I understand as much as anybody could that there are wonderful Muslims who are moderate in their political views, and are perfectly willing to live in a pluralistic society, but from my perspective there are still many Muslims who have a different slant on what is right.
It is my understanding that in the past decade or so there has been a large increase in Muslims from all over Africa and the Middle East immigrating to European countries. Many of these new Europeans have met the traditional fate of all immigrants, discrimination. Many of them are unemployed because they are Muslim. Naturally many of them believe that they must band with other Muslims in order to fight for their basic rights, as well as stave off abuse from the majority populace.
We've seen some of the clashes in recent years. France's ban on Muslim head scarves, Danish cartoons insulting Islam, the train bomb in Madrid, the close call in Great Britain.
In many of my IR classes there has been alot of talk about Muslims who state that they will continue to encourage immigration into European countries and once enough Muslims are born/immigrate within the country take control by the power of the ballot. Instituting Sharia (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Sharia) and who knows what else.
Two things,
1: I am not sure how true this is, I am equally inclined to believe that the radical elements we hear so much about are really just a fringe minority that nobody pays much attention to. I read statements from a study that say,
"Most indications suggest that Muslims in Europe are integrating, albeit slowly and painfully, like previous waves of immigrants to democratic settings in Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that there is something unique or intrinsic to Islam that will prevent this outcome. The passage of time and succession of generations are key. Guestworker-style public policies helped create an enormous integration deficit, but it can, indeed must, be overcome," and I want to believe them, I really do. So who is right?
2: Assuming the worst case scenario is true, what can a populace who does not wish to come under the authority of the Koran do to prevent a perfectly legitimate action of encouraging mass immigration and voting Sharia as the law of the land? Close the borders? Muslims tend to have MANY more children then their non believer counterparts, and in places like France its entirely possible that if current trends continue Muslims will outnumber any other group of people in the country. What can anybody do to stop such a result from taking place? Should they? I really don't know the answer. I'm just thinking out loud but I'd like to know what some of you think as you bring fresh perspectives, ideas, and superior knowledge of these things to the table.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On 2, the best thing they can do is work to prevent discrimination and exclusion, promote integration efforts, and ensure the fair possibility of economic prosperity.
The correlation between moderation in violence and political stance with socioeconomic opportunity is high, and there's good reason to believe causation is part of that.
edit: I would go so far as to say a large part of the problem is the exclusion of immigrants from citizenship in many European countries. Becoming a national is possible, but many nationals are excluded from citizenship for generations. If someone is structurally put into the category of other, little wonder that they view the people doing it to them as other.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: On 2, the best thing they can do is work to prevent discrimination and exclusion, promote integration efforts, and ensure the fair possibility of economic prosperity.
The correlation between moderation in violence and political stance with socioeconomic opportunity is high, and there's good reason to believe causation is part of that.
I'm not sure I buy that. The most successful terrorists have been educated at Western universities. They have been given the opportunity to integrate, but upon viewing Western liberal democracy they have rejected it in favor of militant Islam.
I don't see militant Islam as remarkably different than the militant anarchism that swept Europe in the early 20th century. I hope it burns itself out with the same expediency.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many peaceful leaders of Islam have been educated at Western universities, too .
In fact, many world leaders across the entire range from bad to good have been educated at Western universities.
Those points have almost nothing to do with whether or not a population as a whole tends toward moderation in violence and political stance as socioeconomic opportunity increases.
Extremely importantly, Europe should take lessons from India, home to a huge but largely peaceful and integrated Muslim minority that supports the Indian state strongly against the often violently opposed and officially Muslim neighbor of Pakistan.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Integration is important; I just don't think it's a panacea. I agree violent Islam will burn itself out more quickly if Muslims, whether in the West or the Middle-East, are given greater opportunity (economic and political). However, there will still be those (as there are today) who, despite the opportunities liberalism gives them, will choose to blow themselves up on buses and trains, because they see greater utility in it. My hope is that it is a meme that will quickly die out; integration will hasten that, but it won't solve it completely. For that I think the great and charismatic leaders of the movement need to be unmasked as the brutal power brokers they are, trucking in religious demagogery to satisfy their own lusts for power and wealth. Okay, maybe that's over the top. I think I got carried away with my own rhetoric; but I like the poeticism of it, so I'll leave it.
Long story short: integration is probably the best policy, but it won't solve the problem without a little implosion from within.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have evidence that France and UK keep legal residents as non-citizens for generations. If true, this is worth knowing. I do believe that Germany has long-term Turkish non-citizens, but I don't know if this applies to babies born in Germany.
Is it true that Moslems in India strongly support India against Pakistan? Also worth confirming.
--
There may be branches of Islam that are about as dangerous and violence-prone as, say, the United Methodists. (Are there?) If they exist, are they becoming more powerful? Is Islam becoming less radical and more ready to coexist? It had better, or Europe is in trouble. But I haven't heard evidence that it is.
Recommended reading: Mark Steyn, America Alone. He makes the case that America's going to be w/o European assistance in coming decades, because Europe's demographics show a massive population crash. Europeans will essentially be too old to help us even if they want to, too swamped by the economic demands of a small worker base supporting a huge population of retirees, and too consumed by inevitable strains between the coming Moslem majority and secular Europeans. Very bad news for Europe if he's right.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have evidence that France and UK keep legal residents as non-citizens for generations. If true, this is worth knowing. I do believe that Germany has long-term Turkish non-citizens, but I don't know if this applies to babies born in Germany.
I bet imogen can comment more fully, but the jus solis conception of automatic citizenship for all (or very nearly all) children born in a country is much more common in the Americas than in Europe.
This leads me to believe it's possible for long-term non-citizenship to exist, but I have no details.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the growth of Muslim Arab populations is sustainable at the current rate. They've been in a population boom for the last fifty years or so, and I think that's much of the reason for the flood of immigrants to Western countries.
Fact is, and this is just my guess, but I see Arab oil profits sharply decreasing, if things remain as they are, over the course of the century.
I know they aren't the typical example, but look at Iran.
quote: Iran is suffering a staggering decline in revenue from its oil exports, and if the trend continues income could disappear by 2015, a National Academy of Sciences analysis found.
He said oil production is declining and both gas and oil are being sold domestically at highly subsidized rates.
At the same time, Iran is neglecting to reinvest in its oil production.
"With an explosive demand at home and poor management, the appeal of nuclear power, financed by Russia, could fill a real need for production of more electricity."
Iran produces about 3.7 million barrels a day, about 300,000 barrels below the quota set for Iran by the oil cartel, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
The shortfall represents a loss of about $5.5 billion a year, Stern said.
If Iran collapses economically, and if they haven't used their oil profits to create an industry that can keep them afloat after their oil profits evaporate, they're screwed. And either way, I don't think, with as far behind as they are, they can replace $50 billion dollars in yearly income that quickly. They are headed for a depression, which is going to bottom out their birth rate.
Iraq's birth rate is also either down, or going to go down, what with the war.
Saudi Arabia has always been a net importer of manpower, they just don't have the people there to work their refineries and pumps.
I know China and India will always be there to buy oil, but as the US bows out of the oil importing game, especially from the Middle East, and as production drops from places like Iran, they are going to be in a financial bind, and national financial binds almost always mean low birth rates, which means a smaller pool of people who can emigrate to another nation. France has a population of something like 50 million. Assuming their native population simply achieves the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, it means they'd have to accept 40 or 50 million immigrants to get them to outnumber the native Frenchmen, and they'd have to vote as a giant bloc.
It assumes a LOT of stuff. That France can handle a doubling of their population in a relatively short amount of time. That the trend of immigration will continue. That France won't radically alter their immigration quotas. That Arab states will continue with their high birth rates. And that every single Muslim who comes to France will NOT adopt French culture as their own, and can manage to pass down that same lack of adoption to their children over a couple generations.
I think that's too many assumptions to make for the next five decades. Too much can happen.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Until 2000, you could only gain German citizenship if you could show that you were at least 1/2 German by blood. This policy resulted in a lot of Turkish (among other) immigrant families who had lived in Germany for generations, but still held Turkish passports, as well as Russian citizens showing up claiming citizenship (their grandparents or great-grandparents had been German back before borders changed during the world wars). In 2000 the policy changed so that all babies born in Germany would gain citizenship.
However, in Germany, at least, there is still a long way to go in integrating the foreign-born populations. Compared to America (at least where I grew up, in immigration-rich California), the government is doing a horrible job at trying to bring the diverse groups together. Also, labor laws in (more Socialist) Europe make it difficult for foreign-born populations to get out of the ghettos. For instance, in France it is relatively very difficult to fire a worker - even newly-hired young workers. This induces employers to go with the "sure bet" when faced with potential employees - hire the native rather than the Muslim-born.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Is it true that Moslems in India strongly support India against Pakistan?
Eh, you know how these things are... I'd say the wide majority of Muslims in India are patriotic,but there are also thousands [if not millions] who will refuse to look at Indian soldiers [who've giving up their lives for these people's safety], or support pakistani terrorists.
My father fought in the India-Pak war in 1971 on the eastern front, and was posted in Kashmir for a long time, and he dislikes a lot of Indian Muslims because of how poorly they treat Indian soldiers...
You only have to walk through a muslim-majority area during an India-Pakistan cricket match to realize the obvious tension in loyalties.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
I understand as much as anybody could that there are wonderful Muslims who are moderate in their political views, and are perfectly willing to live in a pluralistic society, but from my perspective there are still many Muslims who have a different slant on what is right.
While most Muslims in Australia are reasonable and sensible people, we also have extremists who stir up thiskind of bull more than occasionally.
From the article you linked,
quote:"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."
That is so blatantly wrong, and does so much more harm to Muslim immigrant communities than it does to the non-Muslim populace of the host countries.
I wish the newspapers would print a clear definition of jihad in big bold lettering next to any article covering this event.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
1: I am not sure how true this is, I am equally inclined to believe that the radical elements we hear so much about are really just a fringe minority that nobody pays much attention to. I read statements from a study that say,
"Most indications suggest that Muslims in Europe are integrating, albeit slowly and painfully, like previous waves of immigrants to democratic settings in Europe and elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that there is something unique or intrinsic to Islam that will prevent this outcome. The passage of time and succession of generations are key. Guestworker-style public policies helped create an enormous integration deficit, but it can, indeed must, be overcome," and I want to believe them, I really do. So who is right?
When waves of Europeans emigrated to America, the United States was not at war with their native countries or neighbouring Christian nations. I hope they are right as well, but the wars certainly exacerbate things.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
2: Assuming the worst case scenario is true, what can a populace who does not wish to come under the authority of the Koran do to prevent a perfectly legitimate action of encouraging mass immigration and voting Sharia as the law of the land? Close the borders? Muslims tend to have MANY more children then their non believer counterparts, and in places like France its entirely possible that if current trends continue Muslims will outnumber any other group of people in the country. What can anybody do to stop such a result from taking place? Should they? I really don't know the answer. I'm just thinking out loud but I'd like to know what some of you think as you bring fresh perspectives, ideas, and superior knowledge of these things to the table.
Adopting Sharia is in direct conflict with the US Constitution. Constitutional referendums at the federal level are not possible in the US, so I don't see how that would be legal. If Congress was in favour of Sharia though, I suppose it would be. But adopting Sharia necessarily involves scrapping the Bill of Rights.
In any case I don't see it happening. I'm guessing hell will freeze over before Islamic fundamentalists represent a majority in Congress. That said, these extremists have made their intentions clear, and to ignore them completely would be imprudent. Let's just hope their hatemongering speeches don't fuel new 'anti-terrorism' measures which breach constitutional rights or get more American soldiers killed.
posted
But, Abhi, do you know that most Moslem Indians are patriotic for India? It's something we'd expect, but sometimes people surprise us.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The constitution is only as effective as the judges that interpret it.
"Marriage" is a religious word if you ask many people, yet it is legally recognized by the Federal, state and local governments. By the constitution, if indeed Marriage is a religious word, the goverment should have nothing to do with it.
Blue laws are blatantly unconstitutional. Yet for years (to this day?) municipalities instituted them.
Government Officials are sworn in on a Bible.
Prayer in the publicly funded schools were legal for decades.
Biblical arguments were used to keep Interracial marriages from happening and are being used against gay people today.
The religion of the people works its way into government. If the united states gets a sizable minority of muslims, they will insist the goverment reflect that. Schools closing for Ramadan. Loud call to prayers broadcast from towers 5 times a day... and eventually, Sharia law.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Constitution is words on paper, and not the people who are ther real deciders of Laws and Rights. It is what we think it is and not what it is. That is why I am in favor of "original intent," because if we don't have that there is nothing we have. Not that it shouldn't be flexible, but if that is the case we should at least recognize the implications. This years freedom is next years unconstitutionality.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: If the united states gets a sizable minority of muslims, they will insist the goverment reflect that. Schools closing for Ramadan. Loud call to prayers broadcast from towers 5 times a day... and eventually, Sharia law.
If Sharia law were actually a natural part of your proposed process, countries like Jordan would have instituted it long ago. There's also no reason to expect that schools would close for Ramadan in a country with a sizeable Muslim minority (or even majority). Ramadan is nothing like Christmas.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think we'll have a significant Islamic population in the US (by significant I mean 30%+). Europe's another matter.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember I am talking about Europe, not the United States. The US while supporting a sizeable Muslim population is not as easy to get into as many of the western European countries.
But assuming the US had the same situation as Europe and say instead of huge hispanic population influxes, that those people were Muslim. Say they voted as a bloc, and though not neccesarily voting for extremists, still voted good Muslims into office. Say tensions began to run high as Christians persuaded themselves that the country was being overrun by heathens.
I am not suggesting that the government actively discriminates against the Muslims, but say at the street level tensions run high. Based on a combination of birth rates and immigration the Muslims within say 70 years becomes a clear majority in the US. They decide to "modify" the bill of rights so that it harmonized with Sharia. What could the other citizens of the country do legally? Declare independence? A civil war IMO is a VERY unfavorable solution. So what can a country ethically do to prevent such an outcome if the growing minority uses legal channels to get what it wants? Move to another country? Should they do anything?
Don't think its impossible. Though the situation I described does NOT exist in the US, in France the Muslim population is about 12.5% of the total population. France's fertility rate on the whole is 1.84% Which for all intents and purposes is negative population growth. The only reason the population increases annually is because of immigration, most of Europe is like that. Muslims fertility rates across Europe are on the average, 3 times as high as the non Muslim rate, and this is certainly the case in France.
In 2006 30% of UK Muslims said they would rather live under Sharia then British law as it exists.
Constitutions and governments are subject to what the people want in any sort of a democracy. If tomorrow 75% of Americans decided the constitution did not represent their wishes, they could abolish it incredibly fast, and institute a new government just as quickly. Sure the other 25% of Americans could resist, but they could do almost nothing legally.
I just don't know if this is going to be the case in parts of Europe, and if it is the case, how could it be stopped.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: But, Abhi, do you know that most Moslem Indians are patriotic for India? It's something we'd expect, but sometimes people surprise us.
Remember, that India has always (in modern history) had a mix of religions, including Muslims. They've had a long time to become integrated. Before the British entered the subcontinent (India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) there was a long history of Mughal (Muslim) rulers controlling the majority of the area. In fact, the Mughal rulers (particularly the one in Bengal) were the only ones to put up a decent fight against the British.
Anyways, Abhi is an Indian citizen and grew up in 10 different cities in India (army brat), so he probably has the best idea of anyone on this forum.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
re: the majority of Muslims in India supporting the Indian government over Pakistan, I'm speculating only if that means I'm passing on something I heard in class a couple semesters back and read in the books of one of my professors, who's one of the world's leading experts on the international relations of South Asia.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: re: the majority of Muslims in India supporting the Indian government over Pakistan, I'm speculating only if that means I'm passing on something I heard in class a couple semesters back and read in the books of one of my professors, who's one of the world's leading experts on the international relations of South Asia.
He has a pretty good idea what he's talking about, I think.
Fugu, like I said, the majority of Indian Muslims are patriotic. I am friends with many of them. But there's definately a substantial section that are pro-Pakistan. They exist in Kashmir, in Delhi, in Calcutta, pretty much everywhere.
If you speak to your prof, ask him if in his hometown, there are Indian Muslims celebrating Pakistani victories over India in Raja Bazaar. If you ask him if all Indian muslims are patriotic, he'll give you the same answer I'm giving you. Most, but not all.
