Assam violence death toll rises to 21, shoot-at-sight order issued

[Bhairava]

Unfortunately, I cannot use that peaceful exit. This view of his is around six months old.

Again I want to know, if he was of the view six months ago, that population exchange "should have happened", or "should happen".

If had said six months ago, that population exchange should have happened, then I identify with his views...if he had said he wants a fresh exchange, then I have to disagree with him primarily because it is practically impossible in this age.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Again I want to know, if he was of the view six months ago, that population exchange "should have happened", or "should happen".

If had said six months ago, that population exchange should have happened, then I identify with his views...if he had said he wants a fresh exchange, then I have to disagree with him primarily because it is practically impossible in this age.

I confirm,with regret, that it was a prospective statement.

 

[Bang Galore]

Again I want to know, if he was of the view six months ago, that population exchange "should have happened", or "should happen".

If had said six months ago, that population exchange should have happened, then I identify with his views...if he had said he wants a fresh exchange, then I have to disagree with him primarily because it is practically impossible in this age.

So would you have kicked out Maulana Azad to Pakistan even if he didn't want to go there? Your views are quite simply communal. What you seem to be suggesting is that you your only objections to Subramaniam Swam's proposal is that of practicality, not of its underlying aim. Sad that!

I confirm,with regret, that it was a prospective statement.

Irrelevant. Still communal even if it was retrospective.

 

[Hello_10]

Considering that your whole life story seems to have been an arduous struggle to give up your own Indian passport, why does it matter to you who gets it or who doesn't?

its because you still couldn't come out of your fantasy of western countries, so much wealth you have seen there that you just can't digest few simple things like this . while it is a common air that in future, passport of BRICS/E7 is going to be more valuable than OECD

anyway, we heard the news that many illegal bangladeshi could get indian citizenship from back door and living in Kolkatta. are you also the one? as, no Indian would support these illegal infiltrators, including Indian Muslims who think more like MQM/Altaf Hussein of Pakistan. i strongly doubt, you are the one illegal bangladeshi living in Kolkatta by having indian citizenship from back door

 

[Bhairava]

So would you have kicked out Maulana Azad to Pakistan even if he didn't want to go there? Your views are quite simply communal.!

Doesn't matter. Individual perceptions of the same incident vary. You call me communal, I call you utopian.

My views are quite clear - if he said about PE in the context of '47 I support his views. If you are going to give an example of Maulana Azad, may he R.I.P, there are plenty I can give on an individual basis to support the opposite view and that argument would be never ending. My views are supported by the seemingly un-ending and sickening communal riots between the two communities at the drop of a hat with a hostility that seems to be never ending and in hindsight PE seems to be relatively peaceful in a long term perspective.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/?page=2012%5C07%5C20%5Cstory_20-7-2012_pg3_2

It is the opposite in India, where the memory of Partition was/is harped upon in contemporary narrations to trace the provenance of their barely concealed suspicion of each other, which erupts into periodic violence. There was/is always present a Muslim and the symbols of his/her faith in India as a reminder of the grim past, which is malleable enough to be reinterpreted, renewed, and brought to cast its shadow on community relations in the present.

If he said about an imminent PE, I dont support his views.

If he was talking about a PE some time in the distant future - who knows what history awaits us ?

 

[Bang Galore]

Doesn't matter. Individual perceptions of the same incident vary. You call me communal, I call you utopian.

Utopian? Not really, just don't care for a bland homogeneous cuisine.

My views are quite clear - if he said about PE in the context of '47 I support his views. If you are going to give an example of Maulana Azad, may he R.I.P, there are plenty I can give on an individual basis to support the opposite view and that argument would be never ending. My views are supported by the seemingly un-ending and sickening communal riots between the two communities at the drop of a hat with a hostility that seems to be never ending and in hindsight PE seems to be relatively peaceful in a long term perspective.

Well..your belief that India would have found peace if only Hindus remained is strikingly naive. Pakistan is a good example of what happens when one bug bear is removed....another takes its place. Hindus would have been no different. Caste/class violence would in no way have been a better alternative.

 

[Bhairava]

Utopian? Not really, just don't care for a bland homogeneous cuisine.

Sometimes that bland homogenous cuisine can save of you allergies coming from a variety food. And it it any coincidence that when our body is sick, we usually take a bland homogenous cuisine and not the 7 course meal ?

Well..your belief that India would have found peace if only Hindus remained is strikingly naive. Pakistan is a good example of what happens when one bug bear is removed....another takes its place. Hindus would have been no different. Caste/class violence would in no way have been a better alternative.

No what is naive is you take the example of Islamic republic of Pakistan and juxtapose that on India. No my friend both are not cut from the same cloth. For starters we dont have books or mullahs preaching who is the true Hindu and who are wajb-ul-qatl. We dont have a religion whose initiating ceremony begins with "there is no god except Shiva".

India may/may not have been a garden of peace, but it definitely would have been a more peaceful place. As you said caste violence may be there, but isn't it relatively ok for 5 people to die from a single incident than 50 people to die from multiple incidents. Moreover while I can visibly see caste differences getting melted away, I'm afraid I cant say the same for inter-faith differences.

 

[Vinod2070]

I think you are referring to the Brannon Parker episode in which he deplored her appointment as the first holder in the Kluge Chair. Unfortunately even I am not able to find that piece.

Not very sure. It was a combined article by Romila and the American guy and they both wanted that Hinduism continues to be defined in the US Universities by a bunch of Hinduphobes rather than followers of Hinduism as was the case for all other religions.

If I had apathy for her before reading that, it turned to contempt later.

There are English versions, and I remember the shock of first reading it (borrowed from a professor who had been an Oxford don).

In fact, it is curious that you chose to end your comment the way you did, because contradicting that view is precisely the core of his case.

A little background: he wad writing at a time when Franco-German rivalry was far more intense than ANYTHING we have gone through in these threads. His point was that the role of the intellectual, the 'clerk', as he called him, was global and civilisational, and it would amount to treason to use that training and intellect for the immediate purposes of a nation-state. So Frenchmen and Germans shoudo remember their common heritage, and not allow themselves to be used as nationalist propagandists.

If you think back on my personal approach, while retaining my loyalty to my nation-state, I have tried very hard not to forget my duty to represent that interest of the human race that lies beyond this nation-state.

Needless to say, this effort has not always been successful.

Brilliant!

Like we keep on reading in our favorite newspaper: Why should your patriotism stop at the borders?

We are all citizens of the world as well as of our nations.

 

[SEAL]

Visits of Manmohan, Sonia and Padamchadam suggests the situation is a lot worse than its projected in media, i think real culprits are saffron terrorists who are supporting this directly or indirectly and it it will ultimately lead towards insurgency. India is not in a position to take hits from their own IM and other such groups.

 

[Vinod2070]

I would be happy to send you reading lists on any Indian history topic.

Somebody has offered me the money for all the books I want to buy, if he can have them after I finish reading them. Oh, bliss!

Sir, please do.

Some great Indian writing on ancient history to middle ages to partition. Anything.

 

[Vinod2070]

So would you have kicked out Maulana Azad to Pakistan even if he didn't want to go there? Your views are quite simply communal. What you seem to be suggesting is that you your only objections to Subramaniam Swam's proposal is that of practicality, not of its underlying aim. Sad that!

Irrelevant. Still communal even if it was retrospective.

Yes, being "communal" is considered as a form of abuse in India. The ultimate abuse. Just like the word "secular" or "liberal" is in some other countries.

While I personally believe that all Indians deserve equal opportunities irrespective of whatever faith they may chose to have, can we just wish away the recent history, let alone a longer history?

I am glad "communal" people among Hindus are small in numbers and so the country has chosen a secular form of government. I don't want to live in a Hindu theological state as well.

I won't choose to deride people who think India should have gone for another form of government. If they think that it was a logical culmination of the ideology that drove partition, that is a legitimate viewpoint as well.

I am glad they are not deciding the agenda now, if they are pushed to the corner things may change.

 

[LaBong]

Sometimes that bland homogenous cuisine can save of you allergies coming from a variety food. And it it any coincidence that when our body is sick, we usually take a bland homogenous cuisine and not the 7 course meal ?




No what is naive is you take the example of Islamic republic of Pakistan and juxtapose that on India. No my friend both are not cut from the same cloth. For starters we dont have books or mullahs preaching who is the true Hindu and who are wajb-ul-qatl. We dont have a religion whose initiating ceremony begins with "there is no god except Shiva".

India may/may not have been a garden of peace, but it definitely would have been a more peaceful place. As you said caste violence may be there, but isn't it relatively ok for 5 people to die from a single incident than 50 people to die from multiple incidents. Moreover while I can visibly see caste differences getting melted away, I'm afraid I cant say the same for inter-faith differences.

Regarding the first paragraph: Why are you so hell bent on to vindicate two nation theory and make India a Hindu version of Pakistan?

It has been proved beyond doubt that even if religious homogeneity is achieved, people will still be divided based on race, language, culture etc. Therefore the correct way is to recognise the differences and make sure no one group gets benefited wrt others.

 

[Bang Galore]

Sometimes that bland homogenous cuisine can save of you allergies coming from a variety food. And it it any coincidence that when our body is sick, we usually take a bland homogenous cuisine and not the 7 course meal ?

Couldn't take anything from the above except that you might be "sick"(would explain your desire for homogeneous cuisine)

No what is naive is you take the example of Islamic republic of Pakistan and juxtapose that on India. No my friend both are not cut from the same cloth. For starters we dont have books or mullahs preaching who is the true Hindu and who are wajb-ul-qatl. We dont have a religion whose initiating ceremony begins with "there is no god except Shiva".

India may/may not have been a garden of peace, but it definitely would have been a more peaceful place. As you said caste violence may be there, but isn't it relatively ok for 5 people to die from a single incident than 50 people to die from multiple incidents. Moreover while I can visibly see caste differences getting melted away, I'm afraid I cant say the same for inter-faith differences.

You are seriously naive if you are actually comparing how caste relations are changing in a multi cultural country as opposed to a Hindu country. Have no doubt, regardless of any egalitarian ideas, a country created for Hindus would automatically have based itself on Hinduism(at the very least imbibe Hindu characteristics) just like Pakistan has on Islam. There is no magic potion here that Hindus drank & the Muslims didn't. Anyone who has read about caste discrimination during the last 2000 years in Hinduism would be left in no doubt that Hindus are as capable as Muslims in being rigidly sectarian. The magic potion that India drank & Pakistan didn't in 1947 was secularism which could only have been based on a multicultural & multi-religious country. Anything thinking otherwise has no understanding of human nature. Take religion out of the equation & caste & language would have had a bigger play. What keeps India in relative peace (notwithstanding some awful riots in the past) is an acceptance that though separate, we see ourselves as Indians. Caste is diminished only when you see the religion as a whole (which means the "other" is one from a different religion. Remove that & the caste identity quickly overtakes. U.P. would be a good example. The Ram janmabhoomi movement united castes & created a temporary edifice of a Hindu block which the BJP benefited from. Once the intensity died down, the castes once again took prominence & the party governing U.P. today does so on the strength of both the Muslim vote & some Hindu castes banded together. The BJP is nowhere in the picture because its central theme of Hindu power no longer exists.


Pakistan is a good example regardless of what you may say. While there would have been differences, it proves that human identities are complicated & based on so many factors. The founders of Pakistan made the mistake of believing that Islam would unite & it did unite but only for a short while. Once Hindus were removed from the picture, other bogeymen took their place. Such is human nature & I can guarantee you with reasonable certainty that a Hindu India would have been no different.

 

[Bhairava]

Regarding the first paragraph: Why are you so hell bent on to vindicate two nation theory and make India a Hindu version of Pakistan?

Repeating my post,

No what is naive is you take the example of Islamic republic of Pakistan and juxtapose that on India. No my friend both are not cut from the same cloth. For starters we dont have books or mullahs preaching who is the true Hindu and who are wajb-ul-qatl. We dont have a religion whose initiating ceremony begins with "there is no god except Shiva".

Hindu version of Pakistan is a myth at it's best. Why do you think that the absence of Muslims would have meant a default Hindu state. Still there would be the Christians, the Sikhs, the Jains, the Buddhists.

It has been proved beyond doubt that even if religious homogeneity is achieved, people will still be divided based on race, language, culture etc. Therefore the correct way is to recognise the differences and make sure no one group gets benefited wrt others.

And it is common sense that it is always better to have 10 riots due to 2 factors than have 50 riots due to 3 factors. One less factor is a welcome factor. A casual glance at the riots post-independece would make us understand that approximately more than 80% of the riots are communal in nature, specifically between the Hindus and Muslims and only 20% of the riots are due to any another factor.

..... Such is human nature & I can guarantee you with reasonable certainty that a Hindu India would have been no different......

Sorry I dont agree with the above hypothesis that if religious difference had not been there, then automatically caste difference definitely would have taken its place. Your entire post is based on that single premise which I dont subscribe to. Secondly I am not a proponent of a political Hindu state which I think you are alluding to. India should have been a secular state but just PE should have happened so that we don't see the misuse of the word "secularism" as we see in India today. A relevant article link.

It is not to say that caste would not have been a factor, but one less conflicting factor is always better.

Empirically while I see education and urbanization gradually melting away the differences of caste, the reverse is actually happening in the case of religion.

 

[Bhairava]

What you are arguing for seems like a different coat of the varnish rather than the ones now on offer.

Err..not exactly.

Let me give you an example.

We read in our history books how Akbar was a great, secular, tolerant king. Sure he was, atleast in the later part of his life, and credit must be given for that. But how many history books tell us the fact that he ordered the massacre of 30,000 Rajput civilians, not including the women who committed jauhar, after Chittor fell ?

We read how Tipu the Tiger was a great patriot and secular hero who fought against the English...yes he fought against the British for his own kingdom...also how many text books tell about the depradations of the Tiger in Malabar and coastal Karnataka ?

This is what I call white-washing and this is what I say must be absent. Historians should not think and draw conclusions for people. They should just present the events and let the readers draw their own conclusions.

This is what I meant by unvarnished. And for some strange reason we Indians are afraid of facing upto the bloody history of our past and are intent on sweeping everything under the carpet thinking they will magically vanish. No it wont. Actually that reluctance shows we are still insecure and not confidant whether our nation will hold up if we were ever to face up to that.