Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
Guys, I am starting this thread to have informed discussions about the ideology of Pakistan and where this ideology is taking the country and the region.

Its not for political and military discussions but mainly for discussing the ideology and its effects. How it makes the country see itself, its impact on the Pakistani psyche, its distance from the reality and so on.
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
THE STATE OF PAKISTAN

It is being called a failing state, a nation in denial, the most dangerous place on earth and a volcano waiting to erupt. A Sunday Times guide to why Pakistan is what it is today


FACT FILE
LAND AREA | 778,720 sq km
TERRAIN | Flat Indus plain in east; mountains in north and northwest; Balochistan plateau in west
POPULATION | 172,800,048
POPULATION GROWTH RATE |
1.9%
ETHNIC GROUPS | Punjabi 44.68%, Pashtun 15.42%, Sindhi 14.1%, Sariaki 8.38%, Mohajirs 7.57%, Balochi 3.57%, others 6.28%
RELIGIONS | Muslim 95% (Sunni 75%, Shia 20%), others (including Christians and Hindus) 5%
LANGUAGES | Punjabi 48%, Sindhi 12%, Sariaki (a Punjabi variant) 10%, Pashtu 8%, Urdu (official) 8%, Balochi 3%,
NATIONAL HOLIDAY: Republic Day, March 23
CONSTITUTION | April 12, 1973; suspended July 5, 1977, restored December 30, 1985; suspended October 15, 1999, restored in stages in 2002; amended December 31, 2003; suspended November 3, 2007; restored on December 15, 2007
GDP (OFFICIAL EXCHANGE RATE)| $160.9 billion
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE | 7.4%
TELEPHONES (LANDLINES) | 4.5m CELLULAR | 88.02 m
MILITARY EXPENDITURE | 3% of GDP (2007)
MILITARY SERVICE | 16 years of age for voluntary service; soldiers cannot be deployed for combat until 18; the Air Force and Navy have inducted their first female pilots and sailors (2006)




http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Defa...eLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01203&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
THE SIEGE WITHIN

A FLAWED IDEA



Indians and Pakistanis are the same people. Why then have the two nations moved on such divergent arcs over the last six decades? The idea of India is stronger than the Indian, and the idea of Pakistan weaker than the Pakistani. Multi-religious, multi-ethnic, secular, democratic India was an idea that belonged to the future; one-dimensional Pakistan was a concept borrowed from the fears of the past. India has progressed into a modern nation occasionally hampered by backward forces. Pakistan is regressing into a medieval society with a smattering of modern elements.
Pakistan was born out of the wedlock of two inter-related propositions. Its founders argued, without any substantive evidence, that Hindus and Muslims could never live together as equals in a single nation. They imposed a parallel theory, perhaps in an effort to strengthen the argument with an emotive layer, that Islam was in danger on the subcontinent. Pakistan’s declared destiny, therefore, was not merely as a refuge for some Indian Muslims, but also a fortress of the faith. This was the rationale for what became known as the “two-nation theory”. The British bought the argument, the Congress accepted it reluctantly, the Muslim League exulted.
The Indian state was founded on equality and equity: political equality through democracy, religious equality through secularism, gender equality, and economic equity. Economic equality is a fantasy, but without an equitable economy that works towards the elimination of poverty there cannot be a sustainable state. India, therefore, saw land reforms and the abolition of zamindari. Pakistan has been unable to enforce land reforms. India and Pakistan were alternative models for a nation-state. Time would determine which idea had the legs to reach a modern horizon.
The two strands within Pakistan’s DNA began to slowly split its personality. The father of the nation, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, thought he had produced a child in his own image, but his secular prescription was soon suppressed. His ideas were buried at his funeral. His heirs began to concede space to mullahs like Maulana Maudoodi who asked, in essence, that if Pakistan had been created to defend Islam, then who would be its best guardians? After some debate, the first Constitution in 1956 proclaimed Pakistan as an “Islamic” state. It was an uneasy compromise. No one cared (or dared) to examine what it might mean. The principal institutions of state, and the economy, remained largely in the control of the secular tendency until, through racist prejudice, arrogance and awesome military incompetence it was unable to protect the integrity of the nation. The crisis of 1969-1971, and the second partition of the subcontinent, which created a Muslim-majority Bangladesh out of a Muslim-majority Pakistan, forced Pakistan to introspect deeply about its identity.
Perhaps the last true secularist of this Islamic state was the Western-Oriented-Gentleman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who came to power in 1971, preached emancipation from poverty and did not mind a spot of whisky in the evening. By the end of his six years in office, he had imposed prohibition. The ground had begun to shift even before the coup that brought Gen Zia to power.
Zia had the answer to his own question: if Islam was the cement of Pakistan, how could you expect the edifice to survive if the cement had been diluted. Islam became the ideology of the state, not as a liberal and liberating influence, but in its Wahabi manifestation: compulsory prayers in government offices, public flogging, the worst form of gender bias in legislation, the conversion of history into anti-Hindu and anti-Indian fantasy, a distorted school curriculum, with “Islamic knowledge” becoming a criterion for selection to academic posts. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided the excuse for the adoption of “jihad” as state policy as well as a medley of irregular forces, liberally funded by American and Saudi money. The madrassas became not only the supply factories for irregular soldiers, but also the breeding ground for armed bands that are holding Pakistan hostage today.
If it had been only a question of an individual’s excesses Zia’s death could have been a swivel moment for the restoration of the pre-Zia era, particularly since his successor was Benazir Bhutto. But in the quarter century since his sudden death by mid-air explosion, no one in Islamabad has had the courage to change the curriculum or challenge the spread of the madrassas. There are now over 20,000 of them, with perhaps two million students, most (not all) of them controlled by extremists. Worse, prompted by thoughtless advice, Benazir engineered the rise of the Taliban and helped it conquer Kabul. The children of Gen Zia are now threatening Islamabad. Sometimes a simple fact can illuminate the nature of a society. During the 2005 earthquake, male students of the Frontier Medical College were stopped by religious fanatics — their elders — from saving girls from the rubble of their school building. The girls were allowed to die rather than be “polluted” by the male touch. This would be inconceivable in India.
For six decades, power in Pakistan has teetered between military dictatorship and civilian rule. When the credibility of civilians was exhausted the people welcomed the army; when the generals overstayed their welcome, the citizen returned to political parties. Pakistan is facing a dangerous moment, when the credibility of both the military and politicians seems to have ebbed beyond recovery. How long before the poor and the middle classes turn to the theocrats waiting to take over? The state has already handed over a province like Swat to Islamic rule. Men like Baitullah Mehsud, Mangal Bagh and Maulana Faziullah are a very different breed from the mullahs who have already been co-opted and corrupted by the system. They have a supplementary query which resonates with the street and the village after 9/11: why is Pakistan’s army fighting America’s war against fellow Muslims? Any suggestion that Pakistan might have become a much larger base for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was is met with the usual response, denial.
On the day that terrorists attacked Sri Lankan cricketers, I had a previously arranged speaking engagement at a university in Delhi before largely Muslim students. I began with the suggestion that every Indian Muslim should offer a special, public prayer of thanks to the Almighty Allah for His extraordinary benevolence — for the mercy He had shown by preventing us from ending up in Pakistan in 1947. The suggestion was received with startled amusement, instinctive applause and a palpable sense of sheer relief.


M J AKBAR




Article
View


http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Defa...eLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01200&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
Which faultline will be fatal?

Massoud Ansari



Lahore: Bangladesh was the beginning. But Pakistan is a nation riven by faultlines. Ethnic tension, which split the country into two in 1971, is corroding the country’s foundations. Today, many security experts describe it as a volcano waiting to erupt. One analyst says, “The faultlines are many and one cannot say which one will be the reason it crumbles.”
Pakistani vs Pakistani: After the 1971 war, Sindh set the stage for fresh ethnic conflict with an early ’80s separatist movement fanned by the dominance of Punjab. Disgruntled Sindhi youth accused the Punjab-dominated army of orchestrating the execution of Z A Bhutto, who hailed from Sindh.
Sindh’s separatist movement was averted but ethnic tension reared its head in the mid-’80s and early ’90s with bloody riots between Urduspeaking Mohajirs and Sindhis, who called themselves sons of the soil. The army finally stepped in. The ethnic strife subsided; both groups partially buried their guns even though their cadres remained armed to the teeth.
Baloch Anger: The new century saw trouble erupting in Balochistan, Pakistan's biggest province which holds 80% of its mineral and energy reserves. Baloch fury against the ‘Punjabdominated’ federal government spiralled out of control in September 2006, when popular octogenarian Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti was killed by the army in a botched operation. Walls across Balochistan today are plastered with graffiti demanding a “Greater Balochistan” or “Watan you Kafan” (literally, motherland or coffin). A proposed national anthem for an independent Balochistan is currently doing the rounds. Parallels are being drawn with the rumblings in East Pakistan pre-1971. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) announced a partial ceasefire last year but hit the headlines once again last month when they kidnapped the country chief of the UNHCR, John Solecki and killed his driver. Sectarian strife: Accurate figures are not available for the toll taken by sectarian violence but in its 2001 annual report, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) said that the country’s religious minorities were being stalked and persecuted. The report said: “Nearly 1,000 people died each year in Pakistan throughout the ’90s in religiously or ethnically motivated violence... the 1990s saw the surge of religious militancy.” There was a lull after Musharraf took over in 1999, but sectarian strife seems to have returned with a vengeance. Militant rage: Perhaps the most dangerous faultline. Militants who felt betrayed after Pakistan sided with the US in its ‘war on terror’ have virtually paralyzed the country. Security agencies have found their footprint in every act of terror: from the murder of Daniel Pearl to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and now, the attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team. Thousands have been killed in hundreds of suicide bombings across the country in the past few years.
Kashmir-based extremists: Another cause for concern, especially after the crackdown on them in the wake of 26/11. Preliminary probe into the Lahore attack suggests Lashkar-e-Toiba’s involvement, indicating that the group may no longer be averse to striking on home turf if pushed to the wall.
Hard times: Add to this the pain of a teetering economy. Bankruptcy has been averted by an emergency IMF $7.6-billion loan, but inflation is running at 25%; the price of flour, ghee, electricity and gas has at least doubled. Financial experts predict tough years and more misery for the common man because “the kind of agreement that the government has agreed to sign with the IMF to obtain this loan (means) … it will have to withdraw every kind of subsidy.”
Politics before country
It started off as a democracy, but Pakistan has been ruled by military dictators for more than half its existence. In between, its people were failed by politicians whose bickering ways ensured that the military never stayed in the barracks for too long. The first bout of martial law in the country was the result of frequent changes of government in the 1950s. Martial law was lifted only when the country split into two. The early ’70s brought in a democratically elected government but political bickering ultimately paved the way for yet another military dictator.
Gen Zia fought America’s proxy war and tried to Islamize the country. His mysterious death ushered in a new era of democracy. But Benazir Bhutto’s government was short-lived and the ’90s saw three governments in quick succession. Enter Pervez Musharraf.
When he was finally removed last year, Pakistanis had reason to hope that their politicians had matured. But they are still squabbling. So, is another military takeover on the cards? Not at the moment, say most analysts. But the man on the street is fed up. Safdar Cheema, whose shop was damaged in the Lahore attack, is angry. “They are busy fighting each other rather than thinking about the people and resolving their problems,” he says, adding in a grim warning: “I think the more they continue, the more they are going to doom us.”






Article
View


http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Defa...eLabel=12&EntityId=Ar01201&ViewMode=HTML&GZ=T
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
A GENERAL RETREAT

Ayesha Siddiqa




After the deadly Lahore attack on the visiting Sri Lankan cricket team, which left six policemen dead and shook the cricketing world, Pakistan’s army chief presided over the corps commanders’ conference to review the situation in the country. As things stood, it was not an enviable one. Terrorists seemed to be making advances all over the country by means of attacks or favourable peace deals with the authorities. There was political chaos because of a dispute between the ruling PPP and the opposition PML-N. Nawaz Sharif’s upcoming long march to Islamabad does not bode well for a country facing a major terrorist threat from within.
There is much to criticize about the PPP government’s functioning but the biggest concern must be the army’s perception of the situation. Does it plan to continue with the so-called ‘war on terror’? So far, the armed forces give the impression they are silent spectators, quietly playing along with the decisions of the civilian government. Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani keenly marketed the Swat peace agreement — essentially brokered by the federal PPP and provincial ANP governments — during his recent visit to the US. Many believe the agreement, according to which the NWFP government agreed to implement sharia law in Swat in exchange for peace, will only strengthen the Taliban. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent of the state giving in to brute force. It’s no secret that security forces were finding the going tough in Swat until they agreed to sign the peace agreement. While the authorities justified the deal as a move that benefits the locals, it served to expose the military’s inability to fight the war against terrorists. In fact, the army recently abandoned its plans to jam Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah’s radio due to alleged lack of equipment; instead, it proposes counter-programming. But not many buy this argument. Technical experts say jamming a radio station is not a difficult task for the army.
If taking on the militants is held up because of so simple a matter as lack of technical capability, why does the Pakistan army not allow American drone attacks on its western borders? In the past, the army chief vociferously condemned US drone attacks, making people wonder about the real reason for such confrontational statements, especially when Pakistan has allowed its air force bases in NWFP and Balochistan to be used by American drones and other purposes. But senior commanders have never admitted to having such intense military links with Washington.
The bottomline is that both the government and the military have been sending confusing signals about their stand on the war on terror. While the army is fighting the Taliban in Bajur (in the northwest) and seems to have made some headway against militant groups including the Tehrik-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi (TSNM), the government has signed a peace deal with the same group in Swat. Then there is Waziristan. There the army is pitted against Baitullah Mehsud who recently formed a partnership with Maulana Nazeer, earlier supported by the army. One of Baitullah Mehsud’s partners is Maulana Masood Azhar of Punjab’s Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Interestingly, little is being done to uproot Punjab-based militant outfits. The editor of the Daily Times, Najam Sethi believes this inaction stems from the army’s fear that any adverse action against these outfits will have severe repercussions. If true, it is tantamount to an admission that the writ of the state does not run even in mainland Pakistan. Clearly, the military does not have a clear strategy for fighting terrorism in its backyard.
Ayesha Siddiqa is an Islamabad-based defence analyst and author of ‘Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy’ ALLAH'S ARMY AND ITS FOUR DICTATORS
Fighting Power | With 6,20,000 men on active duty, it’s the seventh largest army in the world. Divided into 11 corps, it’s armed mostly with weapons and ammo made in China
Political Role | The generals want to calls the shots here. Gen Ayub Khan, who grabbed power in a coup in 1958, ruled till 1969. Then came Gen Yayha Khan, who lasted till 1971. Six years later, Gen Zia-ul Haq ousted Z A Bhutto and ruled till his death in 1988. And the last coup happened in 1999, when Gen Musharraf assumed power. He ruled till 2008
Covert Wars | Following the Chinese model, the army runs the intelligence wings. Known for links with criminals and radicals, the ISI is a state within the state
Money Power | It owns 11.58m acres of land; owns assets worth $20bn; and runs business conglomerates
Nuclear Trigger | The country has a control-and-command structure, but everybody knows it’s the generals who control the N-button


Clockwise from top left): Ayub, Yahya, Zia and Musharraf; (right) Army Chief Gen Kiyani







Article
View


http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=TOIH&login=default&Enter=true&Skin=TOI&GZ=T
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
The same people? Surely not

Vir Sanghvi, Hindustan TimesEmail Author

Few things annoy me as much as the claim often advanced by well-meaning but woolly- headed (and usually Punjabi) liberals to the effect that when it comes to India and Pakistan, "We’re all the same people, yaar."
This may have been true once upon a time. Before 1947, Pakistan was part of undivided India and you could claim that Punjabis from West Punjab (what is now Pakistan) were as Indian as, say, Tamils from Madras.
But time has a way of moving on. And while the gap between our Punjabis (from east Punjab which is now the only Punjab left in India) and our Tamils may actually have narrowed, thanks to improved communications, shared popular culture and greater physical mobility, the gap between Indians and Pakistanis has now widened to the extent that we are no longer the same people in any significant sense.
This was brought home to me most clearly by two major events over the last few weeks.
The first of these was the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team on the streets of Lahore. In their defence, Pakistanis said that they were powerless to act against the terrorists because religious fanaticism was growing. Each day more misguided youngsters joined jihadi outfits and the law and order situation worsened.
Further, they added, things had got so bad that in the tribal areas the government of Pakistan had agreed to suspend the rule of law under pressure from the Taliban and had conceded that sharia law would reign instead. Interestingly, while most civilised liberals should have been appalled by this surrender to the forces of extremism, many Pakistanis defended this concession.
Imran Khan (Keble College, Oxford, 1973-76) even declared that sharia law would be better because justice would be dispensed more swiftly! (I know this is politically incorrect but the Loin of the Punjab’s defence of sharia law reminded me of the famous Private Eye cover when his marriage to Jemima Goldsmith was announced. The Eye carried a picture of Khan speaking to Jemima’s father. “Can I have your daughter’s hand?” Imran was supposedly asking James Goldsmith. “Why? Has she been caught shoplifting?” Goldsmith replied. So much for sharia law.)
The second contrasting event was one that took place in Los Angeles but which was perhaps celebrated more in India than in any other country in the world. Three Indians won Oscars: A.R. Rahman, Resul Pookutty and Gulzar.
Their victory set off a frenzy of rejoicing. We were proud of our countrymen. We were pleased that India’s entertainment industry and its veterans had been recognised at an international platform. And all three men became even bigger heroes than they already were.
But here’s the thing: Not one of them is a Hindu.
Can you imagine such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you even conceive of a situation where the whole country would celebrate the victory of three members of two religious minorities? For that matter, can you even imagine a situation where people from religious minorities would have got to the top of their fields and were, therefore, in the running for international awards?
On the one hand, you have Pakistan imposing sharia law, doing deals with the Taliban, teaching hatred in madrasas, declaring jihad on the world and trying to kill innocent Sri Lankan cricketers. On the other, you have the triumph of Indian secularism.
The same people?
Surely not.
We are defined by our nationality. They choose to define themselves by their religion.
But it gets even more complicated. As you probably know, Rahman was born Dilip Kumar. He converted to Islam when he was 21. His religious preferences made no difference to his prospects. Even now, his music cuts across all religious boundaries. He’s as much at home with Sufi music as he is with bhajans. Nor does he have any problem with saying ‘Vande Mataram’.
Now, think of a similar situation in Pakistan. Can you conceive of a Pakistani composer who converted to Hinduism at the age of 21 and still went on to become a national hero? Under sharia law, they’d probably have to execute him.
Resul Pookutty’s is an even more interesting case. Until you realise that Malayalis tend to put an ‘e’ where the rest of us would put an ‘a,’ (Ravi becomes Revi and sometimes the Gulf becomes the Gelf), you cannot work out that his name derives from Rasool, a fairly obviously Islamic name.
But here’s the point: even when you point out to people that Pookutty is in fact a Muslim, they don’t really care. It makes no difference to them. He’s an authentic Indian hero, his religion is irrelevant.
Can you imagine Pakistan being indifferent to a man’s religion? Can you believe that Pakistanis would not know that one of their Oscar winners came from a religious minority? And would any Pakistani have dared bridge the religious divide in the manner Resul did by referring to the primeval power of Om in his acceptance speech?
The same people?
Surely not.
Most interesting of all is the case of Gulzar who many Indians believe is a Muslim. He is not. He is a Sikh. And his real name is Sampooran Singh Kalra.
So why does he have a Muslim name?
It’s a good story and he told it on my TV show some years ago. He was born in West Pakistan and came over the border during the bloody days of Partition. He had seen so much hatred and religious violence on both sides, he said, that he was determined never to lose himself to that kind of blind religious prejudice and fanaticism.
Rather than blame Muslims for the violence inflicted on his community — after all, Hindus and Sikhs behaved with equal ferocity — he adopted a Muslim pen name to remind himself that his identity was beyond religion. He still writes in Urdu and considers it irrelevant whether a person is a Sikh, a Muslim or a Hindu.
Let’s forget about political correctness and come clean: can you see such a thing happening in Pakistan? Can you actually conceive of a famous Pakistani Muslim who adopts a Hindu or Sikh name out of choice to demonstrate the irrelevance of religion?
My point, exactly.
What all those misguided liberals who keep blathering on about us being the same people forget is that in the 60-odd years since Independence, our two nations have traversed very different paths.
Pakistan was founded on the basis of Islam. It still defines itself in terms of Islam. And over the next decade as it destroys itself, it will be because of Islamic extremism.
India was founded on the basis that religion had no role in determining citizenship or nationhood. An Indian can belong to any religion in the world and face no discrimination in his rights as a citizen.
It is nobody’s case that India is a perfect society or that Muslims face no discrimination. But only a fool would deny that in the last six decades, we have travelled a long way towards religious equality. In the early days of independent India, a Yusuf Khan had to call himself Dilip Kumar for fear of attracting religious prejudice.
In today’s India, a Dilip Kumar can change his name to A.R. Rahman and nobody really gives a damn either way.
So think back to the events of the last few weeks. To the murderous attack on innocent Sri Lankan cricketers by jihadi fanatics in a society that is being buried by Islamic extremism. And to the triumphs of Indian secularism.
Same people?
Don’t make me laugh.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?id=4e661b6b-ca91-43f6-8153-e927ad151c76
 

EnlightenedMonk

Member of The Month JULY 2009
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
3,831
Likes
24
Excellent article by Vir Sanghvi... Hits the nail on the head...
 

Vinod2070

मध्यस्थ
Ambassador
Joined
Feb 22, 2009
Messages
2,557
Likes
104
A good watch though obviously highly one sided account of what transpired then.

Also the movie makers did take a look at the communal troubles in India (especially the Babri episode) but forgot to take a look at Pakistan! If India is struggling with finding the right mix of secularism and democracy, Pakistan has totally failed to meet the words of Mr. Jinnah.

There are hardly any minorities left there, almost total ethnic cleansing, sectarian clashes, the surrender to the worst fanatic elements, the alternate civil and military rules, the country standing always at the brink of default, moving from one disaster to another and threatening the world how its implosion would be bad for the world so they should help it save from itself.
 

johnee

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
3,473
Likes
488
Pakistan's identity crisis and its impact on Pakistan's world view

we all know that pakistan was created by partitioning the then india. many muslims went to pakistan from different parts of ancient india. so logically, all of them were indians before partition. that means that they share the same history as we do. their forefathers were also once hindus, budhists or jains, their ancestors also suffered under the brutal invasions from babur, ghazani etc.

inspite of these realities, a strange delusion is commonly noticed among common pakistanis: most of them claim foreign origin. they claim that they are successors of babur, or ghazani or even sikander..etc. why is it so? lets discuss the pshycological reasons for such delusion. and its impact on the world view of common pakistanis. also, how this view impacts indo-pak relations.

of late, some pakistanis have discovered strange pride in claiming IVC as pakistani. lets also discuss in this thread, the reasons for this new found love.

the issues to be discussed in this thread are:
#why do pakistanis claim foreign ancestory and behave like wannabe arabs?
#what impact does it have on their worldview and relations with the world including india?
#why are some pakistanis suddenly claiming IVC as pakistani?
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top