What's new

Pak believes that attacking India is their birth right,eent ka jawaab patthar se dena hoga: Parrikar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arabs/Muslims did not invade because of Ghazwa

So you mean to say that Arabs/Turks invaded India and when the local Indian people opposed the subjugation, the Arabs/Turks called for Ghazwa-e-Hind to defend against the opposition from the newly acquired subjects.
 
.
when did we attack India? wth is this?
doesnt he have something better to do.
 
.
when did we attack India? wth is this?
doesnt he have something better to do.

When? lol all the wars were started by Pakistan. I have no idea what they teach you in schools there.
 
.
He is not talking about Akhand Bharat rather about Ghazwa-e-Hind.

In case you do not know, Hindu right and Muslim right of the subcontinent supported the partition.

It was secular congress alone which opposed the partition.
Not even close to the reality. The Hindu right opposed the partition, the Muslim right opposed it; one for the reason of Akhand Bharat and the other due to their dislike of the progressives that were leading the movement for Pakistan.
Every terrorist that comes out of Pakistan today has either ties to the Deobandi grounp or similar people who back in 1947 proclaimed Pakistan as Napakistan..

The wish for separation came out of the requirements of political and economic clout in the future of India whose fate was sealed by Nehru's inflexibility and Mountbatten's bending over to him.

When? lol all the wars were started by Pakistan. I have no idea what they teach you in schools there.
I dont know what they teach you there either. Only three conflicts were actually initiated by Pakistan; the Kashmir attack in response to the Raja making the decision for millions, the 65 infiltration and the Kargil conflict. Indian forces were already pushing through Bengal in 71 before Pakistan launched the attack, and the Siachen myth of catching Pakistan buying winter clothes is just a false myth.

Keep your Indian facts to yourself and agree to disagree. Try and insult our education system and you will have no place upon this forum.

So you mean to say that Arabs/Turks invaded India and when the local Indian people opposed the subjugation, the Arabs/Turks called for Ghazwa-e-Hind to defend against the opposition from the newly acquired subjects.
Fiction writing must be a interesting concept for you.
 
.
Not even close to the reality. The Hindu right opposed the partition, the Muslim right opposed it; one for the reason of Akhand Bharat and the other due to their dislike of the progressives that were leading the movement for Pakistan.
Every terrorist that comes out of Pakistan today has either ties to the Deobandi grounp or similar people who back in 1947 proclaimed Pakistan as Napakistan..

The wish for separation came out of the requirements of political and economic clout in the future of India whose fate was sealed by Nehru's inflexibility and Mountbatten's bending over to him.


I dont know what they teach you there either. Only three conflicts were actually initiated by Pakistan; the Kashmir attack in response to the Raja making the decision for millions, the 65 infiltration and the Kargil conflict. Indian forces were already pushing through Bengal in 71 before Pakistan launched the attack, and the Siachen myth of catching Pakistan buying winter clothes is just a false myth.


Keep your Indian facts to yourself and agree to disagree. Try and insult our education system and you will have no place upon this forum.


Fiction writing must be a interesting concept for you.



Wrong, Hindu Mahasabha, especially Vinayak Damodar Savarkar completely agreed with Jinnah's two nation theory. They were dead set against Muslim appeasement by INC and wanted to create a hindu rashtra.

Those who opposed partition were Hindu and Sikh moderates and Muslim right
 
.
When? lol all the wars were started by Pakistan. I have no idea what they teach you in schools there.
the last Major and All out war was fought 44 years ago, and apparently that person has now come to realize that
 
.
one of the worst performing ministers of Modi Cabinet.....no rafale deal, no progress on augusta westland scam and by next year wont have CM chair to return to either
 
.
there was a same looser couple of months back saying about taking Baluchistan from Pakistan so its just a good cop bad cop strategy by the way where is your beloved Agarwal these days ?
 
.
Wrong, Hindu Mahasabha, especially Vinayak Damodar Savarkar completely agreed with Jinnah's two nation theory. They were dead set against Muslim appeasement by INC and wanted to create a hindu rashtra.

Those who opposed partition were Hindu and Sikh moderates and Muslim right
There were sections yes, but there are also extremes that opposed it. You can also cite a certain section of the Muslim clergy who were keen on Pakistan as they expected to establish their interpretation of what Shariah law is in the new state.
 
.
Out of 4 conflicts 3 were initiated by Pakistan itself. So the poster who i was replying too was indeed wrong and I was right. Case settled.
[I am even not going to talk about Pakistani terrorists attacking India]

Oh so a small jab at Pakistani education system is a big insult now? It is completely alright when Pakistanis are outright racists against Indians on this forum but when an Indian speaks out it is a big issue. Look at my posts and joining date. I do not get into useless arguments. How nice it would be if mods deal with Pakistani trolls the same way how they deal with Indian members here. It is too much to ask for i know.
Again, your point of view.... I can call the Mukti Bahni terrorists as well.. they had the same purpose as the Kashmiri ones.

You have the report system for such racism, the rest is you ranting and will be deleted.
 
. . .
Not even close to the reality. The Hindu right opposed the partition, the Muslim right opposed it; one for the reason of Akhand Bharat and the other due to their dislike of the progressives that were leading the movement for Pakistan.
Every terrorist that comes out of Pakistan today has either ties to the Deobandi grounp or similar people who back in 1947 proclaimed Pakistan as Napakistan..

The wish for separation came out of the requirements of political and economic clout in the future of India whose fate was sealed by Nehru's inflexibility and Mountbatten's bending over to him.

Subcontinent Muslims cannot take the moral high ground.

Muslims were the ones who left the unity shown by Hindus and Muslims in 1857 against the British rule with the Urdu language movement. This Urdu language movement culminated with the creation of All India Muslim League in 1906. Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha was created in reaction to this in 1909.Both of these organizations were created by British to weaken the opposition to their rule.

The seeds of partition were clearly sown by the Muslim leadership.

With regards to Jamaat-e-Islami's opposition to partition (or creation of Pakistan), you need the understand the underlying reason for their opposition. It is not that they loved Hindus but they wanted to preserve the Mughal legacy. They always truly believed that Muslims would one day again rule the combined subcontinent like the Mughals. Hence they think that the Partition was a grave mistake and Muslims lost in the bargain. Just think for a minute what would have been the % of population and power of Muslims in the undivided British India today. Jamaat-e-Islami had the correct vision for the Muslims of India but could not garner the support like Muslim League did.
 
. .
And such hateful people employ important positions such as that of a defense minister in India :tsk:

At least Hafiz Saeed does not employ any official position in Pakistan and never will.
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom