Lecturing Pak to accept Indian domination

[Hutchroy]

No, I don't think that they are all the same. Congress is a british party comprising of the families groomed by the british colonials similar to PPP in Pakistan, the families were groomed by the british

Au contraire mon ami.

Please read History.

It was Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League which were with the British.

Congress Leadership, by the score, were imprison by the British Rulers. No Muslim League Leader spent even a moment behind Bars.

Read the correspondence between Mr. Jinnah and Churchill.

Although Jinnah wanted to communicate directly with Churchill, Churchill only allowed Jinnah to communicate through his (Churchill’s) Secretary.

While visiting London Jinnah wanted to dine with Churchill but Churchill refused to be seen with Jinnah in public.

There was a continuous and voluminous correspondence between Jinnah and Churchill and Churchill – along with Whitehall - always supported Jinnah.

Churchill hated Gandhi, Nehru in fact the full Indian National Congress and his man in India was indeed Mr. Jinnah.

I cannot say much about the PPP as to my knowledge it was founded by ZAB.

Finally India may have constraints in its relation with the big powers but that is not based on India begging for a Hundred Billion US Dollars from the USA in the form of a Marshal Plan or for Seventy Billion US Dollars from the Friends of India or for US Dollars Forty Billion from the Democratic Friends of India.

India "Mortgaged" its Gold to the Bank of England in the Nineties as its Foreign Exchange Reserves had hit the bottom of the Barrel.

India has repaid and got its "Mortgaged" Gold back.

 

[Jackdaws]

Stage managed drama? The Indian govt. struggles to do things they are supposed to do - like stage the Commonwealth games or build even one flyover in Bombay on time and they can stage terror attacks? Then they can produce eye witness evidence from people as diverse as mutilated children to waiters at Leopold cafe? You can't connect dots with imaginary lines. If India stage managed those attacks - then Zardari is the Queen of Sheba.

 

[Jackdaws]

Au contraire mon ami.

Please read History.

It was Mr. Jinnah and the Muslim League which were with the British.

Congress Leadership, by the score, were imprison by the British Rulers. No Muslim League Leader spent even a moment behind Bars.

Read the correspondence between Mr. Jinnah and Churchill.

Although Jinnah wanted to communicate directly with Churchill, Churchill only allowed Jinnah to communicate through his (Churchill’s) Secretary.

While visiting London Jinnah wanted to dine with Churchill but Churchill refused to be seen with Jinnah in public.

There was a continuous and voluminous correspondence between Jinnah and Churchill and Churchill – along with Whitehall - always supported Jinnah.

Churchill hated Gandhi, Nehru in fact the full Indian National Congress and his man in India was indeed Mr. Jinnah.

I cannot say much about the PPP as to my knowledge it was founded by ZAB.

Finally India may have constraints in its relation with the big powers but that is not based on India begging for a Hundred Billion US Dollars from the USA in the form of a Marshal Plan or for Seventy Billion US Dollars from the Friends of India or for US Dollars Forty Billion from the Democratic Friends of India.

India "Mortgaged" its Gold to the Bank of England in the Nineties as its Foreign Exchange Reserves had hit the bottom of the Barrel.

India has repaid and got its "Mortgaged" Gold back.

Non, mon ami

Churchill hated ALL Indians - Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah. Jinnah had as much of a democratic and civil bent of mind as Nehru. He agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have kept India united - it was Congress who rejected it. More to do with being power hungry than be independence hungry. Had Jinnah lived for a few more years - Pakistan would not be as bad as it now. Perhaps even 1971 would not have been necessary.

 

[Nemesis]

What is wrong with you people? Nehru was a devoted socialist idealist, he didnt belong to any British camp. He appointed a fervent socialist who despised Britain as his defence minister after all. Following him, the party became fervently pro Russia, not because of ideological reasons but because of national interests.

The BJP has always been pro american. Despite their opposition to the nuclear deal - which was nothing more than oppositional theatrics. It has always been a party of bourgeois businessmen. And hence ideologically they favour capitalist America. The CPI, CPI (M) was obviously pro soviet.

Can't speak for Pakistani political parties, don't have a clue about them.

Edit - Churchill hated all Indian leaders who wanted independence from Britain. He was nothing more than an imperialist ****. And he was recently voted the Greatest Britain by the bbc. William Shakespeare anyone?

 

[Nemesis]

double post

 

[Jackdaws]

What is wrong with you people? Nehru was a devoted socialist idealist, he didnt belong to any British camp. He appointed a fervent socialist who despised Britain as his defence minister after all. Following him, the party became fervently pro Russia, not because of ideological reasons but because of national interests.

The BJP has always been pro american. Despite their opposition to the nuclear deal - which was nothing more than oppositional theatrics. It has always been a party of bourgeois businessmen. And hence ideologically they favour capitalist America. The CPI, CPI (M) was obviously pro soviet.

Can't speak for Pakistani political parties, don't have a clue about them.

Edit - Churchill hated all Indian leaders who wanted independence from Britain. He was nothing more than an imperialist ****. And he was recently voted the Greatest Britain by the bbc. William Shakespeare anyone?

You are right - but you only verify what I stated - yes - he was a devoted socialist idealist. Socialism is a form of Economy; Democracy is a form of Government. Nehru followed the Soviet ECONOMIC model and the British POLITICAL model.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

Ok don't take that as a personal attack, but i think the chinese were behind the mumbai attacks as they benefitted the most from it. as india - pak dialogue broke down, that means pakistan went more firmly into chinese camp, will buy more chinese weapons and china also benefits from an economically weakened and strife ridden india. in fact thats why china made sure in UN twice that JUD was not banned. There, i connected the dots for you, now look at it from a larger perspective and it will make sense if you are a true believer.

Now , i can connect few dots here too. I think America has even benefited more from the mumbai attacks , the attacks draw the Indians even closer to US , The US dosent wants Pakistan , India and China to live in harmony and could be able to get CAR resources and ultimately could stand up to them, So the US offered the latest tech to the Indians at the same time annoyed the Pakistanis ,Ensuring the Indians and the Pakistanis keep the heat on . Uncle Sam has carved out a beauitifull master peice here , Let the Chinese ,Indians and Pakistanis fight each other so tat we could have the CAR resources to rule the world for the next century ..!
In the End all of us(Pakistan,India,China) would be lifting up the broken crockery and those yanks would laugh their *** out ..!

Though it concerns with the local political arena of Pakistan , but i think it also suites best to this whole Asian Region also ...!

 

[Hutchroy]

Non, mon ami

Churchill hated ALL Indians - Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah. Jinnah had as much of a democratic and civil bent of mind as Nehru. He agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have kept India united - it was Congress who rejected it. More to do with being power hungry than be independence hungry. Had Jinnah lived for a few more years - Pakistan would not be as bad as it now. Perhaps even 1971 would not have been necessary.

I am not sure of the source of your information.

I refer you to the following :


LRB · Tariq Ali · Bitter Chill of Winter

Bitter chill of Winter – Tariq Ali

The entire Congress leadership, including Gandhi and Nehru, was arrested, as were thousands of organisers and workers. The Muslim League backed the war effort and prospered. Partition was the ultimate prize.

Kashmir’s accession was still unresolved when midnight struck on 14 August 1947 and the Union Jack was lowered for the last time. Independence. There were now two armies in the subcontinent, each commanded by a British officer and with a very large proportion of British officers in the senior ranks. Lord Mountbatten, the Governor-General of India, and Field Marshal Auchinleck, the Joint Commander-in-Chief of both armies, made it lear to Jinnah that the use of force in Kashmir would not be tolerated. If it was attempted, Britain would withdraw every British officer from the Pakistan Army. Pakistan backed down. The League’s traditional toadying to the British played a part in this decision, but there were other factors: Britain exercised a great deal of economic leverage; Mountbatten’s authority was resented but could not be ignored; Pakistan’s civil servants hadn’t yet much self-confidence. And, unknown to his people, Jinnah was dying of tuberculosis. Besides, Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, an upper-class refugee from India, was not in any sense a rebel. He had worked too closely with the departing colonial power to want to thwart it. He had no feel for the politics of the regions that now comprised Pakistan and he didn’t get on with the Muslim landlords who dominated the League in the Punjab. They wanted to run the country and would soon have him killed, but not just yet.

Since you seem to be from India I would request you to visit the nearest British Consular Office and ask for the “Churchill Correspondences” with Roosevelt and others during 1939 to 1945.

BTW : For him not to ask for a Separate Pakistan Jinnah wanted 50% representation in every branch of the Government, Armed Forces, Civil Services etc. for the Muslim League.

With the Muslim Population being 23% of India's Population in 1947 the Congress could not agree (15-20% of Congress Membership was Muslim)

Thus India would end up with the Muslims getting 60% of the share of "Power". Indeed Jinnah was a very "Constitutional" Leader!

Thank God there was a Partition otherwise the Indian Non-Muslims would share the same fate as the Non-Muslims in the FATA areas of having to pay Millions upon Millions in lieu of Jazziya.

I would end by saying that the Partition of India was like two brothers separating. It is better to remain separate and respect each others integrity. Any re-union will cause an even more horrendous "final separation".

The "merging" of 5 or 6 states into Yugoslavia is a case in point.

 

[S-2]

"Let the Chinese ,Indians and Pakistanis fight each ..."

Oh this is a three-way fracas that's been ongoing long before the first pilgrim hit our shores...

Were we only so omnipotent.

We've certainly energy security interests throughout the region but most here refuse to think in more global terms.

Let me help-

America is no direct beneficiary of any significant portion of mideast energy. Witness the latest contracts in Iraq. Open bidding and we were shut out. More importantly, as a consumer of energy we take relatively very, very little from the region. Don't need to and don't wish to compete for that energy with those whom need it more and upon whom we are serious trade partners such as China, Japan, and Europe.

If THEIR economies fare poorly for lack of energy, OUR economy fares poorly regardless of how much energy we've access to from Canada, Mexico, and ourselves.

Here is a very important link, H2O3C4Nitrogen. You need to save it and refer to it as this link is an excellent source of energy information and is CONSTANTLY updated. Others here should do the same. It's a complex site but well worth getting to know-

U.S. Energy Information Administration/Dept. of Energy

Global trade is how we butter our bread. When others can't access market-priced energy and must face the potential of energy starvation or monopolistic control (I win-you lose) then we all suffer. America, France, Pakistan, Guinea-Bissau, etc.

The goal remains to assure those who have it can sell on open markets at best price and those who want it can buy at those prices with assured delivery. When that happens, America prospers.

Nearly all of you fail to understand that simple guiding premise to our geo-strategic policy but it governs nearly all our actions.

Thanks.

 

[qsaark]

It’s not that simple as someone is trying to present it here. Indeed, the US energy (oil) needs are primarily fulfilled by the Canada, and Mexico, and indeed very little comes from the Gulf. Yet I remember the presidential campaign, and all the able contestants including Mr. Obama were crying like babies and complaining about the possession of the oil reserves by the unfriendly Arab regimes. There was lots of hue and cry on drilling issue, again based on unfriendly regimes in the Gulf. There was even an advertisement by the energy tycoon, T. Boone Pickens where as usual he did his best to misinform the American public about the source of American energy and the possession of such reserves in by the unfriendly regimes in the Gulf. So, it is not as simple and logical as some one is trying the others to believe. One would have to live in America and listen to their news channels to get the idea of the level of disinformation being spread and how the American public is being made fool on certain issues.

Simple guiding principle of the American Geo-strategic policy are well exposed in the book "The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

 

[H2O3C4Nitrogen]

America is no direct beneficiary of any significant portion of mideast energy. Witness the latest contracts in Iraq. Open bidding and we were shut out.

I mean seriously , you guys fought , murdered and gaved lives in Iraq , and you were shut out in open bidding .. Unbelievable ..!

Just found this peice of interesting information ..!

Halliburton's Involvement in the Iraq war

In recent years[when?] the company has become the object of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to Former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $36 million.[40] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[41] Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000 and has received stock options from Halliburton.[42]

Bunnatine Greenhouse, a civil servant with 20 years of contracting experience, had complained to Army officials on numerous occasions that Halliburton had been unlawfully receiving special treatment for work in Iraq, Kuwait and the Balkans. Criminal investigations were opened by the U.S. Justice Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Pentagon's inspector general.

In one of the many examples of abuse, Greenhouse said that military auditors caught Halliburton overcharging the Pentagon for fuel deliveries into Iraq. She also complained that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's office took control of every aspect of Halliburton's $7 billion Iraqi oil/infrastructure contract. After her testimony, Greenhouse was demoted for poor performance.[43] Greenhouse's attorney, Michael Kohn, stated in the New York Times that "she is being demoted because of her strict adherence to procurement requirements and the Army's preference to sidestep them when it suits their needs." Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock asserted the contrary.

Halliburton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And the Famous KBR

 

[S-2]

"you were shut out in open bidding..."

U.S. Companies Shut Out As Iraq Auctions Oil Fields-Dec. 19, 2009 TIME

Look-we'll win some over time but only because we're the most competitive or capable. We won't always be so and when that's the case we'll lose. Chinese are VERY heavy in Iraq right now, as they are elsewhere. Maybe high bids based on more to offer because of lower operating costs. Maybe they're simply willing to take some losses. Dunno. Ask Death By Chocolate.

Thanks.

 

[politik]

My take - the poster Politik is correct - Congress has been predominantly British in its outlook. And thank god for that. If Nehru was not British as he turned out to be - we can have kissed our democracy goodbye by his third if not second term. It was his belief in the British democratic process that -

Right, when we say that British, it doesn't mean that slave or agent of British. It just means that they adopted institutions, culture and practice of British. They chose to struggle through the colonial institutions, culture and practice unlike before Indians of sub-continent had rebellious mindset.

After 1857, British changed the dynamics of the whole society they prosecuted thousands of intellectuals, elder, leaders etc to root out that 'rebellious culture' and replace it with people like sir syed ahmad khan -the advocates of join the 'rulers'

The leading families of AIML and Congress were British groomed, not in the sense that they were agents or slaves but in the sense of lord macauley's minutes of 1835:

It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

 

[Hulk]

I have a suggestion for few young people regarding their understanding about other nation. A lot of you speak with authority purely baising on what you have read on school and newspaper. These people do not understand that we have a sense of baise towards each other and both our textbook and newspaper do not serve us truth. So please try to use this forum to understand first hand from the friends of other country what reality is like. The worst is when some people speake with authority about other country purely from hearsay. Their are some journalist who travel to other country spend months and year before they say they now little bit.

I am saying after reading some comments about India from Pakistani and Chinese friend, they seems not to have an iota of what they are talking. This might be applicable vice versa.

Rest upto you.

 

[Abhiras]

A lot of you speak with authority purely baising on what you have read on school and newspaper.

yeah ,i agree
search for the news of the same incidents on Indian & Pakistani newspaper sites....both the newspapers will shows so much difference in content of news that you will wonder that you are reading the same news