What's Wrong With Imran Khan?

Re: # 266 Tahmed: I would agree to your observations.

But it is upon the present day Indians to see value in what the Brits left. The Brits did not leave anything with an intention or deliberately, it was just a side-effect. But that they took was with clear intentions and it was material and money.

majumdar #267 while Sir Syed was reviled in his time by the maulvis, he has always been a respected figure in Pakistan for as long as I can remember. There are schools named after him, e.g. While no one remembers the ignorant maulvis who did so much damage to muslims in the 19th century by discouraging them from getting an education, Sir Syed is probably the most prominent Indian muslim of that century.

#270 however, the dark curse of hindu extremism covers too many indians to this day. including you, when you draw this absurd black-white distinction between muslim rulers vs hindu rulers.

#266

Right, you can correctly say, suddenly the dark curse or
veil that fell on India starting early 8th century was
lifted.

Re: # 266tahmed...VERY TRUE...........

Imran Khan the commander-in-chief of Taliban, supports and advocate Taliban justice so proudly.Is there any difference between Imran Khan and the illutrate man who supports Taliban. He is behaving like the street person who has no knowledge of politics.

Can such a man lead a party or a country?

Tahmed sahib,

Re: 266

There is a strong element of truth about what you write. The funniest part is that the one 19th century Mussalman (Sir Syed) who tried to replicate what many Hindoo leaders did for their community is reviled as a murtidoon, kaffiroon, slave of the West etc although a lawyer friend of mine once observed that these guys who were busy reviling Sir Syed wud prolly be lying in the gutters if the man wasnt around.

Regards

While the brits, particularly under the East India Company, took too wealth out of the subcontinent (raw materials, jewels), it created wealth of a far more value into the subcontinent as well. This wealth is the spread of education in the arts and science - which created the middle class, which in turn replaced kingships with a democracy, and primitive cultures into modern ones. Hindus recognized this "intellectual capital" for what it was, while muslims (in their arrogance as being "former rulers" as promoted by the chaprasis of the muslim kings, the mullahs) chose not to benefit as much.

Re: # 187 Riaz: "India would have been very fragmented and quite weak, if the Brits would not have come in".

Many possibilities but at least the wealth of India would not have been exported to Britain for over 2 centuries. It would have been more like the present Europe, multiple smaller countries. Rich or poor, strong or weak; cannot say but the transition from the kingship to the democratic / secular setup may not have possible. The kings (both hindu or muslims) would not have given up power easily.

In a way I agree to your statement. The Brits united the parts that could become as one unit in the mainland while entering this region. And while going they removed the Pakistan and Bangladesh (than Pakistan).

Re: # 187 Riaz - "Don't forget Jinnah was a much a nationalist as any other Indian politician and president of Indian National Congress. His disillusionment with Nehru caused him to leave Congress and join Muslim League".

Jinnah and the muslim leadership had the mindset of the pre-colonial days when the power was with the moghuls (muslims). It was not a matter of disillusionment but a case of realisation that the sole power/priviledge to rule the country had slipped out of the hands of a few muslim elites and would be governed by the democratic process and decided by the masses. Jinnah found it too tedious to slug it out and clash with Nehru to win over the masses and reach the prime minstership of undivided India. He decided to use the short-cut by creating a consituency for himself and jumped on to the TNT.

Re: # 196 - "The Sword was used millions of times against my hindu fore fathers by the Islami goons.

Laddu: Your Thook'ing and Riaz's justification will not undo or rewrite the past. It is unfortunate that the Pakis derive pleasure and people like Laddu feel the pain recalling the same events of the past. And that is the real reason for the conflicts even till date.

But Laddu you also need to understand that Putting to sword or conversion was the order of the day in those times. The Hindus did a remarkable job of surviving in those times but are equally responsible for failing to protect themselves as they were disunited and often invited the invaders or sided with them while settling petty local scores. The local Rajputs also had strange beliefs of chivalorous war conducts and codes such as not to attack after dark or to spare the life (e.g. Mohmad Ghori), which were restrictive on themselves, rather than aimed ay winning the war. Many of these outdated war tactics / weaknesses were responsible for the defeats, and were at times shared by the disgruntled locals leading to the defeats. The invaders were highly motivated by religious fervor, and employed all tricks and deciet to win the war, as they needed money for their survival in the tough Afghan and Central Asian countries. On the same point the Pakis also need to understand that none of the invadors in the 1000+ year history were from the Pakistan area but were afghans or the central asians or turks or Mongloids etc. The than Indian (including present day pakistan) kings and local population were at the recieving end equally. I see it strange how the Pakistanis hero worship their own invadors just because they happened to be of the same religion, or feel happy at the defeat of their local king (Dahir) just because he was of a differnet religion. I fail to understand if they have first preference for the religion or the region.

Re: # 190 Riaz: "the Muslim invaders did nothing to spread Islam in India" ....

How pious of the muslims in those days. Even today the Muslims where ever they are in majority or in rule want to extend the generosity of the Islamic beliefs.

Ask the Sikhs who have been asked to pay Jizia of 2 crores by the Talibans. In fact the religious books of the Sikhs are full of the Mughal intolerance and torture that lead to their adoption of martial ethics to resist the moghals.

Same with the Kashimir, after about 100 years later Riaz's great-grandsons would be mouthing that the Kashmiri muslims did nothing to make Kashmir as fully Islamic.

Re: # 226 Riaz: "India gets far more international aid than Pakistan"

Riaz, While you are informed of the facts, but you miss the intrepretation behind them.

The USA has the biggest debt on the earth, $10 trillion plus, but still the world over is willing to give more to the USA. The same is true for India although on a smaller scale. For Pakistan it is the reverse. Even though it is asking explicitly, but nobody including its friends are willing to lend it money.

So dont just compare numbers like a first grader, see the willingness and conditions attached behind them.

#258 by SPY

What are we talking....India has promised to increase its quota to provide $10 billion to IMF this year.

SPY yaar, when the head is buried deep inside the rear (as Riaz mian's is), facts are nothing more than minor irritants, best when ignored.

Re: # 242 Riaz: "Have you heard about Pukhtunwali, the tribal tradition of protecting your guest at all costs?"

While it may be true for some but the reverse is also equally true. The statment of the US general is also equally true, and he is not the first one to make that observation. The people in that part of the world are so corrupt and money minded that they can do anything for it.

But the same cannot be said for the Jews, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains etc.

Re: # 241(Harish), 228 (Riaz),

What are we talking....India has promised to increase its quota to provide $10 billion to IMF this year.