Sunni Terrorist Fragments of Unstable Pakistan-Nov 21, 2015

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 13 Dec 2015 22:42

It is difficult to make a synopsis of all the great posts above.

1. Over the centuries, Muslims in India became a colourful/variegated people who had a layer of culture not directly taken out of Islamic texts.

IMO, the Ottomans, Arabs, Persians see these Muslims as a distinct variety. Without further ado, I'll now refer to them as Indian Muslims.

2. There has also been over those centuries, a cultural war within Indian Muslims, exemplified by the Dara Shikoh+Akbar versus Aurangzeb divide. One side accepted, if not embraced the Indic side of their culture; the other saw it as a corrupting influence.

SSridhar has written a detailed account of this.

3. When the British displaced the ruling class of Muslims, the situation became much more complicated (and equally difficult to summarize). Roughly speaking, Muslims now not only had the internal culture war, but now had a new fear, the easing of which needed "security against Hindu domination".

4. The culture war and need-for-security led to the creation of Pakistan, and Pakistan has continued to use both these themes. The security themes are resolvable in principle and the enduring hostility of Pakistan is due to the culture war.

5. If Pakistan's native culture is some mix of Indic and Persian, we see Pakistan rejecting both aspects of its heritage (e.g., even from "Khuda Hafiz" to "Allah Hafiz"), as the Sunni majority seeks an Arab Sunni identity as the only legitimate Islamic identity. Pakistan is damaging itself more than any alleged Hindu domination ever would; and of course, the Arab Sunni sees the Pakistani Sunni as third-rate anyway.

Is this a fair summary of some very rich writing?

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 13 Dec 2015 23:13

The posts by shiv, SSridhar and A_Gupta saars should be archived in some way by non-armchair jernails (unlike myself). A book perhaps.

Islam is an interesting religion. The birth of Islam was through the destruction of a secular, idol worshipping pagan society (Banu Quraish). Islam was used like a weapon by PBUH, it is clear from the fact that he never cared about writing down the Quran for posteriety. The other fact in support of that is that Islam emphasizes Abrahamic "othering" and takes it to the extreme. The art of Taqiya is another supporting evidence.

I would say the problem we see in Bakistan is a larger Islamic problem. For example: Many of the battles by Poobah were tactically brilliant and strategically stupid. Once the ancient tribal identities were "Borg"ed up by Islam the "Islamic Othering" instinct kicked in and the equillibriums that existed between the tribes began to be enforced by the sword instead of talks and "posturing". Islam turned an otherwise largely dharmic culture into murdering hordes.

Islam is fundamentally in conflict with any secular society, whether the secular society wants it or not. From Banu Quraish to the tribes in Africa. It got stopped on one side by the Crusades and the other side by India, for two entirely different reasons. The stoppage on the Indian side was explained by shiv saar in his post above. The Crusades was the Abrahamic response to an Abrahamic attack.

Christianity "became" secularized when they realized that tribal identities matter. A white French Euro Catholic would look down upon a dark skinned Catholic from Malta regardless of the fact that both of them subscribe to the same version of Catholisism.

Christian secularism is thus a way to reduce "othering" within themselves, while they kept the "othering" poison to non-christian pagans. Hating the "other" was ok in the Christian Secular bible, as long as the "other" was a Pagan. This is where Christian seculars (Sikulars in India) are completely aligned with Islamic beliefs and happen to agree with each other.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 13 Dec 2015 23:18

A_Gupta wrote:It is difficult to make a synopsis of all the great posts above.
...
Is this a fair summary of some very rich writing?

This is one of those times when time spent reading BRF posts is repaid with interest.

Let me try to leverage the clarity of recent posts to explore a bit more just what it is that makes Pakistan insecure vis-a-vis India. I think there isn't much fundamental difference between today's Pakistan and the Iqbal-jinnah's Pakistan in this regard.

It could not have been physical security or fear of political disenfranchisement. By definition those would not happen, at least not sustainably, in a functional stable democratic state. I and J both had the smarts and global exposure to know this.

It could not have been the emergence of a creature called the Indian Muslim, apart from the core (Arab) Muslim. That had already happened, and they understood how to manage it. Participate in Hindu culture, while keeping well-born Indians in a sort of respectable servitude--the Akbar formula. The Aurangazeb formula was always available as the stick to Akbar's carrot of a superficial respectability.

I think the insecurity stemmed, and continue ls to stem, from a vision of the consequences of a democratized and egalitarian Hindu mass. Both the Congress party grassroots movements and the RSS/Hindu Mahasabha had laid the foundation for just such a transformation. (So did the communists, on the surface, but they were hijacked by Hindu highborn who had given up on Hinduism).

In a "normal" democratic, Hindu majority India, Indian Muslims could, on the surface, continue to thrive, having adopted enough "syncretism " to make life bearable, even enjoyable, for most Indians, Hindu as well as Muslim.

But a "normal" egalitarian India represents a tectonic civilizational shift.

It would give rise to a shift for Muslims where the political initiative for the Indianization of the Muslim lies. From Muslim hands to Hindu hands. The same Indianization which was previously a tool of managing a majority population that was subjugated, now is in danger of becoming a tool of sheer survival, implying the subjugation of the Muslim.

In reality, there can be no sustained subjugation in a democracy, but to believe that, one has to believe in democracy first.

I think all the insecurities of Pakistan and the intense Modiphobia in India, can be explained by the fear of an assertive, egalitarian Hindu society. It is this "nightmare " against which the Indian elite and the pakis are doing battle.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 13 Dec 2015 23:18

All these should be in Pakistan a new way of looking also which is the repository.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Dec 2015 00:20

Peregrine wrote:But we need to go further back in time to examine the death cult that systematically brainwashed young men to assassinate Christian and Arab princes and generals across much of the Middle East in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. Established by Hassan al-Sabbah (Born 1050s – Died 12 June 1124) at Alamut, high in Iran’s Alborz mountains, the castle was virtually impregnable.They would then be told by the sheikh that if they wanted to return to paradise forever, they would have to obey his orders without fail. Desperate to seek re-entry into what they thought was heaven, these simple young men would eagerly agree to do Al Sabbah’s bidding, and went forth to kill designated targets, never to return. For years, the Old Man of the Mountain was feared by rulers from Baghdad to Cairo, and beyond.

History channel showed Documentry on them this week. Even Saladin had to make compromise for leaving Assassins alone and not interfere in their business. It turned out 2 of Saladin's most trusted bodyguards were actually assassins.This was revealed to him as part of negotiations with leader of the group.

eklavya · Post by **eklavya** » 14 Dec 2015 01:06

SSridhar wrote:There are some Indian analysts who believe in that model too. These are the peaceniks who believe, based on the security model, that if India could assuage Pakistan's fears by giving concessions and act like a forgiving and generous big brother, the enmity would go away. So, the innocuous facade of 'security-seeking model' helps Pakistan in multiple ways including by putting pressure on GoI through some Indians themselves. However, it is only the 'civilizational model' that can explain the 'enduring hostility' of Pakistan towards India.

