The Outsider Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Let's leave religion and their stinks out of this place - can we? We don't want a stinky ICF!
CC1981 Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 this so called evolution of the chinese has been helped along the way by illegalization of religious proselytizing as it has often been viewed as a possible infrastructure to protest or even oppose the dragoonian central government. furthermore, the chinese have had the advantage of insightful philosophers while other civilizations have had a generous helping of "messiahs", "prophets", "mahagurus" etc etc. Its not so that India lacked philosophers in its classical age. Infact, for much of the time till 700 AD or so, our philosophy/scholarly base was unparalleled for atleast 1500+ years. In our classical age, key research and education was carried out in the sanghas of buddhists,jains,hindus and in often cases, mixed environments. However, a revival of prosetelyzation of hinduism and coupled with the sanghas unwittingly cutting themselves off the public essentially sounded their death knell. The universities in India became an abode for the elites due to rampant 'refuge-seeking' from refugees ( India has a war-torn history long before the muslims came- essentially since the crumbling of Harhsavardhana's empire: 700 AD onwards till 1200, India was busy fighting within itself versus multiple competing empires- cholas,pandyas,rashtrakut, pal, pratihara, etc.) and the distressed universities making university expenses personal responsibility. IMO, China was better able to preserve its philosopher driven society largely due to a very centralized form of government for an exceptionally huge time. The area where China differs from India historically is in the strength of its centralized government, largely due to the strength of their collective unity ( of the Han, atleast). They've faced far worse invasions from far earlier times and if these hinduvtas really want me to believe that the Arab/Turk-Afghani muslim genociders were worse than the Mongols or the Turks, they gotto be *****ting me. Yet, China has been able to consistently rebound historically and attain several stages of utterly unified (and expanding in those times) China : The Han, Song, Tang,Jin, Ming. While these dynasties, who were undisputed hegemons over Chinese civilization during their span represent roughly 1100+ years of the last 2200 years of their history, India's picture is starkly different. India effectively had 4 hegemon dynasties/periods where effectively all/almost-all of subcontinent was under one Indian suzerain from its known history: The Nandas ( who controlled much North Indus-Gangetic plain and had extensive vassals stretching into the south), the Mauryas, the Guptas from Vikramaditya's time till the Huns destroyed them and the Kushans from Kanishka onwards till Vasudev. Note that i am leaving the Mughals out of this because Mughals were not hegemons over all/most of India for very long at all: Akbar had very little control south of Malwa and Jahangir had trouble holding on to Afghanistan and the South at the same time. Aurangzeb vigorously ressurected the empire's suzereinty but didn't have a lasting effect. Collectively these Pax-Indica hegemonies represent just over 500 years out of the last 2400 years of history. Ie, roughly 1/5th. Sure, the Chinese system has its deep flaws: fundamental autocracy, fundamental lack of individualism cultural dogmatism.The Chinese right wing, if anything, are far snootier than most in the subcontinent- China has a long history of self-aggrandization which is actually one plague lacking from our culture. Do not confuse this with glorification of the emperor, Indians didnt go down the road of claiming Indian societerial superiority over all mankind and our recordskeeping of ancient times is remarkably neutral. For eg: Uttara Kuru(modern Kyrghyzthan)- it has repeatedly been exalted, even in the mahabharata as an exalted/'model' kingdom due to their democracy, yet our relatively more autocratic empires of those times had no problems in subjecting them in battle ( Both karna and Arjuna subjected the Uttara Kurus). Similarly, Indian recordkeepings/impressions of the Greeks and the Romans were of high respect (but not awe) due to their obviously respectable standing and India being extremely influential in those eras. I guess my point is, our societies could learn from each other- we tend to fixate on the negetive of others but if we remain open to the idea of their excellences and replace our cultural/civilizational deficiences as it comes, we will progress. Before the 'white-mania' gripped Europe in the 1700s, Europe was remarkably open to ideas from others. When for eg. Portuguese traders detailed the taxation system of Sher Shah, the Portuguese didnt tarry long before upgrading their obviously antiquated system. We need to improve our centralizatoin of government. The center NEEDS to think from the perspective of the whole nation and the regions NEED to be made compliant to the center's authority. Ofcourse, the central government should judiciously know which agendas to aggressively push through the nation and which not to. We need an aggressive anti-corruption drive. At the very least, we need to make SURE that crimes like murder, rape, treason and fraud. At the very least, nomatter who or what station the criminal is of these crimes, they MUST be brought to justice. But at the same time, we must be careful about aggressively push the 'hindi-ization' of the nation. Despite the argument that it brings obvious national unity, it still remains a regional language and agressively pushing it brings the peril of cultural-takeovers, the kind that will meet with stiff resistance (and has in some pockets). What this nation needs is a rudder...and that rudder MUST not include religion.
fineleg Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 So you want to conduct a house to house search on the entire town charge them and try them - aka due process - and untill there is a outcome they all are innocent ? So, you don't care if some innocent ones are punished as "extras"? Even if they did nothing, they are "extras" and can't be helped if they get punished? Its just like 'extras' in cricket, is it? I'm not saying dont punish the guilty, by all means the guilty needs to be punished.
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 So, you don't care if some innocent ones are punished as "extras"? Even if they did nothing, they are "extras" and can't be helped if they get punished? Its just like 'extras' in cricket, is it? I'm not saying dont punish the guilty, by all means the guilty needs to be punished. You are basically saying don't punish the guilty albeit in different words......
fineleg Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 You are basically saying don't punish the guilty albeit in different words...... Dont twist the words. I am saying punish the guilty and punish only the guilty. And guilty is defined as how the Indian Supreme Court determines guilty, not how it is defined by DR.
