The Secularity of India

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

tahmed32

Post #374

Quote:

`` When you have to make an argument as convoluted and full of assumptions as the one you came up with, it indicates that you dont have any argument. :-) ``

You say, convulted and full of assumptions...Well, let us see if that really is the case..

Is it being said (denied) that Pakistan has not threatened India with nukes in the past?

Is it being said (denied) that Clinton offered all the goodies to Pakistan and even indicated treating India as int. pariah if Pakistan does not go ahead with its nuclear tests?

Is it being said (denied) that after Advani made some noise, Pakistan had no recourse but to go ahead with its tests?

Now do tell me what is convoluted, and what assumptions are in the above?

Terming/calling it convoluted/assumptions does not make it.

As to your saying it indicates I do not have any arguement, well, Sir, see above again and notice, not just an arguement but I am talking with facts.

Faruk # 341,

Thanks for Asghar Ali`s article. He`s right on target.
But also note that while Indian media shows its bias against islam, christianity and christians are somehow shown in the best light.

Adios

rajsingh #371 When you have to make an argument as convoluted and full of assumptions as the one you came up with, it indicates that you dont have any argument. :-)

The simple point is that the BJP politicians changed their tune (and their wet lungis), once they realized that they could not play armchair warrior any more since they were within nd Pakistan`s reach even in their armchairs. And they changed their tune faster than you can say ``India invented the atom bomb``, and even faster than you can say ``We will overrun Pakistan with a million men``. It is these armchair extremists who are the scum of the earth. And it is about time we realized that (in Pakistan and in India). The rest are either fools or victims.

Faruk #372 I dont think we are on a tangent. How is threatening a neigboring country with your military might anything less than threatening its independence? In fact Advani said as much when he said that the rules were now changed on Kashmir after blowing those 5 bombs and before Pakistan gave him a dose of reality and leading him to discover the virtues of peace with Pakistan.

tahmed32

Post#370


Quote:

``If you point a gun at someone, and back off only when the other person pulls out his own gun, then it is a bit hard to argue that you never really meant to shoot. ``

Sure, but one aspect being overlooked here is that the gun was being pointed at someone because that someone, all along had been threatening to use a gun, without ever having proved/shown that he (that someone) really posses a gun. So by pointing a gun, two purposes got served. One, message got served that enough of that someone`s veiled/direct threats of using gun, and here is my gun out in the open. If you (that someone) dare, draw/pull out your gun too. Second, since drawing a gun out in the public would certainly have attracted/drawn some punishment. In order to reduce that punishment and to ensure only one party is not punished, gun was pointed at that someone and forcing him to pull out his own too. And that someone being that someone played the game as expected.

So you see, it is quite possible to argue that you never really meant to shoot.

Re: tahmed32 # 370

I think we are going on a tangent here. All I was trying to point out was that India has never threatened the independence of Pakistan. We have a problem with anyone supporting insurgents in our country and the Indian foreign policy is directed at dissuading Pakistan from following that policy. But India has never threatened the independence of Pakistan. There is a big difference, just wanted to point that out.

Regards,

Faruk

Faruk #369 If you point a gun at someone, and back off only when the other person pulls out his own gun, then it is a bit hard to argue that you never really meant to shoot. And BJP chauvinists have amply demonstrated their respect for all faiths when they tore down Babri masjid, and their respect for human life when they burnt entire muslim families. They are just as bad as our religious fanatics, and in some ways more barbaric (as in their attacking of people in their homes, dragging them out and burning them).

The important thing is for normal people in India not to feel obliged to defend the actions of these animals, and to recognize that BJP is simply the ``political face`` of an inherently evil ideology. Just as the important thing for normal people in Pakistan is not to feel obliged to defend the actions of our generals and to recognize the danger to civilized society that islamic fanatics present. Only when we recognize the true enemy (the enemy within our societies) and the true friends (normal people across the world who seek only peace and progres) will there be any hope for the future.

Re : tahmed32 # 368

Those threats were to stop Pakistanis from how should I Say providing “moral” support to insurgents in India. But they never threatened the independence of Pakistan at least not in the conventional sense of the word.

Regards,

Faruk

Faruk #366 One million and five reasons.

