Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP) - Dec 30 - 2009

[negi]

Hmm what could be this Plan B ?

Is this related to the Gillu Groper's comment leaked to DAWN regarding no responsibility for a hypothetical 26/11 like attack ?

[Malayappan]

A paki ambassador laments - Why Kashmir is no more a core issue
in The Dawn

Interestingly, he traces the tenor of speeches by Musharraf in UNGA from 2002 through 2007 and marks the dilution. Zardari's continuation in 2008 is underlined too.

One thought - A paki who does not have 'access,' and when out of power can be bellicose, but power and 'access' (to information and internal facts) mellow him and do that over a period of time. The longer he stays in power the more he appreciates the truths. Frequent coups have only served to keep the pot boiling (pointlessly) and continue being polemical.

[hasmukh]

Pak players should have been picked up for IPL-3: SRK

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/spor ... 495981.cms


yes of course we know Mr Shah Rukh that your name is khan and blood is always thicker for co religionists
apparently he thinks pakis are great neighbours and we should love them hmmm , at lost for words.

[negi]

Why do we have to bring in religion in every point we make ? Else how are we different from the species on other side ?

[Dipanker]

Just say it: Salman Khan represents Pakistan and Islam and worshipping him is allowing Islamic rule. Having accepted islamic rule so easily, I suppse we can also accept the truth that islam did rule for 1000 years.

I personally don't care wheather Salman Khan is muslim or rastafarian, or half hindu, or celebrates hindu festivals, at the end of the day he is Indian.

But when exactly did Islam rule India for 1000 years? May be I did not pay attention in my history class? All I know is that Delhi Sultanate last for about 300 years from 1205 to 1526 and Mughal empire from 1526 to 1707 ( Mughal empire for all practical purpose was over after the death of Aurangjeb in 1707), thus a total of 500 years, that too it was mostly confined in north India.

This 1000 years myth is taught to Pakistanis, but even Pakistanis have not been under Islamic rule for 1000 years !

[shiv]

Why do we have to bring in religion in every point we make ? Else how are we different from the species on other side ?

This is a complex question with many layers in the answer.

First, Pakistan was carved out of India on the basis of religion. And whether India officially admits it or not Pakistan's survival is linked to hatred of Hindus. Specifically Hindus.

Pakistan has linked its unity and reason for existence to the idea that Hindus of India are trying to destroy Muslims and Islam.

The Indian constitution and all governments on the other hand try to take a much more conciliatory attitude towards religion with a view to mitigate religious differences rather than aggravate them.

Indians in democratic India hold varying opinions on this issue. Some Indians are happy to take a conciliatory line towards religion and feel that religious issues must not be whipped up in every India-Pakistan issue. Unless I am mistaken, this is exactly the question you have asked. On the other hand, there are other Indians who opine that there are significant religious differences between Hindus and Muslims and some go so far as to say that Muslims in India represent Pakistan and the hatred that Islam and Pakistan feel for Hindus and India.

This latter group will always want to highlight religion differences either overtly, or using innuendo. In that sense they do represent a mirror image of the "species on the other side". The main difference between Pakistan and India on this subject is that being anti-Muslim is neither official policy nor a desired goal in India. Being anti Hindu is both official policy and a desired goal in Pakistan. This information is utilised in various innovative ways. I think that these differences should be acknowledged openly in India - and they are not.

For example, an Indian holding the political opinion that Indian Muslims are traitors typically will get into a political disagreement with people who do not feel that way. Each side then uses rhetorical tricks to demean the other side and show that they are damaging the country in some way of the other. To the person who feels Indian Muslims are traitors, any conciliation towards Muslims is a travesty and a national sellout. To the person who feels Indian Muslims are as Indian as anyone else, the person who feels Indian Muslims are traitors is only proving Pakistan's point and aiding its survival by making Pakistan's reason for existence valid.

This is the way in which the idea of Pakistan has managed to get a handle inside political opinion in India.

[Karna_A]

Social dynamics cannot be judged from movie industry.
For example most of Telugu actresses like Tamanna(from Mumbai) and Shriya Saran(From Dehradoon) are outsiders.
Does not mean that Telugus have any less liking for their own.
Hindi film industry was ruled a lot by Punjabi guys(Kapoors, Khannas, Chopras) and Tamil actresses(Rekha, Hema Malini) for most of its history. That does not mean Rajputs or marathis or Bengalis thought any less of their own culture. There is no point in thinking like a Paki.

Pakjabis have so much convoluted thinking that even when they are getting screwed, they imagine they are screwing someone, otherwsie what could be reason of providing Lahore University students to visiting KSA sheikhs.

If SRK really want to take a stand, let him declare that, to protest his profiling, he won't be releasing his movies in the US.

Put his money where his mouth is.

