Bharat Rakshak

pankajs wrote:Jinnah’s Pakistan

Often, people with a liberal bent in Pakistan quote Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech and want Pakistan to be modelled on the vision presented in it. But let me tell you the bitter truth: this is Jinnah’s Pakistan!

Why? First, simply because except for the lone August 11 speech, there is nothing much in Jinnah’s utterances, which points towards a secular or even mildly religious state. The August 11, 1947 speech was a rare, only once presented, vision. No wonder then that the Government of Pakistan, through secretary general Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, initially censored the rather liberal parts of the speech. Certainly, this change of mind on Jinnah’s part was a shock for many in the Muslim League, especially since here was a person who, not so long ago, had promised Islamic rule! In his address to the Muslims of India on Eid in 1945, for example, Jinnah had noted: “Islam is not merely confined to the spiritual tenets and doctrines or rituals and ceremonies. It is a complete code regulating the whole Muslim society, every department of life, collective[ly] and individually”. Many such speeches can be quoted, which clearly indicated that Jinnah had promised a country based on Islamic principles — rather than secular ones — to the people.

Therefore, Jinnah’s Pakistan is an Islamic state, which defines who a Muslim is, excludes those Muslims it does not like and is not very democratic. Imagining it in any other way is living in a dreamland and refusing to accept the reality. However, this does not mean that Pakistan is unworkable. Pakistan might be saddled with issues of the past, but surely we can accept and solve them, if we want.

CAPETOWN /ASSLAMA BAD: Only Five Pakistanis were killed during an attempted robbery in South Africa on Wednesday, Express News reported.Four were killed when armed assailants opened fire upon encountering resistance during the robbery. The incident had left two other Pakistanis injured. One of the injured later succumbed to his injuries.Foreign Office spokesperson Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry told APP that according to information received from Pakistan’s mission in South Africa has taken up the matter with local authorities.The mission was also arranging shifting of dead bodies to Pakistan, he added.

Gus wrote:pakis catch some jihadi involved in Daniel Pearl killing. Why now? makes no sense...it will only draw attention to Omar Sheikh living it up in his jail.

Jhujar wrote:Paki SDRE=Super Deep Rear Enter-taining Peeples Ji.
Unlike Short Dark Rice Eating Indians, Haan Ji.

... preserving the Pakistani state and containing the terrorist threat to the West from Pakistan is a permanent vital interest not only of the U.S. military and political establishments but of every American citizen.

If Pakistan is to be broken as a state, it will be on the streets of Lahore and other great Punjabi cities, not in the Pashtun mountains. By the same token, the greatest potential terrorist threat to the United States and its Western allies from the region stems not from the illiterate and isolated Pashtuns but from Islamist groups based in urban Punjab, with their far-higher levels of sophistication and their international links, above all to the Pakistani diaspora in the West.

I have been struck, both in the United States and in Britain, by the tendency of officers and officials to speak and write as if protecting the lives of troops from Taliban attack is the first duty of the U.S. and British states. In fact, it is the duty of soldiers to risk their lives to protect the civilian populations of their countries, and the only valid reason why the U.S. and British militaries are in Afghanistan at all is to protect their fellow citizens from terrorism. If that equation is reversed, and the needs of the war in Afghanistan are actually worsening the terrorist threat to the U.S. and British homelands, then our campaign there becomes not just strategically but morally ludicrous.

On the other hand, if the U.S. military is already in a war, it does not like to be seen to lose it. This is as it should be. No country should want its armed forces to be made up of quitters. And, of course, apart from military pride, it is of great importance to U.S. power in the world, and to the struggle against Islamist extremism, that America not be seen to leave Afghanistan in defeat. But there comes a time in many wars when victory itself becomes so elusive, and the costs of pursuing it so great, that a broader and more detached view of national interests sees that these are best served by some form of compromise. This seems to me to be becoming the case in Afghanistan; not because of the costs of the Afghan war itself, which are bearable, but because of the way in which that conflict is destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States—and the world—which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan.

Deeply unpleasant though the choice is, the United States may have to accept a tactical setback in Afghanistan rather than risk strategic defeat in Pakistan. For if the picture drawn here is correct, then U.S. and British soldiers are in effect dying in Afghanistan in order to make the world more dangerous for American and British peoples.

AMERICAN AND British soldiers are dying in order to avoid the costs of failure: the negative effect this would have on America’s prestige in the world, on the reputation and morale of the U.S. and UK armed forces, and on the confidence of our extremist enemies. So, a humiliating scuttle from Afghanistan is not at all desirable. How to square this miserable and tragic circle?

A new U.S. strategy must recognize that it is essential to ease the pressure on Pakistan, above all by reducing those factors which are increasing radicalization in the country and weakening the status and strength of the Pakistani state and army. This should lead to a complete withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan—as soon as possible.

arun wrote:As expected Yaqoob Khan Bangash’s sensible article on Jinnah was too much to stomach for many in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Express Tribune has had to publish a rebuttal.
Jinnah’s Pakistan: a rebuttal

Ehsanullah Ehsan, spokesperson for the banned outfit, said that attack on public places targeting innocent people was inhuman and that the Taliban condemned such incidents.

In its reply, Interpol said the possible arrest of Musharraf seems to be "politically motivated".

The agency said the case filed against Musharraf in Pakistan through Interpol channels constitutes a matter of a predominantly "political character".

This is the second time a request from the Federal Investigation Agency has been rejected by Interpol.

Last year, Interpol rejected the same request due to insufficient documents submitted by Pakistani authorities.

RSoami wrote:Bad Taliban TTP has almost decimated Ansar ul Islam. AuI`s Papa is upset but the brave Pakjabi army cant fight TTP so they send their air-darpoks who bomb and kill 20-30 bad talibunnies.
TTP must be angry at the bouncer and now we can hope to see some high scoring in the coming days. Insha Allah

.Deadly car bomb hits Pakistan's Jalozai refugee camp
At least 12 people have been killed and 30 hurt after a car bombing at the Jalozai refugee camp near the Pakistani city of Peshawar, officials say.

Pranav wrote: This article by Anatol Levien may have already been posted -

A Mutiny Grows in Punjab - http://nationalinterest.org/article/mut ... unjab-4889

the greatest potential terrorist threat to the United States and its Western allies from the region stems not from the illiterate and isolated Pashtuns but from Islamist groups based in urban Punjab, with their far-higher levels of sophistication and their international links, above all to the Pakistani diaspora in the West.

tendency of officers and officials to speak and write as if protecting the lives of troops from Taliban attack is the first duty of the U.S. and British states. In fact, it is the duty of soldiers to risk their lives to protect the civilian populations of their countries,

And, of course, apart from military pride, it is of great importance to U.S. power in the world, and to the struggle against Islamist extremism, that America not be seen to leave Afghanistan in defeat. But there comes a time in many wars when victory itself becomes so elusive, and the costs of pursuing it so great, that a broader and more detached view of national interests sees that these are best served by some form of compromise. This seems to me to be becoming the case in Afghanistan; not because of the costs of the Afghan war itself, which are bearable, but because of the way in which that conflict is destabilizing and radicalizing Pakistan, risking a geopolitical catastrophe for the United States—and the world—which would dwarf anything that could possibly occur in Afghanistan.

The help of the Pakistani intelligence services to Britain has been vital in identifying the links of these potential terrorists to groups in Pakistan, and to preventing more attacks on the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Islamabad therefore has been only a partial ally in the “war on terror”—but still a critical and irreplaceable one. For we need to remember that in the end, it is only legitimate Muslim governments and security services that can control terrorist plots on their soil. Western pressure may be necessary to push them in the right direction, but we need to be careful that this pressure does not become so overwhelming that it undermines or even destroys those governments by humiliating them in the eyes of their own people.

This should serve as a stark reminder of just how much more Pakistan could do to help the Afghan Taliban (and other anti-Western groups) if the Pakistani state and military, or the relationship between Islamabad and Washington, were to completely fall apart. It is this terrifying outcome that present U.S. strategy in the region risks producing.

Vipul wrote:Another RAPE wanting to latch on to the Indian Gravy Train.

Pakistan now feels it is being left behind in the race. India is a big economy — eight times bigger than Pakistan. Smaller economies must try to benefit from the growth in bigger economies. So,if Pakistan tries to benefit from its neighbours China and India, we can do well.

Its all about "availing benefits from others".The Suited Booted way of demanding Jizyah.

Pakistan and India together shipped more than $300 billion worth of goods to all parts of the world in 2011

SSridhar wrote:kancha, try this. This too.

CRamS wrote:DocJi,

No where in that article, at least the bits you posted does the b@stard talk about TSP terror against India. Its all about white brotherhood. I say he is being unduly alarmist. With US homeland security so rock solid, with US having its tentacles so far and wide that every Paki leaving for the white west is so closely monitored, I am not sure how much damage a Pakijabi can cause. Note, I am not disputing that CIA and ISI are bed mates, I am only suggesting that Pakijabis and their RAPE leadership are in complete cahoots with the whites when it comes to India, and to this end, I cannot imagine a Kiyani or a Paasha or a Lodhi or a Sethi or a MushRat who are brazen in their in their sponsorship of pigLeTs against India and daring to India to fight a nuke war, will risk it all by going after the whites.

I am only suggesting that Pakijabis and their RAPE leadership are in complete cahoots with the whites when it comes to India,

pankajs wrote:Apologies if this has been posted before
----------------------------------------

Conversations With History: Tariq Ali



Some Note:
1. Pakistan was a thank you present for the Muslim league for its support to the British interests.
2. All the early jihadi manuals and books which are taught in the religious schools where actually printed courtesy the university of Nebraska.
3. Carter and Brzezinski began supporting the Muslim groups withing Afghanistan when a socialist leader came to power. Soviets were baited and drawn in because Brzezinski wanted to create a Soviet Vietnam. Regan takes this project further.
4. Pakistan could never achieve a national identity. Pakistan was always a state and never a nation. India never had that problem i.e you have many different nationalities but yet if you ask any Indian what their nationality is they say Indian.

Other nuggets...

LONDON — General Pervez Musharraf has announced his intention to return to Pakistan this Sunday. The country’s former president and army chief is coming home as a civilian politician to contest an ordinary parliamentary seat in elections scheduled for May.Not so long ago, this would have been inconceivable.After assuming power in a bloodless coup in 1999, Musharraf ruled Pakistan for almost a decade, until he was ousted by a popular movement calling for an independent judiciary and democratic rule. He spent the next five years in exile between London and Dubai. In the meantime, democracy settled in: This past weekend, the current civilian government became Pakistan’s first popularly elected government to complete a full term.Despite lingering concerns that the army is still trying to rule by proxy, reactions to news of Musharraf’s return — rage and ridicule rather than fears of a military takeover — reveal just how much the Pakistani military has been humbled.When I interviewed Musharraf in London in 2010, he had settled into a modest three-bedroom apartment near Edgware Road, which is most famous for its kebab shops. Very soon, he will get a welcome no Pakistani general is accustomed to.The Internet-connected, Facebook-happy elite living in those neighborhoods seem to be his only political support. Just weeks ago, in the drawing rooms of Karachi’s upper class I heard praise for the former military dictator. Never mind his authoritarianism: His tenure was remembered as a time of security, prosperity and liberalism. But this privileged demographic is increasingly disconnected from the pro-democracy groups revving up for a historic election: the first handover from one civilian government to another.The gap between the two was aptly captured on Twitter recently — admittedly by other elite netizens — in some mocking tweets imagining life “when Musharraf becomes King of Cliftonia.” One went, “Clifton Beach will be like the south of France.” Another, “Luxury will not be taxed.” There was also the photograph of Musharraf’s campaign billboard in a Karachi garbage dump.

Unfortunately, the US will not be withdrawing totally from Afghanistan in 2014. Vital military bases will remain, a substantial number of troops will still be there, and Pakistan will continue to face the spectre of drone raids.

“The US military is obsessed with the Saigon 1975 syndrome, evoking scenes of North Vietnamese tanks crashing through the gates of Saigon’s presidential palace and US officials escaping from the rooftop of their embassy by helicopter. It is those images that are going to keep the US embroiled militarily in Afghanistan,” Lieven said.

Pakistan’s armed forces, he said, would have to work in total concert with US and Western intelligence to prevent another 9/11-like attack on the US, because were such an attack to occur again, the US would lose its wits and do something really disastrous, given the fact that now there was no force to counter the US.

The UK officials, he said, in private talks with US leaders, had been warning them to refrain from any drastic action and had been warning it of the disastrous consequences that could ensue.

“It’s going to be much messier than Saigon 1975 as the Afghan military is divided along ethnic lines. There may not be an outright victory but the Taliban could well take over the Pushtoon areas. In case a vacuum was created, the Russians could well step in by aiding the Northern Alliance. The Indians could even have an axe to grind there,” Lieven said.

Lieven was of the view that there was a lingering impression among Western military and intelligence sources that deep down Pakistan did not want a settlement in Afghanistan and was trying to bring up stumbling blocks. He said that this impression must be wiped off

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2013_pg3_3

The next generation of Indian Muslims who benefitted from the efforts of Jinnah is now residing in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Secondly, in the present India, the existing Hindu-Muslim harmony could not have been possible had the Hindus not felt the pain of the vivisection of the united India. Jinnah militated against the constitutional Brahmanism of the Hindus and taught them the lesson of showing respect for Indian minorities of all hues.

Acharya wrote:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.as ... 2013_pg3_3

The next generation of Indian Muslims who benefitted from the efforts of Jinnah is now residing in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. Secondly, in the present India, the existing Hindu-Muslim harmony could not have been possible had the Hindus not felt the pain of the vivisection of the united India. Jinnah militated against the constitutional Brahmanism of the Hindus and taught them the lesson of showing respect for Indian minorities of all hues.

This fake reasoning and narrative should be destroyed. They dont understand India culturally and its past traditions. Pak have lost their old memories of the Hindustan and interaction with Hindustani people.