There is no unity among people in Pakistan.

[vsdoc]

I'm not gonna lie... We have a lot of issues (all of political nature).

I'm Baloch ... From a rural/tribal background but raised in a military family... Born in Potohar .. A garrison ... I've lived in all provinces .. I have friends from all ethnic backgrounds... My fiancé is Pashtun .. By best friend is a seriki ... My room mates in univ was Sindhi,Kashmiri and a Panjabi from rural pindi bhattia (sandal bar - the most conservative region in central punjab)... My driver is a gilgiti...I'm living in a multicultural city..

We as a nation fight over dumbest shyt... Politicians fuelling regional issues like water distribution etc.

But amazing how we as a people unite whenever time tests us ...we gladly give our lives to save our fella countrymen ... When somebody criticises us we all unite (even though we love to bash eachother)...

The older generation didn't have exposure .. They were born and raised in their small villages or towns ... Only visiting the other provinces for some important work ... (Yet they joined the military or defended the country from invasions - FATA tribesmen fighting of invading afghan troops in the 60s).

Today Pak is one probably the most urbanised and connected state in South Asia...

I can't define our "racial nationalism" because we probably have none ... But we are proud of our country .. Country that we built ...

When we Pak I abroad .. A Pashtun , a Baloch , A Panjabi , a Sindhi,Balti,Shina,Brusho,Wakhi,Hazara,Kashmiri,Sindhi considers himself Pakistani..

A Pak Pashtun is more happy to find a Pakistani in Finland or Italy than an Afghan.. A Baloch is more happy to find a Seriki or Sindhi.. Coz we can connect more .. We have shared interests,memories in general.


We are a nation .. A people who have lived with eachother for centuries ... You will find Baloch and Pashtuns in southern Panjab ..Living there for generations ... You will find Panjabis living in KPK ...

We have lived,traded and fought shoulder to shoulder for thousands of years ...

Any Pakistani irrespective of his ethnic background will rush to help his countrymen during a situation irrespective of his ethno background .. There won't be any biasness ... When there is a cricket match .. A Baloch or Panjabi will cheer for Pashtun Afridi or Younas... A Pashtun will pray for Misbah or Bhatti to win the match in the last over ... Thts PAKISTAN...

Exactly buddy. What I was trying to point out to the member I quoted.

All of this is true for India as well. Exactly so. In most ways you have described.

But on a scale 6-7 times bigger at the very least. Sometimes a lot more, because some of our regions are really diverse within really small geographical areas.

Races, morphology, color, languages, dialects, customs, food, dress. You name it.

And then we have something your side rarely has to deal with to a significant degree.

Different faiths. All noisy, in your face, and wearing every emotion on their sleeve.

Its a strength. Once you get over the birthing pains.

Why've you started 'Sir'ring me, Doc? Don't worry, your, ummm, strategic assets are safe with me.

Find it difficult to take liberties with someone 20 years my senior.

I call Fatman (or Niaz or MK or Third Eye) sir too.

Though in real life I do have a friend of your vintage (also a teacher) who I call by his name.

I know you are not "Joe" but I could call you that if you prefer. Dada is not me somehow .... just as touching feet isn't ..... though I could do that as well.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Exactly buddy. What I was trying to point out to the member I quoted.

All of this is true for India as well. Exactly so. In most ways you have described.

But on a scale 6-7 times bigger at the very least. Sometimes a lot more, because some of our regions are really diverse within really small geographical areas.

Races, morphology, color, languages, dialects, customs, food, dress. You name it.

And then we have something your side rarely has to deal with to a significant degree.

Different faiths. All noisy, in your face, and wearing every emotion on their sleeve.

Its a strength. Once you get over the birthing pains.

Sir I'm not questioning indias unity ...

I'm merely stating our position... This thread itself is a clear example of our "unity"... You can see Pakistanis from all ethnic backgrounds on offensive n defensive on the question raised by the author....

I don't know any country that could have faced the shyt Pak has faced in the past 7 decades n survived ... We are truely a "dheit" nation.

 

[vsdoc]

Sir I'm not questioning indias unity ...

I'm merely stating our position... This thread itself is a clear example of our "unity"... You can see Pakistanis from all ethnic backgrounds on offensive n defensive on the question raised by the author....

I don't know any country that could have faced the shyt Pak has faced in the past 7 decades n survived ... We are truely a "dheit" nation.

I'm with you on the unity part.

But I wonder if most from your side realize its neither linked to "race" (of which there is no single one) or faith.

Someone here (a Pakistani I think) said it best. Some pages back.

You have been thrown together.

Now you have to make it work. There is no Plan B.

Cheers, Doc

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Practice what you preach is all I have to say on that.

But the reality remains.

The massive rioting that was Kashmir in the 90s is gone. They are agitating, but at the same time moving to Dehli to Study. Which means that they are finding their economic progress. Why do you think the whole Baloch thing seems to be suddenly fizzling out? Because they are seeing economic uplift.

As for taking in refugees.How come Pakistan is not taking any Syrian ones? Or do you believe the Syrians to be subhumans?

Pakistan is an entity that believes in its survival, the Kashmiris have their importance vis-a-vis humanitarian reasons.But their humanitarian reasons do not outweigh or compare to the strategic importance the land itself has. Both in terms of water supply and in terms of being a route to connect to China.
In that matter, the Kashmiris hold more value than them just being Kashmiris. They are people to be persuaded for a better life and "brotherhood" because the land they stand on is important. Lets see if our "angel" ideals that those you bring would be true if tomorrow India says Take Kashmir only if you promise not to use any of the water that comes through it.

The same goes for the Balochis too. Their "Brother" status aside. That is the energy hub of Pakistan and has potential for mineral reserves. That is the value of it.

Stop consideirng yourself some sanctimonious angel. Your arguments sound like that of a child who refuses to believe that Muslims have sex to make babies.

Hahahahahah this made me laugh...


Off topic I believed that too when I was a kid... That's until a read some article in Friday Times... That was back in early 2000s... Later bloomer I guess..

 

[Bang Galore]

Yes, you're right, it started in a Congress-led India, which was riven by idiocies like the Rath Yatra by that senile old douche bag, and the Babri Masjid thingy, aided and abetted by a state government led by the other douche bag Kalyan Singh.

That by no means absolves that used douche bag Arun Nehru, or his fatuous cousin. But it was due to the idiots who kept playing around with the sentiments of people till it all became too late and too strong to be contained.

As Shimon Peres said, "When does history begin? At a point where it is convenient for one to make one's argument?"

The rath yatra didn't happen in a vacuum. The whole problem can be traced back to the Shah Bano case (I'm assuming that you join me in not wanting to go back to Babur) and Rajiv Gandhi's utterly foolish decision to use his parliamentary majority to overturn a fundamentally sound & progressive Supreme Court verdict. The backlash that was created caused him to make another foolish decision of playing the Hindu card by opening the locks of the disputed structure that most of India had not heard of. Of course he was no match for the BJP in playing with Hindu sentiments but he inadvertently had set off a chain of events that would lead to 1992 and till date. The BJP's spectacular performance in the 1989 elections necessitated an attempt to check them by their own allies, the constituents of the Janata Dal. That was done by latching on to the Mandal report which attempted to break the BJP's Hindu coalition by splitting them on caste basis. The BJP's response - to create a situation where a larger identity would subsume the caste divisions. Hence the rath yatra. All because Rajiv Gandhi had once pandered so foolishly to the religious nuts on the Shah Bano case.

Of course how one perceives history depends on where one sits but it is interesting to note that post 1992, the BJP was never really able to create the same movement for the temple. The reason for that was that the wily Narsimha Rao had opened the locks to an even more dearer deity -Lakshmi through his economic reforms which fundamentally changed aspirations across the country. Muslims could no longer be looked at as the pandered minority, their lack of education meant that they almost completely lost out on the first phase of reforms while Lakshmi was being welcomed to many other homes. The reactions though of those fateful days have continued to cause their damage through events & counter events.

Rajiv Gandhi does not get as much credit as PM on many matters as he should have but his fateful decision on the Shah Bano case had repercussions that we still deal with today and on that, he should be faulted completely.

 

[Iggy]

Rajiv Gandhi does not get as much credit as PM on many matters as he should have but his fateful decision on the Shah Bano case had repercussions that we still deal with today and on that, he should be faulted completely.

That woman's curse will haunt us for decades to come..

 

[Joe Shearer]

Exactly buddy. What I was trying to point out to the member I quoted.

All of this is true for India as well. Exactly so. In most ways you have described.

But on a scale 6-7 times bigger at the very least. Sometimes a lot more, because some of our regions are really diverse within really small geographical areas.

Races, morphology, color, languages, dialects, customs, food, dress. You name it.

And then we have something your side rarely has to deal with to a significant degree.

Different faiths. All noisy, in your face, and wearing every emotion on their sleeve.

Its a strength. Once you get over the birthing pains.



Find it difficult to take liberties with someone 20 years my senior.

I call Fatman (or Niaz or MK or Third Eye) sir too.

Though in real life I do have a friend of your vintage (also a teacher) who I call by his name.

I know you are not "Joe" but I could call you that if you prefer. Dada is not me somehow .... just as touching feet isn't ..... though I could do that as well.

Uh oh.

Time to back off, without displaying panic but with due despatch.

As Shimon Peres said, "When does history begin? At a point where it is convenient for one to make one's argument?"

The rath yatra didn't happen in a vacuum. The whole problem can be traced back to the Shah Bano case (I'm assuming that you join me in not wanting to go back to Babur) and Rajiv Gandhi's utterly foolish decision to use his parliamentary majority to overturn a fundamentally sound & progressive Supreme Court verdict. The backlash that was created caused him to make another foolish decision of playing the Hindu card by opening the locks of the disputed structure that most of India had not heard of. Of course he was no match for the BJP in playing with Hindu sentiments but he inadvertently had set off a chain of events that would lead to 1992 and till date. The BJP's spectacular performance in the 1989 elections necessitated an attempt to check them by their own allies, the constituents of the Janata Dal. That was done by latching on to the Mandal report which attempted to break the BJP's Hindu coalition by splitting them on caste basis. The BJP's response - to create a situation where a larger identity would subsume the caste divisions. Hence the rath yatra. All because Rajiv Gandhi had once pandered so foolishly to the religious nuts on the Shah Bano case.

Of course how one perceives history depends on where one sits but it is interesting to note that post 1992, the BJP was never really able to create the same movement for the temple. The reason for that was that the wily Narsimha Rao had opened the locks to an even more dearer deity -Lakshmi through his economic reforms which fundamentally changed aspirations across the country. Muslims could no longer be looked at as the pandered minority, their lack of education meant that they almost completely lost out on the first phase of reforms while Lakshmi was being welcomed to many other homes. The reactions though of those fateful days have continued to cause their damage through events & counter events.

Rajiv Gandhi does not get as much credit as PM on many matters as he should have but his fateful decision on the Shah Bano case had repercussions that we still deal with today and on that, he should be faulted completely.

Brilliantly written and well thought through.

 

[waz]

Fragile States Index 2015

The Fragile States Index 2015 | The Fund for Peace

Pakistan at 13

And India is in the warning zone so what?

According to these rubbish lists Pakistan should have collapsed years ago. Oh don't even let me get into the 2012 prediction, which then turned into the 2015 prediction of Pakistan's meltdown into different states.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

And India is in the warning zone so what?

According to these rubbish lists Pakistan should have collapsed years ago. Oh don't even let me get into the 2012 prediction, which then turned into the 2015 prediction of Pakistan's meltdown into different states.

Pakistan was created on August the 14th 1947. Lord Mounbatten, nehru and other leading indians confidently said that Pakistan would cease to exist by Christmas 1947 and be annexed by india. We know what happened to that indian theory as happens to most indian theories.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Pakistan was created on August the 14th 1947. Lord Mounbatten, nehru and other leading indians confidently said that Pakistan would cease to exist by Christmas 1947 and be annexed by india. We know what happened to that indian theory as happens to most indian theories.

I can't stand loose talk and inaccuracy.

NONE of them - Mountbatten, Nehru, other leading Indians - said anything of the kind.

Try not to spout this rubbish. If you have nothing better to contribute, you could look at Su-do-ku.

 

[Stag112]

I concur, However if India is really instigating tensions at LoC and there is a big if - then it is just plain stupidity with no tactical and strategic benefits to India.

I keep scratching my head because from a purely objective and logical reasoning it doesn't do any good to Pakistan to make the borders hot unless the reasoning is to continuously flame anti-India hate within the populace even at it's own detriment. India can harm Pakistan by making borders active but can gain no benefit.

I am at loss to explain what is the reason for so much tension at LoC, can it be just over-zealous soldiers acting without orders - misunderstandings - communication barrier etc?

You have raised an important doubt over this theory that India made the borders hot during anti TTP ops. It just does not add up

1. India has no benefit in it. NONE. Because just firing a few shells across the border means nothing at all militarily. If ANY Pakistani military analyst believed that India would actually invade Pakistan (and hence they have to pull troops away from anti TTP ops) then that's truly hard to believe. I know any international analyst would laugh at the idea of India invading Pakistan and giving up all that we have earned politically (and probably materially too) for a useless war. Just to repeat, Pakistan has enough troops on the border to handle border flare ups.
2. It makes more sense that the border was heated up by Pakistan to create this narrative for internal consumption that India wanted to help TTP, thus vilifying TTP internally and uniting the Pakistan awaam - a very urgent task IMO.
3. The benefit of making the newer generation ''aware'' of how evil India is, was an additional benefit for Pakistani mil-establishment.

@Icarus

 

[WAJsal]

I concur, However if India is really instigating tensions at LoC and there is a big if - then it is just plain stupidity with no tactical and strategic benefits to India.

I keep scratching my head because from a purely objective and logical reasoning it doesn't do any good to Pakistan to make the borders hot unless the reasoning is to continuously flame anti-India hate within the populace even at it's own detriment. India can harm Pakistan by making borders active but can gain no benefit.

I am at loss to explain what is the reason for so much tension at LoC, can it be just over-zealous soldiers acting without orders - misunderstandings - communication barrier etc?

Stating that Pakistan was behind this simply makes no sense. As we have all our resources on the other side of the border, who is dumb enough to be so naive. No one will risk a limited war when they are in such a weak position. Makes no sense.
On the other hand makes perfect sense that India seeing their proxies taking the heat would want to pressurize Pakistan from both sides, all in desperation. This theory makes more sense.

2. Pakistan Side Claims India initiates Firing for the purpose of Aiding TTP by diverting attention, Psychological victory, international brownie points, highlighting Pakistani Threat.

Again who is stupid enough to risk a war, to gain Psychological victory. Dude!
MY POV

The benefit of making the newer generation ''aware'' of how evil India is, was an additional benefit for Pakistani mil-establishment.

Do not troll.

It makes more sense that the border was heated up by Pakistan to create this narrative for internal consumption that India wanted to help TTP, thus vilifying TTP internally and uniting the Pakistan awaam - a very urgent task IMO.

Think theory on our side makes more sense and is a little more realistic. Let's be honest no one is stupid enough to risk a war, to gain Psychological victory.

 

[Stag112]

Do not troll.

Think theory on our side makes more sense and is a little more realistic. Let's be honest no one is stupid enough to risk a war, to gain Psychological victory.

Im not trolling. @Icarus stated that the border tension made the younger Pakistanis realize how bad India is. I do not know how anyone BUT your mil-establishment benefits from it.

Pakistan risked no war. It is consistent with my assertion, one that just about any mil-analyst globally will agree with, is that India would not go to war and risk everything. That is what Pakistanis bank on when they heat up the border, snipe our patrolling guards etc. All this is done with the aim of internal benefits when India responds.

 

[Spectre]

Stating that Pakistan was behind this simply makes no sense. As we have all our resources on the other side of the border, who is dumb enough to be so naive. No one will risk a limited war when they are in such a weak position. Makes no sense.
On the other hand makes perfect sense that India seeing their proxies taking the heat would want to pressurize Pakistan from both sides, all in desperation. This theory makes more sense.

I agree logically it makes no sense for Pakistan - however sometimes Pakistani establishment is deaf to logical reasoning as in Kargil which was only going to end one way. They gave up the trust built in Lahore and a chance for reconciliation, commerce and peace for a fool hardy attempt at Kargil

Hence my apprehensions.

Again who is stupid enough to risk a war, to gain Psychological victory. Dude!

Agreed, however nuclear deterrence provides an protective cover under which such low level flare-ups are very frequent and proxies of both countries with plausible deniability make mayhem.

Hence it is not unreasonable to assume that given there is a very low probability of war these things might happen.

Regards

 

[WAJsal]

Im not trolling. @Icarus stated that the border tension made the younger Pakistanis realize how bad India is. I do not know how anyone BUT your mil-establishment benefits from it.

Apparently our military establishment is stupid enough to risk a war, in a position that is not very strong. I repeat, do not troll.

Pakistan risked no war. It is consistent with my assertion, one that just about any mil-analyst globally will agree with, is that India would not go to war and risk everything. That is what Pakistanis bank on when they heat up the border, snipe our patrolling guards etc. All this is done with the aim of internal benefits when India responds.

Which theory is a little more realistic and makes more sense? Again no one is stupid enough to risk a war.
This the reason why we have Senior Cafe, for such topics.

I agree logically it makes no sense for Pakistan - however sometimes Pakistani establishment is deaf to logical reasoning as in Kargil which was only going to end one way.

How could we have gained anything from this? simply makes no sense for me.

Agreed, however nuclear deterrence provides an protective cover under which such low level flare-ups are very frequent and proxies of both countries with plausible deniability make mayhem.

Hence it is not unreasonable to assume that given there is a very low probability of war these things might happen.

Regards

Totally unrealistic. limited war...dude, these conclusions are hardly realistic.