"Peace" is a relative concept. Pak Islamics say they want "peace" but their "peace" is the peace of Dar-es-salaam or Dar-al-Hudna, where the "peace" is the result of the Islamic sanctioned genocide of all "Kaffirs" (infidels) in South Asia (which they have done before and will do again). "Peace" like that is essentially an Islamic version of Orwellian Newspeak (war is peace, freedom is slavery etc), and civilized folk want none of it. India delivers something better than "peace". She delivers JUSTICE to those who seek to invade her, either directly or by proxy.
I would even go as far as to say that levels of hatred between many north Indian non-Muslims (especially Sikhs) and Pakistani Muslims exceed the levels of animosity I have seen between Jews and Muslims (and yes, I have lived in the middle east as well).
There is a reason for that. Despite the widespread prevalence of Islamic antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracies etc. from Hamas and Iran and al-Jazeera and all, Jews are *STILL* at least regarded as "ahl-al-kitab" (people of the book) in Islamic law and are accorded some miniscule measure of protection. Plus, Jewish Halakha laws bear some resemblance to Islamic laws (especially Kosher/Halaal dietary practices) so that ameliorated the animosity. The Andalusian Muslims in Spain were reputed to be pretty lenient on Jewish minorities.
Non Abrahamic religions like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are regarded by Islam as "Sharqui" (idolaters) and "Kaffir Harbi" (infidels of the house of war, who do not possess the right to live according to Islamic Sharia law) and are to be forcibly converted or killed on sight (which the Muslims did do for centuries until some liberal Muslim rulers toned it down, effectively apostating themselves from Islam and earning the wrath of the Ulema). The folks who REALLY got screwed because of this were the Sikhs. The Islamic rulers did some charming things to Sikh Gurus of the Panth, like skinning their relatives alive in order to draw them out of hiding and so forth. Unlike the less military-oriented Hindus and Buddhists, however, the Sikhs fought back, HARD, and won. That is the source of the animosity basically.
The way they see it, they have played by the rules for 60 years, and are reaping the benefits of focusing on education etc., and the trouble-making Pakistanis (especially) can go **** themselves (paraphrasing the words of a fairly senior IT manager at Infosys I interviewed once). After current realities of worldwide Islamic terrorism (about which Indians have bitterly complained for years, long before these became our problems), the chances of such attitudes changing are at best miniscule. They may share many languages, food and a great deal of history, but they also share a sincere and deep loathing of each other.
Yeah. I totally agree. We don't need this medieval shit. There is a proposal to build a big-ass wall along the Indo-B'deshi barrier and keep the buggers out, which I think is a great idea. B'desh and Pak are failed states anyways and are not our concern. We liberated those lusers from genocide in 1971 and they repay us by weaseling into our country and stealing our jobs (we has enough poor jobless people of our own), building madrassas outside the authority of the Waqf board and teaching kids to be suicide bombers and pine for 72 virgins in heaven. The more we "interact" with them the worse things get.
We do need to rescue Pakistan from the effects of the succession of bad choices they have made over the decades, but I do not think we can look to the Indians to help us on this.
Well if you can then great! I don't believe it is possible without internal counter-revolution by modernists though (perhaps something like Operation Ajax in Iran, only in reverse order, supporting the liberals instead of the Islamic nutters). Pakistan is a deeply screwed up country with false delusions of grandeur and are willing to murder millions in order to realize their fantasy of a South-Asia wide Sunni Islamic Caliphate.
No it is not. Plenty of higher castes in South India are dark in color, and plenty of lower castes in North India are light color. Vice versa in East India and the West coast.
Quoting a neo-nazi revisionist website that claims that "the holocaust didn't happen" doesn't help your credibility any.
Look as long as we have an unstable Pakistan and a Bangladesh with uncontrolled population growth on our borders we would have to face an influx of terrorists and illegal immigrants respectively and you cannot nation build under those conditions. Sure we would have to subsidize the Pakistani and Bangladeshi economies for a few years but its been done before. The EU is built on the German economy subsidizing the rest of the EU but it still works better than having to waste huge amounts on defense. Maybe we can also take Nepal into the Union if the Hindu fundamentalists are scared about too many muslims being part of India
The bottom line is that the more unstable and sectarian they get, the busier they will be fighting each other and not us. If pak army is more devoted to "fighting" (actually supporting) the Taliban in NWFP and fighting the Baluch in Balochistan then there will be less money and resources for them to invest into Islamic terrorism in Kashmir and planning their campaign to subjugate non-Muslims all over South Asia.
Besides, I'm not so worried about terrorism (you are more likely to die from a bathroom accident than a terrorist attack). I am more worried about Islamic demographic warfare, invasion/genocide (for which they have displayed ample enthusiasm for centuries all over the world from the Levantine Middle East to Northern India) and imposition of Islamic sharia dhimmitude on non-Muslims,which would be a disaster for Indian Hindus, Indian Christians, Indian Zoroastrians, Indian Jews, Indian Baha'ii, Indian Sikhs, Indian Jains, Indian Buddhists, Indian Ayyavazhi and Indian tribal religions also.
There is absolutely zero strategic value to "subsidize" the economies of Pak or B'desh, which are essentially nonexistent. These are hostile, violent countries with whom we have very little in common anymore. There is more value in subsidizing Afghanistan (as many Indian companies are already doing) because Hamid Karzai is very friendly towards India (well, at least not homicidally hostile) and less so towards Pak.
Maybe we can also take Nepal into the Union if the Hindu fundamentalists are scared about too many muslims being part of India
Nepal is another war torn shithole that I want nothing to do with, and I have been called a "Hindu Fundamentalist" (whatever the hell THAT means). I only care about the land that is beneath my feet, and protecting Hindus and secular-reformist Hindu culture from persecution in countries where they are a persecuted minority (Pak, B'desh, Burma, Bali, Fiji, Trinidad, Guyana, Uganda etc.). India should be a refuge for Hindus fleeing persecution (they are all Indian citizens by India's right of return law anyways). Nepal Hindus still live in the feudal age with their rituals and their dogmas and their now dismantled monarchy and crap (I am an athiest Hindu, so I look down upon such bullshit). They are not "persecuted" really.
The Muslims are not really an organic part of India. Islam divides the world into two zones. Dar-al-Islam (the house of submission) and dar al-harb (the house of war) and Indian majority is squarely inside the latter. A "Kaffir Harbi" (Infidel from the house of war: that's you and me) does not possess the right to live in Dar-al-Islam (even worse than Kaffir Dhimmis, who are infidels trapped in Islamic lands under oppressive Dhimmitude) and I have no desire to see India become a part of it. The Indian Muslims are their own ghetto nation, a Dar-la-Islam interleaved with Dar-al-harb. We should grant autonomy to Muslim majority regions and let them marry their goats (as a Sudanese Muslim of recent memory did) and stone their women to death if they want, and the orthodox Hindus can join 'em if they want. Why should I care???
such as Aligarh , Deoband, Bengal, Western Gujarat. In contrast, areas in Pakistan with large Hindu populations in Sindh have been completely cleansed of them.
We've always known you wanted our country. India is an expansionist power that has swallowed up huge territories including Hyderabad, Junagarh, Siachen, Sikkim, Goa, Daman, Diu, and Kashmir. But you will never get Pakistan except over our dead bodies - and yours, once the gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes fall on your land, making it uninhabitable and poisoning it for centuries. Never, as long as we have the strength to fight and defend our beloved country, you will not not get it. Never!
Pakistan is a genocidal Islamic theocracy, combined with a Punjabi-dominated racist ethnocracy that has murdered 3 million Hindus in Bangladesh
The USCIRF denotes Pakistan as a "country of particular concern" for precisely this (well, primarily for the Sangla Hill genocide of Pakistani Christians carried out by the Islamic fascist regime in 2001), as well as charming "Huddood Laws" that let rapists of women go free in the name of Islam, and Hasba bills that allow for public floggings and stonings.
We do not want to have anything to do with this failed genocidal state run by Punjabi Sunni Muslim ethnocrats who have captured and murdered hundreds of thousands Sindhis, Baloch and Pashtun minorities, not to mention Hindus, christians and Sikhs. We just want to watch these people kill each other in the name of a violent totalitarian religion that teaches 3 year old children to hate Jews Christians and Hindus before they teach them math.
The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh
Arre pagal ho gaya hai kya?? Are you fucking insane? India is still very much a developing country with it's own internal issues and problems. You want us to "absorb" a recalcitrant, hostile, genocidal population that is taught to hate before it is taught to read and are ideologically indoctrinated to want our destruction?
Why? We should keep as much distance between us and them as possible and cultivate better relations with western countries instead, focus more intensely on poverty reduction, reducing oil dependency, infrastructure and the anti-AIDS stuff, beef up our miltary to protect our borders and stamp illegal immigration from Nepal and B'Desh, and all that (imagine shouldering those burdens for the starving millions in B'Desh, there are enough of our brothers starving on our own soil).
Pakistan won't last long anyway. Already, East Pakistan broke away, Waziristan declared independence just a few years ago and Balochistan insurgency is in full swing after Nawaab Akbar Bugti has been declared a Shiite "Shaheed' (Islamic martyr) after the Sunni-dominated Pakistan army assassinated him. The Muttahida Qaumi movement is rising in Sindh. Now that Musharraf the dictator is out of the picture they will hold "democratic" (ie staged) referendum, effectively "elect" (ie dragoon) a bunch of Islamic nutters to power like they did with Nawaz Sharif, and start blowing each other up with renewed intensity. India cannot afford to deal with THAT can of worms. Let Pak be America's problem, and Bangladesh remain the royal shithole that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party made it into. We should focus on developing our own country into a stronger and more prosperous nation.
Er, no. The website you cited is Pakistani state sponsored historical revisionism and propaganda, and is widely disseminated by the Pakistan lobby for the purposes of self-comfort and glorification. Those are not the facts. Islam has no vested interest in segregating themselves from non Muslims. It's far more in tune with Islam that they coexist with infidels and wage demographic warfare until they become the majority and then impose Islamic dhimmi laws upon non Muslim subjects (as they have done for centuries). Read some more scholarly renditions of South Asian history, particularly that of secular scholars like Pakistan's own Ayesha Jalal and her book :
Jinnah (the so-called "founder" of Pakistan) was using the "Two Nation Theory" as a ploy to gain political mileage. Most of the Deobandi-schooled militant Islamists in British India, led by the dangerously fascist Jamaat-e-Islami under Maulana Abul Ala Mawdudi (who, by his own words, wanted to implement an "Islamic Theodemocracy" in South Asia modelled on Fascist Italy with an Islamic face), were opposed to partition. When it became obvious as to what the Islamic agenda for opposing partition really was, the people turned in favor of the idea.
It's a "quasi"-religious concept. Religious leaders bent on preserving their power over society claim that it is, but it isn't. Normative scripture does not mandate casteism as a static system of stratification. Casteism mandates are as much true for the Muslim Imams with their "biradaris" and "Ashraf/Ajlaf" divide as it is for the Brahmanical clergy (more so actually, since the Muslim Imams get away with it without getting lynched by irate mobs, particularly the Dawoodi Bohra Dai Syednas in western India).
You are mostly right, of course. But keep in mind that politics, ethnocentrism and religious (primarily Islamic) mania has divided the populations of South Asia for some centuries now. The British, much like the Portuguese in Africa, merely exploited divisions that were already present and aggrandized them (they didn't create those divisions) for their own purposes (keep the sheeple fighting each other so they don't notice us while we take over their land, eh wot old chap?)
India mostly survived the pressures of decolonization with it's collective skin intact. B'desh and Pak were less fortunate. Poor Afghanistan has been screwed over by all this most of all.
Today, caste barriers have largely broken down in the large cities. "Untouchability" has been abolished by law. However, loyalty to a caste is much harder to eliminate and it still provides a sense of community and belonging, particularly in country areas.
Plus, India has an extensive system of affirmative actions
Er, the casteism isn't state policy in India. It's a social malaise. You could just as easily say that the US isn;t a secular country because of discrimination against non-Christian minorities (and you would be wrong).
Would that be Mohandas "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife" Gandhi you are referring to?
This is typical revisionist nonsense based on propaganda and selection bias/quote mining. Here is the full Gandhi quote:
If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy...the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror
I don't agree with all of this, of course, but he was hardly a monster.
Also this by Gandhi:
The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?
[quote] On the DNC's website, the entire period from 1848 to the end of the 19th century is conveniently missing. Perhaps they'd like to sanitize the fact that they were the Party of Slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, Segregation, KKK terrorism, and opposition to 100 years of Republican civil rights legislation . . . but we do not forget. [/quote]
Yes, it's true. American "democrats" (who are not really "democratic") conveniently rewrite history to make themselves look like the good guys.
Completely forgetting that Abe Lincoln was a Republican and the southern Democrats were all pro slavery once...
A significant proportion of research is just reshashing what hjas been done elsewhere, not truly new stuff.
There is some truth to that. Innovation is very difficult in an academia like India's which is entrenched in beaureaucracy and top-heavy politics. The system is broken, to be sure, but India doesn't need to do anything terribly innovative to become a major player in science. Japan hardly did anything technologically innovative at first (basically just copied US inventions on a massive scale) and developed at an astonishing and unprecedented pace.
The schools and colleges in India suck - I once had a professor (meaning, he had completed his Ph.d) who, when stuck with some equation of the form d(...)/dt, cancelled d & d and 'assumed t=1' and solved the equation. This was one of the senior professors. In school, answers are graded based on how long they are not by what they say. If you think the education in USA is bad ( and I agree that it is), then you should see what happens in India.
Your assertions are valid for a vast majority of schools and colleges in India, but not so for a small number of leading institutions (small==20-30) that still produce some of the nations best teachers in the fundamental sciences (the IIT's for one), and a small number of leading grads (in India, that's about a hundred thousand a year) from these places is all you need to get things running in basic research.
Not everyone whose FROM India is a reliable source ON India. Especially not NRI's (Non-resident ie non-returning Indians). Objective observations count for far more than some self-hating Indian mired in his own socialist and negationist prejudices. While I'm sure India cannot match the pace of developed nations in research, India invests and produces more physics research than any developing country in the world. I'm a theoretical physicist myself, and the number of papers produces by Indian physicists in APS (American Physical society) journals has skyrocketed in recent years (though it hasn't outpaced China's). The two main scientific funding bodies in India are DST (Department of Science and Technology) and CSIR (Council of Scientific and industrial research), both central government institutions. The number of grants they offer has increased steadily over the last decade. India has produced more notable physicists than any other developing country except China:
to name just a few. India just bacame the first country in Asia to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate with ultracold dilute atoms just last year alone. So kindly fuck off, and keep your Communist Party goonda crap out of slashdot.
I have noticed the anti-immigrant bias in a lot of European news. It always stuck me as laughable when a country like France, where an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine was openly spit on in the street, can claim any kind of moral highground.
Well France's current president is ethnically Jewish
The son of a Hungarian immigrant and a French mother of Greek Jewish origin, he was baptised a Roman Catholic and grew up in Paris.
so it's not exactly militant brownshirts dancing on the streets of Paris and masturbating to the odious perorations of Le Pen. Besides, French Jews aren't immigrants. They've been in France for centuries and an integral part of the society.
Most of France's collective concerns re immigration is over throngs of fanatic Muslims overrunning the country en-masse, using nonsensical "multiculturalist" zeitgeist as an excuse to ghettoize, riot, burn down synagogues and engage in terrorist acts. If they did this to your country, you'd be pissed too. Americans are fortunate because Muslims immigrants to the US get heavily screened, and the Hispanic immigrants to the US generally behave themselves, don't cause massive disruptions, nor strap bombs to their children and blow shit up. Assimilationism is a cultural mandate if you want to immigrate to the US. Less so in France despite heroic efforts by the government to try to integrate immigrants.
If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.
Then you'll have to cut relations with every Muslim country from Pakistan to Palestine. Appealing, but impractical.
You're forgetting Pakistan. Pakistan gets massive US aid, and , during the regime of Yahya Khan the Islamic dictator, even carried out genocide of Bengali Hindus and moderate Muslims in Bangladesh with the full blessings of Richard Nixon (as the infamous "Blood Telegram" attests)
If you extend the rubric to include all Islamic countries, not just the Arabs, then, with Pakistan, the total US foreign aid given to Israel's enemies (Pakistan led the air force charge against Israel during the 47 war) is far greater than the aid given to Israel. Of course, Mearsheimer and Walt don't tell you THAT little tidbit.
You could use Gparted, as another poster said. Also, since you're already running KDE/Qt, you could just as well save memory and run qtparted (same backend as Gparted)
Islam had first reached India in 711 [...] Just as the Muslim rulers of other regions were relatively tolerant of Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, the Muslim rulers of northern India were similarly tolerant of Hinduism, a religion which originated on the subcontinent, and to which the majority of Indians adhered.
It is as I said previously, and the other AC implied. The Politically correct cultural marxist academia routinely whitewashes history to make Muslims look good as part of their trotskyist campaign of creating a state of "Permanent Revolution" with the Muslims replacing the traditional role of the anti-bourgeoise in Communist atrocities. Read any work written without the political correctness and you will see that the Islamic dhimmification and subjugation of India was the worst genocide in history (Will Durant wrote in "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" that "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period." Also this http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html).
Also, Muslim records of the period, from Tarikh-i-Yamini, the Chach-nama, the Baburnama, the Maasir-i-Alamgiri (btw these are all mostly Persian, not Arabic, so you may not know of them) and others quite gleefully describe how "the blood of the infidels in al-hind (India) flowed like water as we (Muslims) tore them up like goats, praise be to Allah the honor He bestows upon Islam thus" (that's taken verbatim from the Tarikh-i-Yamini
The very notion that Muslims were "tolerant of Hindus" involves a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance, given that Hindus are regarded as practising:Shirk" (polytheism) which is immediately punishable by mass death in Islam. Also, the Muslims were the primary agency responsible for the decline of Buddhism in South Asia. Muslim invaders (Persians mostly) called Buddhists "but-parast" (idol worshippers) and were thus subjected to the sword en masse. Afghanistan was predominantly Buddhist before Islamic hordes massacred them all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Peace" is a relative concept. Pak Islamics say they want "peace" but their "peace" is the peace of Dar-es-salaam or Dar-al-Hudna, where the "peace" is the result of the Islamic sanctioned genocide of all "Kaffirs" (infidels) in South Asia (which they have done before and will do again). "Peace" like that is essentially an Islamic version of Orwellian Newspeak (war is peace, freedom is slavery etc), and civilized folk want none of it. India delivers something better than "peace". She delivers JUSTICE to those who seek to invade her, either directly or by proxy.
I would even go as far as to say that levels of hatred between many north Indian non-Muslims (especially Sikhs) and Pakistani Muslims exceed the levels of animosity I have seen between Jews and Muslims (and yes, I have lived in the middle east as well).
There is a reason for that. Despite the widespread prevalence of Islamic antisemitism and antisemitic conspiracies etc. from Hamas and Iran and al-Jazeera and all, Jews are *STILL* at least regarded as "ahl-al-kitab" (people of the book) in Islamic law and are accorded some miniscule measure of protection. Plus, Jewish Halakha laws bear some resemblance to Islamic laws (especially Kosher/Halaal dietary practices) so that ameliorated the animosity. The Andalusian Muslims in Spain were reputed to be pretty lenient on Jewish minorities.
Non Abrahamic religions like Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains are regarded by Islam as "Sharqui" (idolaters) and "Kaffir Harbi" (infidels of the house of war, who do not possess the right to live according to Islamic Sharia law) and are to be forcibly converted or killed on sight (which the Muslims did do for centuries until some liberal Muslim rulers toned it down, effectively apostating themselves from Islam and earning the wrath of the Ulema). The folks who REALLY got screwed because of this were the Sikhs. The Islamic rulers did some charming things to Sikh Gurus of the Panth, like skinning their relatives alive in order to draw them out of hiding and so forth. Unlike the less military-oriented Hindus and Buddhists, however, the Sikhs fought back, HARD, and won. That is the source of the animosity basically.
The way they see it, they have played by the rules for 60 years, and are reaping the benefits of focusing on education etc., and the trouble-making Pakistanis (especially) can go **** themselves (paraphrasing the words of a fairly senior IT manager at Infosys I interviewed once). After current realities of worldwide Islamic terrorism (about which Indians have bitterly complained for years, long before these became our problems), the chances of such attitudes changing are at best miniscule. They may share many languages, food and a great deal of history, but they also share a sincere and deep loathing of each other.
Yeah. I totally agree. We don't need this medieval shit. There is a proposal to build a big-ass wall along the Indo-B'deshi barrier and keep the buggers out, which I think is a great idea. B'desh and Pak are failed states anyways and are not our concern. We liberated those lusers from genocide in 1971 and they repay us by weaseling into our country and stealing our jobs (we has enough poor jobless people of our own), building madrassas outside the authority of the Waqf board and teaching kids to be suicide bombers and pine for 72 virgins in heaven. The more we "interact" with them the worse things get.
We do need to rescue Pakistan from the effects of the succession of bad choices they have made over the decades, but I do not think we can look to the Indians to help us on this.
Well if you can then great! I don't believe it is possible without internal counter-revolution by modernists though (perhaps something like Operation Ajax in Iran, only in reverse order, supporting the liberals instead of the Islamic nutters). Pakistan is a deeply screwed up country with false delusions of grandeur and are willing to murder millions in order to realize their fantasy of a South-Asia wide Sunni Islamic Caliphate.
No it is not. Plenty of higher castes in South India are dark in color, and plenty of lower castes in North India are light color. Vice versa in East India and the West coast.
Quoting a neo-nazi revisionist website that claims that "the holocaust didn't happen" doesn't help your credibility any.
Look as long as we have an unstable Pakistan and a Bangladesh with uncontrolled population growth on our borders we would have to face an influx of terrorists and illegal immigrants respectively and you cannot nation build under those conditions. Sure we would have to subsidize the Pakistani and Bangladeshi economies for a few years but its been done before. The EU is built on the German economy subsidizing the rest of the EU but it still works better than having to waste huge amounts on defense. Maybe we can also take Nepal into the Union if the Hindu fundamentalists are scared about too many muslims being part of India
The bottom line is that the more unstable and sectarian they get, the busier they will be fighting each other and not us. If pak army is more devoted to "fighting" (actually supporting) the Taliban in NWFP and fighting the Baluch in Balochistan then there will be less money and resources for them to invest into Islamic terrorism in Kashmir and planning their campaign to subjugate non-Muslims all over South Asia.
Besides, I'm not so worried about terrorism (you are more likely to die from a bathroom accident than a terrorist attack). I am more worried about Islamic demographic warfare, invasion/genocide (for which they have displayed ample enthusiasm for centuries all over the world from the Levantine Middle East to Northern India) and imposition of Islamic sharia dhimmitude on non-Muslims,which would be a disaster for Indian Hindus, Indian Christians, Indian Zoroastrians, Indian Jews, Indian Baha'ii, Indian Sikhs, Indian Jains, Indian Buddhists, Indian Ayyavazhi and Indian tribal religions also.
There is absolutely zero strategic value to "subsidize" the economies of Pak or B'desh, which are essentially nonexistent. These are hostile, violent countries with whom we have very little in common anymore. There is more value in subsidizing Afghanistan (as many Indian companies are already doing) because Hamid Karzai is very friendly towards India (well, at least not homicidally hostile) and less so towards Pak.
Maybe we can also take Nepal into the Union if the Hindu fundamentalists are scared about too many muslims being part of India
Nepal is another war torn shithole that I want nothing to do with, and I have been called a "Hindu Fundamentalist" (whatever the hell THAT means). I only care about the land that is beneath my feet, and protecting Hindus and secular-reformist Hindu culture from persecution in countries where they are a persecuted minority (Pak, B'desh, Burma, Bali, Fiji, Trinidad, Guyana, Uganda etc.). India should be a refuge for Hindus fleeing persecution (they are all Indian citizens by India's right of return law anyways). Nepal Hindus still live in the feudal age with their rituals and their dogmas and their now dismantled monarchy and crap (I am an athiest Hindu, so I look down upon such bullshit). They are not "persecuted" really.
The Muslims are not really an organic part of India. Islam divides the world into two zones. Dar-al-Islam (the house of submission) and dar al-harb (the house of war) and Indian majority is squarely inside the latter. A "Kaffir Harbi" (Infidel from the house of war: that's you and me) does not possess the right to live in Dar-al-Islam (even worse than Kaffir Dhimmis, who are infidels trapped in Islamic lands under oppressive Dhimmitude) and I have no desire to see India become a part of it. The Indian Muslims are their own ghetto nation, a Dar-la-Islam interleaved with Dar-al-harb. We should grant autonomy to Muslim majority regions and let them marry their goats (as a Sudanese Muslim of recent memory did) and stone their women to death if they want, and the orthodox Hindus can join 'em if they want. Why should I care???
Such as?
such as Aligarh , Deoband, Bengal, Western Gujarat. In contrast, areas in Pakistan with large Hindu populations in Sindh have been completely cleansed of them.
We've always known you wanted our country. India is an expansionist power that has swallowed up huge territories including Hyderabad, Junagarh, Siachen, Sikkim, Goa, Daman, Diu, and Kashmir. But you will never get Pakistan except over our dead bodies - and yours, once the gamma-radiation-emitting isotopes fall on your land, making it uninhabitable and poisoning it for centuries. Never, as long as we have the strength to fight and defend our beloved country, you will not not get it. Never!
Pakistan is a genocidal Islamic theocracy, combined with a Punjabi-dominated racist ethnocracy that has murdered 3 million Hindus in Bangladesh
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/
and presently institutionally engages in horrific levels of persecution of Hindu and Christian minorities in their savage little Islamofascist country
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6367773.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1625976.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,273075,00.html
http://www.domini.org/openbook/pak20020925.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/24/nyregion/24missionary.html?_r=2&%20%20%20%20%20%20%20oref=slogin&oref=slogin
The USCIRF denotes Pakistan as a "country of particular concern" for precisely this (well, primarily for the Sangla Hill genocide of Pakistani Christians carried out by the Islamic fascist regime in 2001), as well as charming "Huddood Laws" that let rapists of women go free in the name of Islam, and Hasba bills that allow for public floggings and stonings.
We do not want to have anything to do with this failed genocidal state run by Punjabi Sunni Muslim ethnocrats who have captured and murdered hundreds of thousands Sindhis, Baloch and Pashtun minorities, not to mention Hindus, christians and Sikhs. We just want to watch these people kill each other in the name of a violent totalitarian religion that teaches 3 year old children to hate Jews Christians and Hindus before they teach them math.
The only solution I see is for India to reabsorb Pakistan and Bangladesh
Arre pagal ho gaya hai kya?? Are you fucking insane? India is still very much a developing country with it's own internal issues and problems. You want us to "absorb" a recalcitrant, hostile, genocidal population that is taught to hate before it is taught to read and are ideologically indoctrinated to want our destruction?
Why? We should keep as much distance between us and them as possible and cultivate better relations with western countries instead, focus more intensely on poverty reduction, reducing oil dependency, infrastructure and the anti-AIDS stuff, beef up our miltary to protect our borders and stamp illegal immigration from Nepal and B'Desh, and all that (imagine shouldering those burdens for the starving millions in B'Desh, there are enough of our brothers starving on our own soil).
Pakistan won't last long anyway. Already, East Pakistan broke away, Waziristan declared independence just a few years ago and Balochistan insurgency is in full swing after Nawaab Akbar Bugti has been declared a Shiite "Shaheed' (Islamic martyr) after the Sunni-dominated Pakistan army assassinated him. The Muttahida Qaumi movement is rising in Sindh. Now that Musharraf the dictator is out of the picture they will hold "democratic" (ie staged) referendum, effectively "elect" (ie dragoon) a bunch of Islamic nutters to power like they did with Nawaz Sharif, and start blowing each other up with renewed intensity. India cannot afford to deal with THAT can of worms. Let Pak be America's problem, and Bangladesh remain the royal shithole that the Bangladesh Nationalist Party made it into. We should focus on developing our own country into a stronger and more prosperous nation.
Empire building==bad idea.
Nation building==good idea.
See above. What they said was not the same as what they meant. Cut the madrassah nonsense.
Er, no. The website you cited is Pakistani state sponsored historical revisionism and propaganda, and is widely disseminated by the Pakistan lobby for the purposes of self-comfort and glorification. Those are not the facts. Islam has no vested interest in segregating themselves from non Muslims. It's far more in tune with Islam that they coexist with infidels and wage demographic warfare until they become the majority and then impose Islamic dhimmi laws upon non Muslim subjects (as they have done for centuries). Read some more scholarly renditions of South Asian history, particularly that of secular scholars like Pakistan's own Ayesha Jalal and her book :
"Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia"
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Authoritarianism-South-Asia-Contemporary/dp/0521478626
Jinnah (the so-called "founder" of Pakistan) was using the "Two Nation Theory" as a ploy to gain political mileage. Most of the Deobandi-schooled militant Islamists in British India, led by the dangerously fascist Jamaat-e-Islami under Maulana Abul Ala Mawdudi (who, by his own words, wanted to implement an "Islamic Theodemocracy" in South Asia modelled on Fascist Italy with an Islamic face), were opposed to partition. When it became obvious as to what the Islamic agenda for opposing partition really was, the people turned in favor of the idea.
Now on to those civilized Indian quotes about Pakistan...
You mean like this:
http://www.subodhatal.org/articles/symptom.html
We shall have India divided or destroyed
Muhammad Ali Jinnah ("founder" of "Pakistan")
We are a Martial race ,ordained by the holy Quran to bring our sword down upon the kaffirs of India and murtadd (apostates) in East Pakistan
Yahya Khan, Islamist dictator of West Pakistan, 1971
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/indo-pak_1965.htm
one Pakistani soldier was equal to four to ten Hindus/Indian soldiers
popular Islamist hype in Pakistan.
Which are "less civilized again"?
Would you remember the statements of your own politicians who even dont let to play cricket
As opposed to carrying out a systematic genocide of Hindu minorities in Bangladesh:
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/
Denying it, and then relentlessly persecuting minorities on racial and religious grounds?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_Race#Modern_usage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6367773.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1624223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1624617.stm
pot, meet kettle doesn't even cover this disparity.
Caste itself is a religious concept
It's a "quasi"-religious concept. Religious leaders bent on preserving their power over society claim that it is, but it isn't. Normative scripture does not mandate casteism as a static system of stratification. Casteism mandates are as much true for the Muslim Imams with their "biradaris" and "Ashraf/Ajlaf" divide as it is for the Brahmanical clergy (more so actually, since the Muslim Imams get away with it without getting lynched by irate mobs, particularly the Dawoodi Bohra Dai Syednas in western India).
You are mostly right, of course. But keep in mind that politics, ethnocentrism and religious (primarily Islamic) mania has divided the populations of South Asia for some centuries now. The British, much like the Portuguese in Africa, merely exploited divisions that were already present and aggrandized them (they didn't create those divisions) for their own purposes (keep the sheeple fighting each other so they don't notice us while we take over their land, eh wot old chap?)
India mostly survived the pressures of decolonization with it's collective skin intact. B'desh and Pak were less fortunate. Poor Afghanistan has been screwed over by all this most of all.
Taking up again the tradition of the Friesian School, this is a non-peer-reviewed electronic journal
non-peer reviewed journal. yeah right! Read some peer reviewed (or at least more mainstream) stuff here:
http://wcar.alrc.net/mainfile2.php/For+the+negative/14/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml
Today, caste barriers have largely broken down in the large cities. "Untouchability" has been abolished by law.
However, loyalty to a caste is much harder to eliminate and it still provides a sense of community and belonging, particularly in country areas.
Plus, India has an extensive system of affirmative actions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India
That's been in place for a while now, which is why they've had a disadvantaged for a president:
And caste system exists among non-Hindus as well in India
(Muslims:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/ambedkar_partition/410.html
Christians:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/115071/Christian-caste
http://www.webindia123.com/goa/people/caste.htm
) so religion has little to do with it (although it does have a peripheral influence)
In other words, pretty much the same as post desegregation USA deep south.
Er, the casteism isn't state policy in India. It's a social malaise. You could just as easily say that the US isn;t a secular country because of discrimination against non-Christian minorities (and you would be wrong).
Would that be Mohandas "The Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife" Gandhi you are referring to?
This is typical revisionist nonsense based on propaganda and selection bias/quote mining. Here is the full Gandhi quote:
If I were a Jew and were born in Germany and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon; I would refuse to be expelled or to submit to discriminating treatment. And for doing this I should not wait for the fellow Jews to join me in civil resistance, but would have confidence that in the end the rest were bound to follow my example. If one Jew or all the Jews were to accept the prescription here offered, he or they cannot be worse off than now. And suffering voluntarily undergone will bring them an inner strength and joy...the calculated violence of Hitler may even result in a general massacre of the Jews by way of his first answer to the declaration of such hostilities. But if the Jewish mind could be prepared for voluntary suffering, even the massacre I have imagined could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy that Jehovah had wrought deliverance of the race even at the hands of the tyrant. For to the God-fearing, death has no terror
I don't agree with all of this, of course, but he was hardly a monster.
Also this by Gandhi:
The German persecution of the Jews seems to have no parallel in history. The tyrants of old never went so mad as Hitler seems to have gone. And he is doing it with religious zeal. For he is propounding a new religion of exclusive and militant nationalism in the name of which any inhumanity becomes an act of humanity to be rewarded here and hereafter. The crime of an obviously mad but intrepid youth is being visited upon his whole race with unbelievable ferocity. If there ever could be a justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be completely justified. But I do not believe in any war. A discussion of the pros and cons of such a war is therefore outside my horizon or province. But if there can be no war against Germany, even for such a crime as is being committed against the Jews, surely there can be no alliance with Germany. How can there be alliance between a nation which claims to stand for justice and democracy and one which is the declared enemy of both?
[quote]
On the DNC's website, the entire period from 1848 to the end of the 19th century is conveniently missing. Perhaps they'd like to sanitize the fact that they were the Party of Slavery, secession, Jim Crow, lynching, Segregation, KKK terrorism, and opposition to 100 years of Republican civil rights legislation . . . but we do not forget.
[/quote]
Yes, it's true. American "democrats" (who are not really "democratic") conveniently rewrite history to make themselves look like the good guys.
Completely forgetting that Abe Lincoln was a Republican and the southern Democrats were all pro slavery once...
More than likely he's an agent provocateur from the other side. /.
Stranger things have been seen on
A significant proportion of research is just reshashing what hjas been done elsewhere, not truly new stuff.
There is some truth to that. Innovation is very difficult in an academia like India's which is entrenched in beaureaucracy and top-heavy politics. The system is broken, to be sure, but India doesn't need to do anything terribly innovative to become a major player in science. Japan hardly did anything technologically innovative at first (basically just copied US inventions on a massive scale) and developed at an astonishing and unprecedented pace.
The schools and colleges in India suck - I once had a professor (meaning, he had completed his Ph.d) who, when stuck with some equation of the form d(...)/dt, cancelled d & d and 'assumed t=1' and solved the equation. This was one of the senior professors.
In school, answers are graded based on how long they are not by what they say. If you think the education in USA is bad ( and I agree that it is), then you should see what happens in India.
Your assertions are valid for a vast majority of schools and colleges in India, but not so for a small number of leading institutions (small==20-30) that still produce some of the nations best teachers in the fundamental sciences (the IIT's for one), and a small number of leading grads (in India, that's about a hundred thousand a year) from these places is all you need to get things running in basic research.
Not everyone whose FROM India is a reliable source ON India. Especially not NRI's (Non-resident ie non-returning Indians). Objective observations count for far more than some self-hating Indian mired in his own socialist and negationist prejudices. While I'm sure India cannot match the pace of developed nations in research, India invests and produces more physics research than any developing country in the world. I'm a theoretical physicist myself, and the number of papers produces by Indian physicists in APS (American Physical society) journals has skyrocketed in recent years (though it hasn't outpaced China's). The two main scientific funding bodies in India are DST (Department of Science and Technology) and CSIR (Council of Scientific and industrial research), both central government institutions. The number of grants they offer has increased steadily over the last decade. India has produced more notable physicists than any other developing country except China:
(Satyendra Nath Bose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose)
(JC Bose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdish_Chandra_Bose)
(Meghnad Saha:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megh_Nad_Saha)
(CV Raman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._V._Raman)
(Homi Bhabha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homi_J._Bhabha)
(Jayant Narliker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayant_Narlikar)
(Ashok Sen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoke_Sen)
to name just a few. India just bacame the first country in Asia to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate with ultracold dilute atoms just last year alone.
So kindly fuck off, and keep your Communist Party goonda crap out of slashdot.
I have noticed the anti-immigrant bias in a lot of European news. It always stuck me as laughable when a country like France, where an Orthodox Jewish friend of mine was openly spit on in the street, can claim any kind of moral highground.
Well France's current president is ethnically Jewish
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3673102.stm
The son of a Hungarian immigrant and a French mother of Greek Jewish origin, he was baptised a Roman Catholic and grew up in Paris.
so it's not exactly militant brownshirts dancing on the streets of Paris and masturbating to the odious perorations of Le Pen. Besides, French Jews aren't immigrants. They've been in France for centuries and an integral part of the society.
Most of France's collective concerns re immigration is over throngs of fanatic Muslims overrunning the country en-masse, using nonsensical "multiculturalist" zeitgeist as an excuse to ghettoize, riot, burn down synagogues and engage in terrorist acts. If they did this to your country, you'd be pissed too. Americans are fortunate because Muslims immigrants to the US get heavily screened, and the Hispanic immigrants to the US generally behave themselves, don't cause massive disruptions, nor strap bombs to their children and blow shit up. Assimilationism is a cultural mandate if you want to immigrate to the US. Less so in France despite heroic efforts by the government to try to integrate immigrants.
If anything America and all other nations should be deeply ashamed of allowing any commerce at all with China including Olympics or other sporting events. Cut the phone lines and to hell with any nation that persecutes people over religion.
Then you'll have to cut relations with every Muslim country from Pakistan to Palestine. Appealing, but impractical.
You're forgetting Pakistan. Pakistan gets massive US aid, and , during the regime of Yahya Khan the Islamic dictator, even carried out genocide of Bengali Hindus and moderate Muslims in Bangladesh with the full blessings of Richard Nixon (as the infamous "Blood Telegram" attests)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_Bangladesh_atrocities
If you extend the rubric to include all Islamic countries, not just the Arabs, then, with Pakistan, the total US foreign aid given to Israel's enemies (Pakistan led the air force charge against Israel during the 47 war) is far greater than the aid given to Israel. Of course, Mearsheimer and Walt don't tell you THAT little tidbit.
You could use Gparted, as another poster said. Also, since you're already running KDE/Qt, you could just as well save memory and run qtparted (same backend as Gparted)
http://qtparted.sourceforge.net/
Works pretty well.
Islam had first reached India in 711 [...] Just as the Muslim rulers of other regions were relatively tolerant of Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism, the Muslim rulers of northern India were similarly tolerant of Hinduism, a religion which originated on the subcontinent, and to which the majority of Indians adhered.
It is as I said previously, and the other AC implied. The Politically correct cultural marxist academia routinely whitewashes history to make Muslims look good as part of their trotskyist campaign of creating a state of "Permanent Revolution" with the Muslims replacing the traditional role of the anti-bourgeoise in Communist atrocities. Read any work written without the political correctness and you will see that the Islamic dhimmification and subjugation of India was the worst genocide in history (Will Durant wrote in "The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage" that "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period." Also this http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/irin/genocide.html).
Also, Muslim records of the period, from Tarikh-i-Yamini, the Chach-nama, the Baburnama, the Maasir-i-Alamgiri (btw these are all mostly Persian, not Arabic, so you may not know of them) and others quite gleefully describe how "the blood of the infidels in al-hind (India) flowed like water as we (Muslims) tore them up like goats, praise be to Allah the honor He bestows upon Islam thus" (that's taken verbatim from the Tarikh-i-Yamini
The very notion that Muslims were "tolerant of Hindus" involves a ridiculous level of cognitive dissonance, given that Hindus are regarded as practising :Shirk" (polytheism) which is immediately punishable by mass death in Islam. Also, the Muslims were the primary agency responsible for the decline of Buddhism in South Asia. Muslim invaders (Persians mostly) called Buddhists "but-parast" (idol worshippers) and were thus subjected to the sword en masse. Afghanistan was predominantly Buddhist before Islamic hordes massacred them all.