Pakistan and Israel

1. 57

   onlinearticlespkposted 12 years ago

   Should Pakistan and Israel must recognize each other as both are the ideological states?

   replyreport
2. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years ago

   Israel is an ideological state... everyone will agree.
   But how can Pakistan be called an ideological state..? Is there any ideology in the existence of Pakistan...? Only a safe haven for terrorists.
   An ideological state should be self content and no one should cross their borders just to trouble the neighbours. But each hour sees a terrorist crossing line,come to India and lose their lives. Is this their ideology? Why not the Pakistan army enter India? Why do they send innocent and ignorant people to terrorise innocent people in India? Is this ideology? Let the Pakistan army come and settle scores.
   The world famous terrorist Bin Laden boldly hid himself in a closed house and lost his life. Hiding place for terrorists.. is this their ideology?

   replyreport
   1. 57

      onlinearticlespkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I think you are totally talking biased. why india has occupied kashmir?is this an ideology? india calls itself a great democracy then why they are not holding plebiscite in occupied kashmir? If any one bring a terrorist in your country and kill him then it doesnot mean that you are supporting terrorism. Pakistan has sacrificed more than any other country in war against terrorism. We have lost 5000 army personals in this war on terror.Secondly is this your ideology to support enemies of PAkistan in Balochistan and border areas of afghanitsan? why you are sending suicide bombers from Afghanistan to PAkistan? why not your army comes?Who suipported Muktibahni? I was talking about PAkistan and Israel and not India but you are talking about india. Is not israel and your intelligence agencies working jointly to destable PAkistan. We have found thousands of Indian dead bodies who were brought from Afghanistan to do terrorist activities but our Army killed most of them and you know this but hiding.We ruled your country more then 1000 years not by force but by our system and you can ask this from your forefathers but you were used by English to harm muslims.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I am talking about Pakistan and India because I think Pakistan is a part of India which was divided by the cruel and wicked English rulers while leaving.  Muslims ruled India for  some centuries (not 1000 years) by brutal force while there were no guns and bombs. ... only swords. If it was guns, we would have ruled you. Now, Kashmir was not occupied by India. It was surrendered by the last Kashmir Maharaja, whose legal heir is very much alive. It joined India like many other small kingdoms. Your Pakistan sent raiders into Kashmir as soon as it got freedom on Aug.47. The late Kashmir Maharaja tried to defend hias country against the lawless gangs and unable to hold on, he hurried to Delhi and signed the declaration of annexation. India did not ocupy Kashmir, but stopped the lawless gangs from moving further.  Then India did not support Mukti Bahini. It was created to fight the occcupation forces of Pakistan by Bangla Dhesh and was placed in joint command with the Indian army.
         Then why did Pakistan's army of occupation kill the Bengalis in lakhs  using tanks and mortars, why did they torture women and children? Why did they drive one crore refugees into India? Do you think all will be taken and digested by civilised people? We need not send any terrorist from Afganistan to Pakistan, which is already crowded with enough terrorists and it is "House full".  Only our Indian mission and some workers drafted by companies working there are in Afganistan.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Binaya.Ghimireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Israel and Pakistan both were founded on the basis of religion. Judaism is the foundation of both Islam and Christianity. That's why I think these two countries must be tolerant to each other. And we must accept this fact. And I don't think Pakistan is a part of India, because before 1947 the modern political entity of India also did not exist. The India we talk these days was divided into many princely states before the British arrived. And was ruled by Moguls, also invaders and outsiders. You talk about Pakistani killing Bangladeshi, but what do you say about Indian Union killing people of Hyderabad State during the unification after the British went away. I agree there are terrorists in Pakistan, but terrorists are every where, even in India. I think there must be no more fight for Kashmir because it is occupied by both Pakistan and India.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Mr.Gaddafi tortured his people and allowed women to be raped. So a far-away country USA intervened and is trying to topple him. That is because of humanitarianism. No American was tortured, but US intervenes.
         
         In Hyderabad's case, the small city is located in the centre of deccan plateau and was ruled by its Nizam. He had several wives, each of them with separate palaces. But the Hindu population there was subjected to inhuman torture. Bodies of dead people were loaded and driven out of Hyderabad everyday. Small babies were roasted alive in boiling oil. Seeing all these barbarism, who will tolerate? If anyone justifies these actions, they can rightly be called barbarians. It was PV Narasimha Rao, a local college student,  who led a movement to captue and annexe Hyderabad to India. He later became Prime Minister of India.
         India existed even before many civilisations arose. It was called Hindustan, Indigo nation, Bharath, etc. In it, some 56 smaller countries were part of it forming a federation. I think you need an indepth study of Indian history.  The word Pakistan was formulated only in 19th century by an Urdu poet, Iqbal. Before that, no Pakistan.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Binaya.Ghimireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Hello Venu, obviously you know better than me. I agree Pakistan is relatively new discovery, but you must also accept that the word India is also a new name. British called India and Nehru made a pledge with the British to retain the name of the new country. Why did not Indian government never published the report about happenings of Hyderabad? Nizam was very corrupt and I also believe that Hyderabad had to be integrated, but the atrocities specially by democratic and secular government was wrong.  The word Bharat you mention actually meant Indian-subcontinent (Nepal included). Modern day Indian nationalism was born in the late 19th century, despite the civilization's thousands of years history.  During the time of Moguls there was no federation, federation did not exist during British raj, federation is also a relatively new phenomena, especially a discovery of Gandhi, which was implemented by Nehru.  I respect your sentiments, however.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Ms.Binaya, India was named after river Indus, which originates in the Himalayas and pass through India, (ie., India and pakistan.) River Indus was and is not a new creation, and it is flowing since the present geographical dispensation was discovered. So, India is millenniums of years old by its name. The intervening rulers may have called it as they liked. But that name survives. Britishers never create names. They discover them and reach out to them. All the Europeans set sail to reach India to access its richness.
               
               The happenings in Hyderabad was well known to every Indian even during those days when there was no telephone and tv, but only newspapers. Moreover, it was not a military invasion., but only police action. Eventhough the foolish Nizam maintained a number of concubines, he never cared to maintain even a nominal army. So the work of the Indian Govt was very easy once it crossed River Musi and entered Hyderabad. The tales of that wretched Nizam is in circulation among the aged people even now in Hyderabad.  That happening never meritted a formal report. For no accession of any territory to New India was made with a report.  It may have been reported to the Parliament by the Prim Minister and a new Constitutional amendment for the accession  would have been enacted. Moghul period is not a civlised period in history.. It was just an anarchy, founded by a petty Afgan thief Babar and ended with Bahadur Shah-II. The British came and set right everything and a civilised government was functioning under them. Eveanthough athe name "federation" may be new, India's position was similar to it. Almost 56 countries were included in that once-called federation. 
               
               Nehru and Gandhi fell apart during Independence. Immediately after the British left India,, caste and communal politics rose their head and only high caste people were taken into the government. Kshatriyas, Vysyas and the lowest section were neglected. Gandhi was a Vysya and had to retreat to Calcutta on the day of Independence.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Binaya.Ghimireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Venu, I agree everything except about Indus. Indus valley civilization was identified in 1921. The country India was not named after Indus, though because of rhyme it looks approving. Actually the Romans had given the name Indos for the entire Indian-subcontinent. And Remember, when the British came they were called East India Company. And what do you think about Indian tribes in America, where did they get their name from?

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Indus valley civilization was identified in 1921, but it existed before thousands of years. Rome was founded only in the 8th century BC, but India existed before that. We should not imagine as we like. They may have called it Indos.. what for that? The Britishers brought East India company because they started their trade in Chennai, (Madras) in India, in 1501. What for that?
                     There were no tribes in America. They were the local people and English tribes set sail for India and the wind brought some of them to America, which they thought to be India. So they named the locals as Red Indians, That name remains even after establishing that the land was not actually India, but America. But those Red Indians are not tribes. These English tribes decimated them with their guns and became masters of the lands. Now they call them "tribes" giving the name what they deserve.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Binaya.Ghimireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Dear Venu, I appreciate your knowledge. I admit how little I know about India. I want to end this debate.

                        replyreport
3. 80

   skyfireposted 12 years ago

   Because kashmir belongs to india. It was pakistan which was separated from hindustan dividing it into - india and pakistan. Kashmiri muslims wanted it to merge into pakistan only on basis on religious ideology.
   
   As for anti-terrorism from pakistan, i wonder why laden was found in pakistan and not in afghan. Why most of the terrorists operate from pakistan and not from any other islamic nation ? or Why united states and china has more interest in pakistan than afghan or iraq. Simple answer, it's easy to convert deluded folks into terrorists. Just provoke them in possible means necessary and you get yourself a destructive force. US did the same with talibanis and now they're going after entire nation to lable it as "terrorist country".
   
   
   
   That's simple. If you claim to be self-sufficient in terms of military. Clean your own s**. If you feel threatened by chinese military, us-supported al-quaida and few other threats then you have to call for help. No neighbor is going to jump in to help, just because they see you in trouble. Ask and you'll get help, just like they helped you in floods.
   
   
   No. You have proof for that? Indian intelligence is big joke. They can't even find out blasts in their own country. You can imagine their joint working with israel for destabling pakistan ? good luck with that thinking.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Do you think US helped us in floods? No. we never asked for help and no one came. We are capable of doing.  And no fool will ask America for help in times of crisis.  It is the governments negotiating on important issues on defence, trade, etc, on an equality basis for mutual benefit. That does not mean help by America. You know? India has lent some billions to USA,  and 14th lendor , the first being China.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         skyfireposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Do you even read post carefully. I pointed about flood in pakistan and not in india. *sigh*

         replyreport
4. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 12 years ago

   Dear friend from Pakistan, do you really think China is stronger than India and we are afraid of them? No. Even Pakistan can handle them. China cant win even a small war with India. The most experienced military strategists are in India and Pakistan only. It is fate that divided us. You remember WW I and II were won by Britain with the help of Indian soldiers? Did they have that much manpower at that time? No. Combined India's population was reduced to 19 crores in 1921 census against 1911 census (21 crores). That war experience even now cant be found anywhere in the world. That is why Americans and others want us to fight and get ourselves blunted. Now India can take on any country, if they decide to attack us. So, China will never dare to think of fighting with India.
   
   When Gandhiji, Nehru, Lal Bahadur Sastri and Indira Gandhi died, millions and millions shed tears and some even  lost their lives due to shock.  But in autocratic Communist Russia, when Stalin died, no one took care of his body for two days and the news was leaked slowly to the outer world. Such are the relationships between leaders and masses in India and tyrannical and autocratic countries like China. If an order was made by its leader in China, it will not be whole-heartely implemented. If it is in India, every soldier will treat it as their own commitment and win it.
   
   The best example can be taken from India Pakistan war of 1971. Every Indian soldier and common citizen treated it as their own fight and won the war decisively.

   replyreport