What's new

China is detaining Muslims in vast numbers - The Goal: ‘Transformation’ - Where is the outrage?

[MENTION=148149]Gharib Aadmi[/MENTION] gives a much clearer explanation in a few posts too

The only thing [MENTION=148149]Gharib Aadmi[/MENTION] does is contradict your posts so it's funny that you're endorsing him here.

He states clearly that Pakistan refuses to accept Israel because the former needs saudi money and they need the all-clear signal from Saudi Arabia before starting diplomatic relations. He also states that Xinjiang is largely ignored because Pak badly need Chinese money.

Atleast he is honest about the most important factor at play here - the money. Ka ching!
 
The only thing [MENTION=148149]Gharib Aadmi[/MENTION] does is contradict your posts so it's funny that you're endorsing him here.

He states clearly that Pakistan refuses to accept Israel because the former needs saudi money and they need the all-clear signal from Saudi Arabia before starting diplomatic relations. He also states that Xinjiang is largely ignored because Pak badly need Chinese money.

Atleast he is honest about the most important factor at play here - the money. Ka ching!

if you cant understand it then i cant help you

my whole point (which Gharib AAdmi states too) is that Kashmir and Uighyur are not comparable for several reasons including cultural links and Kashmir being part of Pakistan
 
if you cant understand it then i cant help you

my whole point (which Gharib AAdmi states too) is that Kashmir and Uighyur are not comparable for several reasons including cultural links and Kashmir being part of Pakistan

Cultural links shouldn’t matter. We are more outspoken for Palestinians than Uyghurs.

He is right that it is all about the money and that is why we are hypocritical. It doesn’t mean we should stop raising our voice about Kashmir, it means we should raise our voice about everyone.

That is, of course the “ideal” and “humane” solution, but I don’t fault our government for chasing the money during a domestic economic crisis.
 
Cultural links shouldn’t matter. We are more outspoken for Palestinians than Uyghurs.

He is right that it is all about the money and that is why we are hypocritical. It doesn’t mean we should stop raising our voice about Kashmir, it means we should raise our voice about everyone.

That is, of course the “ideal” and “humane” solution, but I don’t fault our government for chasing the money during a domestic economic crisis.
We are more outspoken for Palestinians because that region is one of the holiest sites for us. If some non muslim power took over Makkah or Madinah and subjected local population to persecution; we would react even stronger since those sites are even more important.

We should raise our voices for everyone but naturally some have more emotional attachment than others.
 
We are more outspoken for Palestinians because that region is one of the holiest sites for us. If some non muslim power took over Makkah or Madinah and subjected local population to persecution; we would react even stronger since those sites are even more important.

We should raise our voices for everyone but naturally some have more emotional attachment than others.

Yes this.

I dont get why this is hard for people to understand.

Jerusalem is holy for us so ofcourse that invokes religious sentiments.

Kashmiris are our people. There is an emotional connection with them that is much stronger than our emotional connection with muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc... where muslims are also going through a hard time.
 
Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan.

Obviously it is since it is considered disputed land in the international arena. And when one country is carrying out atrocities on disputed land which you lay claim to; obviously you will point those out and say that the atrocities are a direct result of not solving the problem of the land's disputed status.

Your logic is literally filled with holes here.

You are missing the point.

Pakistan’s stance that Kashmir is a humanitarian issue does not have an ounce of credibility because it is not a humanitarian issue for us.

As long as we try to fool the international community by using the fake humanitarian narrative, we will continue to be reminded of our hypocrisy with respect to the Uyghur Muslims.

A country that claims to be fighting for humanity does not ignore atrocities because of politics or cultural links.

If Pakistan puts this drama to rest and acknowledges the fact that Kashmir is a political issue and that we only care about the plight of the Kashmiris because we consider them our people, we will not be reminded of our hypocrisy with respect to the Uyghur muslims.

No matter how hard we try, we cannot fool the world that we care about Kashmir because of humanity. If we don’t understand that then there is no point in complaining when we are reminded of our double-standards.
 
Yes this.

I dont get why this is hard for people to understand.

Jerusalem is holy for us so ofcourse that invokes religious sentiments.

Kashmiris are our people. There is an emotional connection with them that is much stronger than our emotional connection with muslims in Libya, Syria, Iraq, etc... where muslims are also going through a hard time.


Absolutely, so why don’t we admit this in international forums? Why play the fake humanity card?

If our PM stands in the UNGA and makes bombastic speeches about how Kashmir is a humanitarian crisis and the world should take note, then he will obviously be reminded of the fact that Uyghurs are also suffering from a humanitarian crisis.

If Imran and Pakistan were humanitarians, they would not ignore what is happening in China because of politics or lack of cultural ties.

Once you pick and choose humanitarian issues based on politics, ethnicity etc. then it is no longer a humanitarian issue - it becomes a political and ethnic issue.

So we are inviting criticism and exposing our hypocrisy simply because we cannot be honest about the fact that Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan.
 
[/b]

Absolutely, so why don’t we admit this in international forums? Why play the fake humanity card?

If our PM stands in the UNGA and makes bombastic speeches about how Kashmir is a humanitarian crisis and the world should take note, then he will obviously be reminded of the fact that Uyghurs are also suffering from a humanitarian crisis.

If Imran and Pakistan were humanitarians, they would not ignore what is happening in China because of politics or lack of cultural ties.

Once you pick and choose humanitarian issues based on politics, ethnicity etc. then it is no longer a humanitarian issue - it becomes a political and ethnic issue.

So we are inviting criticism and exposing our hypocrisy simply because we cannot be honest about the fact that Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan.

When the USA criticizes China for the Uyghur situation, do they claim to be doing it out of political spite when that's obviously the case? No, it's always framed as a humanitarian issue. Does anyone care either way? I don't think so.
 
I don't know what all the hoopla is about. Yes, the main reason why Pakistan stresses on Kashmir at the govt. level is because of politics. It has to be framed through the humanitarian lens as well, though.

On an individual level, the reason why the vast majority of Pakistanis talk a lot about Kashmir is because of its proximity to Pakistan and the cultural and other ties with it. Alongside that, India's atrocities are stressed upon in the media.

Pakistanis are very sympathetic toward both the Kashmiri and the Palestinian causes. A lot of them don't really know much about the Uyghur problem because it's not highlighted much in the media. If you sit and tell someone about the reality of the situation of the Uyghurs then most ordinary Pakistanis will sympathize and feel outrage. But those who understand politics will know that Pakistan is not in a position to do much about it and bringing it up will only be detrimental on the international stage.
 
[/b]

Absolutely, so why don’t we admit this in international forums? Why play the fake humanity card?

If our PM stands in the UNGA and makes bombastic speeches about how Kashmir is a humanitarian crisis and the world should take note, then he will obviously be reminded of the fact that Uyghurs are also suffering from a humanitarian crisis.

If Imran and Pakistan were humanitarians, they would not ignore what is happening in China because of politics or lack of cultural ties.

Once you pick and choose humanitarian issues based on politics, ethnicity etc. then it is no longer a humanitarian issue - it becomes a political and ethnic issue.

So we are inviting criticism and exposing our hypocrisy simply because we cannot be honest about the fact that Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan.

What would be achieved by Imran talking about Uyghurs in China? How would it benefit Pakistan in material terms?
 
You have to have an extremely low IQ if you fail to understand why Kashmir matters more to Pakistan.

Honestly, the only people who argue this point are the extremist Indian right wing Hindu fundamentalists, Pakistani traitors or Indians pretending to be Pakistani.
 
You have to have an extremely low IQ if you fail to understand why Kashmir matters more to Pakistan.

Honestly, the only people who argue this point are the extremist Indian right wing Hindu fundamentalists, Pakistani traitors or Indians pretending to be Pakistani.

I would imagine that some Pakistanis are paid to parrot Indian propaganda as well. It wouldn't actually cost that much in relative terms, and India does seem to pay too much regard to Pakistani affairs for a supposedly fast rising country.
 
What would be achieved by Imran talking about Uyghurs in China? How would it benefit Pakistan in material terms?

It would obviously only cost Pakistan, and that is why I don’t expect us to comment on it.

There was a reason why Imran got really nervous when he was asked to comment on them by an international reporter and he could only murmur “I don’t know about them” after a brief pause.

Our Chinese masters would give us a proper hiding if we ever highlight their atrocities.

So keeping that in mind, why don’t we put ourselves in a position where we are not questioned on our hypocrisy and are not questioned why we are silent on the treatment of Uyghurs?

That can be easily achieved if we stop playing the fake humanity card and acknowledge the fact that Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan rather than a humanitarian one.

You cannot expect the world to accept our justifications and excuses for ignoring what is happening in China while we play the humanitarian card in Kashmir.

A humanitarian does not ignore humanitarian crisis because of politics, ethnicity, religion or simply because does not benefit him.

Why we support Kashmir and ignore Uyghurs is not the problem. The problem lies with the justification that we give to the international community for supporting Kashmir.
 
Thanks. Good to see Imran doing what he needs to for the benefit of Pakistan.

Except that he is not doing that. He thinks he can fool the world with his fake humanity card but that is clearly not happening.

There is a reason why his fake speech at the UNGA had zero impact on the Kashmir situation.
 
Except that he is not doing that. He thinks he can fool the world with his fake humanity card but that is clearly not happening.

There is a reason why his fake speech at the UNGA had zero impact on the Kashmir situation.

Let's hear your solution.
 
I still can’t believe a kid who got blanked by his idol when asking for an autograph can turn so badly...

It’s like that film, The Fan starring Wesley Snipe and Robert De Niro
 
[/b]

Absolutely, so why don’t we admit this in international forums? Why play the fake humanity card?

If our PM stands in the UNGA and makes bombastic speeches about how Kashmir is a humanitarian crisis and the world should take note, then he will obviously be reminded of the fact that Uyghurs are also suffering from a humanitarian crisis.

If Imran and Pakistan were humanitarians, they would not ignore what is happening in China because of politics or lack of cultural ties.

Once you pick and choose humanitarian issues based on politics, ethnicity etc. then it is no longer a humanitarian issue - it becomes a political and ethnic issue.

So we are inviting criticism and exposing our hypocrisy simply because we cannot be honest about the fact that Kashmir is a political issue for Pakistan.

Every country highlights issues that are in their benefit. Name one country that has no contradictions.

U.S. apparently "cares" a lot for uighers, yet look the other way at the plight of Palestinians, kashmiris, etc.... Not to mention goes around the world killing muslims via drones.

India "cares" a lot about the lives of pakistans minorities, yet treat their own minorities horribly.

Pakistan also has these contradictions, I am not going to deny that, this is a fact.

However, being a pakistani, i support the pakistani narrative. Just like americans support their national narrative and indians support their national narrative.

Being a Pakistani, kashmir cause is a lot closer to me than muslims in Syria. However that does not mean I dont care about muslims in Syria because I definitely do.
 
Let's hear your solution.

There is no short-term fix, but if we start peddling the political narrative and slowly let the humanitarian narrative die down, it will be harder for other countries to call us out on our hypocrisy.

The more we continue to label Kashmir as a humanitarian issue, the easier it is for others to point out our double-standards.
 
Every country highlights issues that are in their benefit. Name one country that has no contradictions.

U.S. apparently "cares" a lot for uighers, yet look the other way at the plight of Palestinians, kashmiris, etc.... Not to mention goes around the world killing muslims via drones.

India "cares" a lot about the lives of pakistans minorities, yet treat their own minorities horribly.

Pakistan also has these contradictions, I am not going to deny that, this is a fact.

However, being a pakistani, i support the pakistani narrative. Just like americans support their national narrative and indians support their national narrative.

Being a Pakistani, kashmir cause is a lot closer to me than muslims in Syria. However that does not mean I dont care about muslims in Syria because I definitely do.

I agree with you, but we are making things difficult for us and are losing credibility as we continue to label Kashmir a humanitarian issue.

A big reason why the world is not taking us seriously on Kashmir is because we are not honest about the fact that it is a political issue.
 
There is no short-term fix, but if we start peddling the political narrative and slowly let the humanitarian narrative die down, it will be harder for other countries to call us out on our hypocrisy.

The more we continue to label Kashmir as a humanitarian issue, the easier it is for others to point out our double-standards.

The world doesn't care about Kashmir, so Imran's views are not of any real consequence. A very different story if Imran starts criticising a vital trade partner, that would definitely damage Pakistan. I fail to see the logic of your argument, unless you are looking at it from an Indian viewpoint.
 
The world doesn't care about Kashmir, so Imran's views are not of any real consequence. A very different story if Imran starts criticising a vital trade partner, that would definitely damage Pakistan. I fail to see the logic of your argument, unless you are looking at it from an Indian viewpoint.

I am not suggesting that Imran should criticize China. I am suggesting that Imran should stop using the word ‘humanitarian crisis’ when talking about Kashmir.
 
I agree with you, but we are making things difficult for us and are losing credibility as we continue to label Kashmir a humanitarian issue.

A big reason why the world is not taking us seriously on Kashmir is because we are not honest about the fact that it is a political issue.

That just not how things work in the world. Political issues don't gather the same numbers of headlines or sympathy.

American establishment needed to convince its public and the world that their goal was to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. They say they wanted to remove Gaddafi as he was oppressing his people. In reality, it was entirely political to increase their influence and hegemony in the middle east through a manufactured regime change.

Or take the palestinian example, you think if they didn't frame their struggle as a humanitarian issue anyone from a non muslim background would care at all? There is a reason why they post photos and videos of abuses by the Israeli forces.

Same with india. Anytime you question them on their treatment of kashmir, they say but what about kashmiri pundits? Apparently they feel so sad about kashmiri pundits they think it's okay to rape and maim kashmiri muslims.

Like I said, contradictions everywhere.

All countries do what is in their national interest. They frame narratives as is suited to them.

I have enough intelligence to see this objectively, but I choose to support the Pakistani cause. Even I as an individual have this contradiction.
 
Half of Kashmir is in Pakistan, so for those citizens it is. The other half should also be Pakistan but that's another issue.

The other half should not be Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state and they were given the option (which Pakistani forefathers agreed to) of choosing Pakistan, India or independence.

Kashmir ruler eventually opted to join India. If anything, Pakistan has illegally occupied AJK.
 
That just not how things work in the world. Political issues don't gather the same numbers of headlines or sympathy.

American establishment needed to convince its public and the world that their goal was to bring democracy and freedom to Iraq. They say they wanted to remove Gaddafi as he was oppressing his people. In reality, it was entirely political to increase their influence and hegemony in the middle east through a manufactured regime change.

Or take the palestinian example, you think if they didn't frame their struggle as a humanitarian issue anyone from a non muslim background would care at all? There is a reason why they post photos and videos of abuses by the Israeli forces.

Same with india. Anytime you question them on their treatment of kashmir, they say but what about kashmiri pundits? Apparently they feel so sad about kashmiri pundits they think it's okay to rape and maim kashmiri muslims.

Like I said, contradictions everywhere.

