Bharat Rakshak

Lalmohan wrote:Rajeshji - try "nigga" instead

Changa, nikka nigga hi sahi!

RajeshA, The most likely scenario is that India and China with who ever wants to be associated with them will form a mutual trading bloc of 4 B+ people and this will create the largest world economy since the first millenium and this will transform globalization like nothing else. This is a global shift and nothing much one can do about stopping its momentum!

This has already been told in some trade associations.

ramana garu,

I will need much time to start thinking of China in those terms.

RajeshA wrote: With time, say 10-15 years, American contributions to the joint aid keep on going down, while India's contributions to stabilizing Pakistan keep on increasing. At the end of the day, Pakistani Army would become India's 'nigger' (used in the way American blacks use it).

Over the period of time, TSPA would be willing to change the education curriculum, cut down on anti-India propaganda, bring down Hate amongst the Pakistani people for India, ityadi, ityadi.
...
I presume this may be a model being pursued by MMS.

What sucks in this model is that TSPA ... will not come around to accepting India as its uncontested master.

Rajesh-ji,

As you already noted, TSPA would have considerable difficulty climbing down from the platform of jihadi/salafi hatred they have used all these decades to justify their loot and rape of Pacquistan.

At present, TSPA's MO includes such pious practices as:
(a) taking the biggest share of the national budget,
(b) maintaining large segments of the 'private' sector under 'fauji' control,
(c) resisting real land reform,
(d) Islamizing/Arabizing the country to fight 'Hindu' cultural infection as demonstrated by such impure practices as women's rights, 'secular' education, and modern finance

all of which is justified on the basis of anti-Hindu, anti-India bigotry and hatred (as we all know). Fear and hatred of India is the reason TSPA offers up every time they have to justify to the aam abdul why he has to eat grass (whatever he can pilfer from the 200-acre lawns of the jernails, that is).

The scenario you envision would remove this most basic plank upon which the entire foundation of TSPA's predominant position of power is built. The only way that could happen is if a critical mass of TSPA jernails actually developed the vision and had the integrity to put the true interests of Pakistan first, as opposed to their own petty and delusional goals. Not an impossibility, but we have no signs that TSPA is capable of such a 'miracle'... there is no Pakistani Ataturk.

ramana wrote:RajeshA, The most likely scenario is that India and China with who ever wants to be associated with them will form a mutual trading bloc of 4 B+ people and this will create the largest world economy since the first millenium and this will transform globalization like nothing else. This is a global shift and nothing much one can do about stopping its momentum!olko
This has already been told in some trade associations.

The day Asian Curreny Unit like Euro come on the the horizon, the fate of Islamists, Imperialists and Interventionlism will be sealed for ever. The rise of Asia which accomodate both Indian and Chinese interests
will change the cource of humanity. They will all come from Japan to Jeddah to Johanesburg to discuss the rumor that once upon a time there was Poakland known for famous amorous features. Doubt very much if any one think the Kabila can have any future with cavemen like Zara-darri, Gilanni, Kiyani in the steering seat.

The internal dynamics in PRC has to be allowed to be played out and changes will come to PRC setup. However until that phase comes, it is best to be cautious while pretending enthusiasm. PRC is pushing on its nuclear exchange programme with Pak, and may need to pretend that it is trying to melt in love for India. Same goes for Iran, as it may have connections to PRC where geostrategic concerns are involved.

Trade should of course be continued, and "Hindi-chini" bhai bhai, or even "Aman ki asha" perhaps raised sky high in propaganda. But all the while be ready for a coordinated campaign that starts out as minor distrurbances from "ethnic/ideological" separatists supposedly fighting "Indian state atrocities" and finally shows the hidden Paki and Chinese hands behind them in a larger conflict of war and pseudo war.

As well as preparations to take advantage of that situation as and when it comes. The best way to prevent such a situation is to get judicious leaks that talk of India waiting eagerly for such moves by Pak and China, and that India has already planned how to use it to destroy Pak once and for all.

surinder,
if we do not dream, no one else dreams for us. Spoken out dreams are a way of putting ideas for consideration as goals. Goals set high are drivers of national imagination. In fact the more impossible the dream, the more seemingly unlikely, it gives us a target for which we can exceed ourselves and rise out of our limitations. In fact a very high goal is also a shield against future compromises and degradations, and sometimes a good excuse to settle for something more achievable by posing the unachieved as the concession given to the "enemy".

We need to think collectively as that we can defeat our enemies, and that not only we can, but that we will - that those are not empty words. We need to think of ourselves not only keeping away conflict and trauma away from ourselves, but that we will take trauma and conflict into the house and home of those who plan destruction and trauma for us. That individuals may fall, but that the collective will win in the end and make the fallen individual immortal in their success. That we will crush those who seek to crush us.

We have to think that as a nation we will take control of our own destiny, and not wait for good sense of the rest of the world to develop in some remote future and come to our rescue. If that destiny requires reasserting control over Pak, so be it - by hook or crook, by pretension or propaganda, by war or non-war, by development or withholding development, by modifying Islamism or eliminating it, - that is what we should do. Without hesitation, and decisively.

Governments and armies change in their composition and their doctrines because new generations replace the old. If the current setup is not up to it a future gov and army will do it. But for that we need the dream to be consistent and held on to.

Brihaspati, well said!!! I hope it all comes to fruition one day.

brihaspati wrote:There are certain common themes in Islamic military strategy. It is less about military and more about a shrewd understanding of human social behaviour.

(1) Islam thinks of "total war", which means Islamic society and its leadership is always preparing for eventual war, and seeks to annihilate all possible sources of resistance, in all possible ways.

Is it possible that this scenario is just specific to South Asia and other civilizations like Persia where Islam was superimposed not on a tribe but a well functioning society.
I don't see this total war mentality in majority of Gulf countries like Bahrain, Dubai, Muscat etc. or Indonesia.
On the other hand KSA, Kuwait etc. it may be there in subtle form, but there is still no threat of annhilation.

This total annhilation seems specific to TSP and wherever its able to project it like BD, AFG etc.

by Rajesh
the Communication Dissonance I mentioned was meant to pertain only to the discussion here on this Thread and Topic.

Sir ji!! I know!! I love posts by you (RajeshA), Dr Shiv, Dr. Brahspati, Surinder, Prem, Ramanna, Kamboj, Lalmohan and hundreds of other Rakshaks!!

I try to put the thread down to the common person's level! So that they also understand what we are trying to achieve! otherwise we (all the learned rakshaks) will be back to our great forefathers., who reasoned, thought and wrote books!! but common person cannot act on those books (almost 50% literacy!! and those mayby 5% of those 50% are really independent of Macaulayiite education) !! We have to keep leveling ourselves back to the same playing field of the common Indian living in Jhumri Talayya!!

