India's 700,000 Army for Kashmir Occupation, while Pakistan Freely recruits from Azad Kashmir!

[RazaGujjar]

Kashmir does not belong to Hindus...for centuries the people of Kashmir have been predominately Muslim.

Furthermore, they look nothing like the people of Hindustan. Give them their freedom.

 

[Hellfire]

If the Jewish people could wait over 2,000 years to make an effort to retake their nation with the help of outsiders, please tell me why the Kashmiris are not allowed the same?

I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?

Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?

Firishta (1560-1620), the author of Tarihk-i-Firishta and Gulshan-i-Ibrahim declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)."


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...”


The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."


In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”




By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?

@Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.

@Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly

@WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.

 

[Pakistani E]

I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?

Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?

Firishta (1560-1620), the author of Tarihk-i-Firishta and Gulshan-i-Ibrahim declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)."


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...”


The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."


In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”




By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?

@Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.

@Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly

Sure the Indians can have a go as well, don't you already believe that since India has the superiority of numbers and strength that Pakistanis and Kashmiris can do nothing? Many many times Indians on this forum and around the world, including your politicians and military leaders have already themselves accepted the fact the only thing keeping Kashmir with them is the threat of arms, why then are you so worried when Kashmiris try the same trick?

The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves with the aid of other Hindu rulers. Religion was just a good excuse for the orgy of plunder, something the Christians also engaged in Africa and Central and South America. All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence, you are barking up the wrong tree by giving their example to me, I have already given my opinion on these so called Islamic invasions of India. What a joke.

 

[Jaanbaz]

700,000 supapowa soldiers for just one territory.

 

[Hellfire]

Sure the Indians can have a go as well, don't you already believe that since India has the superiority of numbers and strength that Pakistanis and Kashmiris can do nothing? Many many times Indians on this forum and around the world, including your politicians and military leaders have already themselves accepted the fact the only thing keeping Kashmir with them is the threat of arms, why then are you so worried when Kashmiris try the same trick?

The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves. What a joke. All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence, you are barking up the wrong tree by giving their example to me, I have already given my opinion on these so called Islamic invasions of India.

It is not your opinion. I asked a straight forward question. If you can answer, be kind enough to answer in a straightforward manner. If unable to without indulging in circumlocution, then do let know. No use wasting our time.

The question was


Can you explain lack of unrest, opposition to Pakistani Forces during Operation Gibraltar and a peaceful Kashmir valley till 1989? Curious to know your answer.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/indias-7...rom-azad-kashmir.446172/page-16#ixzz4Ie2Ov157

 

[Pakistani E]

It is not your opinion. I asked a straight forward question. If you can answer, be kind enough to answer in a straightforward manner. If unable to without indulging in circumlocution, then do let know. No use wasting our time.

What were the Indians doing between 1857 and 1947? What were the Jews doing for 2,000 years? What were the Polish doing for centuries? What were the Irish doing under British rule? You seem to want to push the subject of discussion towards 1989 so you can claim that Pakistanis started it all. Well, why was Shiekh Abdullah in prison for? What speech did he make making a certain demand that he was put in prison way before 1989?

It is of course a circular discussion, your argument merely presents a time limit to that of the Kashmir valley but excuses all the others. You don't have to engage me at all, I merely left my opinion but my reply to the point you are making is not nearly as irrelevant as the ones presented by other Indians to myself.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?

Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?

Firishta (1560-1620), the author of Tarihk-i-Firishta and Gulshan-i-Ibrahim declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)."


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...”


The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."


In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”




By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?

@Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.

@Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly

@WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.

I am going with the principle that there is no point in participating in a conversation unless it seems to be going somewhere. I have no intention of rubbishing that long post by Pakistani Exile. Neither to refute his contentions nor to point out the consequences of what is going on. I have no intention of reminding him of the underside of the Islamicised unrest, of the oppression of women, already started, now in full swing, where women who do not conform to the imposition of the mullahs were attacked with acid, of the increasing narrow-mindedness, where an Ahmedi conference was banned by the Mufti, of the bans on all-girl bands for being un-Islamic, of all these. He claims to be sensitive to the oppression of Kashmiris by the security forces. It seems to be selective sensitivity.

