Calls for Bangladesh war trials

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

People's interpretation of Islam(and other beliefs) would be reflected in the workings of a (an Islamic) country (where the followers are a majority or a source of power or the govt has popular support)

My point being that is is not a perceived "establishment" or "military" that is propagating religion as a counterweight to India's secularism (an argument that I have heard some Indian commentators make), rather it is the people themselves who choose this role of religion in their lives.

The argument of Government having popular support can only be made in a nation that has had continuity with a fair form of "democratic government". In the absence of that, it is hard to say much about what people think based on Govt. policy. The majority of the Muslim world suffers from this, which is why I don't think the argument using "the laws and policies of Islamic nations" is a valid one when it comes to determining whether most Muslims are intolerant of other faiths (or the rights of people of those faiths).

I was talking about Islam's emphasis on Brotherhood /Fraternity/ Peace/ Morality rather than a debate on Ummah...

I though you were referring to a systematic attempt by the Pakistani State to introduce religion into the mix. My argument being that while religion is indeed a part of the mix (and I disagree with the rationale of religion in this case), it is so because the average Pakistani Muslim views it that way, not necessarily because of what the "establishment" promotes - and even then only because the territory is disputed in the first place.

Whether Jinnah is liked or not or whether you believe in him or not is not important ... what has been done has been done.. what use is of crying over spilt milk?
Though on the other hand inspite of having a different ideology Bhagat Singh is almost as respected as Gandhi in India..

Lack of belief in Jinnah's ideology is not an insult to him..
(for eg Atheists don't have belief in ideologies of (other organised) religions, this I believe doesn't tantamount to insult) Pakistan's present ideology of being a neo-theocratic state with lesser rights for non muslims implies that they feel non muslims (all over) to be beneath them?

The issue here is not whether I believe in your ideology but you to have faith in your ideology.. instead of deriding others I would rather strengthen my own beliefs..

Another thing I would like to add is that Jinnah didn't want to create enmity/hostility b/w India and Pak as I understand.. His ideology is much maligned and abused by not only Indians but also Pakistanis... and which to some extent is understandable because of the nature and history..

You know, I had a tough time wording the earlier comment (insult). Its a tricky argument to make, and a tricky thing to express. On one hand you have every right to argue that you disagree with Jinnah's, and the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, argument that Muslims needed a seperate and sovereign nation to safeguard their rights (not comment on the accuracy of the argument), but on the other its so easy to take that criticism as a lack of respect for the decisions of millions of Muslims in favor of Pakistan.

You are correct that his ideology is abused by Pakistanis and Indians alike - he never wanted an Islamic State, he wanted a State for Muslims. However, Jinnah is not Pakistan, and it is up to Pakistanis, for better or worse, to decide the destiny and form of their nation. So as much respect as I have for the man and his vision, it cannot be imposed upon Pakistan, though one can use it to argue and convince Pakistanis in favor of change.

Gotta run -more later.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Pakistan didnt abandon them afaiaa. It took its quota of Biharis and made them full citizens. Where the extra Biharis came in, I don't know. The line should be drawn somewhere.

What extra Biharis?

The Biharis of East Pakistan, who still feel they are Pakistani and want to emigrate to Pakistan, have been abandoned by Pakistan.

 

[Malang]

My point being that is is not a perceived "establishment" or "military" that is propagating religion as a counterweight to India's secularism (an argument that I have heard some Indian commentators make), rather it is the people themselves who choose this role of religion in their lives.

Since people have chosen the role of religion in their life, the govt being popular, works acc. to agenda of the people..
PS: Many commentators are livid at the portrayal of India as a Hindu counterpart to Muslim Pakistan..

The argument of Government having popular support can only be made in a nation that has had continuity with a fair form of "democratic government".In the absence of that, it is hard to say much about what people think based on Govt. policy. The majority of the Muslim world suffers from this, which is why I don't think the argument using "the laws and policies of Islamic nations" is a valid one when it comes to determining whether most Muslims are intolerant of other faiths (or the rights of people of those faiths).

the military has always enjoyed a massive support base in Pakistan therefore it would be safe to assume that they were popular... Democratic leaders of Pakistan are the whipping board for all wrongs, and their executions, exiles have a popular sentiment about them (except maybe BB though many were not exactly saddened by her death)

Being a democratically elected govt is not a always mandate for being popular, you have elections, confidence motions, co-alitions etc. two famous examples come to mind.. of the 70's post emergency election and BJP's shining India debacle...

I though you were referring to a systematic attempt by the Pakistani State to introduce religion into the mix. My argument being that while religion is indeed a part of the mix (and I disagree with the rationale of religion in this case), it is so because the average Pakistani Muslim views it that way, not necessarily because of what the "establishment" promotes - and even then only because the territory is disputed in the first place.

I believe religion is only dragged in due to misinterpretation of 2 nation theory and also due to ideological battle b/w India and Pak.. but it should not be involved...
Religion ideally should never be involved in political dealings..

You know, I had a tough time wording the earlier comment (insult). Its a tricky argument to make, and a tricky thing to express. On one hand you have every right to argue that you disagree with Jinnah's, and the Muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh, argument that Muslims needed a seperate and sovereign nation to safeguard their rights (not comment on the accuracy of the argument), but on the other its so easy to take that criticism as a lack of respect for the decisions of millions of Muslims in favor of Pakistan.

Lack of respect would have been justified if Pakistan would've not been created in the first place... the fact that millions of muslims heeded him gives it the requisite ratification.