Who Created Pakistan? Its quite apparent to me that hindus will not be allowed to live in peace and India will not prosper as long as muslims remain in India. While it is true that there is a tiny section of Indian muslim population that is staunchy pro-India , and a small middle class that just wants to live and let live , the rest are absolute jihadis baying (silently for now) for the kufr blood. It is a matter of regret regret that we didn`t finish off the 8-9% muslims who were left in India post-1947. Now muslims - who breed like rabbits - comprise of 16% of India`s population. Our secularism will be the end of us.

Pakistanis were smart. They either chased away , killed or converted the hindus left in their country. From 13-14% in 1947 , the kufr population has been brought down to a neutered 1%. There is so much one can learn - even from the vilest elements.

Who Created Pakistan? Hindvi ,

``Sorry, the muslims (or any other minority) are not going to sit around to be raped and butchered for some notion of nationhood to which the majority themselves dont consider them party, they are going to take help from any quarter (ISI, CIA, KGB) they get. Its up to you if you wish to escalate the situation by indulging in a general massacre, then in areas in which they are above 30% there will be a civil war with help taken from any neighbouring country that offers it. In other areas they will be wiped out. ``

You know - thats analogous to what came first , the chicken or the egg theory . Do hindus attack muslims because muslims indulge in anti-national activity in collusion with enemies from across the border , or do muslims indulge in anti-national activity in connivance with ISI etc. because they are targeted by hindus...............each one has his own answer and justification....

.....but as a hindu...I thank you for being so open about muslims colluding with Pakistani elements. Thank you also for your warped explanation of concepts such as citizenship and nationalism. Whatever sympathy I had for muslims , I have lost. All that crap about secularism seems to hold only for hindus. Might is the only thing that is right under the circumstances. Next time there is a riot , I intend to have some fun ;)

Who Created Pakistan? Sifzal....``If the East Punjab, West Bengal and Assam would have become Pakistan, there would have been peaceful settlement, very few killings and Hindus would have been prosperous in Pakistan like those in Sindh, and Sikhs would have avoided operation Blue Star or 1984 mass killings.The minorities killing on mass scale only happens in India not Pakistan. Then the late Pope John Paul landed in Pakistan, he kissed the land and said it is one of the few countries where minorities are protected. ``

Dude..who are you kidding ? This is the age of internet. People are not so ignorant as you think they are or want them to be. Jeez. Its embarassing for me to even respond to an idiot like you.

Allow me to make it brief. Forget dreams of what would or wouldn`t have happened if parts of India like West Bengal , Punjab had been a part of Pakistan. What about the part of the old undivided India that became a part of Pakistan ? East Bengal. Now called as Bangladesh. Formerly East Pakistan.

Remember ? Why did they ally with the hated Indian kafeers to break away from your lot?

Here`s the answer >>






A brief backround >>

Catastrophic floods struck Bangladesh in August 1970, and the regime was widely seen as having botched (or ignored) its relief duties. The disaster gave further impetus to the Awami League, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. The League demanded regional autonomy for East Pakistan, and an end to military rule. In national elections held in December, the League won an overwhelming victory across Bengali territory.

On February 22, 1971 the generals in West Pakistan took a decision to crush the Awami League and its supporters. It was recognized from the first that a campaign of genocide would be necessary to eradicate the threat: ``Kill three million of them,`` said President Yahya Khan at the February conference, ``and the rest will eat out of our hands.`` (Robert Payne, Massacre [1972], p. 50.) On March 25 the genocide was launched. The university in Dacca was attacked and students exterminated in their hundreds. Death squads roamed the streets of Dacca, killing some 7,000 people in a single night. It was only the beginning. ``Within a week, half the population of Dacca had fled, and at least 30,000 people had been killed. Chittagong, too, had lost half its population. All over East Pakistan people were taking flight, and it was estimated that in April some thirty million people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 48.) Ten million refugees fled to India, overwhelming that country`s resources and spurring the eventual Indian military intervention. (The population of Bangladesh/East Pakistan at the outbreak of the genocide was about 75 million.)

