Who wants peace, India or Pakistan?

[Hulk]

^^^^^^

I have travelled to India and known many Indians therefore I know the dangers of stereotyping. Even then I indulge in it sometimes when compelled to do so.

The more we get to understant the point of view of the other side, the better it would be for us both.

Good that you at least traveled to India, but also understand it takes years before you really understand a country.

 

[peacekeeper]

Well having peace is time consuming effort
To have peace the apprehensions in the people's mind (from both side) should be cleared firstly
the feeling that other country is our nemesis is the blockade in the peace process .

 

[jbond197]

To have peace, first thing you need is to have respect for the religions others follow.

I fail to understand why so many Pakistanis start bashing others religion (without understanding it at the first place) when they are the first one to cry if somebody points a finger to the religion most follow in Pakistan? This sounds so hypocritical.

Search around the forum you will find numerous instances of the same. Doesn't that mean that hatred is cultivated in them right from the early age? If that’s the case how can there be a chance of peace?

 

[Hafizzz]

Well we have always been hearing from Indian members that India is a very peaceful country and wants peaceful relationships with Pakistan before presenting long list of "Do more" and it is Pakistanis who are not serious enough and/or willing to improve relationships with India so i decided to gather some Google trends to know the common opinion of both respective countries. In another words, who wants Peace?

Please do visit Google trend website before bashing at me. I am just trying to collect data from google trends and would be happy to see you posting similar stats from Google if possible. Please also consider the number of Internet users in India (810 milion) and the number of Internet users in Pakistan (185 million) so when you post any similar statistics you must keep that in mind

India Pakistan Friendship

India Pakistan Peace

India Pakistan

Kashmir

India Pakistan Iran

Credit goes to one Indian member who posted one similar stat of google trends in another thread and i got an idea from that particular post.

Pakistan wants peace.

 

[toxic_pus]

This was due to the fact that Pakistan was highly anti communist, US said that China will be a common enemy to both India and Pakistan.

Washington's assessment was still their assessment based on the basis of their world view and their interest. Besides, Pakistan is anti-communist even today. That doesn't stop the Pak-China bonhomie, negating your implied premise that communism automatically means military threat.

So the question I have asked remains unanswered.

How was China a threat to the extent that a military co-operation between Pakistan and India became a necessity in 1959?

Nehru blabbered no and said he will not sign this treaty with Pakistan as 'Hindi'Chini bhai bhai', he got a fitting reply from China.

The 'reply' he got had nothing to do with communism.

But are you implying that the 'reply' he got, he wouldn't have, if Indo-Pak defence pact had existed?

No we gifted some part to China after Shashtri could not work things out as he was weak.

Why? Was that Pakistan's property to gift? And more importantly, what has that got anything to do with Shastri being weak.

Let me quote something that was said about Ronald Reagan and his softness. It applies to Lal Bahadur Shastri as well.

'The impression was like a soft down pillow. What people failed to see was the two-inch-thick rod of steel right down the inside of the pillow.'

Ayub got taste of that 'two-inch-thick rod of steel' immediately as he launched his Operation Gibraltar.

 

[newman]

^ Explanation of these graphs would not be out of order..exactly what are you trending against? Why are you not using the comma to compare 2 things?

 

[toxic_pus]

Yup, read this.



HYDERABAD: The Holdout - TIME

Yup, read that. It still is 1948.

 

[T-Faz]

That is an instrument that the same institution of state has used to contort minds. This may not be a problem for lets say CBSE-board equivalents or convent educated pakistanis, but for the kasabs' that pakistan is rearing.. how do you rinse their minds?

Perhaps, a higher percent of our populace attend private schools, however the Kasabs you speak of are the product of madrassa education. Madrassa's were a rarity in Pakistani but Zia turned that around. Now many exist and are run through foreign funding, they use books made for them by USAID which promotes a violent version of Islam. Still, your view is an exaggeration, there is only a limited number which would carry out such terrorist attacks.

If things are moving as you say then why is there no mitigation of the hate propaganda out of pak? why does pak drag its feet on 26/11 trial when suspects are handed over to the US over ruling all judicial red tapism? till such time as pak fauj that pulls strings in the power corridors of isl does not play the peace pipe- there is no hope.

Any reasons you feel the interests of the mi complex in pak will re-align along a u-turn going forward?

Hate propaganda exists in all nations in one form or another, no nation can quash it's extremists completely.

The matter is made complicated from internal struggle, until our own house is on fire, you cannot be expected to attend to others grievances. We are bound by the forces that took to power by crook and clinged on to it because of the situation of the time.

It will take time but things will be right, it is just a waiting game.

 

[newman]

USAID

?

More inclined to believe it is a handiwork of Saudi benefactors..

Inside a Pakistani school where children are being brainwashed into terrorists, by John Humphrys | Mail Online

Inside a Pakistani school where children are being brainwashed into terrorists
By JOHN HUMPHRYS
Last updated at 1:12 AM on 2nd July 2009
Comments (0)
Add to My Stories

The Imam in charge of the madrassa could not have been more welcoming.
I sat on the carpeted floor of his office enjoying the cool of the air conditioning, thankful for this temporary refuge from the broiling streets of Karachi - perhaps the most overcrowded and dangerous city on the continent of Asia.
On the other side of the madrassa's high gates, 18million people were struggling to survive in the heat: the vast majority of them out of work with no hope of a job; millions living in slums as foul as anything I have seen anywhere in the world; small children dodging the lethal traffic, banging on the windows of cars stopped momentarily at a junction to beg for a few rupees, competing with old men and women doing the same.

Young boy studying the Koran at the Jamia Binoria Madrassas
And amongst them an unknown number of mostly young men playing an infinitely more dangerous game.
These are the men who threaten not only this city and the state of Pakistan, but who threaten us, too.
These are the men who are capable of walking into a mosque run by a moderate Muslim leader and blowing him to bits - as they did while I was here - or of driving a car loaded with high explosives into a hotel and reducing it to rubble, murdering dozens in the process.
Or strapping on a suicide belt and blowing themselves up on a London train.
It was because of men like them that I was here in the Jamia Binoria International Madrassa, the biggest in Karachi, pretending to enjoy the thick tea sweetened with condensed milk and several spoonfuls of sugar pressed upon me by the friendly imam, Mohammed Naeem.
I wanted to know whether his madrassa was one of those that gave shelter to these men or - even worse - brainwashed naive young people into believing that the best way to serve Allah was to murder those of us who do not share their views.

Let it be a lesson: John Humphrys reports from Karachi
Unsurprisingly, he said that was an outrageous suggestion. He was a man of peace, he told me, and Islam is a religion of peace.
Through the prophet Mohammed, God had made it abundantly clear that killing the innocent was a sin and, far from being received in heaven as a reward for jihad, the killers were to be condemned.
As he spoke, he flicked between the big television screens fed by closed circuit cameras that lined one wall, oddly incongruous in this setting.
'Look!' he said, pointing at the different images. 'You see all these children? What are they doing? They are learning. That is why they are here; 5,000 of them, including 1,000 girls!
'They are not being trained to kill people. They are learning the holy book. They come from all over the world to study here - from the West as well as this country.
'You may go anywhere you want, talk to anyone, we have nothing to hide here.'
I spent the rest of the morning in the madrassa, wandering in and out of classrooms, half impressed and half horrified at the sight of so many children, some as young as six, sitting on the floor of their classrooms and swaying rhythmically to and fro, each with a copy of the Koran before them, reciting its words.
I asked a 15-year-old boy from California how long he had been here. 'Two years,' he said. And how long will he stay? 'Until I have memorised the Koran from cover to cover.'
Is this really what he wanted to do with his teenage years, I wondered. 'Of course,' he said. 'I want to be a good Muslim.'

The veteran BBC reporter at the Karachi Madrassa Jamia Binoria
And how did he have fun? 'When I finish my studies every day I am allowed to play computer games in my room,' he said.
I thought of what my own children were doing when they were 15 and felt sorry for him, but why should I? At his age I too knew exactly what I wanted to do with my life and, if this was indeed what he wanted, who was I to question it?
As for the thousands of other children in this vast madrassa, many far too young to make up their own minds, aren't they better off in the calm and safety of these tranquil courtyards and classrooms, getting three decent meals a day, mixing with Islamic scholars, rather than out there on the ******, violent streets where, for millions, survival is all that matters?
Yes, they are being indoctrinated - you might even say brainwashed - into accepting that the Koran is the one and only guide to living a decent life; but I remembered the Jesuits and their boast: 'Give me the child and I will give you the man' and wondered if there is really such a difference between a Catholic seminary and a Muslim madrassa like this.

The answer to that, of course, depends on whether you take the imam at face value when he flatly denies harbouring potential terrorists. The only time he appeared evasive in our long conversation was when I asked him where the money comes from to pay for his hugely expensive operation.

With Imam Mohammed Naeem from the Madrassa
At first, he just grinned and said: 'That's a very good question!' Then he told me most of it comes from 'zakat' - the charitable donations all Muslims are meant to pay if their income is above a certain level - a minimum of 2.5per cent.
I raised that with two senior security officials in Karachi. They were perfectly happy to talk to me at their headquarters, but they asked me not to identify them: men like Imam Naeem wield a great deal of influence in this society.
Did they believe zakat paid for the madrassa? They did not. Did they believe the madrassa gave no succour to extremists? They did not. Could they prove it? They could not.
I asked why they did not simply raid madrassas in the way they would raid any other premises they suspected of harbouring terrorists. They merely smiled.
The question of where the money comes from is a crucial one. When I first reported from Pakistan in the early Seventies the number of madrassas could be counted in the dozens. Today, there are about 20,000.
And many - probably the majority - are funded by the most extreme Muslim denomination, the Wahhabis. There are relatively few Wahhabis compared to the Sunnis and Shias but their influence is out of all proportion to their size.
Wahhabis arose in Saudi Arabia in the 18th century and when the oil started flowing from beneath the Saudi deserts they became vastly rich. They have used billions of pounds of that wealth to fund madrassas around the world.
What makes their more extreme followers so frightening is that they believe God gives them the right to kill people they deem to be 'infidels'.

The Imam shows the Today programme team the wall of CCTV screens
It was Wahhabis who flew the planes into the World Trade Centre and it is they who count Osama Bin Laden among their adherents.
The explosive growth of the madrassas scares not only intelligence agencies in the west - including our own MI6 - but the government of Pakistan, too.
More than 5,000 Pakistanis have died over the past few years in bombings and shootings carried out by Islamic militants, most of whom either have direct links with the more extreme madrassas or are influenced by the ideology they peddle.
The fanatics who manipulate the suicide bombers and persuade them to sacrifice their own young lives are not short of human material.
There are millions of people in this one city alone who have no education, who live in the slums and who have seen any hope of decent, democratic government betrayed time after time.
It is hardly surprising that they are easily seduced by the promises and lies from the lips of plausible men who are happy to shed the blood of others in pursuit of their own perverted beliefs.
What is surprising on the face of it is that successive governments of Pakistan have done nothing to stop them.
More than five years ago, the army general who was then president, Pervez Musharraf, came under great pressure from the West, and promised to crack down on the madrassas and extreme religious teaching. Nothing happened.
The madrassas remain either unregistered or registered under laws that are totally ineffectual. There is no single government agency with the authority to regulate them and most have refused to co-operate with even modest reforms when it comes to their curriculum.
I spoke to one of Pakistan's most respected academics, Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy of Islamabad's Quaid-i-Azam University, who is appalled at what has been happening to education in Pakistan.
He told me about a primer distributed in private religious schools aimed at children in their first year.
Here's part of the 'alphabet':
A is for Allah.
B is for bandook (gun).
T is for thakrau (collision). The picture illustrating 'collision' was a jet airliner crashing into the side of the World Trade Centre.
Z is for zenmoub (sin). It is illustrated by pictures of alcohol, guitars, a television and a chess set.
Professor Hoodbhoy is a brave man. To speak out in the way he does against extremism and the imposition of Sharia law is seen by the militants as being hostile to Islam itself. The appropriate punishment for that, in their eyes, is death.
So why have Pakistani governments over recent years allowed this sort of thing to continue? Even more importantly, why did it take them so long to begin to crack down on the Taliban who pose such a threat to the security and stability of this country and its 170million people?
The simple answer is that the militant Taliban are a monster largely of Pakistan's own creation.
Cast your mind back to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistan's neighbour, in the Eighties. You may recall mujahideen who crossed the border to fight with their Muslim brothers, the Afghanis, against the might of the Soviet army and how we in the West cheered them on. They were brave, resourceful and ruthless.
The Soviets, our Cold War enemy, were eventually forced to pull out of Afghanistan, licking their wounds, in 1987.
But the mujahideen, who had been funded and encouraged by the Pakistan army, did not return to their villages and settle down to a quiet life. They turned their guns on to different targets, and they did so with the approval of the Pakistan army.
Hamid Gul is a former head of Pakistan's intelligence service, the ISI. He told the writer William Dalrymple recently that for more than 20 years the ISI has, for its own purposes, 'deliberately and consistently funded and incubated' a variety of Islamist groups including militant Taliban organisations. They saw them as an 'ingenious and cost-effective means of both dominating Afghanistan and bogging down the Indian army in Kashmir.'
The problem is that once you have trained and unleashed an attack dog you cannot be absolutely sure that it will not turn and bite you or your children - which is what has happened with the militant Taliban in Pakistan.
Nor can you negotiate with fundamentalists. The Pakistani government has tried that - giving way to them in the North West Frontier province, even allowing Sharia law to be introduced in parts of it. But the Taliban took what they were given, brutalised the people under their control, and demanded more.
Finally, the Pakistani army went in with their tanks, heavy artillery and helicopter gunships. While I was in Karachi the defence minister claimed victory - but many I spoke to in Pakistan were sceptical.
'Where are the bodies of the Taliban?' they asked me. 'Why have they not produced them for the cameras?'
The first time I came to Pakistan I was a fresh-faced young reporter and this country was barely 25 years old. It was fighting to survive as the state born from the partition of India in 1947. It lost. The eastern half of the country wanted independence and, when India went to war on its behalf, it got it. Pakistan surrendered and Bangladesh was born.
Now, nearly 40 years later, it feels as though Pakistan is, once again, fighting for its survival. I found no one who believes the Islamic extremists can take over the country - but what they can do is create fear. They have been very successful.
Pakistan is now regarded as a dangerous place to visit. British Airways no longer flies here.
The manager of the hotel where I stayed told me a big British bank had cancelled a conference of senior executives who were due to arrive the next day. They were afraid to come.
This is a fractured country, divided by obscene extremes of wealth, by language, by class and by ethnicity. Secessionist movements with their own military wings fight for independence just as East Pakistan fought in the Seventies. In some areas the military have effectively ceded control to them.
When a state is threatened by a foreign power its people rally behind the flag. But when the threat comes from within, they have to feel they have a real stake in the defeat of the enemy - and it's easy to see why many people in this country feel the state has not done enough for them to justify their unconditional support.
When you talk to some of the poorest as I did, you wonder what they have to lose when they already have nothing.
The risk - however remote - of this becoming a failed state prey to extremists should send a chill down the spines not just of the people of Pakistan, but of us in the West, too. When the nation split in half in 1971 it was a devastating blow to those who still called themselves Pakistanis.
But two things have changed since then. One is the rise of Islamic extremism. The other is that Pakistan now has nuclear weapons.
We must all hope that Pakistan can overcome what its own president has called the present threat to its survival.


Read more: Inside a Pakistani school where children are being brainwashed into terrorists, by John Humphrys | Mail Online

it is just a waiting game.

60+ yrs and still counting

 

[MastanKhan]

Even if the treaty is signed would it have helped to prevent attacks from stateless terrorist from Pakistan?

They have shattered peace.[/quote]


Hi,

It is due to the short sightedness of india that there is no peace---. It is india's habbit---the moment pakistan gets into a weaker position---india walks away from the peace table---.

What made england sign the peace treaty with the ira---the ira were exploding bombs in the heart of london---but the british still made peace---then what happened afterwards----the peace took force and all the terrorists went away---. England and ireland were committed to make peace---the citizens of both the country had had enough.

India is not committed to make peace----it wants to take every oppurtunity to put pakistan down---it was stated a few days ago by a very prominent indian who was a part of the peace deal with Musharraf.

After the mumbai attacks---if india would have supported pakistan in neutralizing the terrorists---we / pakistan would have been way ahead in controlling theterrorists---pakistani public would have supported actions aganist the terrorists who attacked mumbai---but out of old habbits---india saw pakistan in a weaker position and india did what it has been doing----walked away from peace talks.

As a neighbour----india has a child like fascination and approach, waiting for moments to put down pakistan---.

Indias position is so fickle and on such flimsy grounds about walking away from peace talks that it isn't even funny anymore.

 

[Dr sim]

Even if the treaty is signed would it have helped to prevent attacks from stateless terrorist from Pakistan?

They have shattered peace.

Hi,

It is due to the short sightedness of india that there is no peace---. It is india's habbit---the moment pakistan gets into a weaker position---india walks away from the peace table---.

What made england sign the peace treaty with the ira---the ira were exploding bombs in the heart of london---but the british still made peace---then what happened afterwards----the peace took force and all the terrorists went away---. England and ireland were committed to make peace---the citizens of both the country had had enough.

India is not committed to make peace----it wants to take every oppurtunity to put pakistan down---it was stated a few days ago by a very prominent indian who was a part of the peace deal with Musharraf.

After the mumbai attacks---if india would have supported pakistan in neutralizing the terrorists---we / pakistan would have been way ahead in controlling theterrorists---pakistani public would have supported actions aganist the terrorists who attacked mumbai---but out of old habbits---india saw pakistan in a weaker position and india did what it has been doing----walked away from peace talks.

As a neighbour----india has a child like fascination and approach, waiting for moments to put down pakistan---.

Indias position is so fickle and on such flimsy grounds about walking away from peace talks that it isn't even funny anymore.[/QUOTE]

See this is the thing, how did u assume that terrorists responsible for Mumbai were stateless actors and not supported by the Pakistan Govt?
Also when our prime minister was in lahore having peace talks ,pakistan did kargil and hence back stabbed India. How can u explain that?
I will say there are people on both sides who r to be blamed for the unfortunate situation that India and Pakistan find themself today reggarding peace between each other

 

[Dance]

See this is the thing, how did u assume that terrorists responsible for Mumbai were stateless actors and not supported by the Pakistan Govt?

And what proof do you have that the Pakistani govt supported them?

 

[devd]

pakistan need peace, he need water, he need kashmir, he need afgan he needs all , he need baluch as well. But india will give nothing . bUt india need Let, which pak never gives

 

[Dr sim]

And what proof do you have that the Pakistani govt supported them?

Well , it has been proved that Ajmal kasab is a Pakistani now.Also the revelations done by David headley indicate the hand of ISI.

When pakistan says that they cannot do anything because they were so called stateless actor, it is equivalent to making fun all of the innocent people that died in mumbai. Let us assume that for a moment that Pakistan govt was not directly involved but tell me who is responsible for unlawful activities carried out against other countries from pakistan's soil. I know a lot of innocent people are getting killed in pakistan as well(which is also very sad) , India does not care about it as it is ur internal matter but if terrorists plan operations from ur soil against india then what do u expect india to do, sit and watch?

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

pakistan need peace

,

We are paying with our lives for it.

he need water,

Our RIGHT.

he need kashmir,

For the KASHMIRIS... LET THEM DECIDE.

he need afgan he needs all ,

Our neighbours n frnds in past.... our RIGHT...But u cant digest it?

Now guess wat?

We are eatin the lunch u prepared for urself.

he need baluch as well

.

We need all Pakistanis...

P.S= Im balouch... i can be urs also... just give us brahamdagh n some indian women so we can be in relation...

Im 20 single n ready to mingle... have some beautiful,hot,INDIAN girl in ur eyes?
CONTACT ME.

But india will give nothing

.

Like wat?
Keep livin in ur LALA land.

bUt india need Let, which pak never gives

Yeah we difused the LET BOMB now wat?watch the news kid.

Well , it has been proved that Ajmal kasab is a Pakistani he now.Also the revelations done by David headley indicate the hand of ISI.

When pakistan says that they cannot do anything because they were so called stateless actor, it is equivalent to making fun all of the innocent people that died in mumbai. Let us assume that for a moment that Pakistan govt was not directly involved but tell me who is responsible for unlawful activities carried out against other countries from pakistan's soil. I know a lot of innocent people are getting killed in pakistan as well(which is also very sad) , India does not care about it as it is ur internal matter but if terrorists plan operations from ur soil against india then what do u expect india to do, sit and watch?

Ajmal was a Pakistani national and tht was accepted way back.

LET is BANNED.

We house arrested Hafiz Saeed sahab but due to no evidence against him we had to release him, just as we did to many criminals who were involved in terrorism inside our country on the bases of NO EVIDENCE.

On the other hand hand us Brahamdagh who travels on INDIAN PASSPORT and lives in INDIAN CONSULATES IN AFGH.