Great post sir. Providing the necessary historical context.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Dec 2015 02:29

Ammi of jahil Hami-Idd.

sukhish · Post by **sukhish** » 14 Dec 2015 02:48

arun wrote:Notwithstanding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demonstrated ability to conjure victory out of defeat, the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s talking 56 inch chest while delivering a 15.6 inch Pigeon Chest has delivered a very low effort opportunity for the Islamic Republic to declare victory, on a plate. Such a conclusion from Yaqoob Khan Bangash writing in the Express Tribune:

“The first week of December ended with a surprise meeting of the National Security Advisers (NSA) of Pakistan and India in Bangkok. …………………… On the Indian side, this development exhibited the clear failure of the ‘Ignore Pakistan’ policy ………………….. In terms of India, Pakistan is simply too big a neighbour to ignore. ………………….. On the Pakistani side, Islamabad has achieved a small victory by including Kashmir as a matter of dispute. The recognition by the BJP-led government that Kashmir is an international dispute is a success for Pakistan.”

Regrettable that the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has belied their own talk of a robust foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The lure of the Noble Peace Prize seems to hold PM Modi in not very much less thrall than the much castigated figure for pusillanimity, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And so we go from Surrender in Sharm-El-Sheikh to Beating the Retreat in Bangkok .

From here:

Pakistan’s re-emergence

exactly my point. posturing is one thing but realty is a lot difference. this guy(Mr MODI) is average at best, good at giving lectures only.
and then we will not discuss balouchistan either, forwhatever moral high we need to take ?

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 14 Dec 2015 03:11

Rice mitt Mice Shidt Redux

Many exporters mix low quality rice with high quality and call it Basmati. The low quality of Pakistani rice has led many countries to contract with Indian exporters hence Pakistan’s share declined. Exporters/millers are not interested in buying the new produce.

Cheers

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 14 Dec 2015 05:19

Paki Duz Paki Think, Lahori Fraudori Karre Chori
Nine Jersey City, Secaucus residents charged in $3M credit card fraud scheme
(Question is if they were doing this to fund terrorism)

The charges include first-degree money laundering and other crimes in a joint federal and state investigation targeting an elaborate fraud scheme in which the defendants allegedly used fake identities to obtain credit cards and open bank accounts which they used to steal approximately $3 million from various banks, officials said.Naim Tahir, Hassan Shahbaz,Shakel Ahmed,Shama Munir
Faisal Mushtaq,Mohammad ShakeelMuhammad Farooq Bhatti,Rilvan Junaid,Shakeela Ahmed,Aqeel Sheikh,Mohamed Khan,Huda Ahmed.The defendants allegedly created “synthetic” identities by pairing real Social Security numbers with fictitious names and birth dates, using them to open numerous checking and credit card accounts. They also allegedly opened the accounts online so as to avoid face-to-face interaction with the financial institutions.It is alleged that the defendants ultimately “busted out” the credit cards by running up the unpaid balances until they reached or exceeded the credit limits. The scheme included a group of “merchants,” who in many cases allegedly ran shell businesses set up solely for the purpose of participating in this fraud.The merchants allegedly swiped the fraudulent credit cards using point of sale terminals and received reimbursement from credit card processing companies via wire transfer, while never actually providing any merchandise or services. The ring members then allegedly split the proceeds.The arrested defendants are being lodged in the Union County Jail with bail for each set at $1 million, with no 10 percent option.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2015 06:35

Rice mitt Mice Schidtt never goes away.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2015 06:42

LokeshC wrote:
Christian secularism is thus a way to reduce "othering" within themselves, while they kept the "othering" poison to non-christian pagans. Hating the "other" was ok in the Christian Secular bible, as long as the "other" was a Pagan. This is where Christian seculars (Sikulars in India) are completely aligned with Islamic beliefs and happen to agree with each other.

Christian secularism arose out of the so called "Thirty years war" in which about 20% of the population of Europe was wiped out (mainly by famine and disease as a result of war). Up until that war Europe had a system in which the Catholic Church ruled supreme and people of European monarchies had to change their religion (to a different flavour of Christianity) if the state was taken oven by a monarch of a different faith. Ultimately groups like Calvinists and Protestants went apeshit and had a bloody and long war at the end of which secularism arose in the form of an agreement that the Church would no longer be allowed to interfere in the ruling of the state and people would be free to practice their faith (some flavour of Christianity with proselytisation and all) without imposition from the state.

Islam has retained in full all the coercive and murderous elements that Christianity had before the thirty years war. A lot of Muslims will have to die before they develop the humanity to understand what is happening. Look at any Muslim country from North Africa to Pakistan and you find bigoted Islamic mofos who simply kill kill kill or subjugate without mercy. That these people have the temerity to call Islam a religion of peace is absurd enough. More ludicrous is the fact that non Muslims join the chorus and agree with the biggest lie since 700 AD that Islam represents peace.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 14 Dec 2015 06:49

Safavid takeover of Persia is closest to pre Thirty years war situation. Their grip was strong and Iran remained Shia todate.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Dec 2015 07:18

I don't know how many are aware that the 'rice mitt mice schidtt' coterie has filed a case in the Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Board (IPAB) in Chennai that 'Basmati' belongs to Pakistani West Punjab and Indian East Punjab cannot use that term.

RamSuresh · Post by **RamSuresh** » 14 Dec 2015 07:32

Dear SSridhar,

Many thanks for the brilliantly informative post.

member_22733 · Post by **member_22733** » 14 Dec 2015 07:56

shiv wrote:
Islam has retained in full all the coercive and murderous elements that Christianity had before the thirty years war. A lot of Muslims will have to die before they develop the humanity to understand what is happening. Look at any Muslim country from North Africa to Pakistan and you find bigoted Islamic mofos who simply kill kill kill or subjugate without mercy. That these people have the temerity to call Islam a religion of peace is absurd enough. More ludicrous is the fact that non Muslims join the chorus and agree with the biggest lie since 700 AD that Islam represents peace.

There is a subtle difference, IMVVHO. Christism, while having expansionist edicts, was largely inward looking similar to the lines of 10 commandments. Despite being rigid and inflexible the commandments largely emphasize an inward search. This is despite the fact that there are crazy verses in Bible as well (Slavery for ex, is completely ok and so is the rape and taking of women as war booty, but that is in the Jewish side of the bible).

However once the Byzantine emperor adopted Christism, they adopted it and amplified the expansionist parts of the book. This is natural and it was a convenient way to "justify" the need to "civilize" the barbarians with the Bible. But they were in conflict with the "eastern style" of Christism. The eastern style was inward looking and IMO somewhat dharmic. The Byzantines and Romans had different ideas and this caused a massive power struggle around 1000AD.

Wiki has a large article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism

The Byzantine empire had the might (and method) of the Roman imperial tactics and they easily won over. That is the transition point for both the nature of Christism and also a physical transition point of the nature of Christism. Christism turned into what Islam is today after that point.

Islam's origin and its spread are entirely different. There is no scope for introspection in Islam. It is built like a cult, for it is a cult. It was a cult that was nurtured by PBUH to achieve his sole life goal: Conquer Mecca (and thus conquer a major transit center of a branch of the silk route) and rent-seek for the rest of his life. The Quran came much after his death, he cared little for writing his thoughts down. Moreover he could not even if he wanted to (he was illiterate). Regardless of that, he was an astute bedoin businessman and an expert manipulator without which he could not have achieved what he did. The price of his success is still being paid with interest by planet earth, it is almost as much as the price being paid for the success of the Byzantine takeover of Christism.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2015 08:16

sukhish wrote:
arun wrote:Notwithstanding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demonstrated ability to conjure victory out of defeat, the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s talking 56 inch chest while delivering a 15.6 inch Pigeon Chest has delivered a very low effort opportunity for the Islamic Republic to declare victory, on a plate. Such a conclusion from Yaqoob Khan Bangash writing in the Express Tribune:

“The first week of December ended with a surprise meeting of the National Security Advisers (NSA) of Pakistan and India in Bangkok. …………………… On the Indian side, this development exhibited the clear failure of the ‘Ignore Pakistan’ policy ………………….. In terms of India, Pakistan is simply too big a neighbour to ignore. ………………….. On the Pakistani side, Islamabad has achieved a small victory by including Kashmir as a matter of dispute. The recognition by the BJP-led government that Kashmir is an international dispute is a success for Pakistan.”

Regrettable that the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has belied their own talk of a robust foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The lure of the Noble Peace Prize seems to hold PM Modi in not very much less thrall than the much castigated figure for pusillanimity, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And so we go from Surrender in Sharm-El-Sheikh to Beating the Retreat in Bangkok .

From here:

Pakistan’s re-emergence
exactly my point. posturing is one thing but realty is a lot difference. this guy(Mr MODI) is average at best, good at giving lectures only.
and then we will not discuss balouchistan either, forwhatever moral high we need to take ?

One well known paradigm is that Indian Congress supporters will invariably agree with a Pakistani viewpoint in order to excoriate anything associated with Hindus. This is simply a continuation of the fact that Congress style secularism is the practice of Pakistaniyat in India, in which the Hindu poses and eternal threat to the Muslim in India or Pakistan. The "liberals" of secular Congress have for too long leveraged Hindu liberalism and freedom of speech to protect Islamic conservatism. If its Hindu it can't be good and support from any Pakistani on this point is embraced with the eagerness of a puppy being offered a treat. Hence the enchanting dovetailing of Pakistani and Congress viewpoints such as Indian interference in Baluchistan and the insistence on continuing talks despite teror without even a chirp from India that retaliation will be there - and a gradual chipping away at armed forces morale by stopping them from avenging daily insults from a Congress supported Pakistan army. I cannot recall a single burp, sigh or moan from Manmohan Sonia Singh that India will punish any border offensive from Pakistan. Even a mediocre Modi looks like a bright supernova compared to the purulent gangrenous rot that we had for a decade.

Any thing that puts distance between Indians and those hand in glove rotters is welcome.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 Dec 2015 09:04

Guys, sorry to make you throw up, but this is the kind of garbage analysis on ModiJi's decision to re-open talks that needs to countered in India and decimated once for all, but I am not counting on it

http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/ ... 8X6PJ.html

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 14 Dec 2015 10:10

SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, I completely agree.

Anything through Afghanistan & Pakistan in their present form is a No Go, IMHO. And, China cannot be part of any O&G venture that brings these products to India.

who sent rah rah ansari to represent India??

this guy does everything else but............

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2015 10:39

SSridhar wrote:A_Gupta & shiv, great discussion.

A_Gupta, thanks for bringing the civilizational aspect of the conflict back into focus. In our day-to-day tactical handling of Pakistan, we sometimes tend to forget the strategic larger issue which is certainly the 'civilizational enmity' of Pakistan with India which is the reason why it is called Pakistan's 'enduring hostility'.

This is a long post.

The gist of my argument is that as A-Gupta reiterated, there are two paradigms proffered by analysts, one 'security-seeking' and the other 'civilizational'. The former is the widely accepted Western construct and the latter, the long held Indian belief among many analysts (there are some exceptions which we shall see later). As far as Pakistan is concerned, the two constructs are not mutually exclusive as it uses them to target appropriate audiences to effectively further its singular obsessive agenda.

The 'security-seeking' model emanated from American analysts, bureaucrats and politicians who wanted to justify to India their military collaboration with the Pakistanis in terms that appear reasonable. The Americans, during the Cold War period were not willing to entirely let go of India and wanted to maintain a relationship with us, however tenuous and hostile it may be. This way, they justified their arms transfer by claiming that all they did was to supply just enough weapons for Pakistan to fend itself off a much larger adversary. This model continues and fine examples of proponents of this model in recent times were Obama, Armitage, Cheney et al.

To understand the 'civilizational' paradigm, we travel a century back to the beginning of the twentieth century. We need to understand the churn amongst the Muslim society in India. By the turn of the twentieth century, the Muslims were acutely aware of the fact that they had seen better days and their glory was on the wane irrecoverably. The previous two centuries had seen the European powers like Great Britain, Russia, and France vanquish Muslim rulers in India, Central Asia and parts of North Africa respectively. By early twentieth century, the Ottoman Empire was disintegrating. Muslims all over the world, and especially in India, were introspecting and came to the conclusion that their misfortune was because of moving away from Islam. In India, Emperor Akbar’s accommodation of Hindu philosophy had already raised the ire of the fundamentalists. The backlash came swiftly in the form of his successor Emperor Aurangazeb who implemented a strict form of Islam and treated the Hindus as dhimmi. Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, who was a religious teacher of Aurangazeb, ensured fundamentalist ideas were firmly entrenched in governance. This later led to the emergence of such hardcore fundamentalists as Sheikh Waliullah and Ahmed Berelvi who took his volunteers to Afghanistan border to fight the British and the Sikh kings, in an act reminiscent of Prophet Muhammad’s hijra from Makkah to Medinah. The Afghan borders have never been the same after this emigration by Ahmed Berelvi. While some Muslims raged at their impotence to fight the British, others plotted to regain power through an association with the British. The Indian muslims were thus divided into two groups. The Second War of Independence in 1857 by Indian soldiers (the First War of Independence was in July 1806 when sepoys mutineed in the Vellore Fort) under the flag of the Mughal ruler, Bahadur Shah Zafar and the ruthless manner it was put down and he was exiled to Burma where he died eventually and his young sons were brutally killed, created revulsion in the minds of Indian Muslims.

SSridhar saar,

I think we are missing a very important point. But, before I make that point, I want to ask a few questions to lead to that point.

a) About Security State:
Why would Pakistan need security? The assumption is that India will attack Pakistan, so Pakistan needs security. This assumption is not based on facts. Everyone with any knowledge on these issues, knows that all the Indo-Pak conflicts are started by Pak. Then, why would anyone want to assume that India will attack Pakistan? If India will not attack Pakistan, then why would Pakistan need a security?

b) About civilizational threat:
Here, you talked about the history of malsI in Bhaarath. What are the fears expressed by Sirhindi? There are two combined fears:
1) The large and martial Hindhu people who cannot be subjugated easily. It would be a costly and protracted campaign. And it would require a healthy dose of divide and rule. And still there are frequent rebellions and reconvertions.
2) The second fear is the real fear. These Hindhu people regardless of whether they are converted or not will digest new cults into Hindhuism. Sirhindi actually saw this fear manifest in his own lifetime when Akbar created Dheen-i-Ilahi. He was spooked. The real fear is that Hindhuism will simply digest them and not even burp. Thats why Sirhindi did not want mass convertions of Hindhus into malsI because he was convinced that such mass convertions would change the very character of malsI as he knew it. The whole idea being to insulate malsI from Indian culture(which is naturally seeped in Hindhuism). This attempt to insulate Indian culture from malsI continued with every conservative icon of malsI in India. This is true as late as Barelvi. We generally tend to think that by 1800, the Hindhus who converted to malsI would have been thoroughly alienated from Hindhu culture and Indian culture. This is not true. It seems that even as late as 1800, many people even in places like Khorasan(which were the first regions in India to be converted) continued with many Hindhu practices.

Barelvi was quite successful in setting up a network of centres in various cities of North India. He enlisted an impressive following, particularly among the upper class Muslims. He also collected a lot of money at the same time. He called upon Muslims to eliminate three kinds of excesses - firstly, those advocated by heterodox Sufis; secondly, those practised by the Shias; and thirdly, those �borrowed� from the Hindus. Prof. Aziz Ahmad writes: �This last category was by far the most important, and was most vigorously denounced by Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi. It had included pilgrimage to Hindu holy places, shouting Hindu religious slogans, and adorning the tombs with lingams (Hindu phallic symbol), worship of Hindu deities, borrowing from Hindu animism, consulting Brahmins for good or bad omens, and celebration of Hindu festivals. Next came external Hindu manners, such as eating on leaves or keeping pig-tails or piercing women�s ears and nose to wear jewellery or shaving one�s hair and eyebrows in imitation of yogis or even dressing like Hindus.�5

Barelvi forgot that a majority of Muslims in India were converts from the Hindu fold, and that Islam sat rather lightly on most of them. This is understandable. After all, Barelvi was an Islamic missionary and not a historian of Islam in India. What amazes one is that even Muslim scholars in modern times have managed to forget that the �impurities� or �excesses� of Islam in India were not injected into it by Hindus from the outside, but were brought along by Hindu converts who were driven or lured into the fold of Islam by force or fraud. Nor has any Muslim scholar noted that it is these �impurities� and �excesses� which have prevented the total brutalization of native Muslims such as had always been and is being advocated by their Ashrãf (foreign) mentors.

To resume the story, Barelvi�s confidence in a jihãd against the British collapsed when he surveyed the extent and the magnitude of British power in India. He did the next best under the circumstances, and declared a jihãd against the Sikh power in the Punjab, Kashmir and the North-West Frontier. The British on their part welcomed this change and permitted Barelvi to travel towards the border of Afghanistan at a leisurely pace, collecting money and manpower along the way. It was during this journey that Barelvi stayed with or met several Hindu princes, feigned that his fulminations against the Sikhs were a fake, and that he was going out of India in order to establish a base for fighting against the British. It is surmised that some Hindu princes took him at his word, and gave him financial help. To the Muslim princes, however, he told the truth, namely, that he was up against the Sikhs because they �do not allow the call to prayer from mosques and the killing of cows.�6

Barelvi set up his base in the North-West Frontier near Afghanistan. The active assistance he expected from the Afghan king did not materialise because that country was in a mess at that time. But the British connived at the constant flow not only of a sizable manpower but also of a lot of finance. Muslim magnates in India were helping him to the hilt. His basic strategy was to conquer Kashmir before launching his major offensive against the Punjab. But he met with very little success in that direction in spite of several attempts. Finally, he met his Waterloo in 1831 when the Sikhs under Kunwar Sher Singh stormed his citadel at Balakot.

Link

Most of the alienating cultural aspects were introduced as late as 1800s. Barelvi was still trying to undo Hindhu customs in Khorasan region as late as 1800. Urdu was propagated mostly in UP & Bihar in 1800s. The Urdu language itself is mostly Indian languages of UP & Bihar with some persian loan words written in foreign script. Earlier, Persian was spoken by the educated aristocracy. The commoners spoke native languages. So, there was not much difference between a commoners of different faiths in terms of culture. Thats why they write Urdu in a foreign script simply because if Urdu is written in a local script, it becomes indistinguishable from Hindhi. Just as Urdu is separated from Hindhi, similarly a common muslim is separated from a common Hindhu in small ways. If these small ways are removed, then the conservatives fear that they will be assimilated. So, the whole idea is to create an insulation so that they are unable to get assimilated. The insulation is generally middle-eastern culture. The middle-eastern loaned culture is used as an insulation. British idea of secularism(as practised from 1906) was to support the conservatives and protect the insulation to stop assimilation into Indian culture.

This leads back to the first set of questions:
Why would Pakistan need protection from India when India has never attacked Pakistan till today? What exactly is Pakistan afraid of? There are dual fears of Pakistan:
a) India will conquer them
b) India will assimilate them

Out of these two fears, the second fear is the bigger fear. A military defeat is not really that feared because they know that India will not resort to any mass murder. But, an assimilation seems to be really feared. The mere existence of a Hindhu India is a threat because it threatens to assimilate Pakistan. All of the Pakistan's actions are understandable if we see that Pakistan is more afraid of being assimilated by India than being conquered by India. They have realized that its impossible to keep undoing the Indian culture. They have tried as much as they can. They have negated their race. They have changed their language, dress, customs, ...everything. Yet, somehow, they still can't get rid of the Hindhuism within. So, whats the solution from their angle? The only solution they can think of is to somehow conquer India and convert the whole India. If there is no Hindhu India, then there is no threat. Then, they can get into Iran model. Perhaps, Indian culture need not be shed once all of the Hindhus have been converted because then Indian culture won't be associated with Hindhuism. At worst, they hope for Mughal model of reigning over the Hindhus.

Now, why do Pakistanis keep insisting about Honor and Dignity vis-a-vis India? The idea is that if at any point Pakistan is seen as not having any parity with India, then they fear that this will lead to questions on Partition. And this will eventually lead to assimilation. Cultural assimilation and territorial assimilation. Thats why Pakistan doesn't want any two-way ties with India. Pakistan is more than willing to have one-way ties but it has steadfastly refused to reciprocate on any ties as it fears this will lead to assimilation. They are afraid that Pakistanis themselves may want assimilation with India if they see Hindhu India as disproportionately more powerful and wealthy. In short, if Hindhuism is seen as cool, then Pakistanis will also adopt it and soon get assimilated. We tend to look at Pakistan as a separate nation. Pakistan itself seems to be not very confident of being separate from India.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 14 Dec 2015 11:20

SS, haven't ever read a more succinct summary of Pakistan's raisin dieter. Pleasure to read. A_Gupta excellent trigger post as well.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 14 Dec 2015 11:54

SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, I completely agree.

Anything through Afghanistan & Pakistan in their present form is a No Go, IMHO. And, China cannot be part of any O&G venture that brings these products to India.

SSridhar avare: Why not Afghanistan? Granted there is no go but through Pakistan for now. If that can be changed in the (near?) future (i.e. a teeny-weeny bit of common border between Af and Bharat), would going through Afghanistan be a problem if chicken-neck nature of the logistics can be solved through extensive protective cover?

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2015 12:00

SSridhar wrote:
Later in c. 1915, a Deobandi cleric Ubaidullah Sindhi was sent to Afghanistan to contact the Turkish and German missions there and organize an uprising against the British in India. However, in c. 1915, the Afghan King, Habibullah Khan, the son of the founder of modern Afghanistan Abd-ur-Rehman, refused to allow any anti-British plots from the Afghan soil. In c. 1920, when the Khilafat Movement in India was at its peak, several thousand Indian Muslims wanted to emigrate from the British-ruled Dar-ul-Harb to Muslim-ruled Afghanistan of Dar-ul-Aman but this time too, the Afghan Government, led by Amir Amanuallah Khan, son of Habibullah Khan, turned them back. Though the British had entered into a long-standing strategic relationship with the Ottoman Empire in the 1870s in order to stop the menace of the expanding Russian empire, especially after the Crimean war of 1877, the British reversed their position by the time of the WW I. The initial friendship with the Ottoman Emperor came at a time of great turmoil among the Muslims of India after the 1857 War of Independence and also the sense of loss of the Mughal empire. The British had generated a great Islamist fervour deliberately among the Indian Muslims during their friendship with the Ottoman Empire in the last quarter of the nineteenth century to pacify their hurt feelings. This also contextualises the 1906 declaration by the Viceroy, Lord Minto, to the elite group of thirtyfive Mussalman who called upon him on October 1, 1906 that the Muslims of India “were descendants of a conquering and ruling race”. However, all these evaporated quickly when the British turned against them a little later.

In the meanwhile, they had instigated King Hussein ibn Ali, Shariff (Protector) of Makkah and Medinah, to assume the Caliphate as a member of the ‘true race’, that being a reference to his Hashemite lineage from the same clan as the Prophet and an Arab. Lord Kitchener, the then Viceroy of the Sudan and Sir Henry McMahon, the then British High Commissioner to Egypt promised the title to Hussein. The British wanted to instigate an ‘Arab Revolt’ to gain independence from the Ottomans in order to dismantle the Ottoman Caliphate. While doing all this behind the scene, the British put on a pretense of ‘neutrality’ in Islamic matters. But WW I changed all that as the British declared war against the Ottoman. However, the Indian Muslims, already angered by the sudden U-turn in British-Ottoman relationship were further angered by the insurgency of the Shariff of Makkah & Medinah, King Hussein ibn Ali, and termed it as apostasy. The way the British had handled the Khilafat Movement in India also added fuel to the Indian Muslim's fire. The behavior of the Indian Muslims in the matter of the Ottoman Caliph was unique among the Muslims at large as Muslims of Central Asia, Persia, Afghanistan or Arab were not much concerned about the developments. A Muslim delegation from India played a significant role in the Paris talks after the end of the war in retaining the honour and capital of the Caliphate. Though the Treaty of Sevres (1920) and the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) retained the Caliphate, and its Capital Istanbul, Hejaz attained independence and several Allied control areas were created in Mesopatomia, the Transjordan and Syria. Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic Of Turkey. Sharif Hussein formally announced himself as the new Caliph on March 5, 1924. While Arabs welcomed it, there was opposition from India (and Egypt and Afghanistan). Hussein's principal adversary Abd-al-Aziz-ibn-Saud sided with the Indian Muslims and opposed Hussein’s greediness in assuming the Caliphate. Great Britain announced strict neutrality on October 1, 1924 and Sharif Hussein capitulated to the forces of ibn Saud two days later. King Abd-al-Aziz ibn Saud refused to take the mantle of a Caliph, having seen the travails of Sharif Hussein, and the position of Caliph was thus extinguished. The Muslim League in India too had become moribund. The Indian Muslims felt rudderless upon the extinction of the Caliph as well local leaders. These incidents left a deep scar in Muslim minds in India, the effects of which have persisted to this day.

In order to recover the lost ground vis-a-vis the Muslims, the British encouraged the Aligarh group led by Sir Syed Ahmed who was one of the thirtyfive members of the elite Mussalman group which called upon Lord Minto in Simla in c. 1906. This group was overtly very pro-British. Said he, “No Mohammedan can say that the English are not ‘people of the Book’. No Mohammedan can deny this: that God has said that no people of other religions can be friends of Mohammedans except the Christians. . . . Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis. This is our true friendship with our Christian rulers . . . for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the people of the Book." They communalized the Indian polity through reserved seats etc. and ultimately bifurcated India for further geostrategic advantages such as protecting the "wells of power" in the Middle East etc. Olaf Caroe told the Americans in the 1950s that the operations in Mesopotamia in WW I and in Iran in WW II were made possible from bases in Imperial India and with the independence of India he suggested replacing Imperial India with Pakistan. The foundations of 'security-seeking state' were laid. The American Cold War requirement of meeting head-on the spread of Communism was another factor and meshed quite nicely with the description of Pakistan as a 'security-seeking state' to equip its armed forces.

In Pakistan, the Pakistani Army and the Establishment represent the 'security-seeking' group while the jihadi outfits represent the 'civilizational-enmity seeking' faction. Each has been using the other to enhance its own power. For example, the project of 'Islamic Bomb' was a clever use of the 'civilizational' aspect by ZA Bhutto to enhance the 'security model'. Conversely, the collusion between 'civilizational' forces such as LeT or JI etc with the Pakistani Army was to enhance themselves with the the help of the 'security' model. Even before the creation of Pakistan, such mutually-reinforcing linkages were amply visible. For example, the iireligious and security-seeking Jinnah took refuge in calls of 'Islam in danger' or in explaining how civilizationally Hindus & Muslims were apart thereby justifying a nation for themselves, or accommodating with Abu Ala al Mawdudi whom the IS today quotes extensively for justifying its actions. However, PA's efforts to marshall the 'civilizational' forces in its projects significantly unravelled after 9/11 when a part of that setup attacked the 'self' itself. The reason was also simple. Until then, the civilizational forces that the PA relied upon were the ones whose enmity was restricted to the most dominant civilization of the Indian subcontinent. However, 9/11 took that to a higher level as Bush spoke [unwisely] of a crusade. The sub-continental civilizational war was subsumed in this larger picture.

Before Zerb-e-azb recently, the civilizational forces were on the ascent and now the Army has regained the lost ground especially with powerful backers such as the US, China and even Russia. However, there is a much more lethal 'civilizational' force on the horizon, the IS. This is a force that the PA would be unable to manouever to its liking because this new entity is talking of Khorasan, Mahdi etc whereas the ISI had so far restricted itself to a narrower interpretation of Ghazwa-e-Hind. That force can overwhelm the PA. That is now the fear stalking the PA.

Of course, Pakistan does not accept the civilizational aspects of its behaviour with us because the 'security-seeking' model is softer, saleable and brings in dividends. There are some Indian analysts who believe in that model too. These are the peaceniks who believe, based on the security model, that if India could assuage Pakistan's fears by giving concessions and act like a forgiving and generous big brother, the enmity would go away. So, the innocuous facade of 'security-seeking model' helps Pakistan in multiple ways including by putting pressure on GoI through some Indians themselves. However, it is only the 'civilizational model' that can explain the 'enduring hostility' of Pakistan towards India.

SSridhar saar,
the crimean war was in 1850s when the British and French directly helped the Ottaman Empire. Then there was another war between Russia and Turkey in 1870s. This time the British helped the Ottoman but didn't directly participate in the war. So, British were supporting Ottoman empire from 1850 onwards and continued to support the Ottoman empire until the World War 1. This alliance of British and Ottoman against Russia lasted until oil was found in Iran and Iraq in 1905. At that time, it seems that parts of Iraq were under the control of Ottoman. British wanted a share in this new found Oil. Germany may have been offering better deals to Ottoman. This created hostilities between Ottoman and British which were explored during World War 1. Then, Ottoman signed an alliance with Germany. This led to World War 1.

But during this time(1850 - 1890), the British policies in India were the complete opposite to their policies in middle-east. In middle-east, British supported the Ottomans against the Russians. In India, British were on more friendly terms with the Hindhus and were opposed by muslims. British came to power after 1857 revolt which was formally under the nominal leadership of 'Mughals'. So, the British considered the muslims(who were seen as supporters of Mughals) as the main opponents.

In 1857, many people revolted against the British and justified it on the basis of religion. This made the British to adopt 'secularism' as a basis for their rule in India. 'Secularism' as a basis for a state was adopted by the british after the revolt of 1857. From 1850s to around 1890s, British were trying to convert the Indians into British by changing the religion and language. Aligarh movement in 1870s was part of this larger idea. The idea of Aligarh movement was an attempt to Anglicize the Muslims. Similarly, Macualyte education was an attempt to Anglicize the Hindhus. During this time, the missionaries were also formally allowed to convert. But, the important point is that during this time, Hindhus were seen as more friendly by the British than the Muslims. This was especially true in Bengal where the British had their capital in india.

Around 1890, the Hindhus(particularly in Bengal) were becoming hostile to British rule. Hindhus like Swami Vivekananda and Bankim Chandra Chatopadhyaya led freedom struggle with Hindhu Nationalism at the forefront. At this time, the British tweaked the secularism to mean support for minorities(particularly muslims) because they felt that muslims were more pro-british rule than Hindhus at that time. This was also the time when Hindhu nationalism was portrayed as threat to secularism by the British because Hindhu nationalism was a threat to British rule. The british tried to divide bengal and give one part of it to the muslims as a reward for pro-british loyalty. This division created severe backlash against the british rule and they had to shift their capital to Delhi. After this setback, the hostility of the Hindhus towards the british rule solidified and intensified. Then the british actively followed the policy of muslim appeasement under the garb of secularism. It was during this time that they came up with the concept that Indian muslims needed protection from Indian Hindhus. The British idea was to strengthen the muslim conservatives and to support insulation of common muslims from common Hindhus. Muslim league was formed on the basis of these ideas immediately after Bengal fiasco.

Khilafat Movement was the turning point. It reversed the Aligarh movement. The Aligarh movement was an attempt to support the liberals while the Khilafat Movement was to strengthen the conservatives.

Interestingly, as long as British were friends of Ottoman, they were opposed by the muslims in sub-continent. When the British turned against the Calipha, they started supporting the muslims in sub-continent including the creation of pakistan.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 14 Dec 2015 12:05

My understanding is - at the base level, a "hindu India" (even one that is democratic and constitutional rights and freedoms protected etc) = defeat of Islam (as in no sharia imposed on dhimmis like in Aurangzeb times).

We have Roughly 4 sets of people/pov

1. Pakis who thought they can create this Islamic country that can eventually take over India - now knowing that it is not possible but are not reconciling or making peace with it as that would mean another failure of Islam for the second time

2. People who have hindu India ideas that are typically hyped up to straw men that is beaten to death. This is not really a problem but is exaggerated / misinterpreted to be one by pakis, Commie congress types and Indian Muslims.

3. Indian Muslims - they have to defend their indianness without it becoming a supporting argument for "defeat of Islam" . While this should largely be their internal dialogue, the rest can help by enforcing constitution at all time instead of cheap appeasement that tends to damage or skew this dialogue

4. commie congress types - clueless folks who have played the game of "helping /protecting" Indian Muslims against group 2 and pakis but not realizing that they sound like pakis in the process - the "congresspeak = pakistaniyat in India " argument of shiv.

The game is set up that if you are not agreeing with Commie congress types - you are a hindutva out to oppress indian Muslims thereby proving pakis are right. Both pakis and congress say this same thing.

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2015 12:10

Gus saar,
The fear is not about oppression but assimilation.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 14 Dec 2015 14:48

vayu tuvan wrote:
SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, I completely agree.

Anything through Afghanistan & Pakistan in their present form is a No Go, IMHO. And, China cannot be part of any O&G venture that brings these products to India.
SSridhar avare: Why not Afghanistan? Granted there is no go but through Pakistan for now. If that can be changed in the (near?) future (i.e. a teeny-weeny bit of common border between Af and Bharat), would going through Afghanistan be a problem if chicken-neck nature of the logistics can be solved through extensive protective cover?

It is OT to this thread. The pipeline alignment is through Herat, Kandahar to Quetta, Multan and then to Fazilka.

Herat, Kandahar - do I need to say more?

Kandahar, IMHO, will see major battles between the AQIS/ISI-aligned Taliban and the IS, sooner than later. This place will remain very unsettled for quite some time to come. The protective cover would include a heavy ransom to warlords and one would not be sure of protection even then. The Kandahar area is UN-designated Extreme area and that in tself will push up costs of construction and insurance.

Anyway, we will not continue that discussion here.

arun · Post by **arun** » 14 Dec 2015 16:13

arun wrote:Notwithstanding the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s demonstrated ability to conjure victory out of defeat, the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s talking 56 inch chest while delivering a 15.6 inch Pigeon Chest has delivered a very low effort opportunity for the Islamic Republic to declare victory, on a plate. Such a conclusion from Yaqoob Khan Bangash writing in the Express Tribune:

“The first week of December ended with a surprise meeting of the National Security Advisers (NSA) of Pakistan and India in Bangkok. …………………… On the Indian side, this development exhibited the clear failure of the ‘Ignore Pakistan’ policy ………………….. In terms of India, Pakistan is simply too big a neighbour to ignore. ………………….. On the Pakistani side, Islamabad has achieved a small victory by including Kashmir as a matter of dispute. The recognition by the BJP-led government that Kashmir is an international dispute is a success for Pakistan.”

Regrettable that the BJP led Government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has belied their own talk of a robust foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The lure of the Noble Peace Prize seems to hold PM Modi in not very much less thrall than the much castigated figure for pusillanimity, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. And so we go from Surrender in Sharm-El-Sheikh to Beating the Retreat in Bangkok .

From here:

Pakistan’s re-emergence

Islamic Republic of Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit (AB) claims in interview with India Today’s Rahul Kanwal (RK) that India has agreed that talks with the Islamic Republic will go on even with the noise of gunfire and explosions of Islamic Republics Mohammadden Terrorist proxies that takes Indian lives. I am not buying any spin that the Government of Pakistan has put a leash on the Punjabi dominated Militarys penchant to use Mohammadden Proxies to attack India or that the Civilian component of the Deep State has had a change in heart in seeking to hurt India making the BJP led Government's act of giving this assurance exceedingly foolish.

I cannot find any on the record official denial by a named Indian official denying this claim. Meanwhile Mani Shanker Iyer will be undoubtedly pleased that Modi Sarkar has committed India to interruptable dialogue with the Islamic Republic:

Abdul Basit says India has committed to Pakistan terror will not derail talks

Following Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj's historic trip to Islamabad, Pakistan High Commissioner Abdul Basit has said that the India-Pakistan dialogue won't get derailed in case of another terror attack.

New Delhi, December 14, 2015 | Posted by Sangeeta Ojha | UPDATED 16:22 IST ………………….

RK: Is there a commitment that the dialogue will continue despite a possible terror attack?

AB: I would not like to get into specific but I think both sides are committed this time around to not allow those forces to sabotage or thwart this dialogue process between the two countries.

From Here:

Clicky

Peregrine · Post by **Peregrine** » 14 Dec 2015 16:57

SSridhar wrote:Peregrine ji, I completely agree.
Anything through Afghanistan & Pakistan in their present form is a No Go, IMHO. And, China cannot be part of any O&G venture that brings these products to India.

vayu tuvan wrote:SSridhar avare: Why not Afghanistan? Granted there is no go but through Pakistan for now. If that can be changed in the (near?) future (i.e. a teeny-weeny bit of common border between Af and Bharat), would going through Afghanistan be a problem if chicken-neck nature of the logistics can be solved through extensive protective cover?

SSridhar wrote:It is OT to this thread. The pipeline alignment is through Herat, Kandahar to Quetta, Multan and then to Fazilka.

Herat, Kandahar - do I need to say more?

Kandahar, IMHO, will see major battles between the AQIS/ISI-aligned Taliban and the IS, sooner than later. This place will remain very unsettled for quite some time to come. The protective cover would include a heavy ransom to warlords and one would not be sure of protection even then. The Kandahar area is UN-designated Extreme area and that in tself will push up costs of construction and insurance.

Anyway, we will not continue that discussion here.

SSridhar Ji & vayu tuvan Ji :

The Pipe Line through Afghanistan and Cwapistan is the concept of the Sickular and Liberal Indian "Leaders-Officials" who have taken leave of their senses.

The Turkmenistan - Afghanistan - Cwapistan Route of the Pipe Line will not be disrupted by Cwapistan but the Cwapistan Taliban in AFGHANISTAN. If that is not possible then and only then it will be disrupted in Cwapistan.

The following video re-doubles my fear that Cwapistan will find sufficient ways to"DISRUPT" the TAPI Pipe Line as it will become an Instrument to "Go for Indian Gonads".

As such Turkmenistan Natural Gas for India must be sourced via Iran by an Under Sea Pipe Line.

Gagan wrote:This abdul has it all figured out...
https://youtu.be/iBgTkcGYa-E?t=55s
Video starts at 55 seconds

It seems that in respect of the TAPI Pipeline the Indian Leaders and Officials have become a bunch of Lotos-Eaters?

I agree that this matter may be OT here and would be happy if it is consigned to a "Nominated" Thread. The only justification for it being continued on this Thread is that IT HAS ALL TO DO WITH CWAPISTAN.
Cheers

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 14 Dec 2015 18:04

From 1850s to 1910, British were supporting Ottoman against Russia. The idea was to not let Russia into mainland Europe or into mainland Asia. Suddenly, in 1910s, Oil was found in Persia(Iran) and Iraq(which was under the occupation of Ottoman). Germany wanted a share of the Oil. Ottoman and Germany started forging an alliance. Immediately, British switched sides and started supporting the Russians against the Ottomans in world war one. They supported the division of the Ottoman so that the oil fields were kept out of Ottoman. Indian soldiers under the British control played decisive role in all these campaigns. In India, the British policy was exactly the reverse during this whole period. Initially, the Hindhus were given a friendly treatment from 1850s and simultaneously there was an effort to anglicize them and convert them. The muslims were given much more rough treatment after the revolt of 1857. From 1875, a similar effort to anglicize muslims was also tried with Aligarh movement. When it was realized that Hindhus were becoming anti-British rule and were using Hindhu nationalism, the British reversed their policy and started appeasing the muslim conservatives from 1905. This was precisely the time when the British were turning against the Calipha in middle-east. It shows the duplicity of British policies. There is no point in taking the British policy too seriously. Their only policy is self-interest.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 14 Dec 2015 19:19

Why does this Abdul Basit fella always give gas bag provocative interviews?

Abhay_S · Post by **Abhay_S** » 14 Dec 2015 19:55

Anujan wrote:Why does this Abdul Basit fella always give gas bag provocative interviews?

he is doing what each Paki Ambassador to India has done. 'Gas Bag Provocative' is the very essence of Pakistaniyat but our DDM would like us to believe otherwise

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 Dec 2015 19:57

Anujan wrote:Why does this Abdul Basit fella always give gas bag provocative interviews?

The more pertinent question IMO is how come DDM asks him for an interview and feed him soft ball questions.

Somewhat like kirket series interviews. The host, be it Turdesai or RK or Sharda Ugra or whoever will talk nostalgically of an intense India TSP kirket match, how much fans are waiting for resumption, recall some old match where fans apparently clapped for TSP team yada yada, all very well set for the whoever the TSP interviewee is to puke the usual crap that kirket and politics should be kept separate. Completely missing will be any outrage, any disgust on the TSP terror that is the root cause.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 14 Dec 2015 19:58

Anujan wrote:Why does this Abdul Basit fella always give gas bag provocative interviews?

Sushma Swaraj is due to make a statement in parliament tomorrow. i would wait for that. Media are willing to quote anyone who talks. I think it is a waste of time quoting Pakis without getting the Indian viewpoint.

Besides, the Pakistani army is never going to commit via civies or directly that they will hold back terrorists because they deny having anything to do with terror. The proof of the pudding is to see if there are terror attacks and how India responds to them.

Even today there has been an intel warning of possible terror attacks in multiple cities including Jaipur and Delhi. So I would not reach any firm conclusion based on what a Paki says.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Dec 2015 20:10

It is hoped that the Indo -Pak dialog will be uninterruptible, but saboteurs can affect the dialogue process.
Parliament live blog:
http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... di-chandy/

3.30 pm: The way forward is only dialogue; hopes that ‘saboteurs’ will not provoke and affect the dialogue process, says Swaraj on Indo-Pak ties.

3.15 pm: There is a need to bridge the gulf in relations with Pakistan, hope that the dialogue will be uninterruptable, says Swaraj.

3.00 pm: Talks with Pakistan being re-started on the basis of trust, says External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in Lok Sabha.
- See more at: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... fNNOF.dpuf

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Dec 2015 20:13

http://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statemen ... a_and_Paki
Suo Motu Statement by External Affairs Minister in Lok Sabha on Her Visit to Islamabad and Recent Developments Relating to Ties between India and Pakistan (December 14, 2015)

Hon’ble Speaker,

I rise to brief this august House and Hon'ble Members on my recent visit to Islamabad, Pakistan to lead the Indian delegation to the 'Heart of Asia' Ministerial Conference on Afghanistan and recent developments relating to ties between India and Pakistan.

The Fifth Ministerial Conference of the Heart of Asia Istanbul Process on December 8-9, 2015 in Islamabad was devoted to the themes of security and connectivity. The Conference provided to us an important opportunity on a vital regional platform for political consultations and regional cooperation to reiterate India's commitment to Afghanistan's stability and development and our faith in its future.

India has actively participated in the Heart of Asia Process since its beginning. The process brings together friends of Afghanistan from its immediate and extended neighbourhood as well as supporting countries and international organizations to promote political consultations and regional cooperation for a united, democratic, independent, strong and prosperous Afghanistan. My visit to Islamabad underlined India's strong commitment to that cause. In my statement at the Conference, I urged full and direct transit for Afghanistan through Pakistan to India. In the context of relations between India and Pakistan, I advocated working together for peace and development in South Asia, with self-confidence and maturity.

I also take this opportunity to inform the House that during my visit to Islamabad, I called on Prime Minister Mr. Nawaz Sharif and held discussions with my Pakistani counterpart Mr. Sartaj Aziz. Following my meetings the decision of this Government to begin a Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue with Pakistan was announced in a Joint Statement in Islamabad on December 9, 2015. This decision of the Government follows the recent developments and engagements between the two countries, especially the constructive discussions between their National Security Advisors in Bangkok on December 6, 2015. The meeting of the NSAs resulted from discussion between our Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and Prime Minister Mr. Nawaz Sharif in Paris on November 30, 2015.

As the House is aware, the Prime Minister of Pakistan was invited in May 2014, among other SAARC leaders, by Prime Minister to attend the swearing-in ceremony of the new Government. This was a demonstration of our commitment to good neighbourly ties with Pakistan, in line with our vision for peace and development in the region through deeper regional integration in South Asia. In the first meeting between the two Prime Ministers during that visit of Mr. Nawaz Sharif to New Delhi, our views on India-Pakistan ties and our concerns on terrorism and violence were conveyed to the Pakistani authorities. The meetings as decided between the two sides in May 2014, however, did not take place.

As the House is also aware, the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan met in Ufa in July 2015 and agreed that the two countries had collective responsibility to ensure peace and promote development. They condemned terrorism in all its forms and agreed to cooperate with each other to eliminate this menace from South Asia. To that end, they decided on a meeting of the National Security Advisors to discuss all issues connected to terrorism. They also stated that the two countries were prepared to discuss all outstanding issues. During the Ufa meeting, PM was extended an invitation by Prime Minister Mr. Nawaz Sharif to visit Islamabad for attending the SAARC Summit in 2016.

For the reasons that we all know, the expected meetings of NSAs and Directors General of Military Operations of the two countries envisaged at Ufa, did not materialize though Directors General of BSF and Pakistan Rangers met and a number of humanitarian measures, agreed at Ufa, were implemented.

In this background, when our Prime Minister met his Pakistan counterpart during the COP-21 Summit meeting in Paris on 30 November 2015, there was a discussion on how the two countries could build an atmosphere conducive for again re-engaging with each other. The underlying sentiment, on which I am confident that this House concurs fully, was that the continued estrangement of two neighbours was a hurdle to the realization of our shared vision of a peaceful and prosperous region. At the same time, there was also a sharp awareness that the principal obstacles to the growth of ties, especially terrorism, would have to be clearly and directly addressed.

Following PM's conversation with PM Mr. Nawaz Sharif in Paris, the two leaders decided that both sides should hold the NSA-level meeting. The National Security Advisors of the two countries accordingly met on December 6, 2015. The meeting was held in Bangkok. Discussions between the two NSAs in that meeting were held in a candid, cordial and constructive atmosphere. They focused on peace and security, terrorism, tranquility along the Line of Control, and Jammu & Kashmir – the State which has been most directly impacted by terrorism and violation of LOC.

My visit to Islamabad for the Heart of Asia Conference came two days after the constructive talks between NSAs on issues related to security, terrorism, etc. My meetings with PM Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Sartaj Aziz in Islamabad were held in the backdrop of this positive development. Both sides condemned terrorism and resolved to cooperate to eliminate this menace. There we dwelt on the need for Pakistan to expedite the Mumbai terrorist attacks trial. The Indian side was assured of the steps being taken to expedite its early conclusion.

Accordingly, it was decided to begin a dialogue with Pakistan under the new title "Comprehensive Bilateral Dialogue”. The Foreign Secretaries have been tasked to work out modalities and schedule of the meetings under the new Dialogue.

I would like to assure the House that this Government accords the highest priority to the country’s security. In order to meet any threats in this regard, the Government will take all steps, including through diplomatic channels. At the same time, the Government is also committed to building an environment of peaceful and cooperative relations with all our neighbours, including Pakistan, so that the efforts for peace and development in South Asia, initiated by the Government on the day of assuming office itself, are taken further forward. The new Dialogue with Pakistan has twin aims of removing hurdles in the path of a constructive engagement by addressing issues of concern, and at the same time, of exploring and establishing cooperative ties. Initiatives on trade and connectivity, people-to-people exchanges and humanitarian issues will contribute to welfare of the entire region, and promote better understanding and mutual trust. The new Dialogue, we sincerely hope, marks a new beginning also for peace and development in the whole region. I am confident that we have the support of the entire House in this expectation.

Thank you.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 14 Dec 2015 20:16

New Delhi will only discuss Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, says Indian envoy

ISLAMABAD: India's representative to Pakistan said on Monday that his country was only prepared to discuss the part of Kashmir controlled by Islamabad in upcoming peace talks, presenting a potential stumbling block days after the dialogue was announced.

rsingh · Post by **rsingh** » 14 Dec 2015 20:26

SShridar Saar thank for very informative article.Sir Syed Ahmed is portrayed as being progressive and moderate muslim in our history books. remember writing about him for History exams. What buffoons were these people. I am always puzzled by one thing : how come first Muslims ruled India that long. Was there no fight back by Hindus all this time? Really ?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 14 Dec 2015 20:27

Dipanker wrote:New Delhi will only discuss Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, says Indian envoy

ISLAMABAD: India's representative to Pakistan said on Monday that his country was only prepared to discuss the part of Kashmir controlled by Islamabad in upcoming peace talks, presenting a potential stumbling block days after the dialogue was announced.

DipankarJi, coming from a TSP newspaper, I very much doubt Raghavan said that in such stark terms. After all the work that has gone in dialogue resumption, I doubt he will be so provocative. He must have said something about discussing PoK also, and that would have been spun by TSP deep state as India wanting to discuss only PoK.

Dipanker · Post by **Dipanker** » 14 Dec 2015 20:38

^Read the quoted parts in the article, those are presumably the statements of Mr. Raghavan.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 14 Dec 2015 20:39

Anyone who relies on a Pakistani paper without verification is a fool.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/ar ... lomat.html

Asked where the room for negotiation lay over the Himalayan territory, Raghavan said it was India which first petitioned the United Nations to intervene when the-then princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was invaded by Pakistani forces in 1947.

"The first application was moved by India and it was on the grounds that a part of the state, which had acceded to India, is now under the illegal occupation of the Pakistan army.

"So when you say what is it that India is going to discuss or what is it discussing, it is really, if you ask most Indians, and what is our position -- it is the part of that state which is still under the control of Pakistan."

The difference between "our position is that PoK is the subject of negotiations" and "we will discuss PoK only" is, I hope, clear to all.

PS: "Anyone who relies on a Pakistani paper without verification is a fool" -- is true when verification is possible. Some things, Pakistan-specific, may have only Pakistani sources.