Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Islam is a cult
Yesterday at 10:58 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 06:53 PM

The elephant in the room:...
Yesterday at 12:51 AM

Letter to God
November 19, 2017, 09:02 PM

Imam Tawhidi
November 19, 2017, 02:12 PM

What music are you listen...
November 19, 2017, 01:32 AM

Finally Done with Islam
November 18, 2017, 01:16 PM

What are your creative pa...
November 18, 2017, 12:01 PM

المياة النقية%%%%
November 18, 2017, 11:46 AM

25 year old ex Muslim fro...
November 18, 2017, 10:59 AM

Freely down loadable Boo...
November 18, 2017, 12:37 AM

My Story
November 17, 2017, 07:27 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc

 (Read 321 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     OP - November 09, 2017, 12:05 PM

    Religions And Politics
      Democracy-Communism-Socialism-Atheism-Anarchism-Dickism.... etc

    That guy who wrote that book   "Pakistan: Eye of the Storm" in 2003  wrote a wonderful article in today's dawn on that subject w.r.t Politics of Indian  subcontinent ..  Let me read through it carefully

    Quote
    Democracy’s path
    Owen Bennett-JonesNovember 09, 2017
    https://www.dawn.com/news/1369350/democracys-path

    THE fact that there are only 193 member states of the United Nations gives political scientists a problem. Their research into the way nation states work is highly constrained by the small number of cases they have to study. It is not easy to build explanatory models on the basis of such a limited sample. It is one reason why the field of comparative politics has produced so few reliable predictions of how nation states will behave.

    Quote
    The situation of India and Pakistan in 1947 does, however, open up some intriguing possibilities for research. In 1947, the two new countries had much in common. After a shared experience of colonialism, they achieved independence at the same time. And as they tried to build new political systems, both India and Pakistan were governed by a single party that had opposed British rule.


    Congress and the Muslim League were faced with identical tasks: writing a new constitution and uniting a population with a low standard of living. Yet the two countries took very different paths. So how come Pakistan’s democratic development has been much more troubled than that of India? What accounts for the different trajectories they took?

    Some have cited Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s early death and his assumption of viceregal powers as key factors. They argue that Pakistan either needed someone who would embed a distribution of power and authority or a longer-standing charismatic leader who could overcome the initial challenges of nation building. To have a strong leader who died early was the worst of both worlds.

    They had identical tasks but went down different roads.

    Despite his legal background, Jinnah showed little interest in the separation of powers. Nehru, by contrast, was more of a Westernised liberal. But explanations that rely on the personality of individuals have limited utility. And over many years academics such as Ian Talbot, Christophe Jaffrelot, Maya Tudor, Katherine Adeney and Andrew Wyatt have tried to identify deeper, underlying factors behind the different rates of democratic progress in India and Pakistan. These explanations can be split into two categories — those that relate to the pre-Independence period and those that cite factors that emerged after 1947.

    Before Partition, India’s Muslim community had good reason to be suspicious of democracy. As the minority, it always feared that any British attempt to introduce elections would result in the Muslims losing. But there was more to it than that. While Congress to a significant degree represented the aspirations of middle-class Indians seeking a stake in their society, the Muslim League was controlled by landowners who wanted to keep privileges hardwired into their outlook during the Mughal era. Many of those powerful families remain strong to this day. Class politics have played an important role in both countries.

    There were also important differences in the way Britain treated different parts of the subcontinent. Many of the places that became Pakistan were colonised primarily for security rather than economic reasons. As a result, they had less experience of representative government in the colonial era.

    Other factors kicked in after Independence. For all the talk of equal treatment in the way Partition was handled, Pakistan got the worst deal and had to start creating government structures from scratch. The early accounts of the post-Independence ministries run by men using packing cases for desks show how big the challenge was. India never faced that.

    And the early Pakistanis also had to worry about building an army. Because they feared India would try to reverse Partition, there was an urgent need to create a force capable of defending the country. As a result the military, from the outset, absorbed more than half of all public expenditure and consequently became a disproportionally powerful force in the land.

    Some have pointed to Pakistan’s diversity as a factor in its lack of democratic development on the grounds that it is difficult to build a cohesive, stable nation when there are such sharp regional rivalries. Against that it can be argued that India has even more diversity than Pakistan. But that perhaps misses the point that the division of Pakistan into two separate geographic entities posed a particularly difficult problem. The fight to keep hold of East Pakistan — and the shock of losing it — significantly distorted Pakistan’s political progress.

    One factor Western historians of Pakistan tend not to discuss is the role of Islam in influencing the country’s political development. Since 9/11, there has been increasing attention paid to the idea that Islam is in some way incompatible with democracy.

    There is now a vast literature dealing with this issue but, to put it briefly, the significant democratic progress in countries such as Tunisia, Indonesia and others in Southeast Asia undermines the assertion that Islam and democracy are necessarily at odds with each other. And as the case of Pakistan indicates, non-religious historical factors can explain stunted democratic development.

    The writer is a British journalist and author of Pakistan: Eye of the Storm.

    I wonder how  Bennett-Jones compares that "Politics and political forces of pre-partitioned  India"  with other nations  that became independent from TRAMPLING BRITISH ELEPHANT  after that tragic brutal 2nd world war .......   worth reading and worth  burning some ATP of neural network

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #1 - November 09, 2017, 09:41 PM

    Well my father served in the 13th Army in Burma during WW2.  One of his battalion's final responsibilities was to police polling stations during Burmese elections encouraged and supported by the TRAMPLING BRITISH ELEPHANT.   His troops were ordered to stand down in the face of major polling irregularities, rather than enforcing a fair vote.   The timid little British mouse often preferred the appearance of democracy rather than getting bloody hands fending off the locals who sought to subvert elections.

  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #2 - November 09, 2017, 11:40 PM

    Well my father served in the 13th Army in Burma during WW2.  One of his battalion's final responsibilities was to police polling stations during Burmese elections encouraged and supported by the TRAMPLING BRITISH ELEPHANT.   His troops were ordered to stand down in the face of major polling irregularities, rather than enforcing a fair vote.   The timid little British mouse often preferred the appearance of democracy rather than getting bloody hands fending off the locals who sought to subvert elections.

    let us not put a common British man/ soldiers  who have no real power with British AUTHORITIES  TOGETHER AND BLAME whole lot of  England of that time dear  Unifier..

    it is worth watching that Indian guy  Dr Shashi Tharoor worth reading his recent books


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giYXrofZYo

    Quote



    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #3 - November 14, 2017, 04:28 PM

    let us not put a common British man/ soldiers  who have no real power with British AUTHORITIES  TOGETHER AND BLAME whole lot of  England of that time dear  Unifier..

    More condescension and misunderstanding from Yeezevee.   I am referring to British political authorities ... why would you assume otherwise?

  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #4 - November 14, 2017, 06:12 PM

    It is worth also reading biographies of British colonialists like Richard Burton (not the actor), but the renowned Victorian explorer, linguist, translator (Arabian Nights and Kama Sutra) and religious seeker (who finally settled on Sufi Islam after protracted and deep preceding inquiries into Hinduism, and who made the trip to Mecca as a believer in 1853).

    He was recruited by the East India Company after their military catastrophe in Afghanistan in 1842 when a retreating British officered column heading out of the country toward Pakistan was destroyed in the mountains by tribesmen with swords and spears.  16,000 British and Indian troops killed or captured.   The East India Company at that moment, with India effectively subdued and under control was actively hoping to conquer lower and upper Sind (Pakistan), Benghal, Afghanistan and even Persia.  It was known as 'The Great Game' because Britain was struggling with imperial Russia over some of these territories. 

    The author of the biography I just finished reading: Edward Rice, pulls no punches on either the British or the people they were seeking to dominate and exploit in that era, or the hypocrisy of the British political class oblivious to the yawning gulf between rhetoric and reality.

    This is just a sample: 'The honourable East India Company - popularly known as "John Company" was still at the height of its powers when Burton was accepted into its army, but decay was already rampant.   The government, alarmed at the excesses of the company and it's merchant employees, had for over half a century been forcing restraints upon it.  In 1813 the company's trading monopoly in India was abolished, though it would remain the "ruler" of India, working as the private agent of the Crown in both mercantile and administrative fields, and it was allowed to maintain the very profitable trading monopoly with China, the chief item of which was opium, and the second, cotton.  However, almost two and a half centuries  of exploitation of the Indians, of misrule and greed, corruption and chicanery, had so undermined the Company's effectiveness that it only had 15 years left when Burton joined it' ... which was in 1843.

    The event that effectively put paid to East India Company rule was the Indian revolt or rebellion of 1857-58 (referred to as the Sepoy Mutiny in Victorian England) which shook these arrangements to their core.  800,000, mostly Indian people were killed in 18 months of conflict and the Victorian Crown decided enough was enough and took direct control of India and Pakistan.   The heavily outnumbered British were saved by 'loyal' Sikh regiments.  After the revolt, the British ceased to recruit Sepoys from Brahmin class Indians.   The revolt also put paid to the last vestiges of Mughal rule in India.   And, of course the Mughal conquests killed many more Indians than the British ever did.

  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #5 - November 14, 2017, 11:43 PM

    ..............................   And, of course the Mughal conquests killed many more Indians than the British ever did.

    Proof please., without Proof I am forced to cross those words...  I guess you are not watching videos of that Indian Mr. Shashi Tharoor

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_India

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1giYXrofZYo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaNotcGak3Y

    Famines in India during colonial period

    Incidentally I am  speaking about India before Independence from Queen   and that is Present Bangladesh/India/Pakistan together

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #6 - November 14, 2017, 11:48 PM

    Oh dear Yeezevee ,,, you've carried out the sentence prior to conducting the trial.  We clearly can't entrust you with any real authority.

    But I digress.   There's tons available if you're not afraid to look.   Picked this one randomly.

    https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history


  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #7 - November 14, 2017, 11:58 PM

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    But I digress.   There's tons available if you're not afraid to look.   Picked this one randomly.

    https://www.sikhnet.com/news/islamic-india-biggest-holocaust-world-history



    ,dear Unifier   whether you pick randomly or go in to detective  Google  mode ..

    " Islamic rulers killing Indians are in 1000s..  may be some 4/5/6  100s of 1000s ....  But Colonial rulers killing Indians are in Millions "

    off course method of killing may be different

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #8 - November 15, 2017, 01:22 PM

    Selective outrage is unimpressive.  Every civilization has skeletons in the closet.  Some are more honest about it.
    Millions .. you say.   Hundreds of millions I say!

    https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

    A sample from the above article:

    Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

    Clearly Hindu Shah is exaggerating ... boasting actually... and I acknowledge there is much dispute about the actual extent of Mughal atrocities.  But looking at Islam's history elsewhere, where there is more credible evidence ... why should India be any different to Mesopotamia or North Africa.   Islam slaughtered its way around the world and its history of the treatment of conquered peoples and ethnic and religious minorities is a particularly ghastly one - to this day.   And Islamic culture - exemplified by Turkish outrage at legitimate charges concerning the Armenian massacres is unfortunately .. typical.   Is there a free press or a robust and free publishing industry and academy in the Islamic world?   Where should I look to send my children and grandchildren for an excellent open and profound examination of history and relative cultures - anything available outside of the western world?

    But ... by all means blame the British for all of it if honest examination of Islamic history is too difficult for you.  In that light I must entertain some hope then that Islamic immigration into the West signals a new period of enlightenment for us poor westerners who have been living in intellectual darkness and a pit of ignorance.

    On the other hand .....

    https://www.sikh24.com/2015/01/27/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history-books/#.Wgw6lhSaS-8

  • Religions And Politics, Democracy-communism-Socialism etc
     Reply #9 - November 15, 2017, 01:43 PM

    Selective outrage is unimpressive.  Every civilization has skeletons in the closet.  Some are more honest about it.

    Yes   Every civilization has skeletons in the closet..Let us expose it and  YES LET US BE HONEST ABOUT IT

    Quote
    Millions .. you say.   Hundreds of millions I say!

    https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/08/31/islamic-invasion-of-india-the-greatest-genocide-in-history/

    A sample from the above article:

    Muslim historian Firishta [full name Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah, born in 1560 and died in 1620], the author of the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim, was the first to give an idea to the medieval bloodbath that was India during Muslim rule, when he declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

    Clearly Hindu Shah is exaggerating ... boasting actually... and I acknowledge there is much dispute about the actual extent of Mughal atrocities.   ...

    https://www.sikh24.com/2015/01/27/islamic-india-the-biggest-holocaust-in-world-history-whitewashed-from-history-books/#.Wgw6lhSaS-8


    rubbish at its best... I will go in detail on that article and  I will give you detailed account of Slaughter of Islamic Invaders not just in good old India  but all over the Islamized countries.,   For  you  now,  don't you want to read  what you wrote/posted dear unification church Unifier?  they are your own words..

    That is  very superficial article with zero proof  to enrage hindu  crowds of India and create fears among other western nations  on recent Immigration from Muslim  countries

    Do not let silence become your legacy  
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »