Managing Pakistan's failure

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Feb 2012 21:18

Lalmohan wrote:rajesh - i think your proposed model was effectively how the chinese of the ming period viewed the outside world. their self belief in their own superiority and the inherent barbarianess of all outsiders - including the newly emerging white powers was fundamental. the only problem was that they turned inwards rather than maintain a strong outward posture, which led to their own demise and the colonialisation of china

Isolationism is something that is simply not possible today! No we will have to be out there in the world, right at the front of everything!

Actually in India, the attitude is already present. We have had thousands of years of experience with arrogance and feeling of superiority that arises in one "upper-caste" jaati towards the other "lower-caste" jaati, say arising from Brahmins and Rajputs, etc. In today's world that model of "arrogance and feeling of superiority" is useless and in fact counterproductive because it is directed inwards. We would have to finish off jaati bhed-bhav, instill this quality in ALL jaatis, and then project all that outwards! That means we would have to develop a system of very high level of respect for any individual if he is from the Indian Civilization, and lesser respect for any who isn't!

Being Indian should be the last word on RESPECT!

West knows exactly how to play this up. If any one of its citizens gets caught in some "turd world" country, the Western country would move all levers of diplomatic and political pressure to get them released. Israel let go 1000 Palestinian prisoners in order to secure the release of one Gilad Shalit!

We Indians still have not even started understanding the dynamics of Superiority in the international community. Till now, most of our elite have been satisfied with showing how good we integrate with the West, how good our English is, how little problems we have with Western culture, how much we actually enjoy it, criticizing India and Indians, and basically pulling down other Indians in front of Westerners, showing other Indians little respect! That is fastest way to NO RESPECT!

Respect has to be gained together, as a whole Civilization, by respecting every member of that Civilization.

So every time we give priority to an Indic over a Westerner, we put another brick in the edifice our SUPERIORITY!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Feb 2012 21:40

Carl wrote:They see things through Biblical eyes - Abraham's two lineages, one through his wedded (supposedly white) wife, the other son of mongrel race through Abe's slave girl, etc.

Carl ji,

that is why we should welcome all arguments which try to dismantle Islam's right to Abrahamic inheritance - both as Ishmael's claim to being part of God Covenant with Abraham, as well as the validity of Muhammad's genealogical lineage to Ishmael, Muhammad being from Southern Arabia.

The more Islam sees it not getting its due, and the more attacks there are on Muhammad's claim to Prophethood, the more would be the anger in Islam against White Christianity. Jerusalem is one aspect of it!

So I would go so far as to say that Hindus should simply accept the view of White Christianity, that God's Covenant to Abraham is valid only through his line of Isaac and Jacob and finally through Jesus himself. Secondly we should also concur with the Tohra view that Ishmael never visited Mecca or built the Kaaba with his father Abraham.

In fact these two issues should become standard staple of Hindu view of Semitic religions. We should stop calling Islam an Abrahamic religion, but rather consider it simply as the cult of Muhammad - as Mohammedism.

Now why is all this important?

It is important, because it turns Islam more and more against the Jews and White Christians and less so towards the Polytheists of Hindustan! The more Islam's claims are ignored because of the overwhelming international strength of the Judeo-White-Christian coalition, the more would Islam's ire be towards them.

It is when we take a line on this vital issue to Islam, that we would also become brokers of Islam's claims. Then Islam would want to have us to agree to their view of this issue, thus giving us the option of being a middleman, a jury!

I think it is time for Hindus also to come out our defensive position about Kafir not-Kafir issues and mess around with Abrahamic Dogma.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Feb 2012 21:51

RajeshA, Capitalising the other's symbols implies acceptance.
So use lower case alphabets.
BTW, Christianity is reform Judaism madeover in the Greco-Roman way to transfer the 'covenant' and seek divine power behind the Imperial idea.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Feb 2012 21:55

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Capitalising the other's symbols implies acceptance.

But I am giving my acceptance to those categories/symbols, with the difference that it is being done according to different criteria!

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 21 Feb 2012 23:28

RajeshA
Stealing again!! How did you hack into my thinking system?

Poaqs are dumb to live on Arabian crumb by discarding Indic Amb. The idea of dumbness and inferiority must penetrate deep into their subconscious, only then we will see the change we want.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 21 Feb 2012 23:36

We Indians still have not even started understanding the dynamics of Superiority in the international community. Till now, most of our elite have been satisfied with showing how good we integrate with the West, how good our English is, how little problems we have with Western culture, how much we actually enjoy it, criticizing India and Indians, and basically pulling down other Indians in front of Westerners, showing other Indians little respect! That is fastest way to NO RESPECT!

A culture has complex and ancient has India is a lot like the Mahabharata: that which is not in it is not to be found in the world.

One may chose, like Pakistanis, to admire lighter skinned Pakhtoons and when they wish to improve their breed, they copulate with an aane-jaane wallah Pathan (literally). Or you may chose to give expression to the pre-existing meme that the Pathan was never so happy as when sucking Sikh k0ck.

Of course they consider Sikhs as the shock troops of Dharma.

There are many unsavoury memes afloat in the Indian wind. It is social engineering that prunes these memes. That is all.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2012 00:04

Our main target and aim is not to give a new boost to the longevity and identity of Pakistan. Our main aim is to deconstruct the artificial Islamic state of Pakistan. We need to bring in dissension within the state and society of Pakistan. I still don't understand why we should spend efforts at unifiying Pakis against the USA.

If the piskological long term strategic vision is that if the Pakis unify against USA and "white christianity", then USA will hit back and chew Pakis up - its a wonderful romantic vision, but a total failure to read the way US ruling circles minds work. We often depict Pakis as the whore to the Anglo-Saxon - but equally, USA too virtually plays the whore - maybe a high class call-girl or escort service, and different from the randi-markets of Lahore or Karachi - but essentially the same mindset. As long as Paki's remain pretenders to haters of Kaffir Hinduism, and ready to cause takleef to India - the US whore will sleep with the Paki elite pretender.

