skganji.... Man, you need to take a cold shower right now and go to rehab to detox yourself from whatever you are consuming.
What you are stating is no less than venom of a religious bigot.
So as per your definition, Punjabis (and in particular Sikhs) are also anti national due to recent history. What about tribals of Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa...? There are lots of Naxals there...!! What about Tamils, Manipuris, Gorkhas and god knows who else..
Maybe even I am (as per your Lahori logic) since my grandparents came from Pakistan in 1947.
But one humble and simple question to you... What is your contribution to this country that is bigger than all other communities that are identified by people like you for being backstabbers or anti-nationals or god knows whatever tag you attach to them?
Actually, your logic is what seems lahori.
Anyway, are you saying that Muslims and Hindus lived in great 'bhaichara' and never betrayed each other? Or are you saying that such incidents need to be forgotten or ignored? Or are you saying that such incidents are exceptions and not the norm?
skganji wrote:There are definitely some exceptions when it comes to Hindu-Muslim equation. There are only a few handful of Muslims who are extremely loyal to their home country like Abdul Kalaam etc. .....
Tell that to the face of "thousands" of muslim troops (and their families) fighting for you "right now" in J&K against an Islamic State's sponsored terrorism.
It seems those advocating the Siachen 'De-militarization' are following FUD for their sales pitch. Following are their arguments. And they are designed to cause FUD (Fear, Uncertainity, Doubt) in the Indian minds.
a) If Siachen is not gifted to Pakis(or DE-militarized according to their wishes), Pak will disintegrate and then their will be no control on the jihadis who will attack at their will on India.
b) Brave Indian soldiers are dying in the cold mountains at Siachen. Lets save them from this undue sufferance.
c) Siachen is useless. Not a blade of grass grows there. Why are we wasting money and men for that god forsaken place?
d) Occupying Siachen is not necessary for protecting India.
e) We can always re-occupy it, if necessary.
f) We need to build confidence, so that the 'peace loving silent majority and their civilian representatives' can be strengthened. Gifting away Siachen woulsd be chanakyan move in this direction.
Counter arguments to the above points:
a) Pak's disintegration and/or destabilization is good for India. Long term and short term. Anyway, giving up Siachen is not going to save Pakis from disintegration.
b) The situation is far better now then it was in the past thanks to the improving technology. We can expect much smoother ride in the future. If army vacates now, then they will have to start from square one, if they have to reoccupy it. In the process, many precious lives will be lost.
c & d) Siachen is crucial for the defence of India according to the Indian army. It is precisely for this reason that they have occupied Siachen and braved such harsh climate.
e) Many Indian soldier's lives will be lost in the process of re-taking it after the paki occupation because they will have a great advantage. Moreover, why take the risk in the first place?
f) This is the most crafty point. How can India strengthen the 'civilian pakis'? By gifting away or risking our territories?! Then, no thanks!!
Anyway, it is simply a conjecture that the pakis(civilian or military) want peace with India and that the only thing stopping them is lack of confidence.
The biggest and the most valid argument is: why should India take such huge risk at all, given that there are absolutely no commitments from paki side(not that they honor their commitments)?
Someone, asked a very valid question: What is the definition of treachery and who can be labelled a traitor?
In any other country, supporting a course of action that threatens the territorial security of the country will be seen as treachery...