Gilgit Baltistan protest march. Calls on India to help

[agentperry]

gilgit is burning and this is not new thing. its burning since 80s but since its location is so important for both china and pakistan, pakistan military has given full of this area to chinese army for maintaining strategic points and locations which china think if gets into India's hand will be a big blow to its regional doctrine and supremacy and its troubled areas are not to be forgotten.

but i think trouble in pakistan is now beyond repair, baluchistan, KP, gilgit and even karachi and lyari specially, these areas are more than 50% of pak and its under severe tension.

 

[Drsomnath999]

India needs to do draw attention of international community on the atrocites on SHIA minorites on gilgit balistan .POOR chaps must be cursing themselves
why they are under pakistan rule

 

[Bachchu Yadav]

Are SHiA non-muslim in Pakistan ?

 

[Yusuf]

Are SHiA non-muslim in Pakistan ?

Not yet. They can't do that. Shias are a sizable minority in Pak.

 

[Drsomnath999]

Not yet. They can't do that. Shias are a sizable minority in Pak.

shias are the achoots in pakistan

 

[Ray]

India will do nothing now or ever.

India is too meek.

The poor Shias take a beating everywhere since the Sunnis are in overwhelming majority except maybe in Iraq and Iran.

And where the are in majority, the damn Sheik is a Sunni!

And where the Shias are a minority and ruling, they are getting a rough deal as in Syria, where the Sunnis have ganged up with western help to oust them and install a Sunni pro western regime!

 

[KS]

Not yet. They can't do that. Shias are a sizable minority in Pak.

Not for long..they are being systematically eliminated.

The media only reports a fraction of the actual killings.

Anyway this is their cosmic justice - Jinnah was Shia and the Ahmedis financed the partition movement.

 

[Tronic]

And where the Shias are a minority and ruling, they are getting a rough deal as in Syria, where the Sunnis have ganged up with western help to oust them and install a Sunni pro western regime!

The West has been the greatest evil when it comes to propping up fanatically religious artificial regimes. They overthrew the Democratic Iranian government in the 50s, simply because they were secular socialists, they systematically undermined the secular government of Egypt for decades until puppet Mubarak took his place, and now we see the results with the orthodox Muslim Brotherhood having gained so much ground. In Yemen, the West funded war against the Yemen Arab Republic simply because their fat Yemeni despotic Sheikh got desposed by the revolutionaries. Later, they funded war against the secular and communist South Yemen government, weakening the leftist forces and strengthening the rabid rightist Mullahs; and today, they have to carry out air strikes in Yemen to kill Al Qaeda. The West will never learn and look only for short term benefits.

Take one look what the West did to Afghanistan.

Before Western intervention, Kabul in the 1970s:

After Western intervention, and Afghans being freed from the "evil" secular socialist rule:

Pictures say a thousand words.

 

[The Messiah]

^ why go back few dedaces ? look at iraq's society under saddam and now.

 

[KS]

Iraq must be partitioned into three legally...There is no way in the foreseaable future they are going to live together.

Same with Afghanistan.

The goat bangers must be given the Southern part and a few million goats to bang till kingdom comes..The rest of the same Afghans - Pashtuns,Hazara,Uzbek,Tajik must have the other part and develop.

 

[Tronic]

Iraq must be partitioned into three legally...There is no way in the foreseaable future they are going to live together.

They lived together for the past 60 years, they can live together for the foreseeable future aswell. They just need to rediscover their socialist Arab identity, and not let the Westerners screw then up again. At the end of the day, they are all Arabs, with the exception of the Kurds, but you cannot partition Kurds from Iraq, and not from Iran and Turkey.

Same with Afghanistan.

The goat bangers must be given the Southern part and a few million goats to bang till kingdom comes..The rest of the same Afghans - Pashtuns,Hazara,Uzbek,Tajik must have the other part and develop.

Pakistan is the problem in Afghanistan, not goat bangers.


ps. The talks of partitioning these countries are simply due to the failure of the Western governments to replace the previous stable governments with new western oriented stable ones. The Soviets did an awesome job with Afghan's Central Asian cousins, so much so that all the Central Asian Republics were the ones who wanted to retain the Soviet Union, at the time that the American rat Yeltsin took it apart!

 

[KS]

They lived together for the past 60 years, they can live together for the foreseeable future aswell. They just need to rediscover their socialist Arab identity, and not let the Westerners screw then up again. At the end of the day, they are all Arabs, with the exception of the Kurds, but you cannot partition Kurds from Iraq, and not from Iran and Turkey.

They lived together....because Saddam was a dictator and brooked no dissent.

To his credit he kept Iraq secular and he supported India. But that doesn't alter reality. It was the Sunnis from his tribe who were ruling Iraq and the Shias were not given representation in governance. The socialist Arab identity did not and cannot mask the millenia old sectarian identity.

They deserve democracy and peace..and the only way is to partition them...Kurds are already a separate entity for all means and purposes. Let the Western, central provinces be given to Sunni and the rest be with Shia's.

Pakistan is the problem in Afghanistan, not goat bangers.

Both are the problems.

Blaming America for all ills in the world doesn't solve anything. At the end of the day the Americans are there to further their national interest. If the people themselves ar willing to fight, why blame the Americans ?

You know what is the root of all problems ? The sectarian,tribal,ethnic identities/loyalties that plague Middle East stretching from Pak. Unless that is gone, today it will America, tomorrow it will be some one else.

 

[pmaitra]

Karthic,

This is just my perception. I think the Pashtoons aren't as bad as they are perceived. Yes, most in the Taliban were Pashtoons, but then, there were many Pashtoons who were against the Taliban. Also, do not forget Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. Moreover, even among Pashtoons, there are sub-classifications, and not all groups are friendly with others.

The core issue here is Pashtoons want an end to the artificial Durand Line because it divides the native region of the Pashtoons. Pakistan sees this as a threat to its territorial integrity. It is in Pakistan's interest to keep Afghanistan boiling, so that Pakistan remains intact.

Afghans realize it very well that Pakistan is responsible for most of the suffering of Afghanistan. Majority of Afghans do not blame the Soviets or US as much as they blame Pakistan. They are not stupid. Unfortunately, they do have a raw sense of 'honour,' 'blood-feud,' 'vengeance,' etc., and it is not too difficult to get the different ethnicities within Afghanistan to fight each other.

India's focus should be to keep the Afghans united, and if that is done, part of the war is won.

 

[KS]

Karthic,

This is just my perception. I think the Pashtoons aren't as bad as they are perceived. Yes, most in the Taliban were Pashtoons, but then, there were many Pashtoons who were against the Taliban. Also, do not forget Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan. Moreover, even among Pashtoons, there are sub-classifications, and not all groups are friendly with others.

The core issue here is Pashtoons want an end to the artificial Durand Line because it divides the native region of the Pashtoons. Pakistan sees this as a threat to its territorial integrity. It is in Pakistan's interest to keep Afghanistan boiling, so that Pakistan remains intact.

Afghans realize it very well that Pakistan is responsible for most of the suffering of Afghanistan. Majority of Afghans do not blame the Soviets or US as much as they blame Pakistan. They are not stupid. Unfortunately, they do have a raw sense of 'honour,' 'blood-feud,' 'vengeance,' etc., and it is not too difficult to get the different ethnicities within Afghanistan to fight each other.

India's focus should be to keep the Afghans united, and if that is done, part of the war is won.

dude never did I lump all pashtuns into one category...definitely there are sane ones too and I acknowledged that in my previous post.

.

The rest of the same Afghans - Pashtuns,Hazara,Uzbek,Tajik must have the other part and develop.

But the Taliban are an abomination and if they cant be culled away - they cant be - then they should be given a piece of real estate and let them fight there. The rest of the country along with the sane Pashtuns need to develop and for that I dont see another solution other than dividing Afghanistan.

yes the Panjabi enstablishment's primary issue in keeping the pot boiling is they fear once the nationalist sentiment arises among the Pashtuns they would simply do a Abdali on them. But I dont think so. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan may hate Pakistan..but the pathans from Pakistan (except maybe FATA who dont identify with anyone) identify with Pakistan than with afghanistan.

 

[pmaitra]

dude never did I lump all pashtuns into one category...definitely there are sane ones too and I acknowledged that in my previous post.

.

But the Taliban are an abomination and if they cant be culled away - they cant be - then they should be given a piece of real estate and let them fight there. The rest of the country along with the sane Pashtuns need to develop and for that I dont see another solution other than dividing Afghanistan.

yes the Panjabi enstablishment's primary issue in keeping the pot boiling is they fear once the nationalist sentiment arises among the Pashtuns they would simply do a Abdali on them. But I dont think so. The Pashtuns of Afghanistan may hate Pakistan..but the pathans from Pakistan (except maybe FATA who dont identify with anyone) identify with Pakistan than with afghanistan.

To the seocnd part of your post: How are you going to 'cull' the Taliban? You cannot. It will exist in different capacities as long as Pakistan exists. On the other hand, Afghanistan is already fragmented, and it is so easy to get them to fight each other; if they were even more fragmented or even divided, can you guarantee there won't be more wars?

Afganistan already has a hierarchy in place, some kind of federalism, and a Jirga (~parliament or ~assembly) of representatives. Let them be together, with each hierarchical subdivision looking after development of each region, but no, partition on ethnic lines, IMHO, is not the solution.

