Would a "cleaner" partition of India have been a good thing ?

[axi]

What do you expect, they still live by the caste system. Not to speak of their treatment of women.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by axi
What do you expect, they still live by the caste system. Not to speak of their treatment of women.

I do not know where these views of India come from . Do people really think that we're medieval barbarians ?

The caste system is legally abolished , approx. 50 % of all governmental jobs are reserved for the erstwhile lower castes , there are similar reservations in education . The caste system also has completely lost its hold in the cities ( it is in the villages that it is a problem ) . Women are , at least in the households of educated people , treated as well as , if not better than , men .


Or are you simply trolling ?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It appears that you are advocating a partition here.

If that is the case the most logical procedure is to divide the land up according to ethnic dominance. Seeing that Kashmir is predominately Islamic, it should go to Pakistan.

Unless you are saying that the best land should go to the Hindus, regardless of ethnic distribution.

Firstly - I am not advocating any partition here . I was just wondering what a cleaner partition of India would have led to .

Actually , I'm saying that ethnicity should play no role in deciding the Kashimr issue . It legally ascended to India , and with India it will remain .

And you forget that terrorists have driven out the Kashmiri Hindus from Kashmir . They still own property in Kashmir , but cannot return to it , from fear of terrorists . I want terrorism to be crushed , India's control over Kashmir ( at the minimum , the part of Kashmir belonging to India ) re-established , and the Kashmiri Hindus given back their land ( which , by the way , they still own ) .

I am saying that land should go to those who own it . In this case , it happens to be 75 % Muslims , 25 % Hindus .

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Tingkai

Yeah like the Hindus never go on rampages killing every Muslim they can find.

And India is treating the people in the northeast with incredible kindness, only occassionally shooting them. But hey, they deserve it. It's always their fault, eh.

After all, they're just "Muslim barbarians."

-Arrian

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Actually , I'm saying that ethnicity should play no role in deciding the Kashimr issue . It legally ascended to India , and with India it will remain.

Well, if sufficiently large number of residents of the area wish to join Pakistan, would that not form a legal basis too?

Originally posted by aneeshm
I am saying that land should go to those who own it . In this case , it happens to be 75 % Muslims , 25 % Hindus .

In that case, shouldn't the area goes to Muslims?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian


After all, they're just "Muslim barbarians."

-Arrian

Why are you quoting me out of context ? I said that Muslim barbarians drove the Hindus out of Kashmir . What this means is that the Muslims who were barbarians ( that is , the terrorists ) , drove the Hindus out of Kashmir . What is the problem ? Are you unable to understand even this simple sentence ?

[joncha]

Originally posted by aneeshm


When Kashmir acsended to India , it had its population of Hindus at 25 % . Why is it that you ignore that ? Those 25 % have to be returned to their homeland , which is Kashmir . Muslim barbarians have driven them out .

And again - I challenge your assumption that India has no moral right to keep territories which are majority-Muslim . On what do you base it ?

On the basis of your obnoxious punctuation habits.

[DaShi]

My students in China would do the same thing. I'd have to spend the first class telling them where to put the period. Drawing little arrows. Making jokes on how it confused me so much. Yet, they still did it. Even when I told them I would give them a zero on any papers containing those errors. Arrrrggghhhhh!!!!!!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Women are , at least in the households of educated people , treated as well as , if not better than , men .

Which is why so many educated couples abort female fetuses.

India's lost daughters: Abortion toll in millions
By Amelia Gentleman
International Herald Tribune

As many as 10 million female fetuses may have been aborted in India over the last 20 years as families try to secure a male heir, according to a study published Monday in The Lancet, the British medical journal.

In the two decades since ultrasound equipment, which allows prenatal determination of sex, became widely available, the number of girls born in India has declined steeply, despite a law banning doctors from disclosing the sex of a fetus to parents.
...

''We conservatively estimate that prenatal sex determination and selective abortion accounts for 0.5 million missing girls yearly,'' Dr. Prabhat Jha, a public health professor at the University of Toronto, who headed the research team, said in a statement. ''If this practice has been common for most of the past two decades since access to ultrasound became widespread, then a figure of 10 million missing female births would not be unreasonable.''
The preference for sons has distorted the gender ratio throughout India.
As ultrasound equipment becomes cheaper, allowing more and more Indian clinics to purchase it, the gender imbalance in the population has grown greater. In 1991 there were some 945 women for every 1,000 men. The ratio dropped to 927 females per 1,000 males in 2001.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/01/09/news/india.php

[DaShi]

China is having the same problem with illegal sex determination. It's really hard to crackdown on. Although, women are not treated as well as men in China, which begs the question of what sex selected abortion has to do with the topic.

[Ramo]

Sectarian partitions are usually nasty, and India-Pakistan in '47 was no exception. It was one of the subcontinent's great tragedies. The partition shouldn't have happened in the first place.

[Ramo]

Hindus , Parsees , Jains , Sikhs , and Buddhists , all live and lived together peacefully . Why is it that Muslims have a problem ? This is one thing I have never understood .

You're being rediculous. Hindus weren't being particularly peaceful in Gujarat a few years ago.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ramo


You're being rediculous. Hindus weren't being particularly peaceful in Gujarat a few years ago.

You will notice that that was the exact point of my post , which was apparently totally lost on you .

[Heresson]

When I go through Turkey and I see places where Greeks or Armenians were living for thousand years, ancient churches that were still in use 80 years ago, and I'm sad that the land lost much of its history, of its tradition.
On the other hand, after ww2 Germans were forced out of the (once Polish, then German, and now regained) western and northern regions, and Poles were forced out of former Polish posessions in the east. Sad how it was, it was kind of necessary. And there are hardly any ethnic tensions now. Oh, and I wouldn't exist without it.
There's a difference, of course, Armenians and Greeks lived in Anatoly before Turks, while Poles lived in Silesia before Germans, and Ukrainians lived in Podolia before Poles did. Also, the difference is that after all, even protestant churches can be easily adapted as catholic ones, while I guess You could easier distinguish a church from a mosque, or a mosque from a hindu temple.

[binTravkin]

You will notice that that was the exact point of my post , which was apparently totally lost on you .

Umm, hardly, you said they're living peacefully.

Hindus , Parsees , Jains , Sikhs , and Buddhists , all live and lived together peacefully . Why is it that Muslims have a problem ? This is one thing I have never understood .

Besides your argument (?), that 'Kashmir ascended to India and there it should remain' contradicts the 75% muslim 25% hindu case.

If it really was 3:1, then the land of kashmir should be partitioned 3:1 whereas 3 are given to Pakistan, 1 to India, and that would be the best case for India, because if we take the original decision factor 'majority = muslim -> Pakistan, majority = hindu -> India', then Kashmir should be fully Pakistanese.

Or do you think all those hindu who were driven out of Pakistan (which also was pretty barbaric) should be returned there and the land reclaimed?