Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP), Jan. 29, 2010

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jan 2010 04:13

Talking of "right" makes sense if there exists a "left". Does any "left" exist in TSP? For that matter, in India - is there anything truly called "left". If it doesen't there is no point in labeling "rights" - both in TSP and India.

Second, if "right" does exist - why is it necessarily "bad"? Talking of only the SS/BajDal as "right" appears to make only the "Hindu" giving rise to "right-wing" "extremism". What about the various Islamist parties in India, who are somehow never mentioned as "right-wing"? Are the Islamists "leftist"? On the othetr hand if both "Islamists" and "Hinduists" are "right-wing" then we have two right-wings fanatically opposing each other!

In India, there are no left-right divide and only two categories in the political-ideological spectrum - "value-based" and "vacuum-ideology". The values of the "Hinduists" can be diamterically opposite to the "Islamists" - but both work on commitments to some "value-systems". Even parts of the so-called "Left" belong to this "value-based" end. The "vacuum-ideology" is hogged by the so-called "centre-left" - it means total flexibility in trashing any and all value-systems as suits political expediency.

In TSP, in contrast - every political grouping is forced to belong to one or the other variation of a single "value-system". Therefore to outshine each other, they must become more "pure" in adherence to that "value-system". One of the arguments given towards the validity of "tolerant/totally inclusive of the foreign" "Hindu/India" (strangely it was supposed to be intolerantly exclusive in its treatemnet towards supposed oppressed classes within itself) is that it has helped the "Indian/Hindu" civilization to "survive". Look at TSP - it too has survived from an impossible beginning - in spite of cyclical waves of conviction from generations of "tolerant/inclusive/anti-bigot" Hindu-Indians that TSP was "soon" going to "implode".

TSP is managing to survive, extract "peace-tax" from the world and its neighbours, has joined the nuke owners club, and has uccessfully tied up a super-power's military in its land, and managed to play off rising powers against one another, and has hosted one of the most powerful radical movements after communism - that threatens a whole wide axis of countries and regions across the continents. All, by sticking to its single "value-system". Regular IED mubaraks may be a butt of jokes for us, but it is very much part of the "value-system" by which the foundational theology of that nation lives. We joke about it because we have never studied Islamic history of the ME in all its bare naked glory of violence.

Instead of labeling anything as "right" or "left" and an obnoxious plague, we should treat each ideology separately and see how far it takes a nation and how appropriate it is for that nation to consolidate itself and protect its existence/culture/civilization.

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 31 Jan 2010 05:42

The bad Sufi

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2010 07:25

The big difference between the Shiv Sena, Bajrang Dal and the LeT is that Indian laws do not condone anti-Muslim behavior. Pakistani laws allow anti-Hindu groups. The Bajrang Dal and Shiv Sena activists are culpable under Indian law if and when they display anti-Muslim behavior The LeT is an innocent organization in Pakistan. An anti Muslim action by any group in India is illegal. An anti-Hindu action in Pakistan is legal. So there is legal and statutory support in Pakistan for being anti Hindu. There is no legal basis for supporting an anti-Muslim action in India. This is a point that is never mentioned as we get our langotis twisted over the LeT-Hindutva group equaequal.

An Indian Muslim in India can complain of discrimination and persecution by a Hindu group. No Hindu can do that in Pakistan. We can ask ourselves if this is an Indian weakness or an Indian strength.

If we see it as an Indian strength, them we can use that strength to hammer Pakistan for being anti-Hindu. If we see it as an Indian weakness, and say that allowing Muslims legal rights in India is a mistake, then we cannot hammer Pakistan for being anti-Hindu.

India's stand is confused. We are not sure or proud of the rights that Muslims get in India because a sizable proportion of Indian Hindus feel that they are victims and feel that Muslims have more rights than they should. That allows Pakistan to do an equaequal. "Hindus want fewer rights for Muslims in India. We have fewer rights for Hindus in Pakistan"

In India a person who displays pride in the rights that Muslims get and holds up Muslim rights is a "secularist". A person who complains against Muslim rights is a "right wing Hindutvadi" Whatever the internal politics of India we need to realise that Muslims do have rights in India and not hammer fellow Indians for supporting that. Hammer Pakistan for not allowing Hindu rights. But we have not reached such an advanced level of thinking yet.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 07:29

A person who complains against Muslim rights is a "right wing Hindutvadi"

If you insist. (I have no time for Hindutvadis).

But what about those Indians who feel that India has kept its half of the bargain by guaranteeing Muslims rights in that part of India called Pakistan?

Where does that fall in terms of advanced thinking?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 31 Jan 2010 07:41

I think it was the previous version of this thread where soures were being asked for the martial theory that is parrotted by the tfta paquis. Well, forget that. If there is ever such a quote, please remember this -

But my Gorkha boys really proved their worth in gold and were unstoppable, I have to doff my hat to my boys! Where normal guys would have had a tough time even walking in those altitudes, my boys sprinted! They charged up and when we were at close quarters with the enemy, my boys did what they had been dying to do for so long, they removed their khukris and started chopping enemy heads. As we charged up, I could see the heads rolling down. When the Pakistanis saw that - they couldn't hold themselves any longer. They just got up and started running away. It was a sight to behold! 5 foot tall Gorkhas jumping up and chopping off the heads of these strapping, 6 foot tall Pathans, who were fleeing in sheer terror.

The Gorkhas had created such terror and dread in the minds of the Pakistanis that when one of the Prisoners of War (POWs) was captured; his first request was to see a Gorkha soldier. I asked one of my boys to go to him and pull out his Khukri, the moment he saw the Pakistani. It was a funny sight - a huge Pathan cringing in sheer dread when confronted with one of the world's most renowned fighting machines - The Gorkha Soldier.

Source of course

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Jan 2010 07:47

For a nation that tore itself away because it could not live with others who followed a religion other than Islam, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is proving that it is a strain to even live with peace and tranquility with other adherents of Islam

.

Ethno-linguistic conflict in Karachi with the Urdu speaking Muslim Mohajir’s represented by the MQM facing off against the Pashto speaking Muslim Pathans represented by the ANP:

Eight killed as violence flares up in Karachi

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Jan 2010 08:24

harbans wrote:I said that they enforce moral ethics rooted in Islamic and Victorian mores. They give scant regards to the secular constitution when their goons set about couples and such. They do have goons that set about North Indians in Mumbai quite against the law. They do act many times way above the law. In that sense they do have the same scant regard for constitution as Islamists do. They mirror image the behaviour of Islamists in these senses to the hilt. The LeT however if you see breaks no laws in Pakistan quite ironically.

Harbans-ji

if the heartburn is SS (not BD) antiques against locals then there are many samples across the whole political spectram. One such example is current Telangana fiasco. This is TSP thread and never do an == at any level between paki terrorists and Indian perspectives.

There is nothing wrong in criticizing a given political view but drawing paralls must be avoided at any cost.

Thanks

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 31 Jan 2010 08:27

vera_k wrote:Hardline Hindu groups are a mirror image of hardline left wing groups like CPI, INC and WKK types. And since the left wing Indian groups support Sharia {INC, CPI, WKK} == {LeT, Pakistan organisations supporting Sharia}.

Better not to get into the comparison game.

Thank you Vera-k ji!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2010 09:07

sanjaykumar wrote:A person who complains against Muslim rights is a "right wing Hindutvadi"

If you insist. (I have no time for Hindutvadis).

But what about those Indians who feel that India has kept its half of the bargain by guaranteeing Muslims rights in that part of India called Pakistan?

Where does that fall in terms of advanced thinking?

Calling Pakistan a part of India is in the genre of calling the Kaaba a Shiva temple. First you lose it. Then you say "It is mine". On a scale of 1- 10 for advanced thinking - that thought gets 0. There is a saying - purportedly from Tamizh that goes, "I don't yet have a woman, but I have decided to call my son Ramakrishna"

The group of Indians who feel that "India has kept its part of the bargain by allowing Muslims full rights in Pakistan" may feel that India need not give Muslims any rights in India. That is a fair judgement from their viewpoint. It also means that the LeT and Pakistan are fully justified in being anti-Hindu and keeping Hindus out of that part of India that is called Pakistan. That is after all "part of the bargain"

I believe it is not advanced thinking, but a hallmark of retardation to think that a part of India is called "Pakistan" and that it was a "bargain" to guarantee only Muslim rights (and forfeit Hindu rights) in that part of India. However there is no law against retarded thinking in India, nor in Pakistan as far as I know.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2010 09:10

I thought this is the TSP thread. What is the compulsion to discuss Indian groups repeatedly some how or the other?

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 31 Jan 2010 09:21

RamanaGaru,

Reporting from my local B&N. I will do my homework and browse through Zbignief Brizinsky's (sp?) if I can.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 09:28

Predictably, your argument is the Islamic one of Pakistan did not secede from an India (which is like Churchill's equator), but rather re-established Islamic suzerainty from an English interregnum.

I hope you can maintain this viewpoint for more than one post. Expediency is odious to one's intelligence.

Now if you like I can gratuitously abuse you and try and give you an estimate of your intellect.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2010 09:29

Chiron wrote:
shiv wrote:I feel bad to say this - but it appears that India needs another couple of 26/11 attacks before a sufficient mass of Indians understand what Pakistaniyat means. There may be no alternative to war with Pakistan.
But Shiv ji, what after war? In GOI ready to liquidate land of pure and take care of the mess that will follow? Is Unkil and world ready?

IMO, in case of next 26/11, India should at least invade POK and establish link with AFG and break Chipanda-Paki territorial contiguity. There is nothing India can do to stop terrorism emanating from TSP, except wait for world-opinion to form and a contingency plan to handle the subsequent mess.

Most rational people ask about the consequences of war (as you have done). Military people know that outcomes can be uncertain and tend to ask for goals in war (as you have done). Irrationality is to start a war without trying to suss out the consequences of failure, and with no end point in sight.

Pakistan has started irrational wars and got away with it to the extent that half of Pakistan has survived (so far) and it still gets praise for being an "International migraine". The US too has started irrational wars and performed irrational pull outs.

This suggests to me that irrationality has a role to play in war. If Pakistan is irrational and pulls India into a war - India finds itself at war whether Indians were thinking rationally or not. In other words one sided rationality on the part of India is insufficient to avoid war.

To me, this begs the question, "Should India not explore the benefits of being irrational?" Is India holding back from doing what is needed by being too rational leading to a situation that India gets a war whenever Pakistan wants one and India does not wage war when it should because it is too rational in worrying about the consequences of war?

My feeling is that India must show signs of dangerous irrationality, even if it is pre-planned and calibrated. Saber rattling has a role to play in international diplomacy and irrational saber rattling has a role to play.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 09:30

My feeling is that India must show signs of dangerous irrationality, even if it is pre-planned and calibrated. Saber rattling has a role to play in international diplomacy and irrational saber rattling has a role to play.

I hope irrational people are nowhere near India's military.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2010 09:32

sanjaykumar wrote:Predictably, your argument is the Islamic one of Pakistan did not secede from an India (which is like Churchill's equator), but rather re-established Islamic suzerainty from an English interregnum.

I hope you can maintain this viewpoint for more than one post. Expediency is odious to one's intelligence.

Now if you like I can gratuitously abuse you and try and give you an estimate of your intellect.

Please say and do what you see fit sir. You have full rights over what you claim is your mind.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 09:33

That was a not so subtle suggestion for you to use some tameez.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2010 09:35

This thread will not be allowed to become a free for all.

thanks,ramana

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 31 Jan 2010 09:46

arun wrote: Ethno-linguistic conflict in Karachi with the Urdu speaking Muslim Mohajir’s represented by the MQM facing off against the Pashto speaking Muslim Pathans represented by the ANP:

The preservation of the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama culture and their zamindari way of life prompted a set of people in the Ganga-Yamuna belt to create Pakistan, helped as they were by certain elements in western India (the then Mumbai Presidency) and also Eastern India (the then United Bengal). Islam came second to them but a most convenient tool, nevertheless. Islam was used to justify and demand concessions from the British, whip up communal frenzy and eventually divide India. They painted the about-to-be-created state as the new Turkey, all set to assume the role of the new Caliphate. When these Urdu-sherwani-pyjama people moved from Dar-ul-Harb to the newly founded Dar-ul-Aman, they were initially welcomed. Soon, realization dawned on the Punjabis and the Sindhis (the two provinces where the migrants moved), that the migrants were there to stay, were there to compete with them for jobs, were more qualified for jobs and professions than they were etc. The Bhai-biradari broke at that time. The Ansar-e-Medina (those in Medinah who helped the Prophet upon his hijrah from Makkah to Medinah) of Pakistan became worse than the Kufr-e-Mecca (the infidel Hindus of India from whose clutches the Faithful wanted to escape).

Though the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama group was able to impose its Urdu language at great cost to the nation (East Pakistan seceding), they could not even preserve their sherwani-pyjama. The had to later take to the Sindhi dress code and the Arched Sindhi topee wit a slit in the front. The Punjabis were tough and made it clear that they welcomed only Punjabis from the other side, not the strange-looking Ganga-Yamuna inhabitants. Since Karachi was chosen as the Capital and since other prominent migrants like Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan were there too, the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama clad migrants had no option other than to flock to this sleepy port city. In order to preserve their ethno-cultural belief system and retain their identity, they setup purely migrant-resident places like Qasba, Orangi, Aligarh, Landhi, Malir, Korangi, Shah Faisal Colony etc. They were soon rattled when the Quaid died, followed by the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. The announcement of a new capital to be built in the Punjab made their situation even worse. They expected that Fatima Jinnah would become the President but FM Ayub Khan subverted that too. The last nail had been driven into the coffin of the migrants. In late 1972, Bhutto replaced Urdu with Sindhi at primary school level in the Sind province. Army was called in to control the riots in Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur and Mirpur Khas. That was when the term mohajir was used to clearly define the Urdu-speaking migrants from Hindustan. Other non-Urdu speaking migrants like Bohras, Memons and Aga Khanis are not part of this classification. The refusal of the Punjabi-Sindhi dominated Pakistan to accept Urdu-speaking stranded Biharis in Bangladesh added to the mohajir insecurity. Slowly but surely, power started to slip from the mohajir hand. The language riots lead to deep distrust between the mohajirs and the PPP. In the meanwhile, the mohajirs demanded a fifth province (Mohajir subah)their own, a demand that was opposed tooth and nail by the Sindhis because such a province could have been created only out of their lands, lands that belonged to them for millennia.

Out of all this misery arose the messiah, Altaf Hussain. Being a protaganist of the Jama'at-e-Islami (JI), he worked with the opposition which was trying to defeat Z.A.Bhutto in the 1977 elections. His APMSO (All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organization) was later created by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq to break the back of the powerful PPP in the Sind. The PPP-Army hatred had reached a high. With the approval of the Army, he also crated the MQM (Mohajir Quami Movement) in c. 1984. However, a clash between the Pashtuns of Sohrab Goth and the mohajirs in 1986 laid the foundation for the perpetual animosity between the two groups. Later the Army intervened to split the MQM and play the Haqiqis (the split MQM), the original MQM and the Pashtuns against each other. The term 'mohajir nationality' was used by MQM after the 1986 events.

The migrants find today that those who didn't do hijrat, are in a far better position in the kufr land than in the 'dreamed-of Caliphate'.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 09:57

This thread will not be allowed to become a free for all.

So be it.

I hope the consistent crude berating of many valuable posters on BRF by one particular anarchist will be addressed. BRF has lost much informative input by the most foul noise emanating from one source.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2010 10:50

Thanks for your cooperation.

ramana

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 31 Jan 2010 10:51

shiv wrote
The group of Indians who feel that "India has kept its part of the bargain by allowing Muslims full rights in Pakistan" may feel that India need not give Muslims any rights in India. That is a fair judgement from their viewpoint. It also means that the LeT and Pakistan are fully justified in being anti-Hindu and keeping Hindus out of that part of India that is called Pakistan. That is after all "part of the bargain"

I believe it is not advanced thinking, but a hallmark of retardation to think that a part of India is called "Pakistan" and that it was a "bargain" to guarantee only Muslim rights (and forfeit Hindu rights) in that part of India. However there is no law against retarded thinking in India, nor in Pakistan as far as I know.

Actually this is what happens when the theory of cognitive dissonance is liberally applied to others but not applied to the person who recognizes cognitive dissonance in others. Keeping "Hindus out of that part of India/not giving Hindus any rights" is very much an integral part of traditional Islamic viewpoint - at least on the part of those whose voices are recognized and seem most influential as represetation of Islamic thinking. Therefore such "rights" will be seen as an integral part of "Islamic rights" anywhere on the subcontinent. Such rights do not depend on whether Hindus in India recognize them or not or hammer Pakistan or not. Recognizing any and each claim of "Muslim rights" as a general principle automatically includes recognition of "Muslim right" to keep out "Hindus" and not allowing "Hindu rights" wherever and whenever it is deemed feasible by Muslims.

It is retarded thinking not to see that perception by Muslims of "Muslim rights" only sees vindication when Muslim rights are guaranteed by Hindus where Hindus are numerically stronger and a confirmation of their right to erase the "Hindus" and their "rights" where Muslims are numerically stronger. They will try to erase non-Muslims anyway, irrespective of whether their rights are guaranteed or not. But guarantee of Muslim rights by non-Muslims is only interpreted by them as the inevitability of the surrender of non-Muslims to Muslims and a shot in the arm for further action to erase non-Muslims as part of "Muslim rights".

Actually, if the media and live debates in both Islamic neighbours of India are followed - more in BD and less in TSP, there is also a palpable strain of fear that comes out - that "extreme" actions on the non-Muslim minorities within their borders can bring down retaliation on the "large Muslim population" in India and that IM "rights" would get curtailed [ or equivalently disgrace regimes "sympathetic" towards Muslims and bring "Hindu fascists" to power]. Contrary to what is being made out here, a strong "guarantee" of "Muslim rights" within India makes Islmists in the neighbours freer in their pogroms against non-Muslims - as they know that nothing will happen to Muslims within India no matter what they do to Hindus or Sikhs within TSP or BD.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jan 2010 10:59

Brihaspatiji,

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 31 Jan 2010 11:13

I have a reply for Brihaspatiji's perfectly valid viewpoint. But I believe the topic was declared unfit for this thread before Brihaspatiji's reply. My reply is guaranteed to be as far off topic for this thread as Brihaspatiji's reply.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 31 Jan 2010 11:15

SSridhar wrote:The preservation of the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama culture and their zamindari way of life prompted a set of people in the Ganga-Yamuna belt to create Pakistan. When these Urdu-sherwani-pyjama people moved from Dar-ul-Harb to the newly founded Dar-ul-Aman, they were initially welcomed. Soon, realization dawned on the Punjabis and the Sindhis (the two provinces where the migrants moved), that the migrants were there to stay, were there to compete with them for jobs, were more qualified for jobs and professions than they were etc. The Bhai-biradari broke at that time.

Excellent post.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 11:40

The preservation of the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama culture and their zamindari way of life prompted a set of people in the Ganga-Yamuna...

I am surprised that the intent and doctrine of the faith is disregarded so cavalierly by one so knowledgeable.

This is concurring with Jaswant Singh who has so eloquently put it: Pakistan is the illegitimate child of UP. The problem is that a zamindari system did not logically imply the disenfranchising of Hindus who have lived in that part of India for 5000 years, as did my family. Not withstanding nonsense on whether this was ever India.

Indians need to formulate a strategy to quarantine virulent Islamism not Muslims. This has no bearing on whether Muslims in India have a certain quantum of rights. They are probably more petrified of the chaos in Pakistan than Hindus. My personal hope was that they would wrench the moral leadership for South Asian Muslims from Pakistan and be assertive in public policy with what many say in private. This is a dismal reflection of India's weak position on the two nation theory. India will need a generation or two to consolidate Muslim confidence in its polity. There is a certain sense of accusation and guilt on both sides. The job will be infinitely easier with Pakistan demonstrably bankrupt of any claim to leadership.

That process is in the works. It can best be accomplished by India working to ensure that there is a stalemate. India should not be interested in peace west of the Indus but rather needs to pursue chaos and constant fluidity.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 31 Jan 2010 12:39

sanjaykumar wrote:The preservation of the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama culture and their zamindari way of life prompted a set of people in the Ganga-Yamuna...

I am surprised that the intent and doctrine of the faith is disregarded so cavalierly by one so knowledgeable.

This is concurring with Jaswant Singh who has so eloquently put it: Pakistan is the illegitimate child of UP. The problem is that a zamindari system did not logically imply the disenfranchising of Hindus who have lived in that part of India for 5000 years, as did my family. Not withstanding nonsense on whether this was ever India.

Indians need to formulate a strategy to quarantine virulent Islamism not Muslims. This has no bearing on whether Muslims in India have a certain quantum of rights. They are probably more petrified of the chaos in Pakistan than Hindus. My personal hope was that they would wrench the moral leadership for South Asian Muslims from Pakistan and be assertive in public policy with what many say in private. This is a dismal reflection of India's weak position on the two nation theory. India will need a generation or two to consolidate Muslim confidence in its polity. There is a certain sense of accusation and guilt on both sides. The job will be infinitely easier with Pakistan demonstrably bankrupt of any claim to leadership.

That process is in the works. It can best be accomplished by India working to ensure that there is a stalemate. India should not be interested in peace west of the Indus but rather needs to pursue chaos and constant fluidity.

I agree that this would deny Pakistan of its claim to be the voice of Muslims in South Asia.
But what I fail to see is what results this can bring?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 31 Jan 2010 12:43

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... -110-hh-05

My friend shook his head: “What’s with you and your dislike of Arabic?”

“I never said that, did I?” I protested. “All I am saying is that most Pakistanis are forgetting that Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi, Sariki, Balochi and Pushtu are our languages and not Arabic! What’s this new fetish with folks trying to make us all spout Arabic words? How does this make us better Muslims?”

“But you do not have a problem with using English words!” He retorted.

“Dude, I’m not sending emails and a barrage of SMS text messages asking people to become secular by using English words!” I replied.

“What do you mean?” He said.

“Oh, come on, you know what I mean,” I said. “People sending text messages and emails telling Muslims to become better Muslims by saying ‘Allah Hafiz’ instead of ‘Khuda Hafiz;’ ‘Jazzak Allah’ instead of ‘thank you;’ ‘salat’ instead of namaz.’. What’s more, what is this other new idea of shouting Alhamdulillah instead of answering with a simple ‘yes’ or a ‘haan?”

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jan 2010 12:53

But what I fail to see is what results this can bring?

A perpetually failing Pakistan will be an object lesson in the perils of demagoguery. It will integrate Muslims into Indian citizenship as no act of the GOI ever can.
This will strengthen India for the bigger tasks and responsibilities ahead that will come with being one of the world's largest economies.

Karmasura · Post by **Karmasura** » 31 Jan 2010 13:00

shiv wrote:
My feeling is that India must show signs of dangerous irrationality, even if it is pre-planned and calibrated. Saber rattling has a role to play in international diplomacy and irrational saber rattling has a role to play.

Maybe it was the vodka and the sleep... But just a thought breezed past that for a weak person, irrationality gives better dividends then a rational person.

Few people see through the logic that empty vessels rattle a lot. I mean, many might quote it, but when actually faced with a situation, they might be taken in by the propaganda that the weaker side unleashes. That side has nothing to do with rationality, you cannot afford to wait for the right time to come, but just keep attacking, since you have nothing to lose anyway.

For the stronger side, rationality must prove better. After all, that is the side in the conflict that has something to lose by getting into unwanted wars.

For Pakistan, irrationality is the best way. For the US, rationality is the best way. India has to have a mixed display.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 31 Jan 2010 13:05

sanjaykumar wrote:But what I fail to see is what results this can bring?

A perpetually failing Pakistan will be an object lesson in the perils of demagoguery. It will integrate Muslims into Indian citizenship as no act of the GOI ever can.
This will strengthen India for the bigger tasks and responsibilities ahead that will come with being one of the world's largest economies.

Let me go one step back.
For this to happen, I believe that a distinct entity of "Indian Muslims" has to be created, nurtured and fostered! This entity should lay claim to the leadership for muslims.

One big advantage that this can bring is with Kashmir. If this group can deny Paki claims on Kashmir, then it would eventually chop the Paki monster's head! And without Kashmir, there is no outstanding issue! Deeper hole for the Pakis.

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 31 Jan 2010 14:25

The question of "muslim rights" is an interesting one. I see it more as India's response to the virulent islamic extremism unleased by Pakistan. The idealogy of Pakistan, nazariya-e-pakistan, is not threatned by India wiping out muslims from India, instead it is threatned by india ensuring the "muslim rights". If muslims are wiped out of India, then nazariya-e-pakistan will win hands down.

Events of 1947 led to a dislocation and dismemberment of muslims in India. It led to the rise of right wing muslim extremism in the subcontinent as never seen before. What Aurengzeb and its ilks did in subcontinent is nothing in comparison to what happened and is happening in Pakistan. What we are seeing is the most virulent strain of islamism in the history of subcontinent. We cannot wish away Islam from the subcontinent and if the hindu majority region needs to live peacefully in India then it needs to defang this islamism. By questioning "Muslim Rights" or by feeling wronged for giving muslims their rights. The hindu majority is going to make itself even more insecure and unsafe. So IM and the "muslim rights" is the only way to defang islamism in the subcontinent.

In 1947 Pakistan claimed the leadership of muslims in the subcontinent, on the basis of declaring itself an islamic country and the protector of Islam in the subcontinent. 1971 showed the muslims that pakistan cannot lay claim on muslims of the subcontinent. Now after Taliban the claim of pakistan is completely weakened. Now in the next few decades India needs to regain its right of speaking of the muslims of the subcontinent and the only way of doing that is by maintaining "muslim rights" in India not by questioning or weakening it.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 31 Jan 2010 14:33

What we are seeing is the most virulent strain of islamism in the history of subcontinent.

Actually no. The last 100 years and specially the last 60 have been amongst the best in the last 1000 years of Islamism in India. You forget the massacres of Timur, Ghazni, Ghori. Each of Timurs massacres in Delhi accounted for more deaths of Hindu's and Buddhists than have occurred in the last 100 years.

AbhishekD · Post by **AbhishekD** » 31 Jan 2010 14:40

What we are seeing is the most virulent strain of islamism in the history of subcontinent.

Actually no. The last 100 years and specially the last 60 have been amongst the best in the last 1000 years of Islamism in India. You forget the massacres of Timur, Ghazni, Ghori. Each of Timurs massacres in Delhi accounted for more deaths of Hindu's and Buddhists than have occurred in the last 100 years.

Ok lets call it second best. But I dont think that these great personalities were able to wipe out hinduism from the areas they conquered. So I would think what pakistan has acheived is right up their. 1000 year of islamism was not able to do what 60 years of nazariya-e-pakistan was able to do.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 31 Jan 2010 14:55

harbans wrote:What we are seeing is the most virulent strain of islamism in the history of subcontinent.

Actually no. The last 100 years and specially the last 60 have been amongst the best in the last 1000 years of Islamism in India. You forget the massacres of Timur, Ghazni, Ghori. Each of Timurs massacres in Delhi accounted for more deaths of Hindu's and Buddhists than have occurred in the last 100 years.

This strain come into existence after Sirhindi and Aurangzeb. For most of the times, this strain was restricted on Ganga-basin. Owing to better homogenization of India today, it is spreading in all other parts. Aurangzeb rebooted and refreshed the dying mullah-cracy.

The massacres of Taimur, Ghazani and Ghori were really not of this strain. They were primarily looters who were muslims and hence used the facilities in Muslim civil code to perpetuate horrible atrocities. However, they did not propagate any ideology which competed with the existing Indic the socio-political setup.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 31 Jan 2010 15:17

To many, the name Amir Timour, or Tamerlane, as he is known in the West, brings to mind visions of a cruel and ruthless conqueror who massacred tens of thousands of people at will, burned their towns and villages, and conquered their lands, leaving behind mass destruction.
The massacres of Taimur, Ghazani and Ghori were really not of this strain. They were primarily looters who were muslims and hence used the facilities in Muslim civil code to perpetuate horrible atrocities. However, they did not propagate any ideology which competed with the existing Indic the socio-political setup.

Yes true to an extent, but don't put Timur in the category of an ordinary looter. He was a very learned man..a Hafiz-al-Koran, the first in the house of Timur. The mughal dynasty descended from Timur through Babars' mother's side.

Looking back at history, there is no doubt that this image is a true image of the ruler. But it is not the only image that should define the name Amir Timour. Although the attributes of wrath probably well define the man as a whole, other facets to his personality paint him as an extraordinarily complex human being who helped shape the future of an entire region, if not the world.

Amir Timour was a learned man who was extremely well-taught and well-read, enabling him to contend intellectually with the highest-ranking scholars of his time. In fact, according to his account, he had the entire Koran memorized at an early age, which caused him to be given the title Hafiz al-Qur’an. He was also well-versed in Koranic exegesis, which was a credit to the teachers and masters of his time. He possessed an incredibly powerful memory, which enabled him to absorb and remember things at a remarkable pace. His powerful memory helped him early in life, when he was able to quickly remember things taught in school, making him excel over his peers. Later in life, when Amir Timour was a military commander, his memory proved to be an asset with such things, for example, as remembering the full name of each and every one of his officers, which quickly earned him their respect.

Islam in India or present day Pakistan did'nt just happen to have 450 million adherents here by outbreeding. Massacres resulted in massive conversions. Coercion was a massive tool. Helpless landlords in present Pakistan and Bangladesh converted to Islam to preserve their lands and seek security and avoid Jizya.

http://iamtimour.com/excerpt.html

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 31 Jan 2010 16:23

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ja ... lah-mehsud

Hakimullah Mehsud 'confirmed' dead? National bird spits him to death...

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Jan 2010 16:41

More and more the average Abdul and Ayesha in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are realizing that Gwadar Port is not as touted the “Next Dubai” nor as touted is it the “Gateway to Central Asia” nor for that matter as touted is it an “Asia Energy Hub”.

More and more the average Abdul and Ayesha in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan are realizing that Gwadar Port is no more that an expensive prospective bolt hole for the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to hide their Navy to escape from a repeat of the wrath unleashed by India on Karachi Port in 1971:

Gwadar Port waits for ships

arun · Post by **arun** » 31 Jan 2010 17:01

A muletyrdom operation

:

Pakistan: Mule steps on land mine, kills 2 troops

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 31 Jan 2010 17:07

Whoever said mules are stupid - they led these barbarians to their deaths..

KrishG · Post by **KrishG** » 31 Jan 2010 17:59

harbans wrote:What we are seeing is the most virulent strain of islamism in the history of subcontinent.

Actually no. The last 100 years and specially the last 60 have been amongst the best in the last 1000 years of Islamism in India. You forget the massacres of Timur, Ghazni, Ghori. Each of Timurs massacres in Delhi accounted for more deaths of Hindu's and Buddhists than have occurred in the last 100 years.

Every religion has fanatics and fanatic rulers who want to force people into what they believe is right. It's not just Islamic rulers, there are numerous instances of such fanatics. If you look up to the name Pushyamitra Sungha in history you'll learn that he was a fanatic Brahmin emperor who took over India after the Mauryas and massacred thousands of Buddhists (which was a new religion then) believing that India is homeland for Hindus alone.

I didn't want get into religions but the conclusion is that a state created in the name of a particular religion will always be the breeding ground for an extremist version of the religion. What kind of Islam did Djinnah envision for Bakistan nobody knows. That's a major problem for a country created specifically for Muslims which ought to obey the rules laid down by it's religion to an extreme level.

The so called "Islamic States" are the actual problem for that religion. These are the states which encourage extremist forms of it and thus disallowing a secular view within religion all in the name of preserving the rights of the people of that particular religion. An extremist Hindu group is as much Bakis is piskology as any other Baki.

I wonder what will be the answer from the majority of Pakistanis for the question, "What are you first ? Muslim or Pakistani ?" While we can expect an answer that they are both, from a minority, the majority would recognize themselves as Muslims first for afterall the primary reason why Pakistan exists is because of the religion. Then I ask if the majority of the people are strictly muslims first then what is the compulsion to live on a country called Pakistan ? A Sindh can be an Islamic state, a Balauchistan can be an Islamic state. Bottomline: The whole idea of Pakistan is in the gutter.