Towards Greater Tolerance

PM

``But things were always going to get ugly when India dishonoured the UN Resolutions. War is never pretty, ven if it`s proxy. My point: India shares the blame. ``

Alas! you lost it there Patrick. Two things- 1) UN resolutions came after the Pak army assisted tribal attack on Kasmir ( which Mr. Jinnah denied of course) and 2) even a cursory reading of UN resolutions may tell you that India never ``technically violated`` it.

Ref PM #201

[As for your reckoning of India as the EEC`s dream come true, the parallel is severely limited-- unless you can imagine any of the states being granted accession if and when a politcal majority so decided they wanted it.]

That will come to pass in another 100 years. But by that time, the idea of pocket-sized countries becoming independent will be gone.

Hundreds of thousands died in the US Civil War to maintain the unity of the nation. Britain did unspeakable things to Ireland, Wales and Scotland to create the United Kingdom. Today, the Welsh don`t want to leave the UK. One could cite their poverty but Scotland brimming with North Sea oil is not seeking independence. It takes a long time to create a sense of unity among disparate people and hence my comments about having to wait another 100 years. But you must acknowledge that at least in India we haven`t wiped out any language like Britain did to Gaelic or Welsh, no matter what the Urduwallahs might say. Heck, we haven`t even undertaken a systematic hunting of any type of dissidents like Britain did to the Scots after the Battle of Culloden.

I will be the first one to say that none of this is due to the generosity of Hindus, which was what Jinnah wanted. He wanted guarantees that privileges, if agreed upon and granted at the time of independence to Muslims, be written into the law. On the other hand, this is the fruit of democracy. If Jinnah had figured out that the people will prevail in the long run, he would have had no hesitation in agreeing to a united India.

Can one Pakistani explain how is it possible for the 80% Muslim population of Sindh, the 95% Muslims of Balochistan and NWFP, the 60+% majority Muslims in Punjab and Bengal, to be deprived of their rights in a united India? If Kerala with 25% Christian population can elect AK Anthony to be its Chief Minister overriding the 30+% Muslims and 45% Hindus of that state, what would have prevented the provinces of today`s Pakistan from electing Muslims to positions of authority? On the other hand, if the concern was the 30% minority Muslims strewn across the rest of India, isn`t the correct solution to offer them rights of residence in Pakistan? Once you understand the contradictions inherent in the Pakistan ideology, there is only one thing Pakistanis can do: start saying that Pakistan exists and cannot be wished away.

No one wishes away Pakistan; no one in India wishes it ill. We wish your common man can be freed from the yoke of the army. The people would then take care of the mullahs on their own.

PM #193 writes:

{re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. In the real world, however, consideration is to be given to defence and economic needs for which folks will sometimes, or often, subordinate claims to autonomy at the altar of pragmatic consolidation/centralization.}

I would like to know WHY you consider ``every-village-a-nation`` to be the ideal degree of devolution of sovereignty. For starters, ideal with respect to WHAT? What is it that you seek to maximise - `individual freedom/autonomy`, `social coherence`, `participatory democracy/self-government`, `material wealth`, `safety from violence`, `shared historical consciousness`; some other factor; a weighted combination of one or more of the above? When you mention autonomy above, are you referring to the autonomy of the individual, or of social groups? If it is a social group, HOW is it chosen as deserving of autonomy, and what makes its claims more deserving than those of all other possible groupings, from single individuals to multicultural multiethnic megastates?

In PM #55 you referred to `the idea of multi-nation theory and political autonomy` and to `innate insecurity in their nationalistic premise`. So it was reasonable to infer that you actually had some coherent argument based on clear principles (AKA theory) to support your position; that it was not merely an idiosyncratic personal preference, that it was somehow based on more solid foundations that other peoples` innately insecure nationalistic premise.

That was why I had a multitude of questions to ask you in #72. They were NOT rhetorical. I trust you will be forthcoming with answers.

Dear Ana,

I read what PM wrote and your post in Unplugged flashed into my mind. For some weird reason, I knew it was your mother`s village.

Now the strange thing is, I was going through Dawn today and went through the young world section (never done it before until now - all a part of the typical avoidance behaviour exhibited by students) and I read this. Again, your post came to my mind. They should let the adults read this too. Alas, illiteracy is a problem that has yet to be handled by the short and curlies...

[Hi kids!


By Editor

What would you do if your younger sibling tore a page from your book or misplaced your pen? Or the servant, while cleaning your room, accidentally broke one of your toys? Of course, you will lose your temper and shout and scream at the poor soul from entering your room or touching your things. You think you are right in your action as anyone who commits a mistake ought to be punished. But for a while think what you will gain from all this. You will not get your things back and your relationship with the people around you will be damaged. You might miss enjoying the free time with your sibling; and do all your work yourself as the servant is barred from entering your room.

Yes, a culprit should be punished but this doesn`t mean that you should lose your temper and shout and scream around the house. Instead you should act calmly and select a punishment which should teach the erring party a lesson but not hurt his feelings. Plus losing your temper is not a good habit. It tarnishes your image and gives you a bad name. If you are in the habit of frequently losing your temper over petty things you will soon lose your friends and will find yourself all alone in this vast world. People tend to put up with a lot of things among friends but not bad or short temper. Keeping your temper in control while in anger is one of the most difficult but praise-worthy qualities. Look around for ways to do so and you will find many which are not too difficult.

Have a nice weekend!

Bye! ]

We should all check ourselves back into the nursery :)

Umer M

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

PM.
I considered letting your post #204 go without response, but then I said what the hell :-), so here goes:
The `obscure` Punjabi Christian rural township, Shantinagar, which you refer to is one of my homes away from home away from home...it is my mother`s village.
The mob attacked Shantinagar in February of 1997...it was not in 1996.
`Despicable no doubt. But no lives were taken.` is incorrect as well. It was despicable and some lives were taken. Perhaps it wasn`t a large-scale massacre, but nevertheless there were some casualties. People have conflicting reports on this, but I personally know of one.
Just thought I`d point that out to you, Patrick.
ana

PM #201, friend #various:

From PM #201

{There is no question that Pakistanis have acted unconscionably there. But things were always going to get ugly when India dishonoured the UN Resolutions. War is never pretty, ven if it`s proxy. My point: India shares the blame.}

This is really tiresome. Here is a link to assorted UN resolutions on J & K from Pk.gov.pak (the official Pakistan government web site):

http://pak.gov.pk/public/kashmir/kashmir-resolutions.htm

The key resolution is the UNCIP resolution of August 13th 1948. which restates some of the recommendations of the UNSC resolution of April 21st 1948. The August 13th 1948 resolution has never been rescinded by the UN, and is referred to in all subsequent resolutions on J&K. Completion of the Truce agreement provisions in Part II of the August 13th 1948 resolution is a necessary precondition for all further steps.

It is well known that the Truce Agreement provisions require Pakistan, as a first step, to withdraw all its troops from J & K as well as secure the withdrawal of tribesemen and Pakistani nationals not normally resident in the state, and to hand over power to local authorities.

It is only after these steps have been completed that requirements are imposed on India to reduce the bulk of its armed forces in the state.

There are no provisions for separating the bulk of the J & K territory under Pakistan`s control as `Northern Areas` - or permitting the massive influx of Pakistani Punjabis into the territory - or allowing any of the territory to be ceded to China.

We all know the extent of Pakistani compliance with the provisions of this resolution.

Now what was that PM was saying about Pakistan`s position on J & K being `moral` - as opposed to the alleged `moral weakness` of India`s position?

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

#201 PM

Amusing to see your abysmal ignorance regarding the 1948 invasion of J&K. All of the UN resolutions (introduced by India to free the area of invaders) came AFTER the invasion. The first clause of the resolution counels withdrawal of all pakistani forces from any part of J&K.

But, heh, dont let the facts confuse you now!!

YLH

I quoted the numbers to make a point. Obviously you missed it ...

The 1971 War and Bangladesh HAS contributed to Indian perceptions of Pakistan secular and saffron. It is the biggest event in the history of your country. It generated a population of refugees (10 Million) that equaled or exceeded the number at Partition and redrew the map of the subcontinent. You can`t ignore it in an article about Indian perceptions about Pakistan and their basis. (or Kashmir too for that matter).


-------------------------------------------
Khushwant Singh - in an interview with Tehelka ...

I go along with you most of the way, and it`s best to assuage the grievances often aired by Pakistanis against India. We have done nothing to defame Islam, but there are a few Hindu rightwingers who do so. In a democratic society, we can`t stop them. All we can do is stand up to them, and silence them by argument. Kashmir remains a point of contention, but the treatment meted out to Kashmiri Pandits and Sikhs should make Pakistanis rethink issues, and not simply regard them as Muslims against non-Muslims. If Pakistan has a case against India, so does India against Pakistan. My advice: talk; don`t quarrel.

PM #204
``Residents were given the opportunity to flee. ``
wow! what a great proof of tolerance. Residents were allowed to flee!! Wonder if they wanted to give such a chance to ``flee`` to Godhra train passengers too. Perhaps those passengers didn`t take that chance.

And would you also write about that old female who distributed sweets in a piece of paper? Or priest (was that a bishop!!) who had to commit suicide in a church?

Certainly we have our bands of crooks, but coming from Pakistan, such comments look ridiculous.

PM, perhaps we should not be competing on ``whose sh!t stinks more``. We all stink.

I am waiting for your references on UN resolutions.

re. #168 by rsaxena
[re: hamidm #158
...the reason pakis can kill only a handful of infidels at a time is because there are only a handful of infidels left in pakistan...]
Duh! A majority of Pakistan`s 5 million (handful?) Christians and Hindus live in religiously homogenous townships. The nearest thing to an organized riot against a minority community occured in an obscure Punjabi Christian rural township called Shantinagar in `96. In response to a call from an unpaDh mullah citing blasphemy, a mob of equally ignorant Muslims from surrounding towns basically burnt the town to the ground. Despicable, no doubt. But no lives were taken. Residents were given the opportunity to flee.
In the wake of the Babri incident, many Hindu temples and even Christian churches were attacked and damaged but, again, there was no systematic (or, to my knowledge, ANY sort of) massacre of Hindus.

#203,
Sorry for typo

. It is certainly possible that copies I am looking ``at are`` tainted and modified by vested interests.

PM, will look forward to your feedback to this.

PM#201
``But things were always going to get ugly when India dishonoured the UN Resolutions.``

All the references I could get to those resolutions indicate that Pakistani army was to withdraw first. It is certainly possible that copies I am looking are at tainted and modified by vested interests (in this case, we Indians).
PM, you are one of the saner interactors on this board. Would you please post UN resolutions on this thread and than help me in understanding them?
Would look forward to your reply.

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

re. #197 by harimau:
[Ref PM #193 by PM
[re. AlephNull #72
Yes, the every-village-a-nation would be the ideal. ]

Would that apply equally to Pakistan or just to India? ]

harimau, (Take Two) : Presumptousness is a horrible thing.
(Translated: Don`t presume that my nationalisty dictates whose policies I defend and whose I oppose. Please let`s just debate the specific issues at hand. I have no interest in playing the `you guys are as bad as us or worse` game-- and no, it`s not becuase I know deep down that we guys are worse than you, per se. :) )

re. #199: I do not seek to defend the actions of ``[my] irregulars`` in the Kashmir Valley. There is no question that Pakistanis have acted unconscionably there. But things were always going to get ugly when India dishonoured the UN Resolutions. War is never pretty, ven if it`s proxy. My point: India shares the blame.

As for your reckoning of India as the EEC`s dream come true, the parallel is severely limited-- unless you can imagine any of the states being granted accession if and when a politcal majority so decided they wanted it.