On the idea of a "state philosophy" for India - no matter how attractive that option could have been - that has not occurred in the manner Rajesh writes about it and is does not exist as of now. Under the circumstances we come right back to the dilemma that I am writing about for the third time in this thread, that is

We have a situation where we could do things better if we were different (if my aunt had a d***) so we are faced with the choices of

1) Changing ourselves first, formulation of that state strategy within the Gordian knot that we call Indian democracy and then talk of dealing with Pakistan
or
2) Dealing with Pakistan as is, from where we are, as we are.

I do not see that we have the luxury of time for the former option, only the latter is possible.

On another note India does have a "state policy". It is clearly visible to all. We may not like or agree with all aspects of the state policy, but it exists

1) Secularism, equality for all people including women
2) "Development" - education, infrastructure, industrialization
3) (naive as this may sound) Peace and harmony with our neighbours

If we can call Pakistan a failing state today - India was in a much worse shape in 1947
If Pakistan is not a failing state today - India certainly had all the hallmarks of an untenable state destined to fail in 1947. We have moved from that condition to where we are today - i.e a little better.

Where are we today? We are barely ahead of Pakistan. Despite islamism, Pakistan, by state policies of GUBO has barely sunk behind India. It has actually shown some development, som industrialization and some education, and while it does lag and continues to lag it is completely naive that India can do things like have a state policy to deal with Islam when someone else, who came before us in India, has already agreed that Islam is part of the Indian state. If that is sought to be changed, our focus should be on bringing down the Indian state, or at least "managing" the Indian state. Managing Pakistan is hardly a priority in that case.

Pakistan has not done so badly despite Islamism and all talk of defeating Islamism has to be tempered by the fact that Pakistan remains a formidable state that is tending towards failure in "modern terms" of development. Not failure in terms of 7th century Arabian society. Pakistan is becoming a resounding islamist success - and add nuclear weapons to that.

There are two options for India as I see it

1) To try and leverage Pakistan's failure as a modern state to bring about splitting of Pakistan or some other change leading to better control
2) To try and fight Islamism Pakistan which is stronger than it was before.

No matter what we do - either option 1 or option 2 - we have to do this in Pakistan to Pakistanis. It hardly calls for self change. Changing ourselves at this stage as opposed to doing something in Pakistan at this late stage, or even lamenting that "we are like this onlee" to me sounds suspiciously like

Hum ko man ke shakti dena,man vijai karein
Doosroon ki jai se pehli khud ko jai karein

Very Indic. Very laudable. But completely misplaced. IMO

Shiv, say, to score more goals in soccer, one has both to improve his stamina and skills (self-change) and also play more offense (do this in Pakistan to Pakistanis). I.e., also increase capability and also increase effective use of capability. I don't see this as one exclusive of the other; rather both have to be pursued. Further, if one is aggressive and takes more risks, there will be failures.

Does India have the self-confidence to pursue this path?

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, say, to score more goals in soccer, one has both to improve his stamina and skills (self-change) and also play more offense (do this in Pakistan to Pakistanis). I.e., also increase capability and also increase effective use of capability. I don't see this as one exclusive of the other; rather both have to be pursued. Further, if one is aggressive and takes more risks, there will be failures.

Does India have the self-confidence to pursue this path?

Arun - this how I see it.

If you ask (in India) if terrorism is a problem, the majority will say yes.

If you ask Indians whether Islamic terrrorism is a problem, you will probably get a majority yes - but you will start seeing a significant number of arguments about whether terrorism is Islamic or Hindu or social or Naxal.

If you ask Indians whether Pakistan is a problem - I believe that the majority - at least at this point in time will say yes. However the Government of India and its representatives have clearly stated that the see Naxalism as being as big a threat if not bigger than Pakistan. Add to this the fact that I am increasingly meeting people from the Indian armed forces who are confident of meeting any military threat from Pakistan, but tend to speak of governance in India and or China as something that needs watching.

So if you ask "What is the will of the Indian nation?" - I suspect the answers are related to threats perceived by the people of India. Terrorism, corruption, goonda raj, Naxalism, China, Pakistan are all on the list. A long term plan to pre-empt a complex scheme of deceit and defeat of India by Islamism is nowhere on the radar of India and Indians by and large. It seems to be limited to BRF and a few internet sites. It is a different matter if one were to argue that Indians are blind and the nation is heading for suicide from ignorance of the scheming conspiracy of Islam.

One would have to spend every effort to change India and Indian views to move them from the current thought process to a new one that sees Islamism as the single major threat. To me such a tactic boils down to "changing ourselves first" (khud ko jai kaerin) because Indian priorities cannot be changed without changing the views of a majority of Indians. A few more terrorist acts from Pakistan backed by cries of Alhamdulillah, Bismillah and Inshallah will certainly point Indian minds in that direction, but equally a few more instances of Naxal violence and the standard goonda raj that exists in India (BJP ministers in Karnataka siphoning off 60,000 crores of mineral wealth) only make the case against Islamism weaker. The case for India as a failed state becomes stronger.

India can only do what is practicable. The strength of Indian people will not be concentrated on tackling Islam or islamism given the dysfunctional state of India. In fact anyone who says Islam is a problem in India is seen as a person who is a standard run of the mill cheat or con man whose friends a fill the state assemblies and the national parliament, seeking to divert the attention from their corruption and money making on to Islam. It is important to keep this in mind before making any grandiose international plans. No neta in India is credible unless he agrees and accepts reality as seen by Indians.

A neta who says Pakistan is a problem will be believed (now). A neta who says corruption is a problem will be believed. A neta who says Islam is a problem will be called a con man. Everything boils down to what Indians are experiencing in their day to day lives. And I always like to remind myself that "Ordinary Indians" are actually all around me now. The caddy I am waiting for. The sweeper who just swept and swabbed the floor under my feet at the golf club library from where I am typing this and the cook who just did a salute and wished me good morning. These are the real Indians. I am the odd man out. I am not an ordinary Indian. I am in a minority and my views do not count for much.

shiv wrote:Everything boils down to what Indians are experiencing in their day to day lives. And I always like to remind myself that "Ordinary Indians" are actually all around me now. The caddy I am waiting for. The sweeper who just swept and swabbed the floor under my feet at the golf club library from where I am typing this and the cook who just did a salute and wished me good morning. These are the real Indians. I am the odd man out. I am not an ordinary Indian. I am in a minority and my views do not count for much.

The Kashmiri Pandits and the Hindu Bengali refugees who got cleansed from East Pakistan are also real Indians. But elites would like that other real Indians (i.e. your caddy, sweeper etc) be kept in ignorance.

However, it is true that TSP and Islamism is not really the root of the problems. Ordinary Indians go and push buttons at election time, trusting that their views matter. However, the colonial actors and their native collaborators were never cleansed from the system.

Shiv,

Try saying that the Islam followed by Pakistan is the problem and not Islam it self. That may open a few doors for us. I knot that there is no seperation but try an dcreate a seperation and we may have an opening we need.


JMT

PS; I have said this befor on this forum, will say this again. The common man I have interacted with if the discussion ever turns to relegion. They are very clear that ROP is a problem. So I dont really understand why the common man you and others are talking about have this selective beliefes regarding ROP.

But elites would like that other real Indians (i.e. your caddy, sweeper etc) be kept in ignorance.

Try saying that the Islam followed by Pakistan is the problem and not Islam it self.

I have no specific argument against these views but they only highlight exactly the problem I am talking about. It does not matter why Indians do not see Islamism as a problem but they do not and that fact is going to be of no help in handling Pakistan. Both statements above seek to elicit "favorable views" from Indians on the issue

Either Pakistan has to be handled without consensus from a majority of Indians (- let them think what they like) or fail to do anything about Islamism in Pakistan because we do not have consensus from Indians.

What do you think is the choice?

I think that Pakistan has to be handled without waiting for consensus from Indians. Such consensus will never come and when it comes it will still not agree that Islamism is a problem. Trying to change Indian viewpoints is a complete waste of time and analysing why Indians think the way they do is a bigger waste of time.

Pakistan is not waiting for all that IMO. Pakistan is a problem. Islamism is a problem. What can we do? Take them separately or together. In my view Pakistan's condition today with or without Islamism is a problem. Islamism is a problem over and above that.

shiv wrote:Pakistan is not waiting for all that IMO. Pakistan is a problem. Islamism is a problem. What can we do? Take them separately or together. In my view Pakistan's condition today with or without Islamism is a problem. Islamism is a problem over and above that.

When the problem seems to be too large then one should try to break it into smaller parts and then try and tackle it. First solve TSP. Then solve Islamism. The key will be to separate the two. How do we go about doing that will be the Key. Currently the way TSP is configured it is very difficult to imagine that we could separate the two. But we must try to think in these terms. If this approach is not possible then we will need to conceptualize the approach being presented by brihaspati , and every thing that entails.


Without exception and see it through to its bitter end. Do we have the intellectual capacity to imagine either of the two approaches. Unless as a society and government we are able to develop this capacity none of the approaches being discussed will result in solution as they will not get implemented to begin with.

Yet I am hopeful that tomorrow will be better then today or yesterday for us.

Pratyush wrote:
When the problem seems to be too large then one should try to break it into smaller parts and then try and tackle it. First solve TSP. Then solve Islamism.

I agree with the idea of breaking the problem into parts and am certain it can be applied to Islamism as well. Just for the heck of it - instead of stating my views on this - let me see if I can provoke opinions by asking

"What is it about Islamism that you do not like?" The answer "Everything" does not count on the grounds that it is failing to break down the issue into parts.

shiv wrote:

Pratyush wrote:
When the problem seems to be too large then one should try to break it into smaller parts and then try and tackle it. First solve TSP. Then solve Islamism.

"What is it about Islamism that you do not like?" The answer "Everything" does not count on the grounds that it is failing to break down the issue into parts.

Shiv, We need to move away form liking and not liking the aspects about any situation. But that should not preclude us from stating what causes inconvenience to us about any situation. e.g whatever that stops me from being what I am. Is an inconvenience to me. Its not that I don't like it but sure it causes problems to me. By denying my right to existence.

Similarly for the ROP. I don't have to tell you or any one on this forum what causes problems and what is an inconvenience for you and I.

We are looking at the same thing and are trying to solve the same problem but the approach we are debating is different.

Now, as for the ability to break the problem in smaller parts. If you say everything then lets deal with the problem as a whole. (I presume that you will agree with me when I say, that, once islamism solved, TSP becomes a problem of human development indicators)

What are the ways to deal with it?

If the problem is Islamism and not TSP then the only way of dealing with the problem is to make Islam irrelevant and impotent in day to day lives of its followers.

One of the ways to do so may be to cause a total collapse of TSP and the destruction of its civil society (An oxymoron I agree). Post collapse what will happen to the population of TSP.

If a famine is triggered by a collapse of its civil society then how will islam respond to the situation. Killing tens of millions, what will the mullah say and do.

If mullahs blames YYY conspiracy as a cause of famine, what will be the reaction of the masses?
If the mullahs says the it was the will of Allah, then what will the masses say?

The mullah can say what ever he wants but he does not have the answer to the problem. Sooner or later the long suffering human beings are bound to rebel against this abomination. And that will be the opening that we should try and create. As that ought take the power of mullah away from him.

JMT

shiv wrote:On the idea of a "state philosophy" for India - no matter how attractive that option could have been - that has not occurred in the manner Rajesh writes about it and is does not exist as of now. Under the circumstances we come right back to the dilemma that I am writing about for the third time in this thread, that is

We have a situation where we could do things better if we were different (if my aunt had a d***) so we are faced with the choices of

1) Changing ourselves first, formulation of that state strategy within the Gordian knot that we call Indian democracy and then talk of dealing with Pakistan
or
2) Dealing with Pakistan as is, from where we are, as we are.

I do not see that we have the luxury of time for the former option, only the latter is possible.

Side note: Well actually, there are really lots of people, whose aunts have gone ahead and become uncles. That is not all that iffy iffy!

This is posing ourselves a false choice. Of course we have to deal with Pakistan as is, but to deal with it better, one has to tell Pakistan, what it is not yet, and how it should be.

If we can find the time to do a military build-up to take on Pakistan, then certainly we can find time to do a 'morality'-build-up and to improve our rhetoric, based on it.

The choice has to be made clear for most of the Pakistanis: either be like Taliban or be like us.

Now the Taliban say very very clearly, what they expect of the Momeen. India does not express her conditions clearly. We say something like: well if you are willing to live and let us live, then it is ok, but even that condition is just performa.

Pratyush wrote:Try saying that the Islam followed by Pakistan is the problem and not Islam it self. That may open a few doors for us. I know that there is no seperation but try an dcreate a seperation and we may have an opening we need.

Pratyush ji, thank you.
That is exactly, what I am trying to say.

shiv wrote:On another note India does have a "state policy". It is clearly visible to all. We may not like or agree with all aspects of the state policy, but it exists

1) Secularism, equality for all people including women
2) "Development" - education, infrastructure, industrialization
3) (naive as this may sound) Peace and harmony with our neighbours

And these are the good things. These are things, that make me, an Indian, feel good about being an Indian.

My regrets about our "State Philosophy" is that 'secularism' is basically a sign-post, which bends and turns with the wind. The most heed to it, but the sign-post can still do very little to make people respect it. I would have wanted that 'secularism' be a lion, with teeth and strength, and a lot more fleshed-out.

shiv wrote:There are two options for India as I see it

1) To try and leverage Pakistan's failure as a modern state to bring about splitting of Pakistan or some other change leading to better control
2) To try and fight Islamism Pakistan which is stronger than it was before.

