Breaking : 15 Year Old Boy Set On Fire For Refusing To Chant Jai Shri Ram Slogan

[NaqsheYaar]

had you listened before 1947, indian sub continent would be muslim majority by now.

but many people don't have the vision to see the larger picture

I still would have opted for a separate state, if I had to choose then.

Nonetheless, God be with you, we still care and pain for you, as fellow Muslims.

May Allah make it easy for us all. Ameen!

 

[AUz]

had you listened before 1947, indian sub continent would be muslim majority by now.

but many people don't have the vision to see the larger picture

Lol bullshit. If Pakistan wasn't created, we would have been facing the same as you are facing

Muslims were only 24% in United india and today they would have been 30%....UP is almost 20% Muslim and yet THE MOST oppressive regime to Muslims is in UP. You think if Muslims were 30% it would have mattered?

Hindu state structure would have oppressed and humiliated us. Thank God we established an Islamic state in the lands of subcontinent...making sure the light of Islam keeps on spreading in subcontinent and beyond.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Lol bullshit. If Pakistan wasn't created, we would have been facing the same as you are facing

Muslims were only 24% in United india and today they would have been 30%....UP is almost 20% Muslim and yet THE MOST oppressive regime to Muslims is in UP. You think if Muslims were 30% it would have mattered?

Hindu state structure would have oppressed and humiliated us. Thank God we established an Islamic state in the lands of subcontinent...making sure the light of Islam keeps on spreading in subcontinent and beyond.

No, you wouldn't. Prior to 1947, Indian muslims had proportional representation in Armed Forces, Police, Bureaucracy and politics while still maintaining majority in present day Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Bengal and considerable proportion of Uttar Pradesh etc.

Right now, Indian muslims form just 5% of representation in Politics, 2% in Armed forces, mere 5% in Government jobs, very low representation in Police as indicated in the below article.

Diminishing number of Muslims in Indian Police Force

Source: https://ummid.com/news/2018/Novembe...esence-of-muslims-in-indian-police-force.html

Heck, had there been no partition, you could have had a muslim Prime minister. Infact many Hindutva loons deep down thank their stars that they are able to rule unchallenged because of Partition.

 

[AUz]

No, you wouldn't. Prior to 1947, Indian muslims had proportional representation in Armed Forces, Police, Bureaucracy and politics while still maintaining majority in present day Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, Bengal and considerable proportion of Uttar Pradesh etc.

Right now, Indian muslims form just 5% of representation in Politics, 2% in Armed forces, mere 5% in Government jobs, very low representation in Police as indicated in the below article.

Diminishing number of Muslims in Indian Police Force

Source: https://ummid.com/news/2018/Novembe...esence-of-muslims-in-indian-police-force.html

Heck, had there been no partition, you could have had a muslim Prime minister. Infact many Hindutva loons deep down thank their stars that they are able to rule unchallenged because of Partition.

That's what you tell to soothe your soul. Congress tried their hardest to avoid partition. Hindus en masse were against partition. They fought against it.

But now that india lost, its territories broken into pieces, and an Islamic state established in the subcontinent---humiliated Hindus come out and say "Oh well...we secretly wanted it. Yayyyy look we are ruling india"...DUH! Jinnah demanded proportional representation coded into quota----why did Nehru refused it? Yeah, because we all know that 30% would have been dominated by 70%----if not early on, and then later. Especially in a democracy where minority demographic was concentrated in few areas, there was never a chance to get proportional representation in state-structure and political system. There is no pre-partition indian state, it was British empire. So your point is utterly ridiculous and factually incorrect (Do provide the source for 'proportional representation' of Muslims in pre-partitioned indian bureaucracy, political system, and army?).

And Hindutvas don't rule india, secular constitution does. That's why Hindutvas are frustrated af and see increasing Muslim population as a threat. They literally cry and yell about "We gave them almost 3rd of our country, what else they want? Hindus are going down in population in their only remaining home"

Creation of Pakistan was the best thing that could happen to Islam's political, economic, and military power and status in the region. Hindutva wish for a 'Hindu Pakistan' but they are stuck and humiliated by secular constitution and legal system.

 

[jamahir]

I still would have opted for a separate state, if I had to choose then.

I believe that Jinnah, if he had his wish to become the PM of Undivided India become true, he would also have opted for a secular country.

@The_Showstopper

 

[The_Showstopper]

But now that india lost, its territories broken into pieces, and an Islamic state established in the subcontinent---humiliated Hindus come out and say "Oh well...we secretly wanted it. Yayyyy look we are ruling india"...DUH!

On one hand, your fellow countrymen claim that there was no India before 1947 and here you claim that India lost territories.

Anyways on a serious note, you lost control of muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir, parts of Assam, the muslim controlled Hyderabad state and Junagarh. The areas which are in present day Pakistan were always muslim majority. So you can make your happy claiming that India lost land but in reality, India is 4 times bigger than Pakistan and that speaks volumes about who gained from creation from Pakistan.

And Hindutvas don't rule india, secular constitution does. That's why Hindutvas are frustrated af and see increasing Muslim population as a threat. They literally cry and yell about "We gave them almost 3rd of our country, what else they want? Hindus are going down in population in their only remaining home"

You seem to be in some kind of delusion. Secularism is just on paper. Hindutvadis know how to get around it and they are doing it every possible way.

Creation of Pakistan was the best thing that could happen to Islam's political, economic, and military power and status in the region. Hindutva wish for a 'Hindu Pakistan' but they are stuck and humiliated by secular constitution and legal system.

A Pakistan which is 4 times smaller to India in land area. A Pakistan which was repeatedly humiliated aka 1965, 1971 and Kargil. You can draw some solace that you dont face Hindutvadis in your daily life but India under the control Hindutvadis is definitely a thorn in your flesh.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

 

[Ultima Thule]

A Pakistan which is 4 times smaller to India in land area. A Pakistan which was repeatedly humiliated aka 1965, 1971 and Kargil. You can draw some solace that you dont face Hindutvadis in your daily life but India under the control Hindutvadis is definitely a thorn in your flesh.

Humiliated what is you talking about , in 65 we almost reach Delhi and captured more Indian area than you did, we almost destroyed your air Force 19 vs 110, at naval front we also humiliated you, your mighty AC Vikrant never went to open water during the war because fear of PNS Ghazi (First submarine of subcontinent), we also destroyed 4-5 Indian naval and destroyed the port of Dawarka but we lost it in table (simla agreement), in 71 Thanks to Mukthi Bahni created by India to Change to brainwashed common/innocent Bangli, at the time of 71 Political Traitor of East Pakistan (Mujib ur Reheman) had links with India and there were No Major Air force/Naval assets In Pakistan at a time of 71, in the western front we defend well our self in 71, better in fact 65 to destroying Military assets of India, you have superpower Soviet Union for your help (Soviets veto all ceasefire resolution at UN) and gives you their latest weapons to fight, and Last there was no win or loss in Kargil for both parties, superpower solves the Problem @The_Showstopper

 

[AUz]

On one hand, your fellow countrymen claim that there was no India before 1947 and here you claim that India lost territories.

That's cute semantics to hide your defeat and humiliation. These territories were part of indians' vision of themselves. They always were. That's why Congress fought tooth and nail to stop the partition.

These indian territories were lost to Muslims and that's a fact of life. You can not circle your way around it. Accept it and move on before making everyone reading this thread laugh further at your desperate attempts to hide your national shame.

india got broken into pieces. End of story. Your semantics are of no use (except to soothe your hurt soul)

Anyways on a serious note, you lost control of muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir, parts of Assam,

LOL, Pakistan did not lose anything. These territories were never going to be part of Pakistan because the British planned the division in a certain way---to accommodate the cultural and security concerns of the new states. That's why non-Muslim majority Chittagong Hill tract (13000 sq km area) was given to Pakistan You always forget about that. And that's just one example. Infact, more Hindu majority districts were given to Pakistan than Muslim majority districts given to India. Have you ever studied partition in detail? I bet not! Just google about Hindu majority districts in Sindh given to Pakistan

The only difference is Jammu and Kashmir----since it was a separate case because of some complications on all side (hence the conflict over it). Won't go in detail because it'll take too much time. Bottom line: Pakistan did not lose anything. We actually got more than was expected. For example, everyone was expecting Lahore to be on indian side due to economic and cultural reasons. Guess who controls the crown jewel of Punjab today

muslim controlled Hyderabad state and Junagarh.

LOL, that's height of desperation. Hyderabad was overwhelmingly Hindu majority princely state surrounded by india on all side. EVERYONE knew it will go to india. It was not even a contest. Just like everyone knew princely states of Balochistan (Qalat) and Bahawalpur would go to Pakistan. As I said, the only issue was with Kashmir due to many complex web of reasons. All other princely state's future was decided pretty much.

The areas which are in present day Pakistan were always muslim majority. So you can make your happy claiming that India lost land but in reality, India is 4 times bigger than Pakistan and that speaks volumes about who gained from creation from Pakistan.

First thing, india is merely 3.2x bigger than Pakistan (incl E.Pakistan) that came into being after partition. Just to put things in perspective---in 1947, 16% of Muslims got 24%-25% of the subcontinental landmass, while 84% indians got merely 74% to 75% of the land mass.


Want me to go on and put more salt on your humiliation? I feel bad for you. india utterly got the robbed and r@ped by the partition. It got the worst deal out of the both parties. Hence, even to this day, right wing Hinutva is in trauma of partition.

Its okay, i'll slow down lol... Btw, you can calculate the above numbers quite easily via 1951 Census if you don't believe me

You seem to be in some kind of delusion. Secularism is just on paper. Hindutvadis know how to get around it and they are doing it every possible way.

Yeah, keep saying that....meanwhile indian govt controls Hindu temples, there are more Muslim national holidays than Hindu one's in india, Muslims have their own law, Supreme Court forced anti-Hindu practices (Sabrimala), and right to convert Hindus to other religion is reserved by the constitution itself.

But yeah, there is no secularism in india and Hinduism is respected

As I said, hindus wish Hinduism had even 1/10th as much prestige, power, political centrality, and legal relevancy in the society as Islam does in Pakistan. You wish you had something like 'Hindu Pakistan' in india. But you don't---you have secularism with its tight leashe on dying hindu religion

A Pakistan which is 4 times smaller to India in land area. A Pakistan which was repeatedly humiliated aka 1965, 1971 and Kargil. You can draw some solace that you dont face Hindutvadis in your daily life but India under the control Hindutvadis is definitely a thorn in your flesh.

india, despite being a 7x larger country, never was able to beat Pakistan on Western sector. Even in 71.

Lets see the wars of 48, 65, and 99

1948

In 1948 , Pakistanis got THE MOST strategically important lands in Kashmir. Pakistan captured population centers of Gilgit , Skardu etc and secured access to central Asia...Cutting India off from Central Asian route..and hence containing poor indians in useless gigantic plains .... Where India would've got entire Kashmir due to Hindu treachery ...it only got some parts..and that too which are strategically of very less importance...and made even less important due to Indo-Pak water-accords. Kashmir ruler signed document of accession to india, but we took over vast areas and most strategic parts of Kashmir and india couldn't get what it "signed up" for

1965

In 1965 , Pakistan defeated Indian attack on Lahore city and forced indians to retreat , captured strategically important Indian towns like Khem Kharan , captured strategically important Indian supply-lines like Muna Bao railway station , PAF just badly blasted the a$$ of five times larger IAF , and all this eventually forced India to face the humiliation of signing an agreement of stalemate with SEVEN TIMES smaller nation-that was badly outgunned and outnumbered during the war... Your OWN media back then called it as "giving a walkover to Pakistan."

Tell me, how is signing AGREEMENT OF STALEMATE with a 7x smaller country a "victory"?

1999

In 1999 Kargil war , just 5000 Pakistani troops+fighters got 30,000 indian soldiers with their pants down .... We slaughtered the f*ck outa your poor troops...At the end of the war , Pakistan captured strategically important Indian heights such as point 5353 , Dalu Nag , Saddle Ridge etc etc..We STILL hold these Indian territories ... We over-look NH-1 and Indian supplies to Siachen...

Infact, Six indian peaks captured by Pakistan in Kargil war are still occupied to this very day

Your own newspaper

https://m.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm

So in every war against W.Pakistan (Today's Pakistan) , Indian forces have faced humiliation from SEVEN TIMES smaller nation..When indians faced their EQUALS the chinese..they were a$$-raped by Chinese. But Pakistanis faced SEVEN TIMES larger nation and stood their ground

Even Indian Ex-military officer and current Indian defence analyst in 2019 accepting india never won against West Pakistan (today's Pakistan)

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/c...9KBNr-Zxv9LB8-sm6og4kCmdNsVjjnb0-SgkeJ0hN1XAc

Sorry man, I feel that I literally break your mental masturbation session and showed you how utterly beaten down, humiliated, and urinated upon hindus and indians have been throughout their history. Conquered and ruled over for 1000 years by superior Muslims, then broken into multiple pieces, and then beaten again and again by smaller forces and humiliated worldwide----the latest example being 27th Feb

 

[AppleCider]

This entire thread is based on Fake News.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Humiliated what is you talking about , in 65 we almost reach Delhi and captured more Indian area than you did, we almost destroyed your air Force 19 vs 110, at naval front we also humiliated you, your mighty AC Vikrant never went to open water during the war because fear of PNS Ghazi (First submarine of subcontinent), we also destroyed 4-5 Indian naval and destroyed the port of Dawarka but we lost it in table (simla agreement), in 71 Thanks to Mukthi Bahni created by India to Change to brainwashed common/innocent Bangli, at the time of 71 Political Traitor of East Pakistan (Mujib ur Reheman) had links with India and there were No Major Air force/Naval assets In Pakistan at a time of 71, in the western front we defend well our self in 71, better in fact 65 to destroying Military assets of India, you have superpower Soviet Union for your help (Soviets veto all ceasefire resolution at UN) and gives you their latest weapons to fight, and Last there was no win or loss in Kargil for both parties, superpower solves the Problem @The_Showstopper

You almost reached Delhi..LOL
Where?? in your wet dreams

ok here is a neutral source which states the following..

Air Marshal (retired) Nur Khan, who headed the Pakistan Air Force in 1965, said in an interview with Dawn newspaper that the army "misled the nation with a big lie" - that India rather than Pakistan provoked the war - and that Pakistan won a "great victory".

And since the "lie" was never rectified, the Pakistani "army came to believe its own fiction, (and) has continued to fight unwanted wars," he said.

Source:
At least three independent authors believed India had an upper hand in the war:

• Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated."
• English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
• American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."

Source:

 

[The_Showstopper]

That's cute semantics to hide your defeat and humiliation. These territories were part of indians' vision of themselves. They always were. That's why Congress fought tooth and nail to stop the partition.

These indian territories were lost to Muslims and that's a fact of life. You can not circle your way around it. Accept it and move on before making everyone reading this thread laugh further at your desperate attempts to hide your national shame.

india got broken into pieces. End of story. Your semantics are of no use (except to soothe your hurt soul)



LOL, Pakistan did not lose anything. These territories were never going to be part of Pakistan because the British planned the division in a certain way---to accommodate the cultural and security concerns of the new states. That's why non-Muslim majority Chittagong Hill tract (13000 sq km area) was given to Pakistan You always forget about that. And that's just one example. Infact, more Hindu majority districts were given to Pakistan than Muslim majority districts given to India. Have you ever studied partition in detail? I bet not! Just google about Hindu majority districts in Sindh given to Pakistan

The only difference is Jammu and Kashmir----since it was a separate case because of some complications on all side (hence the conflict over it). Won't go in detail because it'll take too much time. Bottom line: Pakistan did not lose anything. We actually got more than was expected. For example, everyone was expecting Lahore to be on indian side due to economic and cultural reasons. Guess who controls the crown jewel of Punjab today



LOL, that's height of desperation. Hyderabad was overwhelmingly Hindu majority princely state surrounded by india on all side. EVERYONE knew it will go to india. It was not even a contest. Just like everyone knew princely states of Balochistan (Qalat) and Bahawalpur would go to Pakistan. As I said, the only issue was with Kashmir due to many complex web of reasons. All other princely state's future was decided pretty much.





First thing, india is merely 3.2x bigger than Pakistan (incl E.Pakistan) that came into being after partition. Just to put things in perspective---in 1947, 16% of Muslims got 24%-25% of the subcontinental landmass, while 84% indians got merely 74% to 75% of the land mass.


Want me to go on and put more salt on your humiliation? I feel bad for you. india utterly got the robbed and r@ped by the partition. It got the worst deal out of the both parties. Hence, even to this day, right wing Hinutva is in trauma of partition.

Its okay, i'll slow down lol... Btw, you can calculate the above numbers quite easily via 1951 Census if you don't believe me






But yeah, there is no secularism in india and Hinduism is respected

As I said, hindus wish Hinduism had even 1/10th as much prestige, power, political centrality, and legal relevancy in the society as Islam does in Pakistan. You wish you had something like 'Hindu Pakistan' in india. But you don't---you have secularism with its tight leashe on dying hindu religion



india, despite being a 7x larger country, never was able to beat Pakistan on Western sector. Even in 71.

Lets see the wars of 48, 65, and 99

1948

In 1948 , Pakistanis got THE MOST strategically important lands in Kashmir. Pakistan captured population centers of Gilgit , Skardu etc and secured access to central Asia...Cutting India off from Central Asian route..and hence containing poor indians in useless gigantic plains .... Where India would've got entire Kashmir due to Hindu treachery ...it only got some parts..and that too which are strategically of very less importance...and made even less important due to Indo-Pak water-accords. Kashmir ruler signed document of accession to india, but we took over vast areas and most strategic parts of Kashmir and india couldn't get what it "signed up" for

1965

In 1965 , Pakistan defeated Indian attack on Lahore city and forced indians to retreat , captured strategically important Indian towns like Khem Kharan , captured strategically important Indian supply-lines like Muna Bao railway station , PAF just badly blasted the a$$ of five times larger IAF , and all this eventually forced India to face the humiliation of signing an agreement of stalemate with SEVEN TIMES smaller nation-that was badly outgunned and outnumbered during the war... Your OWN media back then called it as "giving a walkover to Pakistan."

Tell me, how is signing AGREEMENT OF STALEMATE with a 7x smaller country a "victory"?

1999

In 1999 Kargil war , just 5000 Pakistani troops+fighters got 30,000 indian soldiers with their pants down .... We slaughtered the f*ck outa your poor troops...At the end of the war , Pakistan captured strategically important Indian heights such as point 5353 , Dalu Nag , Saddle Ridge etc etc..We STILL hold these Indian territories ... We over-look NH-1 and Indian supplies to Siachen...

Infact, Six indian peaks captured by Pakistan in Kargil war are still occupied to this very day

Your own newspaper

https://m.rediff.com/news/2000/aug/30josy.htm

So in every war against W.Pakistan (Today's Pakistan) , Indian forces have faced humiliation from SEVEN TIMES smaller nation..When indians faced their EQUALS the chinese..they were a$$-raped by Chinese. But Pakistanis faced SEVEN TIMES larger nation and stood their ground

Even Indian Ex-military officer and current Indian defence analyst in 2019 accepting india never won against West Pakistan (today's Pakistan)

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/c...9KBNr-Zxv9LB8-sm6og4kCmdNsVjjnb0-SgkeJ0hN1XAc

Sorry man, I feel that I literally break your mental masturbation session and showed you how utterly beaten down, humiliated, and urinated upon hindus and indians have been throughout their history. Conquered and ruled over for 1000 years by superior Muslims, then broken into multiple pieces, and then beaten again and again by smaller forces and humiliated worldwide----the latest example being 27th Feb

You seem to contradict yourself, on one hand you claim that Pakistan is just 3.2 smaller than India and then later on claim that India is 7 times larger than Pakistan. You claim that muslims ruled India for over 1000 years but they ended up with just 24% of Indian land mass. Does that ring the bell?

How would Hyderabad state go to Pakistan when it is no where near Pakistan. I am speaking about losing political power to Hindus. Had there been no Partition, Junagarh and Hyderabad state would have had significant muslim political power and wealth. The wealth and political power is now in the hands of Hindu India, No? Please do post a credible source which shows that the hindu majority districts of Pakistan before partition. Present day Pakistan was always muslim majority, so they didn't gain anything other than losing political power and land mass to Hindus.

Yeah, keep saying that....meanwhile indian govt controls Hindu temples, there are more Muslim national holidays than Hindu one's in india, Muslims have their own law, Supreme Court forced anti-Hindu practices (Sabrimala), and right to convert Hindus to other religion is reserved by the constitution itself.

LOL Which world do you live in? Indian government controls hindu temples but the Indian government is a hindu majoritarian government so Hindus still control their temples. Heck even madarsas and waqf is controlled by Indian hindu government. There are more muslim national holidays than Hindus?? LOL Who said that?? Hindus have way more festivals and more holidays compared to muslims.

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/india/

Supreme court can give any order but they are seldom followed by Hindus if it goes against their religion. Take the example of Diwali cracker ban and Sabarimala. Hindus burnt crackers despite Supreme court ban in Delhi, Only a handful of women were able to enter Sabarimala despite a communist government in the state and Supreme court ruling.

So dude wake up and smell the coffee..

 

[AUz]

You seem to contradict yourself, on one hand you claim that Pakistan is just 3.2 smaller than India and then later on claim that India is 7 times larger than Pakistan.

Are you seriously slow or just kinda shaken from last reply unable to look away from the glaring fact of indian humiliation, defeat, and loss at the hands of Muslims (whether as rulers or as the minority responsible for partitioning and breaking india into multiple pieces)?

There is no contradiction. In terms of area, india is merely 3.2x bigger than Pakistan of 1947. In terms of population and manpower, india was almost 7-8x bigger than Pakistan of 65 (almost 10x bigger if we just take W.Pakistan, where most fighting occurred).

Where's the confusion?

You claim that muslims ruled India for over 1000 years but they ended up with just 24% of Indian land mass. Does that ring the bell?

Lol, again wrong. Muslims ruled india for centuries (800-1000 years) and then lost all of india to British. You forget that part. You are acting as if beaten down hindus suddenly took back india from Islamic empires and just gave 24% of it to them and kept the rest for them. That never happened. Muslims ruled india for 800 years and then lost it to British during their decline.

Then, when British were going away due to their own financial problems due to WW2 and it was clear that democracy, not Islamic domination of india, was going to be the way forward (as decided by Britishers)---Muslims saw that they were completely outnumbered and could be dominated by Hindus via demographic majority in a democratic system. So then Muslims again fought for their interests and divided india mercilessly---while Hindus fought, cried, and died to stop this. But Jinnah's shrewed tactics and brilliance won the day----and 16% Muslims got 24% of the indian landmass and created a homogenous Islamic state.

Poor hindus again got the bad end of the deal and were forced to live in a multicultural, secular state with decreasing population share

How would Hyderabad state go to Pakistan when it is no where near Pakistan. I am speaking about losing political power to Hindus. Had there been no Partition, Junagarh and Hyderabad state would have had significant muslim political power and wealth. The wealth and political power is now in the hands of Hindu India, No? Please do post a credible source which shows that the hindu majority districts of Pakistan before partition. Present day Pakistan was always muslim majority, so they didn't gain anything other than losing political power and land mass to Hindus.

Dude, are you just writing for the sake of writing at this point? Everyone knew that democratic structure was the way forward (British made sure of it). Everyone also knew that independent "princely states" won't be allowed to exist (Again, Britishers made that CLEAR. Only difference was that the accession of those states to india/Pakistan was left to South Asians to do on their own). Had Muslims stayed in india---Hyderabad would still be an indian region with Hindu majority.

No thanks, I'll take my nuclear-armed, independent Islamic state anyday over so called "wealth of Muslims" in one, irrelevant district in middle of india.

You do realize having majority within a part of country is one thing, and having independent, powerful state of your own is FARRRRR different. Right? Indian christians have majorities in multiple indian state. Tell me who gives a f*ck about indian Christians? They are irrelevant, powerless, and weak. But if they had a christian state of their own with a huge army and nuclear weapons, everything would be different for christians of South Asia.

You aren't that dumb or stupid to not realize this. But you just can not say it because even YOU know how humiliating it is for what happened to india and hindus

LOL Which world do you live in? Indian government controls hindu temples but the Indian government is a hindu majoritarian government so Hindus still control their temples. Heck even madarsas and waqf is controlled by Indian hindu government. There are more muslim national holidays than Hindus?? LOL Who said that?? Hindus have way more festivals and more holidays compared to muslims.

https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/india/

Supreme court can give any order but they are seldom followed by Hindus if it goes against their religion. Take the example of Diwali cracker ban and Sabarimala. Hindus burnt crackers despite Supreme court ban in Delhi, Only a handful of women were able to enter Sabarimala despite a communist government in the state and Supreme court ruling.

So dude wake up and smell the coffee..

Okay, forget me----tell me why do Sanghis keep on crying about how secularism has humiliated hinduism in india and how their institutions are under govt control, and how constitution gives protection to the conversion of hindus to other religions instead of stopping it. I can go on and on...

Stop it. You and me both know that secularism has hindu nationalism on the leash in india. Hinduism in india does not enjoy even 1/10th of the centrality, domination, cultural relevance, legal protections, and prestige that Islam enjoys in Pakistan

Hey I have a genuine question: Do you guys have to take religion studies classes in your 1-10th grade school? If so, is only hinduism is taught or other religions too?

 

[NaqsheYaar]

I believe that Jinnah, if he had his wish to become the PM of Undivided India become true, he would also have opted for a secular country.

@The_Showstopper

Well then you have probably not studied quite well who Jinnah was.

Memon in the army? LOL



Partition is pretty much the no.1 cause of hindutva. Most Muslims in India are lower class, blue collar people. The ashraf landlords of UP and Haryana and Rajasthan never took along the slum dwellers pasmanda with them. So they will face the music. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

Agree to that!

Most of Indian Muslims, most of whom are unprivileged, would have to weather the upcoming storm. Things should reach their tipping point in not more than 3 years, according to the prophecies

This would result in three new states in India, Kashmir, Sikh and a dallit+Muslim state.

 

[Ultima Thule]

You almost reached Delhi..LOL
Where?? in your wet dreams

ok here is a neutral source which states the following..

Air Marshal (retired) Nur Khan, who headed the Pakistan Air Force in 1965, said in an interview with Dawn newspaper that the army "misled the nation with a big lie" - that India rather than Pakistan provoked the war - and that Pakistan won a "great victory".

And since the "lie" was never rectified, the Pakistani "army came to believe its own fiction, (and) has continued to fight unwanted wars," he said.

Source:
At least three independent authors believed India had an upper hand in the war:

• Retired American diplomat Dennis Kux: "Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated."
• English historian John Keay: "The war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate."
• American author Stanley Wolpert: "The war ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on US ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the ceasefire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to [Pakistani president] Ayub's chagrin."

Source:

What a poor kid, do you Know What is the Meaning of UPPER HAND and VICTORY,

VICTORY means you DEFEATED or CAPTURED PAKISTAN in 65,that's wont happened

UPPER HAND meaning you have more Equipment/Men then Pakistani army

And yes we almost reaching Delhi, and nearly captured Gurdaspur (a way to Kashmir from India)

You fail to captured lots areas of Pakistan in 65,First you start/impose war on Pakistan in Ran of Kuch and where there were minimal PA men and equipment were but thanks to Hur tribes of Sindh, they made Indian Army looks very very bad at war and your IA miserably failed

The Next IA objective was to Captured Lahore with 2-3 division of IA and lots equipment with it and again miserably fail in the front of PA/People of Lahore

The next objective for IA was to captured a city of Sailkot to divide Pakistan into 2 parts with 2 divisions army and 500 tanks and again failed miserably in front of PA which had only 2 -3 brigades men and only had 13 tanks in front of massive Indian army columns

That's the victory you're talking about @The_Showstopper

Don't humiliate yourself further kid @The_Showstopper