China slammed India FM's claims

[s90]

When a Indian points finger about religious persecution on other country im like lmao...Hey Indians first keep a check on urself!

 

[daredevil]

Do you mean there will be no border in those areas?

Or rather the line will not cut through into these areas?

Then maybe the line should circumvent those areas through Indian side?

I don’t think the agreement has details like that. I suspect it has to be negotiated on case by case basis.

The populated areas will lie with the respective countries. In this case, Tawang will remain with India and border could be outwards of the Tawang.

Have you read the agreement. I have specifically quoted the Article VII. Please check it.

 

[gpit]

Lol
I thought communists don't like Opiums

remember religion is opium of masses

but may be this opium is pricking them at lot of places .. from Uigher Muslims to Tibetan buddhists

China: Religious Persecution Persists

I do think burnings, hangings, killings and other communal violence due to religious reasons make religion more opium than anything else.

You sound may well entertain those rampant, world-infamous and typically religious communal violence in your home land?

 

[Captain03]

It was the same policy applied by both sides.

not really if it was then u would have never invaded gurdaspur, junagadh, or hydrabad.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I am sorry to say that you seem to cling to a comfort zone in which Pakistan is the ultimate do-gooder and can do no wrong. If there a wrong that is too glaringly obvious then a superficial explanation can always be found.

The idea of dividing the country but not dividing the provinces on the superficial pretext that the people were Punjabi or Bengali before they were Hindus or Muslims could also be applied to them being Indians first. And it would have been truer.

No one can stop anyone from living in denial and "Mugalata" all the life.

We are all paying the price for some of these "mugalatas" and refusal to come to terms with the reality.

I never said that the idea was a good one, but it was a valid argument since the provinces were single entities.

Quite frankly, if undivided Punjab had been part of Pakistan, we woudl have had to deal with the Kahalistani movement instead of India, and India woudl have, as in EP, interfered in Punjab. So in hindsight it was the correct decision. But it was a valid argument at the time nonetheless.

Jinnah's quote in my signature should explain quite clearly why he thought it was a valid argument, and they were 'Indian's' only so much as they were 'Asian's'. However, the option to become a citizen of the 'Indian Republic', rather than Pakistan, was a choice that the people would have had to make.

I really don't care much for your generalizations about 'superficial explanations' - if you have questions about some of my arguments, raise them with the particular argument referenced, so I can defend myself. Otherwise it is a similarly useless and invalid argument like the one about 'Jinnah woudl have never allowed a plebiscite'.

On that note - Jinnah's struggle for Pakistan was an entirely legal, and pacifist one. He built his case politically, and by appealing to the people through his self, through his party, and through parties he was allied with. A plebiscite was carried out in the NWFP, a representative Jirga process to determine the will of the people in Baluchistan, and the elected legislatures in Sindh, Punjab and Bengal in one fashion or another all accepted the decision on behalf of their constituents to become part of Pakistan.

The entire history of Jinnah's drive for Pakistan and the culmination of that drive was legal and principled.

 

[third eye]

not really if it was then u would have never invaded gurdaspur, junagadh, or hydrabad.

Invaded Gurdaspur & junagadh ??

Links please.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Invaded Gurdaspur & junagadh ??

Links please.

I think the reference is to Gurdaspur and Ferozepur - two Muslim majority districts that were allotted to India, against the rules of partition, ostensibly to give India some sort of land access to Kashmir. I believe one of those districts also gave India control over the headworks of a river/rivers, but I cannot recall exactly.

Those two districts were not 'invaded', but were incorrectly assigned to India.

On Junagdh, from wiki, since it was easily accessible:

On September 15, 1947, Nawab Mohammad Mahabat Khanji III of Junagadh, a princely state located on the south-western end of Gujarat and having no common border with Pakistan, chose to accede to Pakistan ignoring Mountbatten's views, arguing that Junagadh adjoined Pakistan by sea. The rulers of two states that were subject to the suzerainty of Junagadh — Mangrol and Babariawad — reacted by declaring their independence from Junagadh and acceding to India. In response, the nawab of Junagadh militarily occupied the two states. Rulers of the other neighbouring states reacted angrily, sending troops to the Junagadh frontier, and appealed to the Government of India for assistance. A group of Junagadhi people, led by Samaldas Gandhi, formed a government-in-exile, the Aarzi Hukumat ("temporary government").[8]

India believed that if Junagadh was permitted to accede to Pakistan, communal tension already simmering in Gujarat would worsen, and refused to accept the Nawab's choice of accession. The government pointed out that the state was 80% Hindu, and called for a plebiscite to decide the question of accession. India cut off supplies of fuel and coal to Junagadh, severed air and postal links, sent troops to the frontier, and occupied the principaliites of Mangrol and Babariawad that had acceded to India.[9]

Pakistan agreed to discuss a plebiscite, subject to the withdrawal of Indian troops, a condition India rejected. On 26 October, the Nawab and his family fled to Pakistan following clashes with Indian troops. Before leaving, the Nawab had emptied the state treasury of its cash and securities.

 

[Vinod2070]

I never said that the idea was a good one, but it was a valid argument since the provinces were single entities.

Quite frankly, if undivided Punjab had been part of Pakistan, we woudl have had to deal with the Kahalistani movement instead of India, and India woudl have, as in EP, interfered in Punjab. So in hindsight it was the correct decision. But it was a valid argument at the time nonetheless.

The validity of that argument depends on who is looking at it. There is not a single Non-Muslim in Indian Punjab and Bengal who found the idea valid.

It was always going to make the millions and millions of the unfortunate people a voiceless non-entity in a strange country that will always treat them as second class citizens. They would suddenly be strangers in their own land, a land they have inhabited for thousands of years!

Pakistan was always going to be an Islamic land. We all have heard "Pakistan ka matlab kya....", the matlab was the same in Mr. Jinnah's time.

Well at least we both agree that it was good that this outrageous demand was not agreed to.

Well, again the cheap shot at Mr. Gandhi was quite uncharacteristic of you, at least I thought so. I have only discussed Mr. Jinnah's policies, never made any personal comment about him. It was in bad taste I would say and degraded the level of the debate.

Jinnah's quote in my signature should explain quite clearly why he thought it was a valid argument, and they were 'Indian's' only so much as they were 'Asian's'. However, the option to become a citizen of the 'Indian Republic', rather than Pakistan, was a choice that the people would have had to make.

Let's discuss the reality of Pakistan rather than the quote in the signature. I don't really know what Mr. Jinnah did practically to stop the massacres and forced eviction of the minorities. Without that these words are mere homilies. The fact is little trace of minorities was left in Pakistan right under his watch, whether he wanted it or not.

If it happened despite him, I am not sure what it points to. At least it doesn't point to competence of a high order.

Again equating Indians with Asians is one example of the superficial logic. I have seen innumerable ones coming from you over a period which belie the undoubted raw intellectual power that you surely possess.

I really don't care much for your generalizations about 'superficial explanations' - if you have questions about some of my arguments, raise them with the particular argument referenced, so I can defend myself. Otherwise it is a similarly useless and invalid argument like the one about 'Jinnah woudl have never allowed a plebiscite'.

Some of the cases where I have seen you resort to these superficial logic or may be escapism:

• Denying that what happened in Western Pakistan was akin to ethnic cleansing when we can all see that the minorities were practically wiped out. You think placing the burden of proof on someone else to get the detailed statistics is enough to shirk the issue.
• Denying the humongous atrocities of 1971 and hiding behind some logic that the numbers were not practically achievable etc. Again denying the reality and claiming that there is something that still needs to be proven when the facts are there for all to see, as clearly as they can be.
• Denying that what Pakistan tried to do in Junagarh and Hyderabad is akin to what happened in Kashmir and blows away any moral pretensions on your part. The logic that Jinnah wanted Hyderbad to have a plebiscite there is fantastic to say the least. Why would he think that those guys would want to join distant Pakistan? To be continued to be oppressed by the Razakars?
• Denying that what Pakistan did in Afghanistan after 1989 was evil, contributing to its occupation by Taliban, supporting Hikmatyar who destroyed the country, using it as a base for spreading terror in India et al. I do find the supporting arguments for these superficial and escapist. Many times Pakistan is painted as cornered into taking the actions it did, while obviously what happened was more sinister.
• Equating India to Asia. This one is always a classic and you seem to really believe it belying all established wisdom. And then trying to claim some mysterious existence of a Pakistani civilization which now corresponds to Western Pakistan only. Conveniently forgetting why Pakistan was created in the first place and what was its geography.
• In the other thread you are claiming that Pakistan-USA relationship is a one way street where Pakistan is somehow the giver. S-2 has done a decent enough job of demolishing that myth. Just the US-AID numbers are enough to blow this to bits besides the obvious facts that it is the USA that has always armed you and the economic aid that has always been a one way street. In the reverse direction of course.

I can point some more. Let me get some rational arguments for these first.

A repeat of the same arguments will not count as rational in my opinion.

On that note - Jinnah's struggle for Pakistan was an entirely legal, and pacifist one. He built his case politically, and by appealing to the people through his self, through his party, and through parties he was allied with. A plebiscite was carried out in the NWFP, a representative Jirga process to determine the will of the people in Baluchistan, and the elected legislatures in Sindh, Punjab and Bengal in one fashion or another all accepted the decision on behalf of their constituents to become part of Pakistan.

The entire history of Jinnah's drive for Pakistan and the culmination of that drive was legal and principled.

Lets leave out the legal part.

I can certainly see that it was not pacifist at all. Not only the macabre violence and emigrations that was triggered by it prove it but countless other events.

What was "Direct action" if not threat of violence? The use of violence and the threat that it could be used on a much larger scale was always the subtext of the partition. Denying that would be foolhardy.

 

[Logic note]

I do think burnings, hangings, killings and other communal violence due to religious reasons make religion more opium than anything else.

You sound may well entertain those rampant, world-infamous and typically religious communal violence in your home land?

If hangings, killings and Violence is directly proportional to opium then dictator Communism is the champion of using opium on its people

After all no one can match the brutality of Chicoms ..
From Mao's Regime to present leadership

The Epoch Times | Epoch Times Commentaries on the Communist Party - Part 7

The 55-year history of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is written with blood and lies. The stories behind this bloody history are both extremely tragic and rarely known. Under the rule of the CCP, 60 to 80 million innocent Chinese people have been killed,

 

[Vinod2070]

not really if it was then u would have never invaded gurdaspur, junagadh, or hydrabad.

Gurdaspur came to India through the Radcliffe award, there was no question of invasion. You do need to brush up your history.

Junagarh and Hyderabad were sought to be occupied by Pakistan against all norms of partition. It was natural for India to undertake the police operations to protect them.

 

[Captain03]

Invaded Gurdaspur & junagadh ??

Links please.

links? dude this is all history search it up and u'll find it almost anywhere

 

[Captain03]

Gurdaspur came to India through the Radcliffe award, there was no question of invasion. You do need to brush up your history.

Junagarh and Hyderabad were sought to be occupied by Pakistan against all norms of partition. It was natural for India to undertake the police operations to protect them.

protect them?
i guess when u say that u mean u dont care of what the rulers of each state wanted. then y do u act differently when it comes to kashmir? it shouldnt matter if kashmir's ruler wanted to accede to india since it had a majority of muslim people kashmir should have automatically came to pakistan.

 

[Vinod2070]

protect them?
i guess when u say that u mean u dont care of what the rulers of each state wanted. then y do u act differently when it comes to kashmir? it shouldnt matter if kashmir's ruler wanted to accede to india since it had a majority of muslim people kashmir should have automatically came to pakistan.

Man why are you not understanding this simple thing!

Pakistan also did not care for what the rulers wanted or what the people wanted. Why single out India?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The validity of that argument depends on who is looking at it. There is not a single Non-Muslim in Indian Punjab and Bengal who found the idea valid.

It was always going to make the millions and millions of the unfortunate people a voiceless non-entity in a strange country that will always treat them as second class citizens. They would suddenly be strangers in their own land, a land they have inhabited for thousands of years!

Pakistan was always going to be an Islamic land. We all have heard "Pakistan ka matlab kya....", the matlab was the same in Mr. Jinnah's time.

Well at least we both agree that it was good that this outrageous demand was not agreed to.

The idea behind Pakistan was exactly that which Jinnah articulated, and it was one that was for equality for all, irrespective of faith or ethnicity. In that context his opinion of how the partition shoudl proceed was valid.

Your argument against the undivided provinces becoming part of Pakistan is a retrospective one, based on events that could not have been foreseen at the time, and therefore is not a very valid one. Jinnah's own moderate, some woudl say secular, positions are well known. His arguments towards equality for all are well known, as is his strong early support for creating a united nation. All of that lends credence to his initial arguments for the united provinces becoming part of Pakistan.

Well, again the cheap shot at Mr. Gandhi was quite uncharacteristic of you, at least I thought so. I have only discussed Mr. Jinnah's policies, never made any personal comment about him. It was in bad taste I would say and degraded the level of the debate.

It was meant to be an outrageous comment, and therefore unbelievable. On the other hand, you quite sincerely made the argument that Jinnah would act as a power hungry autocrat, and not hold a plebiscite, despite the fact that all evidence points to the contrary. That I find far more offensive than an obviously untrue caricature meant to illustrate how flawed I considered your opinion to be.

Let's discuss the reality of Pakistan rather than the quote in the signature. I don't really know what Mr. Jinnah did practically to stop the massacres and forced eviction of the minorities. Without that these words are mere homilies. The fact is little trace of minorities was left in Pakistan right under his watch, whether he wanted it or not.

If it happened despite him, I am not sure what it points to. At least it doesn't point to competence of a high order.

We are discussing Pakistan and the ideals behind it as they were then, not after 1947, not after 1971, and not now, when the ideas for united Punjab and Bengal becoming Pakistan were articulated. Because nations continuously evolve, what happened in the subsequent years cannot be used as an argument against that demand, unless you can prove that Jinnah supported the direction Pakistan ended up going in. The reality of Pakistan then was therefore that which Jinnah articulated, as I explained above.

Lets leave out the legal part.

I can certainly see that it was not pacifist at all. Not only the macabre violence and emigrations that was triggered by it prove it but countless other events.

What was "Direct action" if not threat of violence? The use of violence and the threat that it could be used on a much larger scale was always the subtext of the partition. Denying that would be foolhardy.

The movement led by Jinnah was entirely pacifist and principled. It is a testament to the magnitude of his character and intellect that he was able to accomplish the creation of a nation through pure intellectual and political action. It was certain people and violent groups, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, who caused the violence, not the partition, and not Jinnah.

Why do I blame these violent mobs and groups? Because they should have respected the will of the people seeking their destiny as part of Pakistan. To shift the blame onto partition is to attempt to justify their acts and excuse them, a travesty.

Direct action does not automatically involve violence - it implies political protest, and was also advocated by martin Luther King. I am not sure why you would twist the meaning to imply violence.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Again equating Indians with Asians is one example of the superficial logic. I have seen innumerable ones coming from you over a period which belie the undoubted raw intellectual power that you surely possess.

Some of the cases where I have seen you resort to these superficial logic or may be escapism:

• Denying that what happened in Western Pakistan was akin to ethnic cleansing when we can all see that the minorities were practically wiped out. You think placing the burden of proof on someone else to get the detailed statistics is enough to shirk the issue.
• Denying the humongous atrocities of 1971 and hiding behind some logic that the numbers were not practically achievable etc. Again denying the reality and claiming that there is something that still needs to be proven when the facts are there for all to see, as clearly as they can be.
• Denying that what Pakistan tried to do in Junagarh and Hyderabad is akin to what happened in Kashmir and blows away any moral pretensions on your part. The logic that Jinnah wanted Hyderbad to have a plebiscite there is fantastic to say the least. Why would he think that those guys would want to join distant Pakistan? To be continued to be oppressed by the Razakars?
• Denying that what Pakistan did in Afghanistan after 1989 was evil, contributing to its occupation by Taliban, supporting Hikmatyar who destroyed the country, using it as a base for spreading terror in India et al. I do find the supporting arguments for these superficial and escapist. Many times Pakistan is painted as cornered into taking the actions it did, while obviously what happened was more sinister.
• Equating India to Asia. This one is always a classic and you seem to really believe it belying all established wisdom. And then trying to claim some mysterious existence of a Pakistani civilization which now corresponds to Western Pakistan only. Conveniently forgetting why Pakistan was created in the first place and what was its geography.
• In the other thread you are claiming that Pakistan-USA relationship is a one way street where Pakistan is somehow the giver. S-2 has done a decent enough job of demolishing that myth. Just the US-AID numbers are enough to blow this to bits besides the obvious facts that it is the USA that has always armed you and the economic aid that has always been a one way street. In the reverse direction of course.

I can point some more. Let me get some rational arguments for these first.

A repeat of the same arguments will not count as rational in my opinion.

India until 1947 was a region, hence equating Indians with Asians (before 1947) is completely justified, as is referring to them by the term 'South Asians'. Obviously after 1947, the creation of the Republic of India meant that "Indian" would be used to refer to a nationality, rather than residents of a region.

Most of those arguments are on open threads, and I disagree with your contention, by just lumping them into a list here, that they are 'superficial'. Since they are on their own threads, feel free to counter them there, if you can. I feel I have justified almost all of them, and asking for empirical evidence to back up ludicrous claims such as the ones you have made is perfectly reasonable. Otherwise you are merely bandying about lies and half truths, like the one I posted about Gandhi.