[Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the Mossad's
achievements ... particularly the episodes about the most
advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)

Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060713/f25d2517/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

Hi RKN,

Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed
in a matter of three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and
staged that daring operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring
African nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane,
btw, was not an El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a
scheduled flight.) Point is, it was intelligence again that
came to Israel's rescue. They had the complete blueprints of
the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard lifesize models
for their rehearsals and even had plans for various contigencies
(like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission.
Intelligence plays the major role. A brains versus brawn point.

But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much
before, had their own brilliance. (Both were staged,
incidentally, by the Mossad.) I'll briefly explain.

I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest,
most sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was
installed on the Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of
Israel under enemy eye -- even a helicopter could not take
off even from the northernmost tip of Israel without the
enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each
one presented his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still
the Dy Chief of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy
the radar. The chief of the Air Force told how he would
carpet bomb the entire camp, including the Soviet radar.

Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to
allot the assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar,"
he pleaded, "we will bring it back to Israel."

They did just that. Together with requisite help from
the other services, a small helicopter-borne commando unit took
the relaxing Egyptian guards by complete surprise, dismantled
the radar system and brought it back home ... piece by piece!

(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and
western techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets
changed their arms policy: never again did a first-generation
piece of defence equipment leave their shores.)

Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's
(Goa) Herald, also posted here earlier, on the Mumbai
serial blasts, you know better how I regard the Mossad ;-)


On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 Radhakrishnan Nair wrote :
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an
Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

[cornel]

Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot dictator and buffoon like
Idi Amin is not surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced military
nation, with strong American support, taking on a fifth rate military
outpost like Amin's at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I knew
well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open field with a
few scattered cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments to make it a Hollywood
block buster.

Notwithstanding the above, Valmiki is right that Israel had a major
'intelligence' coup on this issue. However, in contrast, its unjustified
collusion in 1956, with Britain and France, to the acute chagrin of the USA,
brought its "quick victory" instincts in Suez to an immediate and abrupt
end.

Israel has had many successes on the war-front especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Hi RKN,
Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed in a matter of
three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and staged that daring
operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring African
nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane, btw, was not an
El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a scheduled flight.) Point is,
it was intelligence again that came to Israel's rescue. They had the
complete blueprints of the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard
lifesize models for their rehearsals and even had plans for various
contigencies (like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission. Intelligence plays
the major role. A brains versus brawn point.
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much before, had
their own brilliance. (Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)
I'll briefly explain.
I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest, most
sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was installed on the
Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of Israel under enemy eye -- even
a helicopter could not take off even from the northernmost tip of Israel
without the enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each one presented
his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still the Dy Chief
of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy the radar. The chief of
the Air Force told how he would carpet bomb the entire camp, including the
Soviet radar.
Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to allot the
assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar," he pleaded, "we will
bring it back to Israel."
They did just that. Together with requisite help from the other services,
a small helicopter-borne commando unit took the relaxing Egyptian guards
by complete surprise, dismantled the radar system and brought it back home
... piece by piece!
(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and western
techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets changed their arms
policy: never again did a first-generation piece of defence equipment
leave their shores.)
Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's (Goa) Herald, also
posted here earlier, on the Mumbai serial blasts, you know better how I
regard the Mossad ;-)
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to the Yom
Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli
passenger plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[cornel]

Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot dictator and buffoon like
Idi Amin is not surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced military
nation, with strong American support, taking on a fifth rate military
outpost like Amin's at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I knew
well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open field with a
few scattered cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments to make it a Hollywood
block buster.

Notwithstanding the above, Valmiki is right that Israel had a major
'intelligence' coup on this issue. However, in contrast, its unjustified
collusion in 1956, with Britain and France, to the acute chagrin of the USA,
brought its "quick victory" instincts in Suez to an immediate and abrupt
end.

Israel has had many successes on the war-front especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Hi RKN,
Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed in a matter of
three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and staged that daring
operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring African
nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane, btw, was not an
El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a scheduled flight.) Point is,
it was intelligence again that came to Israel's rescue. They had the
complete blueprints of the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard
lifesize models for their rehearsals and even had plans for various
contigencies (like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission. Intelligence plays
the major role. A brains versus brawn point.
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much before, had
their own brilliance. (Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)
I'll briefly explain.
I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest, most
sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was installed on the
Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of Israel under enemy eye -- even
a helicopter could not take off even from the northernmost tip of Israel
without the enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each one presented
his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still the Dy Chief
of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy the radar. The chief of
the Air Force told how he would carpet bomb the entire camp, including the
Soviet radar.
Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to allot the
assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar," he pleaded, "we will
bring it back to Israel."
They did just that. Together with requisite help from the other services,
a small helicopter-borne commando unit took the relaxing Egyptian guards
by complete surprise, dismantled the radar system and brought it back home
... piece by piece!
(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and western
techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets changed their arms
policy: never again did a first-generation piece of defence equipment
leave their shores.)
Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's (Goa) Herald, also
posted here earlier, on the Mumbai serial blasts, you know better how I
regard the Mossad ;-)
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to the Yom
Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli
passenger plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[cornel]

Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot dictator and buffoon like
Idi Amin is not surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced military
nation, with strong American support, taking on a fifth rate military
outpost like Amin's at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I knew
well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open field with a
few scattered cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments to make it a Hollywood
block buster.

Notwithstanding the above, Valmiki is right that Israel had a major
'intelligence' coup on this issue. However, in contrast, its unjustified
collusion in 1956, with Britain and France, to the acute chagrin of the USA,
brought its "quick victory" instincts in Suez to an immediate and abrupt
end.

Israel has had many successes on the war-front especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Hi RKN,
Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed in a matter of
three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and staged that daring
operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring African
nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane, btw, was not an
El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a scheduled flight.) Point is,
it was intelligence again that came to Israel's rescue. They had the
complete blueprints of the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard
lifesize models for their rehearsals and even had plans for various
contigencies (like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission. Intelligence plays
the major role. A brains versus brawn point.
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much before, had
their own brilliance. (Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)
I'll briefly explain.
I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest, most
sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was installed on the
Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of Israel under enemy eye -- even
a helicopter could not take off even from the northernmost tip of Israel
without the enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each one presented
his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still the Dy Chief
of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy the radar. The chief of
the Air Force told how he would carpet bomb the entire camp, including the
Soviet radar.
Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to allot the
assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar," he pleaded, "we will
bring it back to Israel."
They did just that. Together with requisite help from the other services,
a small helicopter-borne commando unit took the relaxing Egyptian guards
by complete surprise, dismantled the radar system and brought it back home
... piece by piece!
(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and western
techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets changed their arms
policy: never again did a first-generation piece of defence equipment
leave their shores.)
Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's (Goa) Herald, also
posted here earlier, on the Mumbai serial blasts, you know better how I
regard the Mossad ;-)
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to the Yom
Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli
passenger plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.

That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[cornel]

Hi Elizabeth
You are absolutely spot on re the creation and positioning of Israel.
Thanks.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Carvalho" <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Cc: <cornel at btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument (re Israel) response to
Cornel

Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.
That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.
Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[cornel]

Hi Elizabeth
You are absolutely spot on re the creation and positioning of Israel.
Thanks.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Carvalho" <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Cc: <cornel at btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument (re Israel) response to
Cornel

Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.
That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.
Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[cornel]

Hi Elizabeth
You are absolutely spot on re the creation and positioning of Israel.
Thanks.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elisabeth Carvalho" <elisabeth_car at yahoo.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Cc: <cornel at btinternet.com>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument (re Israel) response to
Cornel

Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.
That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.
Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Mario observes:
Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Mario responds:
Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.

[cornel]

Mario
As many Jewish people within the state of Israel and in the Jewish Diaspora
strongly disaprove of the occupation of Palestinian land, your logic would
suggest that, they are all anti-semite. What a daft view?

The occupation of land as in the case of the Israelis is against
international law. The UN has repeatedly asked Israel to vacate that
territory. I do not need your wisdom to tell me that somehow Israel is right
on this issue. You appear to have swallowed the Israeli line about security,
hook line and sinker.

Most countries today, except for the USA, have indicated that Israel's
attack against Lebanon/Gaza is "disproportionate." I therefore do not need
your minority view to persuade me otherwise.

Your extreme right wing position is pretty fascistic as far as I am
concerned. I am fully aware of the nature of the conflict ever since the
Balfour Declaration but believe that Israel can lose in the long run as it
simply can't have the weight of population to sustain it irrespective of
American military support for now. However, I am definitely not for the
elimination of Israel despite what the Hizbulla and other enemies of Israel
say . I believe that negotiated peace is possible if only the Americans
(with the real power) will negotiate fairly on both sides for now. I have
expressed myself endlessly on this issue and have no more intention of
repeating myself.
Cornel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

Mario
As many Jewish people within the state of Israel and in the Jewish Diaspora
strongly disaprove of the occupation of Palestinian land, your logic would
suggest that, they are all anti-semite. What a daft view?

The occupation of land as in the case of the Israelis is against
international law. The UN has repeatedly asked Israel to vacate that
territory. I do not need your wisdom to tell me that somehow Israel is right
on this issue. You appear to have swallowed the Israeli line about security,
hook line and sinker.

Most countries today, except for the USA, have indicated that Israel's
attack against Lebanon/Gaza is "disproportionate." I therefore do not need
your minority view to persuade me otherwise.

Your extreme right wing position is pretty fascistic as far as I am
concerned. I am fully aware of the nature of the conflict ever since the
Balfour Declaration but believe that Israel can lose in the long run as it
simply can't have the weight of population to sustain it irrespective of
American military support for now. However, I am definitely not for the
elimination of Israel despite what the Hizbulla and other enemies of Israel
say . I believe that negotiated peace is possible if only the Americans
(with the real power) will negotiate fairly on both sides for now. I have
expressed myself endlessly on this issue and have no more intention of
repeating myself.
Cornel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

Mario
As many Jewish people within the state of Israel and in the Jewish Diaspora
strongly disaprove of the occupation of Palestinian land, your logic would
suggest that, they are all anti-semite. What a daft view?

The occupation of land as in the case of the Israelis is against
international law. The UN has repeatedly asked Israel to vacate that
territory. I do not need your wisdom to tell me that somehow Israel is right
on this issue. You appear to have swallowed the Israeli line about security,
hook line and sinker.

Most countries today, except for the USA, have indicated that Israel's
attack against Lebanon/Gaza is "disproportionate." I therefore do not need
your minority view to persuade me otherwise.

Your extreme right wing position is pretty fascistic as far as I am
concerned. I am fully aware of the nature of the conflict ever since the
Balfour Declaration but believe that Israel can lose in the long run as it
simply can't have the weight of population to sustain it irrespective of
American military support for now. However, I am definitely not for the
elimination of Israel despite what the Hizbulla and other enemies of Israel
say . I believe that negotiated peace is possible if only the Americans
(with the real power) will negotiate fairly on both sides for now. I have
expressed myself endlessly on this issue and have no more intention of
repeating myself.
Cornel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was
not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open
field with a few scattered cheaply built structures
on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments
to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
Israel lucked out in that Entebbe airport was built by
an Israeli contractor. The Israeli's were able to
secure all the blue prints immediately. I was working
for a Mangalorian accounting firm in Tanzania at the
time of the raid. We had a contract to store all the
financial archives of the Israel's contractors work in
E. Africa.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which
occured much before, had their own brilliance.
(Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)

Military victories are one thing. However, military
brilliance cannot be over shadowed by political
stupidity. The Israelis admit that Mossad created and
funded Hamas. Now they are paying the price for that
stupidity.

Lastly, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze etc lived
together in harmony in Israel from the time of the
crusades till the time Britain decided to carve out a
nation for those who used the Bible as a title deed.

Mervyn.0



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/bbf31432/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/3ed6cea6/attachment.ksh

[Mario Goveia]

--- Valmiki Faleiro <valmikif at rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Cornel and Mario,
With due respect to both, what about the
sheer mishandling of the Mandate by the Brits?
Wouldn't Jan-1948 be entirely evitable had
the Brits handled the mandate fairly?
Mario asks:
Valmiki,
How does one determine with hind-sight whether the
Palestine Mandate was "mishandled" by the Brits, or
that it was "fair"? Isn't "fair" in such matters in
the eye of the beholder, depending on whose ox is
being gored? Is "fair" even relevent any more?
In addition, the entire world community at the time,
in the form of the UN, ratified the partition, so why
are the Brits singled out for abuse?
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah. Yet it was accepted by both sides and,
after the initial mayhem, those displaced went on with
their lives. No Indian or Pakistani lays claim to
their ancestral properties or demands a "right of
return". Such sophistries seem to be selectively
reserved only for the Palestinians by Cornel and the
entire left-wing worldwide.
Finally, regardless of the "fairness" of the
decisions, wouldn't the civilized approach by those
aggrieved to have negotiated their grievances with the
UN, the Brits and the Israelis, instead of
unilaterally deciding in 1948 to "push the Jews into
the sea", and it's modern incarnation, to "wipe Israel
off the map"?

[Valmiki Faleiro]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at rediffmail.com>; "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Mario Goveia
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah.

Dear Mario,

Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?

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 terror.)
-Valmiki

[Valmiki Faleiro]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at rediffmail.com>; "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Mario Goveia
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah.

Dear Mario,

Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?

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 terror.)
-Valmiki

[Valmiki Faleiro]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mario Goveia" <mgoveia at sbcglobal.net>
To: "Valmiki Faleiro" <valmikif at rediffmail.com>; "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Mario Goveia
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah.

Dear Mario,

Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?

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 terror.)
-Valmiki

[cornel]

Valmiki
This is a quick response to say that the Balfour Declaration by Britain was
a big mistake but we have to live with it. The great powers at the time, and
Britain was the super power then, simply dished out other people's property
(and still does illegally e.g. the islands in the Indian Ocean as a military
base for the USA) to clients of their choosing. Britain is definitely in the
wrong over the formation of Israel irrespective of its then achievement to
win international support for its formation. This is my reflective view
whilst recognising that we can do nothing about it now beyond the USA
getting the two sides to talk and talk until there is a resolution to this
crisis. The USA does hold the cards today as the only super power but it has
to operate equitably rather than take the side of Israel at the behest of
the powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby in the States. Only when an American
President has the guts and ability to take on the Jewish lobby in the USA,
and also the Arab people in the Middle East, will we have peace in that
region. To date, all efforts have been partial, including the Jewish
occupation, and in favour of the Jewish lobby in my view.

Mario's seemingly peaceful parallel with the India/Pakistan situation is not
on as potential conflict in that region is ongoing, and often, just under
the surface. It flares up all the time. Once again, I have been very
critical of Britain initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the
sub-continent. A secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a
religious based Pakistan split from India.
Cornel

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>

It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.

-- RKN

[Gabe Menezes]

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.
-- RKN

RESPONSE: Yes we should follow the Singapore model and ask for a Goa
plebiscite, on whether we want to be independent of India, no?

This would fulfill the promise made eons ago!!

[cornel]

Hi RKN
I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying on the issue of the
birth of India and
Pakistan. True, huge India is quite difficult to govern but I take pride in
its success with democracy against impossible odds.

My criticism of Britain is that she wanted one India as long as she was in
control. It is only when it came to Mountbatten, towards the end of the Raj,
that he talked of "many Indias" It was his dubious rationale for Pakistan
but has always reminded me of the 'Red Indian' saying..."white man speaks
with forked tongue."
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Menezes" <gabe.menezes at gmail.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Gabe Menezes

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.
-- RKN

RESPONSE: Yes we should follow the Singapore model and ask for a Goa
plebiscite, on whether we want to be independent of India, no?
This would fulfill the promise made eons ago!!
--
DEV BOREM KORUM.
Gabe Menezes.
London, England
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

Hi RKN
I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying on the issue of the
birth of India and
Pakistan. True, huge India is quite difficult to govern but I take pride in
its success with democracy against impossible odds.

My criticism of Britain is that she wanted one India as long as she was in
control. It is only when it came to Mountbatten, towards the end of the Raj,
that he talked of "many Indias" It was his dubious rationale for Pakistan
but has always reminded me of the 'Red Indian' saying..."white man speaks
with forked tongue."
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Menezes" <gabe.menezes at gmail.com>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Gabe Menezes

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.
-- RKN

RESPONSE: Yes we should follow the Singapore model and ask for a Goa
plebiscite, on whether we want to be independent of India, no?
This would fulfill the promise made eons ago!!
--
DEV BOREM KORUM.
Gabe Menezes.
London, England
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Gabe Menezes]

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.
-- RKN

RESPONSE: Yes we should follow the Singapore model and ask for a Goa
plebiscite, on whether we want to be independent of India, no?

This would fulfill the promise made eons ago!!

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?

Mario clarifies:
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
connection now.

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
terror.)

Mario responds:
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
territorial losses.
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?

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by cornel
whilst recognising that we can do nothing about it
now beyond the USA
getting the two sides to talk and talk until there
is a resolution to this
crisis. The USA does hold the cards today as the
only super power but it has
to operate equitably rather than take the side of
Israel at the behest of
the powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby in the States.
Only when an American
President has the guts and ability to take on the
Jewish lobby in the USA,
and also the Arab people in the Middle East, will we
have peace in that region. To date, all efforts
have been partial, including the Jewish occupation,
and in favour of the Jewish lobby in my view.

Cornel,
The only peace break thru in the M.E. in the last
twenty years was brought about by the Norwegians. All
it took was ten days of negotiations.

As long as the US is in charge of the "peace process"
in the middle east, we are going to have more
violence.

Mervyn3.0






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.

The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.

India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.

India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".

Elisabeth
---------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided
India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable
with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian
violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism
and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South
Asian population.
-- RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

You're seeing the glass as half-empty, Elisabeth. And, as someone who
decided to 'vote with your feet', I think that's only natural.

Imagine a country which emerges from colonialism and survives five
decades without a military coup, has still huge problems of poverty
and illiteracy but manages to give a substantial section of its
population a fairly human existance. One that has been able to build
manpower (and womanpower, you included) that is able to take on the
world and perform well wherever they be. That too, with all the odds
against it!

I'm no fan of the "India will be a superpower" theory, but I guess you
could expect some surprises specially from the more-educated, more
socially-enlightened southern parts of India in the years ahead. Watch
this space...

And, along with friends from the sub-continent, I believe that over
the next 15-20 years, we could well see a United States of South Asia.
(Maybe that's a bad choice of a name, given the hegemonic connotations
that any mix between the USA+USSR would have! My friend Kanak Mani
Dixit of Himal in Nepal calls it Sasia. One word with asia spelt in
all small alphabets. If Europe, which taught Asia the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider spaces and borders
that benefit all? Of course, India would have to learn to play less of
a hegemonic role here and accomodate the other smaller nations to make
them feel comfortable in such a setting.)

I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us. (Who is the "vast sections" of South
Asia whom RKN is talking about? Don't they exist within the borders of
current-day India?) If his logic was true, then Goa wouldn't be able
to exist within an India, and the Old Conquests should be fighting a
war of secession from the New Conquests. Rather, the other way round,
since the "Novas Conquistas" have every right to feel colonised by us
chappies sitting along the central coast.

At the end of the day, it isn't about size. It's about justice.

If India is able to accomodate its many diverse strands and sections,
there's no reason why it shouldn't survive or even thrive. More
intolerance will lead to an implosion of the Indian state from within.
As far as the Mumbai blasts are concerned, I was a bit surprised that
no one raised the point of India needing to cope with dissent and
diversity in more efficient ways. There was a lot of this in the early
years after Independence. But, as we forget the need to accomodate
everyone, we also get more intolerant... The
let's-do-a-Israel-on-Pakistan arguments aren't taking us anywhere
closer to a resolution of our many conflicts.

If the Punjab problem could be healed (or so it seems) over time,
there's no reason why more understanding can't sort out Kashmir.
Religious differences are, after all, only skin deep. FN

Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.
India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.
India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".
Elisabeth
---------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided
India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable
with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian
violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism
and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South
Asian population.

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

You're seeing the glass as half-empty, Elisabeth. And, as someone who
decided to 'vote with your feet', I think that's only natural.

Imagine a country which emerges from colonialism and survives five
decades without a military coup, has still huge problems of poverty
and illiteracy but manages to give a substantial section of its
population a fairly human existance. One that has been able to build
manpower (and womanpower, you included) that is able to take on the
world and perform well wherever they be. That too, with all the odds
against it!

I'm no fan of the "India will be a superpower" theory, but I guess you
could expect some surprises specially from the more-educated, more
socially-enlightened southern parts of India in the years ahead. Watch
this space...

And, along with friends from the sub-continent, I believe that over
the next 15-20 years, we could well see a United States of South Asia.
(Maybe that's a bad choice of a name, given the hegemonic connotations
that any mix between the USA+USSR would have! My friend Kanak Mani
Dixit of Himal in Nepal calls it Sasia. One word with asia spelt in
all small alphabets. If Europe, which taught Asia the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider spaces and borders
that benefit all? Of course, India would have to learn to play less of
a hegemonic role here and accomodate the other smaller nations to make
them feel comfortable in such a setting.)

I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us. (Who is the "vast sections" of South
Asia whom RKN is talking about? Don't they exist within the borders of
current-day India?) If his logic was true, then Goa wouldn't be able
to exist within an India, and the Old Conquests should be fighting a
war of secession from the New Conquests. Rather, the other way round,
since the "Novas Conquistas" have every right to feel colonised by us
chappies sitting along the central coast.

At the end of the day, it isn't about size. It's about justice.

