08-16-2006, 11:32 PM
Prem wrote:
In fact the whole partition was about this choice
Not really.
It was about two clusters of Muslim-majority provinces being given their choice to remain distinct and sovereign from Hindu-majority areas.
Think Cabinet Mission plan.
The Constituent Assembly of India had unanimously rejected this question of 'population transfer' and had settled on the secular nature of Indian Constitution, with equal and legitimate right of domicile for Hindus and Muslims of India alike.
Au contraire, the land of Bangladesh and Pakistan simply consists of those geographically contiguous areas where Muslims happened to be in a majority.
There was no "proportional" distribution.
Your claim is utterly unsound.
Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all and Pukis and BD Muslims just happen to have the majority in present BD/PUKE land mass.
If true , then what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah? Why were Hindus and Sikhs forced to move out of their homes in 47, was it becuase of religion or some other factors. Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage. GOI, as a representative Govt. should stake the claim.
Pukes, BD all owe this to the living descendants of their founding fathers , the very desendants are so far denied to exercise this right of them on BD/PD. SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc, they better bring their share of partioned assest to the table... to have a seat.
Sunoor Singh
Quote:
Bangladesh summons Indian diplomat over Rajnath's comment
What does the Gore-ment of India have to do with an opposition leader's comment, its merits or otherwise notwithstanding?
Prem wrote:
Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all
I don't recall making such a claim.
The statement was that there was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.
Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.
Quote:
what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah?
They were demanding the creation of an independent, sovereign Muslim state.
And - at the conclusion of their efforts - they moved to the land of their dreams,- as 'Biharis' in Bangladesh and 'Muhajirs' in Pakistan.
Quote:
Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage.
I'll repeat this for your benefit:
There was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.
Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.
Quote:
SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc.
As equal citizens of the state, they have constitutionally guaranteed democratic means at their disposal to effect whatever change they reasonably can.
What is the basis of your objection ?
Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword. There so many other indications, Is it not unjust for Muslims in India to not to assert their claim and enjoy the Islamic heavens called Banga and Pak Desh. Their forefathers fought for these lands and some how could not join their Islamic dream land. The claim has nothing to do with proportion but religion onlee, the land of Dung and Bang Desh belongs to Muslims in India as much it belongs to other Muslims living in these lands. This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again. The onus is on the Bangladesh and Pukedesh to reject their claim , but we should and must make the case for them.
Valkan, if Muslims in India win their claim and bring their proportions of the divided assest to India , their satnding will be up and their claim on India fortified: if PUkes and Bangladesh reject the claim and refuse to accept them their own, Muslims in India will know and realize the truth,solving their wish washy attitude,dilemma about their co-religiosits who happen to be the enemies of India. India has nothing to loose by making the demand and having public debate on the issue. .
S. Valkan
Prem wrote:
Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.
That hardly changes the basic contention of the Partition NOT being based on demographic proportionality.
Quote:
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.
Is that claim based on some random generalisation, or scientific sampling ?
Quote:
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword.
Indian civilisational identity is a heterogenous composite, with part of it being Islamic.
Many of the food, clothes, music, architecture and even words that you claim as "Indian" comes from Islamic sources.
Quote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands
Perhaps some of their forefathers did.
But they didn't.
That's the big difference.
Quote:
This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again.
That immigration policy is for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi government to decide on, not India.
India has no exit restrictions. Folks can leave if they want to.
Just as many do in their quest for the "green card" elsewhere.
Quote:
but we should and must make the case for them.
On what constitutional grounds ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem
Valkan,
A rightful claim based on religion. The land of Banga and Puke Desh was taken from India on the basis of religion=ISlam and its adherrent in India . The claim dont require Constitustional base, the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.
S. Valkan wrote:
Prem wrote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands
Perhaps some of their forefathers did.
But they didn't.
That's the big difference.
Prem wrote:
but we should and must make the case for them.
On what constitutional grounds ?
Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.
But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.