You have to realize that the memory of the 1947 partition lingers on through the generation, and sectarian violence in 1992 and 2002 have reinforced these memories in many people.
Btw, Prof Ganguly is a well respected professor in the subject, but there are many "established" professors who have [IMO] no idea what they're talking about... like Jeffrey Kripal, Paul Courtright etc. South Asian studies is a very very complex [and controversial] topic, and there is often chasm between western and "native" scholars [again, as I'm 100% certain Dr Ganguly will tell you if you approach him].
quote:Originally posted by Will B: But, Abhi, do you know that most Moslem Indians are patriotic for India? It's something we'd expect, but sometimes people surprise us.
Will, unfortunately, nobody can really know the answer... most of us in India prefer to believe that they are. From my own personal experience, I've only met a few muslims in India who aren't pro India, but I've also met college-going Muslim students in Delhi who are openly pro-Pakistan and pro-Bin Laden [the two go hand-in-hand in India, where Pakistan is seen unambiguously as a terrorist-sponsoring nation].
I dont often have stories, but I have a relevant one here from when I was 17[it's vaguely relevant, but oh well]: After 9-11[I think it was 2002], most Indians supported US's decision to go to Afghanistan. In the build-up to the war, there were several political debates, and I was on one of them in Delhi.
This debate was attended by some key political leaders, and students from around the city, including about 30 from the Jamia Millia Islamic College. Some of the Jamia students defended Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Kashmir... having lived there for several years, and known many Indian soldiers who've lost their lives to Pakistani terrorists... I could barely contain myself, and I began to rant about how terrorists, and people who are guilty of supporting them should not ask for "human rights" as they willfully violate those of others, and that they should simply be shot. This comment brought about a clear division in the audience... those shouting slogans for Bin Laden [and there were a few] and those shouting against... :)
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note the repeated qualification of my statement with 'majority'; I'm not saying, nor am I asserting my professor says/said, that pro-Pakistani sentiment is not present. I would even go so far as to say "great majority", and I'm sure he would too (I believe I've even heard that or "vast majority" from his mouth). However, I speak using qualifiers because those qualifiers are important.
Even among those supporting Pakistan, an astonishingly few are active terrorists (a fact acknowledged by Bush on his relatively recent visit to India). Most of those who are live or operate in the Kashmir region, and that problem is (in a way an object lesson to Europe) to a great extent due to Indian policy in the region. I am in no way excusing the terrorist activity, which is despicable, but India spent a good deal of effort to educate and increase socioeconomic standards, and then held several free and fair elections . . . and then held a corrupt election and took away many of the benefits Kashmir had enjoyed as a special autonomous region. Until that point, civilian violence in Kashmir had been minimal, despite repeated efforts by Pakistan to instigate violence. Shortly after that point is when the terrorism took hold.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: India spent a good deal of effort to educate and increase socioeconomic standards, and then held several free and fair elections . . . and then held a corrupt election and took away many of the benefits Kashmir had enjoyed as a special autonomous region. Until that point, civilian violence in Kashmir had been minimal, despite repeated efforts by Pakistan to instigate violence. Shortly after that point is when the terrorism took hold.
Fugu, I'd like to know where this information [about how the violence in Kashmir started, and how India took away many benefits Kashmir enjoyed] comes from.
There is no way your professor would have said this [he's pretty well grounded in Kashmir as far as I know], and I think this is pretty much rubbish. Civilian violence in Kashmir is not native -as you seem to suggest- nor has it ever been.
Most terrorists in Kashmir are Pakistanis or Muslims from other parts of the world. I've lived in Kashmir for many years [first in army cantonments, and later as a civilian], and these terrorists do not have the backing of the very very wide majority of Kashmiris.
Pakistan's open support of terrorism began after the '71 war when their army was comprehensively drubbed within two weeks and half the country taken over by India.
It took them [the ISI] a few years to setup the infrastructure, and by the early 80s, the terrorist activity in Kashmir was already a big problem. Between 1982 and 2002, an estimated 30,000 Indian citizens [mostly civilian] have died from Pak-funded terrorist activities in Kashmir.
India has not taken away any rights from Kashmiris. The state is still largely autonomous within the Indian republic [more so than any other state], and there are very strict laws prohibiting non-Kashmirs from migrating into the valley.
Pakistani terrorists, on the other hand, have systematically massacred Hindus in Kashmir, and they are responsible for the decline in trade and tourism in the state currently.
Please do your research before arbitrarily blaming India for terrorism in Kashmir. If anything, it's been India's reluctance to invade Pakistan that has kept the level of violence down in Kashmir.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, you are not quite reading what I have written. I spoke about those Muslims who actively support terrorism living or operating in the Kashmir region (which exists on both sides of the border), not any particularly large amount of violence by civilians in the Kashmir region.
However, the account of events leading to violence in Kashmir is also accurate (there was also an influx of former Afghanis, and the increasing prevalence of television providing increased access to views of sociopolitical and sometimes violent options). WIthout at least a small amount of support on the Kashmiri side of the border, terrorism would not be as successful. There are well-documented attempts of Pakistan attempting to incite violence prior to the late 80s, and prior to '71 as well (see article cited below), and failing. Only after the corrupt elections did violence take strong hold.
Here's an excellent article by Professor Ganguly on exactly this topic:
quote:In the 1987 election, considered to be the most compromised in Kashmir's recent history; the Congress Party and the National Conference jointly contested the state assembly elections; they were opposed by the Muslim United Front (MUF), a conglomeration of political parties. In this election, voters were intimidated, ballot boxes tampered with, and candidates threatened. Whereas previous generations of Kashmiris, whose political consciousness was low, had long tolerated all manner of electoral irregularities, the generation that had emerged in Kashmir during the long years of Sheikh Abdullah's incarceration did not have the same regard for the Abdullah family, nor was it willing to tolerate such widespread electoral fraud. Indeed, it is rather telling that several key insurgent leaders, Shabir Shah, Yasin Malik, and Javed Mir, were polling agents for the Muslim United Front in the 1987 elections.
Note how those politically active citizens of Kashmir are/were insurgent leaders -- the groups are not merely outsiders. Note also how the violence in the early/mid 1980s is traced to increasing Indian intervention in the politics of the region.
So yes, I have done my research. Please do your research before assuming India does not share some responsibility for the rise of terrorism in Kashmir. As for India not taking any rights from Kashmiris, I quote:
quote:To aid the armed forces in their efforts to contain the insurgency, the Indian government has passed draconian legislation that severely curbs personal freedoms and civil liberties in Kashmir.
posted
1. By 1987, the valley had already seen several massacres, murders, gang-rapes etc. by terrorists.
2. The Indian government's "draconian legislation" is tame compared to the Patriot Law. India's equivalent of the Patriot Law was the TADA, which was repealed within a few years of it's legislation, and still gauranteed a court appearance within 48hrs of one's arrest. What civil liberties and personal freedoms have we curbed in Kashmir?
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you, Abhi, for taking the time to explain things from an Indian perspective. People in the US are far too easily persuaded that the perspective of American reporters is the semblance of Truth. The US really does need opinions from outside of American prejudices toward events.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read the BBC and Al-Jazeera English all the time. Other than that, I just don't have the time to read about the same news story from a half dozen different points of view. Most people don't even care about international news, good luck getting them to care about multiple versions of it (not that I disagree with you, I don't, I just don't see it as very likely in the near future).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. The article talks about violence beginning to set in after Farooq Abdullah was replaced by the Indian central government.
quote:But determined to install a Congress regime in Kashmir, Gandhi dismissed Farooq Abdullah on tenuous grounds in July 1984, replacing him with G.M. Shah, a disaffected member of the National Conference.
Shah's term in office was short and troubled. The abrupt dismissal of Abdullah had deeply offended a new generation of politically conscious Kashmiris. Shah, who commanded no wide following within the state, was seen as a central government stooge. During the next two years, a variety of political disturbances - strikes, demonstrations, and bombings - wracked the state.
Did you bother reading it?
2. While I don't like the PATRIOT act, it does a lot less than most people think. For one thing, it didn't create laws that protect those who carry out extrajudicial killings:
quote:In a report “Everybody Lives in Fear,” released on the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, Human Rights Watch noted that Indian security forces, including the military, paramilitary forces, and the police, routinely abuse human rights with impunity. The Indian federal government rarely prosecutes army and paramilitary troops in a credible and transparent manner. The result has been an increase in serious violations by security forces throughout the country.
Laws such as the Public Safety Act (Jammu and Kashmir), the Disturbed Areas Act, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act have spawned abuses in various parts of the country. Section 197 of the Criminal Code of Procedure provides security forces virtual immunity for crimes committed in the course of duty.
From the US government, some things India did in Jammu & Kashmir shortly after the violence escalated:
quote: extrajudicial executions and reprisal killings by security forces in Kashmir . . . incommunicado detention for prolonged periods without charge under special security legislation
During that period the region was under effective martial law much of the time as well, often with strict curfews in cities and the like (again, something we have nothing like in the patriot act, coincidentally).
India has luckily greatly improved over the last decade and some; the repercussions from the restrictions and abuses they instituted following the onset of violence in Kashmir stay with them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let Muslims move to western countries and stay. Their children will (most of them) become westernized. And their grand-children (most of them) will be virtually unrecognizable as different in any way from the general populace.
Enforce against actual criminals, not potential ones.
Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
1. The article talks about violence beginning to set in after Farooq Abdullah was replaced by the Indian central government.
2. While I don't like the PATRIOT act, it does a lot less than most people think. For one thing, it didn't create laws that protect those who carry out extrajudicial killings:
The significant intensification had little to do with native Kashmiris, and more to do with funds available to mercenaries / foreign terrorists.
The "central government" in India cannot dismiss state governments, so you can shut your rubbish about that.
Farooq Abdullah's government was not "dismissed" as such. His political party split, and the fraction that aligned itself with the Congress had majority in 1984. By 1987, Abdullah's party had formed an alliance with congress [which has always been extremely powerful in India] and swept the elections.
Neither the "HRW" nor the "Department of State, US" are reliable sources of information for internal politics in India. We have a free press, so go ahead and have a look at news articles from India.
Extra-judicial killings etc are not common, and in almost all cases, these are individuals who're charged in tens of murders / kidnnappings, and the witnesses are too afraid to testify.
State-imposed curfews are not uncommon in India, and they are not nearly as conspiratorial as you make them sound. The curfew in 1984 was nation-wide [not just in Kashmir], and was aimed at preventing ethnic violence after the assassination of the Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi.
The Indian Army has a much cleaner reputation than you are suggesting, and if you talk to any Indian, you'll hear the same thing. Inspite of having the second largest standing army in the world, we have never had a single coup [unlike our neighboring Pakistan who seem to have Coups as regularly as we have elections]. The Army is extremely active in peace time in relief work around the nation, and is the most effecting peace-keeping forces.
Most human rights violations in India, are cases of torture against known terrorists to get information, and I think that's perfectly acceptable.
It's well and fine to point fingers at India's human rights record when you don't have to fight terrorists in the streets, and have the ability to ship all your suspects abroad to torture them.
At least we follow the Geneva convention, which is more than Pakistan, USA and the terrorist groups can say.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: Let Muslims move to western countries and stay. Their children will (most of them) become westernized. And their grand-children (most of them) will be virtually unrecognizable as different in any way from the general populace.
That isn't what's happened with local-born Moslems in France and the UK. I would *like* to think that, I expected it, but reality doesn't seem to be matching that expectation.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And that we would probably have had no Kashmir problem at all today if the wrongful dismissal of Farooq's government in 1984 had not led to a series of other irreparable mistakes.
quote:Dr. Farooq Abdullah's elected Government came into power in 1984 and as per Dr. Abdullah, the conspiracy starts to dismiss his Govt. He is mentioning the names of the persons involved in it. I am not bothered to which party they belong to now. I am only concerned with the issue as to how we can solve the Kashmir problem. You cannot solve this problem unless you understand the facts. You dismissed the elected Govt. In 1984 Dr. Farooq Abdullah came on street to oppose tooth and nail everything at that time.
Technically it was the governor of the region who dismissed Farooq. This was done at the request of members of the central government. You can read his own book about it (and he doesn't have much of a reason to lie about it; he did, after all, re-ally). Here's him mentioning his dismissal (and attributing it to the central government) in the India Times: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/19198010.cms
quote:“The Centre committed mistakes in 1953 and repeated it in 1984 (dismissal of Sheikh Abdullah and Farooq Abdullah governments respectively) and 55 years after independence the deities of Delhi would not be happy with us (National Conference),” Mr Abdullah said shortly after Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee spoke of rectifying mistakes in the past in the state.
quote:he dismissal of Dr. Farooq Abdullah in June 1984 by the then Governor, Mr. Jagmohan, proved a disaster. The same old story which was enacted in 1953 was repeated. Sheikh Abdullah's son-in- law, known as the most corrupt and arrogant politician was imposed by Delhi against the will of the people of the Kashmir Valley. His dismissal and reimposition of a coalition government of the National Conference and the Congress under Dr. Farooq Abdullah again proved counter productive. Dr. Farooq Abdullah in 1987 rigged the polls through his officials and state machinery. As many as 24 elected MLAs of the Muslim United Front were declared defeated. Among these candidates, many took up the gun and became militants. Many of those are still holding guns against India. This was another factor that is counted among the number of the entries in the genesis of the Jammu and Kashmir situation. Elections were rigged, democracy was demolished, corruption became the rule of law and those who stood up against the tyranny of the State were accused as anti-nationals and secessionists.
Note that he was dismissed, this was not merely a change of government.
Yes, extrajudicial killings have gone down significantly. In the late 80s and early 90s they were far more common. There were hundreds each year reported.
I'm citing a major expert on the topic, who has multiple articles on related topics in foreign affairs, several books that cover the subject, and more, and you're citing wikipedia to refute me?
The Indian army has an excellent reputation, I have a great deal of admiration for the Indian army, even in the late to early 1980s. Some of India's problems are likely due to the uses of police and paramilitary forces as much as possible against terrorists in Kashmir, despite the admirable goal of keeping the level of violence down.
You're the one who said the Patriot act did worse in the US than India had done in Kashmir, now you're the one making apologetics (which are justified for current actions) about it being due to fighting terrorists in the streets.
Even one extrajudicial killing would be not following the Geneva convention, btw. India's compliance is quite high, though.
You seem to be somewhat mistaken. I don't think India's evil or demonic. I think a series of missteps and wrongful actions in the mid-to-late 80s and early 90s created and exacerbated most of the violence in Kashmir, a problem that India has been unable to deal with despite reforming their approach (and fielding one of the best counter-terrorism forces in the world).
As you can see above in both the India Today and Hindu articles, there are at least a few people in India who substantially agree who get articles in two of the most widely read newspapers in India.
That's an article by the former ambassador of India to Pakistan (G. Parthasarathy). He says:
quote:Pakistan exploited disaffection in Kashmir following what many young Kashmiri politicians believed were the flawed elections in 1987 and the abject surrender of the V.P. Singh government to extortionist demands by Kashmiri terrorists in December 1989. Pakistan exploited communal tensions in India in 1993 and after the Gujarat communal carnage last year to incite and assist disaffected Indians to resort to terrorism.
He agrees that Pakistan's success rested on inspiring terrorism among "disaffected Indians", contrary to your assertions.
quote:The fact is Pakistan didn’t interfere in Kashmir till 1987. We should ask ourselves why a situation was allowed to be created where Pakistan was able to meddle in our affairs. We should ask ourselves why our boys go to the other side.
Note that last bit: "We should ask ourselves why our boys go to the other side."
Yes, India does have a vibrant press .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Indian government's "draconian legislation" is tame compared to the Patriot Law. India's equivalent of the Patriot Law was the TADA, which was repealed within a few years of it's legislation, and still gauranteed a court appearance within 48hrs of one's arrest.
The Patriot act has NOTHING to do with guaranteed court appearance times.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lavalamp: Let Muslims move to western countries and stay. Their children will (most of them) become westernized. And their grand-children (most of them) will be virtually unrecognizable as different in any way from the general populace.
That isn't what's happened with local-born Moslems in France and the UK. I would *like* to think that, I expected it, but reality doesn't seem to be matching that expectation.
I suspect that if you actually look into it, the majority of ANY ethnic group assimilates in 2-3 generations without much trouble. Edit to add, where this DOESN'T happen, it's usually because of marginalization by the society where the immigrants moved into, rather than a direct result of their culture or traditions.
The fact there are some people who cause problems and are from that ethnic group doesn't belie the truth of assimilation for the majority.