No Soldiers for sale

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
No soldiers for sale - DAWN.COM
It was the early hours of August 14th 2013, and flags fluttered on flagpoles around Pakistan, as soldiers in Army bases prepared their customary gun salutes. It was a holiday and salaried men and schoolchildren took a little longer to awaken, dawdling in their beds as pots of tea began to bubble on stove-tops. It was Pakistan's 66th birthday and amid the killings of the 60th decade, hopes were modest.

A few hours flight away from Pakistan's Independence morning, a similarly commemorative dawn rose in Manama, the capital city of Bahrain. Like Pakistan, Bahrain also celebrated its independence from British rule on the 14th of August. It was on that day in 1971 that the United Nations denied the Iranian claim to the island and permitted the Kingdom of Bahrain to establish their own state. On this past Independence Day morning, things were particularly tense. On the days leading up to it, there were rumors that the Opposition to the regime that now calls itself the "Tamarrod" or "rebel" movement would be holding protests. In turn, the statements from Bahrain's regime were also terse. Not satisfied with rounding up at least 1200 people in the past six months, the Bahraini regime planned an even bigger crackdown come Independence Day.

This is where Pakistan enters the picture of oppression in Bahrain. News of Pakistani soldiers beings shipped to Bahrain first came almost two years ago, when the uprising had only just begun. According to a news report from July 2011, Pakistani soldiers were front and center in the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters. According to the report, nearly 2500 Pakistani soldiers, including former army drill instructors, military police and riot police were all supplied following several visits to Islamabad by Bahraini and Saudi officials. Recruited into the Special Forces Units of the Bahraini National Guard, the Pakistani soldiers for hire were put in charge of suppressing the country's majority Shia protesters against the country's minority Sunni monarchy.

In the years since 2011, Pakistan has seen a dramatic escalation of violence against its own Shia population. Buses halted by firing squads, bombs outside mosques, entire apartment buildings blown up and professors gunned down are all incidents from Pakistan's own grotesque tapestry of anti-Shia violence. In the wake of the violence, state complicity in promoting violence against Shias and discrimination against their religious beliefs has been roundly denied. Indeed state officials have pointed to the motley of terrorist groups, from the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan to Lashkar-e-Taiba and numerous others as responsible for the pogroms. Indeed, the manifestos of the groups openly preach the extermination of Pakistan's Shia population as a necessary rite of "purifying" the country into their version of Islamic authenticity. This at least is the official narrative. The Pakistani State is not responsible for the violence, does not condone it and tries to prevent it. The Pakistani military has lost thousands of soldiers to fighting the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan forces, who are leading the massacres of the country's Shia.

This August 14, 2013 local sources from Bahrain confirmed that once again foreign military detachments, including Pakistani soldiers were being deployed in Manama to quell Shia led pro-democracy protests that were expected. This news means that even while anti-Shia violence has escalated in Pakistan and the state has repeatedly asserted its opposition to it, no revision of the policy of supplying troops to another country, to put down their Shia population and pro-democracy rebellion has occurred. This continued supply of military forces suggests an incipient hypocrisy. Either it must be believed that Pakistani soldiers are simply thugs for hire who will kill and quell at the behest of any Arab nation that requests such assistance. Or it can be assumed that the killing of Shia Muslims, whether it occurs in Pakistan or in Bahrain, enjoys a wider degree of support than is being overtly acknowledged.

As a democracy whose Constitution endorses equal rights for all citizens :rofl: regardless of their religious faith, a polity whose own people continue to struggle to establish representative governance; and a military that actually fights those that promote the killing of Shias it makes absolutely no sense to be supplying soldiers for the anti-Shia, anti-democracy oppressions of others. Bahrain and the rest of the Arab World have their own wars to fight; their own roads to democracy to pave, Pakistanis cannot and must not be the obstacles in their path.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
When I was reading about Afghanistan and its ethnic equation, I was astonished to find the contempt the Pashtuns felt for the Hazaras

The rationale for this distaste was that they were Shias and looked like Chinese.

Odd!
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
When I was reading about Afghanistan and its ethnic equation, I was astonished to find the contempt the Pashtuns felt for the Hazaras

The rationale for this distaste was that they were Shias and looked like Chinese.

Odd!
The funny thing is that if you look at the "physiognomy" of some Muslims from the subcontinent and by that I mean even some here in south India you find that a few have a hint of the mongoloid features left over from what I like to call (in jest) Gengis Khan genes.

More seriously the area of cenral Asia including Afghanistan were all part of history going back many thousand years and there has been a definite admixture of genes in that area. The same is true of the admixture of Indian genes (ASI and ANI genes) as discussed on another thread on this forum.

I put in several months of intense study with the intention of writing a book on language spread in India - but that project has been set aside for the time being. But the reading revealed an interesting fact to me. European colonizers who came to India (and Afghanistan) after the industrial revolution came with a sense of superiority of their "race". At that time (in the 1800s) their main goal was to demonstrate their own superiority over the Semitic races (Jews). They had discovered Jewish history in Iran and Iraq that made them feel inferior and were searching for history when they "discovered" Sanskrit and the "Indo-European" link. They then used facial skull similarities to classify Afghans, Punjabis and North Indians in general as "their own race" - i,e Caucasian. It was the "Bengalee" who caused the British most trouble - the politically active people who were eventually put down by the co-option of the "martial races" of the Northwest.

So a sort of mutual admiration developed between the "hardy martial mussalmaan" of the northwest and the Brits - with the "martial" mussalmaans seeing themselves as tall and fair complexioned red meat and wheat eaters (like the British) and the Brits writing eulogies like "You are a better man than I Gunga Din"

Pashtuns and Pakjabis have bought and swallowed these 19th and early 20th century racist descriptions of "Aryan" and non Aryan wholesale. The same attitudes can be seen on Pathan forums on the internet.That would explain Pashtun contempt for "Chinese" looks and our own dear Farhaan's views of race. Pakis have along way to go before reaching even chimpanzee level of awareness and intelligence.
 
Last edited:

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
If you look a old illustrations of Babar (the Mughal) - he had the unmistakable 'epicanthic fold" eyes indicating Mongoloid facial features.

For example this image
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Babur_idealisiert.jpg

Babar essentially represented Persian culture brought to India from Central Asia.. While the courts spoke Persian, the soldiers spoke a bastardized mix of Persian and local Hindustani dialects creating a language called Urdu. The British, in 1837 replaced Persian with Urdu as the court language. While this disempowered some of the Persian speaking elite, it created a conflict for jobs between Hindus who wrote Urdu in Devanagari and Muslims who wrote it in Persian script. The British did not accept Devanagari script for official purposes and this gave users of the Persian script a natural advantage.

Urdu, the official language of Pakistan is simply the language of the courtiers, servants and underlings of Mughal India pretending that they were rulers. The rulers were long since deposed and their language, Persian, erased from India except what survived as Urdu.

I read somewhere that Babri Masjid was a shia mosque. Not sure about that, but Babar's son Humayun certainly became Shia. The Shia/Sunni divide probably goes all the way back to Arab-Persian rivalry and Persia accepted Arab dominance (and teh Arab religion, Islam) with a twist - becoming Shia. It just occurred to me that I must look up the etymology of the name "shia". I wonder if it is derived from the ancient Persian name for Persia going back to the time of Darius the great, a Zoroastrian king who wrote (in the Behistun monument) in the Old Persian language which is very similar to Sanskrit)
"Adam Daravayus" (Like Sanskrit "Aham Daravayus" - I am Darius"),
"kshayatiya kshayati" (sansk: Kshatriya of Kshatriyas - king of kings)
"Persyiayi" (of Persia)

I wonder if "shia" is derived from the old name for Persia - Per-siya, with the followers of the shia branch being persians.

There are other hints, currently unprovable. The old Hindu description of God as being within oneself was a widespread belief all the way up to Iran. The Behistun monument itself is in a place called 'Behistun" whose ancient name was "baga-stana" - with "baga" meaning "God" as in Bhagwan and "stana" meaning place. So one word for God being within oneself could possible be "khuda" derived from the old Zoroastrian word "kvadata" (self defined/lord/ruler)

Note that until Arab Wahhabi (Saud family) influences with oil money started creeping in it was always Khuda hafiz. Now gradually being converted to Allah hafiz.
 
Last edited:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
When I was reading about Afghanistan and its ethnic equation, I was astonished to find the contempt the Pashtuns felt for the Hazaras

The rationale for this distaste was that they were Shias and looked like Chinese.

Odd!
I like hanging out with our NE folks. They're so jovial.
OT: The title gave me a sad impression that this is regarding low internal morale of IA and reducing attraction in youth, because of the GoI's lamb policies.
Well, this is something else :rolleyes:
 

farhan_9909

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,895
Likes
497
The funny thing is that if you look at the "physiognomy" of some Muslims from the subcontinent and by that I mean even some here in south India you find that a few have a hint of the mongoloid features left over from what I like to call (in jest) Gengis Khan genes.

More seriously the area of cenral Asia including Afghanistan were all part of history going back many thousand years and there has been a definite admixture of genes in that area. The same is true of the admixture of Indian genes (ASI and ANI genes) as discussed on another thread on this forum.

I put in several months of intense study with the intention of writing a book on language spread in India - but that project has been set aside for the time being. But the reading revealed an interesting fact to me. European colonizers who came to India (and Afghanistan) after the industrial revolution came with a sense of superiority of their "race". At that time (in the 1800s) their main goal was to demonstrate their own superiority over the Semitic races (Jews). They had discovered Jewish history in Iran and Iraq that made them feel inferior and were searching for history when they "discovered" Sanskrit and the "Indo-European" link. They then used facial skull similarities to classify Afghans, Punjabis and North Indians in general as "their own race" - i,e Caucasian. It was the "Bengalee" who caused the British most trouble - the politically active people who were eventually put down by the co-option of the "martial races" of the Northwest.

So a sort of mutual admiration developed between the "hardy martial mussalmaan" of the northwest and the Brits - with the "martial" mussalmaans seeing themselves as tall and fair complexioned red meat and wheat eaters (like the British) and the Brits writing eulogies like "You are a better man than I Gunga Din"

Pashtuns and Pakjabis have bought and swallowed these 19th and early 20th century racist descriptions of "Aryan" and non Aryan wholesale. The same attitudes can be seen on Pathan forums on the internet.That would explain Pashtun contempt for "Chinese" looks and our own dear Farhaan's views of race. Pakis have along way to go before reaching even chimpanzee level of awareness and intelligence.
why you mention me everywhere?And mark me racist?

Pakistani and indians are different.this is a fact.you just cant term me racist only by posting the facts

but still if you people think for using dalit words for south indians.i am racist.than i apologize because i strickly meant only one member.and my post was only for him
 

bennedose

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
1,365
Likes
2,169
Pakistani and indians are different.this is a fact.you just cant term me racist only by posting the facts

but still if you people think for using dalit words for south indians.i am racist.than i apologize because i strickly meant only one member.and my post was only for him
Farhan you are not just a racist. You are an ignorant racist. You know bugger all about South India because your little pipsqueak ragged and torn country is a zero and only the most stupid people left India and went to Pakistan, leaving behind 80% of the resources and land and 100% of the reputation and history.

Pakis spend all their lives trying to feel good about that by saying 'We are differnt from Indians". Of course Pakis are different. Indians did not choose to live in a strip of land with mountains to the North, desert to the west and a hostile huge and older, more populous and longer surviving neighbour to the east.

Look at this image taken at night. Pakistan's population is all along the Indus, Just one curly-wurly line of lights along the river. Darkness to the west and darkness all along your Islamic neighbours who raped your ancestors and who you mow worship as your heros. No wonder your land is like theirs. India glows like a jewel, Every part is friendly for people to live. Suck that up - you guys are losers who ran away scared of the Hindu you hate and now have to take comfort in a small strip of land and pretend all is well. Who cares. I come here only to mock you and laugh at your pathetic little abomi-nation
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
I like hanging out with our NE folks. They're so jovial.
OT: The title gave me a sad impression that this is regarding low internal morale of IA and reducing attraction in youth, because of the GoI's lamb policies.
Well, this is something else :rolleyes:
The NE people are without guile.

They are indeed good people to know.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,835
@Farhan,

You are the best thing that happened to this forum.

Your comments remind us of the comic relief given during tense scenes in Hindi films by Mukri!

I leave it to a better expert on Pakistan - @bennedose - educate you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top