INDIA: Pak T-shirts in procession, Treason case registered

[Armstrong]

Islamabad Bahi Ko daina pare ga ..

So is offer your offer still valid ... ??

Yeh tou maslaa pur jaiii gaa !

Okay you can keep Karachi !

Mein Governor Raj lagwaa kar rule kar luuun gaa !

 

[Armstrong]

Last I time spoke about Jinnah, I got banned. You are too dumb. Pakistanis justify partition I don't.

Serves you right; we will never accept any nonsense about our Father !

 

[Tameem]

Now, look at it from a Hindu's point of view. Muslims voted overwhelmingly for partition based on the reasoning that they couldn't live with the Hindus, and yet 1/3rd of the muslims of the subcontinent stayed back in India. Think about how effed up that is. You got a piece of land (Pakistan and Bangladesh) that was proportional to your population (90 million) but we ended up with a 3rd of the population. In what world is that fair play?

The short answer is, British Indian Empire was actually stands mostly on the erstwhile Muslim Mughal Empire, so our demand is just return back the rein from where you got it in the first place if not fully, even partially. So, How its a favor of Hindus of giving anything out of their filled pocket to Muslims when their is none of any kind in the first place.

Every time there is a post regarding an Afghan saying something negative towards Pakistan, every Pakistani poster is up in arms demanding that they be sent back to Afghanistan. Yet the expectation is that, despite our history, Hindus should quietly accommodate all of the Muslims demands.

India is a secular multi religious nation not a Hindu nation in the first place, so all your accommodation is towards the Idea of India the secular one, first carves out a pure Hindu state of your own then your complaint or Owness to muslims could be justified.

 

[LURKER]

I already gave you proof it doesn't. The cow slaughter ban for example and almost every issue where Muslim and Hindu thought has been divergent. Do you remember Babri masjid? It was demolished despite the protestations of Muslims across the country.

Look at Kashmir. At every point where Hindu and Muslim thought has been found divergent there has been chaos and the issue has been resolved in favor of Hindutvadi terrorists. You can claim such terrorists are a minority which I admit is a truth but it still does not do anything to prove that Muslims are in a great condition in India.

Another thing. No where in the world and particularly in developing countries the people, rich and poor are treated equally. In India there is something called a caste system.

My cousin said so and so is a dalit and I shouldn't touch him.

At that time I said nothing, but truly it is horrible that we can treat our own fellow beings as untouchable. The practice exists in parts of Pakistan too but nonetheless its a horrible practice.



My nana was the biggest supporter of Pakistan living in Lucknow. So don't try to teach me. He married almost every daughter to Pakistanis. There used to be bets on who would win matches with Muslims in Lucknow vouching for Pakistan. You can ask your grand father about this if you want.

In 1947 having a car was considered a big thing. Now almost 20% of Indian and Pakistani populations have a car. Its like saying first we had A and now we have A whose value has declined/appreciated so we are better off. It doesn't make a difference. Did anyone have internet in the year 1947?



What is your village? My ancestral place from one side is Barabanki. They are ansaris which almost every other day are being framed as terrorists in there. Almost every article about Ansaris seems to cover them as terrorists even though Ansaris are by far the most liberal people known.

I won't divulge my other branch but in any case the problems for Muslims in India are many. The economic situation has gradually improved for people in both India and Pakistan. What has not improved is the way Muslims are treated in India. By many those parts are not even considered Indian especially Lucknow being the heartland of the All India Muslim League which formed Pakistan.

In the communally charged atmoshphere of 1947 many a muslim in UP supported Pakistan , many did not ( read Deobandis) . Many who didn't or couldn't migrate may still have had "feelings" for Pakistan but to say the current generations feels the same is blowing things out of proportion. There's no love lost for Pakistan for current generation of muslims here in UP. Infact many consider Pakistan as the reason for their woes, there's nothing worse for an Indian muslim than to be labelled a Pakistani. For many the partition weakened the muslims. The condition of muhajirs in Pakistan and what Pakistan has turned out to be in the 65 years after partition is not hidden from anyone. The point of divergence which you mention exists even among different muslim sects, to the extent that there's literally a genocide of one sect being perpetrated in Pakistan.

I think you are confusing Azamgarh with Barabanki. Let me see some of those articles which mention Ansaris of Barabanki as terrorists. There's one Ansari who's always making headlines for all the wrong reasons and he's Mukhtar Ansari, no one calls him a terrorist. The muslims of this region of Barabanki - Lucknow are well to do and have a reasonable political clout . There has hardly been any hindu muslim clashes in this region rather shia sunni clashes have been an issue.

Again you are living in the past, Lucknow being the HQ of AIML has got nothing to do with current ground situation here. There has been no large scale violence in Lucknow even during partition, hence there no historical vendetta between hindus and muslims . UP was centre for both pro Pak and pro India muslim politics, the pro Pak sentiment faded quickly when reality started to dawn on muslims . You're just pointning out one side of the coin ignoring the other side.

 

[haviZsultan]

The problem with people like you is that you do not understand the concept of reciprocity.

I understand the concept. Only out of respect to the Hindu the Muslims should not slaughter cows as you say but atleas

Cow slaughter is not necessary for Muslims. If you believe that it is, then you dont know your own religion. Muslims can slaughter ram/sheep/buffalow/goat/camel/xyz.
While for Hindus, slaughtering Cows is extremely offensive.

So you can't see a Muslim doing what he can be done in his religion. This is what I was saying. In each case where Hindu Muslim views clash the subject has been decided in favor of Hindus. Anyway there are 30000 illegal slaughterhouses in India despite this and cow meat is consumed throughout the nation.

So what sane Muslims or essentially those who understand the concept of 'treat others the way you want to be treated' would not use Cow for the Qurbani, instead use any other animal. This way, they fulfill and celebrate their festival while not offending Hindus.

Only out of respect for the Hindus. But in an ideal situation they shouldn't have to give up a part of their religion just to appease the majority. I am not condoning Akbaruddin owaisi's actions but will clearly ask his question again. If the cow is so holy then why sell it to muslims who are going to slaughter it?

Similarly, it is not necessary for Hindus or Sikhs to insult Mohammad. But they can under Freedom of Speech laws.
For Muslims, it is extremely offensive if someone does that.

What people say about anyone else should be their personal concern. We Muslims should stop taking offense to everything. We must eliminate orthodoxy within our community and defeat people who use religion to murder innocents.

The way Muslims expect that their religious sentiments should be cared for, the same way the onus is on them as well to respect other's religious sentiments.

How else should they respect you. By singing songs of jai hind continually? The Muslims should strive for their rights, rights which have been taken from them.

These things are hard to grasp for those who have been brought up with an Islamic supremacist point of view from childhood. Taught only to take from others and impose your will but never to make others happy by caring for their sentiments.

I see.

But for those who do have some semblance of understanding, they do understand these things - and do understand that humanity means caring for other's sentiments as much as you care for your own.

I think you have given me enough reason to try and avoid beef while in India. Only out of respect for the Hindu population. But it still does nothing to improve the average muslims situation. Personally I would rather see the Muslims in UP (trapped there, pro pakistani or pro Indian or whatever) have the exact same religious rights as Muslims in Pakistan where people CAN slaughter cows. Also it is said Ibrahim particularly slaughtered a cow and to follow his tradition many muslims believe it is a cow that should be slaughtered.

 

[livingdead]

The short answer is, British Indian Empire was actually stands mostly on the erstwhile Muslim Mughal Empire, so our demand is just return back the rein from where you got it in the first place if not fully, even partially. So, How its a favor of Hindus of giving anything out of their filled pocket to Muslims when their is none of any kind in the first place.



India is a secular multi religious nation not a Hindu nation in the first place, so all your accommodation is towards the Idea of India the secular one, first carves out a pure Hindu state of your own then your complaint or Owness to muslims could be justified.

mughals were nearly dead and buried by the time british started their campaign. (mughals rules mostly delhi and surrounding areas)
If you want to restore to pre british India.. a huge part of India will be ruled by marathis and considerable part of pakistan by sikhs.

