The Saffron Autumn

Studebaker: I must say it is a pleasure to interact with you when you take the time to write coherent posts. But your Kamala posts are compeletely whacko.

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

pmishra2 #22
Check out Mr Isa Daudpota. His article reduces to these few lines : ``We will kill you so you must be friendly and agree to our demands. If you don`t agree to do as we say its because you are unfriendly and jingoistic. Oh - and US must pay us and build us this and that so that we stop wanting to kill you``

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

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

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

Studebaker:

I guess the point you are making is that Kashmiri Muslims are not monolithic identity. Agreed. Do you however believe in the concept of a dominant discourse?

To give you an example, if I didn`t know better, I would think TAhmed and Urstruly belong to two different religions. Though they both profess to be Muslim, the philosophies and concepts they stress upon are diametrically opposed to each other. Now, within Islamic society, one view will ultimately prevail, not in an absolutist sense, but as a dominant discourse.

How should non Muslims then react?

#20 sadna

The general idea is that muslims have special rights to get agitated and start blowing themselves up and killing everyone in sight. This is somehow natural and OK. Their oppression is so severe (forget the tibetans, the East Timorese, the Kashmiri pandits, ...) that they cannot help themselves.

Overall it is an astounding argument, specially when made by educated people. One gets the feeling that people who argue like this (not a large fraction of all muslims, of course) are more like murderous children than adults.

12-head
Again you are attributing to me what I didnot say. Where did I talk of all Kashmiris or all Muslims? I was talking of some Kashmiris and some Muslims, and this is clear if you read carefully.

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

12-head #18
``How many time the same person in frustration adopts the first option.

If we want to maintain peace in this world --- has to take responsibility to SOME thing adressing that frustration. ``

I don`t understand your point, but ``Laaton ke bhoot batoon se nahin mante`` was exactly the philosophy practised by Taliban and Saddam towards their Muslim populations.

But there is no commensurate frustration about this, in people raising their voices in favor of these regimes simply for being `Muslim governments`.

There were no funds raised for suicide bombings against Taliban or Saddam for their brutality, no funds were raised for their victims. Those who now threaten suicide and other attacks in the name of defending these regimes didnot take responsibility when these regimes were committing excesses against Muslims.

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

Studebaker:

Your first point is valid and I accept it.

the second point is not valid. Jaswant Singh released the hostages under duress. Personally I disagree with that step because it was the cowardly thing to do. Too often India has given under when faced by the bullet.

Regardless, the price in Afghanistan was the release of a few terrorists. A price that at worst could be paid.

The price of negotiating with Hizb or Pakistan or Lashkar is at best another religion based partition of India and at worst the green flag of Islam flying over our parliament. Both alterntives are unacceptable. Therefore there is no choice but to carry on fighting.

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

stuka #14
``So Kasmiris made bad choices and there fore like children should be denied all choices??? ``

12-head has dishonestly imputed to me something I didnot say or think.

Let me attempt to answer my own question since the author is missing.

Perhaps the most burning issue in important parts of the `Muslim world` including the Arab world is one of sovereignty- starting from the lack of Palestinian sovereignty. In defence the sovereignty principle which is perceived under threat, even Muslim-on-Muslim misrule of the horrendous kind is acceptable.

In those regions on the edges of the Muslim world where Muslims have to `share` sovereignty, like S.Asia, an apparent contradiction arises.

Here while winning Muslim-over-Muslim sovereignty is considered by some to be the panecea for misgovernance, at the same time within the Muslim world, even worse misgovernance and oppression is found acceptable to uphold the principle of Muslim-over-Muslim sovereignty.

This apparent contradiction leads people like Imam Bukhari and some in J&K, to support the Taliban and Saddam regimes as `Muslim governments` under attack, while not protesting the horrendous excesses of either - and at the same time, judging their own local governments by different standards.

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