Oh the Irony. Abu Graib Prisoners want Americans back

[nk_lion]

I know I risk opening a can of worms, but I think certain things have to be said.

Excuse me? Are you suggesting North Korea really (for example)...I mean, REALLY, has no worse a record on human rights than the UK or USA? Please can I suggest you take a read of the many, many reports written by Amnesty International. As to this repulsive part of your statement "apart from the obvcious genocide"... What do you mean, apart from the obvious genocide...no, no no...thats the entire point surely!?!

I was taught as a child that to kill one person is like to kill all of humanity. Every country has a right to protect their citizens, but to wage a war of reasons and information that was fake or incorrect is a major crime against humanity in my opinion. Civilians die in wars, and thats what happened in Viatnam, and again now in Iraq, and for what? Oil? Influence in the Middle East? Finishing what daddy Bush didn't? Now before anyone claims that I'm saying that the soldiers are murderers, I'm not, I'm saying that the people in control are definitly not innocent. Does unjustyingly killing less people make one country better over another?

Without the British "Empire" there would be no "India" today...just couple dozen warring statelets, poor, still awash with cultural slavery and discrimination...weak and probably dominated by Russia or China. Yes, im sure Indians would be in a much better place without the modern liberal democracy the British Empire left as a legacy. Oh...and the railroads, modern industry and concept of a United India through education funded by British Univerisites.

The British did a lot in terms of economical/education progress for the world, but to say that India would be a couple of dozen warring statelets without Britains involvment is quite presumptious. China during it's history were broken up into many different warring states, and a few European countries till World War II were usually in some conflict or another.

Listening to the stories from my grandparents, a British ruled India was not a good India for them. Britain colonized India not to influence the locals in the 'British' way of non-slavery (which was abolished over a century after India was colonized), or democracy, they came to become richer, straight and simple.

Maybe you're right, maybe India (or the land) would have been a few warring states, or a huge country plagued by civil war, or maybe India would perhaps be a country not seperated by religion that actually is better than what exists today as India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. Who knows? The Moghols were doing pretty well during the 15th century, building stadiums, houses, schools, the Taj Mahal.


---


And on back to the discussion of the whole torture business, it's completely pathetic to see humanity still at a stage were torture is still something that's common, not only in Iraq and US, but most nations of this world

[anonymouse]

Maybe you're right, maybe India (or the land) would have been a few warring states, or a huge country plagued by civil war, or maybe India would perhaps be a country not seperated by religion that actually is better than what exists today as India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

That's an interesting point you raise, nk. There's still debate as to whether or not the Partitioning in 1947 (1948?) was a good thing or not. The three stakeholders of the time - the Islamic separatists, Hindus and the British were all keen for it to happen (and there was at least 50 years of so of religious tensions leading up to it). Many have said Britain simply abandonned India, just as it did its Middle East interests leading to the creation of Israel at around the same time. The reason for this is Britain felt its capabilities for settling disputes in these regions was greatly diminished after WWII and the pounding taken by its military.

I've read some political commentators suggest that the major sticking point with Israel/Palestine is there is precedence in what happened with India/Pakistan. The argument goes along the lines that to create Palestine as an independent state, just as Pakistan became, can lead to Palestine having all the rights available to every other independent state in the world - ie: the right to assemble armies and to arm them.

The rhetoric around the time of the Partitioning of India was that the creation of Pakistan would end the hostilities of a minority group of militant Muslims against the majority faith of (secular) India - Hindus. It was a rhetoric that history has proved to be completely wrong. Once the lines were drawn (and independence was granted to Pakistan even before the lines were actually drawn) hundreds of thousands of Hindus were butchered trying to flee the knewly created Islamic areas (Pakistan and the region that is now Bangladesh) while similar numbers of Muslims were similarly killed trying to flee from India to Pakistan. It was a catastrophe and left something like 14 million people homeless - millions of whom would subsequently die from malnutrition.

In the sixty years since, India and Pakistan have continued to wage war of disputed territories such as Kashmir. Both Pakistan and India have nuclear capabilities and for a time there (a decade or so ago) they appeared to be on the brink of a nuclear war.

So the bottom line here is the Partitioning of India may well have been the worst thing the British could ever have done. It's impossible to turn back the clock, but it's worth remembering this sort of history in any debates about the Middle East. It's also worth remembering that India, the world's largest democracy, in run for all intents and purposes by an Italian Catholic woman (Sonja Ghandi). I can't imagine such a woman ever elected to run Pakistan or even Britain or the US.

[nk_lion]

So the bottom line here is the Partitioning of India may well have been the worst thing the British could ever have done. It's impossible to turn back the clock, but it's worth remembering this sort of history in any debates about the Middle East. It's also worth remembering that India, the world's largest democracy, in run for all intents and purposes by an Italian Catholic woman (Sonja Ghandi). I can't imagine such a woman ever elected to run Pakistan or even Britain or the US.

Sonja Ghandi isn't the Prime Minister, Manmoham Singh is, Ghandi left due to a lot of death threats and claims that she wasn't a true Indian.

And you're right, the partition was useless.

[Guest91408]

So the bottom line here is the Partitioning of India may well have been the worst thing the British could ever have done.

Don’t get me started on this. The British? Who requested partition? Was it us? NO. Although some of them are still held under wraps, the archives prove interesting reading when it comes to the negotiations regarding independence and partition. And say we had forced an un-partitioned super-India upon the peoples there...how would history look upon us as the authors of the most internally violent nation on Earth...for that is surely what it would have been. Constant, massive civil conflict...bombings, wholesale genocide, constant waves of refugee movements, political deadlock and probable collapse of democracy would have been our legacy.

Partition was a vile horrendous process but to say it was wrong is to ignore the alternatives AND the wishes of the major political figures (Ghandi aside) at the time.

Imagine the genocide of Rwanda/Burundi multiplied by several hundred million.

[Guest91408]

I know I risk opening a can of worms, but I think certain things have to be said.
I was taught as a child that to kill one person is like to kill all of humanity. Every country has a right to protect their citizens, but to wage a war of reasons and information that was fake or incorrect is a major crime against humanity in my opinion. Civilians die in wars, and thats what happened in Viatnam, and again now in Iraq, and for what? Oil? Influence in the Middle East? Finishing what daddy Bush didn't? Now before anyone claims that I'm saying that the soldiers are murderers, I'm not, I'm saying that the people in control are definitly not innocent. Does unjustyingly killing less people make one country better over another?

Quite so, couldnt agree more with you and I don't believe I was lending any credence to the necessity for war in Iraq...that, in my opinion is an utterly different debate. I was responding to Asia's post not defending the monstrosity that is the Iraq conflict. Saddams time was limited, he was ill, his despotic family loathed, given another 2-5 years it is entirely possible and likely the Iraqi people (in some form or another) would have risen and swept the lot from power.

"one country better over another" ...I often find the characterisation of peoples by their rulers quite perplexing. Do the actions of Saddam mean all Iraqis are evil, Do the decisions of the US President make all Americans liable...no...so why do we persist in thinking of nations as living breathing entities when in fact they are merely temporary social constructs of the powerful? A different debate perhaps.

The British did a lot in terms of economical/education progress for the world, but to say that India would be a couple of dozen warring statelets without Britains involvment is quite presumptious.

Yes, presumptious perhaps, but not necessairly wrong. In fact my position has a long historical support. Negate Britains entry into the subcontinent and it would have been carved up between the French, Dutch, Portuguese, Russians and local principalities. So the choice would have been French domination (and independence MUCH later with a lot less development and probably more violent ending) or fragmentation. I stand by that supposition, even if it cannot ever be proven.

Listening to the stories from my grandparents, a British ruled India was not a good India for them. Britain colonized India not to influence the locals in the 'British' way of non-slavery (which was abolished over a century after India was colonized), or democracy, they came to become richer, straight and simple.

Again, I find myself agreeing with some of what you say. Of course Britain came to make profit. Empires (and not just European ones!) are always driven by power and profit. Am I saying this is wrong or right? Neither. I did not say Britain came on some humanitarian mission with halos glowing above our soliders heads. Exploitation came with any benefits I've outlined, I recognise that certainly. None the less, India was a strong, 'modern' country once it was free...despite raging poverty and inequality in actual rights (if not legal rights) it still represents a glowing example of multiculturalism and democracy that others would do well to emulate. The horrors and crimes against humanity committed during the Uprisings by the British weighs heavily against us, but still the balance of our overal influence is in the positive.

And on back to the discussion of the whole torture business, it's completely pathetic to see humanity still at a stage were torture is still something that's common, not only in Iraq and US, but most nations of this world

On this, sadly, you have my utter and complete agreement. As a humanist, someone who believes in the power of humanity set free, I find torture abhorrent and its prevalence disturbing.