Socialist Yuppies 3: The Jihadi
Adam Khan March 25, 2008
#33 Posted by guru on March 29, 2008 5:37:41 am
Masadi,
Discuss and educate Indians with ur point of view. U have lot to contribute. Only suggestion is do not use elite word too often. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=473306#473306
lakshmic wrote:
SSridhar, I would only partly agree with you . . .
The TSP problem should not be seen as a "one-dimensional" problem where a jealous insecure TSP allied itself with US/China/Mujahideen to offset India's economic and size advantage. Instead I would also urge you to consider the following other factors as well.
(1) The very creation of TSP, some argue, is to provide UK and later US with a secure access to central asia and as a counterweight to India. Irrespective of whether the above is true, Unkil does want TSP as a poodle for achieving its strategic objectives vis-a-vis Iran, Afghanistan, central asia and if possible, china. Plus pakistan is the bulwark against the russian bear's headlong run to the middle east.
(2) As much as TSP wants china as a friend to deter India, china sought out TSP too to keep India busy in her own backyard.
(3) The arab countries want TSP and thus the mujahideen. Some would argue that, Strategically speaking, importance of "hind" has never been lost on the two warring religions - Islam and Christians. The pagan hindus with their vast population, fertile land, strategic location and historical importance, will be the decisive factor in any future civilizational clash. Hence the attempts, overtly and covertly to co-opt them into one camp or the other. The muslims do it crudely through bomb blasts and islamism, the christians do it in a refined manner through conversions under the garb of "social justice" and branding in the form of "moderate western culture". Even if you don't buy this conspiratorial view (I for one, dont buy it in its entirety), Pragmatically speaking, Assisting TSP with nukes is a plausible deniability while providing for shia-sunni nuclear deterrence and arab-israeli deterrence.
Keep this in mind and for a second, consider the strategic objectives of TSP. TSP knows that it does not have the population or the natural resources to be a superpower. Under this context I would list 3 strategic objectives. (a) Achieve parity with, or surpass India in terms of economic, cultural and military power. (b) To achieve this, get rid of the identity crisis facing TSP - "Islam is the only uniting factor, democracy, secularism and Indian-ness can never be" and hence destabilize and break up India through Kashmir. This also ensures military and economic security (read water) for the punjabi heartland. (c) Through population and geographical location, become leader of the Ummah and be recognized as "the" muslim superpower.
To achieve (a),(b),(c), TSP certainly sought out US/China/Ummah/Mujahideen, but more critically due (1),(2),(3) TSP was courted with equal rigour by the external powers for their own strategic objectives.
Lakshmic, I completely agree with you that the "Pakistani problem" is not a uni-dimensional one. In fact, most problems aren't. I didn't say that other players weren't involved, like US, UK & China for their own reasons. Even Saudi Arabia is involved. We will come to that later. My post simply dealt with two of the Pakistani motivations, inter alia, which I considered important. I did not present it from the other perspective, which I will do shortly.
Let me explain my reasons for my earlier post as to the decision of TSP to seek out the UK, the US and China in that order. In 1947, the Partition led to the division of assets. The military Hardware of the British Indian Empire was divided in the 30:70 ratio in favour of India. Though both India and Pakistan qualified to be classified as "minor states" in 1947 and for a long time thereafter in terms of international power politics, yet the undeniable fact was the huge imbalance in every parameter of significance between these two countries. Pakistan was just the size of Uttar Pradesh at that time. If one looks at the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) since Independence between India & Pakistan, it has been at a minimun 4:1 and at a maximum 7:1 favouring India. Yet, all the wars were thrust by a revisionist Pakistan on a far more powerful India. Yet, India could not force the issue and settle the dispute. Normally, the conflict prolongs only when the two opposing states are equally poised. The strength for this temerity came to Pakistan from its association with the then Great Powers. Pakistan knew even in 1947 when it attacked India in Kashmir that implicitly the UK will come to its rescue as that was how the State of Pakistan was created in the very first place. That was the reason it retained a large number of Englishmen in the military and civil services as well for well into the 50s. Gen. Gracy as Commander of the Pakistani Armed Forces might have refused his Supreme Commander Jinnah's orders to move units from Attock Garrison and attack India in Kashmir but that cannot and should not be taken as a touchstone for British neutrality or fairness because that would have flown against Gen. Auchinleck's Stand-Down orders and pitted British Officers against each other. The British did everything to internationalize the dispute, prolong it, put India in the dock and dent its prestige all the while taking advantage of it for reasons of realpolitik. As the baton passed from the British to the American hands, Pakistan simply managed to cling on to the US petticoat. Of course, the US did exactly what the British did.
Pakistan should have realized on Oct 26, 1947 when India airlifted its troops and launched the counter-attack, that the enemy had the resolve and the wherewithal to contain Pakistan. Probably, Pakistan had been fooled by the pacifist tendencies of most of Indian leaders some of whom did not even want an Army assuming a moral highground. Probably that was when it decided to achieve parity with India through alliances. In fact, in the early stages of the India-Pakistan relationship, there is every reason to believe that India treated Pakistan with kid-glove most of the time considering that country as a wayward brother while Pakistan was hardening its stance and steeling itself up with not only rhetoric but also alliances. It was on the strength of these alliances as well as the newly found Chinese benefactors that Pakistan attacked India once again in 1965, learning nothing from the 1947-48 conflict. Thus, the alliances transformed the proto-conflict into an enduring one for their own realpolitik reasons. Whether Pakistan realized what was happening is a moot point but it certainly benefitted from it both economically and militarily and that reinforced the value of such alliances in the Pakistani mind. When faced with reverses and defeat, the Pakistani leaders attributed them to lack of planning and lack of support from alliance partners rather than the futility of their misadventure. So, in a way, the alliances served another purpose of a convenient scapegoat to the ruling clique.
India is also inadvertantly responsible for Pakistan's alliances. Having just gained independence using sustained nonviolence over a protracted period of time against one of the most powerful nations on earth and thus caught the admiration of both the free and the colonized nations, Indian leaders naturally stood on a high moral pedestal when it came to dealing with global conflicts and issues. India decided to speak up and stand up for what it considered as just causes. The Indian foreign policy was guided by third-world solidarity, non-alignment with either blocs and anti-imperialism and colonialism. That, practice of state craft was a fine balancing art between conflicting requirements, to maximize benefits for the country while minimizing risks, was either lost on most of her leaders, diplomats and policy makers or was arrogantly consigned to dust-bin in the initial flush of gaining freedom.
Too many events were happening around the world in a rapid succession such as the Palestine problem, the Suez canal issue in 1956, the question of Apartheid, the Cold War, Nuclear proliferation issues, the Korean War, Treaty-of-Peace with Japan, the struggle of the Afro-Asian countries against colonialism, entry of People's Republic of China (PRC) to the UN in spite of its occupation of Tibet by the fall of 1950, the Indian military action in Goa, the Afro-Asian Bandung Conference in 1955, the invasion in Vietnam, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by the USSR where India chose not to condemn the Soviet Union, to name just a few. In many of these crises, India was a leading voice. Having chosen to stand for unbending moral correctness, many of these events naturally seemed to pit India against the Western powers as India's stand on most of these issues was in direct conflict with them. In fact, India’s quest to be a leading light in establishing a just world order had started even before it got independence. The INC (Indian National Congress) sponsored a medical team led by Dr. Kotnis to serve the Chinese during the aggression by Japan in the Second World War. The INC again reacted strongly against the Balfour Declaration that displaced the Palestenians from their lands. Just before independence, Nehru convened the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi in March, 1947 in which he propounded free India’s foreign policies.
Though the world was and has been generally fascinated by India with its civilization, philosophy, culture, craft and arts, the Western Governments took a dim, though not an avowedly hostile, view of India and found it easier to deal with Pakistan, which, bereft of such a moral baggage, was easily pliable.
Discuss and educate Indians with ur point of view. U have lot to contribute. Only suggestion is do not use elite word too often. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=473306#473306
lakshmic wrote:
SSridhar, I would only partly agree with you . . .
The TSP problem should not be seen as a "one-dimensional" problem where a jealous insecure TSP allied itself with US/China/Mujahideen to offset India's economic and size advantage. Instead I would also urge you to consider the following other factors as well.
(1) The very creation of TSP, some argue, is to provide UK and later US with a secure access to central asia and as a counterweight to India. Irrespective of whether the above is true, Unkil does want TSP as a poodle for achieving its strategic objectives vis-a-vis Iran, Afghanistan, central asia and if possible, china. Plus pakistan is the bulwark against the russian bear's headlong run to the middle east.
(2) As much as TSP wants china as a friend to deter India, china sought out TSP too to keep India busy in her own backyard.
(3) The arab countries want TSP and thus the mujahideen. Some would argue that, Strategically speaking, importance of "hind" has never been lost on the two warring religions - Islam and Christians. The pagan hindus with their vast population, fertile land, strategic location and historical importance, will be the decisive factor in any future civilizational clash. Hence the attempts, overtly and covertly to co-opt them into one camp or the other. The muslims do it crudely through bomb blasts and islamism, the christians do it in a refined manner through conversions under the garb of "social justice" and branding in the form of "moderate western culture". Even if you don't buy this conspiratorial view (I for one, dont buy it in its entirety), Pragmatically speaking, Assisting TSP with nukes is a plausible deniability while providing for shia-sunni nuclear deterrence and arab-israeli deterrence.
Keep this in mind and for a second, consider the strategic objectives of TSP. TSP knows that it does not have the population or the natural resources to be a superpower. Under this context I would list 3 strategic objectives. (a) Achieve parity with, or surpass India in terms of economic, cultural and military power. (b) To achieve this, get rid of the identity crisis facing TSP - "Islam is the only uniting factor, democracy, secularism and Indian-ness can never be" and hence destabilize and break up India through Kashmir. This also ensures military and economic security (read water) for the punjabi heartland. (c) Through population and geographical location, become leader of the Ummah and be recognized as "the" muslim superpower.
To achieve (a),(b),(c), TSP certainly sought out US/China/Ummah/Mujahideen, but more critically due (1),(2),(3) TSP was courted with equal rigour by the external powers for their own strategic objectives.
Lakshmic, I completely agree with you that the "Pakistani problem" is not a uni-dimensional one. In fact, most problems aren't. I didn't say that other players weren't involved, like US, UK & China for their own reasons. Even Saudi Arabia is involved. We will come to that later. My post simply dealt with two of the Pakistani motivations, inter alia, which I considered important. I did not present it from the other perspective, which I will do shortly.
Let me explain my reasons for my earlier post as to the decision of TSP to seek out the UK, the US and China in that order. In 1947, the Partition led to the division of assets. The military Hardware of the British Indian Empire was divided in the 30:70 ratio in favour of India. Though both India and Pakistan qualified to be classified as "minor states" in 1947 and for a long time thereafter in terms of international power politics, yet the undeniable fact was the huge imbalance in every parameter of significance between these two countries. Pakistan was just the size of Uttar Pradesh at that time. If one looks at the Composite Index of National Capability (CINC) since Independence between India & Pakistan, it has been at a minimun 4:1 and at a maximum 7:1 favouring India. Yet, all the wars were thrust by a revisionist Pakistan on a far more powerful India. Yet, India could not force the issue and settle the dispute. Normally, the conflict prolongs only when the two opposing states are equally poised. The strength for this temerity came to Pakistan from its association with the then Great Powers. Pakistan knew even in 1947 when it attacked India in Kashmir that implicitly the UK will come to its rescue as that was how the State of Pakistan was created in the very first place. That was the reason it retained a large number of Englishmen in the military and civil services as well for well into the 50s. Gen. Gracy as Commander of the Pakistani Armed Forces might have refused his Supreme Commander Jinnah's orders to move units from Attock Garrison and attack India in Kashmir but that cannot and should not be taken as a touchstone for British neutrality or fairness because that would have flown against Gen. Auchinleck's Stand-Down orders and pitted British Officers against each other. The British did everything to internationalize the dispute, prolong it, put India in the dock and dent its prestige all the while taking advantage of it for reasons of realpolitik. As the baton passed from the British to the American hands, Pakistan simply managed to cling on to the US petticoat. Of course, the US did exactly what the British did.
Pakistan should have realized on Oct 26, 1947 when India airlifted its troops and launched the counter-attack, that the enemy had the resolve and the wherewithal to contain Pakistan. Probably, Pakistan had been fooled by the pacifist tendencies of most of Indian leaders some of whom did not even want an Army assuming a moral highground. Probably that was when it decided to achieve parity with India through alliances. In fact, in the early stages of the India-Pakistan relationship, there is every reason to believe that India treated Pakistan with kid-glove most of the time considering that country as a wayward brother while Pakistan was hardening its stance and steeling itself up with not only rhetoric but also alliances. It was on the strength of these alliances as well as the newly found Chinese benefactors that Pakistan attacked India once again in 1965, learning nothing from the 1947-48 conflict. Thus, the alliances transformed the proto-conflict into an enduring one for their own realpolitik reasons. Whether Pakistan realized what was happening is a moot point but it certainly benefitted from it both economically and militarily and that reinforced the value of such alliances in the Pakistani mind. When faced with reverses and defeat, the Pakistani leaders attributed them to lack of planning and lack of support from alliance partners rather than the futility of their misadventure. So, in a way, the alliances served another purpose of a convenient scapegoat to the ruling clique.
India is also inadvertantly responsible for Pakistan's alliances. Having just gained independence using sustained nonviolence over a protracted period of time against one of the most powerful nations on earth and thus caught the admiration of both the free and the colonized nations, Indian leaders naturally stood on a high moral pedestal when it came to dealing with global conflicts and issues. India decided to speak up and stand up for what it considered as just causes. The Indian foreign policy was guided by third-world solidarity, non-alignment with either blocs and anti-imperialism and colonialism. That, practice of state craft was a fine balancing art between conflicting requirements, to maximize benefits for the country while minimizing risks, was either lost on most of her leaders, diplomats and policy makers or was arrogantly consigned to dust-bin in the initial flush of gaining freedom.
Too many events were happening around the world in a rapid succession such as the Palestine problem, the Suez canal issue in 1956, the question of Apartheid, the Cold War, Nuclear proliferation issues, the Korean War, Treaty-of-Peace with Japan, the struggle of the Afro-Asian countries against colonialism, entry of People's Republic of China (PRC) to the UN in spite of its occupation of Tibet by the fall of 1950, the Indian military action in Goa, the Afro-Asian Bandung Conference in 1955, the invasion in Vietnam, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising by the USSR where India chose not to condemn the Soviet Union, to name just a few. In many of these crises, India was a leading voice. Having chosen to stand for unbending moral correctness, many of these events naturally seemed to pit India against the Western powers as India's stand on most of these issues was in direct conflict with them. In fact, India’s quest to be a leading light in establishing a just world order had started even before it got independence. The INC (Indian National Congress) sponsored a medical team led by Dr. Kotnis to serve the Chinese during the aggression by Japan in the Second World War. The INC again reacted strongly against the Balfour Declaration that displaced the Palestenians from their lands. Just before independence, Nehru convened the Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi in March, 1947 in which he propounded free India’s foreign policies.
Though the world was and has been generally fascinated by India with its civilization, philosophy, culture, craft and arts, the Western Governments took a dim, though not an avowedly hostile, view of India and found it easier to deal with Pakistan, which, bereft of such a moral baggage, was easily pliable.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#34 Posted by tahir on March 29, 2008 9:56:12 am
Re: # 32
Listen imposter, I'm not Asadi who will kick your rear quarters for the non-sense you've uttered against the 'mercy of the worlds'. Probably you utter greater blasphemies against your own faith.
You appear to be highly educated in all the wrong disciplines. Discipline that piece of leather called TONGUE, unless of course you're thinking through another piece of leather (don't unzip to disappoint yourself now).
Of course, the CHOWK editors appear to be enjoying these attacks on Islam. Perhaps THIS enhances their ratings. Ah, what men will do for ratings!
I would request Mr. Asadi to remain calm and not get abusive. And I would also request the rotten eggs of this website to sell their sorry selves in Denmark or the Netherlands perhaps.
My impression about educated Indians has totally been ruined by the likes of the outcast I'm addressing this to.
Will the REAL Indians please stand up?
Shanti now.
Listen imposter, I'm not Asadi who will kick your rear quarters for the non-sense you've uttered against the 'mercy of the worlds'. Probably you utter greater blasphemies against your own faith.
You appear to be highly educated in all the wrong disciplines. Discipline that piece of leather called TONGUE, unless of course you're thinking through another piece of leather (don't unzip to disappoint yourself now).
Of course, the CHOWK editors appear to be enjoying these attacks on Islam. Perhaps THIS enhances their ratings. Ah, what men will do for ratings!
I would request Mr. Asadi to remain calm and not get abusive. And I would also request the rotten eggs of this website to sell their sorry selves in Denmark or the Netherlands perhaps.
My impression about educated Indians has totally been ruined by the likes of the outcast I'm addressing this to.
Will the REAL Indians please stand up?
Shanti now.
#35 Posted by krbhatti on March 29, 2008 12:05:02 pm
Guru ji,
Sorry for interfering in your quest of getting POV of Masadi Mian, but the post that you copied from some other web site attracted me to make a response. You and masadi saab can keep on discussing.
Sorry Khan saab also as what I am going to post is in no way related to the satire to which these interacts are supposed to be related.
Guru ji,
My post relates to the analysis contained within the post that you posted as it relates to the facts relating to Pakistan, patrician, Kashmir, British and foreign alliances.
First of all this post says that the division of assets was in favor of India in the ratio of 70:30. Agreed, but it never tells the story after that. Did Pakistan get all these assets? Secondly, it is said that Pakistan retained british officers to make sure to get British rescue prospets. Well, sir here are some facts:
1) Pakistan army’s total strength was 150,000 at the start, which needed at least 4000 officers. Actual availability of officers was only 2,500. So, needless to say, British officers were retained. Was there any other way out of it?
2) Heavy equipment that was allocated to Pakistan was never delivered. Out of 249 tanks that came into Pakistan’s share, none was delivered whatsoever. In fact, Sardar Baldev Singh ordered all the tanks to be sent to southern Indian cantonments.
3) In 1951 there was heavy tank concentrations of Indians on Pakistan border. Alerted to real war threat, Pakistani PM Liyaquat Ali Khan asked about Pakistan’s tanks availability. He was replied that Pakistan has only 13 with only limited life. This is stated by ayub khan in his book friends not masters.
4) Azad Kashmir i.e. Pakistani part of Kashmir was liberated by tribals and locals. Pakistani armed forces only got involved after Indian army’s involvement. Even then both sides British commanders were told not to come face to face, and they did not except in few instances. The part that is Azad Kashmir is the result of tribals and locals efforts. Why Pakistan sent its army? Well because Pakistan believes that Kashmir is disputed territory that was acknowledged by Nehru who after the matter went to UN agreed that this will be solved by plebiscite.
5) Threat perception of Pakistani planner from india was high and justifiably so. India unilaterally stopped the river waters in April, 1948 coming to Pakistan. One can imagine the life and death situation faced by new nation which overwhelmingly depends on agriculture and the idea this new nation will get about the force stopping this water.
6) Kashmir dispute plus the non deliverance of military assets that Pakistan legitimately deserves will only increase its willingness to strengthen itself as it sees India as legitimate threat, and rightly so. When Indra Ghandhi says that india has thrown TNT in the Indian ocean, it speaks a lot about the mindset of Indian leadership about Pakistan.
7) Keeping in above, is there any other logical outcome for planners in Pakistan that it should strengthen itself. That is exactly it did with foreign alliances by joining Baghdad pact and other pact whose name escapes my mind.
8) If 7 above was logical then was it logical that India blamed Pakistan of creating imbalance in region by involving foreign powers and that is why it will not honor its commitment on Kashmir. From then on India started gradual process of Kashmir integration.
Today, after so many years we forget everything else except Kashmir, but there were many other things in the past. MAJ said somewhere that he want to see Pakistan and Bharat (he only used Hindustan or Bharat for Pakistan as India is the term on which both nations have claim) act like USA and Canada living side by side on friendly terms. Question was then that what made Pakistani planners think that India poses existential threat to Pakistan?????????????????????
Sorry for interfering in your quest of getting POV of Masadi Mian, but the post that you copied from some other web site attracted me to make a response. You and masadi saab can keep on discussing.
Sorry Khan saab also as what I am going to post is in no way related to the satire to which these interacts are supposed to be related.
Guru ji,
My post relates to the analysis contained within the post that you posted as it relates to the facts relating to Pakistan, patrician, Kashmir, British and foreign alliances.
First of all this post says that the division of assets was in favor of India in the ratio of 70:30. Agreed, but it never tells the story after that. Did Pakistan get all these assets? Secondly, it is said that Pakistan retained british officers to make sure to get British rescue prospets. Well, sir here are some facts:
1) Pakistan army’s total strength was 150,000 at the start, which needed at least 4000 officers. Actual availability of officers was only 2,500. So, needless to say, British officers were retained. Was there any other way out of it?
2) Heavy equipment that was allocated to Pakistan was never delivered. Out of 249 tanks that came into Pakistan’s share, none was delivered whatsoever. In fact, Sardar Baldev Singh ordered all the tanks to be sent to southern Indian cantonments.
3) In 1951 there was heavy tank concentrations of Indians on Pakistan border. Alerted to real war threat, Pakistani PM Liyaquat Ali Khan asked about Pakistan’s tanks availability. He was replied that Pakistan has only 13 with only limited life. This is stated by ayub khan in his book friends not masters.
4) Azad Kashmir i.e. Pakistani part of Kashmir was liberated by tribals and locals. Pakistani armed forces only got involved after Indian army’s involvement. Even then both sides British commanders were told not to come face to face, and they did not except in few instances. The part that is Azad Kashmir is the result of tribals and locals efforts. Why Pakistan sent its army? Well because Pakistan believes that Kashmir is disputed territory that was acknowledged by Nehru who after the matter went to UN agreed that this will be solved by plebiscite.
5) Threat perception of Pakistani planner from india was high and justifiably so. India unilaterally stopped the river waters in April, 1948 coming to Pakistan. One can imagine the life and death situation faced by new nation which overwhelmingly depends on agriculture and the idea this new nation will get about the force stopping this water.
6) Kashmir dispute plus the non deliverance of military assets that Pakistan legitimately deserves will only increase its willingness to strengthen itself as it sees India as legitimate threat, and rightly so. When Indra Ghandhi says that india has thrown TNT in the Indian ocean, it speaks a lot about the mindset of Indian leadership about Pakistan.
7) Keeping in above, is there any other logical outcome for planners in Pakistan that it should strengthen itself. That is exactly it did with foreign alliances by joining Baghdad pact and other pact whose name escapes my mind.
8) If 7 above was logical then was it logical that India blamed Pakistan of creating imbalance in region by involving foreign powers and that is why it will not honor its commitment on Kashmir. From then on India started gradual process of Kashmir integration.
Today, after so many years we forget everything else except Kashmir, but there were many other things in the past. MAJ said somewhere that he want to see Pakistan and Bharat (he only used Hindustan or Bharat for Pakistan as India is the term on which both nations have claim) act like USA and Canada living side by side on friendly terms. Question was then that what made Pakistani planners think that India poses existential threat to Pakistan?????????????????????
#36 Posted by guru on March 29, 2008 10:33:35 pm
Re: # 35:
Indians may be shouting in their echo chambers. Your participation can help them and develop mutual understanding for better future of our people. I think more knowledgeable folks such as you should participate on that forum with open mind which might need questioning Islamic dogma and creation of Pakistan. Mind that present day Indians do not want large Muslim population among them for many reasons. But when they interact with people such as you they may change their opinion and that is good for Muslims who are in India. I will also suggest that do not talk about Kashmir. No Indian will part an inch. For dharmic folks India is their last refuge. On that forum many have this view. You gently point out the compulsion Pakistan faced with documented evidences. People on that forum are quite open unless u put "green" mirchy in your argument.
My personal view is that many of the so called leaders except Gandhi and histrue followers, Subhash and socialist revolutionaries were job seekers. MAJ being the premier job seeker. The job profile handed t him 1931 onwards was to make Pakistan a rentier state. 800 lb gorilla now physically in pakistan decided who would be ur premiers or presidents. The details you have provided might have some truth, but ask yourself, has Pakistan ever worked for peaceful resolution of its dispute with Inida ... Did MAJ or any other leader ask the army to stop the private laskar of tribals attacking/raping/plundering Kashmir, when Shaikh Abdulla an elected leader and King of Kashmir agreed for integrating Kashmir with India why MAJ, the constitutionalist created a dispute. So yu will have to be open to such questions. I hope you will learn others view. The big problem with Pakis in particular and Muslims in gneral is that they are not exposed to minority and their opponent's point of view.
India needs to throw TNT in the garbage and incinerate it so that there cannot be another division in the name of religion, language, cast and creed.
About 8) Pak could trust its neighbor, esp who has leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru type, whose civilization has been accommodating, who did not attack outsiders for economic or religious reasons and most importantly as you claim Pak's Indianness, the neighbor Bharat is Indian as Pak.
Befriend many esp Shiv on that forum.
Indians may be shouting in their echo chambers. Your participation can help them and develop mutual understanding for better future of our people. I think more knowledgeable folks such as you should participate on that forum with open mind which might need questioning Islamic dogma and creation of Pakistan. Mind that present day Indians do not want large Muslim population among them for many reasons. But when they interact with people such as you they may change their opinion and that is good for Muslims who are in India. I will also suggest that do not talk about Kashmir. No Indian will part an inch. For dharmic folks India is their last refuge. On that forum many have this view. You gently point out the compulsion Pakistan faced with documented evidences. People on that forum are quite open unless u put "green" mirchy in your argument.
My personal view is that many of the so called leaders except Gandhi and histrue followers, Subhash and socialist revolutionaries were job seekers. MAJ being the premier job seeker. The job profile handed t him 1931 onwards was to make Pakistan a rentier state. 800 lb gorilla now physically in pakistan decided who would be ur premiers or presidents. The details you have provided might have some truth, but ask yourself, has Pakistan ever worked for peaceful resolution of its dispute with Inida ... Did MAJ or any other leader ask the army to stop the private laskar of tribals attacking/raping/plundering Kashmir, when Shaikh Abdulla an elected leader and King of Kashmir agreed for integrating Kashmir with India why MAJ, the constitutionalist created a dispute. So yu will have to be open to such questions. I hope you will learn others view. The big problem with Pakis in particular and Muslims in gneral is that they are not exposed to minority and their opponent's point of view.
India needs to throw TNT in the garbage and incinerate it so that there cannot be another division in the name of religion, language, cast and creed.
About 8) Pak could trust its neighbor, esp who has leaders such as Gandhi and Nehru type, whose civilization has been accommodating, who did not attack outsiders for economic or religious reasons and most importantly as you claim Pak's Indianness, the neighbor Bharat is Indian as Pak.
Befriend many esp Shiv on that forum.
#37 Posted by MantoLives on March 30, 2008 5:57:23 am
krbhatti,
Excellent post.
There is a great book by Alastair Lamb called "Incomplete Parition" ... which goes into the details of the events of presented by you and is slap on those who make all sorts of funny claims about partition, kashmir etc.
Excellent post.
There is a great book by Alastair Lamb called "Incomplete Parition" ... which goes into the details of the events of presented by you and is slap on those who make all sorts of funny claims about partition, kashmir etc.
#38 Posted by krbhatti on March 30, 2008 8:32:41 am
Re: # 37
Manto Mian,
Thanks for book recommendation. Next month I'll try to find this book when I'll be in Lahore, because in GCC, it is very hard to find any book.
Actually, I want to write an article about it but all my books and reference books are in Lahore at my home. So what I posted was out of my memory; further, I was half asleep, hence you'll find mistake of every kind in each sentence. But, I am glad that you did get what I intended reader to get.....
Manto Mian,
Thanks for book recommendation. Next month I'll try to find this book when I'll be in Lahore, because in GCC, it is very hard to find any book.
Actually, I want to write an article about it but all my books and reference books are in Lahore at my home. So what I posted was out of my memory; further, I was half asleep, hence you'll find mistake of every kind in each sentence. But, I am glad that you did get what I intended reader to get.....
#39 Posted by adamkhan on March 30, 2008 1:30:14 pm
Zeemax krachay!
That NFP "character" has been a source of inspiration for a very long time now, so thanks for the compliment. :)
That NFP "character" has been a source of inspiration for a very long time now, so thanks for the compliment. :)
#40 Posted by allah on March 30, 2008 4:43:22 pm
Re: 34
Listen gullible, it was you who had problem with my nic for whatever reason. You blindly believe in whatever crap you were told. Thats not my business. But don't come to me telling what should or shouldn't I use as my nic.
Rest of your post doesn't deserve any reply.
Also, don't hide behind Asadi. Let the man speak and/or act for himself.
Listen gullible, it was you who had problem with my nic for whatever reason. You blindly believe in whatever crap you were told. Thats not my business. But don't come to me telling what should or shouldn't I use as my nic.
Rest of your post doesn't deserve any reply.
Also, don't hide behind Asadi. Let the man speak and/or act for himself.
#41 Posted by tahir on March 30, 2008 8:39:23 pm
Re: # 40
What you were taught is total disrespect. The greatest threat comes not from simple believing folks but rather from highly-educated pseudo liberals, these mice on CHOWK.
What sane man (I'm hopelessly assuming that you're half a man) would name himself allah? How about Zakaullah or Sanaullah?
So Sanaullah (that sounds great!), faith is not crap. Exactly what do you believe in that authorises you to make silly remarks about Islam?
I guess you ran out of decent English and gentlemanly behaviour answering the rest of my post. You have two choices:
1) Grow up, or
2) Stay forever behind that desk, typing away insults as just another faceless intelligence officer.
Your very abusive posts have been duly noted. It is indeed a pity that the writer of the piece (a real Khan?) does not appear to care much.
Now who will take the baton from here on?
Shanti.
What you were taught is total disrespect. The greatest threat comes not from simple believing folks but rather from highly-educated pseudo liberals, these mice on CHOWK.
What sane man (I'm hopelessly assuming that you're half a man) would name himself allah? How about Zakaullah or Sanaullah?
So Sanaullah (that sounds great!), faith is not crap. Exactly what do you believe in that authorises you to make silly remarks about Islam?
I guess you ran out of decent English and gentlemanly behaviour answering the rest of my post. You have two choices:
1) Grow up, or
2) Stay forever behind that desk, typing away insults as just another faceless intelligence officer.
Your very abusive posts have been duly noted. It is indeed a pity that the writer of the piece (a real Khan?) does not appear to care much.
Now who will take the baton from here on?
Shanti.
#42 Posted by aslam644 on March 31, 2008 1:24:45 am
i see someone is taking the mickey of bradford again, but reality is bradford is one of the most beautiful cities in UK and one of the top tourist destination.
#43 Posted by allah on March 31, 2008 5:01:34 am
Re. #41
Once again I don't get whats your problem with what I call myself?
I know Islam's inherent bigotry and intolerance hasn't helped you to accept and tolerate different (and sometimes opposite) point of view. But thats your problem.
I would advise you to grow up and adjust yourself to others.
I understand that it is very difficult for you as you were not taught that. But its better to be late than never.
Also, if you like Sanaullah or Zakaullah, be my guest and use it for yourself.
Once again I don't get whats your problem with what I call myself?
I know Islam's inherent bigotry and intolerance hasn't helped you to accept and tolerate different (and sometimes opposite) point of view. But thats your problem.
I would advise you to grow up and adjust yourself to others.
I understand that it is very difficult for you as you were not taught that. But its better to be late than never.
Also, if you like Sanaullah or Zakaullah, be my guest and use it for yourself.
#44 Posted by peonofthewest on March 31, 2008 5:08:11 am
Re: # 41
Tahiri saab, may be we should set the Real Allah on to him saab. that will wipe the smirk off his face saab when he burns in hell
Tahiri saab, may be we should set the Real Allah on to him saab. that will wipe the smirk off his face saab when he burns in hell
#45 Posted by allah on March 31, 2008 10:10:55 am
#44
"burns in hell"
hahaha...
Poor Real Allah needs my seal of approval to feel better. He is surely a person of low esteem. Why doesn't your "Real Allah" show up on earth and burn me rather than wait till I die?
Is it because I will make him shit in his pants? Whether on earth or hell!
"burns in hell"
hahaha...
Poor Real Allah needs my seal of approval to feel better. He is surely a person of low esteem. Why doesn't your "Real Allah" show up on earth and burn me rather than wait till I die?
Is it because I will make him shit in his pants? Whether on earth or hell!
#47 Posted by tahir on March 31, 2008 9:55:51 pm
Dear Sanaullah (sana means; brilliance, to gaze or look),
I will not stoop to the level of abusing your idols because the Qur'an forbids that; may your gods and goddesses knock some sense into your head. How do you say 'Aameen' in Hindi?
Do let all of us know when you turn seventeen.
With best wishes,
Your elder brother.
I will not stoop to the level of abusing your idols because the Qur'an forbids that; may your gods and goddesses knock some sense into your head. How do you say 'Aameen' in Hindi?
Do let all of us know when you turn seventeen.
With best wishes,
Your elder brother.
#48 Posted by peonoftheeast on March 31, 2008 10:33:26 pm
Re: # 47
Tahiri saab like westy (44) said, leave the man to the Real Allah please
Tahiri saab like westy (44) said, leave the man to the Real Allah please
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: Ahmedi_Murad #179: yes indeed... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Ahmadi_Mureed: Reply to # 173... Muslim Ghettoisation
- BJ2: Re: # 174 Arjun, stop... Muslim Ghettoisation
- SRK: hamidm2 "..... i tell you,... Muslim Ghettoisation
- Ahmadi_Mureed: Reply to # 171... Muslim Ghettoisation
- BJ2: Masadi miaN, you should... Yet Another Immigrant Story
- tahmed32: mike #160 mirpur used... Muslim Ghettoisation
- _arjun9: hey masadi...we're still waiting... Muslim Ghettoisation
