Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): June 30, 2011

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Jul 2011 16:59

Everything is a conspiracy against Pakistan:
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=103171

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Jul 2011 17:00

Probably already posted, if so, apologies:
Praveen Swami, in The Hindu, on the Karachi projects:
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a ... 227368.ece

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Jul 2011 17:02

Posted for the last line

A CIA spokesman, George Little, would only say: "Finding Osama Bin Laden is a major victory for the United States and Pakistan."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/ju ... frontieres

Rajiv Lather · Post by **Rajiv Lather** » 15 Jul 2011 19:17

Fault-lines in Pak establishment. Corps commanders and lower are strongly anti-america (more out of fear of backlash than anything else). Kiyani-Pasha pair is almost neutral with slight tilt towards the anti-america stance. Zardari-Gilani pair is firmly in american camp. Nawaz Sharif and Islamic parties have the backing of Saudis and UAE.

Zardari-Gilani did try to hedge their bets (on army's prompting) and made two trips to China. China is too smart to oblige them. So right now PPP is back in american camp.

The frustrated Pak army tried to take over by replacing PPP with a national government (Imran Khan, Javed Hashmi, Marvi Memon, Jalebi and Quereshi). Remember I mentioned coup alerts in my posts. Americans got wise and really turned on the screws. Army has been clearly warned against taking action against Zardari and party.

The most important decision that will set the future course of action is Pak army operation in N Waziristan. If Pak army refuses, US will come down on them hard; and if they agree there is clear danger of mutiny. The last two army chiefs, Musharaf and Kiyani, both have been subjected to severe questioning by junior officers in various garrisons, the severity bordering on mutiny. The Brigadier who was recently arrested, was one of them.

There is an interesting story going around, I dont remember where I read it. Kayani on one of his garrison visits was accosted by a bunch of rebellious junior officers. The situation turned so bad that a furious Kayani threw his army cap on the ground and threatened to walk out after stepping on the cap. That action is said to have calmed the situation for the time being.

India should be very alert, very ready and in a position to react quickly. But should not do anything that helps Pakistan to wriggle out of Waziristan operation. Americans being americans, will come out with another series of tough demands after operation Waziristan is over.

Pakistan is in a very bad shape, and all this acting tough is mere bluff and bluster. The last nail in the coffin was abandonment by China. The Pak POL stocks are barely enough to last one week.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 15 Jul 2011 19:20

A_Gupta wrote:Everything is a conspiracy against Pakistan:
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=103171

Says it all. Djinn conspiracy theory:

It is also important to note that this time there were no militants involved but only IEDs

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 15 Jul 2011 19:32

The length and breadth of American help to the ungrateful Pakis is listed here. It is not hard to imagine what kind of country Pakis would have been without all this massive help, most likely a Somalia with 180 million Pakibarians.

What has America done for Pakistan?

At the end the writer asks this question:

And in that manner of argument, it might be appropriate in the end to ask a question that has not been asked so far. What has Pakistan done for the US? What has Pakistan done for the US if reliability, trust and selflessness are the benchmarks?

The answer is 9/11.

Sri · Post by **Sri** » 15 Jul 2011 22:41

what did zulfikar mirza actually say? Why so much heart burn?

Rajdeep · Post by **Rajdeep** » 15 Jul 2011 22:58

Sri wrote:what did zulfikar mirza actually say? Why so much heart burn?

The gist of what he said was - these mohajirs came bhooke-nange (hungry and naked) and we gave them support and now they are trying to kill us. He also implied that the mohajirs have done nothing for the formation of pakistan and are useless community who are leeching the the original TFTA.
Some other ANP guy called the mohajirs bihari bhaiyas in a public gathering about one week earlier.

PS - Has anyone seen that Altaf Hussain talk ? Seems he has not forgotten his Ramlila roots.

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 16 Jul 2011 00:49

Hold on to you seats folks. Ilyas Kashmiri still alive

jrjrao · Post by **jrjrao** » 16 Jul 2011 04:34

Lovely. In the WSJ:

Why My Father Hated India
Aatish Taseer, the son of an assassinated Pakistani leader, explains the history and hysteria behind a deadly relationship
By AATISH TASEER

Ten days before he was assassinated in January, my father, Salman Taseer, sent out a tweet about an Indian rocket that had come down over the Bay of Bengal: "Why does India make fools of themselves messing in space technology? Stick 2 bollywood my advice."

My father was the governor of Punjab, Pakistan's largest province, and his tweet, with its taunt at India's misfortune, would have delighted his many thousands of followers. It fed straight into Pakistan's unhealthy obsession with India, the country from which it was carved in 1947.

Though my father's attitude went down well in Pakistan, it had caused considerable tension between us. I am half-Indian, raised in Delhi by my Indian mother: India is a country that I consider my own. When my father was killed by one of his own bodyguards for defending a Christian woman accused of blasphemy, we had not spoken for three years.

To understand the Pakistani obsession with India, to get a sense of its special edge—its hysteria—it is necessary to understand the rejection of India, its culture and past, that lies at the heart of the idea of Pakistan. This is not merely an academic question. Pakistan's animus toward India is the cause of both its unwillingness to fight Islamic extremism and its active complicity in undermining the aims of its ostensible ally, the United States.

The idea of Pakistan was first seriously formulated by neither a cleric nor a politician but by a poet. In 1930, Muhammad Iqbal, addressing the All-India Muslim league, made the case for a state in which India's Muslims would realize their "political and ethical essence." Though he was always vague about what the new state would be, he was quite clear about what it would not be: the old pluralistic society of India, with its composite culture.

Iqbal's vision took concrete shape in August 1947. Despite the partition of British India, it had seemed at first that there would be no transfer of populations. But violence erupted, and it quickly became clear that in the new homeland for India's Muslims, there would be no place for its non-Muslim communities. Pakistan and India came into being at the cost of a million lives and the largest migration in history.

This shared experience of carnage and loss is the foundation of the modern relationship between the two countries. In human terms, it meant that each of my parents, my father in Pakistan and my mother in India, grew up around symmetrically violent stories of uprooting and homelessness.

But in Pakistan, the partition had another, deeper meaning. It raised big questions, in cultural and civilizational terms, about what its separation from India would mean.

In the absence of a true national identity, Pakistan defined itself by its opposition to India. It turned its back on all that had been common between Muslims and non-Muslims in the era before partition. Everything came under suspicion, from dress to customs to festivals, marriage rituals and literature. The new country set itself the task of erasing its association with the subcontinent, an association that many came to view as a contamination.

Had this assertion of national identity meant the casting out of something alien or foreign in favor of an organic or homegrown identity, it might have had an empowering effect. What made it self-wounding, even nihilistic, was that Pakistan, by asserting a new Arabized Islamic identity, rejected its own local and regional culture. In trying to turn its back on its shared past with India, Pakistan turned its back on itself.

But there was one problem: India was just across the border, and it was still its composite, pluralistic self, a place where nearly as many Muslims lived as in Pakistan. It was a daily reminder of the past that Pakistan had tried to erase.

Pakistan's existential confusion made itself apparent in the political turmoil of the decades after partition. The state failed to perform a single legal transfer of power; coups were commonplace. And yet, in 1980, my father would still have felt that the partition had not been a mistake, for one critical reason: India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.

But in the early 1990s, a reversal began to occur in the fortunes of the two countries. The advantage that Pakistan had seemed to enjoy in the years after independence evaporated, as it became clear that the quest to rid itself of its Indian identity had come at a price: the emergence of a new and dangerous brand of Islam.

As India rose, thanks to economic liberalization, Pakistan withered. The country that had begun as a poet's utopia was reduced to ruin and insolvency.

The primary agent of this decline has been the Pakistani army. The beneficiary of vast amounts of American assistance and money—$11 billion since 9/11—the military has diverted a significant amount of these resources to arming itself against India. In Afghanistan, it has sought neither security nor stability but rather a backyard, which—once the Americans leave—might provide Pakistan with "strategic depth" against India.

In order to realize these objectives, the Pakistani army has led the U.S. in a dance, in which it had to be seen to be fighting the war on terror, but never so much as to actually win it, for its extension meant the continuing flow of American money. All this time the army kept alive a double game, in which some terror was fought and some—such as Laskhar-e-Tayyba's 2008 attack on Mumbai—actively supported.

The army's duplicity was exposed decisively this May, with the killing of Osama bin Laden in the garrison town of Abbottabad. It was only the last and most incriminating charge against an institution whose activities over the years have included the creation of the Taliban, the financing of international terrorism and the running of a lucrative trade in nuclear secrets.

This army, whose might has always been justified by the imaginary threat from India, has been more harmful to Pakistan than to anybody else. It has consumed annually a quarter of the country's wealth, undermined one civilian government after another and enriched itself through a range of economic interests, from bakeries and shopping malls to huge property holdings.

The reversal in the fortunes of the two countries—India's sudden prosperity and cultural power, seen next to the calamity of Muhammad Iqbal's unrealized utopia—is what explains the bitterness of my father's tweet just days before he died. It captures the rage of being forced to reject a culture of which you feel effortlessly a part—a culture that Pakistanis, via Bollywood, experience daily in their homes.

This rage is what makes it impossible to reduce Pakistan's obsession with India to matters of security or a land dispute in Kashmir. It can heal only when the wounds of 1947 are healed. And it should provoke no triumphalism in India, for behind the bluster and the bravado, there is arid pain and sadness.

WSJ Link

hnair · Post by **hnair** » 16 Jul 2011 04:57

jrjrao wrote:Lovely. In the WSJ:

Why My Father Hated India
Aatish Taseer, the son of an assassinated Pakistani leader, explains the history and hysteria behind a deadly relationship
By AATISH TASEER
Ten days before he was assassinated in January, my father, Salman Taseer, sent out a tweet about an Indian rocket that had come down over the Bay of Bengal: "Why does India make fools of themselves messing in space technology? Stick 2 bollywood my advice."
arid pain and sadness.
WSJ Link

Too late to advice him "and you take care of yourself, saipey".

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 16 Jul 2011 05:55

Wither triumphalist Seems like I am being read.

Good piece as usual from Aatish.

Pakistan needs India's anger as affirmation of its core values and beliefs ie the two nation theory. In its ulta-pulta world, India's rage produces self esteem as surely as good and bad are conflated in the mirrors of Pakistani Islam.

That is why India should not retaliate against the latest Bombay serial blasts. Setting off cereal bombs in a an agrarian Pakistan is meaningless as they breed like flies. It is counter productive as it gives the Pakistani mind a reprieve from focusing on the dysfunction of the Pakistani body. It is a form of mental torture for them to be deemed to be unimportant in the context of India's goals.

Manny · Post by **Manny** » 16 Jul 2011 06:14

jrjrao wrote:Lovely. In the WSJ:

Why My Father Hated India
Aatish Taseer, the son of an assassinated Pakistani leader, explains the history and hysteria behind a deadly relationship
By AATISH TASEER

Pakistan's existential confusion made itself apparent in the political turmoil of the decades after partition. The state failed to perform a single legal transfer of power; coups were commonplace. And yet, in 1980, my father would still have felt that the partition had not been a mistake, for one critical reason: India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.

WSJ Link

Nice article... But underlying in that article is the fact, that the lefti socialistic culture of India is worse than Islamist culture.

It was the event of the near bankruptcy the lefties brought to India in 1992 and the IMF's putting the gun to then Finance minister MM Singh's head that liberated India.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 16 Jul 2011 06:21

Manny wrote: Nice article... But underlying in that article is the fact, that the lefti socialistic culture of India is worse than Islamist culture.

Nothing is worse than Paki Islamist culture. Period.

Vivek_A · Post by **Vivek_A** » 16 Jul 2011 06:27

abhishek_sharma wrote:NYT editorial is praising MMS for his restraint.

U.S. State department PSYOP

If it weren't for the NYT "psyops", MMS would have taken decisive action.

Right...

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 16 Jul 2011 06:42

If India does not give credit to Pakistan for the current blasts then in a larger sense what leverage does Pakistan have on India.
Unless Pakistan claims it does periodic blasts in India and they will stop it if there is movement on Cashmere, it loses all leverage. kaddu Hajam Jinnah said in Oct 47, I can stop the Cashmere raiders with one phone call (proving he sent the irregulars)
India can always claim that there are indigenous groups and we are trying to improve the security situation. In a Cashmere chai biscuit session Pakis cannot bring to the table, stopping terror attacks as an issue.
This strategy may not work if individual terror attacks kill too many people like in Nov 2008, and when such a big attack occurs, Indian Govt cannot call it a local attack and get away with it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2011 07:06

Anantha wrote:If India does not give credit to Pakistan for the current blasts then in a larger sense what leverage does Pakistan have on India.
Unless Pakistan claims it does periodic blasts in India and they will stop it if there is movement on Cashmere, it loses all leverage. kaddu Hajam Jinnah said in Oct 47, I can stop the Cashmere raiders with one phone call (proving he sent the irregulars)
India can always claim that there are indigenous groups and we are trying to improve the security situation. In a Cashmere chai biscuit session Pakis cannot bring to the table, stopping terror attacks as an issue.
This strategy may not work if individual terror attacks kill too many people like in Nov 2008, and when such a big attack occurs, Indian Govt cannot call it a local attack and get away with it.

In 2008 there was direct evidence gathered during the attacks (monitored cellphone conversations with handlers) that gave a direct link to Pakistan. It was not as if they had to blame Pakistan because it was a big attack.

When 75 men and 100 passengers were killed in two Naxal attacks - Pakistan was not blamed directly just because the attack was big.

But I agree with you on the reason for the hurry in declaring that India had no leads pointing at Pakistan. I personally suspect that Pasha's visit to the US and this attack were timed to happen together - and India blaming Pakistan would have been used to get the US to give military aid. Admitting a Pakistan connection in the Mumbai attack would have got Pasha into trouble. Hence not a chirp from the bombers. But if there was evidence pointing to Pakistan - like a claim from some group then the GoI would not have been able to hide it. After all when a group wants to claim responsibility they won't whisper in MMS's ear and hope he squeaks. they will send the claim to a media group.

But clearly there are operatives ready and waiting in places like Mumbai to perpetrate such acts. This is not an ISI success. It is an Indian failure. Mumbai's governance failures show up there.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2011 07:13

Why my father hated India
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 08294.html

The reversal in the fortunes of the two countries—India's sudden prosperity and cultural power, seen next to the calamity of Muhammad Iqbal's unrealized utopia—is what explains the bitterness of my father's tweet just days before he died. It captures the rage of being forced to reject a culture of which you feel effortlessly a part—a culture that Pakistanis, via Bollywood, experience daily in their homes.

This rage is what makes it impossible to reduce Pakistan's obsession with India to matters of security or a land dispute in Kashmir. It can heal only when the wounds of 1947 are healed. And it should provoke no triumphalism in India, for behind the bluster and the bravado, there is arid pain and sadness.

..read it all at the link.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2011 07:25

Cross post OT in the other forum

Shrinivasan wrote:
shiv wrote: So India being one up on Pakistan gives more pleasure. That sure sets a high bar to cross for Indians.
To me it indicates Indian mediocrity- like finding a half used packet of ketchup along with a partially eaten pizza in the garbage bin and expressing joy at the added treat
Dr. Shiv your cynicism is surprising...I don't exactly understand the collective gushing from our fellow rakshaks which seem to go on and on... but at the same time your cynicism today is just not you...

No this is me alright.

Indians see barbs such as the one below and actually feel hurt and tend to respond with "We are better than Pakistan". As India leaves that country well behind Indians have to learn not to constantly feel good about themselves by comparing with Pakistan. That is such a low bar that we did not even have to cross it - we were always ahead. We did not believe it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 08294.html

JULY 16, 2011
Why My Father Hated India
Aatish Taseer
"Ten days before he was assassinated in January, my father, Salman Taseer, sent out a tweet about an Indian rocket that had come down over the Bay of Bengal: "Why does India make fools of themselves messing in space technology? Stick 2 bollywood my advice."

Pakistanis mock. Indians react. Pakistanis hold the initiative. They will always mock. Indians will always react with anger or triumph. It angers me to see my countrymen with such a low opinion of their own people that they have to take pleasure from looking better than Pakistan and saying that makes them happy. I mean - seriously? How low is our self esteem?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Jul 2011 07:28

Vivek_A wrote: If it weren't for the NYT "psyops", MMS would have taken decisive action.
Right...

I don't think anyone implied that. Pure bliss if you don't jump to conclusions.
By the way, why this great takleef?

Anantha · Post by **Anantha** » 16 Jul 2011 07:28

shiv wrote:
Anantha wrote:If India does not give credit to Pakistan for the current blasts then in a larger sense what leverage does Pakistan have on India.
Unless Pakistan claims it does periodic blasts in India and they will stop it if there is movement on Cashmere, it loses all leverage. kaddu Hajam Jinnah said in Oct 47, I can stop the Cashmere raiders with one phone call (proving he sent the irregulars)
India can always claim that there are indigenous groups and we are trying to improve the security situation. In a Cashmere chai biscuit session Pakis cannot bring to the table, stopping terror attacks as an issue.
This strategy may not work if individual terror attacks kill too many people like in Nov 2008, and when such a big attack occurs, Indian Govt cannot call it a local attack and get away with it.
In 2008 there was direct evidence gathered during the attacks (monitored cellphone conversations with handlers) that gave a direct link to Pakistan. It was not as if they had to blame Pakistan because it was a big attack.

When 75 men and 100 passengers were killed in two Naxal attacks - Pakistan was not blamed directly just because the attack was big.
After all when a group wants to claim responsibility they won't whisper in MMS's ear and hope he squeaks. they will send the claim to a media group.

But clearly there are operatives ready and waiting in places like Mumbai to perpetrate such acts. This is not an ISI success. It is an Indian failure. Mumbai's governance failures show up there.

If a group from India claims responsibility then Pakis have no locus standi in any discussion
If a group from pakiland claims responsibility to gain leverage then Pak stands guilty and will be nuded in public (not that TSP is fully dressed now).

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 16 Jul 2011 07:34

Indian advance in science and technology cannot and should not be compared to the Pakis. They are a product of our own hard work and value system and is an example of something that cannot be bought by blackmailing the rest of the world by holding a gun to one's own head.

Pakis might have the Bin Qassim missile, itself a green painted version of Chon Quing-24AM (developed by the 4th northern institute of 5th people's province) itself a one to one copy of some Russian Missile, but cannot boast of one institution like the ISRO built up by the sweat of the likes of this man on a bicycle, doing what he does because of the love of science and the sense of purpose and duty:

What we can instead do, is to lampoon the Pakis of their 1 TFTA=8 SDRE theories (which saw them openly GUPO'ed in 65, 71, 98 and stealth GUPO'ed as recently as May 2nd of this year). Every time that happens, I am all smug and happy. Even sometimes boast of the foresight of the leaders past not selling out the nation for some greenbacks.

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 16 Jul 2011 07:35

so, what is the diff between indian-paki and a paki-paki?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jul 2011 07:46

^^^
Shiv the answer lies in the article you posted.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 08294.html
Pakistan's existential confusion made itself apparent in the political turmoil of the decades after partition. The state failed to perform a single legal transfer of power; coups were commonplace. And yet, in 1980, my father would still have felt that the partition had not been a mistake, for one critical reason: India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.

Economics was one of the reason that made India to compare itself to Pakistan in the past.

Now.
But in the early 1990s, a reversal began to occur in the fortunes of the two countries. The advantage that Pakistan had seemed to enjoy in the years after independence evaporated, as it became clear that the quest to rid itself of its Indian identity had come at a price: the emergence of a new and dangerous brand of Islam.

As India rose, thanks to economic liberalization, Pakistan withered. The country that had begun as a poet's utopia was reduced to ruin and insolvency.

Now how long this comparisons will last. Not long Shiv. This is the transition state of India. Earlier it was desperation to compare with Pakistan and say we are equal equal onlee. Today it's the mocking state/triumph state, that we are victorious and you're losers kind of comparison for the Indians (Pakistanis are at a loss here, they cannot do anything now). A kind of satisfaction for the Indian. Will this comparison with Pakistan last long? No. May be as a form of mocking the Pakistanis. But Indians will keep least interested in Pakistan except the security angle and the terror threats.

Now how long the second state of mocking Pakistan last, until we have statistics to compare our self with the Chinese or the U.S. Comparison with China, U.S is good because it's going to set higher targets for us that we'll try to achieve like how the Chinese were obsessed with the U.S during their rise.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 16 Jul 2011 08:11

jrjrao wrote:India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.
. . .
As India rose, thanks to economic liberalization, Pakistan withered. The country that had begun as a poet's utopia was reduced to ruin and insolvency.
WSJ Link

Of course, I appreciate Atish Taseer's excellent article.

With respect to the above, however, it has to be remembered that the apparent affluence of Pakistan in the pre-1990s was a mirage. Better cars and better roads are not true barometers of the economy. Whatever we may accuse Indian leaders of that era, no one can deny that they were laying a solid foundation in agriculture, industrialization, scientific research, basic and higher education, cultural progress etc. These were the very areas that Pakistan neglected. India wanted to be self-reliant (and that made progress painfully slow for us but we got many of the things right in the end) while Pakistan lived on borrowed money and borrowed time. Funds were frittered away in raising 5½ divisions of the Army unnecessarily, and in generally providing a flashy lifestyle for the 22 families. Because of the stranglehold of the feudal, there was no land reform. Because of the single-minded obsession with India, the leaders pledged their country to different pawn-shops. Right from the very inception of the Muslim League, it was not much bothered about an economic vision for the country (or the areas) that it was demanding and that naturally showed after their Independence. The generous American funds were used for the armed forces and doing a cosmetic make-up for the country rather than in fundamental economic business of the country. Naturally, India appeared to be chronically a basket-case on the surface while Pakistan appeared to be a role-model.

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 16 Jul 2011 08:15

Not exactly sure if this was posted before.
Pakistan's Prime Minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani, has ordered an inquiry into the killing - on camera - of a young man by paramilitaries.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e72_1307648431

NSFW extremely graphic.

My first observation was how the older "Ranger" was startled when he heard shots, so much so that he almost lost his own weapon and then immediately checked the safety on his handgun. Pakis killing pakis, nothing much to write home about.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Jul 2011 08:24

uddu wrote: Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.

Economics was one of the reason that made India to compare itself to Pakistan in the past.

uddu - this itself is complete nonsense. Pakistan was economically worse off than India. The RAPE built beautiful areas for themselves (using American aid) and claimed that all of Pakistan was better and naive Indians believed that. Claiming that whole of Pakistan as better was like looking at Ambanis mansion in Mumbai and saying that everyone lives like that in Mumbai.

India and Indians accepted that they had problems to solve and tried to solve them, looking lousy along the way. Pakis pretended that all was well and did nothing to solve problems and stagnated.

It is NOT as if Pakistan was economically better off. Apart from the RAPE claims that you have believed there i no evidence to suggest that Pakistan's wealth was any more than a single Ambani mansion standing in a huge slum.

..ahh - Sridhar has already said what I said - and better than me.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jul 2011 09:00

By the Topi of Jinnah, this guy has studied Paki breed like us.

Sleeping with the Enemy:
Pakistan’s Military Industrial Complex and Existential Crises of National Identity
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journa ... istian.pdf
The military and its industrial complex

The final element in Pakistan’s caustic national brew is the structure and nature of Pakistan’s military industrial complex, a wholly owned subsidiary of that country‘s British trained officer corps. With vast land and industrial holdings in their Punjabi homeland as well as in the occupied territories of the Baluchi and Pashto peoples, the Punjabi military social order is perhaps the single most powerful and cohesive organization in Pakistan and few outside that order fully comprehend its true size and nature (International Crises Group, 2003). These areas are the heartland of the 40 million strong Pashto tribal federation which straddles the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan. With the majority of the Pashto nation living on the Pakistan side of the divided tribe, any solution to Afghanistan’s conflict will necessarily require Pakistan to stabilize itself internally as a precondition to stabilizing its external relations with Afghanistan, India, and Iran.
The natural identity differentiation between Indian society and the austere Pashto-Baluchi peoples actually helps to fuel the identity crises of the Punjab, Sindh and Mujahir. The southern groups share deep similarities with India’s culture including genealogy, language, caste and sociological psychological structures. The very intensity with which Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims decry caste society provides an indication of its enduring strength in Pakistani society despite nominal Islamic rejections of such un-egalitarian institutions. The northern groups share little, if any similarities with Indian society. Pashto and Baluchi society is a geologically and geographically austere life cycle amply rooted in the psycho-sociological structures of early Islam. Highly patriarchic in nature, there is little friction between them, so different are they in markers of identity and historical narrative.It is not surprising that the Punjabi based military and Punjab-Sindh-Mujahir dominated governing elite are battling social insurgencies in both Baluchistan and the NWFP/FATA home of the Pashto tribal federation. The stark differences between Pashto and Baluchi with Indian do not create competition in any important physical or psychological forum, and since they are in separate political states, there is simple indifference between them of the existence of one to the other. The difference between northern Pakistanis and India’s identity is not lost on either themselves or on southern Pakistanis. In a social psychological process called meta-contrast (Tajfel, 1982), the very sharp differences in identity expression that southern Pakistanis’ perceive relative to their northern Pakistani neighbors creates a crises of insufficient identity definition with their Indian neighbors to the south.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jul 2011 09:05

From the same link

Behind support and mentoring of the emergent Islamic parties of Pakistan and their spread throughout Pakistani society via their ubiquitous madrassas; behind the pandering of the Pashto tribal elites as an effective methodology to prevent them from developing their own nationalist ideologies of autonomy; behind the manipulative suppression of Punjab and SIndh’s secular mainstream by the use of identity, religion and economic pandering; behind the brutal suppression of Balochistan’s secular nationalism and the exploitation of its massive natural resource base; behind the creation and employment of the Taliban movement and army operating in Afghanistan lies the actions and power of the Pakistani Military and their subsidiary industrial complex. Such a powerful complex holds the economic and industrial development of Pakistan hostage to its own survival and will not willingly give up its power, position and legacy without a fight. As the existential crises of Pakistan mounts, the ability of the military to keep the warring segments together without a unifying ideology will become impossible. When this happens, according to Abdul Sattar Ehdi, the people of Pakistan “shall rise like mad men and pull down these walls that keep their future captive. Mark my words and heed them before you find yourselves the prey instead of the predator" (Osborne, 2011). If this is what lies in store for the Pakistani military industrial complex, perhaps US policy might be well served to refrain from becoming too close lest they be pulled down with them.

( every sane person coming to the same conclusion about insane Pakis)

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 16 Jul 2011 09:10

Manny wrote:
jrjrao wrote:Lovely. In the WSJ:

Why My Father Hated India
Aatish Taseer, the son of an assassinated Pakistani leader, explains the history and hysteria behind a deadly relationship
By AATISH TASEER

Pakistan's existential confusion made itself apparent in the political turmoil of the decades after partition. The state failed to perform a single legal transfer of power; coups were commonplace. And yet, in 1980, my father would still have felt that the partition had not been a mistake, for one critical reason: India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.

WSJ Link
Nice article... But underlying in that article is the fact, that the lefti socialistic culture of India is worse than Islamist culture.

It was the event of the near bankruptcy the lefties brought to India in 1992 and the IMF's putting the gun to then Finance minister MM Singh's head that liberated India.

This guy is Tavleen Singh's son.

Jarita · Post by **Jarita** » 16 Jul 2011 09:39

Write-up in politicsparty.

The most interesting lines are

"The Pakistani army bosses and their bosses of US & China amass millions through sale of narcotics"

http://politicsparty.com/MUMBAI_TERROR.php

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Jul 2011 09:48

Military aid to Pakistan to be released soon: US
http://pn.com.pk/details_en.php?nid=19913

WASHINGTON D.C. The US has vowed to issue military aid to Pakistan soon.
According to the sources, $800 million aid was due to Pakistan. Now the aid has been divided into two parts, $300 million in terms of logistic will be released immediately, while $500 million for training and weapons will be provided soon.The signal of issuance of aid has been given during ISI Chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s visit to the US.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Jul 2011 09:55

Manny wrote: Nice article... But underlying in that article is the fact, that the lefti socialistic culture of India is worse than Islamist culture.

It was the event of the near bankruptcy the lefties brought to India in 1992 and the IMF's putting the gun to then Finance minister MM Singh's head that liberated India.

I wonder. Leftist socialist India had some basis on which liberalization worked. Whether you take Pakistan to have liberalized already or yet to liberalize, it is hard to see what foundation they have to build anything.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jul 2011 10:00

Anujan Wrote:

What we can instead do, is to lampoon the Pakis of their 1 TFTA=8 SDRE theories (which saw them openly GUPO'ed in 65, 71, 98 and stealth GUPO'ed as recently as May 2nd of this year). Every time that happens, I am all smug and happy. Even sometimes boast of the foresight of the leaders past not selling out the nation for some greenbacks.

There was a fabulous program by AIR during the 1965 war and it was called "Radio Jhootistan". Hilarious skits lampooning the Pakis.

Alas, I have had no luck in locating recordings of this from AIR archives. But if you guys get to listen to it. It was hilarious!

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 16 Jul 2011 10:07

Shiv, it's all about perception how the people believe certain things based on what they hear and read. Now how can an Indian verify it? its through statistical comparison. Not indepth details but what's seen above. So that created a kind of equal equal for a longer period of time. Whether Pakis borrowed money or got Bakseesh military toys, never mattered.
Why do you thing even the great Amrikhan believes that, the Pakis are better and need to be fed while the Chinese are their enemies. It's the Pakis who are the ones killing Americians and causing harm to America? But still they are an ally and not an enemy. It's all about perception. Now whether the U.S govt wants this loser attitude and want to be losers, it's upto them and they may be party to such attempts to make people believe Pakistan and U.S are chaddi dosts. How well the Pakis are able to project themselves like pufferfish do. While the others dont' understand or is still not ready to act for their own good (especially the govt and policy makers, decision makers).
But with the ability of ordinary people to contribute through the internet has created a counter to the media aspects (which always look at the law book first for good or bad over whether the act is good or bad) of perception. It's now more equal equal only in the Media sphere. The good and bad fighting it out. Has the perception changed at the people's level? It has in the world that's open (like India, America). People do know what's happening. Now in Pakistan has it changed. It has not and it will not. Even if they know they have to deny it or their minds will not accept it. It's unacceptable facts for them. So the Pakis will keep rejoicing at anything that goes wrong with India and will claim victory and how bad it's for a Paki when India succeeds? Like the successful launch of PSLV must have done to them. The more the hate towards Indians and infidels, the more hurt its going to cause at the success of the same infidels. This perception is more to affect the older generation. Especially to think negatively about India. Not saying all oldies. BUt the naysayers are more old people.
http://www.economist.com/node/18929279
"A bearded man down the road says his party-decoration business is booming. Behind the till of a shop selling top-ups for mobile phones and stationery for the nearby school, a man in a skull cap says life has undoubtedly improved, although his 82-year-old father, sitting in a deckchair, complains that everything went to the dogs when the British left."
This perception of India has not improved for this old man because he believes administration was far better when the British afsar was there. He reads or hears and accepts that there is so much of corruption and loot now. How he must have known about the British loot of India. No way he can.
Also there is lot of aspirations today and there is lot of hope today, that things will be better in the future especially among the younger generation. And they are well informed as well about the world and can judge better.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jul 2011 10:11

SSridhar wrote:
jrjrao wrote:India, for all its democracy and pluralism, was an economic disaster.

Pakistan had better roads, better cars; Pakistani businesses were thriving; its citizens could take foreign currency abroad. Compared with starving, socialist India, they were on much surer ground. So what if India had democracy? It had brought nothing but drought and famine.
. . .
As India rose, thanks to economic liberalization, Pakistan withered. The country that had begun as a poet's utopia was reduced to ruin and insolvency.
WSJ Link
Of course, I appreciate Atish Taseer's excellent article.

With respect to the above, however, it has to be remembered that the apparent affluence of Pakistan in the pre-1990s was a mirage. Better cars and better roads are not true barometers of the economy. Whatever we may accuse Indian leaders of that era, no one can deny that they were laying a solid foundation in agriculture, industrialization, scientific research, basic and higher education, cultural progress etc. These were the very areas that Pakistan neglected. India wanted to be self-reliant (and that made progress painfully slow for us but we got many of the things right in the end) while Pakistan lived on borrowed money and borrowed time. Funds were frittered away in raising 5½ divisions of the Army unnecessarily, and in generally providing a flashy lifestyle for the 22 families. Because of the stranglehold of the feudal, there was no land reform. Because of the single-minded obsession with India, the leaders pledged their country to different pawn-shops. Right from the very inception of the Muslim League, it was not much bothered about an economic vision for the country (or the areas) that it was demanding and that naturally showed after their Independence. The generous American funds were used for the armed forces and doing a cosmetic make-up for the country rather than in fundamental economic business of the country. Naturally, India appeared to be chronically a basket-case on the surface while Pakistan appeared to be a role-model.

