UK Labour party clarifies position on Kashmir issue

[nahtanbob]

I think it's foolish to pretend Pakistani Brits have done as well economically as Indian Brits. Anecdotally, I feel most Indian Brits have developed their community shrewdly, whereas only some Pakistani Brits have. Data may be skewed in recent years by Afghan refugees who came in on Pakistani passports but there is no way to quantify that and it wouldn't alter the overall picture.

I'm simply saying there is no point denying the strengths of our opponents. Pakistanis in UK are playing catch up and the sooner we realise this, unite behind each other instead of dragging our Pakistani politics overseas and relying on the same corruption that past leaders have relied on, the more we will be able to uplift ourselves. It honestly isn't enough of an excuse that islamophobia has any significant role either, as Arab and Turkish communities fare relatively well.

Many things need to progress with the Pakistani UK community, but Indians should be cautious now that we know your true fascist agenda. Whatever we say or do, we will be terrorists to Hindustan and its overseas diaspora. This fact alone should be enough to galvanise our youth and wake us up from our naive aman kee asha fantasy that we have been wallowing in for decades.

Even if Pakistanis have stashed cash away better than others, what does that create in terms of actual influence? Nothing. It is simply a rehash of the Nawaz Sharif approach to economic development, which we are better off avoiding at all costs.

you have to decide whether you are british or pakistani first. Being British means dropping all pretense of getting involved in political matters of the pakistani state. I can understand the value of some social and cultural links with Pakistan. the foremost priority is the social-economic well being of the community. Whether you like it or not you may have to unite with British Indians to confront common challenges

Everything I say applies equally for the British Indian community.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

you have to decide whether you are british or pakistani first. Being British means dropping all pretense of getting involved in political matters of the pakistani state. I can understand the value of some social and cultural links with Pakistan. the foremost priority is the social-economic well being of the community. Whether you like it or not you may have to unite with British Indians to confront common challenges

Everything I say applies equally for the British Indian community.

This has nothing to do with what's being discussed and is simply a flamebait attempt. In reality, it is irrelevant what British Pakistani diaspora members label themselves as. What matters is actions. Be aware that Hindutva has already spread its filthy tentacles towards Britain and has decided for itself what Pakistani diaspora members are anyway. Who can forget the appalling abuse from British Indians (all supporting india btw) directly targeting English cricketers of pakistani origin when India played England in UK. Middle England's educated British Indians showed their true class that day. Sadiq Khan needs to bend over backwards to appease British Indians because of his Pakistani roots. British Indians are boycotting British Pakistanis in cultural, educational and economic spheres here in UK using a full bds strategy.

Hindutva has brought its filthy fascist war to these shores hence the hand of folks like me has now been forced, regardless of what I label myself as.

 

[Dalai Lama]

you have to decide whether you are british or pakistani first. Being British means dropping all pretense of getting involved in political matters of the pakistani state. I can understand the value of some social and cultural links with Pakistan. the foremost priority is the social-economic well being of the community. Whether you like it or not you may have to unite with British Indians to confront common challenges

Everything I say applies equally for the British Indian community.

You clearly haven't seen the BBC undercover doc about what is taught in their Sharia schools regarding Hindus (who happen to be mostly Indian). Unite my ***. British Indians and British Paks might co-exist peacefully but they clearly aren't united and likely never will be.

Is Indian apologizing for the atrocities committed against Kashmiris?

The British at least finally decided to end their occupation of South Asia - when is India ending its occupation of J&K in accordance with the UNSC Resolutions?

So long as India refuses to implement the UNSC Resolutions on J&K, the British are way ahead of India in terms of morality & human rights.

My point being that Britain, a nation which has visited incalculable distress to the peoples of their former colonies and doesn't even acknowledge it to this day clearly hasn't got a leg to stand on when it comes to lecturing others.

In that sense, according to you, Britain and India are even.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You clearly haven't seen the BBC undercover doc about what is taught in their Sharia schools regarding Hindus (who happen to be mostly Indian).

Bull. Even areligious British Pakistanis are identified as enemies by Hindutva, hence British Pakistanis who have never been to a "shariah school" (Lolz) in their lives will have serious problems with Hindutva. You can try and paint Pakistanis however you like. Hindustan has willingly shown us its true agenda.

In that sense, according to you, Britain and India are even.

except that Britain does have form in trying to resolve hangover colonialist problems. They fixed Northern Ireland while allowing it to maintain its special privileges. Nobody in England complains about NI's special status, even when that is the thing stalling Brexit. NI is completely devolved and has guarantees in the GF agreement that if by way of referendum they ever choose to join RoI, they can do so. NI citizens can have Irish passports and move freely in and out of RoI.

Meanwhile hinduland destroys Kashmir's parliament completely, locks up its elected leaders, annexes it, denies the right of referendum or plebiscite and keeps Indian Kashmir isolated from the world let alone isolated from Pakistani Kashmir.

So it is Hindustan that should learn a lesson on peacemaking in restive provinces from the British.

 

[pothead]

UK Indians should not buy into this balanced act of Labor party

Defeat them,
stop donating funds to them.

That is the only lesson political parties learn.

No use believing these Labor snakes, crush them and let them come crawling on their knees begging.
THEN, we can start conversation with them in language they understand.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan has not prevented NSG waiver, NSG membership or other measures that USA has pushed for India. China stopped India's NSG membership for its own reasons. Ever wonder why American allies like Saudi Arabia and UAE are closer to India recently ?

But that's what I'm talking about - India & Pakistan have 'enough' influence to where you're not going to see any significant punitive action against either by the West. Pakistan's influence is significantly lower (for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post) but even so you're going to see little more than token efforts against Pakistan. An improving Pakistani economy will reduce that influence gap further.

What I'm really interested in is seeing how the US-India dynamic with respect to 'bolstering' India as a means of 'containing China' pans out. The reason I'm interested in this is because it is a key issue that gives India leverage over Pakistan in its relationship with the US. I've personally never seen much worth in that aspect of the US-India relationship. India has historically never and (based on Jai Shankar's recent comments) does not in the future plan to 'intervene' in any punitive way against China on behalf of the US. India-China trade continues to increase which brings into play increasing economic interdependence. India has also largely refused to cut ties with Iran unless absolutely all avenues are closed off due to US sanctions. There's nothing wrong with India's independent and non-aligned foreign policy, and India, correctly, prides itself on it, but how does that factor into the longer term goal of using India as a counter to China? What's the tangible payback for the US investment in a Strategic relationship with India?

 

[nahtanbob]

What I'm really interested in is seeing how the US-India dynamic with respect to 'bolstering' India as a means of 'containing China' pans out. The reason I'm interested in this is because it is a key issue that gives India leverage over Pakistan in its relationship with the US. I've personally never seen much worth in that aspect of the US-India relationship. India has historically never and (based on Jai Shankar's recent comments) does not in the future plan to 'intervene' in any punitive way against China on behalf of the US. India-China trade continues to increase which brings into play increasing economic interdependence. India has also largely refused to cut ties with Iran unless absolutely all avenues are closed off due to US sanctions. There's nothing wrong with India's independent and non-aligned foreign policy, and India, correctly, prides itself on it, but how does that factor into the longer term goal of using India as a counter to China? What's the tangible payback for the US investment in a Strategic relationship with India?

It is not that India is the credible alternative to China at present. China fears India enough to prop up Pakistan. That speaks for itself. Imagine Google, Facebook, Amazon being shut out of Indian market.

India-China trade is one-way relationship. Nothing gets exported to China

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Keep waiting for Labor Party return to power

Nice strawman

 

[nahtanbob]

This has nothing to do with what's being discussed and is simply a flamebait attempt. In reality, it is irrelevant what British Pakistani diaspora members label themselves as. What matters is actions. Be aware that Hindutva has already spread its filthy tentacles towards Britain and has decided for itself what Pakistani diaspora members are anyway. Who can forget the appalling abuse from British Indians (all supporting india btw) directly targeting English cricketers of pakistani origin when India played England in UK. Middle England's educated British Indians showed their true class that day. Sadiq Khan needs to bend over backwards to appease British Indians because of his Pakistani roots. British Indians are boycotting British Pakistanis in cultural, educational and economic spheres here in UK using a full bds strategy.

Hindutva has brought its filthy fascist war to these shores hence the hand of folks like me has now been forced, regardless of what I label myself as.

You have to decide whether you are British or Pakistani in the long run. I can understand the divided loyalties of the first generation immigrants In the long run the fate of British Pakistani community depends on how native White Britishers treat you. There is no dodging that. They are 90% of the population.

Nice strawman

??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is not that India is the credible alternative to China at present. China fears India enough to prop up Pakistan. That speaks for itself. Imagine Google, Facebook, Amazon being shut out of Indian market.

You're conflating 2 different issues and missing the actual question. The first is India's economic ties with the West/US. I'm not arguing against the economic utility of the Indian market - India has a massive market and that will continue to give it influence globally, but trade ties are a two way street. India needs the West's markets as much as the West needs India, if not more. Shutting google, facebook, Amazon etc out of the Indian market will not be without consequences (similar trade retaliation from the West). So the US/West-India trade ties will continue to grow regardless of the 'China containment' aspect because those trade ties are mutually beneficial in of themselves.

The second issue, the one I pointed out in my previous post, was that of the US's 'strategic ties' with India based on the assumption that India can be a counter to China - the entire premise is flawed (as I argued earlier) because of India's past, present & future desire to remain non-aligned. I don't see India taking punitive actions against China, economically or militarily, at the behest of the US. So what are the tangible returns for US investment in a strategic relationship with India?

 

[Flash_Ninja]

You have to decide whether you are British or Pakistani in the long run. I can understand the divided loyalties of the first generation immigrants In the long run the fate of British Pakistani community depends on how native White Britishers treat you. There is no dodging that. They are 90% of the population.



??

Whether they come to power or not has nothing to do with the parties policies

 

[nahtanbob]

You're conflating 2 different issues and missing the actual question. The first is India's economic ties with the West/US. I'm not arguing against the economic utility of the Indian market - India has a massive market and that will continue to give it influence globally, but trade ties are a two way street. India needs the West's markets as much as the West needs India, if not more. Shutting google, facebook, Amazon etc out of the Indian market will not be without consequences (similar trade retaliation from the West). So the US/West-India trade ties will continue to grow regardless of the 'China containment' aspect because those trade ties are mutually beneficial in of themselves.

The second issue, the one I pointed out in my previous post, was that of the US's 'strategic ties' with India based on the assumption that India can be a counter to China - the entire premise is flawed (as I argued earlier) because of India's past, present & future desire to remain non-aligned. I don't see India taking punitive actions against China, economically or militarily, at the behest of the US. So what are the tangible returns for US investment in a strategic relationship with India?

it makes a difference whether USA is on friendly terms with India and vice versa. Otherwise they would not make an attempt to be friendly. It takes two to tango. As you pointed out India is not like a NATO ally or Japan under the America nuclear umbrella. I am not privy to the inner workings of the relationship.

Look no further from the days after 9/11 at the response of Pakistani army generals. Musharraf had to look over his shoulder to avoid a open break with USA. Even today Pakistani generals allow NATO supplies to reach Afghanistan even with drastic reduction in American aid.

If India-USA relationship is not strong why would China prop up Pakistan ? They are misers not known to give anyone a penny.

Whether they come to power or not has nothing to do with the parties policies

Is the Labor Party going to change anything with respect to India/Pakistan if they come to power ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

it makes a difference whether USA is on friendly terms with India and vice versa. Otherwise they would not make an attempt to be friendly. It takes two to tango. As you pointed out India is not like a NATO ally or Japan under the America nuclear umbrella. I am not privy to the inner workings of the relationship.

Look no further from the days after 9/11 at the response of Pakistani army generals. Musharraf had to look over his shoulder to avoid a open break with USA. Even today Pakistani generals allow NATO supplies to reach Afghanistan even with drastic reduction in American aid.

If India-USA relationship is not strong why would China prop up Pakistan ? They are misers not known to give anyone a penny.

You're still missing the main question:
"I don't see India taking punitive actions against China, economically or militarily, at the behest of the US. So what are the tangible returns for US investment in a strategic relationship with India?"

 

[nahtanbob]

You're still missing the main question:
"I don't see India taking punitive actions against China, economically or militarily, at the behest of the US. So what are the tangible returns for US investment in a strategic relationship with India?"

The operative word is "I"

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The operative word is "I"

Yes, that's how discussions work - 'I' put forward an opinion and provide arguments in support of 'my' opinion. If 'you' disagree, 'you' are supposed to provide arguments explaining why 'my' opinion is incorrect.

Alternately, you could just say you don't have a clue or don't wish to engage.