Is a stable Pakistan in our interest?

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
Terrorists are sending a clear message: "They can now hit Pakistani establishment at their whims, anywhere/anytime", Pakistan is going deeper into "Civil War" state. A volatile Pakistan is not in India's interest where terrorists run the state affairs, so the alligation is absurd. Instead Pakistan must spend more time in sanitizing it's security apparatus which has been breached/overwhelmed by taliban sympathizers.
Could you please explain the highlighted part!
Why is a volatile Pakistan not in India's interest? Does that mean a stable Pakistan is in India's interest? How so? Then again, what is stability? How do you define a stable Pakistan?

Plz dont say that the terrorists/taliban/JeM/Let/......etc are more anti-indian then ISI/PA. ISI/PA have only one agenda of 'flying a green flag over red fort', while taliban has dreams of 'global war'. So, if the terrorists take over, then the rest of the world will come under the same kind of attack that India has been seeing for decades now. That should really wake up the world(I mean US). While ISI/PA would divert all their resources to fund terrorism of all kinds(religious, economic.....etc) in India. Taliban would have greater goals and hene India would be a small part of their plan. Thus, heat would be off India. And finally, if the taliban or someother terrorists take over Pakistan officially, then all the pretensions would end and world(US) would be forced to deal with the problem with some honesty. Right now, we have ISI/PA in power in Pakistan who are no better than taliban but they disguise themselves and hence get away with all the mayhem they have created in Afghanistan, Indian and also in Pakistan.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
X-posting from another forum....

Why do we keep hearing Indians leaders say that "An intact, stable Pakistan is in India's interest?"


I would like to examine the issue of Pakistan's stability and Indian interest from various angles to see if we are completely off track in imagining that Pakistani stability is bad for India.

1) The Historic angle:

If you look back at the last 63 years since Pakistan was formed it might be possible to identify periods when Pakistan was intact and stable and it benefited India greatly. So let us move back to 1947.

In 1947 Pakistanis supported Jihadis attacked J&K and attempted to take it over. The end of the year in 1948 left India without a sizable chunk of J&K. If Pakistan attacked India and occupied territory, I would like to know how the Pakistan of 1947-48, intact as it was, was in any way beneficial to India.

The period 1948 to 1965 (17 years) was an interesting period. Pakistan was intact and stable. Pakistan's economy was greatly aided by the US at this time and Pakistan had developed the reputation enjoyed by "Asian economic tigers" of a later era. So we had an intact and stable Pakistan in this period. But how did that augur for India? Was in in "India interest". This can be answered in a backhanded way. Pakistan's stability in the 1948-1965period benefited India in that Pakistan did not attack India. The benefit here is like claiming that "Not being assaulted and attacked" by a belligerent is some kind of "great economic, diplomatic advantage". Protection money paid by victims to mafia gangs achieves the same effect of "security" that Pakistan offered India between 1948 and 1965.

In 1965 Pakistan attempted to take over Kashmir by force. Unless "being attacked by Pakistan" is considered a great diplomatic and economic boon to India, this attack could not have been in "India's interest"

Pakistan displayed relative stability up to 1971 when the Bangladesh crisis was sparked off. The Bangladesh crisis did not contribute to India's interest in any way. On the contrary, splitting Pakistan and defeating it militarily contributed to a period of stability in the subcontinent that was in India's interest. Here we have a classic example of an instance in which an non-intact and fragmented Pakistan was in India's interest. Not the other way round.

The 80s were a period of relative stability in Pakistan. During this period the only factor that worked in India interest was that India was not attacked by Pakistan. However Pakistan did try expansionism by converting the Siachen glacier area into a park for mountaineers. This was thwarted militarily by India. But the conclusion is the same. Pakistan's stability did not contribute to peace or stability for India. Pakistan also expanded into Afghanistan.

Pakistan in the 1990s was intact but unstable. The 90s were marked by a period of intense Pakistan sponsored terrorism in India. In what was way this in Indian interest? There was nothing good for India in this.

In 1999 Pakistan, attacked India and provoked the Kargil conflict. Nothing about this shameful episode can be declared as having been in India's interest. From 2000 onwards we have had a series of terrorist attacks in India that can all be traced back to Pakistan. What is it about these attacks that would make anyone feel that Pakistan, stable or unstable, has any stake in anything that is in India interest.