But we all know he won't do that because the real money is made in the overseas markets.

And moreover, tell him to make movies about what his Paki brothers did on 26/11, just as he pompusly makes movies about Muslims in US after 9/11.

I don't want my comments to descend into another round of Indian Muslim bashing, but to get an idea of SDRE slavish mentality towards TFTA traits, the other day, my daughter and wife were watching some program on Zee TV call Dance India or somthing to that effect, and I couldn't help seeeing, especially the social dynamics. The chief guest was TFTA Salmaan Khan, Bollywood icon. Now here is the dynamic. Some of the SDRE dancers were absolutely brilliant: from the choreography, to the dancing style, to the acrobatics; they would put Salman Khan to shame. But the abject Guboing towards Salmaan, from the SDRE contestents, to the judges, to the sudience was absolutly mind boggling. SalmanJi, my dream was to do this front if you, SalmaanJi my dream was to kiss your a@s, SalmanJi this, SlmnaJi that. And this SalmanJi was sitting there soaking up all that the slaves threw at him, and making a fool of the SDREs. But for the fact that Salman Khan is a naam kae vaastae Indian, it was Moghul TFTA Lordhsip over Hindu SDREs at its vintage best. No wonder Bollywood runs in the jugular vein of TSPians, especially Pakijabis.

[RamaP]

Here is one of the interesting comments that appeared in the Long War Journal http://www.longwarjournal.org/

This comment by a poster named Render exactly describes the scenario that would unveil in case of TSP rubbing Uncle the wrong way which looks possible despite the Patang gifts by Gates uncle to TSPA.

I think this’ll be fun…

It could be construed as an Act of War, potentially resulting in Pakistan losing its entire air force, entire navy, and all but its shoulder fired SAM’s within 72 hours of Air/Sea operations commencing. The Pakistani coast blockaded by four or five USN Carrier Battle Groups roaming unchecked in the Arabian Sea. The Predators and Reapers replaced by B-52’s, B-1B’s, and B-2’s in unstoppable waves operating around the clock. Allied forces including but not limited to, at least two US Marine Brigades, one armored brigade, two armored cavalry brigades, four mechanized infantry brigades, a single mountain brigade, a single airborne brigade, and one over strength composite Coalition Brigade massing around Spin Boldak and then marching south to the sea with overwhelming air supremacy, leaving a column of death and destruction twenty miles wide and 350 miles long behind it, burning its way through the Chamen crossing, laying waste to Quetta as it continues south on its way to the doomed port city of Karachi. There to meet with two US heavy armored divisions and a third US Marine Brigade landed by the US Navy. There might even be a radical change in the geography of the Wah Cantonment.

Going by the name of Tom Clancy movie, this would be the "The Sum Of All Fears" for TSP elite. The martial Pakjabis might not stand a chance against American war machine.

[shiv]

But when exactly did Islam rule India for 1000 years?

1000 year rule is the power of rhetoric that every Indian falls for. Every time..We end up sounding like naive suckers by reacting to this and I for one would be really happy to see any of our BRF history buffs writing an article for SRR showing why 1000 years is not true.

But let me explain why this 1000 year statement is winning rhetoric for Pakistan. Imagine a person accused of assaulting his little son. The man says, in his defence "I have not touched my son". He could be telling the truth. He has beaten his son with a stick, and technically has not touched him. The problem is that the man has changed the subject from the beating to the mode of beating.

So when a Paki says "We ruled India for 1000 years" we Indians get our chaddis in a big twist and start disputing that. Pakis are smart enough to know that they have Indians by the goolies when Indians react to that. Because they can say "Not 1000 years? OK we ruled you for 900 years. Big deal Nyahaha " They are saying we owned you. Only the length of rule is in dispute.

The argument is no longer over whether Pakis ruled india or not, but whether the rule was for 1000 years, or 900 years of 600 years. This is one argument in which Pakis have a "one-up" on Indians and Indians can only flail their arms and legs and complain but nobody has managed to come up with a one liner response to that.

If you must respond to that at all - just say "balls". Do not argue. if you argue you are falling into a trap. But it will be 1000 years before Indians realise this.

The story may be false - but hey how come no Indian has written an easy to understand response?

[shiv]

Going by the name of Tom Clancy movie, this would be the "The Sum Of All Fears" for TSP elite. The martial Pakjabis might not stand a chance against American war machine.

It is also an Indian wet dream that unkil, which has consistently supported Pakistan against India will now destroy its whore. And India need not do anything other than exert soft dhoti power.

[A_Gupta]

shiv wrote:

. On the other hand, there are other Indians who opine that there are significant religious differences between Hindus and Muslims and some go so far as to say that Muslims in India represent Pakistan and the hatred that Islam and Pakistan feel for Hindus and India.

The missing point of view is that some Indian Muslims have kinship ties with people in Pakistan, and that in general, Indian Muslims have had a more supportive/forgiving attitude towards Pakistanis than other Indians. IMO, this general sympathy would have remained if Pakistan, though remaining hostile to India, had not constantly used non-state actors to do murder and mayhem in India. IMO, without proof, I think opinion has now polarized - a large majority see Pakistan as leading us all into a dead end; and a tiny minority supports it. Had Pakistan been a progressive sort of state, with many genuine achievements, then the general approval and support for it among Indian Muslims would have been much higher even if that hypothetical Pakistan was nonetheless hostile to India.

IMO, people would really love not to be forced to take sides, as they must when Pakistan launches attacks on India, and wish for a certain level of de-escalation of tensions, even if peace is not possible.

I've been doing some desultory browsing on Indian military defeats of the past - it seems mostly the fault has not been in individual ability nor in any significant technological gaps, but in organization - a term that covers the form of government, the nature of politics, the method of raising armies, etc. Post-Independence India has outdone pre-Independence India mostly because of better organization. Indians should strengthen this organizational "technology", not vitiate it by unwarranted suspicions of each other. And if we must point fingers, the political figures that let a Dawood Ibrahim operate are infinitely more blameworthy than some Bollywood stars.

[Prem]

Quest for plan to cope with drought By
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -510-za-08

ISLAMABAD: With river flows down by 21 per cent and water storage having declined by 34 per cent over the past year, the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) has sought details of an advisory of the meteorological department forecasting emerging agricultural drought conditions over the next six months.

Irsa sources told Dawn on Sunday that total water flows in the country’s four major rivers had declined by about 10,000 cusecs to 37,000 cusecs, compared with 47,000 cusecs last year. The sources said the total storage in two major reservoirs – Tarbela and Mangla – stood at about 1.5 million acre feet (MAF) on Jan 23, compared with 2.26 MAF last year, down by about 34 per cent.

[Prem]

A role for China
By Huma Yusuf

Although think tanks in the United States are working overtime to solve the Pakistan ‘problem’, their final reports are drawing rather obvious conclusions: choking terror funding and promoting economic development. However, a new think tank report suggesting that the US and China put the stabilisation of Pakistan on top of their bilateral agenda raises an interesting prospect for combating regional terrorism.
The policy paper US-China Relations: Seeking Strategic Convergence in Pakistan was published by the Brookings Institution earlier this month. Its authors, Bruce Riedel and Pavneet Singh, argue that Pakistan’s displeasure with Washington’s never-ending demands and oscillating foreign policy will make it difficult for the US government to help Islamabad manage the Taliban insurgency without international cooperation
Much has been written about China’s shifting attitude towards Pakistan. In recent years, Beijing has made it clear that it will not single-handedly bankroll this country, get involved in a Pakistan-India conflict, or tolerate any spill-over effects of militancy. Moreover, as Beijing and New Delhi’s energy and economic interests converge on the world stage, the two countries are becoming strategic partners (even if suspicions and border disputes remain). This development is bound to further influence Sino-Pakistan relations

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -410-hh-03

[shiv]

The missing point of view is that some Indian Muslims have kinship ties with people in Pakistan,

Good post Arun - not disputing what you said but I quote one snippet to say that the deeper one goes into little details the more reason there is to accept that the overall point you make is valid. The number of Indian Hindus with kinship ties to Muslims is also large.

India is large enough to have huge community groups that are wholly conservative where a marriage with a non Hindus is unknown as well as well as other in which marriages with Indians from anywhere are commonplace. An Indian from either of these backgrounds is likely to have a different viewpoint, assuming hat his viewpoint has not been changed by service in the armed forces or perhaps by living in parts of India where he can meet people outside his little community,

I meet both types of people. A recent example I saw 0n another board is a friend of mine who grew up in a small conservative community in India and by the time he became an adult - emigrated to an environment in the US where he is surrounded by people either from his community or disinterested firangis. He is now an adult and a foamin-in the mouth radical who has no sense of reality in India.

[CRamS]

Don't know whether to believe this or not, but the latest from OBL. But what I find interesting is this:

The so called "war on terror" as US defines it is between US and OBL and his gang which US calls Al Queda.

OBL has consistently declared that there need be no "war on terror" if Israeli Palestinian issue is "resolved".

But US and its "front-line ally" TSP declare that there need be no "war on terror" if the "core issue" (Kashmir) is "resolved".

Why does US take the liberal view in agreeing with TSP but hardline against OBL? .

[shiv]

We could go one step back and ask "There would be neither Osama nor Pakistan if..."?

[A_Gupta]

There are two parts to the "Islam ruled India for 1000 years". The first is that Pakistanis as putative descendants of these rulers somehow retain some distinction. The second is that Islam is a superior ideology (and somehow Pakistanis as the Owners of Islam are thus conferred superiority). One just has to look at the mess Pakistanis have made of Pakistan in the name of Islam to have a very empirical demonstration of the idiocy of such notions.

As a matter of opinion, I think post-Independence India has the best dispensation regarding how government is organized that India has had in its history. Think of how to build organizations to fulfill specific purposes as a technology - whether it be how to run a legislature, or a scientific institute, or a NGO, or a corporation, or even to run a movie production crew. IMO, Indians have mastered and accumulated more of this technology in the last 60 years than in the whole of the rest of its history. Still a long way to go, no doubt. IMO, this is where India has a (ultimately) decisive lead over Pakistan, Central Asia, the Middle East.

PS: So the answer to "Islam ruled India for a 1000 years is" - "then we can hope Pakistan eventually won't suck".

PPS: If Hindus obssessed about the Hindu-ness of their institutions, then the country would be stuck in the past. This is precisely a trap Pakistan is in. If Pakistanis were smart, they would figure out what works regarding government, politics, etc. , and then declare whatever that turns out to be, to be "in accord with Islam".

[Prem]

Willingly or unwillingly, rightly or wrongfully, Pakistanians have cast their lot with symbols for all that have been bloody and wrong with the arrival of islam in India. Since they take pride in it then matter not what religion any Indian belongs to , its his /her duty to work toward Paki destruction, both physical and ideological. IM should see this in context of doing favour to Islam which got associated with everything Paki do ,weather globaly or right there in Lahore.

[sanjaykumar]

What is left out is that an Indian actor is being dubbed a Pakistani without actually saying so. It is wink wink nudge nudge. Admiration for Salman(Muslim)=TFTA=Muslim rule=Pakistani victory.


Now ain't that funny. Because I have heard Hindus refer to Indian Muslims as Pakistanis and I have heard Pakistanis refer to Indian Muslims as Pakistani (to my face). But BReffers seem to exist in a parallel plane of niceness and goodness.

I suggest you get acquainted with reality, and visit (or try to) certain areas of Lucknow or Agra. It will be as gyan-generating as the housing societies where you won't find the 15.5 % Muslim representation. India is more complex than a forum board.

As regards CramS' observation of the obsequiousness towards a Muslim actor, Indians have an irritating trait of trying to ingratiate themselves on those of higher social stature. I would see nothing political or religious in it.

[AnimeshP]

What is left out is that an Indian actor is being dubbed a Pakistani without actually saying so. It is wink wink nudge nudge. Admiration for Salman(Muslim)=TFTA=Muslim rule=Pakistani victory.


Now ain't that funny. Because I have heard Hindus refer to Indian Muslims as Pakistanis and I have heard Pakistanis refer to Indian Muslims as Pakistani (to my face). But BReffers seem to exist in a parallel plane of niceness and goodness.

I suggest you get acquainted with reality, and visit (or try to) certain areas of Lucknow or Agra. It will be as gyan-generating as the housing societies where you won't find the 15.5 % Muslim representation. India is more complex than a forum board.

As regards CramS' observation of the obsequiousness towards a Muslim actor, Indians have an irritating trait of trying to ingratiate themselves on those of higher social stature. I would see nothing political or religious in it.

Care to name the areas of Lucknow you are referring to ... I would like to know as I belong to the place..

[A_Gupta]

We could go one step back and ask "There would be neither Osama nor Pakistan if..."?

There would be no Osama if there had been no US + Saudi sponsored jihad in Afghanistan. (Or there would have been Osama-like figures, but their sphere of operations would be limited to the Arab world.) Whatever post-Soviet Afghanistan state that emerged would have been able to keep Pakistan at bay. Likewise, IMO, the bloody disintegration of Yugoslavia and specifically the situation in Bosnia also contributed to internationalization of Islamic terrorism.

[A_Gupta]

Another answer to the 1000-years rule is "Nobody has done more to spoil the image of Islam in the world than Pakistan".

[Airavat]

1000 year rule is the power of rhetoric that every Indian falls for..... Only the length of rule is in dispute.

but hey how come no Indian has written an easy to understand response?

The easy to understand response is that Islam, or Islamic polity, has existed in India for a thousand years. Despite this long existence, such polity, whether driven by Arabs or Turks, Mughals or Afghans, has failed to conquer India. Of the polities that came close to such conquest, the Delhi Sultanate collapsed in the 14th century while the Mughal empire collapsed in the 18th century. Indian polity continued to exist side by side with the Islamic, with the two sometimes learning to live and let live, while at other times coming to a do or die clash.

Pakistan claims to be a continuation of that 1000-year history. And as we all know history repeats itself, and that is why Pakistan has failed to conquer India in 63 years of existence.

But on a serious note can Pakistan, its people or its rulers, learn to live and let live? Or are they destined to go down in flames?

[CRamS]

Pakistan, though remaining hostile to India, had not constantly used non-state actors to do murder and mayhem in India.

Minor nit-pick, but if a state use so called "non state actors", then how can they be referred to as "non state actors"?

[R_Kumar]

1000 year rule is the power of rhetoric that every Indian falls for..... Only the length of rule is in dispute.

but hey how come no Indian has written an easy to understand response?

I have tried to get the data like what area were under Islamic rules at various time and will post it soon.
1000 year of Muslim rule over India is a big lie(I know I am not saying anything new here). This statement for general public means that they ruled for 1000 years over entire India. And both of these assumptions are incorrect.

[Prem]

Lets say 100 years of wasted struggle by them to conquer India in which they ended up loosing their sanity, humanity and left with only inanities. lagge raho ..

[CRamS]

Madam Shirleen does not like the US drone offer.

And one should not forget the insult hurled at the Pakistan military by Gates when he declared in the now-common US imperial approach that they were mulling over giving Pakistan some drones - the reference was clearly made to outmoded and pretty useless Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which will serve little purpose for Pakistan!

Of course, we all know for what purpose TSP wants drones . Also, read her furious rejection of any planed role for India at the London conference. Would be interesting to see the equal equal formulation US/UK will come to assuage TSP's H&D.

[sinha]

The missing point of view is that some Indian Muslims have kinship ties with people in Pakistan, and that in general, Indian Muslims have had a more supportive/forgiving attitude towards Pakistanis than other Indians. IMO, this general sympathy would have remained if Pakistan, though remaining hostile to India, had not constantly used non-state actors to do murder and mayhem in India.

Rather interestingly SRK made the same point saying that his father was from Pakistan. Also mentioned his family is from Pakistan. It will serve him better that he starts living in present and not the past. The sooner the reality dawns the better for everyone.

Care to name the areas of Lucknow you are referring to ... I would like to know as I belong to the place..

One incident is in etched in my mind - In previous life - around 1995 when I worked on Vidhan Sabha Road office, from top of the building, I could see some Paki flags hoisted when Sachin Tendulkar got out in sharjah match and sounds of cracker when Pakistan won the match. From general sense of direction, I would guess Lalbagh.
Now in Hyderabad - but I see completely different behaviour. My local muslim paanwala (non-BRFit usage) starts ranting BC/MC against Bakis on listening to news right next to the mosque - with enough people milling around - so you cannot generalize this.

[vera_k]

There are no reliable stats of course, but I have wondered how much such behaviour is due to Pakistani and East Pakistani (Bangladeshi) citizens living in India. These people cannot be faulted for cheering their country, can they? But they serve quite well to complicate matters and turn other Indians into targets of the reaction invoked by such cheering.

[Masaru]

Another one of his gems @ 2 min 58 "Pakistan is a great neighbour to have and we should just all love each other"

Thats great, it will just rub it in that much more.

The video is already posted, but these quotes are pertinent to the discussion going on. Lots of slips are showing up in the cleverly created facade. Not to mention the way he is being egged on by the super WKK anchor and an audience which seems to be in a hypnotic trance!


Pakistan players should have been chosen

Unlike other team owners, Shah Rukh Khan, the owner of the Kolkata Knight Riders, said the Pakistani players should have been chosen in the IPL auction.

"I think its actually humiliating to me as a KKR owner that this has happened. We are known to be good, we are known to invite everyone, and we should have. And if there were any issues, they should have been put out earlier so that everything could happen respectfully," he said. {Why is he so bothered about paki H&D?}

"I truly believe that they should have been chosen. As a matter of fact, I'm not going to be the one who is opposite from what everyone else is saying but I wanted Abdul Razzaq. I think it was in the newspapers much earlier than even the auction started. Dada (Sourav Ganguly) was very keen," he added.
{He is the owner footing the bill for his non-state club, so if he wants to spend his money over these buggers should be nobody's concern. If some body did prevent him from doing so why is he not coming clean about it instead of beating around the bush?}


"I am not giving an excuse and I truly believe Pakistani players are the best T20 players in the world. They are the champions. They are wonderful. But somewhere down the line there is an issue and we cannot deny it. There is an issue, we cannot keep saying 'Oh this was wrong'. Yes maybe the way it was done was wrong, the way it is being carried out may be wrong. But you can't keep on saying 'Koi issue nahi hai yaar, woh aa jate' (There isn't any issue, they could have come). There is an issue lets not deny it. Every day we blame Pakistan, everyday they blame us, it is an issue," he added.{What exactly is the 'issue'? 26/11? non state actors? One doesn't see such coyness when he goes around making movies/money propagating the victim hood myth.}

The Bollywood star also said he also had to face the other side of this entire controversy (because of his religion).
"I have also had the opposite of this. When my team had 5 Pakistani players in the first year, there were people saying 'Aap ke pass bahut sare Pakistani players hain' (You have too many Pak players). I still have Wasim Bhai coaching my team. Come on man, sports should be left alone." {Some body pointing out the facts that he has x-number of players from a country which routinely indulges in wanton acts of violence in India is a cause for heartburn?}

"I, my family is from Pakistan.{Is that supposed to be a matter of pride?} My father was born there and his family was from there. Can we just circumvent all that is said about India and Pakistan by the politicians, by anybody else and say 'it's a great neighbour to have, we're great neighbours, they're great neigbours, so lets just love each other'. I think all these issues really need to be out," SRK said. {Paraphrasing from the speech of the paki diplomat in the 'Jaipur literary fest'? What and more importantly why is 'that' needs to be circumvented? The eloquent Khan is having trouble describing 'that'?}

[chetak]

There are no reliable stats of course, but I have wondered how much such behaviour is due to Pakistani and East Pakistani (Bangladeshi) citizens living in India. These people cannot be faulted for cheering their country, can they? But they serve quite well to complicate matters and turn other Indians into targets of the reaction invoked by such cheering.

I am not sure that their number is large enough for the cheering to be heard.

[Rudradev]

Just say it: Salman Khan represents Pakistan and Islam and worshipping him is allowing Islamic rule. Having accepted islamic rule so easily, I suppse we can also accept the truth that islam did rule for 1000 years.

I personally don't care wheather Salman Khan is muslim or rastafarian, or half hindu, or celebrates hindu festivals, at the end of the day he is Indian.

Salman Khan is a dirtbag who should spend the rest of his life in jail (at the very least) for running over all those SDRE pavement-dwellers in his Land Cruiser. But yes, unfortunately, at the end of the day he is an Indian and interpreting his glorification as any kind of victory for Pakistan is not cricket.

On the larger subject of "victory for 1000 years"... here's the thing. Who defines victory and defeat? By which game plan, by which set of rules, is the adjudication being made?

SDREs are, in their most conservative form, accommodationists. It has never been our game plan to kill/defeat/eliminate the unbeliever but rather to seek accommodation with those who differ from ourselves in one specific or another, in order that conflict might be minimized and such conflict as perforce arose would not be catastrophically destructive.

That is how in our glorious varta we have come up with an unique solution to the Malthusian quandary: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". In all human societies, populations multiply to the maximum extent of the resources available to sustain them, and this is almost invariably followed by conflict that culls the population to a sustainable level. Certainly this is true quite early on, for the desert societies where the Abrahamic religions were hatched.

India had a headstart, however. From the Hindu Kush to the Brahmaputra valley and the great peninsula depending in between, we had enough to sustain a very large and multiplying population for long enough to become civilized, and evolve a higher solution to the Malthusian problem. Rather than seeing every new arrival as a threat, or perceiving every weaker neighbour as an opportunity for growth by domination, we learned to accommodate. Thanks to nature's bounty, the natives of our subcontinent began with more than enough for everyone, and developed a civilization based on a philosophy of abundance rather than an assumption of scarcity. Only in such a situation could a Siddhartha Gautama, rather than a Moses or Mohammed, materialize.

That is the reason why, while the Ishtar-worshippers of Babylon and the Osiris-worshippers of Egypt and the Apollo-worshippers of Rome are gone forever the SDREs still have 33-crore living Gods, a more or less intact culture, and indeed have re-asserted substantial political mastery over their urheimat today.

It is because our core philosophy was never "my village against their village, my family against other families in my village, me and my brother against others in my family, me against my brother". It was about establishing the broadest possible grounds for arriving at an maintaining a status quo of accommodative networks.

The SDRE's response to the challenges posed by cultures with a different game plan... kill, subjugate, force submission, convert, ghazwa etc... was to effect measured retaliations in force to the extent possible, establishing a sufficient position of strength, and once that position was established, using it to negotiate an accommodation. Did Shivaji or Ranjit Singhji turn into Timurlanes on victory and wipe out all Muslims within their conquered territories? On the other hand, didn't the Waliullahs and Maudoodis develop a mortal fear for subcontinental Islam's very identity, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims weren't threatened with genocide? Something about what the SDREs were doing... accommodation... scared the salwars off them. It went over their heads and around their flanks and they feared, perhaps, extinction by evolution.

In effect that drive to calibrated response and negotiation from strength directed at an endpoint of accommodation is what animates SDRE Indian foreign policy even today. Pakistan cannot stand against it. Look what is happening to them.

This is what escapes those who insist on seeing the SDRE-Islam clash as a head-on, zero-sum collision. It has never been. We don't play by the same rules, we're not even playing for the same results. Pakistan would like to kill us all and plant its flag on the Red Fort, but we have taught them without genocidally massacring them that this is an impossible dream.

Yet there are so many SDREs who insist on seeing the game from the Paki perspective... if we give an inch somewhere it is a sign of weakness, if we haven't nuked Pakistan yet it is a sign of weakness, etc. etc. and are thereby handing Pakistan (within our own minds) victories it could never hope to win in reality.

One reason for this insecurity is that the eyes of the world... especially the Western world... judge the SDRE-Islamic interaction by the rules of their own Judeo-Christian gameplan, which is just a less foul-mouthed version of the Islamist Ghazwa gameplan, and is not evolved enough to see the merits of accommodation as practiced in India. That is why you have Stephen Cohens and Bennet Rambergs talking about how Pakistan "seized the moment" to attack Kashmir and were "ingenious enough" to develop a nuclear deterrent while India is always portrayed as the ineffectual, effeminate player who must constantly retreat and give way to Pakistani demands, providing avenues for "resolving" issues lest Pakistan shoot itself in the head. Only if we play the Woman and "resolve" issues by giving away what is ours, they write, will we be worthy of their "respect".

I think perhaps too many of us living in the West have been susceptible to the callow judgement of these suit-clad savages and in our defensiveness, forgotten what the real essence of Indian civilization... the recipe for an unique manner of success... actually consists of.

[sum]

One incident is in etched in my mind - In previous life - around 1995 when I worked on Vidhan Sabha Road office, from top of the building, I could see some Paki flags hoisted when Sachin Tendulkar got out in sharjah match and sounds of cracker when Pakistan won the match. From general sense of direction, I would guess Lalbagh.

Eons ago, In my mom's school which is dominated by IMs (it is near Tilaknagar ,a ghetto of B'luru), during a I-day painting contest, 3-4 kids of 10th std(independently) drew posters with "Pakistan Zindabad and Hindustan Murdabad" and didn't show any repentance for it when punished. Also, almost all the IM students and teachers do not sing the national anthem ( seen with eyeball mk.1). Lots of pro-Paki graffiti also adorns the walls of the school. And this is a well-off school with mostly well off students there.
All these incidents are personally witnessed and so, very tough to erase/forget.

[Nihat]

Rather interestingly SRK made the same point saying that his father was from Pakistan. Also mentioned his family is from Pakistan. It will serve him better that he starts living in present and not the past. The sooner the reality dawns the better for everyone.

I think his father was an afghan Immigrant , not from TSP. As far as his IPL stateent about "Pakis should be chosen" goes , lets remember that SRK has a huge market and fan base in TSP and among puke origin people of the West , what matters is that he was on-board with the rest of the franchises in not opting for TSP players. Perhaps GoI TSP policy could pick up a thing or two from him. Keep a nice image but always carry a big stick behind the back.

Anyhow , this is a non-issue. Since our Current PM grew up in Pakistan and the perpretratur of Kargil had his home in Delhi. The kinship which someone spoke of earlier can also be attributed to this historical closeness and cultural similarity , it was at it's peak in the 1st gen. of Muslims of Independent India and had a strong existance in thier kids who constituted the second gen.

Now, however , IM have carved out their own identity and do not identify with the theocratic and radical state that is TSP. Perhaps some older gen. people still do.

[vera_k]

I am not sure that their number is large enough for the cheering to be heard.

There's supposed to be 20 million from East Pakistan alone. That would be large enough. How many then from West Pakistan?

When you couple this with the easy availability of ration cards a.k.a. Indian citizenhip, there's a recipe for minting "Indians" who continue to cheer for their native country.

[rkirankr]

My school teacher who was a IM had a great admiration for Zia. Rajiv was PM of India at that time. She used to say how India has no discipline and Zia's Pak had so much discipline. We used to argue with her and get beaten up because like a paki dictator her word was law in classroom. Everything about India was bad for her.
She was our Hindi teacher.
Things came to head when we had a lesson on Valmiki. She said Valmiki and Vishwamitra are the same. We protested and told her that their backgrounds were entirely different and they were not the same. She stuck to her grounds. We had to go to our HM who put her in her place.

[amit]

I'm no admirer of Salman Khan and frankly wouldn't pay good money to see his films.

However, give the man his due. He may be a scum bag who got away with money power after killing so many pavement dwellers. He may be a morn for hunting endangered animals. And of course he's a mediocre actor.

But one thing he is not and that is a Muslim fundamentalist. One data point on that is found in this link

I believe the Ganesh Chaturthi festival is a long standing affair at Salman's house.

Regarding the participants swooning over Salman, come on these kids are from small towns and this is their first exposure to Bollywood galmour. They would have reacted exactly in the same manner if the guest had been Hrithik Roshan or Abhishek Bachhan or any "Hindu" hero.

[Theo_Fidel]

But when exactly did Islam rule India for 1000 years?

If you must respond to that at all - just say "balls". Do not argue. if you argue you are falling into a trap. But it will be 1000 years before Indians realise this.

The story may be false - but hey how come no Indian has written an easy to understand response?

Shiv,

Several years ago I ran into a party pestilential who trotted out this exact argument.

"Certainly not," I told him, "I don't remember any Punjab Empire or even a Sindh Empire. Every time the marauders came down from the hills the Punjabi's played dead."

Or something to that effect. He tried to rally his arguments but he had lost the crowd at that point.

Don't give them the Muslim card. Call them what they are Punjabi's and Sindhi's. Cuts them to size every time.

[archan]

I think we have had enough posts on Salman Khan and IMs etc. Lets get back on topic. This is the TSP thread folks.
edit: oh a new page as well, okay so no OT postings in this page.

[amit]

SDREs are, in their most conservative form, accommodationists. It has never been our game plan to kill/defeat/eliminate the unbeliever but rather to seek accommodation with those who differ from ourselves in one specific or another, in order that conflict might be minimized and such conflict as perforce arose would not be catastrophically destructive.

That is how in our glorious varta we have come up with an unique solution to the Malthusian quandary: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". In all human societies, populations multiply to the maximum extent of the resources available to sustain them, and this is almost invariably followed by conflict that culls the population to a sustainable level. Certainly this is true quite early on, for the desert societies where the Abrahamic religions were hatched.

India had a headstart, however. From the Hindu Kush to the Brahmaputra valley and the great peninsula depending in between, we had enough to sustain a very large and multiplying population for long enough to become civilized, and evolve a higher solution to the Malthusian problem. Rather than seeing every new arrival as a threat, or perceiving every weaker neighbour as an opportunity for growth by domination, we learned to accommodate. Thanks to nature's bounty, the natives of our subcontinent began with more than enough for everyone, and developed a civilization based on a philosophy of abundance rather than an assumption of scarcity. Only in such a situation could a Siddhartha Gautama, rather than a Moses or Mohammed, materialize.

That is the reason why, while the Ishtar-worshippers of Babylon and the Osiris-worshippers of Egypt and the Apollo-worshippers of Rome are gone forever the SDREs still have 33-crore living Gods, a more or less intact culture, and indeed have re-asserted substantial political mastery over their urheimat today.

It is because our core philosophy was never "my village against their village, my family against other families in my village, me and my brother against others in my family, me against my brother". It was about establishing the broadest possible grounds for arriving at an maintaining a status quo of accommodative networks.

The SDRE's response to the challenges posed by cultures with a different game plan... kill, subjugate, force submission, convert, ghazwa etc... was to effect measured retaliations in force to the extent possible, establishing a sufficient position of strength, and once that position was established, using it to negotiate an accommodation. Did Shivaji or Ranjit Singhji turn into Timurlanes on victory and wipe out all Muslims within their conquered territories? On the other hand, didn't the Waliullahs and Maudoodis develop a mortal fear for subcontinental Islam's very identity, notwithstanding the fact that Muslims weren't threatened with genocide? Something about what the SDREs were doing... accommodation... scared the salwars off them. It went over their heads and around their flanks and they feared, perhaps, extinction by evolution.

In effect that drive to calibrated response and negotiation from strength directed at an endpoint of accommodation is what animates SDRE Indian foreign policy even today. Pakistan cannot stand against it. Look what is happening to them.

This is what escapes those who insist on seeing the SDRE-Islam clash as a head-on, zero-sum collision. It has never been. We don't play by the same rules, we're not even playing for the same results. Pakistan would like to kill us all and plant its flag on the Red Fort, but we have taught them without genocidally massacring them that this is an impossible dream.

Rudradev,

Great post.

This reminds me of an article which M J Akbar wrote in Sunday magazine eons ago in the mid or late 1980s if my memory serves me right.

He wrote then that Muslim fundamentalists fear Hinduism because it's like a amoeba. It doesn't kill its victims/food. Rather it engulfs them and makes them a part of itself.

So, no predictable conflict, struggle or fight - things followers of the Abrahamnic religions understand so well. Just accommodation and absorption.

A good example would be how the Parsis have become an integral part of Indian culture and ethos.

M J used to be a very clear headed writer - he still is. Unfortunately nowadays he's accumulated too much intellectual baggage.

To follow up on the original topic, I think Muslim fundoos across the border would be more scared of the fact that a "Muslim" icon (according to the TFTA logic) like Salman has a long tradition of celebrating Ganesh Charturthi than from any fire and brimstone speech which a Bal Thakeray or someone make make against Pakistani cricketers.