India, Pakistan and the Kashmir dispute

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

Mantobhai,

Came across this gem on the ``Failed State`` board. Aap bhi naa, kabhi kabhi...

<<< #31 by Mantolives on May 7, 2006 12:25pm PT

Also I think we need to see the news from Washington collectively...

I believe that these reports + Richard Boucher`s statements a month firmly indicate that Musharraf`s regime is about to lose US backers... and that would mean the end to this government within the next six to 10 months... >>>

Maybe you would now want to revise your prediction.

Happy New Year all....

Re: # 414 tahmed

Thank you for the advice. Meanwhile, perhaps you should research and reflect on the following:

51:56

``I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.``

:-)~~

Re: # 413 FoolAl

WOW! How come no one told me that? Look how embarrassed I am now.

BTW, you forgot to mention the exponential growth rate of AIDS, Prostitution, homelessness, disenfranchised lower castes, so on and so forth?

The Pakistani hypocrite PM and his cabal throws such numbers at the illiterate masses too. Keep the numbers in your pockets. The don`t mean much if the masses continue to slide deeper in destitution.

Kargil....that`s the difference b/w Hindu fundos and jihadis. That latter never gives up, even if his own stab him in the back. Rest assured, all that is going to be part of the Islamic state collectively.

``This is the kind of ``victory`` I am willing to give to Pakis like you everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.``

That`s right, that`s why one of your generals was quoted as saying `our men were dying like dogs`.....lol

``You don`t want the Pakistan Army taking you out a la Bajaur now do you?``

Death only frightens pig-tailed banya, not the jihadi.

:-)~~

Re: # 412 arjun2

wouldn`t the curious cat like know?

Soon son, soon.

LOL :-)~~

Manto mian,

(Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan. )

Only one as a matter of fact and that is Mallapuram. And incidentaly Mallapuram was only a sub-division and was raised to the state of a district I believe only in 1980s as an act of appeasement by one of the state govt.

(As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974.)

But if Maulana Urstruly (pbuh) is to believed in Allah`s Constitution, they are not Muslims and surely Allah`s Constitution, which is timeless, should supersede Pakistani Constitution on any matter of faith at any point of time, a principle which I guess was recognised in 1974.

Regards

Re: # 415

Partition of Bengal and Punjab ... a response:

``If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation. ``

---

Pl dont brush the main reason for AIML politics under the carpet. It`s religion and the charter was made with 14-points. That sums up the `maximum` possible list of demands of AIML. It`s `Muslim League` not a `Urdu League`. Pl remember some Hindus identified themselves with Urdu in pre-partition India, if u dont know it.

---

``In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.``

---

The intractability was made-up by AIML. They raised the goalpost to unattainable levels. It`s just like Advani asking for a temple `exactly` at the place where Babri Masjid stood. How ther can be any other solution?

Jinnah raised goal-posts from time to time.

---

``Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy. ``

---

Even a moron-in-hurry wud not accept to the concept of Confederation envisaged by Cripps or Cabinet. There was an in-built clause of separation and AIML was hellbent on getting Pakistan since they made it in their March 23rd Lahore Resolution in 1940.

---

``1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. ``

---

Unless u read the Terms of Reference given to the solicitor Sir Ceril Radcliffe``.

``2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia.....``

---

Brain dead? All India Muslim League is the legitimate representative body of Muslims of South Asia????? Had any historian of that generation wrote like this? WTF do u include South Asia instead of India or British India in the argument? It surely shows how opaque ur blinkers are.

---

``...and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense. ``

---

Read the same sentence with India replacing Punjab and Bengal

---

``3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence. ``

---

How many people did Punjab/Pakistani army kill in East Pakistan? Can u compare the partition killings with the count of East Pakistan??? It`s 1:3.

The funny guy Zafrullah Khan makes a statement from New York that only 10,000 were killed in west Punjab but more than 1,00,000 were killed in East Punjab as if he`s watching the crystal ball in New York!

U also mean to say that Govt of India arranged all the deaths? Take ur head out of ur reareend and see the daylight, buddy!

---

#416 by Mantolives on December 28, 2006 5:40am PT


The guy who assumes too much erroneously suggested that there is some sort of bar against a Non-muslim becoming the COAS in Pakistan...

In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.


Of course...there`s also no explicit law on the books banning pigs from flying....

Majumdar mian,

Kerala has several Muslim Majority districts that by Congress` logic should have gone to Pakistan.

As for Gurdaspur.... we are talking 1947 and not post 1974. It is a settled principle of law that pending disputes are settled according to the laws enforced during then and we know that in 1947 Ahmadis were ardent Muslim Leaguers and accepted as Muslims by the then Pakistani interim constitution.

Manto mian,

(besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US. )

But quite a few religious minority figures have become C-in-C and President/PM of a non-secular, non-democratic nation next door to your country.

Hmmm, you have again raised the partition of a country versus partition of state argument.

(In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well. )

They did except of course J&K, one distt. in WB (I think Maldah) and Gurdaspur, although the Muslim majority in the last distt. depends on whether a certain sect is considered Muslim or not. Sattarbhai thinks yes, Maulana Urstruly (pbuh), Raziabi and the Pakistani Constt. say no.

Have to rush home else would have discussed in greater details.

Regards

Here is a close-up view of the Pakistani Constitution!

Let the MANTO read its fine print - most people simply notice what it was used for!

The guy who assumes too much erroneously suggested that there is some sort of bar against a Non-muslim becoming the COAS in Pakistan...

In the Pakistan Army, legally any Pakistani citizen regardless of religion, caste, creed and now gender can become the Chief of the Army Staff.

Infact legally all secular offices - barring the President of the Republic- are open to all citizens of Pakistan without any discrimination of faith, caste, creed or gender... but since the President o the Republic is more often than not the COAS... one could say that it is open to all Non-Muslims who might become the COAS. (I personally think that it would be great if we got rid of the Muslim President clause..)

Ofcourse... in reality, the chances of a Non-Muslim becoming the COAS or Prime Minister of Pakistan are quite bleak... but then we never know... besides how many Non-Christians have become the CinC of the US Armed Forces and/or the Chief Executive of the US.

Partition of Bengal and Punjab ... a response:

If a group and in our case a minority (which formed natural majorities at certain extremities in our case) with a particular set of characteristics - language or religious beliefs or race or any combination thereof, having bent over backwards to appease another stronger group - in our case the majority- chooses to go its own way, those particular set of characteristics that defined them as a group in the first way need not be called a ``trump`` card. (At other places the weaker and the stronger group may not be minority or majority and it would still be legitimate) Instead one ought to look at those circumstances - all of which I have mentioned on several occasions- that led to such a situation.

In our particular case, though the Two Nation Theory was forwarded for a possible consociationalist solution to the intractable question of identity politics, the salient nitty gritty of the solution i.e. Pakistan based on re-arranging provinces in separate federations within or without one confederation.

Now... by rejecting the confederation, the Congress closed the door on cooperation and by arguing for the partition of provinces, the Congress in fact used the very two nation theory it had abused so much with a malafide intent to cause maximum damage to the new state. Then by insisting on making East Bengal a part of the Pakistan State instead of allowing undivided Bengal go its own way, the Congress infact accepted that it had been lying to the people all along and that all of its programme was based on hypocrisy.

So why was it wrong other than this you ask- hypocrisy is after all not something new to Congress?

1. By the logic that was applied by the Congress to divide Punjab and Bengal (instead of accepting Provinces as natural administrative constituent units) should then have been carried forward to all districts of British India. In other words all Muslim majority districts in modern day India- especially since most of them had voted for Muslim League- should have gone to Pakistan as well.

2. However since the Pakistan Demand was Muslim League`s demand which had proved itself the legitimate representative body of an over whelming majority of the Muslims of South Asia and their demand was completely based on the premise that provinces were constituent units, the vivisection of Punjab and Bengal went against the grain of common sense.

3. Dividing Punjab and Bengal was seen as highly dangerous by all commentators of the time and Muslim League had pleaded against it on merit. Mind you was not the partition of India and the creation of Pakistan that caused the wide scale bloodshed. It was this decision to arbitrarily strip West Pakistan of Eastern Punjab and the former East Pakistan Modern Day Bangladesh of Western Bengal in 1947 that had caused the violence.

This is precisely why the Indian government argued in 1947-48 that partition violence was merely ``disturbances`` despite Pakistan`s vociferous protests in the UN.

#409 ntsyed ``Can you accept the mother of all truths, as per The Quran you claim to believe in, that you were created for nothing but to worship Allah? ``

ntsyed - if this is what you have understood from the Quran, then perhaps you need to go back and read it more carefully.

Re: # 408

Yet at the same time the Indian economy has registered 7%+ growth since the time this ``endeavour``started. Its foreign exchange reserves went from < $1 billion to $175 billion plus. We kicked your collective asses down from Tiger Hill, Drass and Kargil. According to one of your ex prime ministers, we arranged a meeting between Allah and close to 3500 of your finest from the NLI. I am sure that was another glorious ``Victory`` along the lines of 1971.

This is the kind of ``victory`` I am willing to give to Pakis like you everyday of the week and twice on Sundays.

PS: I would keep the ``I am a direct decendant of Prophet Mohammed`` talk to myself for now. Lots pf predators in the sky. You don`t want the Pakistan Army taking you out a la Bajaur now do you? ;-)

#408 by ntsyed on December 27, 2006 11:16pm PT

mmmkay...kashmir banega pakiland...

any idea when?