Like UPA, PM Modi on wrong track with Pak: It's not about Kashmir at all

[That Guy]

@INDIC Everything is Written clearly ,if mind blocked like @That Guy can't read it can we do something ?? If one doesn't accept Jinnah words that it will be based on Sharia ,age kya ho sakata hai?

Nowhere did he say that it would be based on Sharia, nowhere. Not one place.

You continue to promote a false narrative, when your own examples proved otherwise.

You want to talk about being mind blocked, you need not look elsewhere but in the mirror.

 

[wolfschanzze]

The maal(wealth) of Hyderabad was so tempting for Pakistan that they abandoned two nation theory and concept of territorial contiguity when it came to claiming Hyderabad.

Yeah Nizam of Deccan was one of the richest persons on earth back, then thanks to Golconda Mines and Rayalaseema MIning, while agri products from Andhra and Maharasthra regions.

 

[timetravel]

Pakistan and India will only be friends after 2100..

reason being that the top people who control ISI, and PA are from the years of 1940-1970s...

these people are full of hatred of India, and are high on dose of Religion + Ego.

Only when these people are replaced by Moderate Pakistani new young people, will relations improve. That cannot happen before 2100.

I would say its better to do on/off calls and pass time till then. Which is exactly what Indian Govts. have been doing.

 

[paranoiarocks]

Nowhere did he say that it would be based on Sharia, nowhere. Not one place.

Hindi/Urdu me padh le bhai

Jinnah 1948:
Me samajh nahi paa raha hun unlogo ko jo ye keh rahe hen ki constitution sharia pe based nahi hoga,islamic principals utne hi applicable he aaj jitne kal the .

 

[That Guy]

Hindi/Urdu me padh le bhai

Jinnah 1948:
Me samajh nahi paa raha hun unlogo ko jo ye keh rahe hen ki constitution sharia pe based nahi hoga,islamic principals utne hi applicable he aaj jitne kal the .

Okay, let's see you're right. Based upon his actions, and the constitution as it is written, can you honestly tell me that Pakistan was a religious state? Don't joke, be completely 100% honest.

 

[timetravel]

You're the one living in delusions. Jinnah wanted a state where a majority Muslim population could live in peace and practice Islam freely.

so u mean before August 15 1947 Muslims were not practicing Islam in Indian Sub Continent?

Great logic

and do u think the Muslims of today in India cannot practice Islam in India peacefully.

what does Peacefully means really? Absence of anything non-Islamic?

 

[paranoiarocks]

Okay, let's see you're right. Based upon his actions, and the constitution as it is written, can you honestly tell me that Pakistan was a religious state? Don't joke, be completely 100% honest.

That can't be said(no survey or something like that),State is religious or non religious by law and thats the order of world .

 

[That Guy]

so u mean before August 15 1947 Muslims were not practicing Islam in Indian Sub Continent?

Where did I say that? I mean in peace, and practice Islam freely; As in, without fear of being targeted.

Great logic

and do u think the Muslims of today in India cannot practice Islam in India peacefully.

what does Peacefully means really? Absence of anything non-Islamic?

This was the mentality used, whether it was justified or not is irrelevant.

You speaking of using logic, but you really don't understand what it is, do you?

 

[timetravel]

Where did I say that? I mean in peace, and practice Islam freely; As in, without fear of being targeted.


This was the mentality used, whether it was justified or not is irrelevant.

You speaking of using logic, but you really don't understand what it is, do you?

it was unfounded and baseless fear. There is no two way about it. There was no logic behind it.
the reasons could be one of three:

1) Unfounded and baseless fear
2) desire for a completely Sharia based society in whole subcontinent or division for Muslims (basically my way or the highway and intolerance of Hindus).
3) Desire for political gains to become PM of a nation

for hundreds of years before british even landed here, the Muslims lived happily within the same MAJORITY hindus Indian sub continent.

I don't think the Muslims were persecuted in India (before british even came to India)??

 

[That Guy]

That can't be said(no survey or something like that),State is religious or non religious by law and thats the order of world .

No, that's not how the world works at all. One can have a state religion, but that does not make it a religious state. Malaysia is secular, but has an official religion (Islam). It's constitution (like Pakistan) is quite secular in nature, and the religiousness is nothing more than symbolism. The fact of Pakistan is that non-Muslims are allowed to join the military, and gain high level political position, it is quite secular in it's nature, despite what some nationalists like to believe. Of course there are mentions of religiousness in the Pakistani constitution (mostly because of Zia ul-Huq), that's something I won't deny, but in general, most of it is religious-neutral.

it was unfounded and baseless fear. There is no two way about it.

for hundreds of years before british even landed here, the Muslims lived happily within the same MAJORITY hindus Indian sub continent.

I don't think the Muslims were persecuted in India (before british even came to India)??

I don't think it was baseless or unfounded at all. Before the Brits, it was basically the Muslims that ruled India. The following years of communal violence during and after the partition shows that there was at least some sort of religious tension between Hindus and Muslims. Even today, there are issues between the two groups in both Pakistan and India.

 

[timetravel]

No, that's not how the world works at all. One can have a state religion, but that does not make it a religious state. Malaysia is secular, but has an official religion (Islam). It's constitution (like Pakistan) is quite secular in nature, and the religiousness is nothing more than symbolism. The fact of Pakistan is that non-Muslims are allowed to join the military, and gain high level political position, it is quite secular in it's nature, despite what some nationalists like to believe. Of course there are mentions of religiousness in the Pakistani constitution (mostly because of Zia ul-Huq), that's something I won't deny, but in general, most of it is religious-neutral.


I don't think it was baseless or unfounded at all. Before the Brits, it was basically the Muslims that ruled India. The following years of communal violence during and after the partition shows that there was at least some sort of religious tension between Hindus and Muslims. Even today, there are issues between the two groups in both Pakistan and India.

so u mean before Britsh came. since the time of Jesus, it was the Muslims who ruled India?

you know pretty well there was not a single Muslim in Indian subcontinent at beginning. If Hindus were like so persecuting, the Muslims could have never grown in Indian Subcontinent at all.

Can you envision Hindus growing in Pakistan to 20-40% of your population? they will be killed before they reach even 5%.

so the Muslims kings ruled India for a fraction of the history of India.

and the biggest irony is that Pakistani leaders said Muslims cannot practice freely in India, but the biggest irony is that Hindus/Christians are totally persecuted in Pakistan.

Pakistan said Muslims will be discriminated in India, the first thing their leaders did is declare Pakistan Islamic state. (Imagine a combined India, and Hindus declaring India a Hindu state with a constitution based on Hindu culture. Oh man the Muslims would cry discrimination like anything and there would be a civil war immediately. but when they become majority, that's exactly the first thing they did)


it's like telling someone alcohol is bad for health, but drinking half bottle every night. hee hee.

 

[paranoiarocks]

No, that's not how the world works at all. One can have a state religion, but that does not make it a religious state. Malaysia is secular, but has an official religion (Islam).

That's Bogus ! Adding religion to constitution makes it non secular and tilts towards a religion which implies that laws are religious.

How can a secular country have a specific state religion and what does that state religion subjects to? why is it state religion?

It's constitution (like Pakistan) is quite secular in nature, and the religiousness is nothing more than symbolism.

A Fanatical islamic state which has laws like death penalty for conversion is secular

 

[Progressive1]

I said this Long time ago, and i say it Again Pakistan is a Greedy Nation, their plan is Islamize India which will never happen, Even if we give up Kashmir, they will start Demanding Hyderabad,Deccan next citing some old cause that Nizam wanted to join pakistan etc. Next they will eat Inch by inch.
I said before its useless talking to them, Best to Built a big strong wall like the Chinese did, with Auto turrets in place all along the border, 24/7 electronic ,drone, spysat surveillance and use of Mechanized robots and drones to kill any intruders.
The second ring would involve actual army personnel on ground.With such security We will effectively stop Infiltration, while we keep building our Economy and Military.
Let Pakistan go down in its own,their jihadis target them, the flame they started to use jihadis against us is burning them.Let them fall into chaos, we shouldnt worry about what they do, just sit on sidelines and watch for another decade as they descend into chaos.
No form of Exchanges should take place, be it cultural,Technical,Entertainment or Sports in that time.
once we are developed enough they themselves will come to talk with us.
One thing i know is they are jealous of India's Success they always want to compete with us as their idea of separate nation was formed on the basis that they will live in a islamic state which will be better than India in all ways.
The moment we go ahead of them they try catchup with us, let them play catchup in Military, thereby Diverting their economy in Arms race instead of investing in peace and Economy and see how TTP and others will make use of weak Economic situation and bring down the house.

About the Article,Modi is right in cancelling talks,It is about getting rid of past and putting the present and future according to our perspective, he is changing the future and how the world will see India in coming decade as a strong power.Time has come we behaved as such, not go back to Nehruvian policy of appeasement.
Take a look at china, even slightest provocation it will raise hell, we should start learning and take some pointer from them.
Pakistan should know the NEW INDIA is a no-Nonsense one.

Exactly, when Pakistanis gloat that Pakistan is very old they refer to the Invaders of Bharat, whom they view as their ancestors,reality is their ancestors were converts by sword from the same invaders which they vehemently deny, to claim their lineage and ancestry as arabs, turks, central asians etc. dating back 1000's of years.
Their sole aim is to emulate what the invaders couldn't do,Totally ISlamize India and for that they will go to any means even if it meant destroying themselves, its pure jealousy nothing else,they won't even realize why their country is going up in flames and their economy down in drain, in their mind only thing they want is to break India and make it Islamic.
Which will never happen,so let them keep trying, while we modernize our army.

LOL we dont give a shit about your overpopulated territory what is it Bihari madras whatever India is not some Switzerland in terms of standard of living niether it is some oil rich land it is just another third world sh!t hole, its not like world is craving for its land.

 

[timetravel]

That's Bogus ! Adding religion to constitution makes it non secular and tilts towards a religion which implies that laws are religious.

How can a secular country have a specific state religion and what does that state religion subjects to? why is it state religion?




A Fanatical islamic state which has laws like death penalty for conversion is secular

Pakistan is more secular then Saudi Arabia. But Pakistan is not secular by any means.

 

[That Guy]

That's Bogus ! Adding religion to constitution makes it non secular and tilts towards a religion which implies that laws are religious.

How can a secular country have a specific state religion and what does that state religion subjects to? why is it state religion?

Except it's not bogus, because if it's nothing more than symbolic in nature, it is fine.

A Fanatical islamic state which has laws like death penalty for conversion is secular

That was a recent addition. I think you seem to be ignoring my arugment, and instead seem to be trying to use fallacies to counter my argument.

It's clear to me that you don't care about having a civil conversation, and instead just want to try and troll.

so u mean before Britsh came. since the time of Jesus, it was the Muslims who ruled India?

you know pretty well there was not a single Muslim in Indian subcontinent at beginning. If Hindus were like so persecuting, the Muslims could have never grown in Indian Subcontinent at all.

Can you envision Hindus growing in Pakistan to 20-40% of your population? they will be killed before they reach even 5%.

so the Muslims kings ruled India for a fraction of the history of India.

and the biggest irony is that Pakistani leaders said Muslims cannot practice freely in India, but the biggest irony is that Hindus/Christians are totally persecuted in Pakistan.

Pakistan said Muslims will be discriminated in India, the first thing their leaders did is declare Pakistan Islamic state. (Imagine a combined India, and Hindus declaring India a Hindu state with a constitution based on Hindu culture. Oh man the Muslims would cry discrimination like anything and there would be a civil war immediately. but when they become majority, that's exactly the first thing they did)


it's like telling someone alcohol is bad for health, but drinking half bottle every night. hee hee.

What? Did...did you just ignore my entire comment?

I think you need to read my comment, because it's quite clear that you didn't read it at all.