double standards

[manfred]

Remember Harvey Weinberg? Several women accused him of sexual harassment, and now he has to make excuses for even breathing...

Remember Tariq Ramadan? Several women have accused him of rape. These women have been subject to intimidation and to threats of violence. He is currently held in custody in France, with his trial being imminent, but of course the politically correct classes all say he is innocent before the trial even started.

It seems if you are a Jew and behave badly you pay a heavy price, but of you are a Muslim, your bad behaviour is someone else's fault.

[Nosuperstition]

This world abounds with double standards.For example CNN made it a point to point out that text books in Modi's home state of Gujarat in India had glorified Hitler.However it does not show ultra nationalists in Ukraine having Nazi sympathies as they are close to the heart of U.S policy makers.In the old forum,people made it a point to say that them bombing to death hundreds of thousands if not millions of Middle Easterners is O.K but a small retaliatory pogram engineered for political victory in the state of Gujarat of India should not happen.So double standards exist everywhere.

[Nosuperstition]

I too agree that I had followed double standards.If I be given euthanasia for it ,I would gladly accept.

[Nosuperstition]

People in the old forum once again commented that the vast territories held by sub-continental Empires in antiquity makes them somewhat fearworthy.Now those vast Empires quickly broke down into warring regional fiefdoms some 200 to 300 years thereafter unlike Islamic and Christian Empires which many a time remained for as many as 700 years.Now are they not being hypocrites/following double standards in not telling the forum members the whole truths and instead only relaying half-truths.

[Nosuperstition]

Mr pilgrim of the old forum was one such member who was opposed to the rise of Hindu fundamentalism and argued tooth and nail against it.Yet when it came to his pet subject of Christian persecution at the hands of Muslims of M.E,he went on and on for pages and pages together in the old forum.Such a discussion will invariably lead a backlash in the form of Christian fundamentalism.So everyone follows double standards.Everyone is a hypocrite.

[Nosuperstition]

The Organisation of Islamic Countries or O.I.C for short , issues a statement condemning India every year for human rights excesses that happen in Kashmir or for oppressing the freedom fight of the people of Kashmir.However , it does not contain any statement condemning the crushing of freedom movements within muslim countries.Everyone follows double standards.

[Nosuperstition]

Now in the old forum there existed a character called Dharmaraj who might or might not have been a rabid Hindutva ideology subscriber or who might have in reality been created by clever Western diplomats themselves to showcase how a hindutva ideologist would look like. That character said that he vehemently opposes the invasion of Iraq. Now pilgrim, the defender of all things Christian and Western said that what you Indians are upto in Kashmir is no different,just shut up. Robin Rafael, the U. S diplomat of 1990s constantly found fault with India with regards to how it dealt with the Kashmiris. But then the same pilgrim was against rabid Islamic freedom fighters having their way in the oil rich Aceh province of I ndonesia. Similarly in recent periods Western countries have opposed the bid for independence in their region of Catalonia in Spain. So everyone follows double standards and/is a hypocrite.

[Nosuperstition]

Once while discussing Kashmir, righteous/radagast of old forum said that he doesn't like the idea of Texas and other Southern states getting separated from U. S in future just because the demography there will in the future be predominantly Hispanic. But when discussing Kashmir elsewhere, he said that when two kids namely India and Pakistan are squabbling for a toy, both should be deprived of it. So he is also a hypocrite.

[Nosuperstition]

Mr manfred repeatedly harps on the so called golden rule which is the complete anti-thesis of hypocrisy and/or double standards. However when I pointed out that just as the Brits organised the partition of sub-continent based on religious lines, even European nations might have to do the same, he said it will not be allowed to happen. So one rule for the Indian sub-continentals and another for Europeans. Similarly Muslim majority countries of Indonesia and Bangladesh have Hindu and Buddhist majority provinces of Bali and Chittagong. Yet they vote in the O. I. C that is organisation of Islamic countries to separate Muslim majority Kashmir from Hindu majority India. Everyone follows double standards.

[manfred]

NS, I fail to see how the division of India relates to the "golden rule" in any way, but not a lot your write makes much sense, at least not to me. As far as I remember it was the Muslims who pushed for a separate country, and the chances are, if the Brits had not given in on that, it would have happened anyway, but after a lot more blood shed. Was it the right decision? Probably not, but there you go, politicians are not always known for having the highest standards.

And we only recently in Europe had countries divided on religious lines... and example is the former Serbian province of Kosovo, which became a target for immigration by Muslims from Albania, who then with violence demanded that Kosovo would be independent from Serbia... Eventually that was granted, after a lot of fighting, a big mistake in my view, and now we have a Muslim country in Europe, an economic basket case.

In fact much of the former Yugoslavia was divided up on religious lines, with Croatia being Catholic, Bosnia Muslim, and most of the rest Orthodox, predominantly.

Islam has always gained territory that way: invade or colonise, claim the land for Islam, and eventually drive out all the others.

it is therefore wrong in my view to give in into such tactics. However, I can also see that sometimes people simply want a quiet life and therefore try to accommodate the aggressors.

From what I understand, India is making much better progress in tackling poverty and in developing generally, compared with Pakistan or Bangladesh. Perhaps, in hindsight, the split helped India after all?

[Fernando]

I hate to say it, but partition on religious grounds needs to be absolute or it won't work. Pakistan and India would have both been more settled if all the Muslims had gone to Pakistan and all Hindus (and probably Christians) had gone to India. Likewise the partition of Ireland has been a disaster because enough Catholics remained in the North to be dissatisfied until their number was great enough to swing a vote for reunion with the South - as is bound to happen soon.

[manfred]

Yes, I think you are right on that... unless people learn to live with each other.

[Nosuperstition]

Yes when Brits gave reservations to muslims of India in line with the policy of divide and rule, partition is bound to happen as significant Muslim presence in the army, police and administration leaves behind no other choice. So in a way Brits were responsible for the partition of the subcontinent on religious lines. Now you are totally against any partition of European nations on religious lines. So you were for the division of subcontinent on religious lines, but vehemently oppose the same happening in Europe. Now that is against the Golden rule and is called hypocrisy or double standards.

[Nosuperstition]

North Indian Hindus complain about how they were badly extorted by Muslims who ruled over them for 700 years. Yet as soon as India attained independence in 1947,they began to extort more money from the Southern states in India as if they were parts of some Empire and not equal partners in the same country. To politically weaken those heavily taxed states they are even resorting to the policy of divide and rule,thereby putting to peril the lives and livelihoods of millions who do not have any sort of political influence. So even those North Indian policy makers are hypocrites.

[Fernando]

Yes when Brits gave reservations to muslims of India in line with the policy of divide and rule, partition is bound to happen as significant Muslim presence in the army, police and administration leaves behind no other choice. So in a way Brits were responsible for the partition of the subcontinent on religious lines. Now you are totally against any partition of European nations on religious lines. So you were for the division of subcontinent on religious lines, but vehemently oppose the same happening in Europe. Now that is against the Golden rule and is called hypocrisy or double standards.

I'm not sure whether you're replying to me, but assuming you were...
I've never been for or against the division of the subcontinent, which happened long before I had a vote. What I'm suggesting is that it can only be successful if it is done completely, otherwise it just postpones the problem and may make it worse than persuading people to do as Manfred suggested and get on better with each other.
As for the practicality of e.g. Muslims in the police and army - surely they'd go to Pakistan and Hindus to India like anyone else. Unless of course the Muslims had such a majority in the police and army that it would leave India under-staffed. But were that the case, it would have been the Hindus wanting to rid India of that excess of Muslims in authority, whereas AFAIK it was mostly Muslims who wanted separation. And who would, likewise, not want to be dominated by a Hindus in their new Muslim country.
Of course, these arguments assume that Pakistan was intended to be a Muslim country - which I believe Jinnah was against, wanting it to be a secular country. Quite how that fits in with partition, I don't know.

[Nosuperstition]

I was actually directing my post towards manfred. Actually when police and military are firmly in the hands of Hindus as was the case prior to granting reservations to muslims in the form of Minto Morley reforms,chances of muslims resorting to daily rioting are minimal for then they surely know the consequences. Much similar to how the Chinese tackle the separatist movement in their Muslim majority province of Xin jiang. Once the balance of scales is not tipped in favor of any one opiated religious group there was no scope for Akhand Bharat. Now recently even the Chinese commented in favour of Pak's stand on Kashmir purely for geo-political reasons. Them doing that while putting down the muslims of their Uighur province with an iron fist also smacks of hypocrisy.

[Nosuperstition]

In the pyramid hierarchical Hindu caste system, there are many who oppose their oppressor caste ones but nevertheless they themselves oppress those below them in that hierarchy. Similarly idesigner1 says that the fate of blacks with Hispanic majority in the U. S will be worse than what it was under whites who have a spirit of democracy. If so then such Hindus and Hispanics also constitute hypocrites.

[Nosuperstition]

Blacks can suffer lot at their hand.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17413&p=239036&hilit=democracy#p239036

Now the British used to put boards outside their exclusive clubs or churches which read "No dogs and Indians are allowed in".This supposedly hurt the self respect of the subcontinental Indians and hence they supposedly craved for independence.Now even today though the situation has changed a lot in major pilgrimage centers and in cities,in remote villages,untouchables are not allowed into temples.Now one may say that this is a false equivalence as untouchables being not allowed has is something that is due to their unclean occupations and not ethnicity.However even those who are untouchable by birth and not by occupation are sometimes not allowed.Now that is nothing but double standards.Maintaining closed caste circuit societies akin to British clubs also constitutes double standards.

Now idesigner1 said once in the old forum that Indians want to enjoy all the benefits of a revolution without an actual revolution.He said that with reference to the policy of affirmative action prevalent in India.Now a complete revolution will make the Indian cities as violent as the Latin American cities as that would completely alter the religious thought processes in the Indian minds.Now Mr idesigner1 wants to live a cosy and safe life in a Western city but wants Indian cities to get submerged in crime.Now that is hypocrisy on his part.

[Nosuperstition]

According to what I remember Andhra people in India are mentioned as having been banished to the South when some Aryans married non-Aryans. Perhaps this occurs in the story of Andhakaratta or in the story of Viswamitra in the Hindu religious text of Aitereya Brahmana.Now that shows that ancestors of Andhra people were racist, then them worshipping their racist ancestors on festivals and then trying to kick out racist Brits is also something akin to double standards.

[Nosuperstition]

Now North Indian political parties have supported the argument of people of Telangana that two non-Telanganite districts of Krishna and Guntur have consumed more than their fair share of waters of the river Krishna and have more than compensated for the loss of livelihoods in Telangana due to that excess consumption by handing over the revenue of Hyd developed with funds from even the other 11 districts of residual Andhra.

However we do not hear of them trying to compensate for the endured loss of livelihoods of many South Indians due to being excessively taxed for the last 70 years since India attained independence in 1947.So hypocrises abound in this world and even the politically appointed and motivated judiciary remains a mute spectator if not being an outright supporter of injustice.