The General and Kargil

#131
two questions (just for historical accuracy)

1) which battle was fought at Panipat in 1762? (I dont know of any)
2) Which Sikh units participated at Panipat? under who`s leadership?

Ranjit #130,
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I insist on historical accuracy. So:


Islam has been around in the subcontinent for 1000 years. Let me ask you the following -

1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?
While maybe not ALL, the 3rd battle of Panipat in 1762 pitted Abdali`s Afghans, Mughals, and the Nizam against Mahrattas and Sikhs.

2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?
No one really declares ``holy war`` against a faith. Hindus have at numerous times engaged in murderous violence against unarmed Muslims - Jabalpur, Ahmedabad, Ayodhya, Bombay, Gujarat (Naroda Patya), etc...


3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?
There was a movement in the last century to convert Meo Muslims back to Hinduism and it did succeed. There have been other attempts - especially in the east.


4. Since 1947, name me one muslim who has reverted back based on hindu pressure in India.

Nargis - LOL

Re:urstruly#126

Your long post is so full of misconceptions that it is hard to argue against all of it.

Islam has been around in the subcontinent for 1000 years. Let me ask you the following -

1. How many wars did ALL hindus fight with ALL muslims in the subcontinent before 1947?

2. How many times did hindus declare holy war on Islam?

3. During the past 1000 years, name me one hindu ruler who made any muslim revert back?

4. Since 1947, name me one muslim who has reverted back based on hindu pressure in India.

The answer to all the above is a big fat zero. Do hindus resent muslim conversion from the past? Of course they do. After all if a part of your community is lost to you, you will feel bad too. However, we have reconciled to it and we have never initiated a conflict on that basis. In fact, India has excellent relations with every muslim country except for Pakistan.

On the other hand, it is Pakistanis who have not reconciled to the fact that there is no longer muslim rule all over the subcontinent. That is the latent desire which gets manifested by creating excuses to create and continue a conflict.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

General Pervez Musharraf
Military misjudgment

Oct 5th 2006
From The Economist print edition
The Pakistani leader`s memoir may be a bestseller, but it does him little justice

AFP

THERE are good things to be said about General Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan`s president and army chief, and he is, as he might put it, proud and unstinting in his resolution to say them, over and over, in his cliché-ridden and boringly boastful autobiography, “In the Line of Fire”.

General Musharraf—and there are enough phrases familiar to those who have followed his career to prove that he wrote quite a lot of it—comes across as humourless, vain and insecure. Sentences as smug as, “My career was now well on course, given all my qualifications and achievements”, are spattered across almost every page. There are many references to the president`s (allegedly) fine musculature. Any less than glorious event in his life, after at least a refreshingly sinful youth, is blamed on some less worthy individual, a dull superior or jealous peer, whom the author is all too happy to name. And yet, painful though it is to read, this is a quite remarkable book, about dramatic events and, as the occasional sentence lets slip, an interesting and impressive man.
<A TARGET=``_blank`` HREF=``http://ad.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/347a/3/0/%2a/m%3B29245901%3B1-0%3B0%3B12943834%3B4307-300/250%3B15440926/15458822/1%3B%3B%7Efdr%3D52013723%3B1-0%3B0%3B7058116%3B799-350/300%3B18697523/18715418/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://www.atradius.com``><IMG SRC=``http://m1.2mdn.net/969365/Atradius_econ_chair_eng_300_250.gif`` BORDER=0></A>

For a start, the book`s timing is remarkable. It is unusual for serving heads-of-state to publish memoirs, for good reason. General Musharraf denigrates Pakistan`s chief ally, America, for the bullying way in which it manages its foreign policy and for failing to live up to its promises. He is also bafflingly rude about India, given that he has staked his name on making peace with it. Of India`s leader, he says: “The initial signs of sincerity and flexibility that I sensed in Manmohan Singh seem to be withering away.” He suggests that Osama bin Laden is not, as often supposed, in Pakistan`s wild northern areas, but in eastern Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan`s leader, whom General Musharraf accused of resembling an ostrich last week at a bad-tempered summit in Washington, DC, is not pleased by the book. Neither is almost anyone in Pakistan, although it is selling briskly there (see article). General Musharraf scorns most of the country`s civilian politicians—tactless, if justifiable—including some of his supporters.

Insults aside, the book does not tell us much that is new. Most interesting are the details of events leading to the arrest in Pakistan of several top terrorists, including Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of the attacks on the twin towers, and other al-Qaeda members; General Musharraf says 689 al-Qaeda members have been arrested, of whom 369 have been handed over to America. That is a testament to the efficiency of Pakistan`s security services, even though Mr Musharraf accuses America of having failed to provide the technical kit it promised.

Such digs at the superpower may be for the benefit of Pakistanis, many of whom find General Musharraf too quick to leap to its bidding. But the book is meant for a Western audience, by whom, it is clear, General Musharraf considers himself ill judged. It contains bold treatises on the political and economic reforms he has overseen since stealing power in his 1999 coup. These include a messy, but promising, effort to devolve power to the local level, and the creation of elected councils with fixed quotas for women representatives. There are also quotas for women in provincial and national assemblies. General Musharraf has given a boost to female emancipation in Pakistan, although the full impact of the changes he has introduced will not be felt soon. Even better, he has delivered broad structural improvements to Pakistan`s economy, which had been in a desperate way. This was not, as he suggests, the result of his own genius. He is economically semi-literate. But he can take credit for appointing wise technocrats.

In short, heaven forbid that anyone unfamiliar with Pakistan should wholly trust this book. General Musharraf is as partial as any campaigning politician. One monstrous example is his account of a short war with India at Kargil in 1999, when he was merely army chief. It began when Pakistani state-sponsored jihadist militants attacked across the front-line in contested Kashmir, drawing a ferocious Indian response. General Musharraf calls this an over-reaction—but if it were, it was understandable—and he says that India`s army came off worse in the fray, even to the point where the military ran out of coffins for their dead. Yet he omits to mention the hundreds—some say thousands—of Pakistani fighters who were slaughtered in a humiliating retreat.

Disingenuously, he says the war at Kargil was an important catalyst in the peace process that followed: if that is true, it is because Pakistan, not India, was forced to the table by the drubbing it took there.

An election is due in Pakistan next year, and General Musharraf is increasingly unpopular. This is because of a litany of perceived failures, including a muddle-headed war he has prosecuted in the northern areas, and rising inflation. It is also because, despite their appalling experiences of civilian leadership, and their acquiescence in his coup, Pakistanis have tired of army rule.

The bad news in this book is that General Musharraf refuses to recognise this truth: “The Pakistan Army has always been held in high esteem as the only powerful stabilising factor in the nation,” he insists. He does not seem to show any inclination to quit his twin role, as he is constitutionally obliged to do.

#78 Masadi

Before 9/11 I honestly believed in making peace with India to an extent that Pakistan should relent on its claim on Indian occupied Kashmir provided some conditions were met, which included:

1. India apologized to the people of Kashmir for the 18 years of genocide.
2. It apologized to all rape victims, give them monetary compensation and provided counselling services.
3. It provided monitary compensation to all households that fell to the Indian aggression.
4. An unconditional amnesty to all freedom fighters.
5. Hold at least three elections under UN supervisions.
6. Give Kashmir a disaster area status and start rehabiliation on war footing.
7. Abandon all torture cells and call off all death squads.

I honestly believd that, as Muslim, all countries belong to Allah; the concept of nationality based on ethnicity, race, religion, or language is a western import, which resulted in two World Wars. Europeans learned their lesson after these wars and shed the false ideologies based on these things and formed European Union. This is the Islamic way, which teaches equity and equality, which result in human collaboration; which in turn results in building of great civilizations. This is the concept of Ummah.

But it was not Vajpayee swooping a sword in Indian Parliament threatening Pakistan after nuclear tests that changed my mind (though it gave me second thoughts) but a real turning point in my thinking was the post 9/11. At that time I realized that confrontation between India and Pakistan is not based on territorial claims but the root cause was an ideological struggle. Whether Hindus like to admit it or not, the Indian nationalism is in fact the Hindu nationalism. The fact of the matter is that a thousand years have gone by but Hindus have not fogiven the first convert to Islam. Since that day the concept of Maleech (foreigner) reigns supreme in Hindu psyche and Muslim will always be seen as ``foreigners`` regardless of whether his ancestors lived here since time began or not. As compared to this mindset there is Islam, whose ideology is that once a human being announces his belief in Allah and his Prophet he becomes the member of a global Empire of faith that transcends all artificial borders, territory, ethnicity, language, color, race, or land. This is an ideological level clash. It is because of this mindset that Quaid-e-Azam tried until last moment to keep India united and used option of Pakistan as a leverage only; whereas all Muslim religious parties rejected the option of a separate homeland altogether. That is the reason Quaid was called a ``Kafir``, by Indian Muslim religious parties. But it was Indian Congress, with a mind set driven by Hindu nationalism, that refused to entertain Quaid`s demand for an equitable parity between Hindus and Muslim - remember the foundations of a great civilization is the collaboration based on equity and equality as mentioned earlier.

After partition Indians adopted a schizophrenic mindset and attitude towards Muslims in general and Pakistan in particular. Well they got their wish to ``expel`` Maleech out but they cannot help but keep a symbiotic relationship with those Maleech as well. On one hand they still cannot forgive the first Hindu who accepted Islam at the hands of Mohammad Bin Qasim and at the same time they want him to revert back to fold as well. In other words Hindu will never accept the Partition. What really was only an ideological clash since 1947 has now turned into a clash of civilizations after 9/11. It is a clash of two conflicting mindsets.

So now I honestly believe that even if we present occupied Kashmir on the platter to Hindu, he will still not accept our existence as Pakistan. The fct of the matter is that he still wants to avenge the humiliation he felt a thousand years ago when first Hindu converted. He wants to decimate that Maleech. He wishes that there was no Maleech ever - and for that if he had to rewrite the history then so be it.

So I think Pakistan is cursed with maintaining a military posture with India for millenia until Hindu changes his mindset and accept that Maleech. And the day he will do that Kashmir ban jaye ga Pakistan. There is absolutely nothing Pakistan can do to change Hindu mindset, this change must come from inside.

Re: # 126

Haan Turly Haan ... malichch hai tu .... isilye to saari fight hai :)

aaj tujhe moksha mil gaya .... LOL !!

#124, Wiseguyin,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you about Shri Ram. :)

Krishna_abcd #119 {``Okay. While we are in the quest of ``root causes``, and you mention India`s ``meddling`` in BD as the ``root cause`` that caused Pakis to be ``upset``, may I point out the root root cause?
That being the illegal incursion of Paki hordes into Kashmir while the King was deciding which side he is going to join?
Let`s get a response to this from you. ``}

Krishna,
You have all the anger and hatred of your namesake but none of the wisdom and affection. :)

The Paki hordes that you are referring to were Jihadists from NWFP and as Wana teaches us today, Pakistan has never been able to dictate to these wild tribesmen. Their actions in Baramula and failure to occupy the airport directly resulted in the loss of the valley to India for the Kashmiris. As for violence while the ``King`` was pondering his decision, do you remember the ``Police Action`` against the Nizam of Hyderabad or the Nawab of Junagadh?

While I am totally against the sad catastrophe we call partition and do not wish to dwell on the details of how to butcher a united country, I must correct your one-sided jingoism and subjective interpretation of history. Thanks.

#120 GT, {``Peace is more achievable if we realize that we have caused pain to each other. To be able to express this realization we need to talk for some time ....p.s. The word ``Paki`` hurts some Pakistanis. Is it too much to ask you to stop using it? ``}

GT,
I agree with that wisdom-laden response of yours. :)

BTW, I use Paki as a mere abbreviation for Pakistani. In Urdu, Farsi, and even Turkish, Paki means cleanliness and that`s nothing wrong with that. Just because some Brits used Paki-bashing as their pastime doesn`t mean that I have to defer to their usurpation of a good word for evil deeds. So, I encourage the use of Paki.

Re:faraz#114

[......if Mush would have gone for the nuke option tou phir luch nahi bachta india mein..remember Pak is the one not willing to sign the no first strike treaty and that is because there would be only one strike and that is it.......]

Faraz beta, do you really think India will follow a ``no first strike`` policy? That is just BS that we say to keep Uncle Sam happy and away from Kashmir. Push comes to shove, it will be a first strike, beleive me.

Also, India has second strike capability i.e. counter reacting after first strike. We are big enough to absorb the first blow. Pakistan does not have second strike capability and no strategic depth, unless you think that Taliban would welcome macaca punjabis in their midst.

Anyway, your beghairat country survives by your leader musharraf being a total chamcha of Bush. Your economic state is desperate as you live on handouts from US. Look at your pathetic condition. Do you really want to bring Kashmiris and subject them to the same pathetic state? Kya bigaara hai Kashmiriyon ne tumhara? Think about that before dreaming big about Kashmir, nukes etc.

Re: # 121

Ranjit, I am not sure why you are replying to everything that the Arab goo chaater is saying.
Humor him. After all, pukis have soo much technology that they are going to wipe out their cousins across the border :)

#Salim_Chauhan
Bhai, Saket never had hatred for any one. He did display anger & a lack of patience, though.
One reason why Shri Ram is considered the perfect human...

#115 by Salim_Chauhan

[Now, if you agree with that, you can then realize how upset many Pakis are with India for meddling in East Pakistan and creating Bangladesh. Sure, in the short term, Indira Gandhi`s interference led to the bifurcation of Pakistan, weakening of an adversary, and a severe and catastrophic setback in the Pakistani psyche. However, as the saying goes ``You broke it, you own it,`` BD is more India`s problem than Pakistan`s. ]

Uh-oh. Another victim of Islamic/Paki/madrassa propaganda.

Okay. While we are in the quest of ``root causes``, and you mention India`s ``meddling`` in BD as the ``root cause`` that caused Pakis to be ``upset``, may I point out the root root cause?

That being the illegal incursion of Paki hordes into Kashmir while the King was deciding which side he is going to join?

Let`s get a response to this from you.

Re:zeemax#109

[..Abey macaca see the whole plan. Firstly, macacaland does not have sub-kiloton tactical nukes, Pak does. 3 out of the 5 tested were sub-kiloton tactical warheads. India only made and tested the biggies. Making tactical nukess is a lot harder than making those big mothers of 10 kiloton or more. Next, the tripwire defence of 10 kilometres inside Pak territory (someone mentioned it) was a defensive plan inside PAK`S OWN TERRITORY, not on MACACALAND`S leaving macacaland with no basis for a wholesale nuke strike oh Pak cities, which in any case Pak could match with its own. Macacaland was done with if the war hadn`t stopped. I regret that now after meeting you macacas.....]

See this is the problem with you macaca_mullahs. You think everyone else is brain dead and will blindly follow your gameplan and the artificial limits that you set. In 1965, your other famous macaca general Ayub tried his luck in Kashmir, imagining that India would limit its reaction to Kashmir. India counterpunched in Punjab with the macaca_mullahs in GHQ peeing in their shalwars in desperation. Even today you hear Paki strategists complain about how India did the unexpected by attacking Punjab.

The reality is that once Pakiland escalated the fight, all bets were off. India could have very well launched an all out wholesale nuke strike and damaged Pakiland so much that there would have been no chance of a response. Or it could have done something else. Bottom line, is that if you take panga with someone much stronger than you and possessing nukes on top of that, you better be prepared for the consequences. No one is going to play the game according to your rules.

Krishna_abcd #82 {``We need revenge. My recommendation is the Indian army rolling right through Pakiland, and performing mass conversions - to Judaism - AFTER neutralizing them with pork.
So the conversion plan would be Pakis (Jehadis) -> Pork-laden sub-humans (with no hope of the 72 Whoores) -> Jews.
Now THAT would be sweet revenge. :) ``}

Krishna_abcd,
You do have a wild (and bizarre) imagination. :) What happened? Did the orange markings on your forehead penetrate the skull?

Mohar11 #86 {``And what happened to Salim amd Urstruly anyway?... How come these are two have stooped down to lick the mushy`s b@!!s?``}

Mohar Bhayya,
What happened to Salim (can`t speak for Maulana Urstruly Sahib) is the lack of choices. Despite being against dicatorships, for democracy, for freedom, and against corruption, I am forced to pray for Mushy`s life exactly because of these reasons. Pakistan`s democratically-elected governments (BB +Nawaz) X 2)) have left such a disgusting fear of elections, that many Pakis prefer this ``world-class`` author and statesman. LOL A concerned citizen can only be as objective as his choices permit him to be.