What's new

Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’!

Shahzaz ud din

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Jun 12, 2017
Messages
7,877
Reaction score
14
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
Opinion | Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
The political situation is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier, writes Shahjahan Madampat

Shajahan Madampat06 April 2020

Photo by Jitender Gupta

delhi_3_20200406_570_850.jpg


The communal violence that rocked Northeast Delhi two weeks ago, the massive human and material losses Muslims had to suffer and the indifference of all political parties to their plight make one conclusion inevitable: the only option left for Indian Muslims is to organise themselves politically. All other choices they have so far exercised have been utterly futile. A political formation led by members from within would have improved their chances of effective resistance against marauding mobs. That Delhi did not have a single recognisable leader from the Muslim community to speak and act on its behalf in this crucial hour is proof that the usual practice of dependence on, and exploitation by, the so-called secular parties is no longer tenable.

Four Reasons

There are four reasons why Indian Muslims should seriously think about bringing a major chunk of the community under a single political umbrella. First, the subjectivity of an Indian Muslim at the current juncture is very different from that of even her ardent non-Muslim secular supporter. Tweets by Yogendra Yadav and Nidhi Razdan during the violence are illustrative of this difference in subjectivities. Both worried about the reputational damage to India during the visit of the US President. Although their commitment to Indian pluralism is beyond reproach, their social location allowed them the luxury of worrying about the country’s image, while a Muslim citizen could have only prayed for survival. For the Muslim, the pogrom threatened to kill her and her family and destroy her property. The CAA/NRC/NPR posed a direct threat to her citizenship. She cannot open her door and tell the murderous mob with equanimity: “Friends, the President of America is here. The image of the country will suffer if you kill us and torch my house. Please come back a couple of days later”.

Second, dependence of Indian Muslims on ‘secular’ parties benefited the latter immensely throughout the period after Independence, but did little to protect the former during communal riots or to improve their material condition. No top leader from any ‘secular’ party had the courage to descend on the scene during the violence and offer their support to victims, primarily because they feared the loss of Hindu votes. They believed, perhaps correctly, that a substantial segment of Hindus has bought into the Sangh Parivar propaganda about Hindu victimhood. Had there been a strong political leadership within the Muslim community in Delhi, they would not have had the luxury of shirking their responsibility. Apart from the possibility of such a Muslim leadership standing by their people, they would also have been able to curb fanatical elements within the community that went berserk, attacking innocent Hindus in neighbouring areas.

Our history shows that marginalised communities are empowered when they organise politically.

Third, our political history has demonstrated that marginalised communities tasted political empowerment and a modicum of self-confidence only when they organised themselves politically--BSP, SP, RJD, IUML are some examples. Fourthly, a right-thinking social and political leadership for Muslims now is the best bet against possible radicalisation and foolhardiness. The political situation now is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier. Our pride in the fact that only a few hundred Indian Muslims out of 200 million ever joined the ranks of global Jehadi outfits may soon become passé. Indian Muslims never fell for jehadi adventurism precisely because the sense of equal citizenship the Constitution granted them made them feel at home in spite of it being far from equal in reality. Now they feel a sense of betrayal by allies on one hand and a sense of psychological disenfranchisement and imminent denial of citizenship, even physical annihilation by enemies, on the other.

Muslims have lost faith in all institutions in the country—government, police, judiciary, media, civil society and political parties. They know that hate against them is spreading like wildfire among Hindus. They also know that among the disseminators of hatred are people who hold the highest positions in the land, who meticulously work on new laws and policies aimed at consigning Muslims to an infernal existence in their own country. This kind of an abject situation is fertile for radicalism and extremist tendencies to take root. Unless a political and social leadership—with a strong moral fibre and committed to the values and ideals of the Constitution—emerges within the community, the existing leadership vacuum will be filled by impetuous zealots and cynical rabble-rousers.

Contours of a New Muslim Politics

This new Muslim politics should be Gandhian in its inclusivity, in its acceptance of diversity within and outside the community, in its commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, in its adherence to non-violence. It should not only be open to, but must proactively include within its ranks and leadership its overwhelming diversity—various sects, devout, atheist, irreligious, Sunni, Shia, gay, lesbian, transgender, freethinkers. In other words, anyone who is likely to be targeted as Muslim by Hindutva forces should have equal space in it. Second, women should take the lead in the formation and running of the political formation. History shows us that menfolk, imbued with macho patriarchy, have always subordinated greater common good to selfish motives. Shaheen Bagh has shown us spectacularly how a women-led movement can be qualitatively different, not prone to violence and remarkably stubborn. The coming out of Muslim women to take charge can be the beginning of a much-needed social churning within the community.
Third, the new formation should eschew religious symbols and slogans, and instead choose symbols and icons of Indian nationhood. Shaheen Bagh proved the efficacy of that approach not just as a tactic, but also as an inspiring model of citizenship assertion. The impassioned resort to the symbols and icons of India’s pluralist history and the reading of the preamble to the Constitution there and elsewhere created a new idiom of secular, yet not deracinated resistance. Fourth, it should not be a monolith, but a loose umbrella of regional or state-based outfits. Because the political situation in the states differs from each other, a monolith will be counterproductive. It can also lead to a particular region or state developing hegemony over others. The only common ingredient at the national level should be a set of ethical principles and the dream of restoring India to its saner self.

Muslim women taking charge can be the beginning of a social churning within the community.

Fifth, it should keep out of electoral participation for at least a period of 10 years, focusing instead on organisational work, political education, social welfare and interfaith communication. Jumping into the fray will make it susceptible to all that is wrong in Indian politics. The suggestion is not to boycott polls, but to avoid them until such time that the community feels is ripe to form reliable electoral alliances. Sixth, it should build bridges with civil society groups to fight communal forces, environmental destruction and the denial of civil liberties and human rights. The difference between most such civil society groups and so-called secular parties is that the former is less likely to betray their ideals for temporary gains than the latter, which are prone to compromises and deception. One example of this is that a majority of ‘secular’ parties have formed alliances with the BJP at one point or the other.

Seventh, it should not do or say anything that will provoke more Hindus into the Sanghi fold. They should always maintain in their words and deeds the distinction between Hindutva and Sangh Parivar on the one hand and the larger Hindu society on the other. Eighth, the new political formation should keep away the temptation to indulge in identity assertion and focus on citizenship assertion. Harsh Mander recently said: “The Muslim brothers and sisters and children who are present here are Indian by choice. The rest of us are Indians by chance. We had no choice. We had only this country. But you (Muslims) had a choice and your ancestors chose to live in this country. Today, those who are in the government are trying to prove that Jinnah was right and Mahatma Gandhi was wrong.”

It is the moral and historical duty of the Indian Muslims to prove Jinnah and Savarkar wrong, for that is the best tribute they can pay to their forefathers who chose to stay on in India

BSF Jawan’s House Burned Down in Khajuri Khas by Rioters Shouting ‘Come Here Pakistani, Get Your Citizenship’
Along with the house, the family lost all life savings kept inside for two weddings in the next three months.
favicon.ico
www.news18.com
 
.
I don't agree with much of this article because it's from the point of a secular Hindu
It basically says try to work within the system, don't antagonise hindutva too much, reach out to everyone etc


Indian Muslims need to multi task in a major major way
They need to start the process as outlined in this article, sure
But at the same time they need to

SEE THE WRITING ON THE WALL

JINNAH was right about India, this is irrefutable fact


And the steps now need to be taken to garner the strength of Indian Muslims
Build upon muslim majority areas to build defensive bases

To build a network of Muslim, political, economic, and legal hierarchy

There are muslim economic leaders
Bollywood stars
Sports stars
Etc etc

But they have no connection to each other and mostly pander to the Hindus


This needs to end and a hierarchy of Indian Muslim leadership must expand

So if muslims are under attack and fight back - A team of Muslim lawyers and legal fund is available for use

If a hindutva haramwhore runs his fat mouth, Muslim political leaders can respond, using both local and international news and other platforms to respond and even shame India



The days if being concerned about India are DEAD, fcuk India
You need to be concerned about the Indian Muslim community ONLY



Bottom line,, JINNAH wali azzadi might be the inevitable outcome if Indian Muslim rights cannot be protected
 
. .
One primary thing Indian Muslims need to do is try to relocate geographically in a certain area e.g., Hyderabad etc to make a majority. Once they are in majority in a province or so, their political voice would be much more valuable. They would be able to organize themselves politically, economically and socially.
 
.
Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
Opinion | Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
The political situation is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier, writes Shahjahan Madampat

Shajahan Madampat06 April 2020

Photo by Jitender Gupta

delhi_3_20200406_570_850.jpg


The communal violence that rocked Northeast Delhi two weeks ago, the massive human and material losses Muslims had to suffer and the indifference of all political parties to their plight make one conclusion inevitable: the only option left for Indian Muslims is to organise themselves politically. All other choices they have so far exercised have been utterly futile. A political formation led by members from within would have improved their chances of effective resistance against marauding mobs. That Delhi did not have a single recognisable leader from the Muslim community to speak and act on its behalf in this crucial hour is proof that the usual practice of dependence on, and exploitation by, the so-called secular parties is no longer tenable.

Four Reasons

There are four reasons why Indian Muslims should seriously think about bringing a major chunk of the community under a single political umbrella. First, the subjectivity of an Indian Muslim at the current juncture is very different from that of even her ardent non-Muslim secular supporter. Tweets by Yogendra Yadav and Nidhi Razdan during the violence are illustrative of this difference in subjectivities. Both worried about the reputational damage to India during the visit of the US President. Although their commitment to Indian pluralism is beyond reproach, their social location allowed them the luxury of worrying about the country’s image, while a Muslim citizen could have only prayed for survival. For the Muslim, the pogrom threatened to kill her and her family and destroy her property. The CAA/NRC/NPR posed a direct threat to her citizenship. She cannot open her door and tell the murderous mob with equanimity: “Friends, the President of America is here. The image of the country will suffer if you kill us and torch my house. Please come back a couple of days later”.

Second, dependence of Indian Muslims on ‘secular’ parties benefited the latter immensely throughout the period after Independence, but did little to protect the former during communal riots or to improve their material condition. No top leader from any ‘secular’ party had the courage to descend on the scene during the violence and offer their support to victims, primarily because they feared the loss of Hindu votes. They believed, perhaps correctly, that a substantial segment of Hindus has bought into the Sangh Parivar propaganda about Hindu victimhood. Had there been a strong political leadership within the Muslim community in Delhi, they would not have had the luxury of shirking their responsibility. Apart from the possibility of such a Muslim leadership standing by their people, they would also have been able to curb fanatical elements within the community that went berserk, attacking innocent Hindus in neighbouring areas.

Our history shows that marginalised communities are empowered when they organise politically.

Third, our political history has demonstrated that marginalised communities tasted political empowerment and a modicum of self-confidence only when they organised themselves politically--BSP, SP, RJD, IUML are some examples. Fourthly, a right-thinking social and political leadership for Muslims now is the best bet against possible radicalisation and foolhardiness. The political situation now is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier. Our pride in the fact that only a few hundred Indian Muslims out of 200 million ever joined the ranks of global Jehadi outfits may soon become passé. Indian Muslims never fell for jehadi adventurism precisely because the sense of equal citizenship the Constitution granted them made them feel at home in spite of it being far from equal in reality. Now they feel a sense of betrayal by allies on one hand and a sense of psychological disenfranchisement and imminent denial of citizenship, even physical annihilation by enemies, on the other.

Muslims have lost faith in all institutions in the country—government, police, judiciary, media, civil society and political parties. They know that hate against them is spreading like wildfire among Hindus. They also know that among the disseminators of hatred are people who hold the highest positions in the land, who meticulously work on new laws and policies aimed at consigning Muslims to an infernal existence in their own country. This kind of an abject situation is fertile for radicalism and extremist tendencies to take root. Unless a political and social leadership—with a strong moral fibre and committed to the values and ideals of the Constitution—emerges within the community, the existing leadership vacuum will be filled by impetuous zealots and cynical rabble-rousers.

Contours of a New Muslim Politics

This new Muslim politics should be Gandhian in its inclusivity, in its acceptance of diversity within and outside the community, in its commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, in its adherence to non-violence. It should not only be open to, but must proactively include within its ranks and leadership its overwhelming diversity—various sects, devout, atheist, irreligious, Sunni, Shia, gay, lesbian, transgender, freethinkers. In other words, anyone who is likely to be targeted as Muslim by Hindutva forces should have equal space in it. Second, women should take the lead in the formation and running of the political formation. History shows us that menfolk, imbued with macho patriarchy, have always subordinated greater common good to selfish motives. Shaheen Bagh has shown us spectacularly how a women-led movement can be qualitatively different, not prone to violence and remarkably stubborn. The coming out of Muslim women to take charge can be the beginning of a much-needed social churning within the community.
Third, the new formation should eschew religious symbols and slogans, and instead choose symbols and icons of Indian nationhood. Shaheen Bagh proved the efficacy of that approach not just as a tactic, but also as an inspiring model of citizenship assertion. The impassioned resort to the symbols and icons of India’s pluralist history and the reading of the preamble to the Constitution there and elsewhere created a new idiom of secular, yet not deracinated resistance. Fourth, it should not be a monolith, but a loose umbrella of regional or state-based outfits. Because the political situation in the states differs from each other, a monolith will be counterproductive. It can also lead to a particular region or state developing hegemony over others. The only common ingredient at the national level should be a set of ethical principles and the dream of restoring India to its saner self.

Muslim women taking charge can be the beginning of a social churning within the community.

Fifth, it should keep out of electoral participation for at least a period of 10 years, focusing instead on organisational work, political education, social welfare and interfaith communication. Jumping into the fray will make it susceptible to all that is wrong in Indian politics. The suggestion is not to boycott polls, but to avoid them until such time that the community feels is ripe to form reliable electoral alliances. Sixth, it should build bridges with civil society groups to fight communal forces, environmental destruction and the denial of civil liberties and human rights. The difference between most such civil society groups and so-called secular parties is that the former is less likely to betray their ideals for temporary gains than the latter, which are prone to compromises and deception. One example of this is that a majority of ‘secular’ parties have formed alliances with the BJP at one point or the other.

Seventh, it should not do or say anything that will provoke more Hindus into the Sanghi fold. They should always maintain in their words and deeds the distinction between Hindutva and Sangh Parivar on the one hand and the larger Hindu society on the other. Eighth, the new political formation should keep away the temptation to indulge in identity assertion and focus on citizenship assertion. Harsh Mander recently said: “The Muslim brothers and sisters and children who are present here are Indian by choice. The rest of us are Indians by chance. We had no choice. We had only this country. But you (Muslims) had a choice and your ancestors chose to live in this country. Today, those who are in the government are trying to prove that Jinnah was right and Mahatma Gandhi was wrong.”

It is the moral and historical duty of the Indian Muslims to prove Jinnah and Savarkar wrong, for that is the best tribute they can pay to their forefathers who chose to stay on in India

BSF Jawan’s House Burned Down in Khajuri Khas by Rioters Shouting ‘Come Here Pakistani, Get Your Citizenship’
Along with the house, the family lost all life savings kept inside for two weddings in the next three months.
favicon.ico
www.news18.com
Lolz.. In what world Muslims already has faith in "secularism " ???
Islam itself is not secular, then why cry?

I don't think that still Indian Muslims substantially comprehend the extent and intensity of the Hindutva thinking. Perception of Pakistanis is far more clear in this respect.
Don't your army has enough power to kill evil Hindus?? Always rellies on Indian Muslims. Lol

One primary thing Indian Muslims need to do is try to relocate geographically in a certain area e.g., Hyderabad etc to make a majority. Once they are in majority in a province or so, their political voice would be much more valuable. They would be able to organize themselves politically, economically and socially.
indian Muslims already has all rights. Indian constitution gives them all rights.
You must killl your insects of brainwashed mind.
 
.
Lolz.. In what world Muslims already has faith in "secularism " ???
Islam itself is not secular, then why cry?


Don't your army has enough power to kill evil Hindus?? Always rellies on Indian Muslims. Lol

Muslims exist in one third of the world you simpleton from india. There are african muslim countries, european muslims countries, russia adjacent muslim countries like kazhksthan and far east muslim countries like malaysia.

Your lot live in primitive caste system, marrying within caste and under one delhi which does not even speak your language. You neither have a country nor a meaningful society. what gives your people such cockiness to come outside and insult one third of the world. i dont understand.
 
.
Hey Indian Muslims remember Gandhi used a Stick to walk ? The Hindutva put that stick right up your A$$ hahah and I am so much lovin every moment of it :D
 
.
Lolz.. In what world Muslims already has faith in "secularism " ???
Islam itself is not secular, then why cry?

Are they supposed to cheer as Hindus slaughter them? Also what's this excuse that since Islam is not secular, they don't have a reason to complain? Hinduism isn't secular either, you pea-brained Hindu.

Indian constitution gives them all rights.

But Hindus take these rights away from them. The right to not be killed for touching "Gau mata". The right to not be groped by a Hindu pervert on Holi. The right to not have their houses torches by Hindu goons.
 
.
Are they supposed to cheer as Hindus slaughter them? Also what's this excuse that since Islam is not secular, they don't have a reason to complain? Hinduism isn't secular either, you pea-brained Hindu.



But Hindus take these rights away from them. The right to not be killed for touching "Gau mata". The right to not be groped by a Hindu pervert on Holi. The right to not have their houses torches by Hindu goons.
Yes.. You don't have right to preach or demand secualarism unless you don't follow it home. This is called hypocrisy. This is what you are.
And Hinduism is totally secular as it has no concept of believer and non believer.
It has no concept of Hindus, Muslims, Christen, jews etc... .
Hinduism doesnt preach differences.
 
.
Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
Opinion | Indian Muslims Have Lost Faith In National Institutions And ‘Secularism’
The political situation is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier, writes Shahjahan Madampat

Shajahan Madampat06 April 2020

Photo by Jitender Gupta

delhi_3_20200406_570_850.jpg


The communal violence that rocked Northeast Delhi two weeks ago, the massive human and material losses Muslims had to suffer and the indifference of all political parties to their plight make one conclusion inevitable: the only option left for Indian Muslims is to organise themselves politically. All other choices they have so far exercised have been utterly futile. A political formation led by members from within would have improved their chances of effective resistance against marauding mobs. That Delhi did not have a single recognisable leader from the Muslim community to speak and act on its behalf in this crucial hour is proof that the usual practice of dependence on, and exploitation by, the so-called secular parties is no longer tenable.

Four Reasons

There are four reasons why Indian Muslims should seriously think about bringing a major chunk of the community under a single political umbrella. First, the subjectivity of an Indian Muslim at the current juncture is very different from that of even her ardent non-Muslim secular supporter. Tweets by Yogendra Yadav and Nidhi Razdan during the violence are illustrative of this difference in subjectivities. Both worried about the reputational damage to India during the visit of the US President. Although their commitment to Indian pluralism is beyond reproach, their social location allowed them the luxury of worrying about the country’s image, while a Muslim citizen could have only prayed for survival. For the Muslim, the pogrom threatened to kill her and her family and destroy her property. The CAA/NRC/NPR posed a direct threat to her citizenship. She cannot open her door and tell the murderous mob with equanimity: “Friends, the President of America is here. The image of the country will suffer if you kill us and torch my house. Please come back a couple of days later”.

Second, dependence of Indian Muslims on ‘secular’ parties benefited the latter immensely throughout the period after Independence, but did little to protect the former during communal riots or to improve their material condition. No top leader from any ‘secular’ party had the courage to descend on the scene during the violence and offer their support to victims, primarily because they feared the loss of Hindu votes. They believed, perhaps correctly, that a substantial segment of Hindus has bought into the Sangh Parivar propaganda about Hindu victimhood. Had there been a strong political leadership within the Muslim community in Delhi, they would not have had the luxury of shirking their responsibility. Apart from the possibility of such a Muslim leadership standing by their people, they would also have been able to curb fanatical elements within the community that went berserk, attacking innocent Hindus in neighbouring areas.

Our history shows that marginalised communities are empowered when they organise politically.

Third, our political history has demonstrated that marginalised communities tasted political empowerment and a modicum of self-confidence only when they organised themselves politically--BSP, SP, RJD, IUML are some examples. Fourthly, a right-thinking social and political leadership for Muslims now is the best bet against possible radicalisation and foolhardiness. The political situation now is so completely pitted against the community that extremist elements wanting to fish in troubled waters will find their task much easier. Our pride in the fact that only a few hundred Indian Muslims out of 200 million ever joined the ranks of global Jehadi outfits may soon become passé. Indian Muslims never fell for jehadi adventurism precisely because the sense of equal citizenship the Constitution granted them made them feel at home in spite of it being far from equal in reality. Now they feel a sense of betrayal by allies on one hand and a sense of psychological disenfranchisement and imminent denial of citizenship, even physical annihilation by enemies, on the other.

Muslims have lost faith in all institutions in the country—government, police, judiciary, media, civil society and political parties. They know that hate against them is spreading like wildfire among Hindus. They also know that among the disseminators of hatred are people who hold the highest positions in the land, who meticulously work on new laws and policies aimed at consigning Muslims to an infernal existence in their own country. This kind of an abject situation is fertile for radicalism and extremist tendencies to take root. Unless a political and social leadership—with a strong moral fibre and committed to the values and ideals of the Constitution—emerges within the community, the existing leadership vacuum will be filled by impetuous zealots and cynical rabble-rousers.

Contours of a New Muslim Politics

This new Muslim politics should be Gandhian in its inclusivity, in its acceptance of diversity within and outside the community, in its commitment to Hindu-Muslim unity, in its adherence to non-violence. It should not only be open to, but must proactively include within its ranks and leadership its overwhelming diversity—various sects, devout, atheist, irreligious, Sunni, Shia, gay, lesbian, transgender, freethinkers. In other words, anyone who is likely to be targeted as Muslim by Hindutva forces should have equal space in it. Second, women should take the lead in the formation and running of the political formation. History shows us that menfolk, imbued with macho patriarchy, have always subordinated greater common good to selfish motives. Shaheen Bagh has shown us spectacularly how a women-led movement can be qualitatively different, not prone to violence and remarkably stubborn. The coming out of Muslim women to take charge can be the beginning of a much-needed social churning within the community.
Third, the new formation should eschew religious symbols and slogans, and instead choose symbols and icons of Indian nationhood. Shaheen Bagh proved the efficacy of that approach not just as a tactic, but also as an inspiring model of citizenship assertion. The impassioned resort to the symbols and icons of India’s pluralist history and the reading of the preamble to the Constitution there and elsewhere created a new idiom of secular, yet not deracinated resistance. Fourth, it should not be a monolith, but a loose umbrella of regional or state-based outfits. Because the political situation in the states differs from each other, a monolith will be counterproductive. It can also lead to a particular region or state developing hegemony over others. The only common ingredient at the national level should be a set of ethical principles and the dream of restoring India to its saner self.

Muslim women taking charge can be the beginning of a social churning within the community.

Fifth, it should keep out of electoral participation for at least a period of 10 years, focusing instead on organisational work, political education, social welfare and interfaith communication. Jumping into the fray will make it susceptible to all that is wrong in Indian politics. The suggestion is not to boycott polls, but to avoid them until such time that the community feels is ripe to form reliable electoral alliances. Sixth, it should build bridges with civil society groups to fight communal forces, environmental destruction and the denial of civil liberties and human rights. The difference between most such civil society groups and so-called secular parties is that the former is less likely to betray their ideals for temporary gains than the latter, which are prone to compromises and deception. One example of this is that a majority of ‘secular’ parties have formed alliances with the BJP at one point or the other.

Seventh, it should not do or say anything that will provoke more Hindus into the Sanghi fold. They should always maintain in their words and deeds the distinction between Hindutva and Sangh Parivar on the one hand and the larger Hindu society on the other. Eighth, the new political formation should keep away the temptation to indulge in identity assertion and focus on citizenship assertion. Harsh Mander recently said: “The Muslim brothers and sisters and children who are present here are Indian by choice. The rest of us are Indians by chance. We had no choice. We had only this country. But you (Muslims) had a choice and your ancestors chose to live in this country. Today, those who are in the government are trying to prove that Jinnah was right and Mahatma Gandhi was wrong.”

It is the moral and historical duty of the Indian Muslims to prove Jinnah and Savarkar wrong, for that is the best tribute they can pay to their forefathers who chose to stay on in India

BSF Jawan’s House Burned Down in Khajuri Khas by Rioters Shouting ‘Come Here Pakistani, Get Your Citizenship’
Along with the house, the family lost all life savings kept inside for two weddings in the next three months.
favicon.ico
www.news18.com


After what can be considered as a reasonably throughout opinion piece, the article slips deep into the shithole of the Indian mindset (prove Jinnah wrong?)

Prove what wrong? when was India ever a single country? NEVER!!!!!!!!

There is nothing to prove, until and unless you people get out of this fantasy mindset based on an imagined history, there will never be peace in the region and there will never be peace and harmony within India.

A bunch of retards.
 
.
Yes.. You don't have right to preach or demand secualarism unless you don't follow it home. This is called hypocrisy. This is what you are.
And Hinduism is totally secular as it has no concept of believer and non believer.
It has no concept of Hindus, Muslims, Christen, jews etc... .
Hinduism doesnt preach differences.

LMFAO that's not what secularism is, you dumb ****.
 
. .
India was never secular.
The Indian National Congress appeased Muslims with all types of quotas, subsidies and gifts to get their votes.
This pseudo-secular system was very beneficial to Indian Muslims.
In the Caliphate however, Indian Muslims were the toilet cleaners.
Therefore I do not think that an Islamic system would benefit them.
No Arab would give an Indian Muslim (or Pakistani for that matter) quotas, subsidies, gifts etcetera.
And do not think that the Persians or Turks think better of you than an Arab does.
They just do not say it out loud.
In an Islamic system, South Asian Muslims are the Dalits.
 
Last edited:
.
India was never secular.
The Indian National Congress appeased Muslims with all types of quota's, subsidies and gifts to get their votes.
This pseudo-secular system was very benificial to Indian Muslims.
In the Caliphate however, Indian Muslims were the toilet cleaners.
Therefore I do not think that an Islamic system would benefit them.
No Arab would give an Indian Muslim (or Pakistani for that matter) quota's, subsidies, gifts etcetera.
And do not think that the Persians or Turks think better of you than an Arab does.
They just do not say it out loud.
In an Islamic system, South Asian Muslims are the Dalits.

You must be from the upper caste to denigrate professions like toilet cleaners and call Muslims as Dalits as if it is a derogatory insult.
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom