What's new

Kashmir's 'Bindaas', Daredevil Cop Constable Sheikh Conferred With Shaurya Chakra

Law and order issue.
Ofcourse. Quintessntial law and order problems or south asia and plenty of cow thieves to lynch. I can understand

India Didn’t send the army to kill him
That makes it so much better.

, that should tel you which country sent the army to kill the own citizens.
In your learned indian opinion, would it have been better if, instead of sending the army, punjabis personally went and lynched balochs?

Because this Thread is about a Kashmiri who fought and died for India.
Go to the start of the thread and see how many people are deriding bindas for supporting the killers of kashmiris and how many for supporting the killers of muslims
 
Srinagar:
He was 'bindaas', a daredevil cop who with a larger-than-life personality. Conferred with the Shaurya Chakra on the eve of Republic Day, Jammu and Kashmir Police personnel Mudasir Ahmed Sheikh had eliminated a group of Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists in Baramulla district before laying down his life.

Constable Sheikh, alias 'Bindaas', of Uri (in Baramulla) made the supreme sacrifice while neutralising three Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists during a joint operation with the Army at Kreeri in the north Kashmir district on May 25 last year, officials said.

Sheikh has been conferred with the Shaurya Chakra -- the country's third-highest peacetime gallantry award -- for his unparalleled courage.


Giving details of the incident, the officials said the police and the Army, acting on information regarding the movement of terrorists, established joint special checkpoints at many places, including near Shrakwara-Najibhat Crossing in Kreeri.

When a group of terrorists travelling in a car noticed the police party, they started firing indiscriminately. The security personnel returned fire, leading to the deaths of three foreign terrorists.

However, Sheikh made the supreme sacrifice during the gunfire exchange, the officials said.


On October 5, Union Home Minister Amit Shah visited Sheikh's family during his maiden visit to the Valley following the abrogation of Article 370.

Mr Shah met Sheikh's family and interacted with them. He also visited his graveyard and prayed for Sheikh.

Commenting on the award, Additional Director General of Police (Kashmir) Vijay Kumar said no salute was enough for a larger-than-life hero.



"No salute is enough for a hero who lived larger than life and whose sacrifice belittled death itself. Shaurya Chakra awarded to Shaheed CT Mudasir Sheikh alias Bindaas for showing exceptional bravery while neutralising three foreign terrorists. Salute to the braveheart," he said in a tweet.






FnVS-DOaYAAyshs





It seems like India has given the award as the deceased was a Brahman.
 
Your fear and cowardice won't change reality, just out of your own fear you are shaming mullahs and putting your own falsified twist on Islam

Shame on you, say what you want to say straight up instead of hiding behind twisted lies to cover your fear

Jihad is jihad, you don't need Amreka or the white man from Europe to tell you that you are fighting for a right cause to make it valid
Are bhai Jehad is not a game. Jehad and terrorism are two different things. terrorism has hurt us. Even the biggest empires that we have seen throughout history used the concept of the army. Many men and not one man. I am not a coward. The truce is better than a useless war. one man alone can't liberate Kashmir. For me, the overall result is zero. Pakistan has achieved nothing in the last 70 years. What we have achieved is a label of a country that supports terror groups. I don't want anyone to malign my country but enough is enough. If anyone wants to attack Indian Kashmir, he can attack from some other country. We must not promote this concept as it's dangerous for our own existence. With an army, individuals can march but going alone is stupidity.

And they will blame us even if the martians attack indians in kashmir. That's how international diplomacy works.


I forgot the part where the indians controlling the rivers keeping our entire population alive were not out problem.


Didn't you just suggest we attack them with our army?


The world takes the side of the strong party. As it stands, we are the weak party. Doesn't mean out problems will be solved if we drop Kashmir issue. Rather, we will still be weak and be getting pushed around or other issues like Durand Line.

The solution is to improve our economy and be a bigger cog in the global trade. Right now, the entire country of Pakistan could disappear and no one in the world would feel the difference as we offer nothing to the world that other's aren't already offering. At most, other countries will miss the money we owed them. Nothing more. As things stand, we are disposable for the most part. India is not.

BTW, I am also against supporting masood azhar types, But if we drop them, they are a liability much more so than an asset. Also not in favor of sending pakistani locals into Occupied Kashmir. More harm than good.