 

[INDIC]

British Indian Empire was actually stands mostly on the erstwhile Muslim Mughal Empire, so our demand is just return back the rein from where you got it in the first place if not fully, even partially.

British entered in Delhi about 100 years after then end of Mughal empire because Marathas controlled Delhi since 1758 after they defeated Rohilla Pashtuns. In reality, British conquered most of India from Hindus, Muslim ruled only some small territories like Bengal, Awadh, Sindh or Hyderabad.

 

[Tameem]

British entered in Delhi about 100 years after then end of Mughal empire because Marathas controlled Delhi since 1758 after they defeated Rohilla Pashtuns. In reality, British conquered most of India from Hindus, Muslim ruled only some small territories like Bengal, Awadh, Sindh or Hyderabad.

mughals were nearly dead and buried by the time british started their campaign. (mughals rules mostly delhi and surrounding areas)
If you want to restore to pre british India.. a huge part of India will be ruled by marathis and considerable part of pakistan by sikhs.

Marathis were already smokes out in Panipat entirely by Afghans, Had there not East India Company by britishers, Nawabs in Bengal, Haider Ali & Nizams in South India would be in fully control, and once hefty tributes to Mughals stands in line, their is absolutely no chance for Sikhs to appear anything between Dehli and Peshawar.....The point is only East India Company makes the difference and weakened the central Mughal power...no one else.

 

[Proudpakistaniguy]

lol a good self satisfaction statement.
The fact is some of you can't digest that we too have many patriotic muslims, and this is hurting you inside.

Why it would hurt me if indian muslims are patriotic towards their country be it india or any other place but for them patriotism is hating Pakistan or Pakistani. They need to hate pakistani/Pakistan in order to prove their patriotism in front of Hindu. Read this article by Indian

In India, the Muslim lives on sufferance. It is the Hindu who has freedom to attack India and its culture, its vulgarity. The Muslim who objects to something, no matter that it is obvious and visible, must qualify his argument.

Usually, the qualification demanded is that he show himself as patriotic. In India, this is a term which comes out of the negative sentiment. To be a patriotic Indian, one is not required to be taxpaying, law-abiding, well-meaning or philanthropic. Patriotism is demonstrated throug hating particular country. The reason the Indian Muslim lives on sufferance is also rooted in this.

You see, the Muslim is guilty of the original sin, by voting for Pakistan in the 1945-46 elections. He divided Mother India and his generations must carry this burden of Adam.
Shahrukh Khan said this: “I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India. I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country. This, even though I am an Indian whose father fought for the freedom of India. Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave and return to what they refer to as my original homeland.”


He should have prefaced his remarks (which I find ordinary, inoffensive and accurate) as follows: “I don’t like Pakistan. My fans are mostly Hindus, whom I love more than Pakistanis.”
Having said this, he would not have offended us, no matter what he then unburdened.

Like children who need a pacifier, the Muslim offering opinion on prejudice must hold out this lollipop to Indians, whose natural view of him is coloured by his religion. At all points, he must remember this and mumble an Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

In not doing this, and I’m surprised he didn’t because he should know a thing or two about Indian public opinion, Shahrukh Khan opened himself to an attack which goes in this fashion: “Aren’t you grateful, are you not satisfied, that we gave you — you Muslim! — such fame, such success? You didn’t whine about this then, did you? Now, the Pakistanis are lecturing us because of your remarks. You should be ashamed.”
The self-congratulatory assumptions we make about ourselves — secular nation! World’s largest democracy! — are not particularly reflected outside of the Constitution. We should think about that.

On Nidhi Razdan’s show on NDTV on the night of January 29, I was on a panel, discussing Narendra Modi as a prime ministerial candidate. In the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) corner was a woman called Meenakshi Lekhi. Midway through the discussion, she asked a soft-spoken man, Najib Jung, vice chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, if he thought Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan.
Why did she bring this up? I don’t know, and there was no occasion to. But it was dropped in casually because it’s the natural thing to say to a Muslim here — hey, are you guys Pakistan-lovers? Tell us the truth, now.

As a writer, I can imagine the pressure on Muslim writers who are aware of India and the space they operate in. MJ Akbar wrote an unthinking paean to the BJP’s idiocy after Pokhran, and I suspect that wasn’t because he’s a fan of nuclear weapons. It’s all quite frightening, or should be. It doesn’t surprise me at all.

In India, it has always mattered who says something. What is said depends not on the intellectual content but which side it has blown from.
How it is said is also always more important than what is said because the Indian is easily offended. Ashis Nandy shouldn’t have assumed that he could be subtle and clever only because it was the anglicised middle class he was speaking to at Jaipur.
They are cut of the same cloth as other Indians. Quick to emotion, barely literate about anything whether their own culture or the West’s, and powered on and on by an asinine media.

To be a Muslim in India – The Express Tribune

 

[livingdead]

Marathis were already smokes out in Panipat entirely by Afghans, Had there not East India Company by britishers, Nawabs in Bengal, Haider Ali & Nizams in South India would be in fully control, and once hefty tributes to Mughals stands in line their is absolutely no chance for Sikhs to appear anything between Dehli and Peshawar.

would.. should.. could.. we dont know what would have happened... do we? The fact is, when british started their campaign, marathas ruled massive part of India and sikhs ruled massive part of pakistan.
They all were defeated by british.

When british left, they gave option to princely states that swore allegence to them, whether to join India.. or pakistan or remain independent.
There were 300 or so such states, and guess what, no mughals. became mughals were dead and buried.

 

[INDIC]

Marathis were already smokes out in Panipat entirely by Afghans, Had there not East India Company by britishers, Nawabs in Bengal, Haider Ali & Nizams in South India would be in fully control, and once hefty tributes to Mughals stands in line, their is absolutely no chance for Sikhs to appear anything between Dehli and Peshawar.....The point is only East India Company makes the difference and weakened the central Mughal power...no one else.

You are wrong, Durranis failed to annex India even after defeating Marathas and Marathas were just weakened and their empire kept on expanding and survived until 1818, it were British ultimately destroyed them. The Mughal sultans were mere titular head and retain the title after Marathas annexed Delhi in 1758, Mughals controlled no territory after 1758. In South India, the Nizams of Hyderabad were first to enter in subsidiary alliance with British helping them to annex India and their rule survived until 1948.

 

[INDIC]

The fact is, when british started their campaign, marathas ruled massive part of India and sikhs ruled massive part of pakistan.

Only Sindh was the major region ruled by Muslim, most of Punjab and large part of NWFP was ruled by Sikhs, some parts of NWFP was ceded by Maharaja of Kashmir during British rule. Sindh was annexed made the part of Bombay Presidency.

 

[Tameem]

would.. should.. could.. we dont know what would have happened... do we? The fact is, when british started their campaign, marathas ruled massive part of India and sikhs ruled massive part of pakistan.

Stop beating around the bush, Just tells me, Brithish Stated from where? who's Empire/King that was (Muslims or Hindu)? & then tells me how they completed their subcontinent conquest compaign whose Emipre/King that was in the end after those 90 years of conquest as well (Hindu/Muslim)?

 

[Chak Bamu]

@Chinese-Dragon
I have lived in Ahmedabad,Delhi,Mumbai,Pune,hyderabad and Mysore. I can tell you Muslims in those states abosuletly love Pakistan. I had a discussion with a few with in Delhi on India vs Pakistan. They always mocked Indian armed forces who always get bullied by a smaller Muslim force. Deep down in our heart we always feel happy when Pakistanis humiliating Hinduwadis each and everytime. Its out of respect for our pakistani Muslim brothers we don't join the armed forces.

------------------------------------------------

For all those wondering about @mujahidind 's IP address: It is in India. This is not the first time I have had to clarify this. But I do hope that this is the last time.

 

[INDIC]

Stop beating around the bush, Just tells me, Brithish Stated from where? who's Empire/King that was (Muslims or Hindu)? & then tells me how they completed their subcontinent conquest compaign whose Emipre/King that was in the end after those 90 years of conquest as well (Hindu/Muslim)?

They started from Bengal but what is your point here. Half of Pakistan's population was under Sikh rule. Marathas controlled most of India, not the Mughals as you are trying to pretend.