It does look like that. Apologies if I misread you.

Regards

Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. rolls eyes

So, for you 1857 and Bhagat Singh are same as Hamas ? That’s what I could glean from your nuance.

Regards

There’s a difference in approach between Gandhiism (as I understand it) and Hamas, yes. I’m just saying that to put South Asian nationalist movements on a pedestal and pretend that 1857, the Extremists, the INA, and many other things didn’t happen seems overly selective and simplified to me. Likewise, to argue that Hamas has been the entirety of the Palestinian Independence movement is not fair. Most of all, a consideration of the moral worth of the tactics that particular groups or populations chose (and thereby assigning them moral worth) withouht looking at the institutional and social conditions they faced is ridiculous. In other words, sometimes people like to pretend that all resistance movements that don’t eschew violence have no moral worth when it’s a lot more complicated than that, and I hope that you would acknowledge that. Arguably, if major world powers hadn’t exhausted themselves in World War II, the end of British rule in South Asia would have been much more difficult to achieve and we might be having a very different discussion right now because.

I’m not a huge fan of Hamas regardless, and I’m sympathetic to some–maybe a lot–of what you’re saying so you could somewhat fairly call this nitpicking, but the interpretation you’re giving feeds too easily into prevalent stereotypes about Muslims, Palestinians, independence movements, Gandhi, etc.

Please refrain from commenting about things about which you clearly lack knowledge. If you really think the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa was non-violent, all you have to do is read Mandela’s stirring letters where he laments having to depart from Gandhian thought because of the realities of the situation present in the country at the time. All you have to do is to read about or watch the proceedings of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in which thousands of black and Coloured South Africans applied for amnesty for violent acts committed in the name of ideology. http://www.info.gov.za/otherdocs/2003/trc/

That was all you had to do to educate yourself before you spewed ignorance.

Not contesting that there were no extremists. But if I were to point out the dominant force in the independence struggle, I would look at Gandhi. If you look at public opinion then, Gandhi mobilized more than any of the others. That is what I mean by “largely non-violently”. It is usually also how people actively involved in the struggle remember. The rest you quote are remembered as influences, not the dominant popular force.

True, in the end India was partitioned (the 47 one, not the 05 one you talked about) and nothing stopped the violence then. No doubt that is a tragic failure of gigantic proportions. But what is to say that this would not have happened otherwise? I am not sure anyone saw such a disaster coming other than the ones who made it happen (on either side).

Besides, however much we nitpick about all this, there is clearly a fundamental difference in approach between the Indian struggle for independence and Palestine’s Hamas, isn’t there?

Re: Polisario. I must confess I don’t have a deep background (though I know a bit about this). But I do not agree that world press attention will get you much. For all that we say today, Gandhi hardly had much of world press support—most of the world looked at him then with amusement, not respect. Respect came once India became independent, not the other way.

Also, as an aside. Just ideals won’t get you anywhere. Gandhi was undoubtedly very shrewd, and I think this is just as important if you forswear violence. I know some people see this aspect of Gandhi as negative, but from my perspective he would have got nowhere without it.

bytewords, this is ridiculous. The nationalist movement(s) in South Asia had both violent and non-violent aspects to it. For example, during the 1st Partition of Bengal (1905-1912), the Extremists were among the first to advocate for outright independence and also employed political violence. To argue that this had no role in reversing that Partition (along with other nonviolent tactics like economic boycott, etc.) or in shaping the nationalist movement (along with the Gadr Revolution, the INA, Gandhi, the All India Muslim League, and many other things) is to vastly oversimplify things. It’s akin to talking about the independence movement without talking about religion.

I don’t generally disagree with you that violence is acceptable in exceedingly unique and hopefully rare circumstances. At the same time it’s important not to be doctrinaire about things (I’m not sure if that’s what you’re engaging in here, but it sounds like it). Consider this this Slate article on Western Sahara just as a contrasting story. Here’s an excerpt:

“The attention we give to blood and destruction also helps keep the story off the news agenda. Since the 1991 cease-fire, the Polisario have forsworn violence as a means to further their cause. The Polisario’s leaders know that if they were to resume guerrilla action, the Moroccans would be quick to cry terrorism in order to turn their powerful allies against them. Eager for the simplicity of ‘us’ against the ‘terrorists,’ the world’s press would almost certainly play along. But the paradox of an ugly world is here very evident: Without bloodshed, no one pays any attention to the Polisario. For all the celebration of the nonviolence of Mandela or Gandhi or King, in the real world pacifism has brought the Polisario virtually nothing.”

I’m not a lawyer either, but the legal aspect of this revolves around a lot of technical points that 1) most people can’t engage and 2) don’t get to the heart of the matter. In my mind, there are only two conclusions a reasonable, decent person might draw from this incident, not mutually exclusive. One is that the law was violated by the government on one or more points. The other conclusion is that the law is profoundly fucked up with regard to the regime that immigrants can be subjected to.

Basically, the question is whether or not you believe that government should have the right to roundup noncitizens of its choosing on whatever grounds it articulates and in whatever manner it sees fit because it has determined that there’s an emergency. If this isn’t authoritarianism, it’s certainly close to it.

Of course, I just saw V For Vendetta

Overstaying doesn’t deserve this kind of punishment. And it is a sad commentary on society when someone is incarcerated and humiliated just because of malicious rumour mongering.

• This assumes that the incident is true, if not the man should be prosecuted for bringing up fraudulent charges

Regards