What's new

Lt Gen (R) Nazir Ahmad appointed Chairman NAB

I am happy to note that things are still normal in Pakistan. Or as our Gujju friends say "sab normal chhe"

Regards
 
Why are generals so lanti and hellbent on destroying Pakistan?
 
But army can just like they did in 71.

East pakistan was never ours to begin with.. learn proper history instead of emotional rhetoric. A land surrounded by enemy from three sides and situated thousands of kilometers away should have been a separate country from day one.
 
East pakistan was never ours to begin with.. learn proper history instead of emotional rhetoric. A land surrounded by enemy from three sides and situated thousands of kilometers away should have been a separate country from day one.

Kid u have been fed the wrong history. Had it not been bengalis there might not have been Pakistan to begin with. Because in those days your mercenary army was giving blood to the king.
 
داتا صاحب کا نام بدل کر لیفٹیننٹ جنرل ریٹائرڈ سید علی ہجویری کر دیا گیا ہے۔ آئندہ انہیں اسی نام سے لکھا اور پکارا جائے۔
 
Kid u have been fed the wrong history. Had it not been bengalis there might not have been Pakistan to begin with. Because in those days your mercenary army was giving blood to the king.
Bengal, UP and Bihar. PML was strong in these areas.. Punjab was in feudal politics. PML won in 1945 only.
 
Kid u have been fed the wrong history. Had it not been bengalis there might not have been Pakistan to begin with. Because in those days your mercenary army was giving blood to the king.
Illogical conclusion.. they could have stayed as a british colony if we go by your superficial views...
It doesn't matter had there been a pakistan or not without them..this is not the discussion.

The people who funded pakistan movement many were local to pakistan and india of today .. also all the names who took part locally..so you cannot discard their significance.

Direct action day and Calcutta killings surely instigated the early partition but things were eventually going that way even if that had not happened as jinnah wasn't agreeing on a strong center but a loosely connected states sort of a confederation a setup in which a state could later easily separate if it wanted to that's why Patel and nehru never wanted one cessation to cause a domino effect and shrink the center. And therefore agreed with partition.

The point is they could have stayed as east pakistan. And you could have stayed as west pakistan...both with their own capitals and their own armies...looking at the logistics toll and difference of opinion and not reaching common grounds on a constitution which was hurting national security in 1962 ayub even suggested confederation but bengali elite refused the idea.. as they wanted to rule the whole Pakistan from Dhaka and have bengali be declared as a state language a right not reserved for pashtun or sindhi..
 
The middle rank cadre of NAB is already made up of retired faujis, Brigs and Cols...as I've often repeated this story, someone once told me keh NAB main sifarish lagani hai to kisi fauji ki layen, warna kaam nhn hona.

Acha hua ab top man bhi fauji hi aa gaya hai.

Let us not forget NAB was created by a dictator to be used as a potent tool as and when need by the military. It will continue to serve that purpose, just like similar enduring "gifts" to the nation by its dictators.
 
Illogical conclusion.. they could have stayed as a british colony if we go by your superficial views...
It doesn't matter had there been a pakistan or not without them..this is not the discussion.

The people who funded pakistan movement many were local to pakistan and india of today .. also all the names who took part locally..so you cannot discard their significance.

Direct action day and Calcutta killings surely instigated the early partition but things were eventually going that way even if that had not happened as jinnah wasn't agreeing on a strong center but a loosely connected states sort of a confederation a setup in which a state could later easily separate if it wanted to that's why Patel and nehru never wanted one cessation to cause a domino effect and shrink the center. And therefore agreed with partition.

The point is they could have stayed as east pakistan. And you could have stayed as west pakistan...both with their own capitals and their own armies...looking at the logistics toll and difference of opinion and not reaching common grounds on a constitution which was hurting national security in 1962 ayub even suggested confederation but bengali elite refused the idea.. as they wanted to rule the whole Pakistan from Dhaka and have bengali be declared as a state language a right not reserved for pashtun or sindhi..

Lol, local pak were as ethnic back then as they are now, most of the british army were from belts of Punjab as they are now, and to which they are still proud of.

Bengali were instrumental in political struggle other wise u would been today singing indian national anthem.
 
داتا صاحب کا نام بدل کر لیفٹیننٹ جنرل ریٹائرڈ سید علی ہجویری کر دیا گیا ہے۔ آئندہ انہیں اسی نام سے لکھا اور پکارا جائے۔
Daata sahab and the rest of the gadi nasheens are part of the same criminal hypocrisy that includes the military, which kept the nation criminally ignorant and woefully passive.

Lol, local pak were as ethnic back then as they are now, most of the british army were from belts of Punjab as they are now, and to which they are still proud of.

Bengali were instrumental in political struggle other wise u would been today singing indian national anthem.
Nahi bhai yeh aur baqi saaray colonial sepoys God save the King ga rahay hotay.
 
Daata sahab and the rest of the gadi nasheens are part of the same criminal hypocrisy that includes the military, which kept the nation criminally ignorant and woefully passive.


Nahi bhai yeh aur baqi saaray colonial sepoys God save the King ga rahay hotay.
But how is that different to what the people of the area always preferred?

If the history of the area and the general composition of the people that now occupy it is to be subservient in all cases and prefer a feudalistic society that provides cannon fodder for whatever new self serving despot emerges - why is the expectation that somehow things should be any different?
 
But how is that different to what the people of the area always preferred?

If the history of the area and the general composition of the people that now occupy it is to be subservient in all cases and prefer a feudalistic society that provides cannon fodder for whatever new self serving despot emerges - why is the expectation that somehow things should be any different?
No different, this region has always been compliant and will remain so until eternity. Only 70 years ago Sikhs genocided these people and if you ask them even now they have the fondest affection for the very same Sikhs.
 
Back
Top Bottom