It didn't help that you breed like rats. There's more of you in Kashmir than our entire army. The highest occupying troops to civilians ratio in the world. Some atoot ang
They blame us because of our weak foreign policy. Have they done anything during the Musharraf era? nothing. It depends on your foreign policy.
 
Last edited:

LOL, you presented example of American police as the ideals ? You mean these ?

We fought for the Muslims of South Asia while the traitor Mujeeb fought for the fascist Hindus.

Muslims of South Asia ? The greatest historical Muslim leader of South Asia was Tipu Sultan from my region called Deccan and he lived until 172 years before anyone who kept a massive Pakistani army in East Pakistan. :) Tipu was a progressive leader, an educated person who confiscated land from the casteist upper caste Hindus and gave the lands to the genetically-oppressed lower caste Hindus - the Shudras and Dalits. Tipu was a student of the French Revolution and established a Jacobins Club in Mysore city. He and Napoleon had the plan of jointly acting against the British colonials but the French military I think was stuck in Egypt and Tipu was set up by five British-led militaries in May 1799 including by the army of the "Muslim" nizam of Hyderabad and was killed.

Had Tipu lived 50 more years he would have introduced The Communist Manifesto to Indians. India could possibly have become a Communist society. Developed. Serene. Where would you be, Abdul Rehman Majeed ? :)

Tipu was among the three greatest historic leaders of known India, the other two being Ashoka and Akbar.

As for Mujeeb ur Rehman who founded Bangladesh, he was resisting racism from West Pakistan and also anti-human tendencies within the Pakistani military. Remember that within Pakistan itself there were attempts at radical reform, right from 1951 when the Pakistani leftist poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and his Communist and Socialist comrades in the military and non-military society tried to take control of governance of the country but didn't succeed and many were jailed and that attempt became called by the Capitalist-and-Mullah establishment as the "Rawalpindi Conspiracy". Had Faiz and comrades succeeded there wouldn't have been need for Mujeeb to call on the Bangla people to secede from Pakistan because Pakistan would have become a Communist society, to the horror of White House and No. 10 and Mujeeb was of that tendency himself because when Bangladesh was established its official name became "People's Republic of Bangladesh", commie style, and its constitution had Socialist elements but People's Republic of Bangladesh unfortunately had infighting among the leftists :

Socialism in Bangladesh​


The four stars in the National Emblem of Bangladesh represent the four fundamental principles of the constitution: nationalism, socialism, secularism, and democracy. Like most other socialist countries, sheaves of paddy in the borders represent the agricultural workers as a symbol of socialism.

Socialism in Bangladesh differs from socialist countries where all the means of production are owned socially. Socialism is one of the four fundamental principles of state policy in the original Constitution of Bangladesh, along with nationalism, democracy and secularism.[1] It's also mentioned in the preamble.[2] "Socialism" has been considered in the Constitution as "a way to establish an exploitation-free society".[3][4] The constitution allows cooperative and private ownership along with state ownership.[5][6] The Constitution recognizes Bangladesh as a people's republic, and pledges to ensure the emancipation of peasants and workers,[7] and endeavours to protect and improve their conditions.[8] Like socialist constitutions, it also declares for free and compulsory education.[9]

After the independence, newly established Bangladesh, led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, was shaped as a socialist economy. However it resulted a chaotic situation and economic backslide. In 1975, the country's political structure was changed to a socialist state and only one vanguard party existed in the country. After the assassination of Mujib, the country saw a regime change and socialism eventually removed from the constitution in 1979 and liberalization was started. Free market economy was introduced, state enterprises were dismalted and subsidies were withdrawn. In 2011, the term "socialism" and "socialist" were reintroduced to make the constitution more in line with the original document,[10] but the country remained a liberal mixed economy.

Socialist era (1972–1975)​

Main articles: Premiership of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Second Revolution (Bangladesh)
After the liberation of Bangladesh in 1971, some socialistic approaches were taken by the Government of Bangladesh, increasing state participation in the productive activities to improve the economic status of the war ridden country. With a view to establishing a socialist nation under a Soviet economic model, many large and medium-sized enterprises and public utility enterprises were nationalized.[13][14] On 26 March 1972, all banks, and all insurance companies excluding the branches of foreign banks were nationalized.[15]

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, the first president and the "founding father" of the country, advocated socialism and secularism in the country. According to him, the country's wealth belongs to all the people of Bangladesh. Everybody will have share in whatever would be produced. Exploitation would be stopped.[16] The constitution was highly dominated by socialist ideas and his party Awami League became the de facto vanguard party.

