Pakistan

[Ramo]

India's a pretty good example of a multi-national state...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo
India's a pretty good example of a multi-national state...

better than the ones presented above Id say. Though apparently some folks in India dont enjoy all the frictions of having one. But the benefits seem to exceed the costs.


Of course one should consider the degree to which the rivalry with Pakistan has served to cement together hindus of different languages and cultural traditions who otherwise might not have gotten along even as well as they have.

Which brings us back to the issue of the Indian muslims, I suppose.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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

That's kind of the point. The different origins, coming from different languages and fundamentally different cultures. You don't have to hold on to every single aspect of your "uniqueness" with a death grip and think it makes you better than all the other groups around you.

[Shrapnel12]

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

We need more people who aren't afraid to tick the radical Muslims (imo that's the majority of them) off and tell it like it is.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Because there exists an apparently unbridgeable cultural discontinuity between Indic culture and Islam.

I disagree. There are plenty of assimilated Indian Muslims, so blaming one's being Muslim for the inability to assimilate can't be the answer.

Originally posted by aneeshm
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?

Because of far-reaching policy mistakes by teh Indian government, involvement of a foreign government, and teh corresponding lack of economic development there.

Punjab is quiet today because it prospered economically. If India had remained undivided and hadn't gone down the ridiculously stupid economic path it chose, I think, with time, the outcome would have been preferable to what we have today, as well as to one in which the entire population had been arbitrarily divided along one of several possible faultlines.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I disagree. There are plenty of assimilated Indian Muslims, so blaming one's being Muslim for the inability to assimilate can't be the answer.

Doesn't India have more Muslims than any other country in the world? I seem to remember that bit of trivia from somewhere.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That's kind of the point. The different origins, coming from different languages and fundamentally different cultures. You don't have to hold on to every single aspect of your "uniqueness" with a death grip and think it makes you better than all the other groups around you.

thats not being multinational, thats just making the minorities assimilate to the dominant nationality.

Alot easier to do in an immigrant country, where the minorities are scattered, and came there voluntarily, than somewhere where they are concentrated in a land area that would be a viable country, and are only part of something bigger due to some long ago conquest.

Kinda like the difference between Italian-Canadians, Jewish Canadians, and Chinese Canadians on the one hand, and Quebec on the other. Hows the project to make them all speak English going, BTW.

In Latin America, Spanish dominance was assured thanks to the Small Pox Bacillus and several other infections. Heck, North America would be pretty different too if not for the mass die offs of the natives. Im not sure how that could be arranged today, elsewhere.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Kontiki


That's kind of the point. The different origins, coming from different languages and fundamentally different cultures. You don't have to hold on to every single aspect of your "uniqueness" with a death grip and think it makes you better than all the other groups around you.

That's not multi-national, though. There's no "Italian-American nation."

[Ramo]

Doesn't India have more Muslims than any other country in the world? I seem to remember that bit of trivia from somewhere.

No. Indonesia has ~50% more Muslims

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Pakistan DID divide by language once already, and may do so again.

Exactly. It goes to show that religious lines are not the best ones on which to create a nation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Exactly. It goes to show that religious lines are not the best ones on which to create a nation.

ok,let me swap sides. Religion wasnt a strong enough factor to overcome the geographic obstacles facing pre-1970 Pakistan. Its not at all clear that 2007 Pakistan will break up, they may well make it.

And even if they do break up, and it turns out muslim Pashtuns and Sindis cant get along with muslim Punjabis, it doesnt follow that muslim Punjabis would have been able to get along with hindu and sikh Punjabis.

I point to Bangladesh, which hasnt shown any interest Im aware of in returning to mother India, or merging with West Bengal, despite sharing a common language (and that division being one of the triggers of the first modern opposition to the Raj, IIUC)

[LordShiva]

East and West Bengal have been divided for almost a century, now.

Muslims in West Bengal, which is 25% Muslim (about the percentage of an undivided India), get along reasonably well with Bengali Hindus. The biggest threat to peace is due to class-divisions that are exploited by the Maoists and their like, not religious conflict.

[LordShiva]

Here's an article on the state of Indian Muslims.

Why do Indian Muslims lag behind?
By Soutik Biswas
BBC News

As historians tell it, during India's first election in 1952, Jawaharlal Nehru was already worrying about the feeble representation of Muslims in the country's positions of authority.

Many more Muslims had stayed back in India than the millions who migrated to newly-born Pakistan after the partition just five years ago.

