How can you vouch "easily" for more than 500 million people?rajna wrote: I could easily vouch that most Indians born after two decades of Independence are quite satisfied with outcome.
First of all, I am not the author.shiv wrote:How can you vouch "easily" for more than 500 million people?rajna wrote: I could easily vouch that most Indians born after two decades of Independence are quite satisfied with outcome.
If what Jinnah did was right and the outcome good for us, we should be thanking him. Not cursing.
Romance inside the burqa forumShaashtanga wrote:Shiv saar, that's your pov and i don't agree with it... i wasn't able to find the hijab-foreplay forum, can you please point me to it.
The author (whom you now say is not you) says that partition was a good thing. This has been expressed by so many people that it is old news. I think a lot of people on this forum have graduated from agreeing in retrospect that partition was good to a more informed stance of asking what was good and what was not.rajna wrote:
First of all, I am not the author.
Second, I agree with the author regarding what he says. Jinnah is cursed for the partition and the bloodshed that ensued, the lingering problems of Kashmir etc. But people like Jinnah remained within United India, there would be constant blackmail, military takeover and large scale ethnic cleansing like they are doing currently in Pakistan. Wont you agree?
Doc Garu... I had been regular reader of tsp tread for 4 yrs and enjoy reading ur posts....shiv wrote: Shaashtanga. In fact rage comes across as the statement of a napunsak, and when you go back to normality after that, your rant will be seen as the outer limit of your ability to react and can only be mocked. So when one is impotent, rage is the worst possible reaction.
Have you looked at the thread I started in the hijab-foreplay forum? When you take a population and convince them that they are the worst, the lowest and the least, impotent rage is about as far as they can go and the talk is "revenge revenge revenge" to a degree that is not practicable, and the inability to take that revenge is seen as further proof of napunsakness of th "worst, lowest and least" people of the world. That is where you are headed. No personal insult is intended.
If you are looking at what Sikhs did, the comparison with the original (now edited out) statement is as follows.Mahesh_R wrote: Can your explanation can't been used by sardarji as well in dealing with tsp?
Pls explain the diff...
That's a BIG round-off error I must say.rajna wrote:Mr. Jinnah bears the responsibility for the seperation of Pakistan from India. Seventy years after the independence
BRF is not for you. Please find places where you can spread your bigotry without fear. Why stay here where mods are not indic and WKK who keep warning you when you make hate filled posts? I put you out of your misery right here and now. Let us be in our sweet state of "denial" and please educate others who care to listen to your bile. Permanent ban.derkonig wrote: There is nothing offensive in your post, only non-Indics & WKKs will get their panties in a twist over this, sadly BRf has plenty of these species. You are absolutely right that our house needs massive cleansing, but such opinions are not popular even on a supposedly nationalistic BRf. It is worrying how deep people can be in denial about what needs to be done right now.
Docji Pls refer my post as MMS instead of Sardarshiv wrote:Exactly where is the similarity with Sikhs and Sikhism? Do you believe there is no difference?Mahesh_R wrote: Can your explanation can't been used by sardarji as well in dealing with tsp?
Pls explain the diff...
You mean Manmohan Singh might read the post and say the same thing as I did? How does that change the meaning in any way?Mahesh_R wrote:docji Pls refer my post as MMS instead of Sardar
Even if his assertion is true, this opinion is based on:shiv wrote:How can you vouch "easily" for more than 500 million people?rajna wrote: I could easily vouch that most Indians born after two decades of Independence are quite satisfied with outcome.
If what Jinnah did was right and the outcome good for us, we should be thanking him. Not cursing.
But dont you think, if the partition won't have happened, Muslim league would have constantly tormented the nation. We already have communist parties who vouch for China, as if they gave them free vine.
If what Jinnah did was right and the outcome good for us, we should be thanking him. Not cursing.
Even if his assertion is true, this opinion is based on:
a)the mess pak became.
b)the assumption that the areas and people constituting pak would have been a mess of same magnitude, even if India was not partitioned.
I believe the assumption wrong. Who knows what would have become of pakis, if they had remained in kaffir majority India! An eg: Hyd became part of India. If it had become part of pak, then it would have become a great mess.
I can offer one explanation. The PA has been worried about the US threats. For long, it has been able to weather American warnings and get on as though nothing happened. The Americans were also generous forgiving the Pakistani perfidy and even sending more goodies their way. The fact that the PA could protect OBL near Kakul for many years made them feel that the Americans were not good at intelligence. The PA became over-confident, as all Pakistanis tend to become. Since May 2, the PA is shaken and is feeling naked. The Americans, I feel' have conveyed credible threats to the PA very privately. That explains the induction of the PLA into Pakistan as well. At another level, the PA is suing for peace with the 'bad Taliban' as well because the PA feels that the Afghan situation is reaching a denouement and it needs supporters. Imran Khan comes very handy in this respect and he is the bridge between the PA and the henceforth-bad Taliban. The ascendancy of Imran would have immensely pleased the 'bad Taliban' as it did in 2002 when the MMA assumed power in NWFP. MMA ensured that the Taliban entrenched in NWFP, both in FATA and settled areas. The effect would be the same after 2014 (or earlier whenever elections take place) for the 'bad Taliban' over the whole of Pakistan. The backing by the PA to Imran Khan, coupled with PA's extreme animosity with both the PPP & PML-N assures the 'bad Taliban' that Pakistan would most likely fall into their lap sooner than later. The PA is accommodating with the 'bad Taliban' in a roundabout way through Imran Khan without spilling much blood from now on. So, why should they inflict violence when things to their liking are beginning to happen ?CRamS wrote:I've been wondering the same too. Can the experts explain this? Is this the competence of TSPA/ISI in achieving a perfect split between "good" and "bad" terrorists, and annhilating the "bad" terrorists, or is there some other dynamic. Its not even a gradual tapering off, its been a step change. Something is remiss.vic wrote:The rate of Eid Mubbaraks have fallen massively in Pakistan in last 2 months. This thread is loosing its happiness quotient for me!
Why this Kolaveri di?Altair, I've edited some text there boss. You've not broken forum rules but this is a delicate subject- JE Menon.
I understand that not all the leaders or supporters of ML migrated to pak. Majority of the present day pakis did not support ML.rajna wrote:But dont you think, if the partition won't have happened, Muslim league would have constantly tormented the nation. We already have communist parties who vouch for China, as if they gave them free vine.
If what Jinnah did was right and the outcome good for us, we should be thanking him. Not cursing.
Even if his assertion is true, this opinion is based on:
a)the mess pak became.
b)the assumption that the areas and people constituting pak would have been a mess of same magnitude, even if India was not partitioned.
I believe the assumption wrong. Who knows what would have become of pakis, if they had remained in kaffir majority India! An eg: Hyd became part of India. If it had become part of pak, then it would have become a great mess.
A big difference, a united India would have meant Muslim League would be in India; their backers before Independence were and even now in Pakistan are big landlords. India would not have been able to do social reforms. Macho culture of the Pakistani armed forces would have taken over the country and atleast would have attempted at great cost to the country.
You cite the example of Hyderabad, Hyderabad state (aka AP) has very small Muslim population with the majority concentrated in Hyderabad and Secanderabad. After Indian amalgamation, the rich folks who stoked the fears left India to joined Pakistan. There would be constant issues of Muslims not getting rights and another set of reservation. Already in India, caste determines the education you can get i.e. if you are SC or ST, you just need to pass the exam, whereas if you are from General category, few marks here and there would mean working in a factory or working in office. Now if Muslims were also provided the reservation, the General category would be squeezed and they would have leave India for good.
I am unable even fathom how united India would have evolved with a weak center and powerful provinces, with a majority Punjab (Indian and Pakistan Punjab) looking down on everyone else. Their attitude towards the people was generally displayed how they raped 90,000 women and killed more than 3 million of their countrymen just because they look darker. India would have endured constant pressure of breakdown. Nehurian idea of strong center is essentially needed in a country as diverse as India, where the center can use soft gloves at one time, or hit it on the head, or involve one group against the other rather all of them agitating against the other.
A united India would have out of love for Muslim votes would have turned against the only friend India had during coldwar, ie. Russia. Regardless of what Russia and do we really care, there would have countless Jihadis lurking around. India would have officially received the title of Terrorist country.
I do understand Shiv's concerns, but Shiv is stating as if an article written in retrospect had any effect on the outcome in 1947. Jinnah wanted and got what he wished or bargained for. But looking now, I cannot think of any good that would have happened.
Personally, I would always a smaller state with strong foundation anyday than a weak larger state with a weak center. Integrating 547 princely states and a country as diverse itself is no small matter, if extreme parties like Jamaite Islami which also existed in different names would have wished and turned the country into chaos. Remember, both in Bengal and in Punjab it was the Muslims that started killing others. I can provide historical details from neutral sources on this. Though Hindu extremist party like RSS exist, there are not even in the league of JuD.
rajna wrote: Shiv is stating as if an article written in retrospect had any effect on the outcome in 1947. Jinnah wanted and got what he wished or bargained for. But looking now, I cannot think of any good that would have happened.
I am going to say something, but it can be safely ignored. It is not meant as a taunt or jibe or criticism of anyone. It is merely of of my "piskological" observations. In fact ramana had posted a link to a similar tendency a few days ago. It is somewhere on this forum - I forget the actual technical name of this very human tendency maybe "determinism" or somethingGen Kayani said that Pak-China’s relations were purely strategic and these were not against any other country and these relations would help ensure regional peace and stability. He said that China’s security was dear to Pakistan and such joint exercises would further strengthen the relations between the two countries that were facing the common threat of terrorism.
He said Pakistan considered China important in regional stability and it would continue to cooperate with China in countering the East Turkestan Islamic Movement.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/25/pakistan ... india.htmlMembers of banned Islamist groups including Jamaat-ud-Dawa, Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, and hardline religious party Jamaat-e-Islami gathered in the main square in Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.
http://www.dawn.com/2011/11/25/2115149.htmlIn the recent intervention on the façade carcass, all the details have been painted a rather sharp tone of blue, while the remaining has been painted a slightly brown shade of white. The words ‘Allah-hu-Akbar’ have replaced the statue of the Lakshmi Goddess, almost as if to mock its original historical and cultural background. The Lakshmi façade makes strong visual references to Hindu mythology by way of its overall detailing. That being said, the presence of the takbeer on an evident Hindu image raises the question as to how distressed and insecure Muslims might have become as a community that they feel the need to impose their belief onto something that belongs to a completely different set of beliefs.
Sir, i still couldn't find it, i went through all the threads on aforementioned GDF link. Were you pointing to the "An Indian sense of I & I" thread?shiv wrote:Romance inside the burqa forumShaashtanga wrote:Shiv saar, that's your pov and i don't agree with it... i wasn't able to find the hijab-foreplay forum, can you please point me to it.
Hahahahahahaha. That was good. I had a nice laugh. Thank you.anupmisra wrote:
Makes sense. Paki: The other white meat.
Ssridhar,SSridhar wrote:TSP-PRC military exercise concludes
Its available online:rohitvats wrote:Headly documentary being shown on Times Now as of now...
Shah Mehmood Qureshi resigned from the government earlier this year and has kept the country guessing about which opposition party he would back.
Pundits have described him as a potential "game changer" and his capture makes him the biggest name so far to join Imran Khan, who has spent 15 years trying to elbow his way between the more established parties without success until now.
Nato helicopters have fired on a military checkpost near Pakistan's Afghan border, killing up to eight soldiers, say Pakistani officials.
A military spokesman said the attack had taken place in the Pakistani tribal region of Mohmand, Reuters reports.
Nato said it was aware of "an incident" near the border and that it was investigating.
The Pakistani military said it was an "unprovoked and indiscriminate" attack.
"Casualties have been reported and details are awaited," a military spokesman said.
The alleged attack took place at the Salala checkpost, about 1.5 miles (2.5 km) from the Afghan border, Reuters reports, at around 02:00 local time (21:00 GMT).
Why this vague reference to 'neighbours' on this day ? He must have referred to Pakistan by name and given out a much stronger statement.. . . I once again call on our neighbor to bring the perpetrators of the crime to speedy justice. . . . India is committed to having a peaceful, friendly and cooperative relationship with all its neighbours for progress and prosperity in our region. We call upon all our neighbours to join us in this endeavour of building a better future for our peoples.
