• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Ron McLeod
  • Rob Spoor
  • Tim Cooke
  • Junilu Lacar
Sheriffs:
  • Henry Wong
  • Liutauras Vilda
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
Saloon Keepers:
  • Jesse Silverman
  • Tim Holloway
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Moores
  • Carey Brown
Bartenders:
  • Al Hobbs
  • Mikalai Zaikin
  • Piet Souris

American foreign policy and Pakistan

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5093
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
I don't know much about both countries, but from that what I know, Pakistan appears to me as more logical host country for terrorism than India.


Not really, unless you insert the words "Muslim fundamentalist" between 'for' and 'terrorism'.
India has for decades funded terrorists operating inside Pakistan, just as India accuses Pakistan of funding Kashmiri separatists to launch terrorist attacks in India.
The main reason Pakistan is a more likely host to international terrorists (with or without government approval) than is India is because of its location (lots of mountain passes to Afghanistan where weapons could be easily obtained and which are not controlled as tightly as those between Pakistan and India where there are constant military patrols because of the borderwar which has been slumbering there for some 30+ years) and the fact that for decades travel between Pakistan and the west was easier than travel between India and the west because of the close ties between India and the USSR.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 687
Hibernate jQuery Spring
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Foriegn policy of america over a period of time.
Supported by america at one point in time
1.Shah Of Iran Iran
2.Col Gaddafi Libya
3.Saddam Hussein Iraq
4.Mujehaddin Afganistan
5.XYZ Dictator Pakistan
Countries helped out by AQkhan [officially pakistan as a country has no knowledge of this and was the work by just the scientist]
1. libya
2. iran
3. north korea

1.America provides money to pakistan as economic help.
2. Pakistan uses this to build weapons,
3. These weapons are sold by the people in pakistan who build them to third parties,
4. America ignores the country which sold the weapons in the first place[in fact i think more money is headed pakistans way this financial year and pakistan declares that the person selling the weapons can keep the money coz he has earned it :roll: ]
5.America declares war on the axis of evil [which surprise surprise have been helped out by america's closest ally in the war on evil.]
Hmm really interested in point 1 and 5.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 108
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

..India has for decades funded terrorists operating inside Pakistan, just as India accuses Pakistan of funding Kashmiri separatists to launch terrorist attacks in India.


I think every country has supportetd terrorists in the history.Britain/US have the worst history of supporting Islamic fundamentalists.Until 20 years back western europe(especially)UK was the great place for terrorist asylums.Canada has too contributed quite alot to Sikh terrorism which finally caused Sikh terrorist to explode Boeing 747 in Midair in 1985.


... the fact that for decades travel between Pakistan and the west was easier than travel between India and the west because of the close ties between India and the USSR.


IFAIK,USSR was hardly interested in harboring terrorists like other countries.Ties with that country a bcos of fact that Indian leaders at that time didn't want India to be banana republic and country where abundant Coke is available but needle needs to be imported.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1400
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

.. India has for decades funded terrorists operating inside Pakistan...


Can you name some ?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

India has for decades funded terrorists operating inside Pakistan, just as India accuses Pakistan of funding Kashmiri separatists to launch terrorist attacks in India.



Yeah, that must be one of the silliest things I have heard, it�s a bit like saying �Israeli suicide bomber�! There is no such thing!!
However, I am open to your side of the view, if you have any proof or respectable Internet resources to back that claim of yours! In fact, I would suggest you not reading too much of Pakistan�s twisted official line (and China�s pro-Pakistan opinion) of the whole issue. Don�t read India�s either, if you don�t trust Indian interests. But, can you please pause for a second and browse through world media and compare the total number of acts of terrorism inside India and Pakistan? I bet the ratio is more like 20 to 1 and in most of the cases, the terrorists and their organizations where at the forefront of claiming the responsibility of the act and deaths, and CIA and other intelligence agencies knows for a fact that these organizations are funded and trained in Pakistan � and that�s not even the Indian version of the story!
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:
India has for decades funded terrorists operating inside Pakistan,


LOL .. ROFL
just as India accuses Pakistan of funding Kashmiri separatists to launch terrorist attacks in India.
accuses ???
It has solid proofs .. and its not only India's worry .. fact is, India does not have much to lose...

BTW I dont know why the hell everyone is talking about India ??
I dont think that I took name of India in my first post and second its about US, Pakistan and Terrorism.
I wish no terrorist from Pakistan camp fly to US...
OR US will wait till this happens ??
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:

So lets see, a summary of the more interesting parts of this thread so far.


RKS: Id like to criticise the USA's double standards on how it conducts its relations with other nations
JM: Wouldnt it be nice if Pakistan and India could just get along and we the USA wouldnt have to worry about both countries having nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapon, India .. who is talking about them ??

RKS: Dont butt into Indias business.
MF: But youre already criticising the USA on how it does its relates to other countries... arent you taking a double standard in your argument?
Nuclear war between India & Pakistan might not affect US as much as these terroirst camps would do.
But an terrorist attack on US affects "whole world" in one way or other.
One whole country is captured ...
Today if its Iraq tomorrow it could be India for having nuclear arenal or something which only Powell knows.
JM: Bunch of interesting facts, India has a nuclear arsenal.
"People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones".
rt, if US does not posses nukes then he has right to say such things.
you wouldnt have started this pointless thread in the first place.
I also found lot of threads which are pointless ..... like this.
 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Actually, despite RK Singh's claim to the contrary, I have the right to say whatever I choose. In any event, judging by the reaction by certain parties to the turn that the conversation has taken, it seems Joe Pluta has been proven correct in an assertion he made in a recent thread that has since been deleted.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Honestly, I know little of the issues surrounding the India/Pakistan conflict. I am only now beginning to educate myself. It seems to me that there are striking similarities to the Israel/Palestine conflict. There are two factions divided primarily along relgious lines (Muslims and Hindus), there is a geographic area of dispute (Kashmir), the area in dispute is not of the same primary religion as its owner (Kashmir is primarily Muslim), and the owner wants to forcibly settle the region (at least that seems to be the goal of the fundamentalist Hindu organizations).
How much of this is correct?
I also understand that while India is striving to sustain its long and successful histoy of secular democracy, there is significant and rising opposition to such a goal, especially among the Sangh Parivar, the umbrella name for the RSS, the VHP and other Hindu extremist organizations.
Again, how much of this is correct?
I don't quite understand all of this next bit, but it seems that the party currently in power is the BJP. The BJP seem to be rather tightly associated with the Sangh Parivar, whose primary poiltical platform seem to be a call for a far more religious state, with the Hindu majority as first-class citizens and every one else (such as Muslims and Christians) as second-class citizens. There is speculation that the Sangh Parivar will even seek changes to India's Constitution, which currently expressly provides for the rights of all of tis citizens regardless of religious affiliation.
This ideal of "one culture, one country, one nation" is sort of the mantra of the BJP. For example, Venkaiah Naidu, BJP president, said "cultural nationalism is our life-line and Hindutva is the soul of India" and this could be achieved by facilitating the construction of Ram temple and by bringing in national legislations against cow slaughter and by banning "conversions" as done by the Narendra Modi Government.
Am I getting this correct?
And finally, it seems that there is much internal strife regarding the issue, such as the riots in Gujurat. In general, the Muslim minority throughout India seems to be alarmed by the rise of the BJP. Not that the Muslims are friends of the US - in many cases they are very vocally anti-US, especially regarding the issue of "feminism" which they find totally against the tenets of their faith.
Anyway, like I said, I'm pretty unknowledgeable here. Some of the stuff I've presented may be skewed by the reporting agencies I have read. Many of them are pretty anti-BJP, and I suspect there are other sides to the story. I'll be interested to hear those.
Joe
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just to throw a couple more logs on the fire... Since it was so vehemently denied that India had anything to do with terrorism, I thought I would do a little search to see what I came up with. Here are a couple links discussing India's support of international and domestic terrorism.
India: Allies or Instigators?
Is India an Ally or a Terrorist State?
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

India: Allies or Instigators?
Is India an Ally or a Terrorist State?


After so much of hard work only two links ???
Home work for you :
google more and get more links, which have different contents
On serious note, I hope this will open your eyes, and will convey my message what I want to say.
Note: this is not an Indian site. Its your favorite.
AW I am not in the mood to proof a non-sense thing like India support terrorism, but yes one can work more "hard" and spend "more and more" time to find what wants to proof.
On lighter note: how much time did you, Jason, spend to find these two "similer" content. ?? Atleast I was expecting two different sources.
AW I have no issues, I have problem that even people who know where is root of evil and still instead of removing that root, they are giving water. And when the evil comes to their door, they will make hue and cry.
AW just google, India is on second number in the list of OBL/Al-Quaeda. No. 1 is still US.
All The Best.
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Is India an Ally or a Terrorist State?


Oh C'mon Jason, Dan Burton is a staunch anti-India senator. You can even lookup Sheila Jackson Lee for more of the same stuff. But also keep in mind that Sheila Jackson Lee is the one who suggested that GWB knew about 9/11 and did nothing about it.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
India: Allies or Instigators?
Is India an Ally or a Terrorist State?


"funding terrorism in Pakistan"
"Terrorist camp in Pakistan"
Jason, you did it for me...
Yes, true I got distrubed but it was not a good trick .. you need some oil also with logs
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
This discussion is taking an ugly turn and frankly I dont care whether people make anti-India comments or anti-US comments or whatever. But I would definetly like to state that I am disappointed in the US government for failing, at the least, to slap sanctions against Pakistan in light of what its Chief Nuclear scientist did. Now, this does not make me anti-US or anything like that, but just leaves me disheartened.
Let it not be mistaken as a request for US assistance in combating Pakistan. Instead it is merely an appeal for removal of support to a nation that has time and again proven itself to be a no-good ally in anything, namely Pakistan. Sure, India did not support US during the cold war, India used antagonistic tactics towards the US etc. but let it not be forgotten that till date India has never instigated nor participated in any act that directly derailed US interests. While, time and again Pakistan has put up a facade of support to carry out, in reality, acts that bear a direct negative consequence on US interests.
I do not support some of the posts that have a mocking attitude tied with them, I love the US as much as I respect India. I'm out of this conversation before it gets muddied with personal squabbles.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Joe, I have work else I would have explain what is the problem.
I will try to answer in short as much as I can.
There are two factions divided primarily along relgious lines (Muslims and Hindus)
How much of this is correct?

Need more knowledge.
Its not that easy.... All other religion people were killed or made to run away before they started the demand for seperate nation.
India is striving to sustain its long and successful histoy of secular democracy, there is significant and rising opposition to such a goal,
Again, how much of this is correct?

Again wrong.
RSS and others wants India to be under "one" Law. They dont want personal Laws.
whose primary poiltical platform seem to be a call for a far more religious state, with the Hindu majority as first-class citizens and every one else (such as Muslims and Christians) as second-class citizens. There is speculation that the Sangh Parivar will even seek changes to India's Constitution, which currently expressly provides for the rights of all of tis citizens regardless of religious affiliation.
I dont know the source of information, but a suggestion. Change your source of information.
For example, Venkaiah Naidu, BJP president, said "cultural nationalism is our life-line and Hindutva is the soul of India"
Half knowledge is always dangerous.
Naidu has always said in his speeches what did he mean by Hindutva.

and this could be achieved by facilitating the construction of Ram temple and by bringing in national legislations against cow slaughter and by banning "conversions" as done by the Narendra Modi Government.
India is free democratic country. Everyone one has a freedom to say what he thinks, thats called "right of speech." ANd its one of our fundamental rights.

Not that the Muslims are friends of the US - in many cases they are very vocally anti-US, especially regarding the issue of "feminism" which they find totally against the tenets of their faith.
You must meet Indian muslims.
Anyway, like I said, I'm pretty unknowledgeable here. Some of the stuff I've presented may be skewed by the reporting agencies I have read. Many of them are pretty anti-BJP, and I suspect there are other sides to the story. I'll be interested to hear those.
I like your truthness.
We can start a new thread, if one want to know more about India.
I would love to see, people bashing India
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I dont know the source of information, but a suggestion. Change your source of information.
Really? What is wrong with this source?
Joe
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ravish: What does this laugh means .. one doesnt need to spend time to search such links.
Ravish, this should be qualified as a personal attack, rather than a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. Let's try to respect each other, or at least pretend that we do
--------------------
"I wish I will be as tasty as any other meat" -- Ravish.
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Let's try to respect each other


.... but I really laughed because I was not expecting this, at least, from Jason.
I want to become like Jason but it seems that Jason has become like me.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
RSS and others wants India to be under "one" Law. They dont want personal Laws.
It seems, though, that the "one Law" they want is Hindu as interpreted by the Sangh Parivar. There sure are a lot of references to the Sangh Parivar and the BJP attempting to change the Indian Constitution. Back in 2000, there was even something called the "Constitution Review Committee" which everybody other than the BJP seems to say was an attempt to overthrow the Indian Constitution by "boycotting and bypassing the political parties and Parliament".
I keep finding this everywhere:
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20000424/nation.htm#1
http://www.ambedkar.org/News/hl/Scrap%20Constitution%20review%20panel.htm
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv001/htva0004.html
http://bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/1999/000085.html
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042001/Art14.htm
http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/politics/hindutva/what.html
http://www.islamicvoice.com/february.99/features.htm
http://www.ercwilcom.net/indowindow/threeessays/title.php?bookid=12
http://www.mfsd.org/msdpressstatement.pdf
This page is particular was pretty powerful:
http://cac.ektaonline.org/resources/reports/sacw/index.html
Who are these people, and why should we not listen to them, Ravish?
Joe
 
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
..to slap sanctions against Pakistan in light of what its Chief Nuclear scientist did.


I tend to agree with Paul on this. I don�t believe there is a need to address the links posted by Jason, as we all know that numerous 10 page media-websites out there can put anything in their website and that doesn�t prove anything but their writers own personal opinion.
Only other fact that I would like to add here to other points made by everyone before in regard to Joe�s post, which looks quite well researched, I should admit! He has his facts correct there, but I would say the overall picture slightly incorrect.
India as a working system/society is much bigger than what the term �country� defines to most of the readers! Its huge, and diverse � we have cast-related issues in remote corners and poorest villages in India, so does we have cannibals in forests and blind Dolphins in Ganges. My point is, average westerner seems to have great difficulty in apprehending how relatively insignificant one most of incidents that Joe mentioned, in India. Indian rivers are not full of blind dolphins; they are only in one river in the whole of India, similarly, cast-related issues are so unusual these days for most of us Indians. So are the religious problems that Joe mentioned earlier. There was one Christian missionary (of tens of thousands of Christian missionary workers) assassinated, and Indian Judiciary caught up with the gang of thugs who did the heinous crime and sentenced their leader to death (if my memory serves me right) and followers to rot in jails for x may number of years! However sad the assassination of the missionary was, I still believe the Indian law is doing what American or any other system would do in a similar situation � I am yet to see any leniency based on cast or religion.
BJP as a political party might have Hindu fundamentalists in their camp, but they also have many Muslim, Christian and �Dalit� parties in their coalition that has been ruling India for last 4 or so years! They successfully ran they government, during which, things haven�t been going too bad, save the riots in Gujarat. I am sure there will be many differing opinions about this, but I would assume that�s the tail end of an under-developed state we are struggling to forget and come out of. All this while, Supreme Court of India has kept Vishwa Hindu Parishad and other such organizations on check, and I am more than sure that they will be busted, irrespective of the ruling party.
I am sure with or with out America�s help, India will prevail, albeit slow and painfully, as a successful secular democracy, and looking back next generation of Indians will be proud of their country for keeping restraint and for not sacrificing national values for temporary benefits or foreign aid.
 
Mapraputa Is
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ravish: ... but I really laughed because I was not expecting this, at least, from Jason.
Well, I am for one is confused what's wrong with the links. At least NewsMax has been frequently and legitimately cited by the conservative wing of this forum. If you disagree with the content, then you need to explain what exactly you found incorrect. Otherwise you only irritate your opponents.
--------------------
"I wish I will be as tasty as any other meat" -- Ravish.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I made no judgement of the content of the links I posted one way or another. It does seem however that simple dismissal based on some arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the information contained in those articles (at least some of which I recognized as indisputable fact) is certainly not condusive to proper debate, and in fact has been addressed in the MD fallacies document.
As I stated, the vehemence of the denials simply peaked my curiousity. I can say though that the reaction is exactly what I expected.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 89
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
What is wrong with this source?
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]


"The Hindu" (newspaper) is anti-BJP...and most of the english media (indian) have time & again tried to project the BJP in bad light
For a slightly more objective opinion try the following:
The Indian Express
The Daily Pioneer
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
I dont know the source of information, but a suggestion. Change your source of information.
Really? What is wrong with this source?


WHen I started reading Hindu, didnt know why I got impression that its pro-BJP. But after 6-8 months I found it to be not as I was thinking.
So still I am saying what I was saying change your source of info.
This ideal of "one culture, one country, one nation" is sort of the mantra of the BJP.
I also said the same, but looks like you missed that. OR its the wording which creates images.
I said : RSS and others wants India to be under "one" Law. They dont want personal Laws.
I told you to change your source of info for the following passage:
whose primary poiltical platform seem to be a call for a far more religious state, with the Hindu majority as first-class citizens and every one else (such as Muslims and Christians) as second-class citizens. There is speculation that the Sangh Parivar will even seek changes to India's Constitution, which currently expressly provides for the rights of all of tis citizens regardless of religious affiliation.
Indian constitution gives equal rights to everyone. [even more rights to minorities].
So the "first and second citizen" thing is total brusque views of a writer, and as I said everyone has a right to say what he wants, the writer exercises this right, thats all.
Then that para talks about "changing the constitution". To change a constitution there are 3 ways in Indian constitution. It will take time to tell you the procedures but be sure that its not that easy .
Still in short let me tell you that one need 2/3 of the vote in Lok Sabha, then it has to pass through Rajya Sabha also and then it needs approval of president.
So if you dont want to change your source then have information from more number of sources.
Do you know who is President of India ??
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: R K Singh ]
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

Who are these people, and why should we not listen to them, Ravish?


They are the people who want to exploit society in the name of religion.
Would you like your 15 yr daughter to get married to 35 yr old man??
Would you like your brother to marry 4th women without divorcing other 3 ??
Would you like to give job on the basis of religion/caste or on the basis of qualification ??
Would you like to suppress a woman in the name of religion/caste ??
They are these people and they should not be listend, they are people who are exploiting the right of speech.
AW I specially love these two hate sites :
http://www.ambedkar.org/
http://www.dalitstan.org/
 
R K Singh
Ranch Hand
Posts: 5397
1
Spring Java
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I know there is nothing say about Pakistan and its shameful relation with US.
So I invite you here for India bashing.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
RKS: WHen I was started reading Hindu, dont know why I got impression that its pro-BJP. But after 6-8 months I found it to be not as I was thinking. So still I am saying what I was saying change your source of info.
So, because "India's National Newspaper" is not pro-BJP, I should not listen to it? I should only listen to sources which are pro-BJP? That wouldn't give me a very clear picture, would it?

RKS: Then that para talks about "changing the constitution". To change a constitution there are 3 ways in Indian constitution. It will take time to tell you the procedures but be sure that its not that easy .
Still in short let me tell you that one need 2/3 of the vote in Lok Sabha, then it has to pass through Rajya Sabha also and then it needs approval of president.

I understand that. I guess that's why so many people thought the entire concept of a Constitution Review Committee to be at best a waste of time and at most a dangerous attack on the Cnostitution. Since there are already procedures in place for the amendment of the Constitution, the Constitution Review Committee is unnecessary.

RSK: Do you know who is President of India ??
Dr. A.J.P. Abdul Kalam is the President, but the more compelling man at this point is Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Prime Minister, who seems to be at the center of the entire BJP/Sangh Privar coalition.
Joe
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I haven't noticed anyone bashing India here. What leads to that conclusion?
Now I do see a thread started out as an attack on US foreign policy, and some people got upset because their country's policies were in turn questioned. But really, I believe that was mostly more of a "turnabout-is-fair-play" thing rather than anyone actually seeming to care too much about discussing it.
 
Ashok Mash
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1936
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Talk about hijacking threads! So how about the double standards in American foreign policies?
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Would you like to give job on the basis of religion/caste or on the basis of qualification ??
Would you like to suppress a woman in the name of religion/caste ??
AW I specially love these two hate sites :
http://www.ambedkar.org/

I'm confused. As far as I can tell, the Ambedkar site is entirely against caste-ism, and in fact suggest entirely embracing Buddhism in order to get rid of castes. So why is reading Dr. Ambedkar's site supporting castes?
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 382
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
RKS: WHen I was started reading Hindu, dont know why I got impression that its pro-BJP. But after 6-8 months I found it to be not as I was thinking. So still I am saying what I was saying change your source of info.
So, because "India's National Newspaper" is not pro-BJP, I should not listen to it? I should only listen to sources which are pro-BJP? That wouldn't give me a very clear picture, would it?
Joe


The fact of the matter is, just as it is here in US, under the freedom of press you will have newspapers/tv stations that will have a specific POV, so it is in India. Much like CNN, Fox, NYTimes, LA Times etc. So, here in US, a liberal/democrat would most likely prefer to read NYT, LAT or watch CNN where as a conservative/republican would prefer to watch Fox or read Chicago Tribune. There are very few news media that are really fair & balanced in their reporting.
Similarly, even in India, there are newspapers that are staunchly against BJP & there are newspapers that are staunchly against Indian Congress Party. There are very few balanced reporting outlets amongst the national news media. I personally believe that Indian Express is one such. It was this IE which staunchly opposed Indira Gandhi during the infamous National Emergeny times when she tried to impose a dynastic rule. Phew! We (at that time I was an Indian citizen) survived that. All because the people spoke (loudly & clearly) when the time came to exercise their franchise.
Just as we in US generally get our news from the sources that jive with our own political leanings, people in India do the same. Most Indians in India (& elsewhere) will probably like to read the US liberal news media reports. My guess (though it would be a lot more than 2 cents ) is because the liberal news media in the US tends to be anti-republican. And most Indians (as one can surmise from the many MD posts) tend to be anti-republican, primarily because of the republican party's/administration's pro-pakistan & anti-india foreign policies in the past.
I think more Indians than Americans tend to be more nationalistic perhaps because US is the super power and India has dreams of becoming one and feels that she is being denied. It is also possible that, just as 2 individuals view the same thing in 2 different ways, Americans & Indians view things differently. Everything from Pakistan to India to Indo-Pak relations to Indo-US relations to Pak-US relations to anything else that one can think of. But, IMHO, that is not bad or wrong in itself. However, when 2 differing views & at times opposing views collide, then the sparks fly.
I personally believe that more Indians should come and live for at least a while in US and vice versa. Many Indians in India get their information about US from worldwide news media and don't get to interact with Americans and people of other cultures and countries much. If they spent some time living in this cauldron of diversity they will see (just as I did) that Americans are one of the most generous & giving people on earth. They will also see that one can live peacefully with Americans as well as with Pakistanis.
I 1st though that I'd avoid why Indians tend to be anti-republican. But now, I think otherwise.
Indians have always felt that in matters of principle when they were right wrt Pakistan, republican administration in US always supported Pakistan. Perhaps this is because Americans in general believe that you don't let your friend down. But Indians in general believe (this is cultural) that if you have to choose between a friend (or even a family member) and a principle, then the friendship or family ties should be sacrificed for the principle.
But what the Indians fail to realize is that politics & geo-politics, more often than not, are not based on principles. Even India does/has done the same. Political as well as geo-political alliances are forged on the more tenuous links of political expediency. If the political realities change then the alliances change as well. When India & Pakistan got their independence in 1947, US was looking to have allies in that part of the world who would allow them to have bases (so close to USSR). From what I've read US had approached India and Nehru declined such an alliance, partly because he was wary of US inclinations, partly because he didn't want another foreign presence (especially so soon after one foreign presence finally had left) and partly because at heart he was a socialist (he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and had seen the abject poverty of the masses). He basically was opposed to the ideas & ideals of capitalism. Well, Pakistan jumped at the offer and welcomed US; probably because they feared that having a huge neighbor next door to them made them feel threatened (more so after Mahatma Gandhi's death) and felt more secure with US presence/help. I don't blame them. I'd have done the same thing had I been in Jinnah's shoes.
I think Nehru realized the situation he'd put India in by refusing an alliance with US which Pakistan accepted. Perhaps also because he was socialist at heart, he felt a natural tug towards USSR and USSR didn't want any bases in India. But USSR wanted to counter US influence in that region & so became India's friend. So, he started tilting the country towards USSR while always staying as a democratic republic. Then the 1971 Indo-Pak war occurred. And Nixon moved the (nuclear) 7th Fleet into the Indian Ocean to threaten India. I doubt if Nixon would have nuked India. I don't know for sure. It may have been just an intimidating gesture. Well India did get intimidated and asked for USSR's help. And they obliged. They sent their nuclear sub into that region. Any miscalculation on either side & the 3rd WW would have erupted. Sanity & wisdom prevailed. The 7th Fleet was withdrawn as was the Soviet sub.
Ever since then Indo-Pak antagonism always colored Indo-US relations. India was suspicious of everything that US. And Indo-Soviet camaraderie made US suspicious of everything that India did. Because of this, India has mostly supported USSR position in the past and Russian position now in the UN.
After the 1971 war with Pakistan, India felt that they needed a stronger weapons system and atomic weaponry was the most advanced at that time and they decided to get into that. And also decided to buy more weapons system including planes etc mostly from USSR & also from France and GB. That meant that Pakistan had to do the same. They couldn't afford not to. And they too felt that if India became nuclear, they too would have to.
When Clinton intervened in the Kargill war and did something that helped India, the Indians were surprised; and they thought that perhaps this was the dawn of a new era in Indo-US relations. It certainly seems to be so (notwithstanding what happens with outsourcing). But what they need to realize is their relationship with US should not colored by the prism of Pakistan's relationship with US or India's relationship with Pakistan. Maybe, just maybe, I see a light, a rather dim light, of hope at a distance.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Ashok: He has his facts correct there, but I would say the overall picture slightly incorrect.
Thanks, Ashok! And that brings me to a very interesting point. I did research and I have my facts correct, and yet I still don't get a complete view of India. At least part of the fact is that India is so large and diverse, with a billion people in it.
Well, the US is not so small, either. America is much larger geographically than India, and has nearly a third of the population as well. The sheer size of America by definition means that there is no single viewpoint that can be pointed at as "American".
At the same time, I can answer that, for the most part, Americans don't care that much about Pakistan or India; in general you've been growing as countries at your own pace. I'd guess that the average American would currently see Pakistan as more of a problem than India from a geo-political standpoint, but at the same time, the large population of American high-tech and service sector workers definitely see India as the larger economic threat, by far.
This is not India-bashing, just reporting the facts - we're far more frightened of losing our jobs to India than Pakistan. In the coming years, we'll probably be just as frightened of China as India (and in fact, my guess is that India will be as frightened of China as we were of India).
Okay, so what's my point?
Much of what people outside the country rail about is American foreign policy. In general, we tend to leave foreign policy to our elected officials, because honestly we often don't know enough. My guess is that I probably know more about Indian economic and political affairs than just about any of my American-born acquaintances. So we count on our officials to do the right thing. We've seen over the years that they screw up, but in general they're doing a pretty good job of keeping the peace. If the overall measurement of America's foreign policy is the growth of Democracy, we're doing very well. (Raising the standard of living of underdeveloped countries, we're doing okay but not nearly so well. And lowering the threat of international terrorism we've absolutely sucked at until recently, and only time will tell if the current climate is positive or negative.)
Overall, given the circumstances, we've done a pretty good job. But we've made mistakes as well. In some cases, we had little choice. After the incredible fiasco that was Viet Nam (and which caused a great upheaval in all of American society), the fact that India was very cozy with the USSR all but forced our hand to get in bed with Pakistan. History is showing that this may well have been as bad a move as supporting the Shah or Hussein. Hopefully we'll get it sorted out. One thing you can say about our invasion of Iraq is that it shows that we aren't afraid of admitting we're wrong when some crackpot dictator we befriended goes off the range. I hope we use the same judgment with Pakistan; I personally can't see a lot of good that comes from a continued relationship with the Musharraf regime. But to cut off all relations might also cause a very unstable situation - do you really want a nuclear-capable Chinese puppet government in place in Islamabad?
More importantly, though, I don't think the average American people know that much about it. I have Pakistani friends, yet they rarely, if ever, talk about the politics of their homeland. Unlike my Indian friends, who happily inundate us with politics, social issues and cricket , we know next to nothing about the conditions in Pakistan, which as I understand it have gone from bad to nightmarish.
So, the average American is really not supporting Pakistani terror against India, anymore than the average Indian supports a caste-based society. At the geopolitical level, America has some pretty untenable relationships in place that hopefully we can make better, one at a time. It's not easy; some of the places where we are involved are tinderboxes ready to explode, and one false step could still mean the deaths of millions of people. While we haven't had a war on our continent in 100 years or so and the biggest war on our soil was fought with muskets, the rest of the world is still pretty warlike and the weapons are getting ever more powerful. The fact that we've made it this far is good, but it hardly means we're out of danger yet.
Okay, enough ranting.
I just wanted to make the point that you are as likely to find an American who favors Pakistani terrorism in India as you are to meet an Indian who practices cannibalism. They may exist, but they're not in civilized society.
Joe
[ February 12, 2004: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]
 
Paul McKenna
Ugly Redneck
Posts: 1006
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It does seem however that simple dismissal based on some arbitrary criteria that has nothing to do with the information contained in those articles (at least some of which I recognized as indisputable fact) is certainly not condusive to proper debate, and in fact has been addressed in the MD fallacies document.


My return to this conversation is a direct result of the post above. I will try an attempt to shed some light on the areas where I feel the news max article went wrong.
All quotes henceforth are from the url - http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/3/27/85708.shtml


It was reported that the passengers were taunting the Muslims by chanting slogans about rebuilding the temple.


Other reliable reports indicate that the passengers were merely singing religious hymns and that the population of the station where the train was parked simply got instigated by the fact that a Hindu religious party had entered a muslim majority area.


Unfortunately, India, which proclaims itself "the world�s largest democracy," has made moves that undermine America�s war on terrorism. Indian military maneuvers have forced Pakistan to divert troops from the border with Afghanistan to the Line of Control in Kashmir, creating a potential opening for terrorists to escape


Well, Jason wouldnt you agree that India has every right to protect its soverignity without having to ask permission from other countries? The above statement shows that the author wants India to compromise her soverignity.


Journalist Tavleen Singh has reported in India�s leading newsmagazine, India Today, that the Indian government created the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which the U.S. government has identified as a "terrorist organization."
According to Internet journalist Justin Raimondo, the Indian Defense Minister, George Fernandes, raised money and arms for the LTTE


It is true that India aided LTTE at one point but India did not create LTTE. The state I come from, Tamil Nadu, is comprised mainly of "Tamilians". Sri Lanka also has a segment of "Tamilian" population. In the past, the native Sinhalese oppressed the Tamilian segment of the population which led to the creation of a "Liberation Front" in the northern majority-Tamil part of Sri Lanka. Under pressure from the Tamil Nadu state, Indira Gandhi aided LTTE by training and proving some ammunitions. However, friend turned foe soon and LTTE committed several terrorist acts within India including the assasination of India's former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. LTTE is a banned organization in India and a person with any links that group can be held indefinetly in prison under the POTA(prevention of terrorim act) law.


Pakistan and minorities within India�s borders charge that India is seeking hegemony in the South Asian subcontinent. Certainly its deployment of new missiles that can reach deep into Pakistan and its tests that began the nuclear escalation in the region suggest that this may be true.


What is this supposed to mean? Would you believe a statement that read "Iran and muslims within USA's borders charge that USA is seeking hegemony in the world". Arent the two statements the same? What objective analysis are you going to be able to perform when you consult bitter enemies?


While India blames Pakistan for the attack on its Parliament, President Pervez Musharraf says he has evidence that the Indian government itself was responsible. No Indian soldiers were killed, just guards, workers, and other lower-caste people.


"Other Lower-caste people"??? How in the world did the author get to know about the caste of those who were killed? I'd really be interested in knowing that.


The book "Soft Target," written by Canadian journalists Brian McAndrew of the Toronto Star and Zuhair Kashmeri of the Toronto Globe and Mail, shows that India blew up its own airliner in 1985, killing 329 people, apparently in order to blame Sikhs for the atrocity and create a pretext for more violence against them.
It shows that the Indian Consul General in Toronto pulled his daughter off the flight shortly before it was due to depart. An auto dealer who was a friend of the Consul General also cancelled his reservation at the last minute. Surinder Singh, director of North American Affairs for the External Affairs office in New Delhi, also cancelled his reservation on that flight.


These are identical to several conspiracies about 9/11. Why did the Indian consul general pull his daughter off the plane I have no idea but no one has conclusive proof otherwise also. Only co-incidental conspiracy theories.


India has a long record of anti-Americanism. On May 18, 1999, the Indian Express reported that Mr. Fernandes, the Defense Minister, organized and led a meeting with the ambassadors from Red China, Cuba, Russia, Yugoslavia, Libya, and Iraq to discuss setting up a security alliance "to stop the U.S."


I have no idea about this so if someone else can dig up something, please do so.


India�s implicit support for terrorist activity is consistent with its internal behavior. It has a record of repression of minorities that undermines its proclamation of democratic values.


So if repression of minorities is implicit evidence for support of terrorist activities couldn't the same be said about the entire West at one point of time?


The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which leads a 23-party coalition, is a branch of the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), an organization founded in 1925 in support of the Fascists


Wrong! The party manifesto available at www.bjp.org will prove that they believe in "Nationalism" not "Fascism". There is a disctinct difference between the two. The statement above is like saying all patriots are fascists.


The governing ideology of the BJP and all the branches of the RSS is Hindutva, the subjugation of society, politics, and culture to Hinduism. Last year, a cabinet member said that everyone living in India must either be a Hindu or be subservient to Hinduism. And in New York in 2000, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee said, "I will always be a Swayamsewak." This is the ideology behind the attacks on Christians, Sikhs, Muslims, and other minorities


Again, read www.bjp.org and determine for yourself. They have a conservative agenda and thats all. They, and so do I, believe for a good society you must have one clear majority and other minorities. When every one places a claim that they are the majority it leads to ethnic conflict. Currently under the pseudo-secular laws of India that is exactly what is happening. Every ethnic group wants society to follow their ways.


The target of choice these days seems to be Christians. Human-rights organizations report that more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the Indian government.


I'd be interested in seeing that Human-rights report. That looks like a made up statistic. Yes! one missionary, Graham Staines, was killed by a fanatic. The fanatic has been sentenced to death and there was NOT one person who opposed the death penalty for him. The author seems to turn a blind eye to this fact.


As Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Cal., said on the floor of Congress on August 2, 1999, "for the people in Kashmir and Punjab and Jammu, India might as well be Nazi Germany."


I am speechless!


In the words of Narinder Singh, a spokesman for the Golden Temple, the seat of the Sikh religion, who was interviewed in August 1997 by National Public Radio, "The Indian government, all the time they boast that they are secular, that they are democratic. But they have nothing to do with a democracy, nothing to do with a secularism. They just kill Sikhs to please the majority."


I find these remarks funny. The person who made the remark seems to forget that the largest ethnic group in the Indian Army is SIKH! If Sikhs hated India so much why in the world would they proudly die for it?


. The Sikhs, who were supposed to receive independence, have never had any of their representatives sign the Indian constitution. Instead of respecting "the glow of freedom" that Nehru and Patel promised the Sikhs, the government declared them a "criminal class" as soon as the ink was dry on the constitution.


I would appreciate it more if the author bought out evidence instead of pulling such statements out of the air.


Some experts have predicted that within a decade, neither India nor Pakistan will exist in its current form. The Indian subcontinent will continue to be a region that bears close attention by American policymakers


50 years ago, Winston Churchill remarked (I'm paraphrasing) - "We are leaving this country a bunch of dogs who are unfit to rule themselves. They will destroy everything that the British Empire created". Well, here we are.. 50 years later.
Jason, the point is you will find several people who are against India every willy-nilly and you will find people who are for India. Articles like this one can be written about any country in the world today and I trust you will make a better judgement about their quality though.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
They, and so do I, believe for a good society you must have one clear majority and other minorities. When every one places a claim that they are the majority it leads to ethnic conflict.
I read this and I am reminded of the wonderful book Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Problem is that US behaves two-faced in the world.
It supported till now Iraq(Saddam), Shah in Iran till 1979, the military in Turkey, all the fascist dictatorships from Latin Amerika to Nicaragua, from Pakistan to the Philippines , Saudis to Egypt, Jordan, etc.
so the main politics I think still has not changed. They are not against all sort of dictatorships; but only against to those who are not 100% near the usa.
They still are quite good friends with the generals of Latin America, aren't they?
if they really want to build a new world rule based on both political and economical liberalism, they should change the politics. otherwise the world will evolve into an even more barbarian era.
 
Joe Pluta
Ranch Hand
Posts: 1376
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
PM: "Human-rights organizations report that more than 200,000 Christians in Nagaland have been killed by the Indian government."
I'd be interested in seeing that Human-rights report. That looks like a made up statistic.

This refers not to missionaries, but to the Naga that have been killed during the forced absorption of Nagaland into India. According to various reports, from 200,000 to 300,000 Naga have been wiped out in the 50-year war. Since some 80% of Naga are Christians, that's tens of thousands of Christians killed - as much or even more than the 200,000 number quoted.
There is also direct evidence of the narrowing of India's religious tolerance in the Freedom of Religion Act, which requires permission from a magistrate for conversion to non-Hindu religions. This seems to discriminate against Muslims and Christians; Buddhism and Jainism are exempt because the law declares them to be "offshoots" of Hinduism. Once again, I can only report what I read:
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=24289
Joe
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R�stem e Zal:
Problem is that US behaves two-faced in the world.
It supported till now Iraq(Saddam), Shah in Iran till 1979, the military in Turkey, all the fascist dictatorships from Latin Amerika to Nicaragua, from Pakistan to the Philippines , Saudis to Egypt, Jordan, etc.
so the main politics I think still has not changed. They are not against all sort of dictatorships; but only against to those who are not 100% near the usa.
They still are quite good friends with the generals of Latin America, aren't they?
if they really want to build a new world rule based on both political and economical liberalism, they should change the politics. otherwise the world will evolve into an even more barbarian era.



A lot of rhetoric. Support Iraq until now? The US quit the little support he had before the end of the Iran/Iraq war. Some of the dictators your rhetoric implies we supported, are just a lack of a better option. We supported South Korea even through their military dicatorships. We would have liked for them to have changed sooner.
What would you have us do? Remove them all? It has never been a policy of the US to remove every dicator in the world. Would we like them all to be more democratic sure.
Some where supported as a counter to the USSR and their imperialistic ways
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
AW now you are getting in to the complexities of USA. If I say you wont understand that then please dont mind.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
What I 'D like to say is that the western world should return to the essence that created the west: the illumination, renaissannce, political liberalism...
i also know the states is not a unique entity, there exist several different schools racing in the area of politics. ex, I think Clinton's era was much better for the whole world..
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 451
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by R�stem e Zal:
What I 'D like to say is that the western world should return to the essence that created the west: the illumination, renaissannce, political liberalism...


The building of colonial empires?
 
You showed up just in time for the waffles! And this tiny ad:
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic