Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taliban beheads two Sikhs in Pakistan

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by calass View Post
    Sure India has many illegal Bangladeshis in India but they are certainly not welcome as is obvious by the fence being created around Bangladesh and where the border guards shoot to kill(a very wrong practice for a democracy but that is another topic).


    They had a good reason to shoot and ask questions later.
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Cactus View Post
      Please let us know yours.
      My opinion does not mean much. I believe that India should not allow any refugees be they Hindu, Muslim or Tibetan under "humanitarian" considerations. There are plenty of people in need of such considerations within its own borders. The above should hold unless these refugees serve a strategic purpose against a demonstrated immoral entity that threatens the Indian people(as against power projection). In other words the cost that goes into them should be justified and that bar should be set pretty high IMO.

      When India has developed to a certain extent, and when its poor have reached a state of relative prosperity then humanitarian considerations should be taken into account.

      But I must admit your comments, especially the following, have made me rethink my position about the refugee status of non-Muslims.

      Originally posted by Cactus View Post
      India also has a historical and political imperative to make this limited offer. When it recognized the right of Indian Muslims to a separate statehood based on religion (Pakistan), but refused to consider the same for Indian Sikhs, Hindus, Christians etc., it essentially took up the responsibility of addressing the religious+political aspirations of people of those religions as much as possible within a secular framework.
      Last edited by pChan; 24 Feb 10,, 10:43.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by hammer View Post
        No, its not.
        Yeah right, I am done with you.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by pChan View Post
          So do you mean to say that anybody irrespective of religion persecuted by the Taliban is welcome in India? Or in other words India should have a generous asylum policy?
          About 1,100 Afghans given Indian citizenship- Politics/Nation-News-The Economic Times

          Comment


          • #35
            Too small a number, that smells like PR to me.

            Comment


            • #36
              Rs 10m ransom demand for Hindu man abducted in Pak

              http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...ow/5609737.cms

              PESHAWAR: Days after beheading of two abducted Sikhs by Taliban in the restive tribal belt, a Pakistani Hindu man has been reportedly kidnapped from here and his abductors have demanded Rs 10 million for his release.

              Robin Singh, a computer engineer, was kidnapped by unknown persons from a market on University Road last Friday, a local politician said on Tuesday. He was kidnapped while going to Nowshera for some work.

              The kidnappers have demanded Rs 10 million from Singh's relatives, said Sahib Singh, a member of the district assembly in Peshawar.

              Robin Singh's brother Rajan Singh has registered a case at West Cantonment police station, Sahib Singh said. However, officials at the police station said they were not aware of the registration of a First Information Report in this regard. They said Robin Singh might not have been abducted from their jurisdiction.

              In a statement issued on Monday, President Asif Ali Zardari condemned the kidnapping of Robin Singh. The President directed authorities to take steps for the recovery of Singh.

              The incident comes to light days after the recovery of the beheaded bodies of two abducted Sikhs — Mahal Singh and Jaspal Singh — in Pakistan's tribal belt.

              Another two to four Sikhs are still being held by the Taliban. The kidnapping and killing of the Sikhs
              has been condemned by leaders of Pakistan's minority Sikh community.
              Here we go. One more!
              Last edited by hammer; 24 Feb 10,, 15:31.
              Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by calass View Post
                The hill districts of WB Darjeeling etc are full of Nepalis. I don't see alarm about them changing the "demographic" balance similar to the continuous reporting about districts next to Bangladesh.
                Please do some research before posting BS. The hill districts of WB are full of INDIANS OF NEPALESE ORIGINS. They are NOT NEPALESE NATIONALS. They have always been Indians. The question changing demographics simply does not arise...

                But I don't suppose you see the difference between Indians who have been in India for centuries and Bangladeshis who sneaked across the border, do you? If you dont, there is simply no reason to engage in a meaningful argument with you because in your overtly simplistic version of the world---

                1. British people with Norman blood would be French

                2. People of Inner Mongolia are Mongolian, not Chinese

                3. Bengalis of West Bengal are Bangladeshis

                4. Tamils of Sri Lanka are Indians

                5. Pasthuns of Pakistan are Afghans

                6. Hispanics of America are Mexicans

                Do you see the idiocy of your argument?
                Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by pChan View Post
                  My opinion does not mean much. I believe that India should not allow any refugees be they Hindu, Muslim or Tibetan under "humanitarian" considerations. There are plenty of people in need of such considerations within its own borders. The above should hold unless these refugees serve a strategic purpose against a demonstrated immoral entity that threatens the Indian people(as against power projection). In other words the cost that goes into them should be justified and that bar should be set pretty high IMO.

                  When India has developed to a certain extent, and when its poor have reached a state of relative prosperity then humanitarian considerations should be taken into account.

                  But I must admit your comments, especially the following, have made me rethink my position about the refugee status of non-Muslims.
                  I guess the reason you argue that a nation should not allow refugees back into the nation of its origin is because you want to forcibly project how YOUR NATION goes about treating its own refugees onto the rest of the world right? We dont allow Tibetan exiles back whether they are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems etc, etc. Well tried!

