Genocide, in the wrong context, is a low-signal word.

For instance there is an extremely good case to be made that Gaza is a genocide. Rohingya in Myanmar as well.

Uighurs in Xinjiang does not look or feel like a genocide; it is ethnic suppression (the Kashmiris have it MUCH easier, as India even Pak is a gentler and kinder state then many countries, there is both a profound humanity and a paradoxical brutal in desi culture).

I thought the point was that “Genocide” is a provocative word?

My argument is not arbitrary. It’s well thought through. India chose to be a secular state. Therefore, it must be judged by those standards. It is of course free to become a “Hindu Rashtra” (there’s nothing I can do about it). If it does so, it would then be foolish to judge it by secular standards.

Pakistan is an “Islamic Republic”.

We can judge Pakistan’s treatment of minorities on the basis of how Islam says minorities are to be treated. But not on the basis of secularism. That makes no intellectual sense.

Then the Commentariat are entirely right to go on calling. 1971 a genocide.

Either we all agree to be high signal or none of this do.

Arbitrarily arguing that India is subject to a higher moral dimension than Pakistan is wrong on all counts.

That argument does not stand since even if Pakistan is a Muslim state; it still has a system of morality. Islam has a complex moral code, why should it necessarily be inferior to a secular one?

We can push the intellectual frontiers; for instance is Blasphemy Law Islamic.

Surely, everyone is allowed to have an opinion on whatever they want? That’s a basic standard of intellectual discourse.

It’s for Pakistan to decide whether it wants to be secular or not. It has chosen to be an “Islamic Republic”. That’s a legitimate choice–whatever outsiders feel about it. Similarly, India is free to rewrite its Constitution. But–as long as it remains a secular state- it will be judged by the standards of secular states.

Surely, everyone is allowed to have an opinion on whatever they want? That’s a basic standard of intellectual discourse.

It’s for Pakistan to decide whether it wants to be secular or not. It has chosen to be an “Islamic Republic”. That’s a legitimate choice–whatever outsiders feel about it. Similarly, India is free to rewrite its Constitution. But–as long as it remains a secular state- it will be judged by the standards of secular states.

This is circular logic – we won’t litigate this. If the Commentariat are offended by you opining on India; they are allowed to ask for Admin intervention. As it feels low signal

What “bigotry” is there in saying that secular states must be held to the standards of secular states? If India constitutionally declares itself a “Hindu Rashtra” then obviously I would be foolish to hold it to the standards of a secular state.

With respect– like most Indians– you have no idea why Pakistan was created. Indians seem to think we had some evil design to “vivisect Bharat Mata”. We created Pakistan because we didn’t want to be a permanent demographic minority under Hindu rule. There’s nothing wrong with that. Hindus wouldn’t have wanted to be a permanent demographic minority under Muslim rule.

Pakistan has never once claimed to be a secular state. We are clear that we are a Muslim homeland. Therefore, holding Pakistan to the principles of secularism makes no sense. You can criticize the treatment of minorities on the basis of Islamic values but that doesn’t seem to be your objection.

India “aspires” to be a secular state. In reality, it is a majoritarian Hindu state. Thank God, I’m not an Indian Muslim.

Yes u and not brown are going to spam; no idea why. Both of u can email the BP email when it doesn’t show but continue posting as will allow them as soon as I can.

Apologies for the inconvenience, travelling atm but will explore the issue in more detail.

https://theprint.in/diplomacy/after-milan-sri-lanka-invited-iris-dena-but-turned-it-away-as-us-iran-tensions-escalated-says-report/2872375/