At least one country is trying to listen to its 'Father of the Nation' - Ashok Swain

[SIPRA]

I am not an intellectual kind of person...But i personally feel, when Pakistan was decided to be created for Subcontent Muslims, rather than makinh so much fuss about it, we could have amicable settled the migration of Muslims to Pakistan and India could have been a Non Muslim country..So we could have stayed like US and Canada..or take any example of good neighborly countries...
Just to correct myself, i am all talking about historical concept...I beleive the rights of our Indian Muslims in current form..

But, the concept, you are imagining, of complete or even substantial involuntary transfer of population, on religious lines, was never proposed by Quaid e Azam or Muslim League. So the question of Gandhi accepting or rejecting it does not arise.

There was no idea of creating a state, for all the Muslims of subcontinent. The idea, as presented in Lahore Resolution, was to divide subcontinent into a Muslim majority state and India. Had there been no riots, at the time of partition; most of the Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs would have remained, where they were.

 

[Imran Khan]

I am not an intellectual kind of person...But i personally feel, when Pakistan was decided to be created for Subcontent Muslims, rather than makinh so much fuss about it, we could have amicable settled the migration of Muslims to Pakistan and India could have been a Non Muslim country..So we could have stayed like US and Canada..or take any example of good neighborly countries...
Just to correct myself, i am all talking about historical concept...I beleive the rights of our Indian Muslims in current form..

how can it was possible when india was occupying a state which have more then 90% muslims ? kashmir ?

we still weren't that bad

we were on our lowest point sir . india will go more deep

 

[xyxmt]

how can it was possible when india was occupying a state which have more then 90% muslims ? kashmir ?


we were on our lowest point sir . india will go more deep

we were but Today's India has already crossed that and getting deeper and deeper
Modi Jindabad

 

[jericho]

Really! Was this woman there? She should not allowed in Pakistan for being so anti Kashmir and pro Indian military. She galmourizes Indian officers who tortured Kashmiris. And she was the one who had been sending news report from Kashmir under curfew that all is well there.

Didnt see a video of her there (neither am i interested to see one) but apparently she asked SMQ some question according to another tweet i saw earlier

 

[Imran Khan]

we were but Today's India has already crossed that and getting deeper and deeper
Modi Jindabad

yeah i agreed we were never this much bad condition . i can see on social media indian muslims are liek wounded snake today

 

[Cookie Monster]

I am disagree with you due to my inherent bias...Again, this is the same thing i was quoting in my ealrier post...If India could have declared as Non Muslim nation, then there would have been no rationale for India with holding Kashmir valley with India...History could have been different...But if we declare ourselves as secular country, the fundamental rational to divide a nation 2 two parts in the basis of religion is contradictory...

If u can't put aside ur nationalistic bias
...then there's no point in debating on a Pakistani forum...bcuz no agreement would occur...ever.
If u can't put it aside...why would u expect Pakistanis to put it aside? And hence the debate would be dictated by nationalistic feelings rather than being objective and dictated by using reasoning and logic.

I personally can put aside nationalistic feelings and use logic. If I could make changes and create a perfect world...I would give Junagadh to India(regardless of how the Nawab felt) and I would give Kashmir to Pak(regardless of how the Raja felt)...bcuz religion was the very basis on which division occurred...and so it was JUST and RIGHT that the areas who had that MAJORITY went to that respective state(Hindu majority with India and Muslim majority with Pak).

As for u mentioning Kashmir valley...it's not just the valley that has Muslim majority. All of Indian Kashmir has a Muslim majority. Jammu has Hindu majority, whereas Ladakh has Buddhist majority. So in a PERFECT WORLD if the territories were rightly divided along religious lines and not have conflict...only Jammu goes to India. Kashmir would go with Pak and Ladakh to China.
See this map
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jammu_and_Kashmir_religions.png

 

[fitpOsitive]

@Sheepistanis @fitpOsitive govinda grown a lot of hairs lately

Berkha Dutt is the name of this Govinda.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1193189548173471744

would have been good if this was true - unfortunately Pakistan officially and legally rejected this view of Jinnah and in 1973, adopted a new constitution which stipulated that all laws are to conform to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah.[28]

 

[Jaanbaz]

Qaid's Pakistan died with him when Pakistan officially adopted Islam as its religion, states should never adopt official religion and stay outside the real of spirituality.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Jammu has Hindu majority,

It was Muslim majority before the pogroms launched by Hari Singh in 1947.

You may also be wrong about Ladakh. I believe it is Muslim majority (Shia).

would have been good if this was true - unfortunately Pakistan officially and legally rejected this view of Jinnah and in 1973, adopted a new constitution which stipulated that all laws are to conform to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah.[28]

And which interpretation of such laws prohibits the things Jinnah said? Would Hindus not be allowed to have a Mandir in a genuine Islamic state (note I am not endorsing the common misconception that Pakistan is regarded as an Islamic state)?

 

[Kabira]

It was Muslim majority before the pogroms launched by Hari Singh in 1947.

You may also be wrong about Ladakh. I believe it is Muslim majority (Shia).

Nope, Jammu was hindu majority but muslims were like 35% or something.

 

[Cookie Monster]

It was Muslim majority before the pogroms launched by Hari Singh in 1947.

You may also be wrong about Ladakh. I believe it is Muslim majority (Shia).

Care to provide me with actual population demographics?

As for being Muslim majority before 1947...looking towards the past and trying to correct it doesn't really work. It's the same reasoning they are giving for Babri Masjid...

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

The truth is both India and Pakistan had a majority culture that was desi. There are two manifestations of this desi culture, the Muslim iteration and the Hindu iteration. Sort of two sides of the same coin. This desi culture was native to South Asia and was backward, traditional, supersitious, narrow minded, bigoted, averse to change. This backwardness [desi] had largely dominated South Asia with millions living in poverty and ignorance, generation after generation entirely uneffected by who was ruling them. Moghuls, British etc.

However in the latter part of British rule a small sliver of South Asians were co-opted and educated in the ways of modern world by British. This small group of people would go onto form the elite in both Muslim and Hindu communities. Men like Jinnah, Nehru, Iqbal, Gandhi were all products of British rule. They were 'brown sahibs'. After 1947 this group too over in Pakistan and India.

Nehru gave india it's British influenced Indian state. With some exceptions so did Pakistan. However under this thin layer of "gora sahibs" the vast ocean of desi masses continued living untouched by the loft ideas imbibed by their rulers. By 1970s changing face of Pakistani society mean't the "desi mass" began to bite the rule of "gora sahibs" by insisting their desi culture being incorporated by the state. Bhutto had felt this change and began to sing the songs of the "desi mass" even when he was not one. Bhutto's agreement to making Ahmedi's a class apart was the triumph of "desi mass" in Pakistan who impulse was cloaked as "Islam". That process only picked speed in 1980s and it reached it's climax in 2010s. However I believe the "desi mass" is now in retreat as the new generation wants benefits of modern world.

In India the "desi mass" is of course articulated as Hinduism. Hindutva is the face of "desi mass" in India. The majority in India have been slow on the take and allowed "brown sahibs" to prevail over the state but over the last two decades they have began to make their pressure felt. Ayodha and Gujrat massacre are analogous to the anti-Ahmedi actions in Pakistan of 1970s.

I think the reason was the "desi mass" has been slow in India is down to economics. India over the decades lagged behind Pakistan and most of the "desi mass" were locked in grinding poverty. Now trickle down economics and increasing urbanization will see Indian "gora sahibs" drowned out. Expect lot of chaos in India over next two decades.

@Joe Shearer @Nilgiri @OsmanAli98

Hit it out of the park...Bravo!!

Yes,yes and triple Yes

Neither the Hindu nor the Muslim has recovered from the shock and the technical Knock Out that was the 18th century European Enlightenment. Their only recourse is to act out in irrational ways after suffering so much heavy concussions at the hands of European Civilization. The only tribe that could go head to head with the White Man and grind him down to a 12 round split-decision was the Japanese


How to explain the Hindu Mind in a succinct way?


Even as the White Man has moved forward to the further edges of Advanced Chemistry, the Hindu still harbours the belief that Alchemy is real

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Nope, Jammu was hindu majority but muslims were like 35% or something.

Much has been suppressed about Jammu. Hindutva knows the truth:

"Another incident that I recall is about Mr Mehr Chand Mahajan (the then prime minister) who told a delegation of Hindus who met him in the palace when he arrived in Jammu that now when the power is being transferred to the people they should demand parity. [One] of them associated with National Conference asked how can they demand parity when there is so much difference in population ratio. Pointing to the Ramnagarrakh below, where some bodies of Muslims were still lying he said “the population ratio too can change”."

From Saeed Naqvi's "Being the Other"

Jammu region's demography overall was Muslim majority or at least comparable. Deliberate influx of Sikhs and Hindus and the massacres of Muslims attempted to alter that.

 

[Areesh]

Nope, Jammu was hindu majority but muslims were like 35% or something.

No it wasn't. You are wrong

To quote a 10 August 1948 report published in The Times, London: “2,37,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated – unless they escaped to Pakistan along the border – by the forces of the Dogra State headed by the Maharaja in person and aided by Hindus and Sikhs. This happened in October 1947, five days before the Pathan invasion and nine days before the Maharaja’s accession to india.” Reportedly, as a result of the massacre/migration, Muslims who were a majority (61 per cent) in the Jammu region became a minority.

https://scroll.in/article/811468/the-killing-fields-of-jammu-when-it-was-muslims-who-were-eliminated