Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 07 Dec 2009 11:13

Johan,

Your argument was very unethical. You seem to be suggesting that since the people whose humans right are being violated were poor in their native countries, they do not deserve to be treated with dignity in UK. This line of thinking is unfortunate.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Dec 2009 11:24

Regardless of moi opinions on UK-stan, there are some things about it that do bear admiration. Look at this soldiers' protest. Good that good people are able to speak their mind in an open, honest way and there is a media willing to air such laundry. Can't imagine IA troops protesting a PM visit in like manner, no matter how justified the troops' grievance!

Gordon Brown snubbed by soldiers' 'curtain' protest

Gordon Brown was snubbed by badly injured Afghan veterans when they closed curtains round their beds during a hospital visit and refused to speak to him.

More than half the soldiers being treated at the Selly Oak hospital ward in Birmingham either asked for the curtains to be closed or deliberately avoided the prime minister, according to several of those present.

The soldiers, who have sustained some of the worst injuries seen in Afghanistan, described his visit as “opportunistic” and a “waste of time”.

Furious about equipment shortages and poor compensation for their injuries, one soldier said: “It is almost as if we are the product of an unwanted affair ... he has done nothing for us.”

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 07 Dec 2009 11:53

I feel for the soldiers. They are made to fight a war without proper equipments. It seems like there is a serious disconnect between the reality and the ego of the British elites. The reality is Britain does not have resources to be fighting on foreign soils. But their ego compels them to ignore the reality; this creates serious hardship for British commoners. The right thing to do for UK would be to gradually decrease the military budget and use that money towards betterment of common British people.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 07 Dec 2009 12:48

I don't see why it would be difficult to equip a few thousand soldiers with proper equipment.

Although even with proper equipment, there's no gurantee you won't come back in a body bag.

In the end they signed up for this. Maybe the war in Afghanistan has legitimacy since its a genuine fight against extremists. But the Iraq war was nothing more than fighting for oil companies to profit and the US to give itself a discount by paying for Iraq's oil in dollars. You can be sure oil companies ceos would not be sending their kids to fight alongside.

You are little more than a soldier of fortune in that case and if you die out there, its for nothing.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 07 Dec 2009 13:05

Johann wrote:Why are people of all religions and ethnicities so keen to move to the country, to bring their families and settle down?Month after month, year after year, decade after decade.

Not sure that is the case over all !

UK population growth at 47-year high

The numbers of people arriving minus those leaving actually fell by 44%.

Minister Phil Woolas said migrants were coming for short periods, contributing to the economy and then going home.

Mr Woolas said this fall in net migration was proof that "only those that Britain needs can come" into the country.

I always find it amusing when the people in BR simply think that Britain is all PC and in a few years will simply give in to islamists. The reality is far from it. Britain is still 92% white and will remain a white majority country well into future. The Islamists in Britain only make some noise nothing more. The Brits will make sure that the islamist anger will be directed towards India and not against Britain. They are the masters of deception who say something , potray something but will do something else.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 07 Dec 2009 13:54

I always find it amusing when the people in BR simply think that Britain is all PC and in a few years will simply give in to islamists. The reality is far from it. Britain is still 92% white and will remain a white majority country well into future. The Islamists in Britain only make some noise nothing more. The Brits will make sure that the islamist anger will be directed towards India and not against Britain. They are the masters of deception who say something , potray something but will do something else.

Tks for the sobering perspective, Rony. I take your point and certainly wouldn't want UQ's nukes etc falling into islamist hands 2 generations down.

BTW, the islamists don't have to reach majority in UQ to be a permanent paindabutt. A large enough % of urban centered population (say 16.67%) is good enough spoiler value to to keep UK-stan destabilizied for ages to come. Besides, wasn't that exactly what UK-stan dreamed, schemed, plotted and sowed in the subcontinent? Or have we forgotten already?

As for brave words like 'always' and 'never' - wouldn't use them too liberally anymore. The age of happy certitudes and extrapolations has passed, seems like. Demographers unlike doomographers do not look at generational shifts in composition - what is avg size of the packee/BD phamily as opposed to that of the rest? How many urbanites under 5 are white as opposed to their proportion in the general popn? And what'll happen to youth composition 20 yrs down? Where is the evidence from the rest of the muslim world - from Morocco to malaysia - that muslims are becoming mopre relaxed, chilled, assimilative, liberal, tolerant, modern and all that jazz with the passage of time in the past few decades? Why believe they'll magically become so in the UK? And so on.

Anyway, time will tell where this is going. If the islamists don't win - good! But I doubt they'll give up without a fight. They aren't ready yet - in numbers terms. They may yet get there, who knows.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 07 Dec 2009 23:20

Karan Dixit wrote:Johan,

Your argument was very unethical. You seem to be suggesting that since the people whose humans right are being violated were poor in their native countries, they do not deserve to be treated with dignity in UK. This line of thinking is unfortunate.

Really, Karan, I'm afraid that's simply grasping for straws.

If you know Britain, or the people who immigrate there you will understand that the vast majority those who emigrated are hardly destitute.

There's a broad cross section of wealthy, professional, and working class.

That is precisely my point - these are people who have choices - why chose the UK of all places? I mean, its a big world isn't it?

Even if you're an illegal immigrant, why not go anywhere else?

Even as a refugee - why not as an Iranian, or Iraqi, or Afghan, or Somali who doesn't speak English try your luck somewhere that's not so awful to Muslims?

Rony wrote:Not sure that is the case over all !

Rony,

Rightwingers might claim that immigrants come to sit around and claim welfare, but I'm not one of them. They come for work. When the economy is down, fewer will come. But the point is theyre still coming, and very large numbers are still staying. The 2000s were record years - 44% down on 2008 is still very substantial. Nor does that include refugees and illegals.

The right thing to do for UK would be to gradually decrease the military budget and use that money towards betterment of common British people.

Are you aware of the percentage of the budge that is allocated for defence?! Or the overall trendline for defence expenditure since the late 1980s?

There's money - but it doesn't pay politically to spend it on defence, but the number of missions assigned to the forces continues to increase.

Worse yet, defence monies are wasted by a bloated bureaucracy that is busy buying the wonder weapons of tomorrow instead of focusing on the wars of today. The Americans had this problem as well - not as acutely though - until Gates was appointed defence minister and cleaned house. Labour, particularly under Brown has treated defence as if it was the ministry for silly walks, putting completeley unsuitable people at the top.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2009 03:18

the british taxiwallah - a barometer of political feeling - will tell you that he has no problems with any one who comes to britain and works for a living and pays his taxes regardless of his colour. he has a problem with those who come to benefit from the welfare state and live off the hard work of 'decent working folk' like him. this is why indians are not seen badly (anymore) - as a community we are considered to be hard workers and studious, not so our fair and tight cousins, who are more likely to be seen as drug dealers or jehadi nutcases

btw - regardless of 92% whiteness, in many cities, e.g. London, 20% are of non british ethnicity and in some areas it is 50-70%, therefore ethnic concentrations are very visible. once you head out to some village, you'll see the 99% whiteness

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 08 Dec 2009 04:13

Johann wrote: There's money - but it doesn't pay politically to spend it on defence, but the number of missions assigned to the forces continues to increase.

Your statement does not make any sense. If there were money then British soldiers would have all the necessary equipments. If R&D cost is making you compromise the welfare of soldiers on the ground then that is a signal to you that it is time to stop playing military games thousands of miles from British shore.

Let me modify my original statement to this:

The right thing to do for UK would be to gradually decrease the military engagements and use the saved money towards betterment of common British people.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 08 Dec 2009 05:47

^^^
what if the external military engagements are funding betterment of select British pple and that betterment far outweighs the human and other cost of military engagement? Just hypothetically spking
An old hand at geopolitics someone has done the cost benefit analysis

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 08 Dec 2009 06:29

Karan Dixit wrote:Your statement does not make any sense. If there were money then British soldiers would have all the necessary equipments. If R&D cost is making you compromise the welfare of soldiers on the ground then that is a signal to you that it is time to stop playing military games thousands of miles from British shore.

Let me modify my original statement to this:

The right thing to do for UK would be to gradually decrease the military engagements and use the saved money towards betterment of common British people.

Karan,

It's not hard to follow at all, but since you're having difficulty, I'll try to make it clearer.

- UK defence spending as a percentage of GDP has fallen since the winding down of the Cold War.

To give you some perspective, India, Vietnam and the Democratic Republic of the Congo spent 2.5% of their GDP on defence in 2005-06, and the UK spent 2.4%.

That ranks the UK 70th out of 170 countries. Clearly defence is not, and has not been a priority for government spending

- This clearly is not because the government could not afford to spend more on defence, just that it wins more votes to spend on other things. The Indian armed forces face a similar challenge.

- The procurement process is fundamentally skewed in favour of big, slow high technology projects instead of urgent military needs in the field.

The solution is not to hand over power to the Taliban, as you seem to prefer, but to put the needs of troops in the field first, and to increase its share of GDP moderately, perhaps to just under 3% of GDP.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 08 Dec 2009 14:10

the defense budget is much much smaller than the healthcare budget or the social services/benefits budget for unemployment or low income families or old age pensions - all of which are there to shore up average prosperity/wellbeing - and therefore votes. it is possible with the right kind of manipulation to live very comfortably off the welfare state without working a single day in your life. some sections of (white) british society consider this their birthright and happily do so. most middle class and working people grudgingly pay for it out of taxes with the expectation that healthcare, unemployment benefit and old age state pension will cover them when needed. And by and large, it does. Defense spending is a much lower priority.

some migrants, notably our taller fairer cousins specialise in working the loop holes in the benefit laws and taking advantage of the system.

putnanja · Post by **putnanja** » 09 Dec 2009 05:50

UK's arrogance of powerlessness

...
But in its desperation to balance its books through cost-cutting, the cash-strapped UK government is looking farther afield and in so doing is stepping on India's toes. For instance, at the yearly round of negotiations under way to finance the United Nation's budget, diplomats from the UK are pushing for emerging economic powers, including India, to contribute more.

For sheer audacity, that suggestion is hard to top. Ponder over this: one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which secured that place solely on the strength of its colonial plunder of its erstwhile colonies (including India), now wants India, whose case for a seat at the high table has been systematically scuttled, to foot a larger share of the bill for the UN to do as the five 'super' members bid it!
...
...
If, however, the UK -- the modern-day Atlas groaning under the weight of the world -- wants to unburden itself, it could do one thing: it could cede its permanent membership, with all its rights and responsibilities, to India -- for free. We'll be gracious and, as a concession to its economic plight, not ask it to contribute any more than it does to the UN budget. We'll even consider it sufficient reparation for all those years of colonial plunder.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 09 Dec 2009 07:10

One thing to note is that immigration (legal or illegal) is not solely determined by one reason only. It is always a combination of reasons, some of them have little to do with economic or social well being. Some of the reasons can be as banal as simple vicarious familiarity, perhaps fostered by friends family having already immigrated there. Also, with friends and family already settled there, there is a pull as well as them facilitating the move. Other factors like language, cultural familiarity, nearness to other nations also makes a difference.

In the case of colonial nations, the erstwhile colonized feel a connection which seems to facilitate & encourage them to go to their erstwhile colonizers. France gets more from its ex-colonies; UK from its own.

Usually immigration is exponential: once a population has set up small presence in a place, it acts as a magnet for further immigration. This is a very important factor. BD's in India have set up a whole infrastructure to immigrate, Pakis have not. TSP'ians will find it very hard to make a home in India, BD's will have a relative smooth sailing. If sufficient TSP'ians are able to immigrate and setup a base, then immigration can be exponential. So it is best to nip the evil in the bud. This is where Germany, UK, & France goofed. This is where Punjabi Hindus/Sikhs have done themselves a strategic favor by depopulating Punjab of M's in 47.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 Dec 2009 07:25

Surinder,

Its true that migration can move along established networks.

However the migration of the 1990s and 2000s often involved groups without strong current ties - Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis, Bosnians, Chinese, Mexicans, Brazilians, Poles, Romanians, etc.

The word on the street was that the UK is easier than most places to find a job, to get legal residency (however you came in), and easier to access benefits. There are literally thousands of people waiting and/or travelling through northern France every day, looking for a boat to take them across.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 10 Dec 2009 23:20

posting in entirety because its the best example to prove that india is covered by the absolute dregs of british journalistic profession. this guy is supposed to be the south asia head of telegraph.

India's Telugu minority granted separate Telangana state
India's Telugu minority is to be granted its own state following widespread protests and a hunger strike by one of its most popular leaders.

By Dean Nelson in New Delhi
Published: 5:14PM GMT 10 Dec 2009

The decision has raised fears of a further break-up of India into smaller states and a weakening of the country's national identity.

The government announced the creation of Telangana, to be carved out of the current state of Andhra Pradesh, as the health of Telugu leader, K Chandrashekar Rao, deteriorated and after several campaigners committed suicide in protests which brought the state to a halt.

The announcement was marked with wild street celebrations in the state. For supporters it is a victory they have dreamed of since shortly after Independence when the former princely state of Hyderabad was absorbed into India.

But instead of a Telugu state, half the land area was merged with the more affluent Andhra coastal zone to create Andhra Pradesh where Telugu speakers account for more than 80 per cent of its 75 million population.

Supporters now face a battle with leaders in the remaining parts of Andhra Pradesh over which of the states will have Hyderabad as its capital. The city is an IT rival to Bangalore and home to the Indian headquarters of Microsoft and Google, but industry leaders fear uncertainty could deter new investors.

The demand for a separate state was largely driven by lower caste Telugu speakers who claim government spending favours those in coastal Andhra. Literacy among Telugu speakers is just 37 per cent, compared with 72 per cent in the state capital Hyderabad, and 70 per cent of their people are from poor tribal and low caste groups.

Supporters however believe the state's vast resources – it has huge reserves of coal, granite, iron ore – can now be fully developed and more investment will improve its poor agricultural sector. They also hope to raise the profile of its 'Tollywood' film industry which rivals Bollywood in revenues and popularity.

The announcement of a new Telangana state was enthusiastically welcomed in other parts of India where minority leaders are waging campaigns to break away from larger states. It emerged days before new talks are due to begin between New Delhi, the government of West Bengal and Gorkha leaders over their demand to break away from Calcutta to create their own Gorkhaland state.

Roshan Giri of the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha movement for a Gorkha state in the Darjeeling Hills said his group had been inspired by the Telugu campaign and would now launch a series of hunger strikes to intensify pressure on the government.

In Rajasthan, campaigners for a Maru state, said larger states had focused resources on the main towns and failed to extend economic development throughout their districts.

"In our nine districts of Rajasthan there is not a single industry which employs 200 people and no universities for our 20 million people after 60 years of Independence," said Jaibeer Godara, president of the Maru Pradesh Nirman Morcha.

"If India has to grow and prosper and emerge as a global power, we have to create small states," he added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... state.html

when incapable of writing even a factually correct article how can any one expect an objective article say between indo-pak?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 10 Dec 2009 23:39

^^^That article is deliberate

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 10 Dec 2009 23:56

leaving aside the integrity of india in danger bla bla bla which all the british press resort to - hangover from the loss of raj

i was pointing out the other glaring mistakes like

telengana is not formed on telugu basis

AP was not formed disregarding the telugu minority

finally .. telugus are not a minority in andhra pradesh

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 11 Dec 2009 00:12

it is becoming deliberate day by day as Londonistan is talkimng a prosturing attitute towards India . they are not going send in some atheletes for the C-games in delhi.

looks like TSP lobbies in londonistan is working but who cares to the poddle

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 11 Dec 2009 00:16

RaviBg wrote:UK's arrogance of powerlessness

...
But in its desperation to balance its books through cost-cutting, the cash-strapped UK government is looking farther afield and in so doing is stepping on India's toes. For instance, at the yearly round of negotiations under way to finance the United Nation's budget, diplomats from the UK are pushing for emerging economic powers, including India, to contribute more.

For sheer audacity, that suggestion is hard to top. Ponder over this: one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which secured that place solely on the strength of its colonial plunder of its erstwhile colonies (including India), now wants India, whose case for a seat at the high table has been systematically scuttled, to foot a larger share of the bill for the UN to do as the five 'super' members bid it!
.

it is better we can buy the permanent council seat

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 11 Dec 2009 05:49

Ananya wrote:it is becoming deliberate day by day as Londonistan is talkimng a prosturing attitute towards India . they are not going send in some atheletes for the C-games in delhi.

Don't make the mistake of taking grate Bshitain's talking heads' fulminations against sdre turd world yindia too seriously. That only feeds their arrogance, overinflated ego and misplaced self-importance deriving from self-impotence.

Instead, consider this - the chance UK-stan might default on debt levels in the next decade is significant - higher than at any time since WW2. Sure, monikers like Rekjavik (or is it Dubai?) by the Thames are perhaps quite a stretch, but once things start spiraling downwards --> confidence drops like a stone-->currency deval accelerates --> interest rates soar like raakit mard on boosters --> social services and welfare for the most vulnerable 10% of the popn get visibly cut --> even the bbc is forced to allow advertising (gasp!) --> who knows what else may follow? In another 15 yrs, Yindia's dollah GDP could be like 50% larget than UK-stan's. Another 5 yrs and it could be over 2x. Also, by then a new gen and not the current tfta-awed one will be in power at that time. Maybe then the country can open up and respond to these pinpricks and fulminations by speaking its mind for once, eh?

Jai Hor.

Ananya · Post by **Ananya** » 11 Dec 2009 07:17

Yes i am aware of that over the last couple of days had seen all defence related overtures ( which i trust GOI turned down). Their economy is tanking and I did hear on CNBC this evening that the entire Euro is kind of falling down and France and germany are pulling the burdan of Italy ( G8 !!!!

) and other non performers and could colapse in the next decade as well.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 11 Dec 2009 10:32

Does CFR even decide who Britains PMs shoudl be
Watch Zakaria interviewing Miliband on behalf of CFR where he emphatically says that Miliboy will be Britains PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5RRAEb0u3A

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Dec 2009 02:57

Jarita wrote:Does CFR even decide who Britains PMs shoudl be
Watch Zakaria interviewing Miliband on behalf of CFR where he emphatically says that Miliboy will be Britains PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5RRAEb0u3A

miliboy is certainly believed to be preparing to be the next leader of the opposition or if by some miracle gordon wins, then to challenge him at the next party conference

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 13 Dec 2009 08:47

Sharia law tribunal is proposed

The Ministry of Justice said: "Communities have the option to use religious councils and to agree to abide by their decisions. These decisions are subject to national law and cannot be enforced through the national courts, save in limited circumstances."

"There may be incompatibilities between English and religious laws and the parties should always have the option to refer to the English or Welsh family courts should they wish to do.

"Any member of any community should know that they have the right to refer to an English or Welsh court at any point, particularly in the event that they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue in a way with which they feel uncomfortable.

Marya Shabir, of the Welsh Women's National Coalition, said: "It's being advertised as this opt-in system when it actually isn't.

"If a Muslim woman is given the option of using a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal over going through the courts system using the law of England and Wales; there's no question as to which system she's going to use.

"If she doesn't go with the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal, she is going to face stigmatisation, she will be ostracised by her community, her peers, her family who believe she is turning her back on the community."

bart · Post by **bart** » 13 Dec 2009 21:07

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... edcar.html

Looks like a lot of Paki traits like conspiracy theories and blaming others for their own ills have rubbed off on the Brits after a lot of 'close' associations.

Wasn't Rajendra Pachauri a very vocal opponent of Tata Motors wrt Singur and the Nano? A lot of other stuff in that article are blatant lies, like the plant allegedly being built in Holland, and that Tata needs environmental credits to be in business (the closed plant has 6 million pounds in carbon credits annually, which is literally peanuts compared to the 70 billion $ revenues of the Tata group, the 130 million pound loss incurred by Tata to keep that plant running over the past one year, and the profit that it could make if it could somehow keep that plant open).

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 13 Dec 2009 22:44

If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.

---
A British citizen has been convicted of conspiring to murder civilians in a deadly terrorist attack

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8381192.stm

Adam Khatib, a factory worker from Walthamstow, east London, was part of a terror cell taking orders from Pakistan.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 13 Dec 2009 22:57

If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.

why doesn't this reasonable policy work in the great republic to our west where arguably muslim citizens enjoy far greater rights and freedom than in UK ?

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 14 Dec 2009 00:19

Karan Dixit wrote:If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.

Slight correction sir,

In theory muslims have the same rights that the rest of the society have, problem arises when some muslims from Baakistan with their sense of entitlement start making ridiculous demands. The only role Britain has to play wrt Kashmir issue is by "choking off" the supply of money to the jihadi groups, something they are unwilling to do so as to not upset a sizeable votebank.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 14 Dec 2009 00:35

bart wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... edcar.html

Looks like a lot of Paki traits like conspiracy theories and blaming others for their own ills have rubbed off on the Brits after a lot of 'close' associations.

The Brits can surely compete with the pakis in terms of paranoia ! From the comments section

Perhaps now people will see that Tata bought Corus, specifically to close down the Redcar plant. It is called long-term planning.

Fact: It has now managed to stop steel production in Britain....permanently. Don't believe the "Mothball" spin.

World demand for steel is as strong now as ever....in other words, they lied about the reason for suspending production at Redcar.

India used to be in the commonwealth and subordinate to Britain. How will most of you feel when the reverse comes about?

It isn't too far off people, welcome to the future!

Geoff Turner
on December 13, 2009
at 11:36 AM

Seems like a clear case of British Jobs for Indian Workers.
I shall be voting for the British National Party at the next election.

Little Englander
on December 13, 2009
at 07:54 AM

It just goes to show how stupid new labor and the EU are - the Indians are greatly outsmarting them and are laughing all the way to the bank .

Kim L
on December 13, 2009
at 06:05 AM

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 14 Dec 2009 00:39

Rahul M wrote:
If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.
why doesn't this reasonable policy work in the great republic to our west where arguably muslim citizens enjoy far greater rights and freedom than in UK ?

... because Pakistan too engages in oppression of Muslims. Pakistan Army has killed millions of Muslims to this date. It continues to deny what rightfully belongs to the Muslim population which inhabits an area called Pakistan. That is why there is large number of Muslim youth joining jihad against Pakistan. Pakistan and UK, both use Muslims and their sentiments as a foreign policy tool. This results in exploitation and degradation of Muslims in those countries.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 14 Dec 2009 01:45

... because Pakistan too engages in oppression of Muslims. Pakistan Army has killed millions of Muslims to this date. It continues to deny what rightfully belongs to the Muslim population which inhabits an area called Pakistan. That is why there is large number of Muslim youth joining jihad against Pakistan. Pakistan and UK, both use Muslims and their sentiments as a foreign policy tool. This results in exploitation and degradation of Muslims in those countries.

Where did that come from?
Paki Army is a defender of Islam. Consists of Muslim conscripts.

Adminullah, this is just for sh!ts and giggles

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 14 Dec 2009 02:17

In fact Tata does seem to have been appropriately mercenary and ruthlessly single-minded in its plans for Corus. I am sure the shareholders and Adam Smith approve.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 14 Dec 2009 02:30

Karan Dixit wrote:If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.

Would you care to list the rights you have in mind so that we may understand better?

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 14 Dec 2009 03:24

^^^ Sharia would help.
In India they have sep. marriage and other laws. You could take a leaf out of Indias book. It will keep things quiet till they reach 10% pop mark, which is some time away for you.

Other issues are racial profiling and derog references. Removing that will help.

bart · Post by **bart** » 14 Dec 2009 03:30

Lisa wrote:
Karan Dixit wrote:If white dominated British society begins to grant more rights to its oppressed Muslim citizens, we will see less Muslim men joining Jihad. This will also help the situation in Kashmir.

Would you care to list the rights you have in mind so that we may understand better?

I guess he meant it in a sarcastic way, along the lines of the oft-heard rant/whine by the West:

If India gave up Kashmir and stopped opposing the Islamists, Pakistan would have less reason to have Islamists/Madrassas/Jihad and that would help them focus on Afghanistan.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 14 Dec 2009 03:49

Gentleman, Karan is right. The Muslims are oppressed in Britain. The muslims fight for self determination for imposing of sharia is legitimate. But the British also need to end their occupation of whales, scotland and northern ireland. They are independent countries and the Brits have no right to rule them while preaching human rights and democracy to others. I hope the India govt shows some balls in taking up the matters with the British diplomatically !

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 14 Dec 2009 04:04

Add cornwall and other regions to the mix. They have substantial french influence

Karna_A · Post by **Karna_A** » 16 Dec 2009 06:52

Adam Khatib, a factory worker from Walthamstow, east London, was part of a terror cell taking orders from Pakistan.

Churchill's shortsighted policy of appeasing TSP even before its creation and using secret communication with Jinnah during partition talks are coming home to roost.
It was Churchill's brain that denied India a port in Northeast(Chittagong) and made Northeast dependent on Chicken's neck as Indian border stops just 50 Kms from Sea.
Churchill's best friends are giving them them their biggest terrorists whereas Churchill's worst enemies are now teaching them how to do business and provide them jobs. The choice is still theirs whom to embrace.

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 16 Dec 2009 10:28

Karna_A wrote:
Churchill's best friends are giving them them their biggest terrorists whereas Churchill's worst enemies are now teaching them how to do business and provide them jobs. The choice is still theirs whom to embrace.

Britain will embrace India (overtly), irrespective whether India wants it or not because as years pass on, Britain will become more irrelevant and India will become more relevant. But no mistake , like america,even while it overtly embraces India it will still covertly nurture the anti-Indian elements of pakistan army and intelligence using the pretext of fighting taliban.