No matter what we do - either option 1 or option 2 - we have to do this in Pakistan to Pakistanis.

I wouldn't call them options. Both are imperatives. Imperative 1 is important, because as long Pakistan does not split, we will continue to deal with Pakistan, as we have done till date. A higher level of intervention and 'treatment' can only take place after Pakistan splits up.

Islamism, IMHO, is both good and bad. In order to reap the dividends of the advantages of Islamism, India has to position herself correctly.

Now the conventional thinking may be that the GoI's Pakistan Policy is wrong but is being pursued for the right reasons. The right reasons in this case being 'Peace in South Asia', etc. The wrong policy being of appeasement, no retaliation against terror, both are victims of terrorism, talks should continue despite terror, India wants Pakistan to be stable, etc.

I think it is the right policy for possibly the wrong reasons. If the assessment of Pakistan's future in Delhi is that it will not break-up then the pursued policy is for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, if India is somewhat certain that the drivers in Pakistan are all pointing towards a split, then they do sound logical.

The reality of Pakistan right now is - Islamism is increasing in Pakistan. The purer strains of Islam are using coercion to enforce their views on the majority. There are more acts of 'terrorism' against the 'innocent' Pakistanis. wagerah, wagerah!

Keeping in mind the realities, some of the scenarios for Pakistan are:

• 1) Pakistan sees its folly in encouraging extremism. The Pakistani Army comes down heavy on all sorts of groups and crushes them. Pakistan reforms itself into a moderate Muslim state and cleanses itself of the underlying reasons for the extremism: tolerance and encouragement to jihadi groups, hate-filled education system, etc. HIGHLY UNLIKELY!
• 2) Islamism takes over Pakistan. Slowly and steadily the Sufis and Barelvis become Deobandis, the Deobandis become Wahhabis, the Wahhabis become Jihadis. The TSPA becomes fully Islamized, and it becomes difficult for USA to pursue the same type of relationship with Pakistan as it is now. An unleashed terrorist country with nuclear weapons. QUITE LIKELY!
• 3) Talibanistan breaks off taking Pushtun areas with it. The Pakistani Army is able to hold on to the rest of Pakistan - Pakjab, 'Azad Kashmir', Northern Areas, Sindh, Southern Baluchistan. The split is official, and Talibanistan unifies with the Southern Afghanistan forming a Pushtunistan under Taliban rule. The State of Pakistan continues to exist, with only little change in its foreign policy, especially towards India. Now it feels threatened from Pushtunistan also, but soon settles down on a relationship of trade. It remains a client state of America and China. So the only change is that Pushtun areas of Pakistan go to Afghanistan, everything else stays the same. MOST LIKELY!
• 4) There is a proper fight between the Taliban and Pakjabi Army with Taliban having proxies within Pakjab itself in the form of Punjabi Taliban. This weakens the Pakjabi Army to such an extent that it forgoes control over the Pushtun Areas, and moves back to consolidate its strength in Pakjab. In the mean time, Sindh and Baluchistan see their chance and they declare their independence. Sindh and Baluchistan are recognized as independent states by the international community, which has in the mean time fully lost confidence in the ability of Pakistan to exist as a united country. As long as Talibanism increases chaos in Pakistan it acts as a centrifugal force, as in the chaos, the various regions can slip away from TSPA's control. DESIRED!

Scenario 1) is a daydream. Inertia and Fear would not allow this Herculean Task. Vested Interests would sabotage any effort.

Scenario 2) is the scenario, the world should be afraid of. Only consolation for India is that now the whole world takes cognizance of Pakistan's danger. But in the long run, India too suffers if left unchecked.

Scenario 3) is a lost opportunity. Instead of a poodle, we will have an eel next door.

Scenario 4) allows India the maximum leverage to deal with the problems in Pakistan on the one hand, and eliminates and breaks the hold of China and USA over Pakistan. PoK return to India giving India increased access into Central Asia.

The onslaught of Talibanism on Pakistan will come as surely as the sun in the sky! If we want scenario 4) to succeed then we have to make sure that Pakistani Army is badly mauled by it, but does not buckle to an extent that it completely accepts defeat. So India would have to do some cheerleading for the Pakjabi Army, enabling the Pakjabis to create a buffer between India and Talibanistan. At the same time India should promote Sindhi and Baluchistani self-determination.

India's current engagement with Pakistan is productive, as it polarizes the society enough, so that Islamism does not have a walk-over over the whole Pakistan, painting Pakistan a deeper green. I think our engagement, helps one side to resist this Talibanization of Pakistani society. The goal of this engagement should not be stabilization of Pakistan, or keeping Pakistan united. The goal of this engagement should be polarization of the Pakistani Muslim society, giving the 'moderate' pole sufficient strength, that it does not fall.

After the split, Islamism would have to be fought tooth and nail.

shiv wrote:It hardly calls for self change. Changing ourselves at this stage as opposed to doing something in Pakistan at this late stage, or even lamenting that "we are like this onlee" to me sounds suspiciously like

Hum ko man ke shakti dena,man vijai karein
Doosroon ki jai se pehli khud ko jai karein

Very Indic. Very laudable. But completely misplaced. IMO

This is a sequential perspective, which makes it look misplaced.

Islamism is a long term problem in the neighborhood. Even in 30 years, it will be around. Nothing wrong in having some Dates for the long battle.

shiv wrote:One would have to spend every effort to change India and Indian views to move them from the current thought process to a new one that sees Islamism as the single major threat. To me such a tactic boils down to "changing ourselves first" (khud ko jai kaerin) because Indian priorities cannot be changed without changing the views of a majority of Indians.

...

A neta who says Pakistan is a problem will be believed (now). A neta who says corruption is a problem will be believed. A neta who says Islam is a problem will be called a con man.

We are confusing our interests with our rhetoric here. What is the need of announcing that Islamism is our single major threat?!

When we are working on our "State Philosophy", we are presenting a 'Positive Agenda'. When we are creating the institutions and devising policy, we are in fact only putting in place 'Disincentives' for those who do not comply to this 'Positive Agenda'. Domestically it need not be pursued forcefully in all cases, so as not to give the impression of it being a 'Negative Agenda'. Domestically one should spare the sticks, but sometimes also the carrots for those who do not follow. A country needs time and indoctrination for a new way of thinking.

In our neighborhood, especially in case of Pakistan, we can hold up the new Flag of our Value System. No need for first and foremost 'khud ko jai karen'!

