Indian Muslims also voted for creation of Pakistan: Pakistan PM Imran Khan during show of strength rally

[SuvarnaTeja]

are you a just random person, a friend of @SuvarnaTeja, or an alt account of @SuvarnaTeja ?

They are NRI Pakistanis living in abroad but pretend to be Indians to get some respect from white.

Nice story but believing in hearsay is not good.

 

[Akshay89]

I know a lot of interesting Parsis as I used to live in South Bombay, their main base in India. They were with me in school and college. After finishing class 12 we had a long vacation before we joined professional courses. A Parsi friend of mine was moving to Australia for higher studies and arrived at my door one fine afternoon, unannounced (there were no mobile phones that time and simply turning up without a warning was the norm). He was carrying a large heavy sack of something he wanted me to dispose or keep. Obviously we was talking in a very secretive manner and my mother who was in the living room was getting suspicious. So I took him to the lift lobby where he showed me the contents. It was a sack full of p0rn magazines. Unless he had inherited it, he must have spent all his lifetime pocket money on the collection. My shock was not at the size of the collection, but the fact that it was the shy, awkward classmate, considered a seedha sadha bacha by everyone who owned it. We carried the sack to a nearby rocky beach and dumped it between the rocks. The numerous couples who hid in those rocks in the evening must have been thrilled at the bounty.

Padman was good at making up stories too. And he grew up in South Bombay too.

Where do you currently reside?

 

[jamahir]

As a UN member, we can raise our voice for any human rights violation in india and vice versa. Perhaps, somewhat moral obligation is legit as Pak conceived in times when most of muslims were subjugated all over the world and there was no power protecting muslims rights, like somewhat Ottoman did.
Nonetheless, Pak has no legal committment but for its citizens.

1. As a UNO member Pakistan has thus the right and the obligation to raise voice not only for Indian Muslims ( which Pakistan does because it is the easiest ) but to raise voice for all oppressed people wherever they might be, whichever religious / political belief they might hold. Isn't being part of the UNO used by the misguided / criminal NATO governments who have a perceived right and obligation to take upon themselves to intervene in other countries ? Isn't being part of UNO and a member of humanity in general that made Putin to demand "Who gave right to NATO to eliminate Gaddafi ?" and to support Syria ?

2. Pakistan is part of the OIC and thus should at least now support the Syrian forces and their foreign allies and should have the Libyan Jamahiriya in fighting against the NATO-created AQ and "M"B criminals but instead in 2011 the chief minister of Pakistan Punjab declared his intention to rename the Gaddafi stadium in Lahore because he had eaten the NATO propaganda that Gaddafi's forces "were killing civilians, including women and children".

3. The Ottoman empire was a monarchy and not a true democratic entity and thus had to be rejected like any sensible person should now reject NATO.

 

[Paitoo]

Padman was good at making up stories. And he grew up in South Bombay too.

Where do you currently reside?

It is an interesting premise. Maybe I can start saying that I am that 'Parsi sanghi troll' in a new avatar. Like in old movies some imposter would appear on the scene, claiming to be the guy whom everyone presumed dead but had never seen, so they believed the imposter anyway.

 

[Goenitz]

1. As a UNO member Pakistan has thus the right and the obligation to raise voice not only for Indian Muslims ( which Pakistan does because it is the easiest ) but to raise voice for all oppressed people wherever they might be, whichever religious / political belief they might hold. Isn't being part of the UNO used by the misguided / criminal NATO governments who have a perceived right and obligation to take upon themselves to intervene in other countries ? Isn't being part of UNO and a member of humanity in general that made Putin to demand "Who gave right to NATO to eliminate Gaddafi ?" and to support Syria ?

2. Pakistan is part of the OIC and thus should at least now support the Syrian forces and their foreign allies and should have the Libyan Jamahiriya in fighting against the NATO-created AQ and "M"B criminals but instead in 2011 the chief minister of Pakistan Punjab declared his intention to rename the Gaddafi stadium in Lahore because he had eaten the NATO propaganda that Gaddafi's forces "were killing civilians, including women and children".

3. The Ottoman empire was a monarchy and not a true democratic entity and thus had to be rejected like any sensible person should now reject NATO.

1.Yes
2.Yes
3. Monarch or not, they somewhat weighed global opinion for a long time. They did/din't support Muslims causes from time to time. You have to imagine in colonial times and absence of civil rights, they were the sole protector of Muslim voices.

 

[Zarf]

This is a fact. What is so special about it? But most of them must have moved to Pakistan.

 

[Akshay89]

This is a fact. What is so special about it? But most of them must have moved to Pakistan.

And leave their land, mosques, monuments in the hands of Hindus?

 

[SIPRA]

Like in old movies some imposter would appear on the scene, claiming to be the guy whom everyone presumed dead but had never seen, so they believed the imposter anyway.

"Bombai Ka Babu" 1960 Bollywood movie

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

As a UN member, we can raise our voice for any human rights violation in india and vice versa. Perhaps, somewhat moral obligation is legit as Pak conceived in times when most of muslims were subjugated all over the world and there was no power protecting muslims rights, like somewhat Ottoman did.
Nonetheless, Pak has no legal committment but for its citizens.

1. As a UNO member Pakistan has thus the right and the obligation to raise voice not only for Indian Muslims ( which Pakistan does because it is the easiest ) but to raise voice for all oppressed people wherever they might be, whichever religious / political belief they might hold. Isn't being part of the UNO used by the misguided / criminal NATO governments who have a perceived right and obligation to take upon themselves to intervene in other countries ? Isn't being part of UNO and a member of humanity in general that made Putin to demand "Who gave right to NATO to eliminate Gaddafi ?" and to support Syria ?

2. Pakistan is part of the OIC and thus should at least now support the Syrian forces and their foreign allies and should have the Libyan Jamahiriya in fighting against the NATO-created AQ and "M"B criminals but instead in 2011 the chief minister of Pakistan Punjab declared his intention to rename the Gaddafi stadium in Lahore because he had eaten the NATO propaganda that Gaddafi's forces "were killing civilians, including women and children".

3. The Ottoman empire was a monarchy and not a true democratic entity and thus had to be rejected like any sensible person should now reject NATO.

India & Pakistan have a bilateral agreement which allows raising issues about minorities in each others countries. This has nothing to do with UN.

Nehru-Liaquat Agreement of 1950​

https://mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/PA50B1228.pdf

 

[Zarf]

And leave their land, mosques, monuments in the hands of Hindus?

ah!!! Believe me some of them even left their parents. They had to, their parents lived all their life in India and they were not willing to move to a new country. My mother-in-law maternal grandfather refused to move to Pakistan, all his children moved to Pakistan except one of his daughter, it is said that he used to call his children by name whenever he was lonely.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

This is a fact. What is so special about it? But most of them must have moved to Pakistan.

Most Indian Muslims did not migrate for various reasons.

For most Indian Muslims, East and West Pakistan regions were alien lands with different Languages and Cultures.

Many people including Jinnah himself were using the election results to put pressure on Congress for greater say at the negotiating table.

Partition was not a done deal yet and Muslims of the subcontinent including Jinnah never wanted the partition.

Jinnah played the bluff but Nehru accepted it readily.

But when the partition happened many Muslims did not wanted to or could not afford to migrate and remained where they were.

To give an analogy:

How many of you support the war? All raise their hands

Let's meet tomorrow on the battlefield. Only 10% show up. All the rest had their own excuses.

 

[jamahir]

1.Yes
2.Yes

You mean you agree with me ?

3. Monarch or not, they somewhat weighed global opinion for a long time. They did/din't support Muslims causes from time to time. You have to imagine in colonial times and absence of civil rights, they were the sole protector of Muslim voices.

Well, because they were a monarchy they didn't support Tipu Sultan in 1799 when he was besieged by five armies and killed. Tipu was an admirer of the French Revolution which ended the French monarchy and that event being the origin of the concept of the Nation State which itself is a problematic concept but it was a step up from the concept of monarchy it ended. Tipu had great potential for the whole of the Indian Subcontinent yet the Ottomans didn't support him. In fact ( below "Nizam" is of Deccan Hyderabad and "Walajah" is nawab of Arcot, South India ) :

So they were not quite the protector of Muslim voices.

India & Pakistan have a bilateral agreement which allows raising issues about minorities in each others countries. This has nothing to do with UN.

Nehru-Liaquat Agreement of 1950​

https://mea.gov.in/Portal/LegalTreatiesDoc/PA50B1228.pdf

The "Minorities" was in the immediate context of 1950. There are multiple "Minority" categories in India now.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

The "Minorities" was in the immediate context of 1950. There are multiple "Minority" categories in India now.

True but Minorities includes religious minorities too.

 

[jamahir]

True but Minorities includes religious minorities too.

They are but they are one category among others.

 

[SuvarnaTeja]

They are but they are one category among others.

We both are saying the same thing.

The point is the Nehru-Liaquat Agreement of 1950 provides India and Pakistan locus standii to raise issues across both the countries.