If the Paki hatred is to be directed against the white-christian - Pakis either have to develop pride in their dark identity, or sharpen their Islamic hatred of christianity. Given the rampant hold of the Dawaists - which one do you think Pakis are more likely to choose? Along the religious divide - and amply manifested on the ground. If one does not think of the consequences of a brilliant one step, into the second or third consequences - then one acts the utimate fool. By doing the above, we help consolidate the Dawaist hold on the population.

The only gap I can see is the possibility of using Paki common's hatred of US [which is spreading and pretty substantial] against its own ruling classes as siding with the US. But I will warn of the danger - that it will, at this stage of Islamic consolidation - only strengthen the Dawaist networks.

Emotion is good. Hatred against long term vicious enemies is good. But we need to cool it down to the point that the hot,molten metal is effective as a cold steel blade. Think comprehensively, please.

As for extremism of the Islamic variety - yes, there is much more to be worried about internally about the same genre. There is no need to be scared about it, because it is inevitable, and past the point of containment. If increasing concessions, virtually in territory terms, or disproportionate representation in social surplus, or protected disproportionate political power - are not given to the civilian legit face of Islamism - then the other side will be activated, so that the non-legit manifestation can be used as bargaining point for further civilian concessions. ["If you don't give the jizyia, we cannot prevent extremism and cannot guarantee protection from our violents"].

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2012 02:48

Shiv ji,

I am wracking by brain for where I read this, but during the Mughal invasion of the Deccan under Aurangzeb, there was a chieftain in Karnataka who repeatedly thwarted Mughal attempts to crush his independence. Eventually, they made peace with him and gave him a "place" in the Mughal Durbar. once, when he visited Aurangzeb's court, he was humiliated and openly insulted in the Durbar by the Persian and Afghan contingents in the Mughal court for his dark skin. the official record is that 3 weeks after he got to the court, he died. one theory is the foreign Islamic elites were jealous that an "ugly black skinned Dhakkani" made it to the inner court of A'zeb.

in the Mughal invasion of Deccan, there are many such examples. the racism displayed by the Turko-Afghan-Persian elements in Mughal court stands out very distinctly. and this behavior was even imitated by some elites of the Hindu contingents which accompanied the Mughals. look at how Jai Singh brazenly talked about Shivaji as a "low class ugly".

My take is that Pakjabi racism and the racism of certain elite sections of Hindus developed under Islamic regimes. by the time the British arrived, these prejudices were very visible. in India, the looking down on "low class dark skins" started under Islamic regimes. that is the truth!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2012 05:50

I do feel seriously bad at blurting out the prostitute analogy. My apologies to the real women who ply the profession. My sincerest apologies to them - for I have known many of them not deserving degrading by comparing with US or Paki elite. Forgive me, mothers and sisters.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 06:47

The biggest error that I see being committed is the idea that Pakistanis are "united" in any way. As long as you imagine that Pakistan is "whole" and "united" you will believe that a thought that occurs to Paki Abdul will be exactly echoed by Paki Ahmed.

Pakistanis are, along with Indians considered inferior to Americans. Elite Pakistanis are allied with those Americans. This caused no particular reaction in Pakistan for decades. Now, in the last few years true American attitudes about Pakis are becoming apparent to some Pakistanis. This must be encouraged. It is not clear to me how the encouragement of dissent and the widening of a nearly non existent (or previously invisible) split in Pakistani thought processes constitutes a "unification of Pakistanis against America?". How can anyone arrive at such a conclusion?

I think India has everything to gain by exploiting any split between America and Pakistan. It is plain blindness to see that islam (ideology) without weapons is nothing. It is OK to be ideologically against Islam, but blind opposition and blind hate to the extent that one actually fails to notice how the US has strengthened that Paki Islamists against us is a serious Indian cognitive failing. I have theorised that this is a fundamental feeling of inferiority where Indians see themselves as lesser than America and Americans whose actions are above question and wholly right.

Right now on another thread one person has reacted to the proposed supply of 6 Orions to the Pakistan navy by the USA with the astounding statement "Don't blame the US, that is how the world works". This is exactly the attitude that my local Evangelist tells me to hold about God. You do not blame God but accept him. He makes the world work and he is the epitome of good. Accepting God's actions leads to mental peace and you put God on your side. I am astounded how people demand that the US should be treated akin to God. But we see the US like God - as a source of limitless power. We see ourselves on par with Pakistan, or even lower. So we need to deal with Pakistan, and not question ways in which God/USA helps Pakistan

It matters little if Islamic hatred of Hindu pre existed White Christian attitudes. The fact that both come to play against India in the form of Pakistan is ignored at our own peril. If your water supply is being poisoned from two sources, denying one of those sources and attempting to clean up only one source is bound to fail.

Our actual problem is bigger than Pakistan and our goal in my view should be more than just dominating Pakistan. Not too many people seem to have a goal beyond Pakistan and fewer still seem to see any issues that affect us beyond Pakistan and I am exhorted not to "complain" about the USA and I am told here that any split between the USA and Pakistan is an attempt to "unify Pakistanis" How?

I believe that Indian leaders civil and military have the same narrow and parochial outlook of hating Pakistan and admiring and making excuses for USA that we have on here. Why do we blame leaders for what we are? What the US seems to have done is to place the Indian and Pakistani elite in their pockets. If you control those who make policy, the rest can be ignored. That is what the Brits did too.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 07:29

We can expend ourselves fighting ideology, but the long term interests of the people of India will be to remove the land isolation of India and establish land routes with Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Iran and central Asia with access to mineral resources there and finished goods from India.

Pakistan, supported by the US against India stands in the way. The US is in Pakistan for exactly the same reasons - access to trade routes. The curious thing I have found on BRF in the past is how we discuss the US's strategic concerns in the region abut for India the discussion is around ideological issues. This reflects an overall strategic blindness among educated Indians which extends all the way from random anonymous BRFites at the low end to the media and strategic Indian commentators at the high end.

Indians who are exposed to American media and libraries are immediately exposed to American strategic thought and are almost instantly able to rattle off American strategic concerns and actions. It is not the fault of the Indian, it is the the greatness of American education and spread of gyan. No Indian is exposed to any strategic thought in India. ideological rhetoric is shrill but strategic concerns about India and how India is physically cut off from land routes in Asia by Pakistan gets no mention. All we talk about is Islam. And we are not even able to say how that Islam will affect India especially if Pakis had no American weapons.

Why blame the government and Indian strategists for lacking strategic vision. They were like us in the past, younger educated Indians. We are heading down that route - the route of strategic blindness.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2012 08:13

Focusing on America as the source of all evil manifested through Pakistan on India - is not a bad idea. In the process, forgetting or denying the possible role of theology in previously priming an elite towards colour based racism - which has been heightened and used by the Anglo-Saxon - is also passable. All acceptable as tactical demands - if, and a big if, if they really yield dividends and do not produce even greater problems down the line.

Why the need to equate criticism of the Islamic reality of the elite+Dawaist combine which dominates the Paki state - with - being brainwashed by American education and hence toeing the American strategic thought? In a strange way, that need seems uncannily similar to all polished Islamist apologists who demand that America is the great satan and dajjal combined, and that any criticism of Islamic shenanigans comes from the supposed yahudi+amreeki+yindoo combine.

If nothing else, at least we can now see clearly that the inferiority complex supposedly imposed on Indians by the external forces - might really be working at all possible levels. So much so that some of us cannot even concede that criticizing and pointing at the reality of the Islamist institutional hold complicating the Paki racism - in addition to Anglo-Saxon racism - can come from Indians thinking freely, and independently of any American prompting.

We simply cannot trust other Indians to be able to come to conclusions on their own. I am positive that Shivji has come to his conclusions after interacting with American strategic thought face to face, and Paki racism face to face, dabbled in the reality of institutional Islamism on the subcontinent, and faced up to Anglo-Saxon alliance with Pakis.

I only request that he allows others who differ from his line of thought as also having come to their conclusions from similar actual interactions.

I as a person grew up in an atmosphere highly favourable and sympathetic to the Islamic, spent my early youth in pseudo-secular politics, actively carried out organizational work in the densest possible Islamic strongholds, and faced up to the maulanas. I have since then faced American strategic thought bombardment, faced Anglo-Saxon strategic thought bombardment, and my impressions and estimate on the ruling elite mindset of both is openly expressed on many threads. So I am not that much swayed by the argument of supposed likelihood of colour-based racism as a turn around in Paki-US relations. I have been interacting with subcontinental Islamics for the last 30 years - and I started as a boy.

All I am saying is that we need to look at the institutional hold of Islamic leadership on the population with the help of the Paki state, and mere colour-based racism may not be the easiest way to get the Paki aam against the Americans. They are in general quite anti-American now - but based on a very strong religious feeling and identity, and not on colour-based antipathy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 08:57

brihaspati wrote:So I am not that much swayed by the argument of supposed likelihood of colour-based racism as a turn around in Paki-US relations.

It is color-religion. White Christian. White AND Christian. Not just white. Not just Christian. The color-religion aspect was what justified imperial colonies. Christianity in its purest form was given by God to the purest and most supreme people.

The Christian part should be made to matter to Pakistanis. It would be sheer blindness if this cannot be exploited. It is amazing how we are so clearly able to perceive Islam in all its bloody hues but turn all secular and forgiving when it comes to the history of White Christian racism and how that has morphed into the current world order.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 22 Feb 2012 09:12

^^^ There is both conflict and cooperation, competition and collaboration. The need to hold two opposing ideas in the head - the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function - is an essential ability. Also, a sustainable future requires equality, not supremacy nor inferiority.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Feb 2012 09:25

shivji,
I have all along agreed to the reality of religion-based hatred of the Americans bythe aam Paki. But again, as pointed out before - under current status, the sharpening of the anti-Americansim will happen on increasing anti-Christian hatred. But the controllers of Paki thought - which happen to be firmly Islamic leadership - cannot allow any consciousness of commonality to grow that overlaps with the Hindu and the Indian. Colour racism and ethnic exclusivity will be heightened and sharpened as religiosity increases - even if to counter US.

The more intense the hatred of the Pakis for the Americans - greater will be their psychological need to differentiate themselves from Yindoos. More in the elite of course - and not homogenoeusly within the populations - but that will be the general trend.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 22 Feb 2012 11:10

devesh wrote:^^^
does Islam also fit with the "destroyed civilizations invading and colonizing different places" or is it excluded?

and what "past" do you think we "darker races" are fighting over? that's a vague term. I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by that, so I'll wait to hear it from your before I comment on it.

for me, the above two issues just jumped out from your post.

Islam was definitely an imperial force guilty of the same crimes just like European colonial aggression, I would consider it a force dominated by lighter shades of brown intially imposing their will on similar colored people accross MENA region and Central Asia. It is much later that further in roads were made into a shade darker sub-saharan Africa or into the sub-continent or South East Asia. It made an effort to make foot holds in European mainland, but were beaten back and expelled eventually. Islamic expansion was similar to Spanish/Portuguese expansion, where the colonizers/invaders intermingled with locals - but all later European colonizers expressly avoided intermingling, after an initial "white Mughal" phase, when the idea of white supremacy got crystallized probably with help from "scientific racism".

I did not actually say we are fighting over any "past", my exact words were:

So while people in the white world are thinking about "Occupy movement" to unite the world (most probably the mostly white world) and create a sustainable planet free from greed and pollution, we the darker people are stuck in the past and fighting over nothing. These tid bits reinforces the picture and the model.

By that I meant that we are fighting over ideological differences, which may seem rather irrational and nonsensical and reinforce "white" feeling of superiority.

As for solving the Pakistan threat for India, I think shiv ji and others have identified sufficiently that Pakistan Army has been the key element that has misled Pakistan from the beginning. It has not only directly contributed to the break-up of Pakistan in 1971, because Pakjabi's would not allow people from East Bengal in the armed forces in sufficient numbers and would not allow East Bengal to take over the reign of the country using democracy and majority vote, after the break up, it has also worked with the US and KSA to use extremist ideology to counter the Soviet invasion, while on its own it has used these same elements in the Kashmir theater. Over the years, from incessant propaganda, the population has now become sufficiently radicalized and weaponized, so much so that the cancer of extremism is now threatening to change the essential character of Pakistan Army from within. And all this time, the main propaganda from Pakistan Army was that India is out to get them, take over Pakistan and break it into pieces.

Problem with relevant discussions and the general mood in BRF, if it truly reflects public opinion in India, is that it reinforces the above propaganda by Pakistan Army and helps their cause.

I think it will not help India and its people in the future if it tries to meddle in Pakistan's internal affairs as people in Pakistan, whether it survives as a state or not (I believe it will because of the "balancers"), will blame India for all their future misfortunes. By the same token, although OT, I should note that, overt support for Hasina and her Awami League, whose ability to lead is rather questionable (which also goes for Khaleda and her BNP), in Bangladesh, gives people in Bangladesh opportunity to blame India for its own problems.

Without any internal meddling, India can let Pakistan know firmly about its stand on Kashmir, but reassure Pakistan that India has no aggressive designs on Pakistan. Rather, like the rest of the "peace loving" people of the world, India would like to see democracy flourish in Pakistan and civilian elected govt. become supreme while role of Pakistan Army is sidelined, which is responsible for so much bad blood between people in the sub-continent. As a reward for a true flourishing of democracy, free from the corrosive influence of the Army, India can offer to open up trade with Pakistan in return.

Just like any future super power, India should work on increasing influence and I don't think it can be done by beating people up, even if they deserved a beating for their misdeeds. I believe India has the ability to neutralize this threat if it can come up with a workable plan and approach.

I present one such plan in a previous post, a roadmap for the future of the world, where people would like to form regional unions to protect their own interest. Unlike USA or China or Russia, who are all thinking rather short term, if India is confident about its future, it could take a bold step to lead by helping people to form these unions, so people of these regions remain eternal friends. That would be a way to build bridges and increase influence not just in the immediate neighborhood but all over the world, which the white man or yellow man has not yet figured out, it seems. I think there is a good window of opportunity, if one thinks about it.

Once there is a working mutual relationship, without interference from any balancers from near or far, and there is peace in Afghanistan, to open up roads, railways and pipe lines to Central Asia are only a matter of time. Afghanistan must be a joint project between Pakistan, India and perhaps Iran, if one wants to minimize influence of China or the West in this space, IMHO. And floating the idea of a Central Asian Union will definitely raise eye brows and make people stand up and notice, both in the east and the west.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2012 11:15

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote:So I am not that much swayed by the argument of supposed likelihood of colour-based racism as a turn around in Paki-US relations.
It is color-religion. White Christian. White AND Christian. Not just white. Not just Christian. The color-religion aspect was what justified imperial colonies. Christianity in its purest form was given by God to the purest and most supreme people.

The Christian part should be made to matter to Pakistanis. It would be sheer blindness if this cannot be exploited. It is amazing how we are so clearly able to perceive Islam in all its bloody hues but turn all secular and forgiving when it comes to the history of White Christian racism and how that has morphed into the current world order.

who is turning secular when it comes to Christianity? I have noticed this again and again. you impose some imagined ideas and views of yours on all others. why should India try to unite Pakis on the common plank of anti-Christian hatred? all that does is strengthen the theological hold of Islam on the population. it's like replacing one devil with the other and then wondering why we can't benefit from it!!!

considering that Pakjabi racism is one of the pillars of Paki ideology, perhaps the greatest pillar on which the very idea of Pakistan is founded, I don't see how Pakis will hate America based on "white" skin. they are delusional and think they were the invading Aryans who colonized the Dravidians. such is their degraded mentality. and they've made this as a pillar of their Pakistaniyat. the notion that they were the superior race who colonized the inferior Kaffir Hindu has become ingrained in them. with this background, their hatred against America will not be sourced from skin color but from religion. this necessarily means that the Mullahs and the Islamic networks have even more leverage on society and have a convenient excuse to entrench themselves further and increase their power.

Why should India do something that will increase the Islamic theological hold on Paki population?!?!

the Christianism and Islam both pose a threat to Sanatana Dharma b/c of their hatred for it. but any so called solution which ends up empowering the Islamists in the neighborhood or increasing the hold of Christianists in and around India will be detrimental to the country.

Let me ask a straight forward question: by allowing Islamic theological hold to increase on Paki population, how does that reduce the threat of either Islam or Christianism to India? it neither rolls back the power of Mullahs nor does it do anything to dent the fundamentalist fervor of the Christianists. in short, the entire idea is a useless waste of time, money, and other resources.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 14:17

devesh wrote:
shiv wrote: It is color-religion. White Christian. White AND Christian. Not just white. Not just Christian. The color-religion aspect was what justified imperial colonies. Christianity in its purest form was given by God to the purest and most supreme people.

The Christian part should be made to matter to Pakistanis. It would be sheer blindness if this cannot be exploited. It is amazing how we are so clearly able to perceive Islam in all its bloody hues but turn all secular and forgiving when it comes to the history of White Christian racism and how that has morphed into the current world order.
Let me ask a straight forward question: by allowing Islamic theological hold to increase on Paki population, how does that reduce the threat of either Islam or Christianism to India? it neither rolls back the power of Mullahs nor does it do anything to dent the fundamentalist fervor of the Christianists. in short, the entire idea is a useless waste of time, money, and other resources.

First, do you believe that Western colonial expansion and rule had nothing to do with a sense of White Christian superiority?
Do you believe that the racist accusations made by Pakistanis about Hindus are unknown to the US and the US supports Pakistan against India because Pakistan's cause is just.

Now about your straightforward question: What do you mean by "allowing Islamic theological hold to increase on Paki population,". Are you suggesting that Pakistan can become more Islamic? Are you under the impression that Pakistan is "somewhat secular" now, or perhaps "not fully Islamic" so that my machinations on here will "increase Islamic theological hold" over Pakistan?

Your answers to these questions can give me some indication as to whether you are "all secular" about the USA or not
Your sense of who is else is secular and who is not would give me a better idea of what you are talking about when you accuse me of saying things that you don't like to hear.

Finally, so what if Pakistan is engulfed in Islamic theology more than you like? Other than Packees kicking the US in the backside India will hardly notice the difference.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2012 15:07

Again on the racism-religious angle what are the claims:

1) Like all Muslims, Pakistanis too are awed by White Europeans in particular, and by skin whiteness in general, as I explained in the previous post! Pakistanis in particular consider Westerners, especially Americans and Brits superior races, to be admired and to be close to!

2) Then there is the religious angle. On the one hand Muslims feel close to the Christian countries, say in Europe and USA, as Jesus also is part of Islam's dogma particularly in Islamic eschatology, on the other hand there is animosity because of the Crusades, but also because the Christians are considered those, who stopped Islam's rise, in the past three centuries and in fact pushed it back.

3) But there are other political factors in play

Whether Americans are supporting Israel in its struggle against the Arabs,
Whether Americans are in war with some Muslim countries and there is a general anti-Americanism in the Muslim world due to that,
Whether Americans are putting the Pakistanis under military pressure (due to non-India related issues),
Whether Americans are seen to be allied with Indians,

All the above political factors can vary on a scale!

Having said that,
i) One cannot exploit the racial difference between White Christians and Pakistanis, as Pakistanis are sold out on them.

ii) One can only exploit the religious differences only if we take a side in the dogma, viz-a-viz God's Covenant with Isaac and Muhammad's Genealogy. But the possibilities are still limited.

iii) As far as political factors are concerned, we can do our bit in exploiting them, but the question is how. If we start exploiting them, then USA too can exploit say Indo-American closeness in order to get concessions from Pakistanis, and they do so.
-

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 15:40

RajeshA wrote:If we start exploiting them, then USA too can exploit say Indo-American closeness in order to get concessions from Pakistanis, and they do so.
-

The Americans will do anything that they can think of. The question is whether we have thought through all our options to make the world less forgiving of an America that arms a racist regime against India? I find it difficult to believe that America's support to a fundamentally racist Islamic ideology against India is a very just and secular act. If America can be secular and yet support Islamic racism. " I mean - like I am not a racist but I support racist ideologies". What does that mean?

In what way does it benefit India to blame Pakistan alone and let off the USA? The USA agrees with Pakistani Islamic conclusions about India and support to Pakistan is centered around a fundamental agreement about Hindus being racist Anti-Islamic bigots. I think Pakistanis need to be informed that the US itself is the end product of imperialism based on concepts of white Christian supremacy and that Islamic army of Pakistan is a slave of the superior White Christians of America.

Will this set Pakistanis "against America?". Heck most Pakistanis are against America anyway as per surveys organized by the US. But I think that Pakistanis should understand that the army of Pakistan, the Jihad Fistula itself, is a slave of White christian America. What they do with the information is up to them. Surely it can do no harm. It is of little consequence, given that the US can knock Pakistan down in a trice. But when has telling the truth harmed anyone?

Information on this forum is not going to reach any Pakistani other than the monkeys lurking at their consoles in countries they have illegally entered so its not as if this truth about the Islamic Pakistani slave army to a White Christian American king is going to get very far. But I find it hilarious that Pakis have not figured it out yet. The US has appeared so just and so secular to everyone that they think the US really wants Pakistan to get what it wants. The US is playing a balancing game because both the Hindus and The Moslems of Pakistan are equally inferior people who must ultimately bow to US superiority. We in India have already bowed to that US superiority. We tell each other that what the US does is "The way the world works" and "We must not complain" Pakistanis need to learn that too. Pakistanis should know what they are good for.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2012 16:24

shiv saar,

the basis of "secular" thinking is to treat all religions alike. Such "secular" thinking allows one to deal with any religious group, regardless of what the group believes in, regardless of how the group behaves. America can deal with all sorts of intolerant, racist, hate-mongering vermin of the world with a perfectly straight face in the name of "dialogue" and "engagement".

I often fail to understand, why Indians expect America to behave supportive of India simply on basis of morality with respect to Pakistan, regardless of what Pakistan does! If it is in American interest, then of course they would be supportive of India. But there is no moral imperative, because morality is one of the most malleable materials found on Earth.

Now I am fully supportive of India showing a similar amount of moral malleability towards America too. If screwing America is in our interest, then we should do it. If getting America bitten off by the dog next door is in our interest, then we should do it!

I think "inflexible morality" in international affairs seems to be really an Indian invention.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 22 Feb 2012 16:44

I think "inflexible morality" in international affairs seems to be really an Indian invention.

Not really. We have supported all sorts of dictators from Mugabe to Arafat to Castro throughout. We have supported CPC tanking over Tibetans. We have done so because people still don't believe for our operating system Dharma is the way to go. I see some references to 'should we Hate Pakistan, Islamism' etc. Hatred is a negative passion. You don't have to 'hate' dirt to clean up your house for instance. One has to be aware that dirt has negative consequences to health etc as basic template/ operating system within to keep one's house and surrounding clean with equanimity. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our short term interests too, if we are convinced that the template of Dharma as our operating system is the way to go. Remember Truth shall always triumph, Dharma will always win. May not be short term battles, but the War will be won by those that taking the side of Dharma. The conviction in that is Indic Dharma. Rest conviction is an import. We need to get back to that.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 16:50

RajeshA wrote: I often fail to understand, why Indians expect America to behave supportive of India simply on basis of morality with respect to Pakistan, regardless of what Pakistan does! If it is in American interest, then of course they would be supportive of India. But there is no moral imperative, because morality is one of the most malleable materials found on Earth.
<snip>
I think "inflexible morality" in international affairs seems to be really an Indian invention.

In fact I haven't understood why some Indians imagine that other Indians shouldn't do that or complain. If America does something in its interest and that act is not in Indian interests, then Indians absolutely must complain. It is stupid to remain silent and say "Hey its OK. Put up or shut up. Learn to live with it. The Americans are allowed to do that. We cannot dictate their morality" Why not? We will dictate. We lose absolutely nothing by doing that save some embarrassment and shame caused to Indians who think we should get kicked silently because "That is how the world works".

Look at it this way. Why should Americans complain if we buy Iranian oil? That is the way the world works. Americans should just accept it and move on no? Why are they complaining? Americans should stop whining. But they don't.

But Indians never say that. Instead some Indians get worked up when other Indians complain about America. Indians act unnecessarily ashamed or embarrassed or <I don't know what>. Why shouldn't India complain on moralistic, homosexual, legal or any other grounds? That is how India works. That is how Indians think.

It is only (IMO) a sense of needless "apology" that India should behave in a particular way and not behave the way America does not behave that makes people say "india must not moralize" India will moralise. That is the way Indians think. Why try and Americanize Indian minds? The US is not going to listen whichever way Indians say it anyway no?

Indians do whatever they like. America need not complain but needs to accept it. This the the way a non dhimmi Indian world needs to work. This is the way things work inside India most of the time. We need to get it working that way outside also.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 17:05

America keeps on taking a moralistic view of many issues. I will start pointing them out as they arise to make my point and many will arise. The entire cold war was based America's superior morality.

How come the US does not say "It is in Al Qaeda's interests to attack the US. That is the way the world works. Americans must stop complaining and move on" Why do Indians ask other Indians to consider the US in this absurd manner?

Americans do not talk morality only when it is not in their interest to do so. Why should Indians then be "understanding" of America's need to not amoral/immoral because it is in their interests? This tells me more about a colonised Indian mind that is willing to accept American supremacy more than an Indian right to speak up and say when immorality is displayed by a USA that blows too much moral hot air time and again.

member_20617 · Post by **member_20617** » 22 Feb 2012 17:13

Pakistan was deliberately created by the British under their infamous policy of ‘divide and rule’.

British knew all along that one day Indians would kick them out. They wanted India and Pakistan to fight with each other after they leave. The British did the same thing to many African countries. We Indians understand this ploy very well and so do Pakistanis. However, Pakis want to complete the unfinished business of Mogul empire and want to make India an Islamic country. We can’t clap with one hand and the fight goes on.

Pakistan follows Islam and as ‘people of the books’, they are looked upon favourably by Western powers. Hindus are still considered ‘heathens’ and ‘uncivilised’ by a large number of Whites.

There many Hindus, both in India and abroad, who also look down on fellow Hindus as ‘uncivilised’ because of their Macaulyite education.

This inferiority complex would go away once India becomes a powerful nation. Just look at Chinese people. They walk and talk so confidently now.

RajeshAji,

You are spot on: I think "inflexible morality" in international affairs seems to be really an Indian invention.

Inflexible morality is a self inflicted wound.

I think we need a dedicated department at all our universities to remove this ‘Log kya kahenge’ syndrome from Indian babus/politicians. The rewards are enormous!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2012 18:42

shiv saar,

I have also got no problem with complaining to the world, to America, among ourselves, about how "immoral" America acts!

But complaining is only a very small part of any strategy to do something. With complaining about America, nothing is going to change in Pakistan!

I presume your "strategy" would be to keep on complaining loud about American role in Pakistan, till some Indians start backing up the clamor, till Indian politicos too start hearing it, till GoI is willing to do the needful and hurt America for its "immoral" policies in Pakistan. There will be other Indians who would be saying that hurting America would push America more strongly into the arms of Pakistan, and thus it would hurt India. So all the complaining would only have little benefit!

Cost and Benefit Analysis of it would show that while it is fully okay to complain about American role in Pakistan and in fact useful to put some media pressure on America, it does not solve our Pakistan problem.

So one needs strategies beyond that!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2012 18:42

If two lovers are prone to fighting, then usually a long-distance affair often helps. Whenever they see each other they concentrate on the positive. The best way to turn it into a hate relationship is to get them to move in with each other. In 2001 America moved in next door in Afghanistan, and soon the complaints started flying that the cockroaches from Pakistan were making life hell for USA in Afghanistan. Now USA every now and then sprinkles roach spray through the window, and Pakistan is now complaining that its pet cats also get poisoned.

The next step is actually to get America to move in really into Pakistan.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 19:22

Here is some history, with science thrown in.

The pre-independence machinations of the British must not be forgotten, but before that Hindus faced the racism of Islam. The British who came in discovered new things to feed their racism based on their "science" of "ethnology" which divided humans into races based on which particular son of Noah (of Noah's ark fame) they were descended from.

Noah had three sons according to biblical sources. British science in those days had not yet gone past the bible, just as current day America is showing that it is not so easy for science to get past the bible. Noah's sons were Ham, Ishmael and Japheth.

Although the name Japheth sounds like a man spitting out a blob of mucus he has just coughed up, Japheth's children became the superior white Europeans - destined to follow the Protestant faith and be leaders of the world.

The son Ishmael's descendants became the semitic races, which includes the Arabs. These were not quite up to the level of the descendants of Japheth. This is science right. You better believe it.

At the bottom were the descendants of Ham - the Hamites. Ham married a Negro woman and his descendants filled up Africa and became Indians Dravidians - destined to be driven down by the superior Aryans. Indian Aryans were apparently originally a superior race, but they intermarried with inferiors and became contaminated and sank into polytheism from the highs of the Vedas. They had originally come from Europe. As all Hindus know the vedas can be found under every stone in Europe. The Vedas mention the Northern lights so Aryans were northerners. I have seen a Moose. I am an Eskimo. But I digress. Hindus basically were bottom rung. Mostly a mixture of Hamite Dravidians with contaminated higher races.

So in India, Hindus were considered as scum by both the pious martial Muslims and the scientific Brits. But the Brits had no intention of actually leaving India even as late as 1945. They were hoping to stay. But they Brits were keen on holding the Soviets back from the Indian ocean. The Soviets had expanded into the Central Asian states. It was in British interest to do things to hold back the Soviets. Although Brits were racist, Hindus must not complain. The Brits were doing things in their interest. That is the way the world works. Hindus had to accept it and not complain or moralise about racism. Moralistic complaints are an Indian invention and if its Indian it ain't good.

But back to history (read Sarila for this). When the brits realised that they would be kicked out of India, they had to have a Plan B for keeping the Soviets at bay. Initially they had hoped to stay, but then they started looking at the loyal Mussalman. The Indian mussalman of the Northwest was a loyal dog who uncomplainingly served the British even as recently a the world war that had ended weeks ago. The Mussalman had helped pull British ass out of the fire in 1857. Kipling had written glowingly of the fact that the taller and fairer a man was, the better a man he was likely to be. This fit in well with British "science" of the day. The Muslim league by then wanted the division of India into many Pakistans. The British though that a Pakistan in the Northwest would be a great idea. Why did the Muslim league want to opt out. Because of the Hindus. The Hindus couldn't be trusted remember? And what did the Brits know after 1857? You got it! The dark skinned Hindu could not be trusted. It was the loyal Muslim dog who would be their ally.

Sarila notes how Sir Olaf Caroe actually conveyed to the Americans the proposed role for the loyal dog Mussalman in their world. Pakistanis got Pakistan. The British got their loyal "Paki" Muslim dogs to bark at the Soviets and wag their tails at white man. Muslim racism against Hindus was as convenient to Brits as it is to the Americans. If you support a racist you are a racist. Convoluted excuses that you are not racist but you are doing it in your interest is bullshit. Why do Hindus jump up to make such excuses on BRF? If the British/American connection to Islamic racism is not strong enough for you, why am I being accused of taking a rigid moralistic stance? You are. Not me. Bend your morality a little and you realise that the Brits and Americans are as racist as Pakis.

The Americans support the racist Islamic Pakistani tailwagging lapdogs who hang their tongues out for western scraps while they proudly boast how many Musslamans have been killed fighting superior White Christian man's war. "Pakistan has lost more people in the war on terror that any one else. Throw us one more bone" What a laughable bunch of slaves. And the white supremacist Christian American laughs all the way to the mint where he prints his greenbacks to throw at his slobbering Pakistan mussalman vassals. And Pakistan is the leading Islamic nation of the world.

But we Hindus must not moralise. I will rewrite this story in a secular way next time, with no mention of racism. I need to learn how the world works and not complain.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Feb 2012 20:09

shiv saar,

whatever ideology, there are the users, the used and the abused. And it is often the case that to rub it really in, the user even shows some sympathy for the abused. Basically a dog owner letting his dog bite the little guy and then come out and give him a lolly to feel better. Racism is one such "ideology"!

So what to do?

One can try to give the dog the rabies so that he flips out and starts biting the dog-owner. This Pakistan has already started. But both dog-owner and dog know that dog needs bone, and regardless of the rabies it will beg a little every now and then giving the dog-owner some illusion of control. Still one hopes the dog-owner would not be giving the dog too many bones, thus making it strong also.

The problem is that even if the rabies make such a owner-dog relationship impossible, the dog would still remain in the neighborhood and keep on biting the little kids. So the kids ask whether or not it is really good that the dog gets this level of rabies, that not even its owner can hold it back on a leash.

Then there all sorts of other mean people in the neighborhood also wanting a dog as a pet, aka China, who know how to wear iron pants so that the dog doesn't bite them.

Such dog-owners also do not really allow one to kill the dog, so what to do?

We Indians have been trying to turn the dog around for such a long time. Every time we call the dog to us to give it a little pat, it springs at us and bites us!

And then the dog-owner tells us (in jest) that if we were only more friendly with the dog, the dog would behave! So what to do?

Branding everybody as friends of the dog-owner, is also not going to solve the problem!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 22 Feb 2012 20:16

RajeshA wrote:
Such dog-owners also do not really allow one to kill the dog, so what to do?

What to do?

1. Define the problem

The problem is

White Christian American owns the Pakistani dog
The Islamic dog Pakistan licks its masters feet and serves its American master well, dying in hundreds and boasting about it as if its the greatest thing since 1300 AD
White Christian American master will not let go of the dog nor allow it to be killed

Now does the dog have awareness? Can it think? I just wonder what it would think if it could think like a human. Whatever it might think - I betcha I would not be able to stop laughing at the dog's "Wake up an smell the coffee" moment.

Lying about your own history makes dogs out of humans and even Allah can't stop that . If the Paki dog has a single human grey cell to think. It needs to know.

muahahaha!

I am just waiting for the next time a Paki boasts and says "We have sacrificed more people in the war on terror than anyone else!" Of course you bloody brainless Pakistani dogs! Your friggin pure Islamic nation was created for enslavement by your White Christian masters. What did you expect moron?

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 22 Feb 2012 23:23

Convoluted excuses that you are not racist but you are doing it in your interest is bullshit. Why do Hindus jump up to make such excuses on BRF? If the British/American connection to Islamic racism is not strong enough for you, why am I being accused of taking a rigid moralistic stance? You are. Not me. Bend your morality a little and you realise that the Brits and Americans are as racist as Pakis.

ok, now you are trolling. you should make it clear who your audience is when you say such things. most BRFites have no problem is pointing out the racism of Khan and the has been Queen. once again you are painting everybody with whatever imagination your mind comes up with. there is a repetitive nature to your posts where you go on making blanket accusations about "rigidity against accepting Christianist role in racism" and then paint yourself the martyr by portraying some mythical battle that everybody is waging on you. this is nonsense.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Feb 2012 05:55

devesh wrote: ok, now you are trolling. you should make it clear who your audience is when you say such things. most BRFites have no problem is pointing out the racism of Khan and the has been Queen.

Where has the racism of Americans been pointed out by "most BRFites"? You and I seem to have a different view on this. Heck you haven't even mentioned the word America or the US in your post. I would really be trolling if I accused you of treating America like God (as some others are wont to do) and not wanting to use God's name in vain.

Have you personally accepted that support to a racist is the same as racism? This is what I have tried to say about US support to Pakistan. The response to that (when there has been a response) is that "Indians moralize too much and that is a mistake"

The number of excuses trotted out by various people whose excuses you seem to selectively miss is astounding. Racism is all about morality. If the US supports racist Pakistan against India most people who respond seem to make a differentiation between Pakistan's racism and US actions. Pakistanis are racist. But the US supports those racists out of self interest, not racism.

Heck Pakistanis could be racist out of self interest also no? Why are people on BRF so keen to protect American honor and dignity? And you are making a tall claim that "Most BRFites have no problem is pointing out the racism of Khan .."

But Deveshji you demand that "you should make it clear who your audience is when you say such things". In this post you are my audience. I don't seem to recall a chirp of protest from you when people made up excuses that "The US does things in its interest" or that "Indians should not moralize". I did not want to make this personal, but you demand that I should make some things clear, so please. Extract an apology from me by pointing out where you have either pointed out American racism or protested against feeble excuses that seek to paint Pakistan as guilty but the US as upright and strong.

And recall that the "racism" here is only half the story. Colonialism and US attitudes are based on white Christian racism; Pakistanis survive on Islamic racism; and Hindu India is the target of this. Pakistan is an example of the collaboration of European Christian racism and the Islamic variety against Hindus. The whole genesis of this has now been whitewashed and secularized to make it seem that its all innocent, or at best there is a Hindu Muslim conflict and racism and Christianity have no role. Anyone who fails to see the White Christian genesis of needing to have a bunch of pliable Mussalman (Paki) slaves in the subcontinent and the ploy of promoting their hatred of Hindus even as Pakistanis are described as moderate and secular is being fooled. He is a victim of the "secularism" blindfold. There is both racism and lack of secularism in the US-Pakistan alliance against India.

The racism is common. We can't help it. But the Christian-Islamic cooperation can be exploited. And we can stop pretending that US actions are in "self interest" as if there are upright modern secular aims in arming Pakistanis.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Feb 2012 09:33

US actions are in the self-interest of the elites who control the US. "Christian" is not a good descriptive label, although these elites do operate through some variants of Christianity.

It's fine for Indics to complain, but complaining can get you only so far.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Feb 2012 09:49

Pranav wrote:US actions are in the self-interest of the elites who control the US. "Christian" is not a good descriptive label, although these elites do operate through some variants of Christianity.

It's fine for Indics to complain, but complaining can get you only so far.

Perhaps, but remember that Pakistani actions are in self-interest of the Pakistani elite who control Pakistan. "Islamic" is not a good descriptive label although these Pakistani elites operate through some variants of Islam.

Complaining about Islam alone or Pakistan alone can only get you so far.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. The US is as secular as Pakistan. It is only "Indics" who are being communal in accusing Islam while being secular in understanding the US. You are saying 'US is secular. US actions in supporting Islamic racism against India is secular. But Pakistan is islamic"

I disagree with that viewpoint. The US as a Christian nation is in full agreement with Pakistani attitudes towards Indian Hindus. I disagree with your "USA is secular" viewpoint although many "Indics" rise to Americas defence on this point.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Feb 2012 10:17

shiv wrote:
Pranav wrote:US actions are in the self-interest of the elites who control the US. "Christian" is not a good descriptive label, although these elites do operate through some variants of Christianity.

It's fine for Indics to complain, but complaining can get you only so far.
Perhaps, but remember that Pakistani actions are in self-interest of the Pakistani elite who control Pakistan. "Islamic" is not a good descriptive label although these Pakistani elites operate through some variants of Islam.

Complaining about Islam alone or Pakistan alone can only get you so far.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. The US is as secular as Pakistan. It is only "Indics" who are being communal in accusing Islam while being secular in understanding the US. You are saying 'US is secular. US actions in supporting Islamic racism against India is secular. But Pakistan is islamic"

I disagree with that viewpoint. The US as a Christian nation is in full agreement with Pakistani attitudes towards Indian Hindus. I disagree with your "USA is secular" viewpoint although many "Indics" rise to Americas defence on this point.

Pak elites view themselves as Islamic, but the analogous statement does not hold for the US elites and Christianity.

Now its not that Islam as a religion does not have problems, but these problems in themselves do not cause the virulence that is seen in Pakistan. For example, one can have cordial relations with Tajiks or Baloch, the religious aspect can be compartmentalized away.

The root of the Pak problem is that their national unity and identity is founded upon hatred for the non-Islamic.

The Paks can be handled, but one has to address the issues of identity and belief. It is a long term project.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Feb 2012 10:47

Pranav wrote:Pak elites view themselves as Islamic, but the analogous statement does not hold for the US elites and Christianity.

Have you been following all the 'debates' in the US about Obama not being a christian? and BO having to reassure time and again on that point?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Feb 2012 11:47

arnab wrote:
Pranav wrote:Pak elites view themselves as Islamic, but the analogous statement does not hold for the US elites and Christianity.

Have you been following all the 'debates' in the US about Obama not being a christian? and BO having to reassure time and again on that point?

I think that particular controversy came from the fact that his putative father and his foster father were Muslims.

That's not quite what I had in mind ... elaborating on that would take us too far into an analysis of the US power structure, OT for this thread.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 23 Feb 2012 11:52

Satan Himself is in an active dual with Santoroum ;s America. His followers are just getting energised. In India
Secular Nazis are runing amock undermining ,destroying every symbol of its ancient civilization. Votebankcratic instituions are now replacing the democratic instituions of national importance.

arnab · Post by **arnab** » 23 Feb 2012 11:56

Pranav wrote:I think that particular controversy came from the fact that his putative father and his foster father were Muslims.

That's not quite what I had in mind ... elaborating on that would take us too far into an analysis of the US power structure, OT for this thread.

So? if you are purportedly 'secular' why the excessive need for BO to be a christian (if he had actually been a muslim should he have been disquaified on the basis of his religion?)? Have Indian MPs or media houses ever made a case for MMS's or Sonia's inability / incapacity on the basis of their religion?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 23 Feb 2012 12:16

arnab wrote: So? if you are purportedly 'secular' why the excessive need for BO to be a christian (if he had actually been a muslim should he have been disquaified on the basis of his religion?)? Have Indian MPs or media houses ever made a case for MMS's or Sonia's inability / incapacity on the basis of their religion?

The people may be believers in Christianity or in deviant variants of Christianity. But I was talking about the elites. (And I am not claiming that they are secular.)