Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?
The partition of India as well as Palestine were done
within about a year of each other, by the Brits,
ratified by the UN. Both could be described as
"fairly" or "unfairly" depending on whose ox was
gored. Hence, there is a logical comparison to be
made as to how the Indians/Pakistanis moved on
thereafter and lay no claim to their ancestral
properties and how the left-wing world has allowed the
Palestinians to not only make this claim, but allowed
the Palestinians since 1948 to eschew a negotiated
settlement and actively and openly advocate and try to
execute the destruction of Israel. I hope you see the
Post by Valmiki Faleiro
I entirely agree with your next sentence above. But
am quizzed that you still seem to hold a brief for
the British mandate ... by extension, to their
doling out lands to the Sauds and Sheiks, which
almost a century later led to Saddam invading
Kuwait. (Now, before you ask me to build a crusade
against the Brits or the Sauds or the Sheiks,
kindly be informed that I support neither war nor
Valmiki, please don't insult my intelligence by
comparing apples and oranges, and using loaded words
like "crusade" from the Christian fascist period.
In your article in O'Heraldo, you wrote a stirring
clarion call and prescription for doing nothing in
response to the Mumbai bombings, while making it seem
like you were advocating action. Then you later said
that you would advocate "THE VERY SAME WAY they cross
our borders and attack us, 'without our permission'",
which fit in perfectly with your earlier call for
doing nothing, because who is the "they" you want to
be the same as?
The "they" who are crossing our borders are part of
the world-wide terrorist movement. They don't need
anyone's permission to cross borders and kill
civilians. While you may justifiably accuse
"Pakistan", i.e. the government, of aiding and
abetting the terrorists in earlier years, that same
"Pakistan" is now under a deadly threat by these same
terrorists. So you suggestion means that someone in
India would have to organize and lead a clandestine
movement against the Muslim terrorists by crossing the
border and attacking them. I suggested you lead this
group since it was your idea:-)) The Indian
government is not about to do anything, because it is
"only" people who were killed. They only react to
I don't hold any brief for any 58 year old mandate.
My point, which you seem to be missing, is that the
"British Mandate" as you insist on calling it, whether
you liked it's details or not, was ratified by the UN,
thus making it a UN mandate. The Brits were involved
because they controlled all those territories for
hundreds of years and were in the process of unwinding
their colonial empire. They made decisions that
suited them, as any colonial power would do.
How can you blame the Brits for the subsequent lethal
animosities between Sunnis and Shia, the failure to
not only reject Israel but to try and destroy them by
force, and the absence of democractic governments in
the Muslim world, with one or two exceptions.
In the meantime do you give credit for Israel trying
hard to be a democracy, whereas it could justifiably
operate under martial law with all the attacks taking
place against them?
This is where the comparison with India/Pakistan comes
in. With a similar background of British colonial
rule, how did India, with it's incredibly diversity,
develop such a strong tradition of democracy and
secularism, whereas all the previously British
colonies with majority Muslim populations are
uniformly totalitarian and theocratic for the most
part? Why do the Muslim countries almost always try
to get their way by force rather than negotiations,
including their attack on Kashmir in 1947 before the
planned referendum could be organizes?
Instead of pondering these issues you continue to
question the arcane details of the 58 year old
"British Mandate", while deliberately omitting the
fact that entire world, represented by the UN,
ratified the plan.
Why do you and others absolve the feckless UN in any
of what is going on? Weren't they formed to arbitrate
international conflicts, and have consistently failed
to do so under Kofi Annan?