shiv wrote:So now Pakistan says that they will speak for Indian Muslim rights in India. Muslims in India can take support from Pakistan if they wish as some have done. India on the other hand cannot say we care inly for Pakistani Hindus.
No, we can cite historical precedence (of Paki Moslem and Ahmadiyyah animosity to India) and articulate the difference. India can declare that we are ready to give asylum to, say, a Burmese Rohingya Moslem (as we are already doing), a Palestinian Arab Moslem or an Afghan Moslem refugee, but not to a Paki Moslem. To gain asylum in India, a Rohingya or an Arab Moslem does not have to change anything about himself, because he doesn't have any history of brainwashing and hatred and acts of war against India. But the only way a Paki Moslem or Ahmadiyyah can gain asylum in India is to defect in whole - politically as well as ideologically/religiously. That is because he is assigned a different
Ethical Condition from an Arab/Afghan Moslem refugee. The Paki Moslem is assigned a Condition of Active Enemy (
ripu) by India. Therefore, to handle it he would have to:
1. Focus and resolution of identity and othering. “Find out who you really are.”
Would include political defections, religious conversions, etc to remove this condition.
And then move on up through the other Ethical Conditions:
1. Inform oneself honestly of the actual intentions and activities of that group or person, without bias or rumours.
2. Examine the stats of that person or group.
3. Based on the greatest good for the greatest number of universal purushaarthas, decide whether it is best to attack, harm, contain or help that person or group.
4. Evaluate oneself or one’s own group as to intentions and objectives.
5. Evaluate one’s own stats and group stats.
6. Join or remain in or befriend the one which progresses towards the purushaarthic summum bonum. Announce the fact publicly to both sides.
7. Do everything possible to improve the stats of the person or group one has remained in or joined.
8. तपस् - Suffer on up the Conditions in the chosen group if wavering in it or harming it earlier has lowered its status.
Etc. This handling does not apply to Paki Hindus/Sikhs and even Paki Christians, because they were never part of the ideological core of TSP, but lived as dhimmis and were themselves assigned a condition of Covert Liability by the Paki state.
Thus, Indian "secularism" can certainly accommodate the theory of ethics conditions without getting involved in religion. Unfortunately, Islamism is a political imperialism cloaked in a spiritual jargon. India must affirm that it respects anyone who practices Islam as a spiritual path, but be very firm with Islamism. This differentiation must be publicized more and more. I am thinking of writing up some biographies of great Moslems like Owais al-Qarani, in order to find justification for such differentiation from within the Islamic tradition itself.
shiv wrote:We need to have a rethink about our blind secularism and point out that we will kill any religion that fights other religions and declares them wrong.
No, any religion is free to declare others "wrong" or "less true" if they like. It is a phase of the religious process, to critique others and justify one's own ideas. But this critique and justification should happen on the basis of the broadest of
pramanas (sources of evidence and knowledge), and should point to the Unified Tree of Knowledge (material science, psychology and ethics, historical experience, etc.). Religions or even non-theistic ideologies (e.g. Marxism) that cannot relate their claims to the Tree of Knowledge and all its branches must be given second-class status and be "contained" (rather than "killed" in your words) by government and social agencies.
India always had religious diversity and conflict within its polity and civilizational space, far longer than any other civilization. therefore a lot of the knowledge to do this is already present in our knowledge resources, and we need to reach deep into it and utilize it in the present day. But right now it seems to be locked up in Sanskrit.
I blogged about this recently:
Thus, a statement of 'Truth' at any point of time has been described as a Finger pointing to the branch of the Tree (of Knowledge) that is pointing to the Moon in its current astrological position.
...
Therefore, a statement of Truth may be understood in that perspective, as a concept that invokes a set of perceptics which ought to point to a branch from the multifarious Tree of knowledge that, in turn, indicates the Moon.
The Bhagavad Gita also talks of this Tree (15.1). This applies to any and all philosophies - Indic or non-Indic. This Tree is universal. India has simply been a changing microcosm of it through time, and therefore Hinduism probably understands it best.
Politically, it follows that all bona fide sectarian cultures must point to the unified Tree of supra-subjective knowledge. The ideological sources of any religious or ideological sect can be objectively evaluated for this complete structure and continuity with Knowledge. If it fails in this due to a fixation on one point in history, one personality, or one obsession with an ideal, then its destruction is written in the stars and the politics of Dharma must aid this process. Any political party that seeks to prevent their destruction is doing so at the cost of the general sanity of the environment.
}, resulting in a depletion of our resources. Karachi is the biggest industrial base of Pakistan but investors are reluctant to invest because of unrest and violence {
}. This crisis originated from the banking sector of the US, UK and some European countries and is now a global phenomenon. Political instability, a bad law and order situation, the army’s interference, terrorism and inconsistent economic policies are the factors disturbing domestic and foreign investment. Pakistani investors are taking their money to Dubai and other countries. 
and bring a pro-Pakistan government to power in Kabul. The three requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.