Add to that what Shiv said in a later post.

And the fact that Pakistan was also a route for drugs being shipped out of Pakistan.

I do believe, personally, that socialism, in the initial stages helped us build an industrial base. In the same breath, that socialism outlived its purpose in the 70's and we had to wait till the 90's for the death of the license raj.

But the replacement of the license raj with its corruption has been accomplished with the drawbacks of rampant, unchecked corruption on a mind boggling scale. Without the rampant corruption, we would be in a much stronger position today; economically, militarily and security wise.

rajanb · Post by **rajanb** » 16 Jul 2011 10:15

Prem wrote:Military aid to Pakistan to be released soon: US
http://pn.com.pk/details_en.php?nid=19913
WASHINGTON D.C. The US has vowed to issue military aid to Pakistan soon.
According to the sources, $800 million aid was due to Pakistan. Now the aid has been divided into two parts, $300 million in terms of logistic will be released immediately, while $500 million for training and weapons will be provided soon.The signal of issuance of aid has been given during ISI Chief Ahmad Shuja Pasha’s visit to the US.

The US back to mothering its munna and changing its diapers and giving it toys.

g.sarkar · Post by **g.sarkar** » 16 Jul 2011 10:25

http://www.economist.com/node/18959707? ... d=18959707
Pakistan and America
In a sulk
Relations grow yet worse between Pakistan and the superpower
Jul 14th 2011 | ISLAMABAD | from the print edition
"EVEN at the best of times it would have seemed unusual for America’s embassy in Islamabad to organise its recent gathering for “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender” people. Given the grim state of bilateral relations, the meeting looked downright provocative. Some in Pakistan’s religiously conservative society promptly accused America of conspiring to attack them by spreading outrageously liberal sexual views. One Islamic political party called it “cultural terrorism”.
Though the United States remains, by far, Pakistan’s biggest financial benefactor, it is reviled among Pakistanis, many of whom genuinely believe that Americans are set on their country’s destruction. What little trust existed before the killing in May, by American special forces, of Osama bin Laden, is disappearing fast. The Americans gave Pakistan no warning; Pakistanis, especially the armed forces, felt humiliated. On July 12th Pakistan’s spy chief went to Washington, DC, for the first time since Bin Laden’s death.
There is plenty to discuss. At the weekend America said it would suspend $800m in military aid, around a third of the total it planned to dish out this year, citing a lack of co-operation by Pakistan in fighting extremists. India cheered, but grumbles echoed in Islamabad. The defence minister, Ahmad Mukhtar, said Pakistani soldiers might be pulled from guarding the Afghan border. One hopes he did not speak for the real power in the land, General Ashfaq Kayani, the armed-forces chief. The idea is desperate: removing such troops would be a boost to insurgents who threaten Pakistan and Afghanistan alike.
In any case, the situation in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state of 180m people, looks dire. Its rotten economy, broken legal system, Islamist insurgency, and street warfare among ethnic gangs in its main business centre, Karachi, are topped off by politicians widely derided as clowns. The army, still supreme but with its public image tarnished, is sunk in gloom: bitter over Bin Laden’s death, and over CIA agents who roamed across cities without the oversight of local intelligence officers. A risk now is that Pakistan’s huffy leaders drag their country into isolation......"
Gautam

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 16 Jul 2011 12:57

shiv wrote:Cross post OT in the other forum
Pakistanis mock. Indians react. Pakistanis hold the initiative. They will always mock. Indians will always react with anger or triumph. It angers me to see my countrymen with such a low opinion of their own people that they have to take pleasure from looking better than Pakistan and saying that makes them happy. I mean - seriously? How low is our self esteem?

I perfectly understand your reaction to the reaction to the Pakee's reaction to PSLV launch... but I did not understand your vehemence.. i figured it is a combination of factors... leaving that aside...
SDREs always want to be right, even when they are not... so they need to retort, respond to anything... they don't to let go of any opportunity to hit back, to defend their turf etc... like a game of Khabadi... only there is not raiding here only defence... i think it is more cultural. I have seen Jews of Irish just taking a mild jab across a dinner table or over drinks as a mild banter and move on.. SDREs have to defend, give it back or explain it... they lose the whole point of the joke and turn it into a political discourse on all sides... eventually end up as very bad dinner/drinks companions... Chillaks...

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 16 Jul 2011 13:08

^^^ Ncube-garu's bojitive noose thread was a stalwart effort in the direction of seizing initiative and keeping the focus relentlessly on porki absurdity only. More such is needed. Who cares what timbuckthoo denizens think about India. Similarly, ignore what pakis think or say and keep the focus on their comedy circus going only.