What's new

Two-nation theory has bred practice of hatred

India and Bangladesh

By Kuldip Nayar December 1, 2008

The first time when I went to Dhaka a few weeks after the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, I could even taste pro-India feelings but with noticeable anti-Hindu sentiments. A few days ago when I was there, I sensed something entirely opposite. There is a strong anti-India feeling but a positive attitude towards Hindus who constitute 9.1 percent of Bangladesh population.

In early 1972, I heard Hindus complaining about their inhibition in celebrating their festivals. This time they told me how Durga Puja was held at Ramma Bari Maidan and Dhakarwari temple at Dhaka with all the rites and prayers. The temples and the images were well decorated at both the places. Thousands of devotees and their friends, including hundreds of Muslims, were present "to savour the sight and solemn feeling of the occasion," as a Hindu leader put it.

India and Bangladesh | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online
 
.
You indians need to control your hatred, we didnt do anything wrong...almost all of us hav been living in our land forever so we decided what we want for our land, and theres still few sikhs and hindus left in pakistan its not like we forced anyone out of their homes. pakistan was majority muslim region for over a thousand years...different from hindustan...deal with it already. we didnt come from a different continent like israelis have.

Agreed 100%

Pakistan has always been for Pakistanis. Why Indians seem to think its their land is beyond me. They seem to be hellbent on the idea of a Hindu majority Govt controlling Muslim majority states, as if Kashmir is a great example.

I can only presume 1000 years of Muslim rule left a bad mark on their egos.
 
.
Khaleej Times Online

South Asia’s Triangle of Madness
Jonathan Power

8 December 2008
Those whom the gods destroy they first make mad.” There is madness about the triangular relationship between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

They all have resented and often hated each other, made alliances against each other, worked together when it was opportune, supported or, at least, turned too much of a blind eye to terrorists in each other’s countries and became profoundly angry if terrorism was unleashed against them.

These cleavages have their roots back to the days of the Great Game of the nineteenth century, the British-Russian struggle for supremacy in Afghanistan and central Asia.

But ever since the Red Army invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and was finally defeated by the Taleban aided by American, Saudi Arabian and Indian arms and training, the intensity of the game has been ratcheted up and extended step by step to now frightening proportions, worsened by America’s decision to go to war with its former close ally, the Taleban. It is no longer just a Great Game. It has become Great Madness. One hostile act impacts on another and then the two together create a third and then the three together create a fourth, and so on.

It has long been known that the Pakistan-based terrorists, who struggle to liberate Kashmir from India’s grip, have close connections with the Taleban. There is also little doubt that those terrorists whose primary interest is a free Kashmir see one way of wounding India is to hurt India’s growing political and diplomatic interests in Afghanistan, which in turn has been all about encircling Pakistan in order to have a counter against Pakistan’s Kashmir ambitions.

At the same time it is fair to say that successive Pakistan governments over the last decade have attempted to rein in the terrorists who operate from Pakistani soil or Pakistani Kashmir. But given past channels of support from earlier governments and the close connection developed over decades between terrorist movements trying to liberate Kashmir or to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan and Pakistan’s intelligence services, it has proved difficult to completely break the old time umbilical cord.

Pakistani tactics profoundly changed for the better under president Pervez Musharraf and they have arguably changed even more under the new government of President Zardari who, let us not forget, lost his wife, Benazir Bhutto, in the bombing carried out by these very same Pakistan-based terrorists. His statement renouncing Pakistan’s first use doctrine for its nuclear weapons was a landmark step forward.

Now with the Mumbai terrorist action, it seems that India and Pakistan are being pushed back to square one. This is largely India’s fault. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government has been too slow to respond to overtures of peace from Pakistan. The insouciant body language that shrugged off Zardari’s statement on nuclear policy was totally reprehensible given its significance. But even worse was Singh’s refusal to grab the deal offered by Musharraf at a time when he controlled both the government and military of Pakistan. Every Western diplomat I talked to in Islamabad and New Delhi last year thought that India would never get a better offer.

Musharraf stunningly reversed Pakistan’s long time policy by implicitly accepting India’s continuing rule over its part of Kashmir.

These same diplomats believe that Singh is India’s leading dove when it comes to dealing with Pakistan. But if this is true it shows how India is in hock to conservative elements in its intelligence services, foreign ministry and the army, and Singh would add, as he did to me in conversation last year, public opinion. “How can you expect me to push a peace agreement on Kashmir when militants are coming from Pakistan every few months to set off bombs in India? No leader can be too far ahead of public opinion”.

When I repeated these words a few days later to Musharraf, he gave this compelling riposte: “If everyone in the world looked for calm and peace before reaching a solution, we would never achieve peace anywhere. It is the political deal itself that can produce calm. Bomb blasts are a result of the problem. Let’s not put the cart before the horse

With Musharraf gone, the best chance of a deal has gone too. Even though Zardari seems willing to try it, is unclear if Pakistan’s military can be led to the starting line as easily as it could have been by Musharraf. Besides after Mumbai the atmosphere is so badly poisoned in India that Singh presumably is even more convinced he can’t take any grand steps towards Pakistan.

But this is what separates a statesman from a politician. Cometh the hour, cometh the man? Singh must risk all and reach out and grab Pakistan’s peace offers. Only then might the triangle of madness be broken.

Jonathan Power is a veteran foreign affairs commentator based in London
 
.
What I have gleaned from many of MJ Akbar's pieces is that he is decidedly anti-pakistan. Being Muslim does not give his views any more credibility than were it Bal Thakeray writing the piece.

Well, I beg to differ.

One of the things that happens with a Non-Muslim criticizes Pakistan is the assumption that he is also anti-Islam. The defense mechanism immediately comes into play which may cloud the contents of the criticism (fairly or unfairly).

One thing you can't accuse Akbar of is being anti-Islam. That should help take that out the window and focus on the points being raised.

He is not anti-Pakistan either. He has a worldview and he is quite open about that. I don't think we should dismiss the views of such an eminent writer in a single sentence such as ""anti-Pakistan"! He deserves more critical analysis than that.
 
.
I do find it interesting, and this hypocrisy can be seen on both sides, that Indians would like to point out that Indian Muslims are primarily Indians first (as it should be), yet the implication in some of the posts by Indians here is that somehow an Indian Muslim commentator bashing Pakistan has 'more credibility'.

If most Muslims (or even just 'many Muslims') in India are Indians first, then MJ Akbar's opinions are nothing more than a continuation of the Pakistan bashing garbage churned out by the likes of Chidanand Rajghatta of ToI.

I do want to give a more detailed reply to this. For now the above post has to suffice. Needless to say, I disagree with this.

His article is not bashing by any means. It is backed by facts every step of the way.

This one line dismissal is disappointing.
 
.
^You cannot simply dismiss M J Akbar. He's too influential for that. You'll have to read his stuff and comment on it.
 
.
muslims in India have to prove that they are Indians, while hindus in Pakistan never have to prove anything.

-just my two cents

I find that too shallow. Hindus in Pakistan are too few in numbers and that makes a big difference.

There is just no comparison between the situations. But let us not go that route here.

Let us keep to the topic of Mr. Akbar's views.
 
.
^Lol...Hindus in Pakistan are too few to have any sort of representation. They don't have to prove anything because their allegiance means nothing.
 
.
Pay lil attention to this

“His (Savarkar’s) doctrine was Hindutva, the doctrine of Hindu racial supremacy, and his dream was of rebuilding a great Hindu empire from the sources of the Indus to those of the Brahmaputra. He hated Muslims. There was no place for them in the Hindu society he envisioned.” (Freedom at Midnight, by Dominique Lapierre and Larry Collins).


The seeds of partition were actually sown by the stalwarts of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily the quartet of Savarkar, Gawarikar, Apte, and Nathuram Godse. Independent India’s history is testimony to the fact that in a conflict between the forces of secular nationalism and religious communalism, the latter has always ruled the roost. Secular forces have more often than not ended up playing into the hands of communal forces. Such has been the history of independent India, and it is again on display in Jammu. Syed Alvi Teheran Times
 
.
TOP ARTICLE | Foil The Terror War
18 Feb 2009, 0000 hrs IST, Brahma Chellaney

If, as the famous soldier and military historian Carl von Clausewitz theorised, war is the continuation of politics by other means, terrorism is
the continuation of war by other means. Since the 1980s, Pakistan has waged such war unremittingly. Yet India has been unable to shed its blinkers, let alone initiate concrete counteraction. Even as the Pakistani asymmetric warfare has escalated qualitatively, leaving no part of India unscathed, the Indian republic continues to debate endlessly on how to respond to that war.


Islamabad's grudging admission about the role of some Pakistani "non-state actors" in the Mumbai attacks notwithstanding, there is little hope that Pakistan will reform itself and kick its terrorism-fomenting addiction. President Asif Ali Zardari is right that the Taliban wants to take over Pakistan. Those who play with fire will be consumed by fire. By fathering the Taliban, Pakistan set in motion an inexorable political reconfiguration of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (or Af-Pak in Washingtonese). Indeed, the political border between these two countries has already ceased to exist in practice.

But even as the writ of the Pakistani state no longer extends to Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and much of Baluchistan and North West Frontier Province (NWFP) that is, to nearly half the country the alliance between its jihadist-infiltrated military and Islamists remains firm. Pakistan's pattern of "prevarication, denial, diversionary tactics and misplaced sense of victimhood", as the Indian foreign minister has called it, is best illustrated by a Pakistani think tank's widely circulated report which, reflecting the security establishment's mindset, portrays the Mumbai attacks and the Indian dossier as a Hindu-Jewish-American plot to dismember Pakistan and divest it of its nuclear crown jewels by provoking a dual Indian and US invasion from opposite flanks.


Still, the evidence tracing the unparalleled Mumbai strikes to Pakistan became simply too overwhelming for Islamabad to continue to stonewall. But its epiphanic, partial admission is not designed to bring the real planners to justice but to shield them by making a few jihadists the fall guys and to drag out the investigations indefinitely, knowing that the Mumbai attacks would be eclipsed by newer terror strikes in India. In essence, it is a political ploy to deflect international pressure, contain Indian anger and lower bilateral tensions the diplomatic equivalent of throwing a bone at a dog.

Let's face it: Pakistan's ability to wage a war of terror with impunity owes a lot to India's own failings. While Pakistan is a quasi-failed state, India is a state that has yet to come of age a young republic still learning statecraft. Pakistan is disingenuous about wanting to end its state-nurtured terrorism, but India has been no less insincere in pledging to defeat such warfare. "When will India start defending itself?" That was the blunt question someone asked this writer at a recent conference overseas. The state that suffers the most terrorist blows in the world has, oddly, no counterterrorism doctrine and no defined defence policy.

Failure to move from sound bites to action has turned India into such a veritable target for daring, innovative attacks that American analyst Ashley Tellis told Congress that, "India has become the sponge that protects us all". Take Mumbai. The synaptic gap between New Delhi's shrill rhetoric and lack of meaningful response has been glaring. It has continued to water down its demands. Gone is its insistence that the accused be tried in India. It has also fallen into the Pakistan trap by focusing on the inquiry into an act of terror than on the infrastructure of terror that permits such acts to be carried out. Amateurishly, topmost officials contradict each other in public and call attention to a litany of mistakes.

The first response to the Mumbai attacks was to ingenuously invite the ISI chief to come and "assist in the investigations", akin to the police inviting the mafia to join a criminal probe. Now the world has been told that in both the Mumbai and Kabul embassy attacks, "the organisers were and remain clients and creations of the ISI". Take another example: Twitchily defensive on Kashmir, New Delhi argues that issue can be dealt with only at the bilateral level with Pakistan. Yet India seeks to respond to Pakistan's terror war not bilaterally but internationally. It is as if New Delhi has irredeemably lost its diplomatic script.

It is a sorry spectacle when Indians appear better at quoting statistics than in dealing with realities. The defence minister affirms that "more than 30 terrorist camps are still operating in Pakistan", while the army chief specifies that most such camps are located "10 to 50 kilometres" from the Indian frontier. But, unembarrassed, they have nothing to report on what they have done in response. It is as if those tasked with defending India are supposed to merely collect data and record it in files for posterity.

Terror orchestrators across the border know that India's present tough talk will last only up to our national elections. Once India returns to business as usual, they will seek to stump its defences again through synchronised swarm attacks on novel targets. War by terror is seriously undermining India's security and rising strength. If India is to avert nightmare scenarios and not remain a sponge that absorbs attacks so that other states are spared, it better defend itself through a concerted counterterrorist strategy with near and far term components.

The writer is professor, Centre for Policy Research.

TOP ARTICLE | Foil The Terror War-Editorial-Opinion-The Times of India
 
.
It is India's perceived weakness shown by our rudderless leaders that is encouraging the terrorists from Af-Pak. Once India sends out a strong signal like the USA and Israel that the terrorists and their supporters will have to pay a terrible price and demonstrates that on a sustained basis, that is when the terror attacks on India will stop.

Right now, every frustrated soul in our region is attacking us knowing there will be no retaliation.
 
.
It is India's perceived weakness shown by our rudderless leaders that is encouraging the terrorists from Af-Pak. Once India sends out a strong signal like the USA and Israel that the terrorists and their supporters will have to pay a terrible price and demonstrates that on a sustained basis, that is when the terror attacks on India will stop.

Right now, every frustrated soul in our region is attacking us knowing there will be no retaliation.

i feel sorry for your wise country. u guys should really follow US and Israel lik how they bombed afghanistan and palestine;) atleast that will make u come out of this superpower mindset and will let u know if u can really do it. otherwise it may remind us that we are nothin more than afghanistan or palestine.... listen to ur officials who said u werent ready for war as half of ur submarines are under repair while other half is nearing retirement. ur three latest warships does not have sonar system and are sittin ducks for enemy submarine. army doesnt have enough artilary and airforce is lacking in number of squadrons to take care of PAF factor. from strategic weapons only 150-300 agni is fully operational.
its not lik pakistan if not cooperating and only solution left is war.
 
.
It is India's perceived weakness shown by our rudderless leaders that is encouraging the terrorists from Af-Pak. Once India sends out a strong signal like the USA and Israel that the terrorists and their supporters will have to pay a terrible price and demonstrates that on a sustained basis, that is when the terror attacks on India will stop.

Right now, every frustrated soul in our region is attacking us knowing there will be no retaliation.

a strong signal like the USA and Israel

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

terror attacks on India will stop only when india would stop sponsoring terrorism in Kashmir and other countries. Live and let live!
 
Last edited:
.
Notice that its always Indians who want Pakistan to be part of India, even when Pakistan has "major problems", but Pakistanis dont want to be part of "incredible" India.

My friend visited India last year and he said India is over-polluted and over-populated and is largely Hindu. India is Hindustan (land of the Hindus). Muslims make up only 14% of India's population.

Pakistan is happy not being part of Hindustan.
 
.
I'm glad Pakistan is not part of India otherwise my family would have been oppressed by fanatical Hindues who would have tied us to a leash. Right now Muslims are being oppressed in India, Christians also in the state of Orisso and Sikhs. With the formation of Pakistan it gave us Muslims an identity in which we felt safe under, from prosecution. And Omar is right it is not us Pakistanis who give propaganda speeches in how Pakistan will take over India, but it is your RSS BS that reiterates how they want to conquer Pakistan. India is not only polluted but is backward these fanatical Hindues even kill daliet Hindues just to make sure that the daliets are slaves and nothing more.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom