Bharat Rakshak

Pranav ji checkout once in Interal Security Thread, a Post by Rudradev ji on White Christian Fascism.

Arav wrote:Pranav ji checkout once in Interal Security Thread, a Post by Rudradev ji on White Christian Fascism.

White Christian Fascists are useful idiots or shills. Chalo, this is OT.

Pranav wrote:

arnab wrote: Have you been following all the 'debates' in the US about Obama not being a christian? and BO having to reassure time and again on that point?

I think that particular controversy came from the fact that his putative father and his foster father were Muslims.

But why has to a president elect of a country which is beacon of democracy, the most secular, liberal country has to reiterate every time that he is Christian. Whereas in India, Muslims & Other Minorties have been elected to the highest offices and have never to convey in public they are secular.

Why is it so hard for people to accept there exists White Christian Supremacy.

Arav wrote: Why is it so hard for people to accept there exists White Christian Supremacy.

I never said there isn't White Christian Supremacy. It is strictly for the useful idiots and the shills.

Pranav wrote:

arnab wrote: So? if you are purportedly 'secular' why the excessive need for BO to be a christian (if he had actually been a muslim should he have been disquaified on the basis of his religion?)? Have Indian MPs or media houses ever made a case for MMS's or Sonia's inability / incapacity on the basis of their religion?

The people may be believers in Christianity or in deviant variants of Christianity. But I was talking about the elites. (And I am not claiming that they are secular.)

Same is the case with pakistani's the people are staunch believers in Islam, but its elites are very much secular including its founding father (Whisky drinking, Pork Eating).

Arav wrote: Same is the case with pakistani's the people are staunch believers in Islam, but its elites are very much secular.

Pak elites see themselves as Islamic. IMHO. It doesn't mean that they all wear Burkhas or short Pajamas, but there is a feeling that Islam is the true path.

My original point was that in the case of Pak, the national identity is founded on the violent rejection of the non-Islamic. Otherwise there is no justification for Pakistan's existence.

Pranav wrote: My original point was that in the case of Pak, the national identity is founded on the violent rejection of the non-Islamic. Otherwise there is no justification for Pakistan's existence.

Did the US reject Christianity when the country was founded?

The problem I have with your belief that US actions are secular but in US self interest but Pakistani actions are Islamist is that Pakistani actions too are out of self interest. They are Islamist actions out of Pakistani self interest. Complaints about Islam can only get you so far.

US actions, out of "US self interest", that you seem to insist are secular are consistently anti-Hindu and pro-Pakistani Islamist. How do you categorize support to Islamic extremists against Hindus as secular? It may be in US self interest, but it is not secular. Now why would the US prop up Islamic extremists if they did not support their actions? US self interest is against Hindu india, and it is not secular. It has some religious motivation. Being anti-Hindu can only involve two groups, Muslims or Christians. Where do you believe the US stands?

Now some people have said that I must not bring in morality in geopolitics and judge US actions as secular or religiously motivated. But if we must not judge the US that way why do we judge the Pakistanis as being religiously motivated? Why one standard for Pakistan and another for the US?

That is because I believe that many Indians suffer from a type of blindness of secularism vis a vis the Christian west where our antennae are able to detect Islamic actions from Pakistan but imagine that US actions are secular. They are not. The US has a fundamental religious bias that allowed Reagan fete the Taliban and the US refused a visa to Narendra Modi. US laws allow Christian groups to exert influence on geopolitical actions. The US is a Christian country and pretty fundamentalist at that.

The Religious-Racial Animosity Matrix and the Policy Drivers

shiv wrote:Perhaps, but remember that Pakistani actions are in self-interest of the Pakistani elite who control Pakistan. "Islamic" is not a good descriptive label although these Pakistani elites operate through some variants of Islam.

Complaining about Islam alone or Pakistan alone can only get you so far.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. The US is as secular as Pakistan. It is only "Indics" who are being communal in accusing Islam while being secular in understanding the US. You are saying 'US is secular. US actions in supporting Islamic racism against India is secular. But Pakistan is islamic"

I disagree with that viewpoint. The US as a Christian nation is in full agreement with Pakistani attitudes towards Indian Hindus. I disagree with your "USA is secular" viewpoint although many "Indics" rise to Americas defence on this point.

I think this discussion here has taken a circular logical twist. So what are the facts on

A. Paki attitudes towards Indics:

1. Pakistanis have a historical enmity with India, lying in the Hindu-Muslim conflict.
2. Pakistanis feel they have a religious duty of subverting Hindu India.
3. Many Pakistani groups also have strategic interests in an enmity with India.
4. Pakistanis have latched onto the West Asian Islamic narrative that due to their physical attributes they are somehow a superior race to the Indics, though that narrative would be just as valid for the Pakis East of Indus, which constitute the vast majority of them.
5. Pakistanis have latched onto the past British narrative that they belong to martial races.
6. Pakistanis have latched onto the European Christian racism towards the darker races of the Indian Subcontinent, and due to cordial relations with Anglo-Americans feel, they can sit on their side of the gallery, identifying with them, and also abuse the Indics using similar narrative.

B. Western White Christian attitudes towards Indics:

1. The Christian Core sees Dharmic traditions as inferior and its adherents as deserving of conversion to Christianity. As missionaries, they consider Dharmics as misled and that they have the responsibility to show us the right path. Shows arrogance.
2. The White racial divide with the Indics, makes them feel racially superior to Indics
3. There is the colonial arrogance, which for them confirms not just their superiority but their right to lord over us.
4. The technological, military, economic and political edge over India reinforces the Feeling of Superiority.
5. The Anglo-Americans have shown a consistent strategic interest in controlling India, directly and indirectly through Pakistan and China.

C. White Christian Anglo-American attitude towards Pakistan:

1. A common Abrahamic base, allows the White Christians to understand Pakistanis, their religious beliefs.
2. In all aspects, they consider Pakistanis at least as racially inferior as Indians.
3. They feel that Pakistanis being Islamic, they both need to be controlled like everything else Islamic.
4. They feel that Pakistanis can act as foot-soldiers for their strategic interest in the Muslim World.
5. Due to Pakistan's location, they feel they can use Pakistan to control other powers in Asia - India, China, Russia, Iran.
6. The current anti-Americanism in Pakistan is disconcerting for them, especially the anti-American Jihadism that goes from there. They would want to control it.
7. Pakistan needs to be further kept under control due to the nukes.
8. They feel that due Pakistan's history as being the rebellious part of India, they can use Pakistan to control India. Pakistan's religious-racial hate towards India helps.

D. Pakistani attitude towards the White Christian Anglo-Americans. Here I simply quote my post from earlier.

a) I would put this down bluntly to Ishmael ignoring what Isaac does to him, in order to move forward and regain some self-esteem, saying that "Well, it was just my brother who did it? So what? He is short-tempered, egoistic, but he is my brother!" That does not change however the fact that Ishmael wants to establish his dominion over everything ultimately. It has been the hope of Muslims, that Christians would one day accept Muhammad's lineage to Abraham through Ishmael and accept that the Covenant God gave to Abraham regarding the Prophets appearing in his lineage, also extended to Ishmael and his descendants. They see Christians as the third brother who should make a decision between Isaac and Ishmael, between Judaism and Islam. They see Christians as those who would one day accept Muhammad as the heir to Prophethood, as an heir to Jesus' work! They want Christians to accept Islam one day! That is why they look respectfully and expectantly at Christians and "do not wish to harm them", except the ones in their own midst, who are simply reminders that Christians are not going to accept Muhammad any time soon!

b) Muslims respect strength and bullies. Even though Chengez Khan destroyed Khwarezmian Empire, killing so many Muslims, and his grandsom Hulegu Khan destroyed Baghdad, still I hear Muslims showing much respect to Chengez Khan. The Muslims have seen how Whites have laid waste to many civilizations and taken what they wanted - be it in the New World or in the Old World. They have seen Chinese came down heavily against outlying areas like East Turkestan and Tibet. I think Muslims feel hidden admiration for this attitude, even when it hits themselves, as has been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan lately.

c) As long as any war against Muslims is not described as such or as against Islam, it is more palatable for them. The excuses can be anything from geopolitical interests or greed for Oil or even naive Western propensity to do good! This the West has been able to deliver.

d) Then there is the savior mentality, where one is always looking for some higher power to come and save the people and knowing this, the Western countries know exactly how to play this role.

e) The Muslims are totally sold on the superiority of the white race. Should a European Convert to Islam, say a Brit or a German, turn into a rabid Islamist and start preaching Islam, there will be a lot more rapture in the public. The Turkish Sultans, the Turkish upward mobile people have often sought after more blond Turkish women in Turkey with Slavic origins, or even from outside. If one were to watch Turkish television, one would see how they dye their hair to look more European. Indian Nawabs and so, they used to look for the more fairer Turkish and Persian women. One just needs to see what kind of women Kings of Jordan used to marry! So the fab for white sits very very deep among the Muslims, including those from the Subcontinent, and it can only be so much hate one can come up with for the other (the White), when in one's heart one desires to be of that skin! Some of that racism was also to see in what happened in Darfur!

f) Then there is the traditional soft-power of the West of which all are awed. West has been able to build an Empire based on superiority of stable political structures, global capitalism, cultural omnipresence, and technological advances. No doubt about it!

Now the problem with the circular discussion here is that morality is being brought in, for no useful reason at all. "Morality" considerations serve absolutely no useful purpose! Here is what I think we need to keep into consideration:

1) Even if Anglo-American White Christians have religious-racial antipathy towards Indics, they are not living next door, nor are the common people White Christians living in Britain and USA locked in some emotionally highly charged passionate conflict with Indics or vice versa. The distance of Oceans and the fact that they have 100s of other issues which charge them up more are reasons to think that the religious-racial antipathy from them against Indics is something not all-consuming.

2) For the religious-racial antipathy of Pakistanis towards Indics, that is indeed all-consuming.

3) For the Anglo-Americans, strategic considerations are their basic drivers to their policies in the Indian Subcontinent Region, though religious-racial antipathy towards Indics allow them a further clarity of thought on this. This policy is actually carried by a very minuscule part of the population, whereas 99.5% don't care.

4) For the Pakistanis, all their considerations towards Indics, religious, racial, historical, strategic play a part in ensuring animosity. The whole population shares this view.

5) White Christian Anglo-Americans feel they can use Pakistan against India, so they use them.

6) Pakistan allows itself to be gladly used against India by whichever power.

7) White Christian Anglo-Americans are able to convince Pakistanis that they are on their side quoting religious, racial and strategic arguments.

8 ) White Christian Anglo-Americans are able to convince Indics that they are on our side quoting strategic problems like Pakistan-based Jihad against West, Nuclear Proliferation, non-cooperative attitude on the Afghan front, democratic values, etc.

--------------------

Just as we can ignore that India's credentials as a democracy, our constructive role in the international community play any role in America's embrace of India, so too we should forget that morality should play any role in American embrace of Pakistan. Making it an issue and then complaining about it unnecessarily distracts from the effective drivers of Anglo-American policies in the region, and Pakistan's drivers in their animosity towards India.

RajeshA wrote: Now the problem with the circular discussion here is that morality is being brought in, for no useful reason at all. "Morality" considerations serve absolutely no useful purpose!

Do you mean the two lists below have nothing to do with morality, or that the lists serve no purpose? The entire conflict revolves around morality. Nothing else. It you want to nitpick, its all about Hindu morality and how to control that.

RajeshA wrote: A. What are the facts on Paki attitudes towards Indics:

1. Pakistanis feel they have a religious duty of subverting Hindu India.
2. Pakistanis have latched onto the West Asian Islamic narrative that due to their physical attributes they are somehow a superior race to the Indics, though that narrative would be just as valid for the Pakis East of Indus, which constitute the vast majority of them.
3. Pakistanis have latched onto the past British narrative that they belong to martial races.
4. Pakistanis have latched onto the European Christian racism towards the darker races of the Indian Subcontinent, and due to cordial relations with Anglo-Americans feel, they can sit on their side of the gallery, identifying with them, and also abuse the Indics using similar narrative.

B. What are the facts on Western White Christian attitudes towards Indics:

1. The Christian Core sees Dharmic traditions as inferior and its adherents as deserving of conversion to Christianity. As missionaries, they consider Dharmics as misled and that they have the responsibility to show us the right path. Shows arrogance.
2. The White racial divide with the Indics, makes them feel racially superior to Indics
3. There is the colonial arrogance, which for them confirms not just their superiority but their right to lord over us.
4. The technological, military, economic and political edge over India reinforces the Feeling of Superiority.
5. The Anglo-Americans have shown a consistent strategic interest in controlling India, directly and indirectly through Pakistan and China.

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: Now the problem with the circular discussion here is that morality is being brought in, for no useful reason at all. "Morality" considerations serve absolutely no useful purpose!

Do you mean the two lists below have nothing to do with morality, or that the lists serve no purpose? The entire conflict revolves around morality. Nothing else. It you want to nitpick, its all about Hindu morality and how to control that.

The lists A and B are about ideology and strategic interests as being the drivers for their policies towards Indics.

When one brings in morality, it changes the issues. What changes?

1. Morality is subjective. Everybody holds on to his own sense of morality. So what morality template to use?
2. If we are moralistic about it, we are setting down principles on how to evaluate somebody else's attitude towards us.
3. Now the others would continue to pound upon us with everything they have got, and we will consider it immoral.
4. But we will extend that morality to ourselves as well, and consider it immoral for us to treat them similarly.
5. In the end, moralistic grand standing results in us simply complaining about the situation, and not doing about it, because beside all the other strategic, electoral, personal and group considerations that our leadership has to look at, we further tie their hands using morality chains, thus harming ourselves.
6. Morality is just a big drum which makes a lot of noise, and distracts us from all we can really do!

That is why I prefer to keep our policies towards both Pakistan and Anglo-Americans being driven by strategic and ideological (racial-religious) considerations.

shiv wrote:How do you categorize support to Islamic extremists against Hindus as secular?

I am not saying it is secular, but I would say western elites do not view themselves as being Christian either. Anyway, that is a peripheral point, it would take us too far afield to dissect the philosophical motivations of western elites.

why do we judge the Pakistanis as being religiously motivated?

Their national raison-de-etre is based on a violent rejection of the Indic civilization. Their elites do actually buy into it to a large extent. Take for example the uber-RAPE Salman Taseer, and his son Atish's observations about his psychology.

Now, it is possible to deal with it, but not without addressing the hard problems of identity and belief. It is a long term project.

shiv wrote:How do you categorize support to Islamic extremists against Hindus as secular?

Why is being "secular" or "not secular" a consideration?

If we have determined that America supports a terrorist state of Pakistan against Indian interests, then we should also consider it fair to support those terrorist groups who are arraigned against USA! We can help Al Qaida logistically, We can help Iran in any way we can! We can push for more virulent anti-Americanism in the neighborhood, using some of our own brilliant Islamists! We can help those Islamist groups which intend to overthrow American friends in the neighborhood!

All that is perfectly permissible strategy in order to push America to stop aiding Pakistan!

However when "Moralists" come on the scene, they make all the waters murky! Then all these options go away from the table, and only what is left to do is show some righteous anger and complain loudly! Through their "Morality" they close all other doors, and then cry that they locked up in a closed room!

RajeshA wrote:

shiv wrote:How do you categorize support to Islamic extremists against Hindus as secular?

Why is being "secular" or "not secular" a consideration?

If US actions are secular, then so is Pakistani terrorism. It is based on Pakistani interests, not religion. Islam can be left out of the picture. This is what the US likes to think.

If US actions are not secular, then both the US and Pakistan are supporting religion based terrorism against India. We all agree that Pakistan is using religion to justify terrorism, but we hesitate when it comes to making that judgement about the US. Why do we have this double standard about Pakistan?

[*] Morality is subjective. Everybody holds on to his own sense of morality. So what morality template to use?

Ours

[*] If we are moralistic about it, we are setting down principles on how to evaluate somebody else's attitude towards us.

Only we are right

[*] Now the others would continue to pound upon us with everything they have got, and we will consider it immoral.

In this case both the US and Pakistan are immoral

[*] But we will extend that morality to ourselves as well, and consider it immoral for us to treat them similarly.

We can do as the US and Pakistan do and have different morality for ourselves.

[*] In the end, moralistic grand standing results in us simply complaining about the situation, and not doing about it, because beside all the other strategic, electoral, personal and group considerations that our leadership has to look at, we further tie their hands using morality chains, thus harming ourselves.

No. That is just a prediction that you are making out of convenience. By complaining we inform.

[*] Morality is just a big drum which makes a lot of noise, and distracts us from all we can really do!

One sided Morality is the very drum used by islam, the British Empire and the US to drum out opponents and dominate.

That is why I prefer to keep our policies towards both Pakistan and Anglo-Americans being driven by strategic and ideological (racial-religious) considerations.

You are being too dharmic. We must claw and cheat the way they do. They are hardly being fair.

shiv wrote:

shiv wrote:How do you categorize support to Islamic extremists against Hindus as secular?

RajeshA wrote:Why is being "secular" or "not secular" a consideration?

If US actions are secular, then so is Pakistani terrorism. It is based on Pakistani interests, not religion. Islam can be left out of the picture. This is what the US likes to think.

If US actions are not secular, then both the US and Pakistan are supporting religion based terrorism against India. We all agree that Pakistan is using religion to justify terrorism, but we hesitate when it comes to making that judgement about the US. Why do we have this double standard about Pakistan?

The response to that, I had given earlier:

RajeshA wrote: 1) Even if Anglo-American White Christians have religious-racial antipathy towards Indics, they are not living next door, nor are the common people White Christians living in Britain and USA locked in some emotionally highly charged passionate conflict with Indics or vice versa. The distance of Oceans and the fact that they have 100s of other issues which charge them up more are reasons to think that the religious-racial antipathy from them against Indics is something not all-consuming.

2) For the religious-racial antipathy of Pakistanis towards Indics, that is indeed all-consuming.

3) For the Anglo-Americans, strategic considerations are their basic drivers to their policies in the Indian Subcontinent Region, though religious-racial antipathy towards Indics allow them a further clarity of thought on this. This policy is actually carried by a very minuscule part of the population, whereas 99.5% don't care.

4) For the Pakistanis, all their considerations towards Indics, religious, racial, historical, strategic play a part in ensuring animosity. The whole population shares this view.

1) America's religious-racial policy towards India is being borne by a minuscule %age of American population <0.5%. The rest of them don't know about India or even Hindus and don't give a damn! On the other hand all Pakistanis to some different level of intensity share strong racial-religious feelings towards India. So in the case of Pakistan, the religious-racial angle becomes important!
2) Considering that historically Pakistan was part of India, and its people at one time Indics, their religious-racial view of us affects us, as it makes this almost a family dispute! With the Americans, the emotional aspect of our interaction is minimal.

So we use the defining part of our relationship to characterize the essence of that relationship. In the case of Pakis it is religious-racial plus strategic since Pakistan is our neighbor, while in the case of America, we go from their strategic interests as being predominantly characterizing their policies towards the region.

By saying Islam does not play any role in Pakistani attitude towards India would be a gross mischaracterization. Also making such a characterization dependent on also characterizing America's attitude towards us similarly would also lead us astray, because that hardly constitutes the main driver of their policies towards the region.

I think if you want to make your case that US's involvement in the region should also predominantly be viewed using the religious-racial lens, then you will have to prove that in USA there is just the same level of intense passion across the populace with regard to Indians as in Pakistan; or at least to prove that that is the main driver among their elites to interfere on the opposite side of the globe.

Why should someone just assume that USA is totally invested in the Indian Subcontinent because of religious-racial reasons? The claim needs to be proven!

shiv wrote: If US actions are secular, then so is Pakistani terrorism.

US motives and Pak motives are two independent issues. It is possible for the US to use the Paks without sharing their motives. Like how the Chinese use the Paks.

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote:5. In the end, moralistic grand standing results in us simply complaining about the situation, and not doing about it, because beside all the other strategic, electoral, personal and group considerations that our leadership has to look at, we further tie their hands using morality chains, thus harming ourselves.

No. That is just a prediction that you are making out of convenience. By complaining we inform.

When you bring in terms like "secular" etc., you are saying somehow these are ideals to live by, and then when one considers something not "secular" we will not do it. This is constraining our own options!

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote:6. Morality is just a big drum which makes a lot of noise, and distracts us from all we can really do!

One sided Morality is the very drum used by Islam, the British Empire and the US to drum out opponents and dominate.

Ha, now you talk of 'Aggressive Morality'! That is what I mean by Ideology! Here the Islamics, the Brits, the Americans are aggressively claiming the right for themselves to intervene in other places and to try to influence them as they like and please.

However in the case of India, the Morality stand you are making is one of 'Defensive Morality'! Here you are saying, this and that country has not the moral right to behave in a certain way, more concretely, the other country does not have the right to impose their morality on us! That is Cry, Cry, Baby Morality! India has played "Non-Interference" Morality everywhere! We have never put down our foot and said, we will bring Dharma to some Adharmic X,Y,Z place! Or democracy! Or secularism! No! We have not done that! We have just complained when others have interfered in our home and neighborhood!

It is fine and well to have 'Defensive Morality' when one is at the same time pursuing 'Aggressive Morality', but if one is not doing so, then we are making Morality into another chain around our arms, simply pleading, "Oh x,y,z, is not right and the other should not do so!" and then saying "We can't do much, because x,y,z, is not according to our values!"

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote:That is why I prefer to keep our policies towards both Pakistan and Anglo-Americans being driven by strategic and ideological (racial-religious) considerations.

You are being too dharmic. We must claw and cheat the way they do. They are hardly being fair.

I am not being Dharmic here!

Of course, we must claw and cheat the way they do! But what is the point of making a Morality Violation point about them and then openly undertaking the same Morality Violation onto them. Because then others would call us hypocrites, as people who object to something on moral grounds but also do the same thing. And so others too would claim the right to continue to do the same thing to us!

In America there are dozens of papers coming out all the time about how other countries and groups are misbehaving and doing wrong things. One could call this 'Defensive Morality'! But at the same time USA is charging on into other countries based on an 'Aggressive Morality' putting a positive spin on all they do! Their 'Defensive Morality' was used simply to make for them a case to intervene!

So the question is: Are we also building up our case for Intervention or are we just showing righteous but impotent anger?

X-Posting from 'Baluchistan: The Story of Another Pakistan Military Genocide' Thread

shyamd wrote:Baluchistan right now is like Syria - problem is, there is no media coverage (or very little). Thats because no one wants to rock the boat too far. But the revolution in Baluchistan has definitely started. We can break them apart now if we wanted.

The Serdars would be making billions if they later on accede to India, because Indian forces would provide security and integrity of Baluchistan, and the Serdars would not have to do the fighting on their own. They will be able to concentrate more on the economics.

Pranav wrote:

shiv wrote: If US actions are secular, then so is Pakistani terrorism.

US motives and Pak motives are two independent issues. It is possible for the US to use the Paks without sharing their motives. Like how the Chinese use the Paks.

You mean the motives for the US encouraging and arming Pakistan to hit India are different from the motives Pakistan has for hitting India? You are saying that Pakistani motives are based on Islam but US motives are not.

I agree. All I am saying is that the USA as a Christian nation finds it perfectly acceptable to Hindus to get hit by Pakistan and does not worry about the morality. If you agree with that it is an indication of how the US thinks of Hindus and how little Indians are likely to gain by blindly cheering the US against Pakistan and imagining the that US is going to have anything good for India by remaining in the region. I suggest that India should cheer Pakistan against the US out of spite for the US because the US is no better than Pakistan. It would be great to see these White Christian fundamentalist and Islamic allies slug it out. That is all that i have been saying from the very beginning.

Originally posted by Vipul in 'Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion' Thread

Help Pakistani Kashmiris' 'freedom struggle', India urged.

There is simmering discontent among Pakistani Kashmiris against Islamabad's misrule, activists from the region said Wednesday, urging India to shun its ''defensive'' Kashmir policy.

"Azad Kashmir (as Islamabad terms Pakistan-administered Kashmir) is free, of course. But free for Pakistanis only," Mumtaz Khan, a Canada-based Pakistani Kashmiri activist, said at a seminar here on the status of the area.

Khan, who heads the International Center For Peace and Democracy (ICFPD) a Canada-based NGO, alleged that no politician could talk independently about the Kashmir issue in Pakistan because it is directly under the military's control.
He said the people of the region, including Gilgit-Baltistan, had pinned their hopes on New Delhi but "India has been defensive in its Kashmir policy".

"This has allowed Pakistan to take an aggressive stance," he said, reminding the Indian government of a parliament resolution saying that Pakistan "must vacate the areas of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir, which they have occupied through aggression".

"India has faulted. You have violated your own constitution that says Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir is a disputed territory. You have to demonstrate something practically," the activist said.

Senger Sering, another activist based in Washington and originally from Gilgit Baltistan, said people from his region wanted an independent republic and "that is why Pakistan is treats us worse than enemies".

"There is institutionalized slavery. Pakistan has been eating out our resources and this slavery has been legalized by an ordinance," Sering said, referring to the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009.

He alleged that "target killings" were rampant in the strategically located region rich with natural resources, particularly with a great potential for hydroelectricity.

The territory, where China has shown keen investment interest and is in fact developing many hydroelectricity projects and roads, is also a gateway to Central Asia.

But the area is ridden by violent incidents that Islamabad blames of sectarian groups, both Shias and Sunnis.

But Sering denied this, saying: "Target killings are done by mercenaries hired by (Pakistani spy agency) ISI."

"They (killers) are coming from outside," he said.He alleged that the area is hugely militarized and the Pakistan Army controls everything.

"We have a bakery, the only bakery in the region. It is named Askari Bakery but is known as Military Bakery because it is run by the army," he said.

Asking India to engage with activists from Pakistani Kashmir, he added that India should allow a symbolic representation for the region in the Jammu and Kashmir assembly.

"Let some activists be allowed to represent the region in the Kashmir assembly and legislative council," he said, adding this was possible because constitutionally, they are citizens of India.

The Detachment of Baluchistan from Pakistan would serve a very important purpose in PoK also.

1. If China does not have a way of approaching the Indian Ocean through PoK, then the strategic value of PoK would also decrease for China, and China would think twice about making enormous investments there, because then they will also have to protect them, especially from India, which stakes its legal claims on the land.
2. With Baluchistan gone, Pakjab would remain connected to the Indian Ocean through a very narrow strip of land - Sindh. In Sindh there are several ethnic faults one can exploit.
   1. One can exploit the Central Indian-origin Muhajirs, and they could try to separate Karachi and some other areas like Hyderabad from Pakistan.
   2. India could annex Thatta and Tharparkar District, which have some Hindu population, but are also less populated areas.
   3. India could entice Sindhis to leave Pakistan, especially with the Gujarat's over 15% GDP Growth Rate.
   4. Sindh may like to earn money by becoming an energy corridor for India, and the chances for that are higher if it is independent from Pakistan.

RajeshA wrote: Ha, now you talk of 'Aggressive Morality'! That is what I mean by Ideology! Here the Islamics, the Brits, the Americans are aggressively claiming the right for themselves to intervene in other places and to try to influence them as they like and please.

However in the case of India, the Morality stand you are making is one of 'Defensive Morality'! Here you are saying, this and that country has not the moral right to behave in a certain way, more concretely, the other country does not have the right to impose their morality on us! That is Cry, Cry, Baby Morality!

RajeshA - I think you are wasting time by talking about cry baby morality etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong in being a cry baby. You see, even you believe that we should be tough as nails and TFTA and not be cry babies. But the way to get there is to have a grievance. The grievance is how their morality is imposed on us. The solution is to impose our morality on them. But we have to be convinced about our morality over theirs rather than worrying about whether morality should come into the picture at all. It is all about morality. It has to be ours, and not the one they impose on us. Hindus have been historically wronged by the twin assaults of white Christian supremacy and Islam and it is absolutely absurd to claim that we should not feel aggrieved and not complain. We must cry. We must complain.

It is precisely because not enough Indians feel the pain of grievance that we sit around cheering the US for every 2.5 Paki villagers they kill by UCAV imagining that some great good will come out of that. We are mentally numb and we believe in the claptrap that "We must not complain" "The world works this way" All that is absolute bullshit. It is a rationalization that is being posted by people on here to accept things as they are. We stroke ourselves and feel comfortable and take all the wrongs by silly arguments like "Do not complain. Accept things philosophically. Complaining will get you nowhere." If you don't complain no one will know. The complaints must be continuous and piled on so every Indian who is born understands there is a problem.

Indians need to understand how we have been wronged rather than sit around thinking "Al iz wel" Al iz decidedly not well and I am astounded that people say "Don't complain". Unless you complain all the ignorant numb educated dhimmified people in India will just think that their duty is to think "This is the way the world works. We are not supposed to complain.

I am repeating myself because I am having the same excuses thrown at me time and again. I am definitely not going to back down on the need to complain about how Indians have been wronged. If you personally do not want to complain that is your choice. But not mine. I don't know why people get so worked up when i complain. is it because i am complaining about America? No one seems to get upset when we complain about Pakistan or Islamic genocides. But that only eggs me on you know.

shiv wrote:

RajeshA wrote: I don't know why people get so worked up when i complain. is it because i am complaining about America? No one seems to get upset when we complain about Pakistan or Islamic genocides. But that only eggs me on you know.

I think that is because of your requirement that others can accuse Pakistan of Islamism only then if White Christianity is held just as culpable for Anglo-American policies in the Indian Subcontinent, or otherwise one should not accuse Pakistan of Islamism at all.

RajeshA wrote:Originally posted by Vipul in 'Pak Occupied Kashmir News and Discussion' Thread

Help Pakistani Kashmiris' 'freedom struggle', India urged.

There is simmering discontent among Pakistani Kashmiris against Islamabad's misrule, activists from the region said Wednesday, urging India to shun its ''defensive'' Kashmir policy.

...

Khan, who heads the International Center For Peace and Democracy (ICFPD) a Canada-based NGO, alleged that no politician could talk independently about the Kashmir issue in Pakistan because it is directly under the military's control.
He said the people of the region, including Gilgit-Baltistan, had pinned their hopes on New Delhi but "India has been defensive in its Kashmir policy".

"This has allowed Pakistan to take an aggressive stance," he said...

Wonderful article. And Mumtaz ji makes a very good point. I have never understood why our FP pundits have allowed an oppressive feudal sh!thole like Pakistan to take the aggresisve stance on the Kashmir issue, while we play defensive.

India ought to be taking the bully pulpit on all issues over Pakistan. We need to constantly preach to Pakistanis on the following -

1. Their feudal system, in which their TFTA ashraf and ajlaf oppresses their SDRE arzaal masses. This constant diatribe should percolate down to the grassroots and make the Paki abdul aware of the racist stratification of his Islamist society, which was put together during sultanate times centuries ago, as attested in the works of Ziauddin Barani and others. This historical narrative needs to be put in place and repeated over and over.

2. The servile nature of Pakistan's relationship with the US and with China. We should complain that this makes us Indians embarassed to see, since while we remain independent, our Paki cousins are embarrassing us with their GUBO and reducing the H&D of the Indic races in the international comity of nations.

3. The Punjabi domination of their society, at the cost of Sindhis, with whom we can say we share more brotherhood due to their Sufi culture.

4. The pitiable plight of the Baluchis, of course.

5. The unfortunate vivisection of Pashtun lands, with whom we Indians can empath because of the vivisection of our own land.

6. The plight of Baltistanis and Kashmiris under Pak domination.

7. The plight of Shi'a Pakistanis.

8. The plight of Hindu and Christian Pakistanis.

I think Israel is a prime example of cry-baby attention seeker? who would have given them so much attention if only they don't raise the holocaust bogey? I am sorry to sound very callous. But I think crying out loud also has advantages. The loudest baby gets the attention. Because we bear thousand cuts in silence, US thinks it is okay if we loose few hundred. It is not okay. We have to raise a hell and cry to the world that great injustices have been meted to Indians and everytime US doles money to TSP, our cries should get shriller and shriller.

RajeshA wrote:

shiv wrote: I don't know why people get so worked up when i complain. is it because i am complaining about America? No one seems to get upset when we complain about Pakistan or Islamic genocides. But that only eggs me on you know.

I think that is because of your requirement that others can accuse Pakistan of Islamism only then if White Christianity is held just as culpable for Anglo-American policies in the Indian Subcontinent, or otherwise one should not accuse Pakistan of Islamism at all.

No such policy. I have never stopped anyone from accusing Pakistan and have never argued that "It is no use complaining about Pakistan". (Although I am tempted to start now) I have only asked that the US be recognised as an equally vicious co conspirator. That brings on all the arguments about why we should not complain and why we must accept things the way they are.

The morality argument you raised is equally one sided. All our complaints about Pakistan Islamism, Hindu and Sikh genocide and Pakistan irredentism are moralistic complaints. Why not drop the morality and accept that Pakistan merely works for it own interest just like the US? I am not stopping anyone from accusing Islamism. Just explain why moralistic arguments are OK for Pakistan but not the US.

We have double standards about the US and Pakistan here and those double standards are not totally justifiable, given US aims. And definitely not in the interests of India.

I have only asked that the US be recognised as an equally vicious co conspirator.

How did you infer the equality relation between the blames they deserve?

There is a famous Bollywood song sung by Kishorekumar:
‘Jo tum hansoge to duniya hasegi roage tum tona roagi duniya’ (‘when you laugh others will also laugh with you but when you cry no one will cry with you’)

Every time there is Paki terrorist attack on India, Indians cry because of suffering of their loved ones. At personal level, people are hurt and it is quite natural to cry if you have lost loved ones.

Pakis want to see Indians suffering.

What we need to do is to pay back in the same coin.

At national level, there is no need to cry or complain to other countries as Western world does not care about loss of Indian lives.

Just hurt Pakis 100 times more.

abhishek_sharma wrote:

I have only asked that the US be recognised as an equally vicious co conspirator.

How did you infer the equality relation between the blames they deserve?

Pakistan's longevity and viciousness are augmented by American arms, equipment and money.

Pakistan's most blatant and worst attacks on India have always come in the midst of abundant US aid and overt US support.

TSP does what it does because it's actions are not questioned, US gifting arms, doling billions are examples of how US in fact encourages TSP to do exactly that. US threatens sanctions on TSP IFF it doesn't GUBO to US demands. Nothing of this sort is demanded by US from TSP when Indians die. This is proof enough to say US doesn't care about Indians. I second Carl ji in ways to hurt TSP, at least they make them un easy.

Pakistan's longevity and viciousness are augmented by American arms, equipment and money.

Pakistan's most blatant and worst attacks on India have always come in the midst of abundant US aid and overt US support.

It is difficult to claim that "augmentation" implies "equality" of blame. In the case of conventional wars, one can argue that America should shoulder significant blame.

As far as terrorist attacks are concerned, Pakis can manage on their own. I don't think they need any help from America or Europeans (either they have the technology, or they can easily get it from other countries). You don't need billions for funding terrorist attacks.

Nuclear weapons certainly complicate the matter. Some would argue that it is possible to punish Pakis even when they have nuclear weapons. Others would disagree. In any case, there is no hard proof for these opinions.

In my view, British/Europeans might be more responsible for India-Pak problems when the British were here. After their departure, Pakis are more responsible for the mess. British and Americans have added petrol to the fire. But the fire was already there. Pakis never wanted/intended to extinguish it.

shiv wrote: Pakistan's most blatant and worst attacks on India have always come in the midst of abundant US aid and overt US support.

Most Beltway analcysts especially of purportedly Indian origin have not discovered this relatively simple fact and those who have want to wish it away.

Plenty of most interesting arguments. Will reserve for later this evening. Perhaps also great insight into how we think and model others.

But for the moment, just one short question - why are we moving swiftly from the "white Christain" to focus onlee on the Amir Khans? As culture - there is the broad brush - "white Christian", but when we are talking of nations - we are focusing only on the US? I heartily agree that the US has played its own vicious share of racism - sure - but why exempt the artillery on raniland?

Should we speculate - like as has already been done about being supposedly touchy about USA - as to why raniland is not up for similar bashing? Raniland hosts some of the staunchest Paki favouring, anti-India subcontinental Islamist - Paki+BD origin voices. These guys have well entrenched orgs who are oiled up well often overtly by sections of ruling regimes and a widere variety of media and academic as well as social activism.

I think, before we jump on to focus our pet targets [this is not to absolve USA], we need to be able track and follow what goes on in other "white Christian" countries - especially the daily chatter of exchanges between anti-Indians [yes and staunchly Islamic to boot with every speech or dialog they think is reaching out onlee to sympathetic ears - interspersed every few words with a gaali against the Hindu primarily] from pakistan and BD.

I follow Europe and Canada chatter, and also track the members of ruling juntas in these realms who sidle up with such sentiments. So I do find it quite surprising that these others - especially raniland - being let off the hook. They have solid presence and back-channels of support to Pak. In fact they manage it with a much greater degree of finesse than the Amir khans. Why is there no great feeling of rage against the Brits on the streets of Pakiland - while there is as vicous an anger against the Americans as can be seen on the forum? Of course Americans deserve every bit of that anger - but why are the other "christian white" land denizens exempted from the vicious favour - just like they are being exempted here on the forum?

brihaspati wrote:but why exempt the artillery on raniland?

I follow Europe and Canada chatter, and also track the members of ruling juntas in these realms who sidle up with such sentiments. So I do find it quite surprising that these others - especially raniland - being let off the hook. They have solid presence and back-channels of support to Pak. In fact they manage it with a much greater degree of finesse than the Amir khans. Why is there no great feeling of rage against the Brits on the streets of Pakiland - while there is as vicous an anger against the Americans as can be seen on the forum? Of course Americans deserve every bit of that anger - but why are the other "christian white" land denizens exempted from the vicious favour - just like they are being exempted here on the forum?

In the pre-911 world, when India was to hobnobbing with Musharraf, in discussing the Bradford riots 2001, someone gave me this clarity and this goes back to the encouragement given to seperatist elements (ML) and Partition.

And for 3 and 1/2 friends of TSP, should really be 3 and 1/2+C friends of TSP, IMO.

shiv wrote:

shiv wrote:I don't know why people get so worked up when i complain. is it because i am complaining about America? No one seems to get upset when we complain about Pakistan or Islamic genocides. But that only eggs me on you know.

RajeshA wrote:I think that is because of your requirement that others can accuse Pakistan of Islamism only then if White Christianity is held just as culpable for Anglo-American policies in the Indian Subcontinent, or otherwise one should not accuse Pakistan of Islamism at all.

No such policy. I have never stopped anyone from accusing Pakistan and have never argued that "It is no use complaining about Pakistan". (Although I am tempted to start now) I have only asked that the US be recognised as an equally vicious co conspirator. That brings on all the arguments about why we should not complain and why we must accept things the way they are.

The morality argument you raised is equally one sided. All our complaints about Pakistan Islamism, Hindu and Sikh genocide and Pakistan irredentism are moralistic complaints. Why not drop the morality and accept that Pakistan merely works for it own interest just like the US? I am not stopping anyone from accusing Islamism. Just explain why moralistic arguments are OK for Pakistan but not the US.

We have double standards about the US and Pakistan here and those double standards are not totally justifiable, given US aims. And definitely not in the interests of India.

1) On Equality of Culpability, Threat, Motive: I am generally against such equations, simply because it boxes on in. Let's say there is an terrorist attack from Pakistan. According to the equivalence of culpability, should we start retaliating against America by killing its soldiers or citizens? It is an extreme example, but to get the point across.... It is not like everybody needs to be measured by the same scale and but rather at the end of the measurement, the measure for every party should turn out to be the same - equal!

USA is one of India's main economic partners. It has welcomed many of our citizens and treats them well. In the essence of how USA deals with Indians and how Pakistan deals with Indians, there is a huge difference. Now when pronouncing equivalences, should one forget all that?

I am saying that America's unjust treatment of India requires its own nuanced description. We cannot just use Pakistan's description and stick it as a label on USA. It is not about sucking up to USA. But it is about us retaining our faculties of differentiation and analysis.

2) On Islam vs. White Christianity Aggression: Since we are comparing the two, we should develop some metric for it.

If we were to develop some scale for intensity of hate from 0.0 to 1.0 and allot each individual in Pakistan and Anglo-World (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, White South Africa) one such number and then add them for both, what do you presume would be greater and by how much! Mind you the population of the latter is almost three times that of Pakistan, but still...

Then one can speak of equivalence.

Even if one were to restrict the exercise to the elite of the countries only, we would still come to a very unequal result!!!

3) On Morality: If any country or people does anything wrong to us, we should by all means record it, protest the deed, complain about it, use it in victimization propaganda, etc. and derive all compensation and advantage one can from it. If possible we should also retaliate against it.

The other can be held culpable of the crime only if it is direct, or if it has been directed by the other through some other agent, or if someone has been negligent and has not discharged his responsibility.

In the case of international affairs, this is however a difficult test. Just like many countries deal with India, many countries can deal with Pakistan too. Many countries sell weapons to India, and many countries can sell weapons to Pakistan too. All have that sovereign right. Not everybody is willing to see Pakistan through the same lens as India. The Kabila of the Pakistani Army has all the trappings of a respectable sovereign state. As long as that is the case, everything is "legitimate".

But naturally such relationships of other countries with Pakistan have detrimental effects for India. So what kind of argument is India going to make? Are we going to try to persuade others that their dealings with Pakistan are immoral, because Pakis do immoral and irresponsible things? We can. we should. But they may or may not listen to us. So how do we act?

We can then continue to complain to them to stop their dealings with Pakistan on moral grounds and tell them how it is hurting us! But is there also going to be some alternate reaction from us to such countries? Are there going to be some perceptible price for them to pay. Because if complaining is all that we are going to be doing, then it is going to look very lame and embarrassing.

Other countries like to show their displeasure through more forceful measures. If some world leader meets with the Dalai Lama, he knows that China would extract some price somewhere. If the ambassador of some country visits the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony, honoring some Chinese dissident, then those countries know that China would extract some price. Surprisingly all these activities can be considered highly "moral" and still one finds that China retaliates.

So if Indians start yowling that the sovereign affairs of some country are not "correct", but does nothing about it, then we are going to be compared with the likes of China and how they go about scaring others. Do we wish such comparisons, comparisons which reveals our power differential and more importantly our confidence differential? I don't think so! So India will simply clench together her teeth, and show that it doesn't bother us what others do!

On such issues in international affairs there is no such thing as complaining. It is always warning!

All the whines about Indians not cooking Poaq-Poach right stem from our political,economic, civil l and military weakness . Fooland will fail automatically if we fix our end of the issue .

RajeshA wrote: USA is one of India's main economic partners. It has welcomed many of our citizens and treats them well.

True but not relevant. US has welcomed them because it benefits from their talents. And not everyone gets a visa. Only good students/workers are allowed to enter US. Actually one could argue that remittances/brain drain equation is against India. In any case, very small %age of Indians go to US and benefit there.

abhishek_sharma ji,

the statement belongs in a context - the context of White Christian "hatred" for Hindus. I am just saying many signs say otherwise.

Okay. Then we can infer the following:

Animosity towards top 2% talented Indians < Desire to benefit from top 2% talented Indians.

Maybe 'desire' and animosity can't be compared but I guess you guys have understood what I am saying.

I guess what RajeshA ji is saying is that one need not paint a whole civilization with a broad bruch of "white christian" or "mid-eastern islamist". There is a quantifiable amount of goodwill for indic civilization in a significant section of Western society, and we shouldn't ignore that. The similar quality of goodwil is lesser in Islamic societies, but we need to build and expand that space also. We need to have a foot in the door in each case in order to deal with the anti-Indic contagion.