Prem , Valkan ... I guess two of you are arguing from two very vastly different positions probably backed by equally different ideologies.
To cut it short, the entire series of posts argues about multi-culturalism vs. exclusivism. And it is fundamentally erronous for one side to assume that they hold the moral high ground.
Prem wrote:
A rightful claim based on religion.
Inapplicable.
Government of India is not bound to any religion.
Quote:
The claim dont require Constitustional base
Official claims do.
Quote:
the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.
The Dominion of India created by partition was superceded by the Republic of India created by the Indian Constitution on Jan 26, 1950.
You claim has no locus standi.
sroy wrote:
Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.
Naturally.
If I don't commit a crime, I can't be expected to pay.
And that holds irrespective of what my forefathers did.
Quote:
But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.
Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.
Those that participate in the elections under the present Constitution, or apply for official Indian documents ( passport etc ) are, likewise, bound by the same Constitution as is in effect.
Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.
If you don't accept the Constitution, you have the option to leave the country, or work to change the Constitution democratically.
So, this flip-side-of-the-coin argument doesn't hold.
S. Valkan wrote:
Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.
The role of constitution is of lesser importance here. The framers of the constitution acted on the basic premises that religious or cultural identity is not of greater importance for common people. They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
Their assumptions were wrong. The bounds and checks of the constitution just reflects those fallacies.
S. Valkan wrote:
Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.
What do you mean by "agreed"? AFAIK unless someone traces his or her lineage to some invader, their bloodlines stretches back to hoary antiquity of pre-historic India.
India is their homeland, motherland, fatherland, or any term you like. Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?
As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?
So, your arguements does not cut ice.
Last edited by sroy on 15 Aug 2006 09:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
sroy wrote:
They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
Why should you assume this ?
Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?
They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.
Quote:
Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?
Read my last few posts a little more carefully.
They have the choice to either change it by democratic processes outlined in the Constitution, or leave.
Quote:
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?
The price of not participating in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.
If Mulayams and Laloos don't reflect your opinion, you are free to contest the elections against them, and win ( if you can ).
Quote:
As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?
So, democratically remove the offending legislators from their representative position, and elect someone who would reflect your views.
Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?
sroy wrote:
They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
S. Valkan wrote:
Why should you assume this ?
Judge people by their actions. Plus there are unbiased versions of history available.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?
They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.
Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.
S. Valkan wrote:
Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?
Such rhetorics won't take the discussion anywhere unless you understand what does the term 'silent majority' mean.
Since, this Bangladesh thread, lets try a specific example. Few questions.
How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem). Any idea?
sroy wrote:
Judge people by their actions.
The members of the Constituent Assembly acknowledged and accepted distinct personal laws while framing the Constitution.
Judge the "no civilisational divide" by their actions.
Quote:
Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.
But you do exercise your constitutional right to vote. That implies acceptance of it.
Also, if you find any particular provision in the Constitution not to your liking, you have the option to lead a democratic process to change it.
If none of the above is true, you have the option to leave.
Quote:
How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?
Let's just assume that I do know just about enough.
Do I have to describe the process of how Isvardi and Santahar are the staging grounds, or whether Pabna and Comilla fare better or worse compared to Dinajpur and Sylhet ?
Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?
Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).
Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?
Not my fellow voters. Smile. I'm from Delhi.
Of course it is a question for you, because your fundamental assumption on issues of partition is wrong.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).
Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.
No connection, but a parallel example. What you see in public discourse may not be something actually desired by masses.
You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370. Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?
For the BD infiltration case, someone I know tried to start a thread with accompanying GoI data and reports to explain the phenomenon. Regrettably the gent was banned because the topic was deemed too 'unsecular'.
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
Valkan, India is a civilizational state . Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation; Islam is a separate civilization and a portion of Indian land was allocated for the followers of Islam to live as per their civilizational code. If the constitutional assembly made the mistake of not accepting the civilizational divide in Indian population , it ought to be rectified.
There is no harm in accepting that majority of islamic folks voted for Bakistan resulting in partition but were unable to move to Bakistan for some reasons. The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim. They being remained in India is no proof of their acceptance of India and its civilization. With the ability to move to these lands freely and the the rejection or acceptencace there of ought to be the real criteria to make a right call. The choice was taken from them by Pukes.They have right stake in the claim and if they wish they can win this bring it back in India or keep it in these lands along with them .
Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment to compensate the losses of Muslims in India, in proportion to their percentage in 47 ,on the basis of religion... same religion by which the Bakistan claim was made and acepted =ISlam.
Constitution was made by Indians and for Indians and can be changed by Indian voters. Hense there should be a public debate in India as well as diplomatic talks with B & B Govts. It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings... E.g to you Yours and to me Mine.
sroy wrote:
You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370.
The disconnect is in your mind.
Most of the 1.1 billion people do not give a damn about Article 370.
Only a few educated urban coffee-house intellectuals, and die-hard extremists do.
It reinforces the point that - despite all the rumblings in these fora and fiery speeches by political opportunists - there is no national consensus on Article 370.
The Constitutional procedure is laid down to remove the Article, just as the other articles of similar nature had been previously removed.
If there is a national consensus, just avail of it.
If not, no point fulminating over a non-issue.
In any case, I have nothing to explain.
Quote:
Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?
If a majority of Indians feel that there a problem with the electoral process, push for a change of the Constitution by democratic means.
Obviously, you are in a minority who feels that way.
Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
I am quite aware of it.
And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.
Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
I am quite aware of it.
And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.
Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?
You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.
Of course, it is easy to push down Article 356 down someone's throat with long term conseqeunces.
Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal. If you think thats not in national interest than that's your problem and your lack of understanding of sub-continental history.
And if you have not been able to get my drift then again its your problem.
Prem wrote:
Valkan, India is a civilizational state .
Abstraction with an intent to obfuscate stark reality.
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
There is an element of a composite culture that binds those geographically contiguous provinces together.
And the Islamic element ( along with the Sikh, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi elements ) in that composite mosaic is undeniable.
Quote:
Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation
Firstly, this abstraction of "civilisation" is difficult, if not impossible.
There are some broad contours that can be defined for a civilisation, not clear-cut demarcations.
Where do the boundaries of Indian civilisation lie ?
Is the now-extinct Gandhara civilisation Indian, or Greek, or a composite of the two ?
Quote:
The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim.
Another illogical claim.
Those "descendants" were born in India, and hence are Indian citizens by birth.
If they wish, they can always emigrate.
But they have no "claim" to Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Just as Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh have no automatic claim to India, unless Indian laws explicitly allow such a claim ( on the pattern of the Israeli right to return for Jews anywhere ).
This is not a Stock Option that you can exercise over generations.
Quote:
Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment
Since the Indian constitution doesn't apply to Pakistan or Bangladesh, GOI has no legal authority or obligation to raise any such claim.
Quote:
It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings...
Rather jocund statement.
Why should I trust a traitor like Rabinder Singh any more than a hero like APJ Abdul Kalam or Azim Premji ?
S. Valkan wrote:
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.
What understanding you think I have, or don't have, is immaterial.
I have given you specific steps to counter all your objections.
Why not follow through with it, rather than claim arbitrary discrepancies in my knowledge ?
Quote:
Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal.
No arguments there.
Please feel free to control it.
Obviously, you are unwilling, or unable to use constitutional means available, like Article 356, when local apathy is rampant.
Would you rather form vigilante 'Minutemen' groups, and beat back those that immigrate illegally ?
sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete
When did consolidation begin ?
Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?
Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.
sroy wrote:
S. Valkan wrote:
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Main reason is due to political process which does not take the true relations between regions on the ground. As an economic state it was connected for millenia. Political process evolution broke down after 1975 and it has been lingering from that time. Media and imagemakers have taken over the political process making the political/intellectual process a farce.
