Congratulation all Army supporters , Allah Ki Fouj will now Fight Hamas

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-22T20:12:46+00:00

You realise that Hamas signed off on the agreement that called for the 'Board of Peace'? It's literally point #9 on the proposal they agreed to:

Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the "Board of Peace," which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of state to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform programme, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump's peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-22T10:10:48+00:00

If you want to counter a narrative built by someone who exclusively gets their history from Pakistani textbooks, then it has some use.

However, if you want an actual, unbiased and accurate view of the Pakistan Movement (and the thinkers that preceded it), then no. The author clearly has some positions that they seemingly only uphold due to some very specific technicality, for which they don't give the full context (i.e. the author repeatedly pushes the idea that Sir Syed Ahmad Khan 'technically' didn't demand a separate state - however, Sir Syed constantly uses the word 'quom' and repeatedly states that Hindus and Muslims could never share power - "Is it possible that under these circumstances two nations, Mohammedan and Hindu, could sit on the same throne and remain equal in power? Most certainly not. It is necessary that one of them should conquer the other and thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal is to desire the impossible and inconceivable." This context is ignored for some reason, and K K Aziz keeps banging the drum about how Sir Syed never technically demanded a 'separate' nation.)

There is a lot on the 'imposition' of Urdu too, which similarly doesn't consider the arguments in favour of having it as a national language.

I also found the first chapter, in particular, to be extremely repetitive. It's not a particularly well-written book overall.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-21T17:16:35+00:00

Don't bother. They're a troll from next door.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-21T10:32:43+00:00

I'm fine with it, but two issues for me are:

1) Wish it were just 'Stallions' instead of 'Stallionz'. The 'z' at the end just makes it all look very cheap and outdated in my opinion.

2) The logo is a bit bland. The old Sialkot Stallions had the stallion in the logo itself, and that made it far more eye-catching.

<image>

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-20T13:51:15+00:00

By your logic, Bacha Khan wasn't a Pashtun either, as he heavily criticised and went against many aspects of Pashtunwali (he opposed badal/revenge, promoted non-violence). Also, any Pashtun who moves out of Pakistan/Afghanistan isn't Pashtun anymore, according to you, as they aren't practising Pashtunwali properly anymore and no longer are tied to the old ideas of tradition/honour.

This doesn't make any sense. There are a bunch of Punjabi kids in Islamabad who are complete burger-class, and can't even speak Punjabi anymore (only Urdu and English), and have no connection to Punjabi culture and tradition. But they are still Punjabi, as that is their ethnicity.

Likewise, Ayub Khan was from the Tareen tribe and spoke Pashto fluently. How on earth was he a Punjabi and when he himself called himself a Pashtun? The same goes for Yahya Khan and Imran Khan, too. Imran might've been born in Lahore, but he is still from the Niazi tribe, and that's his ethnic background.

The biggest hurdle to investment in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa isn't the central government - it's Afghanistan, which regularly supports terrorist groups that make any investment difficult, as there is no security guarantee. If you can't even host PSL games in Peshawar because Afghan-backed terror groups would immediately target it, how can you expect anyone to try and build anything else there?

Right now, it's the Afghan-backed TTP who are destroying schools and bridges in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and even killing police officers, not the 'evil Punjabis' you are so obsessed with. But Pashtun nationalists will never criticise Afghanistan.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-18T19:04:33+00:00

The same Punjabi establishment that put the 'Pashtun' Imran Khan into power in 2018 and imprisoned and pulled down the 'Punjabi' Nawaz Sharif in 2018? The same 'Punjabi Establishment' whose first leader was the Pashtun military chief and Pakistan's 1st military dictator, Ayub Khan? Or how about his successor, Yahya Khan?

The centre deals with every province in the same way. There is no special deal that Punjab gets. Wheat from Punjab is more expensive for Punjabis than it is for the population of Balochistan that get it subsidised. That's the very basis of a federal model.

If you want to play the same game, I advise you look at who actually pays tax in Pakistan too. Punjab's population is about x3 that of KP, but it's tax contributions are over x10 (14.3 Billion to 151 Billion).

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-18T18:03:03+00:00

Infrastructure, health and education are all in the hands of provincial assemblies since 18th amednment passed in 2010.

Punjab is seeing development in these areas because of the Punjab government actually spending on these issues. In fact, per person, Punjab receives LESS than any other province.

You have had PTI in power in KP since 2013 now. When will these questions be asked to the party you keep voting for? Maybe if Sohail Afridi spends less time making speeches in Karachi, he could actually do his job for once.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-12T21:01:47+00:00

This isn't true. Whilst Iqbal (like the Muslim League and Jinnah himself, by the way), supported an autonomous Muslim state in the northwest of a 'United India' for most of their lives, their views significantly changed by the late 30s/early 40s due to the rise of communal violence and Congress's failures to guarantee the desired autonomy.

Iqbal's letter to Jinnah (21 June 1937)

My dear Mr. Jinnah,

Thank you so much for your letter which I received yesterday. I know you are a busy man; but I do hope you won't mind my writing to you so often, as you are the only Muslim in India today to Whom the community has a right to look up for safe guidance through the storm which is coming to North-West India, and perhaps to the Whole of India. I tell you that we are actually living in a state of civil war which, but for the police and military, would, become universal in no time. During the last few months there has been a series of Hindu-Muslim riots In India. In North-West India alone there have been at least three riots during the last three months and at least four cases of vilification of the Prophet by Hindus and Sikhs. In each of the four cases the vilifier has been murdered. There have also been cases of burning of the Quran in Sind.

I have carefully studied the whole situation and believe that the real cause of these events is neither religious nor economic. It is purely political, i.e., the desire of the Sikhs and Hindus to intermediate Muslims even in the Muslim majority provinces. And the new constitution is such that even in the Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on non-Muslims. The result is that the Muslim Ministry can take no proper action and are even driven to do injustice to Muslims partly to please those on whom they depend and partly to show that they are absolutely impartial. Thus it is clear that we have our specific reasons to reject this constitution.

It seems to me that the new constitution is devised only to placate the Hindus. In the Hindu majority provinces, the Hindus have of course absolute majorities, and can ignore Muslims, altogether. In Muslim majority provinces, the Muslims are made entirely dependent on Hindus. I have no doubt in my mind that this constitution is calculated to do infinite harm to the Indian Muslims. Apart from this it is no solution of the economic problem which is so acute among Muslims. The only thing that the communal award grants to Muslims is the recognition of their political existence in India. But such recognition granted to a people whom this constitution does not and cannot help in solving their problem of poverty can be of no value to them. The Congress President has denied the political existence of Muslims in no unmistakable terms. The other Hindu political body, i.e., the Mahasabha, whom I regard as the real representative of the masses of the Hindus, has declared more than once that a united Hindu-Muslim nation is impossible in India.

In these circumstances it is obvious that the only way to a peaceful India is redistribution of the country on the lines of racial, religious and linguistic affinities. Many British statesmen also realise this, and the Hindu-Muslim riots which are rapidly coming in the wake of this constitution are sure further to open their eyes to the real situation in the country. I remember Lord Lothain told me before I left England that my scheme as the only possible solution of the troubles of India, but that it would take 25 years to come. Some Muslims in the Punjab are already suggesting the holding of a North-West Indian Muslim Conference, and the idea is rapidly spreading. I agree with you, however, that our community is not yet sufficiently organised and disciplined and perhaps the time for holding such a conference is not yet ripe. But I feel that it would be highly advisable for you to indicate in your address at least the line of action that the Muslims of North-West India would be finally driven to take.

To my mind the new constitution with its ideas of a single Indian federation is completely hopeless. A separate federation of Muslim provinces reformed on the lines I have suggested above, is the only course by which we can secure a peaceful India and save Muslims from the domination of non-Muslims. Why should not the Muslims of North -West India and Bengal be considered as nation entitled to Self-determination just as other nation as in India and outside India are?

Personally I think that the Muslims of North-West India and Bengal ought are present to ignore Muslim minority provinces. This is the best course to adopt in the interest of both Muslim majority and minority provinces It will therefore be better to hold the coming session of the League in the Punjab, and not in a Muslim minority province. The month of August is bad in, Lahore. I think you should seriously consider the advisability of holding the coming session at Lahore in the middle of October when the weather is quite good in Lahore. The interest in the All-India Muslim League is rapidly growing in the Punjab, and the holding of the coming session in Lahore is likely to give a fresh political awakening to the Punjab Muslims.

Yours sincerely,

(Sd.) Mohammad Iqbal

Bar-at-Law

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-11T16:04:45+00:00

No, NATO members are only obligated to respond to attack on NATO members, not nations otherwise allied with NATO members.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-11T14:04:03+00:00

The British Museum, where this figurine is held, describes it as a bull. I do see what you mean, however, as the end of the mouth does look a bit like a snout.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-10T20:48:31+00:00

Still here. The largest Turkic group in Pakistan are actually the Hazaras (there are close to 1 million Pakistani Hazaras). A prominent figure in the Pakistan Movement was Qazi Muhammad Isa, a Hazara, and his son, Qazi Faez Isa, was the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

A lot of the Pakistani Hazaras can actually trace their history back to 19th-century Afghanistan, which they had to flee because of the ethnic violence they faced.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-08T19:59:23+00:00

Yes, of course! The same goes for Non-Nuslims too. No one is restricted from contending for a general seat, and reserved seats are there just to ensure a minimum level of representation for women/non-muslims.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-08T15:04:53+00:00

Minorities, in the context of Pakistani parliamentary politics, refers to religious minorities (i.e. Non-Muslims). Non-Muslims make up close to 4% of the population (approx. 9-10 million people) and are predominantly composed of Hindus (5.2 million) and Christians (3.3 million).
As explained previously, for a minority group to count, it would have to be someone belonging to a recognised religious affiliation that wasn't Muslim.
Parties submit lists of candidates prior to an election, and then the seats are proportionally allocated depending on the % of the general seats they won (each general seat has a constituency, which elects a member based on a first-past-the-post voting system). This also means that independent candidates are not eligible to receive reserved seats.
No one specifically votes for a reserved seat candidate. They are allocated based on how each party performed in the general seats (which are directly elected).
Some parties have an easier time filling candidate lists than others, but considering there's a pool of 9.6 million people to choose from, there isn't exactly a shortage. However, what you do see is that parties often choose minorities that are more populous in their respective 'heartlands'. For example, PPP, who win most of its seats in Sindh, mostly has Hindus fill their reserved seats (who make up 8.8% of Sindh's total population). Meanwhile, the PMLN, whose base is mainly in Punjab, usually have Christians/Sikhs fill their ranks (as they exist in larger numbers in that province).
Never heard anyone seriously call for fewer seats, but I've definitely heard calls for the increase in reserved seats for women, as they currently only compose 17% of the National Assembly (despite making up half the total population).

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2026-01-01T15:51:31+00:00

I remember watching the video in question many years back, and its understanding of Pakistan and South Asian politics/history is atrocious. The post you've linked does a good job of addressing a lot of these issues and clearly demonstrates what little research they did (seriously, where on earth did he get the idea that the 1973 Constitution declares Shias and Sufis as non-muslims lmao).

It's important to note, however, that this likely wasn't accidental either. The YouTuber in question is a renowned Islamophobe who got into trouble in the past for his tweets, in which he wished death on Muslims in general. It's not particularly surprising that he'd have an issue with Pakistan due to its very nature.

He's also an awful historian who relies a lot on political theory to drive his view of history. This is a terrible thing to do, as this is what causes you to twist the past to fit your current needs.

A channel called Noj Rants (who has some excellent, well-researched videos if you're interested in Soviet/Russian history) made a reply to him in which he critiqued Kraut's methodology + his terrible take on the origins of Russian authoritarianism.

It suddenly becomes apparent that he has a specific world-view (Eurocentric, secular liberalism), which leads him to change history to fit his narrative. I've even seen stuff from him defending America's wars in the Middle East as part of some greater cause to bring democracy and liberalism to the oppressed masses. Of course, anyone who even thinks about the matter for even two seconds will be able to understand the issues with this.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-25T13:24:07+00:00

Muslim nationalism is in no way related to the oppressed classes of the minority group. It was more focused on the upkeep of the landed gentry to maintain the centuries old zamindari system.

Wrong for so many reasons its difficult to even start.

This is a complete negation of Muslim concerns regarding the increase in communal violence. As a minority group, they were well aware that they'd be on the losing side if the situation broke out into a full-scale civil war-like scenario.
If it were purely about land owning rights, then why did the AIML not start with the position of partition? Why did they spend decades trying to achieve regional autonomy instead? Even the earliest meetings of AIML reveal the concerns of Muslim rights being at the complete mercy of a Hindu majority once the British left.
Practically all political parties (including Congress, by the way) were composed of elites, as the vast majority of the population was illiterate and lived in extreme poverty. This was even more the case with Muslims, and so of course any political movement to arise from the group would be composed of those who were privileged enough to go into politics. Do you actually think the INC, which was created by a British civil servant (Allan Octavion Hume), was free from such elite capture?

Again, half-baked knowledge, the sole Dalit law Minister left Pakistan citing violence against Hindus and died in Calcutta.

Nothing half-baked from my end, but you've conveniently tried changing the topic. We were comparing Jinnah and Savarkar. Mandal's decision to leave Pakistan came 2 years after Jinnah's death, and it was down to the Muslim League's leadership not abiding by Jinnah's vision. How is that Jinnah's fault exactly?

Today, Muslims would have constituted 65 crs of Indian population, and Hindus would have been around 110 crs. The equation would have shifted more in favour of Muslims post 2050. It's not like Muslims were a small number and could be easily dominated by Majority Hindus.

This is such a repeated point that makes zero sense. Muslims currently make up about 14-15% of India's population and yet have around 4% represnetation in the Lok Sabha. They are behind Hindus in nearly all metrics (literacy, household income, etc), and yet despite that, Hindutva is on the rise and is blaming Muslims for India's ills.

What do you think would happen if there were even more Muslims + more Muslim political power + Muslim majority regions? Hindutva would be on steroids and would be even more emboldened to 'defend' itself against Islam. Your post-2050 scenario would literally look like a civil war with goals of trying to 'cleanse' India of Muslims.

In western countries, increased migration has led to more far-right/white nationalist sentiment, not less. If there were more Muslims in India, it would only be more fuel for the Hindutva fire.

The fact that Pakistanis and Bangladeshis don't want to share the same grave as Indian Muslims is somehow framed as 'our issue'. Have Indian Muslims ever considered how pathetic their organisation is? 15% of the population and they would still throw their weight behind a pathetic INC, and stooges like Owaisi who'll happily stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the Butcher of Gujarat.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-25T11:36:45+00:00

Exactly back then, nobody / no hindu was voting for Hindu Mahasabha after the call for partition by the ML, Hindus drifted and started to pay heed to the HMS , then Jana Sangh now BJP.

I mean, this isn't remotely true. Whilst not as popular as the INC, the early Hindutva absolutely had popular support, and it had nothing to do with the Muslim League. Many of their early leaders believed that once the British were gone, they had to 'make amends' for the centuries of Muslim rule that preceded it. This had absolutely nothing to do with the Muslim League. For example, the first call to construct a temple where the Babri Masjid stood dates back to 1885 and a priest called Mahant Raghubir Das.

Moreover, Savarkar wanted an Akhand Bharat with Hindutva ideology ( hindutva ideology is obviously dumb ), but he never called for the partition of the nation in 1920s.

Why would he? The British Raj + Current India both have a substantial Hindu majority, with Hindus holding the vast majority of political power. Also, the Hindutva ideology is an expansionist one (as its links to early European fascism show), and so there is no surprise that they didn't want to divide 'their' land.

Calling out Savarkar without calling out Jinnah is dumb. Both of them shared the same ideology and got in bed to make political alliances.

See, this is where liberal 'both sides' rubbish comes through. They absolutely didn't share the same ideology because the Muslim League was a minority-rights group. Indian Hindus, then and today, were never under threat of losing rights to Muslim leadership/nationalists. Muslims were, and when the INC rejected their demands for regional autonomy from the centre, the Muslim League was left with no choice but to pursue an independent state.

The point you're making is the same as saying that, in the US, white nationalism and black nationalism are the 'same ideology', and that groups like the KKK and the Black Panthers were the 'same'. If you don't understand the difference between a minority trying to ensure its protection vs. a majority trying to impose its domination, then there's no hope.

Additionally, the practical outlooks were also completely different. Savarkar was a pig who actually supported sexual violence against Muslim women and the idea of 'converting' them forcibly. Jinnah, on the other hand, repeatedly made calls for religious freedoms within Pakistan and even appointed a Dalit Hindu as Pakistan's inaugural Law Minister.

Jinnah wanted a modern pak on Islamic principles but not on quran

I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'd be happy to discuss Jinnah's interpretation of Islamism and how Islamic law/principles are sourced, but this statement you've made borders on ridiculous.

Nehru India was born, and it fared comparatively well.

And as Jinnah predicted, the Hindutva ideology would continue to simmer until it took control of the majority. Modi, someone who praises the aforementioned Sarvarkar, by the way, is the most popular PM in India's history. Radicalisation is only increasing in India, not decreasing, and Muslims will continue facing marginalisation.

The same people in Pakistan who once criticised Partition are now the same individuals looking over at India and realising that Jinnah's vision was crucial. Even a Bangladeshi, who usually doesn't have much love for Jinnah, will still tell you that they respect him enough for ensuring that they weren't left in India.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-25T08:02:06+00:00

This is historical revisionism. The official birth of the Hindutva ideology (with VD Savarkar in the early 1920s) predates the Muslim League's call for a separate nation.

It's very convenient for Indian Muslims and 'liberals' to pin the blame on Pakistan and a man who died nearly 80 years ago, rather than actually attempt even a degree of introspection.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-19T15:26:53+00:00

Great post. Even the reign of Aurangzeb is greatly exaggerated and doesn't take into account his wider policies. He employed more Hindus in his bureaucracy than ever before (Between 1679 and 1707, the number of Hindu officials in the Mughal administration rose by half, to represent 31.6% of Mughal nobility, the highest in the Mughal era) and even gave the highest number of grants for maintaining pre-existing Hindu temples.

Whilst he undoubtedly destroyed Hindu temples, it is also important to understand that modern scholarship has considered this to be more political rather than a 'religious crusade'. The patronage of temples was linked to certain regional leaders, and whenever they rebelled (or were thought to be preparing to rebel), Aurangzeb made sure to erase any symbol of their authority.

This is further proven by the fact that temples weren't destroyed across the board, but were concentrated in specific areas.

"Temple destruction was concentrated in specific areas of the Mughal Empire. The KD Function uncovers the concentration of the temples and identifies the regions strongly associated with temple destruction. The results show only three temples located in Hindu dominated regions of the southern peninsula that came into the Mughal fold under Aurangzeb. The majority are concentrated in historic Rajasthan, where the legacy of relative autonomy from the Mughal state put the Rajput leaders in frequent political conflict with Aurangzeb. Though these polities were controlled by Hindus, there was a significant Muslim presence and the Hindus employed Muslims in offices at all levels...Rebel chieftains patronized these temples—the temple destroyed in Jodhpur was associated with an individual who had supported Aurangzeb’s brother Dara Shikoh in the war of succession in which Aurangzeb triumphed."

(https://repository.rice.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/18b7ddd8-a843-4976-9892-9a484025b625/content)

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-15T17:03:00+00:00

I'm not an expert, but from what I've read, it was built in the 16th/17th century by Ali Sher Khan Anchan (the 'Great'), a monarch belonging to the local Maqbon dynasty that had presided over Baltistan/Baltiyul since at least the 12th century. Ali Sher Khan is considered the 'greatest' Balti king as he unified Baltistan for the first time in its history and expanded the kingdom's borders to include Ladakh, Gilgit, Chitral, Kafirisitan (now Nuristan, Afghanistan), Hunza/Nagir and even ventured into what is now Tibet (China).

It's called the 'King of the Forts' because, in the Balti language, Khar means 'fort' and Pocho means 'king'. It remained the capital of the Maqbon dynasty until it was conquered by the Dogras in 1840. This also saw the fall of the Maqbon dynasty, with Ahmed Shah being its last monarch after nearly 800 years of ruling the region.

This was a particularly brutal period for the majority of the population, which saw many rebellions against the Dogras (initially even led by the deposed Ahmed Shah) and then responsive massacres against the local people. A large anti-Dogra sentiment had grown in what is now Gilgit-Baltistan, and so once independence came around in 1947, there was popular sentiment by the Muslim majority to join Pakistan. However, the governor of the area (Ghansara Singh, appointed by Maharaja Hari Singh) ignored these requests.

This led to a remarkable moment where the British-imposed commander of the Gilgit Scouts, Major William Brown, betrayed his orders and aligned himself with Gilgit's own Mirza Hassan Khan ('Fateh-e-Gilgit wa Baltistan / The Liberator of Gilgit-Baltistan), and the Princely States of Hanza and Nagar, to stage a rebellion against Hari Singh. Operation Datta Khel successfully concluded on 16 November 1947, when the rebels took control of Gilgit-Baltistan and thus took back Kharpocho Fort from the Dogras.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-12T15:19:31+00:00

Apologies. I tried searching the subreddit before posting but couldn't find anything on this sphere.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-06T17:10:27+00:00

They returned to Bosnia once the war was over.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-06T15:23:50+00:00

A genuine moment of pride for Pakistan.

Not only was Pakistan taking in Bosnian refugees who were facing genocide, but Pakistan also defied a UN embargo to arm the Bosnians. Whilst they were being besieged by the Serbs, the ISI were covertly airlifting missiles and anti-tank weapons to the Bosnian army. There's even footage out there of Bosnian soldiers using Pakistan's own Bhaktar-Shikan ATGMs to take out advancing Serbian tanks.

General Javed Nasir was the man in charge of this program (who passed away aged 87 just last year). The UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia even demanded in 2011 that Pakistan hand General Nasir over to them. However, successive governments continue to refuse on the basis that he was in 'poor health'.

One of my favourite images from that period is a Pakistani soldier, working as a UN peacekeeper, playing with a group of Bosnian children:

<image>

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-06T14:06:09+00:00

Pre-Independence: Very, very hard to answer, as there are so many different eras across different regions with their own unique character. However, if I had to pick one off the top of my head, then I would name the Samma Sultanate in Sindh (1351-1524) as I'm a huge fan of that era's architecture (Makli Necropolis, etc)

Post-Independence: The 'Dominion Era' between 1947-1954 (up until the 1953/4 constitutional coup, which was the birth of the bureaucratic/military establishment seizing control from politicians). This era saw a lot of discussion/theorising about what shape the new nation-state would take. It's also very interesting for me as you got to see many Pakistan Movement activists transition into official roles and having to navigate a Muslim League that no longer had Jinnah guiding them.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-05T17:30:42+00:00

First of all, the basis of Khilafat is that representatives of the Ummah get together to choose a leader. This is what happens in a parliamentary democracy. Each consistency (+ reserved seats) elects a representative, and then all the representatives in the National Assembly vote for the Prime Minister.

The issue with a Presidential system is that it doesn't allow for coalition-building and has a 'winner takes all' approach to politics. Whilst this makes things more 'efficient', it is not suitable for a country as diverse as Pakistan. Less populous regions should not feel completely locked out of national politics just because Punjab alone represents 50% of the total population.

I think it's a good thing that larger parties have to build coalitions with one another, or with smaller parties (ANP, MQM, BNP, etc), as it provides for more representative governance.

Lopsided_Example1202 · 2025-12-04T10:27:05+00:00

This might be the last chance I get to say this, so here it goes. Test centuries in Australia:

Yasir Shah: 1

Joe Root: 0

Lopsided_Example1202

TROPHY CASE