All countries do what is in their national interest. They frame narratives as is suited to them.

I have enough intelligence to see this objectively, but I choose to support the Pakistani cause. Even I as an individual have this contradiction.

The issue is that Pakistan’s global stature is not comparable to USA or India.

USA is the superpower and they get away with hypocrisy.

India also has a largely positive global image in spite of Modi’s antics.

But Pakistan is a country with zero international credibility. A county notorious for its links with terrorists. A country where the military is the central power.

A country that provided protection to Osama and stills protects UN blacklisted terrorists.

It is much harder for Pakistan to get away with double-standards than USA or India.
 
The other half should not be Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state and they were given the option (which Pakistani forefathers agreed to) of choosing Pakistan, India or independence.

Kashmir ruler eventually opted to join India. If anything, Pakistan has illegally occupied AJK.

This isn't a thread about Kashmir in any case, you don't need to keep pushing the Indian perspective on Kashmir. Save it for one of the dedicated threads on Kashmir.
 
This isn't a thread about Kashmir in any case, you don't need to keep pushing the Indian perspective on Kashmir. Save it for one of the dedicated threads on Kashmir.

You were the one who started it with your previous post when you stated that the other half of Kashmir should be in Pakistan.

Don’t complain now that you have been given a free history lesson.
 
The issue is that Pakistan’s global stature is not comparable to USA or India.

USA is the superpower and they get away with hypocrisy.

India also has a largely positive global image in spite of Modi’s antics.

But Pakistan is a country with zero international credibility. A county notorious for its links with terrorists. A country where the military is the central power.

A country that provided protection to Osama and stills protects UN blacklisted terrorists.

It is much harder for Pakistan to get away with double-standards than USA or India.

Yes one area where pakistan fails is global perception.

America and India have a lot of soft power through Bollywood and Hollywood. They are able to mould international perception.

However to claim they dont so the things that pakistan is accused of is way off base.

India supports baloch terrorists, they even facilitate those terrorists to get medical care in india.

India supported Tamil tigers, trained them armed them.

India backed their own warlords in afghanistan who also killed thousands.

Their government is carrying out systemic violence against indians muslims.

So why are some pakistanis so self hating? These types of pakistanis only see the negative actions of the pakistani state, and apparently every other country has no blood on their hands?

I cant believe there are actually pakistanis that believe the two countries shouldn't have split up after literally seeing people lynched for not saying jai shree ram.
 
You were the one who started it with your previous post when you stated that the other half of Kashmir should be in Pakistan.

Don’t complain now that you have been given a free history lesson.

The Kashmir issue was already in full flow due to Indian posters pushing it, I have quite consistently tried to steer this back onto China, but you insist on giving the Indian perspective on Kashmir. I don't know why, but perhaps it's your job.
 
The other half should not be Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state and they were given the option (which Pakistani forefathers agreed to) of choosing Pakistan, India or independence.

Kashmir ruler eventually opted to join India. If anything, Pakistan has illegally occupied AJK.

Wrora, this is the indian narrative.

I encourage you to educate yourself on these matters with an open mind, without already assuming pakistan is wrong in every stance it takes.

Start by reading about operation polo where the nizam of Hyderabad wanted to be independent but was invaded by india and forced to sign instrument of accession.

Pakistanis dont know anything about malicious indians designs in 1947, yet because every Tom dick and harry has the internet they are exposed to constant indian propaganda.

If you start here, you will realize that india is not the force of good you think it is. They just malign pakistan because they have a louder voice.

Then if you get time read about the poonch rebellion which was an entirely kashmiri struggle against the maharaja because of his oppressive policies, but was later backed by pakistan on their leaders request.
 
You are missing the point.

Pakistan’s stance that Kashmir is a humanitarian issue does not have an ounce of credibility because it is not a humanitarian issue for us.

As long as we try to fool the international community by using the fake humanitarian narrative, we will continue to be reminded of our hypocrisy with respect to the Uyghur Muslims.

A country that claims to be fighting for humanity does not ignore atrocities because of politics or cultural links.

If Pakistan puts this drama to rest and acknowledges the fact that Kashmir is a political issue and that we only care about the plight of the Kashmiris because we consider them our people, we will not be reminded of our hypocrisy with respect to the Uyghur muslims.

No matter how hard we try, we cannot fool the world that we care about Kashmir because of humanity. If we don’t understand that then there is no point in complaining when we are reminded of our double-standards.

You’re missing the point.

The pitch is that it was a political issue and since it was never solved it has inevitably become a humanitarian issue. So the world should help solve it before it becomes even worse like a Darfur or Rwanda. That’s the whole thought process.
 
But the English never claim to having no "historical ties" with the French do they ? How odd it'd have been if the English said "we have no cultural ties with the French so we don't care about them", when the Germans were blitzkrieging their way into France during ww2. Everyone and their dog would have guessed that they were just saving their rears from Nazis. :)

Besides, it's a false equivalence as the French were never able to influence England as much as the Mughals did on Pakistan. The Anglo-Saxons, Romans and even the Danish Vikings left a bigger imprint on them than the French. But on the other hand, I see Pakistanis claiming to be the inheritors of the erstwhile Mughal empire , who were Turkic by origin and also claim that they have no historical ties with the Uyghurs who are Turkic as well. I'm not saying that every Mughal emperor from Babur to Bahadur Shah Zafar are purely Turkic but do anyone of them have no historical ties at all
to the Turkic people of central Asia ? No right.

So, does it make any sense that Pakistanis who identify most of their culture and history with the same Mughals claim that they have no connection at all with the Turkic Uyghurs?

Pakistani and North Indian Muslims culture was influenced from Central Asian/Persian culture Mixed with Indian culture. Its not the same culture as Central Asia. The cuisine, clothing, architecture, will have elements of both cultures. I mean as i mentioned the Mughals and other Muslim dynasties intermarried with locals, they were born and bred in the subcontinent, so they would obviously have local culture as well. They were the ones who created this mixed culture as they were the elite. So to put it in plain English, the hated Mughals had a lot of Indian influence in there culture. They were no longer Central Asians.


And as 80% of Pakistani people are similar to North Indians Muslims, its natural for us to give more attention to Muslim issues in Kashmir, and Gujarat, and Delhi, etc. Then Central Asia, Iran, China etc. We obviously would have way more common with North Indian Muslims.


Also i dont think why you think Romans, Vikings, and Danes had more influence than French. The English language of today is completely different than the Anglo Saxon Old English. Not to mention so much of their architecture was built by the French.

And the main point I was making about English Kings, and also the English nobility, was that they might have had a French origin but they became English. They initially only spoke French, then they became bilingual in French and English, and then they only spoke English. And as they were the elite they were able to add a lot of French influence on the existing English culture. This is similar to what the Muslim elite of the subcontinent were able to do.
 
The Kashmir issue was already in full flow due to Indian posters pushing it, I have quite consistently tried to steer this back onto China, but you insist on giving the Indian perspective on Kashmir. I don't know why, but perhaps it's your job.

Well you weren’t doing a good job of steering it back to China with post number 186. You gave the Pakistani (fake) perspective on Kashmir which I countered, so I don’t know why you have a problem. Why post something when you don’t want it be answered?
 
You’re missing the point.

The pitch is that it was a political issue and since it was never solved it has inevitably become a humanitarian issue. So the world should help solve it before it becomes even worse like a Darfur or Rwanda. That’s the whole thought process.

Well there are considerable difference between Darfur/Rwanda and the Kashmir issue. The former were civil wars with foreign powers getting involved and backing either the government or the rebels.

The Kashmir conflict is more complicated because it involves two countries with contrasting narratives. One country (Pakistan) has no international credibility and is notorious for providing protection to terrorists. The other country (India) has been able to protect a superior global image because it has been able to preserve its democratic values and has achieved considerable economic growth.

Moreover, Pakistan backed itself in a corner when it got conned by India into signing the Simla Agreement, which effectively shunned third party intervention/involvement.

For Pakistan to attract international attention to Kashmir other than some token, empty statements every now and then, it will have to turn its global image around and also disprove the Indian accusations that Pakistan funds anti-state militants in J&K.
 
Wrora, this is the indian narrative.

I encourage you to educate yourself on these matters with an open mind, without already assuming pakistan is wrong in every stance it takes.

Start by reading about operation polo where the nizam of Hyderabad wanted to be independent but was invaded by india and forced to sign instrument of accession.

Pakistanis dont know anything about malicious indians designs in 1947, yet because every Tom dick and harry has the internet they are exposed to constant indian propaganda.

If you start here, you will realize that india is not the force of good you think it is. They just malign pakistan because they have a louder voice.

Then if you get time read about the poonch rebellion which was an entirely kashmiri struggle against the maharaja because of his oppressive policies, but was later backed by pakistan on their leaders request.

I am sorry but your narrative can be found in Pakistan Studies textbooks which do not have any credibility. There are three versions of events associated with the history of Kashmir and independence - Pakistani version, Indian version and the so-called neutral version. Among the three, the least credible version for me has to be the Pakistani version because we have been served nothing but lies since 47.

I am not saying India doesn’t do propaganda and don’t aim to malign Pakistan, but it is very difficult to consider Pakistan a victim here. We have been ruled by military propaganda for whom Kashmir is a tool to maintain domestic power. Resolving the Kashmir issue is not in the best interests of the Pakistani military so it is very hard to trust the Pakistani version of events.
 
You’re missing the point.

The pitch is that it was a political issue and since it was never solved it has inevitably become a humanitarian issue. So the world should help solve it before it becomes even worse like a Darfur or Rwanda. That’s the whole thought process.


Plus a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue is also against the interests of our military. They will lose power, money and influence once India is no longer our boogeyman and we don’t have an “enemy” that would break the country in half if it wasn’t for our guardian angels in boots.
 
So amazed at the love for Chinese Muslims by some - May ALLAH reward you for that. Once done, spare a minute for rape/pillage against Kashmiri Muslims for some extra akhirah points.
 
Last edited:
Yes Kashmir is a territorial issue. However it is made a religious issue in Pakistan. Anyways want get into the details but, having a full blown issue with India a country with the closest cultural and territorial ties is ok.

So Pakistan has issues with Israel because of the 3rd holiest site (I get a chuckle every time I see the mention of a ranking). Having issue with a country that has some of the most genius scientists and business people and a lot of pull in the developed world is justified for it.

However China perpetuates one of the worst human rights violation against fellow Muslims. Treat young Pakistani girls as commodity ( I hope it’s not because it is being said most of them are minority girls anyways) . I have seen your posts and I don’t think you are like that. That was just a dig at someone else so no hard feelings. However Pakistan has to evolve and not let this get in the way of trade and economic perks.

Sorry no matter how many law points you bring here, that looks very hypocritical no matter how you spin it.

Its a religious issue because partition was done on the basis of religion, and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state that was adjacent to Pakistan. And you can mention that the prince of JK acceded to India, but then Pakistanis will mention that the Muslim Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan and India took over the state.

So in there opinion one of the two states should have been part of Pakistan, and Pakistan was cheated.

Some Pakistanis want relations improved with India first and Kashmir to be discussed after, and others want Kashmir discussed first and relations improved after that. . But no one wants the status quo for Kashmir valley accepted forever. Nobody thinks that what happened during partition was right.
 
Look the thing is this. I criticize China as much as anyone here. I've laid the blame squarely on them for Coronavirus not being nipped in the bud due to them withholding information. If you follow my posts going back years (which I'm sure no one has time to) I have always criticized their authoritarian regime too.

However what I am trying to differentiate here is that the issue in itself is political. Every country has skeletons in closet (including Pakistan). Kashmir and Xinjiang are both issues and both humanitarian issues in my eyes. But only one is a political issue in the eyes of Pakistanis. You may not agree with it but I am sure you can appreciate that Pakistanis see Kashmir as theirs as much as Indians see Kashmir as theirs. In international circles, Kashmir IS disputed land. So for a Pakistani, Uighyur Muslims and Kashmiri Muslims can never have the same importance even if they feel the same way about mistreatment of Muslims because the average Pakistani sees Kashmiri Muslims as their countryman. It is made as a religious issue because Pakistan itself was made for religious reasons. Pakistan also laid claims to Hyderabad (Nizam actually wanted to merge with Pakistan) and Junagadh (same) but those could not be projected as political issues with religious angle which is why it never gained traction among the populace and no Pakistani even really cares about them.

Similarly it is fact that Pakistan was made as a country for Islam specifically subcontinental Muslims. Theres no running away from that fact and is why there is a keen interest in that community. That also explains interest in Jerusalem regardless of whether you chuckle at it. For a country made for Islam, the status of one of the holiest sites is important. And its not just Pakistan. Most Muslim countries do not recognise Israel or call it out. Again. I personally think recognizing Israel will have immense benefits but I am just explaining the logic behind Pakistanis caring for Palestine. Btw Indian Muslims do too and so does every other Muslim Ive met including Turks whose country actually acknowledges Israel.

Pakistanis by and large naturally have good wishes for any persecuted Muslims they may hear about but Kashmir and Palestine are different due to the reasons mentioned. You dont have to agree with them but it is the explanation.

I dont know why this simple fact is hard for Indians to understand. We are allowed to decide who we feel closer to. You dont get to decide who we feel more kinship towards.
 
Plus a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir issue is also against the interests of our military. They will lose power, money and influence once India is no longer our boogeyman and we don’t have an “enemy” that would break the country in half if it wasn’t for our guardian angels in boots.

And what would indian politicians do for votes if they dont have pakistan as the bogeyman?

What would the over 1 million indian army do if they weren't needed. You are naive if you are believing the narrative that only Pakistani military has a dog in the fight.
 
I am sorry but your narrative can be found in Pakistan Studies textbooks which do not have any credibility. There are three versions of events associated with the history of Kashmir and independence - Pakistani version, Indian version and the so-called neutral version. Among the three, the least credible version for me has to be the Pakistani version because we have been served nothing but lies since 47.

I am not saying India doesn’t do propaganda and don’t aim to malign Pakistan, but it is very difficult to consider Pakistan a victim here. We have been ruled by military propaganda for whom Kashmir is a tool to maintain domestic power. Resolving the Kashmir issue is not in the best interests of the Pakistani military so it is very hard to trust the Pakistani version of events.

Again naivety if you think Pakistan is the only liar.

Take for example the last couple of "surgical strikes" from india, or this whole ordeal with china. Their politicians lie out of their teeth. It's just harder to hide lies now due to social media than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

How you think their narrative is by default more trustworthy than pakistans is beyond me. But to each his own.
 
And what would indian politicians do for votes if they dont have pakistan as the bogeyman?

What would the over 1 million indian army do if they weren't needed. You are naive if you are believing the narrative that only Pakistani military has a dog in the fight.

You should have stopped at BJP politicians because the Indian military respect civil supremacy and do not do propaganda so that they can live like kings. They are the opposite of the Pakistani military. You only have to compare the car of the Indian military chief with the Pakistani military chief.

The Indian military elites do not live like kings and do not have a business empire worth billions. And yet, they have been successful in ensuring that Pakistani military does not get an inch of Kashmir.

The AJK that our military thumps its chest over was won for them by the tribals, the same tribals that they butchered for decades under the draconian FCR laws.
 
Again naivety if you think Pakistan is the only liar.

Take for example the last couple of "surgical strikes" from india, or this whole ordeal with china. Their politicians lie out of their teeth. It's just harder to hide lies now due to social media than it was 30 or 40 years ago.

How you think their narrative is by default more trustworthy than pakistans is beyond me. But to each his own.


Pakistan is not the only liar. I agree.

However, it certainly is the biggest liar in South Asia.
 
The only thing [MENTION=148149]Gharib Aadmi[/MENTION] does is contradict your posts so it's funny that you're endorsing him here.

He states clearly that Pakistan refuses to accept Israel because the former needs saudi money and they need the all-clear signal from Saudi Arabia before starting diplomatic relations. He also states that Xinjiang is largely ignored because Pak badly need Chinese money.

Atleast he is honest about the most important factor at play here - the money. Ka ching!

I think you are missing the fact that there are two different things we are talking about there. Which suffering Muslims get more attention in Pakistan, and why the Pakistani goverment cant establish relations with Israel.

1 - Which suffering Muslims get more attention in Pakistan?

Pakistanis, since they are subcontinent Muslims, give more attention to issues effecting other subcontinent Muslims. We have not only religion but culture which binds us to them. So we have more stories on Kashmir, Gujarat, and Delhi, then we would on Chechnya, Yemen, Syria, Uighur's, Myanmar, Darfur, etc. Doesn't mean we dont care, we do, but we care more for other subcontinent Muslims. Thats just who we feel closer too.

Palestinians are an exception though. Unlike the other Arab countries of Yemen and Syria, who have suffered even more than the Palestinians, the geographic location of Palestine is very important to Muslims. It contains the third holiest Muslim site, it was the land that Muslims fought for centuries with the Christians in the Crusades, which shows how much Muslims care for Palestine.


2 - Why the Pakistani goverment cant establish relations with Israel?

People in Jordan and Egypt dont like Israel but there governments have established beneficial relationship with Israel. Pakistan can also benefit with relations with Israel, however any benefit would be minuscule compared to the benefits they receive from Gulf Arab states, in particular Saudi Arabia. So once Saudis establish relations then Pakistan can as well. We want to be on the same page as the gulf Arabs on this issue. And no one in the Pakistani public, whether its the common man or opposition parties, can criticize the goverment for establishing relations with Israel if Saudi Arabia did it first.
 
Cultural links shouldn’t matter. We are more outspoken for Palestinians than Uyghurs.

He is right that it is all about the money and that is why we are hypocritical. It doesn’t mean we should stop raising our voice about Kashmir, it means we should raise our voice about everyone.

That is, of course the “ideal” and “humane” solution
, but I don’t fault our government for chasing the money during a domestic economic crisis.

Does anyone really do that? when there is a terror attack on Europe all white people condemn it, have candle light vigils, have a moment of silence. Do White people have the same connection to people suffering in other parts of the world as they do with there fellow white people? Or do they feel more in common with people who share there European culture?
 
The other half should not be Pakistan. Kashmir was a princely state and they were given the option (which Pakistani forefathers agreed to) of choosing Pakistan, India or independence.

Kashmir ruler eventually opted to join India. If anything, Pakistan has illegally occupied AJK.

Has India illegally occupied Junagadh?
 
Well there are considerable difference between Darfur/Rwanda and the Kashmir issue. The former were civil wars with foreign powers getting involved and backing either the government or the rebels.

The Kashmir conflict is more complicated because it involves two countries with contrasting narratives. One country (Pakistan) has no international credibility and is notorious for providing protection to terrorists. The other country (India) has been able to protect a superior global image because it has been able to preserve its democratic values and has achieved considerable economic growth.

Moreover, Pakistan backed itself in a corner when it got conned by India into signing the Simla Agreement, which effectively shunned third party intervention/involvement.

For Pakistan to attract international attention to Kashmir other than some token, empty statements every now and then, it will have to turn its global image around and also disprove the Indian accusations that Pakistan funds anti-state militants in J&K.

The better argument you could make is that Pakistan has signed an agreement with India that the dispute will be resolved bilaterally. The rest of the world wont interfere as India is too big of a market for them to lose. So by improving relations with India, stopping militants from using Pakistan territory to attack them anywhere, increasing trade, Pakistan might be able to help the Kashmiris get a max autonomy type solution for the Valley similar to South Tyrol or Aland islands. And we can help Pakistan as well that way.


People would be more willing to accept the idea that we were cheated in Kashmir, however the pragmatic solution is now to improve relations with India, and try to get a creative solution for the Kashmir Valley. No one outside of a fringe will accept the idea that Pakistan was not cheated during partition, when there was a direct opposite scenario of Jammu Kashmir, where a Muslim Nawab choose Pakistan, India invaded the state because it had a Hindu majority, and annexed it.
 
The better argument you could make is that Pakistan has signed an agreement with India that the dispute will be resolved bilaterally. The rest of the world wont interfere as India is too big of a market for them to lose. So by improving relations with India, stopping militants from using Pakistan territory to attack them anywhere, increasing trade, Pakistan might be able to help the Kashmiris get a max autonomy type solution for the Valley similar to South Tyrol or Aland islands. And we can help Pakistan as well that way.


People would be more willing to accept the idea that we were cheated in Kashmir, however the pragmatic solution is now to improve relations with India, and try to get a creative solution for the Kashmir Valley. No one outside of a fringe will accept the idea that Pakistan was not cheated during partition, when there was a direct opposite scenario of Jammu Kashmir, where a Muslim Nawab choose Pakistan, India invaded the state because it had a Hindu majority, and annexed it.

It was not realistic for Pakistan to hold onto a state that was located within India. The only access that Pakistan had was through sea route.

Holding onto Junagarh would have ended in East Pakistan-like humiliation.

India declared Junagarh an enemy state and refused to trade with it. Was it immoral? Yes certainly, but they were within their rights to do so.

You are right in pointing out that India cheated Pakistan on Kashmir. However, India cheated Pakistan because Pakistan allowed itself to be cheated.

They should have realized that reducing Kashmir conflict to a bilateral dispute (with the signing of the Simla Agreement) meant that Pakistan was now in a very difficult position to do anything.

You cannot resolve a bilateral dispute when one party refuses to talk, and that was India’s intention when it conned Pakistan into signing the agreement.
 
It was not realistic for Pakistan to hold onto a state that was located within India. The only access that Pakistan had was through sea route.

Holding onto Junagarh would have ended in East Pakistan-like humiliation.

India declared Junagarh an enemy state and refused to trade with it. Was it immoral? Yes certainly, but they were within their rights to do so.

You are right in pointing out that India cheated Pakistan on Kashmir. However, India cheated Pakistan because Pakistan allowed itself to be cheated.

They should have realized that reducing Kashmir conflict to a bilateral dispute (with the signing of the Simla Agreement) meant that Pakistan was now in a very difficult position to do anything.

You cannot resolve a bilateral dispute when one party refuses to talk, and that was India’s intention when it conned Pakistan into signing the agreement.

1 - India was willing to talk about Kashmir. I mean there was the Lahore Summit before Kargil. Seemed they were open to any solution that did not involve changing the boundaries. And even though he was responsible for Kargil, Musharraf then was the first to suggest a creative solution, instead of one winner take all referendum. So that means that there is a scope for an agreement that everyone can live with it.

