Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 2012

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Feb 2012 14:58

Or rather If India - Pakistan war happens, it should not be constrained by Diplomatic- foreign power interference which helped Pakis claim victory/ status quo and their leadership escaping punishment. This would only make them bolder and support more and more terror activities in future

If for any reason a war happens (God forbid it may likely escalate to a Nuke conflict), the result of the war should be a decisive Indian victory with no artificial timeliness included.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Feb 2012 15:38

Shiv Ji, i don't really see how Islam is being 'ruled' by the Christian West albeit with the exception of Iran. For that matter even Pakistan. You only a few days ago mentioned how the Americans were capitulating to the Pakistani's..and IIRC castigated Crams on that. Why do you see now Islam being ruled by the Christian West, in which i am sure you include US.

As for when 2 warring parties fight, they do go to other powers. It has been so throughout in History. Even India went to Israel, Russia for military hardware and support. How much that support matters is another question. But the problems between Pakistan and India are not fundamental creations of the US or even Britain for that matter. They are the result of ideological disparity. That essence cannot be erased by claiming a 3rd party is the root. That is fundamentally untrue.

We too become a 3rd party in many conflicts. By hosting HH the DL and providing land and support we enrage the CPC, by drilling for oil in the South China sea with Vietnam we again do it, by trading with Iran we enrage the US, in seeking trade relations with Pakistan we enrage the fundamentalists there to take on the Paki state further..but do we become the prime reason for the conflicts in all these places, between all these parties? The reasons for conflict almost always are ideologically rooted.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Feb 2012 16:05

Another thing is what does the West modulate in Islam, or India within India or even Pakistan for that matter? Or does Islam modulate us?

The West modulates even Iran for that matter. Sanctions are a form of modulation, right? But Iran does what it wants to do, but can only so much because of direct threats from the West. Blocking straits of Hormuz will be considered an act of War says the West..so Iran rethinks. Making a Nuclear weapon will be an act of war, so Iran makes the program go underground..all these are acts of modulation. Similarly Saudi has limits set not to disturb the apple cart of the economic engine. That cooperation the Royals offer in turn enables the Americans to turn a blind eye to the Islam that the regime enforces on it's people. Same with Pakistan, or even the Afghanistan under the Taliban. The US or the Christian West never really interfered in the barbarism of an Islamic regime. It only curtailed or modulated what are the external limits of what it could or could not do in a very limited way externally. In no way that means White Christian West controlled Islam.

India too sets some limits on how much true practice is allowed. Does Islam want to smash idols and images? Yes, but we prevent it in our country as Islam does not have that much power as it has in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Maldives. Pakistan wants more land and to grab Kashmir. But we have our limits too. Cross the LOC and we'll blacken your eye. So yes we modulate too. But we cannot modulate how Islam is practiced within Saudi, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan or North Africa. As long as there is opinion within their own nations that some 7th century barbaric practice is not fit in the 21st century, we can kow tow and encourage such sections. But when that is reduced close to nil, we or Americans or White Christians can do little to nothing on the way Islam is implemented. That has at the minimum been the case so far.

The solutions that we should seek to bring about peace within the subcontinent really lie in addressing the fundamental ideological disconnect within large sections of the populace here. Mainstream Islam says it's OK to destroy idols and images, we say 'No'. This position is not reconcilable for example. Does US help to Pakistan help them in propagating that? Yes it does in many ways. Do Russian weapons and tanks help us in in propagating our version of 'No'? Yes in whatever little way they do. Both US and Russia last i heard were Christian denominations orthodox or else. By this example we see, the problem is neither solved by supposedly assuming a dominance of some Christian West model over Islam or 'Hindu' or Secular India. That track will mislead and lead to incorrect conclusions.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 15 Feb 2012 17:24

harbans wrote:Shiv Ji, i don't really see how Islam is being 'ruled' by the Christian West albeit with the exception of Iran. For that matter even Pakistan. You only a few days ago mentioned how the Americans were capitulating to the Pakistani's..and IIRC castigated Crams on that. Why do you see now Islam being ruled by the Christian West, in which i am sure you include US.

As for when 2 warring parties fight, they do go to other powers.

In fact I have a specific view on this. I am glad to see Pakistan hitting out at the US. I want to see the US kicked out of the subcontinent and for Pakistan to look at India eye to eye without the US. The US's role is manipulative that neither allows Pakistan freedom (which Pakistan did not seem to want till recently) nor India freedom from US meddling via Pakistan, which India has been hankering for anyway. The US and the earlier power Britain have modulated Islam in many ways - but the particular modulation that bothers me is the way Pakistan was armed and supported against India. No defence of US actions is going to easily make me believe that it was OK

harbans wrote:The solutions that we should seek to bring about peace within the subcontinent really lie in addressing the fundamental ideological disconnect within large sections of the populace here. Mainstream Islam says it's OK to destroy idols and images, we say 'No'. This position is not reconcilable for example. Does US help to Pakistan help them in propagating that? Yes it does in many ways. Do Russian weapons and tanks help us in in propagating our version of 'No'? Yes in whatever little way they do. Both US and Russia last i heard were Christian denominations orthodox or else. By this example we see, the problem is neither solved by supposedly assuming a dominance of some Christian West model over Islam or 'Hindu' or Secular India. That track will mislead and lead to incorrect conclusions.

Harbans your argument is a convenient one but is either based on ignorance of, or deliberate ignoring of the way the history of the Indian subcontinent was scripted.

You have now cancelled out US aid to Pakistan by citing Russian arms to India. In fact Pakistanis say that too. Their justification for accepting US aid and becoming slave to US interests was based - as far back as 1954 to "India's tilt towards Russia". So you are saying that the Pakistanis were right in that accusation and i am not going to argue against it other than to point out that there could be a Pakistani viewpoint that seems truthful and accurate. You have certainly echoed that.

The construction of a narrative that Mughals ruled India for 1000 years was a British version of history based on a White Christian supremacy narrative. I am not sure whether Russia colonised anyone based on White Christian supremacy. The creation of Pakistan was based on the narrative that the former rulers of India, the Muslims, would be unable to live among Hindu Indians. I have not managed to understand how this can be spun out to be true, but it was certainly part of the narrative that aided the creation of Pakistan. The idea that Muslims could not live in India being subject to rules and rulers from Hindu India may well have been an Islamist idea, but that idea was a grievance that built upon the British narrative of the great ruling Mughal empire which the even greater white European Christian Britain toppled from Istanbul to Calcutta. Great Britain toppled the Islamic rulers of Hindu India. This leads us up to 1947. By 1950 Britain was all but dead as a superpower. It's mantle as leader of the white Christian narrative was handed over by then to America.

America continued the cold war against the dreaded Russians. The same great game that Britain fought against allowing Russia into Afghanistan/India was continued by the USA. But by 1950, India was no longer the power that needed to be supported for the cold war. It was Pakistan. Pakistan readily went to the US within 4 years of independence, long before India had received a single bullet in support from Russia. So at this point - in the early 1950s, your contention about Russian aid to India is false. It remains false till 1962 - by which time the Pakistani army was totally re-equipped by the USA. The USA found it convenient to support the narrative that the Pakistanis had told them. The Pakistani narrative itself was based on the British version of history of Mughal rule over Hindus for 1000 years, followed by a hand over to evil Hindu India that was not only now threatening Pakistan but was an ally of Russia (there is proof of this in a transcript I posted here). US support to Pakistan was in my view an implicit acceptance of the Pakistan narrative which was itself a racist narrative about Hindus taken up from the British.

Nothing has changed for the US. Hindus are still bigoted and Pakistan still needs support against Hindu India. The Kashmir issue - the original Hindu-Muslim problem needs to be solved to Pakistan's satisfaction as per US legislators. To stabilise Pakistan. Terrorists in Kashmir were freedom fighters as per Ronald Reagan and his administration. Narendra Modi is a racist Hindu and is unacceptable to the just, non racist US. To me there is no suggestion that the "white man's burden" has become any lighter. Even as Islamic extremism is blamed for terror, Hindu India needs to be balanced out. The Hindu India that needs "balancing" by helping Pakistan is not some secular, democratic and laudable aim. It is merely the old white Christian narrative that the US inherited from Britain that said that Muslims would be wiped out by Hindu racists unless they were helped by the supreme and just west.

The US is currently fighting Islamic extremism even as it holds India at bay via Pakistan because Hindu India threatens Pakistan. We like to call this "Pakistan's narrative", but it takes two to clap. The US accepts and moots this "racist Hindu needs to be checked" narrative. Pakistan still gets "aid" from the US that can be used against india. India gets no aid from Russia.

If we take such pains to dissect out a detailed analysis of the dynamics of interaction of Islam and Hindus it is blindness not to add the dynamics of old Islam-Christian and Hindu-Christian interactions. They all played together side by side and still do to a greater or lesser extent.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 15 Feb 2012 18:32

shiv wrote: The fake history of India was the one written by British historians. That fake history has "taught" Hindus that they were inferior and subjugated, casteist and unable to form a nation. That fake history taught Muslims that they ruled over Hindus for 1000 years. It suited the racist British scholarship of the day to believe in the inferiority of the Hindu races and the loyal Islamic Gunga Dins - people of the book were given a history that fitted in with the British scholarship of the day.

From the preface of "The history of India: as told by her own historians", Eliot and Dowson, around 1870:

But, though the intrinsic value of these works {the Indian narratives of the Muhammadan period} may be small, they will still yield much that is worth observation to any any one who will attentively examine them. They will serve to dispel the mists of ignorance by which the knowledge of India is too much obscured, and show that the history of the Muhammadan period remains yet to be written. They will make our native subjects more sensible of the immense advantages accruing to them under the mildness and equity of our rule. If instruction were sought for from them, we should be spared the rash declarations respecting Muhammadan India, which are frequently made by persons not otherwise ignorant. Characters now renowned only for the splendour of their achievements, and a succession of victories, would, when we withdraw the veil of flattery, and divest them of rhetorical flourishes, be set forth in a truer light, and probably be held up to the execration of mankind.

We should no longer hear bombastic Babus, enjoying under our Government the highest degree of personal liberty, and many more political privileges than were ever conceded in a conquered nation, rant about patriotism, and the degradation of their present position.

If they would dive into any of the volumes mentioned herein, it would take thse young Brutuses and Phocions a very short time to learn, that in the days of that dark period for whose return they sigh, even the bare utterance of their ridiculous fantasies would have been attended, not with silence and contempt, but with the severer discipline of molten lead or empalement.

We should be compelled to listen no more to the clamours against resumption of rent-free tenures, when almost every page will show that there was no tenure, whatever its designation, which was not open to resumption in the theory of the law, and which was not repeatedly resumed in practice.

Should any ambitious functionary entertain the desire of emulating the "exceedingly magnifical" structures of his Mughal predecessors, it will check his aspirations to learn, that beyond palaces and porticos, temples and tombs, there is little worthy of emulation.

He will find that, if we omit only three names in the long line of Dehli emperors, the comfort and happiness of the people were never contemplated by them; and with the exception of a few sarais and bridges - and these only on roads traversed by the imperial camps - he will see nothing in which purely selfish considerations did not prevail.....

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 15 Feb 2012 18:38

This may be more approprate to the Iran thread, but since I bring in TSP terror and nuke blackmail against India, I posted the following comment in response to this pompous editorial from NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/opini ... blers.html

Could someone, including NYT tell me what crime has Iran committed that Pakistan has not? Pakistan is the epi-center of terrorism, most of it directed against India. Furthermore, Pakistan's nuclear weapons and blackmail are directed against India alone. So why aid and goodies and military toys and kid glove treatment to Pakistan, and this warmongering and demonizing of Iran? Is it because Pakistan's perfidy is directed against India only and hence in the minds of NYT editorial board, its fair game? Iran has done nothing to India, and India depends on Iranian oil, just as US depends on Pakistan to fight the so called "global war on terror" (which of course does not include Pakistan's state sponsored terror against India) and hence overlooks Pakistan's crimes against India? Likewise, India is in a delicate position balancing its interests with Iran as well as those with US.

member_21708 · Post by **member_21708** » 15 Feb 2012 18:40

Satya_anveshi wrote:This link shows OBLs kids and grand kids - amazing how little they are. if someone can post an image inline it would help for posterity.

Osama bin Laden's children and grandchildren are being kept under detention in an apartment in Islamabad, Pakistan. From right to left: On far right (boy in white outfit), Amal's children: Ibrahim, aged around 8, Zainab, around 5, Hussain around 3, then three bin Laden grandchildren: Hamza, around 7, Abdullah, around 10, and Fatima, around 5 (far left). Ages estimated by Zakaria al-Sadah, Amal al-Sadah's brother.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 15 Feb 2012 22:04

India taking revenge for Decades long US Aid program for Pakistan in its own way. First

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

India is to share with Brazil some of its documentation – without revealing anything confidential – on the MMRCA (Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft) contract it is negotiating with Dassault Aviation, it was agreed at a meeting this week between Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony and his Brazilian counterpart Celso Amorim.

The Brazilians are particularly interested in the Indian selection process as it has already down-selected three fighters – Rafale, F-18 and Gripen-NG – to meet its tender for 36 combat aircraft, and should be making a final decision in the next few months.

But Amorim warned that “sharing of experience doesn't mean we follow your decision.

After two days
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... d=blogDest

Brazil's last doubts over the Rafale combat aircraft have been lifted by India's choice of the French-designed plane, but Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff says she will not make any official announcements until after the French presidential election (held in two-rounds, the first on April 22, the final run-off on May 6) so that no political mileage can be got out of the deal.

Brazilian government sources told Reuters, on condition of anonymity, that Rousseff and her main advisors are now convinced that the offer made by Dassault Aviation to meet Brazil's tender for 36 aircraft is better than Boeing's with its F-18 or Saab's with the Gripen. “The India deal changed everything,” one of the sources said. “With India's decision, it's now very likely the Rafale will be the winner here,” the sources added.

Like India, Brazil eventually wants to build the Rafale domestically and therefore the sale comes with a large chunk of technology transfer.

Brazilian Defense Minister Celso Amorim paid a visit last week to his Indian counterpart and was able to consult non-confidential documents that show the path India took to reaching its decision to enter into exclusive negotiations with Dassault for 126 Rafales.

But the sources said that were these to fail, then Rousseff would have another think.

F-18 was also participating in this tender.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 15 Feb 2012 23:33

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pia- ... 73727.html

The plane was full but the toilet wasn't. So, throwing all rules and caution to the wind, a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) captain blithely decided to accommodate two passengers in the toilet of the Lahore-Karachi flight instead.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 16 Feb 2012 00:11

Anujan wrote:http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/pia- ... 73727.html

The plane was full but the toilet wasn't. So, throwing all rules and caution to the wind, a Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) captain blithely decided to accommodate two passengers in the toilet of the Lahore-Karachi flight instead.

Sirjee this is a new PIA promotion "Flying in Pakistan"

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Feb 2012 00:11

http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/15/governme ... chief.html
Government mulls over next ISI chief

ISLAMABAD: The government mulls over assigning a new director general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as its current chief Lt-Gen Shuja Pasha’s tenure ends on March 18, DawnNews reported on Wednesday.
According to sources, the four names under consideration for the post are Maj-Gen Mohammad Asif, Maj-Gen Naushad Kiyani, Lt-Gen Zaheerul Islam and Lt-Gen Javed Iqbal.Extending Pasha’s tenure is also on the cards, it added.It is important to note that the tenure of the current DG ISI has been extended twice by the government.President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani will decide about the new intelligence chief after consultating military leadership.Earlier, US Ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter had shown his concern over the retirement of Pasha.Munter had said appointment of the new ISI chief can affect bilateral ties of the war allies.On the other hand, the US embassy in a statement hoped to maintain good relations with the next ISI chief.

r_subramanian · Post by **r_subramanian** » 16 Feb 2012 00:28

Progress in Karachi!

Rocket Launchers and guns used in street battles in Lyari, Karachi
Violence erupted in Lyari on Wednesday after two groups armed with rocket launchers and guns exchanged fire, Express News reported.
...

link
One side involved is People’s Aman Committee which is pro-PPP The other group is Kutchi Rabta Committee. Is that pro-MQM?

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 16 Feb 2012 01:22

The US and the earlier power Britain have modulated Islam in many ways

Shiv Ji, the US and Britain have not manipulated Islam in any way. Islam is the way it is since the time of Mohammed because of it's doctrine. The US/ Britain have manipulated Islamic Nation states, yes. Not Islam.

but the particular modulation that bothers me is the way Pakistan was armed and supported against India.

Yes indeed. But Pakistan being against India started the day Pakistan came into being. Pakistan was the culmination of Islam's fundamental disconnect with Indic doctrine in the subcontinent. That disconnect has nothing to do with White Western Christian narratives.

No defence of US actions is going to easily make me believe that it was OK

US actions are not being defended. US not giving arms to Pakistan will indeed lessen Indian casualties. They will however not end the conflict Pakistan has with India, unless we learn to reconcile our ideological differences.

You have now cancelled out US aid to Pakistan by citing Russian arms to India.

I quoted that in response to your saying:

The white Christians of Europe were the true masters.

I am not sure whether Russia colonised anyone based on White Christian supremacy.

When Hindus and Muslims fight, it is the American Church that benefits.

The USA or the civilized white Christian west loses its role the minute India and Pakistan stop warring.

The creation of Pakistan was based on the narrative that the former rulers of India, the Muslims, would be unable to live among Hindu Indians.

How is that a White Western Christian narrative? It's written all over in Islams books. They are/ have implementing/ implemented it in all sorts of places where there is little to none of the White Western Christian narrative present. It wasn't present in Sindh 9th century, wasn't present Aurangzeb's time. The narrative is entirely Islams.

My opinion on this is simple.

1. Pakistan is an ideological construct.
2. The ideological construct of Pakistan is not a White Western Christian narrative. It is an Islamic one.
3. Pakistan with it's ideological construct will remain in fundamental ideological conflict with India.
4. To sustain and remain aggressive and attempt the annihilation against Indian ideological construct, Pakistan will take any support it can get. That can be: The Indian Psec, the Western Christian, Russian, Godless Chinese, or Timbuktu if it had the resources.

The 'White Christian narrative' is it is sick like most Indians of this ideological conflict happening everywhere with Islam and the subcontinent in particular. It does not have solutions like most Indians. It does not have ideas like most Indians on how to tackle things. It has power, money, technology.

In the last decade or so, the 'WCN' has been shifting in India's favor. We get their Presidents make a trip here and none to Islamabad, get offers for sophisticated arms, get Nuclear plants despite not being a member of the NPT, get their Presidents announce in our parliament that they want India in the UNSC etc. These are not insignificant changes, compared to the press that Pakistan gets.

Rupesh · Post by **Rupesh** » 16 Feb 2012 03:41

Harbans,

You are not getting Shiv's point. Pakis are a threat to India primarily bcoz of US supplied arms and financial support. Take US out of the equation and Pakis are finished for good.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 16 Feb 2012 03:59

You are not getting Shiv's point. Pakis are a threat to India primarily bcoz of US supplied arms and financial support. Take US out of the equation and Pakis are finished for good.

I understand that very well. Paki's do not PRIMARILY threaten us because the US or Timbuktu supplies them arms. They are threat because to be it is in their DNA. For a 1000 years without US or Western Christian Arms we have faced invasions and we did not manage to finish the inherent Pakistaniyat that came with the invaders and their followers.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 16 Feb 2012 04:12

If you give them a pencil they will use it to gouge your eye. Not write poetry.

Thats what harbans has been telling in all these posts.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 06:35

harbans wrote:
The creation of Pakistan was based on the narrative that the former rulers of India, the Muslims, would be unable to live among Hindu Indians.
How is that a White Western Christian narrative? It's written all over in Islams books.

This is a misquote. I never said that. Here is what i said

shiv wrote:The idea that Muslims could not live in India being subject to rules and rulers from Hindu India may well have been an Islamist idea, but that idea was a grievance that built upon the British narrative of the great ruling Mughal empire which the even greater white European Christian Britain toppled from Istanbul to Calcutta. Great Britain toppled the Islamic rulers of Hindu India.

harbans wrote: My opinion on this is simple.

1. Pakistan is an ideological construct.
2. The ideological construct of Pakistan is not a White Western Christian narrative. It is an Islamic one.
3. Pakistan with it's ideological construct will remain in fundamental ideological conflict with India.
4. To sustain and remain aggressive and attempt the annihilation against Indian ideological construct, Pakistan will take any support it can get. That can be: The Indian Psec, the Western Christian, Russian, Godless Chinese, or Timbuktu if it had the resources.

The 'White Christian narrative' is it is sick like most Indians of this ideological conflict happening everywhere with Islam and the subcontinent in particular. It does not have solutions like most Indians. It does not have ideas like most Indians on how to tackle things. It has power, money, technology.

Harbans your view is fine with me, but don't demand that I should follow it. I think that you are actually victim of the real secularism that affects us - a sort of secularism in which we absolve the advanced western white Christian world for their interactions with us while we selectively blame Islam for meddling with Hindu history.

This is what the Brits did to us. They came and told Hindus "islam is screwing you. We are rescuing you." You reflect exactly that viewpoint in my opinion. Your thoughts are a product of the distorted history we like to talk so much about because the Muslims may have screwed us but the British did not rescue us. They just screwed us more. and left us with a bigger fight with Islam than we started with. But we certainly fight with Islam as if there was no one else to blame for what transpired.

harbans wrote: In the last decade or so, the 'WCN' has been shifting in India's favor. We get their Presidents make a trip here and none to Islamabad, get offers for sophisticated arms, get Nuclear plants despite not being a member of the NPT, get their Presidents announce in our parliament that they want India in the UNSC etc. These are not insignificant changes, compared to the press that Pakistan gets.

The WCN shfting in India's favor because their big man visits us etc are merely scraps that we are lapping up. Does not change racist history that still affects us while we mad dog Hindus fight mad dog Muslims thinking that benevolent civilization of white man was with us and is with us. I don't buy it.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Feb 2012 06:43

^^^ Actually, considering that in 1857, Hindus too rose against the British and in favor of the Mughal emperor, it would seem they thought that the East India Company was screwing them worse than the Mussalmans. Perhaps rule by the British Crown was better than Mughal rule.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 06:57

harbans wrote:
You are not getting Shiv's point. Pakis are a threat to India primarily bcoz of US supplied arms and financial support. Take US out of the equation and Pakis are finished for good.
I understand that very well. Paki's do not PRIMARILY threaten us because the US or Timbuktu supplies them arms. They are threat because to be it is in their DNA. For a 1000 years without US or Western Christian Arms we have faced invasions and we did not manage to finish the inherent Pakistaniyat that came with the invaders and their followers.

But you need to look at White Christian DNA too. It is too much secularism to ignore that and hope we get help from them just because they currently rule the roost.

In a mad upside down world, if Islamic nations come to terms with Hindu India we have a completely different balance of power. My saying such crazy things is as delusional as imagining that the White Christian forces that fed colonialism are benign and look down at Hindus with kind eyes while they show their teeth to Islam. Why are we so convinced that the supremacist white European/western christians favor racist Hindus over mad Muslims? Are you being taken in by Johnny-come-lately western "liberalism" so Hindus get a token cameo role with gays and other minorities?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 07:26

There was a fundamental undercurrent of white European Christian supremacy in the colonial conquests that broke the Islamic empire and occupied India. India was never a threat to Europe. Islam was. Ultimately the occupation of India and "rescuing Hindus from Muslims" gave Britain the "strategic depth" to kick the ass of the Caliphate. But even back then india was too big to be left undivided or uncontrolled. While there were several ways to dice the cake, the British opted for giving Muslims a homeland against accursed Hindus so that they would hold off against each other. The fact that an equal number of Muslims live in India suggests that it is perfectly possible for Muslims and Hindus to reach peaceful accommodation. But peace needs both parties to agree. Even if the spineless witless yellow-bellied cowardly Hindus are always willing to accommodate, encouraging the brainless Muslims by telling them that Hindus were racist and that the great martial Mussalmaans would be helped by the west to hold Hindu India at bay was a tactic started by the British. The US is merely continuing it using the same narrative of the racist bigoted Hindu needing to be checked lest he swallow the good Paki mussalman.

If by some chance India and Pakistan were to make amends and stop fighting, the current world order will change. US influence on the middle east will rapidly wane. Among other conflicts. it is necessary for moronic Hindu racist dogs to fight the stupid pederast Muslim murderers of Pakistan for the current world order to survive. The benevolent "secular" white christian west can choose to take sides to "balance" these sub human Hindu and Islamic apes. And the apes know who their massa is, that's the best part! Guran knows and respects the Ghost who walks for his benevolence and sense of justice. He fervently desires that the Ghost who walks should survive and rule forever and will always speak up for the honor of the Phantom.

Pakistan is supported against india. India is opposed for ties with Iran. Pakistan is opposed against Islamic resurgence, but Saudi Arabia is mollycoddled. Folks white man has pulled the wool over our eyes. And we are eating out of his hands. Mental slaves. Dhimmis is what we are, but not dhimmis to Islam. The old White Christian narrative put European Christian races (now American) at the top, with Jews, Muslims and Hindus as underdogs. Their fighting is essential. Sorry OT. But only partially OT.

stryker · Post by **stryker** » 16 Feb 2012 07:46

A soft driink called Shezan is banned by the Lahore Bar Association because it is made by a firm owned by an Ahmadi. If highly educated people like these lawyers whose bigotry and prejudice seems to have crossed all limits of decency, I shudder to think what the more impressionable people think.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/why-m ... herstories

For those who say Pakistan won't become another Somalia, they are right. Even in the failed country of Somalia, people are not so crazy.

stryker · Post by **stryker** » 16 Feb 2012 07:56

Apologies to BR colleagues who have seen this before. Old but still funny.

You are a Paki if

1.. You refine heroin for a living, but you have a moral objection to liquor.

2. You own a $3,000 machine gun and $5,000 rocket launcher, but you can’t afford shoes.

3. You have more wives than teeth.

4. You wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon “unclean.”

5. You think vests come in two styles: bullet-proof and suicide.

6. You can’t think of anyone you haven’t declared Jihad against.

7. You consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing.

8. You were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses other than setting off roadside bombs

9. You have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four.

10. You’ve always had a crush on your neighbor’s goat

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Feb 2012 08:01

Shiv whatever be the fakeness or realness of history, how exactly do you think TSP, let alone the entire cabal of islamic nations will reach an accomodation with India and give up their dependence to the west?

if there is no realistic chance of this happening (without India agreeing to be ruled by Islamabad and come under sharia) what is the point of proposing it as a solution?

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Feb 2012 08:06

'Divorce' is not an option in ties with Pakistan: US

Tera Mera Gubo Amar, Phir kyon tujhko Lagta Hai Dar

WASHINGTON: United States on Wednesday said that it has strategic interests in common with Pakistan and 'divorce' is not an option as both the countries have to do a lot of work together.During a daily press briefing here, US State Department's spokesperson Victoria Nuland said that US has a national interest in Pakistan that is increasingly stable, peaceful, free of terror and democratic.She said that US is looking forward to the completion of Pakistan's internal review of military-to-military relationship so that both the countries would get back all the important work they have together.Replying to a question regarding Munter's comments on ISI Chief's retirement, the spokesman said that US have had productive relationships with the current ISI Chief, adding that if there will be a change of chief, US would have to work on establishing the same kind of relationships and even take it to next level if possible

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 16 Feb 2012 08:24

Khairat ki Chaah mei Poaqer utthaye ranj barre, yeh Gubogiri Fool ko Leke Kanha Chali aayyee

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan has resumed partial NATO supplies after over two-month deadlock following Mohmand Agency row with the US, reportedly after the two countries reached an agreement that envisages full-scale resumption of the Western alliance shipments earlier next month.According to this reported agreement, Pakistan would resume ‘regular’ NATO supplies in the first week of March while the US would not offer an official apology. Instead, vibes would be ‘leaked’ to media suggesting an off-the-record apology being tendered by the US authorities in Islamabad or Washington.It is also learnt that the rules of military engagement with the US have been finalised following intense deliberations between Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US Sherry Rehman and between Defence Minister Ahmad Mukhtar and US Embassy officials here but Pakistan’s Parliament has been kept out of the loop.Just a day earlier, Army Chief General Assfaq Parvez Kayani had said in Jacobabad that the decision on NATO supplies restoration rested with the Parliament.
The Parliament is yet to take up the issue and Parliamentary Committee on National Security (PCNS) has not endorsed the decision to resume NATO supplies The military’s otherwise ‘upfront’ and government’s already dwindling images might receive setbacks given that Pakistan’s military, political and diplomatic leaderships had extensively propagated the much-hyped renewal of ‘terms of engagement with the US’ but no details to this effect have thus far shared publicly. In the event of US refusal to offer an apology, the Pakistan’s power centres would be left with fewer options for face saving.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 08:31

Singha wrote:Shiv whatever be the fakeness or realness of history, how exactly do you think TSP, let alone the entire cabal of islamic nations will reach an accomodation with India and give up their dependence to the west?

if there is no realistic chance of this happening (without India agreeing to be ruled by Islamabad and come under sharia) what is the point of proposing it as a solution?

I never said it would happen so I am not going to say how it can happen. I want to point out that this is not a two way game of Islam and Hindu. There is a third player - the West whose historic role was that of the "Superior White Christian West" that set off these conflicts and play a role in preventing resolution. I am blamed for "complaining too much" for pointing out that minus US aid Pakistan would be sorted out more easily by India. What sort of dhimmitude to the USA is this? US actions in supporting Pakistan is clearly against india. The US should have absolutely no justification for supporting a blatantly Islamist Pakistan. Why does the USA support Pakistan's Islamist bigotry against India? How much of a US asslicker must an Indian be to not realise what is going on?

Call it white Christian racism or great power games, unless Indians are willing to keep their eyes open we will only be monkeys being played by the west. The fact that the west's dominance came on the back of colonialism justified by military power supported by theories of white christian dominance are easily forgotten. But heck man if we are going to "forget" such an important historic fact we can also "forget" Islamic murders no? Why have selective memory?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 08:53

Here is an article by Ghulam Nabi Fai speaking of the role played by the US in Kashmir.
http://www.kmsnews.org/articles/kashmir ... nd-present

Past U.S. Involvement:

In this context, the following considerations are most pertinent for an assessment of the dispute by the members of the American policy makers.

*** When the Kashmir dispute erupted in 1947-1948, the United States championed the stand that the future status of Kashmir must be ascertained in accordance with the wishes and aspirations of the people of the territory. The U.S. was a principal sponsor of the resolution, which was adopted by the Security Council on 21 April 1948 and which was based on that unchallenged principle. Following the resolution, the U.S. as a leading member of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan, adhered to that stand. The basic formula for settlement was incorporated in the resolutions of that Commission adopted on 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949.

*** These are not resolutions in the routine sense of the term. Their provisions were negotiated in detail by the Commission with India and Pakistan and it was only after the consent of both Governments was explicitly obtained that they were endorsed by the Security Council. They thus constitute a binding and solemn international agreement about the settlement of the Kashmir dispute.

*** The United States, Britain and France have traditionally been committed supporters of the plebiscite agreement as the only way to resolve this issue. They sponsored all of the Security Council resolutions, which called for a plebiscite. Their commitment was indicated by a personal appeal made by America's President Truman and Britain's Prime Minister Clement Atlee that differences over demilitarization be submitted to arbitration by the Plebiscite Administrator, a distinguished American war hero: Admiral Chester Nimitz. India rejected this appeal and, later on, objected to an American acting as the Plebiscite Administrator. As mentioned earlier, American Senator Frank Graham visited the Subcontinent as the United Nations Representative to negotiate the demilitarization of Kashmir prior to the plebiscite. India rejected his proposals as well.

Similarly in Britain, both Labor and Conservative governments consistently upheld the position that a plebiscite was the only way the dispute over Kashmir could be democratically and peacefully settled. When the dispute first arose, Clement Atlee launched a conciliatory effort and conveyed to the Pakistani Prime Minister the assurance of the Indian Prime Minister that India would allow Kashmir's status to be determined by the people's vote. Two years later, the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth informally proposed alternative arrangements for the demilitarization of Kashmir prior to the plebiscite. They suggested that a neutral peacekeeping force consisting either of contingents from the Commonwealth countries or composed of local troops from both sides under the control of the Plebiscite Administrator could be stationed to safeguard the state's security. India rejected all of these suggestions.
*** The part played traditionally by the U.S. Government is apparent from:

a). The appeal made by President Truman that any contentious issues between India and Pakistan relating to the implementation of the agreement must be submitted to arbitration;

b). The appointment of an eminent American, Admiral Chester Nimitz, as Plebiscite Administrator;

c). The bipartisan expressions of support for the U.S. position from statesmen as different otherwise as Adlai Stevenson and John Foster Dulles; The American position was bipartisan and maintained equally by Republicans and Democrats. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated on 5 February 1957 that: "We continue to believe that unless the parties are able to agree upon some other solution, the solution which was recommended by the Security Council should prevail, which is that there should be a plebiscite."

On 15 June 1962, the American representative to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, stated that: "...The best approach is to take for a point of departure the area of common ground which exists between the parties. I refer of course to the resolutions which were accepted by both parties and which in essence provide for demilitarization of the territory and a plebiscite whereby the population may freely decide the future status of Jammu and Kashmir. This is in full conformity with the principle of the self-determination of people which is enshrined in Article I of the Charter as one of the key purpose for which the United Nations exists."

d). The appeal personally made in 1962 by President Kennedy to the President of Ireland to the effect that Ireland sponsor a resolution in the Security Council reaffirming the resolutions of the Commission;

e). The forceful advocacy by the U.S. Delegation of points regarding the demilitarization of Kashmir preparatory to the plebiscite at countless meetings of the Security Council from the years 1947-48 to 1962 and its sponsorship of twelve substantive resolutions of the Council to that effect;

f). The protracted negotiations conducted by another distinguished American, Mr. Frank Graham, from 1951 to 1958 in the effort to bring about the demilitarization of Kashmir, making possible the holding of a free and impartial plebiscite.

g). The pronouncement made by President Clinton that Kashmir is the most dangerous place in the world.

h). The clarification made by President George W. Bush that Kashmir solution must be acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also to "those living within Kashmir”.

i). The assertion made by Dr. Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State during Clinton Administration on Feb. 9, 2000 that the United States would continue its efforts "to ease tensions in South Asia." Kashmir is a fuse, and the region a tinderbox as a result of the Kashmir issue. "Our policy is to encourage dialogue aimed at narrowing differences and preventing violence, and we intend to remain actively engaged with both countries toward this end."

j). The declaration of General Colin Powell as Secretary of State to accept the centrality of the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan.

*** All this may be regarded as history but there is no reason why, when the human, political and legal realities of the dispute have not only changed but have become more accentuated with the passage of time, it should now be regarded as irrelevant. It is no less relevant to the settlement of the dispute than the termination of the Indonesian mandate was to the question of East Timor or than the circumstances of the incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in the Soviet Union were to the reassertion of their independence.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Feb 2012 09:01

A_Gupta wrote:^^^ Actually, considering that in 1857, Hindus too rose against the British and in favor of the Mughal emperor, it would seem they thought that the East India Company was screwing them worse than the Mussalmans. Perhaps rule by the British Crown was better than Mughal rule.

The Hindu portion, to a major extent was mobilized due to the Maratha organization. The Maratha faction that organized this in the UP belt, had already previously acted as patrons of the Mughals - and it was a mere continuation of that older historical policy.

There were also other non-Muslims, and many Hindus - especially in Bengal - who sided with the Brits or stayed neutral. By the same logic these others then were thinking that the EIC was a better option than the mussalmans.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Feb 2012 09:08

In a three player game, two can always gang up on the third. Its the theological approach in both western Christianity and Paki Islamism that makes them converge on the third common detested pagan player India. There exists a fundamental mutual attraction - something like a feeling that they "understand" each other as meat and whiskey and buza guzzlers, again based on a reconstructed and wishful common ideological origins - Judaic origins -propaganda.

Shiv ji, what you are saying will be even considerable for feasibility - from even a theoretical viewpoint - only if, India turns majority Muslim. In fact that is the only way - that the three person game ca be favourably turned by India by breaking or neutralizing the ideological pre-bias in the US-Pak bond.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 16 Feb 2012 09:09

Shiv, I do agree that you have a point in the perspective you have been articulating of late, regarding Western Grand Narrative...I am currently reading Rajiv Malhotra as well! But let's not get carried away here.

Quoting Ghulam Nabi Fai (with his flagrant distortions of history) to make your point about US perfidy, is as much a self goal as citing Hafeez Saeed to make the point that Mani Shankar Aiyar is a traitorous oiseaule.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 09:26

Rudradev wrote: Quoting Ghulam Nabi Fai (with his flagrant distortions of history) to make your point about US perfidy, is as much a self goal as citing Hafeez Saeed to make the point that Mani Shankar Aiyar is a traitorous oiseaule.

Yes it is a self goal. But found it interesting because it is a list that states the US role from the "enemy's viewpoint". I must admit I started out looking for a particular recent news item where someone in the US said something about Kashmir and I found this and couldn't resist posting it.

What strikes me even in Fai's list is the role of the US and Britain in "balancing". You know a "balance" - scales (Libra) are used to denote justice and fairness. But when you set up a dispute and then claim to support both sides, it is hardly justice. Balance means no winner. For a community such as BRF that suffers from cognitive dissonance on being told that he fair and just nations of the world are also biased, it would probably be too much to point out that the White European Christian theories of supremacy also required that they were superior to the Jews. That shit hit the fan with Hitler and Germans took the rap for being anti-Semitic although the feeling was widespread in Europe. Seen from that historic perspective, the setting up of Israel at one end of Ummah lands and the setting up of a pure Muslim state at the Eastern end of dar ul Islam has served the White Chrsitian West well. The US ensures that Israel survives but the constant conflict enables them to retain influence on the others. A similar role is played by the stetting up of Pakistan.

if India can sideline disputes with Pakistan and encourage cooperation, a whole lot of paradigms will change. I bet my left ball that the White Christian west will do their darndest to ensure that that the mad Pakis never reach accommodation with India despite the fact that the same cultural stock, Indian Muslims are able to live in India among Indians. I would not put it past the West to support some terror in India - with Headley just being one example who was exposed by accident.

Watch this space...

negi · Post by **negi** » 16 Feb 2012 09:29

Mahashivratri is right around the corner and looks like Shiv sir is in celebration mood, already.

Anyways on a serious note I agree with Shiv's point about Unkil's role in the subcontinent however all that aid in money/weapons would have come to naught without brotherly love that rulers of TSP have harboured and nurtured for India ever since we got independence.

So yes Unkil needs to be chased away from the region but before that the spoilt brat needs to be made to fall in line; if the sweet dose of brotherly love cannot be reciprocated in kind then how is that we can even talk about chasing the Unkil away (that is why I have always advocated for 10k range.. you guys know what

)? Btw as we speak Chipanda has happily slipped into Unkil's fata hua condom.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 16 Feb 2012 09:32

shiv wrote: if India can ~~sideline disputes with Pakistan~~ forgive all paki crimes and forget all the innocents they have butchered and encourage cooperation, a whole lot of paradigms will change.

You started the thread "Never Forgive, Never Forget" remember?? What happened to make you turn into Manmohan Singh?

joygoswami · Post by **joygoswami** » 16 Feb 2012 09:36

Papa Kiyanahi ridez a the newly inducted F-solah

johneeG · Post by **johneeG** » 16 Feb 2012 09:39

shiv wrote:
Singha wrote:Shiv whatever be the fakeness or realness of history, how exactly do you think TSP, let alone the entire cabal of islamic nations will reach an accomodation with India and give up their dependence to the west?

if there is no realistic chance of this happening (without India agreeing to be ruled by Islamabad and come under sharia) what is the point of proposing it as a solution?

I never said it would happen so I am not going to say how it can happen. I want to point out that this is not a two way game of Islam and Hindu. There is a third player - the West whose historic role was that of the "Superior White Christian West" that set off these conflicts and play a role in preventing resolution. I am blamed for "complaining too much" for pointing out that minus US aid Pakistan would be sorted out more easily by India. What sort of dhimmitude to the USA is this? US actions in supporting Pakistan is clearly against india. The US should have absolutely no justification for supporting a blatantly Islamist Pakistan. Why does the USA support Pakistan's Islamist bigotry against India? How much of a US asslicker must an Indian be to not realise what is going on?

Call it white Christian racism or great power games, unless Indians are willing to keep their eyes open we will only be monkeys being played by the west. The fact that the west's dominance came on the back of colonialism justified by military power supported by theories of white christian dominance are easily forgotten. But heck man if we are going to "forget" such an important historic fact we can also "forget" Islamic murders no? Why have selective memory?

It seems to me that the conflict between Islam and Hindus was already there before the 'superior white christian west' came in. The conflict was initiated by the Islam against Hindus with the goal of conquering and converting them just as they have done elsewhere. But, unlike others, Hindus offered stiffer resistance and refused to be converted even when conquered.

Under their long rule, islamics tried to convert Hindus or to exterminate those who didnt convert. And mostly they failed because of the geography(discussed during Rudradev's model), large population and strong adherence of Hindus to their religion. As it happens for everyone, Islamics also neared the end of their good times. And it looked like a begining of their end. Hindus were set to regain the lost ground(and population).

This is the time when 'superior white christian west' entered the conflict. This made the conflict 3 way. The crucial point is that they did not set off the conflict. They simply became one more participant. Their goal was to loot and convert, very much same as the Islamics. Only the methods seem different.

Another important point is that the entrance of 'superior white christian west' gave a crucial lifeline to the islamics and stopped the resurgence of Hindus. Ultimately, the 'superior white christian west' established their rule. For most part of their rule, they supported the Islamics against the Hindus. The Islamics were also eager to collude with the 'superior white christian west' in the name of 'people of the book. The Islamics, which were a minority, were given an importance far outweighing their demographic or social standing by the 'superior white christian west'.

Finally, 'superior white christian west' had to retreat physically. Even then, they took care to create an exclusive bastion(named Pakistan) for their loyal Islamics. There was no such exclusive bastion for Hindus.

This historical 'love-affair' between 'superior white christian west' and islamics continued in their support to Pakistan.

In short, both 'superior white christian west' and the islamics have been active in harming Hindus(in the past and present). Given this background, to suggest that Hindus need to ally with Islamics(Pakistan) to beat(or keep out) the 'superior white christian west' is a non-starter.

It seems that in the past, Hindus could never ally with the Islamics even when they tried to evoke the fear of 'superior white christian west'. But Hindus could do 'business' with 'superior white christian west' because it seems that the 'superior white christian west' are 'pragmatic'(who will do 'business' with all sides at the same time) unlike the islamics. So, alliance with the Islamics is difficult(if one goes by past precedent). The only form of alliance they would expect is that they(islamics) should piggy back on the back of Hindus. And if ever, Hindus are down, Islamics will try to take them out.

The present circumstance is that, due to turn of events, Islamics(pakistan) and 'superior white christian west' have turned against each other. 9/11 set off these events. However, the physical presence of 'superior white christian west' in same backyard as the islamics has made the sparks fly.

So, from Hindu perspective, the best hope is that 'superior white christian west' stops supporting, sponsoring and guarding the islamics given this unraveling of their relationship. Once that happens, Islamics(Pakistan) will be vulnerable and can be taken out by the Hindus. Then, Hindus will be in a position to directly challenge the 'superior white christian west'. Until then, Hindus have to continue doing 'business' with 'superior white christian west' and hoping(and doing things) that unravel the relationship of 'superior white christian west' and islamics.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 09:40

brihaspati wrote:In a three player game, two can always gang up on the third. Its the theological approach in both western Christianity and Paki Islamism that makes them converge on the third common detested pagan player India. There exists a fundamental mutual attraction - something like a feeling that they "understand" each other as meat and whiskey and buza guzzlers, again based on a reconstructed and wishful common ideological origins - Judaic origins -propaganda.

Shiv ji, what you are saying will be even considerable for feasibility - from even a theoretical viewpoint - only if, India turns majority Muslim. In fact that is the only way - that the three person game ca be favourably turned by India by breaking or neutralizing the ideological pre-bias in the US-Pak bond.

Brihaspati, from a purely theoretical viewpoint if you have a three player game with the players being H, M and C (actually there is a fourth player J - the Jew)

We had C+H against M (Britain rescues Hindus from evil Islamic rule and brings justice to India)
We then had C+M against H (Pakistan needs to exit to protect Muslims from Hindu India). This is what we see today from the US

In both the games noted above, M and H were placed on opposite sides by C. C benefited from the M versus H conflict

But there is such a thing as a C versus M conflict as well. C versus M exists in US support of Israel and opposition to Iran

But if you look at India as a whole we have a nation that happens to be H+M. For whatever reason, the H versus M conflict has been suppressed in India in a way that no other civilization has managed. This has made it 2 players but not in teh way you mean it. Still it might be possible to leverage this.

But for that Indian thinking has to rise beyond Pakistan to a global scale with ideas that will knock off the US from its pedestal. The thought scares too many Indians, but we have unwitting allies in China who wants to do that, Russia who plays his own game. We need to split the Ummah halfway down so they support India for what we are. India undoubtedly offers Muslims opportunities of a type that only the west used to offer, but it also offers freedoms that the West does not offer. India can, and must leverage that. The high table is for climbers, not for people who worry that Unkil or Aunty will be angry.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 16 Feb 2012 09:43

nachiket wrote:
shiv wrote: if India can ~~sideline disputes with Pakistan~~ forgive all paki crimes and forget all the innocents they have butchered and encourage cooperation, a whole lot of paradigms will change.
You started the thread "Never Forgive, Never Forget" remember?? What happened to make you turn into Manmohan Singh?

Headley was innocent eh? Getting back at the US for its role is part of not forgiving or forgetting. We are too dhimmified to the USA. We would rather blame ourselves than the US of A. God really has blessed America. Not just Jehovah, but Brahma and Vishnu too. I hope Shiva now does not become a secular christist.

A secondary point is : Use the American argument. In politics there are no permanent friends or enemies. Hindooz can manage that no? We don't need to be everyone esle's monkeez.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Feb 2012 09:50

Surely, Pakis were more responsible than US for 26/11?

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 16 Feb 2012 09:57

Shiv ji, (perhaps this is an extension of your point):

Interesting thing is that C has screwed everyone so much that if any two of H, M and J combine while the third even stays neutral, C's goose is coocked.

Ms are *made* irreconciliatory because of the dispoportionate focus on the jihadi fistula. Ms swallowed it hook line and sinker and it currently looks impossible for them to get over it. Key is with KSA and they are in the total grip of the west.

Js are *made* irreconciliatory because of the disproportionate focus on their grip on the financial and political clout. I am sure they control disportionate clout relative to their population but it is also in the interest of Cs to make it appear so even if not there.

Hs pay the most obvious cost but eventually will become irreconcilatory because they have nowhere to go.

As M, J, and Hs these keep fighting amongst each other, WCs enjoy the best of life this mother earth has to offer expending huge resource per capita.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 16 Feb 2012 10:05

^^^did we have an Aryan-Dravidian divide before the British?

-- re 1857, I thought that the distrust of the Bengali recruit because of the mutiny is what led the British to the martial races, and their deeming the Banglas as non-martial only.

Yes, the east India co's bengal army was recruited within Bengal.
http://www.the-eastindiacompany.org/EIC_Army.html

And it was the Bengal army that rebelled. Wiki for instance tells us
In 1857, the Bengal Army had 86,000 men of which 12,000 were European, 16,000 Sikh and 1,500 Gurkha soldiers, out of a total of (for the three Indian armies) 311,000 native soldiers, and 40,160 European soldiers as well as 5,362 officers.[62] Fifty-four of the Bengal Army's 75 regular Native Infantry Regiments rebelled, although some were immediately destroyed or broke up with their sepoys drifting away to their homes. A number of the remaining 21 regiments were disarmed or disbanded to prevent or forestall rebellion. In total only twelve of the original Bengal Native Infantry regiments survived to pass into the new Indian Army[63] All ten of the Bengal Light Cavalry regiments rebelled.

--- so Brihaspati, you were saying?