Bharat Rakshak

SSridhar wrote:

Ashok Sarraff wrote:
quote="SSridhar"
-----------------------------------
It is not as though the Shi'as have been complete dhimmis like some other people. They have also retaliated but they are 20% of the population against the 80% TFTA who have the backing of all the apparatus of the State. For example, see Sipah Mohammed whose political wing is Tehrik Jaffria Pakistan (TJP)/quote
-----------------------------------------

I see. But why don't we hear about loving explosions in Rawalpindi and Lahore that much? Even if the population is a low 20%, why are there so few peaceful blasts in the core Paki areas? It should not be too difficult for a handful of Shia/Baloch freedom fighters to infiltrate the elite areas? Or is it? The last major attempt I remember was in GHQ Rawalpindi, but I am not sure whether it was TTP/Sunnis or the Shias who did it. Even the Mehran Naval-base attack was attributed to the Taliban. Hate to bring in India here, but given the attacks in India by (elements from) a less numerous minority on targets such as the Parliament, Delhi High Court, Mumbai 26/11 and so on, the % argument does not seem to be the only explanation. What else is stopping them?

I think there are several reasons. But, it may be necessary to divide it into two questions, the how & why of Shi'a killing and the mysterious and seemingly non-retaliatory submission of the Shi'a in Pakistan.

A little bit of history. Though Jinnah was a Shi'a, (Ismaili converting to twelver Shi'a), his funeral was not allowed to be conducted publicly by a Shi'a cleric, though his sister Fatima Jinnah had arranged for a very private Shi'a ritual the night before the Sunni clerics took over. The janaza was led by the rabid Sunni Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, a Deobandi who migrated from India and who had apostatized Shi'a even when he was in Deoband itself. It was the same Shabbir Usmani that Jinnah himself requested to hoist the Pakistani flag on August 14, 1947 at Karachi. If that was the case in c. 1948 and that too involving the Founder of Pakistan itself, what else could be expected six decades later ? Shabbir Usmani was also made Sheikh-ul-Islam in Pakistan by GoP and he drafted the Objectives Resolution. Maulana Shabbir Usmani’s student was Maulana Yusuf Banuri who founded the famous Banuri seminary in Karachi that has been in the forefront of not only jihad but anti-Shi'a sectarianism. Maulana Usmani famously demanded ‘jiziya’ from non-Muslims in the Constituent Assembly and told Pakistan’s first Minister for Law and Labour, Jogendra Nath Mandal, a Hindu, that non-Muslims should not hold such key posts. So, Deobandi version of Hanafi Islam was the official Islam of Pakistan right from the beginning though there were Berelvis in very large numbers until the trend began to change.

Though the Islamist Pillar of the 20th Century, Maulana Abu Ala al Mawdudi, spearheaded sectarian Islamism, it was more directed against the Ahmedis. The real impetus against the Shi'a happened during Zia-ul-Haq's regime when he tried to introduce Sunni Hanafi fiqh over the Shi'a and other Muslim sects as well. By that time, the Jama'at-e-Islami's (JI) leadership had passed into Pashtun hands, especially Qazi Hussein, a Pashtun. His role in jihadization of Pakistan is well known. He had the support of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he was bankrolled by them into opening wahhabi seminaries all over the place. He was co-opted into the inner circles of Zia. Recently, the Baloch Milli party's member in the National Assembly had said that Col. Imam had admitted to training 95000 jihadis (must have all been Sunnis and sectarian too) during the Afghan jihad itself. How many more thousands have the various Sunni sectarian tanzeems (by my last count, there were three dozen at least) trained since then ? They are all available at beck and call, one should assume. The Shi'a or any other group do not simply have such resources because they are not funded by rich and powerful sources from outside, foreign governments and even the Deep State.

Within Pakistan itself, opposition to the Shi'a was cleverly exploited by the Deobandi religious sects. It started in the Punjab where rich Shi'a landlords dotted the landscape. This seems to have been the case in and around Jhang where the 'Mother of all terrorist Tanzeems', Sipah-e-Sahba Pakistan (SSP) originated. It cleverly asked the contract labourers to target Shi'a landlords. No wonder Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), the ultra militant outfit does this on a massive scale today.

As Shah Pahlavi in Iran was replaced and Al Khomeini took over a nervous Iran and its ally, the US encouraged actions against Iran in collusion with the GoP and the PA. The siege of the US embassy in Tehran, the hostage situation and the failed military attempt to free them all added to the wounded pride. This alliance of the Gulf countries (led by KSA), the US & Pakistan was too powerful for the Iranians and the local Pakistani Shi'a to take on. For example, SSP is a close ally of the ruling PML-N in the Punjab. Later events since then, up to this date, have pitted Iran against the Gulf Countries and their Western allies. Though Iran warns Pakistan every now and then of serious consequences, it has not been able to do much.

Why aren't the Shi'a retaliating? For one, the Shi'a (at least in Pakistan) seem to believe in targetted attacks, rather than indiscriminate bombing. They may have a reason for that, religiously or socially, I do not know. But, they have retaliated as well.

They are believed to have killed Zia-ul-Haq. LeJ's Chief Maulana Azzam Tariq was assassinated by the Shia in 2003. They do give a fight to the jihadi Deobandi/Wahhabi groups in Gilgit-Baltistan, they fight back in Karachi, Kurram and even Parachinar.

For another, most Shi'a are well educated professionals, politicians, landlords and are generally decently employed unlike the illiterate teeming in the million Sunnis. They have occupied high positions in various Muslim dynasties in the Indian subcontinent and they have that legacy whereas Pakistani Sunnis do not boast of one. These sunnis fall an easy prey to myriad jihadi and sectarian tanzeems. Even if a tanzeem were to start off as a jihadi outfit to attack the kafir, they would sooner or later begin to take on the Shi'a as well because they would naturally come under the kafir category too. It is like Pakistan starting off as a Muslim state but within two years becoming a theocratic state as the Objectives Resolution was passed. The Shi'a are also easily identifiable like the Mongoloid features of the Hazaras, or the marks (generally) on the forehead because of the way of praying, or when they take part in Ashura processions or visit the imambarghas etc. It is like the Taliban asking the Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan to wear a saffron arm band always for easy identifiability (for killing, just like the Jews being forced to do so in Nazi Germany).

As already stated, the Afghan jihad created thousands of foot soldiers trained in guerrilla warfare and many leaders who could strategize and execute a plan. The Shi'a never took part in that jihad and they do not have therefore resources like the Sunnis have. They also do not have access to arms, ammunition and training like the Sunni jihadi sectarians have. Take Kasab for example and his training.

I also believe that like their leader Hazrat Ali, who withdrew, rather than challenge his rights after Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) passed away and bided his time patiently, the Shi'a may not challenge and love martyrdom.

The % thing you have raised does not apply, IMHO, because Indian terror is Pakistan induced, managed, funded etc. A lot of planning and consequently funding went into the attacks that you mention. An organization or a country must invest so much to destabilize another nation even if there are some willing elements there to help in the process. For Pakistan, destabilizing its neighbours like India, Iran & Afghanistan is the only job even if it's at the cost of generation after generation of Pakistanis.

Jhujar wrote:http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9 ... -of-Kargil
The unsung hero of Kargil ( Paki perspective)

The prime minister’s arrival in Washington was shrouded in mystery. The first reports of the visit came to the Pakistan Embassy not from our foreign office but the State Department. Everyone was caught unawares. Hurried meetings were called, confidential internal memos dug up, and briefs developed to be able to lay down all the necessary ground work for the emergency high-octane meeting. Nawaz Sharif arrived on July 3 at Andrews Airbase and was received by Prince Bandar Bin Sultan, the Saudi Ambassador to the US, and then taken for intense briefings.By the time Nawaz Sharif touched down in Washington to defuse the situation, the entire world had descended on us in the Pakistan Embassy with Pakistan being criticised heavily, both in the print and the electronic media. In this backdrop, Nawaz Sharif battled his way up – pleading with the world to give diplomacy a chance.Saudi intervention on Nawaz Sharif’s SOS call made this possible. And the man who could work this miracle was Prince Bandar Bin Sultan.He staunchly supported the idea of forging close relations with Pakistan and China and believed that Pakistan was under-utilising its potential. He once asked former interim Prime Minister Moeen Qureshi: “I don’t understand why Pakistan is always afraid of Indian chicken”. He made China deliver intermediate range nuclear-warhead capable missiles despite strong opposition from CIA and the Department of State. During the Iran-Contra scandal, he bankrolled the whole affair.

Sharif never doubted a military take over. While the agreement was being documented, his anxiety was also mounting: “They will get me Mr President,” he whispered. Clinton quipped: “Yours is a rogue army. Keep them under civilian oversight”. Nawaz retorted: “It is not the army. It is (a) few dirty eggs. They will meddle to cover up the Kargil debacle”. And three months later, the military struck. The coup was inevitable. The ‘Dirty Four’ were afraid of a Kargil investigation and a possible court martial. Washington accepted it as a ‘fait accompli’.Gen Musharraf had the last laugh. In order to stay in power he hacked everything – faked the referendum, rigged the elections, pushed us into a war we never deserved, destroyed district administrations, packed the superior judiciary with cronies and finally left behind an NRO-tainted accidental leadership. Nawaz Sharif arranged an honourable exit from Kargil but missed the gallows by inches. Gen Shahid Aziz deserves respect for telling the truth – which is always in short supply in our country. If we still have a few good men in the army, they just need to wake up and come out with the truth.

Brad Goodman wrote:India develops Urdu font, ‘dumps’ Pakistan's

NEW DELHI: Ending dependence on Urdu fonts developed by Pakistan, India has developed its own fonts for use on personal computers and mobile phones, benefiting 15 crore Urdu speaking people in the country.

ramana wrote:....Next step develop a Devanagari font that types the Urdu alphabet.

Shrinivasan wrote:

ramana wrote:....Next step develop a Devanagari font that types the Urdu alphabet.

Next step dump using Urdu...

Shrinivasan wrote:

ramana wrote:....Next step develop a Devanagari font that types the Urdu alphabet.

Next step dump using Urdu...

ramana wrote:
Compare Urdu to Arabic. The latter is guttural and harsh sounding and their songs sound like wails.

We take back Urdu and let the Bakis become Arabic.
And let hem eat Arabic cuisine while at it.

VikasRaina wrote:Urdu is a not a native Indian language in true sense but then it is closest to a language adopted and developed in India.Its framework is non native but execution is Indian.

VikasRaina wrote:Like it or not but Urdu is one of the Indian Language and a beautiful one too. It is probably the most expressive language among all of NI Languages.

Peregrine wrote:Shrinivasan Ji :

Regretfully our North Indians – especially Punjabis – have some sort of an obsession with Urdu.

Vivek K wrote:

Peregrine wrote:Shrinivasan Ji :

Regretfully our North Indians – especially Punjabis – have some sort of an obsession with Urdu.

Indians cannot resist taking pot shots at each other. So much for national integration or cultural diversity (Quami Tehzeeb!!)! Mera Bharat Mahaan!

Peregrine wrote:................Urdu is to India what Pidgin is to China and Talkie-Talkie to the Caribbean........

Baikul wrote:All this is OT, but I have to comment. My first and last post on the subject, mods can delete as they wish.I don't know where this argument on Urdu is going but anyone that thinks that this beautiful language (in response to a sentiment expressed above, yes I'm North Indian, no I'm not Punjabi) can somehow be termed as 'not Indian' has another think coming their way - or they can pry it from my cold, dead hands.

Peregrine wrote:................Urdu is to India what Pidgin is to China and Talkie-Talkie to the Caribbean........

That's a surface comparison, unless Pidgin and Talkie-Talkie have had poets and writers of the caliber of Mir and Ghalib.

Agnimitra wrote:Urdu sounds "beautiful" to Indian ears mainly due to the "exotic" nature of many of its Persian and Persianized-Arabic words. Even these words are pronounced not as they do in Iran, Turkey or Arabia, but with an Indian accent. Still, they retain their "exotic" value and so fascinate the aam aadmi. It also sounds "posh" and "sexy" in those parts of India that were trained to look up to their Arab, Afghan, Turk and Irani masters for centuries (while native dialects were scorned or cherished as "rustic" with poetic condescension). Sort of like English today, and the "Raju ban gaya gentleman" type of Indian.

But the fact is that when you learn Persian or Arabic, then Urdu sounds like a hilarious and pathetic kind of pidgin language. Most of the imported words and phrases are used in secondary ways that make a mockery of their original usage and meanings. Their pronunciation is as funny as a semi-literate Indian trying to speak English. Native Iranians, Turks and Arabs find Urdu funny, pathetic and definitely a colonial pidgin language that is fascinated by and beholden to their own cultures. It is totally a "wannabe" or a "wog" kind of language.

Peregrine wrote: We Indians are Deeply Indebted to the "URDU" Language i.e. it is the Prime Cause for the Breaking away of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh.

Hopefully the Pakjabi Obsession for Urdu, as the Upper Classes prefer to speak Urdu and they consider speaking Punjabi - the language of the Ordinary Pakjabi - below their Dignity, will ensure the breakaway of Balochistan and Sind. Long Live Urdu in Pakistan!

Shrinivasan wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
2) Funny that the RAPE is obsessed with Urdu, it was never the language of the Elite / court. That language was Persian in the Mughal Durbar or with the Nizams and Nawabs of Yore... Urdu was the language of the the unwashed Abduls (which is anyway what the Paki RAPE is).

My only worry is, our WKKs also have an obsession with Urdu and liberally infuse Urdu words even is a Hindi conversation.

sanjaykumar wrote: Unfortunately, they have lost all wars with India-depriving them of the necessary narrative of a natural ruler class of warriors-in fact they have embarrassed the history of Islam with their battlefield ineptness. Thus efforts at an ersatz identity are redoubled: Hazaras are paying for India's victories.

Pushing Urdu is all part of the desire for a unified Indian Muslim identity (which became particularly acute after the disaster of 1857), just like at one point pushing Hindi was part of the desire for a unified Indian identity

Shrinivasan wrote:

Peregrine wrote: We Indians are Deeply Indebted to the "URDU" Language i.e. it is the Prime Cause for the Breaking away of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh.
Hopefully the Pakjabi Obsession for Urdu, as the Upper Classes prefer to speak Urdu and they consider speaking Punjabi - the language of the Ordinary Pakjabi - below their Dignity, will ensure the breakaway of Balochistan and Sind. Long Live Urdu in Pakistan!

Two observations:
1) Pakjaabi's obsession with everything Pakjaabi (which includes Urdu) to the detriment of everything else was one of the prime drivers of the Bangladeshi movement... may this mission continue...
2) Funny that the RAPE is obsessed with Urdu, it was never the Urdu was the language of the the unwashed Abduls (which is anyway what the Paki RAPE is).My only worry is, our WKKs also have an obsession with Urdu and liberally infuse Urdu words even is a Hindi conversation.

Agnimitra wrote: It is also the language of Bollywood and so maintains its 'sex appeal'. Its a part of a certain influential section of North Indian culture that works in subtle ways and influences preferences.

ramana wrote:

Most felt too assimilated in Indian mileu and wanted to show their different identity.

Acharya wrote:

Agnimitra wrote: It is also the language of Bollywood and so maintains its 'sex appeal'. Its a part of a certain influential section of North Indian culture that works in subtle ways and influences preferences.

Who made urdu the language of the Bollywood. Only way to handle this is to sanskritize the 'Urdu' language and export it to TSP.

Setting the template for a coup
Tuesday, 23 July 2013 | Abhijit Iyer-Mitra | in Oped

12345 0

The main obstacle to a coup in banana republics, is usually the fear of international isolation. The West's silent acquiescence of the coup in Egypt has shown Pakistan that coups are acceptable, so long as they follow a certain modus operandi

In June last year, Imran Khan had claimed in an interview that ‘the age of coups in Pakistan was over’. Imran Khan, of course, isn’t exactly known for his intelligence — ‘Im the Dim’ being considered the subcontinental version of a Ken doll, but the hope was that being the Inter-Services Intelligence’s chosen puppet at least his statement carried some authority. Many such euphoric statements were also made about Egypt — but as time progressed, and economic mismanagement worsened, a rather vocal section of the Egyptian people clamoured for and got a coup.

History seldom repeats itself, but it does tend to rhyme, and picking out the relevant rhymes is the important bit here.

Possibly the most important lesson of Egypt has been the West’s reaction to the coup. While not gleeful for sure, the West has not imposed any sanctions on Egypt. More than a decade back when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in Pakistan, by contrast, he faced near total international isolation, but not the new leaders of Egypt. The main obstacle to a coup in banana republics, is usually the fear of international isolation. What the West’s silent acquiescence in Egypt has shown Pakistan is that coups are acceptable, so long as they follow a certain modus operandi which goes something like this: First ensure the economy teeters on the brink, then ensure the security situation deteriorates, consolidate the Opposition, make a lot of jobless hooligans and thugs come out on the street, protest, burn a few buses, and the Army basically ‘bows to the will of the people’ and enacts a Government change. The careful avoidance of the word ‘coup’ in Egypt is telling and probably sets the template for the next Pakistani coup.


{The first coup by Gen. Iskander Mirza was same template. The public was relieved to have some one run the country!}

Economic mismanagement in Pakistan is so obvious it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. The Pakistani elite — usually military associated, are blasé about their comeback; that Pakistan’s economic indicators have been like this for the last 20 years, and it is the informal economy of Pakistan that keeps the country moving. The issue though is that the International Monetary Fund and World Bank cannot lend based on informal economy statistics.

The dismal security situation is equally obvious from the near daily terrorist attacks, and ethnic strife either between the Pashtuns and the Mohajirs in Karachi, or between the Shias and the Sunnis all over.

The two prerequisites of an ‘acceptable’ coup, therefore, are in place, and have been in place for quite sometime. It is important to note here that both of these are directly the military’s responsibility. Pakistan’s defence spending is so beyond its means, that the ruination of the formal economy can in no small part be attributed to it. Further, its control of about 70-90 per cent of Pakistan’s formal economic activity through the Fauji Foundation has given it the incentive to thwart any competition it may face, despite severe mismanagement. Similarly the internal security situation is largely a result of the Pakistan Army’s quaint notions of terrorists being force multipliers — much the same way a normal Air Force would see aerial refuelling tankers, jamming aircraft and airborne early warning platforms. The omission in India and on part of Pakistan’s civilian leaders has been that for a very long time, these jolly jihadis were seen as an aspect of Pakistani power projection abroad. What we are now beginning to understand is that they are an equally potent tool of the Pakistani military’s internal security mechanism to keep civilian Governments off balance.

According to reports, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has decided to ‘take a backseat’. What this means is that he won’t micromanage affairs and cajole the judiciary into doing his dirty work for him, but to be absolutely clear, he certainly won’t tolerate Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif meddling with the defence budget, Fauji Foundation or the terrorists training camps or security policy in general. As a result, Mr Sharif can neither fix the economy nor can he improve the security situation. In short this Government, like the last, is hardwired for failure.

Second critical question is who are the likely beneficiaries and why? In all likelihood since the Egyptian coup hasn’t been labelled because it placed civilians in charge, presumably the Pakistani military may end up choosing a civilian face, precisely to avoid international censure. The likely beneficiary will be someone vacuous enough to swallow their agenda hook line and sinker, but ‘respected’ enough to make the media swoon, and powerless enough that they can be disposed easily. The only person to fit all three categories — sexy powerless bimbo — would be Mr Imran Khan at the moment, though Ms Hina Rabbani Khar and her Birken bags that set the Indian media aflutter might also be a probable candidate.

Last and possibly the most important question is what would determine the timing of the next coup or a Government change? Given that the chess pieces have been in position for quite sometime, and Western disenchantment with President Asif Ali Zardari evident for a while, the question is why hasn’t the military acted yet? For starters, the Army needs a civilian shield for its manipulations in Afghanistan. It has to support the Taliban and destabilise Afghanistan, but publicly pretend it is not doing so. At the same time it is obliged to support and actively seek drone strikes within Pakistani territory, while claiming publicly that it is opposed to these strikes. A civilian Government is required first to face international flak and at the same absorb domestic discontent.

One tripwire for a coup then is the day the Pakistan Army loses the benefit of this plausible deniability. Signs are that once the American drawdown is complete in Afghanistan in 2014, the Americans will be loath to buy the Pakistan Army’s lies. At that point, a civilian Government loses its utility. But if the Army takes over directly, its international isolation will only increase and the Army will be associated with both economic and security collapse. At any rate, 2014 will set in motion something big for Afghanistan, but more so for Pakistan.

"Imagine a world without institutions. No governments. No school or universities. No access to any information. No banks. Money no longer has any worth. There are no shops, because no one has anything to sell. Law and order are virtually non-existent because there is no police force and no judiciary. Men with weapons roam the streets taking what they want. Women of all classes and ages prostitute themselves for food and protection."

Agnimitra wrote:
I find that even Samskrita Bharati flourishes more with non-North Indian populations just because many northies now find the cadence and sounds of Sanskrit a little alien, nerdy and un-cool, sort of the way they think of South Indians. It doesn't help that most of the purveyors of Sanskrit are in fact the nerdy, academic, brahminical, sometimes stuck-up types.

ramana wrote:I heard a radio talk show on NPR where the author discussed his book on Europe after WWII. It was a savage place with hardly any civilization. What struck me is the comparison to TSP now which seems to be on its way that lower limit.