Trust and Betrayal in the Balance in Dlamini's Askari

Jacob Dlamini's Askari: A Stody of Collaboration and Betrayal in the Anti-Apartheid Struggle (Jacana 2014) is a deeply moving account of Askaris, the name given to traitors in the anti-apartheid struggle. Through the theme of betrayal, the book presents a moving but disturbing account of the last decade of bloody conflict between the apartheid state and a rising and popular anti-apartheid movement. The book offer much more than an account of historical events.

Dlamini's narrative is woven around the place of loyalty and betrayal within armed groups that fought to shape the future of the country. Focusing on the story of Glory Sedibe and others, Dlamini returns repeatedly to what betrayal means to collaborators and their handlers. The collaborators in this book are victims, but never lose their agency. Some collaborators are pushed to the brink through days, weeks and even months of physical and psychological torture, others break down at the first sign of pain. Sedibe's story is shrouded by lies and half-truths, which makes it a particularly interesting account of victimhood and agency.

Reading this book reminds me that trust and betrayal stand at the heart of a society. Dlamini's book teases and pushes the implications of this fundamental ethic in the lives of the Askaris, and in society in general. For the Askaris, betrayal means the end of a meaningful life. Dlamini book portrays the inevitable descent into further betrayal, violence  and alcoholism.

But the book challenged me to think about the trust and betrayal as the ground on which any collective stand. No two persons can enter a relationship without trust or the prospect of trust. When trust is rejected as a result of extreme individualism, racial bigotry or repeated broken promises, one  inevitably looks into an abyss. Perhaps the Askaris symbolise the broken trust that haunts our societies.

No doubt, Dlamini gives an account of those who refused to collaborate. Inevitably, they lives were cut short by a network of apartheid death squads that continue to roam our streets. But their lives should not be forgotten, for their bravery but also for their refusal to betray trust.

Sadly, according to Dlamini, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission failed to bring out the truth and workings of collaboration and their handlers. People like de Kock and Nofomela only revealed half-truths, sufficient to hastily thread a new narrative of a rainbow nation focused on the future.

Comment on Moosa on Muslim Political Theology: Defamation, Apostasy and Anathema

http://lb.boell.org/en/2012/08/15/muslim-political-theology-defamation-apostasy-and-anathema

I would recommend reading this article by Prof. Moosa!

Prof Moosa has perceptively captured the religious foundation or inspiration of Muslim rage towards the defamation of the Prophet in a number of contemporary context. The place of the Prophet as ontological and epistemology reference provides some explanation to the widespread acceptance if not support of punishment or attackers  who defame him.
But I think that the responses that he documents among Muslim intellectuals, both ulama and non-ulama, do not address the problem that he addresses. The mainly textual and hermeneutical strategies miss the deep rupture posed by modern defamation - informed by modernity, colonialism and post-colonialism. This ruptures threatens the meaning of prophecy, not the application of the texts in modern times.

Great and thoughtful article

#Review of Praying Mantis (André Brink): Colonialism and Religion in South Africa

Brink's historical novel follows the journey of Cupido Cockroach on his journey from Khoi San religion to missionary for the London Missionary Society to Khoi San again. It is an intriguing story of a life through colonial occupation, genocide and mission.

Brink's masterly narrative might be a classic study of how Christianity replaced KhoiSan culture and religion. It is, however, not a triumphant narrative but a deeply ambiguous one. Cupido's story is told through a deeply self reflective missionary Read. Moreover, Cupido himself becomes a deeply committed Christian the meaning of which he pushes to the limit. His passion and humour leaves a lasting impression.

I like best Cupido's engagements with Heitsi-Eibib, and with God the Father. There is no doubt about his belief as he loves, pleads, takes, gives and teases. There are no answers to the deeply disturbing questions posed by Cupido about colonialism and religion in the history of South Africa.

Reflections on Rhodes Gazing over the Campus, the City and the Continent

A moving and packed Jameson Hall last night (March 25, 2015) continued the campaign to bring down the statue of Rhodes brooding over the campus, the city and the continent of Africa. Here are some random thoughts.

The campaign gains momentum, but there are many students who are not persuaded. We heard that the Engineering and the Built Environment students voted clearly against the removal of Rhodes. This is surprising and also very telling. It seems that those interested in buildings are taking a very specific stand. Either they are positively opposed to the idea that Rhodes will no longer gaze over the city and the continent, or they do not care. It it is the former, then we have a long road to decolonisation and freedom. The gaze of Rhodes will be directly and indirectly be supported by our colleagues and future graduates. If they do not care, then it seems that some symbols have become so powerful that they do not even register a response. When the norm is not seen, then it has become part of habit, nature and the everyday.

The reality, clearly, is that this is not the everyday experience of everyone on campus. Students expressed their frustrations and alienation on UCT campus. For me, the symbolism of removing Rhodes was more poignantly expressed by the extent of racism faced by students on an ongoing basis. Over the 25 years that I have been at UCT, I have heard and experienced racism in the classroom. But the racism was subtle, and difficult to pin down. I would like to see a concerted effort made to deal with racism on this personal, everyday level. If the campaign to remove Rhodes puts a spotlight on this deep experience, then it would  have achieved its purpose.

But as I reflected on the meeting, I also felt a tinge of dissatisfaction. I saw how Prof. Barney Pityana was rejected as co-chair. The argument was that he had taken a particular position on the matter. A new chair was chosen, who promptly declared his support for the removal of Rhodes. But I thought that a neutral chair was sought? One that would faciliate the debate on Rhodes? Obviously, I was naive in my expectation. But it was disappointing to see the wisdom of Prof Pityana summarily rejected.

I subsequently read that Prof. Pityana had questioned the wisdom of removing all colonial symbols of colonialism and apartheid from South African public spaces. He did not reject the removal of Rhodes. He only questioned this policy. In opposition, Prof. Gqola argued that these statues should be put in a museum.

As the meeting progressed, we heard clearly that the students had adopted a particular political position on post-apartheid politics. It left me wondering if this was another political campaign or a fundamental search for a new University? While presumably opposed to the history of colonialism and apartheid, was it more truly directed against the post-apartheid politics of Presidents Mandela, Mbeki and perhaps Zuma? Prof. Pityana represented, wrongly in view, this politics.

Defining Religion

Starting at the beginning of this year (2015), we began a weekly discussion on definitions of religion. We identified a small set of journal articles on the definitions of religion for closer reading and critical reflection. Jonathan Z. Smith's 1998 article on the history of defining religion in the academic world brought up some interesting questions.

In this article, Smith set the framework for a familiar thesis shared by  critical scholars like David Chidester, Talal Asad and Tim Fitzgerald. They argue that religion is a category invented by scholars of religion searching for a non-theological, natural, anthropological approach. Smith concludes that this is a necessary even though flawed approach. In It is important to note that Chidester, Asad and Fitzgerald have argued that the study of religions as a non-theological exercise is shaped respectively by colonial frontiers, the history of Western intellectual history, and an ideological battle.

So our questions may asked pointedly:

• How should one proceed with definitions of religion? Do we really need a definition? What is the real value of such a definition?
• What do we do with the European legacy borne by colonial history?

Our discussion framed the following questions:

1. The history of defining religion as presented by Smith is not complete. In fact, it betrays a clearly Western intellectual history as argued by Talal Asad. More importantly, it completely ignores, for example, the history of defining dīn ('religion') in Islamic intellectual history. Can we safely ignore the history of dīn (plural adyān) as a theological exercise that can be ignored? What have the philosophers, poets and mystics said about dīn as a conceptual framework to understand human experience? Smith's history on defining religion is completely silent about this and other histories.

2. Smith presents an interesting journey of scholars and observers attempting to put forward a definition of religion that was gradually freed from its (Christian, European) theological roots. The journey began with a theological bias, but slowly replaced it with a rational, natural frame of reference. The essential feature of "religion" was propelled by a search first of a rational, then natural and now anthropological foundation. In these exercises, great insights about religion have been put forward. Given this history, we ask what is the value of reflections on religion by the religious (theologians, mystics, philosophers, sages)? is there nothing in this extended history of religions of mankind worthy of reflection? Has this western history of the study of religion erased the possibility that scholars of religion can learn anything about religion from the religious?

3. Another question emerged on the realization that the history of study of religion has emerged from the political and religious history of European modernization. This includes modern state formation, colonization, science and capitalist economics (among others). The very idea of religion as a distinct sphere can be related to this history. And the study of religion emerged from the identification of this sphere. How can one found a study of religion in other contexts, where these historical developments have followed a very different trajectory? Can one really do religious studies on the periphery? If so, how?

4. While a critical study of the study of religion is useful and enlightening, the challenge of studying religions remains? What should one look for? There is a strong feeling or consensus that religion cannot be separated from psychology, politics and society? How then should one study the religious dimension?

The Postcolonial condition for the Study of Religion

We hosted a highly successful meeting on the study of religion in post-colonial contexts in Cape Town, South Africa (March 2015). The meeting was attended by researchers from India, Pakistan, Portugal, the USA and South Africa. Altogether thirteen papers and positions were presented over two days in Cape Town. There was plenty of time for discussion on each paper, and enough time for discussion and debate during tea, coffee and meals.

At this our first meeting on thinking about religion education in a post-colonial context, the workshop was very successful. It raised crucial questions about the politics of post-coloniality and scholarship, the subject positions of researchers, and the terms that ought to be used in our intellectual work. Notable success was recorded around some issues for future collaboration and exhange.

Firstly, it was clear that much more needs to be done about intellectual exchange in the Global South. Sigificant progress may be mentioned in networks and associations like CODESRIA and the African Association for the Study of Religions (est. 1992). However, the weight of exchange had hardly tilted in favour of a true South-South exchange and collaboration. The meeting resolved to work for greater effort towards a true foundation of exchange, and the development of a critical mass of scholarship that would begin to address key issues facing scholars based in the global South.

There was a general realization that scholars working in the Global South had often one clear focus in common: their common dissatisfaction or unease with the North in one form or another. This dependency was often expressed in a great rejection of the North, making it our True North! This issue opened up a number of debates on the value of the canons produced. In our meeting in particular, the value of Emmanuel Kant became a bone of contention. There were some insightful suggestions of re-reading Kant and also reading against him, but also suggestions that a Foucaultian reading of Kant was liberatory. Others accused presenters of ignoring an African reading of Kant. All these were valuable points, but underlined the fact that a Global South Network often turned around the ills and opportunities of reading the Western canon. Surely, we concluded, we must be prepared to read and create new classics. We must read each other as critically as we read the European canon!

As far as the study of religion is concerned, there were a some specific suggestions and contributions. From my side, I want to close this short report with an observation. Scholarship on religion had made strides in the study of religion in post-colonial perspective. In particular, such scholarship had found the value of Marx (class and hegemony), Foucault (regimes of truth and genealogy, Bakhtin (theatre and play) and Homi Bhabha (hybridity). But is also interesting that most of the contributions on the religious experience of humankind emanating from the Global South has been bracketed as insider privileged musings. Would it not be a great idea to rethink the dichotomy of insder/outsider distinctions? Should such insights be rehabilitated as insights into the human condition, and not merely “religious” or “theological” positions that can be appraised by Western frameworks? Can we another look at Tutu or Ibn al-Arabi or Mencius as observers of human behaviour, rather than mere participants in the human journey?