If India is able to accomodate its many diverse strands and sections,
there's no reason why it shouldn't survive or even thrive. More
intolerance will lead to an implosion of the Indian state from within.
As far as the Mumbai blasts are concerned, I was a bit surprised that
no one raised the point of India needing to cope with dissent and
diversity in more efficient ways. There was a lot of this in the early
years after Independence. But, as we forget the need to accomodate
everyone, we also get more intolerant... The
let's-do-a-Israel-on-Pakistan arguments aren't taking us anywhere
closer to a resolution of our many conflicts.

If the Punjab problem could be healed (or so it seems) over time,
there's no reason why more understanding can't sort out Kashmir.
Religious differences are, after all, only skin deep. FN

Post by Elisabeth Carvalho
The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.
India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.
India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".
Elisabeth
---------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided
India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable
with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian
violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism
and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South
Asian population.

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

Dear Ms Carvalho,

I agree with most of your comments, but beg to differ on your views on
the Indian middle class. IMHO, it's robust and, should I say, vibrant
and burgeoning. "The silent middle class" in no way remains
unrepresented and is not on the fringes by any stretch of imagination.
It's firmly ensconced on the vantage curve of the bell. On the fringes
really are the multitude of landless farm labourers, dalits and
tribals.

Isn't it a miracle of sorts that India today boasts a middle-class
population of 300 million (and still climbing), while there was none
in 1947?

Regards,

RKN

<<Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.

The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.

India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.

India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".

Elisabeth

[cornel]

KN
There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well before that in India.
It was largely the educated/informed middle clas that propelled the Quit
India movement surely.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Dear Ms Carvalho,
I agree with most of your comments, but beg to differ on your views on
the Indian middle class. IMHO, it's robust and, should I say, vibrant
and burgeoning. "The silent middle class" in no way remains
unrepresented and is not on the fringes by any stretch of imagination.
It's firmly ensconced on the vantage curve of the bell. On the fringes
really are the multitude of landless farm labourers, dalits and
tribals.
Isn't it a miracle of sorts that India today boasts a middle-class
population of 300 million (and still climbing), while there was none
in 1947?
Regards,
RKN
<<Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.
The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.
India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.
India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".
Elisabeth
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

KN
There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well before that in India.
It was largely the educated/informed middle clas that propelled the Quit
India movement surely.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Dear Ms Carvalho,
I agree with most of your comments, but beg to differ on your views on
the Indian middle class. IMHO, it's robust and, should I say, vibrant
and burgeoning. "The silent middle class" in no way remains
unrepresented and is not on the fringes by any stretch of imagination.
It's firmly ensconced on the vantage curve of the bell. On the fringes
really are the multitude of landless farm labourers, dalits and
tribals.
Isn't it a miracle of sorts that India today boasts a middle-class
population of 300 million (and still climbing), while there was none
in 1947?
Regards,
RKN
<<Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.
The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.
India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.
India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".
Elisabeth
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Frederick,
An excellent post indeed. Any post that makes me
rethink my own premise is a good one in my books. You
are probably right when you say I am looking at the
glass half empty (although you are wrong, when you say
I've decided to "vote with my feet", if anything I've
cast the "vote with my foot" firmly in India's
favour).

If I had never had the opportunity to live in the US,
I would have perhaps seen the glass as doing the best
it can and I know by saying so, I am going to sound
like a USphile. I just made that word up.

When I was very young, a nice Brit Teacher who had
spent but a mere 3 months in India, returned to Dubai
to tell us that "India was ripe for communism". I went
home very dismayed and worried. I needn't have
worried. India proved her and everyone wrong.

I have no doubts whatsoever that India will continue
to grow as a democracy, the seeds of freedom are
firmly planted in our consciousness. But we have a
long way to go. When I look at the people around me in
the US, I am astounded by their homogeneity. Everyone
dresses alike, they speak alike, they eat alike, they
probably all sleep in the same position too. This is
why their democracy thrives. Because they've managed
to cut out everything individual and replace it with
the collective. Even their neurosis. :)

India is a society of such dichotomy. The religious
within the secular, the rich melded with the poor, the
illiterate in dialogue with the academic. How does one
reconcile such disparity of thought, economic
sustenance and culture? How does one do it, without
sacrificing India's unique individuality and within a
relatively short period of time?

Who knows? Certainly not a femme de menage writing
from the boondocks of America :))

Elisabeth
------------------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
You're seeing the glass as half-empty, Elisabeth.
And, as someone who
decided to 'vote with your feet', I think that's
only natural.
Imagine a country which emerges from colonialism and
survives five
decades without a military coup, has still huge
problems of poverty
and illiteracy but manages to give a substantial
section of its
population a fairly human existance. One that has
been able to build
manpower (and womanpower, you included) that is able
to take on the
world and perform well wherever they be. That too,
with all the odds
against it!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Fred Noronha wrote: If Europe, which taught Asia the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider spaces and borders
that benefit all?>>

Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present scenario, it will
benefit none.

<<Fred: I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>

No, that's not what I meant.

<<Fred: (Who is the "vast sections" of South Asia whom RKN is talking
about? Don't they exist within the borders of current-day India?)>>

Sure they do. As Goanet archives would show, there are fanatics among
Hindus and Christians too :-) And India is paying dearly for
harbouring such elements within its borders.

Education and economic stability are the key, Fred. Theoretically,
it's all very nice to profess pacifism and stuff but as long as the
majority remains illiterate and underfed, it's just impossible to put
our lofty ideals into practice.

Cheers,
RKN

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

There was a newspaper headline which once said, "Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present scenario, it will
benefit none.

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

There was a newspaper headline which once said, "Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present scenario, it will
benefit none.

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred & RKN,
I'd also like to add in this respect that those within
India's border do not coexist peacefully, be it
Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. We have only to see, the
eruption of communal violence at the least infraction.
Add to this the call for bandhs, strikes, walk-outs in
parliament, calls for religion-based reservations,
different laws for different religious sections of
society (or at least exceptions to the secular law)
and you have what to the casual observer seems like
mayhem instead of a cohesive democracy.

I fully agree with RKN, that the key to sustainable
democracies is education and prosperity. When people
are busy paying off their mortgage for their five
bedroom houses, they are little concerned about
differences in religious ideologies. Economic equality
and education bend our way in thinking that the
individual is made stronger through the interests of
the collective.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Fred Noronha wrote: If Europe, which taught Asia
the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we
forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider
spaces and borders
that benefit all?>>
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an
experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean
drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will
benefit none.
<<Fred: I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view
that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based
on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>
No, that's not what I meant.
<<Fred: (Who is the "vast sections" of South Asia
whom RKN is talking
about? Don't they exist within the borders of
current-day India?)>>
Sure they do. As Goanet archives would show, there
are fanatics among
Hindus and Christians too :-) And India is paying
dearly for
harbouring such elements within its borders.
Education and economic stability are the key, Fred.
Theoretically,
it's all very nice to profess pacifism and stuff but
as long as the
majority remains illiterate and underfed, it's just
impossible to put
our lofty ideals into practice.
Cheers,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>

Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!

There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.

Regards,
RKN

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

I agree with RKN here. Nehru, Gandhi and others in no way can be
called the "middle class". They came from the lap of priviledge. (On
another note, it is ironical the the priviledged children of British
colonialism themseves fought against the forces that created them!)

On the other hand, I would submit that the 300 million strong
"middle-class" is irrelevant in a 1000+ million country the size of
India. At best, it could be considered the tail wagging the dog! For
one, the "middle class" in India is overinflated in estimation. Many
of us would be poorer than the poor of Europe.

Secondly, and more importantly, all grandious dreams of an "Indian (or
Asian) century" are meaningless when you have so many people mired in
poverty and illiteracy and hopelessness. Don't get me wrong. I'm not
being critical of the achievements of India here. Quite a bit has been
done. A lot more remains to be done. And, while we shift to
self-congratulatory mode, we can't afford to forget this.

After all, it is in everyone's interest to improve the quality of life
of those who are so badly off. Do we want to have 7/10ths of our
population to be made up of empty stomachs, or to comprise productive
hands and creative brains? Do we want our Shakespeares to die
illiterate? We can't just "improve" things by playing around with the
poverty line and manipulating statistics. --FN

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>
Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!
There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.

[cornel]

Hi RKN
Thanks for your post. I understand the class distinction you draw in 1947
India but am not persuaded by it I am afraid.
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>
Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!
There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.
Regards,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha]

I agree with RKN here. Nehru, Gandhi and others in no way can be
called the "middle class". They came from the lap of priviledge. (On
another note, it is ironical the the priviledged children of British
colonialism themseves fought against the forces that created them!)

On the other hand, I would submit that the 300 million strong
"middle-class" is irrelevant in a 1000+ million country the size of
India. At best, it could be considered the tail wagging the dog! For
one, the "middle class" in India is overinflated in estimation. Many
of us would be poorer than the poor of Europe.

Secondly, and more importantly, all grandious dreams of an "Indian (or
Asian) century" are meaningless when you have so many people mired in
poverty and illiteracy and hopelessness. Don't get me wrong. I'm not
being critical of the achievements of India here. Quite a bit has been
done. A lot more remains to be done. And, while we shift to
self-congratulatory mode, we can't afford to forget this.

After all, it is in everyone's interest to improve the quality of life
of those who are so badly off. Do we want to have 7/10ths of our
population to be made up of empty stomachs, or to comprise productive
hands and creative brains? Do we want our Shakespeares to die
illiterate? We can't just "improve" things by playing around with the
poverty line and manipulating statistics. --FN

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>
Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!
There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.

[cornel]

Hi RKN
Thanks for your post. I understand the class distinction you draw in 1947
India but am not persuaded by it I am afraid.
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 5:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>
Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!
There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.
Regards,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred,
And I'm sure there's a study somewhere which shows
that being a liberal induces one to the take to the
streets running naked :))

That is not what RNK is saying at all and stating what
he has, does not make him either bigoted or communal.
Let us not use terms and labels loosely, because it is
not a logical rebuttal.

Oppression, poverty, lack of education, lack of
opportunity to live to one's full potential, these are
the elements that create hydra-headed monsters of
fundamentalism and communalism leading to anarchy.

This is not to say that educated and prosperous people
are immune to intolerance but inevitably prosperity
gives one control over one's own life. Freed from this
overwhelming dependence on religion to make one's life
better, one is not motivated to kill in the name of
religion or defend its so-called tenets with one's
life.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated
people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and
economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk,
forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN

-----------------------------

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
On 20/07/06, Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com>

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've

attained Europe's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
educational and economic standards. But such an

experiment in today's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean

drinking water, is

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the

present scenario, it will

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
benefit none.

_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred,
Upon re-reading your post I realise you were not
calling RKN a bigot or communal, hence please
disregard the second para of my last post. Can I use
my daughter as my excuse. She was tugging at the
laptop when I was reading your post.
Elisabeth
-----------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated
people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and
economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk,
forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN
On 20/07/06, Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com>

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've

attained Europe's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
educational and economic standards. But such an

experiment in today's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean

drinking water, is

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the

present scenario, it will

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
benefit none.