In fact the whole partition was about this choice
Not really.
It was about two clusters of Muslim-majority provinces being given their choice to remain distinct and sovereign from Hindu-majority areas.
Think Cabinet Mission plan.
The Constituent Assembly of India had unanimously rejected this question of 'population transfer' and had settled on the secular nature of Indian Constitution, with equal and legitimate right of domicile for Hindus and Muslims of India alike.
Au contraire, the land of Bangladesh and Pakistan simply consists of those geographically contiguous areas where Muslims happened to be in a majority.
There was no "proportional" distribution.
Your claim is utterly unsound.
Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all and Pukis and BD Muslims just happen to have the majority in present BD/PUKE land mass.
If true , then what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah? Why were Hindus and Sikhs forced to move out of their homes in 47, was it becuase of religion or some other factors. Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage. GOI, as a representative Govt. should stake the claim.
Pukes, BD all owe this to the living descendants of their founding fathers , the very desendants are so far denied to exercise this right of them on BD/PD. SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc, they better bring their share of partioned assest to the table... to have a seat.
Sunoor Singh
Quote:
Bangladesh summons Indian diplomat over Rajnath's comment
What does the Gore-ment of India have to do with an opposition leader's comment, its merits or otherwise notwithstanding?
Prem wrote:
Valkan, as per you, the partition of India was not based on the religion at all
I don't recall making such a claim.
The statement was that there was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.
Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.
Quote:
what was Bihari/Up muslamans were doing participating in Pakistani movement of La ilaha Illilah?
They were demanding the creation of an independent, sovereign Muslim state.
And - at the conclusion of their efforts - they moved to the land of their dreams,- as 'Biharis' in Bangladesh and 'Muhajirs' in Pakistan.
Quote:
Last what is wrong with Muslims living in India claiming their share of BD and Puki land as a part of their politcal and spiritual heritage.
I'll repeat this for your benefit:
There was no partition based on the proportion of the two communities.
Therefore, your claim to a share of land in Pakistan and Bangladesh is unsound.
Quote:
SInce Mulsims in India want to effect Indian foregin /domestic policies etc.
As equal citizens of the state, they have constitutionally guaranteed democratic means at their disposal to effect whatever change they reasonably can.
What is the basis of your objection ?
Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword. There so many other indications, Is it not unjust for Muslims in India to not to assert their claim and enjoy the Islamic heavens called Banga and Pak Desh. Their forefathers fought for these lands and some how could not join their Islamic dream land. The claim has nothing to do with proportion but religion onlee, the land of Dung and Bang Desh belongs to Muslims in India as much it belongs to other Muslims living in these lands. This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again. The onus is on the Bangladesh and Pukedesh to reject their claim , but we should and must make the case for them.
Valkan, if Muslims in India win their claim and bring their proportions of the divided assest to India , their satnding will be up and their claim on India fortified: if PUkes and Bangladesh reject the claim and refuse to accept them their own, Muslims in India will know and realize the truth,solving their wish washy attitude,dilemma about their co-religiosits who happen to be the enemies of India. India has nothing to loose by making the demand and having public debate on the issue. .
S. Valkan
Prem wrote:
Valkan,
The partition and the land was done on the basis of religion =Islam.
The emphasis and the determining factor is/was religion=Islam.
That hardly changes the basic contention of the Partition NOT being based on demographic proportionality.
Quote:
The majority of Muslims in India are Muslims first Indian second, reason being religion=Islam.
Is that claim based on some random generalisation, or scientific sampling ?
Quote:
The Indian and Indian cvilization identity is not Islamic, infact a victim of Islamic sword.
Indian civilisational identity is a heterogenous composite, with part of it being Islamic.
Many of the food, clothes, music, architecture and even words that you claim as "Indian" comes from Islamic sources.
Quote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands
Perhaps some of their forefathers did.
But they didn't.
That's the big difference.
Quote:
This was the reason for immigration to the former Pakistan till 65, it should start again.
