- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
At Large
Why Do India and Pakistan So Furiously Rage?
To paraphrase a biblical passage, at times why do India and Pakistan so furiously rage? Since the horrific attacks in Mumbai in November, we have seen much. The historical and structural differences between these two countries may also explain it.
In the eyes of history and their ancient gods, India and Pakistan have been together since the beginning. From the earliest civilizations of the Indus Valley over five thousand years ago until independence from Britain in 1947, they were one. India and Pakistan have been separate entities for only one percent of this recorded history. So why can they not exist in tranquility? As one of my Indian friends has observed, "The Pakistanis speak my language, have my skin color, eat my food and listen to my music. The place looks pretty good to me."
Throughout history, Hindus have been ruled by Muslims, an occupying presence. After the death of the Prophet, the Arabs became well established in Sindh by the early 8th century. Resplendent to some and barbarian to others, the Turkic Mahmud of Ghazni looted north India and ruled from his capital in Ghazni about the year 1000. There followed over eight hundred years of Muslim authority over much of India: Turks, Afghans, and the Mughals made their mark. During this Muslim rule, the Mongol Tamerlane sacked Delhi, like the Persians centuries later. A Muslim aristocracy was imposed upon its subjects, mostly Hindus. Not until Bahadur Shah Zafar was ousted by the British in 1857 did the remnants of Mughal rule officially end.
The memories of civil war and the trauma of partition lingered for decades. But the generation most affected is now passing -- the next ones are more interested in commercial success than in enmity toward Pakistan.
Today the Hindus of India generally accept the contributions of an Islamic past, with pride in the monuments and culture that Muslims brought and left. In the mainstream, the 150 million Muslims of secular India subordinate their faith to their identity as Indians. This is not exactly the case in Pakistan, which became known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956, in spite of the secular vision of its founder, the anglicized Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who received a law education at the Inns of Court in London.
Besides history, a second factor is the disputed territory of Kashmir, which is of little economic value to either Pakistan or India. By a quirk of history, a Hindu maharaja in a Muslim land opted to join India at the time of partition, asking the federal government for help in repelling Pashtun invaders. Kashmir evokes memories and is emotionally bonded to both countries. Like other hill stations, the aristocracy spent time there to avoid the heat of the Indo-Gangetic plain. Kashmir is an enchanted land of abandoned forts, dark forests, glaciers, and cold lakes, and the Urdu poets there longed for a romantic love beyond reach.
India and Pakistan went to war twice over Kashmir in 1947 and 1965, and there were high altitude hostilities in the Kargil region in 1999, when India charged that insurgents were sponsored by the Pakistan government. The strategic value of Kashmir is also derived from its rugged mountainous border with China.
A third factor is the structural difference between the two. Both countries have traditions of royalty and aristocracy, but India has become a broad-based society, with many thousands of families and domestic and foreign investors controlling the economy. Meritocracy is on the rise, and some privilege and government control have been eliminated, with people more empowered. While the transparency of governance is a major issue in the public and private sectors, this need is nevertheless well recognized as a step toward full economic transformation.
The Indian independence movement was broad based in the society, and the creation of Pakistan was more of a vision of the Muslim establishment. Further, Jawaharlal Nehru and later his daughter, Indira Gandhi were able to end the privileges of the Maharajas and establish some land reform, while in Pakistan wealth remains relatively concentrated.
Pakistan is controlled by comparatively few families in collaboration with an equally elitist army, all seeking to maintain status. Many Pakistanis believe the ruling classes have let down the country, pursuing selfish ends with little appreciation for the society and the vast cleavage between haves and have-nots. To maintain privilege and to feed the apparatus that is the Pakistan army, the elites have vilified India, which as neither pure villain nor innocent bystander, is believed to be asserting itself in Afghanistan and able to effect agitation in the Pakistani province of Baluchistan. Even with a vibrant press, Pakistan is still a land of shadows, and reform of governance does not rank high on the national agenda.
It is sometimes said that in India, everything is but it isn't: generalizations or ideas that look true can be found to be false -- and the paradox prevails. There are historical and structural differences between India and Pakistan to be sure, but my friend, who was referring to much of the north, is also right.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
CraigZ| 6.23.09 @ 7:02AM
An infuriating side note to this is the antipathy that India treated the United States from Independence to the G. W. Bush Administration. I would understand if we had defeated them in a war, or sabotaged them in some egregious fashion. Rather they saw our Cold War bases, such as that used by the U-2 program to overfly Soviet air-space, as a dagger aimed at the heart of New Delhi. They were nuts. They were peeved because we didn’t share their hostility towards Pakistan. A close second was Nehru’s decision to follow a Socialist model. Consider this history In light of the actions of the First Apologist. It is profoundly ignorant of The Student of History to presume strained relations between the U.S. and Country X is due to some terrible action by the U.S. Perhaps it’s because the leadership of Country X is in a snit over something else entirely.
Pingback| 6.23.09 @ 8:05AM
Why Do India and Pakistan So Furiously Rage? - GupShup Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
George| 6.23.09 @ 9:10AM
This is in response to CraigZ - India had very good strategic and ideological reasons to be wary of the United States. Nehru's decisions can be critiqued today in hindsight, but a nascent India emerging from the humiliation of colonial exploitation and color prejudice had every reason to be wary of the US, a nation that preached freedom and liberty for all while practicing segregation and jim crow. Also, all through India's struggle for independence, the United States never pressured the British to end their empire in India - so put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Rajendra Kumar| 6.23.09 @ 11:08AM
Irrespective of Indian and US government relations, Indians at large have always admired the American people. This admiration has not been out of some inferiority complex, but because of many similarities. American government paid only lip service to the democracy and supported dictators world over. If one goes by the Nixon-Kissinger tapes, American officials called Indians by all sorts of names. India has been around for 1000s of years and seen many up and downs. As of today, we are a very confident nation and fairly sure of our place in the world. If at all there is any nation on the Earth who will stand by USA, its India. You can count on us till you treat us equal and with dignity.
Thomas| 6.23.09 @ 11:45AM
The history of India is very complex. The civilization that grew up in the Indus valley and spread throughout what is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is extremely old. It was overlaid upon numerous tribal groups and was held, largely intact through a succession of foreign masters. To offset the cultural animosities of the tribes, a common religion spread throughout the area, Hinduism. When the Muslims invaded India, they were a mix of Shia largely of Persian and Turkish stock. Many of them settled in the Northwestern provinces of India and extended their rule over the much larger Hindu population, largely through force of arms. The British, largely through bribery, intrigue and assassination came to control most of the Indian sub-continent by the mid-1800's. They were forced out in 1947.
When India declared it's independence from British colonial rule, leaders in the largely Muslim northwestern provinces exploited the situation to gain power through the formation of the State of Pakistan, based upon the state religion of Shiite Islam. The Muslims, representing the last true invaders of India were not well liked and, of course, the Muslim leadership of the newly declared state of Pakistan were not overly fond of non-Muslims in their country. As a result, many Muslims moved to Pakistan and most of the non-Muslims left. The new government of India was in no condition to force Pakistan back into the fold at that time. The leaders of India have always considered Pakistan to be part of Greater India and the Pakistanis know this. Hence the reason for the continuing tension between the two.
As to why the Indian government disliked the United States, it has nothing to do with British colonial rule, the war of independence or the color of anyone's skin. It has everything to do with the fact that the U.S. backed Pakistan against India following the successful test of a nuclear device by India in 1974, which is widely believed to be the result of Soviet assistance in their development of nuclear weaponry. Until that time, the United States had little interest in the Indian sub-continent. The Soviets, however, did. Always on the lookout for ways to service the Russian fleet away from Russian mother ports, most of which were unusable for four to six months a year or were able to be easily blockaded, the Soviets were very interested in securing military installations along the bay of Bengal and the Arabian Sea. For this reason, the Soviet Union became the benevolent uncle of the modern Indian nation. Of course this resulted in the U.S. taking an interest in India's main adversary in the region, Pakistan; even though the U.S. very probably had much more in common with India that it did with Pakistan. It was the old Cold War knee-jerk reaction.
