Why I oppose the Aryan invasion theory

[Dinner]

If the Partisian was so horrible, and by all accounts it was, then why didn't both sides have a 100% population exchange? It seems like forcing all muslims into east or west Pakistan and all hindus into India would have solved most of the long term problems the partisian has caused.

[Arrian]

That's the whole point! Even if they hate the other side, there would be no people of the other side to gang up against! You don't riot against people who are so small as to be insignificant, do you?

Depends on how much noise/fuss they make And no matter how "clean" you tried to make the break, some of the "others" would remain on either side. The majority would likely beat up on them or treat them badly in some way. This would be cause for righteous anger in the other country. Bingo, tensions between the nations.

It would've been a ****ed up mess either way... but I actually think there is a chance the way it was done will work out for the best. My hope is that the Muslims and Hindus of India can figure out how to get along.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Oerdin, that's exactly what aneeshm thinks should have been done.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If the Partisian was so horrible, and by all accounts it was, then why didn't both sides have a 100% population exchange?

Because of those of us who believe that faith is not synonymous with national identity, and that people of different religions and languages and races can co-exist.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Because of those of us who believe that faith is not synonymous with national identity, and that people of different religions and languages and races can co-exist.

Then you should have denied partition.

Either you accept this idea, and tell the partitionists to piss off,

OR

You accept that in the current situation, religious identity is too much of a problem, and accept partition and a slow, organised, and peaceful transfer of populations.



You can't have it both ways.

[Provost Harrison]

Is that partisan or Parisian?

[Provost Harrison]

Both can be pretty nasty...especially the latter

[Arrian]

"Peaceful transfer of populations" - I doubt it.

-Arrian

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by LordShiva


This is true. The scientific community as a whole is much better at sticking to the idealised scientific process. But the overview of the scientific method that you posted in order to ridicule aneeshm is really not how the individual scientist goes about his daily activities, IMO.

I don't know. It's not a bad description of what I do.

Yesterday I realised that something I've been doing since I started working on this project might not be the best idea. I ran some simulations with and without this thing. In a while I'll see whether this idea is salvageable. If not, I'll dump it and move on with the project. After I'm through exhausting all these possible changes I'll publish, whether or not I think that the experiment will be able to see what I was looking for. I'll list all the things I tried to use to resolve the signal in my simulations. I'll list what helped and what didn't, and by how much. I'm trying to go far enough that there are no obvious improvements to my method. People will spend some time looking it over. If they can't see any improvements then it will be considered fairly definitive on this one individual question.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
"Peaceful transfer of populations" - I doubt it.

-Arrian

Why not? Spread the process out over five years, ten years, even fifteen years if needed, just make sure that it is peaceful and that it is organised, with both the governments taking active part to make sure everything goes smoothly.

[Arrian]

Because at some point, aneeshm, it would come down to the government trying to get people to move who don't want to move because it's their home. So then what? You either leave them be or you call in the army and MAKE them move.

You assume that all, or nearly all, the Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India would've decided that they were defined by their religion and that their "proper" homeland was in the other country (or at least they were better off in the other country).

I don't think that's how it would've gone down. People get attached to their homes.

Have a look at LotM's explanations of the mentality of Israeli settlers. There is a group of people that is living on land that most people think isn't rightly theirs, and they've been there for a relatively short period of time. They are surrounded by people who hate them. Yet the Israeli army had to FORCE them out.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Then you should have denied partition.

I would have, if I were alive at the time.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
Because at some point, aneeshm, it would come down to the government trying to get people to move who don't want to move because it's their home. So then what? You either leave them be or you call in the army and MAKE them move.

You assume that all, or nearly all, the Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India would've decided that they were defined by their religion and that their "proper" homeland was in the other country (or at least they were better off in the other country).

I don't think that's how it would've gone down. People get attached to their homes.

Have a look at LotM's explanations of the mentality of Israeli settlers. There is a group of people that is living on land that most people think isn't rightly theirs, and they've been there for a relatively short period of time. They are surrounded by people who hate them. Yet the Israeli army had to FORCE them out.

-Arrian

Making them move is still better than what happened now, isn't it?

[aneeshm]

I don't like the idea of forcing people out, or of having religiously partitioning the country, but it's worlds better than the current mess.

[Arrian]

I'm not sure it is. Partly because my knowledge of Indian/Pakistani history post-partition is weak. Partly because I think forcing people to move for the reasons you set out is just wrong. Partly because I think that your way would've still failed to prevent bloodshed.

-Arrian