I have been reading Amartya Sen's book, Identity and violence, which seems to be a rebuttal of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. While I have not finished reading the book from the front to the back( I am somewhere in the middle) ,I know the thesis pretty well. He has focused numerous pages refuting Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations. I haven't read Clash of Civilizations, but according to Amartya Sen, Samuel Huntington has basically separated civlizations by block--for example, you have Islamic civilization, then you have Hindu civilization with India at the center, then you have Western civilization, and so on and so forth. So his view is that in the future, violence will erupt primarily due to cultural differences, and not due to economic or tribal reasons. In other words these various civilizations are not compatible with each other. Furthermore, ideas like democracy, liberty, freedom of religion, etc are all Western creations and may not be compatible with other cultures. I would wager that Huntington was against the Iraq war from the get-go because he probably saw what Bush was doing in Iraq as the imposition of "democracy" on Iraqis, who happen to be Muslims. Their culture makes it impossible for them to accept democracy in his view.

To refute this view, Sen argues that dividing the world by culture alone, which is just one aspect of a person's identiy, is a form of reductionism. The world is not homogeneous as Sameul Huntington seems to assert it is. In other words, individuals cannot be classified into monolithic groups based on culture alone. For example, there is a difference between, say, a Turkish Muslim and a Saudi Muslim. Turkish Muslims are more liberal than their Saudi counterparts. Sen's view is that a person is shaped not by just one factor, but by various factors. An individual can be not just a Hindu, but also a liberal, a non-vegetarian, a non-brahmin, non-religious etc. Its these factors that shape a human being, and not just culture alone. So people can choose what they want to support and what they don't. People can make decisions. Another point Sen raises is that democracy is not just a Western concept. He gives example of a place in Bactria that was a democracy, and it had no influence of Greek culture. Secondly about freedom of Religion, he talks about Asoka and Akbar, both of whom were secularists and let people choose their religion, as opposed to someone like Constantine.

Let me all give you my own view. Huntington's view and Sen's view are at two different extremes. While Huntington focuses on a group of individuals, Sen focuses on individuals themselves and how they are shaped. So to me, it seems like they are focusing on two different aspects. Also, it seems to me that these factors that influence a person's identity has different weights. For example, it is obvious to me that culture carries more weight, then say, a person's eating habits(vegetarianism vs non-vegetarianism). One thing Sen seems to have completely forgotten is that not all countries grant you these choices. Many countries are not democratic. For example, in Saudi Arabia, one cannot choose whether you want to support abortion or not. Saudi Arabia's citizens are all Muslims(they don't have even one Saudi who happens to be a Christian or a Jew). So I do think that there will be a clash of civilizations, but this clash will only be Islam vs other religions (that is Muslims vs. Christians, Muslims vs. Jews, and so on).
Now Huntington's view is that various cultures will inevitably clash. I do not agree with that completely( it will be Muslims vs others) because Buddhists, for example, are not particularly religious. Japanese for example celebrate Christmas. Educated Hindus are not very religious as well. What I am saying is that civilizations will not clash as Huntington is suggesting on a block vs block basis. However, I am not saying that cultures will not collide; they in fact will. Cultures will collide, but it will be within a region itself. Also, I don't think it's just cultural collision; it is going to be a tribal collision as well, which Huntington seems to deny. For example, the Muslim riot in France is just one example of collision of culture. I also think that a system(like that in America) needs to be in place if we want to make sure that there will be no cultural collision. However, even with an almost infallible system in place like that in America, things might not be all that dandy. If America absorbs a lot more Hispanics, for example, there may be a cultural clash. It just depends on how well the immigrants assimilate. France doesn't have a good system in place because the Muslim groups haven't assimilated that well. In America, even if Blacks have not assimiliated, at least the government tries to give them incentives to do something about them. Not so in France. However, given that France is a developed nation, it can definitely resolve the problem, since it is a developed nation after all. So what am I getting at? It is this: cultural/tribal/religious clashes will be confined within a region itself, and this region will be small( India is big, and while it is underdeveloped, it has resources to deal with conflicts) and underdeveloped with no real system in place to resolve conflicts.
Now let's take Nepal as an example. Nepal has various ethnic groups with various cultures--for example, bahuns and chettris are Hindus, while Sherpas are Buddhists. Traditionally speaking, Magars have had a shamanistic sort of religion. Nepal's indigenous groups like Magars, Rais, Gurungs, etc have historically been against the mainstream culture, which we can say is bahun/chettri culture. One can say that the Maoist problem is to a degree a form of ethnic warfare, given that most of the "foot soldiers" are magars. In the future, there *will* definitely be cultural/tribal wars in Nepal. It is an inevitability, because ethnic tension has been boiling for ages now. My own view is that homogeneity is a necessity( after much thought) for a SMALL COUNTRY if this country wants to develop, unless it already has a system in place to deal with such issues(eg America, which is an immigrant nation anyway, and India as well, it seems). A developed country can easily tweak its system to resolve this problem(e.g. France). But Nepal has no system in place. So this is what needs to happen: The predominantly Hindu groups in Nepal will form one block and may have to separate. This may entail splitting up the country, or it may just mean mass migration to India, which is obviously very compatible with Nepal's Hindus. The buddhist groups will form another block. They may have to join China or just carve out a new country. People somewhere in the middle will be the biggest problem in this splitting up process. Of course, the smaller communities won't be a problem because they can assimilate very easily.
Either that, or I see two other choices:
1. Complete assimilation. This is unrealistic and will not happen at all.
2. Ethnic Cleansing(god forbid), with one group clearly coming out on top. What whacko would want this?
Now that 1 is unrealistic and 2 should and must never happen, what are the choices we have to resolve the problem peacefully? Split the country up and form new countries, maybe. Our neighbors have a much better system in place, and this may be another good road to take. If one group refuses to divide the land, it may just mean mass migration. I just don't see how Nepal will develop unless it splits up by culture/tribe and joins up with the bigger country(India or China). After much thought, I have come to the conclusion that homogeneity is only necessary for a small country. Bigger countries can deal with it. Smaller countries like Afghanistan, Iraq or Nepal can't. Choice: split by groups.

It seems that there are some contradictions in ur analysis...
Anyways my point is a person is not big by his size or age, the same shoudl apply to country as well. If citizens and policymakers think big the country is big (my view)

Ok now i have a question to the author, how big is big, how do u measure size of a country? Is there a critical mass below which people should "assimilate"? And how do we measure developed, underdeveloped? I do not think GDP or world bank report alone is sufficient to define that.

Waiting for ur comment. Thanks it was good to see nicely written post on sajha for a change, instead of "Nepali girl" posts and equally unnessary comments, flooding "kurakani".

I am really delighted to read your analysis, although I don't agree with it. Like biswa said, it was a nice change.

Here is what my disagreement. In 1994, Rwanda went through fastest genocide in the history. The majority, Hutus wanted to wipe out the monority, Tutsies. This went on for very short period of time for about 100 days. But about one million people were killed in that short period of time. Never did splitting of the country based on two ethnic communities came up. Finally minority Tutsies supported rebels came into power.

Why isn't splitting a country based on ethnicity a good idea? I think there are two major reasons. First is within the country itself. If a country is split based on ethnic or tribal differences, those differences will show up again in split up group. I mean, let's say for example, you split the country based on tribal difference. So the Chhettris get one part of their own land. But there are so many different kinds of Chhettris. The next thing that will happen is Thapas will want their own share, Kunwars will wants their own. This will result in further splitting.

The second is the regional factor. If splitting of a country happens because of ethnic or tribal difference, that will de-stabilize the whole region. For example, if Nepal is split for that region, people in India will want that. Since that is a possibility, India, or China, or Sri Lanka or any other country in the region will not let that happen.

Therefore what will happen, I think, is an attempt to find a compromising point. That is what is happening in Iraq right now. While the different groups reach that point, there will be a lot of confusion, violence etc. Nevertheless, the attempt will go on. I think that is what will happen in Nepal.

As far as, Maoism is concerned. I agree with you that it is a warfare based on ethnic difference. But I would disagree strongly if anybody says that Rais and Magars are now fighting for their rights and that is how Maoism in Nepal started. I think few cunning Brahmins saw that there is this difference and they could use that difference in their advantage and that is what they did. If the Maoist get the real power in the country and they do good to those current "opressed" group, I will be really surprised and shocked.

Thanks basantapur for saying the things so nicely, i agree with u on all counts.

(btw.. i wud like to urge the administrators of sajha to find some arrangement where people like ifc, cerine, nails, etc (sorry if i omitted names) could take their chit-chats). Speak up admins once in a while. I feel after that contribution to sajha thing, it has deteriorated. Thanks

Please do not talk about breaking up the country, instead let's discuss how we can incorporate all the differances and emerge as true nation where every group will feel it is their own country without having to accept ALL of other groups values and cultures. Thanks a lot for reading

Thanks for agreeing, biswa. It does show that we Nepalis could agree on things.

Basantapur, i do not quite like "your" generalization that "Nepali" cannot agree on things, they r only into leg-pulling. It is my belief that people "human nature" are same irrespective of nationality.
Here after coming to US i have found at least 2 Nepalese who have helped me a lot getting tuition fee and on funding, and i knew them only here. I like Nepali people more than any other nationals.
Things may not be perfect among us, (it will never be) but it is not as bad as some people try to paint.

On the sprit of the subject, Nepal does not belong to any particular group, or no one owns Nepal. It belongs to all citizens and it is in our what we make of our ountry within our own capacity.

Thanks for your note, biswa. I wish I could say that same good thing that you mentioned about Nepali people.

biswa,
mero tapai sanga sorrai ana sahamati cha. splitting a country, history tells us, will only yeild to worse off conditoins. isreal and palestine, india and pakistan. when i was reading thugged_out's posts, though i did not agree with a lot of it, i did think he was being rational. tara one thing came to my mind, we have had sooooo many problems in nepal, culutrally and socially, (ex: caste system), but i think on some levels we also practise some tolerance. i mean hindus and muslims live side by side, and we never erupt into violence, well we did once, september 1, 2004 after the nepalis got shot in iraq. tara right after that there was this mass rally in kathmandu by hundreds of muslims, hindus and peoples of all cutlural background showing unity and support and denoucing all the violence..taht was when it hit me hard that no matter how teeny tiny we are, it is amazing how diverse we are and how much we are able to respect one another. there are ofcourse exceptions to this argument.
nepal is alrady sooooo small. how much smaller can it be? it is not like these cutlural groups are fighting against one another...when we have a mosque and temple and a stoopa side by side, why is there any need to separate chettris and magars and bahuns and rais? yes we are diverse, but diversity does not equate problems in our case. diversity is definetely giving birth to problmes in areas like sudan and iraq. and never would their problems be solved by dividing thier countires.

healthy discussions !

Nepal will not split because of cultural differences. Nepal has come to this stage maintaining high diversity since Lichhabi period and there was never a communal conflict. Every conflict that occurred was for the throne or for the post of prime minister. Hard core Muslim country's experience doesn't apply to Nepal. There is caste system of course for the old generation but the new generation doesn't give a crap about it. Even in old generation when have they fought to the extent that another can't exist side by side? Having differences is to be human being because everybody is unique individual. If all persons were the same replica then what's the point of having another person. Even the fingers in the hands are not same length but when they join together the fist is made which gives all the strength to the hand.

Everybody likes the attention. These political scientists wrote to create the controversy based on the circumstances surrounding them. And another one refuted the same way but from another perspective. These debates might have made them reach to the height of only popularity they could get but the truth is something else. After all, nobody recognizes them who don't make noises.

*bump*. Yes, I mentioned "ethnic cleansing". This "peaceful Nepal" bs is the biggest delusion ever.

thugged out is a dhoti..........................sale dhotiiiiiiiiiiiii................kukur............

interesting point. i agree with some of your analysis up to the point where you talk about nepal. you see, the other civilizations you cite clashed because there has always been a rift, either geographic or societal/cultural, between the groups of people. the tutsies and the hutus, the saudi muslims and the americans, the turkish muslims and the kurds, the albanians and the serbians have never mingled. environmental changes either natural, or self-imposed led to the the clash of civilizations.

nepal is different because people mingle. yes, there may be the occasional stereotyping and shunning of various groups of people, but this is mostly limited to the older generation. i have yet to see people of my generation excercise selectivity in who they hang out with. religion will never be a dividing factor, as you seem to imply. buddists (who are generally supposed to be peaceful) and hindus in nepal are not hard-core, like the arab muslim or indian hindu fundamentalists. religion in nepal is more of a way of life for everyone. for example, everyone celebrates dashain, tihar and buddha jayanti. the thing is, we are more similar than we are different. and the differences are not significant enough to fight for.

now, there will be people who try to incite division along ethnic lines. i think those people are either uninformed, or are in it to further their personal politican ambitions.