COMMENT : Democracy and Indian Muslims

[Joe Shearer]

@Chinese Dragon

With time, the truth of your last observation has become surprisingly more evident. This is a most interesting discussion, although I believe that the vast bulk must be buried in Mandarin discussions on Chinese forums.

 

[RazPaK]

Okay. Seriously..

I can't believe I waited on Joe as he was busy reading a thesaurus.

I have to work in the morning.

@Joe.

The article is hilarious. Your 'dynastic democracy', sorry, golden-haired blue-eyed boy of a democracy is hilarious and a hoax at best.

How it correlates to Indian Muslims living the best with the most freedoms out of all other Muslims is hilarious.

The fact that the writer may be Pakistani and not on the payroll of foreigners is hilarious.

All in all, I can end my night with a "LOL".

 

[Anees]

Some Pakistan Friend hiding In US , Canada and UK netcafe and talking about, against Democracy and favouring China Policy and Muslim freedom... Very much Funny

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is perhaps the most interesting and richly endowed post so far. Allow me to respond in some detail.

I believe we agree on almost all points, although our universal tendency to assume that a response must contain an element of refutation is getting in the way.

A person living in poverty will first look for survival, for herself and her family. Is that not human nature? For such a person, economic development- actually, the security of life - undoubtedly comes first. If I may recall the thought I keep going back to, freedom under a regressive regime is not better than lack of freedom under a progressive regime.

There may be some confusion about what regressive and progressive mean in this connection. By regressive, I mean a regime that is oriented towards an other-worldly theology, or is oriented towards the betterment of a segment of society at the cost of the bulk of citizens, or is punitive and vindictive in nature. These are obviously inimical to the security of life that we started with. A progressive regime would look to the welfare and betterment of its citizens and their security from the mass deaths inherent in war. That seems like a reasonable description of the PRC, progressive but not democratic. It fits my formulation rather well, I thought.

Second, I did not mean to imply, as some do in error, that lack of western democracy goes hand in hand with a repressive regime. If we go back to my 'formula', you will notice that regressive hurts people; progressive fosters people. I take your point about freedom of action in China very readily, and in turn point out that the concept of the Mandate of Heaven is embedded in Chinese political thought at the most fundamental level. If the Mayor of Qidong lost the Mandate of Heaven (if we might playfully extend it down to his level), he no longer has credibility. The CPC then has no option but to get rid of him!

I guess we agree on every point then.

Oh and if you are interested in the incident I mentioned, here is a link you might like:

Chinese Citizens Stormed Government Offices Near Shanghai And Forced The Mayor To Strip - Business Insider

I'm not saying that China is "free" in the commonly accepted sense, in terms of actual civil liberties we perform badly compared to most countries including those in South Asia. My point is that it is often exaggerated to unrealistic levels, in reality it is there but it does not significantly affect the average person on the street.

In the incident above, the protestors faced no repercussions at all, in fact it was the Mayor who got sacked, and the Government backed down and scrapped the pipeline.

 

[Rig Vedic]

India is able to offer these freedoms to its citizens because it is a successful democracy. It was good for India to lose the 1857 war; if the British had lost, Indians would have continued to be governed by kings and nawabs, and under shari’a courts that existed during the Mughal era. At the time of independence, the British left behind a justice system that was blind to religious and caste inequities in Indian society

I guess it is good the article was not written by an Indian, because these are the kind of statements make one cringe. The Brits murdered so many Indians that it makes Hitler and Stalin look like boy scouts.

As regards the Indian rulers that survived until modern times, some were good (e.g. Baroda, Mysore) and some were not so good (Hyderabad), but I think in all cases people living in those kingdoms did not suffer from the kind of abject starvation that killed millions living directly under the crown.

 

[Not Sure]

LOL.

Defending a pat from westerners..


Many of us were not a part a of the crown, nor would we take pride in such an affiliation.

Ever heard of "Sir" Mohandas Gandhi? Or "Sir" Tagore or "Sir" Nehru? No.

But haven't we all heard of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, or Sir Muhammad Iqbal? Yes. Those 'Sirs' were the founders and the first proponents of Pakistan.

So, do you understand why they got knighted with the British title of "Sir"?

I don't think now there's any doubt left about who craved for a pat from the "western masters". Right?

At least, of all the people, you shouldn't be speaking against what the west offers its citizens. You yourself went there to enjoy all those fruits, and now your criticism of the same would mean that you want to portray an incorrect picture so that none other of your Pakistani compatriots dreams of going there to enjoy the same.

Whatever you claim, for all we know, if you were really serious in what you preach on here, you would rather be in Pakistan than in England.

 

[SRP]

why all Pakistanis think they are the protector of all muslims.

 

[sankranti]

It is not she. Unlike me, she does not suffer fools gladly.

She did marry you .......so maybe you are wrong about her.

 

[bronxbull]

Some people think that democracy is some sort of "silver bullet" that can fix everything.

My city HK has never been a democracy, we have never had universal suffrage. Ever. Yet we have the 2nd highest life expectancy on Earth, an HDI ranking above western European countries like Britain/France/Spain, and one of the highest incomes in the world.

True, democracies statistically have done better, but it depends on their implementation. And it is certainly not a silver bullet, look at authoritarian Singapore vs the Democratic Republic of the Congo for instance.



Wow, I can't believe the author said that as well.

Dude,your city is so small,it can governed by a small bunch.

A big country is a different ball game.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Dude,your city is so small,it can governed by a small bunch.

A big country is a different ball game.

If you want to compare countries of similar size, there are only two countries in the world with a population of 1+ billion.

This comparison further strengthens my argument that democracy is not a silver bullet. It is the implementation that counts.

 

[RajputWarrior]

Super !

.. and what will you attribute the fact that it was published by a Pak Daily ?

Would it therefore go by this anology that they too agree with the author ?

It must have been read by countless Pakistanis too - not all of them reacted in this disjointed way. Maybe they too agreed ??

Slow down.

Just because someone writes something you do not agree with does not necessarily mean its wrong. Everything in life is not " for' or ' against'.

You're not going to get any constructive responses till you ignore the village idiot, why waste your time?

 

[bronxbull]

If you want to compare countries of similar size, there are only two countries in the world with a population of 1+ billion.

This comparison further strengthens my argument that democracy is not a silver bullet. It is the implementation that counts.

Man,people want good governance and justice and a reasonable means to earn a decent livelihood.

Whoever provides this,is good enough whether a democracy or any form as you like.

I agree upon that,there is nothing wrong is trusting someone's immaterialness instead cynically assuming his greed from day one.

 

[Joe Shearer]

She did marry you .......so maybe you are wrong about her.

Heh.

The exception that proves the rule?

Good try.

 

[Soumitra]

Indian Muslims are living the best because of Indian democracy, which is not even considered a true democracy by any criteria that defines a democracy.

Would you please enlighten us on the "criteria" that defines democracy? You forget that you live in a country where for the first time in its 65 years of existence will there be a legitimate transfer of power from one govt. to another.

 

[acid rain]

Indian democracy is not because of the Indian Muslims, its inspite of them.