How much more we do not know...

In the post below, referencing the BBC radio show, Professor Sunder has pointed her finger to the lack of attention to non-Western cultural and artistic heritage. Her criticism is really on point, because in the world-known famous art museums all we see is Western art... Many other problems flow from this, including lack of knowledge in the West as to how people in other parts of the world live and breathe. Then when it comes to analyzing the 'clash of civilizations' people in the West have a very limited and constricted empirical framework to begin with.

Here are some modern Indian art paintings by Archana Santra.

When Desireless went to India, her impressions lead her to the hit 'Voyage Voyage'.

Internet, globalization and harmonization

How has the world Internet changed the power dynamics between the state and the society? How did the traditional control of the state over the communication slowly give in? What does this mean? Is the ever-expanding global communication system threatening to take over the traditional knowledge and mode of thinking? Relatedly, is the globalization and ensuing clash of civilizations, necessarily washing away the traditional cultural footprints? Is modernity diametrically opposed to culture and tradition?

This process is affecting how people think, interact with the world and build their pathways of survival... The information flow is however faster than people can absorb or reflect over. Does that make us as humans of 'shallow' and 'superficial' thinking... Time-management is a major problem in light of competitive demands and obligations. How can we manage our time in light of this information blast? For example, as an average American citizen can you keep up with everything that is happening in the presidential elections every day? Don't you feel overwhelmed? Don't you sometimes want to shut off the TV? I have decided to minimize my use of TV as much as possible. I can't promise the same about the Internet though.

In answer to some of these questions, I highly recommend to listen to the recent program Forum of BBC World Service with my own Professor Madhavi Sunder here. Professor Sunder is my favorite professor who influenced me to a great degree as a law student. Her scholarship crisscrosses many subjects, including Law and Modernity, Intellectual Property, International Human Rights, Women and culture...

International Women's Day

International Women’s Day came about as a result of the Socialist Movement in Europe, Russia and the suffragist movement in the United States. In 1910 at a Socialist conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, there was a proposal to officially commemorate an International Women’s Day. On the threshold of World War I, Russian women activists came out to the streets protesting for ‘peace and bread.’ Later in 1917 at the height of the Great October Revolution women organized mass demonstrations demanding the right to vote and asking the Czar to abdicate. The famous women’s strike commenced on February 23 on the calendar then in use in Russia, which is March 8 on the calendar elsewhere in the world. (visit)

This day is very personal to me. Growing up in the Soviet Union, March 8 was a national holiday of first importance and we had parades with flower shows on the squares of our cities. I remember very vividly the sense of pride of women on this day. Men, women and children like me were walking with large posters with international symbols of peace and solidarity. With the Cold War a reality, longing for peace was enormous. It was this international spirit that made me want to be a world citizen. I was born on March 10, 1978. But when my father went to the county office to get my birth certificate, he recorded my birthday as March 8 to have it associated with International Women’s Day. All my formal documents reflect that. I see a symbolic meaning in this. If throughout my life I make a significant contribution to international women’s rights, my life will be fulfilled.


For centuries in almost all cultures throughout the world women were severely marginalized and minimized to the role of a housewife and mother. While many tribal and pre-Roman societies were matriarchal and centered around women, that rapidly changed with the advance of the Roman law and its influence in the world. Women were perceived as completely lacking in intelligence. They were not allowed access to higher education beyond the education received at home even in the nobility. You see, their minds were too frail and they were not seen as capable of mastering sciences and arts. Any ambitious woman who set up goals for her advancement had to become a mistress to a famous man to reach them. Fortunate were those born to kings. As queens they were allowed to rule over men by Grace of God. They were divinities, not simple women. Otherwise who would have followed their orders? There were those who surpassed kings in their rule. Cleopatra, Catherine the Great of Russia, Elizabeth I of England were such. But until the end of the 19th century women were largely invisible and voiceless. Exceptionally talented women would shine like lone stars in the darkness of the night and again submerge into darkness, forgotten and rendered to oblivion. Grace O’Malley was one. But with growing industrialization at the threshold of the 20th century women began awakening from deep subjugation and slumber. Because the industrialization touched the West more forcefully than other parts of the world, women’s emancipation movement also began in the West. Women’s suffragist movement that bestowed the right to vote was an essential beginning. Till then women were not privileged to participate or contribute to the civic society except for by charitable work or patronage. This was a crucial threshold that women of the West crossed. Of course, we should also recognize that socialism with its basic egalitarian principles made a significant contribution to women’s rights. Therefore, countries with socialism as political ideology made similar progress in women’s rights. Slowly, step by step, but surely women marched on in the 20th century, acknowledging, defying, and breaking barriers. First treated as non-conformists and rebels these women were going to set new standards for the newer generations of women. Lucille Ball and Katherine Hepburn come to mind. Things they fought hard for day in and day out were already taken for granted by those of us who followed. For us, women lawyers it is simply inconceivable that there was a time, not long ago, when women were simply not found in law schools. Those who began breaking this rule were treated with ridicule and sexism.

So here we are today. For us, fortunate women in the West and some other regions, most of the barriers are no longer a reality. We are no longer perceived as intellectually inferior to men, or subordinate to them. While there are still subtle and invisible to the eye barriers and sexism is still existent, we cannot compare our condition to that of our foremothers. Yet, yet, in a large part of the world women are still mistreated, disrespected, viewed as inferior at best. At worst they are sold, abused daily, raped, as easy targets of violence. Their suffering is enormous. They take the biggest hit of poverty, economic degradation, cultural and tribal backwardness. We, women in the West, who are fortunate to have achieved so much by virtue of high development of our countries, have a responsibility to render a helping hand to these women across the Globe who are less fortunate. Women in Africa, Asia, Middle East are those in need of our help. Powerless as they are, they only need our guidance and inspiration to arise because they have all the determination, strength and maturity that characterized women suffragists in the West and those Russian women activists. The UN and human rights institutions have done a lot but it is not enough, because the suffering of women all around the world is continuing daily, hourly and by minute.


To me International Women’s Day is a day of realization of the high responsibility of all women in the world in standing up for one another. Women’s rights cannot materialize and be enforced in societies if women all around the world are inactive. On this day, I would therefore like to give a tribute to a woman who has dedicated her life and career to arousing this great sense of responsibility in other women—my favorite Professor at UC Davis School of Law, Madhavi Sunder. (here) Graduate of Harvard and Stanford, she came to teach at a very young age, feeling the sense of urgency in development of women’s rights around the globe. Her scholarship is devoted to rejecting old-fashioned, settled norms about women and culture, women and religion, women and modernity. She has courageously crossed the high threshold towards new thinking, new ‘enlightenment’ that gives new impetus to women’s rights and prepares all the essential groundwork for advancement of women in the Middle East, Asia and Africa. A distinguished Carnegie scholar, an author of numerous brilliant articles and an upcoming book, she is a superb role model for us. As an affectionate mother of two children and a wife she is a role model not only as a scholar and champion for women, but as a well-rounded woman successful in all roles. Congratulations to Professor Madhavi Sunder!
Happy International Women’s Day!

Pyramids- property?

When the developed world pushed the developing countries to recognize their Intellectual Property rights, there was a come-back. The developing countries began thinking of propertyzing traditional knowledge or indigenous knowledge. Basically, they said, 'Ok, if we cannot produce generic drugs because of the TRIPs agreement, then we will also not allow you to use our traditional knowledge without paying.' So, in that spirit, now Egypt wants to copyright the pyramids. For a full story here.

Egypt has been a member of the WTO (World Trade Organization) since June 30, 1995. The TRIPs agreement that purports to regulate IP rights, specifically Article 12 on Terms of Protection for Copyright says here:

Whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making.

I am not sure how this provision would affect Egypt's attempts to copyright the pyramids that really are classified as 'world wonders' and belong to the world, while also being a national treasure for that country. Would Egypt be in violation of the TRIPs? I am not an expert and would not know. But really this is the dilemma in IP. Where do you draw the line? Propertyzing everything would result in shrinking of the public domain. How do you define the borders of IP rights internationally and limit pirating of traditional and other knowledge. But are certain things simply not subject to 'propertization'?

For more on these issues see the work of Professor Madhavi Sunder.

Women and secularism

“What a man believes, and what he therefore regards as unquestionable reality, constitutes his religion.” Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Concord and Liberty". “His/her” religion, not everybody’s, because faith is a very intimate endeavor, perhaps the most private human space, after family and sex.

“The government is itself nothing but the self-established focus, the individual embodiment of the universal will.” Hegel, “Phenomenology of Mind.”

The idea of separation of church from state, or secularism has been a center of much debate. It is important to look at its origins in order to understand its true meaning. The Age of Enlightenment (18th century), when laying the foundation for the modern nation-state, promulgated that a state does not represent the Will of God, but the will of people. By its very nature the Enlightenment began the slow extermination of monarchs, who were ruling by grace of God, not by the will of people. In the new formula, the church as the earthly manifestation of God, was to be separate from the state. Moreover, religious scholasticism and mysticism of the Middle Ages were replaced by reason. Enlightenment was synonymous with reason. Thus, the Enlightenment thinkers recognized that the demands of religion/church are incompatible with the demands of the modern state institutions.

As these liberal institutions developed, the idea of separation of church from state deepened and became an integral component of a western liberal democracy. The state was not to establish any religion and was not to abridge free exercise thereof. Also, the state was not to let any church influence its workings. However, an unspoken dilemma was always there. The state is not an abstraction and in its functions, it is empowered by the people it purports to represent. As Hegel pointed out, the government is an embodiment of the will of people. Since religion constitutes an “unquestionable reality” for millions of people, the state is necessarily challenged with respect to religion. Therefore, it can never really and fully insulate itself from religion.

Today while most European states and America preach secularism, they do not follow what they preach. While the institutions such as Constitutions are secular in their formulations, the governments are influenced by religion. It all really revolves around how people understand faith and religion. If you subscribe to the broader definition of Gasset, the vast majority of people can be classified religious, since they all believe in something faithfully and even blindly.

The recent developments in the world have illustrated that things are not as simple as the Enlightenment thinkers envisioned and secularism needs serious review. While in its essence separation of church and state is necessary in many ways, in many others too much of it borders on suppression. Professor Madhavi Sunder called this era as the New Enlightenment (Read her brilliant article "Piercing the Veil"). Her vision is how to recharacterize secularism to serve the needs of religious minorities and first of all, women, who have made certain choices toward emancipation within religion/culture. So, the dichotomy is changing. Faith as it is understood by people, has to receive its redefinition in the state and its representation of people.

For example, when France banned the Muslim headscarf in public schools, Muslim women rebelled against it, “You are suppressing our religious faith. This is intolerance and discrimination under the guise of secularism.” The state had a lame response, “We are a secular state and cannot allow your religious symbols infiltrate the public sphere.” In fact, the real motivation behind the ban was the fear of Islamic fundamentalism and religious fervor. To give some break to the French government, it was really grappling with Islamic women—suicide bombers. Unfortunately, the ban resulted in more fundamentalism and more religious uprisings.

The problem is that while theoretically separation of church from state is a positive thing, it always ends up as a tool for religious discrimination by the majority culture of the minority, or in other situations, it simply turns into a tool to get rid of disfavored minorities. The headscarf for these women was not only a religious symbol, but a part of their cultural identity. France’s ban was to exclude them from the public sphere, or force them to choose rejection of their culture. But why should these women, already oppressed in their own culture, receive more oppression in the hands of a liberal democracy… Moreover, it seems the human rights law itself supports this. The European Court of Human Rights in Leila Sahin v. Turkey decided that Turkey was justified in prohibiting Sahin from wearing her headscarf in the public university.

I cannot pretend to have a ready answer to this dilemma, but it seems the goal should be to empower, rather than shut out these women, who have a right to choose… While Islamic extremism and militantism must be grappled with, I would search for other ways than suppression of religious minorities.

We are women and we can do it!

In the famous movie "A League of Their Own" with Tom Hanks, Madonna and Rosie O'Donnell women prove that they can conquer baseball too. In the 20th century the women's emancipation movement gathered pace when women started entering fields traditionally reserved for men. In the 70s women could hardly be found in law schools. Now women comprise a majority in many law schools. Although only 32% of the California Bar is women (see recent Diversity Summit of the Los Angeles California Bar Association), it is still a remarkable progress. The billable hour psychodrama of the big firms is perhaps the biggest challenge for women becoming partners. But in other sections of the profession women have arisen in the hierarchy. More and more women become judges, administrators and supervising attorneys. While the glass ceiling for earnings is still lower for women, they have been able to replace men in virtually every field, while men could hardly ever replace women at home. They have done it and have managed to raise children and be good wives. This has happened not only in the West. In other parts of the world where oppression of women is still a painful reality, women have thrown out their submissive posture and have rebelled. They have demanded respect and independence. More and more Islamic women enter the dialogue on culture, religion and gender roles. For more on this see the amazing work of Professor Madhavi Sunder, a world-class scholar on women's rights. Go girl! We are women and we can do it!