Bharat Rakshak

shiv wrote:
I have heard no such thing. But i have read that 200 years before the Islamic invasions, Buddhism was thriving in the area. The whole area was pretty much Buddhist and the ruins you see there are Buddhist rather than Hindu.

But I have no information to suggest that the Islamc invaders were "tolerant" up until 1700 and then suddenly started conversions. They just went on and on and on eliminating Kafirs and their religion. So the information that the majority of the people were not Muslims may be misinformation.

Shiv, this sort of stuff is hard to verify, I agree.

(1) But to say that that the whole area was pretty much Buddhist post the 700s is wrong. One of the largest (and wealthiest) temples in all of India existed in Multan all the way till 1026. Suraj Mandir (Sun Temple) destroyed by Ghazni. It was a major center of prilgimage.
As for Taxila, which you are calling entirely a Buddhist ruin, it is named after Lord Ram's Nephew. Also, Chanakya composed Arthashastra there. It was always Hindu-Buddhist.

(2) I am also not suggesting any tolerance, far from it. Just that the numbers of Muslims (as a % of Population) went *way* up after 1750s. I am not able to explain it. Most likely, what I have heard may be incorrect.

buddhism went into decline in india after ashoka, albeit slowly. so most major change occured pre-islamic invasions. the invasions basically finished off what was left of buddhism

Till the 9th guru the Sikhism was largely a bhakti based movement and it's followers all over Punjab. There were even Muslims that joined in the movement. It was the tortue and killing of the 9th guru by Aurangzeb, that Sikhism clenched it's fist and became iron almost overnight. Bhai Mardana and many others had started to convert from Islam to Sikhism from Guru Nanaks time. While Aurangzebs time conversion started peaking under force. But it's important to factor in there was no census. And muslims always bred at much higher rates than others. Look at Bengals border districts last 40 years, and you'll see a major demographic change has occurred right in our generation. Check Western UP and last 30 years major demographic changes again. There was feel confortable lull in Indics as far as muslim populations was concerned. Ghettoized Muslim communities were never considered too much of a threat and people then would not have realized what differentials in growth rates could achieve in a few generations.

Manu wrote:the numbers of Muslims (as a % of Population) went *way* up after 1750s. I am not able to explain it. Most likely, what I have heard may be incorrect.

The Abdali's yoke along with Mughal Yoke from punjab was thrown away decisively in April 1758 when Marathas reached peshawar. 2 years later, Panipat happened, which again resulted in Afghans running away from India after suffering a catastrophic "culling" session. While Indians recuperated immediately since marathas did not lose their pre-1758 territory and numbers. India being a fertile region, it is easier to replenish the numbers here.

Afghans, OTOH, could not recover from this pyrrhic victory till date. The vacuum created in Punjab (Marathas did not cross Satlaj again) an Abdali could not cross Sindhu again (not that he did not try, but he simply could not be powerful enough to make an inroad in India. Although dispersed, the decentralized Sikh Misls were enough to deter him from invading India. Sikhs had grown strong enough and Abdali had grown terribly weak post 14-01-1761.

However, Sikhs being dharmik and "invested" in Punjab, they gradually restored stability to Punjab. And their dharmik character, as well as, the entrenchment of Mullah lobby, could not cause the complete dismantling of Qazi-Mullah network. Sikhs simply did not last "long enough". The lands ruled by marathas saw this complete dismantling, but it took the reign of 4 kings and 5 peshwas (roughly 120 years). Sikhs (even if we count from 1762) lasted 80 years. The entrenchment of qazi-mullah network in Punjab was higher than the lands ruled by marathas, hence it would have required longer occupation and cleansing of Punjab by Sikhs. stability is a double edged sword, if it does not happen along with "re-engineering". The memes which one wishes to remove, too grow strong in stable period.

If we remove EIC from picture and allow the system to evolve, It would have happened as "rest of Bengal" and Hyderabad too would have been cleansed by Marathas and Punjab and NWFP cleansed of this network by Sikhs. Rohilkhand was cleansed of this network anyways post Panipat as revenge.

EIC was lucky to have won at Buxar when Marathas were recovering from Panipat. OR should I call it "great timing" on the part of EIC to have accurately identified a small window.

Manu wrote:

shiv wrote:
I have heard no such thing. But i have read that 200 years before the Islamic invasions, Buddhism was thriving in the area. The whole area was pretty much Buddhist and the ruins you see there are Buddhist rather than Hindu.

But I have no information to suggest that the Islamc invaders were "tolerant" up until 1700 and then suddenly started conversions. They just went on and on and on eliminating Kafirs and their religion. So the information that the majority of the people were not Muslims may be misinformation.

Shiv, this sort of stuff is hard to verify, I agree.

(1) But to say that that the whole area was pretty much Buddhist post the 700s is wrong. One of the largest (and wealthiest) temples in all of India existed in Multan all the way till 1026. Suraj Mandir (Sun Temple) destroyed by Ghazni. It was a major center of prilgimage.
As for Taxila, which you are calling entirely a Buddhist ruin, it is named after Lord Ram's Nephew. Also, Chanakya composed Arthashastra there. It was always Hindu-Buddhist.

(2) I am also not suggesting any tolerance, far from it. Just that the numbers of Muslims (as a % of Population) went *way* up after 1750s. I am not able to explain it. Most likely, what I have heard may be incorrect.

Manu this is the information I have, subject to any new info that crops up.

Fa Hsien the Chinese traveller visited India (about AD 400) long after Emperor Ashoka's rule and found Buddhism at its height. Buddhist shrines existed all over the area at that time. 200 years later (about 600 AD) , and before islam came was the visit of another Chinese - Huen Tsiang (Xuanzang) to the Punjab, Kashmir and Afghanistan area and he found Buddhism in decline (as brihaspati pointed out). Huen Tsang retured to China loaded with Buddhist texts and artefacts many of which were lost in the crossing of the Indus.

If was shortly after this period, when Buddhism which had been a major religion in the area for over 500 years was in decline that the fisrt Arab invasions came. This is not to say that Hindus were not there - but the centers of learning and the scholarship and the royal support had been for Buddhism for centuries and even that had gone into decline. This is what it seems like to me from my reading and I have yet another reason for saying it, although that is unconnected with history and is speculation on my part.

Hindus and Hinduism have never been gentle and docile like Buddhism. This may be misinformation that we have been fed. Buddha and Emperor Ashoka may well have made a war like people gentle by their philosophy and actions which were not incompatible with Hindu beliefs. But when Buddhism went into decline as the Gupta empire declined, it gave an opening for hordes from the west to invade again. There were no powerful Hindu or Buddhist Kings in the area. This time it was a big change from 300 BC when Alexander came into what is Pakistan, via Afghanistan, but his soldiers rebelled at taking on the might of Chandragupta ("Sandrocottos") Maurya's armies across the Indus. The rise of Islam coincided with a decline of powerful Buddhist kingdoms that controlled Afghanistan and Punjab.

As for a rise after 1750 - I thnk the information I posted suggests a massive rise in the population of Muslims from the time of Aurangzeb until Ranjit Singh rose that is about 1650 to the early 1800s

shiv wrote:But when Buddhism went into decline as the Gupta empire declined, it gave an opening for hordes from the west to invade again. There were no powerful Hindu or Buddhist Kings in the area. This time it was a big change from 300 BC when Alexander came into what is Pakistan, via Afghanistan, but his soldiers rebelled at taking on the might of Chandragupta ("Sandrocottos") Maurya's armies across the Indus. The rise of Islam coincided with a decline of powerful Buddhist kingdoms that controlled Afghanistan and Punjab.

1. There is no definitive proof that sandrocottus is chandragupta maurya.
2. when alexander invaded India, there was no mauryan rule. Alexanders army was afraid of facing magadha army, then being ruled by Nanda dynasty
3. The Indian kings in Vaahika pradesh an Kekay (ancient name for Punjab), of all Moksha-denominations (Buddhist OR Aastika), were successful in keeping the frontiers of India for 500 years after defeat of Hunnic king.
4. After Guptas, Punjab along with rest of North India (to the west of Bihar) was under powerful rule of Gurjara Pratihara rajputs. India was under rule of Rajput-Paala-Rashtrakoota triumvirate operating from North, east and Deccan respectively.
5. The Shahi dynasty (initially of Buddhist denomination, later converted to Aastika denomination) was ruling Gandhaar province of of erstwhile Pratihara empire. Jaypaal shahi and anandpal shahi were the kings defeated by Mehmood of Gazni prior to crossing Hindu Kush and Sinhu river.
6. Mehmood himself was nephew of Sabuktijin who supposedly usurped power from King Shiladitya of Gazni.
7. overall, for 240 years (from fall of Iran to fall of Afghanistan), Gandhaar under Indic kings (Both Buddhist and aastika) were defending India (albeit without much support from rest of India) successfully. It was only after fight of 250 years, that Gandhaar fell. So much so, for the Paki tales of Muslim valor. They could not conquer a small province of India for 250 years.

Atri wrote: 2. when alexander invaded India, there was no mauryan rule. Alexanders army was afraid of facing magadha army, then being ruled by Nanda dynasty

My only quibble is here.

Alexander did not invade India except for getting into Afghanistan and thence into parts of what are modern day northern Pakjab.That is as far as he got. He had a virtual rebellion on his hands when talk of going further though Punjab arose and that made him give up his plans, He went south along the Indus and thence to Babylon where he died 2 years later. He was also injured along the way and never got back home.

The Buddhist-Hindu differential in resistance in the west has to be seen in the light of the track record.

The main armed resistance that we see being mentioned by the Islamist side - is that from "non-Buddhist" rulers. More so the "Buddhists", and less so the non-Buddhists - are seen as mentioned to be foreign trade linked. Those political entities which were more dominated by merchants with Gulf-dependent trade links - submitted to Muslims earlier than those who did not have so much dependence or fraternal relations.

This is the story of the entire eastern Persia, Tuki heartland - where Buddhism flourished, and whose people were mostly dependent on the foreign trade.

As I pointed out - Chachnama specifically repeatedly refers to the secret understandings that the rich merchant Buddhists of the cities like Nirun in Sindh had with the Caliphate to overthrow the newly installed "Hindu/Brahmin" Chach dynasty. A complication in this was perhaps also the previous political alliances/dependencies that the region might have had with the pre-existing Parthian empire.

Connections with Persia had always been used by rival powers in the west - from Alexander to the Arabs - as a fracture through which they could try and meddle in Indian politics.

Mercantiles would avoid war and resistance at all costs. For them, it is better to try and sell off a piece - be it land, women, religion - than lose all capital and hope of future financial profits in a risky conflict. Buddhism started off as the perfect vessel for imperialism ["all should be peaceful and people should give up violence and arms after I conquer them by arms so that armed resistance to my dominance becomes unethical to even think of"] but took on also the role of being the mecrantiles best friend - through the sangha networks which probably became effective banking channels towards the end.

Shivji - it was not peace per se - but part of the entire assurance mechanism that would protect financier interests. Peace was a tool and an excuse.

I also think that Buddhist stranglehold on society anticipated a phenomenon also seen in christendom. The Church collected and hoarded all recorded ancient knowledge, especially those that talked of violence, strategy, war, war weapons, etc. They preserved it for themselves [the Popes were often leading armies], selectively allowing such knowledge to chosen and loyal feudals [like Alfred or William], but removing the knowledge form the commons. In this way they sought to control the main strength of the political class - that of use and efficiency in violence - while disarming the population preventing revolutionary overthrow of both the feudals and the clergy. Note that only when factional; infighting within the Church led to a section of this elite releasing the knowledge into public domain [Rennaissance] that the ancien regimes began to be overthrown.

Thus if a similar process happened in India, regions under Buddhist sangha stranglehold - would gradually emasculate the commons, and make the warrior class weakened and dependent on the clergy. The clergy in turn would be concentrating financial and mercantile interests - thereby leading to a double whammy.

TSP thread is going OTish folks. One of the other paki threads (or maybe the history thread) instead?

Shiv ji, go through this article to get historical aspects of partition and creation of pakistan..

http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/The ... f_Marathas

furthermore, along with provincial analysis of pakis, one can also do a geographical and sectarian analysis..

Paki army is mostly army comprising of jernails from 17 districts along GT road from La-whore to Isloo.. most of them belonging to Barelvi sect.. barelvi and ahmadis were the real supporters of partition. And both of them are now finding themselves to be "less pure" by purest of all - the wahabandis...

Wahabandi (Wahabbi-Devbandi conglomerate) are ideological descendants of Mullah Sirhindi-Aurangzeb-Mullah Shah wali (who gave Panipat the religious color). These were codified by Maududi from Aurangabad, MH (an erstwhile ROP epicenter in Nizam's era) who went on to establish jamat-e-islami..

wahabandis opposed partition, whereas Barelvi and Ahmadis supported it (I am talking about over all picture). Wahabandis opposed the concept of "nation" as kufr.. So in a way, Barelvi people (with worshipping dargah, peers, sufi saints etc) are the last remnant of whatever that is left of Indian sanskara among Pakjabi populace. Barelvis are highly deracinated "hindus", whereas wahabandis are so far, purest of all..

brihaspati garu,

there is a saying, "war is good for business". But that is mainly true for nations with strong military industrial complexes. So what decides the fate of nations is basically whether the mercantile class thinks war is good for business or just the opposite. In India it seems people wish to keep the MIC footprint small. It is mostly Government-owned and private companies are not made into full-fledged partners or given encouragement.

Other nations are bound on exporting all military hardware to India that India needs. They are contributing to keeping the MIC in India weak.

This keeps the mercantile class fully on the side of "war is bad for business" mentality, and thus foreign powers through the mercantile class get to keep full control of Indian politics.

It is when the mercantile class will say, "bring it on" that one would see change in Indian attitude. For that MIC in India has to spread over private sector.

Spot the difference (US-Pakistan version)

First the US budget request for aid to Pakistan and objectives for FY 2012:

The United States seeks to advance U.S. national security by deepening its long-term bilateral strategic partnership with Pakistan. This effort will support the U.S. goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in the region, as well as deny safe haven for the Taliban by helping to build a stable, secure, democratic, and prosperous country. The United States will partner with Pakistan to strengthen the capacity of the democratic government to meet the needs of its citizens better by rehabilitating critical infrastructure, stabilizing key areas contested by violent extremists, and fostering private-sector-led economic growth. [The Congressional Budget Justification Foreign Operations Annex: Regional Perspectives, FY2012, p. 660]

And the US budget request for aid to Pakistan and objectives for FY 2013:

The United States seeks to foster economic and political stability in Pakistan through sustained assistance, which directly supports the core U.S. national security objective to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaida, as well as to deny safe haven to it and its affiliates in the region. Despite recent challenges in the relationship, the United States and Pakistan must continue to identify shared interests and cooperate on joint actions that will help achieve these objectives. [The Congressional Budget Justification Foreign Operations Annex: Regional Perspectives, FY2013, p. 687]

As far as the US is concerned, all the talk about deepening a bilateral strategic partnership with Pakistan is dead and buried. It isn’t there even on paper now. The dreams of building a stable, secure, democratic and prosperous Pakistan have also been replaced by more modest goals of identifying shared interests and cooperating on joint actions against Al Qaida and its affiliates. Such a difference a year makes in Washington DC!

But for whatever reason, this reminds me of that Goethe quote: “When ideas fail, words come in very handy.”

http://pn.com.pk/details_en.php?nid=21508
Marc Grossman calls on COAS

United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Mr Marc Grossman, who is heading the first high level delegation after Salala incident, called on Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani at General Headquarters today and held talks on the subject of bilateral relations.
The meeting covered wide range of security issues inline with the guidelines for re-engagement with United States as decided by the Parliament

( Poaks look sad a loat in the picture)

Pakistan says US not listening, drone strikes must stop
http://pn.com.pk/details_en.php?nid=21501#

drone aircraft strikes against militants inside its territory must stop, but Washington is not listening, the country’s foreign minister said.“On drones, the language is clear: a clear cessation of drone strikes,” Hina Rabbani Khar said.“I maintain the position that we’d told them categorically before. But they did not listen. I hope their listening will improve,” she told Reuters in an interview late on Wednesday.The attacks by the unmanned aircraft from Afghanistan, which US officials say are highly effective against militants, fuel anti-American sentiment in Pakistan because they are seen as violations of sovereignty that inflict civilian casualties.Khar’s sharp comments on the drone strikes came ahead of a two-day visit to Islamabad by the United States’ special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Marc Grossman.Ambassador Grossman was due to hold bilateral meetings with Pakistani officials and take part in a “core group” meeting with officials from both Pakistan and Afghanistan, where the United States is hoping to revive stalled peace talks with the Taliban.
Ties between Pakistan and the United States, allies in the war on militancy, have lurched from crisis to crisis as they spar over security, assistance and the future of Afghanistan

Is it India’s Rosa Parks moment? —Ajaz Ashraf
( Another RNI, BDY , My Abbu from Arabia chime in)

http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?pa ... 2012_pg3_2

This assumption stands challenged in Hyderabad, not by Muslims, but by assertive lower-caste Hindus who were contemptuously treated and referred to as Untouchables and who now have adopted the nomenclature of Dalit (oppressed) for defining their identity. On April 15, Dalit students organised a beef festival at Hyderabad’s Osmania University, where 2,000 of them publicly partook of the savoury beef biryani even as a singer belted the song: “Beef is the secret of my energy.”This demonstration of defiance was in support of their demand to have beef included on the hostel’s menu. Their logic was — beef is taboo for high caste Hindus, not the Dalits, sections of other backward castes, Muslims and Christians, whose diet includes beef. In excluding it from the menu, the university, they said, is guilty of showing an unjustifiable predilection for the religious sensitivity of high caste Hindus. At one stroke was thus shattered the myth of the Hindu community being a monolith.Against this backdrop, you could as well think of the beef festival at Osmania University as India’s Rosa Parks moment. She triggered the historic black civil rights movement through her refusal to obey the bus driver who wanted her to vacate her seat for a white passenger. Perhaps the Dalit students of Hyderabad have taken a similar, decisive step for transforming the Indian mindscape.

The Retard is a Delhi-based journalist

Jhujar wrote:Is it India’s Rosa Parks moment? —Ajaz Ashraf
( Another RNI, BDY , My Abbu from Arabia chime in)

Yep, this Ashraf is nothing but a baki-suar. Offending sensibilities is not a "Rosa Parks" moment, just shows how much this retards do not understand the civil rights movement (in US) and how much they do not understand the Independence movement. One can organize a pork eating festival and see how this vermin will squirm - then it will be all about a whine on anti-minority etc.

Atri wrote: http://bharatrakshak.wikia.com/wiki/The ... f_Marathas

furthermore, along with provincial analysis of pakis, one can also do a geographical and sectarian analysis..

Paki army is mostly army comprising of jernails from 17 districts along GT road from La-whore to Isloo.. most of them belonging to Barelvi sect.. barelvi and ahmadis were the real supporters of partition. And both of them are now finding themselves to be "less pure" by purest of all - the wahabandis...

Wahabandi (Wahabbi-Devbandi conglomerate) are ideological descendants of Mullah Sirhindi-Aurangzeb-Mullah Shah wali (who gave Panipat the religious color). These were codified by Maududi from Aurangabad, MH (an erstwhile ROP epicenter in Nizam's era) who went on to establish jamat-e-islami..

wahabandis opposed partition, whereas Barelvi and Ahmadis supported it (I am talking about over all picture). Wahabandis opposed the concept of "nation" as kufr.. So in a way, Barelvi people (with worshipping dargah, peers, sufi saints etc) are the last remnant of whatever that is left of Indian sanskara among Pakjabi populace. Barelvis are highly deracinated "hindus", whereas wahabandis are so far, purest of all..

A geographical and sectarian analysis is what I am interested in too over several areas. A few questions:

Weren't heroes like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan, Gen Musa and Zia all Pakjabis?

What about Lt Gen Javed "Imbecile" Nasir?

Sufism itself came from Persia and many were Shia - at least initially. I can imagine Wahhabandis having a double grievance against sufis - one in which they worship at the graves of saints and the music/mysticism of Sufis and secondly the shia connection

Babar himself is claimed by some to have been a shia. But Googal says that he may not have been - although his henchman Baqi who built Babri Masjid was a shia.

shiv wrote: Weren't heroes like Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Tikka Khan, Gen Musa and Zia all Pakjabis?

Ayub Khan was a pathan, born in NWFP. The rest were pakjabis I think.

Babar had entered into an alliance against his nemesis uzbeks with the persians. Part of the deal was he will strike coins of shia imams in the cities gained with their aid, which he did. So maybe that is 

Humayun in the refuge and at the mercy of Persians for aid and his life converted to shia. Bairam Khan, was shia.
---
Added later
Yahya was a hazara, Zia a mujahir, Tikka pakjabi

disha wrote:

Jhujar wrote:Is it India’s Rosa Parks moment? —Ajaz Ashraf
( Another RNI, BDY , My Abbu from Arabia chime in)

Yep, this Ashraf is nothing but a baki-suar. Offending sensibilities is not a "Rosa Parks" moment, just shows how much this retards do not understand the civil rights movement (in US) and how much they do not understand the Independence movement. One can organize a pork eating festival and see how this vermin will squirm - then it will be all about a whine on anti-minority etc.

This is a non issue in India. To make it to BRF it had to appear in a Baki newspaper.

Who the fuke is Roja Pak? This is the only Roja Pak I know about

^^The Barelvis or Shias or Ahmedyas can be more vulnerable to pressures to prove their pakiness. This happened with the buildup to Partition. All three were prominent in separatist Islamist demand.

Even though finally Barelvis wanted separatism - it was Deobandi's who ran the campaign for increased islamism throughout North India and the Punjab especially, in the 19th century, and it was their organizational and theological initiative that gave all the memes later usurped by the separatists. There is no point in separating out Ahemedyas, Shias, Barelvis and deobandis over Islamist separatism. They all found the attraction irresistible.

The modern revival of the Shia-Sunni conflict within the Paki state - is not strictly speaking a revival, but rather an exacerbation. Ironically, one theory goes that it was the acceptance by the Paki regime of the Shia demand that Sunni religious taxation did not apply to them - that apparently led to increased declaration of being Shia. This in turn led to Sunni anger - especially the clerical anger for being both cheated out of zakat income by the powerful army [zakat goes towards shoring up partly the big holes in the state exchequer instead of the theologically stipulated redistribution] and decreasing Sunni following too.

Part of the Islamic clerical genocidal mania against people going out of the flock in Pakiland is the potential loss of income too [apart from possibly the loss of that which faithful families provide in both underage and adult flesh of both genders for mullah satisfaction].

ManuT ji,
Humayun also accepted that it would be the persian rulers name read in the Khutba. It was not merely under duress and need - the Persian connection was maintained throughout until Jahangir. Akbar had his court divided virtually into two camps - the Persian and the Rajputs. This was to balance out the Turko-Afghans.

Technically speaking we are not told when exactly - after the conversion of Humayun - his descendants formally readopted "sunnism". Technically, the shia are munafiq for the Sunni - which means they had to formally reconvert into Islam if at all allowed to live. Aurangzeb behaves legalistically as a Sunni. So at some point this "reconversion" must have taken place before or with Aurangzeb. But the court historians are silent about this. But shias continued to play a dominant role wherever Mughal presence was felt - including the south Indus region.

I have been doing some reading about the history of democratic government in India which has an impact on how the current Indian and Shitistani governmental set ups were shaped.

In 1928 Nehru made a report about an Indian government called the Nehru report where he gave shape to his ideas of government. By 1929 Jinnah made "Fourteen points" (Jinnah's 14 points) which set the course for Muslim opposition to Nehru's idea and eventually partition. Jinnah's 14 points were accepted by the British when elections were finally held in 1937. Salient among Jinnah's 14 points was that 1/3 of all seats in all legislative bodies at the state or central level would be reserved for Muslims.

I am not sure if this was meant to translate into a "separate Muslim electorate" where Muslims voted for Muslims only. That may or may not have been what Jinnah wanted. I think Jinnah probably just wanted rich and influential Muslims to be nominated to parliament to "represent" all Muslims without the need for election. The problem of course was that lots of Muslims were voting for Congress and other parties so a real attempt at electing Muslims might have ensured that prominent Muslims would have had their backsides handed to them on a platter. In fact that is what happened in the 1937 elections. But I have been unable to find out how the 1/3 reservation for Muslims was filled and who took those places. In any case all this broke down in 1939 when WW2 broke out and the elected Congress government resigned over support to the war, and Jinnah was a happy man when that happened.

But in 1947, when Pakistan was formed, I am certain that its government was made up of the very same "ashraf" rich Muslims who showed their sooth (Tamil for backside/arse) and ran to Pakhanastan. You can bet that these guys had no intention of depending on the fickle whims of an electorate to keep them in power. After all they had just run from an India where the Brits had allowed them nomination and 1/3rd reservation in parliament. They were not going to suddenly be overcome by a proper democratic urge.

Pakistan was a disaster from the beginning. Misconceived and misruled. And held together by American aid and the excuse of Islam - a religion where the only agreement between all Muslims is that Khuda is God and Mahomet is prophet. Everything else, wives, territory, boy's backsides, you name it is up for grabs.

shiv wrote:This is a non issue in India. To make it to BRF it had to appear in a Baki newspaper.

Hakeemji, I know currently it is a non-issue in India. However if somebody takes out a pig eating festival in a public university (even if it is for say a non-existing katrikaya movement say in hyderabad, karnataka) in India., will it be still a non-issue in Bakistan?

Second that event did hurt sensibilitiies (it was meant to hurt sensibilities in a provocative way) and some people did get hurt and was brought into control by force. And the news is again re-circulated in a baki newspaper as a roja pak moment. The point is that if the writer (and the editor) had known what exactly is a "Rosa Park" movement (actually bakis should be talking about a Marvi Sirmed movement) they would not have penned it in the first place. Since they penned it and made it equivalent to "look India is going through a Rosa Park" movement, they are nothing but retards - particularly when their own country is burning.

arun wrote:Aman Ki Asha Newspaper The News reports that Dr. Shireen Mazari, spokesperson for foreign policy of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party, is rather upset that the US State Department lauded India for having “a solid nonproliferation record”.

Setting aside the veracity of the claim, it certainly does not seem “brotherly” of a political party of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to begrudge the alleged help given by India to fellow members of “Ummah” namely Iran and Iraq.

Appears that there is a sectarian angle to this action by Imran Khan’s PTI as both Iran and Iraq have Shia Mohammadden majorities while Pakistan is a majority Sunni Mohammadden country:

Contrary to US claim India’s ‘nonproliferation record’ is highly suspect

Aman Ki Asha Newspaper The News reports that Dr. Shireen Mazari, spokesperson for foreign policy of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) political party, is now rather upset with India for “leaking” news of the launch of the Shaheen 1A:

India leaked news of Pak test launch

brihaspati wrote:Part of the Islamic clerical genocidal mania against people going out of the flock in Pakiland is the potential loss of income too [apart from possibly the loss of that which faithful families provide in both underage and adult flesh of both genders for mullah satisfaction].

So it is all about money (and material). Bakis need a very visible Bope Giovanni to start with.

A couple of days old but not having seen this screed from S.M.Hali on BRF am posting the same:

Agni-V’s caveats

arun wrote: Constipated Hali

Look at the comments. Poor Hali cannot even respond, electricity cut in Krachi.

Given the track record of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on defaulting on its debt obligations, RITES must ensure that no burden falls on the Indian Taxpayer by insisting on a cash down deal.

Let the Islamic Republic of Pakistan’s three and a half friends open their wallets to finance the deal if they wish.

RITES must also ensure that that the security situation in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan does not put Indian's to risk by insisting that any maintenance or repair obligations regards the Locomotives supplied, will have to be done in India:

Pak team scouting for locomotives in India

^^^
There is another reason why this is a bad idea. Paki-army is feeling the pinch and wants to reopen NATO routes. They got into an agreement with Pak railways recently to transport goods using trains and split the money with them.

From Yawn: Army has its eye on Nato supplies deal
http://dawn.com/2012/03/07/army-has-its ... lies-deal/

The bankrupt Pakistan Railways management has pulled off the mother of all deals with the NLC, while the army is working hard behind the scenes for an equally big deal with the United States. In the first week of February, railways signed a deal with the military-run National Logistics Cell (NLC) under which the cell will repair 30 railway locomotives of which 15 will be returned to the railways to use. The other 15 will be used by the NLC to carry freight booked by the NLC. What does the NLC get out of this deal? This was a question that proved hard to answer as the NLC and the ISPR never bothered to reply to any questions despite a weeklong wait.

As usual, this "repair locomotives and use it for transporting NATO goods" (you scratch my back, I scratch yours) has fishy monetary transactions involved with it and the money charged by Paki-Railways is not enough to repair them. Neither does the Paki-Railways have the money (or manpower) to repair the locomotives. They have already taken out a loan from a bank.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-3 ... sial-deals

The National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) has asked Pakistan Railways (PR) to justify its deal with National Logistics Cell (NLC) for repairing 30 locomotives at Rs500 million while the Bank’s Balancing, Modernisation and Replacement (BMR) for 100 locomotives is worth Rs6.1 billion.
An average per unit locomotive cost by NLC has been worked out at around Rs16.66 million while the per unit locomotive cost under the NBP facility would be Rs61 million- close to nearly 400 percent of the NLC one.

So they are charging 4 times more money to repair each locomotive from the bank, they are charging very less to NLC. In addition the 6.1 billion comes with conditions (of sending off people), and kickbacks and no way to pay it back.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/357632/rail ... lion-loan/

Cash-strapped railways got the Rs6.1 billion loan in January through its profitable ancillary PRACS. PRACS was chosen for the purpose as no bank and financial institution was ready to trust the loss-making railways. The loan, provided by the National Bank of Pakistan through a consortium, has been extended for a five-year period at an interest rate of 13% . PRACS will pay back the loan in 10 biannual installments with guarantees from the railways and finance ministry. With the loan, PRACS will rehabilitate about 96 locomotives and has already selected five retired and on-duty engineers for the job {5 Abduls to repair 96 locomotives, of which a few are retired senior citizens? }. Talking to The Express Tribune, Employees Association President Khalid Bashir said total assets of PRACS, including properties, were merely worth Rs1 billion and was surprised over the approval of the loan.

They say that they can make 3.5 million rs per day (revenue, not profits) with repaired locos, which over 6 YEARS is 6 billion, and they have to repay the entire 6 billion in 5 years. Unless there a madrassa somewhere in that mathematics, the numbers dont tally up. The loan most probably wont go through, Paki railways most probably doesnt have the cash or manpower to repair the locomotives. They have to buy new ones. China is no longer prepared to sell it for credit and they are looking for an idiot to sell it to them in return for vague promises and "A Monkey's Ass" (Amanki-Asha). The 50 locomotive deal with India if it goes through
1. We will never see the money
2. The locos will be immediately put to use to transport NATO supplies and fund Paki army.

Anujan wrote: 1. We will never see the money
2. The locos will be immediately put to use to transport NATO supplies and fund Paki army.

And without servicing they will break down and India will be blamed one millisecond later for being unkind to Muslims.

Anujan wrote:^^^
1. We will never see the money
2. The locos will be immediately put to use to transport NATO supplies and fund Paki army.

Beghairat bharri hai yeh Poaqer ki Aaanhee
Na Abbu Naa Ammi, kisse dukh Battaee.
Jilllat owwr killat ki Azab Dasstan yeh,
ATM bhi roye, dekh Poaqerstan yeh.

Some fireworks seem to be happening in Lyari town / Karachi. Police vs "Gangsters" with heavy machinery. This is supposedly the densest part of Karachi town so casualties on both sides and those in crossfire may be high. Remains to be seen to what extent.

In other news Gilani could (or have to) step down due to conviction by court so overall Pukistan / Sindh appear to be in quite a spot.

Let's hope for the best and plan for the worst.

We might supply the locos just to get massa out of the jam.

shiv wrote:

Anujan wrote: 1. We will never see the money
2. The locos will be immediately put to use to transport NATO supplies and fund Paki army.

And without servicing they will break down and India will be blamed one millisecond later for being unkind to Muslims.

They will blame "hinduon ki zehniyat"...

Ghauri missile is Ding Dong form NoKo. Seems AQK acquired the ding dongs and his outing might have come with a condition from Unkil that Pakis should stop playing footsie with them. Ghauri seems to have been not tested for some time. All of credible Paki missiles now are imported from China and painted green (with the tip carefully painted red). The Shaheen series is M9, M11 and others.

The missiles developed by the Pakis on the other hand look like this:




Which are little more than glorified battlefield rockets.

Battlefeild rockets with questionable accuracy and hence in other words of little use.

Aditya_V wrote:Battlefeild rockets with questionable accuracy and hence in other words of little use.

There is little material available that indicates, Pakistan has the scientific and engineering infrastructure to design and build even battlefield rockets

Jhujar wrote:Pakistan says US not listening, drone strikes must stop
http://pn.com.pk/details_en.php?nid=21501#

“On drones, the language is clear: a clear cessation of drone strikes,” Hina Rabbani Khar said.“I maintain the position that we’d told them categorically before. But they did not listen. I hope their listening will improve,” she told Reuters in an interview late on Wednesday.

How pious ! Pakistan was never aware earlier that many of these drone missions were from Shamsi ! The Pakistani COAS did not egg on the Americans to go after the bad Taliban with the drones ! The Pakistanis did not demand the drone technology from the Americans ! So, we have to believe that the Americans are not indeed listening to the Pakistanis.

Modi should not tolerate this and take to national level
India
Pak Marines fire at Indian fishermen, 1 injured
CNN-IBN | 27-Apr 17:34 PM
Ahmedabad:
Pakistani Marines allegedly open fire on Indian fishermen near International Maritime Boundary Line. One fisherman has been badly injured inthe firing.
The Indian fishermen were on board the boat Sagar Suraj.
The incident happened off the coast of Jakhau, which is close to the Gujarat coastline.
There have been incidences in the area of fishermen being taken into custody in the past for trespassing. However, fishermen being shot at was a serious matter and the coastguards were looking into it.

http://www.ibnlive.com/news/pak-marines ... 738-3.html

The maritime border is the new Yellow Sea. Expect the Pakis to kill or injure more Indian seamen and fishermen.