Pakistan's Nuclear Test - Ten Years Later

Re: # 410 Posted by hamidm2 on June 3, 2008 9:08:45 pm

hamid mian,

{... who are these baluchis? .....}

somewhere, i had read that the baluchis were turks. can this be validated?

majumdar#458:

"In that case why only two decades They should have stayed on till now."

Because during that period, and if MKG had not interrupted, the Brits would have gradually prepared the "natives" for stepping into a civilised society, the way Lee Kuan Yiew did it in Singapore. India would have evolved from a colony to a dominion and to a republic and the Indians would have evolved with it.

To give a somewhat different example, Communist dictatorship was suddenly replaced by Capitalistic Democracy in the Soviet Union, and is gradually evolving towards capitalism and democracy in China, with vastly different outcomes.

Re: # 455; Zeemax

I agree with you on that...not just killing muslims but anyone at all

they betrayed their own countrymen against every invader throughout history.....if it hadn't been for my complete 'bunch of losers' ancestors, the muslim rule would not have established and taken root in India....to the extent that it did....

.....sadly that also means no interesting debates on Chowk either........clouds with silver linings ...and all that

Khuda Hafiz....need to sleep

DM sahib,

(I am on your and hamidm's side wrt the Brits staying longer in India for another two decades. )

In that case why only two decades They should have stayed on till now.

Regards

akcheema:

I am on your and hamidm's side wrt the Brits staying longer in India for another two decades. Back in 1947, India was far ahead of Hongkong, Aden, Singapore, Malaysia and the so-called Asian Tigres and China in terms of social, economic, educational and administrative infrastructure and the Indian Rupee was the commonly accepted currency in most of Asia. Mcaulay's children, who inherited these assets along with sizeable assets in the form of sterling balances, took no time in wasting these precious assets by turning India into a lab for the airy-fairy Fabian Socialists of LSE.

Zee sahib,

Jats on both sides of the borders make very good farmers as well as fine fighting men. A large chunk of Injun Army would be Hindoo and Sikh Jats, I guess.

Regards

#449 Posted by akcheema,

Cheema Saheb, YOU would have indeed been better off because your forefathers (i.e. Jatts in general) were all mercenaries of the British serving them in killing Muslims.

If you don't believe me, ask Pavocavalry, an expert on the subject of military history of the subcontinent.

Re: # 452; majumdar

I have become aware of that over the last couple of months. Hence the word "refreshing"; a big vote of confidence from me!

Khuda Hafiz....will talk soon

hamidm#410:

".... i was born in quetta and when i was growing up i spent most of the summer vacation in my grandparents house on gurdat singh"

Was it your Nana's house by any chance? I am asking this because there was a tradition among Punjabi hindu/sikhs that mothers would go to their parents' home for the delivery of their child, especially the first-born, and wonder if the tradition extended to Muslims as well?

...and for your sake, I'll root for the Redwings tonight as the Sens are already out. But for you, I would have cheered for the Penguins as I like that kid Sid Crosby who, I think, belongs to the grand tradition of gentlemen players like Ken Dryden, Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemiux.

Cheema sahib,

Hamid mian and Masadi sahib are the two original thinkers of the chowk. They are on opposite poles in terms of ideology though.

Regards

Re: # 450; majumdar
"I think you got me wrong, I am not an Hamidist."

and here begins a new and refreshing way of thinking.......HAMIDISM!!

...bravo hamidm sahib!

Tahmed sahib,

I think you got me wrong, I am not an Hamidist. I think the independence of India and Pak was a good thing becuase whatever "advantage" (that is, if there was ANY to begin with) of colonial rule to Indians was pretty much exhausted by 1947. Continuation of colonial rule wud have been harmful to both desis as well as goras.

I am afraid you are completely wrong on MKG. The man was a retrogressive, reactionary man at the worst and completely impractical at the best. But yes he did do a few good things.

1. He prevented the anti-Brit feeling from getting into the hands of anarchist, violent types.
2. By plunging among the masses he brought about a politicisation of the masses and created a rapport b/w people and politicians which contirbuted positively to making parliamentary democracy feasible in India. (Sadly this was completely missing on the other side.)

Regards

Re: # 447; tahmed
"would india have been better off if the brits had stuck around half-century? I dont think so."

I disagree in the strongest possible terms sir

Khuda Hafiz

#446 In some circles it is fashionable to call anyone who is not a total lunatic or criminal an "idealist" or "naive". But it is these "idealists" like Gandhi who did what the criminals and lunatics could never do - move a nation forward.

majumdar: history is not formed by any single factor - while wwi/ii no doubt physically weakened the colonial empires, it was the rising middle classes and what used to be called "western education" that gave rise to the leadership of freedom movements in virtually every asian country.

Was the british rule a plus for India - definitely. The brits came to a nation ruled by kings, left the nation as a democracy. Instead of palaces and mosques built by kings for their personal glory in this world and the next, the brits built roads, canals, railways, schools, colleges.

However, would india have been better off if the brits had stuck around half-century? I dont think so.

Re: # 444; harish

I respect Gandhi more than you'd ever know; but let's face it...he was a naive idealist...that's what makes him more endearing in my eyes

enough on that....I am not in the mood for a Gandhi-Jinnah comparison...needless to say, I did my own research on YLH as prescribed by Majumdar and came up with quite the opposite results!!