Towards Greater Tolerance

PM #55

{Liked this very much:

``What makes the imagined geographical unity of South Asian subcontinent more special than the other two? What makes it the right size anyway? By no means are the doors of History closed to further redrawing of borders whether here in South Asia or in the world. All effective cases for political autonomy should be entertained. The unity of the world lies in constant decentralization of authority, till effective governance and equality is finally achieved, and true meaning of liberty is realized.``

Well said. I have never understood what makes SOME people so terrified of the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy. Could it be the awareness of innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise? ... I suppose it just isn`t as fashionable to define nationhood in terms of basic beliefs and lifestyles as to demarcate boundaries by language!}

Alright, what makes *any* territorial unit the right size to be a nation? Why not continue the process of subdivision indefinitely? Where does it stop? ``My village for its villagers?`` Or is it to be ``Every man/woman is an island?`` Provide a method, an unambiguously defined procedure, to determine what the `correct` political map of the world should be - and prove its correctness.

The same question can be asked about `basic beliefs and lifestyle`. In reality these are not monolithic and indivisible, no matter how insistently SOME systems of belief are presented as such by their proponents. Each belief system - religion - has perhaps as many shades as it has adherents. Even if you restrict yourself to named schools or sects, the number is very large and constantly increasing. Nor is there a sharp demarcation between supposedly different belief systems; particularly in the Indian subcontinent.

So in particular one might ask why the claims of subcontinental Islam to its own nation should supersede the rights of Shias, Sunnis, etc to form their own nation, and so on; Shias in turn could be further subdivided, etc. etc. ad infinitum.

So exactly where does one draw sharp new boundaries, territorial or societal, and why?

Further, why is an individual`s belief system (real or nominal) to take precedence over all other personal attributes in determining civic identity or `nationality`? What if different people assign different weights to different attributes - for instance, one wants to associate with others who share the same language, another with coreligionists (as he sees them), a third with those who share both language and religion, and a fourth simply wants to be left alone in peace and would prefer current political boundaries to remain? What about those who`d rather be small fish in an ocean than big fish in a small pond? What about nonconformists who don`t want to be confined to a small country whose discourse is dominated by linguistic chauvinists who speak the same language as they do, or by religious fanatics whose religion they nominally share? Whose desires *ought* to take precedence, and why?

The case when the belief system selected as the primary basis of nationhood is a religion (and thus basically a matter of faith, not susceptible to reason) is especially problematic. It is difficult to prevent a nation defined in such terms from regressing into outright theocracy. It also preempts the personal choices of all future citizens in the matter of religious faith (or indifference to religion, or outright rejection of religion), a domain which is basically private and should be purely a matter of personal choice. Why is this considered acceptable?

Do votaries of the `true meaning of liberty` have any sensible and practical answers?

http://www.jang-group.com/thenews/index.html

28 Pakistanis caught by Italian police. Charged with linkage to Al-Queida.

The thing that caught my eye was as usual the following sad commentary:

That all were innocent as per Pakistan foreign ministry and, get this,
they mention they were trapped because the lodging they stayed belonged to the (italian) mafia. Comme on...

By the way, the police found explosives, fuse laced with chemicals, newspaper clippings from Pakistani newspapers, islamic ``jehadi`` teachings, etc besides, maps of naples with locations of bases, harbors, embassy location, etc.....

Why would the mafia cause physical harm to their own country? what will they do with islamic literature?

It is amazing to see the official pakistani institution such as the pakistani foreign office supporting all these people. unless, one assumes, that
the foreign office knew about it, which is even more scarry because it would mean al-queida infiltration via mma influence in foreign ministry and isi encouragement.

it won`t be surprising for bush to include pakistan in the axis of evil pretty soon because a lot of these intended targets were us interests.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

...ouch, this is going to rattle some jehadi beards in pakistan BIG time...hahahahah...eat your heart out hamdani...


from Jane`s (not some Indian publication):

{Strategic shift in south Asia

In an effort to garner international support for their side of the endless Kashmir dispute, both India and Pakistan have been doing their best to attract the friendship of the United States since the beginning of the `war on terrorism`. The US is seen as the only third party that could intervene to solve the Kashmir dispute. While Pakistan holds US President George W Bush`s immediate attention, India seemed to be winning the long-term battle, at least until now. We reveal what is going on.

India surprised both Pakistan and the US in the signing of its recent accord with Iran. This strategic agreement, which will allow India the use of Iranian military bases in the event of any outbreak of tensions with Pakistan, affects the future of the sub-continent.

The revelation by India of the pact not only heightens tension in south Asia, but also leaves the US with a dilemma: how to react to India`s alliance with Iran, which remains part of the US `axis of evil`.

The pact was signed a week before the visit of Iran`s President, Mahammad Khatami, to India to join the celebrations for India`s national day on 26 January. Signed in Tehran by the Indian naval chief and the Iranian minister of defence, the pact marks a complete turnaround by Iran, which used to be a close ally of Pakistan. How the pact fits in with India`s defence relationship with Israel is unclear, but the threat this can pose to Pakistan is all too real.

Iran benefits by gaining access to Indian military expertise, which will include upgrades of its fighters, as well as new tanks and artillery. India will also help train the Iranian army and navy. India will be allowed to deploy troops and equipment in Iran during a crisis with Pakistan and gain access to Iranian ports.

It looks very much like an encirclement of Pakistan by India. The pressure on Pakistan`s defences would be almost overwhelming. We expect Pakistan to respond. Much will depend on the reaction of the Bush administration. }

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Urstruly sahib
``Monkeys`` have now got access to Iranian military bases in case of outbreak of tensions. Read and simmer....
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030129_1_n.shtml

nasah # 58, # 59

That is the spirit we will need to promote tolerance.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

well said Urstruly bhai :-)

Dasht tau dasht hai daryaa bhi na choRay hum nay
Bahr e zulmat mein dhowRaa diye ghoRay hum nay...

Iqbal (I hope I have quoted him correctly)

:-)

Peace is the issue in the Subcontinent. The question is HOW? While the BJP fascists are in power--no chance. WE have to wait for Congress to win again I reckon...

Or wait till Imam Mahdi alayhisalam blesses the world with their presence...

As long as Hindus keep on dreaming about a greater monkey kingdom spanning from Afghanistan to Nepal there will not be peace and prosperity in the region. Not only they themselves keep on dying with hunger, disease, aids and syphilis but they will keep on making the lives of millions other misearble as well. Mahabharat was only possible twice in history - once under Ashok and second time under Aurangzeb Alamgir (may God bless his soul) - and both times Hindus were put in the right place. Hindus themselves could never do it - even Krishan couldn`t go beyond Gordaspur.

Hamdani my lad -- if u want to move -- ``Towards Greater Tolerance`` -- MINIMIZE the Rancorous Statistics -- 5 million vs 3 million -- that is again argumentative and confrontational --

accept that all three -- the Muslims the Hindus and the Sikhs were equally NAKED in the Hammam of subcontinental BARBARISM --

the ONLY civilized communities being the Christians and the Parsis

no use arguing about the `degree of barbarism` --

subcontinental passive/aggressive are -- even today -- fully capable of burst of barbaric behavior -- in between bowing hugging and touching feet --

Tolerance begins NOT with `accounting` but `discounting` -- what happened -- in the moment of `temporary` insanity -- happened --

tell me what -- u`ve got for the bleak FUTURE -- of Indo-Pak friendship and reconciliation -- any fresh ideas -- or the same old RUT...

Hamdani my lad -- if u want to move -- ``Towards Greater Tolerance`` -- MINIMIZE the Rancorous Statistics -- 5 million vs 3 million -- that is again argumentative and confrontational --

accept that all three -- the Muslims the Hindus and the Sikhs were equally NAKED in the Hammam of subcontinental BARBARISM --

the ONLY civilized communities being the Christians and the Parsis

no use arguing about the `degree of barbarism` --

subcontinental passive/aggressive are -- even today -- fully capable of burst of barbaric behavior -- in between bowing hugging and touching feet --

Tolerance begins NOT with `accounting` but `discounting` -- what happened -- in the moment of `temporary` insanity -- happened --

tell me what -- u`ve got for the bleak FUTURE -- of Indo-Pak friendship and reconciliation -- any fresh ideas -- or the same old RUT...

re #33, Yasser:
``Please show me where I say that Minorities are happy in Pakistan... but that doesn`t suggest that they are happy in Pakistan``
Gee, no one told poor ol me I was miserable all this time! Or any of my many Christian friends who`ve chosen to live in the land of the not-so-pure. How miserable is THAT!!
But seriously, I think what Yasser tries to drive home is that while institutional discrimination exists against religious minorities in Pakistan, the reality `on the ground` is different. While the ranks of religious bigots have been swelling at an alarming rate over the past two decades, IMO such folks still constitute a small minority of Pakistani Muslims.
And for the bloke who suggested that Pak Religious Minorities are relegated to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, well, that`s quite untrue. Yes, the bulk of Pakistani Christians belong to the `sweeper class`. However, such has been their lot in life since before they converted to Christianity. Neither can it be claimed that Christians and Hindus are exclusive to such bottom-rung occupations.
And why are Pakistani Hindus not visible on the chowk? Well, statistics might provide a clue... Hindus form 2% of the population. Those with money are either ofthe wadera class in Sindh (read `paDha likhay jahil` --like most of this class) or urban businessfolks, the type you`d least expect to see on a forum such as this.
And just FYI, there WAS a Pakistani Hinud (patriotic one at that!) active here up to a year or so ago.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Nicely argued, though grammatically wanting. Welcome back.

EU is the right way to go for South Asia. All regions that want independence should be allowed to have it, specially since that was the battle cry of Indians and Pakistanis themselves, under British. Once they have political independence, they should come together under an economic union, with free trade, no visas, free movement of people and money.

I will take a guess that 50% of Pakistanis and probably 90% of Indians have never even visited Kashmir. Less than 10% of Pakistan`s population is Kashmiri and maybe around 1% of Indian population is Kashmiri. Yet they both seem so interested in it. It is all part of a misplaced ego and the desire of one man to rule another.

Let the Kashmiris decide their fate, and live on their own. Let anyone else do that, as well. After all, the biggest desire of an Indian or Pakistani is to migrate to the USA, not to Kashmir.

I don`t think there can be any peace in South Asia, until all political entities are allowed their breathing space. One of the biggest mistakes of the British was the unification of the whole area of South Asia, against the wishes of some of its local population. All South Asian citizens are now paying the price for it.

If there is one historical consistency in South Asia, it is that any group that has wanted freedom has eventually gotten it - be they Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis. Applying the same rule to other areas like Kashmir, what is the point of killing so many of them (and then using their deaths as a propoganda tool), why not just ask them what they want?