What's new

Partition of India: Origin of Hatred

the importance of india in pakistan is gone.
our media, politicians no longer talk about india anymore.
we dont consider india a rival anymore really
we try to compete with iran, turkey, egypt rather than a poor country like india.
we were at that stage in the 90's..
its the 10's now.

Funniest post in this thread :enjoy:
 
who abused muslims?freedom fighters from hinduism are more because of 5 times greater population.
the real freedome fighters from muslim community stayed in india (like aamir khans uncle)

Shahrukh Khan's father was also a freedom fighter, he too stayed back in India instead of opting for Pakistan.
 
I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.

If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent at that crucial time in history, then the Hindu Marathas and sikhs in western india and punjab would have become the dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's british raj ?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent
 
I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.

If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent, then the Hindu Marathas and sikhs in western india and punjab would have become the dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's british raj ?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

Its a good point to debate what if British did not gain in India in 18th-19th century. ( Not to consider your hatred and view point of religious basis, remember....following strict religion was the reason for the fall of Muguals) There were Mysore and Hyd too in India that time.
 
Shahrukh Khan's father was also a freedom fighter, he too stayed back in India instead of opting for Pakistan.

Who was he? I know SRK's mom was brought up by Gen Shahnawaz Khan, INA. Btw, SRK is hardly a Muslim when he allows his wife to perform Puja in the house.
 
Who was he? I know SRK's mom was brought up by Gen Shahnawaz Khan, INA. Btw, SRK is hardly a Muslim when he allows his wife to perform Puja in the house.

Was Akbar not a Muslim ?
 
Hi,

If the british had not taken over---it would have been the french. What if the french had not lost the war in europe!

What if the british had formed an alliance with Sultan Tipu rather than the french!
 
Who was he? I know SRK's mom was brought up by Gen Shahnawaz Khan, INA. Btw, SRK is hardly a Muslim when he allows his wife to perform Puja in the house.

I believe we are talking about partition, many prominent Muslim leaders stayed back in India with millions of Muslim. Same with Azim Premji's family.
 
I would argue that the British Raj was a good thing for the muslims in sub-continent because by the time of Bahadur Shah Zafar in 1850s, the Mughals were at their weakest and their decline had become inevitable.

If the british had not taken control of the sub-continent at that crucial time in history, then the Hindu Marathas and sikhs in western india and punjab would have become the dominant force all over sub-continent and Muslims would have been forced to live under their Hindu Raj. I think that would have been even more disastrous for the muslims than the white man's british raj ?

The British raj filled that power vacuum at a crucial time in history, and allowed the muslims to regroup first under Sir Syed Ahmad khan's leadership, who worked for the educational upliftment of muslims in the late 1800s and later the Quaid-e-Azam's muslim league fought to ensure that we have Pakistan and the hindu baniyas don't rule over the entire sub-continent

Stop this crap of Hindu baniyas - it derogatory. You wouldn't like it it I were say Muslim Katuas.. Lets keep things civil & educated.

@ your post, whichever way it is seen the presence of Brits in India has helped. It has helped those who helped themselves with what was on offer . Education & Jobs to name a few. A No of ppl do not agree but India as we see it now is a result of how the Brits bound the nation together as one unit. By 47 , the erstwhile states had become so powerless that they could not assert themselves & India stands bound together.

As regards Pak, in my view they undid the conventions of the Army being apolitical to their peril.
 
Don't understand y people still brooding on Partition which happened so many years back. What happened, happened for good. India has progressed a lot after that in which it would have failed in case of an undivided India. Indians and Pakistanis can never live side by side. It would definitely result in communal riots and stuff. At times I feel bad for the partition, but that's because of the places we miss and not the people.
 
Back
Top Bottom