What's new

India 'incomplete' without Pakistan's Sindh: BJP patriarch LK Advani

Dear Sir,
Given that India is not a banana republic where constitution is changed to whims and fancies of the dictators on the big throne, i see a very bleak possibility for such yearnings of a old man. For us the constitution remains sacrosanct, so don't worry about us.
Who said anything about worrying about you? We are worried about ourselves and that we have people like the above in power in India. As for the constitution please tell how does it prevent Indian politicians from acting in the name of national security. Did India under Indra Gandi did not do the same when they supposedly intervened in East Pakistan? Did the Indian constitution prevented that from happening? However bleak the above maybe, spare us if we do not share the same amount of confidence as you do specially when your PM openly admitted interfering in Baluchistan in his independence day speech. Your constitution did nothing about that either.
 
.
Pakistan and China have not expanded since half a century where as India is illegally occupying Kashmir, annexed Sikkim, forged and financed terrorism in Sri Lanka...and is meddling in internal affairs of Tibet..
Thank you. Your statement made me proud. Bharat Muslim would be flattered. I will quote and add your statement to his collection.
 
. .
Yes, we are trying very hard to make it a success, it may take decades or even centuries but it will happen. Harmony between Hindus and Muslims will be a reality although according to some it is impossible.

There is no question of harmony between Muslims and Hindus at all, therefore, both can live in peace Pakistan-India. Now can understand what I stated.

If you say that treating everyone equally is fake then I cannot convince you otherwise. I just want to say that even animals want equal treatment, kindly watch the below video proving my statement:

Bad example and wrong impression of my quote. As the shared video explains that everyone want an equal share but claims are rake. Equality was not contradicted in my post at all but fake claims under the so-called equality in Secularism. Read the post again.

India is trying very hard to be just to all its citizen, if it fails then we have massacres of unimaginable proportion. You can wish for the destruction of Indian secularism to justify the creation of Pakistan but I wish for it's success, and if you see the past 70 years India has succeeded pretty well as compared to Pakistan.

Creation of Pakistan doesn't need any justification as it is proven right. You succeeded in your way and we are happy in Pakistan but the claims for undoing Pakistan is contrary to the same as like how you seek India as success today. Discounting India as compare to Pakistan, is a biased analysis and I see, we are doing great apart and have no vision to destroy Indian Secularism as Indian system itself will justify in the end either being rightly implemented to the society or against the wish of people.

If ppl from Sindh want to be part of India, we will welcome them.

Advani did not say so and mean it, did he?
 
.
If ppl from Sindh want to be part of India, we will welcome them.

That's a big if. There has never been a movement in Sindh to become part of India. Even the Sindhudesh movement (now defunct) was to become autonomous or independent depending on which wing of the Sindudesh movement you looked at. But kashmiris wasnt to be part of Pakistan and we will not just welcome them but help them get here.
 
.
Virtually world has no boundaries. Couple of more generations and things will be very different. People will implement their beliefs on themselves but it won't require a whole set up like a separate country. There'll be options like we see its initial shape in Islamic/Non Islamic banking.

Old people have old memories like Mr. Advani. We respect them. But future is more bright than their memories.
 
.
Who said anything about worrying about you? We are worried about ourselves and that we have people like the above in power in India. As for the constitution please tell how does it prevent Indian politicians from acting in the name of national security. Did India under Indra Gandi did not do the same when they supposedly intervened in East Pakistan? Did the Indian constitution prevented that from happening? However bleak the above maybe, spare us if we do not share the same amount of confidence as you do specially when your PM openly admitted interfering in Baluchistan in his independence day speech. Your constitution did nothing about that either.
Did the PM openly admit interfering in Baluchistan, this is news to me. How about you read what he said and come back to me.
 
.
There is no question of harmony between Muslims and Hindus at all
Please explain what do you imply by this statement.
Do you mean that Hindus and Muslims cannot live in harmony?
Or you mean Hindus and Muslims can live in separate countries and both countries can live harmoniously but separately?
Or do you mean something else?
Kindly elaborate.
fake claims under the so-called equality in Secularism.
I never stated that India is equal on ground, on the contrary there is great inequality in India on many issues. But I want to say that the constitution of India is absolutely equal and will continue to be equal in the future.
As opposed to this form of secular govt do you think that the Islamic govt is more equal?
I just want to say that the ground realities may be different but the basic law of the land is more just and equal in India as compared to Pakistan.
Mr Jinnah himself wanted a secular muslim majority Pakistan where every minority is treated equally. Do you think today's Islamic republic of Pakistan is same as his vision. I certainly don't think so.
Creation of Pakistan doesn't need any justification
I don't agree with you, you might not need any justification but the founder of Pakistan did have a very clear justification for it's creation.
Indian Secularism as Indian system itself will justify in the end either being rightly implemented to the society or against the wish of people.
I agree with this statement of yours. Only the future can prove which system is better.
But as of now I can clearly see which one is ahead.
 
.
Pakistan and China have not expanded since half a century where as India is illegally occupying Kashmir, annexed Sikkim, forged and financed terrorism in Sri Lanka...and is meddling in internal affairs of Tibet..

Lol if someone don't have knowledge pls don't bark like mad dogs
Kashmir is a not a illegally occupied by India there was, a document in which the king of Kashmir has announced that he will going to merged with India nd it happen due to Pakistan who has attacked on kashmir... nd kill small kids raped women..
And frm the sikkim topic u show ur knowledge in sikkim there was a referendum done by UN in which the select to be state of India...
 
.
Please explain what do you imply by this statement.
Do you mean that Hindus and Muslims cannot live in harmony?
Or you mean Hindus and Muslims can live in separate countries and both countries can live harmoniously but separately?
Or do you mean something else?
Kindly elaborate.

You are misreading again and you brought Harmony in discussion that was not the question at first place. Jinnah said, we will live separately in peace. There was no harmony among Muslims as minority and Ruling Elite of British India. If there was harmony then there was no need of a separate Pakistan.

As opposed to this form of secular govt do you think that the Islamic govt is more equal?

Yes, read Islamic Law for better understanding but Pakistan Constitution is not Islamic Shariah at all.


Mr Jinnah himself wanted a secular muslim majority Pakistan where every minority is treated equally.

Not related but still to answer you, you interpret it for Secular State by Jinnah which is not correct. Muslim does not know any liberal secular etc thing but only Islam. Do you know what is secularism and then read Islam as well for better understanding. Minorities are well secure in Islam.

But as of now I can clearly see which one is ahead.

Your opinion and selective analysis from Indian prospect which could be contrary to the fact or not the right one so cannot generalize it.

For your overall post, Pakistan was never meant to be secular state. India can continue with its constitution but while mentioning the minority thing, I am again repeating shortly, read about caste system, the difference of practicing minorities rights in India and discrimination as well. Though not to cause derailing the topic here, these subjects are well discussed so there is no need of repetition at all. About living separately, indeed that is what Jinnah mentioned in earlier speeches so you can read and listen for better understanding that Pakistan was must due to discrimination by ruling elite in those times hence the need of separate country. To let you understand your secular Pakistan theory, there was no need of Pakistan if it was the idea and India was/is better in this. Indian constitution is equality and on the same time you see great inequality in India so how do you compare India's 70 years like mere equality in constitution which is not practiced, is benefiting the society at all. All in all, to conclude it shortly, Pakistan don't need any secular system and was never meant to be except the misleading and forged, cooked, concocted stories by libidos or secular. The name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan so there is no room for anything else.

I never stated that India is equal on ground, on the contrary there is great inequality in India on many issues. But I want to say that the constitution of India is absolutely equal and will continue to be equal in the future.
 
.
Virtually world has no boundaries. Couple of more generations and things will be very different. People will implement their beliefs on themselves but it won't require a whole set up like a separate country. There'll be options like we see its initial shape in Islamic/Non Islamic banking.

Old people have old memories like Mr. Advani. We respect them. But future is more bright than their memories.
I doubt that it will be so early. We will still be fighting after 2 generations.
 
.
Did the PM openly admit interfering in Baluchistan, this is news to me. How about you read what he said and come back to me.
When your PM mentions a non disputed territory in his independence celebration speech, how would you take it if not as admission of interference in sovereign countries affairs? May i ask you to stop playing with words to suit a certain flavor here and at the very least call spade a spade?
 
.
You are misreading again and you brought Harmony in discussion that was not the question at first place. Jinnah said, we will live separately in peace. There was no harmony among Muslims as minority and Ruling Elite of British India. If there was harmony then there was no need of a separate Pakistan.



Yes, read Islamic Law for better understanding but Pakistan Constitution is not Islamic Shariah at all.




Not related but still to answer you, you interpret it for Secular State by Jinnah which is not correct. Muslim does not know any liberal secular etc thing but only Islam. Do you know what is secularism and then read Islam as well for better understanding. Minorities are well secure in Islam.



Your opinion and selective analysis from Indian prospect which could be contrary to the fact or not the right one so cannot generalize it.

For your overall post, Pakistan was never meant to be secular state. India can continue with its constitution but while mentioning the minority thing, I am again repeating shortly, read about caste system, the difference of practicing minorities rights in India and discrimination as well. Though not to cause derailing the topic here, these subjects are well discussed so there is no need of repetition at all. About living separately, indeed that is what Jinnah mentioned in earlier speeches so you can read and listen for better understanding that Pakistan was must due to discrimination by ruling elite in those times hence the need of separate country. To let you understand your secular Pakistan theory, there was no need of Pakistan if it was the idea and India was/is better in this. Indian constitution is equality and on the same time you see great inequality in India so how do you compare India's 70 years like mere equality in constitution which is not practiced, is benefiting the society at all. All in all, to conclude it shortly, Pakistan don't need any secular system and was never meant to be except the misleading and forged, cooked, concocted stories by libidos or secular. The name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan so there is no room for anything else.
I am very sorry if this went somewhat out of topic, but I would also like to conclude with the below point's.
I don't want to discuss sharia law in this forum, as this is not a religious forum. If you really want to discuss religion then you can PM me.

You have clearly stated that Pakistan is not a secular/liberal state. I agree completely, at present it is not and it can never be secular with out changing the constitution.

I want to prove the benefits of secularism over religious govts with the simple example that in Pakistan a muslim will always be treated as superior to a non believer because in Islam a believer is superior to a non believer especially a Hindu who is considered as an idolator.
This itself creates a barrier between a muslim and a Hindu in Pakistan. No such barrier exists in India as it is not an Islamic republic or a Hindu republic.
Ground realities might be different at present but at least the law of the land is just.
read Islamic Law for better understanding but Pakistan Constitution is not Islamic Shariah at all.
As you have stated that today Pakistan does not follow sharia law, so according to you should Pakistan amend its constitution to include sharia law? Are you happy with the current constitution of Pakistan?
 
.
If you really want to discuss religion then you can PM me.

You want to learn about Islam you can search about that. Why would I want to discuss with you in first place nor I call for it.

You have clearly stated that Pakistan is not a secular/liberal state. I agree completely, at present it is not and it can never be secular with out changing the constitution.

There is no need it to be Secular State.


I want to prove the benefits of secularism over religious govts with the simple example that in Pakistan a muslim will always be treated as superior to a non believer because in Islam a believer is superior to a non believer especially a Hindu who is considered as an idolator.

There is nothing like that as Constitution of Pakistan is mix of Islamic Shariah and Republic Law. Muslim are in Majority hence Islam is the major religion of Pakistan therefore, Hindus and others are called as minority and as per Islamic Law they are well protected as well as per Pakistan's Constitution. There is nothing as superior etc here so no need to generalize what is your personal opinion. There are no benefits of secularism and Islam is a complete set of system to live a life for us Muslims. Case closed.


This itself creates a barrier between a muslim and a Hindu in Pakistan. No such barrier exists in India as it is not an Islamic republic or a Hindu republic.
Ground realities might be different at present but at least the law of the land is just.

The is no such barrier except religion the same will remain to exist. You are mixing Islam with Constitution of Pakistan however, saying that no such barrier exist in India, still the fact is so different as you stated yourself, therefore, what use of a constitution in India which is not implemented. So if you want to tell the benefits of Secularism, how about to implement it firstly in house and tell the world as a role model.


As you have stated that today Pakistan does not follow sharia law, so according to you should Pakistan amend its constitution to include sharia law? Are you happy with the current constitution of Pakistan?

Muslim will always want Shariah Law in Pakistan but as a mix of ethnic, different religion, it cannot be done alone and there are circumstances currently Shariah Law is not implemented however, Muslim practice Islam and minorities as per their religion. I am happy as it is the constitution of Pakistan currently and being a Muslim would be more happy to see Shariah Law but the same is not the matter to criticize the current law at large. Wanting Shariah can be my personal wish but I cannot impose the same on everyone hence, can wish for but wouldn't malign my own Country for that. Islamic Law is majorly adopted in Constitution. Constitution of Pakistan does not conflict with Islam at all hence, we are happy.
 
.
how about to implement it firstly in house and tell the world as a role model.
It will take time.
Muslim will always want Shariah Law in Pakistan but as a mix of ethnic, different religion, it cannot be done alone and there are circumstances currently Shariah Law is not implemented however, Muslim practice Islam and minorities as per their religion. I am happy as it is the constitution of Pakistan currently and being a Muslim would be more happy to see Shariah Law but the same is not the matter to criticize the current law at large. Wanting Shariah can be my personal wish but I cannot impose the same on everyone hence, can wish for but wouldn't malign my own Country for that. Islamic Law is majorly adopted in Constitution. Constitution of Pakistan does not conflict with Islam at all hence, we are happy.
Ok, sounds fair, I have no intension of debating further.
It was nice talking to you on this topic.
 
.

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom