12-31-2006, 11:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Expert opinions? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The 18% scenario is without anymore infiltration but that is impossible going by the current scenario, also there is the tacit assumption that at some point in time Muslim and Hindu birth rates will stabilise at the same rate of 2.1 but what if they don't, what if the Hindu birth rate goes down to 1.4 or 1.5 as in Kerala while the Muslim birth rate stays at 2.1 or 2.4?
We are heading for another partition whether people here like it or not and the blame falls on Hindus, Samar Abbas has already openly demanded Mughalistan to be carved out of Northern Bihar and Northern UP in an article in the Economic and Political Weekly, that definition will be expanded to include Asom, WB, Kerala.
Here is the article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Discussion December 2-8, 2000
Kashmir: Autonomy Demand
Samar Abbas
The recent article 'Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads' by Rekha
Chowdhary (July 22-28, 2000) rightly emphasises the real possibility of an
upcoming trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the author unfortunately
takes a negative view of such developments, terming them as 'alarming' and
'reactionary'. In fact, the peaceful partition of a region beset by ethnic-based
conflicts can actually prevent much unnecessary blood-shed, and provide a
lasting solution to age-old historical disputes. The trifurcation of the state
is thus a development which, given the total communal polarisation at the ground
level, may be the only alternative to civil war.
Territorial partition on ethnic lines involving population transfers has
been the solution applied by international mediators to resolve complex ethnic
conflicts in several parts of the world. The effective partition of multi-ethnic
Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia was the prime reason for the end to
the bloody civil war there. In addition, where the political leadership
possessed foresight and agreed to the partition of multi-ethnic states prior to
the outbreak of hostilities, conflicts have been prevented altogether. Thus,
Czechoslovakia was amicably partitioned into the Czech and Slovak republics,
averting a possible civil war. The peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union may
also be similarly explained. In Kashmir, while it is true that what may be
termed as 'reactionary forces' are supporting the concept of a trifurcation, yet
at the same time an international think-tank, the Kashmir Study Group, has also
supported the idea. East Timor and Eritrea are some other examples where larger
states have been broken up to settle religious and ethnic conflicts.
Indeed, ethnic partition has been proposed as a solution to America's
long-standing race problem. An organisation called 'Americans for
Self-Determination' (ASD) seeks to partition America into three main
ethnic-based states: a Hispanic-dominated 'Aztlan' in the south-west, a
Negro-dominated 'New Afrika' in the south and south-east, and an Anglo-Saxon
dominated state comprising the rest of the present United States.
Representatives of all three conflicting groups are members of this
organisation, with each ethnic group realising that separation is the most
sensible long-term solution to America's race problem. It is feared that the
alternative would be a racial civil war.
Indeed, given the continuing escalating cycle of violence between Hindus
and Muslims in India, as well as the rapid rise of ethnic conflicts around the
world, it is imperative to find a permanent solution to the Hindu-Muslim
conflict as a whole and not just in Kashmir. The total paralysis of state
machinery in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition - an event
well-documented in this journal - shows that even a minor Hindu-Muslim
confrontation in the future has the potential of plunging the nation into a
civil war. Whereas the secularism of the Indian intellectual elite and upper
class is truly commendable, it must be remembered that the general populace - on
both sides - displays a considerably greater amount of chauvinism. Failure to
recognise the immense hold that reactionary forces have gained amongst the
general populace will only lead to more bloodshed. The Indian intellectual elite
must recognise that elites in most other parts of the world could not prevent
the outbreak of ethnic hostilities.
Indeed, within the Kashmir Study Group proposal for the communal
trifurcation of Kashmir lie the seeds for a final solution to the Hindu-Muslim
problem all across south Asia. Perhaps the Hindus may wish to set aside 12 per
cent of the territory of the Indian Union for the Muslims, who form 12 per cent
of the population and hence could claim to have a 'right' to 12 per cent of the
land. This land would sensibly comprise the already Muslim-dominated and
historically Islamicised regions of northern UP (Rohilkhand, North Oudh) and
northern Bihar (Seemanchal), where Hindus already live in fear of Muslims. The
Muslims all across the rest of India could then migrate to that region, whilst
Hindus would then comprise the sole ethnic group in the remaining 88 per cent of
India. This migration would be a peaceful process spread over several years,
with both communities slowly migrating to regions wherein they dominate,
avoiding blood-baths. At the ground level, I would like to point out that this
process is already at work in many parts of India.
There are numerous advantages for both sides this solution. For the
Muslims, these regions would then be free to join Bangladesh and Pakistan,
leading to a resurrection of the territorial limits of the Mughal Empire. It is
proposed that this region be named 'Mughalstan', and it is hoped that this new
nation would experience a cultural efflorescence as the glorious Mughal
civilisation is restored. For the Hindus, their faith and culture would be safe
in the remaining 88 per cent of the Indian union as the Muslims would have left
these regions for Mughalstan. This would be effectively a 'Hindu Rashtra' which
several Hindu organisations are working so hard for. Moreover, it would be a
Hindu Rashtra comprising almost 90 per cent of the territory of the modern
Indian union. Most importantly, the all-pervading blood-shed and constant loss
of lives would stop as no Muslims would be living in this Hindu Rashtra. There
would be no more Mumbai blasts, no more terrorist attacks, no more fear of the
'bearded mulla' with a grenade in one hand and a Quran in the other. This is of
greater importance for Hindus, since the total casualties amongst this community
are likely to much higher in case of a full-blown jihad. State law would protect
Hindu religion, and legislation could be enacted preventing conversions from
Hinduism so that the present fear of a 'Muslim takeover' by out-breeding and/or
conversion would be permanently set at rest. The advantages for Hindus thus
probably outweigh the territorial losses in this scenario.
Perhaps an organisation on the lines of the 'Americans for
Self-Determination' can be formed, comprising both Hindus and Muslims, which may
be called 'Indians for Self-Determination'. Its goals would be the formation of
a 'Hindu Rashtra' as well as a 'Mughalstan', with the recognition that neither
side can win all of India, and that their actions are essentially humanitarian,
preventing a possible future civil war.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/35759<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One day the Hindus of India will find that it's too late.
The 18% scenario is without anymore infiltration but that is impossible going by the current scenario, also there is the tacit assumption that at some point in time Muslim and Hindu birth rates will stabilise at the same rate of 2.1 but what if they don't, what if the Hindu birth rate goes down to 1.4 or 1.5 as in Kerala while the Muslim birth rate stays at 2.1 or 2.4?
We are heading for another partition whether people here like it or not and the blame falls on Hindus, Samar Abbas has already openly demanded Mughalistan to be carved out of Northern Bihar and Northern UP in an article in the Economic and Political Weekly, that definition will be expanded to include Asom, WB, Kerala.
Here is the article:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Discussion December 2-8, 2000
Kashmir: Autonomy Demand
Samar Abbas
The recent article 'Autonomy Demand: Kashmir at Crossroads' by Rekha
Chowdhary (July 22-28, 2000) rightly emphasises the real possibility of an
upcoming trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. However, the author unfortunately
takes a negative view of such developments, terming them as 'alarming' and
'reactionary'. In fact, the peaceful partition of a region beset by ethnic-based
conflicts can actually prevent much unnecessary blood-shed, and provide a
lasting solution to age-old historical disputes. The trifurcation of the state
is thus a development which, given the total communal polarisation at the ground
level, may be the only alternative to civil war.
Territorial partition on ethnic lines involving population transfers has
been the solution applied by international mediators to resolve complex ethnic
conflicts in several parts of the world. The effective partition of multi-ethnic
Yugoslavia into Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia was the prime reason for the end to
the bloody civil war there. In addition, where the political leadership
possessed foresight and agreed to the partition of multi-ethnic states prior to
the outbreak of hostilities, conflicts have been prevented altogether. Thus,
Czechoslovakia was amicably partitioned into the Czech and Slovak republics,
averting a possible civil war. The peaceful break-up of the Soviet Union may
also be similarly explained. In Kashmir, while it is true that what may be
termed as 'reactionary forces' are supporting the concept of a trifurcation, yet
at the same time an international think-tank, the Kashmir Study Group, has also
supported the idea. East Timor and Eritrea are some other examples where larger
states have been broken up to settle religious and ethnic conflicts.
Indeed, ethnic partition has been proposed as a solution to America's
long-standing race problem. An organisation called 'Americans for
Self-Determination' (ASD) seeks to partition America into three main
ethnic-based states: a Hispanic-dominated 'Aztlan' in the south-west, a
Negro-dominated 'New Afrika' in the south and south-east, and an Anglo-Saxon
dominated state comprising the rest of the present United States.
Representatives of all three conflicting groups are members of this
organisation, with each ethnic group realising that separation is the most
sensible long-term solution to America's race problem. It is feared that the
alternative would be a racial civil war.
Indeed, given the continuing escalating cycle of violence between Hindus
and Muslims in India, as well as the rapid rise of ethnic conflicts around the
world, it is imperative to find a permanent solution to the Hindu-Muslim
conflict as a whole and not just in Kashmir. The total paralysis of state
machinery in the aftermath of the Babri masjid demolition - an event
well-documented in this journal - shows that even a minor Hindu-Muslim
confrontation in the future has the potential of plunging the nation into a
civil war. Whereas the secularism of the Indian intellectual elite and upper
class is truly commendable, it must be remembered that the general populace - on
both sides - displays a considerably greater amount of chauvinism. Failure to
recognise the immense hold that reactionary forces have gained amongst the
general populace will only lead to more bloodshed. The Indian intellectual elite
must recognise that elites in most other parts of the world could not prevent
the outbreak of ethnic hostilities.
Indeed, within the Kashmir Study Group proposal for the communal
trifurcation of Kashmir lie the seeds for a final solution to the Hindu-Muslim
problem all across south Asia. Perhaps the Hindus may wish to set aside 12 per
cent of the territory of the Indian Union for the Muslims, who form 12 per cent
of the population and hence could claim to have a 'right' to 12 per cent of the
land. This land would sensibly comprise the already Muslim-dominated and
historically Islamicised regions of northern UP (Rohilkhand, North Oudh) and
northern Bihar (Seemanchal), where Hindus already live in fear of Muslims. The
Muslims all across the rest of India could then migrate to that region, whilst
Hindus would then comprise the sole ethnic group in the remaining 88 per cent of
India. This migration would be a peaceful process spread over several years,
with both communities slowly migrating to regions wherein they dominate,
avoiding blood-baths. At the ground level, I would like to point out that this
process is already at work in many parts of India.
There are numerous advantages for both sides this solution. For the
Muslims, these regions would then be free to join Bangladesh and Pakistan,
leading to a resurrection of the territorial limits of the Mughal Empire. It is
proposed that this region be named 'Mughalstan', and it is hoped that this new
nation would experience a cultural efflorescence as the glorious Mughal
civilisation is restored. For the Hindus, their faith and culture would be safe
in the remaining 88 per cent of the Indian union as the Muslims would have left
these regions for Mughalstan. This would be effectively a 'Hindu Rashtra' which
several Hindu organisations are working so hard for. Moreover, it would be a
Hindu Rashtra comprising almost 90 per cent of the territory of the modern
Indian union. Most importantly, the all-pervading blood-shed and constant loss
of lives would stop as no Muslims would be living in this Hindu Rashtra. There
would be no more Mumbai blasts, no more terrorist attacks, no more fear of the
'bearded mulla' with a grenade in one hand and a Quran in the other. This is of
greater importance for Hindus, since the total casualties amongst this community
are likely to much higher in case of a full-blown jihad. State law would protect
Hindu religion, and legislation could be enacted preventing conversions from
Hinduism so that the present fear of a 'Muslim takeover' by out-breeding and/or
conversion would be permanently set at rest. The advantages for Hindus thus
probably outweigh the territorial losses in this scenario.
Perhaps an organisation on the lines of the 'Americans for
Self-Determination' can be formed, comprising both Hindus and Muslims, which may
be called 'Indians for Self-Determination'. Its goals would be the formation of
a 'Hindu Rashtra' as well as a 'Mughalstan', with the recognition that neither
side can win all of India, and that their actions are essentially humanitarian,
preventing a possible future civil war.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/35759<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
One day the Hindus of India will find that it's too late.