_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Nasci Caldeira]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for graduates". The study showed tha

the more educated people are, they

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many problems because of a lack of formal

education and economic growth is underrating the
abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be an alibi for us all not doing

something *now*. FN
Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's educational and economic standards.
But such an experiment in today's South Asia, where
people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will benefit none.

Nasci adds:
Education and prosperity alone wothout a sense of 'all
men are equal' and 'all have to be respected equally'
is not conducive to 'Nationalism' or National
Integration. It is only when the people shed their
casteism and age old superior/ inferior complexes,
that goals will be achieved; but never with
classifications as in RKN's part of India!

Dear RKN, why do you not start/ lead a movement to
abolish and eradicate casteism and like segregation???

Fred your comment is correct and appropriate! Like
there is Cornel and others like him who are graduates
and yet get confused between 'continental' and
Continent'; and then go on to deride others thinking
they are superior only to get into shit!
Like some graduates say they are professionals! Well,
Prostitutes are also professionals, and they need not
be graduates; just as graduates are not always the
righteous or all knowing! Much depends on the
individual accomplishment. Down with this 'superiority
complex'. RKN has himself put his 'foot in his mouth'
in a few of his writings, inspite of his seemingly
proclaiming to be a 'graduate'.
With regards to all,
Nasci Caldeira.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[cornel]

Hi Nasci
I would be happy to accept your contention that I could not tell the
difference between 'continental' and Continental if you can provide the
specific evidence.

I await your response. Please ensure your response is exactly illustrative
of my use of 'continental' and Continental as alleged by you.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasci Caldeira" <nascycal at yahoo.com.au>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for graduates". The study showed tha

the more educated people are, they

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many problems because of a lack of formal

education and economic growth is underrating the
abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be an alibi for us all not doing

something *now*. FN
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's educational and economic standards.
But such an experiment in today's South Asia, where
people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will benefit none.
Education and prosperity alone wothout a sense of 'all
men are equal' and 'all have to be respected equally'
is not conducive to 'Nationalism' or National
Integration. It is only when the people shed their
casteism and age old superior/ inferior complexes,
that goals will be achieved; but never with
classifications as in RKN's part of India!
Dear RKN, why do you not start/ lead a movement to
abolish and eradicate casteism and like segregation???
Fred your comment is correct and appropriate! Like
there is Cornel and others like him who are graduates
and yet get confused between 'continental' and
Continent'; and then go on to deride others thinking
they are superior only to get into shit!
Like some graduates say they are professionals! Well,
Prostitutes are also professionals, and they need not
be graduates; just as graduates are not always the
righteous or all knowing! Much depends on the
individual accomplishment. Down with this 'superiority
complex'. RKN has himself put his 'foot in his mouth'
in a few of his writings, inspite of his seemingly
proclaiming to be a 'graduate'.
With regards to all,
Nasci Caldeira.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

Hi Nasci
I would be happy to accept your contention that I could not tell the
difference between 'continental' and Continental if you can provide the
specific evidence.

I await your response. Please ensure your response is exactly illustrative
of my use of 'continental' and Continental as alleged by you.
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nasci Caldeira" <nascycal at yahoo.com.au>
To: "Goa's premiere mailing list, estb. 1994!" <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument re Democracies

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for graduates". The study showed tha

the more educated people are, they

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many problems because of a lack of formal

education and economic growth is underrating the
abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be an alibi for us all not doing

something *now*. FN
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's educational and economic standards.
But such an experiment in today's South Asia, where
people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will benefit none.
Education and prosperity alone wothout a sense of 'all
men are equal' and 'all have to be respected equally'
is not conducive to 'Nationalism' or National
Integration. It is only when the people shed their
casteism and age old superior/ inferior complexes,
that goals will be achieved; but never with
classifications as in RKN's part of India!
Dear RKN, why do you not start/ lead a movement to
abolish and eradicate casteism and like segregation???
Fred your comment is correct and appropriate! Like
there is Cornel and others like him who are graduates
and yet get confused between 'continental' and
Continent'; and then go on to deride others thinking
they are superior only to get into shit!
Like some graduates say they are professionals! Well,
Prostitutes are also professionals, and they need not
be graduates; just as graduates are not always the
righteous or all knowing! Much depends on the
individual accomplishment. Down with this 'superiority
complex'. RKN has himself put his 'foot in his mouth'
in a few of his writings, inspite of his seemingly
proclaiming to be a 'graduate'.
With regards to all,
Nasci Caldeira.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Nasci Caldeira]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I agree with RKN here. Nehru, Gandhi and others in
no way can be
called the "middle class". They came from the lap of
priviledge.

Nasci adds:
Nehru, Gandhi etc were the upper class and also the
'landed gentry' and they were the leaders; but there
was 'a middle class' albeit samall as compared to
today; and this middle class and the so called
'ignorant masses' gave tacit informed support to the
leaders. Or else, these leaders alone would have not
been successful.

Cornel is certainly right here; there always has been
a 'middle class'; even though they were thought of as
'babus' like RKN says (does not matter); much like
todays IAS cadres, who I think are only glorified
clerks! That is why the Indian Administration is in
such an incompetent mess! And Indian masses cannot be
truly liberated!

Nasci Caldeira

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an
undivided India would have been unsustainable. To
me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>
No, that's not what I meant.

Mario asks:
RKN,
After saying that's not what you meant it would have
helped to know what you did mean. I believe Elisabeth
also agreed with you that an undivided India would
have been "untenable" without explaining why. We know
that both of you are in agreement with Jinnah, though
your reasons may vary from his, but he did not have
the advantage of hindsight, while you do.
We now know for a fact that the partition of India
actually resulted in numerous conflicts, hostilities
and unnecessary duplication of wasteful defense
expenditures by two essentially poor countries where
these resources could have been better used. Tens of
thousands were killed in the ethnic cleansing of
Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan in 1947, and the
retaliatory killings of the minority of Indian Muslims
who shared Jinnah's paranoia and were moving to
Pakistan, and additional tens of thousands have been
killed in the low-grade conflicts since then.
By my calculations undivided India today, which would
include Pakistan and Bangladesh, would have had a
population of roughly 1.35 billion with about 28% of
this being Muslim. Such a large minority would be a
good thing, in my opinion, in a country that basically
adopted a committment to democracy and freedom of
religion from the Brits which it did not have before,
except perhaps in small pockets here and there.
I think this population mix would have been more
secular rather than less, because the extremists and
paranoid among the Hindus and Muslims would have
cancelled each other out better, and the remaining
dominant percentage of Indians would be those who
believe in religious freedom of choice, which would
have kept a lid on religious conflicts.
Most of those who became Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
would have shared the committment to democratic
principles, influenced by the majority of undivided
India's population in my vision of what India might
have been, and the Pakistani generals would have been
unable to impose their dictatorial inclinations on
anyone. No madrassas, no Indo-Pak jihadis, and all of
Kashmir a tourist's heaven on earth.
Is my scenario illogical? If so, why?

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrtoe: I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying
on the issue of the birth of India and Pakistan. True, huge India is
quite difficult to govern but I take pride in its success with
democracy against impossible odds.>>

Please take a look at Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of
undivided India. Have they been so successful with democracy? The
same fate would have befallen India had it remained undivided.

Also, it's unfair to put the entire blame of partition on the British.
Nehru and Jinnah had a hand in it too.

Regards,
RKN

[cornel]

Hi RKN
Please do correct me if I am wrong. Was it not the case that, Jinnah and
Mountbatten worked closely together to create Pakistan? And is it not the
case that Nehru and Gandhi were opposed to the split?

I do find your contention that India would have had the same fate as
Pakistan and Bangladesh, had the sub-continent not been divided, rather
dificult to follow. However, I will not go on with this issue beyond this
post.
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrtoe: I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying
on the issue of the birth of India and Pakistan. True, huge India is
quite difficult to govern but I take pride in its success with
democracy against impossible odds.>>
Please take a look at Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of
undivided India. Have they been so successful with democracy? The
same fate would have befallen India had it remained undivided.
Also, it's unfair to put the entire blame of partition on the British.
Nehru and Jinnah had a hand in it too.
Regards,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[cornel]

Hi RKN
Please do correct me if I am wrong. Was it not the case that, Jinnah and
Mountbatten worked closely together to create Pakistan? And is it not the
case that Nehru and Gandhi were opposed to the split?

I do find your contention that India would have had the same fate as
Pakistan and Bangladesh, had the sub-continent not been divided, rather
dificult to follow. However, I will not go on with this issue beyond this
post.
Regards
Cornel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Radhakrishnan Nair" <rknair15 at gmail.com>
To: <goanet at lists.goanet.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Goanet] Goanet as learning instrument

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Cornel wrtoe: I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying
on the issue of the birth of India and Pakistan. True, huge India is
quite difficult to govern but I take pride in its success with
democracy against impossible odds.>>
Please take a look at Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of
undivided India. Have they been so successful with democracy? The
same fate would have befallen India had it remained undivided.
Also, it's unfair to put the entire blame of partition on the British.
Nehru and Jinnah had a hand in it too.
Regards,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Mario,
I enjoyed reading that post because it was issue
based. The reasons I don't believe a united India
would have been tenable, are (a) the communal violence
that does flare up within India (b) evidence does not
bear out your premise that the moderates would cancel
out the extremists.

We know from moderate Muslim countries like Turkey,
Algeria and Indonesia, that it takes only a few
extremists to create mayhem. The reason the moderate
voice is seldom heard in the Muslim voice is because
it is hunchbacked by the yoke of religion. Never has a
society been so suppressed under the guise of
religion.

Bear in mind, this is a religion which by the 10th
century had introduced such progressive concepts as
complete monotheism, equality about men, abolition of
interest rates, a consultative and participative form
of government, protection of women, not to mention had
given the world the wonderful poetry of Sufism, some
of the world's architectural wonders and encouraged
scientific enquiry at a time when sorcery was rampant.

Unfortunately for Muslims, while the rest of the world
marched ahead with the separation of Church and state,
and an ideology of secularism, the Muslim world became
burdened and stagnant with theocracies dominated by
Imans who insisted on the narrowest and cruelest
interpretations of the Koran. Since then, Muslims the
world over have been forsaken by its polity, abandoned
by its educational institutions and escorted by its
religious leaders into fundamentalism.

Let's not lull ourselves into thinking that the Muslim
community in India is a passive, docile victim of
Hinduism. Its belligerence is muted and held in check
by its minority status.

The Muslim community has to tear itself away from
radicalization of its religion, move away from the
madrases as their educational institutions, overhaul
its judiciary and come charging into the 21st century
as equal partners in the peace process.

Elisabeth
----------------------------

Post by Mario Goveia
I think this population mix would have been more
secular rather than less, because the extremists and
paranoid among the Hindus and Muslims would have
cancelled each other out better, and the remaining
dominant percentage of Indians would be those who
believe in religious freedom of choice, which would
have kept a lid on religious conflicts.
Most of those who became Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
would have shared the committment to democratic
principles, influenced by the majority of undivided
India's population in my vision of what India might
have been, and the Pakistani generals would have
been
unable to impose their dictatorial inclinations on
anyone. No madrassas, no Indo-Pak jihadis, and all
of
Kashmir a tourist's heaven on earth.
Is my scenario illogical? If so, why?
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel asks: Was it not the case that, Jinnah and Mountbatten worked
closely together to create Pakistan? And is it not the case that Nehru
and Gandhi were opposed to the split?>>

The answer to the first question is "yes", but they worked closely
only after Nehru had turned down the proposals to keep the
subcontinent undivided. It's a popular belief in India that Nehru and
Gandhi were against the partition and Jinnah insisted on it.
Historical evidence now suggests that though it was Jinnah who made
the demand first, he was later willing to accept a confederation of
Hindu and Muslim majority areas, but Nehru firmly opposed the idea.
The stand of Gandhi on this issue is not yet clear.

Regards,
RKN

[Nasci Caldeira]

Post by cornel
Hi Nasci
I would be happy to accept your contention that I
could not tell the
difference between 'continental' and Continental if
you can provide the
specific evidence.
I await your response. Please ensure your response
is exactly illustrative
of my use of 'continental' and Continental as
alleged by you.

Nasci responds:
It's not between 'continental' and 'Continental'(like
you are trying to get away with); it's between
Continent and continental (Portugal).
Yes Cornel, it is you who got very challenged over the
statement: re 'Continental Portugal' in a recent
posting by a goanetter; remember? You mistook
'continental for Continent! Then went on and on re:
that U had been several times to the wind swept
Portugal on the edge of the Continent; and that's why
U could not take it that Portugal is a Continent;
thereby implicating yourself that you could not
distinguish between continental (Portugal)and the
Continent that Portugal is part of! You did put your
'foot in the mouth' here; and after lot of postings
from goanetters, you finally understood! Then also,
you had been deriding the original poster as some
'ignorant person' when in fact it was you, who was
advertising your ignorance! Then when it was brought
to your notice that the said poster was doing his post
graduate etc in India; you did change your stance, but
yet did not properly apologise!

The above seemingly superiority complex/attitude from
you is what made me bring you on as an example of: may
be a graduate but not really 'educated'?? Then there
is also another incident when I posted about 'no
cultural freedom in India' re segregated eating places
and no choice of Beef/Pork/meat/ food etc forced on
others by the Hindu casteists. To that you snidely
responded by asking me if 'I have eaten Croc meat' in
Australia! How much more silly can one get?? I did
respond to that eloquently; didn't I?

In summary, there can be an undergraduate and yet
'educated'; or there can be a graduate both learned
and 'educated'; or there can be a graduate and yet not
'educated'!! Which of these categories you belong to,
is for you to ponder!
I have no feelings against you per se, inspite of your
snide remarks; but I had to expose you thus, to show
you as an example 'in context'.
Now that I have brought it out; there is no need to
dwelve on this theme, any further!

With regards!
Nasci.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Jose Colaco]

Cornel: Was it not the case that, Jinnah and Mountbatten worked closely
together to create Pakistan? And is it not the case that Nehru and Gandhi
were opposed to the split?

RKN : The answer to the first question is "yes", but they worked closely
only after Nehru had turned down the proposals to keep the subcontinent
undivided.

It's a popular belief in India that Nehru and Gandhi were against the
partition and Jinnah insisted on it.

Historical evidence now suggests that though it was Jinnah who made the
demand first, he was later willing to accept a confederation of Hindu and
Muslim majority areas, but Nehru firmly opposed the idea. The stand of
Gandhi on this issue is not yet clear.

From my info, it appears that RKN understanding of the matter is closer to

the truth than Cornel's.

Some points:

1. Surely, it would be in UK's interest to keep a hold of British
India....by pointing out (and perhaps exacerbating) the Hindu-Muslim divide.

2. Nehru wanted to be the FIRST Prime Minister of India. The issue of
religion should NOT have come up IF every citizen was to be equal.

3. Nehru's insistence may have rekindled the images of discrimination
against Muslim students in W. Bengal - the reason for the development of the
Univ of Dacca(Dhaka).

4. Also being rekindled would have been the Massacre of Urdu ...a language
FROM the subcontinent. Both the neo-Hindiwallas(from British India) and the
neo-Urduwallas(from independent Pakistan) decapitated and reinvented the
languages presently usurping the names Hindi and Urdu. [ Allegedly Pure
Konkniwadis, please take note ]

In any event, as there was NO general elections were held in India until
1952., and in Pakistan ~1970

Nehru was in effect a non-elected Prime Minister of India, and Jinnah of
Pakistan.

Pity that no one took cognisance of the fact that Jinnah was an ill man -
and had very little time to live. ALL those lives disrupted and lost during
that brutal Partition ...for the sake of what? the Pride of being the FIRST
Prime Minister of India ..or preventing a chap with a Muslim Sounding Name
from being the FIRST Prime Minister of India?

Was there NO other peaceful way to solve a political disagreement?

jc



please visit "NEW" on The Goan Forum at http://www.colaco.net

Recommended Goa related sites
1. http://www.goa-world.com
2. http://www.SuperGoa.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Pity that no one took cognisance of the fact that Jinnah was an ill man -
and had very little time to live. ALL those lives disrupted and lost during
that brutal Partition ...for the sake of what? the Pride of being the FIRST
Prime Minister of India ..or preventing a chap with a Muslim Sounding Name
from being the FIRST Prime Minister of India?
Was there NO other peaceful way to solve a political disagreement?>>

That's a pretty cheap shot. It's ridiculous to suggest that Nehru
backed the partition to be the first Prime Minister of India. From
what we know of Nehru, he was not the kind of leader who would
sacrifice the interests of the country for personal gain. Anyway, if
he wanted it, he could have easily been the first Prime Minister of
undivided India. So the question of self-aggrandizement does not
arise.

Nehru was a leader of great foresight. He must have decided that
partition, however bitter and painful, was necessary to avert a
greater calamity later on. Subsequent events (that we witness even
today) have vindicated him.

Cheers,
RKN

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the Mossad's
achievements ... particularly the episodes about the most
advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)

Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060713/f25d2517/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

Hi RKN,

Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed
in a matter of three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and
staged that daring operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring
African nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane,
btw, was not an El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a
scheduled flight.) Point is, it was intelligence again that
came to Israel's rescue. They had the complete blueprints of
the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard lifesize models
for their rehearsals and even had plans for various contigencies
(like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission.
Intelligence plays the major role. A brains versus brawn point.

But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much
before, had their own brilliance. (Both were staged,
incidentally, by the Mossad.) I'll briefly explain.

I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest,
most sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was
installed on the Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of
Israel under enemy eye -- even a helicopter could not take
off even from the northernmost tip of Israel without the
enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each
one presented his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still
the Dy Chief of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy
the radar. The chief of the Air Force told how he would
carpet bomb the entire camp, including the Soviet radar.

Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to
allot the assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar,"
he pleaded, "we will bring it back to Israel."

They did just that. Together with requisite help from
the other services, a small helicopter-borne commando unit took
the relaxing Egyptian guards by complete surprise, dismantled
the radar system and brought it back home ... piece by piece!

(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and
western techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets
changed their arms policy: never again did a first-generation
piece of defence equipment leave their shores.)

Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's
(Goa) Herald, also posted here earlier, on the Mumbai
serial blasts, you know better how I regard the Mossad ;-)


On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 Radhakrishnan Nair wrote :
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an
Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.

That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Mario observes:
Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Mario responds:
Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was
not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open
field with a few scattered cheaply built structures
on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments
to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
Israel lucked out in that Entebbe airport was built by
an Israeli contractor. The Israeli's were able to
secure all the blue prints immediately. I was working
for a Mangalorian accounting firm in Tanzania at the
time of the raid. We had a contract to store all the
financial archives of the Israel's contractors work in
E. Africa.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which
occured much before, had their own brilliance.
(Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)

Military victories are one thing. However, military
brilliance cannot be over shadowed by political
stupidity. The Israelis admit that Mossad created and
funded Hamas. Now they are paying the price for that
stupidity.

Lastly, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze etc lived
together in harmony in Israel from the time of the
crusades till the time Britain decided to carve out a
nation for those who used the Bible as a title deed.

Mervyn.0



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/bbf31432/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/3ed6cea6/attachment.ksh

[Mario Goveia]

--- Valmiki Faleiro <valmikif at rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Cornel and Mario,
With due respect to both, what about the
sheer mishandling of the Mandate by the Brits?
Wouldn't Jan-1948 be entirely evitable had
the Brits handled the mandate fairly?
Mario asks:
Valmiki,
How does one determine with hind-sight whether the
Palestine Mandate was "mishandled" by the Brits, or
that it was "fair"? Isn't "fair" in such matters in
the eye of the beholder, depending on whose ox is
being gored? Is "fair" even relevent any more?
In addition, the entire world community at the time,
in the form of the UN, ratified the partition, so why
are the Brits singled out for abuse?
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah. Yet it was accepted by both sides and,
after the initial mayhem, those displaced went on with
their lives. No Indian or Pakistani lays claim to
their ancestral properties or demands a "right of
return". Such sophistries seem to be selectively
reserved only for the Palestinians by Cornel and the
entire left-wing worldwide.
Finally, regardless of the "fairness" of the
decisions, wouldn't the civilized approach by those
aggrieved to have negotiated their grievances with the
UN, the Brits and the Israelis, instead of
unilaterally deciding in 1948 to "push the Jews into
the sea", and it's modern incarnation, to "wipe Israel
off the map"?

[cornel]

Valmiki
This is a quick response to say that the Balfour Declaration by Britain was
a big mistake but we have to live with it. The great powers at the time, and
Britain was the super power then, simply dished out other people's property
(and still does illegally e.g. the islands in the Indian Ocean as a military
base for the USA) to clients of their choosing. Britain is definitely in the
wrong over the formation of Israel irrespective of its then achievement to
win international support for its formation. This is my reflective view
whilst recognising that we can do nothing about it now beyond the USA
getting the two sides to talk and talk until there is a resolution to this
crisis. The USA does hold the cards today as the only super power but it has
to operate equitably rather than take the side of Israel at the behest of
the powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby in the States. Only when an American
President has the guts and ability to take on the Jewish lobby in the USA,
and also the Arab people in the Middle East, will we have peace in that
region. To date, all efforts have been partial, including the Jewish
occupation, and in favour of the Jewish lobby in my view.

Mario's seemingly peaceful parallel with the India/Pakistan situation is not
on as potential conflict in that region is ongoing, and often, just under
the surface. It flares up all the time. Once again, I have been very
critical of Britain initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the
sub-continent. A secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a
religious based Pakistan split from India.
Cornel

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrote: Once again, I have been very critical of Britain
initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the sub-continent. A
secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a religious
based Pakistan split from India.>>

It's not irrational to believe that an undivided India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South Asian population.

-- RKN

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who said the partition of India was fair?
Did I say or suggest?

Mario clarifies:
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
connection now.

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
terror.)

Mario responds:
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
territorial losses.
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?

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by cornel
whilst recognising that we can do nothing about it
now beyond the USA
getting the two sides to talk and talk until there
is a resolution to this
crisis. The USA does hold the cards today as the
only super power but it has
to operate equitably rather than take the side of
Israel at the behest of
the powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby in the States.
Only when an American
President has the guts and ability to take on the
Jewish lobby in the USA,
and also the Arab people in the Middle East, will we
have peace in that region. To date, all efforts
have been partial, including the Jewish occupation,
and in favour of the Jewish lobby in my view.

Cornel,
The only peace break thru in the M.E. in the last
twenty years was brought about by the Norwegians. All
it took was ten days of negotiations.

As long as the US is in charge of the "peace process"
in the middle east, we are going to have more
violence.

Mervyn3.0






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.

The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.

India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.

India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".

Elisabeth
---------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
It's not irrational to believe that an undivided
India would have been
untenable on many counts: too big and ungovernable
with too many pulls
and pressures -- not to speak of the sectarian
violence and even civil
wars that are all too conceivable. True secularism
and democracy are
unpalatable concepts to vast sections of the South
Asian population.
-- RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

Dear Ms Carvalho,

I agree with most of your comments, but beg to differ on your views on
the Indian middle class. IMHO, it's robust and, should I say, vibrant
and burgeoning. "The silent middle class" in no way remains
unrepresented and is not on the fringes by any stretch of imagination.
It's firmly ensconced on the vantage curve of the bell. On the fringes
really are the multitude of landless farm labourers, dalits and
tribals.

Isn't it a miracle of sorts that India today boasts a middle-class
population of 300 million (and still climbing), while there was none
in 1947?

Regards,

RKN

<<Dear Mr Nair,
I agree with you that an undivided India would be
untenable. Infact, I often feel the India of today is
a splintered group trying desperately to keep itself
together but that is another post.

The four estates of democracy maybe the legislative,
judiciary, executive and a free and unfretted press,
but I feel the pillars of democracy are its education
system, an equitable per capita income and to a large
extent an ideology of secularism.

India has none of these. More that half its population
is illiterate or semi-literate, there are vast
disparities in its income distribution and it pays lip
service to secularism. As a result, we have powerful
vested interests that gain popularity or momentum and
come to power. The silent middleclass remains
unrepresented. Most functional democracies have a
robust middleclass that forms the bell of the curve
rather than the fringe.

India, as someone eloquently put it is a "functioning
anarchy".

Elisabeth

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Frederick,
An excellent post indeed. Any post that makes me
rethink my own premise is a good one in my books. You
are probably right when you say I am looking at the
glass half empty (although you are wrong, when you say
I've decided to "vote with my feet", if anything I've
cast the "vote with my foot" firmly in India's
favour).

If I had never had the opportunity to live in the US,
I would have perhaps seen the glass as doing the best
it can and I know by saying so, I am going to sound
like a USphile. I just made that word up.

When I was very young, a nice Brit Teacher who had
spent but a mere 3 months in India, returned to Dubai
to tell us that "India was ripe for communism". I went
home very dismayed and worried. I needn't have
worried. India proved her and everyone wrong.

I have no doubts whatsoever that India will continue
to grow as a democracy, the seeds of freedom are
firmly planted in our consciousness. But we have a
long way to go. When I look at the people around me in
the US, I am astounded by their homogeneity. Everyone
dresses alike, they speak alike, they eat alike, they
probably all sleep in the same position too. This is
why their democracy thrives. Because they've managed
to cut out everything individual and replace it with
the collective. Even their neurosis. :)

India is a society of such dichotomy. The religious
within the secular, the rich melded with the poor, the
illiterate in dialogue with the academic. How does one
reconcile such disparity of thought, economic
sustenance and culture? How does one do it, without
sacrificing India's unique individuality and within a
relatively short period of time?

Who knows? Certainly not a femme de menage writing
from the boondocks of America :))

Elisabeth
------------------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
You're seeing the glass as half-empty, Elisabeth.
And, as someone who
decided to 'vote with your feet', I think that's
only natural.
Imagine a country which emerges from colonialism and
survives five
decades without a military coup, has still huge
problems of poverty
and illiteracy but manages to give a substantial
section of its
population a fairly human existance. One that has
been able to build
manpower (and womanpower, you included) that is able
to take on the
world and perform well wherever they be. That too,
with all the odds
against it!

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Fred Noronha wrote: If Europe, which taught Asia the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider spaces and borders
that benefit all?>>

Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present scenario, it will
benefit none.

<<Fred: I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>

No, that's not what I meant.

<<Fred: (Who is the "vast sections" of South Asia whom RKN is talking
about? Don't they exist within the borders of current-day India?)>>

Sure they do. As Goanet archives would show, there are fanatics among
Hindus and Christians too :-) And India is paying dearly for
harbouring such elements within its borders.

Education and economic stability are the key, Fred. Theoretically,
it's all very nice to profess pacifism and stuff but as long as the
majority remains illiterate and underfed, it's just impossible to put
our lofty ideals into practice.

Cheers,
RKN

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred & RKN,
I'd also like to add in this respect that those within
India's border do not coexist peacefully, be it
Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. We have only to see, the
eruption of communal violence at the least infraction.
Add to this the call for bandhs, strikes, walk-outs in
parliament, calls for religion-based reservations,
different laws for different religious sections of
society (or at least exceptions to the secular law)
and you have what to the casual observer seems like
mayhem instead of a cohesive democracy.

I fully agree with RKN, that the key to sustainable
democracies is education and prosperity. When people
are busy paying off their mortgage for their five
bedroom houses, they are little concerned about
differences in religious ideologies. Economic equality
and education bend our way in thinking that the
individual is made stronger through the interests of
the collective.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
<<Fred Noronha wrote: If Europe, which taught Asia
the ideas of
nationalism, can turn its back on it, why can't we
forget the more
intense forms of 'nationalism' and think of wider
spaces and borders
that benefit all?>>
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's
educational and economic standards. But such an
experiment in today's
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean
drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will
benefit none.
<<Fred: I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view
that an undivided India
would have been unsustainable. To me, it seems based
on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>
No, that's not what I meant.
<<Fred: (Who is the "vast sections" of South Asia
whom RKN is talking
about? Don't they exist within the borders of
current-day India?)>>
Sure they do. As Goanet archives would show, there
are fanatics among
Hindus and Christians too :-) And India is paying
dearly for
harbouring such elements within its borders.
Education and economic stability are the key, Fred.
Theoretically,
it's all very nice to profess pacifism and stuff but
as long as the
majority remains illiterate and underfed, it's just
impossible to put
our lofty ideals into practice.
Cheers,
RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrote: There was definitely a middle class in 1947 and well
before that in India. It was largely the educated/informed middle
clas that propelled the Quit India movement surely.>>

Not really, sir! What you call the "educated/informed middle class"
were the upper class people -- the landed gentry, though they were by
and large comparable to today's middle class. Some of them were
fabulously rich, like the Nehrus. It's said that Motilal Nehru offered
to pay the British in the currency of their choice for India's
freedom!

There is hardly any evidence of a middle-class population in British
India. There was a miniscule minority of WOGs and well-to-do
businessmen and the vast majority of the poor and depressed classes --
though, towards the fag end of its regime, the British did make an
attempt to create an English-speaking middle-class population of
'babus'.

Regards,
RKN

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred,
And I'm sure there's a study somewhere which shows
that being a liberal induces one to the take to the
streets running naked :))

That is not what RNK is saying at all and stating what
he has, does not make him either bigoted or communal.
Let us not use terms and labels loosely, because it is
not a logical rebuttal.

Oppression, poverty, lack of education, lack of
opportunity to live to one's full potential, these are
the elements that create hydra-headed monsters of
fundamentalism and communalism leading to anarchy.

This is not to say that educated and prosperous people
are immune to intolerance but inevitably prosperity
gives one control over one's own life. Freed from this
overwhelming dependence on religion to make one's life
better, one is not motivated to kill in the name of
religion or defend its so-called tenets with one's
life.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated
people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and
economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk,
forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN

-----------------------------

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
On 20/07/06, Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com>

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've

attained Europe's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
educational and economic standards. But such an

experiment in today's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean

drinking water, is

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the

present scenario, it will

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
benefit none.

_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Fred,
Upon re-reading your post I realise you were not
calling RKN a bigot or communal, hence please
disregard the second para of my last post. Can I use
my daughter as my excuse. She was tugging at the
laptop when I was reading your post.
Elisabeth
-----------------------

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for
graduates". The study showed tha the more educated
people are, they
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many
problems because of a lack of formal education and
economic growth is
underrating the abilities of the average folk,
forgetting that bigotry
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be
an alibi for us all not doing something *now*. FN
On 20/07/06, Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com>

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've

attained Europe's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
educational and economic standards. But such an

experiment in today's

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
South Asia, where people have to fight for clean

drinking water, is

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the

present scenario, it will

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
benefit none.

_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Nasci Caldeira]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
There was a newspaper headline which once said,
"Communalism is for graduates". The study showed tha

the more educated people are, they

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
more intolerant they become. I think saying India
has its many problems because of a lack of formal

education and economic growth is underrating the
abilities of the average folk, forgetting that bigotry

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
is worse when it comes from an educated person, and
could at worst be an alibi for us all not doing

something *now*. FN
Radhakrishnan Nair <rknair15 at gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Fred, maybe we can attempt it after we've
attained Europe's educational and economic standards.
But such an experiment in today's South Asia, where
people have to fight for clean drinking water, is
doomed to be an unmitigated disaster. In the present
scenario, it will benefit none.

Nasci adds:
Education and prosperity alone wothout a sense of 'all
men are equal' and 'all have to be respected equally'
is not conducive to 'Nationalism' or National
Integration. It is only when the people shed their
casteism and age old superior/ inferior complexes,
that goals will be achieved; but never with
classifications as in RKN's part of India!

Dear RKN, why do you not start/ lead a movement to
abolish and eradicate casteism and like segregation???

Fred your comment is correct and appropriate! Like
there is Cornel and others like him who are graduates
and yet get confused between 'continental' and
Continent'; and then go on to deride others thinking
they are superior only to get into shit!
Like some graduates say they are professionals! Well,
Prostitutes are also professionals, and they need not
be graduates; just as graduates are not always the
righteous or all knowing! Much depends on the
individual accomplishment. Down with this 'superiority
complex'. RKN has himself put his 'foot in his mouth'
in a few of his writings, inspite of his seemingly
proclaiming to be a 'graduate'.
With regards to all,
Nasci Caldeira.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Nasci Caldeira]

--- "Frederick \"FN\" Noronha"

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I agree with RKN here. Nehru, Gandhi and others in
no way can be
called the "middle class". They came from the lap of
priviledge.

Nasci adds:
Nehru, Gandhi etc were the upper class and also the
'landed gentry' and they were the leaders; but there
was 'a middle class' albeit samall as compared to
today; and this middle class and the so called
'ignorant masses' gave tacit informed support to the
leaders. Or else, these leaders alone would have not
been successful.

Cornel is certainly right here; there always has been
a 'middle class'; even though they were thought of as
'babus' like RKN says (does not matter); much like
todays IAS cadres, who I think are only glorified
clerks! That is why the Indian Administration is in
such an incompetent mess! And Indian masses cannot be
truly liberated!

Nasci Caldeira

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Frederick &quot;FN&quot; Noronha
I don't agree with my colleague RKN's view that an
undivided India would have been unsustainable. To
me, it seems based on the logic that
Muslims-aren't-people-like-us.>>
No, that's not what I meant.

Mario asks:
RKN,
After saying that's not what you meant it would have
helped to know what you did mean. I believe Elisabeth
also agreed with you that an undivided India would
have been "untenable" without explaining why. We know
that both of you are in agreement with Jinnah, though
your reasons may vary from his, but he did not have
the advantage of hindsight, while you do.
We now know for a fact that the partition of India
actually resulted in numerous conflicts, hostilities
and unnecessary duplication of wasteful defense
expenditures by two essentially poor countries where
these resources could have been better used. Tens of
thousands were killed in the ethnic cleansing of
Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan in 1947, and the
retaliatory killings of the minority of Indian Muslims
who shared Jinnah's paranoia and were moving to
Pakistan, and additional tens of thousands have been
killed in the low-grade conflicts since then.
By my calculations undivided India today, which would
include Pakistan and Bangladesh, would have had a
population of roughly 1.35 billion with about 28% of
this being Muslim. Such a large minority would be a
good thing, in my opinion, in a country that basically
adopted a committment to democracy and freedom of
religion from the Brits which it did not have before,
except perhaps in small pockets here and there.
I think this population mix would have been more
secular rather than less, because the extremists and
paranoid among the Hindus and Muslims would have
cancelled each other out better, and the remaining
dominant percentage of Indians would be those who
believe in religious freedom of choice, which would
have kept a lid on religious conflicts.
Most of those who became Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
would have shared the committment to democratic
principles, influenced by the majority of undivided
India's population in my vision of what India might
have been, and the Pakistani generals would have been
unable to impose their dictatorial inclinations on
anyone. No madrassas, no Indo-Pak jihadis, and all of
Kashmir a tourist's heaven on earth.
Is my scenario illogical? If so, why?

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel wrtoe: I am a bit unclear about what exactly you are saying
on the issue of the birth of India and Pakistan. True, huge India is
quite difficult to govern but I take pride in its success with
democracy against impossible odds.>>

Please take a look at Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of
undivided India. Have they been so successful with democracy? The
same fate would have befallen India had it remained undivided.

Also, it's unfair to put the entire blame of partition on the British.
Nehru and Jinnah had a hand in it too.

Regards,
RKN

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Mario,
I enjoyed reading that post because it was issue
based. The reasons I don't believe a united India
would have been tenable, are (a) the communal violence
that does flare up within India (b) evidence does not
bear out your premise that the moderates would cancel
out the extremists.

We know from moderate Muslim countries like Turkey,
Algeria and Indonesia, that it takes only a few
extremists to create mayhem. The reason the moderate
voice is seldom heard in the Muslim voice is because
it is hunchbacked by the yoke of religion. Never has a
society been so suppressed under the guise of
religion.

Bear in mind, this is a religion which by the 10th
century had introduced such progressive concepts as
complete monotheism, equality about men, abolition of
interest rates, a consultative and participative form
of government, protection of women, not to mention had
given the world the wonderful poetry of Sufism, some
of the world's architectural wonders and encouraged
scientific enquiry at a time when sorcery was rampant.

Unfortunately for Muslims, while the rest of the world
marched ahead with the separation of Church and state,
and an ideology of secularism, the Muslim world became
burdened and stagnant with theocracies dominated by
Imans who insisted on the narrowest and cruelest
interpretations of the Koran. Since then, Muslims the
world over have been forsaken by its polity, abandoned
by its educational institutions and escorted by its
religious leaders into fundamentalism.

Let's not lull ourselves into thinking that the Muslim
community in India is a passive, docile victim of
Hinduism. Its belligerence is muted and held in check
by its minority status.

The Muslim community has to tear itself away from
radicalization of its religion, move away from the
madrases as their educational institutions, overhaul
its judiciary and come charging into the 21st century
as equal partners in the peace process.

Elisabeth
----------------------------

Post by Mario Goveia
I think this population mix would have been more
secular rather than less, because the extremists and
paranoid among the Hindus and Muslims would have
cancelled each other out better, and the remaining
dominant percentage of Indians would be those who
believe in religious freedom of choice, which would
have kept a lid on religious conflicts.
Most of those who became Pakistanis and Bangladeshis
would have shared the committment to democratic
principles, influenced by the majority of undivided
India's population in my vision of what India might
have been, and the Pakistani generals would have
been
unable to impose their dictatorial inclinations on
anyone. No madrassas, no Indo-Pak jihadis, and all
of
Kashmir a tourist's heaven on earth.
Is my scenario illogical? If so, why?
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Cornel asks: Was it not the case that, Jinnah and Mountbatten worked
closely together to create Pakistan? And is it not the case that Nehru
and Gandhi were opposed to the split?>>

The answer to the first question is "yes", but they worked closely
only after Nehru had turned down the proposals to keep the
subcontinent undivided. It's a popular belief in India that Nehru and
Gandhi were against the partition and Jinnah insisted on it.
Historical evidence now suggests that though it was Jinnah who made
the demand first, he was later willing to accept a confederation of
Hindu and Muslim majority areas, but Nehru firmly opposed the idea.
The stand of Gandhi on this issue is not yet clear.

Regards,
RKN

[Nasci Caldeira]

Post by cornel
Hi Nasci
I would be happy to accept your contention that I
could not tell the
difference between 'continental' and Continental if
you can provide the
specific evidence.
I await your response. Please ensure your response
is exactly illustrative
of my use of 'continental' and Continental as
alleged by you.

Nasci responds:
It's not between 'continental' and 'Continental'(like
you are trying to get away with); it's between
Continent and continental (Portugal).
Yes Cornel, it is you who got very challenged over the
statement: re 'Continental Portugal' in a recent
posting by a goanetter; remember? You mistook
'continental for Continent! Then went on and on re:
that U had been several times to the wind swept
Portugal on the edge of the Continent; and that's why
U could not take it that Portugal is a Continent;
thereby implicating yourself that you could not
distinguish between continental (Portugal)and the
Continent that Portugal is part of! You did put your
'foot in the mouth' here; and after lot of postings
from goanetters, you finally understood! Then also,
you had been deriding the original poster as some
'ignorant person' when in fact it was you, who was
advertising your ignorance! Then when it was brought
to your notice that the said poster was doing his post
graduate etc in India; you did change your stance, but
yet did not properly apologise!

The above seemingly superiority complex/attitude from
you is what made me bring you on as an example of: may
be a graduate but not really 'educated'?? Then there
is also another incident when I posted about 'no
cultural freedom in India' re segregated eating places
and no choice of Beef/Pork/meat/ food etc forced on
others by the Hindu casteists. To that you snidely
responded by asking me if 'I have eaten Croc meat' in
Australia! How much more silly can one get?? I did
respond to that eloquently; didn't I?

In summary, there can be an undergraduate and yet
'educated'; or there can be a graduate both learned
and 'educated'; or there can be a graduate and yet not
'educated'!! Which of these categories you belong to,
is for you to ponder!
I have no feelings against you per se, inspite of your
snide remarks; but I had to expose you thus, to show
you as an example 'in context'.
Now that I have brought it out; there is no need to
dwelve on this theme, any further!

With regards!
Nasci.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

[Jose Colaco]

Cornel: Was it not the case that, Jinnah and Mountbatten worked closely
together to create Pakistan? And is it not the case that Nehru and Gandhi
were opposed to the split?

RKN : The answer to the first question is "yes", but they worked closely
only after Nehru had turned down the proposals to keep the subcontinent
undivided.

It's a popular belief in India that Nehru and Gandhi were against the
partition and Jinnah insisted on it.

Historical evidence now suggests that though it was Jinnah who made the
demand first, he was later willing to accept a confederation of Hindu and
Muslim majority areas, but Nehru firmly opposed the idea. The stand of
Gandhi on this issue is not yet clear.

From my info, it appears that RKN understanding of the matter is closer to

the truth than Cornel's.

Some points:

1. Surely, it would be in UK's interest to keep a hold of British
India....by pointing out (and perhaps exacerbating) the Hindu-Muslim divide.

2. Nehru wanted to be the FIRST Prime Minister of India. The issue of
religion should NOT have come up IF every citizen was to be equal.

3. Nehru's insistence may have rekindled the images of discrimination
against Muslim students in W. Bengal - the reason for the development of the
Univ of Dacca(Dhaka).

4. Also being rekindled would have been the Massacre of Urdu ...a language
FROM the subcontinent. Both the neo-Hindiwallas(from British India) and the
neo-Urduwallas(from independent Pakistan) decapitated and reinvented the
languages presently usurping the names Hindi and Urdu. [ Allegedly Pure
Konkniwadis, please take note ]

In any event, as there was NO general elections were held in India until
1952., and in Pakistan ~1970

Nehru was in effect a non-elected Prime Minister of India, and Jinnah of
Pakistan.

Pity that no one took cognisance of the fact that Jinnah was an ill man -
and had very little time to live. ALL those lives disrupted and lost during
that brutal Partition ...for the sake of what? the Pride of being the FIRST
Prime Minister of India ..or preventing a chap with a Muslim Sounding Name
from being the FIRST Prime Minister of India?

Was there NO other peaceful way to solve a political disagreement?

jc



please visit "NEW" on The Goan Forum at http://www.colaco.net

Recommended Goa related sites
1. http://www.goa-world.com
2. http://www.SuperGoa.com

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

<<Pity that no one took cognisance of the fact that Jinnah was an ill man -
and had very little time to live. ALL those lives disrupted and lost during
that brutal Partition ...for the sake of what? the Pride of being the FIRST
Prime Minister of India ..or preventing a chap with a Muslim Sounding Name
from being the FIRST Prime Minister of India?
Was there NO other peaceful way to solve a political disagreement?>>

That's a pretty cheap shot. It's ridiculous to suggest that Nehru
backed the partition to be the first Prime Minister of India. From
what we know of Nehru, he was not the kind of leader who would
sacrifice the interests of the country for personal gain. Anyway, if
he wanted it, he could have easily been the first Prime Minister of
undivided India. So the question of self-aggrandizement does not
arise.

Nehru was a leader of great foresight. He must have decided that
partition, however bitter and painful, was necessary to avert a
greater calamity later on. Subsequent events (that we witness even
today) have vindicated him.

Cheers,
RKN

[Radhakrishnan Nair]

(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the Mossad's
achievements ... particularly the episodes about the most
advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)

Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060713/f25d2517/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

Hi RKN,

Who can forget Entebbe? The way they trained and rehearsed
in a matter of three days, skimmed across Lake Victoria and
staged that daring operation -- complete with a lookalike of
Idi Amin in his usual car, even if a "friendly" neighbouring
African nation refused them refuelling on the return? A book
and a film have recorded that story. (The hijacked plane,
btw, was not an El Al liner, it was an Air France liner on a
scheduled flight.) Point is, it was intelligence again that
came to Israel's rescue. They had the complete blueprints of
the Entebbe terminal building, made cardboard lifesize models
for their rehearsals and even had plans for various contigencies
(like dispersal of passengers in different areas inside the
terminal) in place, prior to embarking on that mission.
Intelligence plays the major role. A brains versus brawn point.

But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which occured much
before, had their own brilliance. (Both were staged,
incidentally, by the Mossad.) I'll briefly explain.

I'll condense only one. The Soviets supplied their latest,
most sophisticated radar systems to the Egyptians. It was
installed on the Sinai Peninsula. The radar brought all of
Israel under enemy eye -- even a helicopter could not take
off even from the northernmost tip of Israel without the
enemy's knowledge. The Israelis were alarmed. The Israeli PM
called a meeting of the defence chiefs and the Mossad. Each
one presented his plan on to deal with the situation. The army
guy (I think the Yom Kippur hero, Gen. Moshe Dayan, was still
the Dy Chief of Army staff then) unfolded his plan to destroy
the radar. The chief of the Air Force told how he would
carpet bomb the entire camp, including the Soviet radar.

Then came the turn of the Mossad chief. He begged of the PM to
allot the assignment to him. "We will NOT destroy that radar,"
he pleaded, "we will bring it back to Israel."

They did just that. Together with requisite help from
the other services, a small helicopter-borne commando unit took
the relaxing Egyptian guards by complete surprise, dismantled
the radar system and brought it back home ... piece by piece!

(It was later re-assembled and studied in detail by Israeli and
western techies, in Israel, to Russia's chagrin. The Soviets
changed their arms policy: never again did a first-generation
piece of defence equipment leave their shores.)

Regards, Valmiki
P.S.: If you read my piece that appeared in today's
(Goa) Herald, also posted here earlier, on the Mumbai
serial blasts, you know better how I regard the Mossad ;-)


On Thu, 13 Jul 2006 Radhakrishnan Nair wrote :
--

Post by Radhakrishnan Nair
(Valmiki Faleiro: I am also - just btw, again - an admirer of the
Mossad's >achievements ... particularly the episodes about the
most >advanced Soviet-supplied radar installed by Egypt in the Sinai
(which put the entire of Israel under enemy scanner) prior to
the Yom Kippur war, and the raid on PLO HQ in a Beirut
highrise.)
Don't you remember the Entebe operation, Val? It involved an
Israeli passenger
plane hijacked by Muslim extremists during Idi Amin's regime.
-- RKN
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet at lists.goanet.org

[Elisabeth Carvalho]

Dear Cornel,
I have much respect and sympathy for the Jews, for
their enormous contribution to society and their
perseverance through all they've had to endure in
history. However when they had an opportunity to make
right the wrongs of history, they've proven that they
are equally if not more brutal. Palestinian refugee
camps are nothing more than concentration camps.

That Israel occupies this territory out of European
guilt is without doubt. That Britain played the Arabs
dirty is without doubt. I wonder how many people know
that before Europe found " firm historical and
Biblical" evidence that, that patch of land was
"chosen" for Jews, that they were seriously
considering Uganda as a site for settlement (albeit
temporary at the time), which was known as the Uganda
project. When Herzl's project was disregarded by
Britain, other possible sites were Canada or Australia
for settlement. But for a quirk of fate, the Jews
would have been fighting the Ugandans or Canadians or
Aborigines and that too would have been justified as
"right to defend" by America.

Elisabeth
--------------------------------

Post by cornel
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother,
the USA invariably providing it uncritical support
on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist,
ideally in a two-state solution, but it only needs
to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget
its consistent efforts and determination to occupy
Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and
outside the country, is based on massive force for
now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all
their 'intelligence' they will never be able to
destroy the idea and
reality that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the
pretence of security.
Cornel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Mario Goveia]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was not exactly the Pentagon--it was
virtually an open field with a few scattered
cheaply built structures on it, at the time of the
Raid, even thought the subsequent film had many
embellishments to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Mario observes:
Cornel,
It takes a determined anti-Semite like yourself to
make such absurd and derisive comments. The Entebbe
operation was acknowledged by everyone else as a
daring and dangerous long-range surprise operation
that rescued hostages who were under the gun.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Israel has had many successes on the war-front
especially with Big Brother, the USA invariably
providing it uncritical support on its many
disproportionate military attacks as now. It has an
absolute right to exist, ideally in a two-state
solution, but it only needs to fail once to see its
virtual destruction by its many ferocious enemies
who are unlikely to forget its consistent efforts
and determination to occupy Arab lands
illegitimately. Its survival, according to many
Israelis themselves, in and outside the country, is
based on massive force for now, and the suppression
of many Middle Eastern peoples. Historical evidence
suggests that, with all their 'intelligence' they
will never be able to destroy the idea and reality
that much of Palestine is occupied illegally
and colonised under the pretence of security.

Mario responds:
Hey, Cornel, thanks for conceding that Israel has a
right to exist in a 2 state configuration.
Apparently it has escaped your biased attention that
that was precisely the configuration that was designed
and implemented in 1947 by the Brits and the UN. It
was your Palestinian friends who did not accept this
configuration, preferring one without Israel, and
instead of negotiating through the UN have tried to
impose their will by force ever since.
How does one deal with someone like you who does not
even know any of this, or that 5 Arab armies attacked
Israel right after they became a state with the goal
of "pushing the Jews into the sea"???
Other than Jordan and Egypt, who gave up on the goal
after getting their behinds kicked, the others are
still trying to "wipe Israel off the map".
As long as your Arab friends continue to try and
eliminate Israel, the US will guarantee their
survival.
You can have whatever opinions you like, delusional as
they may be, but you cannot have your own facts.
International law allows a country to defend itself as
best it can, which Israel has been forced to do for
almost 60 years now.
There is nothing "illegitimate" for a country to hold
territory that they have captured in defending
themselves against an attacking enemy, especially one
threatening to "wipe you out".
There is nothing "disproportionate" in any country
responding to armed attacks whose goal is to eliminate
the country. How do you "proportion" a response to
someone trying to eliminate you? That is pure
left-wing nonsense.

[Mervyn Lobo]

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
Who can forget Entebbe?
Israel's justified daring attack against a tin-pot
dictator and buffoon like Idi Amin is not
surprising in many respects. Here was an advanced
military nation, with strong American support,
taking on a fifth rate military outpost like Amin's
at the time. Moreover, Entebbe airport, which I
knew well, was
not exactly the Pentagon--it was virtually an open
field with a few scattered cheaply built structures
on it, at the time of the Raid, even
thought the subsequent film had many embellishments
to make it a Hollywood block buster.

Cornel,
Israel lucked out in that Entebbe airport was built by
an Israeli contractor. The Israeli's were able to
secure all the blue prints immediately. I was working
for a Mangalorian accounting firm in Tanzania at the
time of the raid. We had a contract to store all the
financial archives of the Israel's contractors work in
E. Africa.

Post by Valmiki Faleiro

Post by Valmiki Faleiro
But the Sinai radar and PLO HQ storming, which
occured much before, had their own brilliance.
(Both were staged, incidentally, by the Mossad.)

Military victories are one thing. However, military
brilliance cannot be over shadowed by political
stupidity. The Israelis admit that Mossad created and
funded Hamas. Now they are paying the price for that
stupidity.

Lastly, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze etc lived
together in harmony in Israel from the time of the
crusades till the time Britain decided to carve out a
nation for those who used the Bible as a title deed.

Mervyn.0



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/bbf31432/attachment.ksh

[Valmiki Faleiro]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Url: /pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/attachments/20060716/3ed6cea6/attachment.ksh

[Mario Goveia]

--- Valmiki Faleiro <valmikif at rediffmail.com> wrote:
Dear Cornel and Mario,
With due respect to both, what about the
sheer mishandling of the Mandate by the Brits?
Wouldn't Jan-1948 be entirely evitable had
the Brits handled the mandate fairly?
Mario asks:
Valmiki,
How does one determine with hind-sight whether the
Palestine Mandate was "mishandled" by the Brits, or
that it was "fair"? Isn't "fair" in such matters in
the eye of the beholder, depending on whose ox is
being gored? Is "fair" even relevent any more?
In addition, the entire world community at the time,
in the form of the UN, ratified the partition, so why
are the Brits singled out for abuse?
Was the partition of India "fair"? I think the
partition of India was the most mishandled and
unfortunate event in recent history and should never
have taken place to placate the paranoid Muslims led
by Jinnah. Yet it was accepted by both sides and,
after the initial mayhem, those displaced went on with
their lives. No Indian or Pakistani lays claim to
their ancestral properties or demands a "right of
return". Such sophistries seem to be selectively
reserved only for the Palestinians by Cornel and the
entire left-wing worldwide.
Finally, regardless of the "fairness" of the
decisions, wouldn't the civilized approach by those
aggrieved to have negotiated their grievances with the
UN, the Brits and the Israelis, instead of
unilaterally deciding in 1948 to "push the Jews into
the sea", and it's modern incarnation, to "wipe Israel
off the map"?

[cornel]

Valmiki
This is a quick response to say that the Balfour Declaration by Britain was
a big mistake but we have to live with it. The great powers at the time, and
Britain was the super power then, simply dished out other people's property
(and still does illegally e.g. the islands in the Indian Ocean as a military
base for the USA) to clients of their choosing. Britain is definitely in the
wrong over the formation of Israel irrespective of its then achievement to
win international support for its formation. This is my reflective view
whilst recognising that we can do nothing about it now beyond the USA
getting the two sides to talk and talk until there is a resolution to this
crisis. The USA does hold the cards today as the only super power but it has
to operate equitably rather than take the side of Israel at the behest of
the powerful Jewish/Israeli lobby in the States. Only when an American
President has the guts and ability to take on the Jewish lobby in the USA,
and also the Arab people in the Middle East, will we have peace in that
region. To date, all efforts have been partial, including the Jewish
occupation, and in favour of the Jewish lobby in my view.

Mario's seemingly peaceful parallel with the India/Pakistan situation is not
on as potential conflict in that region is ongoing, and often, just under
the surface. It flares up all the time. Once again, I have been very
critical of Britain initiating the split to maintain its toe-hold in the
sub-continent. A secular big India was infinitely preferrable to me than a
religious based Pakistan split from India.
Cornel