 

[Hellfire]

I am going with the principle that there is no point in participating in a conversation unless it seems to be going somewhere. I have no intention of rubbishing that long post by Pakistani Exile. Neither to refute his contentions nor to point out the consequences of what is going on. I have no intention of reminding him of the underside of the Islamicised unrest, of the oppression of women, already started, now in full swing, where women who do not conform to the imposition of the mullahs were attacked with acid, of the increasing narrow-mindedness, where an Ahmedi conference was banned by the Mufti, of the bans on all-girl bands for being un-Islamic, of all these. He claims to be sensitive to the oppression of Kashmiris by the security forces. It seems to be selective sensitivity.

Understood. Raise this topic and people are left running for answers. Then I feel like throwing Karen Armstrong lock stock and barrel at them, along with John Keay to drive in the Arab "nationalism". Pretty uncomfortable mix, if I get to it.

Thanks sir.

 

[Pakistani E]

If my sensitivities are selective, then so are the Indians. The militants I have already condemned, my posts on Hurriyat leaders bigotry towards Ahmadis on the relevant thread was plain for all to see, but Indians like humans everywhere, choose to turn a blind eye to the abuse committed by those they consider their own, since the topic of the thread was that, that is what I discuss. If others want to discuss the abuses committed by militants, they can open a thread there and I can leave ignorant, totally devoid posts of ground realities there too.

All the points of the failure of the insurgency have already been mentioned by me in numerous other threads. I already know they have failed, I do not even support armed rebellion and condemn all abuses and violence. But those who want to pretend to be on a higher pedestal cannot do the same when it is committed by those they see as beloved.

I can do nothing about this, as it is a basic human emotion but the doing of wrong from one side, does not excuse the wrongs of others.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

The so called Islamic invasions of India were anything but Islamic, if they were you wouldn't have mughal rulers marrying local Hindu women while they remain hindu, or fighting amongst themselves with the aid of other Hindu rulers.

Underlined part - Who are you to claim so?
The Mughal rulers marrying Hindu women were converted. There was a disgusting exchange, an almost barter of Hindu Rajput princesses for some sovereignty of the Hindu rulers in Rajputana. The Rajputs sent the most beautiful princess as a wife to the Mughal court (and hundreds of slave women to the harems) in return for their right to rule under the Mughal crown. Also the senior Rajput prince had to be stationed in Agra as the honored 'guest' of the Mughal empire with Mughal guards for his 'protection'. We are not taught this shameful chapter in our history.

All of the above so called Ghazis engaged in looting and acts of violence

So were the original Ghazwas.

If my sensitivities are selective, then so are the Indians.

Partly true. That I agree.

But there are more objective observers on the Indian side as of now. This is due to a liberal strain that still survives in our culture (and fast diminishing due to geopolitical requirements).

But of late, there is a sharp difference that is becoming apparent. This is nothing unusual. Muslims (Pakistanis) are associating themselves with the Islamic point of view. The moderates subscribe to the apologist point of view. The rest are proud of their lineage (real or perceived). The Hindus on the other hand are also now turning to an identity based understanding of history, which remains their right of course. They are also starting to see their past with the lens their ancestors were forced to suffer - the lens of religion.

This is an irreconcilable difference. I don't blame you though.

 

[Pakistani E]

Underlined part - Who are you to claim so?
The Mughal rulers marrying Hindu women were converted. There was a disgusting exchange, an almost barter of Hindu Rajput princesses for some sovereignty of the Hindu rulers in Rajputana. The Rajputs sent the most beautiful princess as a wife to the Mughal court (and hundreds of slave women to the harems) in return for their right to rule under the Mughal crown. Also the senior Rajput prince had to be stationed in Agra as the honored 'guest' of the Mughal empire with Mughal guards for his 'protection'. We are not taught this shameful chapter in our history.

So were the original Ghazwas.

If others can claim they were invasions that were meant to spread Islam in the Sub continent contrary to the fact that the majority of Muslim converts in the Sub continent were in fact converted by Sufi saints who's dargahs dot areas with large Muslim populations, then surely I have the right to the opinion that these invasions were not Islamic? Surely, if we are saying these invasions were "Islamic" they were meant to spread the faith here? Correct? Or were they merely "Islamic" since the faith of the conquerors happen to be Islamic?

How many Muslims did they leave in these areas? The Ghaznavids came across the areas that my tribe is settled in Pakistan, and they carried out a massacre not far from the main centre of this tribe, yet did we become Muslims because of this ? Not at all, the credit for conversion goes to a Sufi Saint who's name is so honoured that the tribe now claims descent from his, although incorrectly.

A lot of these rulers were just fighting other Muslim rulers for sovereignty, if they were really coming to spread the faith here why did some decide to leave after exacting tribute from their fellow Muslim rulers? And why did others, when they had fulfilled their personal treasury, did not stay to build mosques and bring preachers but merely after filling their coffers they returned to their countries till they ran out of them.

Who did the Mughals defeat to capture Delhi? The wife of Akbar was a Muslim, was she? It was all political, using religion when necessary, if they were as Islamic as people claim they were why then did they first oust another Muslim ruler to make their kingdom? Who ran Babur out of his original home? The Rajputs?

Partly true. That I agree.

But there are more objective observers on the Indian side as of now. This is due to a liberal strain that still survives in our culture (and fast diminishing due to geopolitical requirements).

But of late, there is a sharp difference that is becoming apparent. This is nothing unusual. Muslims (Pakistanis) are associating themselves with the Islamic point of view. The moderates subscribe to the apologist point of view. The rest are proud of their lineage (real or perceived). The Hindus on the other hand are also now turning to an identity based understanding of history, which remains their right of course. They are also starting to see their past with the lens their ancestors were forced to suffer - the lens of religion.

This is an irreconcilable difference. I don't blame you though.

See, I respect you more because you don't beat around the bush and are frank and honest about your opinion, unlike others who want to portray another image but will not accept realities. They want me to condemn their opposing side, if I don't then I am ignorant. Well I condemn both, if the militants are wrong in their actions then so are the Indian soldiers who are carry out violent acts against non combatants.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

Come on, Yar you already know my opinion on this. I have already stated numerous times that Pakistan and indeed the majority of Hurriyat leaders lost the good will of the majority of Kashmiris when they chose to deliberately turn this national struggle in to that of a Jihad of a particular sect. Come now, don't put me together with the others just because I refuse to accept Indian acquisition of Jammu and Kashmir. I am just butthurt from the injustices committed during Dogra regime and my hatred for them has just been transferred to the Indian side even though I have no qualms in accepting Indian rule is a thousand times better, nay it would be an insult to even compare the two. My only reasoning and logic is that the Kashmiris have the right to self determination, IF they want it. Just like the Indians had when they agitated against the British, or any other people in the world. My view of Kashmir conflict is not clouded by a mirage of religious fantasies but a more nationalist one. Even though, I try hard not to let a jingoistic narrative take over my feelings.

I know you are different. Which is precisely why I AM replying to you.
Otherwise I reply in one liners and troll religious sentiments. I have little time for that.

You are not entirely right about Hurriyat thing though. Hurriyat is now divided into 4 major factions. 2 of them are openly pro Islamist, 2 are officially neutral. And they have a huge support among the Kashmiri Muslims.

India has made terrible mistakes in not only Kashmir, but all over India. We will reap the rewards in the next 20 years. We have allowed religion a free rein. Our previous Governments controlled the markets, even the Hindu religion, but left the others free. They should have left the market free, while keeping a vigil on religion.

Fact is that in Kashmir there is not a single cinema hall standing, music cds/functions are not available (though black market is popular), religious slurs are common (Hussainiat, Yazidiat, lollays(for Pandits) etc - I never considered these words to be vulgar when I grew up).

So when you say people of Jammu and Kashmiris deserve self determination - I will ask - who are the people of Jammu and Kashmir? The majority of the intolerant valley residents now (55%) of the state or the rest 45% who are as integrated into the mainstream as anyone can be?