Mass rape of Bengali Women :

In her ground-breaking book, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, Susan Brownmiller likened the 1971 events in Bangladesh to the Japanese rapes in Nanjing and German rapes in Russia during World War II. ``... 200,000, 300,000 or possibly 400,000 women (three sets of statistics have been variously quoted) were raped. Eighty percent of the raped women were Moslems, reflecting the population of Bangladesh, but Hindu and Christian women were not exempt. ... Hit-and-run rape of large numbers of Bengali women was brutally simple in terms of logistics as the Pakistani regulars swept through and occupied the tiny, populous land ...`` (p. 81)


``Rape in Bangladesh had hardly been restricted to beauty,`` Brownmiller writes. ``Girls of eight and grandmothers of seventy-five had been sexually assaulted ... Pakistani soldiers had not only violated Bengali women on the spot; they abducted tens of hundreds and held them by force in their military barracks for nightly use.`` Some women may have been raped as many as eighty times in a night (Brownmiller, p. 83). How many died from this atrocious treatment, and how many more women were murdered as part of the generalized campaign of destruction and slaughter, can only be guessed at (see below).

How many were killed ?

The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66). As R.J. Rummel writes,

The human death toll over only 267 days was incredible. Just to give for five out of the eighteen districts some incomplete statistics published in Bangladesh newspapers or by an Inquiry Committee, the Pakistani army killed 100,000 Bengalis in Dacca, 150,000 in Khulna, 75,000 in Jessore, 95,000 in Comilla, and 100,000 in Chittagong. For eighteen districts the total is 1,247,000 killed. This was an incomplete toll, and to this day no one really knows the final toll. Some estimates of the democide [Rummel`s ``death by government``] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million. ... The Pakistani army and allied paramilitary groups killed about one out of every sixty-one people in Pakistan overall; one out of every twenty-five Bengalis, Hindus, and others in East Pakistan. If the rate of killing for all of Pakistan is annualized over the years the Yahya martial law regime was in power (March 1969 to December 1971), then this one regime was more lethal than that of the Soviet Union, China under the communists, or Japan under the military (even through World War II). (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 331.)
The proportion of men versus women murdered is impossible to ascertain, but a speculation might be attempted. If we take the highest estimates for both women raped and Bengalis killed (400,000 and 3 million, respectively); if we accept that half as many women were killed as were raped; and if we double that number for murdered children of both sexes (total: 600,000), we are still left with a death-toll that is 80 percent adult male (2.4 million out of 3 million). Any such disproportion, which is almost certainly on the low side, would qualify Bangladesh as one of the worst gendercides against men in the last half-millennium.

Who was responsible ?

``For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on,`` writes Robert Payne. ``They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. Muslim soldiers, sent out to kill Muslim peasants, went about their work mechanically and efficiently, until killing defenseless people became a habit like smoking cigarettes or drinking wine. ... Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 29.)

There is no doubt that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocides. A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan. The U.S. government, long supportive of military rule in Pakistan, supplied some $3.8 million in military equipment to the dictatorship after the onset of the genocide, ``and after a government spokesman told Congress that all shipments to Yahya Khan`s regime had ceased.`` (Payne, Massacre, p. 102.)

The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These ``willing executioners`` were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. ``Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, `It was a low lying land of low lying people.` The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, `We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.` This is the arrogance of Power.`` (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 335.)

Who Created Pakistan? Dear Mr.Hindvi ,

Expanding your logic on the justifcation of Mumbai Bomb Blasts and extolling the virtues of your role model Dawood Ibrahim , I hope you will be fair enough to acknowledge the greatness of Narendra Modi and the necessity for the massacre of 5000 muslims in Gujarat just to make sure there will be no more Godhras. Next time a couple of thousand muslim goons burn alive 50-60 hindu women and children anywhere in India , you now know what the response will be. And not even your boy Dawood or your mates at ISI can save you. Cheers !!

Who Created Pakistan? Dullahbhatti , exactly....I have been saying the same thing. Jinnah saved India by geting rid of 2/3rd of the mullah population in one go. Muslims are a close-nit community , united by their hatred and ignorance.While hindus are a divided bunch. If not for Jinnah , muslims would have ruled the whole of India and you and I would have no choice but to get circumcised and become `believers` to escape torture and death. After 1000 years of living as second rate citizens or even as slaves , 800 years under the muslim rule and 200 years under the English , hindus were finally in charge of their own country. And our boy Jinnah made that possible.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango Also...BJP`s support comes from hindus . Hindus constitute 80% of India`s population. Many Hindus may not vote for BJP for several reasons. But BJP`s anti-muslim stance is certainly not one of them.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango docloc.....to say that Indian masses showed BJP the door would be inaccurate. It was a hung assembly in which BJP got only a half a dozen seats less than the winning party - Congress. In India elections are dominated by local , regional issues where concepts like leaking drainages , dry water taps and presence of pot holes are of much greater importance than vague concepts such as secularism/fascism/whatever. So expect no political party to win with a majority. Last time BJP got the boot. Next time it will be Congress` turn.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango If definition of hindutva is to mean those voting for BJP , then 36% of the 650 million strong adult Indian electorate can be said to be hindutva-waadis....

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango Tahmed..how about this perspective....the British created artificial food scarcity in India , heavily taxed the poor farmers , starved to death 3 million Indians every year during their 150-200 year rule.

Famines were virtually unheard of in India before the British came , but in 200 years of the Raj , there were 40-50 severe famines resulting in millions of starvation deaths. 80% of India`s population was left below poverty line , i.e. , on the brink of starvation ,by the time the British left. Those who were killed in Jallianwala Bag were lucky in comparison.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango Pakis exhibit their love and affection for India >>

Dina Wadia Claims Jinnah House Salim *thumbs up icon*

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango ``I think RSS and Hindu nationalist love Bose because he went to Hitler and Nazis for help. We all know that RSS and VHP both love Nazis and Hitler. Birds of a feather``

Not really....Hitler would be more of a role model to anti-semetic jew haters like muslims. Hindus have no enemity for jews. Infact hindus , especially RSS type hindus have tremendous admiration for Israel and want India to be like Israel. Hitler would have been a role model for us if he killed muslims instead of jews.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango Also , for us `right wing hindus` , the greatest god is the motherland - India. Whether Netaji followed conventional hindu rituals or had any devotion for ram, shiv etc. is immaterial , because he certainly was devoted to India. And so he is our leader.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango ``What is surprising to me however is why Bose, who was secular nationalist to the last bone, is such a revered hero for the right wing Hindus. The great irony is that Gandhi, who was much more obviously and consciously Hindu, is hated by the Hindu right wingers and a secular Indian nationalist who wanted a secular dictator like Kemal Ataturk in India to crush all religious forces, especially that of the majority i.e. Hindu, is such a hero for them?``

Hinduism is not an organised religion like islam or christianity. Each of us have different interpretations of hinduism. For `Right Wing Hindus` like me.....Gandhi was never a hindu to begin with. His concepts of `non-violence` do not have a precendence in hinduism. Non-violence , `show the other cheek` is a christian concept , taken directly from jesus christ . Gandhi gave us a christianised version of hinduism which most us dont agree with. And with every passing generation , Gandhi is loathed by more and more by Indians , while appreciated by non-Indians. So Gandhi today is more of an icon for the Western liberals than he is for India.


And this feeling of contempt for Gandhi , Nehru and their non-violence comes from within , from the heart - a totally spontaneous reaction. We are taught about Gandhi and Nehru in our school books. Netaji Bose is reduced to a little footnote. Gandhi is lionised by the successive governments while Netaji ignored. And yet , its Netaji we care about. Not Gandhi , not Nehru. Netaji is the ONLY freedom fighter Indians love and admire.

Bunty aur Babli: The latest RSS-BJP tango Haha....tahmed must be really enyoying talking trash against Netaji...for he has discovered that if there is one Indian leader every Indian is is proud of , one man Indians feel about the way Pakis feel about their Jinnah , its Netaji Bose. Not Gandhi , not Nehru.

So manto can take a few pointers from this. If you wanna rile up the Indians ,forget ol`gandhi , talk crap about Bose. That guy really means something to each and every one of us.

Netaji failed. He lost. But we love him. Maybe because we wanted our freedom to be won by the old fasioned way - blood and guts . Like men.

Gandhi`s silly effete non-violent way of begging for freedom the our opressors , appealing to the goodness and conscience of the enemy...is disgusting to say the least.

---

1.Tahmed`s theory about Japs using Netaji to fulfil their dreams of ruling over India is a theory with too many ifs and buts. And for the Indian people - the British were the the only enemy. An enemy that starved to death 3 million Indians virtually every year. We would take the devil`s help the slit the british throat if need be. All the crap about Netaji joining hands with fascist Hitler makes no sense because for Indians of that era the only fascists and racists were the British.

2. Its funny how BJP gets dragged into every issue of import from Quit India movement to Netaji Bose and his INA ....because BJP came into prominence in India only in the late 1980s. Before that , they got as many as 2 seats out of 550 in the 1984 general election. BJP/RSS were always small fry in India until very recently.

The Alternative Muslim Identity US Policy Changes under Condi Rice

By Jim Hoagland

WASHINGTON, June 24: A straw breaking the camel`s back, a pebble triggering the avalanche, a drop causing the cup to overflow: Choose your own image for Mukhtar Mai and the troubles she creates for her country`s frightened and duplicitous leadership. If there is justice, any of those images will fit.

Mai is the courageous Pakistani woman who has refused to be silenced after being gang-raped as a tribal ``punishment.`` She has also refused to knuckle under to the unconscionable shut-up-or-else treatment inflicted on her by President Pervez Musharraf`s government.

By standing up and getting her story noticed at this particular moment, Mai may have dealt a crippling blow to the credibility of Musharraf, who has buffaloed the Bush administration into deluging him with fulsome praise, money and arms in return for Pakistan`s incomplete help in fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The sordid details of the campaign to break Mai`s will are emerging at a moment of strategic change in South Asia. The Bush administration is greatly expanding the bet it initially put down on India, while beginning to hedge its investment in Islamabad`s military-dominated regime. The effect is to free US relations with India from decades of ``tilt`` toward Pakistan.

So the ears of Bush officials are more open to hearing about the limitations of Pakistan as an ally. It may also count that Musharraf no longer deals with a fellow career military officer, retired Gen. Colin Powell, as US secretary of state. Instead, Condoleezza Rice, a woman sensitive to the humiliations and personal destruction aimed at Mai, who is in her early thirties, now runs US diplomacy.

In this easily understood case, Musharraf`s eagerness to cover up the reprehensible behavior of other officials cannot be escaped or glossed over, even in Washington.

President Bush has decided not to call Musharraf on his fairy tales about Pakistan`s reckless nuclear proliferation being the work of one man -- scientist AQ Khan -- or to press the general publicly on Pakistan`s support for terrorism in Kashmir or its manifest unwillingness to do everything it can to capture Osama bin Laden and his Taliban allies.

What Bush would not do in those cases, Mai has done in hers. She has spoken truth to power and let the consequences fall where they may. Aided by Pakistani reformers in her village and abroad, she has challenged the inhuman conventions of her country`s misogynist rural society, forcing Musharraf to take sides. To his eternal shame, he backed the primitive conventions instead of her.

In June 2002 Mai -- whose name is rendered Mukhtaran Bibi in the outstanding, detailed opinion columns on this case by Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times -- was raped by four men. They had been given license to assault her sexually by a tribal council charged with retaliating against an alleged social infraction by her brother. In the normal course of things, Mai would have been murdered by her family as a matter of ``honor`` or expected to commit suicide.

Instead she went to court and secured the conviction of her rapists. They were briefly imprisoned, then freed after Mai accepted an invitation to speak in the United States this month. When this intimidation did not work, the central government put Mai on a restricted travel list and confiscated her passport.

Musharraf acknowledged his involvement in blocking the trip to reporters on Friday, two days after the Pakistani Embassy in Washington implausibly denied that and much more. Rice authorized a tough scolding of Pakistan by the State Department`s spokesman, and other officials finally began to speak critically of Pakistan`s tolerating al Qaeda`s presence in its border regions with Afghanistan.

These are signs that the State Department is breaking out of an old pattern. It no longer holds US policy in South Asia hostage to the Indo-Pakistani confrontation and a perceived need to cater to Islamabad. The Bush administration seeks a strategic partnership with India independent of what the United States does or does not do with Pakistan.

Pakistan is the ultimate hard case for US strategy: As a persistent critic of the Bush team`s hype about Musharraf and of the general`s own shortcomings, I have to acknowledge that the Pakistani leader is less corrupt and more courageous than the weak civilian governments that preceded him, including the one that forced him to take power in 1999 to save his own life.

And Musharraf does put limits on the extremists who control Pakistan`s malignant intelligence services. A new and revealing-if-true account of Pakistan`s active role in jihadist terrorism is contained in an interview with former intelligence officer Khalid Khawaja that is posted on the Asian Times Online site. But one Pakistani woman has shown that, like all autocrats, the general needs to be constantly monitored and challenged, not conspired with and consoled with rewards. Getting Pakistan to face and change its own grim reality should be an urgent American priority.



[The writer is a well known columnist for the Washington Post. This column appeared on June 23, 2005 when a demonstration was held in front of the Pakistan Embassy to support Mukhtaran Mai. Email: jimhoagland@washpost.com]