The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Well, the Two Nation Theory is Pakistan's ideology, is what animates it. It is the ideology that its Army is sworn to defend. Even creeps of the ideological persuasion of YLH, who tout the "secular Jinnah" and support Ayesha Jalal's thesis that Jinnah never wanted Partition, it was forced on him, support the Two Nation Theory.
What is dismaying is that there are Hindu proponents of Two Nation Theory. I don't see any other way to interpret this "encourage the emigration of ....". What is dismaying is that some of these Hindus may even have political power, in the coattails of Modi. (I do not think Modi has five spare minutes for promoting Two Nation Theory.)
Let us remember what the Two Nation Theory is:
"We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life." -- Jinnah, 1944.
We have seen what a disaster to the world the Pakistanis who deny their roots have become. Since we're not supposed to post videos on this link, I'll just remind you of Tarek Fateh's masterful exposition of this with Dr. Baland Iqbal, previously posted on BRF, and also available here: http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/1 ... th-dr.html
Two Nation Theory did not suffer a decisive defeat in 1971; it lives on, both in India (so far weakly) and Pakistan (unabridged). Two Nation Theory whether external as in Pakistan or internal, whether expounded by Muslim or expounded by Hindus, is a danger to India. It is right to not knuckle under its threat.
PS: on the one hand there is all the brave talk of disintegrating Pakistan and on the other hand there is the idea of creating more Pakistan by "encouraging" some people to emigrate.
Isn't what Pakistan is doing to its minorities is treating them so humanely as to "encourage" them to emigrate? Wasn't Hizbul Mujahideen's whole strategy in the Valley of Kashmir in the late 1980s to "encourage" the Kashmiri Pandits to emigrate? How is (some Indians) "should be encouraged to migrate to their El Dorado" no matter what protestations of "peaceful emigration only", not to be interpreted as a call for ethnic cleansing?
Biglund-Smalgand may exercise their entire wit to the roar of the BRF crowd; but cannot exorcise the fact that BRF moderators let through a call for ethnic cleansing.
BRF's obsession with Pakistan has not ended. Even though the previous Pradhan Mantri MMS, and the current Pradhan Mantri, Modi, have called for Look East, BRF as it currently is, is incapable of doing that; even though in "Look East" lies the answers, with respect to economic development, technology, and military cooperation to manage the threats that China poses.
As far as I could tell, Agnimitra was saying those who don't share the idea of India of Ambedkar and several Hindutva leaders could "migrate to their El Dorado"; BTW, the notion of El Dorado is that of a fictional utopia like Shangri La, which I suspect you know. If anything, this seems like another puerile attempt as demonstrating your moral credentials to a bunch of people who in your own view don't seem to give a crap. Laughable and a caricature. And while you're at it, do let us lower creatures know which that fantastic country is that treats its minorities with greater regard over a longer period of time than India has done. Maybe, as part of a minority, I can migrate there if they give minorities visas to enter, that is.
If you have something to say, say it with clarity and reason, instead of mincing about on the sidelines pretending to be better than everybody else, and accusing others of acquiescing in a "call for ethnic cleansing".
As usual, not much discussion on oppression of minorities in Pakistan, since there is a separate thread for it, even though ethnic cleansing is what happened in pakistan and also in Kashmir. Flipping guilt onto others who are not connected to it, or no mention of population control in Pakistan, or that pakis are themselves indulging in terrorizing others - including the rest of the entire world - seems to have been missed completely. Just as missing importance Uniform Civil Code, or for that matter, hogging resources as reservations when resources are for all and including other 'minorities' too. And we have not yet found 'international' standards of calling a group as 'minority' at specific % of population, since we must have -'international' expectations- high standards while while a whole lot of countries have no such standards to begin with.
Just because we are next to such a sorry country that we have to deal with it, no?
Reminds of US Prez. Obama who lectured about secularism and then had to cut short his guest visit and go to Saudi Arabia - a country of no constitution (except holy book), no elections, no special minority rights.
May be the old king of Saudi Arabia died laughing at people lecturing Indians about secularism! May be at 90+ years of old age, his mind couldn't take such an irony any more.
Roger Federer has apologised for getting caught up in the bitter rivalry between Indian and Pakistani cricket fans after he was pictured admiring the blue shirt of World Cup champions India in a marketing photo-shoot.
“It was more of a Nike thing to be quite honest,” said the Swiss star on the eve of the Dubai Open.
“It was a Nike campaign they had because I met some of the Indian players and I had just spent some time in India so they presented the shirt to me.
“I support South Africa, and everybody knows that. The idea wasn't to spark any fire and I'm sorry if it did that.”
It seems to be real easy to be an Internet-based Discount Gandhi and pretend everyone else is advocating death and genocide and not following the true path of love and forgiveness, including weeping for the suffering of any of god's children in Pakiland. IIRC, one such person was mightily offended with callous apathy to the deaths of the children of Armymen in Peshawar on this thread back when that event was the news of the day. If treating pakis as the India-hating, terrorist supporting scum they are offends the sensibilities of any super-civilized readers of this thread, they should just stop reading it and find better things to do.
Pakis are trying hard to stay relevant and not be ignored by people in India -- even here the Paki threads are moving a lot slower than they used to a decade ago. Pakistan is irrelevant to India at large, except for some Indians who seem to think they are lahoris-by-proxy since their grandparents used to live in pakistan, or because their "idea of India" extends to pakistani muslims too. Laughing at the giant commode of a nation at India's western border is just daily comic relief -- those jokers repeat their same old CTs and bile and vitriol directed at India at periodic intervals and we get to laugh at them and mock them for their vicious, self-destructive stupidity. Just saying.
A_Gupta wrote:
....
Let us remember what the Two Nation Theory is:
"We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life." -- Jinnah, 1944.
....
Two Nation Theory did not suffer a decisive defeat in 1971; it lives on, both in India (so far weakly) and Pakistan (unabridged). Two Nation Theory whether external as in Pakistan or internal, whether expounded by Muslim or expounded by Hindus, is a danger to India. It is right to not knuckle under its threat.
I couldn't have said it better. I would extrapolate this and say that any Indian when s/he accepts the two nation theory subscribes to the notion that practitioners of two different religions cannot co-exit in peace. One of the unique contributions of India - guiding principles of her existence is its affirmation of co-existence of multiple Paths to Truth, each equally valuable. This is not just a philosophical argument but was a living reality demonstrated by various sages from time to time (Kabir, Shridi Sai Baba and Ramakrishna Paramhamsa come to mind in recent times). Subscribing to the two nation theory is denying this fundamental principle by which Bharath stands for. Then Hinduism will degrade to a "narrow religion of one book". India will lose its moral and spiritually hard earned place as Spiritual light of the world.
On a more mundane interpretation, two nation theory as proposed by Jinnah makes religious identity primary and predominant than linguistic, social, cultural and ethnic identity. It should be obvious why we cannot accept it. India's stated and official position regarding Pukistan should be similar to what PRC has regarding Taiwan (a renegade province). Not sure if Modi ji is ready to go that far.
Who exactly claimed here that Two-nation theory was good one? Just curious, given all the furious stabbing and beheading of that strawman going on here -- the first post to the links on pakiland in this thread pretty much explains all that, making any further arguments against the TNT redundant. The whole thing started with a reference to Ambedkar quite explicitly stating that the set of muslims in his time were ideologically hardened to the point where their faith would overpower any national identity if they were part of it, and he was right. Even now we have some hardline muslim groups in India who refuse to sing songs like Vande Mataram on the grounds that worshipping mother India is against their religious beliefs. None of this implies that TNT was a good theory, just that Ambedkar's observation on how religious identities of a bunch of people were too strong to allow the creation of an Indian identity down the line -- and all these people left for pakistan during the partition, which is probably a very good thing as far as India is concerned, in 20/20 hindsight.
"We maintain and hold that Muslims and Hindus are two major nations by any definition or test of a nation. We are a nation of hundred million and what is more, we are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportions, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and tradition, and aptitude and ambitions. In short, we have our own outlook on life and of life." -- Jinnah, 1944.
....
Two Nation Theory did not suffer a decisive defeat in 1971; it lives on, both in India (so far weakly) and Pakistan (unabridged). Two Nation Theory whether external as in Pakistan or internal, whether expounded by Muslim or expounded by Hindus, is a danger to India. It is right to not knuckle under its threat.
I couldn't have said it better. I would extrapolate this and say that any Indian when s/he accepts the two nation theory subscribes to the notion that practitioners of two different religions cannot co-exit in peace. One of the unique contributions of India - guiding principles of her existence is its affirmation of co-existence of multiple Paths to Truth, each equally valuable. This is not just a philosophical argument but was a living reality demonstrated by various sages from time to time (Kabir, Shridi Sai Baba and Ramakrishna Paramhamsa come to mind in recent times). Subscribing to the two nation theory is denying this fundamental principle by which Bharath stands for. Then Hinduism will degrade to a "narrow religion of one book". India will lose its moral and spiritually hard earned place as Spiritual light of the world.
On a more mundane interpretation, two nation theory as proposed by Jinnah makes religious identity primary and predominant than linguistic, social, cultural and ethnic identity. It should be obvious why we cannot accept it. India's stated and official position regarding Pukistan should be similar to what PRC has regarding Taiwan (a renegade province). Not sure if Modi ji is ready to go that far.
Time was, I was just as passionate in declaiming about pluralism, synergy, tehzeeb and so forth. But the more I see and learn, the more I am convinced that if Hindus and Muslims were honest with themselves (applies more to Hindus), and with each other, and had full knowledge of doctrine and history, there is in fact no way they cannot be at war with each other.
We have come this far with reasonable coexistence only because we are not honest, but we--Hindus and Muslims both--are mostly nice. It is civilizational niceness and a kind of creative dishonestly, an evolutionary cultural mutation that has allowed us to not totally destroy each other.
From time to time, honesty crops up and causes heartburn. And the civilizational niceness keeps the absurd papi-jhapi with pakistan alive.
Interestingly if we ignore the word "nation" as a foreign word that does not adequately express what we feel, we get a situation in which Pakistaniyat says Muslims cannot live among non Muslims (predominantly Hindus, in India), while the Indian view is that faith is not a reason for enmity or antagonism.
Now if you classify each of these viewpoints as a nation, you get two incompatible nations. So the two nation theory exists and is true insofar as the assertion that Muslims cannot live with Hindus is taken as true. This attitude is a classic "you farted" one that throws down a Muslim challenge to Hindus and says "We Muslims cannot live with you". The initiative lies with Muslims who say this (Pakis) because it puts them in a heads we win, tails you lose situation with Hindus. If Hindus say "We can live with Muslims", The Pakis say "Fukoff, unless you accept these demands it only means you are liars". if Hindus say "OK we can't live with Muslims" then Pakis say "See? we said so first. we are two nations"
This is what has got Hindu chaddis in a twist. What this attitude does is to allow Muslims to hold the initiative and declare that they can get along with Hindus first and then it requires that Hindus should accept that in good faith to prove that they can get along. This is a classic and brilliant tactic to sow discord in a community and has damaged India successfully even if it has damaged Pakistan more.
I think there is no option for Indian non-Muslims (majority Hindus) to take the attitude of "trust but verify" with Indian Muslims, and simply say fukoff to Pakistanis. If Muslims choose Pakistan they will have to be shown the door. Those who accept that they can live in, and with non Muslims, peacefully as Indians have coexisted for millennia we have a great working nation. But splittism and bandwagoning with the idea that Muslims CANNOT live with Hindus and merely living with an excess of non Muslims is the same as subjugation or lack of freedom is absolutely intolerable and must be disallowed. We have to take a stand and there is no point falling for the wishy washy idea that taking a stand that welcomes coexistence is somehow treading on Muslim toes.
Those people who feel that they cannot coexist with non Muslims in India have three choices.
1. Fight for a separate country
2. Continuously harbour grievances and claim that they are being subjugated
3. Migrate out
What choice do Hindus/other non Muslims have here? Anything you say or do means negative consequences for you. No?
shiv wrote:Interestingly if we ignore the word "nation" as a foreign word that does not adequately express what we feel, we get a situation in which Pakistaniyat says Muslims cannot live among non Muslims (predominantly Hindus, in India), while the Indian view is that faith is not a reason for enmity or antagonism.
Now if you classify each of these viewpoints as a nation, you get two incompatible nations. So the two nation theory exists and is true insofar as the assertion that Muslims cannot live with Hindus is taken as true. This attitude is a classic "you farted" one that throws down a Muslim challenge to Hindus and says "We Muslims cannot live with you". The initiative lies with Muslims who say this (Pakis) because it puts them in a heads we win, tails you lose situation with Hindus. If Hindus say "We can live with Muslims", The Pakis say "Fukoff, unless you accept these demands it only means you are liars". if Hindus say "OK we can't live with Muslims[/
Those people who feel that they cannot coexist with non Muslims in India have three choices.
1. Fight for a separate country
2. Continuously harbour grievances and claim that they are being subjugated
3. Migrate out
What choice do Hindus/other non Muslims have here? Anything you say or do means negative consequences for you. No?
Absorb the negative consequences.
Seize the reins of power, crush 1, respect and support 3, and develop political and legal tactics to constrain the impact of 2.
Which is, more or less what independent India has been doing, I guess, except that 3 hasn't been much of a factor.
There is also a more aggressive, proactive approach: push muslims in 2 towards 1 and 3, and deal with them accordingly. This is a costly option but can lead to greater long term stability. The secular-communal rift is due to this faultlines.
shiv wrote:What choice do Hindus/other non Muslims have here? Anything you say or do means negative consequences for you. No?
Agree.
/ Rant mode ON. My knowledge of history is poor but let me attempt to put down my understanding here.
The CON party's post independence attitude towards bakistan is based on this need to disprove the TNT. The Gujaral doctrine wrt Bakistan was based on this very foundation i.e trying to disprove the TNT to the satisfaction of the Bakis. If I were a Baki nothing would delight me more than an Indian out to disprove the TNT.
What is the story of the Liaquat–Nehru Pact? What was the intent and what has it delivered? Per wiki "Agreement Between The Governments of India and Pakistan Regarding Security an Rights of Minorities". What happened to minorities in Bakistan? They have disappeared because the Bakis do NOT have any hesitation in accepting the TNT and making them a third class citizen by law with all the attendant consequences. What happened to minorities in India? They grow larger in numbers every year and demand more than their fair share. If their demands are not met they bring up the bogey of TNT overtly or in a subtle way but they make it clear. What is the reaction of the state? It mostly capitulated to the demands in one form or the other to *disprove* TNT. In fact, our ex PM boldly declared that minorities have the first right to resources of the state. Can this *need * to disprove the TNT get any more perverse? Who is paying the price of this obsession to disprove the TNT?
The TNT is heads I win and tails you loose from the POV of the Bakis. While I do not have a solution, the sooner we understand the real crux of the matter the better it will be for the country.
Last edited by pankajs on 23 Feb 2015 22:30, edited 1 time in total.
shiv wrote:What choice do Hindus/other non Muslims have here? Anything you say or do means negative consequences for you. No?
Agree.
/ Rant mode ON. My knowledge of history is poor but let me attempt to put down my understanding here. What is the story of the Liaquat–Nehru Pact? What was the intent and what has it delivered? Per wiki "Agreement Between The Governments of India and Pakistan Regarding Security an Rights of Minorities". What happened to minorities in Bakistan? They have disappeared because the Bakis do NOT have any hesitation in accepting the TNT and making them a third class citizen by law. What happened to minorities in India? They grow larger in numbers every year and demand more than their fair share. If their demands are not met they bring up the bogey of TNT overtly or in a subtle way but they make it clear. What is the reaction of the state? It mostly capitulated to the demands in one form or the other to *disprove* TNT. Who suffers as a result? In fact, our ex PM boldly declared that minorities have the first right to resources of the state. Can this *need * to disprove the TNT get any more perverse? Who is paying the price of this obsession to disprove the TNT? The TNT is heads I win and tails you loose from the POV of the Bakis. While I do not have a solution, the sooner we understand the real crux of the matter the better it will be for the country.
Since Pakistan have already failed to protect its minority following Indic religious , social and traditions this Nehru Liaquoot pact is now dead. India should officially renounce it and make it part of composite dialogue to solve the problem from base year of 1950 . Kashmir issue and minority issues are connected as part of 47 partition.
A_Gupta ji,
I think you misunderstood the context of what i said. I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment, but not how that translates to dealing with reality.
I hold the "two-nation" mentality itself in abomination. In fact, the idea of "nation-states" being like separate pens of cattle and sheep based on their unique physical, linguistic or religious characteristics (and the primitive patriotism that goes with it) is different from the concept of Rashtra. The corresponding Indic term for the Western concept of 'nation' is Janapad. In contrast, Rashtra is a civilization state that encompasses a full spectrum of cultures and subcultures - including some that are somewhat insular, cultish, "rebellious" or "alternative". I absolutely love diversity, including the option to dive into one of these cultish communities.
BUT, the "eddy currents" and janapadas with tendencies contrary to the fundamental liberal and pluralistic ethos of the civilization should never be allowed to increase their political or social footprint beyond a certain threshold. You will see this policy followed even in the US. To give you an example, with certain Somali and Arab settlements, or with certain American cults, the government - in concert with several social organizations - will constantly put gentle pressure on the communities to let them know their limits. Through mostly covert operations, and sometimes overt action including regular police invasions of their homes on pretext of interventions related to, say, forced FGM or a local "terror plot", the government and liberal social orgs remind these communities of the all-pervasive extent of the law and constitution. I can give you a lot of anecdotal and documentary material on this. On the other hand, in India its the other way round nowadays, where large, booming urban zones like Hyderabad have become hostage where certain thuggish Razakars have their way, and the only recourse is to appeal to the good graces of their leaders like Owaisi. Like a dhimmi. You cannot simply categorize this as a "law and order" issue - it is far beyond that.
Rashtra is an important component of *Yajna*. It is not a psycho-physical grouping, but a psycho-spiritual process of expansion, which extends from the individual, through the Janapadas, to Humanity. It is a process of universalization of certain values - again very different from the *totalitarianization* of certain cultural modes falsely called "universalism". Thus ths Vedic celebration of the Yajna of civilization-building via the construct of Rashtra - कृण्वन्तो विश्वम् आर्यम्... अपघ्नन्तोsराव्णः। - "Make the whole world noble... by defeating the illiberal." In this effort, it is necessary to continuously engage at a very fine granularity with certain currents in society, and certain blocks where those currents are generated or find fuel. Engagement is with the objective of reducing violence, avoiding violence, and where possible, producing new understanding, new thoughts and fresh sentiments, even a new social paradigm. HESITATING to intervene and press for good means that there are no grades of engagement between cold distance and an ugly, violent communal riot that has wracked your India with periodical predictability. I find that it is people who have very little experience with personal engagement with Islamic communities (and who remain uncomfortable with it) who are the first to condemn any "communal" speech.
In this globalized environment, those whose aspirations cannot be accommodated within the current stress-tolerance of society must be given the option of migrating in a non-violent way. It is an idea that must be promoted in a non-violent way without any bitterness or animosity. This is already true and happening - for economic and cultural reasons. I know a lot of Indians who emigrate not just for economic but also cultural reasons, frankly, and i think that's perfectly alright. Many remain Indian as they iterate through various experiences in the course of their peregrinations. These are very important Indians, even if they're not even citizens! Others are fleeing something about their past experience of being Indian. If handled with non-violent communication, they will come full circle and become valuable to India as a link with their adopted country or culture.
Please note, an important part of the migratory logic is to facilitate the immigration of many Pakistanis INTO India - and I'm not just talking about their minorities. I mean their Tarek Fatahs and Kunwar Khuldunes. Or even more importantly their religious Ghamidis. This will send the message to Subcontinental Muslims that there are 2 ways to be Muslim - one that does not conflict but enhances their Indic identity, and another that diminishes their Indic roots, their humanity, and eventually their self. Choose the one and we value you in India, choose the other and we will help you pack your bags.
To create such a dynamic of thought and engagement, you will have to relinquish the violent sort of communication you used - deliberately twisting my words to mean "ethnic cleansing", "genocide", "slavery", etc. This muzzles any discussion of many productive options for non-violent engagement between holding hands and singing kumbaya at one end, and rape and arson on the streets at the other. You end up doing a great disservice to the values you profess, all because of these verbal assaults. I personally felt insulted that you thought that was what i said, but such reactions are so common that i decided it was worth some clarification.
We already see reports of several Western societies holding out the "threat" of deportation of even local-born citizens of a certain persuasion. What needs to be done is to regularize the idea instead of investing it with threat value.
Secondly, citizenship, residency, etc. and all grades of rights and privileges must come with responsibilities and commitment to the constitution. That commitment and fidelity can and should be tested. Those that do not meet the criteria must be flagged as such, and privileges adjusted accordingly. Again, this is already being done in several countries, especially those that attract immigrants. With such a calibrated approach to economic rights, residency, and full citizenship, one can conceive each individual finding his or her most suitable geographic location within the country, the Subcontinent, and the world. The constant and well-managed osmosis of people among different countries should be facilitated by regularized structures. This could be a vision, and given the state of things as they already exist in most of the world, it is not a futuristic vision either. We just haven't internalized this clinical and conscious form of nationhood in India yet.
Every idea and action has an appropriate and just place and time. What i am against is the wrong, unjust or simply problematic misapplication of any human dynamic that brings it into conflict with other human dynamics. When you box yourself into one mode of behaviour in your difference-anxiety to "not become like Pakis", you have already fallen to its diabolical trickery, caught in a false dichotomy.
Last edited by Agnimitra on 23 Feb 2015 23:33, edited 2 times in total.
Ever the Mahatama, some seem to possess such a precious logic that Muslim declamations of incompatibility with and in fact antipathy to the Hindu/other are discounted.
The body of Maria Golovnina, who was the bureau chief of Reuters for Pakistan and Afghanistan, was found in the bathroom of a house being used as an office, police said.
According to her colleagues, the Russian journalist fell unconscious and was rushed to Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) where she was pronounced dead.
According to a PIMS spokesman, the body of Russian citizen Golovnina did not bear any torture marks.
Her body will be sent for a post mortem to ascertain the cause of death while an investigation is being carried out by the police. .
SSridhar wrote:
Pakistan is far too down the road into wahhabi terrorism for it to change. This is a fleeting moment of aggression from the Army because children & wives of army officers were put to gruesome death and maiming. This facade of determination to fight terrorism too shall pass and Pakistan will descend even more deeply into the sewage-filled bottomless sinkhole that it set up for itself when it demanded and got an Islam-based identity.
More importantly, Saudis are not going to sit idly by to see billions of dollars spent over decades go waste because someone in Pakistan grew a conscience and wanted to establish a modern state. Pakistan has nukes. Saudis paid for it. Pakistan is now Saudi's *****. There is no escaping that. If Pakis try to leave Saudi grip, Saudis will make matters hard by overcharging for oil, making sure no Sunni country exports energy to Pakistan and using their proxies to overthrow people in power in Pakistan. Buying off the army and the mullahs and instigating a coup.
Saudis are now terrified of Iranians acquiring Nukes. The only counter to that is Saudis acquiring Nukes. Saudis have no industrial or technological base to speak of to acquire nukes. So they have to buy or rent them. Of the Nuke powers: Russia, China, US and Pakistan (maybe NoKo) can offer a nuke protection for Saudis. Russia has picked up a fight with the Saudis for crashing the price of oil and bankrupting the Russian economy so Russia is ruled out. NoKo is a wildcard. Saudis can possibly buy a few nukes from them.
Saudis have realized US is an unreliable partner (by 2030 US will be a net exporter of oil. The famed "swing production capacity" of the Saudis is the extent by which US consumption of oil is projected to reduce by 2030 from current baselines). There are two possible outcomes now:
1. China gets into a strong alliance with the Saudis and they both squeeze Pakistan's testimonials
2. Saudis squeeze Pakistan's testimonials by themselves.
The Karachi municipal authorities and other bodies such as the Cantonment Board Clifton need to stop the brutal killing of stray dogs that is going on in Karachi right now. Personnel from these departments have been seen to just randomly shoot these innocent souls. Such mercilessness does not solve any problems or difficulties that citizens may be facing on account of stray dogs.It has been noticed that the authorities leave the dogs’ bodies lying on the roads after shooting them. Many of these dogs are then seen to be writhing between life and death, and are seen to be struggling in a highly painful manner. Many have even been found alive, suffering from serious pain. Do the people assigned the task of shooting stray dogs not have hearts? How can they act in such a merciless manner?
A screengrab of video in taken by Karachi resident Hira Tareen and posted on Facebook here
From amongst the dogs who are being shot, very few are actually lethal enough to harm humans. T
Tuvaluan Ji : Your Post 23 Feb 2015 07:05 and A_Gupta Ji : Your Post 23 Feb 2015 17:17 :-
Yasser Hamidani is a self appointed hagiographer of Djinnah. Whilst reading Law at Rutgers in the late Nineties he vigorously propounded Djinnah Constitutionalist, Democratic and Secular credentials. He was severely beaten up by the Cwapistani Students Union - Possibly they inserted their Istiqlaal into YLH's Istiqbaal - and had to return to Cwapistan to complete his law studies.
The man is, like his Idol Djinnah, a typical Foaming at the Mouth Mullah i.e. Virulently Anti-Indian in General and Anti-Hindu in Particular. In addition he is a typical abusive La whori.
Cheers
The man is, like his Idol Djinnah, a typical Foaming at the Mouth Mullah i.e. Virulently Anti-Indian in General and Anti-Hindu in Particular. In addition he is a typical abusive La whori.
Peregrine saar, indeed. Nowadays, he has done tactical toning down of any reference to India, like the rest of the pakjabi clowns, probably to escape the ire of the true pakistanis who probably want to string him and his ilk up the nearest tree for not being pure enough. Fun times for the pakjabis anyways.
The man is, like his Idol Djinnah, a typical Foaming at the Mouth Mullah i.e. Virulently Anti-Indian in General and Anti-Hindu in Particular. In addition he is a typical abusive La whori.
Peregrine saar, indeed. Nowadays, he has done tactical toning down of any reference to India, like the rest of the pakjabi clowns, probably to escape the ire of the true pakistanis who probably want to string him and his ilk up the nearest tree for not being pure enough. Fun times for the pakjabis anyways.
Is this Why LH Ahmadi Murtad? AFAIK, he recently made pilgrimage to India .
A_Gupta wrote:Biglund-Smalgand may exercise their entire wit to the roar of the BRF crowd; but cannot exorcise the fact that BRF moderators let through a call for ethnic cleansing.
Like JEM asked, I am also interested in knowing what prompted you to mention ethnic cleansing. Also would like to know why you chose this thread and this occasion to opine about it. If you want maybe we can discuss this in another thread. I too have some of my own thoughts and questions on this topic. Thank You in advance.
Last edited by Shankk on 24 Feb 2015 04:28, edited 1 time in total.
Without quotes, since the comment doesnt deserve it -- clearly you misread. As did the folks who jumped in wanting to do a pilgrimage. The obsession of avoiding pakistan, is just as bad as going to pakistan too often.
This is not a blog, or social media. While this forum also mostly now talk at each other rather than talking to each other, emotional outbursts will still quickly give you a reputation for rants.
Some, dont care. Others who might have a passion for sharing worthwhile information ought to focus a bit more. It is pakistan you are talking about. No matter how negative or positive you try to be, isnt it still just a turd sandwich?
SSridhar wrote:
Pakistan is far too down the road into wahhabi terrorism for it to change. This is a fleeting moment of aggression from the Army because children & wives of army officers were put to gruesome death and maiming. This facade of determination to fight terrorism too shall pass and Pakistan will descend even more deeply into the sewage-filled bottomless sinkhole that it set up for itself when it demanded and got an Islam-based identity.
More importantly, Saudis are not going to sit idly by to see billions of dollars spent over decades go waste because someone in Pakistan grew a conscience and wanted to establish a modern state. Pakistan has nukes. Saudis paid for it. Pakistan is now Saudi's *****. There is no escaping that. If Pakis try to leave Saudi grip, Saudis will make matters hard by overcharging for oil, making sure no Sunni country exports energy to Pakistan and using their proxies to overthrow people in power in Pakistan. Buying off the army and the mullahs and instigating a coup.
Saudis are now terrified of Iranians acquiring Nukes. The only counter to that is Saudis acquiring Nukes. Saudis have no industrial or technological base to speak of to acquire nukes. So they have to buy or rent them. Of the Nuke powers: Russia, China, US and Pakistan (maybe NoKo) can offer a nuke protection for Saudis. Russia has picked up a fight with the Saudis for crashing the price of oil and bankrupting the Russian economy so Russia is ruled out. NoKo is a wildcard. Saudis can possibly buy a few nukes from them.
Saudis have realized US is an unreliable partner (by 2030 US will be a net exporter of oil. The famed "swing production capacity" of the Saudis is the extent by which US consumption of oil is projected to reduce by 2030 from current baselines). There are two possible outcomes now:
1. China gets into a strong alliance with the Saudis and they both squeeze Pakistan's testimonials
2. Saudis squeeze Pakistan's testimonials by themselves.
It is a survival issue for the Saudis.
Bakistan could be angling for the third option., get into a taller and deeper alliance with China and squeeze Saudi's testimonials. China will play both sides of the game and will not part with its nuke option easily.
Bakis will try to get their plutonium designs going., their uranium based nukes are useless.
Tuvaluan wrote:No idea, Jhujar, but he is not alone in this sudden toning down of hostility in rhetoric -- maintaining tactical silence is probably it.
Tactical it is, yes. All these people want to be able to take refuge in India if the situation so demands. They see it coming and hence the toning down.
In todays environment, pakistans importance has increased. Some "oligarch" or cement merchant might be forcing the cool down. Its not existential. They arent going anywhere up/down/sideways for next 10 years.
Among the most difficult challenges posed to India by the "idea of Pakistan" (- that is the idea that Muslims cannot live among Hindus - at least as equals) is the status of Indian Muslims.
Hindus have been forced to ask, of Indian Muslims, "Are you able to live among us or not?". That is exactly the result that was desired by the idea of Pakistan. The effect of this on Indian Muslims has been to point out that they will never be assumed to be loyal; they are forever suspected to be Pakistanis in India; and that they have to constantly (and often ineffectively) "prove" to Hindus that they are loyal to India and not Pakistan. This again is a perfectly desirable outcome for the idea of Pakistan, i.e to force Indian Muslims to understand that they can never be free in India. (The argument that Muslims lead shit lives in Pakistan is a digression - a torn-shirt open fly digression, not germane to what Muslims are required to think or do in India)
At a very basic level this question of "incompatibility" and the idea of Muslims as a nation boils down to political Islam demanding supremacy over all other people.
"Secularism" is a word that described the way in which Christians agreed among themselves to allow the Church to go only so far and no further in ruling their lives. Secularism did not rule how far political Islam could go and where to draw the line. Ironically it was partition that aided Indian secularism by forcibly drawing the line that demarcated how far political Islam could go. Political Islam was given space to dominate in Pakistan (at least in the Hindu perspective) and this was accepted by the idea of Pakistan. The tacit agreement was that in India political Islam would no longer rear its head and demand that Muslims are a separate nation and need to live separately. Unfortunately (and perhaps as a consequence of the passions and demographics after partition) Muslims in India were allowed to live in separate ghettos with separate rules and sops. Of course Hindus got sops too - sops that Muslims did not get so Indian secularism created new conflict points by not forcing the idea of loyalty to one Indian nation. For example Muslims got their 4 wives, use and throw "talaq" (divorce) laws, and Haj subsidy. Hindus got reservation. New conflicts of interest have arisen around this unequal secularism. But I digress.
Political Islam has a border that it should not cross. Muslims who do not want to live with Hindus now have a country and that country is Pakistan. Everyone else has to live by Indian laws, culture and ethos. Those who don't like something are allowed to protest but justice means that every party should be allowed to protest equally and state their views. We cannot have a country where Muslims can have grievances but not Hindus and vice versa. And we cannot have a country in which secession is allowed on the basis of religious grievances. That part has already been done - we have been there and done that, Pakistan exists. We accept it and anyone (including secularists) who like the idea of Pakistan as the epitome of freedom for Muslims to be what they want to be should accept that Pakistan is a separate nation and its laws and ethos cannot be imposed on India. Pakistani ideas can be practised with freedom in Pakistan. But not in India. I think Indians and Pakistan the nation have still to accept this reality. If they do we may even reach a state in which people from India who believe in Pakistan can be allowed to migrate freely to Pakistan, and people from Pakistan who subscribe to Indian values can be allowed conditional access to India.
India & our perennial problem Paki Sinus & Constipationbazi
Assruff JahanGiir Qazi.
( Towel Pey Towel Orr Owrr Towel. Qazi Sahib trying to escape Poaqonkey Trap)
EMOTIONAL thinking leads nowhere. Rational thinking is ignored. Sensible policies remain a foolish hope. This is Pakistan’s perennial problem. The Indian foreign secretary is due to visit Pakistan. Is this the resumption of the initial Modi-Sharif bonhomie or just the result of Obama’s persuasion?
The most important country for Pakistan is India. How? It is an adversary with which we have very poor relations. We see each other as major threats. We cannot even sustain a dialogue. We have a far warmer, more trustworthy and strategic relationship with China. We have a less warm but equally important relationship with the US.So how is India so important? We have 80pc of our population in proximity with it. Indian forces are deployed against us. A dangerous neighbour is more important than a friendly one. If Pakistan is to develop it will need a peaceful neighbourhood. Our relations with India determine our input in Afghanistan.To improve relations with India shall we have to accept its hegemony? Abandon our support for the people of Kashmir? Or downgrade our relations with China? Certainly not! But we shall need to implement rational and realistic India and Kashmir policies, while deepening our relations with China and improving mutual understanding with the US.We need to transform Pakistan from a state of chaos and dysfunction to a modern and participatory development state governed by law and accountable and effective institutions. Policies and priorities that are inconsistent with this transformation will be self-defeating.
Those inclined towards confrontation with India, no matter what the social and diplomatic costs, are no friends of the people. A security state will ultimately minimise security and maximise risk. Only a functioning and inclusive state can maximise Pakistan’s options, raise its international standing and ensure its views are taken seriously in the main capitals of the world.The prime minister talks about prioritising relations with India. But he is yet to develop credibility for his stance. Of course, we can blame India. It is not interested in any serious dialogue on Kashmir except on the basis of the territorial status quo. The US has no interest in pressing India for a compromise settlement with Pakistan. According to an American analyst “the US sees Pakistan through an Af-Pak prism while it sees India through an Asia-Pacific prism. It does not see anything through an Indo-Pak prism”. We were within touching distance of an interim agreement with India on Kashmir during the 2004-7 back-channel talks. The Mumbai bombings of 2008 intervened. Can and should these talks be revived? There are a variety of views. Some regard them as a national betrayal. Others consider them as the only way forward towards a just and mutually acceptable settlement.We need to develop a realistic public consensus on what our strategies on Kashmir and policies towards India should be. They should be part of a national vision that includes space for initiatives towards India even when they seem premature and unlikely to be immediately reciprocated. Indian obduracy and Pakistani impatience will, however, need to be moderated for mutual trust to develop and longer-term and broad-spectrum progress to become feasible.For this we shall need a prime minister prepared to take on powerful lobbies and vested interests, and to systematically and effectively communicate his vision and strategies to the people. Given that the current incumbent has surrendered much of his authority in order to stay in office it is not clear whether he can be persuaded to implement his own preferred India policies.If he shies away from making the effort he will inevitably lose credibility at home and abroad. His personal policy inclinations will be irrelevant. In that event, Narendra Modi may consider Ashraf Ghani’s example of preferring to deal with the real rather than the formal chief executive in Pakistan.There are other issues on the India-Pakistan agenda that have their own history and dynamic. But they all unfold within the general state of the bilateral relationship. Accordingly, so-called ‘low hanging fruit’ (relatively easier to resolve issues) have in recent years become more difficult. The bilateral agenda, moreover, needs to be expanded to include more regional and environmental issues such as an Afghanistan settlement, water and energy as well as security and development. Longer term perspectives have become indispensable.
Conversely, India cannot benefit from unilaterally provoking a nuclear-armed Pakistan beyond its tolerance. India is territorially the satisfied or status quo power. It may seek to undermine Pakistan’s ability to obstruct its regional and big power ambitions. It does not need war. Ironically, Indian aspirations have been facilitated by our own irrational and irresponsible policies.China has a number of long-standing issues with its neighbours and with the US. It will not allow ‘red lines’ to be crossed. Neither will it permit any issue to derail its comprehensive internal development and national transformation policies. These require a peaceful neighbourhood and a facilitating external environment. We need to take a page out of our great neighbour’s policy playbook.In another article I shall detail specific initiatives. But without a fundamental vision of human development and a national transformation strategy, the mere presentation of possible initiatives will not address our perennial problem. We will continue to fail the challenge of India-Pakistan relations in the 21st century and pay the higher price. Accordingly, India represents not just a policy challenge for us; it also represents a test of our sincerity towards our own people. We have, instead, preferred to posture and deny our people their right to a better life. Ta ba kay?
But we shall need to implement rational and realistic India and Kashmir policies, while deepening our relations with China and improving mutual understanding with the US.
When they say this, I never understand the code. What does it mean? Deepening what? How?
Read it in conjunction with the following quote from the article:
We were within touching distance of an interim agreement with India on Kashmir during the 2004-7 back-channel talks. The Mumbai bombings of 2008 intervened. Can and should these talks be revived?
There are deepening ties within the back-channel approach. Just like a cross eyed mullah deepening his back channel approach with his favorite PYT goat, getting even more cross eyed in the process.
