Free Khalistan!

[waraich66]

Team
With no offences to any one Just one question, Could Pakistan allow Free Balochistan, Free sindh and Free Punjab ? If the answer is "NO" then how can we allow Free Free Khalistan, free Assam, free Tamils........... ETC ETC.

Try under two nation theory ,all muslim belong to one nation similiarly tamil,sikh,hindu,budah,jew and cristian are also seperate nations.

If they are in mojority and have independent relegious,economic,social and cultural system and values they have right to govern their country according to their believe.

One day india have to liberate majority nations including Kashmir

 

[Prodigy17]

People here don't know Sikhism. There are so many families in Punjab where one son is a Sikh and the other is Hindu. The Sikhs were nothing but Hindu children who swore to fight the alien invaders to this holy land.

There is not even a talk of Khalistan in India. There will be several more Stans on our Western border before there this daydream of some here comes even close to the light of the day.

hey, good to see you back. I hope a little hiatus has made you a little better poster and has helped the sanity.
by the way, can u explain the highlighted word for my knowledge because it makes no sense.
You see, when this movement was still nascent, there was a very little talk about it in hindustan but slowly and gradually it did bring some fruit. I mean, you are not forgetting the death of your ex PM, are you?????????

 

[Prodigy17]

you butchered Sikhs from Lahore and now u r asking for a country for them !!!
where was this camraderie in 1947 . u had problems with hindus, why u butchered Sikhs too back then?
Now when I have shown u the mirror , u r willing for a referendrum in Lahore after Sikhs have been massacared from there?

u never had any love for Sikhs.
So stop being self appointed ambassadors of Sikhs

Things change... as indians most fondly describe their current client status with USA by a cliche that, "No permanent friends or foes in international relations". Quite applicable in this case also albeit your chimera of sikhs getting killed is comic at best infact it was the other way around. But as i said, things can change when faced with common enemy.

Now when I have shown u the mirror , u r willing for a referendrum in Lahore after Sikhs have been massacared from there?

Get off my back...... atleast we are confident of our unity, can it be said for hindustan????/

 

[Vinod2070]

hey, good to see you back. I hope a little hiatus has made you a little better poster and has helped the sanity.
by the way, can u explain the highlighted word for my knowledge because it makes no sense.
You see, when this movement was still nascent, there was a very little talk about it in hindustan but slowly and gradually it did bring some fruit. I mean, you are not forgetting the death of your ex PM, are you?????????

The original movement was a folly by the Congress in trying to promote Bhindrawale to weaken the Akalis. The little monster got out of the hand and had to be dealt with by force (something you should only be too familiar with)!

The Indian PM may have sacrificed her life to keep the unity of the country and that is a small price to pay. I am sure she (and any other PM) would always take the decision to keep the country's unity over his/her life. I would do that any day!

The "Stans" refferred to the fact that India is an ancient nation and civilization unlike the other countries around her. It has a strong glue that binds it that is above the narrow confines of religion and language. The same is not the case in most neighboring countries. They have a better chance of breaking apart and forming new "Stans" than India.

Time is the best judge of that. Let's wait and watch.

 

[Prodigy17]

The original movement was a folly by the Congress in trying to promote Bhindrawale to weaken the Akalis. The little monster got out of the hand and had to be dealt with by force (something you should only be too familiar with)!

Sure...... but that doesn't make you any better than us so are we right in asking you to stop calling the kettle black.

The "Stans" refferred to the fact that India is an ancient nation and civilization unlike the other countries around her. It has a strong glue that binds it that is above the narrow confines of religion and language. The same is not the case in most neighboring countries. They have a better chance of breaking apart and forming new "Stans" than India.

But ancient India was neither democratic nor secular....... How can you apply the same old material to todays environment, this doesn't make you any better than those medieval Talibans whom you are so vehemently opposed to...... only the agenda is different, approach in both cases is the same.
With your current title of democracy, i'm afraid that your concept of maintaining unity at all cost even by force is completely incompatible. What then is the value of people's choice and decision???? If they dont want to be a federating part of a federation, what moral authority the federation has to impose its will on the federating unit??????? This is more like a brutal Stalinist regime or even a czarist regime or any autocracy for that matter of medieval times.

I mean, i would have no problems in hindustan using force to maim people but then it should stop claiming itself to be the champion of democracy. Because true spirit of the democracy demands that people are the best judge to decide what is good or bad for them.

 

[devgupt]

Things change... as indians most fondly describe their current client status with USA by a cliche that, "No permanent friends or foes in international relations". Quite applicable in this case also albeit your chimera of sikhs getting killed is comic at best infact it was the other way around. But as i said, things can change when faced with common enemy.

And guess who is this common enemy for Manmohan Singh ?

Things change ...
I can say the same for u..

BTW were u implying that Sikhs getting killed in 1947 was a chimera?
You are the last person to speak for them.

Confident of your unity!!!
I saw in this forumn only maps of Greater Afghanistan including present Afghanistan and NWFP being present on hoardings within Pakistani border near Khyber Pass.

 

[Vinod2070]

Sure...... but that doesn't make you any better than us so are we right in asking you to stop calling the kettle black.

There is a difference. A major one. No one from India is going around the world killing innocent civilians. It is not the Indians who are involved in 75% of all terrorist acts in the UK. Not every act of terror in the world has an Indian footprint, it has the footprint of our esteemed neighbor.

There is no equivalence as you are suggesting here!

But ancient India was neither democratic nor secular....... How can you apply the same old material to todays environment, this doesn't make you any better than those medieval Talibans whom you are so vehemently opposed to...... only the agenda is different, approach in both cases is the same.
With your current title of democracy, i'm afraid that your concept of maintaining unity at all cost even by force is completely incompatible. What then is the value of people's choice and decision???? If they dont want to be a federating part of a federation, what moral authority the federation has to impose its will on the federating unit??????? This is more like a brutal Stalinist regime or even a czarist regime or any autocracy for that matter of medieval times.

I mean, i would have no problems in hindustan using force to maim people but then it should stop claiming itself to be the champion of democracy. Because true spirit of the democracy demands that people are the best judge to decide what is good or bad for them.

India had the concept of democracy in the form of "Janapadas" long before the Western democracy. Do read up on that. Let me know if you need references.

There is just no comparison to Taliban. We need to protect our people from terror (whether internal or external). Using force may be required for that at times but it is only like a bitter medicine to cure the cancer of terror by a few.

Why is this a surprise! USA went to civil war to protect the federation, you are doing so in Balochistan using much more force including the air force and artillery. Why preach to others what you can't practice?

 

[waraich66]

@vinod2070,

You need to understand the meaning of nation,muslim are one nation just like sikh,hindu,parsi,jew,cristians etc.
They have right to practice their social and economic relegious principles in conducive environment,to establish this environment they need a independent country.

 

[devgupt]

Sure...... but that doesn't make you any better than us so are we right in asking you to stop calling the kettle black.




But ancient India was neither democratic nor secular....... How can you apply the same old material to todays environment, this doesn't make you any better than those medieval Talibans whom you are so vehemently opposed to...... only the agenda is different, approach in both cases is the same.
With your current title of democracy, i'm afraid that your concept of maintaining unity at all cost even by force is completely incompatible. What then is the value of people's choice and decision???? If they dont want to be a federating part of a federation, what moral authority the federation has to impose its will on the federating unit??????? This is more like a brutal Stalinist regime or even a czarist regime or any autocracy for that matter of medieval times.

I mean, i would have no problems in hindustan using force to maim people but then it should stop claiming itself to be the champion of democracy. Because true spirit of the democracy demands that people are the best judge to decide what is good or bad for them.

All the regions u mentioned have consistently voted in provincial and national elections.A few people taking up arms doesnt mean that they will triumph over the will of majority which have consistently used ballot.


People who have repeatedly failed to implement democracy are lecturing others. at least be able to live in democratic rule for 10 yrs consecutively then preach others.Its like murderers calling policemen brutal.

And what do u know about ancient India? How many books have u read upon it except from Pakistani authors.

I am asking you to read 'The wonder that was India by A L Basham'. Its a highly regarded book for study of Ancient Indian subcontinent by both foreigners and Indians, world over. As for the credentials of the author , he was an Australian , Professor of Asian Civilization at Australian National University, Canberra.He is the same person who written the foreword for The Discovery of Pakistan by Abdul Aziz. This implies that he is highly regarded by Pakistani historians too(You would only ask a senior, well respected and learned person to write a foreword for your book especially one which chronicles the history of your country. ).So I guess u can take him to be a neutral observer.

If u ever find a copy of that book, just go to page no 8 of the book.
I am quoting straight from the book 'Yet our overall impression is that in no other part of the ancient world were the relations of man and man, and of man and the state , so fair and humane. In no other early civilization were slaves so few in number, and in no other ancient lawbooks are their rights so well protected as in Arthasastra '. No other ancient lawgiver proclaimed such noble ideals of fair play of battle as did Manu.In all her history of warfare Hindu India has few tales to tell of cities put to sword or of massacare of non-combatants.The ghastly sadism of the kings of the kings of Assyria,who flayed their captives alive, is completely without parallel in ancient India. There was sporadic cruelty and oppression no doubt, but in comparison with conditions in other early cultures, it was mild. To us the most striking feature of ancient Indian civilization is its humanity.

At any rate I would prefer to believe a neutral scholar who has given his whole life in study of subcontinent than those who have a narrow bigoted view and fail to see the broader picture but concentrate on specific incidents for nitpicking

 

[slugger]

You need to understand the meaning of nation,muslim are one nation.......they need a independent country.

You are talking abou Ummah aren't you

just like sikh,hindu,parsi,cristians etc.

Unlike any of these religion. The concept of Ummah [or a related term] does not exist in any of these religions

Funny....never heard an Indian Muslim promote the idea of Ummah

 

[Vinod2070]

@vinod2070,

You need to understand the meaning of nation,muslim are one nation just like sikh,hindu,parsi,jew,cristians etc.
They have right to practice their social and economic relegious principles in conducive environment,to establish this environment they need a independent country.

Go ahead. Establish an ideal Islamic state that one can see. One that is successful and is caring for it's citizens.

At present one sees a major difference in the preaching and practice.

 

[devgupt]

@vinod2070,

You need to understand the meaning of nation,muslim are one nation just like sikh,hindu,parsi,jew,cristians etc.
They have right to practice their social and economic relegious principles in conducive environment,to establish this environment they need a independent country.

Muslims are one nation?
if this is true then why was Bangladesh formed?
there only two countries which were formed on the basis of religion-Pakistan and Israel.
If u all are one nation why the hell dont I see one muslim country doing something other than issuing protests and holding rallies against Israel. why dont u go to war?
Its because the muslims the world over have their own differences ,think differently , just like another religion, just like another nationality.
You have been not yet been able to resolve the Shia-Sunni dispute, or clear about the status of Ahmadiyas and still saying that muslims are one nation.If I go by these estimates then there are at least 3 muslim nations
Religions is something that is practised within the inner space of humans and in their daily conduct

 

[rubyjackass]

Try under two nation theory ,all muslim belong to one nation similiarly tamil,sikh,hindu,budah,jew and cristian are also seperate nations.

If they are in mojority and have independent relegious,economic,social and cultural system and values they have right to govern their country according to their believe.

One day india have to liberate majority nations including Kashmir

The truth of Two nation theory is still at question my friend. Your mind is so narrow that none of this will make sense to you.
Religion as well as politics should demand a man's life only to a certain extent. And to make religion a political factor is the worst the human race can come up with to get to its own doom.

@vinod2070,

You need to understand the meaning of nation,muslim are one nation just like sikh,hindu,parsi,jew,cristians etc.
They have right to practice their social and economic relegious principles in conducive environment,to establish this environment they need a independent country.

After looking at posts I understand to some extent why Pakistanis and muslims living in non secular countries can't understand some facts. Like for human race peace is of utmost importance which is possible only with secular way of life.
They are preached for years that religion is everything and taught to be afraid for their religion.
Religion is just one part of life. If it determines who should live next to you, I don't think human race is going to progress.
This is the difference.
All Indians are happy to say 'We are Indians first and everything else next'.
But you are taught to say 'We are muslims first'.
I am not saying thats bad.
But you should understand the reason for the existence of religion and it is for you to decide how far religion is good for you.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The truth of Two nation theory is still at question my friend.

There is no question about it anymore.

Whether you agree or not with the original rationale behind it, or nit pick over the subsequent creation of Bangladesh, at its simplest level it represented the desire of a people to create a nation where they could live as they wished, just as the desire of some people in another nation created in 1947 (India) was to live as they wished.

The people of Pakistan supported it and voted for it. The idea of Pakistan and nationalism is deeply ingrained in most Pakistanis now.

Look beyond nationality and we are all humans. Why do we not coexist in one single human nation? Why doesn't India become a part of China?

Because we create identity subsets and those subsets or/and alliances with other subsets can form the basis of a larger set. Pakistanis chose their subset to be different from that of India and the British, just as India determined their subset to be different from that of the British or China.

After looking at posts I understand to some extent why Pakistanis and muslims living in non secular countries can't understand some facts. Like for human race peace is of utmost importance which is possible only with secular way of life.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, such conclusions are flawed and invalid. Were I to conclude on the nature of Indians on the basis of posts on forums like BR, I would have to conclude they are most vile, degenerate, intolerant, bigoted and hateful people - but that to would be a highly flawed conclusion on my part, based on an extremely small subset of opinions.

 

[rubyjackass]

There is no question about it anymore.

Whether you agree or not with the original rationale behind it, or nit pick over the subsequent creation of Bangladesh, at its simplest level it represented the desire of a people to create a nation where they could live as they wished, just as the desire of some people in another nation created in 1947 (India) was to live as they wished.

Yes the theory cannot be proved. Two nation theory was based on religion and Pakistan is the only nation for which it was applied.

The people of Pakistan supported it and voted for it. The idea of Pakistan and nationalism is deeply ingrained in most Pakistanis now.

Look beyond nationality and we are all humans. Why do we not coexist in one single human nation?

Why doesn't India become a part of China?

Thats one hell of a malice(if you are smiling behind the lines). But I will reply without that in mind. Why on earth should India become part of China? Thats as senseless as asking for China to become part of India. Please restrain from such malicious comments or hide them more subtly. Names matter no more if the co-existence you are suggeesting is to be followed.

Because we create identity subsets and those subsets or/and alliances with other subsets can form the basis of a larger set. Pakistanis chose their subset to be different from that of India and the British, just as India determined their subset to be different from that of the British or China.

Actually I believe identities should exist. But these should not be based on race or religion. It is good to have competition. Competition is what nurtured life on earth.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, such conclusions are flawed and invalid. Were I to conclude on the nature of Indians on the basis of posts on forums like BR, I would have to conclude they are most vile, degenerate, intolerant, bigoted and hateful people - but that to would be a highly flawed conclusion on my part, based on an extremely small subset of opinions.

I was talking about 'We are Muslims first' thing which I have been seeing a lot lately in this forum.