I asked, 'how about invaded? and you managed to avoid the question by shifting it to something else.
What we were originally discussing was Ahisma. Ahisma as I understand it is about non-violence. It is about finding peaceful means of resolving conflict, and not resorting to violence. If a man doesn't attack his neighbours but beats his wife and children can he be considered peaceful?
In regards the partition I found some of the history and violence perpetrated on both sides amounting to genocide. One country invading another is not the only measure of ahisma, would you not agree? I could say New Zealand hasn't invaded any countries and our main religion is Christianity. Therefore Christianity is a peaceful religion. See the problem with this line of argument?
Other violent conflicts concerning India have been:
Mughal-Maratha wars 1658 - 1707 with an estimated 4,600,000 loss of life.
The Indian rebellion 1857-58 with an estimated loss of life of 800,000 - 10,000,000
The Maratha invasions of Bengal 1741-1751 with an estimated loss of life of 400,000
The Kalinga war 262-261 BC with an estimated loss of life of 350,000
Of course there will be multiple narratives around each conflict, but the point is that India has not been free of violence, and in all likelihood Hindus have not always practiced Ahisma.
Much of Hindu India didn't want partition. It was the Muslims that insisted. Not just that, but Britain had a ton to with the entire problem, just as France had a ton to do with Viet Nam. It's complicated for sure.
In India today, as you go further south, there is less animosity amongst the people of the two faiths. Another way is to look at how Hindus in Pakistan have practically disappeared over the past 60 years, while the Islamic population in India has remained constant. The two faiths are really incredibly far apart.
OK, so the Muslims were to blame as well as Britian? The Hindus were peaceful, loving and innocent? How do you account for so many Muslims killed by Hindus?
But I would expect nothing else of an Abrahamic than to defend western values, and look to the east for the world's woes. We're used to it.
There are three sides to every story. His side, her side, and what really happened. I'm interested in the truth, not a biased narrative.
War stats are just war stats. Distortion happens on both sides. If you want to see how far that can go, I'd suggest looking at tamilnet and them lankaweb. Two 'news' papers talking about the same thing, with amazingly opposite viewpoints.
That is really the key point. Often it can be hard or impossible to get to the truth. I just want a narrative that reflects the facts.
Adrian, you seem to think I'm anti-western. I would disagree with that idea. I am anti-colonialism, anti-greed, anti-conversion, anti-exploitation. But much of the west is not so much like that. By looking at negatives, it may seem like we're ignoring positives, but it's a situation of when you see others ignoring negatives, you have to pint them out.
Hmmm. I have thought about this. I enjoy conversing with you because you are usually fair and reasonable in your views. Sometimes you are not, but then I am not be either. The main thing is we are prepared to talk, see each others POV and even acknowledge when presented with more objective data that there could be a better way of looking at it.
Colonialism is part of our history, like it or not. New Zealand, Australia, India, Canada, and the USA...all colonised. That has been the violent history of humanity, but that is no longer acceptable in this modern age. Most of us know it, and once again Baha'u'llah made it clear that humanity needed to make a break from its past and find international cooperation and agreement and avoid war. I'm anti-exploitation and greed too and the Baha'i writings as with other religions are against this too.
I am a total believer in freedom of religion and freedom of expression. If one person wants to present their faith to another who is interested in a respectful courteous manner then that is fine. If one person wishes to change from one religion to another, or not have any religion, then that is fine too. Conversion is an emotionally charged word, that suggests coercion and manipulation. I don't believe in coercion and manipulation.
You live in the West so I would presume you are positive about the country you live in.
Sometimes your criticism of the Abrahamics including the Baha'i faith is strongly worded. Having conversed with you over the last six months I better understand why you feel that way. I like it that you are open and honest. I try to be moderate and respectful in my views as you do, though we may not always succeed.
Ideally , any new society will have the best of the east, the best of the west, and ignore the rest.
I strongly agree with this conclusion. Thank you for your post and frankness.
