Managing Pakistan's failure

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 09 Jul 2010 02:46

What 2030 means to India?

Note: Please read "~~Percapita Multiplier~~as PPP Multiplier".

Now you tell me, can India have its own Marshal-plan for Pawkis?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 03:19

anandsgh wrote:.Aaj Kamran Khan Kay Saath 2010.07.08 with Ardeshir Cowasjee

Kamran Khan: When will be see improvement?
Cowasjee (85): Pakistan will not break up in my lifetime!
...
Kamran Khan: Can we roll back the decline of Pakistan?
Cowasjee: No. Not any more. Too little akl in the people!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 09 Jul 2010 03:52

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

That's not all.

It also explains why Paquis hate and fear the Qadianis soooooo much. Deendar-e-Anjuman is an offshoot of the Qadianis.

Think about it... if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani could say "I, not Mohammed, am the last Prophet" and have many subcontinental (esp. Punjabi) Muslims follow him, then it is a short conceptual step from there to "Mohammed is an avatar of Vishnu" no? In fact, what happened with Siddique Deendar Channabasaveshwara was very nearly that.

The spiritual raison-d'etre of Pakistan is not merely Islam. It is "Purer is Better". That axiom is used to justify everything Pakistan does, and is the defining assertion of Paki identity.

"Purer is Better" has been Pakistan's Mullah-originated driving adage from the beginning. Pakistan had to be created because "Purer is Better". Kashmir had to be invaded because "Purer" (Pakistani) rule was "Better" than local (National Conference) rule, even though the National Conference was largely Muslim.

In '65, Operation Grand Slam would win over all the Kashmiris because it was an initiative of Pakistanis, who being "Purer" were "Better" (10X better than Hindu soldiers.) In '71 the SDRE Bengalis had to be suppressed because they were under Hindu influence from a substantial Hindu minority, while the West Pakistanis, being "Purer", were "Better".

"Purer is Better" was used to justify everything including the ethnic cleansing of all minorities... first Hindus/Sikhs/Christians, then Shias and Ahmedis, from Pakistan. Zia used "Purer is Better" as his watchword for the (overt) Islamization of the Pakistan Army.

In the '90s Pakistanis found other voices also shouting "Purer is Better", such as the Salafists and Wahhabis who began pouring money into Paki Madrassas and visiting from Sudan and other places. The TSPA got together with them and launched the Taliban as a "Purer is Better" project for the subjugation and annexation of Afghanistan.

It was only on 9/12/2001 that for the first time in its living history, TSPA had to take steps that seemed to directly contradict "Purer is Better." Musharraf went on TV and pleaded Hudaibiya to explain why the appearance of Impurity was actually even "Purer" (therefore "Better") than the Taliban standard of Purity which was to be targeted.

The concussion that followed had its epicentre there. Over the years, allowing NATO supplies into Afghanistan, attacking the Pakiban in its FATA strongholds, storming the Lal Masjid were actions that strained the "Purer is Better" narrative. A lie made more complicated (by introducing concepts like "Hudaibiya") became less easy to swallow and digest for the Paki people at large.

Suddenly there were no clear lines of "moral superiority" or "righteousness" that coincided neatly with the "Purer is Better" scale. Was the TSPA "Purer", or the TTP? What about the Punjabi Lashkars? To some extent the inherent conflict could be sublimated by blaming everything on the Americans, Hindus or Jews. But ultimately the violence was continuing at their doorsteps, and each new incident dealt a new blow to the credibility of the "Purer is Better" narrative.

I mentioned the Data Darbar incident in my previous post as having been "jarring". I did not mean that it "jarred" the Pakistanis into genuine moral reflection and remorse... only that it has struck perhaps a harder blow to the desperately held belief of "Purer is Better" than anything before. The difference in "Purity" between the bombers and the victims in Data Darbar was next to nothing, compared to previous incidents such as the Qadiani massacre or killings of Shias where degrees of "Purity" were still visible for Pakis to arrange their sympathies and provide their justifications accordingly.

When a bunch of Shias are murdered by the SSP, the Pakistani public knows whom to sympathize with... the SSP, because "Purer is Better". Easy.

When the Pakistan Army allows drone attacks or bombs Miranshah, or when the TTP carries out attacks like the Marriott Islamabad, it is a little more difficult to align such events with "Purer is Better." But somehow, through blaming the Americans, embracing conspiracy theories about RAW and accepting the necessity of Hudaibiya, the Pakistani public reconciles itself to the belief that such actions by the Pakistan Army advance the cause of "Purer is Better" in the long term .

But what happens when unknown "Pures" attack people praying at a Shrine, Pakistani civilians of a petit-bourgeois class that is deeply devout and in fact represents the center of gravity of Pakistani "Pure" Islam? Who to sympathize with then? Clearly it is not enough to say "no Muslim can have done this" because there is no other motivation for such an attack than "Purity" of Islam. Clearly it is not some roundabout Hudaibiya that will ultimately advance national interest (hence the "Pure" cause) in the overall big picture.

In such incidents, the "Purity" of the attackers vs. the victims is so confused that the Pakistani, so accustomed to rationalizing everything as "Purer is Better", finds himself suddenly identifying with the (possibly) less pure side! Of course, the first thing he will try to do is blame RAW/India or the CIA/US... but as more such incidents happen, the very core identity of "Purer is Better" cannot escape erosion.

If that narrative can be brought into doubt and question... if Pakistanis can be made to start questioning whether "Purer" is indeed necessarily "Better", something they have taken as an axiom for all these decades... then a crack in the armour will have appeared. Not that I see this happening today or tomorrow... it will take a lot of time and a lot of pressure, and it will need all the help we can provide. One possibility is that when this does happen, it will be to the advantage of groups like the Qadianis who currently suffer persecution justified by "Purer is Better". At that time, other ideas can be introduced... the Deendar-e-Anjuman, something that evolved from the Qadiani sect without any interference by Hindu groups, is an indication of what is possible.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Jul 2010 04:19

Rudradev wrote:

The spiritual raison-d'etre of Pakistan is not merely Islam. It is "Purer is Better". That axiom is used to justify everything Pakistan does, and is the defining assertion of Paki identity.

"Purer is Better" has been Pakistan's Mullah-originated driving adage from the beginning. Pakistan had to be created because "Purer is Better". Kashmir had to be invaded because "Purer" (Pakistani) rule was "Better" than local (National Conference) rule, even though the National Conference was largely Muslim.

There is something more than Islam here. There is concept of purity. There is erasing of the past - culture, kaafir practice and change of lifestyle from the old traditions.

There is long term plan to create an entire region for jihad and to make it look normal. Western press and their support over 30-40 years has helped them to create this image of normal for jihad.

In '65, Operation Grand Slam would win over all the Kashmiris because it was an initiative of Pakistanis, who being "Purer" were "Better" (10X better than Hindu soldiers.) In '71 the SDRE Bengalis had to be suppressed because they were under Hindu influence from a substantial Hindu minority, while the West Pakistanis, being "Purer", were "Better".

"Purer is Better" was used to justify everything including the ethnic cleansing of all minorities... first Hindus/Sikhs/Christians, then Shias and Ahmedis, from Pakistan. Zia used "Purer is Better" as his watchword for the (overt) Islamization of the Pakistan Army.

Pakistan people have to create and maintain this concept that they are better and the ruling class over all the rest of the Muslims. Purity is from the old Indian society and this has been absorbed into the Islamic culture of the region.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2010 04:56

Purity is an Arab concept. In the early years they had Arabic tribals lording over the conquered territories and women. In fact the first revolt that led to the displacement of Arabs was by Arabo-Persians who resented being kept out of power circles. This led to the establishment of the Abbasaid Caliphate.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Jul 2010 05:12

There are archaeological findings of images of the hedonism of the first Caliphs as found in the ruins of their palaces - which are NSFW/H here. These images of naked women and slaves etc., are consistent with the imagery that comes out from the early biographies of the founding fathers and Hadiths, but denied now. So "purity" was definitely a much later invention. POWI is no exception. Moreover there is certain viewpoint that the revolt against Muhammad started from within the Qureysh who pretended to be swayed and be converted but struck back from the expansion into Palestine and basically killed off the trusted lieutenants and family of Muhammad. The early intrigue and violent internecine strife probably is consistent with this view - even if a modern invention to shift back the blame for all the troubles in Islam back to the Qureysh "polytheist".

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2010 07:14

If you have multiple competing or mutually opposing streams of thought (or even fluid, or even crowds of animals/humans) coming together and colliding - the eventual direction they take is a compromise direction.

Secularism and pluralism are both conflict avoiding compromises designed to reduce the inherent attrition that conflict causes. Pluralism is a new word but the concept has existed in India for millennia - allowing the blooming or worship of any number of deities without conflict. Secularism was the offspring of an essentially rigid and monotheistic faith that had broken up into sects.

Secularism and pluralism can coexist - albeit with some turf wars. But for a rigid monotheistic faith like Islam - secularism is more easily swallowed than pluralism. IMO. So getting bogged down in little details about exactly what turf needs to be retained by what group is currently pointless - there has to be a compromise of pragmatism in dealing with Pakistan. Secularism is probably the more easily implementable compromise formula.

If we are talking about the future of Pakistanis - we have to talk about the forced implementation of secularism. Again - it appears to me that the educated Muslims of Pakistan whom I have observed on the net have not understood the meaning of secularism. After having their own asses chewed off by Islamist sects, they are now beginning to think of a secularism that allows nominally Muslim sects (like Ahmedis and Sufis) As of now there is no place for Hindus or Sikhs in this form of secularism. But this is not secularism at all and is of no use to us.

Let alone pluralism, even secularism cannot become an acceptable alternative for Pakistan until Islam causes enough sectarian bloodshed in Pakistan. So the immediate need is to ensure that sectarian bloodshed continues in Pakistan relentlessly until true secularism becomes an attractive compromise.

How to encourage that?
One possibility is to demand "democracy" knowing the democracy in Pakistan will kill three birds with one stone
1) It will empower the majority sunnis who can get democratic justfication for elimination of rival sects
2) It will worry the feudals and the army.
3) it will be a demand that no developed country can ignore. After all who does not support democracy.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Jul 2010 08:34

Shiv, is Niaz Murtaza one of your agents?
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ocracy-970

HOW would you feel if you lived in a poor neighbourhood and your neighbours started getting rich while you became poorer?

Angry, envious, depressed, suspicious? Pakistanis have experienced these emotions collectively as East Asia and the Middle East developed. Now even countries down the road in South Asia are developing.

Dubai and Korea are already rich, India is moving and, to add insult to injury, unconfirmed rumor has it that even Bangladesh is on to something since the familial break-up. Thank God for Afghanistan and Nepal! We can still walk around in the neighbourhood with some semblance of self-respect.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2010 08:52

A_Gupta wrote:Shiv, is Niaz Murtaza one of your agents?
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... ocracy-970

Let me give you an indirect answer to that question that says nothing but may say something.

I believe that when you have a very small (miniscule) body of writers in English for a similarly miniscule internal audience, all those writers get their inputs from the same limited number of sources and places where they can interact.

Any perturbation caused in the latter will reflect in perturbations of the former. If you get what I mean.

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

RajeshA wrote: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.

I actually agree with your suggestion and more. We are in this together...
Do not want to restrict anyone... just a suggestion on my part as well.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 09 Jul 2010 11:14

X posting... good watch...

anandsgh wrote:A pretty nice watch... Cowasjee is thrashing slowly slowly (Like Vajpayee ji) but hard..
http://pkaffairs.com/Play_Show_Aaj_Kamr ... _2010_9527

BTW, seems like "Managing Pakistan's...." thread is going faster than this parent thread.

What is missing is that democracy does not work, among other things, without property rights and education.
A lot of folks in India lost a lot of land due to reform enforced by the government....
If India starts seeing mucho tax collections, then one of the tipping points is that...
Every educated property owning citizen is a source of revenue for the Govt!

The fat cat (someone should come up with a good Punjabi gali for these guys) in TSP don't seem to realize they are doomed!
Got to agree with Cowasjee (felt like watching a Bhisma fallen on the battleground)....

partha · Post by **partha** » 09 Jul 2010 13:44

shiv wrote:it appears to me that the educated Muslims of Pakistan whom I have observed on the net have not understood the meaning of secularism.

One more observation is that most of them have got the concept of liberalism wrong! This is the conclusion I came to after reading many old posts of pakteahouse, a so called liberal blog. They hate India but love Indian cultural products like Bollywood. But isn't music, movies haram? That too Indian movies! This is where their liberalism kicks in. They require liberalism to justify their love for Bollywood / Hollywood and other things which make their lifestyle better in a society with jihadi mindset. You mention Kashmir terrorism or try to engage them in a debate on Islam and they start firing on all cylinders even going to the extent of abusing you.

Nirupama Subramanian got it right here -
http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/20/stories ... 641300.htm

I would have heated debates with Pakistanis who consider themselves modern, enlightened, liberal and secular but would suddenly go all Islamic and religious when it came to an issue such as Kashmir, seeming no different from their ultra-conservative compatriots who protest against the clamping down on Islamic militancy in Pakistan as harassment of “brother Muslims.” They could tout jihad in Kashmir as legitimate even while condemning the Taliban who threaten their own modern, liberal lifestyle, despite the knowledge that the distinction between the two kinds of jihad, or the two categories of militants, is at best an illusion.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 09 Jul 2010 14:14

I had some comments on liberalism that I put on Arun's blog
http://observingliberalpakistan.blogspo ... ciety.html

Technically Paki liberals considered themselves "liberal" in the sense that they accepted the right of Islamic radicals to be radical while they gave themselves the liberty to be less radical but Islamic.

The image below sums up Pakistani liberalism
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/6db ... OD=AJPERES

Duspercenti has no beard and the women are showing their hair. That is the limit of Pakistani liberalism.

Here is a post I made on Pakteahouse

In other words as long as Islam is “victorious over others” it was no skin off “moderate, liberal noses”. Like the liberal Brahmin lady who proudly announces her liberalism by saying “I don’t eat meat but my husband eats anything – even beef. Brahmins are not all fundamentalist vegetarian”, a whole lot of “moderate, liberal” Pakistanis saw no problem with Islamic fundamentalism because the fundamentalists were like the beef eating Brahmin husband, “an example of the variety our liberalism allows” while you moderates said – “Look at us. We are moderate. Muslims are not all fundamentalists”

What happened to all that now that the Brahmin hubby is sacrificing and cooking his holy cow in his own backyard?

Paki liberals not being able to tolerate fundamentalists is a joke because liberalism was allowed by Islam as an "outer protecting layer of taqiya doers" Now Islam in Pakistan is asking the taqiya crowd to toe the line. These guys who shut up and said nothing when Hindus and Sikhs were being eliminated from Pakistan for decades are now piping up and whining when their asses are on fire. This is not liberalism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 14:36

I'd like to pose a question in the round?

Pakistan keeps on harping about human-rights situation in Kashmir Valley! They even see it as their prerogative to comment on Babri Structure, Godhra, etc.

India on the other hand never comments about all the Pakistan's failings on the human-rights front, saying they are the internal affairs of Pakistan. The Indian view point is that it goes against the sovereignty of other countries when another country starts poking one's nose into the affairs of other countries. India makes it a matter of principle. The advantage is that whenever another country including Pakistan does comment on India's internal affairs, we have a ready-made rebuke. So this stand does help us to respond to foreign interference. But that is only verbally. In reality Pakistan and others don't mind interfering in our affairs as and when they please. As far as Kashmir is concerned, India has already accepted it as an issue for discussion between India and Pakistan. So there even our retort of no interference and sovereignty has lost its use. In general India follows a defensive posture, and India uses it as defensive shield.

Perhaps the various secessionist insurgencies that were there, made us guarded. But this danger has subsided to some extent.

India is a pluralistic, secular, democratic nation with guarantees for minorities and various ethnic groups. Does India need to be defensive?

On the contrary, Pakistan has issues of

Violent Suppression of Baluchi aspirations
Constitution-sanctioned Discrimination against Ahmedis, and non-Muslim minorities.
State complicity in oppression of minorities
State sponsored Influx of non-Gilgitians and non-Baltistani in Northern Areas
Institutionalized Hatred in Education against Hindus
Lack of land reforms
Lack of budgetary allotment for the upliftment of the poor
Military intervention in politics and lack of democracy

In fact one can think up of a thousand things. All these juicy points for needling and pressure and being forsaken. India can go on the offensive on many of these issues.

The reason I mention this, is because brihaspath garu and shiv ji have quite eloquently recommended that India should put pressure on Pakistan on the question of land reforms and democracy. This would help build a sympathetic constituency in Pakistan for India amongst the poor and de-facto disenfranchised in Pakistan.

Should India show Pakistan a mirror more often? Should India chastise both military and civilian leaders of Pakistan more often on these issues?

Or does principle here holds true, that one should not wrestle with the pig in the mud?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 15:27

Kamboja wrote:
brihaspati wrote: The single most effective propaganda that should be immediately effective is a call for land-reforms. In fact India could indirectly promise land-reforms and land redistribution if the Paki commons vote to become part of India.

RajeshA wrote:In the beginning of this Thread, I have proposed the strategy of Land-for-Terrorism. If the Pakistanis hit out to test their strength through Terror attacks or through an increase in secessionist passions in the Valley, India should retaliate by grabbing some land. They should understand that their adventures would have consequences.
So perhaps India's strategy should be:
Take land when TSPA orchestrates attacks on India (whether regular or irregular via their terrorist proxies).

Then, within the occupied land, undertake land reforms to redistribute land more fairly to peasants.

Two birds in one stone -- bloody the nose of the glorious defenders of TSP, the PA, and simultaneously light the fire of peasant rebellion by giving the aam abdul a taste of land ownership. Watch the fires spread.

Kamboja ji,

There is a lot of merit in this suggestion.

I believe it is a stone, which could bring down a whole flock of birds by itself.

Whenever there is a redistribution of land, the ones who are the winners, would do everything to uphold the new status quo, would do everything to ensure that the law which allowed this redistribution doesn't lose its force. If it is India which enables these land reforms, then they would do their best, that Indian Law is given preeminence in the region. They would willingly accept Indian sovereignty over the territory.

Should India choose to conduct an internationally (say U.N.) observed referendum in the territory, one would see that there will be a huge majority in favor of remaining or becoming a part of India.

Can one imagine how this would go down in Pakistan? It would mean, that Indians do not just talk, say about Land Reforms, but if given the chance, are willing to act upon their promises, to practice what we preach.

For the first time in their history, the poor and disfranchised in Pakistan would feel that they have a real chance of getting rid of the feudals and the land-grabbing military mafia.

What would be the impact of India winning a plebiscite in an area full of Muslims, whom the Pakistanis had 70 years to brain-wash, to integrate and to win over? Can the 'Kashmir Azadi' balloon be pricked using this alternative plebiscite?

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 09 Jul 2010 17:33

oh, actually, just in ref to the above discussion - the same "land-reforms" is also a most relevant issue for the Kashmir Valley too! But OT here. Promise land redistribution in the valley and see the fun!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 18:41

Rudradev wrote:It also explains why Paquis hate and fear the Qadianis soooooo much. Deendar-e-Anjuman is an offshoot of the Qadianis.

Think about it... if Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani could say "I, not Mohammed, am the last Prophet" and have many subcontinental (esp. Punjabi) Muslims follow him, then it is a short conceptual step from there to "Mohammed is an avatar of Vishnu" no? In fact, what happened with Siddique Deendar Channabasaveshwara was very nearly that.

Rudradev ji,
I think, I understand your point better now!

Rudradev wrote:The spiritual raison-d'etre of Pakistan is not merely Islam. It is "Purer is Better". That axiom is used to justify everything Pakistan does, and is the defining assertion of Paki identity.If that narrative can be brought into doubt and question... if Pakistanis can be made to start questioning whether "Purer" is indeed necessarily "Better", something they have taken as an axiom for all these decades... then a crack in the armour will have appeared. Not that I see this happening today or tomorrow... it will take a lot of time and a lot of pressure, and it will need all the help we can provide. One possibility is that when this does happen, it will be to the advantage of groups like the Qadianis who currently suffer persecution justified by "Purer is Better". At that time, other ideas can be introduced... the Deendar-e-Anjuman, something that evolved from the Qadiani sect without any interference by Hindu groups, is an indication of what is possible.

I have also started to appreciate the solution that brihaspati garu always proposes regarding Pakistan.

There are certain 'inescapable truths'

:

Pakistan, a country of 260 million would fail, in the next two decades.
It is not as if a Muslim country cannot succeed. There are numerous examples of those which do, i.e. succeed to survive. Pakistan is not going to be one such. The model that comes to my mind first, is that of Afghanistan, but on second thoughts there will be far more similarity between Pakistan and Cambodia under Khrmer Rouge. There will be little in the form of an educated class left in Pakistan when Talibanism spreads. There will be emigration and there will be culling, because this class would first falsely believe that the TSPA would protect it and try to resist Talibanism, and when they find out, that their faith in TSPA was misplaced, it will be too late for this class, as they would have already been stamped as the enemies of the movement. Without this class, not only will there be little support from other countries, there will be a total loss of production capacity and management in Pakistan.
India would have to deal with this mess.
Nobody else would deal with this mess. All Western countries would just wash off their hands from the whole mess, turn away their heads and start whistling. The Chinese would feel they have sufficient buffers between the yahoos and China Proper. The Pakistanis with some qualifications may be allowed in Arab countries, but not the 259 million masses. And India would always remain chained to our geography.
India would have a difficult time dealing with 260 million Muslims.
Unconditional generosity would be taken when necessary and then forgotten. In fact any integration of the 260 million people into the Indian nation, would definitely break the Indian exchequer, the Indian state, and the Indian society based on an acceptable ratio of Dharmics to Muslims.

All avenues and non-Muslim religious movements would be helpful then in making the transition manageable.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 09 Jul 2010 19:08

shiv wrote: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.

But with respect to failure modes, there is a significant difference. I take that in India, the constitution, however flawed it is, is no longer a fundamental point of dispute. People are more interested in (a) how to increase their share in a growing economic pie and (b) some fraction are interested in making sure that the benefits of growth are just widespread enough to preclude electoral revolutions.

In Pakistan, the underlying basis of the constitution is still in dispute.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 09 Jul 2010 19:27

Drug addiction in Pakistan: Dawn

drug use and addiction in Pakistan is on the rise. According to the Anti-Narcotics Force, Pakistan has eight million drug users.

Drug addiction blights Pakistan: Al Jazeera

Pakistan is struggling with the highest number of drug addicts in the world, according to medical authorities there.

There are many paths to Nirvana!

Brad Goodman · Post by **Brad Goodman** » 09 Jul 2010 19:35

derkonig wrote:RajeshA,
How do you explain the Shia Sunni divide, dont they worship the same deity? Logic is not something that the islamist doctrine is known for, its just the urge to hate. Its not about the worship per se, islamists are programmed to hate & more importantly wage war against the other, it doesn't matter who the other is. If they can't find the other, they will create one. The whole machinery is built for & sustained by hate & waging war. There is no cure but to eliminate this war machine.

