Dear Mario, I enjoyed reading that post because it was issue based. The reasons I don't believe a united India would have been tenable, are (a) the communal violence that does flare up within India (b) evidence does not bear out your premise that the moderates would cancel out the extremists.
We know from moderate Muslim countries like Turkey, Algeria and Indonesia, that it takes only a few extremists to create mayhem. The reason the moderate voice is seldom heard in the Muslim voice is because it is hunchbacked by the yoke of religion. Never has a society been so suppressed under the guise of religion. Bear in mind, this is a religion which by the 10th century had introduced such progressive concepts as complete monotheism, equality about men, abolition of interest rates, a consultative and participative form of government, protection of women, not to mention had given the world the wonderful poetry of Sufism, some of the world's architectural wonders and encouraged scientific enquiry at a time when sorcery was rampant. Unfortunately for Muslims, while the rest of the world marched ahead with the separation of Church and state, and an ideology of secularism, the Muslim world became burdened and stagnant with theocracies dominated by Imans who insisted on the narrowest and cruelest interpretations of the Koran. Since then, Muslims the world over have been forsaken by its polity, abandoned by its educational institutions and escorted by its religious leaders into fundamentalism. Let's not lull ourselves into thinking that the Muslim community in India is a passive, docile victim of Hinduism. Its belligerence is muted and held in check by its minority status. The Muslim community has to tear itself away from radicalization of its religion, move away from the madrases as their educational institutions, overhaul its judiciary and come charging into the 21st century as equal partners in the peace process. Elisabeth ---------------------------- --- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Mario asks: > > > I think this population mix would have been more > secular rather than less, because the extremists and > paranoid among the Hindus and Muslims would have > cancelled each other out better, and the remaining > dominant percentage of Indians would be those who > believe in religious freedom of choice, which would > have kept a lid on religious conflicts. > > > Most of those who became Pakistanis and Bangladeshis > would have shared the committment to democratic > principles, influenced by the majority of undivided > India's population in my vision of what India might > have been, and the Pakistani generals would have > been > unable to impose their dictatorial inclinations on > anyone. No madrassas, no Indo-Pak jihadis, and all > of > Kashmir a tourist's heaven on earth. > > > Is my scenario illogical? If so, why? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Goanet mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
