Towards Greater Tolerance

Ralph,

Your question about the truth or otherwise of YLH assertion about abdus salam has been answered by American express in 185. He wants you to skip the topic.

Hamidm, the great wordsmith in 184 ansnswers as follows

``and if yasser says there are things names after abdus salaam, then i would believe him instead of jay who, along with arjun, seems to have gone over the edge ........... ``

At least, I admire the honesty of hamidm, he did not lie like YLH, but as usual took of on a tangent.

The fact is that Abdus Salam centre for theoreticl physics is in Itlay, because Zia at that time would not allow it in pakistan. Then none of the foundations of an islamic society laid by Zia has remained untouched, including the declaration about ahmadias in passport applications.

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

Ref PM #193 by PM

[re. Harimau #77
Gee, I`m really glad that India ``India is ALREADY the multi-ethnic, multi-lingual federal state that the EEC has been trying hard to become.`` No really, that`s so cool. There is a lot to be learnt from your posts.
Alas, what one could NOT learn is how you might realte any of your arguements to India`s claim on Kashmir. You cite Hindu majority being the reason for the gelling. Would you deny that at the time of partition, most of Kashmir had a Muslim minority?]

Only the Kashmir Valley and a portion of Jammu had a Muslim majority. The measure for ``most of Kashmir`` has to be land area since we are already discussing population by religion. By that measure, ``most of Kashmir`` is and continues to be Buddhist (not Hindu) over which you Pakistanis have no rightful claim, except through the tyranny of the majority that Jinnah used to rail against. Somehow, only Hindus and Muslims cannot live together, according to Jinnah and Company but Buddhists and Muslims can live together without problems. Well, I have news for you: the first thing that the raiders who penetrated into Ladakh did was to loot the Buddhist lamasseries and to destroy the centuries-old tankas and idols. You might want to read books by travellers who have travelled in these parts in the 1960s and 1970s to find out how your ``irregulars`` behaved. But then you can always read today`s headlines for their sense of gallantry in warfare.

The fact that parts of India even today have areas of concentrations of Muslims or Buddhists or animists doesn`t mean they get another partition.

As for learning a lot from my posts, I hope you read #189 that proves that Jinnah lied when he said that minorities will be suppressed by the majority in India. You could actually do the search on the Web yourself but then in the grand tradition of spoonfeeding that passes for teaching in Desh, I spoonfeed the facts to Pakistanis who will not learn even then.

[Oh, GEOGRAPHICAL unity is your point, eh? Well.. look at the map.. Notice those two states that flank India? They used to be part of what was loosely and `fluidly` called `India`. And if GEPGRAHICAL untiy is or was to be defining principle in nationhood, exactly what defines the boundaries in a scenario of princely-state under the dominion of colonists?]

That dear boy Yasser seemed to have confused political unity with the reality of geographical unity that EXISTS for the states of India. Geographical unity is a fact that cannot be wished away but political unity happens when there is a consensus among the population. Thus, 98% of Indians like India the way it is. Since Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who separated in 1947 have expressed no desire to join India, they stay outside.

What defined the borders of the princely states was the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. At that point, the British realized that attempting to secure more land through expropriation of princely states was too costly and decided to allow the remaining princely houses to keep their fiefdoms. If that hadn`t happened and all of India had been turned into British India, you still wouldn`t have gotten Junagadh, Hyderabad or Goa (that last one is laughable... Pakistanis thinking that they have a right to Goa! Did you Fakhrs ever think of asking the French for their Indian possessions? Bet you didn`t even know the French were still hanging around in India! But you want the Portuguese to hand over Goa to you!) As for Kashmir, that would have been partitioned too like Bengal and Punjab and, yes, Pakistan would have ended up with the Kashmir Valley in addition to what you have now. The valley is the reparation Pakistan has to pay for the plunder, rape and killings of October 1947.

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

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?

[re. Harimau #70
Presumptousness is a horrible thing. :) ]

When Pakistan refers to the Pakistan Criminal Procedure Code of 1935, I must agree that the presumptuousness of the Pakistan Government is boundless. (Please check Pakistan legal sources. Please, please, pretty please with sugar on top, prove me wrong!)

re. #191 by Ralph:
Ralph, what is this `great strategic value for both Indai and Pakistan`?

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.

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

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.

#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.

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.

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.

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.

#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!!

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

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?