Ongoing Systematic Massacre of Muslim Rohingas in Myanmar

[KS]

You want to be a regional power? This is the region. Show leadership.

Nope. Myanmar does not lie in South Asia. Sorry. And we can show leadership only if its in our interest. Right now we need the Myanmarese regime more than we need the Rohingyas for our transit to SE Asia and our own NE and co-operation for flushing out the militants holed in the Myanmarese forests. Tough luck. But that is geo-politics.

BTW if we show leadership it will be labelled hegemony and bullying by the same people who ask now to show our leadership. Damned if we do, damned if we dont. but ok, its all in a day's work for big nations surrounded by smaller ones.

Uh, wrong again. Look at your post #6 to see the reference to Muslims.

What is wrong in post 6. I repeat. Myanmar issue is not our concern, nor are the Rohingyas our people. It is Bangladesh that must do something as the Rohingyas are people who went from regions of present day BD to Arakan.

A country's institutions reflect the collective mindset of the people in a democracy. If India is secular, it is because a majority of Indians believe in secularism. If a large enough majority wants it to become a Hindu nation, it will become one, including Constitutional amendments.

Nope you are again getting it wrong. Tolerance which is what individual people can show is different from secularism. Tolerance is co-existance with other religions while secularism is not allowing religion to play a part in your decisions, life. So I repeat while religious people can be tolerant, they cannot be secular. That goes against the very definition of secularism. But I'm not surprised that you dont know what either secularism or tolerance means.

And one more thing basic things in the preamble like secularism cant be changed even through constitutional amendments. One more thing you are wrong about.

 

[KS]

And you are not answering it...Why do you need non-Islamic nation to do the work when there are 57 Islamic nations most armed to the teeth ? What is OIC doing ?

A US was needed for Bosnia, NATO for Kosovo, again US for Desert Storm, US again for Somalia, now India for Myanmar. Why ? Why cant the 57 member strong OIC show up something useful for its existence..or is that only for castigating non-Islamic nations once a year, but doing nothing on ground when it actually matters ?

 

[Trishula]

India like China must not interfere in internal matters of a sovereign state and let Burma deal with it's own problems.

 

[Developereo]

Nope. Myanmar does not lie in South Asia. Sorry.

You share a border with Myanmar. If that is not a 'regional' issue, I don't know how you define your region.

Although, I can understand the verbal gymnastics to squirm out of this quandary: being a regional power sounds all good and fancy but, when tough leadership is needed, India is missing in action.

What is wrong in post 6.

You framed it as a Muslim issue rather than a human rights issue.

Nope you are again getting it wrong. Tolerance which is what individual people can show is different from secularism. Tolerance is co-existance with other religions while secularism is not allowing religion to play a part in your decisions, life. So I repeat while religious people can be tolerant, they cannot be secular. That goes against the very definition of secularism. But I'm not surprised that you dont know what either secularism or tolerance means.

Institutions don't have ideologies; they reflect the ideology of their human members. A country can be secular only if its democratic citizens believe in secularism.

And one more thing basic things in the preamble like secularism cant be changed even through constitutional amendments. One more thing you are wrong about.

These are not metaphysical laws of nature, but man made documents. Anything man made can be changed by man.

And you are not answering it...Why do you need non-Islamic nation to do the work when there are 57 Islamic nations most armed to the teeth ? What is OIC doing ?

A US was needed for Bosnia, NATO for Kosovo, again US for Desert Storm, US again for Somalia, now India for Myanmar. Why ? Why cant the 57 member strong show up something useful for its existence..or is that only for castigating non-Islamic nations once a year, but doing nothing on ground when it actually matters ?

Again, the tendency to see it as a "Muslim" issue rather than a human rights issue...

 

[KS]

You share a border with Myanmar. If that is not a 'regional' issue, I don't know how you define your region.

We dont share a border with Arakan. That would be Bangladesh.

Although, I can understand the verbal gymnastics to squirm out of this quandary: being a regional power sounds all good and fancy but, when tough leadership is needed, India is missing in action.

Sorry we are not the thekedaaris of human rights worldwide. We look out for our interests and they are best served by being neutral on this issue. Take the night out, read this line and try to comprehend.

You framed it as a Muslim issue rather than a human rights issue.

Look at the thread title, buddy boy.

Institutions don't have ideologies; they reflect the ideology of their human members. A country can be secular only if its democratic citizens believe in secularism.

You dont get it, do you ?

These are not metaphysical laws of nature, but man made documents. Anything man made can be changed by man.

Try reading the Indian constitution and the associated Supreme court judgements on that.

Again, the tendency to see it as a "Muslim" issue rather than a human rights issue...

As I said we are not the thekedaars of human rights worldwide. We look out for our interests. It would precisely be the OIC which should now justify its existence and prove its not a chai-biskoot organization that gathers once a year for the ritualistic condemnation of issues worldwide. Instead of weasling your way out by blaming us, why dont you answer that question ?

 

[CaPtAiN_pLaNeT]

3,000 Muslims stranded as Bangladesh turns away refugees fleeing Burma unrest


3,000 Muslims stranded as Bangladesh turns away refugees fleeing Burma unrest - Telegraph

Thousands of Burmese Muslims fleeing deadly attacks on their homes were stranded in the Bay of Bengal after Bangladesh barred their entry to the country over fears many of them are illegal immigrants.

People search through rubble in Pauktaw township, burned in recent violence between Buddhist Rakhine and Muslim Rohingya. Photo: GETTY
By Dean Nelson, South Asia Editor2:22PM GMT 29 Oct 2012

As many as 3,000 Rohingya Muslims were reported to be waiting off the coast of Cox's Bazaar in Bangladesh in around 50 boats after fleeing attacks by Buddhists in Burma's Rakhine state. According to official reports, 84 people have been killed and more than 28,000 displaced in a wave of attacks in which hundreds of homes have been torched.

Several thousand Rohingya - one of the world's most persecuted minorities - fled to a mountainside to escape the violence while thousands more took to boats heading for the state capital Sittwe and to Bangladesh.

Last night (MON) senior Bangladeshi officials said while they sympathized with the Rohingya's plight in the current communal violence, they believe many of those heading for its coast are not genuine refugees but migrants being smuggled in by human traffickers.

Of the 800-1000 "Rohingya" who arrived in Bangladesh by boat in June, when just under 100 were killed in the first wave of attacks, 80 per cent were found to be trafficked people and only 20 per cent genuine refugees fleeing violence, said senior Ministry of Foreign Affairs official Saida Muna Tasneem.

No groups of boats had yet arrived from Burma, she said, but Bangladesh is "not looking forward to more illegal people coming from Myanmar (Burma)."

RELATED ARTICLES
Setback for Burma 29 Oct 2012
More than 22,000 forced to flee Burma after worst sectarian violence in years, UN says 28 Oct 2012
Campaigners accuse Burma of failing to stop deaths 26 Oct 2012

"80 per cent were part of regular human trafficking by well-organized groups which took advantage of the sectarian violence," she said.

"Bangladesh is a very small state and one of the most densely populated countries in the world. Whilst we sympathise, the international community should reflect on why these people are being persecuted.

"As far as Bangladesh is concerned we don't have the capacity for illegal people from Myanmar (Burma). Whether they are refugees needs to be assessed," she said.

Some Muslim migrants from Burma have been blamed for 'retaliatory' attacks on Buddhist temples in Bangladesh. "We have a large number of these people and tremendous national security problems because if it," she added.

There are 800,000 Rohingya living along Burma's border with Bangladesh but they are stateless because they are not accepted as Burmese nationals. Rakhine Buddhists regard them as illegal Bangladeshi migrants.

 

[Kaniska]

Double standard is with Indians, not just on this forum but the country as a whole.

India funded the terrorist LTTE to help fellow Hindu Tamils in Sri Lanka, but when Muslim Indians ask for help in Burma, the wider Indian community tells them to shut up.

Some, it seems, are more equal than others in secular India.

There is a reason for this double standard too...As long as Indian support for any anti national element does not hurt India's national intrest then it is not an issue at all...But if it does...we donot mind eliminating the rough elemement from our periphery...