Florida business address| 6.23.09 @ 12:46PM
I forgot about those! Maybe they look good w/ the right outfit? I didn't like skinny jeans when I first saw them. lol. I would love some feedback on my site Florida business usa when you got time.
Georgia business listing| 6.23.09 @ 12:47PM
I'm glad you're back to posting. I love reading about your shopping adventures and great finds. Your outfits are always super cute too! Very inspirational. Please visit my site Yellow Pages Georgia when you got time.
Vern Crisler| 6.23.09 @ 1:09PM
I like all the discussion of India. We average Americans know so little about India, it's good to hear intelligent debate about India's history, its foreign policy, and its relation with America.
modular homes| 6.23.09 @ 1:24PM
Since I’m new to blogging, these articles are greatly appreciated; very useful and informative blog and every body must visit this blog. I would love some feedback on my site manufactured homes when you got time.
health nutrition| 6.23.09 @ 1:26PM
I really liked your blog! You have some great content. Check out my blog and give me some feedback please visit my site nutrition when you got time.
L. Ross| 6.23.09 @ 2:33PM
I do believe that the tension between Pakistan and India is caused by islam, pure and simple. India was an islamic state until fairly recently, and the fact that Pakistan came into being to be a pure muslim state should tell you something. Muslims are incensed to have lost control of the Indian subcontinent, because mohammed claimed that domination of the entire world is their birthright, and they are furious at any and all setbacks. People need to educate themselves on the evils of islam. God knows you won't learn anything from the evening news. Try "The Religion of Peace" website sometime. They can clear your head of all this saccharine claptrap the msm sells.
Moin Ansari| 6.23.09 @ 4:11PM
It is disgusting to read the Frank Schell version of history of South Asia. The Indus Valley Civilization existed on the banks of the Indus--in much of what is Pakistan. It did not extend to the Ganges.
Throughout the ages the Indus people lived separate from the rest of Bharat.
During Greek invasions Bactria included Pakistan but Alexander's invasions did not extend beyond the Indus.
Only Aurenzeb's invasions included most of Bharat.
In 750 Ad the Arabs invaded Sindh and much of "Pakistan" converted to Islam
During British time, there were 570 states and only 40% of British "India" was under the control of the empire and only from 1857-1947.
Pakistanis eat differently,wear different clothes, marry differently, celebrate differently, speak different language(s) and want to be separate
Roy| 6.23.09 @ 6:06PM
I was in India a few years back and was startled by several newspapers that tore Bush a new one for insufficient collaboration against Pakistan-based terrorists. Since I had endlessly been told that the problem was that Bush was too much of a "cowboy" that was a shock.
I realize there were tough times in the past but I really don't think we could have a better friend now. There seems to be a bipartisan consensus behind that. What stuck with me the most was somebody telling me that some of the slum dwellers actually could have afforded better housing. Instead, they chose to live in slums so they could spend the money on their children's education. I went away thinking if that was their worst problem, they were in great shape. As long as they don't listen to any "soak the rich" or "foreigners out" demagogues, who could wreck their economy much faster than they can here, and eventually get a handle on corruption they will really take off. It is already happening.
Khalid Khan| 6.23.09 @ 10:25PM
L. Ross| 6.23.09 @ 2:33PM
Narrow minded you are. Tell me which religion is a religion of peace then. Your comments is a proof that you are facist neo-con individual who lives in haters world. You simply don't belong here in this blog.
Deepak Gupta| 6.24.09 @ 1:07AM
Most Hindus in India, including me, are liberal and open-minded. Same can be said about the Muslims in India. Apart from a few cases of bloody riots and other political tensions, Hindus and Muslims have largely co-existed peacefully since India gained independence in 1947.
Going back to history, the Muslim warriors who invaded the Indian subcontinent carried out several acts of brutality against the Hindus. They looted Indian cities and carried out a systematic genocide so as to eradicate every other religion apart from Islam. Aurangzeb exemplifies the brutality of the Muslim rulers in India. The Hindu Marathas and Rajputs resisted Aurnagzeb's anti-Hindu policies and the Muslim Mughal Empire declined drastically because it lost the support of many Hindus. Aurangzeb was the last Mughal Emperor who ruled major parts of India. His successors' empire was largely confined to Delhi.
The Britishers gained a foothold in India because the Hindus lacked unity. There was a lot of infighting and the colonial power took advantage of this. The only major positive impact of the British rule in India was that it unified Indians, irrespective of religion and ethnicity.
But that unity was partially lost when Pakistan was carved out of India. Even though Pakistanis have some cultural similarities with India, there are several ideological differences - Pakistan represents Islamic fanaticism and extremism, while India represents secularism and strong work ethic. For this very purpose, Pakistan is now classified as a "failed state" and India a 20th century economic power.
Modern India's very strength lies in its ability to carry all sections of the society, including Muslims and Dalits, towards economic prosperity. Muslims represent only 15% of India's population. Yet, three of India's Presidents were Muslims. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, is India's most celebrated and well-respected ex-President.
Can Pakistan boast the same secular credentials as that of India? No. In terms of ideology and socio-cultural fabric, India and Pakistan are miles apart. And any form of reconciliation between the two countries is not possible. So please, never compare India to a country which takes pride in its madrassa-based education system.
Deepak Gupta| 6.24.09 @ 1:07AM
Most Hindus in India, including me, are liberal and open-minded. Same can be said about the Muslims in India. Apart from a few cases of bloody riots and other political tensions, Hindus and Muslims have largely co-existed peacefully since India gained independence in 1947.
Going back to history, the Muslim warriors who invaded the Indian subcontinent carried out several acts of brutality against the Hindus. They looted Indian cities and carried out a systematic genocide so as to eradicate every other religion apart from Islam. Aurangzeb exemplifies the brutality of the Muslim rulers in India. The Hindu Marathas and Rajputs resisted Aurnagzeb's anti-Hindu policies and the Muslim Mughal Empire declined drastically because it lost the support of many Hindus. Aurangzeb was the last Mughal Emperor who ruled major parts of India. His successors' empire was largely confined to Delhi.
The Britishers gained a foothold in India because the Hindus lacked unity. There was a lot of infighting and the colonial power took advantage of this. The only major positive impact of the British rule in India was that it unified Indians, irrespective of religion and ethnicity.
But that unity was partially lost when Pakistan was carved out of India. Even though Pakistanis have some cultural similarities with India, there are several ideological differences - Pakistan represents Islamic fanaticism and extremism, while India represents secularism and strong work ethic. For this very purpose, Pakistan is now classified as a "failed state" and India a 20th century economic power.
Modern India's very strength lies in its ability to carry all sections of the society, including Muslims and Dalits, towards economic prosperity. Muslims represent only 15% of India's population. Yet, three of India's Presidents were Muslims. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, is India's most celebrated and well-respected ex-President.
Can Pakistan boast the same secular credentials as that of India? No. In terms of ideology and socio-cultural fabric, India and Pakistan are miles apart. And any form of reconciliation between the two countries is not possible. So please, never compare India to a country which takes pride in its madrassa-based education system.
Deepak Gupta| 6.24.09 @ 1:08AM
Going back to history, the Muslim warriors who invaded the Indian subcontinent carried out several acts of brutality against the Hindus. They looted Indian cities and carried out a systematic genocide so as to eradicate every other religion apart from Islam. Aurangzeb exemplifies the brutality of the Muslim rulers in India. The Hindu Marathas and Rajputs resisted Aurnagzeb's anti-Hindu policies and the Muslim Mughal Empire declined drastically because it lost the support of many Hindus. Aurangzeb was the last Mughal Emperor who ruled major parts of India. His successors' empire was largely confined to Delhi.
The Britishers gained a foothold in India because the Hindus lacked unity. There was a lot of infighting and the colonial power took advantage of this. The only major positive impact of the British rule in India was that it unified Indians, irrespective of religion and ethnicity.
But that unity was partially lost when Pakistan was carved out of India. Even though Pakistanis have some cultural similarities with India, there are several ideological differences - Pakistan represents Islamic fanaticism and extremism, while India represents secularism and strong work ethic. For this very purpose, Pakistan is now classified as a "failed state" and India a 20th century economic power.
Modern India's very strength lies in its ability to carry all sections of the society, including Muslims and Dalits, towards economic prosperity. Muslims represent only 15% of India's population. Yet, three of India's Presidents were Muslims. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, a Muslim, is India's most celebrated and well-respected ex-President.
Can Pakistan boast the same secular credentials as that of India? No. In terms of ideology and socio-cultural fabric, India and Pakistan are miles apart. And any form of reconciliation between the two countries is not possible. So please, never compare India to a country which takes pride in its madrassa-based education system.
robert a| 6.24.09 @ 1:25AM
"All religions have some form of the Golden Rule except Islam. The term "human being" has no meaning inside of Islam. There is no such thing as humanity, only the duality of the believer-dar al Islam-and the unbeliever-dar al harb. Look at the ethical statements found in the Hadith. A Muslim should not lie, cheat, kill or steal from other Muslims. But a Muslim may lie, deceive or kill an unbeliever if it advances Islam. There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam. Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another. The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim......Half of the glorious Hindu civilization was annihilated and 80 million Hindus killed."---Quoted from" The Study of Political Islam by Jamie Glazov, Frontpage Magaazine 2/5/2007"
suresh| 6.24.09 @ 8:38AM
Its amazing that USA hates India when India is the worlds largest Democracy, which is secular and its the only country which contains the communist china.
USA is silly in supporting pakistan which is a terrorist state and uses pakistan to needle India all the time.
USA should be sincere about its ethics and better start supporting India not pakistan.
blackelkspeaks| 6.24.09 @ 9:19AM
I've loved India ever since I was a kid listening to the Beatles and was intrigued with their embrace of the Maharishi. I saw any movie I could that showcased picturesque India (there were quite a few, mostly British). I rooted for India over Pakistan (East/West) during the 1970s war. "Siddhartha" was a favorite book and film. I admired and read much about the Mahatma. I went to a lecture in Chicago to hear Sri Chinmoy. Indian cuisine is one of my favorite flavors. I know that the Battle of Kohima-Imphal was the greatest WWII engagement fought in the Asian Theatre. And I've read quite a lot of Indian philosophy, literature, and history.
Given all of that, I maintain that more Indians should recognize the value of the American traditions of life, liberty, and property and individualism. The Indian propensity toward collectivism has been a stumbling block in the ongoing struggle for freedom. In the end, all right thinking Indians should consider that we all have an interest in the advance of liberty (i.e. free market capitalism) and should do all we can to defeat the forces of statism (i.e. marxism/socialism) wherever they are manifested. In this, I will gladly join with those Indians who are my natural allies, and will vehemently oppose those Indians (like the Democrats) who are my natural enemies.
Moin Ansari| 6.24.09 @ 9:29AM
Mr. Frank Schell rendition of Brahamnic "history" tought in tempels and regurgitated on this page multiple times does not make it fact.
Pakistan is just the latest rendition of the Indus Valley--this time as a Muslim state. It has been a separate entity since before the Mehargarh Civlilization which is 7000 years old and the older agriculturual site in South Asia.
Pakistan bashing is fashionable and profitable, but this Neocon claptrap is based on pure unadulterated bigotry.
Editor Rupee News
http://www.rupeenews.com
Moin Ansari| 6.24.09 @ 11:47AM
Mr. Gupta: Please spare us the pontification on Bharat and the usual garbage in degrading the greatest Mughal Emperor of all times, and mentioning tokens that do not represent anyone. Ask the 450 million untouchables how tolerant Bharat is.
Read "India as a Superpower"
http://www.zimbio.com/World+Politics/articles/4072/Shining+Incredible+Indian+Superpower
Editor Rupee News
http://www.rupeenews.com
Roy| 6.24.09 @ 1:03PM
Re:suresh: I pretty much agree with everything you said except the US does not "hate" India. Neither of us want to see the Taliban take over Pakistan and get access to their nuclear weapons, so the US has to give some support to the Pakistan government, but between the two most Americans would choose India.
Richard Baker| 6.24.09 @ 6:26PM
The saddest part of it all is that the Indians and Pakistanis are powerhouses of knowledge and entrepreneurial spirit. My Indian and Pakistani friends are a decided asset to the US and here because something there drove them out.
movilover| 6.25.09 @ 1:41PM
We should abolish all nations and go for one world government which would be a democracy and learn to live like one humanity. Enough of the shit of hatred and prejudice.
Yellowstone| 6.25.09 @ 6:42PM
To movilover: And who would be in charge of this "One World Government"? You? uhhh no thanks.
Ghauri| 6.25.09 @ 11:27PM
Saddam was not the only lunatic who thought another sovereign nation (Kuwait) was part of his country. Some Indians (not all of them) suffer from similar delusions and dream of Pakistan failing as a state and becoming part of India. Hence the recurrence of so many articles by Indian authors or their friends trying to justify that Pakistan should not exist. The British held an election in 1946 in which arguments were presented for and against the creation of Pakistan. A majority of the people of current day Pakistan voted for a separate independent country. Had the British held elections in 1946 in princely states as well including Kashmir there would have been no wars.
pakistani kashmiri| 6.28.09 @ 2:54PM
I suggest the author learn history and facts as he clearly has been spending too much time with his indian friends.
Pakistanis should not dispair at the historical misinformation given by the author of this article as, if any thing its a sign that the people who have been running the world are now on their way down, as they are too lazy to read up facts, and prefer to just make them up as they go along, because they can and Pakistanis cant do much but take the crap being written about us by the westerners and their beloved Indians. Hopefully the time will come when the tables have turned and we start to teach our people and the rest of the world historical inacuracies about them. We should let them have their fun, as their grand children will end learning the lessons people like Frank Schell are teaching us i.e. that we are what the white man and his poodels are telling us. After all the White man is the most intelligent race in the world right now.
Richard Baker| 7.5.09 @ 1:25AM
Pakistani kashmiri:
At least we're not screwing ourselves out of a place at the table. What's the total population of India and Pakistan? The per capita income? The infant mortality rate? The life expectancy? Your racist comments are a hoot when you and India can't find a way to live together. So what the Hell, go to war over Kashmir and reduce your surplus population. Then everything will be MUCH better.
cheap handbags| 7.27.09 @ 4:51AM
We only sell the top grade replica cheap handbags, some of them are genuine leather handbags, yet the price is far lower than the authentic designers want you to pay. We lead you to a genuine pool of bags : collections in wide range: handbags, shoulder bags, clutches, tote bags, purses and wallets, the hottest brands you can find like replica Louis Vuitton handbags, Replica marc jacobs handags, Replica Prada handbags, Coach,Replica Chloe handbags,Burberry, Dior,replica Chanel handbags, Chloe,Replica gucci handbags, Dolce & Gabbana,Replica Balenciaga handbags . Crafted to the highest standard, from the finest materials in the industry, we guarantee the toppest Replica Hermes handbags at low price you'll find anywhere.
george| 7.29.09 @ 3:32AM
Louis Vuitton Epi Leather handbags , commonly referred to as
Louis Vuitton Epi Leather, or sometimes shortened to
Louis Vuitton LV Shoes bags has become one of the most
LV Shoes handbag luxury brands.
louis vuitton online storelove
louis vuitton online shopnice
vuitton onlinegood
luis vuitton onlinei like
s| 8.20.09 @ 3:01AM
Cheap Jordan,Cheap Jordan shoes,Retro Jordan,Air Yeezy Shoes,Supra shoes,Kanye West ShoesJordan shoes,New Jordans,Air Yeezy,Air Force Ones,Nike Dunks,Retro Jordan, Cheap Jordan Shoes,Nike Dunk High,True Religion Jeans,New Air Force OnesAir Yeezy Shoe,Supra Shoes,Retro Jordan,Creative Recreation,Nike DunksNike Air YeezyTrue Religion,Air Jordan Shoes,Air Shox,Air Max,Dunk Shoes.Air Jordan,Cheap Jordans,Jordan Shoes,Cheap Air Jordans,Air Jordan Shoes
dropshippngwatch| 9.1.09 @ 11:02PM
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
Sales Replica Watches
Fake Watches
Fake Watch
Replica Watch
Replica Watches
Fake Watch
replica Rolex watches
Replica Rolex Watches
Replica A.Lange&Sohne; Watches
Replica Alain Silberstein Watches
Replica Audemars Piguet Watches
Replica B.R.M Watches
Replica Baume & Mercier Watches
http://www.dropshippingwatch.com
Paul| 10.22.09 @ 7:50PM
Well after going through dozens and dozens of videos on Indian Propaganda on Pakistan I only have this to say: Indians have been brainwashed. They are THAT brainwashed that they actually think that Pakistan is a sandy, dirty, Islamic oppressed state owned by Terrorists. I've been to both Pakistan and India. And they both have huge problems. India has its poverty and Pakistan has its political corruption. And as for the terrorists, well, Pakistan having the worlds 5th largest military and nukes, I'm pretty sure they can beat off these terrorists better than we can. I mean we have been in Afghanistan for how many years now? They have just started an offensive on 'Swat' and took it back within a month.
naveed tajammal| 12.7.09 @ 8:14AM
it is highly unfair to term a entity called british india as having always been one, it is theme propogated by the lovers of mahabharta epic
a fiction, with, no, sequence in the chronology of time,and it only emerged with rise of william jones and help of pandit radakanta of calcutta,
the home of all distortions(calcutta).the every term hind' was coined by arab geographers in the 9th century AD,prior to that it was as always a colony of sindh civilization,even the socalled deva nagri script is of recent past,post 8th century AD.
Mullah Omar| 12.14.09 @ 11:36PM
The Paki Islamo fascists will keep screaming and making up false history in their textbooks. The fact is, India's GDP is growing much faster than Pakistan and the Pakistani's strategists know that time is not on their side.
Enjoy it while you can, Islam's Golden age is coming to an end as the oil burns out.
arthur| 1.10.10 @ 8:52AM
Yes Pakistan like Bangladesh is an artifical nation. Pakistan should not exist. Imagine If China willingly split itself up on religious grounds, ie confucianist china, buddhist china, chinese folk religion, etc.
This is why India gets no respect on the world stage. It cannot even deal with a failed state that should not even exist and is routinely humiliated by that failed state. Both of those nations have routinely massacred hindu populations since their introductions, imagine if there was a nation that routinely killed and targeted atheist, confucianist or buddhist chinese abroad. Even taiwan would complain. As long as bangladesh and pakistan (both of which are puppets of china) continue to exist India will never ever become independent or a world power for that matter.