I agree here. If we try to focus on monoethism and polyethism them guess we are barking up the wrong tree. Jews Christians are also moethist but they have mellowed down considerably with passage of time. Most of their proseltysing activities are subtle. The problem with islam is their focus to follow the texts literally. So you see any one not following their version of the text by rote is a kafir and wajib ul katal. We need to hit this spot and plant doubts. Once you hit the foundation their kutub minar will come to kiss the earth pretty quickly

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 09 Jul 2010 20:24

As a materialist, I have every confidence that the post-oil economy will resolve the finer points of this theology; after all there is something ludicrous about beggars waging holy war. India and the west need do nothing aggressive.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 09 Jul 2010 21:23

by Shiv
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.

This can be subverted. We need to draw a parallel between 1970s Jimmy Carter support of Shah or Iran vs. Shia Mullahs.

During modern times, US administration led west has not learned any lessons whatsoever with the above failure. Though I suspect that Saudis are saving the behind of naPakis at this time (just like themselves). so! what we have is

"Al-Qaeda, Tabliban, Deobandi-Wahabi-Salafists" VERSUS "West support Saudi King, Nuclear Pakistani Army under garb of sham democracy". Common people in naPakistan look to Mullahs for their education, Justice, medicine, help after earthquakes, floods, etc,

in Past! West has lost when they supported Shah of Iran against Mullahs. Shah of Iran was suppressing the local hoi-polloi Iranians who turned towards mullahs, giving them leadership and power.

Can this happen in Pakistan with Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Deobandi-wahabi-salafi nexus? It looks like that it is already happening! Majority of people will prefer a "pious Islamic" state where hand/eyes/**** are chopped as per laws written 1400 years ago.

What we currently have is

Taliban attacking army, police and feudals while Administration supported by Army claiming that it is a "foreign hand"

Pakistani army support is like a wonderbra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Bra all fake, nothing substantial.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jul 2010 21:43

SBajwa wrote:
by Shiv
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.
This can be subverted. We need to draw a parallel between 1970s Jimmy Carter support of Shah or Iran vs. Shia Mullahs.
During modern times, US administration led west has not learned any lessons whatsoever with the above failure. Though I suspect that Saudis are saving the behind of naPakis at this time (just like themselves). so! what we have is

Choro Kal ki Batte kal ki Baat Purani, 2030 abb likkhi jayegi naye kahani . Piggy ke Mai-Baaps kab tuk khairmanayege .
US wont be the US of Today and India wont be the India of Today but rest assure Paki per nature will be same or worst. Indian capacity to crush and cream the Criminal Enterprize with be thousand fold while US crumble and China try to keep its propserity and not sacrifice its safety at the alter of Pakistani islam. we will be operating in whole new economic, security or geo-political paradigm to take care of a real old Paki problem.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2010 21:47

The irony in SBajwa's post comparing the Uniformed Jihadis to non-existent asset enhancement!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Jul 2010 21:54

brihaspati wrote:There are archaeological findings of images of the hedonism of the first Caliphs as found in the ruins of their palaces - which are NSFW/H here. These images of naked women and slaves etc., are consistent with the imagery that comes out from the early biographies of the founding fathers and Hadiths, but denied now. So "purity" was definitely a much later invention. POWI is no exception. Moreover there is certain viewpoint that the revolt against Muhammad started from within the Qureysh who pretended to be swayed and be converted but struck back from the expansion into Palestine and basically killed off the trusted lieutenants and family of Muhammad. The early intrigue and violent internecine strife probably is consistent with this view - even if a modern invention to shift back the blame for all the troubles in Islam back to the Qureysh "polytheist".

1. Did you notice in Middle East weaker tribes converted to Shia branch of Islam and retained their cultural roots. You see this in all the areas under Islam. Its like a blanket drawn to appear to conform and still retain their culture under the blanket. The stronger tribes mostly converted to Sunni brand of Islam. IOW the Sunni-Shia schism is really a cultural divide and marginally theological.

2. We see a similar version of this survival process in Roman vs Orthodox, Coptic etc.

So a dominant group converts to a dominant branch to retain power.

The GDF is there for links to the inconsistencie of early Political Isalm. So do make use of it.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 09 Jul 2010 23:40

For Pak Lurkers.
The essential panga is how does a convert being now outsider cope with living, observing mother Civilizational thriving . It was ok as long as alien dogma dominated the territory and there few benefits to be extracted as neo Convert but now painfully watching how indigenous people, proudly holding on the orginal civilizational , religious ethos of soil making progressive march into bright future and refusing to be fed on by converted dogmatic vultures. Failure of Pakistan is the failure of Dogma which in past have provided few benefits but now becoming burdan. It must be confusing and perplexing for simple minded converted folks who for long have not coped with the complexities of real ,natural world thriving with intellectual, scientifc curiosity, eqnuiry and knowledge . Dogma told them all in black and white with Truth , moral standards and mental development all frozen in 6th century . Now the hidden reality straring at them and unsolvable dilemma is that of Dhobi ka Kutta , they cant go back to mother civilzation and there is no future in converted world, unable to transcend the dogmatic mental barriers. Pakis have now no choice but to committ collective suicide for the sake of H&D and past glory of the land trodden by the ancestors for thousands of years before Qasim came to seed current crop of Poaks. They have onlee one identity and i.e identiy of a convert and being a convert under duress they will remain weak minded secondary servant society, owning nothing orginal in thought or values. A Punjabi is Punjabi which is rooted in soil of Punjab, same for others but for Poaks there is no such thing , The so called Pakjabi Poak is nothing but a convert, much inferior fellow comparing to Arab or Persian on count of both being inheritor of their own civilization . No real Punjabi will ever bows to Arab land as Holy as land of Punjab is billion time holier than anything Arab can claim. Drinking the water of Punjab while singing paen to Zamzam , Poaks pollute the very air they pollute .

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 10 Jul 2010 00:37

Sorry if the following is a digression - if not relevant please feel free to delete.

One of the first Pakistanis I met was in graduate school in the US. The man was not a classic RAPE - he said his father was a "darji" (tailor), and he certainly did not put on the airs nor had the sophistication of a RAPE. As far as I know, the man returned to Pakistan after his PhD and had was in the education field.

Nice, friendly as this guy was, there was a hidden takleef that I only learned because I also knew the senior student in the lab. that he worked in. This was a lady. The Pakistani found it very hard to handle even the mild authority that the female colleague had by virtue of seniority.

Where I'm going with this is - what is the effect on such Pakistanis of having to deal with women in positions of authority on a daily basis? (Having a female P.M. is not relevant, because hardly anyone in the country ever actually deals with the prime minister.) That is, women make decisions that the man is obliged to follow, and this happens on a repeated basis.

The fundamentalist mindset is strongly linked to a male-dominant mind set; what happens to it if it is forced for a generation to have to deal with this? Note that the fundamentalist assertion of power always begins with asserting power over women - both Muslim and kafir - even before asserting power over male kafirs.

If there is anything in this phenomenon, can we make use of it?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2010 00:51

A_Gupta wrote:The fundamentalist mindset is strongly linked to a male-dominant mind set; what happens to it if it is forced for a generation to have to deal with this? Note that the fundamentalist assertion of power always begins with asserting power over women - both Muslim and kafir - even before asserting power over male kafirs.

If there is anything in this phenomenon, can we make use of it?

One can certainly use it as test to see when and whether a Pakistani has evolved into Homo Modernus!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2010 00:55

Heirachy in Islam:
1) Male Muslims
2) Male Dhimmis -people of book
3) Male Children
4) Slaves
5) Women

Cat 2) to 4) can change status- Dhimmis can convert, Children can grow up and slaves can be freed.
Last catgory no change ever.

BTW this was same hierarchy in US till recently wrt to right to vote

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 10 Jul 2010 01:34

I guess where I was going is in the context of Pakistan that directly challenging majoritarian religious beliefs is not very productive. One should however push for reforms that do not on the face of it clash with religious beliefs, but nevertheless undermine the rigid hold of these beliefs in the long run.

A simple example would be to make sure science and how science works is taught in the schools. Another might be women's education, even if in separate schools. Reserving seats for women in local government bodies.

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 10 Jul 2010 01:37

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."

Meditation is the practice of listening to God. Prayer is the practice of talking to God.
Hence Prayer alone won't have any answers, unless one has the subtle knowledge of how to listen to their God.

Just as a child first talks and then starts to listen, the religions that started before civilization have emphasis on talking and religions that started after civilization have emphasis on listening.
What is more relevant today is a moot question with an obvious answer.

Ambar · Post by **Ambar** » 10 Jul 2010 01:38

ramana wrote:Heirachy in Islam:
1) Male Muslims
2) Male Dhimmis -people of book
3) Male Children
4) Slaves
5) Women

Cat 2) to 4) can change status- Dhimmis can convert, Children can grow up and slaves can be freed.
Last catgory no change ever.

BTW this was same hierarchy in US till recently wrt to right to vote

Goats gotta be somewhere in between (3) and (4),certainly above women i am sure!

Jokes apart,a former colleague in my office was a classic RAPE.Born in Karachi,grew up in England and immigrated to the States.He introduced me to his mrs in one of our office parties,i stretch my hand out to shake hands with this young lady in hijab,and to my astonishment she says "Sorry! I don't touch unrelated men!". Never have i been so offended and perturbed at the same time! And she was no illiterate,shuttlecock burkha clad cavewoman. She was well educated,and was raised in Bronx,NY. I think when human beings are oppressed for centuries,they are genetically modified to suck up ridiculous ideologies, and this lady was a classic example of such a morphed human being.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jul 2010 02:06

Maybe you should have told her you want to follow the fatwa on unrelated men and women!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2010 02:11

ramana wrote:Maybe you should have told her you want to follow the fatwa on unrelated men and women!

Also no need for Ovaltine!

Abhijit · Post by **Abhijit** » 10 Jul 2010 02:35

India would have a difficult time dealing with 260 million Muslims.

Unconditional generosity would be taken when necessary and then forgotten. In fact any integration of the 260 million people into the Indian nation, would definitely break the Indian exchequer, the Indian state, and the Indian society based on an acceptable ratio of Dharmics to Muslims.

If you remember Godfather, just before dying Don Vito tells Micheal, Barzini would send a peace proposal. He will use somebody close to you to bring it to you. The one who brings the proposal is a traitor. Sure enough, at the Don's funeral, Tesio brings the peace proposal to Michael.

We know who will bring the peace proposal from inside India. When that happens, when pakistan is in the last throes of its existence, the WKK's will bring the proposal to be considerate and create soft borders and even re-integrate. They need to meet the same fate as Tesio.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jul 2010 02:49

260 million Natural Born Killer , blame it on the birth defect or dogmatic upbringing but this will be another first for Pakiland . Just imagine ,all these 260 Mill NBK fighting for the title of Purest of Pure . Bet they can make lots of money by selling promotional rights to Vince Mc Man of WWF.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2010 02:55

Abhijit wrote:We know who will bring the peace proposal from inside India. When that happens, when pakistan is in the last throes of its existence, the WKK's will bring the proposal to be considerate and create soft borders and even re-integrate. They need to meet the same fate as Tesio.

As you hinted, we already know that WKKs would come with such a proposal! Tessio was an intelligent 'businessman'. Some WKKs, like Kuldip Nayar, are just too stupid to be compared with Tessio.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 10 Jul 2010 02:57

Prem ji,

where is your ticket?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 10 Jul 2010 03:15

RajeshA wrote:Prem ji,
where is your ticket?

Now a days its pay per view , store the beer, popcorn and batteries for remote . Currently Tag Teams of Barelvi, Sufi,Deobandi ,Wahabi are girding up , soon royal rumble starts with every one on their own. Paki civil war will be real ugly. With so many loose weapons and so many retards with no sense of purpose ,the slaughter will on Prophetic scale .

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 10 Jul 2010 03:34

Time and again I come face to face with this : self proclaimed only secularists of India, WKK's are vicious in their demand for all sorts of sops to IM and Islamism within India, protect it, but when it comes to absorption of the territories currently under Paki occupation back into India - there is equally vicious opposition. Those who are not WKK's and not "self proclaimed secularists" can also produce the same equally vicious opposition, but they are much more open and honest about the real motivations for such opposition.

Both groups oppose "reintegration" out of a fundamental combination of both fear and loathing of the Islamic and the Muslim. Actually, the secularists, WKK's and non-WKK-anti-reintegrationists all are driven by the need to exclude and separate out those Indians who have happened to be born into Muslim families and keep them apart. While the non-WKK group does this openly admitting the sources of their reservations, the WKK's are more devious - their real drive remains hidden but become clear when we see that all that they do within India is about sharpening the Islamic identity as different and protecting it from syncretic or absorptive damage. WKK's are the biggest agents for preservation of Islamic exclusivism, because they pamper the more exclusivist claims of Islamists.

There is nothing to be scared of the Islamists. Non-Muslims have defeated and crushed them before, and they will do it again.

Regarding the future return of territories and populations currently under the occupation of Pak, there are two aspects to this. The first is the moral and ethical one. This is also about return of the punyabhumi back to the largest non-Muslim heritage from continuous occupation of the subcontinent long before Islam was even born. This is also about the fact that almost all of those living across the border were descended from Indian mothers if not from Indian fathers. In that sense they are our kin. Our tradition is about not hesitating to shed the blood of our kin if it is necessary to restore "dharma" as in Kurukshetra, but establish the rashtra over all based on our principles. We fight kin, and even kill them in war, but we do not expel them and leave them in their deviation. We eliminate the incorrigible, but take over areas and populations under the regime of the incorrigible - because it is our ethical duty to protect both the land and its people from adharma.

The second issue here is about pragmatism in statecraft. If we leave Pak to drift, it may not immediately bleed to death. Whether it is sick or dying or dead, it is still a potential field for a host of international powers to play around against Indian interests. Without sovereignty over that region, India has no way of controlling the intervention by foreign powers.

Without rashtryia control, Islamism and jihadism cannot be fought properly, since all other powers playing around here have a stake in using Jihadism for their own geo-strategic considerations. We cannot do any of the cleaning and cleansing operations required if Pak stays outside.

The very process of rashtryia absorption, can be planned in a way that clears and destroys the maximum possible number of potential troublemakers and sources of resistance. I am sure this particular line does not need elaboration.