India vehemently ratifies the two nation theory after 8 decades of denial.

[janon]

...
I also fully support the Two Nation Theory. If possible I would request you to read Jaswant Singh's book on him. He was a visionary and India has more reasons to be grateful to Jinnah than to Nehru. Imagine a United India today. Exactly. Imagine a Zarvan and a Manvan, me, Tshering or even Ravi living in one country. It would explode. In no time.
...

But the fact is that Manvan, you, Tshering and Ravi Nair are living together in India, and India is not exploding. Only Zarvi is missing. (I'm sure there are plenty of Zarvans in India as well, but ignoing that for a moment, the others you mentioned are managing to live together.)

...
Lemma 9: That the Indian segment of the population went through two processes of its own.
...

Which two processes do you mean?

 

[HariPrasad]

He is Narendra Bhai Modi, not Narendra Singh.

The writer need not know even the Name of the person n whose name the article is written. Typical example BS journalism.

 

[WAR-rior]

WHY IS THIS FUTILE THREAD EVEN ACTIVE?

Has Standard of PDF gone so low to keep a thread running based on personal assumptions and apprehensions of some random member?

No links nothing. Still?

 

[Joe Shearer]

But the fact is that Manvan, you, Tshering and Ravi Nair are living together in India, and India is not exploding. Only Zarvi is missing. (I'm sure there are plenty of Zarvans in India as well, but ignoing that for a moment, the others you mentioned are managing to live together.)



Which two processes do you mean?

@janon

Lemma 10 and 11.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

But the fact is that Manvan, you, Tshering and Ravi Nair are living together in India, and India is not exploding. Only Zarvi is missing. (I'm sure there are plenty of Zarvans in India as well, but ignoing that for a moment, the others you mentioned are managing to live together.)



Which two processes do you mean?

My point exactly

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Actually, Jinnah comes out looking better than Gandhi in some aspects.

It was Gandhi, who politicked and supported the Khilafat movement. A Turkish caliphate movement that should have no resonance with Indian Muslims. This eventually led to the debacle of Moplah rebellions.

I know this is Panacea for liberals, and they may denounce me as a bigot, but I believe that for a nation to function, it needs to be sure of it's identity. Just as United States, where every Politician has to affirm he is a Christian (you won't get elected otherwise) and a large section of their polity affirms that United States is a Judeo-Christian country. Yet, a large population of America affirms their secularism, and their Judicial system keeps a check on this.

Debate is part of Hinduism. Without it, Adi Shankaracharya and Sree Narayana Guru would not have made an impact. Just because you are a Hindu, does not give you the right to trample on other religions.

Same with Islam. I think the whole partition process should have been handled over the course of a few years and well planned out.

@SarthakGanguly Islam is Islam Sanatana Dharma is Sanatana Dharma Never the twain shall meet.

Mainly because one is a Definitive religion, the other a mishmash of cults, philosophies and sciences.

I honestly have considerable respect for Jinnah, not that I hate Gandhi either. Both were mixed - like everything in this world of contradictions. It was unfortunate Pakistan lost him so early. People there are still in two minds as to what he really wanted. Pity

Nehru was immature and idealistic to the point of criminality, but at least he gave stability to the nascent Indian state. The same can't be said about Pakistan in 1948 and Bangladesh in 75.

Debate is vital. Without it we would live blindly following laws that applied thousands of years ago. The need is always to reinvent oneself, without compromising some basics. Without reform faith is a meaningless piece of historical text showing how people lived centuries ago.

I agree, but I like to believe the people can meet, even if their respective faiths are in direct contradiction if not confrontation.

That is because most are straight forward with their venom, I actually have more respect for them because they wear their beliefs like a badge of honor.

This guy is quite the sweet talker but I don't buy it, it just annoys me instead.

I have tried my level best to be as honest as possible. If you expect me to post things that suit your idea of a Hindutvavadi, you will be disappointed

 

[shuntmaster]

Theories are proven or disproven, not ratified. Treaties and agreements are ratified.
I wonder why the Pakistanis still feel the need to analyse the elections in India to prove a theory on which their country was created 67 years ago. The overwhelming majority in India and the rest of the world accept the reality of Pakistan. Most Indians welcome the fact that Pakistan is separate from India. Maybe an extremely small and insignificant loony fringe in India still dream of united Indian subcontinent. Majority of Indians today would not accept even if Pakistan and Bangladesh were to willingly want to merge with the secular republic of India.

 

[shuntmaster]

The basic premise the Two Nation Theory is that Muslims and Non-Muslims cannot coexist as one nation and Islamic religion can define the nationhood. This theory stands disproven based on the following three facts:

1. The overwhelming majority of Indian Muslims, which forms the 2nd or 3rd largest Muslim population in the world, are coexisting peacefully with non-Muslim Indians. As long as even 10% of Indian Muslims can live peacefully with their non-Muslim neighbors in the secular republic of India, the Two Nation Theory stands disproven.
2. The fact that over 50+ Muslim majority independent country's exist in this world also disproves the theory that religion defines the nation. Even Islamic republic of Pakistan shares a border with 2 other Islamic republic, which are very independent. There are dozens of Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to Pakistan sharing contiguous borders, but still staying independent. Even in the middle-east, there are over a dozen independent nations, kingdoms and emirates, even though they share a common religion, Arabic culture and history. As long as there are dozens of Independent Muslim nations and not one united ummah, the two nation theory stands disproven.
3. The presumption that Islamic religion can keep a nation united as one unit was disproven in 1971 by the creation of Bangladesh after its separation from Pakistan. Islam didn't prevent the West-Pakistanis from looking down with contempt their fellow Bangla Muslims and didn't prevent them from committing untold atrocities on them. As long as Bangladesh remains a sovereign indpendent nation, the Two Nation theory stands disproven.

However, having said the above, irrespective of whether the two nation theory is proven or not, the overwhelming majority of Indians accept the reality of Pakistan and are happy that Pakistan is a separate country. The majority of Indians are indifferent to the current affairs in Pakistan. Their only concern is Pakistan's meddling in Indian affairs and for being a constant pain in the rear.

 

[Vinod2070]

This is the clear inferiority complex - you are not neutral regarding us, this speak to what you seek to deny, thank you for confirming it again my friend.

An issue with the language skills I assume.

The last thing this can be called is inferiority complex.

Similar to how thousands of low cast untouchables being massacred and also religious and ethnic minorities being treated by the bitch mother india, regarding the anti Shia violence has more to do with proxy Saudi and Iranian hostility being played out, I have Sunni in my family as well as Shia, one of sister-in-laws, is indian Punjabi.

OK, so Shia are the Islamic equivalent of "low cast untouchables"?

So it all went waste, this whole conversion thing! It probably became only worse...

 

[Rafi]

An issue with the language skills I assume.

The last thing this can be called is inferiority complex.



OK, so Shia are the Islamic equivalent of "low cast untouchables"?

So it all went waste, this whole conversion thing! It probably became only worse...

That has more to do with your own "prejudice"

An issue with the language skills I assume.

The last thing this can be called is inferiority complex.



OK, so Shia are the Islamic equivalent of "low cast untouchables"?

So it all went waste, this whole conversion thing! It probably became only worse...

That has more to do with your own prejudice

 

[Vinod2070]

Lol no I am doing a minor in psychology but it has nothing to do with my observations about him. He has hounded me for over two years so I already know what he is like is all.

Even if you are doing a minor, I think you should know what hallucination means.

That is what it is. Just like the hallucinations in the Hira gufa.

For the record, I have nothing for or against you. You don't belong to our region, being a Syed Arab. Fake or real, from two sides or three sides, I couldn't care less.

You get back when you try to outgrow your little dish dash and abuse others. Every time, it has been a case of you getting back after starting the abuse.

For your own great grandpa's sake, you know what to do. Or not to do!

PS: If just 12 li'l pics set your backside on fire, think of what is possible...

 

[Vinod2070]

The basic premise the Two Nation Theory is that Muslims and Non-Muslims cannot coexist as one nation and Islamic religion can define the nationhood. This theory stands disproven based on the following three facts

There are millions of facts disproving it as we speak.

Every time a Pakistani leaves for a non Muslim country, he disproves the TNT. Just check how many people on this forum itself would fit the bill.

As you correctly mentioned, TNT means Muslims can't live with any non Muslims if logically extended. There are a very large number of Muslims living in non Muslim majority countries and a very large number leaving Islamic countries willingly for non Muslim countries.

They are the biggest facts disproving TNT.

This doesn't take away from the fact that we are mighty glad we are rid of them as much as they are rid of us.

 

[Jackdaws]

I honestly have considerable respect for Jinnah, not that I hate Gandhi either. Both were mixed - like everything in this world of contradictions. It was unfortunate Pakistan lost him so early. People there are still in two minds as to what he really wanted. Pity

Nehru was immature and idealistic to the point of criminality, but at least he gave stability to the nascent Indian state. The same can't be said about Pakistan in 1948 and Bangladesh in 75.

Debate is vital. Without it we would live blindly following laws that applied thousands of years ago. The need is always to reinvent oneself, without compromising some basics. Without reform faith is a meaningless piece of historical text showing how people lived centuries ago.

I agree, but I like to believe the people can meet, even if their respective faiths are in direct contradiction if not confrontation.


I have tried my level best to be as honest as possible. If you expect me to post things that suit your idea of a Hindutvavadi, you will be disappointed

Jinnah was a chameleon. He could be liberal in the clubs and hotels of Bombay where he rubbed shoulders with the elite. He would champion religiosity in the NWFP to break the stranglehold of the Khudai Khidmadgar. Anyhow, he needed to be alive to give some form of direction to Pakistan. Poor chap, he wanted to retire in Bombay even after Partition.

 

[Joe Shearer]

A question regarding this: how much was Nehru's contribution to democracy? From what I know, Congress as a whole was supportive of democracy. Given the era and the influence of British that India had, it was the only visible option. Most importantly, Gandhi was in favour of republic. What individual contribution did Nehru made towards democracy that differentiates him from rest of the big leaders?

Personally, I believe that Nehru before independence was an overblown figure, Nehru after independence was a pillar of the republic and a great influence on the Indian state; unfortunately, he had influence on both the positive and negative aspects. His deferment to the Lok Sabha in so many instances, when the brute majority of a servile Congress party might have allowed him to ride roughshod over the opposition, is one of his contributions. Protecting the integrity of institutions, protecting the integrity of appointments, of due process, of a million 'little' things proved to be invaluable in building the democratic character of this nation.

But then one also remembers how his gratuitous interference in the Army led to the debacle of 62, and one hesitates.

 

[shuntmaster]

Jinnah was a chameleon. He could be liberal in the clubs and hotels of Bombay where he rubbed shoulders with the elite. He would champion religiosity in the NWFP to break the stranglehold of the Khudai Khidmadgar. Anyhow, he needed to be alive to give some form of direction to Pakistan. Poor chap, he wanted to retire in Bombay even after Partition.

Jinnah was great lawyer, mediocre politician and pathetic statesman. Like all good lawyers, he was an expert opportunist.