Found this interesting table  here
1) Democracy statistics are from
2) Civil liberty from
3) Political freedom statistics from
4) Press freedom statistics from,1043.html

Not surprising at all

Some posts copied from Bharat Rakshak Forums regarding Jinnah and his vision of Pakistan.

Addressing the minorities in particular, Mr. Jinnah said: “If you work in a spirit of co-operation, forgetting the past and burying the hatchet, I will say that every one of you, no matter to what community you belong, no matter what colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this State with equal rights, privileges and obligations.”

Source: The Hindu

He (Jinnah) has put the onus for equal citizenship right on the good behaviour of the minorities. Their plight later on is simply due to their bad behaviour. Full stop.

By the way, The Hindu also reports that Jinnah had indeed said those ringing words about Hindus ceasing to be Hindus (which in fact has happened incidentally) etc. The fact remains however that neither before that speech nor after that speech he had ever spoken of or done anything about minority rights and protection. So, August 11, 1947 speech was a one-off to hoodwink the powerful friends, probably done even at their prodding.

OTOH, Jinnah readily agreed with the ulema to impose Shariah in a free Pakistan to win their support. The letter that Jinnah wrote to the Pir of Manki Sharif, in Naushera of NWFP, in which he said that Shariah will be imposed in Pakistan to manage the affairs of the Muslim Community, was produced in the Constituent Assembly in 1949 to support the Objectives Resolution. It was this Pir’s support, based on the promise of Shariah in Pakistan, that helped the Muslim League to turn the situation favourable to itself in NWFP which was otherwise under the Congress Rule. It was this Pir who let loose violence when Nehru visited that region. He also helped in procuring manpower for jihad in J&K in October 1947. As a result of Jinnah’s promise, the Pir of Manki Sharif declared jihad to achieve Pakistan and ordered the members of his anjuman to support the League in the 1946 elections

While addressing the Karachi Bar Association on 25 January 1948 on the occasion of the Holy Prophet’s birthday, Jinnah said: “Some are misled by propaganda. Islamic principles are as applicable to life as they were 1,300 years ago. The Constitution of Pakistan will be made on the basis of the shariah”.

In the 14 August, 1947 speech in which, in answer to Mountbatten’s reference to Akbar the Great, as the model for the new Muslim state, he pointed to the greater example of the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad, thereby indicating where Pakistan’s Constitution was headed to.

One of Pakistan’s renowned political scientists, Prof. (Late) Khalid bin Sayeed narrates in his book, ‘Pakistan: The Formative Phase 1957-1948’ Jinnah’s assurances to a group of visiting Islamists thus: “…Constituent Assembly…will be predominantly Muslim…and would be able to enact laws for the Muslims not inconsistence with Shariah Laws and the Muslims will no longer be obliged by un-Islamic laws…” While portraying himself as a secularist and a Constitutionalist, Jinnah nevertheless asked only an Islamic clergy, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani who had apostatised Shias, to raise the flag of Pakistan on Aug. 14, 1947. Later, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, who had apostatized Ahmedis and calling for them to be stoned to death, was made Sheikh-ul-Islam-i-Pakistan. It was Shabbir Usmani who later drafted the Objectives Resolution.

In passionate speeches that Jinnah delivered to masses of the new state of Pakistan, he addressed them as ‘Mussalmans’ instead of as ‘Pakistanis’ and used terms like ‘mujahid’, ‘tenets of the Holy Quran’, and referred to Pakistan as a ‘bulwark of Islam’.

Again, on Oct. 30, 1947, with the plan of his Kashmir invasion to grab it floundering badly, Jinnah resorted to appealing to Islamic fervour. He asked Pakistanis to make sacrifices for ‘the honour of Pakistan and Islam’. He exhorted his countrymen to ‘lay the foundations of democracy on the bases of truly Islamic ideals and principles’. His muddled thinking but his unequivocal support for an Islamic governance was amply demonstrated in his Feb. 1948 public address over Radio Pakistan when he said that Pakistan’s to-be-drafted Constitution should be based on Islam but he hoped that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. Even as far back as c. 1941, Jinnah had assured a representative of the influential founder of Jama’at-e-Islami, Mawdudi that he saw no incompatibility between their two approaches. He said that as the events were unfolding yet, he was constrained from openly asserting the Islamist nature of Pakistan !! His further words to Mawdudi’s representative really betrayed what he was up to. “I will continue to strive for the cause of a separate Muslim state, and you do your services in this regard; our efforts need not be mutually exclusive. I seek to secure the land for the mosque; once that land belongs to us, then we can decide on how to build the mosque.” The noted Pakistani analyst, Khaled Ahmed interprets this as follows: What this meant for the Jama‘at was that a continuum existed between the activities of the Muslim League and those of the Jama‘at; where one ended at partition the other began: the Jama‘at-i Islami was to inherit Pakistan. Thus Mawdudi reconciled with the Quaid-e-Azam whom he once referred to as Kafir-e-Azam (the Great Infidel).

It is a different matter though that in circa 2007, clerics belonging to the same Ulema community denounced the Quaid as not a hero of Pakistan because by that time Islam had become more distilled in the mosque for which the Quaid acquired land.

Above post copied from :LINK

Couple of pisko (psychological)notes about Pakis and their Jinnah pooja.

India has a continuous history and an identity. To top it all, the history of freedom struggle which ended colonialism is a definitive watershed in modern India’s creation. Gandhi-ji, who was at the center of this struggle propounded a universal philosophy of unity and peace, which I think is timeless (whether it is practical is another issue).

Pakis sorely miss all this. Pakistan is an artificial construct. They are bunch of converts who hate their history and geography. On top of that, the raisin-dieter of their existence is a fellow who claimed that Hindus and Muslims cannot live together so muslims need their own country. A load of good it did to them as 1971 showed.

“Liberal” Pakistanis, to bring Pakistan’s history and founding philosophy on par with India, invent things and pin it on Jinnah (the only fellow of note in Pakistan movement)*. They like to have “non-traditional interpretations” of two nation theory, (passing it off as some sort of philosophy which was actually rooted in care and affection of minorities as Mohsin Hamid tries to pass off here … inorities/ and I quote:)

There are two ways of explaining why Pakistan was created. One is to say that the impulse for Pakistan was a Muslim-nationalist impulse. That is what we are taught in school and probably what most Pakistanis believe. But there is another explanation. And it is this: the drive to form Pakistan was rooted in the notion of minority rights.

Minority rights indeed! Pray tell me how many years since Independence it took them to excommunicate Ahmedis?

Back to the point, liberals try to painstakingly build a halo around Jinnah, claiming that he was some sort of foresighted visionary who struggled for minority rights to establish a country on modern principles. Which ofcourse, is a load of bull. Jinnah was a product of two factors

1. He could not stomach that aristocratic leaders of Indian national congress were replaced by short dark poor people who had mass support.

2. He realized that by extension, democracy would do this to all aristocratic muslims. Their disproportionate representation and divine right to rule would be curtailed if free and fair elections were held. They have to participate in the affairs of the country as any other common Indian. Bahadur Shah Zafar aint coming back as King of India.

Thus all the takleef about separate electorate and the fight with Gandhi and so forth.

Pakistan was founded by a petty minded individual with outsize ego, whose founding thesis was Muslims cannot co-exist with hindus and ergo they needed their own country. He was ready to conspire with the British for this. He was ready to create a geographical monstrosity with no cohesion for this. When a huge turning point in the history of humanity arrived, he did not choose to boldly experiment with unity and democracy in a multicultural society. Instead he chose to feed his ego and displayed his divisive narrow-mindedness. And that is the truth that liberals like Mr Hamdani try to whitewash by talking of “non-traditional interpretation”. They can do mental masturbation all they want and write articles along the lines of Did two actually mean one, when Jinnah said “two nation theory?”. But the truth is there for all to see. Jinnah said he wanted a country for Muslims, because Muslims cannot co-exist with Hindus. It is reasonable to extrapolate that he was of the opinion that Muslims cannot co-exist with Sikhs and Buddhists and Atheists and Jews. Then why all this takleef that Sikhs didnt join Pakistan? This makes Jinnah divisive and petty minded. Jinnah probably did not believe all the BS he was spouting, but said it anyway, because his ultimate aim was to make sure Muslims had political power and he had a say in the new country and did not get marginalized. This makes Jinnah egostical, hypocriticial *in addition to being* a divisive petty minded fellow. No matter how much you try to whitewash him.

*Atleast conservative Pakis are intellectually honest in the sense that they accept that their country was founded in the spirit of hatred for Hindus. The actual truth is neither. Neither was Jinnah interested in minority welfare nor did the major movers and shaker fatcats found a country based on hatred for Hindus. They wanted a country where they can retain their lands, not have land reforms, continue to rule and continue oppressing mango abduls. The mango abduls and the Mullahs were simply fed a diet of “Islam Khatrey mein hai”, given money and training. And now those mango abduls and Mullahs eventually took over and are Qadrifying the fatcats.

The second factor is cognitive dissonance. Let me tell you a pisko story. So I met a motorma from across the border whose calling in life is to propound and propagate “Islamic feminism”.

I am neither against Islam nor against Feminism, but certainly against Islamic Feminism — which tries to argue that feminist principles can be derived from Islam which is a load of bull. Instead of splitting our hair about nuances in each, lets use a sledgehammer. Radical Feminism encourages and supports Lesbianism as a matter of choice for women. Islam is against it and recommends women are waji-bull-cutlet if they are Lesbians. There you go. How on earth are you going to argue that Lesbianism can be derived from Islamic principles? The proponents of this bullsh1t like “Islamic Feminism” like to argue that things like Burka are for the woman’s own welfare, since now women wont be objectified. Which is a moronic argument, because from first principles that Burka is derived, it is also clear that women cant vote either (or should consult and take the advice of their husbands on who to vote for). How can getting husband’s permission be reconciled with a philosophy which propounds independent thinking for women?

Instead of trashing her philosophy, I was more interested in finding out why an educated and seemingly smart motorma would propound such bullsh1t. It is because of cognitive dissonance. You are taught a religion and philosophy right from when you are born and are young. You grow up and realize it is completely incompatible with the modern world and incompatible with the values and luxuries you cherish. What do you do then?

1. You can either accept the incompatibility and give up one or the other,
2. You can embark on delusional mumbo-jumbo on why they are compatible in the first place.

I think No 2 is what most Pakistanis do in pakistan (pun intended). You get it in the form of “Islamic feminism” and entire country espousing “Islamic Banking”, ZAB’s “Islamic socialism” and yes Mr Hamdani’s “Was Jinnah a man of Unity and Minority rights?”* Trying to reconcile two obviously incompatible beliefs by self delusional and obviously laughable assertions and distortions of truth which they pursue with full passion.

*Even in the case of terrorism, Pakis (and even smart ones like Sethi and Agha) somehow seek to justify it from time to time. Like “natural reaction of people” or “evidence is not enough”. They seem to have trouble stomaching the reality that Pakistan government (yes I said government instead of “Retired Rogue ISI working during medical leave of absence”) plans and launches terrorist operations by brainwashing unemployed abduls on Islam and Jihad to go kill innocent people from countries all over the world. This is not how civilized countries behave towards their own people and people of other countries. But Sethi and Agha were born and brought up in Pakistan and I am sure have affection and patriotism for their country. So what do you do? You propound some bullsh1t somehow trying to reconcile the love for your country with the barbarity it practices.


Above post copied from :LINK


Even that speech in which Jinnah  is supposed to have spoken about his vision of a secular Pakistan probably never happened as Pakistan doesn’t have a single recording. They then contacted All India Radio (AIR) for a copy, which replied that it never had any. Source


So much for myth of a secular, liberal Jinnah.

Osama Bin Laden, the biggest enemy of US is killed in capital of it’s biggest ally Pakistan. :))
Irony of ironies
US forces also shot down a Pakistani helicopter which was apparently involved in hostile actions against them. US did not inform Paki authorities before attacking the compound

Here is a map of the location posted in Bharat Rakshak Forums. The area is very close to a Pakistani Military Academy and nobody with half a brain will doubt the fact that Pakistanis didn’t know of his location till now. A woman who was being used as human shield, Laden’s son were among 3 other people killed in the operation.
In my opinion, families of 9 Sep 2011 attack victims should sue Pakistan for providing shelter   to Laden.

Map of compound where he was killed

Some photos from

Picture of the crashed helicopter. Doesn’t look anything that Pakistan operates.

Links confirming the news:

Statement of US President, Barack Hussein Obama:;=all

Osama Bin Laden – killed In Pakistan

For quite sometime, many sections have been potraying Muslims as a community under seige from “communal” Hindus due to terrorist attacks in India and elsewhere. We are told how Muslims who are as nationalistic, patriotic and intelligent as any other Indian and they condemn every act of violence prepetrated by Islamic terrorists. A Muslim organisation’s refusal to allow burial of 9 dead terrorists in Indian soil is shown as an example. 

But how sincere and patriotic is an ordinary Muslim towards India? I’ve been noting the response of ordinary people in media regarding various   issues since the past few months and Muslims stand out like a sore thumb. Everybody condemns the violence but statements made by Muslims is always questionable.

A boy who happened to be a Muslim was killed in Bangalore after he tried to escape the police by running into a sensitive military area. Almost everybody termed the incident as unfortunate but Muslims  blamed the security personnel for their “inefficency, cruelty and bias against Muslims” for the death of that idiot.

by MOHAMED YASEEN on 12/29/2008 1:26:54 AM

Somebody tell idiots like him that Army areas are not public playgrounds for juveniles to jump around. If he had given himself up, the harshest punishment wouldn’t have exceeded anything more than some fine. But he acted much like a potential terrorist inside a high security zone and paid the price. Also racing in streets is an illegal activity. Other people, not only racers can get seriously injured or  even killed in such races. It’s not some innocent wheeling around. What’d have been his response if the dead guy was not a Muslim? 

Another recent controversy was about Union minister Abdul Rahman Antulay’s conspiracy theory about Mumbai ATS chief Hemant Karkare’s death. The Hindu published letters of readers for almost a week on this issue and among dozens of letters published only one Muslim condemned Antulay. The rest   supported the corrupt politician. Here are some examples:-

It is unfortunate that in our country anyone who dares to raise a doubt is branded anti-national. Mr. Antulay only raised a doubt and echoed the view of many among the Muslim community. Whenever a Muslim speaks out, he is accused of aiding Pakistan. The media, the sangh parivar and the Congress succeed in diverting attention away from the real issue. Why can’t they answer questions properly? Why resort to propaganda to distract from the uncomfortable questions? 

Khalid H. Qureshi, 


I do not understand why Mr. Antulay is being targeted for what he said. He has stated boldly what many Muslims have been afraid of saying, for fear of being branded anti-nationals.
Why should the BJP get so agitated at the idea of a probe into the death of Karkare and two other ATS officers? 

Meher Fatima,



Mr. Antulay has raised an apt and timely question. We lost Karkare and his deputies in a single attack. There was every possibility of some miscreant taking advantage of the situation and eliminating the top brass of the security apparatus. Every Indian is eager to know the details. 

T. Azeez Luthfullah, 


Mr. Antulay has only done his duty as a representative of the people by expressing the view of some sections. There is no doubt that Karkare and the others died as martyrs. But we have a right to know the circumstances under which they lost their lives. 
Was there a lack of coordination somewhere that led to the killing of the three high-ranking officers? A probe will help to improve coordination in future. 

Md. Afzal Sharif, 
New Delhi 

* * * 

Statements have been issued, and letters, articles and editorials written condemning Mr. Antulay for speaking the unspeakable. This shows how an emotional tinge has been given to the Mumbai terror attacks. But what is wrong in giving one more dimension to the investigations? 
After all, what Mr. Antulay said is based on certain facts and legitimate doubts that exist in the minds of a large number of citizens. It is a different matter that the mainstream media have given those concerns no space at all. Mr. Antulay has done the right thing by voicing the views of a section of society.

Khan Yasir, 
New Delhi

* * * 


Karkare proved wrong the theory that “all Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim.” A feeling does exist that he was shot dead because of his non-partisan and honest investigations into the Malegaon blast.
Abdul Muqhtadir, 

Mr. Antulay’s suspicion is well founded and worth investigating. A probe has to be initiated to uncover the mysterious circumstances under which Karkare was killed. The belief that all acts of terrorism originate from Pakistan is ignorance. There exists a Hindutva terror network which has even infiltrated the armed forces.
K.A. Mohamed Anis, 


The ONLY different letter written by a Muslim that was published. Ironically  this one makes most sense.

Mr. Antulay’s comments are unwarranted and untimely. Even if he had some doubts about Karkare’s killing, as a responsible Minister he should have expressed it to the Home Minister for suitable action. 

A. Jainulabdeen, 

This show of support for a politician who ranks among most corrupt anywhere and was forced to resign from post of Maharashtra’s CM after  proven guilty of one of the biggest scams in India at that time. Counter-terror officials are now heroes for these people after they caught some Hindus accussed of bombing a Muslim majority area. But when Muslims were being arrested same people were accusing that the security agencies are biased. .

How he was forced to resign on corruption charges and his revenge.

Shourie started a one-man crusade in 1981 against Abdul Rehman Antulay, the chief minister of Maharashtra State, who allegedly extorted millions of dollars from businesses dependent on state resources and put the money in a private trust named after Indira Gandhi. The story caused the eventual resignation of the chief minister , the highest-ranking official in India ever forced from office by newspaper reporting, and great embarrassment to Gandhi and her ruling Congress Party.

Shourie’s exposés resulted in a prolonged labour dispute at the Bombay offices of the Indian Express, where a labour organizer with ties to Antulay encouraged workers to strike for a minimum wage double than what was paid at any other newspaper in India. It also resulted in a government crackdown that included a host of legal cases launched against the Indian Express by various agencies. In 1982, the paper’s owner Ramnath Goenka fired Shourie as a result of continued government pressure.

Here is one good article written by an Indian Muslim exposing Antulay for the spineless coward that he is. Antulay, Karkare and Muslims

Congress-NCP government had not spent a single rupee out of the 167 crore rupees allotted to the Minorities Development Department till Dec. 15. Not one rupee. It is sadder still that the more hysterical elements of the Urdu press, who spend yards of newsprint on conspiracy theories, simply ignore such a story. 

When the Congress government humiliated him through a statement in Parliament debunking the conspiracy line, all he did was to sheepishly agree and accept that there was no longer any need for an enquiry.

Whenever there is a talk about Islamic terrorism in India, Babri Masjid issue invariably gets involved. 100s of bomb-blasts, 1000s of deaths  have an excuse because some Hindu fanatics destroyed some empty shell of a mosque somewhere in India. If that’s the case, I destruction of that mosque is justifed as  a Hindu temple was destroyed and that mosque built over it by Muslim invaders to terrorise, humiliate and forcibly convert Hindus to Islam. Why get limited to one incident only? Muslim invaders have destroyed 1000s of temples and other buildings, artifacts, books, scriptures etc all over the world. Dozens of temples were desecrated and destroyed in Kashmir in 1990s. If Babri Masjid motivates some Muslims to  sympathise with Islamic terrorists, then Islam is fair target for almost every other religion in world… Christanity, Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Jews, Pagan and even many different Islamic sects. 

In Gujarat 260 Hindus and 800 Muslims were killed in riots. In Kashmir 100s of Hindus were killed and 3 lakh+ forced out of their homes in one sided violence prepetrated by Islamists. If you count the above incidents as  excuses then Hindus still have the license to kill a few 1000 muslims at least.

How many people have been killed in bomb blasts by Hindu terrorists? 20? 50? 100? How many have been killed by Muslim terrorists (in India only)? Quite a few more, I believe.  Even more Muslims for Hindus to kill 

Till 1991 Indian government avoided all relations with Israel for fear of offending Muslims. After  it’s help in Kargil war, Israel is one of the stongest Indian allies. For more than 40 years Indians avoided such a powerful friend just because Jewish Israel and Muslim Palestine are involved in a conflict. Can you beat such stupidity?

My favourite Indian is APJAK Azad. Why can’t rest of the muslim population emulate him instead of supporting corrupt politicians like Anutulay and playing the victim card? For too long most of  Indian muslims have allowed themselves to be manipulated by power hungry politicians and clerics.  It’s time they stop blaming others for their misery and face the truth.  Any pressure or injustice they face because of their religion will dissappear once they learn to separate religion from politics and education.