however, migrated. The western idea lives on in the doyen of the contemporary west- the United States and other Anglophone and Anglosaxon countries like Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. It is here that the western idea thrives and even radiates.

The question then is what does this mean and imply for non-western cultures and societies? Where should we, to invert an expression and phrase , turn our gaze to?

By turning the gaze, it is not implied that the non-west should enter into a confrontation with the west. What is meant here is where and who should the non west engage in? First, we must get rid of the colonial baggage that lurks in our collective unconscious. Colonialism or imperialism no longer exists. What exists is a world which is defined by massive and unprecedented contact of peoples , nations and societies. To stave off conflict, it is imperative that engagement rather than friction and confrontation define our approach.

In this fluid world, what is needed is mutual learning and understanding and this can happen when the west and the east enter into a dialogue. This means being curious about each other and absorbing the best that either has to offer. In this sense, when we direct our gaze toward the west, we should engage with the Anglophone and Anglosaxon west. It is here that a meeting point between civilizations can be found and a new synthesis forged that van redound positively to civilization.

Europe died in 1914. Gavrillo Princip fired the first shot into the carcass of Europe and its obituary was read by Hitler. It cannot be recuperated or resuscitated. Europe is even not on a ventilator. It is therefore about time that we, no-westerners throw off our colonial hangovers, let these die with Europe and engage anew with the Neo west. If we do so, and engage in a dialogue with this neo West in an idiom defined by mutual learning, respect and osmosis, the world will be a better place. We owe this to our future generations.