Starker on 15/6/2024 at 16:35
You guys clearly haven't seen the reenactment of the conflict by Monty Python where King Arthur is in the role of Hindu nationalists and the peasant represents minority groups in India.
[video=youtube;l8ukak8P2vY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8ukak8P2vY[/video]
Nicker on 15/6/2024 at 16:49
Quote:
But why ignore everything else that's happening, and paint a narrative of Hindu oppressors versus defenceless minorities?
Because it is usually within the power of the majority to bring a meaningful and humane end to the conflict, by recognizing the humanity of the other side, stopping systemic abuse and addressing inequities. The minority only have hitting back as an option (or giving up and being subsumed). The choice to continue these conflicts falls almost entirely on the majority.
Totally exterminating minorities is no longer accepted practice (despite recent attempts). It might have worked for the Greeks and Romans, when ethnic rivals were confined to limited geologies, but today most local minorities exist as isolated populations of a much larger, external population. This is why the sort of violence used by the likes of Netanyahu and Modi is doomed to fail, even if it achieves its local goals.
It demonstrates historical ignorance, moral disease, a lack of humanity and the absence of political imagination. Their strategy is doomed to failure and will inevitably escalate. Yet they stupidly persist in their murderous campaigns.
Azaran on 15/6/2024 at 17:26
Comparing India with Israel is disingenuous.
Quote:
The choice to continue these conflicts falls almost entirely on the majority.
So all those attacks on Hindus I posted, let's just ignore that, gotcha.
A few years ago I saw a page that tallied religious violence in India over a month, I wish I could find it. There were 20 incidents of attacks on Hindus, and 3 or 4 on minorities; one of them was an evangelical pastor who got attacked by Hindus after going to a temple to disrespect it and insult the Hindus, who then got angry and roughed him up. He then went crying persecution, and of course the big bad Hindus were at fault.
Quote Posted by Nicker
It demonstrates historical ignorance
You mean how Mughals conquered India, forcibly converted Hindus and other religions, destroyed temples, etc?
I love how in the west "colonialism is bad", except when certain groups in some parts of the world do it. Then we look the other way.
The point is, Hindus are judged by a different yardstick than other groups.
Hindus have been nearly wiped out from Bangladesh and Pakistan, hundreds of temples destroyed by people who, but the world only cares about that one mosque that got demolished in India.
And noteworthy while there's anti-Hindu violence in India, there's no instances I know of of the Hindu minority in Pakistan/Bangladesh attacking the Muslim majority.
Islamic nationalism is ok, but Hindu nationalism that's the one you gotta watch out for
If Hindus defend their religion and complain, they're 'fascists' and 'hate mongers'
If Islamists riot after their religion is insulted, they're in their right.
Nicker on 15/6/2024 at 17:52
Quote:
So all those attacks on Hindus I posted, let's just ignore that, gotcha.
Quote:
You mean how Mughals conquered India, forcibly converted Hindus and other religions, destroyed temples, etc?
Quote:
Islamic nationalism is ok, but Hindu nationalism that's the one you gotta watch out for
I never said any of that. You are straw-manning me. I can't defend arguments I never made. Please stop. It doesn't help.
Thanks.
SD on 15/6/2024 at 20:59
It ought to be mentioned that the Babri Masjid was almost certainly built upon the ruins of an earlier, Hindu temple, not dissimilar to how the Al Aqsa Mosque was constructed on top of the Second Temple. One religion supplanting another is nothing new, and Muslims are typically as guilty of it as anyone else, if not more so.
Starker on 16/6/2024 at 04:19
For context, the building of the Babri Masjid happened quite a few centuries ago. The destruction of it, however, happened relatively recently. In the modern world, in most civilized countries, we don't generally tear down religious buildings to replace them with state-approved ones. That's the kind of stuff that happens in China and other totalitarian regimes.
Sulphur on 16/6/2024 at 05:39
That's why I mentioned it was built in the 16th century. But as usual, context is lost when a discussion gets mired in various versions of gotcha. I'd go over Azaran's post line by line, but it's so full of weirdly constructed points, that'd take half a day and I like my weekends a bit freer of rubbish. But I can cover most of the salient issues by saying this: no right-minded person wants extreme nationalism or fascism to take hold in their country regardless of what their religious ideology is. Arguing that nationalism is baseless fearmongering because the majority is being cowed by violence from the minorities is pretzel-shaped logic that eats itself. And attempting to minimise the perception of extremism from any party leads to the direct implication that you're approving of the abuse of power and all the fun stuff that comes with in the long term, simply because it aligns with your ideology.
I'm not okay with zero-sum games, and the way politics and power shape people's lives shouldn't be one.
Subjective Effect on 16/6/2024 at 10:56
Quote Posted by Nicker
Because it is usually within the power of the majority to bring a meaningful and humane end to the conflict, by recognizing the humanity of the other side, stopping systemic abuse and addressing inequities.
I'm not sure this is correct.
Do you really expect Israel to do this with Hamas? I think it's upon Hamas to moderate their position first.
SD on 16/6/2024 at 14:20
I wouldn't profess to be in any position to tell anyone, least of all the Indian people, how they should or should not decolonise their country. I certainly don't buy the idea that there is some game of geopolitical musical chairs, and that the music has stopped because we're in the 21st century and we're all so advanced now.
Nicker on 16/6/2024 at 15:25
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
I'm not sure this is correct.
Do you really expect Israel to do this with Hamas? I think it's upon Hamas to moderate their position first.
Firstly, despite the vile accusations made by other members in other threads, I do not and never have condoned the attack by Hamas or any acts by either side, targeting civilians in pursuit of their goals of theistic autocracy.
Secondly, it's Likud vs Hamas, not Israel vs Palestinians. The citizens on both sides are victims of their own governments, not of each other.
That said, Yes, has the power to make meaningful change but refuses to do so. I think that Likud's strategy has been to slowly pick at Hamas and drive it to do something stupid and violent, in order to justify massive and hugely disproportionate response.
The more power one side has the more it is responsible for the solution. And since neither side will ever get a One State Solution, the side with the most power should stop trying to exterminate civilian populations, as a first step to a Two State Solution, which, as distant as that hope seems, is the only way there will ever be a lasting peace.