That immigration policy is for the Pakistani and Bangladeshi government to decide on, not India.
India has no exit restrictions. Folks can leave if they want to.
Just as many do in their quest for the "green card" elsewhere.
Quote:
but we should and must make the case for them.
On what constitutional grounds ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Prem
Valkan,
A rightful claim based on religion. The land of Banga and Puke Desh was taken from India on the basis of religion=ISlam and its adherrent in India . The claim dont require Constitustional base, the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.
S. Valkan wrote:
Prem wrote:
Their forefathers fought for these lands
Perhaps some of their forefathers did.
But they didn't.
That's the big difference.
Prem wrote:
but we should and must make the case for them.
On what constitutional grounds ?
Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.
But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.
Prem , Valkan ... I guess two of you are arguing from two very vastly different positions probably backed by equally different ideologies.
To cut it short, the entire series of posts argues about multi-culturalism vs. exclusivism. And it is fundamentally erronous for one side to assume that they hold the moral high ground.
Prem wrote:
A rightful claim based on religion.
Inapplicable.
Government of India is not bound to any religion.
Quote:
The claim dont require Constitustional base
Official claims do.
Quote:
the detremining factor of claim and its acception or rejection has to be the religion of Islam just like it was the basis of partition.
The Dominion of India created by partition was superceded by the Republic of India created by the Indian Constitution on Jan 26, 1950.
You claim has no locus standi.
sroy wrote:
Funny thing is that an Indian Muslim need not bother what his forefathers stood for.
Naturally.
If I don't commit a crime, I can't be expected to pay.
And that holds irrespective of what my forefathers did.
Quote:
But a non-Muslim Indian needs to hang the constitution around his neck inspite of the fact that majority of our forefathers were not a party to the drafting of the constitution or atleast did not agree with significant portions of it.
Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.
Those that participate in the elections under the present Constitution, or apply for official Indian documents ( passport etc ) are, likewise, bound by the same Constitution as is in effect.
Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.
If you don't accept the Constitution, you have the option to leave the country, or work to change the Constitution democratically.
So, this flip-side-of-the-coin argument doesn't hold.
S. Valkan wrote:
Moreover, the Constitution is a living document, and Amendments do take place regularly.
The role of constitution is of lesser importance here. The framers of the constitution acted on the basic premises that religious or cultural identity is not of greater importance for common people. They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
Their assumptions were wrong. The bounds and checks of the constitution just reflects those fallacies.
S. Valkan wrote:
Those that agreed to remain in India after the Constitution was democratically created( via the Constituent Assembly) and participated in the implementation of the Constitution(via general elections to the new Parliament ) have implicitly AND explicitly consented to it, respectively.
What do you mean by "agreed"? AFAIK unless someone traces his or her lineage to some invader, their bloodlines stretches back to hoary antiquity of pre-historic India.
India is their homeland, motherland, fatherland, or any term you like. Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?
As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?
So, your arguements does not cut ice.
Last edited by sroy on 15 Aug 2006 09:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
sroy wrote:
They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
Why should you assume this ?
Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?
They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.
Quote:
Do they have to leave India if they don't agree with certain aspects of the constitution?
Read my last few posts a little more carefully.
They have the choice to either change it by democratic processes outlined in the Constitution, or leave.
Quote:
How does elections come into the arguement? Are elections any benchmark of public opinion? Are our elected representatives reflection public opinion?
The price of not participating in politics is to be ruled by your inferiors.
If Mulayams and Laloos don't reflect your opinion, you are free to contest the elections against them, and win ( if you can ).
Quote:
As an example, what percentage of population want Article 370 to hang around? Is there any legislative action to match the public mood?
So, democratically remove the offending legislators from their representative position, and elect someone who would reflect your views.
Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?
sroy wrote:
They also assumed that no civilizational divide exist.
S. Valkan wrote:
Why should you assume this ?
Judge people by their actions. Plus there are unbiased versions of history available.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
What do you mean by "agreed"?
They voted to elect the Constituent Assembly.
Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.
S. Valkan wrote:
Who's stopping you, if you feel your opinion is shared by the 'silent majority' ?
Such rhetorics won't take the discussion anywhere unless you understand what does the term 'silent majority' mean.
Since, this Bangladesh thread, lets try a specific example. Few questions.
How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem). Any idea?
sroy wrote:
Judge people by their actions.
The members of the Constituent Assembly acknowledged and accepted distinct personal laws while framing the Constitution.
Judge the "no civilisational divide" by their actions.
Quote:
Yep, maybe my forefathers voted, but not me.
But you do exercise your constitutional right to vote. That implies acceptance of it.
Also, if you find any particular provision in the Constitution not to your liking, you have the option to lead a democratic process to change it.
If none of the above is true, you have the option to leave.
Quote:
How much do you know about the BD infiltration pattern in the East?
Let's just assume that I do know just about enough.
Do I have to describe the process of how Isvardi and Santahar are the staging grounds, or whether Pabna and Comilla fare better or worse compared to Dinajpur and Sylhet ?
Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?
Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).
Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
Why the infiltration issue is not being a election issue despite the fact that this phenomenon has affected the local economy in WB, burdened the already deficient infrastructure and has contributed to general lawlessness?
Is that a question to ask me, your fellow voters in Nadia and Murshidabad, or your elected representatives in the State and National Assemblies ?
Not my fellow voters. Smile. I'm from Delhi.
Of course it is a question for you, because your fundamental assumption on issues of partition is wrong.
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
The questions are tied to your 'silent majority' phenomenon and issues of partition (as raised by Prem).
Don't see the connection with Article 370 and why elected representatives couldn't reflect the public sentiment ( in your claim), except as a strawman argument.
No connection, but a parallel example. What you see in public discourse may not be something actually desired by masses.
You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370. Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?
For the BD infiltration case, someone I know tried to start a thread with accompanying GoI data and reports to explain the phenomenon. Regrettably the gent was banned because the topic was deemed too 'unsecular'.
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
Valkan, India is a civilizational state . Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation; Islam is a separate civilization and a portion of Indian land was allocated for the followers of Islam to live as per their civilizational code. If the constitutional assembly made the mistake of not accepting the civilizational divide in Indian population , it ought to be rectified.
There is no harm in accepting that majority of islamic folks voted for Bakistan resulting in partition but were unable to move to Bakistan for some reasons. The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim. They being remained in India is no proof of their acceptance of India and its civilization. With the ability to move to these lands freely and the the rejection or acceptencace there of ought to be the real criteria to make a right call. The choice was taken from them by Pukes.They have right stake in the claim and if they wish they can win this bring it back in India or keep it in these lands along with them .
Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment to compensate the losses of Muslims in India, in proportion to their percentage in 47 ,on the basis of religion... same religion by which the Bakistan claim was made and acepted =ISlam.
Constitution was made by Indians and for Indians and can be changed by Indian voters. Hense there should be a public debate in India as well as diplomatic talks with B & B Govts. It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings... E.g to you Yours and to me Mine.
sroy wrote:
You have not been able to explain the disconnect w.r.t. article 370.
The disconnect is in your mind.
Most of the 1.1 billion people do not give a damn about Article 370.
Only a few educated urban coffee-house intellectuals, and die-hard extremists do.
It reinforces the point that - despite all the rumblings in these fora and fiery speeches by political opportunists - there is no national consensus on Article 370.
The Constitutional procedure is laid down to remove the Article, just as the other articles of similar nature had been previously removed.
If there is a national consensus, just avail of it.
If not, no point fulminating over a non-issue.
In any case, I have nothing to explain.
Quote:
Are the politicians to blame or there is something wrong with our electoral process (duly backed by constitution) that pushes up wrong apples?
If a majority of Indians feel that there a problem with the electoral process, push for a change of the Constitution by democratic means.
Obviously, you are in a minority who feels that way.
Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
I am quite aware of it.
And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.
Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?
S. Valkan wrote:
Quote:
So, I'll close the discussion and leave it upto you as an exercise to find out as why there has been no local outrage against BD infiltration in WB despite great hoopla in media.
I am quite aware of it.
And there are several Constitutional options, including the imposition of Article 356, to circumvent such "local" apathy in the greater interest of the nation.
Why not push your national legislators to do the same ?
You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.
Of course, it is easy to push down Article 356 down someone's throat with long term conseqeunces.
Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal. If you think thats not in national interest than that's your problem and your lack of understanding of sub-continental history.
And if you have not been able to get my drift then again its your problem.
Prem wrote:
Valkan, India is a civilizational state .
Abstraction with an intent to obfuscate stark reality.
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
There is an element of a composite culture that binds those geographically contiguous provinces together.
And the Islamic element ( along with the Sikh, Buddhist, Christian and Parsi elements ) in that composite mosaic is undeniable.
Quote:
Islam is not part of the Indian Civiliziation
Firstly, this abstraction of "civilisation" is difficult, if not impossible.
There are some broad contours that can be defined for a civilisation, not clear-cut demarcations.
Where do the boundaries of Indian civilisation lie ?
Is the now-extinct Gandhara civilisation Indian, or Greek, or a composite of the two ?
Quote:
The desendants of these Bakistani freedom fighters has valid claim on their forefathers' share of booty: the open immigration till 65 is a proof of their valid claim.
Another illogical claim.
Those "descendants" were born in India, and hence are Indian citizens by birth.
If they wish, they can always emigrate.
But they have no "claim" to Pakistan or Bangladesh.
Just as Hindus living in Pakistan and Bangladesh have no automatic claim to India, unless Indian laws explicitly allow such a claim ( on the pattern of the Israeli right to return for Jews anywhere ).
This is not a Stock Option that you can exercise over generations.
Quote:
Indian constitution dont apply on East or West Bakistan, hense GOI should raise the issue with these 2 respective govenment
Since the Indian constitution doesn't apply to Pakistan or Bangladesh, GOI has no legal authority or obligation to raise any such claim.
Quote:
It is win win for us and beneficial for for consolidation of Indian society , removing lots of supicions, prejudices and misundersatndings...
Rather jocund statement.
Why should I trust a traitor like Rabinder Singh any more than a hero like APJ Abdul Kalam or Azim Premji ?
S. Valkan wrote:
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
You see, the harm to the greater interest of the nation or lack of it depends on understanding the infiltration pattern, which you don't have.
What understanding you think I have, or don't have, is immaterial.
I have given you specific steps to counter all your objections.
Why not follow through with it, rather than claim arbitrary discrepancies in my knowledge ?
Quote:
Maybe there should be 'controlled' immigration of BDs legal or illegal.
No arguments there.
Please feel free to control it.
Obviously, you are unwilling, or unable to use constitutional means available, like Article 356, when local apathy is rampant.
Would you rather form vigilante 'Minutemen' groups, and beat back those that immigrate illegally ?
sroy wrote:
Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete
When did consolidation begin ?
Under the Kuru dynasty, under Ashoka, under the Guptas, when ?
Quote:
once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Please specify the nature of this "consolidation" youhave in mind, and how long it might realistically take.
sroy wrote:
S. Valkan wrote:
India is a Bicmarckian nation state comprising geographically contiguous provinces that had been divided/arranged linguistically - after independence from British monarchy - into a federal republic. Period.
Artificial state, and portions of which shows the characteristics of a failed state. Artificial, because the consolidation process is not yet complete, once that is done we will be truly a civilizational state.
Main reason is due to political process which does not take the true relations between regions on the ground. As an economic state it was connected for millenia. Political process evolution broke down after 1975 and it has been lingering from that time. Media and imagemakers have taken over the political process making the political/intellectual process a farce.