Pakistan

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=VetLegion]Had India and Pakistan been created as ethnically (OK, religiously) clean countries, I think that today there would be peace between them.[/q]

Or as LS postulates (correctly, I believe), it would have concentrated the extremism even greater and led to just as much, if not more, conflict.

But conflict over what? It's harder to claim land on which are no members of your group. With time those claims fade away. Like the Greeks today want Istanbul (Constantinople) back, but there are no Greeks there anymore, it's just talk.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


But this assumes that religion is a population's only defining characteristic.

It isn't.

But it's enough of a differentiator to cause the deaths of many innocent people - which I'd rather prevent.

Ideology be damned, LS, look at what actually works! I was an ideologue before, but I realised that that solves nothing. Even I agree that ideally, we should all just get along. But we have to recognise that some of us (even a few Hindus) simply can't. In such a case, wouldn't it have been better to simply solve the problem in the simplest, least bloody, and most effective (considering the long term) manner possible?

I'm enough of a realist to recognise that nothing like this is possible now, and that it would be absolute madness to even think about it. I'm just lamenting that it wasn't done properly when we had the chance.

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Well, those and almost the entire western hemisphere.

indeed.

the UK is another good example of a multinational country.

[Barnabas]

I agree 100% with VetLegion

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm


It isn't.

But it's enough of a differentiator to cause the deaths of many innocent people - which I'd rather prevent.

Ideology be damned, LS, look at what actually works! I was an ideologue before, but I realised that that solves nothing. Even I agree that ideally, we should all just get along. But we have to recognise that some of us (even a few Hindus) simply can't. In such a case, wouldn't it have been better to simply solve the problem in the simplest, least bloody, and most effective (considering the long term) manner possible?

I'm enough of a realist to recognise that nothing like this is possible now, and that it would be absolute madness to even think about it. I'm just lamenting that it wasn't done properly when we had the chance.

What about me? Can the atheists get their own country, then?

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I don't think that 130+ million Muslims count as "few". India has the second-largest Muslim population of the world - after Indonesia (another formerly Indic country). There is no way in hell that you can call 13%+ of the population "few".

Electorally, you sure can.

Originally posted by aneeshm
And when votes are fragmented, and Muslims can provide the swing vote, we get ridiculous things like minority appeasement (the Haj subsidy, different laws for different people, the special status of Kashmir, the list goes on and on and on.....) and a complete neglect of things like the invasion of illegal aliens into Assam and other states bordering Bangladesh.

The less of a minority they are, the less fear of the majority, and therefore the less need of appeasement, they have.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by VetLegion


But conflict over what? It's harder to claim land on which are no members of your group. With time those claims fade away. Like the Greeks today want Istanbul (Constantinople) back, but there are no Greeks there anymore, it's just talk.

Why must the conflict be over land? Why not laws, ways of life, economic standing, resources, etc.?

Again, why divide by religion? Why not by linguistic group? Social class? Etc.

To you, and aneeshm: There's far more inter-linguistic and class violence in India than religious violence. Why not give teh Maoists their own state? Teh Assamese extremists?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


What about me? Can the atheists get their own country, then?

If, for over a thousand years, you've shown yourself to be hypersensitive, irrational, violent, oppressive, and brutal, and if you're willing to commit massacres of others, loot their property, commit terrorist acts, and in general cannot fit into the host culture, and are significant enough to actually cause trouble for many centuries to come, then sure, why not?

But being an atheist, I'd doubt you'd do all those things. That's the preserve of the religious.

Basically, you get a state if the long-term costs (in terms of human suffering) of not granting you one exceed the costs of granting you one.


But what was the point of asking that question if you knew the answer (as I suspect you did)?

[Barnabas]

Atheists did all that in the XX century, but then, some people say communism is a religion.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Basically, you get a state if the long-term costs (in terms of human suffering) of not granting you one exceed the costs of granting you one.

So should teh Maoists get theirs? ULFA? Bodos?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Why must the conflict be over land? Why not laws, ways of life, economic standing, resources, etc.?

I support partition on three of the above grounds - land, laws, and way of life. These are the ones which cause most resentment and hatred.

Muslims in India are governed, in matters of personal law, by their own code. Their way of life is also, in the overwhelming majority of cases, very different from the general population. As for the land thing - Muslims occupy the "Old City" area of most cities (but thankfully, not Pune - over here, the old city, of the seven Peths, the former seat of Maratha power and glory, and the hub of culture, is the preserve of mostly orthodox Hindus).

Originally posted by LordShiva

Again, why divide by religion? Why not by linguistic group? Social class? Etc.

Because there exists an apparently unbridgeable cultural discontinuity between Indic culture and Islam.

Originally posted by LordShiva

To you, and aneeshm: There's far more inter-linguistic and class violence in India than religious violence. Why not give teh Maoists their own state? Teh Assamese extremists?

Because, with time, they'll get assimilated.

When Punjab was in the throes of extremist activity, the government simply went in and crushed the extremists and separatists.

Today, Punjab is among the most prosperous states in India. They're also quite well-integrated.

Why is that? Because they (it's ridiculous to even say "they") share a common cultural foundation with us.

However, all attempts to crush the insurgents in Kashmir have either failed, or backfired.

Want to guess why?

[Kontiki]

Wow, this may actually be the most rabbidly nationalistic and anti-Muslim thread yet by aneeshm. Good work.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Well, those and almost the entire western hemisphere.

Whats multinational? different origins, sure. But different languages, fundamentally different cultures?

The USA was until recently built on assimilation to the Enlish language and a broadly defined American culture, that has room for variance, but is more than just some political principles. Brazil is Portugese speaking and has a distinctive national culture. Argentina is Spanish speaking and spanish-criollo culture, even if many such folks are of Italian origin.

Now Canada is binational, and some central and South american countries have large non-Spanish speaking Indian minorities. In almost all those cases thats been problematic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by C0ckney


indeed.

the UK is another good example of a multinational country.

Yeah, cause you guys spent a few hundred years beating down the Welsh and Scots and making them English speaking Britons.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Why must the conflict be over land? Why not laws, ways of life, economic standing, resources, etc.?

Again, why divide by religion? Why not by linguistic group? Social class? Etc.

To you, and aneeshm: There's far more inter-linguistic and class violence in India than religious violence. Why not give teh Maoists their own state? Teh Assamese extremists?

Pakistan DID divide by language once already, and may do so again. Could happen in India.

Dividing by class is problematic, for what should be fairly obvious reasons. Though there have been divisions along lines of economic sectors, some of the Belgians say that was the real route of their own independence from the NL.