As usual, for the author history starts after 712 AD. You can easily guess the text books he picked up the stuff from...
As expected he used the terms zionist, hindu, and fascist very eloquently. But fails to realise they are not India and do not determine what India is.
Your rant says quite the opposite - that you're very ignorant of history of Indian cub-continent. Muslims ruled Hindustan for more than 900 years and remained a minority. All the Mughal kings after Akbar were sons of Hindu Queen Jodha Bai.
As for your rant about two Muslim presidents - tell me how many Hindus are in Pakistan - I bet less than half percent - while Muslims make more than 18% of countries population. Every Muslim MP has to be selected by some Hindu political party in India - while in Pakistan - Hindus, like Christians have RESERVED SEATS in Sindh province (where most of Hindu population reside) - and they don't have to beg any Muslim political party.
Got the picture dude!!
Please check the numbers about the situation just after partition. So they fall below half percent from atleast 5%(adjusted for bangladesh numbers), is there any excuse for that?
India is not only an artificial state, rather an illegitimate mini empire, where the Negroid, Austric and Mongoloid people (who are considered low caste shudras and sometimes even untouchables) are subjugated and enslaved by the hindu self-proclaimed upper castes, and particularly Brahmins till now. Muslims are hijacked by the bigger number of hindus as they always live with fear and the feeling of insecurity. Those hindus who do not accept it, are either brainwashed or Kautilyas (dirty diplomatic people). Now this is the fact so far as the ground realities are concerned.
All topics are inseparably related to one another. It is called relevancy. Therefore one topic may appear relevant while discussing another topic. Unfortunately some people are so prejudiced that they deliberately do not want understand this matter. They may have some vested interests. You can find such specimens right below.
V V V V
Ahh... God I feel so proud of my country when it evokes such envy from ppl like this.
This post made up for the lack of the word 'Kautilya' in the lead article.
And vested interests? who seem to hold them? look closely...
I mean the arrows are in the wrong direction.
So you are gonna determine what is to stay and what not....!!! And with the help of that gun...??? Store enough bullets because that day is not very far when india will undergo a civil war... and it is a friendly suggestion to you...
No dude... just make people understand 'Unity is strength' and celebrate your commonness. You don't need bullets.
SO much for the rhetoric...
As for the facts...
I totally agree that India could not have been one single entity had the british not come. Each raja would have formed his own country.
India would have become a 6th continent with the most number of countries than any other.
On the optimistic side, there is a possibility of some unification, given that there were quasi-secular movements like Sufi and common history. The best case, it would have lead to a state similar to the present.
But who cares, whatever happened happened. Not many seem to have a problem with that. And a significant portion of this many are not even Indians.
Also what do you mean by 'artificial'? The british rule is as much a part of history as the mughal rule or any other part. Why do you want to call it artificial?
Outside world did know about Islam in 629 AD. During that time, the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was busy establishing a Muslim foot-hold in Medina city (Yasrib). First Muslim Arab trader landed in Kerala could be during the rule of Emir Muwayya.
.
?