However, these initiatives resulted a rise of left-wing insurgance in the country, and many anti-AL organizations broke out, like Jatiya Samajtantrik Dal (JaSaD) and Purba Banglar Sarbahara Party. A people's militia named Jatiya Rakkhi Bahini (JRB) was formed to handle the insurgance, which eventually involved with extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances and atrocities.

The economy also saw a backslide. Reformation process left only the small and cottage industries for the private sector.[14] Public sector expanded very rapidly, but the share of public sector in GDP and in total productive efforts was insignificant.[17] This was because the agricultural sector was left to the private sector, which comprised about 80% of the national economy.[18] In 1974, a great famine broke out in the country, which emerges the mismanagement and failure of the system.

On 24 February 1975, due to increasing insurgency and political and economic mismanagements, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman called for a socialist revolution in the country, named Second Revolution. Using the powers granted to him by the fourth amendment of the constitution, he formed a new political party, Bangladesh Krishak Sramik Awami League (BaKSAL). It would be the only party allowed in Parliament.[19] All other political parties were outlawed with the formation of BaKSAL through a presidential order[20] and Bangladesh turned into an absolute one-party ruled socialist state. The party advocated state socialism as a part of the group of reforms under the theory of Second Revolution.[21] BaKSAL was the decision making council to achieve the objectives of the Second Revolution.[22] Government also restricted civil liberties and most of the newspapers were banned.

Growing insurgency, political and economic mismanagements and JRB atrocities formed an anti-Mujibist and anti socialist sentiment in the military. On 15 August 1975, Mujib along with his most of the family members was assassinated. Four of his closest allies and leading figures of the Revolution were killed on 3 November in that year. With the assassination of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, BaKSAL was dissolved and Second Revolution failed.[citation needed]

Post-socialist era​

After the assassination of Mujib in 1975, new military leaders launched a de-Mujibization and liberalization programme develop a capitalist society. During the years of military rule that followed under Ziaur Rahman (1975-1981) and Hussain Muhammad Ershad (1982-1990), socialist policies and rhetoric were abandoned. Zia withdrawn most of the policies of the Second revolution and reintroduced multi-party representative system. Liberal and progressivist political parties were revivaled, as well as JaSad and other revolutionary Marxist–Leninist political parties were crushed during the post-coup purges. Relationships with United States and other Western Bloc countries also improved by that time.

Economy of Bangladesh saw a de-socialization as well as de-centralization by this time. Many state-owned enterprises were privatised, like banking, telecommunication, aviation, media, and jute. Trade liberalization and exports promoted. Economic policies aimed at encouraging private enterprise and investment, privatising public industries, reinstating budgetary discipline, and liberalising the import regime were accelerated.

@BananaRepublicUK @UKBengali @EasyNow @AmiEktaKharapChele, see why newly-minted-mullah @Bilal9 and newly-minted-half-mullah @bluesky have been propagandizing against Awami League and calling on NATO to intervene in BD and install BNP and its mullahs into power ?

We don't sell our imaan like those Hindu slaves.

But imaan sold :
E8-Ngg4VoAIUNa-

1411148977983_wps_7_With_Senators_like_this_M.jpg


I am just highlighting the traitors of Islam.

EcbI3GjXQAA6hng

:lol: This man, Salahuddin, had an assassinated attempt done by the Hashisheen, the Taliban of his times. Please tell me you don't support the Taliban. :lol:

Exactly. Why would a country torture / kill someone who is not a separatist, irrespective of religion that i

Good. Now when is Indian government going to kill the Bhakts who hate the secular and progressive constitution of India written by the great Dalit leader Ambedkar who in 1956 renounced Hinduism and adopted Buddhism along with 600,000 of his followers and the Bhakts want to turn Ambedkar's vision for a progressive India into a Hindu Rashtra ? :)

Law and order issue. India Didn’t send the army to kill him , that should tel you which country sent the army to kill the own citizens.

Umm, the Indian air force is busy killing fellow Indians - the Naxals - in the jungles and the mountains. And remember Kunan-Poshpora ?+

Nigga, what are you on? Do you even know there are kashmiri nationalists also fighting indians in Kashmir? It's not just the masood azhar types. And the goal of almost all main fighter groups is not the imposition of sharia like TTP or Afghan taliban, it's kashmiri independence.

If nationalist struggle is jihad to you, then che guevara and simon bolivar were are mujahids.

No, most of these so-called Kashmiri revolutionaries are idiots who don't know anything but killing, but not of wrong people mostly. Have they killed the haraamis among Muslims like that burqa bitch Asiya Andrabi who runs the gang called Dukhtaraan-e-Millat which years ago had threatened to throw acid on any Kashmiri Muslim female who leaves any part of her body uncovered and she got her gang to start a terror regime of raiding restaurants and hotels to uncover "immorality" ? Have they killed the mullah killers of the Kashmiri actress Amreen Bhatt who was assassinated just because she posted vids of herself singing and dancing on the mountains and in her home joyously ? Have they killed all those mullahs in Kashmir who threatened the all-female trio music group Pragaash with rape threats and death threats just because they played music and sang and these haraamis declared that music is haraam ( of course as long as the performer is not female and if she is then that music should be some mindless ritualist "naat" ) ?

How can you compare Che and Simon to these idiot so-called Kashmiri revolutionaries who are anything but revolutionary. Tell me, what do these "Kashmiri revolutionaries" have in mind as the political and social system to be implemented once they kick out Indian government forces ?

If nationalist struggle is jihad to you, then che guevara and simon bolivar were are mujahids.

They were really mujahids. Theirs was true jihad unlike of those Kashmiri "revolutionaries".
 
Ofcourse. Quintessntial law and order problems or south asia and plenty of cow thieves to lynch. I can understand
Ofcourse you can understand since the minority killing is not alien in Pakistan either.

That makes it so much better.
That at least makes it not government sanctioned. Like what happened in East Pakistan.
In your learned indian opinion, would it have been better if, instead of sending the army, punjabis personally went and lynched balochs?

would it have been better if we sent the army to lynch our citizens instead?

Go to the start of the thread and see how many people are deriding bindas for supporting the killers of kashmiris and how many for supporting the killers of muslims

I support the killers of separatists. Muslims or non Muslims. Had you been reading my posts in this thread, you would have already got this point.
 
He died defending his homeland from pakistani (foreign) invaders. Who made you the thekedar of islam, you (you pakistan, not you, personally) — who knows only how to cheat, lie, steal and finally beg. Even the taliban doesn’t think you have any legitimacy.

I’m sure he’s welcomed into heaven.
So by your logic the Pakistani Hindu soldiers who died fighting indian Hindus will also go to svarg right!! :azn:
 
Umm, the Indian air force is busy killing fellow Indians - the Naxals - in the jungles and the mountains. And remember Kunan-Poshpora ?+
What makes you think I support those killings?
 
Dogra dynasty was installed into power by the British colonialists in 1846 and the last raja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, arranged the genocide of 237,000 Muslims of Jammu in late 1947 which continued for one month with "Sardar" Vallabhbhai Patel, the first home minister of "independent" India, visiting the exalted raja at his palace in the capital, Srinagar, in the middle of this genocide and telling him to carry on. 237,000 Muslims slaughtered over one month in 1947 after the British rule ended. This is the first The Kashmir Files. Will those anti-Muslim anti-Communist terrorists Vivek Agnihotri and wife Pallavi Joshi and their chum Anupam make a film on this genocide, including why didn't the Indian army stop it but five after days after the genociders had enough and the Pakistani raiders came in to capture Kashmir the Indian army did an express dash to Kashmir aboard American-built Dakota transporter planes to stop the Pakistanis, not from harming the Muslims of Kashmir but just to prevent the physical land of Kashmir and the Bhakts of Kashmir kingdom who had just genocided 237,000 Muslims, from falling into the hands of the Pakistanis ? The first The Kashmir Files. And I assure you that the progressive Israeli film maker, Nadav Lapid, won't call this second film as a vulgar propagandist work as he did for the first because this one will be entirely real.
 
Ofcourse you can understand since the minority killing is not alien in Pakistan either.
I never blame it on law and order and wipe my hands clean. I call it out, not use strawmen arguments and whataboutery.

That at least makes it not government sanctioned. Like what happened in East Pakistan.
That's what I said. The soul of tabrez ansari and other like him rest easy knowing that they were so fortunate.

would it have been better if we sent the army to lynch our citizens instead?
You tell me. You made that inane comparison.


I support the killers of separatists. Muslims or non Muslims. Had you been reading my posts in this thread, you would have already got this point.
That's why I said, you were restricting the argument to separatism where you can draw comparisons with East Pakistan, while the people you were replying were not specifically talking in the context of separatism.
Also, flip that statement and you'll see why Pakistanis don't think highly of bindas as they would of a decorated hindu indian soldier, perhaps.
I oppose the killers of freedom fighters. Muslims or non Muslims
 
I never blame it on law and order and wipe my hands clean. I call it out, not use strawmen arguments and whataboutery.
How is it wiping the hands clean when I clearly call it an issue, albeit a law and order one!
Also I didn’t see you condemning Pak army for killing east Pakistan separatists. Now that’s called ‘wiping the hands clean.’
Whataboutery is when I’m talking about ‘any army will kill separatists’ and you bring in an issue that took place thousands of kilometers away from Kashmir which is n out even related to army. But I’ll stick to the topic regardless.

That's what I said. The soul of tabrez ansari and other like him rest easy knowing that they were so fortunate.

This is whataboutery.


You tell me. You made that inane comparison.

I wasn’t the one who said Punjabis should go to Balochistan to lynch them. Who started such argument in the first place?

That's why I said, you were restricting the argument to separatism where you can draw comparisons with East Pakistan, while the people you were replying were not specifically talking in the context of separatism.

The example of East Pakistan is an excellent one, especially when we were talking about separatism and how an Army deals with such separatism. With that said, I can clearly see why you are uncomfortable talking about it.

I oppose the killers of freedom fighters. Muslims or non Muslims

I’m sure you oppose killings of Bengalis, Balochis and Sindhis by Pak army who are/were fighting for their freedom.
 
How is it wiping the hands clean when I clearly call it an issue, albeit a law and order one!
Specifically by calling it a law and order issue, which is prevalent all across the third world and by not calling it what it is, which is genocidal hatred.

Also I didn’t see you condemning Pak army for killing east Pakistan separatists. Now that’s called ‘wiping the hands clean.’
You'd want me to fall for the whataboutery (by making this discussion about separatism and not hindutva bigotry), which is why I am not doing it. Otherwise, most Pakistani here would agree that the bengalis were in the right. (we do dispute the numbers you lot regurgitate so often.)

Whataboutery is when I’m talking about ‘any army will kill separatists’ and you bring in an issue that took place thousands of kilometers away from Kashmir which is n out even related to army. But I’ll stick to the topic regardless.
So, tabrez ansari happened thousands on kilometers away from kashmir but east pakistan was just a few blocks from kashmir?

This is whataboutery.
What aboutery is making things about separatism when the people you are replying to are talking about the persecution of Muslims in india, kashmiris or not.

I wasn’t the one who said Punjabis should go to Balochistan to lynch them. Who started such argument in the first place?
You were talking about east pakistan. You also view the balochistan issue with the same lens, that pubjabis persecute them which is why i drew the parallel. My point was, what difference does it makes if a civilian mob from the majority hates and kills you or an armed soldier?

The example of East Pakistan is an excellent one, especially when we were talking about separatism and how an Army deals with such separatism
But, we are not talking about separatism. You are. That's my whole point.

. With that said, I can clearly see why you are uncomfortable talking about it.
Because you are engaging in whataboutery. We are not talking about separatism exclusively. We are talking about anti muslim bigotry in india. Even there, talking about the same happening in pakistan is whataboutery. You are welcome to open another thread for that. In this thread, people are talking about the role of sarkari muslims in india's oppression of its wider muslim population.

I’m sure you oppose killings of Bengalis, Balochis and Sindhis by Pak army who are/were fighting for their freedom.
The innocent ones that became collateral damage. Yes.

BTW, what percentage of people wanting to separate/get freedom does it take for it to count as a legitimate struggle, representing the wider population? After all, a few dozen kashmiri separatists don't represent the opinion of the kashmiri populace? And if the majority of the populace is for separating, is it still separatism of freedom fighting. Because then you lost hte moral argument for keeping them with you forcefully. That's why you won't have the plebiscite and are inducing demographic change to thin out the kashmiris.

So, looking back, I support the choice bengalis made.

