A new generation takes up arms in Kashmir

[MultaniGuy]

Not every one converted on their free will and history is a testament things took place or happening. Any one denying forceful conversions just have ulterior motives. There are lot many things which are forbidden but regularly take place like for suicide bombings or violence in religious places or destruction of others religious places.

Even your beloved Tamil Tigers and the Kamikaze used suicide attacks as a strategy.

 

[oOo]

Don't use the forceful conversion argument, because in Islam forced conversions are forbidden.

There is lot of things forbidden in Islam, including the loot and plunder Islamic invaders did to this land which are now your heores.

Or why not throw Sharif and Zardaris out of Islam, they are not very Islamic when they loot your nation.

 

[MultaniGuy]

There is lot of things forbidden in Islam, including the loot and plunder Islamic invaders did to this land which are now your heores.

Or why not throw Sharif and Zardaris out of Islam, they are not very Islamic when they loot your nation.

If the Islamic invaders looted and plundered India it was wrong then.

But that is not the point.

The topic is about forced conversions. Show me proof that Islamic scholars forcibly converted someone to Islam?

 

[ranjeet]

If the Islamic invaders looted and plundered India it was wrong then.

But that is not the point.

The topic is about forced conversions. Show me proof that Islamic scholars forcibly converted someone to Islam?

Why are you hung up on only Islamic scholars? If you are interested about foricble conversion read about Guru Teg Bahadur.

 

[MultaniGuy]

Why are you hung up on only Islamic scholars? If you are interested about foricble conversion read about Guru Teg Bahadur.

Your credible scholarly sources? I do not even know what you talking about. Just because you bring up some random name doesn't mean anything.

Even for the sake of argument even if that person was forcibly converted, then it must be condemned.

 

[oOo]

Your credible scholarly sources? I do not even know what you talking about. Just because you bring up some random name doesn't mean anything.

Even for the sake of argument even if that person was forcibly converted, then it must be condemned.

Why just condemn, why not Islam allow people to leave the religion if they don't believe in it?

Islam was not bought up in sub continent by peaceful scholars, but by lustful invaders interested in looting and plunder. They were not the right example for people to follow and turn into one of those kind, by peace.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Those who think they can not co-exist were given choice to leave the united India, rest were allowed to stay back. Why not Jinnah succeeded in making population count the deciding factor for partition? Why leave it for prince to decide?

It was not a matter of choice, it was Forced Migration .. The partition of India was premised simply on the basis that the Subcontinent should be partitioned to create two separate states on the basis of religious contiguity: Muslim-majority areas being given to Pakistan and the rest to India ...

As for the Maharaja of Kashmir acceding his State to India, Pakistan rejects that accession on technical and legal grounds ... India however had no legal right to forcefully annex states of Junagadh, Hyderabad etc.

 

[oOo]

It was not a matter of choice, it was Forced Migration .. The partition of India was premised simply on the basis that the Subcontinent should be partitioned to create two separate states on the basis of religious contiguity: Muslim-majority areas being given to Pakistan and the rest to India ...

As for the Maharaja of Kashmir acceding his State to India, Pakistan rejects that accession on technical and legal grounds ... India however had no legal right to forcefully annex states of Junagadh, Hyderabad etc.

If that was the premise, that should have been the deciding factor. Don't build your narrative as per your convenience.

The fact that population was not the deciding factor, is enough of the testimony that one of the party i.e. India rejected the two nation theory and was welcoming of muslims into India.

Sarmad, why there is no case against India for Junagarh and Hyderabad in UN?

 

[ranjeet]

Your credible scholarly sources? I do not even know what you talking about. Just because you bring up some random name doesn't mean anything.

Even for the sake of argument even if that person was forcibly converted, then it must be condemned.

Nope that's just not some random name ... He was the 9th guru of Sikhs.

 

[Corona]

Kashmir has a Date with Destiny of #Freedom

Get ready to be stood up mate

 

[Peshwa]

Get ready to be stood up mate

Most likely catfished lol

 

[Corona]

And you are?

too soon mate. too soon

 

[M. Sarmad]

If that was the premise, that should have been the deciding factor. Don't build your narrative as per your convenience.

The fact that population was not the deciding factor, is enough of the testimony that one of the party i.e. India rejected the two nation theory and was welcoming of muslims into India.

Yes, that indeed was the premise

As for population not being the deciding factor in case of Princely States, it was the British Government policy of not merging the Indian states and retaining their status quo, which of course was far beyond any logical justification. The British attempted to integrate Princely States into India in mid nineteenth century. At least seventy states were merged on different pretexts. This caused political unrest and was one of the major factors behind the 1857 rebellion ... Later, the British (unsuccessfully) tried to use Princes as a counterweight to Indian Nationalism... Even the 3rd June Plan was, on purpose, kept ambiguous about the future of the States. It merely affirmed that the British Government's policy towards Indian states remained as enunciated in the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May 1946, which stipulated that paramountcy would lapse with the withdrawal of the British from India and would in no circumstances be transferred to an Indian government...... Jinnah's approach towards the states was purely legalistic.

Sarmad, why there is no case against India for Junagarh and Hyderabad in UN?

Hyderabad

By cablegram dated 21 August 1948,585 Hyderabad informed the Security Council, under Article 35 (Z), that a grave dispute had arisen between Hyderabad and India, which, unless settled in accordance with international law and justice, was likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-19-The Hyderabad question.pdf


Junagadh:

The United Nations Security Council did consider Junagadh question on 18th and 26th Feb 1948. The Indian response was that even if a plebiscite was held again the result would nearly be the same. And as India had agreed to hold plebiscite in Kashmir, no further steps were taken. Junagadh issue is linked with Kashmir issue, even in the UN

 

[oOo]

Yes, that indeed was the premise

As for population not being the deciding factor in case of Princely States, it was the British Government policy of not merging the Indian states and retaining their status quo, which of course was far beyond any logical justification. The British attempted to integrate Princely States into India in mid nineteenth century. At least seventy states were merged on different pretexts. This caused political unrest and was one of the major factors behind the 1857 rebellion ... Later, the British (unsuccessfully) tried to use Princes as a counterweight to Indian Nationalism... Even the 3rd June Plan was, on purpose, kept ambiguous about the future of the States. It merely affirmed that the British Government's policy towards Indian states remained as enunciated in the Cabinet Mission's Memorandum of 12 May 1946, which stipulated that paramountcy would lapse with the withdrawal of the British from India and would in no circumstances be transferred to an Indian government...... Jinnah's approach towards the states was purely legalistic.



By cablegram dated 21 August 1948,585 Hyderabad informed the Security Council, under Article 35 (Z), that a grave dispute had arisen between Hyderabad and India, which, unless settled in accordance with international law and justice, was likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security.



http://www.un.org/en/sc/repertoire/46-51/Chapter 8/46-51_08-19-TheHyderabad question.pdf.

Do you know what is the problem with you Sarmad? You over complicate things especially when things could be explained in simple black and white.

Once it was deciding that all princely/non princely states are bounded to join either of the dominion, the apprehensions of British about princes and their populace holds no good.

Jinnah opinionated that hindu muslims are two nations in itself, Nehru disagreed and advocated for co-existence. IIA ensured, that in principal, both aggrieved parties gets what they wanted. India willing to co-exist, thus IIA ensured the way for muslim states to still have choice to live with India. IIA did not mandated muslims to join Pakistan.

And for my question of not having a dispute from Pakistan side regarding Junagarh and Hyderabad, you just came with a hogwash.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Do you know what is the problem with you Sarmad? You over complicate things especially when things could be explained in simple black and white.

Once it was deciding that all princely/non princely states are bounded to join either of the dominion, the apprehensions of British about princes and their populace holds no good.

Kashmir issue in fact is one of the most complicated issues in International Law. Explaining it in simple black and white is simply not possible.


As for your assertion that Princely States were bound to join either of the Dominion.:

"Constitutionally and legally the Indian States will be independent sovereign states on the termination of paramountcy and they will be free to decide for themselves to adopt any course they like. It is open to them to join the Hindustan Constituent Assembly, or the Pakistan Constituent Assembly, or decide to remain independent " (Jinnah , June 17, 1947)

And for my question of not having a dispute from Pakistan side regarding Junagarh and Hyderabad, you just came with a hogwash.

Please read again, carefully