RARE though it is for South Asia’s raucous television industry to throw up informed programming with a social conscience, Bollywood star Aamir Khan seems to have managed it with ‘Satyamev Jayate’ (Truth alone prevails)
Explaining to Gandhiji as to why the Muslims needed a separate state, Jinnah told him, ‘We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions, in short we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of International Law we are a nation’Roperia wrote:Here is what Jinnah actually said about Hindus and Muslims (quote from the archives of Columbia University)
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. . . . .
That above was the paki take on the "tense" meeting in Aspen. Here's NYT's report on the same event (please remember that NYT is a left of liberal leaning newspaper):SSridhar wrote:Policy of seeking strategic depth has changed
The tart exchange between the officials, Douglas E. Lute, President Obama’s top adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Sherry Rehman, Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States, took place during a conference in this bucolic mountain setting. "tart exchange", no pun intended
Mr. Lute, a retired three-star Army general and deputy national security adviser who rarely speaks in public, fired back. “There’s no comparison of the Pakistani Taliban’s relatively recent, small-in-scale presence inside Afghanistan to the decades-long experience and relationship between elements of the Pakistani government and the Afghan Taliban,” he said. “To compare these is simply unfair.”
The core of problem is and was never Pakistan. Even if Pakistan ceases to exist, the problem will not. What happened in BD, same will happen to independent Pakjab, Sindh.Altair wrote:Pakistan cannot survive a single day as an independent nation. It needs blood transfusion from the 3.5 forever. The moment the flow is stopped or interrupted Pakistan will go into a seizure and in all probability collapse. India has to certain extent managed to slow the flow and if it continues to pilferage supply into Pakistan, India will come on top. We just have to keep growing organically and make sure Pakistan spends rapidly more than it can afford. Economics will take care of the rest.
Not a chance in hell of such a policy change. To cover up the festering durrand line problem, the pakis slyly propagated the strategic depth theory.anupmisra wrote:{quote="SSridhar"}Policy of seeking strategic depth has changed
Pakistan's close relations with Afghanistan in general and the Taliban in particular are normally seen only in religious fundamentalist terms. The argument is that movements like the Taliban are naturally bound to ally with similar groups, such as the Deobandi groups, in Pakistan. Such an alliance, it is claimed, is driven purely by religious ideology and is, therefore, inherently anti-secular and anti-India.
This assertion, however compelling, does not tell the whole story. While there is no doubt that religious and ideological affinity provides a strong basis for the relationship between the two neighbours, Pakistan was bound to pursue a proactive Afghan policy.
There are two principal reasons for this: first, to preserve Pakistan's western border and, second, to provide `strategic depth' against India. In fact, it is more likely that Pakistan is using the `Islamic' garb to veil the significant national and strategic interests that it has in Afghanistan.
The primary reason for this is the legacy ofthe Durand Line which was drawn as part of an agreement signed on 12 November 1893 between the then ruler of Afghanistan, Abdur Rahman Shah, and Sir Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the colonial government of India. This line, which was delineated in 1894-95, marked the boundary between Afghanistan and the British Indian empire.
In 1947, following the partition of India, it became the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This line, which runs though areas inhabited by the Pashtuns, was never accepted by either Afghanistan (which signed it under duress) or the Pashtuns (who sought to create their own homeland called Pashtunistan). As early as June 1949, Afghanistan's parliament cancelled all the treaties which former Afghan governments has signed with the British-India government including the Durand Treaty and proclaimed that the Afghan government does not recognise the Durand Line as a legal boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ever since then every government in Islamabad militaryand non-military has desperately tried to reach a bilateral agreement with successive regimes in Kabul to convert the Durand Line into the international border, but without any success. Despite propping up several pro-Pakistan regimes in Kabul, Islamabad was unable to get any of them to endorse the Durand Line as the international border. In 1996, when the Durand agreement and line completed a century, it was considered to have lapsed. Consequently, Pakistan's de jure western border ceased to exist.
This realisation made it imperative for Pakistan to get even more deeply involved in determining who rules in Kabul. According to a recent US Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare report Islamabad has always been anxious to secure a docile Pashtun-dominated government in Kabul. This explains Islamabad's continuing and increasing involvement in Afghan affairs.
This serves several strategic purposes for Islamabad. First, by co-opting the Pashtuns and promising them Kabul it neutralises the groupthat was most likely to challenge the non-existent Durand Line. Second, a pro-Pakistan regime in Kabul is more likely to ensure the de facto preservation of the lapsed and abrogated Durand Line, even if it cannot be converted into an international border. Third, a Pakistani-dominated Afghanistan would then constitute a forward strategic depth on Pakistan's western flank.
The concept of the 'strategic depth' doctrine is not new: it was first articulated by the army chief General Mirza Aslam Beg and tried out in the high-profile Zarb-I-Momin military exercise in 1989-90.
Simply put, the doctrine calls for a dispersal of Pakistan's military assets in Afghanistan beyond the Durand Line and well beyond the current offensive capabilities of the Indian military. This would ensure the protection of Pakistan's military hardware.
However, to be really effective the doctrine calls for Pakistan having the ability to field these assets at a time and place of its choosing, which in turn requires not just neutralareas around the Durand Line but Pakistan-dominated areas well within Afghanistan.
Thus, like the 'Islamic bomb' slogan of the 1980s, Pakistan's leadership is now using the convenient 'Islamic' label not only to take along the Taliban fundamentalists but also to cover its own strategic and military involvement in Afghanistan. It is important to realise that Islamabad's strategy to counter India is not driven by religious and fundamentalist rhetoric but by cold military logic.
The writer is MacArthur Scholar at the Centre for International Studies, University of Oxford
End of Imaginary Durand Line:
The British presented a signed document with the person of King Abdul Rahman Khan in 1893 referring to the borders between Afghanistan and British India. This document was in English and the person of Abdul Rahman Khan did not understand the English language, therefore leads the suspicious nature of forgery and or false documentation. The Dari or Pashto translation of this document or agreement has never been signed by Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, suggesting that he nullified this agreement. But the following researchers have provided arguments to the contrary that this document was signed and has expired. in either scenario, the Durand line does not exist today.
Source: Dr. G. Rauf Roashan
The line devised by the British was worked by the British Colonial Officer Durand and thus became known as the Durand Line. The document was to be ratified by the legislative body in Afghanistan. It never happened. It was to remain in force for one hundred years. It has not been revived on the deadline, which was 1993 either. Pakistan and now especially its military government is trying disparately to pressure Taleban into what Pakistani interior minister Moinuddin Haider calls revival of the sanctification of the Durand Line. Legally the Durand Line remains as an imaginary line dividing families on both sides. It has never been demarcated either, especially from Khyber Agency north to Chitral. This artificial and imaginary line is increasingly becoming an area of conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan even with Taleban regime that ironically has the political and military support of the government of Pakistan. A recent visit by an armed convoy of Taleban officials to Momand Agency has touched many nerves in Pakistan and has left it in shock. Friday Times of Pakistan reported the incident.
Pakistan seems to be possessed with its insistence on what its interior minister Moinuddin Haider has called the need for sanctification of the Durand Line. This column has dealt with the historical perspective of the Durand Line in its earlier commentaries. (Refer to the commentary: Sanctity of the Unholy in this column's archives.) The same minister had traveled a few times into Afghanistan for talks with Taleban on the same issue. He has been reported pressing hard for recognition of this "imaginary line" by Taleban. Pakistani military government had even staged situations of conflict in the border areas in order to drive its point home for recognition of the border. Throughout, notwithstanding their relations with Pakistan, Taleban have resisted the pressure. Moinuddin Haider returned home from Afghanistan without any commitment from Taleban on the issue and as a matter of fact on any issue of importance including his government's request from Taleban not to destroy the historical statues of Buddha in Bamiyan.
No legislative body in Afghanistan ever ratified the Durand Line agreement, signed by the British with the person of King Abdul Rahman Khan in 1893, and therefore as far as its legality is concerned it remains as a defunct historical document showing colonial designs in the third world countries. The Line was devised by the British to strengthen the status of Afghanistan as a buffer between the British India and the expanding Russian empire desirous of reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean and for that matter the rich colonial lands of the subcontinent of India. But when the British left India in 1947 for good, it should have returned Afghan territory at least including the area up to the natural border, the River Indus to Afghanistan. Instead, still dreaming of keeping its colonial interests alive in the subcontinent the British gave this territory to Pakistan, thus creating a double buffer zone between the expansionist Soviet Union and the Indian Ocean. This deprived Afghanistan of direct access to the sea. But this was not the only objective, the British-authored project of Durand Line wanted to achieve. It wanted to separate the Pashtunland by an imaginary line. It would divide not only the land, but would separate families, fathers from sons and brothers from brothers.
However, last Friday, the Friday Times of Pakistan published a comprehensive report on an important incident that challenges the very existence of the notion of the Durand Line. It reported a visit by a high level group of 95 Taleban including their interior minister in a convoy of heavily armed vehicles to Momand Agency. The report says the visit "has revived Afghanistan's claim on the area and left Islamabad shocked." The report added TFT has learnt that the delegation, which was accorded a warm welcome by local chieftains and returned the same day whence it had come, visited a number of places in the agency, most notably the Khapakh area, some 20 kilometers west of Ghalanai. It seems that the visit had prompted the local assistant political agent Mutahar Zeb, to send urgent reports to the Home and Tribal Affairs Department. But Pakistani authorities have downplayed the significance of the visit stating that the group was there to offer condolence to a bereaved family. Manzoor Ahmed, additional secretary in the Department is reported to have said that the practice is normal since Momands live on both sides of the Durand Line and share their grief and happiness.
But this is exactly the point any political observer would make. If a tribe is so cohesively entwined, how could any imaginary line divide it? But the Friday Times report also deals with other aspects of the visit. It says: "However, he (Ahmed) could not explain why it was important for the Taleban interior minister to come to Momand Agency all the way from Kabul. According to one malik (chieftain) of the Khoizai tribe, the Taliban expressed anger at the Momand sub-tribes' on the other side of the line urge to get Pakistani identity cards. "This is our land. We will give you the (identity) cards," the malik quoted one Taliban delegation member as saying at a tea party, attended among other chieftains by Malik Fazal Manan, a former member of Pakistan's national assembly. During one of the ceremonies, the delegation also hoisted the Taliban flag at Khapakh." It is worth mentioning that the visit had scared the Pakistani government so much so that it went ahead and arrested two tribal chieftains namely Malik Abid and Malik Naseem for interrogation and released them after 72 hours. The report further states: "Kabul has refused to renew the Durand Line treaty since 1993 when it expired, " says an Afghanistan expert. One of the reasons Pakistan faced problems with the Kabul rulers right from its inception was Kabul's claim over the North West frontier Province." Kabul never accepted that line or the fact that the NWFP is part of Pakistan. This was one of the main policy planks used by Sardar Daoud's government when it tried to foment trouble by Pukhtoon nationalists in the NWFP on the issue of greater Pukhtunistan," says this expert."
The Durand Line treaty worked by the British was singed in 1893 and was to stay in force for one hundred years. Even if the treaty were ratified by a legal legislative body in Afghanistan its validity would have been expired in 1993 and there is no record of it ever having been revived. Pakistan heavily invested in Taleban for many reasons one of which was what its interior minister calls the sanctification of the Durand Line. However, it should be stated that matters such acceptance or rejection of international borders legally are the responsibility of legislative bodies within states and no executive officer can take over this right. In this respect Taleban are justified in having not taken any decision, as they are not legally qualified to do so. This extremely important and vital issue should be dealt with utmost care and true national representation. Even this imaginary line remains unmarked from Khyber Agency up into Chitral. It has been so for that past one hundred and four years. It will remain so for hundreds of years to come.
[/quote]It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religions in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders; and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality; and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of more of our troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, and literature[s]. They neither intermarry nor interdine together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects [=perspectives?] on life, and of life, are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Mussalmans derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, their heroes are different, and different episode[s]. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other, and likewise their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent, and final. destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the government of such a state.
MIRAMSHAH: A US drone attack on Sunday killed at least four militants in Pakistan’s restive northwestern tribal area, security officials said.
The missiles struck a compound in Khushhali Turikhel village of the troubled North Waziristan tribal district on the Afghan border.
“US drones fired six missiles into a militant compound. At least four militants were killed,” a security official told AFP.
Local intelligence officials confirmed the attack and casualties.]
AtriAtri wrote:The core of problem is and was never Pakistan. Even if Pakistan ceases to exist, the problem will not. What happened in BD, same will happen to independent Pakjab, Sindh. OTOH, Consider this most plausible counter-factual scenario.. Without British coming in picture, there still would have been a separate state in Sindhu valley (Sikhs) and rest of India (Marathas) just as today.. But the problem we face today wouldn't have existed.. There most probably would or perhaps wouldn't have been enduring peace between two.. But the headache would not exist.
Explaining to Gandhiji as to why the Muslims needed a separate state, Jinnah told him, ‘We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of value and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, aptitudes and ambitions, in short we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of International Law we are a nation’[/quote]Roperia wrote:Here is what Jinnah actually said about Hindus and Muslims (quote from the archives of Columbia University)
It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. . . . .
TSP model is that of parasite. They have built up a very sophisticated and successful parasitic mechanism; ultimately 3.5 don't have the initiative in the relationship, TSP does.Altair wrote:Pakistan cannot survive a single day as an independent nation. It needs blood transfusion from the 3.5 forever. The moment the flow is stopped or interrupted Pakistan will go into a seizure and in all probability collapse. India has to certain extent managed to slow the flow and if it continues to pilferage supply into Pakistan, India will come on top. We just have to keep growing organically and make sure Pakistan spends rapidly more than it can afford. Economics will take care of the rest.
Great post. Please put it in the good post threadharbans wrote:Jinnah was right and India wrong in one fundamental aspect. That Islamism and Sensible'ism cannot co-exist. That is exactly what he meant and implied. Only idiots think that Islamism can co exist with Ahmadi's, Shia's..let alone the Kufr. Also when i mentioned Swamy in the list with Psecs and vote bank politico's i did so based on one interview of his to a Pak TV channel where he says, if we both get together no power can do damn about it..something akin to it. This is a common perception in drawing room cocktail circuits where it's dropped off very matter of fact'ly. Swamy never got thinking beyond some cliche's it seems. IMO for India to have real power it has to have an ally/ partner that thinks like it. Possesses the same value systems. I would personally turn traitor to my nation if it abandons Dharma, Satyameva Jayate and makes peace with an Islamist Pakistan to inflict terror on other nations for a temporary respite against the terror our neighbor inflicts, or for that matter even some temp material benefits it might bring to our nation. Many will under such circumstances bring a sword to the table. That's the reason i keep stressing here that India's interests is not a fundamental in our approach to the world. Define our core first. Our value systems. Our fundamental interests lie there. Get that fight to the table. RKM( roti, kapda, makaan) come next. Even the Mughal rule under Aurangzeb was purportedly inflicted to protect Indian interests, same with British rule or Chinese occupation of Tibet. Beyond even the constitution it's our duty as voluntary rakshaks to protect that core that endorses a fair constitution. Else a simple Islamic majority can change the constitution. This is important to understand and internalize.
if you look at the evolution of every jihadi tanzim with official backing there is a roughly similar trajectory.SSridhar wrote:In parallel, Hafeez Sayeed had started, along with Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi, Markaz-daw’a-wal-Irshad (MDI) in Muridke in 1985. MDI was started with the twin objectives of peaceful activities (such as running charities and prosletyzation) and Islamist jihad. In 1987, the deaths of the Emirs of two other Ahl-e-Hadith organizations (Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer of Jama’at-Ahl-e-Hadith and Jamil al-Rehman of Jamaat al-Dawa al-Quran wal-Suna) enabled the absorption of the members of these two organizations swelling thereby the strength of MDI.
In 1990, LeT was launched officially by MDI as its militant wing with Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi as its commander while Prof. Hafeez Sayeed remained in overall charge of the organization.
After the 1992 Babri mosque destruction, LeT sent Azzam Cheema to India to set up Tanzeem Islahul Muslimeen which much later became Indian Mujahideen.
Hafeez Sayeed was nominated to be a member of Pakistan's Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. So, there was a clsoe cooperation between the PA and Professor saheb even before 1988. Ostensibly, the biggest enemy for the PA was and has been India, not Afghanistan. The fact that Professor saheb has been solely, widely and effectively used by the PA against India since the 1990s shows what the intention of the PA was in propping him up. After all, Gen. Zia-ul-Haq authored the theory of 'a thousand cuts to bleed India to death' and remained preoccupied with India until his death. Would it be so much off the mark to assume that the good General desired some of these cuts, deep ones at that, to be inflicted by Professor saheb ?
The drone situation is complicated, because attitudes within Pakistan depend on where and when you're looking at them. Not quite Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, or Schrodinger's cat, but still messy.KLNMurthy wrote:we keep hearing from RAPEs that repressive measures such as drone strikes simply cause more people from the area to join "the common enemies of US, TSP, India,mars etc."
(btw we also have hindi movies starring our khans, like kurbaan which make a similar claim)
Is there any way to tell whether this is actually true? Are there reliable interviews with TTP, LeT cadres et al (aside from bollywood fiction) that indicate this is the motivation? If TEP is running madrasas as steady recruitment, training, and indictrination institutes for pakis and there is no economy to speak of, then ceasing drone attacks will make no difference. Continuing the attacks may in fact act as a reminder that the career of momin is not risk-free.
TSP model is hubris and imperalistic. They are copying the Western model of hubris and attached themselves to the western economic model and Oil lobby. This allows them to have a hubris model of engagement with India.KLNMurthy wrote: TSP model is that of parasite. They have built up a very sophisticated and successful parasitic mechanism; ultimately 3.5 don't have the initiative in the relationship, TSP does.
More I see India's prosperity mantra and the lovemaking with TSP, the more I am thinking that the scheme is to "groom" India as a host for the TSP parasite.
This is actually not true. You should read on the ground reports from Farhat Taj who claims that a majority of the populace who lives in that area are quite thankful that the vermin are gone. She also makes an interesting point -- Apparently, Paki army in collusion with the yahoos are destroying tribal hierarchies through assassination and intimidation and are taking over. The local tribal populace ofcourse is going to be happy to see the yahoos gone.KLNMurthy wrote:we keep hearing from RAPEs that repressive measures such as drone strikes simply cause more people from the area to join "the common enemies of US, TSP, India,mars etc."
(btw we also have hindi movies starring our khans, like kurbaan which make a similar claim)
Is there any way to tell whether this is actually true? Are there reliable interviews with TTP, LeT cadres et al (aside from bollywood fiction) that indicate this is the motivation? If TEP is running madrasas as steady recruitment, training, and indictrination institutes for pakis and there is no economy to speak of, then ceasing drone attacks will make no difference. Continuing the attacks may in fact act as a reminder that the career of momin is not risk-free.
US declares Haqqani network: US conspiracyCRamS wrote:Guys, question on this Haqqani BS.
Not if we get them first. Why keep doing the age old mistake of being defensive.Altair wrote:Atri wrote:Atri
There are over a 100 million Pakis (Age 12-40) who would blow themselves to kill a few Indians.They are desperate, no food, no power, no money and only smelly donkeys and goats to keep them warm. Why would they not be angry? But,Their anger is carefully handled by Pakistani Army on India which would not exist without 3.5 doing the transfusion. It is only in the past few years that the transfusion has infected the donor. Make no mistake about that.
Even if Pakistan does not exist, we would still have 100 million hungry,angry, desperate and suicidal brainwashed Islamists who would have wrecked havoc on India. Congress believes that India is only paying hafta to the Jailor saab, the Pakistani Army Chief to contain the situation in the prison. They do not want to antagonize the jailor as he can look the other way if few escape through the sewer system and kill Indians in star hotels.
Altair
ramana sir,ramana wrote:Jinnah is a rakshasa guna individual. He is not right and cannot be right ever.
How can you all agree with him? True Gandhi was fighting with both hands tied(recall the Brits were orchestrating the whole thing) and you dont see the Brits hands and ths blame Gandhi. In your disquiet against Gandhi you praise Jinnah!!!
He considered diversity as a hinderence and demanded a separate state but soon on getting it, he asked fellow Poaqs to forget about it and instead work towards the IEDia of Pakistan. The Hindus and indeed the Muslims in India haven't started killing each other for belonging to different geographies or ethnicity or sects while the IEDia of Pakistan is exploding every other day.I cannot emphasize it too much. We should begin to work in that spirit, and in course of time all these angularities of the majority and minority communities, the Hindu community and the Muslim community -- because even as regards Muslims you have Pathans, Punjabis, Shias, Sunnis and so on, and among the Hindus you have Brahmins, Vashnavas, Khatris, also Bengalees, Madrasis and so on -- will vanish. Indeed if you ask me, this has been the biggest hindrance in the way of India to attain the freedom and independence, and but for this we would have been free people long long ago. No power can hold another nation, and specially a nation of 400 million souls, in subjection; nobody could have conquered you, and even if it had happened, nobody could have continued its hold on you for any length of time, but for this. Therefore, we must learn a lesson from this. You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State
Why do you call TSP shameless for celebrating Amir Khan? Just curious.partha wrote:Shameless Pakistanis.
http://dawn.com/2012/07/29/doing-good/RARE though it is for South Asia’s raucous television industry to throw up informed programming with a social conscience, Bollywood star Aamir Khan seems to have managed it with ‘Satyamev Jayate’ (Truth alone prevails)
Gandhi tended to try and invoke excuses for unity. Gandhi's biggest coup was to coopt the Scheduled castes and tribes of India along with the elite classes. It is easy to forget that Gandhi himself was born about 40 years after Macaulay made his famous speech. By the time Gandhi got an education, Indian educated classes had been converted out of Sanskrit education in the Vedas to "secular" British education in English. Max Muller had already studied Sanskrit by the time Gandhi was born and Gandhi was Rudyard Kipling's contemporary. Gandhi n South Africa in fact first opposed the idea that Indians should be considered equal to "kaffirs" (Blacks) in South Africa. This was when he was in his 20s. By then Gandhi himself had racist views put in him by his education in Britain. It was probably a stroke of genius that he later moved to India and turned his own education upside down and called for equality among Indian who had already been influenced into seeing themselves as North vs South, Aryan vs Dravidian,victor vs loser, white vs black. Gandhi was instrumental in changing that - and in fact although a lot has changed - even in 2012 - some of the old Macaulay inspired attitudes exist among Indians while they exist among 100% of Pakis.Roperia wrote: He was a cunning lawyer who used Islam and incited violence for political purposes. He turned secular as soon as he got Pakistan because probably he had foreseen? Muslims of Pakistan will not be tolerant toward each other.
<snip>
He considered diversity as a hinderence and demanded a separate state but soon on getting it, he asked fellow Poaqs to forget about it and instead work towards the IEDia of Pakistan.
I was about to say that Farhat Taj's report is the most reliable because she has access, being one from them, but Anujan has already posted that. I would also agree that it has been the aim of the Taliban (on either side of the Durand Line), the local warlords who collude with them and the jihadi Islamists who sympathize with them, to deprive the jirgas of their leaders, eliminate maliks so that a rudderless group of people, either out of fear or without option, choose to subjugate themselves to the Taliban hold. The PA has played three types of role in this process. One, remaining silent when the Taliban implemented this pogrom to eliminate leaders; two, form anti-Taliban lashkars as a sop to American pressure but not equip them well or not come to their assistance whenever needed; three, taking part in some of the worst attacks on its own people (since the 1973 Balochistan bombings) especially in South Waziristan.KLNMurthy wrote:we keep hearing from RAPEs that repressive measures such as drone strikes simply cause more people from the area to join "the common enemies of US, TSP, India,mars etc." . . . Is there any way to tell whether this is actually true?
Given the weight of official Pakistani propaganda, such information comes only from indirect sources, nowadays mostly YouTube videos. I had earlier created a joined up clip of news videos that briefly show how Pakis feel '. I have linked that below along with a far more informative 47 minute Al Jazeera video about BaluchistanKLNMurthy wrote:we keep hearing from RAPEs that repressive measures such as drone strikes simply cause more people from the area to join "the common enemies of US, TSP, India,mars etc." . . . Is there any way to tell whether this is actually true?
Watched it. Time well spent.shiv wrote:
Baluchistan (Al Jazeera)- this one is a must for all BRFite Shitistan watchers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4aTxF3xjWA
Jinnah and Iqbal, who was the first to suggest the creation of Pakistan, were both committed Indian nationalists for the majority of their adult lives.shiv wrote:It wold be wrong to judge Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah etc as totally right or totally wrong. Such absolutist views are good as a political stance, but do not consitute unbiased history.
Time for an MCQ testpartha wrote: Am I wrong in thinking that Balochistan has been getting increased attention in the world media post Sharm-el-Sheikh? Was it another case of Pakistan's "tactical brilliance"?!
Altair, that is a good suggestion for capable hands. Jinnah was a Shi'a and eminently suitable in present day Pakistan for wajib-ul-qatl. He was also very fond of suits, silk ties (which he never wore twice) and the above-ankle-shalwar-wearing Purebred could not digest that. Of course, he drank and ate pork, did not fast during Ramadan, did not know how to offer a Dua etc. incidentally. There are Islamists like Fazl-ur-Rehman who do not consider him as a leader worthy of Pakistan.Altair wrote:Avid writers should consider writing a fiction-comedy of "Jinnah" returning from a cryo-stasis to modern Pakistan. How he will be treated by Pakistani people today?
Which part of Jinnah's statement about irreconciliable differences between Hindus and Muslims do you not agree with?ramana wrote:Jinnah is a rakshasa guna individual. He is not right and cannot be right ever.
How can you all agree with him? True Gandhi was fighting with both hands tied(recall the Brits were orchestrating the whole thing) and you dont see the Brits hands and ths blame Gandhi. In your disquiet against Gandhi you praise Jinnah!!!
Change "Muslim" to "Islamist" and then it could be a valid statement. An Islamist is one who is aware of and consciously approves of the entire doctrine.varunkumar wrote: Which part of Jinnah's statement about irreconciliable differences between Hindus and Muslims do you not agree with?
Hindu Muslim dynamics between 1920-1930 is essential to appreciate this transformation.Johann wrote: Jinnah and Iqbal, who was the first to suggest the creation of Pakistan, were both committed Indian nationalists for the majority of their adult lives.
Jinnah opposed separate electorates and reservations for Muslims, and the use of religious passions in the Khilafat movement.
I don't think that Islam, Islamism or British influence are enough to explain what changed their (especially Jinnah's) way of seeing the world.