Regarding, Sindhis and balochis. Their may be wider support for nationalist sentiments but separatism is a far cry. The BLA is successful not because of it's popularity or strength. But because of the difficulties of the terrain and lack of equipment for our army men.

So, let me know the day when sindhis and balochis people start burying their dead in their nationalist flags and we have to ban the color of their flags, revoke their autonomy. Fly in no name, right wing nut job MEPs and have them sing kumbaya to the international press and then I'll say that there is a popular separatist movement going on in sindh and balochistan.
 
Specifically by calling it a law and order issue, which is prevalent all across the third world and by not calling it what it is, which is genocidal hatred.
The bold part, there you go. This is indeed prevalent all across this region including India and Pakistan. So if you're telling me that it's law and order issue in other countries and 'genocidal hatred' in India, then I can only call you a biased person.

Also, the incident you're referring to is indeed heinous and no civilized person should / would support it.

What aboutery is making things about separatism when the people you are replying to are talking about the persecution of Muslims in india, kashmiris or not.
This thread is about a Kashmiri dying for India while in confrontation with the separatists. This thread is NOT about persecution of Muslims in India. By talking about the latter, you guys are 1) breaking the rules of this forum and 2) are indulging in whataboutery yourselves. This isn't even whataboutery tbh, this is purely the efforts to take the discussion off topic. May be because the fact that a Kashmiri fighting for India is too much to take?

You'd want me to fall for the whataboutery (by making this discussion about separatism and not hindutva bigotry), which is why I am not doing it. Otherwise, most Pakistani here would agree that the bengalis were in the right. (we do dispute the numbers you lot regurgitate so often.)
Again, the discussion and the thread itself is about separatism and not 'Hindutva bigotry'. May be you should quote those who are unnecessarily posting off topic rants. And while you are at it, you could also explain them how their rants constitute 'whataboutery'.

So, tabrez ansari happened thousands on kilometers away from kashmir but east pakistan was just a few blocks from kashmir?
I'm still talking about separatism and you're off topic. The reference to East Pakistan was valid as it was about separatism - very much on topic. Tabrez Ansari incident - though heinous - is NOT on topic.

You were talking about east pakistan. You also view the balochistan issue with the same lens, that pubjabis persecute them which is why i drew the parallel. My point was, what difference does it makes if a civilian mob from the majority hates and kills you or an armed soldier?
Armed soldier killing you vs a civilian mob killing you, are you really asking me the difference here? Like , seriously?

But, we are not talking about separatism. You are. That's my whole point.
Yes and I'm very much on topic, you guys are not.

Because you are engaging in whataboutery. We are not talking about separatism exclusively. We are talking about anti muslim bigotry in india. Even there, talking about the same happening in pakistan is whataboutery. You are welcome to open another thread for that. In this thread, people are talking about the role of sarkari muslims in india's oppression of its wider muslim population.
Why are you talking about 'anti Muslim bigotry' in the first place when this is not the topic here? May be opening a thread about it will serve the purpose? In fact, we may have hundreds of such threads on PDF.

The innocent ones that became collateral damage. Yes.

BTW, what percentage of people wanting to separate/get freedom does it take for it to count as a legitimate struggle, representing the wider population? After all, a few dozen kashmiri separatists don't represent the opinion of the kashmiri populace? And if the majority of the populace is for separating, is it still separatism of freedom fighting. Because then you lost hte moral argument for keeping them with you forcefully. That's why you won't have the plebiscite and are inducing demographic change to thin out the kashmiris.

So, looking back, I support the choice bengalis made.

Regarding, Sindhis and balochis. Their may be wider support for nationalist sentiments but separatism is a far cry. The BLA is successful not because of it's popularity or strength. But because of the difficulties of the terrain and lack of equipment for our army men.

So, let me know the day when sindhis and balochis people start burying their dead in their nationalist flags and we have to ban the color of their flags, revoke their autonomy. Fly in no name, right wing nut job MEPs and have them sing kumbaya to the international press and then I'll say that there is a popular separatist movement going on in sindh and balochistan.
I agree with you here in most part. And I'm in no way supporting separatism anywhere (Sindh, Balochistan, Chechnya or anywhere). There's only one thing I would say, a country reserves the right to retaliate with full force to deal with separatism as she sees fit. That applies to Pakistan, India, Russia, US and all the countries in the world.
 

Back
Top Bottom