 

[Tronic]

They lived together....because Saddam was a dictator and brooked no dissent.

And yet he was no different that any in his neighbourhood.

Too his credit he kept Iraq secular and he supported India. But that doesn't alter reality. It was the Sunnis from his tribe who were ruling Iraq and the Shias were not given representation in governance. The socialist Arab identity did not and cannot mask the millenia old sectarian identity.

On the contrary, Saddam rose to power on Shi'a support. Saddam's Ba'ath party was majority Shia when he took control. However, it is not hard to see why Shia dropped as Saddam started to consolidate his hold. Just take one look at the 1991 "Shia uprising" against Saddam. These sectarian divides were fully sponsored and encouraged by the United States. Just look at how the West played up Saddam arresting Shia Clerics, criminally divisive people such as Al-Sadr, but they don't say one word about how Saddam equally arrested and suppressed Sunni clerics. Why so much voice for one, but mum on the other? The agenda is pretty obvious. Divide and rule.

The same game they played against Assad, a Shia ruling over majority Sunnis. In Syria, they keep their mouths shut over how the Assads had equally persecuted the Shia religious leaders, but the West beats its chest over how he persecutes "Sunni clerics". Half baked truths to divide and rule, nothing else.

They can't bare to see socialism being the cure for socially divisive cancers such as religious intolerance and hatred. The West can't bare to see that Arab socialism is the child of Christian, Sunni and Shia Arabs equally.

They deserve democracy and peace..and the only way is to partition them...Kurds are already a separate entity for all means and purposes. Let the Western, central provinces be given to Sunni and the rest be with Shia's.

Pakistan already proves that partition on religious lines is anything but peaceful. All the people deserve peace, and partitioning on the basis of religion or sect does not deliver peace; only social humanism does.

The Kurds are a separate issue altogether, and don't fit into this topic. The Kurds are secular and socialists who belong to both Sunni aswell as Shia sect, but are above these sectarian divides and fight for a common Kurdistan for all Kurds. A good example for the rest of the Iraqis.

Blaming America for all ills in the world doesn't solve anything. At the end of the day the Americans are there to further their national interest. If the people themselves ar willing to fight, why blame the Americans ?

I'm not blaming America for all ills in the world, I'm only blaming them for the ills they are culpable to.

And Americans may be there to further their own national interests, but I don't see how that absolves them of blame?

You know what is the root of all problems ? The sectarian,tribal,ethnic identities/loyalties that plague Middle East stretching from Pak. Unless that is gone, today it will America, tomorrow it will be some one else.

Those sectarian, tribal, ethnic identities/loyalties are traits present in all humans, everywhere, not just the Middle East. India is no different, nor is rest of Asia. Latin America, and Africa the same!

(We, India, were just lucky to have been firmly in the Socialist camp at our birth).

It is a constant war between the divisive and the humanists. IMO, Socialists values are humanist values in nature. America opposes, and so too will many others who like playing divisive games. It were the British yesterday, the Americans today, and it will be someone else tomorrow. No doubt.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Excellent example Tronic. I learnt a lot about Iraq from your post.

Regarding Assad, it is not a Shia-Sunni issue. Assad is not anti-Sunni. His wife and in-laws are from an influential Sunni background.

The West wants to get the Sunnis and Shias to fight each other, just like they got Hindus and Muslims to fight each other in India. This is clear cut divide and rule.

Coming back to Gilgit-Baltistan, it is the classic case of eliminate the minority, and after having eliminated all non-Muslims, they (Pakistanis) are now trying to eliminate the Ahmadiya and Shia Muslims. Once that is accomplished, they will look for another subdivision among Muslims (or ethnic group) and start destroying them. This will go on and on till one last man is surviving (hyperbole).

 

[KS]

To the seocnd part of your post: How are you going to 'cull' the Taliban? You cannot.

That is what I said. They cant be culled. So give them an arena to fight till they kill each other.

It will exist in different capacities as long as Pakistan exists. On the other hand, Afghanistan is already fragmented, and it is so easy to get them to fight each other; if they were even more fragmented or even divided, can you guarantee there won't be more wars?

Afganistan already has a hierarchy in place, some kind of federalism, and a Jirga (~parliament or ~assembly) of representatives. Let them be together, with each hierarchical subdivision looking after development of each region, but no, partition on ethnic lines, IMHO, is not the solution.

Afghanistan will never progress if they are kept united. They are already sub nationals at heart. Just make it legal. The history between the different tribes are simply too large to create a united "afghan" identity.

Also regarding Syria..assad is an alawite and that is one of main factors of the rebellion.

 

[Tronic]

Regarding Assad, it is not a Shia-Sunni issue. Assad is not anti-Sunni. His wife and in-laws are from an influential Sunni background.

The West wants to get the Sunnis and Shias to fight each other, just like they got Hindus and Muslims to fight each other in India. This is clear cut divide and rule.

Yup, and thus, in the eyes of the West, Assad is evil, how dare he, a Shia, marry into a Sunni family!

Had he been a Wahabbi nutjob like the Sauds, he would have been in the good books of the West!

Even now, the West is fully aware that the present "uprising" is being carried out by radical Sunni groups, just like it was in the 60s and 70s, and is still supporting and funding this insurgency against Assad. Last I checked, Al-Qaeda too was jumping in the fight against Assad. Perfect picture; the West, Al-Qaeda, and all rightist radical Mullahs ganging up against Assad; natural and historic allies.

Two socialists ganging up......

Common now, don't complain, how many righties did I have to handle single handedly in so many threads?

Tronic and I? Ha ha ha, I find his posts very accurate and objective. I guess he does have a socialist bent, am I right Tronic?

Yes, I do. (social ideologically though, economically, I believe it has to be a mix)

 

[KS]

And yet he was no different that any in his neighbourhood.

Doesn't mean he was good...to his people.

On the contrary, Saddam rose to power on Shi'a support. Saddam's Ba'ath party was majority Shia when he took control. However, it is not hard to see why Shia dropped as Saddam started to consolidate his hold. Just take one look at the 1991 "Shia uprising" against Saddam. These sectarian divides were fully sponsored and encouraged by the United States. Just look at how the West played up Saddam arresting Shia Clerics, criminally divisive people such as Al-Sadr, but they don't say one word about how Saddam equally arrested and suppressed Sunni clerics. Why so much voice for one, but mum on the other? The agenda is pretty obvious. Divide and rule.

Again you blame the West for a thing Saddam did of his own will. He purged the Iraqi governance of Shias because he considered them disloyal especially after the Iran-Iraq war.

West does all things..agreed...but they are no here to do any charity..are they ? If the native govt's park their brain somewhere and do the diktats of the west, they are to be blamed. Not the West...People just blame West for all and sundry without looking inwads. We give them a chance to exploit ourselves, they use it and then we cry..Bloody West. That is not fair.

The Shia-sunni divide did not come up with the West...it was there for 1000s of years and one man Saddam cant do squat to suppress that.

Anyway talking about the past is useless..coming to the future - I see no real hope for Iraq other than partitioning them into Sunni-Shia and Kurd and let them govern themselves...or create three self-governing autonomous regions under united Iraq.

The same game they played against Assad, a Shia ruling over majority Sunnis. In Syria, they keep their mouths shut over how the Assads had equally persecuted the Shia religious leaders, but the West beats its chest over how he persecutes "Sunni clerics". Half baked truths to divide and rule, nothing else.

Tronic do you even realize that you are agreeing that he is persecuting everyone ? Same with Saddam.

For that he needs to go...not because he is against west, or he is Shia or he is Alawite.
They can't bare to see socialism being the cure for socially divisive cancers such as religious intolerance and hatred. The West can't bare to see that Arab socialism is the child of Christian, Sunni and Shia Arabs equally.

The only equality there in those socialist paradise is everyone is getting "persecuted" equally, except maybe Alawites.

Pakistan already proves that partition on religious lines is anything but peaceful. All the people deserve peace, and partitioning on the basis of religion or sect does not deliver peace; only social humanism does.

Social humanism, liberal humanism etc are BS coffee club communist terms. Human instinct is not compatible with those fancy terms.

I'm not blaming America for all ills in the world, I'm only blaming them for the ills they are culpable to.

And Americans may be there to further their own national interests, but I don't see how that absolves them of blame?

What blame..? America sees the interest of only Americans..the Americans dont play tax money so that they do charity in Somalia. It is upto Somalians to sttand up to US if they feel they are being treated badly. Same with other countries.

No use crying..oh we are wronged. Might is right mate. That is how it was, it is and it will be.

Those sectarian, tribal, ethnic identities/loyalties are traits present in all humans, everywhere, not just the Middle East. India is no different, nor is rest of Asia. Latin America, and Africa the same!

In those pplaces it is just on a whole different level altogether.

(We, India, were just lucky to have been firmly in the Socialist camp at our birth).

I just cant find enough words to disagree.

It is a constant war between the divisive and the humanists. IMO, Socialists values are humanist values in nature. America opposes, and so too will many others who like playing divisive games. It were the British yesterday, the Americans today, and it will be someone else tomorrow. No doubt.

No..socialist values go against the basic human instinct and that is why socialism has failed in every place