Mistrust of India Forges Sense of Unity in Pakistan

[Awesome]

why should the uniting factor for pakistan be enimity with India? I do not feel good even in one bit! The uniting factors should be -
- kicking the radicals's A$$
- Voting better people than Zardari to power
- Making sure the democracy gets a chance to evolve rather than be intermittently ruled by military

It's not enmity, its mistrust. Something passive. It implies India would be the aggressor.

 

[Flintlock]

Are you suggesting that nationalism does anything but that? What has united the Indians together during the current crises? I saw what went on at some of the demonstrations and universally it was an anti-Pakistan agenda which was uniting the Indians together. There were some dissenting opinion who were mostly pissed off at the incompetence of Mumbai government but overall it was the Pakistan factor that was holding everyone together.

I think real unity comes not from hating a common enemy, but from a feeling of nationhood that is existent even during the most peaceful of times.

Indians were always together, but these attacks have simply awakened the middle-classes to participate in politics.

I don't understand where you got the impression that the "Pakistani factor" was holding people together. Most of the demonstrations in Mumbai were anti-government and the peace rallies were simply for showing solidarity for the victims and heroes.

 

[blain2]

I think real unity comes not from hating a common enemy, but from a feeling of nationhood that is existent even during the most peaceful of times.

Indians were always together, but these attacks have simply awakened the middle-classes to participate in politics.

I don't understand where you got the impression that the "Pakistani factor" was holding people together. Most of the demonstrations in Mumbai were anti-government and the peace rallies were simply for showing solidarity for the victims and heroes.

I got the impression listening to interviews of folks at that rally conducted by western press.

 

[Flintlock]

I got the impression listening to interviews of folks at that rally conducted by western press.

I wouldn't be surprised if they said bad things about Pakistan in the streets - who wouldn't?
Howver, that's not what brought them onto the streets in the first place. The focus of the rallies was to demand better governance and security from the government, and show solidarity with the victims and martyrs. These protesters were not ideologues/political workers - they were middle-class citizens.

Quite different from the rallies in Pakistan by religious groups, who were burning Indian, US and Israeli flags and shouting religious slogans...

 

[s90]

Everyone know what Indira Gandhi said after fall of east Pakistan,India still dont accept Pakistan

 

[solid snake]

Howver, that's not what brought them onto the streets in the first place. The focus of the rallies was to demand better governance and security from the government, and show solidarity with the victims and martyrs. These protesters were not ideologues/political workers - they were middle-class citizens.

Completely untrue. From the Indian media to the Prime Minister to the common man on the street, all we heard in the aftermath of the attacks was Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan. When Condolezza Rice came to visit, the questions all involved Pakistan. It doesn't matter if the people protesting were from the middle class, it was their inclination to dislike Pakistan which was the main feature of any kind of POV expressed by Indians after the attack.

 

[Flintlock]

Completely untrue. From the Indian media to the Prime Minister to the common man on the street, all we heard in the aftermath of the attacks was Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan. When Condolezza Rice came to visit, the questions all involved Pakistan. It doesn't matter if the people protesting were from the middle class, it was their inclination to dislike Pakistan which was the main feature of any kind of POV expressed by Indians after the attack.

That's complete and utter nonsense. Why don't you look up some old newspaper reports and find out what the organizers of the protest rallies at Mumbai/Bangalore/Lucknow/Delhi said in interviews?

More importanty - look up some reports on the massive demonstrations outside the Taj Hotel that were organized.

 

[rubyjackass]

Completely untrue. From the Indian media to the Prime Minister to the common man on the street, all we heard in the aftermath of the attacks was Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan, Pakistan. When Condolezza Rice came to visit, the questions all involved Pakistan. It doesn't matter if the people protesting were from the middle class, it was their inclination to dislike Pakistan which was the main feature of any kind of POV expressed by Indians after the attack.

Those people are concerned with international issues. So they obviously would talk from that perspective. Here the initial evidence and the Indian accusations are against elements in Pakistan. It is also obvious why Rice should not talk about solidarity and the massacre in Pakistan. The answer is relevance.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

.

Quite different from the rallies in Pakistan by religious groups, who were burning Indian, US and Israeli flags and shouting religious slogans...

I glad you pointed who organized those rallies - and that is why passing judgment Pakistani society on the basis of those rallies is wrong.

 

[asaad-ul-islam]

you guys should take a trip around pakistan. there are armed militia everywhere, lashkars, armed with kalashnakovs. you can find these groups in parts of punjab, all over NWFP and FATA(obviously ), and even Balochistan. they are all out for some indian blood, govt. or no govt.

 

[Goodperson]

you guys should take a trip around pakistan. there are armed militia everywhere, lashkars, armed with kalashnakovs. you can find these groups in parts of punjab, all over NWFP and FATA(obviously ), and even Balochistan. they are all out for some indian blood, govt. or no govt.

They may be against India, But just your claim about finding armed militia everywhere signifies lawlessness and lack of GoP control There is nothing to be proud about that.

 

[smeaglegolum]

you guys should take a trip around pakistan. there are armed militia everywhere, lashkars, armed with kalashnakovs. you can find these groups in parts of punjab, all over NWFP and FATA(obviously ), and even Balochistan. they are all out for some indian blood, govt. or no govt.

Any body using Pakistani soil to attack India will have to face the music from India like it is happening with LeT and JuD. The more such events happen the more Pakistan will come under pressure and get alienated from International community (which has already happened to an extent). I'm sure every nation will have threshold, once it is crossed, consequences will be very bad, nuke or no nuke with Pakistan.

 

[Flintlock]

I glad you pointed who organized those rallies - and that is why passing judgment Pakistani society on the basis of those rallies is wrong.

Infact, one must remark that only the religious zealots are willing to fight for their cause in your country.

Where is your middle class? Lapping up Zaid Hamid and Ahmed Qureshi?

 

[Energon]

I think people generally tend to view threats from the 'other' as more significant.

Sneaking into the social and financial center of a city and committing gross acts of barbarism hardly constitutes as a 'threat'. It is a horrific premeditated crime of a very large scale, enabled by a robust infrastructure geared toward orchestrating said horrific premeditated crimes... the worst of its kind.

I'm hence compelled to ask the question again....

Are you suggesting that the inability of the Indian government to stop 10 random individuals from Pakistan sneaking into a city of 19 million people and orchestrating a carnage of epic proportions should have been a bigger point of contention rather than venting anger and frustration at the Pakistani institutions created at the behest of, or with direct support from its government to do exactly this: train and produce animals who commit acts of terrorism, who may or may not still be receiving assistance from parts of the now fractured government agencies and are certainly given a free reign?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sneaking into the social and financial center of a city and committing gross acts of barbarism hardly constitutes as a 'threat'. It is a horrific premeditated crime of a very large scale, enabled by a robust infrastructure geared toward orchestrating said horrific premeditated crimes... the worst of its kind.

I'm hence compelled to ask the question again....

Again, I don't think Blains intent was to question which of the two crimes was 'more horrible' (assuming the perceived gross negligence on the part of the GoI counts as a crime), but to point out that the other (in this case Pakistan, and not the militants) became targets of outrage and ire, and therefore, 'rage at the other' became a unifying factor.

Many Pakistanis see India as a threat - a nation that sponsors terrorism in Pakistan and seeks to destabilize it. For the purposes of this discussion the validity of those perceptions is not important, but understanding that they exist is, because it explains why in the case of Pakistan the threat of war from India becomes a unifying factor that overrides the threat from the Taliban (a threat whose implications are not fully understood for various reasons by Pakistanis anyway).

Again, the whole point of Blains and my post was to suggest that 'fear of the other' in times if crises can be a unifying factor for people, but this doesn't mean that 'fear of the other' is the only unifying factor - since the thread seemed to be heading down the familiar road of the 'Pakistan's only reason for existence is hatred of India' canard.