2 - East Pakistan happened because the people in West Pakistan did not accept there mandate to run the country. Junagadh had a tiny population, so that situation could not arise there. And India had a right to stop trade with Junagadh, however they did not have a right to annex the state. That was Pakistan and Junagadh problem of how that relationship would work.

3 - Pakistan allowed itself to be cheated when Liaqat Ali Khan refused Patel's offer of accepting Kashmir to Pakistan and Hyderabad and Junagadh to India.
 
1 - India was willing to talk about Kashmir. I mean there was the Lahore Summit before Kargil. Seemed they were open to any solution that did not involve changing the boundaries. And even though he was responsible for Kargil, Musharraf then was the first to suggest a creative solution, instead of one winner take all referendum. So that means that there is a scope for an agreement that everyone can live with it.

2 - East Pakistan happened because the people in West Pakistan did not accept there mandate to run the country. Junagadh had a tiny population, so that situation could not arise there. And India had a right to stop trade with Junagadh, however they did not have a right to annex the state. That was Pakistan and Junagadh problem of how that relationship would work.

3 - Pakistan allowed itself to be cheated when Liaqat Ali Khan refused Patel's offer of accepting Kashmir to Pakistan and Hyderabad and Junagadh to India.

1) Vajpayee was a pacifist who almost got duped by Musharraf. Musharraf’s solution was creative for sure, but it would have laid the Simla Agreement to waste, which was India’s greatest victory over Pakistan since independence.

There was no way India would have let that happen and the right people knocked some sense into Vajpayee before he shot his country in the foot.

2) A major reason why Pakistan lost control of East Pakistan was because it did not share a border with it. The same would have eventually happened with Junagarh because there is no possible way Pakistan would have been able to hold onto it.

Besides, Junagarh was eventually sold off to India by Shahnawaz Bhutto.

But you fail to note the most pertinent point - Junagarh was Hindu majority, and welcoming a Hindu majority state in Pakistan would have undermined the Two Nation Theory. A bogus theory that was eventually disproved by 1971 anyway.

By demanding Junagarh, the Pakistan movement leaders were undermining their own argument of why the partition should happen on Muslim-Hindu divide in the first place.

3) I agree. The infamous “what will we do with Kashmir’s rocks?” statement by Liaquat Ali Khan was an example of the muddled thinking of Pakistani leadership. They failed to realize that there was no possible way they could hold onto territory within India.

It was a misplaced show of arrogance and delusion which eventually cost Pakistan all three states.
 
President Donald Trump says he did not sanction Chinese officials further over the detention of Muslims in Xinjiang as he was in the "middle of a trade deal".

Mr Trump told the Axios news site that achieving a "great" deal meant he could not impose "additional sanctions".

China has held about a million Uighurs and other ethnic groups in camps in Xinjiang for indoctrination and punishment but denies mistreating them.
 
Its a religious issue because partition was done on the basis of religion, and Kashmir was a Muslim majority state that was adjacent to Pakistan. And you can mention that the prince of JK acceded to India, but then Pakistanis will mention that the Muslim Nawab of Junagadh acceded to Pakistan and India took over the state.

So in there opinion one of the two states should have been part of Pakistan, and Pakistan was cheated.

Some Pakistanis want relations improved with India first and Kashmir to be discussed after, and others want Kashmir discussed first and relations improved after that. . But no one wants the status quo for Kashmir valley accepted forever. Nobody thinks that what happened during partition was right.

India doesn’t view it as a religious issue. It views it as a territorial issue. There are Muslims and may I add many well off Muslims still living in Hyderabad Deccan and in the Gujarat area.

Don’t have to tell you about the very wealthy Bohra community in Indian Gujarat.

Muslims were and are still welcome to stay back if they chose. Again it wouldn’t have mattered if the Kashmiris were Muslims or Scientologists. No one cares about that. It is a pure land dispute.

So if Pakistan or its influencers keep parroting this as a crime against Islam and Modi as a Nazi equivalent of Hindus and the Kashmiris as equivalent of Jews, that would obviously make this a pure religious play and give the impression that Pakistan is playing the Islam card.

With all due respect, It personally doesn’t effect me and neither do I care if Jerusalem or Gaza or Tel Aviv is the 3rd 4th and 5th Holiest sites for Muslims.

However clearly again Pakistan seems to be very vocal about it from a religious angle.

There is a term called selective diplomacy where countries align based on mutual benefit. Has been happening in centuries. That is fine.

However when you play the religion card selectively that would be pointed out as hypocrisy.

Let me make your day with a generalized Hindutva example You can’t beat up an average joe for hurting your religious sentiments for eating beef and then open a restaurant that serves steak and say that religion and business are separate entities and the partner in my business is from a different culture that eats beef so it’s ok. That would be hypocritical.

Again I don’t care about all the loopholes here because if you want to play lawyer I am not your guy. Just say Pakistan is desperate for Chinese money or boost to the economy and they have to compromise on some values. That’s enough and I already believe you acknowledged that. So nothing to see further here.

Our Government has already made it clear the territory is ours with constitutional amendments. Now if Pak thinks it belongs to them, they can get it either by war or diplomacy.

A lot of folk migrated from UP,Bihar etc, so if Pak is so concerned they can may be grant the Kashmiris temp citizenship and maybe pursue the dispute with their own chosen method to resettle their folk.
 
Last edited:
China forcing birth control on Uighur women to curb Muslim population, major report finds

The Chinese government is forcing Uighur women and members of other minorities to take birth control as part of a campaign to curb its Muslim population, according to a major investigation.

A report issued by the Associated Press said government statistics, state documents and interviews with 30 ex-detainees and a former detention camp instructor indicated efforts to slash birth rates was far more widespread and systematic than previously known.

The alleged programme has been conducted by the state even as it encourages some of the country's Han majority to have more children and was described by some experts as "demographic genocide".

According to the probe's findings, officials regularly subject minority women to pregnancy checks and force intrauterine devices (IUDs), sterilisation and even abortion on hundreds of thousands.

It said that while the use of IUDs and sterilisation has fallen nationwide, it was rising sharply in the far west region of Xinjiang where the campaign was being carried out.

The AP found the population control measures were backed by mass detention both as a threat and as a punishment for failure to comply.

It said having too many children was a major reason people are sent to detention camps, with the parents of three or more taken from their families if they cannot pay huge fines and police raiding homes to hunt for hidden children.

Gulnar Omirzakh, a Chinese-born Kazakh, said the government ordered her to get an IUD inserted after she had her third child.

She said two years later, in January 2018, four officials in military camouflage turned up at her home anyway and demanded she pay a $2,685 fine within three days for having more than two children.

The wife of a detained vegetable trader said they told her that if she did not, she would join her husband and a million other ethnic minorities locked up in internment camps - many for having too many children.

"God bequeaths children on you. To prevent people from having children is wrong," a tearful Ms Omirzakh said.

"They want to destroy us as a people."

A series of interviews suggests the campaign had created a climate of terror around having children, with rates in mostly Uighur regions falling by more than 60% from 2015 to 2018

In Xinjiang, birth rates continue to plummet, falling nearly 24% last year alone compared to a national drop of 4.2%.

China scholar Adrian Zenz said: "This kind of drop is unprecedented... there's a ruthlessness to it.

"This is part of a wider control campaign to subjugate the Uighurs."

For decades, China had one of the most extensive systems of minority entitlements in the world.

Uighurs - who are predominantly Muslim - and other groups got more points on college entrance exams, hiring quotas for government posts and laxer birth control restrictions.

But those benefits continue to be reversed under President Xi Jinping, China's most authoritarian leader in decades.

"It's genocide, full stop," said Joanne Smith Finley, an expert in China based at Newcastle University.

"It's not immediate, shocking, mass-killing on the spot type genocide, but it's slow, painful, creeping genocide. These are direct means of genetically reducing the Uighur population."

Darren Byler, an expert on Uighurs at the University of Colorado, said: "The intention may not be to fully eliminate the Uighur population, but it will sharply diminish their vitality, making them easier to assimilate."

AP said the Chinese Foreign Ministry referred multiple requests for comment to the Xinjiang government, which did not respond.

Chinese officials have previously claimed the new measures are merely meant to be fair, allowing both Han Chinese and ethnic minorities the same number of children.

https://news.sky.com/story/china-fo...muslim-population-major-report-finds-12017287
 
China says it will hit back against new U.S. sanctions over Uighur rights

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - China said on Friday it would take “reciprocal measures” against the United States after Washington imposed sanctions on senior Chinese officials over alleged human rights abuses against the Uighur Muslim minority.

Beijing described the new U.S. sanctions as “deeply detrimental” to mutual relations, already strained by differences over China’s handling of the novel coronavirus outbreak and its tightening grip on Hong Kong.

Washington imposed sanctions on the autonomous region of Xinjiang’s Communist Party Secretary Chen Quanguo, a member of China’s powerful Politburo, and three other officials.

A senior U.S. administration official described Chen as the highest ranking Chinese official that the United States has sanctioned.

The decision is “no joke,” the U.S. official said. “Not only in terms of symbolic and reputational affect, but it does have real meaning on a person’s ability to move around the world and conduct business.”

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian told reporters in Beijing the U.S. decision was a serious interference in Chinese affairs.

“In light of these wrong actions, China will impose reciprocal measures on U.S. officials and organizations that have displayed egregious behaviour on human rights in relation to Xinjiang affairs,” Zhao said.

“We urge the U.S. to correct this wrong decision. If the U.S. continues to proceed, China will take firm countermeasures.”

Washington’s sanctions were imposed under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. government to target human rights violators worldwide by freezing any U.S. assets, banning U.S. travel and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them.

Sanctions were also imposed on Zhu Hailun, deputy secretary of the regional legislative body, the Xinjiang’s People’s Congress; Wang Mingshan, the director and Communist Party secretary of the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau; and the former party secretary of the bureau, Huo Liujun.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington was also barring Chen, Zhu, Wang and their immediate families, and other unnamed Chinese Communist Party officials, from traveling to the United States.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-s-sanctions-over-uighur-rights-idUSKBN24A2GA
 
China trades sanctions with U.S. in row over Uighur Muslims

BEIJING (Reuters) - China announced “corresponding sanctions” against the United States on Monday after Washington penalised senior Chinese officials over the treatment of minority Uighur Muslims in the western region of Xinjiang.

China’s move comes as relations between the world’s two biggest economic powerhouses have slumped over disagreements on issues including the coronavirus pandemic, trade, Huawei and a sweeping national security law imposed on Hong Kong.

The sanctions targeted Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, U.S. Representative Chris Smith, Ambassador at Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback and the U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China.

Rubio and Cruz have both sponsored legislation that would punish China’s actions in Xinjiang. Smith has also been a vocal critic of China on issues ranging from Xinjiang to Hong Kong and the coronavirus.

All three are members of President Donald Trump’s Republican Party.

“The U.S. actions seriously interfere in China’s internal affairs, seriously violate the basic norms of international relations and seriously damage Sino-U.S. relations,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters.

“China will make further responses based on how the situation develops.”

Hua did not elaborate.

U.N. experts and activists say at least a million ethnic Uighurs and other Muslims are held in detention centres in Xinjiang. China describes them as training centres helping to stamp out terrorism and extremism and give people new skills.

The Congressional-Executive Commission on China monitors human rights and the development of the rule of law and submits an annual report to Trump and Congress.

Washington’s measures against Chinese officials, including the Communist Party secretary of Xinjiang, involve freezing U.S. assets, U.S. travel bans and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-u-s-in-row-over-uighur-muslims-idUSKCN24E0NU
 
Silence of Muslim states on Uighurs’ plight is chilling

Why are so many Arab and Muslim governments supporting China as it destroys the Uighurs? A Muslim community with a rich history and culture is being eradicated: through mass incarceration, deportation, enforced sterilisation and the destruction of ancient mosques and cultural sites. The Uighurs are not being exterminated. Instead this is the world’s first high-tech genocide, the destruction of a nation by harnessing a surveillance state. Levelling mosques says “you were never here”. Enforced sterilisation says “you never will be”.

Yet the Uighurs too are part of the Ummah, Arabic for “community”. Ummah is a synonym for ummat al-Islam, a community of faith where all are equal before Allah. It is one of Islam’s most appealing tenets. Yet instead of standing up for their co-religionists most Arab and Muslim governments have betrayed them.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...tates-on-uighurs-plight-is-chilling-2gqrbzwl3


Now even the Times is officially joining in with our Indian PP brothers asking where is the Ummah when it comes to dealing with China. Truly it seems like the whole world cares deeply about Muslims other than Muslims themselves.
 
Now even the Times is officially joining in with our Indian PP brothers asking where is the Ummah when it comes to dealing with China. Truly it seems like the whole world cares deeply about Muslims other than Muslims themselves.

Doesn't make it untrue
 
Now even the Times is officially joining in with our Indian PP brothers asking where is the Ummah when it comes to dealing with China. Truly it seems like the whole world cares deeply about Muslims other than Muslims themselves.

You musn't get upset. No organisation is built with member countries based solely on religion except for the OIC, which you'd think was created to speak up for muslim causes.

There is no Organisation of Buddhist or Org of Christian Countries etc and yet they're the one, the West mostly, taking the lead on this urgent islamic issue. It exposes the fluffiness of this so-called religious unity that everyone is proud of. Funnily enough, the OIC put out a tweet on Kashmir just last week and ignored the Xinjiang drone video leaked at the same time.
 
Like it or not the Ummah takes it cue for grievance from the Gulf Arabs.

Not all Muslims are equal and if the masters demand you cry outrage for an injustice that affects them, the Ummah will jump in unison.

If not, then Kashmiris, Uighur or Yemeni be damned.
 
Like it or not the Ummah takes it cue for grievance from the Gulf Arabs.

Not all Muslims are equal and if the masters demand you cry outrage for an injustice that affects them, the Ummah will jump in unison.

If not, then Kashmiris, Uighur or Yemeni be damned.

So why does Kashmir remain relevant for the OIC (as mentioned by Thomaskutty above). Is it political or an example of Pakistan's leverage?
 
So why does Kashmir remain relevant for the OIC (as mentioned by Thomaskutty above). Is it political or an example of Pakistan's leverage?

OIC is an impotent entity.

Give examples of any steps taken in the intervening 72 years.

Maybe I have missed these great moves made by the organisation.

The Gulf states may give occasional lip service but they know Pakistan is a beggar nation and will kowtow the second they clip their fingers.

I’m sure Pakistan brings up Kashmir with OIC and the fact that no steps are ever taken speaks volumes.

Let one of the Arab masters bring up an issue and see how the rest start jumping up and down on cue.
 
You musn't get upset. No organisation is built with member countries based solely on religion except for the OIC, which you'd think was created to speak up for muslim causes.

There is no Organisation of Buddhist or Org of Christian Countries etc and yet they're the one, the West mostly, taking the lead on this urgent islamic issue. It exposes the fluffiness of this so-called religious unity that everyone is proud of. Funnily enough, the OIC put out a tweet on Kashmir just last week and ignored the Xinjiang drone video leaked at the same time.

But that is what is baffling to me. Why is it Indian members and non-Muslim publications like the Times who are conveniently talking about Ummah and the Muslim unity when China has become a common enemy? Do they want Muslim countries to fight China? How would they do it?
 
I dont know why this simple fact is hard for Indians to understand. We are allowed to decide who we feel closer to. You dont get to decide who we feel more kinship towards.

You are welcome to decide who you feel closer to, but you don’t get to set the standard for human rights for the rest of the world. When your leader complains about human rights violations in Kashmir to Western countries, while calling China where a genocide is in progress a steadfast friend, he is rightly thought to be an irredeemable hypocrite.
 
So amazed at the love for Chinese Muslims by some - May ALLAH reward you for that. Once done, spare a minute for rape/pillage against Kashmiri Muslims for some extra akhirah points.

All hypocrites on both sides agreed.

However, those Kashmiri muslims were given everything on a platter under the umbrella of article 370, all they had to do was live in peace, but no, they drove out the Pandits and cause chaos in the valley which resulted in no other option but to deploy Indian army. Kashmiri's are in the current situation due to their evil acts..

The Ughyur's in comparison::

Did they rape and kill people of other religions in the area where they are in, in China ? do they throw rocks at the Chinese army ? do they cause chaos like these Kashmiri muslims do in India, in China ?

Sums it up....

If Allah really is the true god then Pakistanis will be judged just as much as the Indians or any other race for turning a blind eye on UMMAH of the Ughyur muslims, no place to hide...
 
You are welcome to decide who you feel closer to, but you don’t get to set the standard for human rights for the rest of the world. When your leader complains about human rights violations in Kashmir to Western countries, while calling China where a genocide is in progress a steadfast friend, he is rightly thought to be an irredeemable hypocrite.

We have to empathize with Pakistani leadership, they have no voice, if the spoke out against China, they are as good as dead. I understand why Pakistani leadership will always remain silent on Ughyurs however it is beyond hypocritical to see the local Pakistani public say things like; 'Oh oh we only stick up for muslims we feel close to' when their Quran says all muslims share the UMMAH brotherhood,, they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing....
 
Last edited:
We have to empathize with Pakistani leadership, they have no voice, if the spoke out against China, they are as good as dead. I understand why Pakistani leadership will always remain silent on Ughyurs however it is beyond hypocritical to see the local Pakistani public say things like; 'Oh oh we only stick up for muslims we feel close to' when their Quran says all muslims share the UMMAH brotherhood,, they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing....

This is true, but what do you expect the local Pakistani public to do about it to show support for their brothers of the UMMAH?
 
Hypocrisy from whom? Turkey?

Pakistan. My personal view on Israel has changed over the years as it's the Arabs who did the Palestinians over and it's not as if, as proven by Russian and Chinese crimes, it's the worst of atrocities commited against Muslims. India are copying China in Kashmir. Now that's a harsh reality
 
Last edited:
India are copying China in Kashmir. Now that's a harsh reality

Don't be delusional. Besides the desire of secession, the condition of the Kashmiris is as far as possible from the Uyghurs.

1) Kashmiris have the right to vote and elect their leaders, their voting rights are no more and no less than other Indians.

2) Kashmiris do not have millions in concentration camps like the Uyghurs.

3) Kashmiri women do not have birth control forced on them like Uyghur women do.

4) Kashmiri women who have then husbands in concentration camps are not forced to sleep at night in the same bed with males sent by government like Uyghur women have to.

5) Uyghurs do not regularly take to the streets and riot like Kashmiris do.

etc.
 
Last edited:
Don't be delusional. Besides the desire of secession, the condition of the Kashmiris is as far as possible from the Uyghurs.

1) Kashmiris have the right to vote and elect their leaders, their voting rights are no more and no less than other Indians.

2) Kashmiris do not have millions in concentration camps like the Uyghurs.

3) Kashmiri women do not have birth control forced on them like Uyghur women do.

4) Kashmiri women who have then husbands in concentration camps are not forced to sleep at night in the same bed with males sent by government like Uyghur women have to.

5) Uyghurs do not regularly take to the streets and riot like Kashmiris do.

etc.

If all that's true, would certainly paint the Indian armed forces in a very positive picture, all 700,000 of them concentrated in one small semi-state. Why not allow international journalists to verify what the Indian govt claims?
 
Don't be delusional. Besides the desire of secession, the condition of the Kashmiris is as far as possible from the Uyghurs.

1) Kashmiris have the right to vote and elect their leaders, their voting rights are no more and no less than other Indians.

2) Kashmiris do not have millions in concentration camps like the Uyghurs.

3) Kashmiri women do not have birth control forced on them like Uyghur women do.

4) Kashmiri women who have then husbands in concentration camps are not forced to sleep at night in the same bed with males sent by government like Uyghur women have to.

5) Uyghurs do not regularly take to the streets and riot like Kashmiris do.

etc.

Indians still cant understand the simple difference while making up lies.

1. Kashmir is disputed land acc to Int law, therefore it doesn't belong to India or Pakistan. Making occupied people vote isn't something to shout about lol.

2. India has detained, toruted and murdered thousands after being taken and detained.

3. India has a history of raping women and schoolgirls in Kashmir.

4. India has made thousands of Kashmiri women into widows.

5. Uyghurs are part of China, they have no right to protest for their own country, Kashmiris do.

Please stop. you're embarssing yourself along with ALL other Indians on this thread.
 
You are welcome to decide who you feel closer to, but you don’t get to set the standard for human rights for the rest of the world. When your leader complains about human rights violations in Kashmir to Western countries, while calling China where a genocide is in progress a steadfast friend, he is rightly thought to be an irredeemable hypocrite.

Or basically a typical politician. Why hold Imran Khan to a different standard than other politicians?
 
We have to empathize with Pakistani leadership, they have no voice, if the spoke out against China, they are as good as dead. I understand why Pakistani leadership will always remain silent on Ughyurs however it is beyond hypocritical to see the local Pakistani public say things like; 'Oh oh we only stick up for muslims we feel close to' when their Quran says all muslims share the UMMAH brotherhood,, they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing....

Yes we do. The founders of Pakistan were secular Muslims, who wanted autonomy or an independent state for the Muslim majority areas of India. There are no shortage of Muslims in Pakistan who are not particularly religious but still identify as Muslims because of their culture, which is similar to other subcontinent Muslims. While we feel bad for them we are not responsible for Muslims of other areas, and its not like they have done anything for us.


If there was no Kashmir dispute between Pakistan and India, then most likely there would be a Canada US relationship between the two countries. And if that was the case, i am sure the majority of Pakistani Muslims would feel closer and care more for the non Muslims of India then they would for the Muslims outside of the subcontinent. Culture is very important.

Also the Islamist parties have never won an election at the federal level in Pakistan, and inshallah they never will.
 
Indians still cant understand the simple difference while making up lies.

1. Kashmir is disputed land acc to Int law, therefore it doesn't belong to India or Pakistan. Making occupied people vote isn't something to shout about lol.

2. India has detained, toruted and murdered thousands after being taken and detained.

3. India has a history of raping women and schoolgirls in Kashmir.

4. India has made thousands of Kashmiri women into widows.

5. Uyghurs are part of China, they have no right to protest for their own country, Kashmiris do.

Please stop. you're embarssing yourself along with ALL other Indians on this thread.

There is no point in trying to have a discussion with someone so delusional that he believes that the situation of the Ugyhurs is comparable to that of the Kashmiris.
 
Back
Top