Managing Pakistan's failure

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 08 Jul 2010 07:38

A_Gupta wrote:Back in 1940, nobody really thought that Pakistan was possible, except a few crazies.

Now in 2010, nobody thinks Pakistan is impossible, except a few crazies.

The 1940s Pakistan was supposed to include undivided Punjab, Delhi, undivided Bengal, Assam, and a land link connecting these through UP. So that Pakistan remained impossible.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Jul 2010 07:40

RamaY wrote:
RajeshA wrote:acid will remain acid, but it can be diluted somewhat with water.

RajeshA garu,

The shields may be able to handle the diluted-acid, but not the internal organs of the society. It will become dharmic when it is diluted enough for internal consumption

Boss, good or bad - Dharmic's still get no cigar on this:

It took the ingenuity of the West to stick electrodes in the acid and make electricity.
And, yes, if one decides to experiment with acid and make use of it, one tends to suffer injuries once in a while.
Also, it is an open question if it did benefit the ingenious/brave or did it hurt them.

I think B and Shiv are on to something with the land reform issue and the issue of poor serfs in TSP.
Taking up their cause either via GOI, NGOs or enlightened and empowered individuals will be a net benefit...

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Jul 2010 07:44

AVram garu,

Good point. The first objective is to Indicise Hindu population (Learn, appreciate, be proud of, celebrate and propagate their own history).

The IM population requires some unlearning before any relearning.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 08 Jul 2010 07:50

Pulikeshi-ji,

I too am following their samvada with great interest. I will wait sometime before posting my ignorant rants.

We all are in this together. Kindly take my views from that perspective.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 08:02

Pulikeshi wrote: Pakistan is too big to fail!

It is easy to get carried away by the semantics of the word "failure" and harp on defining the meaning of that word as the basis for all discussion. I have two things to say about the use of the word failure

1) Using that word was a deliberate act on my part. Associating that word with Pakistan is an important psy-ops gimmick. It matters little whether Pakistan is failing or not. It is clearly not an unmitigated success.

2) If you want to be honest and dharmic (which are your personal failings) you will be able to show that many of "Pakistan's failures" are "India's failures" as well.

Nations do not fail and collapse suddenly. Things go wrong slowly. Opportunities exist to correct them and if corrective action is taken the "failure" can be slowed or arrested. But if corrective action is not taken then the trend towards eventual failure continues.

But a trend towards failure is not failure.

The fact is that there are many things about Pakistan that are showing trends towards eventual failure. Talking about them helps to educate Indians about what failure can mean.

Unfortunately pointing those "failures" out to Pakistanis runs the risk that they might start doing things to arrest the failure and then become a powerful state. To that extent, telling Pakistanis about their failures is a self goal for Indians.

But on the other hand if we can utilize Pakistan's failures to put them in a dilemma - then it could be useful for us.

One example of a dilemma is poverty and overpopulation on one side and army budget on the other side. if they spend too much on the army, they do not have enough money for schools and family planning programs. The thing to do is to force them to spend on the military by being threatening, and then howl loudly that they are not spending enough on education, population control etc.

Another dilemma is to call for friendly relations with Pakistan and tie that up with democracy and land reform (because that is in the interest of the people of South Asia

). Both democracy and land reform are dangerous poison for the current rulers of Pakistan, be they the "politicians" (feudals) or the army. Democracy and land reform in Pakistan are dangerous even to the US and China.

So the whole idea of "Managing Pakistan's failure" is to cherry pick issues that can push Pakistanis into deeper contradictions while planning for what to do with the huge population of Pakistan at some future date whether Pakistan remains as one country or not. The ultimate goal is to screw the feudals, screw the army and let the people take control of their lives but ensure that when they do that - they are less inimical to India. These plans can be open and transparent. Let Pakis know about them - no problem. Fat lot they can do about it even if they know. They already hate India anyway,

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Jul 2010 08:32

Lets call it Coming Collapse Of Pakistan and Measures to contain its impact on the neighborhood. They have already failed on human ground because of extreme obsession with religion and have actually become abnormal people with real scewed logic.Only one country in the world carrying 6th century mission into 21st century, no doubt they dont require modern education .

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 08 Jul 2010 08:44

asprinzl wrote: The problem is...Hindu organizations are not actively engaging in converting the Muslims.

But this may be fighting the last war. This might be like Microsoft, Apple etc., squabbling about operating systems while Google cashes in on the internet.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 09:16

There was an article posted in the Paki thread that called on India to talk with the Paki army. In fact I had seen that article in the Deccan Herald or something. I also know that both Parthasarathy and Maroof Raza have criticised India's talks with the toothless and impotent civilian leaders of Pakistan and have called for talks with the Pakistan army for meaningful talks to occur.

But I am gradually veering around to the viewpoint that we need not talk to the Pakistan army. We do not want meaningful talks. All we want is an end to terror and hostility before we can discuss anything serious.

As discussed earlier in this thread, you cannot negotiate with a person or a group who threatens to eliminate/kill you if you don't have the power to eliminate him. Now this may come as a disappointment to many jingos but India does not have the power to eliminate the Pakistani army. Not because we are not militarily stronger, but because the US will not allow the Pakistan army to lose even after military defeat and the US is actively involved in dissuading India from fighting a war. The US trusts the Pakistan army to safeguard nukes and worries about anything that may damage the Pakistan army. Both the Taliban and India are forces that can damage the Pakistan army. The US negotiates with India about helping to preserve the Paki army, but is unable to negotiate with the Taliban.

So the Pakistan army is a sort of "US protectorate" within Pakistan. Direct negotiation with them is pointless. Anything we have to say to the Paki army can be said with threats, which wakes up the US and then we tell the US to talk to the Paki army.

So why negotiate with the feudals if talks with the army are not going to occur?

It is useful for India to maintain a charade of talking to a "democratically elected government of Pakistan". Everyone in the world who has any power (i.e governments) know that these talks are a sham, but nobody wants to say it out loud because everyone is putting up a pretence that Pakistan has a coherent functioning government.

What is the use of such a charade - pretending that Pakistan actually has a working government?

I believe that there is a broad international consensus that Pakistan is in trouble - nuclear armed trouble and that an effort should be made to preserve the state of Pakistan. For such preservation a government is required and for public support from developed countries the sham of "democracy" has to be maintained so that they keep pouring money into Pakistan to keep the basic functions of government alive. It would be difficult to get public support for aid to Pakistan with a military government in power.

The US in turn is separately and independently supporting the Paki military to stay happy and healthy and keep its nuclear weapons secure.

India has the power to break this international consensus. Everyone knows it. So India needs to be handled carefully. India cannot be forced to do things that Indians do not like - or else this delicate balance in Pakistan can be blown to pieces by an angry India. So Indian concerns are being addressed indirectly - and India is paying a price by joining the international consensus on supporting a "democratic" Pakistan and doing chai biskoot with groper Gilani and co.

But "for the good of the subcontinent" India must plan to empower the people of Pakistan and when empowered they should not be hostile to India. Empowering the population of Pakistan essentially means damaging the Paki army as it is and disempowering the feudals. How that can be done is the topic of discussion of this thread.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jul 2010 09:46

There are dynamics in Pakistan which would not allow a staving off of failure, despite prior knowledge of the underlying reasons. The power brokers in Pakistan would not allow any change in policy, because any policy change would hurt them. The only problems that can be avoided are those that are based on apathy and inefficiency.

Prior knowledge of such problems can of course help in avoiding them, but even then apathy-related problems require a change in world-view, in priorities, in mentality, in public-awareness levels; whereas to avoid inefficiency-related problems one needs better management skills.

In Pakistan, the State is there to be abused by the power-brokers - the Army, the Feudals, the Sarkari Mullahs, the Mafia, the Bureaucrats. Can anybody else come to power in Pakistan? No. No mango abdul has the resources: the gang, the machinery, the name, the education, the connections. If the Power Elite is seen to be abusing the State, if they get preferential treatment, be it continuous and subsidized power supply, the tax incentives, the perks, the jobs, then that attitude percolates down to every level. Corruption and cronyism are endemic. A governance based on this cannot change much. Here and there, there will be bureaucrats, who would honestly try to contribute, but there number is fast decreasing. Apathy is the consequence. This is a dynamic, that will not change.

Also as cronyism increases, the jobs go to the better connected and not to the most meritorious. Then there is a class of educated Pakis, who would do everything to emigrate and get out of Pakistan, as Talibanism approaches. The level of management skills of those in Governance decreases. Can this be changed? Yes, only to a certain extent. So those problems whose root cause is inefficiency can be tackled, but even here there are constraints of managerial skills.

Basically all these problems are known to the Pakistanis. There is nothing new BRF would contribute to awareness about them. BRF also gets to know about these problems through the media, the Pakistani media. I don't see any reason why openly talking about them, would constitute giving the Pakistanis the keys to their salvation.

If BRF talks about Talibanism being a problem, it doesn't mean Pakistanis will be able to control it. Or if we point out that Pakistan has a problem with their foreign exchange reserves, it is not as if Pakistan can suddenly increase them.

So most of the fundamentals which will lead to Pakistan's failure cannot be changed.

As far as the discussion here goes regarding strategy to tackle or manage Pakistan's failure, all Pakistan can do is make it a bit harder for India to achieve certain goals, but with that they are only making their salvation a bit harder.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jul 2010 10:06

Inflation drives many to suicide in Pakistan: CathNews India

Human rights workers and psychiatrists say rampant inflation in terror-torn Pakistan is helping extremists recruit suicide bombers and driving many more poor people to take their own lives.

“Bills and prices of basic commodities will increase by at least 15 percent when VAT comes into effect … Every day price hikes have become the norm and the number of suicides is increasing among unemployed youths and the poor,” said Catholic Naqib, the Lahore archdiocesan Urdu bimonthly, in its latest editorial.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 08 Jul 2010 10:25

Pranav wrote:Rudradev ji, Islamism has militarism built into its DNA, and aspirations for economic upward mobility do not really contradict that.

Pranav ji,

It is interesting that you have brought up DNA as a metaphor.

DNA is a vast repository of information, of which very little is actually accessed, or "expressed", by being transcribed and translated into proteins that have biological effects. For example, 97% of your DNA (and mine) is identical to that of a chimpanzee. But it is safe to say that neither you or I resemble a chimpanzee, nor could we devolve into one.

The expression of DNA... what information is accessed, and what is sealed off... is the true determinant of an organism. DNA expression is heavily dependent on the environment in which the organism lives. Not only that, but DNA frequently mutates, and the books on the library shelves change their content. Whether a particular mutation is beneficial to survival or harmful and deadly, and hence whether that mutation is passed on to future generations, is again influenced by the environment. Selection pressure determines which mutants live and procreate, and which die off.

Selection pressure is responsible for evolution, and for the origin of new species. It is important to note that selection pressure need not be naturally enforced. Men have been imposing it on other species for centuries. The rice we eat has little resemblance to its wild-type ancestor. The nice doggie we play with, was evolved by selection pressure from something more likely to take a man's arm off.

By stabilizing the Gradient I had referred to, and minimizing the impact of inimical Agencies, we can apply selection pressure to transform the subcontinental Islam of today into something consonant with Dharma. This is irrespective of what may be built into the "DNA" of Islamism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jul 2010 10:26

PML-N wakes up by Burhanuddin Hasan: Pakistan Observer

Ever since the present government has taken office, the country is steeply sliding downwards. The inflation is increasing and the prices of the most essential food items such as atta, lentils and sugar etc. have risen so high that millions of poor people who voted this government into office can not afford to have a square meal a day. Many such people are even committing suicides to save their families from the curb of starvation.

Recently the National Assembly was informed that 180 suicide cases were reported during the last one year. Mind you these are figures released by the government. The suicide cases may be much more. The Economic Survey released by the government said that the economic growth during the rule of the PPP government has been “fragile” the official expression for “very poor”. The Survey has used all the bad words to describe the poor state of economy, such as “escalating inflation, mounting debt servicing, stagnating domestic tax revenues and rising expenditure on security and subsidies’’.

The law and order situation too is getting worse. Apart from bomb blasts and suicidal attacks, a new factor is target killings in Karachi. Scores of people are losing their lives every day. Nobody knows why? Sind government is a silent spectator and does not move a muscle to stop this outrage, nor does the federal government take the provincial government to task. This is what is called the jungle law. Pakistan ranks “tenth” among failed states.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Jul 2010 10:36

shiv wrote:
Pulikeshi wrote: Pakistan is too big to fail!
It is easy to get carried away by the semantics of the word "failure" and harp on defining the meaning of that word as the basis for all discussion. I have two things to say about the use of the word failure

1) Using that word was a deliberate act on my part. Associating that word with Pakistan is an important psy-ops gimmick. It matters little whether Pakistan is failing or not. It is clearly not an unmitigated success.

2) If you want to be honest and dharmic (which are your personal failings) you will be able to show that many of "Pakistan's failures" are "India's failures" as well.

Thanks for being patient and explaining it to me.
However, let me assure you, that I understood your psy-ops prior to your elegant explanation.
If you did not get my drift on "Pakistan is too big to fail!"
I was making fun of the moral hazard that came with the bailout of corporates that were "too big to fail"
Everyone is too big to fail these days! TSP is as big as the other bigs...

I do like your suggestion on poking on the feudal fault line.
In this view one could argue that what is happening in TSP is a virulent version
of Shining Path for example. There are many Guzmans to be found in TSP...
One could argue de Soto's (Hernando de Soto) arguments and suggestions
and restructure his solutions as a possible solution for TSP.
Heck an institute, an award, so many was to leverage...
All the while "radicalizing the radicals" -
by fanning the flames of the internal competition among the virulent strains.
Such a "schizo" strategy of sword and balm is what is needed.
Obviously, it is always unclear which is the sword and which is the balm.

Also, you know me - I remain honestly dishonest and dharmic

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 08 Jul 2010 10:51

RajeshA wrote: La Ilaha Illa Allah.

Claim of Monotheism: Allah forbids that man worship any other God beside him. This is false Monotheism, because the Monotheism is based on singularity of target of worship and not on singularity of existence of God. Why would a God prohibit the worship of others, were he confident that there are no others. Allah is only making the case, that man should choose him over others.

It is actually Hinduism, which is the (perhaps the) oldest monotheistic religion. Krishna says in Bhagvadgita that all those who worship others, also worship him. He is confident there are no others. In Hinduism there is the concept of One God: Ishwar or Brahman, though Hindu allows many deities.

So one can always retort to a Muslim in a dismissive way, that Islam is not monotheistic. Only Hinduism can claim that. That way you pull the carpet from under his feet.
.

Rajesh A-ji,

A fascinating idea.

With the latest Data Darbar bombings, we see the degree to which fissures in Paki Islamism have become intensely reticulate. This is no longer clearly-distinguishable dark-green-on-light-green violence (as we have been seeing for the past several years in Pakistan). It is violence between two shades of green that are much less distinguishable from one another. The saint whose mausoleum was bombed was quite "pure" in his Islamism; the incident was an episode of very-very-very-pure attacking the merely very-very-pure.

That is why it has had such a bone-jarring effect on mainstream Pakis, who for once cannot justify the terrorists as desirably pure and dismiss the victims as deviant Shias or Ahmedis. In fact, most Pakis seem to identify more closely with the (very)^2 pure victims as opposed to the (very)^3 pure suicide bombers!

Regardless of the tenets of Islam, things are beginning to look (even to a number of Pakis) very similar to a state of conflict between sects of a polytheism rather than internecine violence within a single body of believers. The authority of the "most pure"... in fact, their very stock in the Pakistani psyche... takes a beating with each such incident. "La ilaha illa Allah" rings more hollow as the lines of purity/impurity between the (Islamic) combatants blur while the violence grows ever more profound.

Future incidents like this, creating greater chaos within the body of believers in Pakistan, may pave the way to step in with a socio-religious assault.

There was once a terrorist group belonging to a sect called Deendar-e-Anjuman (in India) which blew up a number of Christian Churches. Of course the terrorists' operational agenda was ISI-directed, but the Deendar-e-Anjuman sect had some very curious theological viewpoints. Here is an article from Milli Gazette, stressing how "un-Islamic" the Deendar-e-Anjuman sect actually is:

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15012001/Art16.htm

Deendar Anjuman, more fully known as ‘Deendar Anjuman Channabasavesh -wara Siddiqui’, is a religious (Non-Muslim) Cult founded by Siddique Deendar Channabasaveshwara in 1924. Deendar Anjuman is an offshoot of the ‘Qadiani Cult’.

Siddique Deendar Channabasaveshwara was born in 1886 at Balampet in Gulbarga District of Karnataka. In 1914 he went to Qadian, a village in the Gurdaspur District of Punjab, where a sizeable (Non-Muslim) congregation was practicing ‘Qadiani Cult’. Siddique, attracted by the cult philosophy, studied the voluminous book, ‘Secrets of Prophethood’(Asrar-e-Nubuwat), allegedly written by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of the ‘Qadiani Cult’. The ‘Qadiani Cult’ is a religious (non-Muslim) organization that believes in Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani as a Prophet who came to deliver mankind from the throbs of hellfire. Mirza Ghulam was born at Qadian in 1839. During the decade 1870-80, Mirza began his mission as a reformer (Mujaddid) and started attracting admirers for his cause. As his followers grew in number, Mirza claimed that he was the promised ‘Mahdi’. He later changed his claim and asserted that he was ‘Jesus Christ’ who had come in order to fulfill his promised ‘Second Coming’. His claims kept changing and escalating until his death; and before he died Mirza made his final claim that he was prophet of God.

The philosophy of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani impressed very much the young Siddique Deendar. He joined the ‘Qadiani Cult’, and worked for eight years, tirelessly as a preacher (Muballigh), in order to propagate the Qadiani Cult in all parts of Punjab. About the end of his Muballigh years, the Qadiani Cult split into ‘Mahmoodi’ and ‘Paighami’ sects. There were doctrinal differences among these sects. The ‘Mahmoodi’ sect, led by Basheeruddin Mahmood (son of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani, founder of the Cult) claimed that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a prophet of God. The ‘Paighami’ sect, led by Moulvi Mohammed Ali, asserted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was not a prophet but a Reformer (Mujaddid), sent by God in order to rejuvenate Islam. The Muslims did not recognize either sects and considered that both sects were outside the realm of Islam.

Siddique Deendar felt disillusioned with the splitting of ‘Qadiani Cult’. He asserted that he is the true Qadiani; and declared that God had appointed him as ‘Promised Joseph’ as God had promised Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to send ‘Joseph’ among his followers. Thus he asserted grand spiritual status for himself, never surpassed by any other human being. He declared that his mission was to bring back into the dominion of ‘Qadianism’ all those who have deviated from the ideology of ‘Qadiani Cult’. However neither sects of the ‘Qadiani Cult’ accepted his claims. The embittered Siddique Deendar left Punjab and returned home.

In 1924 he claimed at Gadag (Karnataka) that he heard while sleeping the divine voice of Lord Brahma. The Lord informed him that he took pleasure in appointing Siddique Deendar as Channabasaveshwar. At this juncture, Siddique claimed that he did not know who Channabasaveshwar was. He went to Sadhu Lingappa, Saint of the Shiva worshipping Lingayat Caste. The Sadhu made detailed interrogation in order to test the legitimacy of the claims made by Siddique. The Deendar’s literature shows that Siddique presented fifty-six signs on his body. He showed snake sign on his head, bullock signs on his hands, conch shell signs on all his fingers, and many others. He was the seventh child of a remarried widow. With all these, it appears that the Sadhu was convinced that Siddique was indeed the Channabasaveshwar, who had made his second coming into the world in order to fulfill his promise he made during his first coming (in the 12th century).

Channabasaveshwar, according to the Veerashaiva (Lingayat) Saints, was the redeemer of mankind and the Kalki Avatar of Vishnu; about whose ‘second coming’ the saints have been waiting for the past 800 years. Siddique, as Channabasaveshwar, claimed that he had been commissioned by Lord Brahma to bring about unification of the faiths of Islam and Veerashaiva Lingayat.

Given that Islam in Pakistan is fracturing at very many levels... and the inevitable stress of "shaken faith" that continuing incidents of Data-Darbar type are likely to effect on the Pakistani polity... this suggests an interesting possibility or two, no?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Jul 2010 12:27

^^^ Rudradev-ji, are you confirming what we have known all along, that Paquis love to worship the Lingam? (especially those from 3.5 Gods?)

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 08 Jul 2010 13:27

^

Not that I will discourage this futile quest to reform Islam.
Posing a theological challenge is not the same as solving the problem.

Underneath it all - TSP suffers from two problems:
1. Disenfranchised serfs serving on captured lands
2. Obsequious (local) dadas who have bred servitude to outsiders into their marrow.
All the while oppressing their own lot and acting as agents of the outsiders.

Neither has anything to do with religion or civilization per se.
Characterizing the problem accurate, typically leads to a better solution.

1. If you target the serfs - they can be further radicalized and/or be shown the path of democracy and land reform.
Both ideally

2. If you target the (local) dadas - they need to be compelled to servitude of India or a power friendly to India.

Option 2 has hajar reasons for being a Sisyphean quest, Option 1 seems more promising...

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 08 Jul 2010 13:53

Rudradev wrote: By stabilizing the Gradient I had referred to, and minimizing the impact of inimical Agencies, we can apply selection pressure to transform the subcontinental Islam of today into something consonant with Dharma. This is irrespective of what may be built into the "DNA" of Islamism.

Well, people are welcome to try that approach. But bear in mind that Islamists take great pride in the supposed immutability of their doctrines. Recessive genes are liable to be expressed again in favorable circumstances.

However, Islamism is far more fragile than people believe, IMHO ... it is very much possible for people to completely discard the baggage of misguided ideologies. This was best expressed by Ayan Hirsi Ali:

Do you keep any hope from the moderate wing of Islam?
We have to make a separation between Islam and Muslims. Muslims as humans and individuals are obviously capable of changing their minds. I was born a Muslim and I’m no longer a Muslim. But Islamic theology – Islam means submission to the Allah – if you compare that theology to western liberal thought, you’ll find very quickly that they’re not only incompatible but very hostile to one another. I find hope in individual Muslim men and women, and especially young children. Instead of educating children in the theology of Islam, it’s much better to educate them in the values of the Enlightenment.

Do you feel you must repudiate Islam drastically to be able to take a firm public stand against it?
I think values clash. You have to take a very clear position. It doesn’t have to be a radical position, but it should be a clear position. My journey of coming out of Islam simply demonstrates that it is possible for a Muslim individual to change his or her mind. And I have to make it very clear, and in the language of the Enlightenment, in accessible language – this is the moral framework my parents gave me, here’s why I left it, and here’s the new moral framework that I’ve adopted. If you get too woolly about it, the message gets lost. And that benefits only the fundamentalists, because they are very clear in their standpoint and in spreading Islam – they tell you this is halaal, this is haraam, this is forbidden, you should pray five times a day, you should combat the infidels, and if they don’t convert willingly then kill them or avoid them. There are all sorts of stages for apostates. This is how you should treat women and gay people. They are very explicit about what Islam tells you to do. And you can’t take drones and shoot ideas out of people’s heads. What you can do is take a very clear position and explain to people why those [other] values are wrong and their consequences, which are clear today.

Do you see the spread of Islam as a problem?
I see it today as the greatest problem in history. Even if people don’t resort to terror and violence, still it’s a closing of the Muslim mind. A closing of the human mind. Because Islam doesn’t allow you to think for yourself. You follow a man who tells you this is halaal and this is haraam. Islam also persuades you to invest in the hereafter, in life after death. I think that’s bad for people in general, even if they don’t become violent. ...

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp ... 0i_see.asp

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 08 Jul 2010 13:56

shiv wrote: This is absolutely correct. A few observations in this regard based on Pakistan's history

Pakistan was created out of an area of land that already had a feudal society. Being beholden to the feudal lord was normal for the people in that land. They were/are in a feudal trap like millions of others in other lands through the last ten centuries.

The government that was superimposed on this feudal land was ostensibly a "democratic" one. In actuality the "government" consisted of feudal lords (who were not particularly literate) and the government machinery was manned by mohajirs - migrants from India who had the training and literacy to run the bureaucracy. These mohajirs had zero chance of winning any elections. They were outsiders and did not want elections to come in the way of their power. The feudals did not want elections to come in the way of their wealth and clout. To this mix was added the army that somewhere along the way gained an appetite for political power.

All these have ensured that there is a fairly high degree of misery among the people of Pakistan (as per opinion polls and publication). All this has been kept in check by an artificially imposed "fear of India". If the fear of India did not exist - the people would then ask why prices are so high and why there is corruption and (Allah forbid) ask how much money is going into army coffers and how the Army houses have power and water while they don't.

At least some of the Islamist groups attacking inside Pakistan have already threatened the feudal pattern and have promised redistribution of land after their Islamic revolution. I saw at least one news item about this recently. I will try and locate it.

In fact this is exactly what is worrying the Pakistani leadership. Nothing is more threatening to Paki leadership than this. Certainly not India. India cannot directly redistribute land without capturing it - but the least we must do is as you suggested - make a strong push for supporting land reform using an appropriate propaganda apparatus.

Technically - an India that suggests land reform is an India that supports the Taliiban/Islamist groups against the "democratically elected government" of Pakistan. This is the allegation that is sure to be made - but India must not be fobbed off by allegations. We must "support anyone who will bring land reforms to Pakistan". Have you noticed how the US and China never ever speak of land reform in Pakistan? They do not want to upset their whores in Pakistan - the Army and the feudal political leaders.

Currently the Paki leadership is caught between several pincers. This is the time to put pressure on them. The poorer and more populous Pakistan gets, the more ripe it will be for some violent revolution. I believe that revolution has already started and we need to step in to get a hand in there to gain something from it at some time in the future.

The interesting thing about what China and the US have done is to support the rich corrupt leadership to retain their power. That is cheap. Supporting and developing an entire land of 170 million people is not something either the US or China will do. Nobody is that rich or philanthropic. They will get little in return for feeding serfs who reproduce like rabbits. That is where revolution must come from and the worse it gets the greater the chance of revolution.

In the meantime India must (as India has done) keep trade to a minimum and keep its armed forces threatening enough for Pakistanis to keep on spending on their armed forces leaving little for development. And as Pakis move towards failure - start calling for democracy, land reforms, freedom etc and blast them with TV propaganda about India being a land of milk and honey.

shiv wrote:
This is absolutely correct. A few observations in this regard based on Pakistan's history
---

Shivji, i must admit,i am split in my opinion about your post. Before i express my opinion, i'd like to know what exactly is the definition of 'failure' when it is used in a geo-political context? Because i would term Afghanistan as a failure,yet it exists,its citizens or atleast those who were unfortunate enough to be born in such a country continue to be called 'afghanis'.If the definition of 'failure' is failing to provide basic necessities to ones citizens,collapse of law and order,vast disparity between the haves and have nots,then many countries in this world can be deemed as failures,and most of those problems exists in India too.Going by such a yardstick,Pakistan is already a roaring failure,but yet it wont seize to exist tomorrow or in 10 years time.There will still be a Pakistan and there will be Pakistanis who'll continue to be a menace to India and her interests.

Here's what bothers me : If we talk about feudalism being one of the biggest challenges that threatens the very existence of Pakistan,then i would say KSA shares many of the same qualities although in its case it has manifested into a 'monarchy' than a fake democracy or military dictatorship.There is a vast difference between the 20000+ members of royal family and their friends and the regular saudis.A few years back,there was a documentary in one of the Brit TV channels about this disparity and how this fuels nutcases like OBL.But i don't expect Saudi to just go away or break up into pieces anytime soon.Sure,Pakistan has no oil wealth like the Saudis,would there be any revolution there that is strong enough to jolt its methods and management? I guess not.

I agree that an arms race will force Pakis to take on more debt,continue to eat grass while buying more F-16s from the Yanks and missiles from the Chinese.Reagan did the same to the Soviets and that certainly exacerbated its fall.Having said that,India is no USofA, and the long term implications of such a policy could severely hamper our own growth.We still have to dig 50% of our population out of utter poverty,would a high stake arms race be feasible?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jul 2010 14:39

Rudradev ji,

There will be a lot of disagreements on this thread, because many posters will not understand the context, in which something is being proposed and what assumptions one may have made regarding the scenario.

I believe your suggestion pertains to a stage of evolution of 'Western Bharat', when the entity Pakistan has become history and there is a search of ways, how the populace can be given some structure, so that it can form a stable coexistence with the rest of Bharat.

I would like to propose a list of stages, I believe, the region occupied by the entity 'Pakistan' would go through before attaining some stability and peaceful integration with the rest of the region.

Here an initial draft of the rest-lifecycle of Pakistan:

1) A flare-up of Pakistani confidence (2010 - 2012) - Victory in Afghanistan; Kashmir in Turmoil, American & Chinese support.

2) Blowback from Afghan Victory (2013 - 2016) - PML-N in power, though muddled political situation. Growing Talibanism in Pakjab, Breakdown of Governance, Financial Crisis, Secessionist voices in Sindh & Baluchistan, American pullback from Pakistan.

3) Next Martial Law (2017 - 2022) - Insurgency in North Baluchistan, Pukhtunkhwa-Khyber & FATA, resulting in full Army retreat from Pushtun Areas. Terrorism in Pakjab. Secession in Sindh and Baluchistan receive international traction. Hyperinflation.

4) Breakup of Pakistan (2023 - 2025) - Americans reiterate their support for Pakistani Army. Denuking of Pakistan. New Pushtun Dispensation in Southern & Eastern Afghanistan, Pukhtunkhwa-Khyber, FATA, North-Baluchistan. Sindh and Baluchistan receive international recognition. Pakjab remains in turmoil from all the fanatic groups. International Conferences to find a solution.

5) Fall into the Abyss (2026 - 2030) - Warlordism, gun culture, Islamist groups wide-spread in the region. Economic collapse. Hunger, Famine, Lawlessness, Refugees.

6) India steps in (2030 - ...) -

Disclaimer: I have no third-eye for the future. Just guessing. This is simply supposed to be an aid for the discussion.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 08 Jul 2010 15:51

By 2030, it will be too late for the Indic civ., India has to reclaim those lands before RoP gains majority in the sub-continent, after that its all over for the dharmics, evil will prevail

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jul 2010 19:07

(1) Is internecine warfare between more pure and less pure in Islam really surprising? Not really, and Pakis who eat, live and drink Islamic history and golden periods, cannot but be aware of the fate of the early Caliphs, and their non-Caliph successors at various periods of Islamic history. All the first four so-called "Righteous" caliphs met a violent end. Most if not all prominent Muslim theologian and leaders striving for greater purity either were killed themselves or killed others striving for purity.

In fact the so-called first "liberator" of Pakis - Qasim - was supposedly executed by sewing him in raw hide and sticking pins or nails into that bundle, for allegedly "using" the enslaved Sindhi virgin princesses meant for the Caliph's personal "use". That whole episode should clarify the Paki foundational experience, mentality and "national philosophy".

The Islamist narrators who wrote the episode down, even if they were making it all up for self-glorification and boasting, as claimed by Thaparite Islamophiles and Islamapologists, did not find anything wrong in portraying the highest spiritual leader of Islam as a lust obsessed maniac who in turn finds nothing wrong in getting publicly murderous in being offered "second hand" girls.

Qasim could have been executed with a straight decapitation : no? He had to be sewed into raw-hide which would dry and contract and suffocate him slowly. In that process, he had to be also stuck with pins or iron nails - to intensify the agony. This shows that the Islamic or the Paki merely does not enjoy the killing - but the agony and pain associated with it. The Paki enjoys the suffering of its victim. So this contradicts any so-called "jarring" claimed to be felt by Pakis who still call themselves Pakis.

I would have believed such sentiments if the concerned Paki had denounced his origins, his nation and his faith - as some people from Iran and a few from BD and POWI have already done. If there is any "jarring" on Paki hearts, then it is more about an embarrassment that does not conform with the image of Islamic solidarity that is so crucial to maintain Paki "national" legitimacy.

(2) Reform of Islamism and Paki Islamism The fundamental problem in "reforming" Islam lies in the strict inviolability of the Quran and the commonly accepted Hadiths, such as that of the Shahi-"true"-Bukhari. There are micromanaging elements that have been placed in the Quran, such as slavery and treatment of people-of-the-book, and people not covered by the "book" category. If the Quran remains inviolate, then these aspects will forever remain a fall-back option for violent take-overs and destruction of other civilizations.

The only way to proceed is to bring up open debate and establish the right to openly analyze and debate religions, including Islam. The censorial power of religions to intervene, stop, or penalize open discussions on religious claims and tenets have to be attacked and taken away. This should have been the primary task of "secular" governments, but most secular governments pander to religious dogma to various degrees. In a way, the regimes basically collaborate in religious orthodoxy and therefore takeup religious cause using the resources of the rashtra. This is a task of a greater societal effort to counter regime-elite collaboration with various religious groups.

Islam cannot be reformed unless its foundational texts are delegetimized, and a new version established - which however is perhaps not possible without war, and a severe and near total loss of prestige and authority of almost all of the Islamic establishment. Additionally, coercive mechanisms maintained for generations to eliminate the tendency to develop Moududi type reactions in thinking that the loss of power was due to "deviation" from the Quran.

Delegetimization of the Islamic texts is a wide ranging scholarly task, that should start with a wide dissemination of the history, archeology, and the context of the rise of the Quran - its roots in the violent struggles for power and supremacy within Christianity and Imperialism, and the inherent contradictions in the theology and its practice.

(3) Land redistribution and democracy There is a danger of course, (and I know that some groups have already promised this) that Talebans will take this up as a ploy. But Talebs will ultimately fail in land-reforms, because of two factors :first, they are themselves not free of feudal tendency with influences of warlords remaining intact, and second, that they are already partly in alliance with a segment of the Paki establishment which is dominated by the feudals. The first factor will mean that land-hungry Pashtuns will be foisted on Pakjabi land and new Pashtun Emirs will replace the feudal lords and the lot of the common serfs will not change. The second factor will mean that some of the Pakjabi and Sindhi feudals will "convert" to Talebanism and preserve their feudal powers. This will happen more in areas where ethnicity of local serfs are different or antagonistic to Pashtuns and the Talebs will find it tactically easier to rule indirectly through collaborating feudals.

India still can use the "land reforms" as a slogan by pointing out that real land redistribution will not happen under the Talebs, and here associate Talebs with Pashtun land-grab in propaganda, instilling the fear in local serfs that they will simply be duped with Pashtun overlords and feudals replacing their current ones.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 19:10

Ambar wrote:India is no USofA, and the long term implications of such a policy could severely hamper our own growth.We still have to dig 50% of our population out of utter poverty,would a high stake arms race be feasible?

Regarding you query on failure, have you read my ebook on Pakistan?

I believe you have not figured out the nature of the arms race that is going on.

As an analogy imagine that you (India) earn Rs 1000 a year and spend Rs 100 a year on defence but I (Pakistan) earn Rs 200 a year and spend Rs 50 a year on defence.

You are spending only 10% of your earnings every year, but I am spending 25%

After all that are we equal? if not who is more powerful?

Let me get out of analogies and explain.

Conventional military wisdom says that an attacking force should have a 2:1 or 3:1 numerical superiority over a defending force. In other words 1:1 parity is no good for an attacker. It is fine for a defender.

So what Pakistan has done is to spend 20-40% of its entire budget on the armed forces and is completely unable to create even a minimum 2:1 numerical superiority over India. After leaving forces aside for China India has approximate parity with Pakistan. That means India cannot invade Pakistan, but can defend against invasion. And this has been done by spending a lot less every year.

Now as the Indian forces get bigger over time - Pakistan has to spend more and more and more just to maintain the 1:1 parity. This is infact what is happening.Sooner or later teh parity will start sinking into disparity - and unless Pakistan accepts that disparity and spends a lot more on development, they will neither have development nor military parity, leave alone superiority. We don;t have to be a USA to take on Pakistan.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jul 2010 19:56

Regarding feudalism in case of KSA, most of KSA land is not productive or fertile. The dominant agriculture is mostly nomadic and pastoral, with recent high-tech development of artificial environs for more phytoculture. Compared to that, the valley of Indus is much more a thing to wrangle over.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 08 Jul 2010 20:55

Saudi Arabia has a population of 27 million with a land area of 2.15 million sq km - GDP 468 billion USD. Arable land -1.7%
Pakistan has a population of 170 miliion (this year) with a land area of 0.88 million sq km - GDP 164 billion USD. Arable land 20%

As brihaspati pointed out - a lot of Saudi land is not arable making it difficult to have feudal lords with serfs living on the land working as landless agricultural laborers. This is not true of Pakistan where about 2% of the people own 75% of the land. Poverty is directly linked to land ownership.

For the same reason a lot more Saudi citizens can own land.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Jul 2010 21:20

RajeshA wrote: shiv ji,

Islam's vengeance is particularly hard on the kafirs. If the Hindus want to dull Islam's sword, it is useful to win or at least neutralize this argument.

The harder one pushes Hinduism's monotheistic pedigree, even to the point of questioning Islam's pedigree on the issue, the easier it would be to get the message across. The more it becomes a topic of contention, the more it becomes a topic of discussion.

If you tell somebody, I too believe in One God, you leave it to his discretion, to accept or reject your contention. If you go on the offensive, it is the Muslim that needs to defend his position, and would probably find some compromise with you. Only then would he accommodate you.

The Muslim would not sheath his sword as long as you remain a kafir according to him, regardless of your policies towards him. One has to get into an argument with him, that he is bigger kafir than you. We have been letting the Muslims define us, and then punish us. That needs to change. Don't let them define us, then probably they would not feel the need to punish us either. We need to define us in his language, so that he understands it, in his context.

The Barbarian only has his rhetoric and his sword. We have to neutralize both. We have to increase the din in the media so that his rhetoric does not get through, and we have to do something about the sword.

The bone of contention is not mono or polytheism. Its Belief vs Realization!

The Bhartiya religions or even different brances Tantra, yoga, Buddhism, Jainism differ in so many ways. Still one thing that is accepted by all these is "Realization", "Enlightenment", "Samadhi", "Nirvana" are experienced by individual whether from guidance of guru or through self work.

While Judaism, Christianity & Islam are based upon "Belief" in "Prophet", "Book", "God"! This is the main problem. I can never forget something 12 years ago:

I was invited by a friend to a party in Lajpat Nagar. There are lots of afghans in that part of Delhi. This friend had introduced me to teachings of J Krishnamurti at that time. During the meal in course of talking my friend started the discussing how this wonderful creation Trees, mountains, rivers and nature came into being? Immediately two afghans sitting on our side put down their plates and said in unison "Allah ne" and covered their ears. My friend had to ensure them that we won't discuss this anymore only then they took their hands off their ears. My friend explained to me at that time that even "listening, discussing this subject would be in a way doubting the book and prophet" so they covered there ears.

Secondly Rajesh, why should we stick any non-indic labels on ourselves. Why should we claim to be monotheists. Yes Lord Varun, Lord Agni, Indra or Bramha Vishnu Mahesh are there in many forms. It is individual freedom to interpret and realize the truth. I don't think any kind of propaganda or dialogue can change these people. Nowhere in the world it has happened or will happen.

So the main difference is "Belief" vs "Realization of Truth(god)", not mono or polytheism.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 08 Jul 2010 21:37

"Liberal" Pakistanis want to rethink Pakistan's obsession with India.
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/9203/

----
Manish_Sharma is touching on a key insight of "belief-based" versus "realization-based" systems. The belief-based system is founded on a specific model of humans - namely that humans' behavior is driven by beliefs. Intentions are informed by beliefs, and behavior is driven by intention. If you notice the discussion among Pakistanis, the solution to their problems as proposed by them always involves correcting people's mistaken beliefs - about Islam or about Jinnah's design for Pakistan or so on.

One of the first exercises of "realization-based" systems is to explode this idea that what you do is based on belief and intention. On self-observation one finds that the connection between what one does and one's beliefs and intentions is rather tenuous; somewhat of a illusion.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Jul 2010 21:49

Manish_Sharma wrote:Secondly Rajesh, why should we stick any non-indic labels on ourselves. Why should we claim to be monotheists. Yes Lord Varun, Lord Agni, Indra or Bramha Vishnu Mahesh are there in many forms. It is individual freedom to interpret and realize the truth. I don't think any kind of propaganda or dialogue can change these people. Nowhere in the world it has happened or will happen.

So the main difference is "Belief" vs "Realization of Truth(god)", not mono or polytheism.

Manish_Sharma ji,

Perhaps I was not clear in my intentions. My intention was not to discuss with Muslims or Pakistanis the various theological aspects of Hinduism or do comparative thesis on the similarities between Islam and Hinduism.

The Hindu does not have to worry about this line of argument. He can continue to seek his Truth, however he deems fit. The argument is not meant to change Hinduism, or to interpret it, overly rigidly, or to constrain Hinduism's scope.

In a tête-à-tête between Hindus and Muslims, I wanted to provide some little rhetoric which tackles their verbal attacks on Hindus. The Muslims consider it, a matter of great pride that they are people of the book, and that they are monotheists, and then they go on and on about how Hindus worships idols and cows and what not. At another level, this provides them with the sanction to attack Hindus.

The line of thought that I provided, was not meant for consumption of Hindus, but rather as a tool for winning debates amongst Hindus and Muslims on a personal level, to delegitimize to some extent their sanction to kill Hindus, and to enable some amongst the Muslim to question those who make killing Kafirs their focus. It is simply a debating tool, a propaganda tool. It is meant to shock the Muslims, as it goes against everything they have been taught about the Hindus.

It is meant to act as blue contact lenses in the eyes of the bull, so that he doesn't see the red dhotis we Hindus wear.

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 08 Jul 2010 23:12

RajeshA wrote:
Manish_Sharma ji,.....

Shri Rajesh a request, I would be grateful if you don't address me with 'ji' as it is turkish/persian term as explained by Brihaspati Mahoday!

Come what may we would always be multigod worshipping pagans for them. Do you think the people who are killing Shias who are believing in same book can be coaxed into believing that hindus are also mono----ts like them?

As you saw this very fine point made by Shri Rudradev:

(very)^3 killing (very)^2

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 08 Jul 2010 23:52

^^^Just a humble pointer :
this is what I actually wrote on 16th Jun,

Ji is definitely more used in Urdu and Hindi. There is a Turkic possible origin of ji. However, there it denotes profession - for example qand-a-ji (quand == sugar/molasses), so one who makes sugar. This also appears in the Persian/(later Persian or Farsi). But is not in itself an honorific suffix - in the Islamic world where it appears from Turkic, Persian, Arabic to even Palestinian hybrid Arabic, Syriac, Egyptian. It can denote quite negative aspects as say an "alcoholic" - one who either makes alcohol or drinks it. My Farsi knowledge says it is essentially the same meaning and sense as a suffix as in Turkic.

I suspect it could have a very Indian origin in its honorific form, derived from "Jeeva-Jeeveshu-Jiushu" essentially denoting a devoted wish for life to the addressed, and also denoting deep affection. This was used to address family idols of deities, more perhaps among Vaishnavites.

What I should have added, is that whereas outside of India it is not used as an honorific, in India it is. This and the fact that it is used as address in Hindu spiritual personalities and deities in devotional terms, it could not have been adopted from Persian/Arabic/Urdu sources.

You will see it used much less in Pak.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 00:08

Manish_Sharma wrote:
RajeshA wrote:
Manish_Sharma ji,.....
Shri Rajesh a request, I would be grateful if you don't address me with 'ji' as it is turkish/persian term as explained by Brihaspati Mahoday!

In Arabic -ji suffix is used similarly to how in Hindustani we use -wala, like in doodhwala, etc.

In Hindi it is an honorific, the etymology of which is not clear to me. But it is standard practice in Hindi. But since you do not wish to be addressed with -ji, fine with me.

Manish_Sharma wrote:Come what may we would always be multigod worshipping pagans for them. Do you think the people who are killing Shias who are believing in same book can be coaxed into believing that hindus are also mono----ts like them?

This has already been noted and addressed by me.

Manish_Sharma wrote:As you saw this very fine point made by Shri Rudradev:

(very)^3 killing (very)^2

And I agree with it fully. But that is besides my point.

If a Muslim chastises a Hindu about the multi-gods, the Hindu can

keep quiet (and Muslim wins),
go on the defensive (and Muslim wins),
explain using a theological treatise (and Muslim laughs),
or take my tip (and Muslim gets shocked, and shuts up).

You can choose, whatever suits you.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2010 00:15

Deification in Christianity: saints, son of god, Mary, Apostles, Saints, Holy Ghost.

Deification in Islam: Mohammad, Ali, Quran, pirs, Makkah, Kaaba.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 00:20

sanjaykumar wrote:Deification in Christianity: saints, son of god, Mary, Apostles, Saints, Holy Ghost.

Deification in Islam: Mohammad, Ali, Quran, pirs, Makkah, Kaaba.

... and the mazaars!

That is one more jhaaparh to those who call Hindus kafirs!

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 09 Jul 2010 00:46

Boss-log, perhaps ironic coming from honestly dishonest Dharmic me,
but what is the point of theological debates in Managing TSP's failure thread?

Perhaps jingogan will realize that Managing TSP's failure is not the same as managing Islam's failure.
<sarc on>
Albeit, both are too big to fail!

</sarc off>

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 00:54

Pulikeshi ji,

I am sorry, that my simple suggestion is taking such band width. Managing Pakistan's Failure has many levels and many phases, and requires a multi-pronged approach.

What may sound absurd at some level at some phase in some scenario, may still be of use in some other phase.

'nuff said on this topic!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 09 Jul 2010 01:23

RajeshA wrote: If a Muslim chastises a Hindu about the multi-gods, the Hindu can
keep quiet (and Muslim wins),

go on the defensive (and Muslim wins),

explain using a theological treatise (and Muslim laughs),

or take my tip (and Muslim gets shocked, and shuts up).
You can choose, whatever suits you.

I haven't had this opportunity with muslims but with christians I always use "Belief" vs "Realization". My favourite is "Meditation is like actually drinking water, you get firsthand experience of God, truth whatever, while belief is somebody talks about the water and you blindly believe."

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2010 01:27

Of course one other major categoty of deification common to both Chritianity and Islam is that of angels, their categories and classes.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 01:28

Manish_Sharma wrote:I haven't had this opportunity with muslims but with christians I always use "Belief" vs "Realization". My favourite is "Meditation is like actually drinking water, you get firsthand experience of God, truth whatever, while belief is somebody talks about the water and you blindly believe."

For most people, it is not about understanding the other's point of view, but rather getting a kick out of taunting others.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2010 01:43

Sigh, perhaps the best counter is to forgo the theological niceties and contrast the earthly record of Christianity and Indic systems, and to bring it sharply into focus so that there is no subconscious rationalisation that the victims were the "other"; enquire of the Christian basis of papal degeneracy, Inquistions,inter-denominational bloodletting. It may not be relevant that your beliefs are more esoteric or subtle or intellectual. What is of demonstrable concern is how many Christians died at the hands of Christians.

Indics win hands down.

Now reiterate with ROP.

Tha fact that the Abrahmic gods are more powerful than the effete Hindu gods

is certainly very impressive-but not of terrible relevance to those Hugenots, Shias etc etc who have been killed by their co-religionists in the name of their common god.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Jul 2010 02:03

sanjaykumar wrote: Tha fact that the Abrahmic gods are more powerful than the effete Hindu gods is certainly very impressive-but not of terrible relevance to those Hugenots, Shias etc etc who have been killed by their co-religionists in the name of their common god.

This is an old Arabic joke from 700 or more years ago:

A man of the Qadari School was traveling in the company of a Magian. The Qadari asked him, "Why don't you become a Muslim, you Magian?" "When God wills it," replied the Magian. "God has already willed it," said the Qadari, "but the devil won't let you. " "I am with the stronger," said the Magian.

We Hindus are with the stronger

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jul 2010 02:29

derkonig wrote:By 2030, it will be too late for the Indic civ., India has to reclaim those lands before RoP gains majority in the sub-continent, after that its all over for the dharmics, evil will prevail

A dumb majority wont make any difference beside it wont be democratic or popularity contest. The Dharmic side with both brain and brawn will easily win. Dont they already complain about 3 time the casuality whenever they tried to stink the place.
Rajesh Sir jee, 90% probability for your time line to come true for Pakistan's eventual jump into the darkest deepest pit, 10% chance there might be somePSers left in india who will try to prolong Paki agony by holding, delaying the Jhatka manouver. By 2030, ( Onlee few teen plus years away ) we will have enough $ to pay for the clean up as well shutting down the mouth of 3.5 Massars with 3-4 Trillion Asian Currecny Units (ACU) worth economic engagement.