                  Let me remind you that China may "have developed to a certain extent" (as you so eloquently put it) but it still has a long a way to go too... Is that why China has such dismal and shameful human rights record? Because its waiting to reach its penultimate state of utopia, when it may treat people humanely, even those who it professes to be its citizens (Tibetans, Turks) so hoarsely before the world? Until then bad luck, you guys will be persecuted as long as we are not evolved or developed fully...

                  Do you agree with this formula:

                  Human rights/freedom = Function of (Development)

                  But to get back to the argument...
                  Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by HillWarrior View Post
                    I guess the reason you argue that a nation should not allow refugees back into the nation of its origin is because you want to forcibly project how YOUR NATION goes about treating its own refugees onto the rest of the world right? We dont allow Tibetan exiles back whether they are Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems etc, etc. Well tried!
                    I am from India, not China. Tibetans are not Indians and I don't see why India should take in Tibetan refugees unless China engages in genocide. Oppression? You would be surprised by the sheer number of people in India who suffer the same.

                    Originally posted by HillWarrior View Post
                    Let me remind you that China may "have developed to a certain extent" (as you so eloquently put it) but it still has a long a way to go too... Is that why China has such dismal and shameful human rights record? Because its waiting to reach its penultimate state of utopia, when it may treat people humanely, even those who it professes to be its citizens (Tibetans, Turks) so hoarsely before the world? Until then bad luck, you guys will be persecuted as long as we are not evolved or developed fully...

                    Do you agree with this formula:

                    Human rights/freedom = Function of (Development)

                    But to get back to the argument...
                    None of my comments in this thread have anything to do with China. I just admire the ability of the Chinese govt to lift so many Chinese out of poverty. Don't mean to rub you the wrong way, but you are beating the wrong horse.
                    Last edited by pChan; 25 Feb 10,, 07:58.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by pChan View Post
                      I am from India, not China. Don't mean to rub you the wrong way, but you are beating the wrong horse.
                      My bad. I mistook you for a certain someone....
                      Totalitarianism-Feudalism in new garbs

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by calass View Post
                        Does anyone here seriously think that if Bangladesh was a Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist/Jain majority country, India would have built a fence around her? Come on.
                        My take .Definitely if those coming in show inclination to separate the areas from India.

                        India did not show any mercy when dealing with insurgencies in Punjab(Sikhs) or North East(Christians), Assam(Hindus) or Maoist(Hindus & Christians).
                        Indian bullets gives the same response to any religious groups.

                        If India was treating Muslims badly as you say, do show me how many went to Pakistan as refugees? as Pakistan was created specially as a home for Indian Muslims. Add to this kindly do find out how many Bangladeshi Muslim refugees, hunted down by Pakistani Army in 71, were given Indian citizenships.

                        As far as Sikhs in Pakistan is concerned, it is the duty of Pakistan gov to protect them as they are Pakistani citizen. Else these Sikhs have a choice, if they want to move to India, the Indian government should provide them shelter. It is as per the International law and given the cultural connection with Indian Punjab it is our duty as well.
                        Last edited by n21; 26 Feb 10,, 19:47.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by hammer View Post
                          They had a good reason to shoot and ask questions later.
                          What exactly is the point of that picture?? Want to share the story behind it?
                          Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                          -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Tronic View Post
                            What exactly is the point of that picture?? Want to share the story behind it?
                            The Bangladesh Rifles intruded and killed many BSF personnel and their bodies were carried slung on bamboo by the Bangladeshi villagers sometime during 2001. If I remember correctly, they were all tortured before being shot.

                            Troops on alert after Bangladesh massacre - Asia, World - The Independent

                            http://www.india-today.com/itoday/20...ngladesh.shtml

                            My point is that you can't blame the BSF for being trigger happy, in response to....

                            Originally Posted by calass
                            Sure India has many illegal Bangladeshis in India but they are certainly not welcome as is obvious by the fence being created around Bangladesh and where the border guards shoot to kill(a very wrong practice for a democracy but that is another topic).
                            Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie!'...till you can find a rock. ;)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              ^I remember, there was a lot of outrage back then. I also read that bangladeshi's have been bribing the BSF to let them inside india. An indian news channel had even aired a sting operation on that issue. The fencing is yet to be completed and the borders are still porous. I mean look at this...

                              Bangladeshi villagers help themselves to Indian wood

                              it is not easy to prevent cross-border infiltration - as villagers of the remote northern Bangladeshi village of Sumanchura prove on a daily basis.
                              [...]
                              So villagers have found a new way of gathering valuable wood. They go across the border into India and cut down wood there.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Cactus View Post
                                ....At least some of them are Pathan Sikhs, who generally hate leaving their hills...
                                Is the term "Pathan Sikh" correct?.. I would think that the Sikhs there are the decendents of the Ranjit Singh's army or trades who followed them. I don't think any pathans would have converted to Sikhism.

                                Cheers!...on the rocks!!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X