Such a Value System would include

• Coercive Secularism,
• Coercive Tolerance,
• Coercive Respect for all Faiths (who are respectful of others)
• Coercive Depoliticization of Religion
• Coercive DeJihadization of Religion
• Coercive Gender Equality
• Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

With this Value System, we can demand from the Pakjabis, that they reform themselves in a verifiable way, if they wish our financial and other support for their Pakjabistan. Same would be the case with the Sindhis. Reform of their religious institutions can be demanded by us. I have Scenario 4 in mind here.

Otherwise even according to brihaspati garu's proposals, should India need to forcefully eliminate the Islamist elements in the region, even then one would need a national consensus about what we are trying to do, some higher principle that would sanction our actions.

Just some thoughts

RajeshA wrote: What is the need of announcing that Islamism is our single major threat?

Precisely.

RajeshA wrote: In our neighborhood, especially in case of Pakistan, we can hold up the new Flag of our Value System. No need for first and foremost 'khud ko jai karen'!

Such a Value System would include

• Coercive Secularism,
• Coercive Tolerance,
• Coercive Respect for all Faiths (who are respectful of others)
• Coercive Depoliticization of Religion
• Coercive DeJihadization of Religion
• Coercive Gender Equality
• Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

Well said.

Ajatshatru wrote:

We are barely ahead of Pakistan.

Dr Shiv, if you don't mind me asking you....what are the broad parameters of such an assertion i.e. when you state that we are barely ahead of Pakistan?

If that is sought to be changed, our focus should be on bringing down the Indian state

Dr Shiv, please could you also expand slightly more on this thought process i.e. what exactly are you trying to say here? Thanks.

Please look at development statistics like birth rate, infant mortality, child mortality, poverty, per capita income, malnutrition, safe drinking water per person and compare India and Pakistan with say Britain, Sweden, Japan or China

The sentence I wrote was: (italicised words added for clarity)

(It would be) completely naive (to think) that India can do things like have a state policy to deal with Islam when someone else, who came before us in India, has already agreed that Islam is part of the Indian state. If that is sought to be changed, our focus should be on bringing down the Indian state, or at least "managing" the Indian state. Managing Pakistan is hardly a priority in that case.

shiv wrote: I agree with the idea of breaking the problem into parts

Addressing TSP and addressing Islamism should be done in parallel. The battle of ideas is important. However, deconstruction of Islamism is something that should be done by civil society rather than the government. Preferably the initiative should come from within the Muslim community (people like Taslima Nasrin or Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Govt just needs to protect free speech.

Pranav wrote:Preferably the initiative should come from within the Muslim community (people like Taslima Nasrin or Ayaan Hirsi Ali). Govt just needs to protect free speech.

How is a Govt. supposed to protect free speech? It can try to punish anybody, who threatens a journalist, an author, a filmmaker, a social scientist, a theology researcher or just a common man debating religion. But if a whole 30,000 strong mob converges to punish a 'blasphemer', whom is the Govt. going to punish?

Salman Rushdie lives in hiding. Taslima Nasreen is unwelcome in whole of the Indian Subcontinent, and elsewhere would also be threatened. Ayaan Hirsi Ali's had to take the protection of a right-wing American institution, because Europe could not give her protection, and in fact defamed her using citizenship issues.

I can say, that the political correctness regarding Islam has intensified to such an extent, that nobody in Europe, be it an immigrant or a White or some Muslim rebel dares say anything against Islam anymore. It is a self-imposed censureship. All European bravado about free speech is hollow.

Here a quote from Wikipedia.

On April 27 a Dutch judge ruled that Hirsi Ali had to abandon her highly-secure house at a secret address in the Netherlands: her neighbors had complained that living next to her was an unacceptable security risk to them, although the police had testified in court that it was one of the safest places in the country due to the large number of personnel they had assigned there. In early 2007 she stated that the Dutch state had spent about 3.5 million euros providing armed guards for her, and the threats made her live "in fear and looking over my shoulder", but she was willing to endure this for the sake of speaking her mind.
A private trust, the Foundation for Freedom of Expression, was established to help fund protection of Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other Muslim dissidents.

The only way to guarantee free speech, is that if anybody threatens somebody's person because of blasphemy, be he a single person or a mob, they should all be put to the guillotine. Not only the criminal, but anybody who might have taught him, that a 'blasphemer' should be killed, should also face the same consequences.

That is what I mean by:

• Coercive Tolerance
• Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

But in order to tackle this problem, one has to go beyond all this.

• 1) One has to legislate Blasphemy.
• 2) One needs to educate the citizens, especially children, and make sure that every child understands the concept of free speech
• 3) One has to constantly monitor religious institutions, and see to it, that they do not preach violence against 'supposed' blasphemers

JMTs

Ajatshatru wrote:Also I must add here that China is not that much ahead of India that China can be really clubbed with countries like GB, Sweden and Japan etc. at the present moment.

Ajatshatru - no offence intended but I can't help noticing. You see, when Pakistanis talk about their problems this is exactly what they say. (In your sentence above replace China with India and India with Pakistan). Unless we are very careful and very honest we too end up hiding behind the same excuses and rationalizations that Pakistanis have used for years.

We need to be right up there with the top countries. Not 4 steps ahead of Pakistan. But all that is OT. We have to deal with Pakistan even as we get 4, 5, 6, 7....20000000 steps ahead but not be dishonest about ourselves as Pakistanis are about themselves.

Pratyush wrote: (I presume that you will agree with me when I say, that, once islamism solved, TSP becomes a problem of human development indicators)

Absolutely

Pratyush wrote:What are the ways to deal with it?

If the problem is Islamism and not TSP then the only way of dealing with the problem is to make Islam irrelevant and impotent in day to day lives of its followers.

Agree

Pratyush wrote: One of the ways to do so may be to cause a total collapse of TSP and the destruction of its civil society (An oxymoron I agree). Post collapse what will happen to the population of TSP.


If a famine is triggered by a collapse of its civil society then how will islam respond to the situation. Killing tens of millions, what will the mullah say and do.

If mullahs blames YYY conspiracy as a cause of famine, what will be the reaction of the masses?
If the mullahs says the it was the will of Allah, then what will the masses say?

The mullah can say what ever he wants but he does not have the answer to the problem. Sooner or later the long suffering human beings are bound to rebel against this abomination. And that will be the opening that we should try and create. As that ought take the power of mullah away from him.

JMT

I have deliberately highlighted one sentence in red

Now here's a thought..

If you look at what is happening in Pakistan today - the sentence in red is exactly what has already commenced. IMO the opening is here.

One of the problems when we talk of "Indian opinion" and "Indian consensus" based on what we think "other Indians think" is that for many if not almost all of us, our interaction with other Indians are severely restricted in three different ways

(a) language and region - most of us will have little communication with groups that have a different mother tongue, and who come from a distant region. Even if they are in local interaction out of professional reasons, we will not be aware of the context and significance of their "native language" expressions and they are more likely to be talking in our local language.

(b) we cannot usually cross class and social subnetwork boundaries. Our interaction across class and subnetwork boundaries therefore takes place on a boundary which is basically a boundary of power and influence and wealth. We expect those who are under our power [yes yes with all so-called independence and unionization and subaltern empowerment], or who have little wealth and power network sharing to really feel powerful even if union leaders are cooing 24 hours in their ear how they are the real kings, to share their real feelings and thoughts with us or what they think we expect them to think?

(c) We interact more effectively and intensively with people within our own social subnetwork, and therefore almost closed in kinship and wealth and status, who are all more likely to share a common opinion. In the case of upwardly mobile or "upstairs", this subnetwork will be more under the influence of a common set of media outlet and more in tune with political propaganda and aware of establishment dogma. In the context of India, such a network will share in the perception in the establishment demand about other Indians that all "Indians" with the exception of a few dissenters - in a "certain way" which always happens to reflect what the establishment needs to establish as Indian thought.

One standard disclaimer that is given whenever I raise this reality of the nature of Indian social interaction, that the formal expression of opinions is subject to tactical social calculations that are guided by power relationships, is that people can express their real opinions in the elections - can't they? Well, even without indulging in discussions about EVM fraud, where has the issue of say Pakistan and/or Islamism has been the sole issue pu to the electorate? What is put to the electorate are issues supposedly related to their "daily" and immediate interests.

However, people far away from facing actual Islamist behaviour are less likely to give it any importance. Is that an inherent feature or part of the carefully planned propaganda machinery that uses each and every wing of rashtryia power to establish the claim that regionla-local-sublocal-subsubsublocal interests are supreme, that Indians of one region need not feel part of another regions' suffering, that Islamism is no problem at all for India, that its role has always been positive whereas the native majority culture is full of evil and problems? That even if one region has suffered and is suffering from Islamists and islamism, such suffering should be trashed? That such suffering is probably a lie from right wing fascists etc?

I find it the height of delusional callousness if anyone tries to claim "Indian opinion" as being completely oblivious towards the danger of Islamism, and the actual activity of Islamists where they are active, or that Indians will dub anyone raising the issue of Islamism as a con-artist. I have feedback from the "lowest of the low" in the frontier regions of conflict with Islamists all along the Gangetic Valley, where the entire strength of regional and central rashtryia machinery is doing its best to suppress reaction against Islamism. I hear it from people whom I had known from sharing in the direst of situations where barriers of class and distinction are discarded like old clothes, and who typically started off from socially integrative, tolerant and "secular" attitudes, and still try to maintain in the face of overwhelming odds.

When we speak of democracy not being allowed to function properly by so-called "right-wing" narrow-minded ones, we somehow never think of how a rashtryia machinery itself can undermine democracy in the name of democracy, and ultimately force sections to discard democracy completely. If democratic expression of the reaction against Islamist violence and demographic assaults are suppressed to the extent that they are increasingly being done now, a time will come when that reaction will take undemocratic forms. Of course the pseudo-democracy will shout with the help of its Islamist friends and international interests behind Islamism that it was all a reaction from "right wing fascists".

Before we get down to claiming things about a mythical homogeneous Indian non-chalance about Pak or Islamism, we need to gain the confidence of those sections who face the brunt of the problem, at their social level, where they can freely talk without fearing negative outcomes for such talk from the rashtryia end. [Those outcomes need not be immediate but viciously prolonged and determined one - for rashtryia establishment derived from an intact colonial regime has a really long memory and quite sadistically effective in its dancing about on those who have no power].

Cross posts: Partition of Afghanistan
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? ... 66E50DFB3A
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/end-o ... e/645627/0

For the Pakistan side Talibanistan already exists, de facto

We may yet see a further partition of Pakistan...

What is happening in Pak is not against all mullahs - it is against Mullahs who are seen to be less effective mullahs, and the search is on for the greater and more effective mullah.

Partition of AFG is a hope, but it is coming from the self-delusion that comes with believing one's own propaganda. In this self-delusion, what a handful of leftist/Marxist theoreticians proposed as characterization of Islamism based on the vulgar Marxist dogma of materialist base determining socio-political superstructure, has come to cloud the judgment of entire western thought and therefore in influence all of regime approved academic thought in India.

In each and every situation so far, this false theory has resulted in the blunders that the west has continued to commit, and will commit in the near future. It is a total failure to understand the nature of hunger for power and how it manifests in the Islamist ideology.

Instead of a partition of AFG, there will be a temporary conflict that engages the NA and parts of a reluctant Pakjabi force forced to fight under duress from USA, but which has its base in southern AFG as a base for Islamist power in AFPak. This temporary conflict in north and south-east will be represented as a de-facto partition, but over time resistance from north and south will collapse. Not only because of the reality of the distribution of power on ground, but also because the northerners and the southerners will have overlaps of interests with the Islamist power base. Moreover the fact is that this Islamist power base will appear to be more attractive and stable in a psychologically comorftable ideological milieu.

Gurus, a thought to consider -

When we discuss managing Pakistan's failure, our analysis so far has focused on Pakistan as an isolated entity. Stakeholders under discussion have included: TSPA, common citizens, Taliban (Pashtun and Punjabi). Conspicuous by their absence are the 3.5 masters of TSP, i.e. the USA, China, SA and other 'friends of Pakistan'.

Rajesh-ji and ramana-ji have already commented upon the possible role that China and the US have to play in the denouement of the Paki state. Surely it stands to reason that we should factor them into our analysis more comprehensively.

I think it would be edifying to introduce some numbers into the analysis of impact of 3.5 friends on Pakistan. I was toying with the idea of a mini-project centering around Pakistani economic/military indicators, perhaps a data set of Pakistani GDP growth, per capita growth, military spending, HDI indicators, as these relate to the inputs of the 3.5 friends - i.e. aid from the US, arms transfers from the US and China, subsidized oil from SA, and so on. In particular it would be interesting to see whether there is a relationship between foreign aid and Pakistani GDP growth or other development indicators.

This is important because it allows us to have a more informed view of whether it is truly a question of 'Managing Pakistan's Failure' or 'Managing Pakistan's Handlers'. If the handlers are truly the area where India can exert maximum leverage (i.e. maximal effect with minimal effort) then we should be focusing there -- but if the data points to only a marginal effect of foreign intervention in Pakistan, then we should set aside the idea of formulating strategy to deal with 3.5 friends. But as of now this is an open question, to my understanding.

Even if our analysis continued to focus solely on Pakistan, I think it would be good to introduce numbers and socio-economic trends to this discussion. Shiv's comment above, for e.g. holds true: in HDI terms India performs marginally better today than Pakistan, but nowhere close to the developed countries. That said, it is equally true that a 2-3% point differences in GDP growth over the course of 20-30 years can make the difference between a USA and a USSR... and India has certainly pulled ahead of Pakistan consistently in the past twenty years (as China has ahead of India, but that is OT here). If this continues over the next 10-20 years, we will truly begin to see visible differences between India and Pakistan (but it would be nice to know what those could be, at least in numbers).

I would be happy to compile data on Paki economic growth and other indicators and chart it out, hopefully mapped to 3.5 friends' inputs such as foreign aid, arms sales/transfers, etc. I would welcome:
(a) pointers in the direction of reliable data (an oxymoron wrt Pakistan, i know) on Paki socioeconomic indicators (I am guessing WB or similar orgs maintain reasonable data on this)
(b) pointers in the direction of data on arms transfers, aid $, etc. to Pakistan from the 3.5 friends. Numbers on this seem less likely to exist in one place, in which case gathering them in one place would be educational in itself. I have a feeling I have seen such numbers in BRF itself, so the data must exist.

brihaspati wrote:One of the problems when we talk of "Indian opinion" and "Indian consensus" based on what we think "other Indians think" is that for many if not almost all of us, our interaction with other Indians are severely restricted in three different ways

Agreed, but..

brihaspati wrote: Before we get down to claiming things about a mythical homogeneous Indian non-chalance about Pak or Islamism, we need to gain the confidence of those sections who face the brunt of the problem, at their social level, where they can freely talk without fearing negative outcomes for such talk from the rashtryia end. [Those outcomes need not be immediate but viciously prolonged and determined one - for rashtryia establishment derived from an intact colonial regime has a really long memory and quite sadistically effective in its dancing about on those who have no power].

It is the "need to gain" that is important. This is something in the future. This is an action that is being mooted in the hope that the outcome matches what is expected - a possibility that is at best 50-50 in relation to the contraian possibility that Indian society is not worried about Islam.

The viewpoint on every side is equally miniscule - with no viewpoint being able to grasp the whole.

Under the circumstances we can only talk about what is visible in the public sphere. What are the political parties saying? What are the opinion polls saying? What is the RSS saying? What is the Congress saying? What is the BJP saying? What are the other parties saying on the issue.

There is no mass movement to correct or criticise Islam in India. it has to be elicited from "those sections who face the brunt of the problem, at their social level, where they can freely talk without fearing negative outcomes for such talk from the rashtryia end." And opinions of others will (at some unspecified future date) have to be moulded to prove that those whose opinions are "based on what we think "other Indians think" " are wrong. This is exactly what I said earlier - a recommendation for "khud ko jai karein"

This is the problem. If opinions to control islam exist where are they? If they are suppressed- the suppressors will have to first be defeated. All future plans for internal success of moulding indian thought to what is assumed to exist with as little proof as any contrarian viewpoint.

Fine. be that as it may. But what has internal change and the eliciting of hidden and suppressed views of Indians got to do with handling Pakistan? After waiting 63 years in which there was absolutely no urgency on anyone's part to clean up islam in India or elsewhere - I am unable to see the urgency or increased likelihood of success now. Islam seems to be taking care of itself faster in Pakistan and there may be something that can be grasped there.

Eliciting those opinions and building consensus is a waste of time. Consensus can be developed more easily from events in Pakistan. And much can be achieved in the absence of consensus provided we use the opportunity right.

Well, this is back to the initial point of disagreement between us. When you raised the issue of not being able to "force an opinion" on "reluctant" Indians, I pointed out that trying to take action based on a certain viewpoint is a way of "forcing an opinion" on reluctant Indians. Ultimately we are always forced to come to the conclusion that certain initiatives cannot be made subject to a future consensus, but have to be acted upon now even if "Indians" may not appear to agree to that line of action.

brihaspati wrote:Well, this is back to the initial point of disagreement between us. When you raised the issue of not being able to "force an opinion" on "reluctant" Indians, I pointed out that trying to take action based on a certain viewpoint is a way of "forcing an opinion" on reluctant Indians. Ultimately we are always forced to come to the conclusion that certain initiatives cannot be made subject to a future consensus, but have to be acted upon now even if "Indians" may not appear to agree to that line of action.

There is no other go. And although this is a game that more than one party can play, it has to be played.

Hence my question "What is it that you don't like about Islamism".

For starters:

Do you like the violence that it moots?
Do you like its attitudes about women?

This is where Rajesh's suggestions sound right to me. Very secular. very proper. Nobody can accuse anybody of being against any faith

* Coercive Secularism,
* Coercive Tolerance,
* Coercive Respect for all Faiths (who are respectful of others)
* Coercive Depoliticization of Religion
* Coercive DeJihadization of Religion
* Coercive Gender Equality
* Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

Ultimately the effect is the same

A truism: the world is changing faster than any culture, society's ability to keep up. (If you think America is driving the changes, no, they are just as swept along as anyone else. People are confused and angry as the existing social contract frays on the edges, as the assumptions on which the social contract rests are falsified.)

Countries like China and those tied up with Islamism like Pakistan are at an added disadvantage in that they try to banish certain ideas and conceptual frameworks (e.g., Pakistan and secularism, or China and freedom of speech).

The culture that teaches its adherents how to "retain their values" (whatever that means) while remaining adaptable, fast-moving, with the intellectual capital to address the challenges that are coming will inherit the 21st century.

The shape of the world to come is going to be very different from what we have had so far simply because of technological and economic changes. What we are witnessing in Pakistan is the extinction throes of a dinosaur species - they haven't come to terms even with the European Enlightenment ideas (1650-1800) (e.g., nation-state, secularism, abolition of blasphemy, heresy, inquisition, freedom of speech, constitution, parliament). The Internet is causing them takleef - see the rulings of the Punjab courts. How are they going to deal with the future? If India cannot outpace these guys, then real shame on India.

Kamboja ji,

A very laudable project. Please go ahead.

I would look for indicators of how external support has helped Pakistan in its economic indicators, HDI, etc. I would also look at the net effect of foreign-aided projects in infrastructure like power generation, water supply, ports, highway construction, airports, etc.
Interesting is what portion of infrastructure was built by foreign help, compared to the total infrastructure in some category, compared to the total infrastructure requirements of Pakistan.

I am just saying it is interesting, not that you should do it!

Ajatshatru wrote: Slightly OT here but I as a youngster I remember reading “Arabian nights” and in one of the stories, the author of this book describes how on a visit to India on visiting a pearl bazaar sees mounds of pearls kept on streets outside shops as if they were peanuts….

You probably know that "Aesop's fables" are th Panchatantra that reached Europe via an Arabic translation.

But I have a book that I am reading now that suggests that the Arabian Nights too is a set of stories that were told in far eastern and Indian ports during the trade between those during the Chola empire. I need to cross check this.

But if I am critical of india it is because my view is explained exactly by a statement made by brihaspati earlier on this page (ironically while he was disagreeing with me).

We all have a tendency to look around us - see some reality (say cars and buildings) and imagine that our world equals India. That is an error. it does not. Pakistanis not only made that error (and are still making it) but made it appear to the world that all was well.

We need to be careful that we boast of our achievements, but not allow that to prevent us from keeping our eyes wide open to the fact that we have a huge job to do yet. Pakistan will be swallowed by Indian development if we are able to keep up

A_gupta,

It is the power of a new Idea that will give us the space that we need. I refered it in one of my posts yesterday. But at the same time one needs to be able to hold the line against the absoloutist idealogies that masqurade as relegion in this world today.


RajeshA,

You my friend (if I can call you that) are the liberal intellectual this country needs today.

Pratyush wrote:RajeshA,

You my friend (if I can call you that) are the liberal intellectual

What a coincidence!!! Those are the exact same words I use, to curse my friends!

Thank you, Pratyush!

shiv wrote
This is where Rajesh's suggestions sound right to me. Very secular. very proper. Nobody can accuse anybody of being against any faith

* Coercive Secularism,
* Coercive Tolerance,
* Coercive Respect for all Faiths (who are respectful of others)
* Coercive Depoliticization of Religion
* Coercive DeJihadization of Religion
* Coercive Gender Equality
* Full State Protection for Scientific Commentary and Debate on Religion

Ultimately the effect is the same

Coercive secularism? Coercion part is clear but what is meant by that secularism that is going to be coerced upon all? Same goes for coercive tolerance, and "coercive respect for all faiths (who are respectful of all others)", coercive depoliticization of Religion, coercive dejihadization of Religion and coercive Gender equality and "full state protection of scientific commentary etc." - this is a perfect example of totally and mutually contradictory set of requirements.

Let aside the question of secularism.

There are two serious issues here:

First, you have to get consensus on all elements on whom you are going to coerce this about what those terms actually mean. Each of them mean different things, and in different contexts different things to different faiths. For example for Islmaism, Jihad is an integral part of the faith, whether downplayed or laughed at as a non-issue, it is however never ever accepted as anti-Islamic and un-Islamic. Try to force this debate on any Islamic and see the twists turns and spatterings in anger. If it is a part of their "faith" by proposing its destruction you are attacking the faith and therefore breaking your own conditions about tolerance and respect for the "other faith". Moreover, all of the terms used above is going to be contextual, and they have well defined minimal set of attributes/characteristics within all the four major schools of Islamic jurisprudence, which are different from the perspective of essentially Hindu "values" that I am assuming this list has been made upon. In fact the "Hinduness" of the list shows up as distinct from an Islamist one, because in Islamic view, those items are not separate but an integral and consistent whole - subjugation and submission of the "weaker" to the "stronger" in capability to inflict physical violence and trauma, man to god because god hold the ultimate punishment and is the stronger of the two, woman to man because man is the stronger of the two, secularism of any sort is "evil" because goes against the natural ordering of the strength of faiths, and if Islam succeeds in defeating another faith then those other faiths have no place and must submit or be in inferior order. Tolerance is not permanent and only transitory because it means islam at the moment is not strong enough to wipe off the other faiths, and is against the principle of submission - because other faiths are not submitting and islamics are being forced to tolerate. Open commentary and debate if questioning the basis of this submission philosophy is challenging the natural order of power and therefore against the faith. For an Islamic therefore a list of those items separated out is completely unIslamic and unacceptable - try this out with any theologian!

Second, this again is not from consensus angle - but a much more fundamental problem. In the list no hierarchy of preference or priority values have been given in case some faith comes up with core items in their faith that make two items on your list clash and become contradictory over a specific salient issue. This is where you will see all items in the list as contradictory. If the Hanafi school says that two women are equivalent as one man in legal deposition as witness, and that this is as per the core faith, then by challenging this you are disrespecting the faith, and by imposing an equality contravening this "witness" law, you are going against tolerance. Similarly see the case of depoliticization of a faith that clearly and consistently says it is a core part of the faith not to separate the two! Same goes for Jihad! In fact Jihad can eve be justified by saying that all jihad is "defensive" because it is undertaken when an Islamic community perceives a "threat" to itself and Islam. The definition of the "threat" is nebulous, and it could be a book, a cartoon, a comment, a word, a whisper, a supposed insult to a name, or even the refusal to convert, or if any non-Muslim claimed the right to defend ones life, property or family from an Islamic attack. Its clearly stated in many many texts, historical records, and is not denied by theologians even in the modern period, and more importantly turns out again and again, again and again in Islamic-non-Islamic interactions whenever opportunities to carry them out without much retaliation arises.

Ajatshatru wrote
Well yes and no.... mobility of Indians across different parts of India has considerably increased in the past few years (travel, jobs in various parts of country, living in a metropolitan city like Mumbai, Bangaloroo, Hyderabad etc.) so this may not be the case in the coming years.

Yes they will communicate in a hybrid, or English depending on the educational background, or the local dialect. They will adapt and project that side of their feelings that fits in with what they expect the locals to expect of them. But how many of us in Mumbai, or Bengaluru, Hyderabad who are more or less "natives", really would be able to catch the contexts and inflections of a Patnai aadmi, or a Bengali babu and be aware of their social, linguistic, historical background? Shiv ji, you must have remembered the case of the "Kannarese-Bengali" fiasco? We are more sensitive about language and region we identify with, and take umbrage at attributions which we ourselves attribute to "distant" regions simply because we do not think of those other regions as worth being aware of or knowing about.

Quote:
we cannot usually cross class and social subnetwork boundaries

Brihaspatiji, If I may say so….again an undercurrent of some very basic (stereotype?) assumptions run through the thought process in point number (b) of your post.

While at uni in desh, I did run four informal (but methodologically impeccable) surveys on this. You can try this out on yourself and people you know, just note down the number and background of people you know, what you talk about and how much you know about their backgrounds and their lives. Many of us interact with a variety of people from different backgrounds, but are we in a really mutually confidence-shared reliable dialogue that also reveals their deeper or honest opinions? No, this is not stereotyping. It comes from years of roaming and mixing up with the so-called "dregs".

Quote:
(a) We interact more effectively and intensively with people within our own social subnetwork, and therefore almost closed in kinship and wealth and status, who are all more likely to share a common opinion.


Well I would also slightly disagree here as barring a few topics, "wealth and status" may not necessarily be the criterion for “ a common opinion” on majority of topics within a group.

Again, run a survey - you will see that we live mostly in self-reinforcing closed information loops socially. Most "higher educated" are WKK's, most WKK's going to certain schools and colleges come from similar wealth and status backgrounds and share even greater WKK'ism, etc.

But this goes OT, so maybe if you are still disagreeing we can take it elsewhere!