British support for Pakistan & Partition of India

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Let us first start by looking at the Aligarh movement of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan who was the renewer of Islamic separatism in the subcontinent which ultimately led to Partition. Many Pakistanis describe him as the original architect of the two nation theory. Here's some background on Sir Syed Ahmed Khan :-

 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Some excerpts about him from his speeches and writings highlighting his loyalty towards the British, calling for a joint Christian-Muslim project to subdue heathen Hindus as they worship the same Abrahamic god, Islamo supremacism, desire for separation from Hindus :-

1.
Being a descendant of high Mogul officials, he emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled by their former subjects. He also feared that Hindu rule will result in the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Perso-Arabic civilisation
The Muslim Dilemma in India by M. R. A. Baig – page 51-52).

2. In a letter from London dated 15/10/1869 he writes

Without the flattering of the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low etc when contrasted with the English in education, manners and uprightness, are as like them as a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man. Do you look upon an animal as a thing to be honored? Do you think it necessary to treat an animal courteously, or the reverse? You do not! We have no right to courteous treatment. The English have reason for believing us in India to be imbecile brutes.
Sir Syed Ahmad by Graham pg 183-184.

3. In a speech in 1884 he said

Do you not inhibit the same land, Remember that words Hindu and Muslim are only meant for religious distinction, otherwise all persons, whether Hindu and Muslim, even the Christians who reside in this country, are all in this particular respect belong to one and the same nation.
Eminent Mussalmans by Natesan pg 32.

4. To a Punjabi Hindu audience he said that every inhabitant of Hindusthan is a Hindu and added “I am therefore sorry that you do not regard me as Hindu”. India Divided by Rajendra Prasad pg 99.

5. But some of his utterances reflect a different mindset. As far as 1858 he deplored the fact that Hindus and Muslims, were put into the same regiment of the British army, and thus a feeling of friendship and brotherhood sprang between them. He added “If separate regiments of Hindus and Muslims had been raised, this feeling of brotherhood could not have arisen”. Causes of Indian Revolt pg 54-55.

6. At a speech at Meerut on 16/03/1888 he refers to the Hindus and Muslims not only as two nations, but as two warring nations who could not lead a common political life if ever the Brits left India. He said,

Now suppose that all the Brits were to leave India, then who would be the rulers of India? Is it possible that under these circumstances these nations, the Muhammadan and the Hindu could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power. Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and the inconceivable.
Sachin Sen pg 42.

Does this not reflect the Islamic mindset ? As a community Muslims have not learnt to co-exist with other communities. That is because Islam believes in Dar-ul-Islam, Muslim rule pure and simple. These words were echoed by Islamic writer Rafiq Zakaria in his book The Widening Divide. Unless the Muslim stops drawing pride from the deeds of the Muslim invaders and realizes that he is a Hindu convert, the divide between the two communities might never cease.

7. In the same 1888 Meerut speech, he says

Now God has made them rulers over us. Therefore we should cultivate friendship with them, and should adopt that method by which their rule may remain permanent and firm in India, and may not pass into the hands of the Bengalis. This is our true friendship with our Christian rulers, and we should not join those people who wish to see us thrown into a ditch. If we join the political movement of the Bengalis our narion will reap loss, for we do not want to become subjects of the Hindus instead of the subjects of the "People of the Book." And as far as we can we should remain faithful to the English Government. By this my meaning is not that I am inclined towards their religion.

Perhaps no one has written such severe books as I have against their religion, of which I am an enemy. But whatever their religion, God has called men of that religion our friends. We ought — not on account of their religion, but because of the order of God — to be friendly and faithful to them. If our Hindu brothers of these Provinces, and the Bengalis of Bengal, and the Brahmans of Bombay, and the Hindu Madrasis [[51]] of Madras, wish to separate themselves from us, let them go, and trouble yourself about it not one whit.

We can mix with the English in a social way. We can eat with them, they can eat with us. Whatever hope we have of progress is from them. The Bengalis can in no way assist our progress.
And when the Koran itself directs us to be friends with them, then there is no reason why we should not be their friends. But it is necessary for us to act as God has said. Besides this, God has made them rulers over us. Our Prophet has said that if God place over you a black negro slave as ruler, you must obey him. See, there is here in the meeting a European, Mr. Beck. He is not black. He is very white. (Laughter.) Then why should we not be obedient and faithful to those white-faced men whom God has put over us, and why should we disobey the order of God?
Is it possible that Syed Ahmed Khan specifically identifying Bengalis as a danger to Muslim power is rooted in British Raj's irrational contempt for Bengalis ? I see some strong parallels here.

If you ask for such things as Government cannot give you, then it is not the fault of Government, but the folly of the askers. But what you ask, do it not in this fashion — that you accuse Government in very action of oppression, abuse the highest officials, use the hardest words you can find for Lord Lytton and Lord Dufferin, call all Englishmen tyrants, and blacken columns on columns of newspapers with these subjects. You can gain nothing this way. God had made them your rulers. This is the will of God. We should be content with the will of God. And in obedience to the will of God, you should remain friendly and faithful to them. Do not do this: bring false accusations against them and give birth to enmity. This is neither wisdom nor in accordance with our holy religion.

Therefore the method we ought to adopt is this: that we should hold ourselves aloof from this political uproar, and reflect on our condition — that we are behindhand in education and are deficient in wealth. Then we should try to improve the education of our nation. Now our condition is this: that the Hindus, if they wish, can ruin us in an hour. [[53]] The internal trade is entirely in their hands. The external trade is in possession of the English. Let the trade which is with the Hindus remain with them. But try to snatch from their hands the trade in the produce of the county which the English now enjoy and draw profit from.

8. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 112

And first suppose that all the Muslims vote for a Muslim and all the Hindus vote for a Hindu, it is certain that Muslims will have four times as many votes since their population is four times as numerous. And then how can the Muslim guard his interests? Now I ask you, O Muslims! Weep at your condition! Have you such wealth that you can compete with the Hindus? In the whole nation there is no person who is equal to Hindus in the fitness for the work!” Will the Hindus stop criticizing themselves?
9. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 118

O, my brother Muslims! I again remind you that you have ruled nations, and have for centuries held different nations in your grasp”.
10. As early as 1883, he delivered a long speech deprecating the system of representative institutions for fear that “the larger community would totally derive override the interest of the smaller community”. Coupland II part I pg 154-56. In this speech he harped upon the elements of discord and disunion that divided India. “In one and the same district, said he, the population consists of various creeds and nationalities”. The whole speech is an eloquent plea against Indian nationality and indicates the wide chasm that divided the Hindu and Muslim leaders in their political thought and ideas.

11.
In a country like India where homogeneity does not exist in any one of these fields (nationality, religion, ways of living, customs, mores, culture and historical traditions), the introduction of representative govt cannot produce any beneficial results, it can only result in interfering with the peace and prosperity of the land. The aims and objectives of the Congress are based upon the ignorance of history and present day realities; they do not take into consideration that India is inhabited with different nationalities. I consider the experiment, which the Congress wants to make fraught with dangers and suffering for all the nationalities of India, especially for the Muslims. The Muslims are in a minority, but they are a highly united minority. Atleast they are traditionally prone to taking the sword when the majority oppresses them. If this happens, it will bring about disasters greater than the ones, which came in the wake of the happenings of 1857. The Congress cannot rationally prove its claim to represent the opinions, ideals and aspirations of the Muslims.
Syed Ahmad Khan, Akhari Madamin, pg 46-50. Quoted in Sources of Indian Tradition pp 746-7.

12. SAK regarded the Congress as inimical to the true interests of the Muslims. He wrote in the Pioneer on 2-3/10/1887 that the parliamentary form of governance “was unsuited to a country containing two or more nations tending to oppress the numerically weaker”. The Development of Indian National Congress by P C Ghosh pg 43C.

13. During 1988, Tyabji and Hume worked hard to secure SAK ka cooperation. He said

I do not understand what the words National Congress mean. Is it supposed that the different castes and creeds living in India belong to one nation, or can become a nation, and their aims and aspirations be one and the same? I think it is impossible, and when it is possible there can be no such thing as a national congress, nor can it be of equal benefit to all peoples. I object to every Congress in any shape or form whatever which regards Indian as one nation
. Ram Gopal ph 67.

It may be mentioned that the Muslims of north India agreed with the policy of SAK.

14. At Lucknow on 28/12/1887, on the eve of the Congress session in Madras he said

"If you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then in the name of God! Jump into the train, sit down, and be off to Madras”. Syed Ahmad Khan On the present state of Indian Politics pg 11-12. Referring to these speeches M Noman said “No Muslim of India since then joined the Congress except one or two. Even SAK’s fellow Muslims who differed from his views on religion, education and social matters, opposed him violently, followed him in politics and preserved their isolation from the Congress”.
15. There is no doubt that SAK succeed in keeping the bulk of the Muslims away from the Congress. In 1896, Rahimatullah Sayani, a distinguished Muslim, presided over the Congress session. Haji Ismail Khan a friend of SAH suggested to the Congress President that the Congress should pass a resolution to the effect that the Hindus and Muslims should have equal seats in the legislative councils, district boards and municipalities. SAK endorsed it and wrote an article that Muslims could join the Congress only if the Congress agreed to the proposal of Ismail Khan. P C Ghosh.

16. SAK's biographer, Hali, wrote,

"One day as Sir Syed was discussing educational affairs of Muslims with Mr. Shakespeare – the then Commissioner of Banaras – Mr. Shakespeare looked surprised and asked him, 'This is the first time when I have heard you talking specifically about Muslims. Before this you used to talk about the welfare of the common Indians'. Sir Syed then told him, 'Now I am convinced that the two communities [Muslims and Hindus] will not put their hearts in any venture together. This is nothing [it is just the beginning], in the coming times an ever increasing hatred and animosity appears on the horizon simply because of those who are regarded as educated. Those who will be around will witness it.'
17. On Hindi, SAK said :- "Urdu was the language of gentry and Hindi that of the vulgar." This evoked hostile remarks from Hindus across the country. Bharatendu Harishchandra's response in his typical acerbic style is worth noting.

18.
Aligarh Movement was committed to collaboration of more privileged classes of Indian Muslim society with the imperial regime. Sir Sayed Ahmed Khan wanted well-born Muslims to cherish Islam and a Muslim social identity while mastering modern European arts and sciences and social graces.
Islamic Revival in British India by Metcalf, page11

The movement gradually encouraged the Indian Muslims "to accept an emotional espousal of the 'colonial sociology' of India in which Indian Muslims - of all classes and all regions - were a corporate group, marked by their past as rulers and their present as a minority in need of protection"
ibid. page334

19. His biographer, Hali, wrote,

"One day as Sir Syed was discussing educational affairs of Muslims with Mr. Shakespeare – the then Commissioner of Banaras – Mr. Shakespeare looked surprised and asked him, 'This is the first time when I have heard you talking specifically about Muslims. Before this you used to talk about the welfare of the common Indians'. Sir Syed then told him, 'Now I am convinced that the two communities [Muslims and Hindus] will not put their hearts in any venture together. This is nothing [it is just the beginning], in the coming times an ever increasing hatred and animosity appears on the horizon simply because of those who are regarded as educated. Those who will be around will witness it.'”
20. Quoting from Indian Controversies by Arun Shourie pg 106, SAK believed that

If the Congress or the British persist in pushing these proposals the Muslims will fight with the help of the Turks and Pathans if necessary. He said that Muslims are enjoined by the Quran and the Prophet to be loyal to the ruler. Muslims are taught by the Koran that people who are most likely to be their friends are Christians rather than kafirs.
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Discerning ones will realize that this kind of tag teaming between sons of Abraham against Pagans (usually) is not limited to a few isolated cases. Some notable examples of this have been cited on this forum :-

1. Afghan King Shah Shuja requesting the British to invade Punjab as they worship same God.



2. Christian community of the British India vehemently supported the cause of Pakistan

http://www.bzu.edu.pk/PJSS/Vol32No22012/Final_PJSS-32-2-12.pdf

3. Tacit approval and aid of Pak's Hindu genocide in E.Pakistan.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-71-indo-pak-war-soldiers.74437/#post-1111011

4. Yechury says Marxism is like Islam and Christianity

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150524/jsp/nation/story_21820.jsp#.VobmKvkrKV5

It's happening even today in Indian politics as we speak with Muslim + Christian + Secular vote banks coalescing against BJP. The situation in Kerala and Maoism + NE terrorism (aided by BD + Pak + Church) are perfect example of a pan Abrahamist alliance working together to hurt Hindus. It's happening in UK with alliance of Labor party + British MSM + Pakistanis working to undermine Hindus & Sikhs (check some videos here). A very learned acharya on twitter calls this pan-abrahamistic alliance the
"mleccha-marunmmata abhisamdhi" (mleccha = white xtian, marunmatta = muslim, abhisamdhi = conspiracy/ collusion/agreement). Here's a good introductory article from him on this subject :-

https://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/5030/

Some more e.g. of alliance in this post :-




Pretacharin = Christian, TSP = Terrorist State of Pakistan.

Actions of mlechCha-s (White Xtians) have ended up strengthening the marUnmatta-s (Muslims) rather than weakening them :-




So support for Pakistan by West, western indologists whitewashing Islamic marauders, bashing of Hindutva by liberal Western & Indian media, or the deference of Crypto Abrahamistic secular Indian state towards Muslims ("Muslims have the first right towards Indian resources" - ex PM Manmohan Singh) should not just be taken as a geopolitical expediency or some stupid communal-sicukular dialectic but also needs to be looked at in an ideological context. This theory also sheds some light on the ambiguous stance West has taken with respect to mischievous elements in Syria/Iraq (compare outrage on refugees vs deafening silence over genocide of Yazidis and Mandaeans) and the Buddhist-Rohingya civil war in Burma.
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Continuing from post #2, post Aligarh movement and its evolution to Pakistan movement.



Pakistan movement a useful leverage against Hindu nationalists.




From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 29
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
British feared loss of political influence in Indian subcontinent as Indian Congress and nationalists were not interested in any military cooperation with Britain post 1947. The state was strategically located close to the site of 19th century great game.




From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 30

Tarek Fatah on the same and how Jinnah was a "kiraye ka aadmi" :-


Watch from 35:30 onwards to 42:00
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Chruchil changes his stance from "no Indian independence" to favoring "Hindustan, Pakistan, Princestan".



From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 30


Churchil after reading a conservative book that argued for creating a Muslim homeland before British quit - "I agree with the book's conclusion - Pakistan"



Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire By Alex von Tunzelmann


Post 47 Churchil continues to bat for Pakistan and Muslims



The celebrated British prime minister allegedly a strong admirer of Islam :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-family-feared-he-might-convert-to-Islam.html

While for Hindus he said “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” when asked about the Bengal famine of 1943 which the British themselves engineered for profit.
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Atlee agreed with partition so long as Congress acquiesced to it and Britain was absolved of any guilt.




British military become enthusiastic supporters of Pakistan as bases, airfields and ports will be invaluable to common wealth defence.





From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 31 - 32
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
British support for Pakistan on the Kashmir issue :-



Giving Pakistan the international stature and historical depth (reminds me of "Islam ka Qila" / "Fort of Islam" / self appointed saviors of Islamic world rhetoric you often see on Paki TV) that it was didn't deserve. Prophetic words of Wavell about next struggle for world power being about control of oil reserves.




From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 32 - 33
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Michael O'Dwyer in 1933 says what is to stop a breakaway of Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan and NWFP if Hindu majority tries to force its will on Muslim majority.




Khan Abdul Wali Khan "Frontier Gandhi" accused Caroe of joining "an open conspiracy with the Muslim League to bathe the province in blood".



From "The Invention of Pakistan How the British Raj Sundered " by Karl E. Meyer*

http://www.newschool.edu/wpi/journal/articles/wpj03-1/meyer.html
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Pakistan's support to terrorism didn't deter Britain from supporting Pakistani military or its nuclear tests.



From "Secret Affairs: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam" , by Mark Curtis , page 203
 

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
Robyn Raphael was possibly Pakistan's greatest asset in USA.

Reconciliation efforts in Kashmir
At the State Department, Raphel prioritized resolution of the Kashmir problem to reduce tensions between India and Pakistan as one the central policy positions during her tenure. Her characterization of Kashmir as "disputed territory" – a first in the annals of U.S. diplomacy – made her popular in Pakistan, where her first husband Arnold Raphel had been ambassador[15] while also making her unpopular with the Indian establishment, which was loath to allow any interference of outside powers in what New Delhi considered a purely domestic matter.[16] Kashmir was raised on the agenda in Bhutto's first state visit to Washington in April 1995. It would remain a key topic of regional and bilateral discussions with both India and Pakistan throughout Clinton's two terms in office. Raphel's outspoken advocacy of a principled resolution in Kashmir would lead to pressure from India for Raphel to be removed from her post.[16] She left the State Department's South Asia section in late June 1997.[1]

Engaging and cooperating with the Taliban

A second major policy directive that Raphel advocated and developed during her tenure was engagement and cooperation with the Taliban.[15] Her positions raised equal measure of praise and scorn.[17] U.S. energy policies in the mid-1990s sought to develop alternative supply routes to counter increasing tensions in the Middle East. The Clinton administration supported oil and gas pipelines to transport Turkmenistan's rich energy reserves through Afghanistan to an exit at Pakistan's Indian Ocean seaport of Gwadar.[18]:165 Raphel openly spoke in favor of a proposed pipeline project by Unocal Corporation, an American oil company, on trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan in April and August 1996. Overt Clinton administration support for the Unocal project, and the subsequent taking of Kabul in September 1996 by the Taliban, raised concerns in Russia and Iran that U.S. intelligence assets were behind the rise of Taliban control in Afghanistan to advance U.S. energy interests in the region.[18]:165

Raphel was instrumental in coordinating the State Department's establishment of diplomatic relations with the Taliban shortly after its takeover of Kabul.[19]:300 A senior Unocal executive commented that the pipeline project would be far easier to implement with the Taliban in control, in reference to the need for central control in Afghanistan to undertake a project of the size, complexity and cost the Texas-based oil giant was considering.[18]:166 Unocal's consortium also included Saudi Arabia's Delta Oil, Pakistan's Crescent Group and Gazprom of Russia. The project involved building an 890-kilometer gas pipeline that would carry 1.9 billion cubic feet of gas to Pakistan each day.[20]:95 Unocal held detailed discussions with Taliban representatives in Houston in December 1997, striking a deal[21] that would later collapse under the weight of rising U.S. and Afghan domestic political pressures against the Taliban's record on human rights, education and treatment of women.[18]:171–174

In pursuing the Clinton administration's energy objectives through construction of the $4.5 billion Afghanistan Oil Pipeline, Raphel created ill will with Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, then under the command of Ahmad Shah Masood.[20]:95 Masood-controlled militias blocked the pipeline's northern access route due to the longstanding civil war with Taliban forces. After Masood was killed September 9, 2001 in a Taliban bombing, Raphel's critics accused her of collaborating with the Taliban to advance American commercial interests even as the group gave refuge to Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other senior al-Qaeda leaders in the time leading up to the September 11 attacks.[19]

Rapprochement with Pakistan
Raphel entered her State Department assignment at a time when U.S.-Pakistan relations were strained. Sanctions imposed by George H. W. Bush over concerns about Pakistan's burgeoning nuclear program under the Pressler Amendmentbanned all military ties, supply of military hardware and jet fighters, and cut off political relations with Islamabad.[22] Bhutto sought rapprochement with the Clinton White House, and Raphel became a key player in orchestrating the renewal of ties, visiting the United States in April 1995.[23] Raphel, working with Pakistan's envoy to Washington at the time, Dr. Maleeha Lodhi, helped craft administration policy changes and build Congressional support that would ultimately become law through repeal of the Pressler Amendment.[24] The Brown Amendment was put into effect in November 1995.[25]:78 It restored U.S.-Pakistan relations and allowed Raphel to proceed apace in executing U.S. energy objectives in the region, now with new-found support from the Pakistani military for restoring military-to-military ties and its civilian government for insuring return of funds paid by Pakistan to the United States for undelivered F-16 fighterjets.[25]

Impact in India
Raphel's emphasis on providing Pakistan with military aid, siding with Pakistan on Kashmir issue and construction of oil line in Afghanistan for supply to Pakistan made her unpopular within the Indian establishment, despite being stationed in New Delhi in her early career.[26] Her characterization in her capacity as an official of the State Department official of Kashmir as disputed territory and her lobbying for separatists in Jammu and Kashmir when she was stationed there made her a target of criticism in India.[16] Her official position on the topic was overshadowed by off-the-record comments in which she questioned whether India's territorial integrity might not be changed by seeking self-determination rights for Kashmiris. Raphel also sided with Sikh separatists and persuaded Clinton to support them. She was seen in New Delhi as a catalyst for Washington's "trafficking with India's enemies".[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Raphel


If broke countries like Pakistan can buy up people like Raphel, imagine what Saudis can buy.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,880
Likes
48,578
Country flag
Hillary will be a bigger disaster than Raphel in regard to India.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

roma

NRI in Europe
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
3,582
Likes
2,538
Country flag
it seems to me that theses Brits and usa-ians, have foresight in some areas and little to none in some other critically important areas ....how they failed to envision, before the partitions that shariah and ummah would go for their throats, even given their experiences in the crusades ...makes one wonder

they failed to see that shariah and ummah would use their right hands to cut the throats of anglo-saxons whether brit or usa-ian, while receiving weapons and financial support from the left hand
is a stark reminder of how tunnelled their vision must have been and in some cases the hangover still continues

they are digging their own graves if they continue this way. It had been only a few in the senate like Raorbacher who were able to see clearly, but thanfully there are more and more nowadays only recently who are ever so slowly being able to see the truth for what it is

now they are learning the hard way , if they indeed are inclined to want to learn !

It should be clear to indians that without the steering by Israeli political communities in the usa and europe, steering the anglo -saxons and europeans away from being pro-shariah to being more pro-israel , we would still , today , see a usa and europe which would be favouring the ummah over india by a larger margin than what we had seen in the recent past.

Every time the west is drawn towards israel, india benefits and each time the west in the UN condemns israel in some biased attempt to craft an anti-israel resolution, india likely stands the possibility of losing out in some way, however remote. .

@angeldude13@Abhijat@Ancient Indian@anupamsurey@aliyah @Alien@angeldude13@Abhijat@Ancient Indian@anupamsurey @aliyah @Alien @Aravind Sanjeev @A chauhan @asingh10 @asianobserve @BATTLE FIELD@bose @Bornubus @brational@blueblood@Blackwater@Blood+ @bhai-117
@Bangalorean @bengalraider @cobra commando @Chirag @Chris Jude @Chinmoy@Cadian @DingDong@ersakthivel @FRYCRY @guru-dutt@Hari Sud@hit&run @HeinzGud @indiandefencefan @I_PLAY_BAD @Indian Devil @Indibomber @Jangaruda @jackprince@Kunal @Kshatriya87 Biswas@LETHALFORCE@laughingbuddha @mhk99 @maomao @Neil @Nicky G @OneGrimPilgrim@pmaitra @PaliwalWarrior @Pulkit @Rowdy@Razor@Rashna @[email protected] @Sakal Gharelu Ustad @Srinivas_K @sunnyv @sgarg@sabari @Sameet2 @saik @sorcerer @sydsnyper @Sridevi @SREEKAR @TejasMK3@The enlightened @tejas warrior@tharun@thethinker@tsunami@Screambowl @Sylex21 @VIP @Vishwarupa @Vishal Guts @Yusuf@Yumdoot @Zebra
 
Last edited:

asingh10

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2015
Messages
1,785
Likes
3,462
I think it should be amply clear by now to the Akhand Bharat enthusiasts that any misadventure in Pakistan will invite the full wrath of entire Anglosphere + China who have vested long term strategic interests (aside from natural ideological alliances) in Pakistan. It should also be clear why India was let go in 1971 with a slap on the wrist (British docs delineate W.Pak areas as strategically imp.) Or why there is an attitude of deference towards Pakistan and Indian Muslims by the crypto Abrahamistic Indian secular state (inherited trait from British). The West is not interested in any kind of "solutions' or fixing the terror menace that Pakistan is. They are happy with the status quo while pretending to be the peace mediators between us and Pakistan. It is also plausible that elected governments in India forced to toe a certain line w.r.t Pakistan. In this current arrangement, we will always be forced back on the table to talk with Pakistan because that's what west wants.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,880
Likes
48,578
Country flag
I think it should be amply clear by now to the Akhand Bharat enthusiasts that any misadventure in Pakistan will invite the full wrath of entire Anglosphere + China who have vested long term strategic interests (aside from natural ideological alliances) in Pakistan. It should also be clear why India was let go in 1971 with a slap on the wrist (British docs delineate W.Pak areas as strategically imp.) Or why there is an attitude of deference towards Pakistan and Indian Muslims by the crypto Abrahamistic Indian secular state (inherited trait from British). The West is not interested in any kind of "solutions' or fixing the terror menace that Pakistan is. They are happy with the status quo while pretending to be the peace mediators between us and Pakistan. It is also plausible that elected governments in India forced to toe a certain line w.r.t Pakistan. In this current arrangement, we will always be forced back on the table to talk with Pakistan because that's what west wants.
So why do Indian leaders continue on this idiotic path? Until Indian leaders realize that
After fifty years diplomacy is not the solution and take a differ stance nothing will change. The only monkey wrench was when India went nuclear but west and China had a solution for that by making sure pak also went nuclear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

garg_bharat

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
5,078
Likes
10,139
Country flag
Point 1: UK is on decline and will be completely insignificant in just a few years.

Point 2: Pakistan cannot sustain in the long term due to deep societal problems.

Point 3: India needs to gain economic and military strength before becoming more assertive. India lacks military strength which is far less compared to its size.

Point 4: It will be better for India to stop looking at UK for anything. History is not a guide to the future.
 

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Pakistan is not a typical modern state. It is a Jagirhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagir awarded by colonial imperial power to the Indian Muslim Upper caste elites (mainly from north-central India and elite centres of princely states like Hyderabad Bhopal etc) and Landlords of North-west India.
Jagirdar are free to lord over their awarded lands and slave populace but at times they need to provide their services to the master.

Please note how even today Pakistani political leaders when they want to hold important meetings and negotiations, they prefer doing it in some hotel in London, sometimes they ask British ministsers to mediate in their fights. Sometimes entire political party is run by a 'leader' sitting in london.
Most Pakistani
elite families have second homes in london and even dual citizenship.FFew years back they even sent a British citizen to directly appoint as prime minister. And there are other things like how the 'spiritual leadership' i.e. cult leaders of sects nurtured during British Raj like ahmedis and bohras live in London.
 
Last edited:

LordOfTheUnderworlds

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
Messages
1,299
Likes
1,379
Country flag
Please also note how Indian elite class and section of media shows soft corner and even infatuation for Pakistani elite class. Their contempt is reserved for poor Pakistani slave class and brainwashed foot soldiers.
 
Last edited:

DingDong

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
3,180
Likes
8,246
Country flag
Please also note how Indian elite class shows soft corner and even infatuation for Pakistani elite class. Their contempt is reserved for poor Pakistani slave class and brainwashed foot soldiers.
These "class" people look upon the Indian Cattle class with equal contempt, primarily because when it comes to forming a government the "Cattle Class" gains the upper hand in spite of all the political influence they wield otherwise.

How many Indian Elites mocked the Commoners and called them "fools", "illiterate" and what not for electing a Centre-Right Government?

Back on topic, Partition of British India on religious lines was the best thing to happen to us non-Muslims, had this not happened there would have been serious doubt over our survival.

I totally agree with Nehruvian policy of siding with the USSR, because US/UK etc always try to create trouble for their "unsuspecting" and "friendly" hosts. Because of our geopolitical stance our enemies were clearly marked. Indian Union won't have survived had we leaned towards west during 50s-70s.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top