What's new

proposal for a new division of south asia

Status
Not open for further replies.
i have myself said many times on this forum that the teachings of hazrat isa ( jesus ) and hazrat muhammad was early socialism... it was this that iqbal said and found progression in the russian revolution of 1917.

and i have promoting a post-religion humanity...



many pakistanis do not understand iqbal... they associate socialism with supposed pakistani victory over "godless" soviet union in afghanistan... which is why many pakistanis distort the writings of iqbal.



western bloc propaganda... first they called him a fanatic, then the western bloc puppet, anwar sadat, called him a mad man, then ronald reagan called him other things, along side that they called the history's biggest water supply project, "the man made river project" of libya, as the "pipe dream of a mad man", then obama and his slaves continued that in 2011 because they wanted to invade libya

in truth, he was one of the wisest leaders in human history... successor to nasser and che guevara... his jamahiriya theory... also called "third universal theory"... is the progression of socialism towards the ideal communist humanity.

i am a participant in the "international jamahiriya movement"... please do read the "green book" section i have linked earlier in the reply to "hindu guy".

below is a speech by muammar in the "united nations organization - general assembly" in 2009... one of the finest speeches in history...

below is the famous "dar dar zanga zanga" speech from february 2011... also called "mein antom" speech... also called "ila al amam" speech... he was more sane than most people alive, combined...

i am a humble student of him, of hugo chavez, of che, of nasser and of every revolutionary going back into far human history... i stand on the roads they have built...



incorrect... there was no crown in libya... muammar gaddafi was just the "guide of the revolution", not the president or any such position... the libyan jamahiriya had other legal leaders...

it was his daughter, ayesha, who gave rallying cries during the nato invasion of 2011... this same ayesha was also saddam hussain's lawyer in that fake court arranged by usa and iran.

his sons fought for the libyan jamahiriya... his youngest, khamis, became a legend... heroes they and the libyans...
[/QUOTE]
Gadaffi had no friends in the Middle East. Even anti Western countries like Iran and Sudan and organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah wanted him overthrown. The current anarchy in Libya though shows nobody involved in the overthrow really thought about what they were doing.
 
Last edited:
Without partition India would be 40-50 percent Muslim and inherently unstable. The mistake made was to give no proper thought to where the borders might be thus sparking the mass migration and bloody violence which took place. It was tragic that 1 million died but tens of millions would have died in a civil war.


Only low IQ Indians considers partition as a mistake.


Its all ok for south asia to try to live peacefully, but some socialism social experiment like Cambodia???

They say socialism / communism is as strong a drug as religion. Apprently gives an equally good high too.

Dam! !!

Gaddafi was a loon and left behind a few of his jamaria buffoons. The closest I see Gaddafi to is the Kim Jong clan


This Jamahir is an idiotic clown. He is worse/more irritating clown than Islamic State clowns.

His argument: Since socialism failed everywhere, including India, it is time for "Socialism forte". A classical moronic argument that a lot of IS supporters/apologists also make : Since Islam is root cause of Jihadism, it is time for more Islam.

Do not know how natural selection failed to weed out such stupidity. Probably because every loony retard with a failed ideology has killed enough sane people to maintain genetic balance in his favor.
 
Last edited:
I have to read through all that but I will take your word for it. how is it different from current way we do in India.

what india has is the the british "parliamentary democracy" which is not democracy at all, because the system involves career politicians taking decisions on behalf of the people, and those decisions are not mostly in benefit of the people... the career politicians are there for making money and power... the white house isn't bothered with such a case... ( )... the white house is worried about sustaining "government" for "government's" sake... the "parliamentary system" is a dictatorship of political parties which exist to get into power and use the failed concept of nationalism to continue being in power...

but in jamahiri direct-democracy, every person in such a society participates in the politics of that society by organizing into political units called "basic people's congresses", where they take decisions in consensus, and being within bounds of socialism... and the highest levels of a jamahiri society follow those people's decisions or take decisions keeping in mind the socialist nature of that society...

there are no political parties in a jamahiri society... they are not needed because the people make the decisions directly, without the needed for intermediaries... the leaders of the society are elected or retained by consensus and within bounds of socialism... jamahiriya is the authority of the people, directly...

the system of direct-democracy is also followed by the occupy movement ( esp. occupy london )... hence the white house fears in 2011 that occupy movements were "revenge of muammar gaddafi"...
 
Thanks for pointing out. I am trying to imply that India and Pakistan are multicultural, multilingual societies and we feel close to the people who speaks about or follow them. Say Pashtuns of Pakistan to Afghan Pashtuns or Punjabis across the border. I don't say Nationalism is fake as this is how it was working in past for being loyal to king and kingdom and currently for government, army and nation but bounding it based on religion is mistake of bygone era of King and Pope. People here fight about their religion or National Identity which always precedes in foreign land when it is about culture.

As far as you talk about Indian Nationalism that is bound by only one thing and that is Indian Constitution and there is nothing patriotic about. Goa, Sikkim, Pondicherry etc were not part of India but merged so Nationalism changed, Cultural-ism changed but what is not changed was belief in Indian Constitution even though people might not know what it is. This becomes our first Identity when we cross our border and that makes me close to people from different part of India. This is shear sociological connectivity among 2 people by at least being something common.

Also, Economic boom in India has changed a lot of things in past 20 years. The cultures are becoming more cosmopolitan. People are working from different part of Country and learning other part of culture and carrying with them. Now, In North India, you can see Dandiya functions and Ganesh Visarjan which were never there, so multiculturalism in dissolving in India and coming as nation form. so "Proud to be Indian" is more over coming from people glorifying history, culture and then Indian constitution.
i would never be able to say it though, because it's not true. ex. people say there is a rape problem in india, why should i feel responsible when it's not india it's just bihar and UP? yes i am technically indian but i have zero connection to those parts of india... and that's how 'indian' loses its meaning. another example americans like indian food but why should i claim it when all they know is butter chicken and korma from punjab .

most people would prefer to be from an homogeneous country not a multicultural one. it's because you relate to it better, the more ethnocentric a country is the closer you feel to the entire country, not just one region/state (as in india). that's why chinese people are united and proud... 90% of the population is han-chinese. seems like the only reason for india to stay together is to maintain political power in the region, but not for pride/nationalistic reasons
 
Gadaffi had no friends in the Middle East.

not true... reality is...

in 2012, there were reports of the iraqi "ace of spades", izzat ibrahim al-douri, taking his baathi fighters to libya in support of the jamahiri fighters.

the people of egypt and algeria and tunisia support muammar gaddafi, the imaam of all muslims...

bashar al-assad was friend of muammar gaddafi... and syria was victim of the same nato plot as was libya,

west asia will remember muammar's words from that arab league meeting when he had warned west asian leaders about usa government doing to them what they did with iraq and saddam hussain... especially bashar al-assad will remember those words...

green libyans fight on...

Even anti Western countries like Iran and Sudan and organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah wanted him overthrown.

true... iran government and hezbollah were involved in the nato regime-change in libya... and we remember mahmoud ahmedinejad's laugh when asked by cnn about muammar gaddafi's death...

The current anarchy in Libya though shows nobody involved in the overthrow really thought about what they were doing.

no... the plotters were clear in aims and effects... what nato calls "arab spring", iran calls "islamic reawakening"...

Bhai tu pagal hai. don't take it personally, it's just what hit my mind after i spent about 3 seconds thinking what you have written after reading your report, no offense bro. honestly. cheers !

This Jamahir is an idiotic clown. He is worse/more irritating clown than Islamic State clowns.

can you two provide a better solution ( than mine ) for the problem called "south asia" and better political ideology ( than socialism ) for present and future humanity??
 
I think your intent is good and idea is innovative...Its is a good refreshing thought of course..

Here is my thought...

1- I am not sure if the concept OP propposed will work out, but federation like EU is the distant possibility that is quite possible.
2- To have a stable South Asia, i feel India is the key player to have a different attitude that it has right now. And to acehive that , India needs a strong and visionary leader.
3- Most of the time post independence, Indian politician always find execuse to address the core issue either in name of regionalism, federation structure of India or even nothing works out then we always blame Pakistan and BD for all of our sins...This is an cheap execuse that our Gov has taken for most of the failures to unify the nation.
4- The Hindu people in India needs to be very much reassured about their cultural stability and sense of security in South Asia. Although Hindus are majority in India, but we are always insecure about oursleves because of impact of Msulim culture and Muslim nations all around of us...These fear factor is correct to some extent but again it is an imaginary and self created to surpress the deficiencies that is within the Hindu religion itself. Rather than addressing our religion and its drawback, we love to blame other religion for our downfall. That means social engineering of Hindus are real need at this time.

5- Kashmir is a nuance...With due course of time India and Pakistan has to make a call that these game called Kashmir needs to be stopped...Let LOC convert to permanent border and each nation handle their own area...With due course of time Indian federal structure will be more diluted with states taking more control with their own economy and state of affairs rather than center..In that situation, each state of India will retain their own cultural and regional identity..hence Jammu and Kashmir will find its own place in Indian federal structure...

6- Once India stabilizes to itself, then India/Pak/BD/Srilanka/Nepal/Bhutan can work with each other as a economic federation...like EU but with restriction to access in the initial period of time.

7- Pakistan has to definitely change its attitude towards India and in particular Hindus...As long as Pakistan keep on brianwashing its kids that Hindus are eternal enemey then really nothing is going to happen..This military doctrine of Pakistan towards India must change..India and Pakistan is engaging themselves with war relationship that will not yield anything...

8 - Last but not the least, a stable South Asia needs a confident and stable India as well as Pakistan too...So its important that each nation understand the importance of development of economy ...
 
can you two provide a better solution ( than mine ) for the problem called "south asia" and better political ideology ( than socialism ) for present and future humanity??

whats the big hurry bro ? let industrialization come to south asia, populations become qualitatively rich, educated and satisfied, stupid problems will die down automatically. there is absolutely no need for a new political ideology in this part of the world. it has seen enough and enough and enough of foreign ideologies.

time for a break. time out.
 
Only low IQ Indians considers partition as a mistake.

Unfortunately, for India, there are far too many low IQ people around. Khoon ke assun behene lagthe hain bewakoofon ki baatein sunthe hue :hang2::hang3:
 
all your points are correct but i am not sure what you are trying to imply with that last quote. are you encouraging indian nationalism or regional nationalism? to me indian nationalism is fake and does not exist, tell me if you think i am wrong. as you said in #7, people feel closer to those culturally and linguistically. i live in america and have been to canada and read all over the internet, indian punjabis feel closer to pakistani punjabi muslims than other indians and will call themselves punjabi when they are international. religion matters less and they are more similar than say a kerala hindu... acting as if pakistan and india are so different, when east pakistan and north india are basically the same thing. and many people will find it hard to say "proud to be indian", because--each person is from on state, and there are 28 states in india, so how can you be proud of all of them when you are only from one of them? you are really just 1/28 of india

explain to me if you think i am wrong, i am interested in a reason why some indians are so patriotic (assuming it is not blind patriotism or hinduvata)

I respectfully disagree with you...Although regional nationalism exists but it exist in a different form....It exists in a more cultural form...And i love my regional nationalism as you say to be opened to the outside world though my Indian nationalism...I feel proud about that...For example, suppose I am a bengali or Odiya person...I have my regional ego...But i never display regional ego above my Indian nationalism...I feel proud that my regional nationalism is a subset of Indian nationalism that preserves and respect such a multi cultural and multi language culture inside it....So you may have a differnt opinion but every one does not think in the same way as you think...
 
I respectfully disagree with you...Although regional nationalism exists but it exist in a different form....It exists in a more cultural form...And i love my regional nationalism as you say to be opened to the outside world though my Indian nationalism...I feel proud about that...For example, suppose I am a bengali or Odiya person...I have my regional ego...But i never display regional ego above my Indian nationalism...I feel proud that my regional nationalism is a subset of Indian nationalism that preserves and respect such a multi cultural and multi language culture inside it....So you may have a differnt opinion but every one does not think in the same way as you think...
yes we do think differently. i want so much to compare india to european union, but even europeans are more similar to each other than indians, and they are a continent. the biggest divide in india is the dravidian/indo aryan languages, which have 100% separate histories and cultures and origins (european languages are similar). then you take the fact that europeans actually have a common religion, christianity, whereas indians have many religions with different heritages. also account for the fact that europeans are all one race, whereas indian race varies from indo aryan in north to mongoloid in NE and then dravidian mediteranean down south (haplogroups/charts/etc) and then an ASI component throughout

overall it is too complicated. if india were more like europe i could understand. when a british person goes to africa, he says "i am european" and is still prideful... but indians are literally different in every single way so i don't think i could be like that.
 
not one of those incidents should have happened... each is a violation of human rights... and in truth, it is human rights and common sense and being natural that are really sacred... religion and god and ritualism are not primary...
Of course, None of them should happen and nobody denies the fact but except few cases, it happens across the world. As much as you talk about Human rights, you forget that those acted on that are also "Humans". Lets take an example of US where a white cop shot Black teenager and then there were riots and arsoning. How would this stop when it is happening in a country where Human rights, Laws etc everything is strict. I am not defending but I am saying you are seeing the things out of perspective.
i don't see priyanka chopra doing a film about irom sharmila, the real heroine of manipur... i don't see aamir khan talking grandly about honor killings... i don't see walks and actions against dogs... i see only silence about the 69 dead... i see only people gambling in "kaun banega crorepati", truly knowing that it is their only chance to get out of middle-class poverty...
Why Priyanka, Aamir and Salman are expected to do so? Because they are celebrity? That doesn't make a sense. Who denies India doesn't have problem or as a fact of matter every country has its own problem but Celebrities are not the answers but Social servants are. This has been proved by recent noble prize.

Regarding, KBC or struggling to come out of Poverty, people don't only gamble but they do hard work many times. TV and movies are fantasies and who doesn't want to live in fantasy and I dont find it an issue.
------
socialism is the only path... a communist humanity is the only respectable ideal... please do read another related thread... ( The Worldwide Government )...
Socialism can be solution so good democracy as well as Good dictatorship, It only depends only on the stakeholder the way they are behaving. I will see that thread but somehow I am missing your reason for argument. What do you want to convey, India has problems, yes there are lots of ! We agreed in starting. You want to be pessimistic, others wanted to be optimistic.


i would never be able to say it though, because it's not true. ex. people say there is a rape problem in india, why should i feel responsible when it's not india it's just bihar and UP? yes i am technically indian but i have zero connection to those parts of india... and that's how 'indian' loses its meaning. another example americans like indian food but why should i claim it when all they know is butter chicken and korma from punjab .

most people would prefer to be from an homogeneous country not a multicultural one. it's because you relate to it better, the more ethnocentric a country is the closer you feel to the entire country, not just one region/state (as in india). that's why chinese people are united and proud... 90% of the population is han-chinese. seems like the only reason for india to stay together is to maintain political power in the region, but not for pride/nationalistic reasons

First thing first, Rape problem is not only of UP or Bihar but anywhere in India. Stop blaming UP and Bihar !

You are technically Indian and that is your Identity when you go outside India. Now, if you are not feeling connected to other part of India is due to the fact, you might never stayed in other parts. I think in the same way till 22 yrs of age but once I completed my engg, worked many parts of India and world then I realized how close we are. It all depends what you want to see.

There is no large country in the world which can be generalized, even in US, Texans are different than Californians or Bostans. Even Canada has lots of differences in east or West and Quebec vs other Provinces. China may have ethnic Han population but take example of Macau, Hong Kong, Tibet, Uigher etc they are different, some speak Mandarin and some Cantonese so generalization fails again.

India will be together in comparison to others is that we are passive society so we assimilate other religion and culture. If India had to break then it would have done in with in 30 years of Independence now it will be stronger as people are migrating from one state to other.

Also, It depends how specific or how generalize you want to see. After some time, One will say that my city is not same as next city so why I should go for love of state/province.
 
Nothing new.

Mission plan in 1946 was pretty much what you state.

Please study history.

And figure out who rejected it, and why?
I know this mate , it was Nehru & his lust for power who rejected it, you will be amazed to learn that it was Qauid-e-Azam Md.Ali Jinnah & Mahatma Gandhi, who agreed to the cabinet mission plan , when Gandhi ji supported Md.Ali Jinnah in this, Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi (note the role of Gandhi in negotiation with the British, diminished considerably after that , as Nehru made sure that Gandhi becomes symbolic rather then have a say in political matters in the real term) in fact the cabinet mission plan was the undisputed victory of both Qauid-e-Azam & Allama Iqbal , as the struggle from the beginning was to secure two large autonomous provinces within the framework of a federation , I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !
 
confederation of who and how??



difficult... but hindi is a compromise or balance language... bombay films ( hindi ) are watched everywhere... pakistan's official language is urdu... other indian states watch hindi films... and afghanistan and bangladesh know this language... difficult but with forceful leaders, can be achieved.

How is this relevant to Telugus, Kannadigas, Tamils and Malayalis, or to Bengalis, Odiyas, Assamese, Khasis, Bodos, Nagas, Kukis, Meitei, Mizos, Lepchas, Gurkhas, and the host of others outside the Hindi speakers? Why do you think any of these would hold still for Hindi imposition, or Urdu imposition on them?
 
can you two provide a better solution ( than mine ) for the problem called "south asia" and better political ideology ( than socialism ) for present and future humanity??

Yes,

There are scores of ideologies that are more successful than bloodthirsty ideology of socialism.

But, i am not an evangelist. I have no motivation to waste my time in order to convert you. So, writhe in cesspool of socialism. If you become a problem, you would be eliminated like a Pig, similar to how your naxal brothers have been.
 
I know this mate , it was Nehru & his lust for power who rejected it, you will be amazed to learn that it was Qauid-e-Azam Md.Ali Jinnah & Mahatma Gandhi, who agreed to the cabinet mission plan , when Gandhi ji supported Md.Ali Jinnah in this, Nehru felt betrayed by Gandhi (note the role of Gandhi in negotiation with the British, diminished considerably after that , as Nehru made sure that Gandhi becomes symbolic rather then have a say in political matters in the real term) in fact the cabinet mission plan was the undisputed victory of both Qauid-e-Azam & Allama Iqbal , as the struggle from the beginning was to secure two large autonomous provinces within the framework of a federation , I think even Ayub Khan had also proposed a joint Indo-Pak defense agreement , in a federation with two autonomous province & Quaid e Azam Md.Ali Jinnah as its prime minister, the Quaid would almost certainly make sure that the arm forces had the maximum numbers of Muslims , & that would be the masterstroke with which, the power of running federal India would ultimately favour the Muslims , it was the best solution ,which power hungry Nehru & the ever deceitful British had to ruin it, & they did

he who has the Army, has the keys to Authority !

While I generally agree with this analysis, the role of the British was so blatantly pro-Muslim merging later into pro-Pakistan that it was difficult to visualise what Pakistan might have been without their overt support.

Take for instance the role of Major Brown in the events in Chitral, in Gilgit, and then in Baltistan and Ladakh, from parts of which he withdrew. The entire map of Kashmir today, the entire Northern Territory is his doing. And this is just an overt expression; there was so much covert pressure, against India, for Pakistan.

Not just at the time of partition but later. That is why it is poignant to read Imran Khan's analysis. How much other nations backed Pakistan, and how little got translated into development.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom