As for the historic facts of muslim violence that has taken place not only in India, but also in Farnce, and Darfur (correction: still taking place)- this is not an arguement- but historic anc current facts.

It is very sad that you can’t mention very known historic facts, or say a positive thing about India, without being called names, just because it is not comfortable for your argument against India and the vast majority of the people of India- who are peaceful people.

I am sorry that you feel the need to bash such a lovely country and such a lovely group of people, and to bash me for sharing my thought about their culture.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

So today you see the right wing Hindu parties such as the BJP and RSS (who are EXTREMELY violent, no matter what Ned says), stirring up a lot of propaganda and violence against the Muslim communities, saying that they will drive out the Muslims, blaming Pakistan for all the problems in Kashmir, so on and so forth.

India is by no means a peaceful country. There are conflicts all over: the Naxalites, Maoists, Kashmiris, and many other groups are in conflict with the government all the time. Not to mention India’s support for the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, which has caused one of the bloodiest conflicts in modern history.

The militants in Pakistan are leftovers from the days when America funded the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in the Afghan war. After the Afghan War ended, American interests in the region vanished, so you had a population of armed fighters (Arabs, Chechens, Central Asians mixed in and intermarried with the local Pashtuns) who then had to deal with the aftermath of a wrecked Afghanistan. Hence the birth of the Taliban.

The result is what you see today, twenty years later: spilling over the entire region and causing upheaval for everyone.

And yeah, I’m Pakistani and Muslim, but I’m not really interested in taking sides or saying “My country is better than yours”. This is just history, as Mairead said.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Ned, thank you for clarifying that. I really don’t want this to become a cat-fight, especially as I know about as much about India as you do, but I took you up on your offer to re-read Bros’s posts and I still think you may have gotten the wrong end of the stick .

I understood that Bros was saying that their understanding of it is that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, being a huge subcontinent, have a history that’s far more complicated than Muslims Bad, Hindus Good. Nobody is saying that the Hindus, Sikhs or anybody else are war-mongering villians. Bros was pointing out that there has been sectarian violence between the Hindus and Muslims. That is a fact, not a value judgement. Ok Bros was a bit short with you, but it doesn’t mean he/she has an anti-Hindu bias.

Again, it’s not my attention to attack anyone, and I sincerely apologise if that’s how it seems. I’m just sharing my perspective and the history that I;ve heard about.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Go back and read what he claimed and how he distorted historic facts and claimed that the Hindus are not peaceful.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Ned. I really don’t want this to turn into a Ned-bashing fiasco, nor can I speak Bros, only myself. Please come out and state what “agenda” you’re accusing us of. I’m afraid the only posts here which seem to have a religious agenda is your latest post, where you display an anti-Islamic view. This appears to be clouding how you read Bros’s posts. Neither Bros nor I have ever espoused an anti-Hindu bias and I must insist that you retract that claim.

I’ve seen the effects of sectarian violence, so I would assume that the Sikh and Christian communities, as well as Hindus and Muslims, have undoubtedly suffered at the hands of sectarian violence over the years.

And which French violence are discussing? The Parisian riots of a couple of years back? It’s my understanding that was centred on some of the poorest suburbs of the city; however it was managed the Muslim youth in those suburbs felt that there was systematic oppression against them because of their religion and it’s that, rather than “just” a need to rail against Parisian secular-Christian society that caused the riots? If I’m wrong then, as always, I’m open to correction. I’m only an arm-chair historian when it comes to world affairs and I only know what I pick up in occasional news reports.

Mahatma Gandhi was and remains a remarkably influential man and his policy of non-violent civil disobedience was remarkably effective in capturing the imagination and good will of those “at home” in Britain as much as anything else. His unique place in the independence movement was recognised by Jarahawal Nehru in his new government . But it’s not safe to assume that Empire simply handed over India after World War II just because Gandhi said so. I am pretty sure that there were separate militant independence factions involved in the struggle for Independence in India, for right or for wrong. Most societies are essentially non-violent and peace-loving, until pushed to extremes.

Report this comment as spam or abuse

Just because you clearly have an agenda doesn’t mean you can distort historic facts (“india wasnt a hindu majority until the british carved it up and artificially made it so by creating pakistan”) and excuse and justify violence (“although they are treated like they are”- immigrants) ”

So now everything is clear. You clearly have an agenda.
This is a very lame attempt to distort and bash the people of India.

They do have a rich and peaceful culture. Always have been, even as a colony under oppression.

This is a great example of why the attitude of the film is problematic.

Not only does it represent the old patronizing and belittling view of the British colonists, but also Pakistani/ Muslims will use it instrumentally as a justification for violence, and it gives fodder to those who wish to bash the hindus and justify the terror attacks they had to endure from Pakistan.

And as for France and the lame attempt to distort the facts there too- while some of the muslim violence was carried by immigrants, many of the muslims were second and third generation- living in France.

oh, and in case you try to make another shoddy “excuse”, being an immigrant and the difficulties of immigrations are not a peculiar muslim thing.
There are immigrants from many countries, many of them came from far more difficult circumstances than the ones in Arab countries, and there is no excuse for terror or violence.

Do you have an excuse for the muslim violence in Darfur as well, or should we leave it at you calling me names, and decrying the people of India while giving more excuses to the muslim violence in France?

Report this comment as spam or abuse

I’m of Indian origin and have travelled in India for years. After seeing “Slum-dog Millionaire” I was pleased to see that the slumbs were as visually true to the real-life situations I’ve seen back in India.

How DARE he think what he is doing is fair ethically and morally?!

As he says “The two youngest stars in “Slumdog Millionaire” will get “a substantial sum of money” that would “change their lives for the better” when they turn 18, but only if they stay in school..”

Only if they stay in school?! How are they to survive until they are 18 yrs old? These children are experiencing life altering situations and as a result from the press and thugs of India do not have proper homes to shelter in with sick and ailing family members.

If they survive to the age of 18 they can be privy to the trust fund they are entitled to. But what if they don’t? Their life could have been a lot better with acess to some of that money.

How dare he take a white elitest attitude in regards to these boys lives!!! Next he will be adding on: If they stay good little boys and listen to everything I say.

He is right in not disclosing the actual amount that the children are doing to be paid. But these children are not his and should not be treated as if their living environment is not harsh and heart-breaking. Has he forgetted what can happen when everything is taken away from you when you live in the slums of India?

Maybe he should re-watch his movie and try to realise how degrading his attitude is towards these boys, their lives and most importantly their well-being.

Report this comment as spam or abuse