On a personal level, I think there are no solutions. One side will have to be extinguished, till then the bloodshed will continue. Just to mention - 70 people have died in past two months including the police.

I've got an idea, since it is not possible for Indians to go to Azad Kashmir why don't you ask the many Indians in the U.K to approach a Azad Kashmiri and ask them on their love for India or perhaps their vengeful hatred for the oppressive Pakistanis

I am very well aware of the desire of Kashmiris to be ruled by a state as per the tenets of Islam. Though Pakistan is not the ideal, it is a far better alternative than India. I know this, I agree that the average Kashmiri 'Muslim' will find Pakistan far more preferable. I never denied that.

They want me to condemn their opposing side, if I don't then I am ignorant.

It is always best to stick to your ground and be true to yourself. I don't care if there is a God up there, but I will stay true to myself at least.

The wife of Akbar was a Muslim, was she

The previous points are also false. But I can understand that accepting that is difficult, and in fact quite impossible. Any self respecting human being will find justification to explain the lack of conversions in the south and NE, and total conversions in the West.

I will only refute this one above with direct source. For the rest, I don't want to rock the boat. There are books. Read both sides of the narrative. You are smart, you will understand (and probably lose faith in religion )

Akbar's wife was Muslim. The famous Jodha begum or Heer Kunwari WAS actually converted to Mariam uz Zamani before a traditional nikaah. All three 'main' wives of Akbar were Muslims.

 

[Hellfire]

Akbar's wife was Muslim. The famous Jodha begum or Heer Kunwari WAS actually converted to Mariam uz Zamani before a traditional nikaah. All three 'main' wives of Akbar were Muslims.

Naughty!

That is why tagged you!!!
Impressed, very few people know of this fact. Akbar was equally a bigot; but he was smart. He knew he could not keep waging a war, and if he was ever to be an Emperor, he had to be smart and make smart alliances. Yet he had to keep the clergy happy, after all, he was a Muslim and his support base was of orthodox Muslim noblemen, who he could neither afford to offend nor hope to placate without appearing a devout Muslim.

Rest all is hogwash. Jodha-Akbar or the narration by Alex Rutherford in his fictional works .... a nonsense

 

[utraash]

I see you have avoided giving an answer to a direct question. Is it a difficult one? The period is very clear - 1947 till 1989. Can you give a rational reasoning for the same?

Because, by the analogy as you have given above of the Jews, may I remind you that the Islamic invasions of Indian subcontinent were a tale of millions of Hindus being killed en-masse, rapes and tortures?

Firishta (1560-1620), the author of Tarihk-i-Firishta and Gulshan-i-Ibrahim declared that over 400 million Hindus got slaughtered during Muslim invasion and occupation of India. Survivors got enslaved and castrated. India’s population is said to have been around 600 million at the time of Muslim invasion. By the mid 1500’s the Hindu population was 200 million.

Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

The biggest slaughters took place during the raids of Mahmud Ghaznavi (ca. 1000 CE); during the actual conquest of North India by Mohammed Ghori and his lieutenants (1192 ff.); and under the Delhi Sultanate (1206-1526)."


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

"Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage...”


The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 - 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ - written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns :

"The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river...but many of them were slain, taken or drowned... Nearly fifty thousand men were killed."


In the contemporary record - ' Taj-ul-Ma’asir' by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko - Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.

The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book 'Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar' that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.

This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”




By your logic, Hindus of the Indian sub-continent must get their 'homeland' too? That means right till Afghanistan, hence the "Akhand Bharat"?

@Joe Shearer today I had to bring this out. What a sad rebuttal by the member.

@Nilgiri @utraash @jbgt90 @Rain Man @SarthakGanguly

@WAJsal @waz this may become a troll fest, so if you feel, please remove the post. However, the member's logic had to be rebutted.

I have shared all this many a times on various threads here, any debate on humanity vs brute Islamic rule, unfortunately most driven through their deep rooted supremacist & bigoted approach always chose the latter....
Hard realities of real world.....

 

[notnownotever]

<img src="https://defence.pk/threads/india-asks-pakistan-to-end-illegal-occupation-of-kashmir.73800/">