Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct 2014

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby vishvak » 29 Oct 2014 18:44

So how Pakistanis, or Saudis who fund extremists, can win hearts of Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs and Hindus who were ethnically cleansed from Kashmir?

There are many ways:
(1) Saudis should express apologies and stop funding hateful and violent movements or else face humiliation at the UN and international boycott by financial agencies.
(2) Pakistanis must stop claiming any rights on J&K and stop supporting terrorists or else face total annihilation and decades of asymmetric warfare.
(3) Kashmiri Pandits, Sikhs and other communities from all over India will be free to settle and rebuild temples and communities as it was before under full protection from Indian defenses.
(4) All local protests and stone throwing must be dealt with iron hand till the restive majority learns to live peacefully and to mutually respect.

KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4408
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby KLNMurthy » 29 Oct 2014 18:52

SSridhar wrote:Mani Shankar Aiyar may no longer have interests in India as he is old and his immediate family is settled abroad etc. or he may be representing oil lobby or US interests etc. All that could be true. But he has always been like this. This is not a new phenomenon. In one panel discussion, he clearly said that ever since he could remember he has been at loggerheads with G.Parthasarathy over Pakistan. That should go a long way back then. My suspicion is that like Man Mohan Singh, he has fond memories of Lahore (he grew up there) at an impressionable age and the allure is deeper. It could be as simple as that.

+1

MSA is also, pardon my saying so, the worst and most contemptible kind of brahmin, with none of the virtues or talents sometimes stereotypically associated with brahmins but with all the empty vanity and snobbery and sense of entitlement that is also often associated with that status.

I think it is very easy for people to have a desperate reaction to losing a place, as happened in Partition. Especially if they were young at that time: deep down they don't realize that what happened was really very wrong and not at all their responsibility. They feel that, somehow, they could and should do something to fix what went wrong, and restore the lost idyll of childhood.

Again, I may be wading into sensitive waters, not to speak of going OT, but I couldn't help noticing just how many of the WKK-community have had ties with old Lahore-centric pre-partition Punjab. (I should hasten to add that probably, there are also a disproportionate number of people connected with pre-partition Punjab among those that are fervently anti-Paki.). The point is, the passion for making things right with Pakistan comes out of a deep emotional trauma that such people experienced as children.

Gus
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8220
Joined: 07 May 2005 02:30

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Gus » 29 Oct 2014 19:01

SSridhar wrote:He said an initial inquiry by a four-member committee found that Qadri had also prepared two other prison officers to hunt down blasphemy convicts in the prison {It was the same case with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh. He did the same to his guards and indoctrinated them pretty quickly too}[/b]


IIRC, Omar made a call to some paki higher up impersonating Pranab, did he not?

Still waiting on his challenge that mushy would die before him.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby SSridhar » 29 Oct 2014 19:25

Gus, he *also* did that, calling Pranab Mukherjee.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby A_Gupta » 29 Oct 2014 20:38

shiv wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Having to constantly face polite - even good-humored - factual and reasoned words contradicting your belief is very wearing. If the words were rude, abusive or threatening, you can make yourself out to be a "martyr" in your own cause. One thing I strongly suspect is that many leftists and Islamist types thrive on "martyrdom" or feeling "persecuted" - this serves to validate them.

It is therefore important, in my opinion, to constantly reiterate the message without providing any pretext for someone to feel "martyred" or "persecuted". This requires a "message discipline". If message discipline is maintained, the only choices are then to either see one's wrongness or to shut one's ears - and neither leaves one feeling good.


This is a very difficult problem that has actually been recognized by Islamists many centuries ago. And many centuries ago they developed the defence mechanisms to go down the path of "persecution" and "martyrdom" very early - even before anyone breathes a soft breath of objection. That is why it has lasted so long.

But I believe we are at a fairly unique phase of history in which information sharing among non Islamic people has grown along with credible proof that bestial Islamic violence is invariably accompanied by false accusations of persecution. If they falsely accuse others of persecution, and impose war, it would be silly to avoid the war saying "We are not trying to persecute you". The persecution is only an excuse. the real intent is war to spread Islam.


Maybe we're confusing roles here.

In case we're confusing roles here, there is the role of the "public intellectual" and there is the role of the policy-maker. I'm talking about the public intellectual role.

In an ironic sense, Islam as practised in many parts of the world today is all about setting up conflict with non Muslims. Not accepting that as a conflict and shying away pretending that all will be well if one is secular does not stop the conflict or the false accusations of persecution.

I suggest imposing a counter dilemma for Islamists: "Islam is violent and we will fight unless it can be shown that Islam wants peace". This agrees with Islamists contention that others are against them and so be it. Shying away from this fact and pretending and protesting that no one is against Islam does not protect anyone from the onslaught of Islam and its followers' fake claims of persecution. Islamists, Pakistan included, have to genuinely desire peace in order not to be defeated. Or else they will get eliminated.


Isn't this a bit of internet warrior-ism? Are you going to promote riots in the streets of Ahmedabad and Hyderabad against the local Islamists unless "it can be show that Islam wants peace"?

The idea expressed by some of taking any fight onto the enemy's territory is all good and fine, but that is in the domain of Modi/Doval.

A question is - what is the enemy's territory? - internally, is it some mohalla in Godhra? You really want violence there?

Externally, is it Pakistan or is it ISIS-controlled Iraq and Syria as well? and whether to take the fight there, really rests much more on practical considerations and much less on matters of principle.

An Ahmed Shah Massoud of the Northern Alliance was an Islamist differing only in degree with the Taliban. Should he not have been supported by India?

If one contemplates, a la Ulan Bator, how Europe and America have interacted with the Middle Eastern lands of Islam, while certainly the amount of destruction they have wrought is huge, have they solved any problems?

Is this religious conflict? Duh. It is a Eurocentric Western Universalist view that religious conflict got over after the Inter-Christian wars of Europe.


Well, I could also say that it is a Eurocentric Western Universalist view that what we have in the India-Pakistan conflict is a religious conflict. Suppose people of religion attacked people of science. From one side it may be a religious conflict; from the other side it is an attack of unreason on reason.

Pakistan wants to frame the India-Pakistan conflict as a religious conflict. From the Indian side, I think the correct framing is that it is an assault on common sense and decency (or something like that, I'm sure better words can be found) or it is simply an assault on India, motive irrelevant. If India frames it as a religious conflict, I think that plays into Pakistan's hands. That is why that dork on the C.C. Fair video is able to ask, won't truths about Pakistan be used against Muslims in India? If we're fighting for common sense and decency, that question cannot even be asked, in that it doesn't make cognitive sense. If we are fighting a religious conflict with Pakistan and Islam, and don't want the streets of Indian cities to be battlefields, then that dork's question is very relevant. If "Islam is violent and we will fight unless it can be shown that Islam wants peace", then truths about Islam are dangerous to the internal peace of India.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 29 Oct 2014 21:41

A_Gupta wrote:[
Isn't this a bit of internet warrior-ism? Are you going to promote riots in the streets of Ahmedabad and Hyderabad against the local Islamists unless "it can be show that Islam wants peace"?

Well it is internet warriorism which by definition precludes the ability to do anything on the ground like inciting riots anywhere. The statement meant that violence will have to be repaid with violence - and not by trying to reframe it as something else on the lines of "You may want religious war, but we don't." More on that below.

The idea expressed by some of taking any fight onto the enemy's territory is all good and fine, but that is in the domain of Modi/Doval.

A question is - what is the enemy's territory? - internally, is it some mohalla in Godhra? You really want violence there?
Since I didn't say that this is not a question that I can answer.

From one side it may be a religious conflict; from the other side it is an attack of unreason on reason.

Pakistan wants to frame the India-Pakistan conflict as a religious conflict. From the Indian side, I think the correct framing is that it is an assault on common sense and decency (or something like that, I'm sure better words can be found) or it is simply an assault on India, motive irrelevant. If India frames it as a religious conflict, I think that plays into Pakistan's hands.

I have tried to address this point several times on BRF. While I can see your intent in framing the conflict in a different way, I believe it is useless to do that. Let me try and see if I can use an analogy.

Let us say that I am intent on attacking you because you are a kafir and because you are against my faith. You have one of three choices:
1. You do not fight back and say that you have no conflict with me. This exposes you to getting hit by me from time to time. And since I have instigated the conflict, others who look at me and you will only see the issue as a conflict between me and you. They will hardly see the finer points where a witness will vouch for you and say that poor ickle you do not want conflict but it is I who want conflict.

2. Your second choice is to fight me when I attack you but claim that you are fighting me for some other reason. For example, I attack you because you are a kafir. You defend yourself and attack me back and deny that you have a religious conflict with me - and claim that the conflict is because common sense and decency demands that such conflicts must not be fought. In my view this tactic is of no use. No third party observer is going to necessarily see your viewpoint. Here is one guy fighting another. One guy says one thing. The other guy says another. Big deal. No one really cares for your viewpoint any more than the other guy's viewpoint. If one guy says it is religious war - it may well be religious war.

3. Your third choice is to fight but call a spade a spade. Pakistan wants religious conflict. You may not want that religious conflict, but it is being imposed on you. You can deflect and deny, but there is a conflict and that conflict is upon you because the other guy has a religion problem with you. Denials and "reframing" the origins of the conflict do not help. No matter what you do, the other guy sees all your actions as being opposed to his religion. He has set up a challenge for you that cannot simply be dismissed.

It is better (IMHO) to accept that the opponent (Pakistan/Islamist groups) are engaged in a religious conflict. Even if you believe that religious differences should be settled by debate, they don't accept it. The only thing the accept is war and no matter what your stated reason for war might be, for them it is religious war. It is a fait accompli.

khan
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 12 Feb 2003 12:31
Location: Tx

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby khan » 29 Oct 2014 21:52

Regarding the track 2 peaceniks on TV, There should be some attempt to get the word out on how the ISI is essentially buying them out with these events.

We can start by posting comments on columns by these people pointing out their hypocrisy. It won't be long before more hawkish commentators discredit them by asking them to disclose their track 2 activities and who paid for these activities on live TV.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Karan M » 29 Oct 2014 21:54

khan, thats a good idea

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4015
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby partha » 29 Oct 2014 22:01

khan wrote:Regarding the track 2 peaceniks on TV, There should be some attempt to get the word out on how the ISI is essentially buying them out with these events.

We can start by posting comments on columns by these people pointing out their hypocrisy. It won't be long before more hawkish commentators discredit them by asking them to disclose their track 2 activities and who paid for these activities on live TV.

It's a good thought but the problem is people opposing track 2 will be branded communal and Hindu right wing war mongers. What we need is another Fai type expose or Radia tapes like leak which may tarnish people involved in track 2. After Fai episode, many usual suspects started flying low and I have never seen them mainstream again. Remember that Navlakha guy? Rabid resident non Indian. He was a regular on Times Now I think. I have not seen him on TV talking about rights of Kashmiris since the Fai episode.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby ShauryaT » 29 Oct 2014 22:02

Framing the conflict between India and Pakistan from India's view point as a conflict rooted in the the rejection of the "two nation theory", immediately recognizes the "Islamic" angle of this theory, yet at the same time, is not as broad stroke as to include all who profess the Islamic faith. I agree with Arun, making it all of Islam and those who profess it, is an unnecessary broad stroke.

Our issue with Pakistan at an ideological level was and is about the use of Islam to define national identities for the subcontinent. It is this idea that needs to be fought and debunked and Pakistan defeated upon every single day.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Cosmo_R » 29 Oct 2014 22:04

"From one side it may be a religious conflict; from the other side it is an attack of unreason on reason."

religion = faith
faith (in outcome) = triumph over reason.

The problem is Islam not Muslims or pakis. Else why do goras get their brains fried and convert and do stupidly evil nihilistic stuff?

JMT

Shaashtanga
BRFite
Posts: 202
Joined: 07 May 2011 06:43
Location: Canuckistan

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Shaashtanga » 29 Oct 2014 22:15

Madam Unfair not being so unfair today, the whole video is good, but at 53min55sec mark she speaks something which the rest of the idiots doing STFUP == India need to understand i.e. "In some sense you can't compare India and Pakistan and the only reason we talk about them in the same sentence is because Pakistan has a revisionist agenda and India wouldn't care about Pakistan if it weren't for Pakistan sending terrorists into India so I necessarily don't like to discuss them in the same sentence because they share a border but the don't share a destiny."
Youtube link

Atish
BRFite
Posts: 417
Joined: 07 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Atish » 29 Oct 2014 23:12

shiv wrote:
Neela wrote:
As RajeshA said , occupy their lands, insult them, break them into pieces, shell them, hurt the generals, violate the red-lines, be obstinate-until they break down.

The danger of allowing this line of "making Pak irrelevant" is that it will be interpreted as inability to respond to Islamic Pak's jihad against kafirs.

There is a huge difference between Pakistan becoming irrelevant and making Pakistan irrelevant.

Can Pakistan be made relevant to India? Yes of course. Pakistan is constantly trying to make itself relevant. Can we make Pakistan relevant? Yes we can, in a lot of ways. If we seek to destroy them we are making them relevant to us. And if we seek to destroy them and fail, they are getting the exact victory they want.

Can we destroy Pakistan? I have stated for the last 15 years on BRF and continue to state that we cannot destroy Pakistan by military means. Destroying Pakistan is a pipe dream that people are allowed to have. To that extent we have already lost. If people believe I am defeatist for saying that - they are entitled to their views. I also have some views of such people

On the other hand, can we make Pakistan irrelevant? No we cannot if Pakistan chooses to keep doing things to India that keep it relevant to Indians

Can Pakistan make itself irrelevant? That is possible. That is what I have been talking about.

Can Pakistan destroy itself? It is possible. Christine Fair says that as long as India exists and can be opposed by Pakistan, Pakistan will consider itself victorious and that will help it survive.

People have to figure out for themselves the nuances that are possible here. But "making Pakistan irrelevant" is not what I am saying and I would appreciate not being accused of promoting such a stupid concept. We cannot make Pakistan irrelevant, and Pakistan will become irrelevant only if that irrelevance comes from Pakistan. And Pakistan is not going to be irrelevant for us as long as we harbour dreams of destroying Pakistan. My firm view is that we are not going to do that by paying military attention to Pakistan. Or by loving Pakistan. Or by paying attention to things that they do to seek Indian attention even when they cannot wage war or conduct terrorist attacks.

As for opposing Pakistan because it wages Islamic jihad against us - it has been my openly stated viewpoint that what Islam does needs to be countered by opposing Islam. It is stupid to oppose Pakistan for something done in the name of Islam and pretend that Pakistan opposes us and not Islam which is blameless. if they do something bad to us in the name of Islam, Islam the religion and its tenets need to be smeared and trashed and mocked. It is a strangely Congressi-psec viewpoint to confuse Islam with Pakistan and then fail to bell the cat because we think Indian Muslims will riot.


Shiv,

How can anybody blame Islam? Political leaders cannot do it for obvious reasons. Academics cant do it. Regular civilians cannot do it. Apart from the social consequences, who will fulfill the security requirements of questioning Islam. This option is off the table except on small scale like the BRF. Its a weapon that cannot be used, however necessary or useful it might be.

Atish.

Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 19874
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Karan M » 29 Oct 2014 23:17

The day that happens - ppl recognize the real issue - this thread becomes unnecessary

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21189
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Prem » 29 Oct 2014 23:27

SSridhar wrote:quote="Brad Goodman"]How India can win over the Kashmiris
quote]Some years ago, Chief Minister Omar Abdullah during a parliamentary debate had asserted that he is proud to be a Muslim, Kashmiri and an Indian.

The order is important. I don't know what order Omar Abdullah implied or was he ambiguous as most Kashmiris have been?[/quote]

IMHO,That Indian part is for freebeescheesemuttonpeas and pocket money. Asli Indian hai tho kaam Kar , haram Kaa Matt Khaa. Let Valley Ks win the heart and mind of average Indian before spreading hand again.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Oct 2014 03:16

Pakis keep saying "India cannot become a world power if it keeps having disputes with its neighbors".

Exercise: I think, Spain was once a world power, so were the Dutch, and French and the British, and the Soviets and maybe China now; and I think they all rose to world power status while having active conflicts with their neighbors and distant lands. So what is special about Pakistan that a dispute with it keeps the opponent from becoming a world power?

vivek.rao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3775
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby vivek.rao » 30 Oct 2014 03:30

@tufailelif: There has been concerted effort by Pakistan's ISI to get out General Musharraf from his prison to beat up India http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/mush ... 97139.html


@tufailelif: Indian journalists who interview Gen. Musharraf must not forget that both Kargil and 26/11 were planned on his watch
http://t.co/rKsIncSj0W

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby schinnas » 30 Oct 2014 03:39

Atish wrote:Shiv,

How can anybody blame Islam? Political leaders cannot do it for obvious reasons. Academics cant do it. Regular civilians cannot do it. Apart from the social consequences, who will fulfill the security requirements of questioning Islam. This option is off the table except on small scale like the BRF. Its a weapon that cannot be used, however necessary or useful it might be.

Atish.


Doable. The way to do it is have numerous in depth debates in all media about aspects of islam that calls for violence and gives rise to violent orgs like IS. The debater need not label it blatantly but leave the obvious inferences to be derived. naturally the discussion will trigger related debates on why is Islam not evolving unlike other religions (Note the current Pope recently acknowledging evolution and Big Bang theory and Hindu Seers like Sri Aurobindo actually evolving evolutionary theory further in an integral manner and showcasing Indian vedic thought as in tune with integral evolution). It needs to be done and must be done. Just a matter of time. Already some minor debate has started happening in west in some TV programs.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Oct 2014 03:52

A_Gupta wrote:Pakis keep saying "India cannot become a world power if it keeps having disputes with cannot control its neighbors".
A suitable correction?

Abhijit
BRFite
Posts: 529
Joined: 15 Mar 2002 12:31
Location: Bay Area - US

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Abhijit » 30 Oct 2014 04:19

I agree with Atish. The option of naming and shaming has been surrendered by India when it accepted a secular and flawed partition. That option has been surrendered by the West. I had hoped, initially, naively, when the twin towers came down that the root cause of most of the civilizational strife will be at least brought out in the open instead of keeping it under the hijab of political correctness. No such luck. Even a liberal darling such as Bill Maher was shouted down by uber-liberals when he tried to broach the topic of Islam and its blood-thirst.
Sometimes, when I put on my conspiracy hat (and taking liberal inspiration from kgoan's monkey-jar theory), I feel that ISIS and its unspeakable horror is a Western ploy to prepare a groundswell of public opinion in Western capitals for this topic to be brought out in the open. The ISIS' exemplary behavior in beheading the kaffirs etc. will be copycatted by jihadi jokers in the Western societies. In the next 2-3 decades the ISIS brand of Islam will dominate the airwaves by continued acts of barbarity not seen by the Western world in the last few centuries (that is, inflicted upon themselves - they did enough barbarity on others, thank you very much)

I foresee that the topic that Shiv saar wants to bring out in the open, will become the topic du jure in the next few decades. And there will be other dynamics also. No competent civilization takes the barbarity of ISIS inflicted upon itself without fighting back. And an equal and opposite barbarity will be returned with interest.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Oct 2014 04:20

On the most relevant part:

shiv wrote:Let us say that I am intent on attacking you because you are a kafir and because you are against my faith. You have one of three choices:

1. You do not fight back and say that you have no conflict with me. This exposes you to getting hit by me from time to time. And since I have instigated the conflict, others who look at me and you will only see the issue as a conflict between me and you. They will hardly see the finer points where a witness will vouch for you and say that poor ickle you do not want conflict but it is I who want conflict.


Not fighting back is not an option.

2. Your second choice is to fight me when I attack you but claim that you are fighting me for some other reason. For example, I attack you because you are a kafir. You defend yourself and attack me back and deny that you have a religious conflict with me - and claim that the conflict is because common sense and decency demands that such conflicts must not be fought. In my view this tactic is of no use. No third party observer is going to necessarily see your viewpoint. Here is one guy fighting another. One guy says one thing. The other guy says another. Big deal. No one really cares for your viewpoint any more than the other guy's viewpoint. If one guy says it is religious war - it may well be religious war.


I fight because you attacked. I don't really care about the reason. What I do care about is that if this is a "Hindu vs. Muslim conflict" my internal peace is at stake. If this is "you violated my borders for whatever reason - you are an ideological state, a greedy state, a revisionist state, a religious state, plain insane, I'm hitting back twice as hard", then it is a different matter.

3. Your third choice is to fight but call a spade a spade. Pakistan wants religious conflict. You may not want that religious conflict, but it is being imposed on you. You can deflect and deny, but there is a conflict and that conflict is upon you because the other guy has a religion problem with you. Denials and "reframing" the origins of the conflict do not help. No matter what you do, the other guy sees all your actions as being opposed to his religion. He has set up a challenge for you that cannot simply be dismissed.


By the same token, Pakistan wants Kashmir so we should give it to them. Why aren't we willing to concede to them in land and people when we are willing to concede to them on ideas? If Pakistan wants a fight, we are going to fight them **and** on our own terms to the extent we can impose them.

It is better (IMHO) to accept that the opponent (Pakistan/Islamist groups) are engaged in a religious conflict. Even if you believe that religious differences should be settled by debate, they don't accept it. The only thing the accept is war and no matter what your stated reason for war might be, for them it is religious war. It is a fait accompli.


It is good to understand their motives. It is not necessary to concede any validity or legitimation to their motives.

ArunK
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 94
Joined: 26 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby ArunK » 30 Oct 2014 04:59

Level of discourse in Pakistan. SHOCKED!!

8:43 onwards. Had I been the host I would have cut both their mikes off.



Uncouth.

Brad Goodman
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2382
Joined: 01 Apr 2010 17:00

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Brad Goodman » 30 Oct 2014 05:39

Pakistan Army: 8 Soldiers Killed in Tribal Region
Eight Pakistani soldiers were killed in a major operation against militants in the country's Khyber tribal region Wednesday, as the army declared its four-month old push against a main militant sanctuary in another tribal region, North Waziristan, a success.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby SSridhar » 30 Oct 2014 06:07

A_Gupta wrote:Pakis keep saying "India cannot become a world power if it keeps having disputes with its neighbors".

Exercise: I think, Spain was once a world power, so were the Dutch, and French and the British, and the Soviets and maybe China now; and I think they all rose to world power status while having active conflicts with their neighbors and distant lands. So what is special about Pakistan that a dispute with it keeps the opponent from becoming a world power?

Absolutely. BTW, it is not only Pakistanis who make that hollow argument but even many Indians and of course the Americans too. The implication here is that India must settle the conflict by 'accommodating' Pakistan's demands because in the long run, that would enable India to attain the status that it wants. This also justifies the atrocious actions of Pakistan because not settling the dispute by India is used to justify acts such as wars, jihadism and terrorism. This is the basis on which Richard Holbrooke was sought to be thrust on India as the new Viceroy for Af-Pak-India. Nobody has ever explained as to why India cannot make the league when it has this conflict with Pakistan. May be these people believe that the nations that you mention unilaterally imposed conflicts on others far and near while in the case of India, it did not do so. It bucks the trend and therefore unjustified, is their thinking perhaps.

partha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4015
Joined: 02 Jul 2010 15:25

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby partha » 30 Oct 2014 06:22

I think one day in the future, western analysts (and of course Pakis) will write "India should hand over Kashmir to Pakistan for the sake of world peace."
Before such a thing happens, India should give peace a real chance.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2014 06:45

Replying to objections by Shaurya, Atish, Arun and others:

ShauryaT wrote:Framing the conflict between India and Pakistan from India's view point as a conflict rooted in the the rejection of the "two nation theory", immediately recognizes the "Islamic" angle of this theory, yet at the same time, is not as broad stroke as to include all who profess the Islamic faith. I agree with Arun, making it all of Islam and those who profess it, is an unnecessary broad stroke.

Our issue with Pakistan at an ideological level was and is about the use of Islam to define national identities for the subcontinent. It is this idea that needs to be fought and debunked and Pakistan defeated upon every single day.

Atish wrote:
How can anybody blame Islam? Political leaders cannot do it for obvious reasons. Academics cant do it. Regular civilians cannot do it. Apart from the social consequences, who will fulfill the security requirements of questioning Islam. This option is off the table except on small scale like the BRF. Its a weapon that cannot be used, however necessary or useful it might be.

Atish.


A_Gupta wrote:
By the same token, Pakistan wants Kashmir so we should give it to them. Why aren't we willing to concede to them in land and people when we are willing to concede to them on ideas? If Pakistan wants a fight, we are going to fight them **and** on our own terms to the extent we can impose them.


Here are my thoughts on this

From the standpoint of practicality it is neither desirable, nor conveient to claim that we must be against all of Islam.

From a personal and emotional viewpoint, I cannot even search inside my soul and claim that I stand vehemently against Islam as a whole.

But I look at the issue from a purely logical viewpoint, and this is something I have said time and again. Islam is against all unbelievers. That is fine. What I am against are the rules that call for war against unbelievers. Tenets of Islam openly justify death to unbelievers.

If you dig a little deeper into this, you come up against a problem. Islam has a set of rules that are claimed to be immutable. These rules are (for simplicity)
1. Rule 1
2. Rule 2
3. Rule 3
4. Rule 4
5. Unbelievers must be opposed and may be killed

I have no objection to the points 1 through 4. It is point number 5, "kill unbelievers" that I have a problem with. I stand opposed to that one point that stands out. The problem is that if I am asked to take Islam whole, I have to accept that non Muslims can be killed. If I oppose that one rule, "kill unbelievers" - it has the same effect as rejecting the whole religion.

In practice I really don't care what Islam says or does as long as this "kill unbelievers" clause is removed. But getting Islam to "remove" or "modify" clauses is defined as being opposed to Islam. I think the intelligence of the founding fathers of Islam is underestimated. They knew very well that they had to make rules like this in an "all or nothing" scheme that automatically creates enemies if they are non Islamic. The fact that these rules can be set aside temporarily is another issue, but the rules are there and claimed to be immutable

Let me get back to Pakistan. Pakistan's opposition to India is entirely ideological. The ideology of opposing and fighting Hindu India has been propagated and infused into a huge proportion of young Pakistani minds by a set of scheming maniacs to the extent that there is no possibility of many Pakistanis seeing Indians as normal or civilized for the next 50 years. No gifts, sops, goodwill or understanding is going to change their view.

If you go back in history, you find that there have been such populations in the past and the only way you can make them see light is to make them suffer. They need to feel pain for a long long time. In fact they are willing to take pain as long as it pulls us down. So we are in an really unenviable situation where we cannot shake off this curse easily. The only option for us is to take this thing to its logical conclusion - a defined as wearing Pakistan down by continuous opposition to everything they say and do to harm us.

Their trump card has been Islam - the claim that India is against Islam. We have not been able to shake off that accusation despite clearly showing that Islam in all its variations thrives in India. We are not fighting Indian Muslims. We are fighting Pakistanis, but we still get accused of fighting Muslims and Islam. A small proportion of Indian Muslims are turned against India because of the conviction that India is a kafir state. Set aside your emotions and look at it logically. Is India a kafir state or not? Is India going to sit back and allow sharia if that is demanded? Why should we be ashamed of the true answers to these questions?

Ultimately, on one level, we are fighting for our principles. If those principles happen to stand against some tenets of Islam, we have to face facts and state them as they are.
Last edited by shiv on 30 Oct 2014 07:02, edited 1 time in total.

Karan Dixit
BRFite
Posts: 1102
Joined: 23 Mar 2007 02:43
Location: Calcutta

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Karan Dixit » 30 Oct 2014 07:01

It seems like Motorm Fair has gotten this jirga all excited.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2014 07:08

Karan Dixit wrote:It seems like Motorm Fair has gotten this jirga all excited.

Not the mohterma herself - just the idiot crowd whom she addressed in Mumbai. The whole conversation started with a questioner saying that being against Pakistan is being against Muslims.

The number of Indians (psecs) who believe this is astounding, and I have constantly tried to wrestle with why this is so. Why would anyone think that Indians opposed to Pakistanis are actually against Muslims? We never accuse America of being against Muslims despite its attacking a series of Islamic countries.

Why are so many Indians convinced that being against Pakistan is the same as being against Muslims?

I can write a long post explaining my thoughts on this, but let me throw the question open for others to say what they think.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Oct 2014 07:15

Islam may claim immutability and in theory no one can refute this design. But one thing about people is they abhor conformity and Muslims are no different globally and in the Indian context these mutations of peoples ideas, beliefs, practices, values explode to a million dimensions making a mockery of Islam's claimed immutability.

It is the mutating nature of people behaviors along with the policies of the state and the cultural context set by the nation that has to be relied upon to ensure that rule 1-4 is acceptable but rule 5 of their faith is not.

If anyone derides Islam as a broad stroke, then the onus is upon that person to make a disclaimer every single time, that they have no issues with rule 1-4 but only with rule 5...

We do need to ask a basic question, will such an approach make the Union of India stronger?

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby SSridhar » 30 Oct 2014 07:16

That is why, the attempts by Indian peaceniks and the Americans to characterize the 'dispute' as irredentism is absolutely off the mark and cannot lead to any solution. Kashmir is not the issue. The issue is far deeper. It is not even Muslims Vs. Hindus. It is actually Islam against kafir.

Allama Iqbal was very clear about this from the beginning. Later, Abu ala al Mawdudi was also very clear about this. In between, it was Jinnah who made this as a Muslim Vs. Hindu issue. He either did it because he was just happy with a status of equality with Gandhi & Nehru that the new nation would give him, or he did it out of ignorance of the larger concept of Islam vs. Kafir or he just cleverly laid the foundation for the efforts of the likes of Mawdudi (Jinnah allegorically said to Mawdudi that he was getting land for the mosque to be built by him), we might never know. But, today's Pakistan has understood the deepest significance of their creation by becoming the fountainhead of Islamist jihadism all over the world along with the possession of nuclear weapons and their delivery platforms. The Allama/Mawdudi project is complete and delivery or deliverance alone remains.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10248
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby arun » 30 Oct 2014 07:29

The Government of India must ensure that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s “Jihad Under The Nuclear Umbrella” is stopped cold in its tracks. Disproportionate response to provocations by the Islamic Republic on the LoC / IB or by way of Jihadi Terrorism is the way forward. After two terms of Congress party dictated policy of diffident and apologetic responses to provocations by the Islamic Republic of Pakistan partly dictated by fear of “international pressure” when the Islamic Republic crys “Nuclear Flashpoint”, let us devote two terms to a belligerent and robust response to provocations by the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic must be conditioned to expect that an Indian response to conventional and sub-conventional provocations will not be deterred by their brandishing nuclear threats:

The logic of deterrence


Below the Munir Akram article cited:

sadhana wrote:Anyway here comes the nuke threat from Munir Akram

http://www.dawn.com/news/1140381 {Snipped}..........

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2014 07:36

ShauryaT wrote:
If anyone derides Islam as a broad stroke, then the onus is upon that person to make a disclaimer every single time, that they have no issues with rule 1-4 but only with rule 5...

We do need to ask a basic question, will such an approach make the Union of India stronger?

Shaurya, I get the impression that you stand for the truth, and that you will set aside personal discomfort for the truth

The union of India is not going to hold if we avoid the truth and the truth is as complex as the act of explaining "I am not against islam, but I am only against blabla"

The union of India has a constitution that we uphold. That constitution has elements that are not only unacceptable to Hindus, some parts can be construed as actively damaging to Hindus.

Similarly there are parts of the Indian constitution that can hardly be acceptable as being perfectly consonant with the tenets of Islam.

The constitution exists so that no matter what Hindus or Muslims think from a religious viewpoint, they have to live by the constitution. The constitution is as anti-Hindu as it is anti-Islam. That is not so difficult to accept is it?

If Pakistanis say that Indians are anti Islam and quote Indian laws as being anti-Islamic, they are right in a sense. Indian laws are not Islamic laws. Why should anyone have a problem with that? If India and Indians are being attacked and punished by Pakistanis just because they (Pakis) do not like our (Indian) laws, we have a right not only to defend ourselves, but also to point out that our laws are our business. No religious group will ever be happy with our laws and may call them "anti-religion". Tough shit. But they are anti-religion by design, as a "secular" constitution. Our laws cannot be Islamic laws. And laws that are not Islamic laws are anti-Islam by definition. I repeat. Tough shit.

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby A_Gupta » 30 Oct 2014 07:40

shiv wrote:...Ultimately, on one level, we are fighting for our principles. If those principles happen to stand against some tenets of Islam, we have to face facts and state them as they are.


Our principles boil down to some form of common sense and decency. Do I need some scripture or elaborate work of philosophy or moral science to figure out what we want? (I mean e.g., India as a nation, not individual quests for artha, kama, moksha, etc.). As Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam keeps saying, no one needs religion to know some general rules of behavior; the golden rule is obvious even to most children. We are fighting for our principles, not against Islam. If some Mussalmans want to say that this is a religious fight because killing kafirs is a principle of Islam, that is their problem. Yes, them saying so should not deter us from the fight. But common sense and decency is going to govern my interactions with all the Mussalmans who also behave with common sense and decency.

There is always a problem in reading these religious texts. In the US, the Abolitionists read in their Bible that God was against slavery; the religious among the Southern Confederacy read in the very same Bible God's support for America's peculiar institution. Why do I want to be engulfed in this theology? I would choose my side in that battle based on common sense and decency; that would make me for God on one side, and against God on the other side, so what? If I really took that God seriously, I would become a follower of that religion, no?

Maybe the Mussalmans who believe in killing kaffirs are the true Mussalmans, maybe those who behave with common sense and decency have the true religion. Why do I care? the fight is to preserve common sense and decency. The one awakening that I have to convey to everyone is certainly there - that there is some not insignificant set of Musalmans that are against common sense and decency, and one has to learn how to spot them. One needs to not see only what they want to show you, nor what one wants to see, but that objective truth that the scientist aspires to see. Collateral damage is to be avoided as much as is possible.

-----

To put it another way, if the Khyber P. government is going to insert Quranic verses in the high school chemistry textbook, does it turn chemistry into a branch of the Quran? Of course not. No mob of howling fanatics can make it so. Am I going to concede that chemistry might be a religious subject simply because some Mussalmans choose to fight for that? To create a fight takes two sides, to turn that fight into a religious conflict also takes two sides.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2014 07:47

SSridhar wrote:That is why, the attempts by Indian peaceniks and the Americans to characterize the 'dispute' as irredentism is absolutely off the mark and cannot lead to any solution. Kashmir is not the issue. The issue is far deeper. It is not even Muslims Vs. Hindus. It is actually Islam against kafir.

Allama Iqbal was very clear about this from the beginning. Later, Abu ala al Mawdudi was also very clear about this. In between, it was Jinnah who made this as a Muslim Vs. Hindu issue. He either did it because he was just happy with a status of equality with Gandhi & Nehru that the new nation would give him, or he did it out of ignorance of the larger concept of Islam vs. Kafir or he just cleverly laid the foundation for the efforts of the likes of Mawdudi (Jinnah allegorically said to Mawdudi that he was getting land for the mosque to be built by him), we might never know. But, today's Pakistan has understood the deepest significance of their creation by becoming the fountainhead of Islamist jihadism all over the world along with the possession of nuclear weapons and their delivery platforms. The Allama/Mawdudi project is complete and delivery or deliverance alone remains.


+1

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5247
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby ShauryaT » 30 Oct 2014 07:52

shiv wrote:If Pakistanis say that Indians are anti Islam and quote Indian laws as being anti-Islamic, they are right in a sense. Indian laws are not Islamic laws. Why should anyone have a problem with that? If India and Indians are being attacked and punished by Pakistanis just because they (Pakis) do not like our (Indian) laws, we have a right not only to defend ourselves, but also to point out that our laws are our business. No religious group will ever be happy with our laws and may call them "anti-religion". Tough shit. But they are anti-religion by design, as a "secular" constitution. Our laws cannot be Islamic laws. And laws that are not Islamic laws are anti-Islam by definition. I repeat. Tough shit.
Do not think even Nehru can object to the above. I am not against the targeting of Islam, in fact I claim that we already do, by refuting the two nation theory. To what degree one wants to take this opposition to the two nation theory and make it specifically about Islam and its tenets is a matter of debate. They already envy us - at every level. They resent our success in the region. They resent that we are a single united nation. They resent that they are powerless to do any major harm to us. They resent that such a large body of muslims have been able to live as moderates under our polity and it is this polity that has moderated the muslims even further, making a mockery of rule 5 of their immutable religious law.

By making Islam as the prime target, we did be playing their game and they will say - see - I told you so, these Hindu bigots are anti Islam and no wonder muslims cannot live with them and the two nation theory succeeds. I will repeat again and end here, do everything to destroy the two nation theory.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 30 Oct 2014 07:56, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby shiv » 30 Oct 2014 07:54

A_Gupta wrote:Our principles boil down to some form of common sense and decency. Do I need some scripture or elaborate work of philosophy or moral science to figure out what we want? (I mean e.g., India as a nation, not individual quests for artha, kama, moksha, etc.). As Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam keeps saying, no one needs religion to know some general rules of behavior; the golden rule is obvious even to most children. We are fighting for our principles, not against Islam.

You know Arun, as usual you and I are now cooperating to take this discussion right out of the mandate of this thread. But I must reply, and try and keep the reply relevant to this thread.

Unfortunately (or coincidentally?) Indian (Hindu) culture is the only culture that I know of in which morality exists outside of religion. You do not need orders from some god to figure out moral rules.

But for Islam (and Christianity) morality comes bundled with religion. And that is part of the problem. Religious leaders state unequivocally that moral rules hold only for believers. Unbelievers are excluded from that decency.

The words and behavior of the shooters on Mumbai in 2008 reflects indoctrination that morality and decency is not for unbelievers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehgTIOm ... aABJoSc-wg
[youtube]QehgTIOmkmQ&list=UUy5jv_TZRrwOKaABJoSc-wg[/youtube]

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24236
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby SSridhar » 30 Oct 2014 08:09

Pak businessmen to join Modi's reception in Australia - IP Singh, ToI
Representatives of Pakistan Australia Business Council (PABC), a body of Pakistani businessmen down under, would join Prime Minister Narendra Modi's reception in Sydney on November 17.

PACB will be among 200 reception partners of the event, which includes Hindu Council Australia, Hindu Swamsewak Sangh and Vishwa Hindu Parishad Australia.

"We are going to attend Modi's community reception. Australian Pakistanis and Australian Indians have been living here as friends and there are no hostilities at all. We want better relations should develop among India, Pakistan and Australia," PACB president Iftikhar Rana told TOI from Australia.

"People to people contact and confidence building measures are crucial for the people of the neighboring countries and we consider our participation in the function as a CBM."

PACB senior vice president Kashif Amjad said he would be attending the reception. "We don't know if we will get an opportunity to interact with the Indian Prime Minister. But we will try to meet a senior Indian official and urge that business among the three countries should increase," he said.

Rana, whose family had migrated from Hoshiarpur to Lahore, said: "Those two countries have our roots and Australia is the country to which we belong now. We want relations among the three countries to improve and business can be a major route for improving ties."

Pulikeshi
BRFite
Posts: 1513
Joined: 31 Oct 2002 12:31
Location: Badami

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby Pulikeshi » 30 Oct 2014 09:18

SSridhar wrote:It is actually Islam against kafir.


Shiv wrote:Ultimately, on one level, we are fighting for our principles. If those principles happen to stand against some tenets of Islam, we have to face facts and state them as they are.


ShauryaT wrote:By making Islam as the prime target, we did be playing their game and they will say - see - I told you so, these Hindu bigots are anti Islam and no wonder muslims cannot live with them and the two nation theory succeeds. I will repeat again and end here, do everything to destroy the two nation theory.


Paki-Satan != India

If India is pusillanimous and run by WKK 'peaceful idiots' -> Paki-Satan tears itself apart with green on green
What is the end goal if pusillanimity is actually a strategy - eventual breakup of Paki-Satan, heck no it is to keep it weak and stewing in its own juices.

If India is belligerent and run by Internet Hindus -> Paki-Satan unites against a common external foe.
What is the end goal if belligerence is actually a strategy - eventual strengthening of Paki-Satan, heck no it is to provide structure when structure starts breaking down due to internal fissures.

It is certainly true that perhaps these two leverage positions have run its course and new set of leverages need to be identified and enforced. This is perhaps the direction of the current Modi govt.

If I read this right, India is just using the != idea to its logical end - calibrating which way it wants to push Paki-Satan to keep the beast under control. As Luttwak may say, strategy is counter-intuitive.

Principles, ideology, religion - great sounding themes on BRF. The region of Paki-Satan was a problem for the region of India even before Islam existed as a religion. You are welcome to beer and popcorn discussions... but at the end of the day, India has no end goal or changed policy for Paki-Satan, or another way to say it, at this point it seems India does have a policy, but not an end goal and it is to keep the Paki-Satan state intact.

I will duck brickbats, but evidence and counter-arguments are welcome...

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby RajeshA » 30 Oct 2014 13:26

A_Gupta wrote:
shiv wrote:...Ultimately, on one level, we are fighting for our principles. If those principles happen to stand against some tenets of Islam, we have to face facts and state them as they are.


Our principles boil down to some form of common sense and decency.


Let's not forget the principles of survival and dignity.

A_Gupta wrote:Do I need some scripture or elaborate work of philosophy or moral science to figure out what we want? (I mean e.g., India as a nation, not individual quests for artha, kama, moksha, etc.). As Swami Dayananda Saraswati of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam keeps saying, no one needs religion to know some general rules of behavior; the golden rule is obvious even to most children. We are fighting for our principles, not against Islam. If some Mussalmans want to say that this is a religious fight because killing kafirs is a principle of Islam, that is their problem. Yes, them saying so should not deter us from the fight. But common sense and decency is going to govern my interactions with all the Mussalmans who also behave with common sense and decency.


Of course one should interact with others with common sense and decency. But we need not mix up personal interaction dynamics with policy.

A_Gupta wrote:There is always a problem in reading these religious texts.

<snip>

Maybe the Mussalmans who believe in killing kaffirs are the true Mussalmans, maybe those who behave with common sense and decency have the true religion. Why do I care? the fight is to preserve common sense and decency. The one awakening that I have to convey to everyone is certainly there - that there is some not insignificant set of Musalmans that are against common sense and decency, and one has to learn how to spot them. One needs to not see only what they want to show you, nor what one wants to see, but that objective truth that the scientist aspires to see. Collateral damage is to be avoided as much as is possible.


Even when one tends to not define a group over their religious texts, many still do it, simply because of their understanding of nature of "religion". But often when one does not bring in the religious texts, to which I agree to a large extent, many still decide against doing a Purva paksha on the other, based on issues that seem religious in nature.

Basically dividing Mussalmans on decent and not decent, with common sense and no common sense, and thus all differentiated, there is a real risk of not considering them as a group, when they themselves consider themselves as a group. The group identity among them is strong, and individualism is suppressed, so what is the logic of not wanting to describe them as a group?

Of course not all are violent, but the description of the group can be done more fundamentally, rather than whether some or the other is tends to use violence or not.

A_Gupta wrote:To put it another way, if the Khyber P. government is going to insert Quranic verses in the high school chemistry textbook, does it turn chemistry into a branch of the Quran? Of course not. No mob of howling fanatics can make it so. Am I going to concede that chemistry might be a religious subject simply because some Mussalmans choose to fight for that? To create a fight takes two sides, to turn that fight into a religious conflict also takes two sides.


Unless you are a Bhai Taru Singh, you will indeed concede that chemistry is a religious subject, when the question is formulated in an appropriate Islamic way, just like 100s of millions of other Muslims do whose forefathers were Hindu!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16003
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan - 10 Oct

Postby RajeshA » 30 Oct 2014 13:59

ShauryaT wrote:I am not against the targeting of Islam, in fact I claim that we already do, by refuting the two nation theory. To what degree one wants to take this opposition to the two nation theory and make it specifically about Islam and its tenets is a matter of debate.


Muslim League demanded Pakistan based on Two-Nation-Theory. Many Muslims stayed back in India, as Gandhi-Nehru said we are secular and don't consider Muslims to be a different nation than Hindus.

However NONE has really posed the question to Indian Muslims, how they are different than Pakistanis, over and beyond citizenship issue. At the moment of Partition when citizenship was not clarified yet, in what way did Indian Muslims differ from Pakistanis?

It is fine and well to reject TNT, but can the basis of that please be searched for among the Indian Muslims and not among the Hindu Seculars! Did the Indian Nation tell those Muslims staying back, that they are required to believe in the rejection of Two-Nation-Theory if they stay back?

Indian Muslims and others share the same State and we have social interactions, but there is a strong group identity among Indian Muslims and regardless of where they are in India, they consider themselves as one group with similar group interests. Of course just having a separate group identity does not make them Pakistani. But I would like to know where is the ideological difference? Did the Hindus press for an ideological difference?

I would have preferred that Indians should have laid it down that those who became Pakistanis they considered Islam a Qaum, and those who stayed consider Islam a Deen. But no such requirements were laid out, and no legal and security mechanism was put in place to ensure that it stayed this way.

ShauryaT wrote:They already envy us - at every level. They resent our success in the region. They resent that we are a single united nation. They resent that they are powerless to do any major harm to us. They resent that such a large body of muslims have been able to live as moderates under our polity and it is this polity that has moderated the muslims even further, making a mockery of rule 5 of their immutable religious law.

By making Islam as the prime target, we did be playing their game and they will say - see - I told you so, these Hindu bigots are anti Islam and no wonder muslims cannot live with them and the two nation theory succeeds. I will repeat again and end here, do everything to destroy the two nation theory.


That is their primary rhetoric to put you on the defensive!

You don't love me, so I'll go blow up the whole house!
No, No, I do love you!
Then please accept this kick!
Ouch, that hurt, you buzztard!
See you don't love me, so I'll blow up the whole house!
No, No, I do love you!
Then I will half the house for myself, (for now)!

Sorry, but this is an illogical and non-sustaining dynamic, where one has to prove to them all the time, that one loves them!

Two-Nation-Theory succeeds not depending on whether we love them or not, but rather because Religious Conversion is indeed pledging oneself to the Nation of Islam, and because Islam was able to take away so much of our flock using lies or the sword.

We paint ourselves into a corner when we take Western definitions of "religion" and "respect for all religions"! It has nothing to do with "sarva dharma samabhava"! Religion defines Nation!


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asif.a, Google [Bot], srin, Thakur_B and 115 guests