Gandhi’s stand against violence includes the U.S.
by Frank Erickson
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 7/28/2010
Amitabh Pal is the managing editor of The Progressive magazine in Madison, Wisconsin. He wrote an editorial about the Times Square bomber that appeared in the Pioneer Press on June 24 with the title “Times Square bomber — a disgrace to Pakistan and to her religion.”
Pal claims that Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber, “is a disgrace to Pakistani-Americans, including a number of my friends. They now have to walk around under a pall of suspicion.”
Shahzad has no such power; he can only disgrace himself. If Pal and his friends are feeling the sting of Shahzad’s actions, Shahzad is not to blame. What they are experiencing is racial profiling. Pal needs to redirect his anger, because Shahzad’s actions are not what is making his life more difficult.
Pal reinforces racial profiling when he attacks Shahzad instead of the profiling. Instead of attacking the profiling, he wants all Pakistani-Americans to behave themselves so he and his friends do not have to live in America under a “pall of suspicion.” The mainstream media, for obvious reasons, love this type of editorial.
When a U.S. soldier in Iraq raped a woman and killed her family, were all other White U.S. soldiers looked at as possible rapist murderers? No, Whites are not subjected to this type of profiling.
Pal believes the Times Square bomber and his crimes “detract from the achievements of Pakistani people.” Again, there is no way Shahzad has this type of power. Only racism and racial profiling can do what Pal claims Shahzad has done. Only racism can discredit the achievements of individuals who had nothing to do with a crime other than being of the same race or religion or being from the same country as the individual who committed the crime.
Pal also brings up the Gandhian movement of the 1930s and 1940s and asks why Shahzad did not “follow this course.” Now, that’s really not fair. Why expect Shahzad to be like Gandhi — because Shahzad is from the same part of the world that Gandhi was from? Shahzad is an individual; he is not a Gandhi clone because he has the same skin color and comes from the same region as Gandhi.
Why hold only Shahzad to such lofty nonviolent standards? Why not ask the U.S. government, which continues to attack Pakistan, why they don’t take a Gandhian approach? Why must only Pakistanis approach things nonviolently while the U.S. is free to use violence and not be seen as “a disgrace”?
Amitabh Pal is much too accepting of who gets to play the violent role — the United States — and much too demanding and unrealistic regarding who needs to play the nonviolent role — Pakistani-Americans.
Pal needs to be careful in bringing up Gandhi, because Gandhi saw no justification for any violence from any individual, group or nation — not just from those in Pakistan and India. Gandhi would not be opposed to terrorist acts in Times Square by Pakistani-Americans and then accepting of U.S. military drone strikes on Pakistan, as Pal seems to be.
Frank Erickson lives in Minneapolis.
|