As far as I can tell, the history of the last 63 clearly shows that Pakistan, stable or unstable, is not in India's interest. So who has conjured up the shameful lie that "A stable Pakistan is in India's interest?"

2) Pakistan's "stability" angle

Going back 63 years - one can see that Pakistan has been stable for some periods of time and unstable at other times. There is absolutely no correlation between Pakistani stability and India interests.

1947-8: Pakistan was unstable and it attacked India

1965: Pakistan was stable and it attacked India

1971: Pakistan was stable and it got itself into a crisis that resulted in war

1980s: Pakistan was stable and it commenced an expansionist campaign into Afghanistan in search of "strategic depth" against India

1990s: Pakistan was politically unstable, and India suffered from terrorism

After 2000: Pakistan remains unstable and terrorism continues.

There is absolutely no correlation between Pakistan's stability and India's interests. Pakistan has been attacking India whether or not it is politically stable.

3) Pakistan's "prosperity" angle:

In 1947-8 Pakistan was in economic upheaval, and it attacked India

In 1965 Pakistan was stable and prosperous, and it attacked India

In 1971 Pakistan was stable and prosperous and it attacked India

1n the 1980s Pakistan was prosperous and did nothing for India interests

1n the 1990s Pakistan's economy was prosperous, and funded terrorism against India

After 2000, Pakistan's economy has been on bailout mode, and attacks against India continue.


4) India's "Interests" angle

It was not in India's interest to get attacked by Pakistan in 1947-48
It was not in India's interest to get attacked by Pakistan in 1965
It was not in India's interest to have to put up 10 million refugees from genocide in East Pakistan in 1971
It was not in India's interest to lose Siachen or have Afghanistan occupied by Pakis in the 1980s
Terrorism since the 1990s has not been in India's interest.

Under what circumstances (other than being high on heroin or ganja) can any Indian say that Pakistan has acted in India's interest under any circumstances?

Specifically how can people continue to assert that a stable Pakistan is in India's interest? Clearly, Pakistan is not acting in India's interest. the question of its stability or instability playing any role does not even arise. The assertion that "A stable Pakistan is in India's interest" is a black lie that should no longer be tolerated.

Why do India leaders say that? Why does the *****ic press in India actually echo that mindlessly when it is said? Are we just a nation of moronic automations who swallow what is thrown at us without applying any thought?
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
The argument assumes that the destruction of the Pakistani state and consequently a Taliban takeover will lead to stability. Pray, do tell me, how does that work?
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
490
The argument assumes that the destruction of the Pakistani state and consequently a Taliban takeover will lead to stability. Pray, do tell me, how does that work?
The argument only tries to prove that a 'stable Pakistan' in the past has not been in the Indian interests nor is it likely to be in the present or in near future. It points out that as far as India is concerned, PA/ISI is the biggest terroists. The truth be told, all the other terror groups have been created, nurtured, funded and armed by them to counter India. In this scenario, a taliban takeover does not mean a detoriation of situation from India' POV. The best case scenario of Taliban takeover for India, the world(US) will stop feigning that India and Pakistan are equal equal and deal with Pakistan as they should have done decades ago. The worst case scenario of Taliban takeover for India is that Taliban are as dedicated towards being anti-Indian as their masters(PA/ISI) are.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
I would personally like Talibunny take over of pure land so the nuclear threat which is local as of now in hands of PA becomes global with Chinese also in there cross hairs let them eat there own fruits.

I agree with johnee a stable Pakistan is not in India's interest
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
The argument only tries to prove that a 'stable Pakistan' in the past has not been in the Indian interests nor is it likely to be in the present or in near future. It points out that as far as India is concerned, PA/ISI is the biggest terroists. The truth be told, all the other terror groups have been created, nurtured, funded and armed by them to counter India. In this scenario, a taliban takeover does not mean a detoriation of situation from India' POV. The best case scenario of Taliban takeover for India, the world(US) will stop feigning that India and Pakistan are equal equal and deal with Pakistan as they should have done decades ago. The worst case scenario of Taliban takeover for India is that Taliban are as dedicated towards being anti-Indian as their masters(PA/ISI) are.
If that's your worst case scenario, I'd consider upping the thread level to bloody-hellish case scenario.
Supposing that the Pakistani Army somehow crumbles, the Talibunnies take ove the government, where do you think they'll go next? Kashmir. If you think Kashmir is bad today, wait till the Taliban team up with Al Qaida to cause some real mayhem.
Today, at least you have a state to deal with which is to some extent answerable to the UN and to other global powers. The Taliban has no such qualms. They'll be so emboldened by their victory in Pakistan that they'll pull out all the stops. The entire Af-Pak region will turn into a breeding ground for Jihadists (yes, far worse than today).
With the Pakistani Army, atleast we know that we can defeat them if they try and attack. But these mujahideen aren't the kind who sign surrender documents and then keep quiet if you get the drift.

I think the horrors of such a situation are too scary to contemplate. Lets be good and try to beat our neighbour into a functioning democracy. That's the only way out IMO.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
I would personally like Talibunny take over of pure land so the nuclear threat which is local as of now in hands of PA becomes global with Chinese also in there cross hairs let them eat there own fruits.

I agree with johnee a stable Pakistan is not in India's interest
You really want a multinational war in your backyard? A global center of attraction for mujahideen from Tajikistan to Norway? Please, do consider what you're wishing for here.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
You really want a multinational war in your backyard? A global center of attraction for mujahideen from Tajikistan to Norway? Please, do consider what you're wishing for here.
Flint first of all we need to understand what Pakistan wants? DO they really want only Kashmir? After that everything will magically stop or what? The state has used terror as state policy. There is no coming back until the institutions created/supporting them is completely destroyed or put under effective control/ terror for themselves (I mean the countries who have supported them). Why the hell we should only be the victim of other's doing let them feel the pain. Once the talibunny take over is imminent I am sure US will come hard on there nukes. This will solve the problem and once the particular state is de nuked tackeling them will be much easier
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
Flint first of all we need to understand what Pakistan wants? DO they really want only Kashmir? After that everything will magically stop or what? The state has used terror as state policy. There is no coming back until the institutions created/supporting them is completely destroyed or put under effective control/ terror for themselves (I mean the countries who have supported them). Why the hell we should only be the victim of other's doing let them feel the pain. Once the talibunny take over is imminent I am sure US will come hard on there nukes. This will solve the problem and once the particular state is de nuked tackeling them will be much easier
You're oversimplifying the issue here. First of all, they are not going to get Kashmir, so the issue of "magically stopping" does not arise.

Secondly, the thing about state terror is that there is a state, which can be talked to, bent to your will, etc. etc. Of course you will say that Pakistan hasn't exactly humoured India's demands for the last 60 years, but the current scenario I feel is unprecedented. Pakistan itself is facing terrorism on a mega-scale, and I see an opportunity here that when the dust clears, we will have a new, shiny and more benign Pakistan. However, if there is no state to deal with on the other side, what you have is essentially Al-Qaida and the global Jehad, with nobody in between to control them.

About the nukes, you're running a high risk here of the nukes actually falling into terrorist hands before the US or anyone else gets to them. Obviously, it would be great to see our old enemy de-nuked and de-Pakistanized once and for all, but a Talibanized Pakistan would give a boost to the Global Jehad that would match the one that they got after shooing the Ruskies out of Afghanistan.
Now, considering the splendid job (sarcasm) that the US is doing today in Afghanistan, do you really think they'll be able to defeat them if they are spread over two countries and have access to revenues from rich Punjabi farmers? I think not.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
You're oversimplifying the issue here. First of all, they are not going to get Kashmir, so the issue of "magically stopping" does not arise.
The whole fundoos erupted from Kashmir issue any way let's keep Kashmir out of it

Secondly, the thing about state terror is that there is a state, which can be talked to, bent to your will, etc. etc. Of course you will say that Pakistan hasn't exactly humoured India's demands for the last 60 years, but the current scenario I feel is unprecedented. Pakistan itself is facing terrorism on a mega-scale, and I see an opportunity here that when the dust clears, we will have a new, shiny and more benign Pakistan. However, if there is no state to deal with on the other side, what you have is essentially Al-Qaida and the global Jehad, with nobody in between to control them.
On what basis you see a new shiny Pakistan? Aren't you clearly seeing the dog and pony show of Good talibunny vs bad talibunny. They are not going to hit any terrorists who supports them in there state policy read this

Siege within: Pakistanis look to India for solutions

“The Pakistani army will go after the terrorists who challenge the army, but those terrorists who are fighting America or India, well, we will let them be.”.
Once the "so called" state is dismantled no body has to worry about any responsibility and the whole world has to deal with them not only us.

About the nukes, you're running a high risk here of the nukes actually falling into terrorist hands before the US or anyone else gets to them. Obviously, it would be great to see our old enemy de-nuked and de-Pakistanized once and for all, but a Talibanized Pakistan would give a boost to the Global Jehad that would match the one that they got after shooing the Ruskies out of Afghanistan.
Now, considering the splendid job (sarcasm) that the US is doing today in Afghanistan, do you really think they'll be able to defeat them if they are spread over two countries and have access to revenues from rich Punjabi farmers? I think not.
I think you are not getting my point. The nukes in hands of PA are only directed towards India they are happy with the money they are getting and more them happy to run the terrorism against India in unbrella of nukes. But once talibunnies (or Al Queda or what ever be the name) get hands on them the nukes will be directed towards world and it will be come an International problem hence it will be dealt accordingly. The US is busy in keeping the nukes safe and behaving like USA (U stupid Americans :D) they have to realize the real problem is PA once it is dismantled tackling terrorism will become easy.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,631
Country flag
A stable Pakistan has never been good for India. But whats the guarantee that an unstable Pakistan will be good for India. The Taliban has already stated its goal of first taking over Pakistan and then setting its sights on India.

In the case of a state to state relations or the lack of it, we know in the case of a war, there are going to be two responsible sides and there will be some sort of decorum even in a war. But what about a war against non state actors like Taliban and AQ who have no qualms about anything? The Americans have already found that out the hard way. I would not like the Taliban at the doorsteps of India.

But coming to the topic of this thread, Rahman Mallik has again reiterated that India is supporting Taliban to destabilize Pakistan. I know no one is going to take it seriously as everyone knows that India is no fan or Taliban. Was against it when it was in control of Astan. Even now the stated aim or the Taliban is to set sight on India after Pakistan. So why will India nurture someone who is going to harm it in the future. Rahman is out of his mind.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
On what basis you see a new shiny Pakistan? Aren't you clearly seeing the dog and pony show of Good talibunny vs bad talibunny. They are not going to hit any terrorists who supports them in there state policy read this.
Ah, but you're missing the fact that the distinction between good and bad terrorists has vanished. Today, even some of the Kashmiri groups see Pakistan as inimical to their interests, and are teaming up with the Waziristan Talibunnies to infiltrate the Punjab. How do you think they managed to attack GHQ and other targets in the same week using military tactics rather than the usual crude suicide bombers that the TTP tends to use? These guys have been trained by the same people who run the Kashmir jihad.

I'm of course relying on the fact that the Pakistanis will eventually realize this. If they don't realize this, they will continue to face terrorist strikes across the whole country, so IMO they will.

Once the "so called" state is dismantled no body has to worry about any responsibility and the whole world has to deal with them not only us.
That's not necessarily a good thing you know. Personally, I wouldn't want "the whole world" in my backyard. Who knows, it might even become an excuse for the PLA to set up shop in the ruins of the Pakistani state. Not a nice scenario.

I think you are not getting my point. The nukes in hands of PA are only directed towards India they are happy with the money they are getting and more them happy to run the terrorism against India in unbrella of nukes. But once talibunnies (or Al Queda or what ever be the name) get hands on them the nukes will be directed towards world and it will be come an International problem hence it will be dealt accordingly. The US is busy in keeping the nukes safe and behaving like USA (U stupid Americans :D) they have to realize the real problem is PA once it is dismantled tackling terrorism will become easy.
Pakistan doesn't have ICBMs. The only plausible target for Pakistani nukes is India, unless they come up with a way to ship them to the US and set them off, which is highly unlikely IMO.
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
But coming to the topic of this thread, Rahman Mallik has again reiterated that India is supporting Taliban to destabilize Pakistan. I know no one is going to take it seriously as everyone knows that India is no fan or Taliban. Was against it when it was in control of Astan. Even now the stated aim or the Taliban is to set sight on India after Pakistan. So why will India nurture someone who is going to harm it in the future. Rahman is out of his mind.
I have a theory that Rehman is using the India bogeyman to convince his countrymen that the TTP are evil. I think he's having a hard time doing that thanks to the widespread support for them in the urdu press.
 

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,730
Completely agree with flint on the points he has raised. I am not going to divulge on the points already raised but rather look at how we can have a stable Pakistan.

It will be india’s worst nightmare if Taliban were to take over Pakistan, with nukes or without nukes, with us/nato intervention or without their intervention. We have seen how much capable the us and their nato allies are in a’stan where after 8 years of war Taliban has significantly gained and now controls 70% of that country and a claim accepted by the us, least they be trusted in Pakistan, and what ever little success they have had some share of that success needs to be given to the pa, which will then be completely hostile to the us and the nato if invaded.

Anyways such a scenario will never really happen, and I have always believed the pa would have a plan B if there is an imminent threat of Taliban take over which as matter of fact is stretching the speculation too far and the best possible plan at that point in time would be to do a coup through an Islamic revolution instigated at the behest of the pa, a more liberal Islamic revolution.

Too much speculation in all of the above scenarios, they can best be put to rest.

There is no reason for me not to believe that once the pa really makes peace with all sorts of Taliban, all the hell that has broken loose in Pakistan will come to rest. pa is well in control, and all that we get to see today is purely because pa is seen as waging a kafirs war on its own people at the behest of kafirs.

One person who spells it out perfectly is imran khan, we might call him a mullah but the fact of the matter is he is one guy who does understand how to get peace in Pakistan, certainly not to our liking or to the liking of the us.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,631
Country flag
The Pak government has to start using the propaganda machine that is very efficient in badgering India into letting its people know who the real evil is. I have read reports in this mornings papers as to how people are eager to leave Pakistan. Already people are leaving the war zone, but even the well healed are making a beeline at embassies of western countries to get outta there.

One of their ex diplomat has said Pakistan is on the brink of becoming a stateless country and that a civil war is at its doorstep.

Seriously, I feel the current situation cannot be termed a civil war where a handful of terrorists are waging war. I mean 15000-20000 terrorists fighting against half a million strong army cannot be called civil war. Ordinary Pakistanis have not joined the Taliban either and we dont know what is the extent of the support at large. Yes there is support in various pockets mainly confined to the western part of that country, but i doubt it extends to common folks in Punjab and Sindh.

Its the Pakistani government which infact has to take sides now. So far it was with the Taliban playing its dirty strategic games. If it doesnt change its ways now, it will be the Taliban in Islamabad and no one will be left to play any dirty games in Islamadad.
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
Ah, but you're missing the fact that the distinction between good and bad terrorists has vanished. Today, even some of the Kashmiri groups see Pakistan as inimical to their interests, and are teaming up with the Waziristan Talibunnies to infiltrate the Punjab. How do you think they managed to attack GHQ and other targets in the same week using military tactics rather than the usual crude suicide bombers that the TTP tends to use? These guys have been trained by the same people who run the Kashmir jihad.
How you came to the conclusion that Kashmiri guys are training them? This is hilarious these talibunnies were / are trained by CIA PA and ISI. And they are training / trained these talibunnies also. If they have seriously understood something then why there is NO action against Punjabi terrorist groups?

I'm of course relying on the fact that the Pakistanis will eventually realize this. If they don't realize this, they will continue to face terrorist strikes across the whole country, so IMO they will.
This is just a dream nothing else.

That's not necessarily a good thing you know. Personally, I wouldn't want "the whole world" in my backyard. Who knows, it might even become an excuse for the PLA to set up shop in the ruins of the Pakistani state. Not a nice scenario.
How come PLA comes in to this? Will India/ USA allow that? Personally i would like to have one of two nukes in hands of Chinese Muslims also.

Pakistan doesn't have ICBMs you know. The only plausible target for Pakistani nukes is India, unless they come up with a way to ship them to the US and set them off, which is highly unlikely IMO.
Does missiles have to be launched towards US mainland only? Why not hit deo gar cia or Japan or South Korea why not Israel? Hope you are getting the point
 

Flint

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,621
Likes
154
How you came to the conclusion that Kashmiri guys are training them? This is hilarious these talibunnies were / are trained by CIA PA and ISI. And they are training / trained these talibunnies also. If they have seriously understood something then why there is NO action against Punjabi terrorist groups?
the TTP doesn't have the ability to conduct a commando operation (like for example the one in Mumbai that was done by LeT). They need the hallmark of Pakistani army training and that can only be got from the Kashmiri groups.

Whatever "training" (I doubt it, but anyhow) the CIA/PA gave to the Taliban was way back in the cold war era. But mostly, they just gave them guns/rocket launchers and sent them off to battle.

This is just a dream nothing else.
If you say so :lol:

How come PLA comes in to this? Will India/ USA allow that? Personally i would like to have one of two nukes in hands of Chinese Muslims also.
The USA might allow it, and frankly even if the USA doesn't want it, China can march in under the pretext of fighting the Uighur terrorists.

If not, then maybe the Indian Army can move in. Even better.

Does missiles have to be launched towards US mainland only? Why not hit deo gar cia or Japan or South Korea why not Israel? Hope you are getting the point
Yeah...we're going to sit and pray that they hit South Korea and not us? :)>
 

nitesh

Mob Control Manager
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
7,550
Likes
1,280
Ordinary Pakistanis have not joined the Taliban either and we dont know what is the extent of the support at large. Yes there is support in various pockets mainly confined to the western part of that country, but i doubt it extends to common folks in Punjab and Sindh.
This is complete hogwash they all are the same, not only the illiterate but literate

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Tackling extremism

Many of the pseudo-intellectuals of HT are also highly educated, including the nuclear scientist and computer and telecom engineers who were recently arrested along with other HT activists during a police raid in Islamabad. It came as no surprise to me that nuclear scientists were among those accused of belonging to HT, considering that this is exactly why I was sent to Pakistan as far back as 1999. In the year 2000, I had also personally met Pakistani Army officers in London, who had been training at Sandhurst. HT had recruited them to its cause, and then sent them back to Pakistan.
In return, I heard from them about how they think and feel about Pakistan’s problems, and their aspirations for the future of their country. We discussed the need to tackle extremism on an ideological level, and the steps Pakistan would have to take towards a more democratic and pluralistic society and government. The reactions I received were mixed, but they spoke volumes for those who populate Pakistan’s universities.

Students from Sindh tended to be hugely receptive to my message, whilst those in Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, from where the majority of British Pakistanis hail, expressed much greater hostility towards the West. In Quetta, the prevailing preoccupation was with ‘Punjabi hegemony’; here I encountered popular revolutionaries with little time for religious extremism but a hardened resolve to secede from Pakistan, in some cases through violence.
Ironically, the most violent opposition to my efforts didn’t come from Pakistani students at all — it came from a British-Pakistani member of HT who decided to punch me one evening in a cafe in Lahore. I later learned that he, like several others, had left the UK to recruit students in Pakistan, and to do this had started teaching at a private university in Lahore. :rofl:
Chakwal and madressahs

Last week I happened to visit my native village in Chakwal located on a marvellous plateau surrounded by the scenic Kallar Kahar, gifted with a large natural lake and peacocks on one side and the fabulous Salt Range and many more green mountains on the other. This patch of land, an abode of soldiers, has many government schools and colleges and various private and Fauji Foundation educational institutions.

However, what I noticed was that of late the region had seen a rapid increase in the number of madressahs — they were found attached to just about every mosque — where impressionable children from impoverished backgrounds were being brainwashed by bigoted mullahs — without even a semblance of modern education. The madressahs nurture hatred, unforgiveness and intolerance and can be found just about anywhere in the district. This needs to be checked or the future of the district could be worse than what we have seen happen in Swat and Waziristan. The storm is brewing.

Lt-Col (r) Malik Khan

Rawalpindi
Lashkar publications back in Pak, Jaish opens new madrasa in Masood town
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,322
Likes
11,631
Country flag
More of a case of the scientists being greedy than to have anything to do with the ideology i would say.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top