Indian supported LTTE as long as LTTE was not hurting the interest of my nation....So when it start creating problem....We are not sad either about the fate of LTTE...Simillarly...ULFA is a primarily Hindu militant outfit...And Indian forces are fighting with it....And now coming to the point about INDIAN Muslim supporting Burma issue...then its the failure of our political system that Political party of India can not convince to our minority population that the people of this nation should think and align themselves with the interest of the nation rather than interest of the religion...It is applicable for Hindus..too....If Hindu's of Pakistan are in trouble....do you think Indian gov or people should be worried about it??? No way...If supporting Hindus from Pakistan is against my national interest then we don't care ....and similarly it is not in India's nation interest to support any party in Burma right now....When the time will come and we can see some strategic benefit...then of course we can step in....

 

[Developereo]

We dont share a border with Arakan. That would be Bangladesh.

Arakan is not a country; Burma is.

International relations of this nature are conducted between sovereign nations, not provinces.

Sorry we are not the thekedaaris of human rights

Sorry, that's part of the job description for being a 'leader'. If you are not up to the job, no harm admitting it.

Most of us knew of India's hypocrisy anyway.

You dont get it, do you ?

secular - definition of secular by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

sec·u·lar (sky-lr)
adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

All you are doing is quibbling over the popular use of the word secular instead of secularist.

Try reading the Indian constitution and the associated Supreme court judgements on that.

Once again, anything man made can be changed by man. It may take a violent revolution in the extreme case, but it can be changed.

why dont you answer that question ?

The OIC is known to be irrelevant, although it has called for UN intervention. Where is the debate?

 

[Trishula]

@Developereo Burma is in China's pocket they do much more business compared to India not to mention they get their weapons from China also why does Pakistan not make a SOS call to your best friend China?

 

[Bang Galore]

These are not metaphysical laws of nature, but man made documents. Anything man made can be changed by man.

Unfortunately for you, the Indian Supreme Court does not agree having held that the basic tenets of the constitution cannot be altered even through amendments supported by2/3rds of the Indian parliament. Essentially that means that secularism is non-negotiable & regardless of who comes to power and with what strength, it will remain so.

 

[Developereo]

As long as Indian support for any anti national element does not hurt India's national intrest then it is not an issue at all

India's support for Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists has thrown quite a spanner into the India-Sri Lanka relationship.

Unfortunately for you, the Indian Supreme Court does not agree having held that the basic tenets of the constitution cannot be altered even through amendments supported by2/3rds of the Indian parliament. Essentially that means that secularism is non-negotiable & regardless of who comes to power and with what strength, it will remain so.

As I wrote, these are not metaphysical laws but man made rules. As such they can be changed -- by violent revolution if a large enough majority supports the cause.

 

[Developereo]

@Developereo Burma is in China's pocket they do much more business compared to India not to mention they get their weapons from China also why does Pakistan not make a SOS call to your best friend China?

The Burmese generals are already moving away from China and towards the West, so China's influence on them may not be as strong as people claim.

In any case, I am sure China is well aware of the ramifications, given the publicity this issue is now receiving.

 

[Bang Galore]

India's support for Sri Lankan Tamil nationalists has thrown quite a spanner into the India-Sri Lanka relationship.

Which is why India is wary of doing anything similar anywhere else.

As I wrote, these are not metaphysical laws but man made rules. As such they can be changed -- by violent revolution if a large enough majority supports the cause.

About as much chance as all Muslims converting to Hinduism. After all, the same principles enunciated by you apply.

 

[KS]

The Burmese generals are already moving away from China and towards the West, so China's influence on them may not be as strong as people claim.

In any case, I am sure China is well aware of the ramifications, given the publicity this issue is now receiving.

China does not give a fig about anything. The way they and Russia are shielding Assad in the face of the world's sunni majority should give you a taste of things.

 

[jayron]

And you are not answering it...Why do you need non-Islamic nation to do the work when there are 57 Islamic nations most armed to the teeth ? What is OIC doing ?

A US was needed for Bosnia, NATO for Kosovo, again US for Desert Storm, US again for Somalia, now India for Myanmar. Why ? Why cant the 57 member strong OIC show up something useful for its existence..or is that only for castigating non-Islamic nations once a year, but doing nothing on ground when it actually matters ?

T
I think Muslim nations joined hands once in history. To cleanse Jordan off the Palestinian refugees . Pakistani army lead by zia participated in single largest massacre of Palestinians .