Guest dada_rocks Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 Dont twist the words. I am saying punish the guilty and punish only the guilty. And guilty is defined as how the Indian Supreme Court determines guilty, not how it is defined by DR. That's what it means because there is no constitition in the world which has not sent some innocent to gallows in its attempt to cleanse the society of evil elements. For all practical purposes it's impooisble to do anyway.. Let me digress a little and talk about natural theories . There is a thing called diminishing returns which sets in everywhere. This makes sure anyone vyiing for zero fault will have to wait forever to bring the guilty to the book that means guilty will be long gone before facing the law. You are in comupters field so let me give an example .Just think about cache/cam memory and hit/miss ratio.. insist on 100% hit and see how the design pans out. Our constitution is a major failure for this reason only more emphasis is on letting the innocent go than on nabbing the guilty.. Net result is hardly any of the guilty are brought to the book... Idealistic stands are fine and sound so better in seminars but in real world they fail miserably.. BTW are u sure declaration of supreme court is enough.. wink wink Afzal Guru.. UCC, IMDT list is long
fineleg Posted July 25, 2008 Posted July 25, 2008 BB, Are u saying expessing outrage non-violently (EVEN if biased expression) is guilty of punishment? I dont think it is guilty in indian constitution to express or not.
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 BB, Just coz they are doing something illogical, it is not illegal. Two different things. So, what punishment you want to give them for doing something illogical? We need proof that a specific person X is doing an illegal activity, and then they can be arrested, punished etc etc.
Kriterion Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Why do they get bent out of shape only when their community gets affected. personally, i don't have any knowledge of the issue at hand, however, i just wanted to point out the fallacious illogic of this statement. when has any community bent out of shape over something which happens to someone else?
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 So if a community gets bent out of shape only when their community gets affected, so you charge them guilty of what? Bias. So yes, They are guilty of bias. Now what? If a person X has bias, and does nothing illegal with the bias, then person X is not in trouble. If a person Y has bias(or does not have it, does not really matter), and does something illegal, then person Y will need to be punished.
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 So, if you "cannot figure it out", you de facto punish all, bomb all etc? Innocent until proven guilty, or Guilty until proven innocent?
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Now the ball is in your court we played by the rules of Secularism to a T. As of now what does your theory suggest we do ? What does your theory suggest we do? Just lock up everyone from certain religion? or if "lock everyone up" is putting words in your mouth, then you can say what else your theory suggests we do.
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 BB, There is no simple answer to terrorism. If there were, it would be done. Cells have to be identified and taken out, and we need to seek help from other countries as well in the fight against terrorism. Just Indian Govt can't do it. What I dont like in your theory is 'just eliminate countries from the map - eliminate good people with the evil' and we'll be done.
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Who is talking about other countries bhaiyya .... Iam talking about our own folks inside our own territory ...... You started off your theory with Majority = innocent .... Are you now accepting that is not the case ? I am not saying Majority or minority. I am saying EACH person is different. If there are 10 people and 9 have done crime, then 9 should be punished and 1 should be left free. You cannot say, I have a general idea that majority of this 10 has done the crime, I dont know which among the 10, so I'll just punish the 10 as a group. Hope I clarified.
fineleg Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 So, just punish or kill the innocent along with the real guilty, since we cannot find (or pinpoint) the real guilty. Is that the solution? I dont know the solution BB, but does the above sound like a solution? I sure think many folks will deny its a 'solution' and with good reason.
Kriterion Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 1. Gujrat Riots and aftermath. 2. Kuldeep Nayyar. 3. A Certain Mohandas Gandhi. 4. Any number of Politicians thereafter begining with Chacha Nehru. 5. Any number of self styled Saviours of Islam right here on this board who get bent out of shape the moment any wrong is done to them. sorry, must be a misunderstanding. i meant, when has a community gotten bent out of shape when something happens to a different community? number 1 and 5 are communities getting bent out of shape over things done to them, not to others. in other words, when will you find a KKK clansman being outraged over injustices to blacks and jews?
Kriterion Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 Multiply that by 100s of thousands if not millions spread all over the country and then tell me how feasible and practical your theory is of going after these guys. this is precisely how political scientists explain terrorism. assymetric warfare occurs because the militarily weaker group (terrorists) find it "unfeasible and impractical" to launch and declare conventional warfare.
CC1981 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 You dont evict an entire community from within their own country without a grass roots level support. Disagree. If fundamentalists of any group openly targets another group for a potracted period of time, there would be a demographics shift. Why not...if even 1000 people out of a community of 1 million are hell bent in blowing me up, i will move away too. Your hypotheticals have no place in judiciary, because people arnt judged on hypotheticals and your whole line of reasoning is flawed : Collective punishment has been banned under UN human rights charter, to which India is a signatory. Therefore, as usual, your views in flaunting basic human rights principle. Its a non-starter before it even left the garage.
CC1981 Posted July 26, 2008 Posted July 26, 2008 what Happened in Gujrat to the minority with complete disregard to the original acts of provocation. Sorry, doesnt fly either. Original provocation is no excuse. If you commit a crime, you do the time. Its just that simple. Society does NOT allow you to go kill someone who's killed your mother. You are to contact the authorities. The defence of provocation for a crime is valid only when one is defending one's person from direct physical violence. Therefore, while beating up someone who tried to beat you up is legal, beating up someone because a few in his family beat up your neighbour does NOT fly. Killing others cannot be justified with 'acts of previous provocation' unless that provocation is to you in person from the perpetrator. If a particular demographics is targetted, they are NOT allowed to retaliate unliaterally, instead, are to contact the authorities and persue this through the proper channels. There can be no excuse, except ignorance, to justify the contrary.
Recommended Posts