Jackdaws
BANNED
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 13,114
- Reaction score
- -49
- Country
- Location
If you don't want to live with Hindus, what are you planning on doing to the 2 million Hindus who live in present day Pakistan?Of course it matters, its the core of the conflict, we didn't want to live with Hindus, we didn't trust Hindus and we believed in the message of Jinnah, but you forced an entire state of Muslims into a Indian Union full of Hindus.
The conflict emanates from this, if Pakistan hadn't acted quickly azad Kashmir and GB would also be stuck
Indian occupied Kashmir is unfinished business
You annexed Junagadh, Manvadar and Hyderabad Deccan claiming the people were Hindus so refrendum required, but your hypocrisy was exposed in IOK.
If Indians can think that Kashmiri fighting for freedom were terrorists then Pakistanis will start reciprocating by declaring your FF's as terrorists.
Siachin was occupied because india thought if it didn't take the area then Pakistan might. All based on if then scenerio.
Because Bangladesh was never supposed to be part of Pakistan, read 40's resolution. Even the name of Pakistan doesn't have any alphabet for "B' Bangladesh. Neither did Allama Iqbal's theory had Bangladesh as Pakistan. They along with Hyderabad Deccan were supposed to be separate countries from the start.
No - none of them were claimed because of Hindu population. Your hypocrisy and duplicity was exposed when you invaded a free nation - i.e. Kashmir after signing a Standstill Agreement with Kashmir. If you were not happy with the Indian Independence Act which granted Pakistan independence - you should not have agreed to the British plan. No one forced the Muslim League or Jinnah's hand.
Of course East Pakistan was meant to be in Pakistan - heck, it even had 55% of the Pakistani population. Didn't Suhrawardy propose that Calcutta serve both India and Pakistan as an "international city"? Whatever that means.
Iqbal was an Indian - he died before Pakistan was born. Hyderabad Deccan was an independent nation - and India honored the Standstill Agreement India signed with the Nizam - it was the Nizam's Razakars who broke it. Siachen was neither occupied nor demarcated. So what's the point you are trying to make?