Understanding Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto
Zalan Alam November 29, 2006
#54 Posted by Sanatani on December 2, 2006 2:44:19 am
Re: # 33
So Jinnah Sahib was a creep and Madar das a big saint. Ok so BJ Genius (genies ass is more like it) Kumar tell us how should partition have been avoided?
I mean you were in a previous article shedding tears for the Indian Muslims on how they were fooled by Jinnah and how J Sahib is responsible for their plight. But the majority did want Pakistan having being radicalised by the Khilafat movement of your idol madar dass. Now to stop partition u had 2 options civil war and Civil war. So tell me which of these would you have choosen to stop partition.
I mean did you guys have the stomach for it. Sardar Patel the Sikhs and the RSS were all for it (the sword will be met by the sword) but scum like you and your ilk sabotaged and scuttled it from within. The resulting massacres of the Hindus and Sikhs is as much on madar dass and your ilk as it is on the Muslims.
And even today tum apni bakwaas ka raag alap rahe ho. Every Hindu should be thankful to Shrimant MA Jinnah Saheb for mid wifing Pakistan (madar dass was of course the father). Because in a 35% Muslim India the Hindus would have no chance of fighting back because of the traitors in our ranks like you.
Please read what we have been reduced to because of ``secular``, ``gandhian`` and ``humanists`` like you:
Shri Jinnahe Namo Namah
Basic Islam for Hindu Dhimmis
By Subramanian Swamy
Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world could not care less. An American had once told me: “Why should we care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers?”
We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ‘X’ represents the two trends—Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.
We Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us.
Thanks to Shri Vedantamji of the VHP, I had visited Thondi and Rasathipuram Municipalities of Ramanathapuram and Vellore districts respectively, and was truly shocked by what I saw. Both these municipalities are in Muslim-majority areas, and the local bodies election had empowered the Muslims with their capture of the municipalities.
The Muslim-ruled municipalities have thereafter converted these areas into mini Dar-ul-Islams, in a Hindustan of 83 per cent Hindus! The minority Hindu areas of the municipality were thus denied civic amenities, funds for schools, garbage clearing etc., and sent notices in Urdu. Hindus were bluntly told convert to Islam if they wanted civic facilities.
I could not believe that in South India this was possible where Hindus are actually above national average at 90 per cent of the population. I know that in Kashmir Valley, Muslims who are in majority have actively or passively connived in driving out half a million Hindus out of their homes and made them refugees in their own country. Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world could not care less. An American had once told me: “Why should we care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers?”
Such atrocities are happening not only in Kashmir, but in other parts of India as well in pockets wherever Muslims are in majority, e.g., Mau and Meerut. In pocket boroughs of India, thus, Dar-ul-Islam has today returned to India after two centuries. Considering that a demographic re-structuring is slowly but surely taking place, with Hindu majority shrinking everywhere, Dar-ul-Islam in pockets might indeed, like amoeba, proliferate, coalesce, and jell into a frightening national reality—unless we Hindus wake up and take corrective action now, actions for which we shall of course not get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Dar-ul-Islam is a Muslim religious concept of a land where Muslims rule, and the non-believers in Islam are termed as Dhimmis. The term Dhimmi was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina [Khaybar to be exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert to Islam, then they would accept second-class status politically, culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including the right to modesty of women, and the special tax jaziya.
There is thus no scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals in the political, cultural, or social system in a Dar-ul-Islam where Muslims rule. Secular order in India thus is possible only when Muslims are not in power. Thondi, Rasathipuram and other places prove that the Muslim mind suffers from a dangerous duality—of seeking secularism when out of power and imposing a brutal demeaning theocracy for non-Muslims when in power.
It is this duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern education and other means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming majority in India. We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ‘X’ represents the two trends—Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.
The dhimmitude of Jews in Medina and later in Mecca represents the beginning of religious apartheid inherent and basic to Islamic mores, and practised long before what we saw in South Africa on the basis of colour and race, and that which became prevalent during the Islamic imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus had been dhimmis for six hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger majority in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough. Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.
In his presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his own inimitable way:
“To visualise Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common nation is a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some unawakened Hindu leaders…. The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are two different civilisations…. since their thought process grow on different beliefs.”
Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his concept of non-compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after Independence and Partition, instead of building on this rejection by many Muslims, the Nehru era saw increasing pandering precisely to the religious element that believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi vigorously continued this appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.
But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel from his Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line clerics who protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere and to de facto amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These relatives on a directive from the Vatican thought that if secular law would be applied to Muslims, it can be to the Christians too.
This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim clerics, since the Shariat had already been amended, without protest, in the criminal law of India. The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform criminal code that equally applies to all religious communities. I therefore ask the clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in India direct that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariat prescribes? If Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic in rejecting the uniform civil code?
In India, Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has had other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who had refused to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to carry night-soil and suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or it meant gross mental torture. Guru Tegh Bahadur, for example, had to see his sons sawed in half, before the pious Guru’s own head was severed and displayed in public.
The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who had refused to convert and thus made to carry night-soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared to be asprashya or “untouchable”. The ranks of the Scheduled Caste community, which was not more than 1 per cent of the population before the advent of Islam in India, swelled to 14 per cent by the time Mughal rule collapsed.
Thus, today’s SC community, especially those who are still Hindus, consists mostly of those valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to become Muslims but preferred ostracization and ignominy in order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today should offer koti koti pranams to them for keeping the Bhagwa Dhwaj of Hindu religion flying even at great personal cost and misery.
I have already written enough in these columns about Hindus being under siege from Islamic fanatics and Christian proselytizers. I have suggested that we can lift this siege only if we develop a Hindu mindset, which is a four dimensional concept. But that mind must be informed, and understand why others do what they do to Hindus before we can defeat their nefarious designs. Here I suggest therefore that we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us. In a later column I will write about the true nature of Christianity and how to combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus.
At this juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati boldly wrote to the Vatican Pope, nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his religion to Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because it is a return to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.
Unlike Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact says that other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them, and justifies violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-believers in Islam is: convert or accept dhimmitude. Hence, the explanation for Thondi, Rasathipuram, Mau etc., and the duality in ethics practised by Muslims everywhere. A true Muslim is Dr. Jekyll when in minority, and Mr. Hyde when in majority.
So what should we Hindus do? First, recognise that being a pious Hindu is not enough. Hindus must unite and work to install a Hindu-minded government. If 35 per cent of the 83 per cent Hindus unite to vote for a party, absolute majority is attainable. If Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, RSS, and VHP decide to mobilise the voter to support a party that espouses an approved Hindu agenda, then the union government is within reach through the ballot box. Second, search for those Muslims who are ready to openly and with pride declare that their ancestors were Hindus. My guess is that about 75 per cent of Muslims will be ready to do so. These are the Muslims who can be co-opted by Hindus to fight Islamic fundamentalism. If we do not do so, then the Muslim clerics will have a free run of their fanaticism.
For this a required reading is Sri Sri Ravishankar’s Hinduism & Islam: Dedicated to the People of Pakistan Who have Forgotten Their Own Roots [www.artofliving.org]. In this Sri Sri Ravishankar has shown how “Muslims have completely forgotten that their forefathers were Hindus, so they have every right to Vedic culture”. He in fact traces the pre-Islam origins of the K’aaba. Third, invest heavily in primary education to make it world class, ban the madrasas for any student below 21 years, and make Sanskrit a compulsory language for all students.
(The writer is a former Union Law Minister.)
So Jinnah Sahib was a creep and Madar das a big saint. Ok so BJ Genius (genies ass is more like it) Kumar tell us how should partition have been avoided?
I mean you were in a previous article shedding tears for the Indian Muslims on how they were fooled by Jinnah and how J Sahib is responsible for their plight. But the majority did want Pakistan having being radicalised by the Khilafat movement of your idol madar dass. Now to stop partition u had 2 options civil war and Civil war. So tell me which of these would you have choosen to stop partition.
I mean did you guys have the stomach for it. Sardar Patel the Sikhs and the RSS were all for it (the sword will be met by the sword) but scum like you and your ilk sabotaged and scuttled it from within. The resulting massacres of the Hindus and Sikhs is as much on madar dass and your ilk as it is on the Muslims.
And even today tum apni bakwaas ka raag alap rahe ho. Every Hindu should be thankful to Shrimant MA Jinnah Saheb for mid wifing Pakistan (madar dass was of course the father). Because in a 35% Muslim India the Hindus would have no chance of fighting back because of the traitors in our ranks like you.
Please read what we have been reduced to because of ``secular``, ``gandhian`` and ``humanists`` like you:
Shri Jinnahe Namo Namah
Basic Islam for Hindu Dhimmis
By Subramanian Swamy
Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world could not care less. An American had once told me: “Why should we care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers?”
We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ‘X’ represents the two trends—Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.
We Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us.
Thanks to Shri Vedantamji of the VHP, I had visited Thondi and Rasathipuram Municipalities of Ramanathapuram and Vellore districts respectively, and was truly shocked by what I saw. Both these municipalities are in Muslim-majority areas, and the local bodies election had empowered the Muslims with their capture of the municipalities.
The Muslim-ruled municipalities have thereafter converted these areas into mini Dar-ul-Islams, in a Hindustan of 83 per cent Hindus! The minority Hindu areas of the municipality were thus denied civic amenities, funds for schools, garbage clearing etc., and sent notices in Urdu. Hindus were bluntly told convert to Islam if they wanted civic facilities.
I could not believe that in South India this was possible where Hindus are actually above national average at 90 per cent of the population. I know that in Kashmir Valley, Muslims who are in majority have actively or passively connived in driving out half a million Hindus out of their homes and made them refugees in their own country. Temples have been demolished in the Valley on a daily basis. The world could not care less. An American had once told me: “Why should we care? Indian democracy is led by the majority who are Hindus and you want us to talk about the human rights of the community of rulers?”
Such atrocities are happening not only in Kashmir, but in other parts of India as well in pockets wherever Muslims are in majority, e.g., Mau and Meerut. In pocket boroughs of India, thus, Dar-ul-Islam has today returned to India after two centuries. Considering that a demographic re-structuring is slowly but surely taking place, with Hindu majority shrinking everywhere, Dar-ul-Islam in pockets might indeed, like amoeba, proliferate, coalesce, and jell into a frightening national reality—unless we Hindus wake up and take corrective action now, actions for which we shall of course not get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Dar-ul-Islam is a Muslim religious concept of a land where Muslims rule, and the non-believers in Islam are termed as Dhimmis. The term Dhimmi was coined after the Jews were crushed in Medina [Khaybar to be exact], and the defeated Jews accepted that if they did not convert to Islam, then they would accept second-class status politically, culturally, and religiously. This included zero civil rights including the right to modesty of women, and the special tax jaziya.
There is thus no scope for Muslims and non-Muslims uniting as equals in the political, cultural, or social system in a Dar-ul-Islam where Muslims rule. Secular order in India thus is possible only when Muslims are not in power. Thondi, Rasathipuram and other places prove that the Muslim mind suffers from a dangerous duality—of seeking secularism when out of power and imposing a brutal demeaning theocracy for non-Muslims when in power.
It is this duality that patriotic Hindus must re-shape by modern education and other means, as also retain its demographic overwhelming majority in India. We do not have much time, in fact about 45 years, as the X-graph of statistical regressions estimated by J.S. Bajaj and colleagues shows. ‘X’ represents the two trends—Hindu percentage declining and Muslim percentage rising, and intersecting in the year 2061.
The dhimmitude of Jews in Medina and later in Mecca represents the beginning of religious apartheid inherent and basic to Islamic mores, and practised long before what we saw in South Africa on the basis of colour and race, and that which became prevalent during the Islamic imperialist rule in parts of India. Hindus had been dhimmis for six hundred years in those parts of India despite being a bigger majority in the country than even today. Hence, a majority is not enough. Hindus need also a Hindu mindset to be free.
In his presidential address to the Muslim League in Lahore in 1940, Mohammed Ali Jinnah had articulated this concept of apartheid in his own inimitable way:
“To visualise Hindus and Muslims in India uniting to create a common nation is a mythical concept. It is only a fancy dream of some unawakened Hindu leaders…. The truth is that Hindus and Muslims are two different civilisations…. since their thought process grow on different beliefs.”
Large sections of Muslims in India then had rejected Jinnah and his concept of non-compatibility of Muslims with Hindus. But after Independence and Partition, instead of building on this rejection by many Muslims, the Nehru era saw increasing pandering precisely to the religious element that believed in this apartheid. Indira Gandhi vigorously continued this appeasement thereby nurturing the apartheid mentality of Muslim orthodoxy.
But the final undermining of the enlightened Muslim came when the government capitulated in the Shah Bano case. Thousands of Muslims had demonstrated on the streets demanding that the government not bring legislation that would nullify the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shah Bano case but in vain. Rajiv Gandhi, I learnt later, on counsel from his Italian Catholic family, had surrendered to the hard line clerics who protested that the Supreme Court had no right to interfere and to de facto amend the Shariat, the Islamic law code. These relatives on a directive from the Vatican thought that if secular law would be applied to Muslims, it can be to the Christians too.
This was a nonsense argument of the Muslim clerics, since the Shariat had already been amended, without protest, in the criminal law of India. The Indian Penal Code represents the uniform criminal code that equally applies to all religious communities. I therefore ask the clerics: if a Muslim is caught stealing, can any court in India direct that his hand at the wrist be cut off as the Shariat prescribes? If Muslims can accept a uniform criminal code what is the logic in rejecting the uniform civil code?
In India, Dhimmi status for Hindus during Islamic imperialist rule has had other social implications. Defiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who had refused to convert and chose to remain Hindus, were forced to carry night-soil and suffer great indignities for their women folk. Or it meant gross mental torture. Guru Tegh Bahadur, for example, had to see his sons sawed in half, before the pious Guru’s own head was severed and displayed in public.
The debasement of Hindu society then was such that those targeted valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas, who had refused to convert and thus made to carry night-soil, were disowned by other Hindus and declared to be asprashya or “untouchable”. The ranks of the Scheduled Caste community, which was not more than 1 per cent of the population before the advent of Islam in India, swelled to 14 per cent by the time Mughal rule collapsed.
Thus, today’s SC community, especially those who are still Hindus, consists mostly of those valiant Brahmins and Kshatriyas who had refused to become Muslims but preferred ostracization and ignominy in order to remain Hindus. Hindu society today should offer koti koti pranams to them for keeping the Bhagwa Dhwaj of Hindu religion flying even at great personal cost and misery.
I have already written enough in these columns about Hindus being under siege from Islamic fanatics and Christian proselytizers. I have suggested that we can lift this siege only if we develop a Hindu mindset, which is a four dimensional concept. But that mind must be informed, and understand why others do what they do to Hindus before we can defeat their nefarious designs. Here I suggest therefore that we Hindus must understand the true nature of Islam before we can formulate a strategy to defeat those who threaten us. In a later column I will write about the true nature of Christianity and how to combat the menace of religious conversions of Hindus.
At this juncture let me add even though I oppose conversion as violence, as Swami Dayanand Sarasvati boldly wrote to the Vatican Pope, nevertheless if an Indian Muslim or Christian changes his religion to Hinduism today, I will not regard it as conversion because it is a return to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.
Unlike Hinduism, which says not a word against non-believers, in fact says that other religions also lead to God, Islam is harsh on them, and justifies violence against them as sacred. The choice to non-believers in Islam is: convert or accept dhimmitude. Hence, the explanation for Thondi, Rasathipuram, Mau etc., and the duality in ethics practised by Muslims everywhere. A true Muslim is Dr. Jekyll when in minority, and Mr. Hyde when in majority.
So what should we Hindus do? First, recognise that being a pious Hindu is not enough. Hindus must unite and work to install a Hindu-minded government. If 35 per cent of the 83 per cent Hindus unite to vote for a party, absolute majority is attainable. If Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, RSS, and VHP decide to mobilise the voter to support a party that espouses an approved Hindu agenda, then the union government is within reach through the ballot box. Second, search for those Muslims who are ready to openly and with pride declare that their ancestors were Hindus. My guess is that about 75 per cent of Muslims will be ready to do so. These are the Muslims who can be co-opted by Hindus to fight Islamic fundamentalism. If we do not do so, then the Muslim clerics will have a free run of their fanaticism.
For this a required reading is Sri Sri Ravishankar’s Hinduism & Islam: Dedicated to the People of Pakistan Who have Forgotten Their Own Roots [www.artofliving.org]. In this Sri Sri Ravishankar has shown how “Muslims have completely forgotten that their forefathers were Hindus, so they have every right to Vedic culture”. He in fact traces the pre-Islam origins of the K’aaba. Third, invest heavily in primary education to make it world class, ban the madrasas for any student below 21 years, and make Sanskrit a compulsory language for all students.
(The writer is a former Union Law Minister.)
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#53 Posted by Sanatani on December 2, 2006 2:25:02 am
Re: # 33
Wah wah BJ Kumar Sahab,
So Jinnah Sahib was a pigmy. Is he that because he used to no doubt eat pork which is the meat of the pig? If that is the case then a huge potion of the world except a huge majority of Muslims are the same. And then what do the Muslims become Camelme, Goatme, Sheepme or Cowme.
Pity there is no noble prize for logic I would have nominated you for one.
Sanatani
Wah wah BJ Kumar Sahab,
So Jinnah Sahib was a pigmy. Is he that because he used to no doubt eat pork which is the meat of the pig? If that is the case then a huge potion of the world except a huge majority of Muslims are the same. And then what do the Muslims become Camelme, Goatme, Sheepme or Cowme.
Pity there is no noble prize for logic I would have nominated you for one.
Sanatani
#52 Posted by Sanatani on December 2, 2006 2:15:58 am
Re: # 43
Shastri died because he was heart broken for the fact that he gave up everything the Indian armed forces had won on the field by a stroke of the pen. His own family refused to speak to him when he called from Tashkent. When the enormity of his treason reflected upon him he had a heart attack and died. Vaise this was not the first time this s.o.b. gave away a part of the motherland in 64 he gave away 3 islands to Sri Lanka in an act of ``friendship`` islands that belonged to us. At the time of the Kacch crisis he was willing to discuss with Ayub all points including (hold your breath) harassment poor Muslims cultivators from East Pakistan were facing in Assam at the hands of police (they had merely moved in there due to Economic Pressures of land in East Pakistan cabinet note sent to Shri Chahila CM of Assam asking them to treat them kindly)
Fact is why did the baaastard go to Tashkent in the first place. Why did he succumb to the blackmailing tactics of the Pakis esp Bhutto and the Russians?
I`ll let you on to a secret all these bastaaard progenies of that akhand madarrrchoodd madar das incestuos bastaard gandhi wanted to be hailed as great paragons of peace and statesmanship Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Shastri, Narsimha Rao (Teen Bigha and Biryani to terrorists) and craved that medal Nobel Peace prize so what if pieces of the motherland were taken away from us.
Long Live Bhutto he eliminated this bastaard from our midst. He also f***kd Pak`s economy so may he live longer.
God save the motherland from patriots like you.
Sanatani
Shastri died because he was heart broken for the fact that he gave up everything the Indian armed forces had won on the field by a stroke of the pen. His own family refused to speak to him when he called from Tashkent. When the enormity of his treason reflected upon him he had a heart attack and died. Vaise this was not the first time this s.o.b. gave away a part of the motherland in 64 he gave away 3 islands to Sri Lanka in an act of ``friendship`` islands that belonged to us. At the time of the Kacch crisis he was willing to discuss with Ayub all points including (hold your breath) harassment poor Muslims cultivators from East Pakistan were facing in Assam at the hands of police (they had merely moved in there due to Economic Pressures of land in East Pakistan cabinet note sent to Shri Chahila CM of Assam asking them to treat them kindly)
Fact is why did the baaastard go to Tashkent in the first place. Why did he succumb to the blackmailing tactics of the Pakis esp Bhutto and the Russians?
I`ll let you on to a secret all these bastaaard progenies of that akhand madarrrchoodd madar das incestuos bastaard gandhi wanted to be hailed as great paragons of peace and statesmanship Nehru, Indira, Rajiv, Shastri, Narsimha Rao (Teen Bigha and Biryani to terrorists) and craved that medal Nobel Peace prize so what if pieces of the motherland were taken away from us.
Long Live Bhutto he eliminated this bastaard from our midst. He also f***kd Pak`s economy so may he live longer.
God save the motherland from patriots like you.
Sanatani
#51 Posted by zeemax on December 1, 2006 10:15:51 pm
#50 by taikonaut
You`re good at showing these dhoti prashad mootermals the mirror!
You`re good at showing these dhoti prashad mootermals the mirror!
#50 Posted by taikonaut on December 1, 2006 6:27:17 pm
Re: # 49 Stuka does Monday morning quarter backing so eloquently when he says
Mujib should have been elected PM of all of Pakistan and if anything, Yahya should have negotiated with him.
So tomorrow Kashmiri party gives 6 point agenda to you, and you mr. Stuka will gladly accept all those. Not only that you would hand over over control of Kashmir to this ``democratically`` elected party.
BTW don`t take Kashmir`s example as a Muslim example. This treatment of 6 points goes across religious lines. Case in point are the Tamils.
Tamilian Hindus have given the likes of 6 points to Buddhists of Sri Lanka, and guess what? Tamils are getting the control of Tamil-Land. Not!
Mr. Stuka lives in a paradise off course! Fools paradise!
#49 Posted by stuka on December 1, 2006 2:39:43 pm
Zeemax does a straw man as usual. Fact remains it was not Bhutto`s call to accept or reject the 6 points.
Mujib should have been elcted PM of all of Pakistan and if anything, Yahya should have negotiated with him.Bhutto lost the election.
Secondly, it was Bhutto who motivated Ayub to go in for the 1965 WAR AND THEN TURNED ON AYUB after the war to become popular at his ex-master`s expense.
Bhutto may fool Pakistanis but he never fooled the Indians. He was a slimeball.
Mujib should have been elcted PM of all of Pakistan and if anything, Yahya should have negotiated with him.Bhutto lost the election.
Secondly, it was Bhutto who motivated Ayub to go in for the 1965 WAR AND THEN TURNED ON AYUB after the war to become popular at his ex-master`s expense.
Bhutto may fool Pakistanis but he never fooled the Indians. He was a slimeball.
#48 Posted by stuka on December 1, 2006 2:34:50 pm
``Nehru couldn’t do that much damage because Hindu Industrialists were too strong for him. Indira did try to revive her Daddy’s show-shaw-lism, doing great harm to Hindustan. ``
Nehru did not too much damage because he was at heart a decent man who did not bend the law to suit his vision. Indira was a kameeni aurat who pushed through legalization because it suited her to combine both political and economic powerin the hands of the government.
Nehru did not too much damage because he was at heart a decent man who did not bend the law to suit his vision. Indira was a kameeni aurat who pushed through legalization because it suited her to combine both political and economic powerin the hands of the government.
#47 Posted by stuka on December 1, 2006 2:32:35 pm
Bhutto was a bastard. Though Zia fingered India, he was at least more sincere as a person. Bhutto was a thoroughly corrupt individual. Morally bankrupt and deserving of his fate.
#46 Posted by bjkumar on December 1, 2006 10:29:47 am
#44 Zee
Ama yaar, you guys always put the cart before the horse. No wonder you have such a difficult time understanding simple things. Shastri was there barely for a year and once he died - the Indira took over and another age started and he became a part of the past.
Shastri was appreciated for his qualities and was beloved for his leadership, but the Indian nation does not go around looking for Messiahs like the Pakistanis do.
You guys are always looking for a father figure. You do not try to absorb the good things from people you just look for individuals to come lead you and take you by the hand - perhaps kicking you in the pants - all of that is fine with you. Those are the leaders you seek.
Like the Jinnah!
Like those khakis!
Like every other tinpot civilian leader you have had!
Even non politicos. Like the creep who stole and brought home the nuke design!
Even that pee-er-in-the-pants Mushy!
You - the Pakistanis - are the REAL idolators of the subcontinent! Go look in the nearest mirror to find somebody....
Who conducts kufr day in and day out!
#45 Posted by zeemax on December 1, 2006 10:16:01 am
... or did you sell his coffin too (just an aside) ...
#44 Posted by zeemax on December 1, 2006 10:13:32 am
#43 by bjkumar
Ok Ok .. So the Shastri was a good man .. how come you never hear about him? Have you discarded him being the usual clueless principle-less-faithless integrity-less hinuds? Is there a monument for him who died on duty in a difficult mission? Do you have remembrance on the day he died like we have for ZAB?
Ok Ok .. So the Shastri was a good man .. how come you never hear about him? Have you discarded him being the usual clueless principle-less-faithless integrity-less hinuds? Is there a monument for him who died on duty in a difficult mission? Do you have remembrance on the day he died like we have for ZAB?
#43 Posted by bjkumar on December 1, 2006 10:01:42 am
#39 Zee
[Yes Shastri was a good man]
NOW you say he was a good man! But back in 1965, you guys tried to take advantage of his being so good!
He died because of his heart attack – but guess which country triggered it!
Yup, it was yours!
The Chinese killed the Nehru – the Pakistanis killed the Shastri – for all practical purposes!
Killers both your countries!
You guys are such total fools – absolute troublemakers since day one!
Here is a better picture of the Shastri. Look at the face of this good man and think about your own demagogues and go have a good cry!
We had the likes of the Shastri and you guys had the likes of the Bhuttos! Life is so highly unfair!
 |
#42 Posted by zeemax on December 1, 2006 9:20:03 am
Anyway since you liked the Shastri/Ayub photo, here`s another one:
(Thumbnail. Full image not av`ble)
(Thumbnail. Full image not av`ble)
#41 Posted by bjkumar on December 1, 2006 9:06:11 am
#39 Zee
If you read #40, you will realize that I am being charitable to the ZAB.
I am making him look good.
By comparison with the vamp!
#40 Posted by bjkumar on December 1, 2006 9:03:26 am
#37 Zee
Ama yaar, the point of #33 was that ZAB (the little ``Pigmy``) was made from the same mold as the creepy vamp.
It was the same mindset.
It was the same superiority complex!
It was the same arrogance!
It was the same dictatorial streak!
It produced the same results. It broke up the country.
Therefore, those who trash the ZAB should at least have the common sense and decency to name the ORIGINAL and the far worse crook!
The crook who set the precedent.
The blood-dripping fangwallah vamp Jinnah!
#39 Posted by zeemax on December 1, 2006 9:00:09 am
#37
Yes Shastri was a good man. Now if you take back you remarks about ZAB, I`ll do likewise..
Yes Shastri was a good man. Now if you take back you remarks about ZAB, I`ll do likewise..
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: Adam is right when... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Gandhi did not merely... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Re: # 163 Manto... "The people... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Btw even Niazi was... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: The people in Swat... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Adam khan, Sorry no can... Living Gandhi and King
- nkg: Re: # 330 HP... "It is... Historian Amaresh Misra on
- laddu: The HUJI groups from... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
