Western Media’s War on Pakistan
Moeed Pirzada April 22, 2004
#185 Posted by Tmk on May 11, 2004 6:32:17 am
Taimur M. Khan
Discuss Art’s ‘Four Functions of Force’ with respect to Pollack
For a state, Art argues, if defense is not possible, then deterrence becomes
the next priority. Within the Iraqi context, it is clear that Iraq’s military
forces could not have successfully defended against a U.S. military attack.
Hence, deterrence became their primary objective, which would explain some of
the ambiguity surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, since Iraq’s
military strategists may well have reasoned that they could only avert a U.S.
attack if the U.S. thought that the Iraqis possessed some type of chemical or
biological deterrent.
Pollack argues that Saddam’s “fundamentally aggressive and risk-acceptant”
nature would have meant that a nuclear-armed Saddam would have been a “disaster
waiting to happen”. Thus, deterrence would break down if and when Saddam
attained nuclear capability, or in Pollack’s carefully chosen words, would
become “too risky”.
It is difficult to believe Pollack’s aforementioned contention regarding the
breakdown of deterrence. Any aggressive action on part of Saddam against, say,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel would have resulted in massive retaliation (by
the U.S. in the first two cases due to the U.S. nuclear umbrella and by Israel
in the third case). As Pollack acknowledges, Saddam has been deterred in the
past, including in 1994, when he mobilized the remnants of his army near the
Kuwaiti border but backed down when the U.S. reinforced its forces in Kuwait
and in 1991, when he did not arm his scuds with chemical or biological weapons
(which he possessed) when he attacked Israel (out of fear of Israeli nuclear
retaliation). Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds (his own
people) and the Iranians, notwithstanding the brutal nature of these attacks,
cannot be looked upon as a harbinger of his use of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) against countries like the U.S. or Israel that possess far greater
stockpiles of WMD and can retaliate on a massive scale.
More troublesome is the argument, put forth by some proponents of the Iraq
war, that a nuclear armed Iraq would have been able to blackmail the rest of
the world, or in other words, compel the U.S. and other countries in the region
(say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait). If the U.S., with thousands of nuclear
weapons and the most fearsome military in the world, could not compel Saddam
peacefully and had to do invade Iraq to overthrow him, then the notion that
Saddam, whenever he attained his nuclear arsenal (which would initially be
quite limited), would be able to compel greater powers seems difficult to
believe. Physical compellence would not have been a viable option for Saddam
since the U.S. and Israel have far larger and sophisticated nuclear arsenals
and any initiation of nuclear warfare from Saddam would probably have meant the
end of Iraq as a viable state. Therefore, any threats by Saddam to resort to
nuclear weapons would have been treated as empty threats due to his inability
to back them up. Therefore, in general, nuclear weapons are not very effective
for compellence purposes in the way they are for deterrence.
The U.S. military buildup in the Gulf was certainly not a case of
swaggering, as swaggering is not employed for a “specific, consciously
thought-out end”, which in this case was the overthrow of the Saddam regime.
However, the military buildup before the war did result in an increased
peaceful compellent effect on the Saddam regime, even though an invasion was
ultimately required to achieve U.S. objectives.
As Pollack acknowledges, Saddam, even though he was a risk taker, did follow
certain logic before taking decisions and was cognizant of the repercussions of
his actions as evident from the aforementioned examples. Dealing with a
nuclear-armed Saddam may have been more complicated than dealing with one armed
only with conventional weapons, but considering the vast military superiority
of the U.S. (and within the region, of Israel) it would certainly not have been
a “disaster waiting to happen.”
Discuss Art’s ‘Four Functions of Force’ with respect to Pollack
For a state, Art argues, if defense is not possible, then deterrence becomes
the next priority. Within the Iraqi context, it is clear that Iraq’s military
forces could not have successfully defended against a U.S. military attack.
Hence, deterrence became their primary objective, which would explain some of
the ambiguity surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, since Iraq’s
military strategists may well have reasoned that they could only avert a U.S.
attack if the U.S. thought that the Iraqis possessed some type of chemical or
biological deterrent.
Pollack argues that Saddam’s “fundamentally aggressive and risk-acceptant”
nature would have meant that a nuclear-armed Saddam would have been a “disaster
waiting to happen”. Thus, deterrence would break down if and when Saddam
attained nuclear capability, or in Pollack’s carefully chosen words, would
become “too risky”.
It is difficult to believe Pollack’s aforementioned contention regarding the
breakdown of deterrence. Any aggressive action on part of Saddam against, say,
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel would have resulted in massive retaliation (by
the U.S. in the first two cases due to the U.S. nuclear umbrella and by Israel
in the third case). As Pollack acknowledges, Saddam has been deterred in the
past, including in 1994, when he mobilized the remnants of his army near the
Kuwaiti border but backed down when the U.S. reinforced its forces in Kuwait
and in 1991, when he did not arm his scuds with chemical or biological weapons
(which he possessed) when he attacked Israel (out of fear of Israeli nuclear
retaliation). Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds (his own
people) and the Iranians, notwithstanding the brutal nature of these attacks,
cannot be looked upon as a harbinger of his use of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) against countries like the U.S. or Israel that possess far greater
stockpiles of WMD and can retaliate on a massive scale.
More troublesome is the argument, put forth by some proponents of the Iraq
war, that a nuclear armed Iraq would have been able to blackmail the rest of
the world, or in other words, compel the U.S. and other countries in the region
(say, Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait). If the U.S., with thousands of nuclear
weapons and the most fearsome military in the world, could not compel Saddam
peacefully and had to do invade Iraq to overthrow him, then the notion that
Saddam, whenever he attained his nuclear arsenal (which would initially be
quite limited), would be able to compel greater powers seems difficult to
believe. Physical compellence would not have been a viable option for Saddam
since the U.S. and Israel have far larger and sophisticated nuclear arsenals
and any initiation of nuclear warfare from Saddam would probably have meant the
end of Iraq as a viable state. Therefore, any threats by Saddam to resort to
nuclear weapons would have been treated as empty threats due to his inability
to back them up. Therefore, in general, nuclear weapons are not very effective
for compellence purposes in the way they are for deterrence.
The U.S. military buildup in the Gulf was certainly not a case of
swaggering, as swaggering is not employed for a “specific, consciously
thought-out end”, which in this case was the overthrow of the Saddam regime.
However, the military buildup before the war did result in an increased
peaceful compellent effect on the Saddam regime, even though an invasion was
ultimately required to achieve U.S. objectives.
As Pollack acknowledges, Saddam, even though he was a risk taker, did follow
certain logic before taking decisions and was cognizant of the repercussions of
his actions as evident from the aforementioned examples. Dealing with a
nuclear-armed Saddam may have been more complicated than dealing with one armed
only with conventional weapons, but considering the vast military superiority
of the U.S. (and within the region, of Israel) it would certainly not have been
a “disaster waiting to happen.”
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#184 Posted by niranjan on May 10, 2004 2:14:54 pm
tO ROMAIR AND DISCOVERER...where do you buy your crack!.Or is it smack for chrissake.Pakistan detonated a nuclear device.psffft.You need intelligent people to produce a bomb.Ye don`t have none.And, to discoverer about thanking ``muslims`` for ``making`` india, why wouldn`t they??.They`re indians too just like the rest of us and they detest you and your ilk just as an indian hindu, indian sikh, indian parsi, indian jew,indian buddhist , indian christian or indian atheist would.We love our country ,you nitwit.Why wouldn``t all of us work for its prosperity?.Unlike your nation.I feel sorry for all of you in pakistan.You just cannot come to terms with the present.FYI..the oldest synagoges outside of israel/palestine are in south and southwest india.Please get over india and worry about getting your house in order.People in glass houses....India is a multiculural countryand that`s why we`re friends with all nations.We are a mini-UN in itself.Pakistan has drawn itself into a corner trying to outdo the real muslims(arabs), and in the end will get shat upon by them too.
#183 Posted by discoverer on May 10, 2004 6:37:09 am
come on don`t compare india with pakistan, india shuld thank muslim who had contributed in making silly cow worshipper`s country to a golden land, indians are like bacteria multiply at great rate. They are in every country and this is a advantage, due to this they pose themselve as a civilized nation ( remember some part of india still believe in sacrificing human being).
#182 Posted by discoverer on May 10, 2004 6:37:09 am
come on don`t compare india with pakistan, india shuld thank muslim who had contributed in making silly cow worshipper`s country to a golden land, indians are like bacteria multiply at great rate. They are in every country and this is a advantage, due to this they pose themselve as a civilized nation ( remember some part of india still believe in sacrificing human being).
#181 Posted by harimau on May 10, 2004 6:37:08 am
Ref Maasanamuthu #34
[I don`t know what kind of media campaign can help. Saudi Arabia tried running ads in response to the hue & cry over the redaction of pages pertaining to Saudi Arabia in the terrorism report. Has that made a difference?
Perhaps Pakistan could try bribing the politicians in the West as Saudi does. It could say (as Saudi Arabia allegedly did) we`ll withhold producing OBL until just before the elections. Oh wait, they`re doing that already I think... ]
They could do what Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion has been doing for 50 years: run their own newspaper, name it perhaps ``Islam Murasoli`` (Islamic Drumbeat), write their own interviews where they ask themselves questions and answer them, etc.
Oh wait, the West is not as dumb as you are...
[I don`t know what kind of media campaign can help. Saudi Arabia tried running ads in response to the hue & cry over the redaction of pages pertaining to Saudi Arabia in the terrorism report. Has that made a difference?
Perhaps Pakistan could try bribing the politicians in the West as Saudi does. It could say (as Saudi Arabia allegedly did) we`ll withhold producing OBL until just before the elections. Oh wait, they`re doing that already I think... ]
They could do what Doctor Artist Leader the Fund of Compassion has been doing for 50 years: run their own newspaper, name it perhaps ``Islam Murasoli`` (Islamic Drumbeat), write their own interviews where they ask themselves questions and answer them, etc.
Oh wait, the West is not as dumb as you are...
#180 Posted by AlephNull on May 8, 2004 11:24:46 pm
arjun_m #175
{{In any case, it will be easier to change the name to Pa_istan than getting India to give up Kashmir... }}
Actually Chaudhry Rehmat Ali had already anticipated an outcome along these very lines - his last pamphlet, published in 1950, was entitled `Pakistan or Pastan - Destiny or Disintegration`.
{{In any case, it will be easier to change the name to Pa_istan than getting India to give up Kashmir... }}
Actually Chaudhry Rehmat Ali had already anticipated an outcome along these very lines - his last pamphlet, published in 1950, was entitled `Pakistan or Pastan - Destiny or Disintegration`.
#179 Posted by fuzair on May 8, 2004 6:37:08 pm
Jeez! Even the damn Pakistanis dont` know anything. And the Hndus positvely revel in their ignorance!
Rehmat Ali was an opium addict and Pakistan was the product of his opium induced hallucinations.
Here it is, straight from the horse`s mouth:
``Pakistan`` is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our homelands - ``Indian`` and ``Asian``. That is, Punjab, Afghania (North West Frontier Province), Kashmir, Iran, Sindh (including Karachi and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Baluchistan. It means the land of the Paks-the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religions, beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and does not admit of any other interpretation. Those writers who have tried to interpret it in more than one way have done so either through love of casuistry, or through ignorance of its inspiration, origin and composition.
http://www28.brinkster.com/pakistan4ever/wordpakistan.html
As should be clear from the above, Rehmat Ali had some serious problems with reality.
Rehmat Ali was an opium addict and Pakistan was the product of his opium induced hallucinations.
Here it is, straight from the horse`s mouth:
``Pakistan`` is both a Persian and an Urdu word. It is composed of letters taken from the names of all our homelands - ``Indian`` and ``Asian``. That is, Punjab, Afghania (North West Frontier Province), Kashmir, Iran, Sindh (including Karachi and Kathiawar), Tukharistan, Afghanistan, and Baluchistan. It means the land of the Paks-the spiritually pure and clean. It symbolizes the religions, beliefs and the ethnical stocks of our people; and it stands for all the territorial constituents of our original Fatherland. It has no other origin and no other meaning; and does not admit of any other interpretation. Those writers who have tried to interpret it in more than one way have done so either through love of casuistry, or through ignorance of its inspiration, origin and composition.
http://www28.brinkster.com/pakistan4ever/wordpakistan.html
As should be clear from the above, Rehmat Ali had some serious problems with reality.
#178 Posted by arjun_m on May 5, 2004 8:07:51 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#177 Posted by AhmadBilal on May 5, 2004 1:49:13 pm
#175 by arjun_m on May 4, 2004 7:39pm PT
``Isn`t it ironic that the name doesn`t have a letter for East Pakistan?``
No it is not, because East Pakistan was not part of the original plan of Pakistan. The initial plan was to have 3 independent Muslim majority states. Even in early part of 1947, leaders of the Pakistan movement were quite open to having an independent Bengali state, but it was rejected by the British. Here is a brief lesson of history for you:
On January 28, 1933, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali issued his pamphlet ``Now or Never; Are we to live or perish forever?`` He coined the word ``Pakistan`` for 30 million Muslims who live in the five northern units of India; Punjab, North West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan. He spoke of an independent homeland for Muslims, Pakistan, in the northern units of India, ``Bang-i-Islam`` for Muslims in Bengal, and ``Usmanistan`` for the Muslims in Hyderabad-Deccan.
``Isn`t it ironic that the name doesn`t have a letter for East Pakistan?``
No it is not, because East Pakistan was not part of the original plan of Pakistan. The initial plan was to have 3 independent Muslim majority states. Even in early part of 1947, leaders of the Pakistan movement were quite open to having an independent Bengali state, but it was rejected by the British. Here is a brief lesson of history for you:
On January 28, 1933, Chaudhry Rahmat Ali issued his pamphlet ``Now or Never; Are we to live or perish forever?`` He coined the word ``Pakistan`` for 30 million Muslims who live in the five northern units of India; Punjab, North West Frontier (Afghan) Province, Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan. He spoke of an independent homeland for Muslims, Pakistan, in the northern units of India, ``Bang-i-Islam`` for Muslims in Bengal, and ``Usmanistan`` for the Muslims in Hyderabad-Deccan.
#176 Posted by sohaib_hamid on May 5, 2004 8:35:08 am
``Sorry, kya karein it is a gentic defect that I am sometimes slow in understanding. Patience rakein! ``
Sorry, can`t help you about it. There might be some help for you here.
http://www.lpch.org/clinicalSpecialtiesServices/ClinicalSpecialties/Genetics/genetics.html
Sorry, can`t help you about it. There might be some help for you here.
http://www.lpch.org/clinicalSpecialtiesServices/ClinicalSpecialties/Genetics/genetics.html
#175 Posted by arjun_m on May 4, 2004 7:39:19 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#174 Posted by AhmadBilal on May 4, 2004 1:33:39 pm
#171 by arjun_m on May 4, 2004 6:28am PT
I agree with you on Kargil. It was totally unnecessary. But then that`s what happens when you have regional disputes and there isn`t a well-defined international border. Thanks for accepting that what India is doing is ``illegal occupation`` of Kashmir.
I agree with you on Kargil. It was totally unnecessary. But then that`s what happens when you have regional disputes and there isn`t a well-defined international border. Thanks for accepting that what India is doing is ``illegal occupation`` of Kashmir.
#173 Posted by Aqdas_abdali on May 4, 2004 1:33:37 pm
Looking at the state of affairs today, a seperate muslim state does not make sense. Hindus are still plagued by the question: if Pak is a country for muslims of the subcontinent, why could it not keep its eastern wing together and why are there more muslims in India today than in Pak?
I must say what state of affairs you have been looking inot , what haped in gujrat? or the babri mosque issue? arent these state of affairs?And the most recent at that!
Your refernece of history is quite poor also.The name PAKISTAN are words representing all the major provinces of pakistan that were proposed to form the new country.
P = punjab
A= Afgania or NWFP
K= Kashmir
I and S = Sindh
TAN = Baluchistan
Reason being that even in the beginning 1930 at the Allahabad address when the first state of this type was proposed by , Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who himself was a kashmiri ,He tabled the formation of a new state of muslims From the MUSLIM MAJORITY AREAS (in the north west) of which all the above provinces were.He never proposed mass migrations.Which occured later.The muslims in India whoever came or stayed came on thier own sweet will and were welcomed.If most didnt come thats not our headache!
And coming to the eastern front, when cross border terrosism was beinbg supported by india via the mukti bahni that was one of the main reasons for the fall of the eastern wing.two naiton theory still holds , go and watch a cricket match in dhaka if Pkaistan and india play , ask any bengali spectator or majority anyway who they support you will get Pakistan, witness that in the recently played under 19 world cup. So i hope some of your `` why most hindus cant understand `` part is clear
now furthur more
Let us face it, some Paki politicians had it easy. Men like Nehru, Gandhi and the others (which included many muslims too) worked tirelessly and when the cake was being handed over, Jinnah and others (fighting for a seperate muslim state) communalised the politics and demanded a part of the cake.
Mr.Jinnah was the most liberal man you could come across.Now if such a liberal man looses faith in the indian politicians then there must have been something which he saw.Lest you forget till 1930 he was a member of congress.You seem to give no credit to jinnah for his skills.When the muslim leaders were still going here and there it was he who organised them and put them into full gear.to change the mind set of an entire population is not easy , in the NWFP it was a congress government they won the elections from there!In punjab they defeated the unionistparty!in sindh and baluchistan they won over the tribal people in less than 16 years, so calling it easy hardly fits the bill.what cake did jinnah have or aspire for let me ask you?A man who was campainging even though he was seriously ill with TB and who was not expected to live long.yes nehru wanted a cake he wanted to become the prime minister.
Best test would be: do these Turks, Arabs accept u as their own?
ah yes the race card .You know that the aryan race in india is very much related to the aryan race in europe.Please go and try to equate yourself with the germanic race, lets see if they accept you from the heart.We on the other hand dont see ourselves as what you have said.
failed state
Maybe you havent read the arciel but that is what the articel says the unfair media campaign.All the porblems that u mentioned and highlighted for Pakistan makes me think india is better than the USA.18 millions people are added to yearly to the population of india.can it give jobs, sewers, roads, justice easily? maybe you should have an outing in calcutta and see the SHINING INDIA.the poeblsm You have highlighted are for all country and are not limited to just Pakistan.Works needs to be done yes, but nations go through times like these.of course there might be some faint hearted.
I must say what state of affairs you have been looking inot , what haped in gujrat? or the babri mosque issue? arent these state of affairs?And the most recent at that!
Your refernece of history is quite poor also.The name PAKISTAN are words representing all the major provinces of pakistan that were proposed to form the new country.
P = punjab
A= Afgania or NWFP
K= Kashmir
I and S = Sindh
TAN = Baluchistan
Reason being that even in the beginning 1930 at the Allahabad address when the first state of this type was proposed by , Allama Muhammad Iqbal, who himself was a kashmiri ,He tabled the formation of a new state of muslims From the MUSLIM MAJORITY AREAS (in the north west) of which all the above provinces were.He never proposed mass migrations.Which occured later.The muslims in India whoever came or stayed came on thier own sweet will and were welcomed.If most didnt come thats not our headache!
And coming to the eastern front, when cross border terrosism was beinbg supported by india via the mukti bahni that was one of the main reasons for the fall of the eastern wing.two naiton theory still holds , go and watch a cricket match in dhaka if Pkaistan and india play , ask any bengali spectator or majority anyway who they support you will get Pakistan, witness that in the recently played under 19 world cup. So i hope some of your `` why most hindus cant understand `` part is clear
now furthur more
Let us face it, some Paki politicians had it easy. Men like Nehru, Gandhi and the others (which included many muslims too) worked tirelessly and when the cake was being handed over, Jinnah and others (fighting for a seperate muslim state) communalised the politics and demanded a part of the cake.
Mr.Jinnah was the most liberal man you could come across.Now if such a liberal man looses faith in the indian politicians then there must have been something which he saw.Lest you forget till 1930 he was a member of congress.You seem to give no credit to jinnah for his skills.When the muslim leaders were still going here and there it was he who organised them and put them into full gear.to change the mind set of an entire population is not easy , in the NWFP it was a congress government they won the elections from there!In punjab they defeated the unionistparty!in sindh and baluchistan they won over the tribal people in less than 16 years, so calling it easy hardly fits the bill.what cake did jinnah have or aspire for let me ask you?A man who was campainging even though he was seriously ill with TB and who was not expected to live long.yes nehru wanted a cake he wanted to become the prime minister.
Best test would be: do these Turks, Arabs accept u as their own?
ah yes the race card .You know that the aryan race in india is very much related to the aryan race in europe.Please go and try to equate yourself with the germanic race, lets see if they accept you from the heart.We on the other hand dont see ourselves as what you have said.
failed state
Maybe you havent read the arciel but that is what the articel says the unfair media campaign.All the porblems that u mentioned and highlighted for Pakistan makes me think india is better than the USA.18 millions people are added to yearly to the population of india.can it give jobs, sewers, roads, justice easily? maybe you should have an outing in calcutta and see the SHINING INDIA.the poeblsm You have highlighted are for all country and are not limited to just Pakistan.Works needs to be done yes, but nations go through times like these.of course there might be some faint hearted.
#172 Posted by bongdongs on May 4, 2004 7:58:41 am
Sohib Hamid:
``When the British invaded they were fiercely resisted by one `nation` and proactively supported by the other. They were the muslims who were in power, and who at one point almost drove the British out of sub-continent.``
Could you elaborate on this statement of yours.
Sorry, kya karein it is a gentic defect that I am sometimes slow in understanding. Patience rakein!
``When the British invaded they were fiercely resisted by one `nation` and proactively supported by the other. They were the muslims who were in power, and who at one point almost drove the British out of sub-continent.``
Could you elaborate on this statement of yours.
Sorry, kya karein it is a gentic defect that I am sometimes slow in understanding. Patience rakein!
#171 Posted by arjun_m on May 4, 2004 6:28:25 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#170 Posted by AhmadBilal on May 4, 2004 6:19:31 am
#167 by rsridhar on May 3, 2004 7:38pm PT
``Men like Nehru, Gandhi and the others (which included many muslims too) worked tirelessly and when the cake was being handed over, Jinnah and others (fighting for a seperate muslim state) communalised the politics and demanded a part of the cake.``
Nehru and Gandhi were working tirelessly to assert supremacy of one nation over the other. And you people still haven`t forgiven us for the reason that we got away in time, thanks to the able leadership of Jinnah.
``Looking at the state of affairs today, a seperate muslim state does not make sense. Hindus are still plagued by the question: if Pak is a country for muslims of the subcontinent, why could it not keep its eastern wing together and why are there more muslims in India today than in Pak?``
Actually it makes perfect sense when we see horrors of Gujraat, which looked like an attempt to check the increasing number of Muslims in India. I think the Eastern wing should have been a separate state in the first place. It wasn`t even in the original plan of Pakistan. We should have let them go peacefully a lot earlier.
``Indian leaders like Nehru, Gandhi simply decided to cut of the limb that was looking ugly (today, that limb is gangrenous).``
If you put it that way, it is a good time for Indian leaders like Vajpayee to cut another limb (aka Kashmir) which is making the Indian claims of being a secular democracy look ugly, while badly spoiling your human rights record.
``Even Pakis feel it is a failed state.``
I am a Pakistani, and in spite of Pakistan`s problems, I don`t consider Pakistan a failed state. So if anyone does, that is their personal opinion, which is not shared by the majority of Pakistanis.
``It is possible that if u trace your ancestory, you would realize your ancestors were actually hindus.``
No, it doesn`t hurt. And actually it is a good thing. Interestingly, your secular democracy is so afraid of the converts that your government is doing legislation to stop converts to Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. And yet you tout religious freedoms in India.
``Men like Nehru, Gandhi and the others (which included many muslims too) worked tirelessly and when the cake was being handed over, Jinnah and others (fighting for a seperate muslim state) communalised the politics and demanded a part of the cake.``
Nehru and Gandhi were working tirelessly to assert supremacy of one nation over the other. And you people still haven`t forgiven us for the reason that we got away in time, thanks to the able leadership of Jinnah.
``Looking at the state of affairs today, a seperate muslim state does not make sense. Hindus are still plagued by the question: if Pak is a country for muslims of the subcontinent, why could it not keep its eastern wing together and why are there more muslims in India today than in Pak?``
Actually it makes perfect sense when we see horrors of Gujraat, which looked like an attempt to check the increasing number of Muslims in India. I think the Eastern wing should have been a separate state in the first place. It wasn`t even in the original plan of Pakistan. We should have let them go peacefully a lot earlier.
``Indian leaders like Nehru, Gandhi simply decided to cut of the limb that was looking ugly (today, that limb is gangrenous).``
If you put it that way, it is a good time for Indian leaders like Vajpayee to cut another limb (aka Kashmir) which is making the Indian claims of being a secular democracy look ugly, while badly spoiling your human rights record.
``Even Pakis feel it is a failed state.``
I am a Pakistani, and in spite of Pakistan`s problems, I don`t consider Pakistan a failed state. So if anyone does, that is their personal opinion, which is not shared by the majority of Pakistanis.
``It is possible that if u trace your ancestory, you would realize your ancestors were actually hindus.``
No, it doesn`t hurt. And actually it is a good thing. Interestingly, your secular democracy is so afraid of the converts that your government is doing legislation to stop converts to Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. And yet you tout religious freedoms in India.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: #26 hurricane: please dont... And Then There Was
- MeiraJ08: Hi Nadeem, just started... Quarter No.5
- hurricane: Re: # 24 chaccha... And Then There Was
- hurricane: Who's redflagging? Hey, it's... And Then There Was
- tahmed32: hurricane: sorry bro (or... And Then There Was
- krishna_abcd: Pakistan - An Islamic... And Then There Was
- hurricane: Those that know me,... And Then There Was
- tahmed32: #20 india monkeyman speakee... And Then There Was
