Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
Well if you so badly want India to want Pakistan destroyed then perhaps it is inevitable that we end up in conflict.
Stable Pakistan not in Indias interest
- Thread starter Spring Onion
- Start date
Well if you so badly want India to want Pakistan destroyed then perhaps it is inevitable that we end up in conflict.
Goodperson
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,860
- Reaction score
- 0
No one wants Pakistan destroyed it will never happen and you know it.
Akhand Bharat seldom gets mentioned even in Indian media as I have not seen it for years.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
When India decides that there actually is a dispute, then there will be something to resolve, in the meantime we are doing what we can.
I am not missing the point at all - Indians wishing to destroy Pakistan, as the author indicates in this piece, and what Pakistan needs to do to become a prosperous nation are two different issues.
If that is not it, perhaps you should articulate your point better.
Last edited:
Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
I did articulate my point, so I guess we'd might as well forget it.
Awesome
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,023
- Reaction score
- 5
It would be better if you could kill your reasons to destroy Pak.
Resolve Kashmir
Fight your hindu fundamentalists and their hindutva ideologies.
jeypore
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,885
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
These are not lame excuses, on the contrary it would be realistic senario, whouldn't you agree?. And like i have said pakistan destalize is not in my best interest, and i do disagree with the author. So, do not get me wrong here.
third eye
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2008
- Messages
- 18,519
- Reaction score
- 13
- Country
- Location
The fact is the muslim league got what it wanted in 1947 but could'nt handle it. The nation allowed itself to be split / dismembered due to poor governance.
No one except crazy Political parties talks of akhand Bharat .. and no one wants it either. No one in his right mind would want Pak destroyed. If not for love for Pak simply coz we wouldn't want the mess that now is Pak to percolate any more than it already has into the Indian system.
Pak is welcome to having taliban as its neighbours, after all they started it..having them in J&K is bad enough.
A destroyed pakistan is worse than an existing one.
AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
This would be the second thread, after the Delhi blast thread, that someone has no clue what you are on about.
Anyway, we are going off topic by arguing about off topic issues, back to the thread subject please.
jeypore
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2008
- Messages
- 2,885
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Why India is a stable democracy and Pakistan is not?
Writer has tried to find out the answer of a question as to Why is it that India has evolved into a stable democracy but Pakistan has not been able to do so? He has drawn a comparison between India and Pakistan with various variable.
What irks all the youth in Pakistan is; what circumstances have led to an evolution of stable democracy in India whereas Pakistan struggles between military dictatorship and dubious sporadic democratic governments. To shape governmental systems of both countries various socio-economic, cultural, religious, political and other vital scenarios which are not only common in India and Pakistan but specific to each nation have been carefully analyzed.
Governmental or political system can take the form of either an authoritarian or democratic government. Democracy is the right of the people to exercise their political sovereignty either through the citizens directly or through an elected representative, which operates through a parliamentary or a presidential system. In such a system we find characteristics like representative legislature, regular and timely elections, enactment of laws through an independent judicial system and various rights or freedom that should be bestowed upon a citizen. Also there are more then one political party competing for that position of power and responsibility. An exact system like this can hardly be seen around and incorporation of all its details is very arduous. However, a few Western countries have come closer to this definition of utopian democratic state. The system may or may not be optimal for every country, however it does posses a few good elements or components which even an authoritarian government would like to have in its rule. Such elements can be freedom of individuals and minority rights, some electoral concept to choose governors for its districts and other components that increase the general welfare of its subject.
Having described the form of democracy that has to be practiced in order to be called a democratic state, two neighboring countries of India and Pakistan that vary as far as the democratic stability is concerned can be evaluated on basis of the described model of democratic state thought with little minus plus.
Post Partition India and Pakistan: Taking into consideration the varying conditions each found itself in after partition because these situations are really important to keep in mind while deriving a comparison between two countries. Political instability in Pakistan’s embryonic stages and particularly in the ten years after partition led to a situation where the military got a chance to intervene and impose its management design. Along with the fact that Pakistan was weak in early stages there are several other variables introduced corroborating the role of military intervention in Pakistan’s political system and as to why democracy has not been able to succeed in the last 60 years.
Pakistan was not able to culminate into a stable democracy; there is a set of variables including education, economic growth etc essential for a democratic system to thrive. Let’s find these variables and compare these factors with the reality to see and differentiate what actually went wrong. Democracy needs a population that is literate. In order to follow and perform the democratic norms to its true meaning, there is a need of population that can not only understand but also has the capacity to follow it. After independence, majority of population was illiterate and the idea of democracy alien to their existence. Muslims also refrained from acquiring Western education as it was considered to be a deviance from the religion. So after independence when majority of educated non-Muslim migrated to India and influx of uneducated Muslims from India started, there was little hope that the masses of newly born Pakistan would be well equipped to understand and follow the democratic system that would be imposed on them. Hindus and Sikhs on the other hand were more integrated into the British system and were already well incorporated into it. So after partition, there was not much deviance from their usual self and India was able to settle down more easily then their neighbors.
Economic growth is the backbone of any country to let flourish democracy. Thus it is important to incorporate the economic well being of a nation to even draw a comparison between India and Pakistan. The general standards of living are very necessary to ponder upon to evaluate whether the population has enough energy in them to enact democratic system. A country with a very low standard of living, where an individual strives very hard to obtain the basic necessities of life and in some situation even fails to get it, will be least concerned about what system of government is being followed. His primary concern would be how to feed himself and his family. If he ever gets a chance to think of something besides that, he would observe his miserable situation and would at best be hostile to the government for the misery he is going through. Pakistan is one of the poorest nations in the world and has a population that is generally busy in self-sustenance and cares less about the governmental form though this concept is changing bit with the passage of time and emergence of media. India; though; is poor too but its fairs well on other fronts (components) to establish a very stable system of democratic government, Indian government also pays attention to the uplift of the people and try to indulge their best lot into productive works, rapid growth in Information Technology in India is best example where government has foreseen the importance of this upcoming need of the world and started making themselves compatible with IT whereas Pakistan is still trying to make its place on international forums but stands nowhere.
The third factor that is very important to measure the strength of a political system to evolve successful as democratic system is the trust of general populations towards those in power. Any system is hard to establish and prosper if it does not enjoy a certain amount of trust and support of the population. Those in power have always seemed to be the oppressors. The scenario in Pakistan’s case has not changed much since independence. The new government whether chosen through elections or imposed upon them in the form of military dictatorship has not done much to alleviate the misery and suffering of the masses and hence does not account for a favorable attitude towards the government. The general welfare is directly proportional to the trust a government can gain however paying less attention to this factor nothing has been done to improve the welfare of the society, whereas in India’s case, she has worked towards the welfare and well being of its population with regards to land reforms, agriculture, education and poverty alleviation of the general masses. The government understands the problems and is seemed as trying to alleviate there miseries. But the great hurdle in the growth of India has been its huge population and assumes when government will not be able to fulfill the needs of all masses, there will always be a large population of poor people and resultantly there will always be resentment towards the government. However, the general consensus or the feeling that the government is trying, is sufficient enough to warrant support from the masses and hence helps to establish a democratic system of government. After realizing the fact of huge population India has started exploiting its population like China did. Instead of making the population they have made it strength and now taking work from this population in accordance.
It is also important to incorporate the presence of a worthy opposition while weighing the success of democratic systems in India and Pakistan. The opposition acts as a proxy to keep in check the political party in power and helps creating a political environment that is conducive for flourishing of democratic norms. Absence of strong opposition has made the case of Pakistan weaker on International fronts where there was no force available to conduct accountability of the rulers. Unfortunately who so ever has formulated government or in opposition have been from the feudalistic societies or operating in personalized politics. This very feudalistic and personalized political system in Pakistan always considered the opposition as hindrance to their rule rather then a competition and a challenge to improve unlike Indians do. The political party in power always tried to eliminate competition by hook or crook.
It is also pertinent to mention the exposure to democracy in both India and Pakistan before and after independence and the presence of strong leadership. The fact that the democratic system is a Western concept by nature is alien to those it is being imposed upon. The cultural and social norm warrants a certain degree of exposure to it and through a source that is considered to be credible. Such a credible source can be in the form of a strong leadership. In Pakistan’s case, she was robbed of such a leadership in the very beginning of its independence with the loss of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan. The subsequent leaders were not able to connect to the masses and hence the democratic form of government lost the leadership it required to connect to the masses while it was exactly opposite in case of India.
The presence of qualified professional machinery to run system of government is very crucial and should be incorporated while deriving comparison. Pakistan with its majority Muslim population who was never at ease with the Western non-Muslim ideas lacked such professionals. Despite the fact Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started Ali Garh Movement to make the Muslims of sub continent acquainted with western education system to compete with Hindus and British in Sub Continent. However those who remained after partition gradually migrated across the border as the establishment saw them as remnants of colonial past and was hostile towards them. India on the other hand with its Hindu West friendly population got its fair share of professionals and civil servants who were well versed in the art of government functioning from their colonial days.
International relations and the foreign policies are worth considering factors for analyzing the success of a system’s democratic worth. On issue of Jammu Kashmir and division of Sub Continent Pakistan has a born neighboring enemy that warrants formation of a strong military, hence the democratic elements in the society looses it importance in presence of such a heavy military establishment. Military bureaucracy has been influencing government for its vested interests and deem themselves worthy managers of country’s well being. The situation becomes exacerbated when the democratic government lacks credibility. Pakistan faced this situation after independence as it had to establish a strong military to secure itself and maintain the balance of power in the region. The failure of early government meant that military dictators projected themselves as true guardians of country’s welfare and interests. This was a huge blow to any possibility of future democratic governments. India on the other hand kept the military at bay and subservient to the civil authorities. Their tasks were clearly defined and the strong leadership of Gandhi and then Nehru led India to forming one of the most stable democratic governments in the non-western region. Pakistan has always been unable to establish relations with Afghanistan, Russia and other neighboring countries including all Muslim Countries due to the repeated intrusion of military bureaucracy into matters of government. Thus Pakistan is forced to have a Pro-American policy that has been a constant check on the prosperous democratic system.
Specific problems including constitutional, sectarian, provincialism, religious, ethnic and lingual issues are very important to prove the success of the democratic system. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic with Muslim majority. The strong faith of people in religion supported formation of government which adhered more to the Islamic principles then to western democratic ideas. The imposition of this idea onto them called for resistance by the masses and its lack of popularity meant that in future when the democratic governments were under threat, the masses were not too worried about it and went on as usual. Another problem specific to Pakistan was its geographic intricacy. With its East half on the other side of India, the management of both halves became difficult as people on the other hand spoke different languages, belonged to different culture and to make things worse were marginalized by Western leaders.
These factors culminate into a conclusion which provides the basis for an instable democratic government in Pakistan. Another way to answer this question was to take the initial conditions in both the countries as given and how both fared to do after independence in their own respective capacities. It can also be true that given the initial endowment of factors in Pakistan, it might have put more effort then it is actually given credit for. We could have also looked at why the democratic system is not suited to the Pakistani society and has therefore not been successful in this country. The method, however we have chosen, compares two like cases. India was a perfect case to compare Pakistan since it is one of the few non-western countries to have successfully established a democratic system. So the variables which we have introduced into the design can not only be used for Pakistan only but for other countries as well.
Why India is a stable democracy and Pakistan is not?|Pakistan Times!
Writer has tried to find out the answer of a question as to Why is it that India has evolved into a stable democracy but Pakistan has not been able to do so? He has drawn a comparison between India and Pakistan with various variable.
What irks all the youth in Pakistan is; what circumstances have led to an evolution of stable democracy in India whereas Pakistan struggles between military dictatorship and dubious sporadic democratic governments. To shape governmental systems of both countries various socio-economic, cultural, religious, political and other vital scenarios which are not only common in India and Pakistan but specific to each nation have been carefully analyzed.
Governmental or political system can take the form of either an authoritarian or democratic government. Democracy is the right of the people to exercise their political sovereignty either through the citizens directly or through an elected representative, which operates through a parliamentary or a presidential system. In such a system we find characteristics like representative legislature, regular and timely elections, enactment of laws through an independent judicial system and various rights or freedom that should be bestowed upon a citizen. Also there are more then one political party competing for that position of power and responsibility. An exact system like this can hardly be seen around and incorporation of all its details is very arduous. However, a few Western countries have come closer to this definition of utopian democratic state. The system may or may not be optimal for every country, however it does posses a few good elements or components which even an authoritarian government would like to have in its rule. Such elements can be freedom of individuals and minority rights, some electoral concept to choose governors for its districts and other components that increase the general welfare of its subject.
Having described the form of democracy that has to be practiced in order to be called a democratic state, two neighboring countries of India and Pakistan that vary as far as the democratic stability is concerned can be evaluated on basis of the described model of democratic state thought with little minus plus.
Post Partition India and Pakistan: Taking into consideration the varying conditions each found itself in after partition because these situations are really important to keep in mind while deriving a comparison between two countries. Political instability in Pakistan’s embryonic stages and particularly in the ten years after partition led to a situation where the military got a chance to intervene and impose its management design. Along with the fact that Pakistan was weak in early stages there are several other variables introduced corroborating the role of military intervention in Pakistan’s political system and as to why democracy has not been able to succeed in the last 60 years.
Pakistan was not able to culminate into a stable democracy; there is a set of variables including education, economic growth etc essential for a democratic system to thrive. Let’s find these variables and compare these factors with the reality to see and differentiate what actually went wrong. Democracy needs a population that is literate. In order to follow and perform the democratic norms to its true meaning, there is a need of population that can not only understand but also has the capacity to follow it. After independence, majority of population was illiterate and the idea of democracy alien to their existence. Muslims also refrained from acquiring Western education as it was considered to be a deviance from the religion. So after independence when majority of educated non-Muslim migrated to India and influx of uneducated Muslims from India started, there was little hope that the masses of newly born Pakistan would be well equipped to understand and follow the democratic system that would be imposed on them. Hindus and Sikhs on the other hand were more integrated into the British system and were already well incorporated into it. So after partition, there was not much deviance from their usual self and India was able to settle down more easily then their neighbors.
Economic growth is the backbone of any country to let flourish democracy. Thus it is important to incorporate the economic well being of a nation to even draw a comparison between India and Pakistan. The general standards of living are very necessary to ponder upon to evaluate whether the population has enough energy in them to enact democratic system. A country with a very low standard of living, where an individual strives very hard to obtain the basic necessities of life and in some situation even fails to get it, will be least concerned about what system of government is being followed. His primary concern would be how to feed himself and his family. If he ever gets a chance to think of something besides that, he would observe his miserable situation and would at best be hostile to the government for the misery he is going through. Pakistan is one of the poorest nations in the world and has a population that is generally busy in self-sustenance and cares less about the governmental form though this concept is changing bit with the passage of time and emergence of media. India; though; is poor too but its fairs well on other fronts (components) to establish a very stable system of democratic government, Indian government also pays attention to the uplift of the people and try to indulge their best lot into productive works, rapid growth in Information Technology in India is best example where government has foreseen the importance of this upcoming need of the world and started making themselves compatible with IT whereas Pakistan is still trying to make its place on international forums but stands nowhere.
The third factor that is very important to measure the strength of a political system to evolve successful as democratic system is the trust of general populations towards those in power. Any system is hard to establish and prosper if it does not enjoy a certain amount of trust and support of the population. Those in power have always seemed to be the oppressors. The scenario in Pakistan’s case has not changed much since independence. The new government whether chosen through elections or imposed upon them in the form of military dictatorship has not done much to alleviate the misery and suffering of the masses and hence does not account for a favorable attitude towards the government. The general welfare is directly proportional to the trust a government can gain however paying less attention to this factor nothing has been done to improve the welfare of the society, whereas in India’s case, she has worked towards the welfare and well being of its population with regards to land reforms, agriculture, education and poverty alleviation of the general masses. The government understands the problems and is seemed as trying to alleviate there miseries. But the great hurdle in the growth of India has been its huge population and assumes when government will not be able to fulfill the needs of all masses, there will always be a large population of poor people and resultantly there will always be resentment towards the government. However, the general consensus or the feeling that the government is trying, is sufficient enough to warrant support from the masses and hence helps to establish a democratic system of government. After realizing the fact of huge population India has started exploiting its population like China did. Instead of making the population they have made it strength and now taking work from this population in accordance.
It is also important to incorporate the presence of a worthy opposition while weighing the success of democratic systems in India and Pakistan. The opposition acts as a proxy to keep in check the political party in power and helps creating a political environment that is conducive for flourishing of democratic norms. Absence of strong opposition has made the case of Pakistan weaker on International fronts where there was no force available to conduct accountability of the rulers. Unfortunately who so ever has formulated government or in opposition have been from the feudalistic societies or operating in personalized politics. This very feudalistic and personalized political system in Pakistan always considered the opposition as hindrance to their rule rather then a competition and a challenge to improve unlike Indians do. The political party in power always tried to eliminate competition by hook or crook.
It is also pertinent to mention the exposure to democracy in both India and Pakistan before and after independence and the presence of strong leadership. The fact that the democratic system is a Western concept by nature is alien to those it is being imposed upon. The cultural and social norm warrants a certain degree of exposure to it and through a source that is considered to be credible. Such a credible source can be in the form of a strong leadership. In Pakistan’s case, she was robbed of such a leadership in the very beginning of its independence with the loss of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan. The subsequent leaders were not able to connect to the masses and hence the democratic form of government lost the leadership it required to connect to the masses while it was exactly opposite in case of India.
The presence of qualified professional machinery to run system of government is very crucial and should be incorporated while deriving comparison. Pakistan with its majority Muslim population who was never at ease with the Western non-Muslim ideas lacked such professionals. Despite the fact Sir Syed Ahmed Khan started Ali Garh Movement to make the Muslims of sub continent acquainted with western education system to compete with Hindus and British in Sub Continent. However those who remained after partition gradually migrated across the border as the establishment saw them as remnants of colonial past and was hostile towards them. India on the other hand with its Hindu West friendly population got its fair share of professionals and civil servants who were well versed in the art of government functioning from their colonial days.
International relations and the foreign policies are worth considering factors for analyzing the success of a system’s democratic worth. On issue of Jammu Kashmir and division of Sub Continent Pakistan has a born neighboring enemy that warrants formation of a strong military, hence the democratic elements in the society looses it importance in presence of such a heavy military establishment. Military bureaucracy has been influencing government for its vested interests and deem themselves worthy managers of country’s well being. The situation becomes exacerbated when the democratic government lacks credibility. Pakistan faced this situation after independence as it had to establish a strong military to secure itself and maintain the balance of power in the region. The failure of early government meant that military dictators projected themselves as true guardians of country’s welfare and interests. This was a huge blow to any possibility of future democratic governments. India on the other hand kept the military at bay and subservient to the civil authorities. Their tasks were clearly defined and the strong leadership of Gandhi and then Nehru led India to forming one of the most stable democratic governments in the non-western region. Pakistan has always been unable to establish relations with Afghanistan, Russia and other neighboring countries including all Muslim Countries due to the repeated intrusion of military bureaucracy into matters of government. Thus Pakistan is forced to have a Pro-American policy that has been a constant check on the prosperous democratic system.
Specific problems including constitutional, sectarian, provincialism, religious, ethnic and lingual issues are very important to prove the success of the democratic system. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic with Muslim majority. The strong faith of people in religion supported formation of government which adhered more to the Islamic principles then to western democratic ideas. The imposition of this idea onto them called for resistance by the masses and its lack of popularity meant that in future when the democratic governments were under threat, the masses were not too worried about it and went on as usual. Another problem specific to Pakistan was its geographic intricacy. With its East half on the other side of India, the management of both halves became difficult as people on the other hand spoke different languages, belonged to different culture and to make things worse were marginalized by Western leaders.
These factors culminate into a conclusion which provides the basis for an instable democratic government in Pakistan. Another way to answer this question was to take the initial conditions in both the countries as given and how both fared to do after independence in their own respective capacities. It can also be true that given the initial endowment of factors in Pakistan, it might have put more effort then it is actually given credit for. We could have also looked at why the democratic system is not suited to the Pakistani society and has therefore not been successful in this country. The method, however we have chosen, compares two like cases. India was a perfect case to compare Pakistan since it is one of the few non-western countries to have successfully established a democratic system. So the variables which we have introduced into the design can not only be used for Pakistan only but for other countries as well.
Why India is a stable democracy and Pakistan is not?|Pakistan Times!
Flintlock
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 6,176
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry, that ain't happening.
So looks like the verdict is out. I'll go tell my cronies in the RAW and South Block that its time to destroy Pak.
Khuda Hafiz.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
Its in India's whole hearted interest to ensure that Pakistan reins in the terrorists in NFWP and FATA. Remember when intially Pakistan was going all out against these people and had to move its military from the eastern borders, India chose to help by removing forces a bit from the forward areas. If Pakistan fails to control these elements, it affects India the most in the most negative manner. So your fact that India is supporting the TTP is absolutely false.
I think its just the regular Pakistani view that all problems are caused by some one else, you never look to blame yourselves for anything.
Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
I have told you Agno, that in my opinion it is better to have a stable Pakistan and not a strong Pakistan till the time there is much more trade b/w India and Pakistan.
Vinod2070
BANNED
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 10,552
- Reaction score
- -2
- Country
- Location
Its just an article among many that are routinely churned out by these "think tanks". They do not reflect the policy of the country, just present the policy makers with a menu of options to choose from.
No Indian leader has publicly advocated the desire to destabilize Pakistan. Some private citizens may not mind that and that is their private business. That is unlike Pakistan where serving generals, Presidents and "Intelligence" chiefs have made rabid anti-India comments including openly talking of promoting divisions of India. Groups openly advocating the agenda were openly collecting "Zakat" for this "noble" cause in Pakistani city markets not so long back.
It will be up to Pakistanis to stabilize or destabilize their country. The outsiders can only help either way to a limited extent. Ideally a stable, satisfied Pakistan not looking to forcibly change borders and looking to engage positively in the region is the best option.
No Indian leader has publicly advocated the desire to destabilize Pakistan. Some private citizens may not mind that and that is their private business. That is unlike Pakistan where serving generals, Presidents and "Intelligence" chiefs have made rabid anti-India comments including openly talking of promoting divisions of India. Groups openly advocating the agenda were openly collecting "Zakat" for this "noble" cause in Pakistani city markets not so long back.
It will be up to Pakistanis to stabilize or destabilize their country. The outsiders can only help either way to a limited extent. Ideally a stable, satisfied Pakistan not looking to forcibly change borders and looking to engage positively in the region is the best option.
su-47
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,426
- Reaction score
- 0
This article reflects the view of a small minority within a nation of a billion people, and already many members have made up their minds that India wants nothing more than to destroy Pakistan.
How many times has Pakistan openly supported anti-India movements. the world over it is a known fact that Pakistan supports insurgency in Kashmir. So if the government of Pakistan and its military overtly supports a policy of destabilizing India, don't you think that at least some Indians will feel that its high time we play the same game? and for those who support the break up of India, don't you think its hypocritical that you get your feathers ruffled when a crummy article supports the break up or destabilization of Pakistan?
now for the article, its evident that this guy is short-sighted. a destabilized Pakistan will benefit India in the short-run, since it will drain resources used to supply anti-India insurgents, but in the long-run, any hope for peace will be destroyed, and Pakistan will be stuck in a feudal time-warp, and become a haven for extremism.
so in short, i think the article is crap. any article promoting violence is crap
How many times has Pakistan openly supported anti-India movements. the world over it is a known fact that Pakistan supports insurgency in Kashmir. So if the government of Pakistan and its military overtly supports a policy of destabilizing India, don't you think that at least some Indians will feel that its high time we play the same game? and for those who support the break up of India, don't you think its hypocritical that you get your feathers ruffled when a crummy article supports the break up or destabilization of Pakistan?
now for the article, its evident that this guy is short-sighted. a destabilized Pakistan will benefit India in the short-run, since it will drain resources used to supply anti-India insurgents, but in the long-run, any hope for peace will be destroyed, and Pakistan will be stuck in a feudal time-warp, and become a haven for extremism.
so in short, i think the article is crap. any article promoting violence is crap
DarkStar
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 116
- Reaction score
- 0
Great to see some field agents sharing with us their intelligence assessment of market sweeps.
If you knew anything about the Islamic concept of zakat, u would be aware that zakat is not to be apportioned to such uses, it is intended to be given to poor needy people on a strict criteria.
On the other hand, it is high time you looked in the mirror. You have followed a policy of destabilising your neighbours, while maintaining official silence on this subject. Your activities ranging from your support of the communists in Pakistan in the 50's, Balochi nationalists in the 60's til present, patronising the karachi ghundas in the name of mohajirism, bomb attacks carried out in conjuction with the kgb throughout the 80s, supporting various factions in Afghanistan to destabilise it. Your doings in the Sri Lanka conflict led to the assasination of Rajiv Gandhi, and Nepali's rightly accuse India of helping to prepetuate the conflict there recently. Not to mention, giving support to the non entity Dalai Lama and his bunch of refugees, just to destabilise Tibet.
The list goes on and on.
Jin kay ghar sheeshon kay hote hain, woh doosron par pathar nahin phenktay.