I refer to BJPs attempts to bully Pakistan before they discovered the virtues of peace: the five nukes accompanied by Advanis threats, and the million man army accompanied by the indian military chief`s threats of a ``jolly good`` war. For all their faults, Pakistani leaders have made sure of one thing: that Pakistanis need never be afraid of the BJP chauvinists.

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

Re: tahmed32 #362

“Pakistan no longer needs that theory to stay independent (it has the military means it needs to assert itself as a proud and free nation).”

Why do you think the independence of Pakistan is under threat.

Faruk

niki #363 It is not my intention to start another India-Pakistan internet war (I already see my faithful campfollower AlephNull coming out of the woodwork with his usual sarcastic references to the ``sahib`` in #364 while ignoring what I actually wrote). And I fully share with you your pride and optimism in India`s achievements in the political and more recently in the economic fields (not only because it is indirectly beneficial to Pakistan as well, but also because I too am a son of the Indian soil in a sense, if I may be a bit dramatic, given that my ancestors lived in what is now India). However, the two basic points you make are not quite correct: (a) on the basis for the formation of India, while what you say about rulers of states having a choice is correct, that is still not exactly democracy. The people of India were never asked in a referendum on what they wanted. And in any case, even this process of letting rulers decide was arrived at throught the round table conferences, so I believe what I originally said in #362 as the process through which both india and pakistan were formed remains correct.
(b) While there is much joy in India having finally shed the ``hindu rate of growth`` (as development economists used to jokingly refer to it until recently) of 4%, and this is indeed good news for not just India but for pakistan and the rest of south asia and indeed the entire world, the fact remains that India remains (along with Pakistan) among the world`s poorest nations. While an entire generation of Indians seems to have been raised on BJP propoganda of there being no comparison between India and Pakistan, reality is quite different. Remember that BJP is the same party that thought it was dancing around with joy as if they had made a technological breakthrough by inventing the nuclear bomb, when in fact it is ancient technology by now. Thousands of your countrymen were surprised by the realities of Pakistan when they visited it this spring - maybe you should do that some day and will realize just how out of touch with reality the BJP ideologues are.

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

rajsingh1 #356, #361

{{(no comparison between India and Pakistan in the given context)}}

In order to understand the response you triggered in sahib you may want to read his prior contributions to the discussion of this article, which was ostensibly about Indian secularism. You will find ‘India-Pakistan equal-equal’ to be the major theme about which sahib tries to weave his variations.

‘Equal-equal’ with India is of course one of the founding delusions of the Pakistani state and especially its ruling class. Facts do not support such a world-view. As time goes by, India’s governing mechanisms while creaky continue to accumulate strength and institutional memory, and more and more Indians make their names and fortunes in every constructive field of human endeavour. Pakistanis simply cannot compete, even proportionately; their major achievements are in breeding Islamist terrorism, where of course they lead the world. This is unsurprising given the very different direction Pakistanis gave to their nation from its birth. Yet Pakistan’s ruling class still desperately clings to the central dogma of the national existence just as believers insist on clinging to the absurd tenets of a revealed religion. Every fresh blow that reality deals to the central myth – such as the revelations of stolen and borrowed technology, or the latest rape committed by the Pakistani military dictator on the body politic – becomes another opportunity for forlornly reiterating the creed, as though simply believing will make it so.

So while your mentioning the US and UK as appropriate comparisons for India as fellow democracies, and refusing to even admit Pakistan in the same class, was quite valid from the point of comparing apples with apples alone – it was a intolerable insult to sahib’s pride as a Pakistani, a dreadful slap in his face; and his human-all-too-human response should be understood as an outraged howl of protest.

rajasingh #361 There is no inherent logic to the formation of nation-states. In particular:

UK was not formed as a democracy, but as a kingdom that was united by sword by various kings. It then evolved over time into a democracy.

The US was formed as a result of a bloody revolutionary war.

India was formed not because the people of India agreed in a referendum to unite as one country with a democratic constitution - it was formed due to agreements reached by british bureaucrats and congress and muslim league politicians around a round table.

Pakistan was formed as part of the same process as India. The two-nation theory is logically meaningless, and was simply a tactic successfully used to form Pakistan. Pakistan no longer needs that theory to stay independent (it has the military means it needs to assert itself as a proud and free nation).

It is fair to say that in India democracy is much further ahead than Pakistan in terms of having a stable, democratic political system. But that is all.