India's first prime minister's concerns about the country's second largest religious group and the largest religious minority were eminently justified.

"There were hardly any Muslims left in the defence service, and not many in the secretariat," says historian Ramachandra Guha.

Little change

Next year, in 1953, a group of intellectuals met to discuss forming a political party for the Muslims and spoke about the low representation of Muslims in political positions and bureaucracy.

More than half century later, on India's 60th anniversary of independence, very little has changed.

Today, at over 138 million, Muslims constitute over 13% of India 's billion-strong population, and in sheer numbers are exceeded only by Indonesia's and Pakistan's Muslim community.

The country has had three Muslim presidents - a largely ceremonial role. Bollywood and cricket, two secular pan-Indian obsessions, continue to have their fair share of Muslim stars - the ruling heroes in Mumbai films are Shah Rukh, Aamir and Salman Khan, and the star of India's current English cricket tour is pace bowler Zaheer Khan. Not long ago, the national team was led by the stylish Mohammed Azharuddin.

That's where the good news essentially ends.

Muslims comprise only 5% of employees in India's big government, a recent study found. The figure for Indian Railways, the country's biggest employer, is only 4.5%.

The community continues to have a paltry representation in the bureaucracy and police - 3% in the powerful Indian Civil Service, 1.8% in foreign service and only 4% in the Indian Police Service. And Muslims account for only 7.8% of the people working in the judiciary.

Indian Muslims are also largely illiterate and poor.

At just under 60%, the community's literacy rate is lower than the national average of 65%. Only half of Muslim women can read and write. As many as a quarter of Muslim children in the age-group 6-14 have either never attended school or dropped out.

They are also poor - 31% of Muslims are below the country's poverty line, just a notch above the lowest castes and tribes who remain the poorest of the poor.

Identity card

To add to the community's woes are myriad problems relating to, as one expert says, "identity, security and equity".

"They carry a double burden of being labelled as 'anti-national' and as being 'appeased' at the same time," says a recent report on the state of Indian Muslims.

Historians say it is ironic that many Indians bought the Hindu nationalist bogey of 'Muslim appeasement' when it had not translated into any major socio-economic gain for the community.

So why has the lot of Indian Muslims remained miserable after six decades of independence?

For one, it is the sheer apathy and ineptitude of the Indian state which has failed to provide equality of opportunity in health, education and employment.

This has hurt the poor - including the Muslim poor who comprise the majority of the community - most.

There is also the relatively recent trend of political bias against the community when Hindu nationalist governments have ruled in Delhi and the states.

Also, the lack of credible middle class leadership among the Muslims has hobbled the community's vision and progress.

Consequently, rabble rousers claiming to represent the community have thrust themselves to the fore.

To be true, mass migration during partition robbed the community of potential leaders - most Muslim civil servants, teachers, doctors and professionals crossed over.

But the failure to throw up credible leaders has meant low community participation in the political processes and government - of the 543 MPs in India's lower house of parliament, only 36 are Muslims.

Also, as Ramachandra Guha says, the "vicissitudes of India-Pakistan relations and Pakistan's treatment of its minorities" ensured that Muslims remained a "vulnerable" community.

Regional disparities

The plight of Indian Muslims also has a lot to do with the appalling quality of governance, unequal social order and lack of equality of opportunity in northern India where most of the community lives.

Populous Uttar Pradesh is home to nearly a fifth of Muslims (31 million) living in India, while Bihar has more than 10 million community members.

"Southern India is a different picture. Larger cultural and social movements have made education more accessible and self employment more lucrative benefiting a large number of Muslims," says historian Mahesh Rangarajan.

In Andhra Pradesh state, for example, 68% of Muslims are literate, higher than the state and national average. School enrolment rates for Muslim children are above 90% in Kerala and Tamil Nadu.

Mahesh Rangarajan says poverty and "absence of ameliorative policies" has hurt India's Muslims most.

If India was to be "a secular, stable and strong state," Nehru once said, "then our first consideration must be to give absolute fair play to our minority".

Most of the problems that aneeshm raised have less to do, IMO, with their being Muslim, and more with the fact that they're poor, and the fact that there isn't a critical mass of progressive, educated, socially "elite" Muslims. A big part of the reason for this is that a lot of them went to Pakistan, and the poor were disproportionately represented in the population that stayed behind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Stop it, LordShiva; you are making too much sense!

[SlowwHand]

Get rid of your sig line, for pete's sake.
You ARE loony. Look at that last entry, and you promote it.
BAH!