RSS: No need for secularism in India; colour of flag should be turned saffron as tricolour injects c

[Whazzup]

"as long as there will be Muslims on our land , there will always be enmity between India and Pakistan"

Indian Muslims are an asset for Pakistanis bcoz they know deep down inside most of them support that old Sultanate time era .

Self explanatory I guess...

O bhai i was talking from Pakistanis pov look at posts here they always say crap about breaking us up from inside . (srry I wasn't clear on this part)

And if they see u as an asset they will keep on thinking that as long as there will be Muslims here.

Anyways you don't have to explain any of those above mentioned. You are a free individual and our constitution grants you freedom of speech...

No I do need to its not like u're gonna find me and kill me but clearly I wasn't clear enough.

 

[haviZsultan]

Sorry ?
My post is more about Pakistan and India plus views of Pakistani about Indian Muslims rather than Muslims.

This line is wrong they (Pakistanis) are enemy and they(again Pakistanis) will remain our eternal enemy as long as there will be Muslims on our land , there will always be enmity between India and Pakistan (a country tailor made for Muslims ) , Indian Muslims are an asset for Pakistanis bcoz they know deep down inside most of them support that old Sultanate time era .

Whats so disturbing about it?

I will tell you why a number of muslims in Indian occupied territories support Pakistan.

1) Shared culture-especially with migrants of Pakistan. For example I have a dish called kakori kebab which is famous and eat haleem with spoons.

2) Same history-We all voted in 46 and other elections for the AIML. This is a fact and any muslim can ask his forefathers and they will reveal the truth.

3) Common ideology: We all supported the ummah once.

4) Common relations-our relatives are on both sides of the border. Dividing by a line.

I would like those so called patriotic muslims to think critically of India. We have so much in common and clearly where the hell will you go when and if India massacres you? Our family went to Pakistan Why? Because its the only place that will help oppressed muslims when they are in trouble. @The_Showstopper, @Syama Ayas @Razia Sultana @jamahir

So the question is why defend a superimposed identity like India which we fought against (not physically but through our votes) in 46 elections where we all overwhelmingly voted for Jinnahs Pakistan-even if you do not agree then why maintain a hostile stand to Pakistan-I mean its clear that more than even muslims left there in Indian occupied parts Pakistanis are more concerned about the welfare of muslims in Indian occupied parts. Shouldn't that make us allies?

 

[nair]

Lucknow will go to Pakistan one day. You can keep shooting your mouth at Pakistan but it won't change the fact that it is the only hope for sub continent muslims and possibly muslims around the world.

I have read one of your post in which you said, "Indian Occupied Lucknow"...... I thought that was an error, But you seriously have thoughts like this???? What next??? "Indian Occupied Delhi"?????

 

[jamahir]

I would like those so called patriotic muslims to think critically of India. We have so much in common and clearly where the hell will you go when and if India massacres you? Our family went to Pakistan Why? Because its the only place that will help oppressed muslims when they are in trouble. @The_Showstopper, @Syama Ayas @Razia Sultana @jamahir

you do know that i am not a nationalist with unquestioning, unthinking, misplaced loyalty to the indian state/establishment/military but i am loyal to the oppressed and innocent from india and speak for them and am getting into politics for them... india has a wrong political system which must be replaced... this is my identity as a socialist and opposite to the sanghi fascist/nationalist way of thinking which seeks to perpetuate injustice, oppression, idiotic mythologies, reactionarism etc.

however, it is also true that there can be civil war in india in the coming three years or so, precisely because of bjp winning elections last year... some people i know locally have mentioned this, and the topic of this thread ( saffron flag and all ) points to the real agenda of this government... but i honestly don't know what i will have to do when that situation arises.

i don't know how @The_Showstopper, @Aamna Ali and @Razia Sultana see this.

 

[haviZsultan]

you do know that i am not a nationalist with unquestioning, unthinking, misplaced loyalty to the indian state/establishment/military but i am loyal to the oppressed and innocent in from india and speak for them and am getting into politics for them... india has a wrong political system which must be replaced... this is my identity as a socialist and opposite to the sanghi fascist/nationalist way of thinking which seeks to perpetuate injustice, oppression, idiotic mythologies, reactionarism etc.

however, it is also true that there can be civil war in india in the coming three years or so, precisely because of bjp winning elections last year... some people i know locally have mentioned this, and the topic of this thread ( saffron flag and all ) points to the real agenda of this government... but i honestly don't know what i will have to do when that situation arises.

i don't know how @The_Showstopper, @Aamna Ali and @Razia Sultana see this.

I sometimes think I am way to critical of loyal Indian muslims. But I have my reasons. If those left or even us migrants had been more aggressive in advocating muslim interests or questioned the anti muslim behaviors a lot of lives would have been saved. Particularly Muslim lives.

The problem with some loyal muslims is that the moment they question their second class treatment they will be labelled anti nationals. They do not want this while I do not mind it which makes me more eager to question the biases as I still call myself Pakistani. But the refusal of many muslims left there to raise the question of their rights has weakened the muslim cause though. I respect you jamahir and feel a bond with muslims left there. At a time we were absolutely one.

Socialism has some benefits. Like universal education and health. If you feel that is best for us keep advocating it. The sangh getting stronger is clearly a threat. If muslims refuse to raise the question of their rights they will face much difficulty. And since I care about those left there I am genuinely worried.

 

[vsdoc]

however, it is also true that there can be civil war in india in the coming three years or so, precisely because of bjp winning elections last year...

Could be. Nothing is impossible.

But the way I see it, there is far greater chance of a Pakistani Sunni-Shia civil war in the near future than there is of an Indian Hindu-Muslim civil war.

What would it prove?

That the Pakistani Shias have greater cause?

Or that Pakstani Shias have greater ability?

Either way, such civil wars never end well for the weaker side.

But end they always do.

 

[jamahir]

Could be. Nothing is impossible.

But the way I see it, there is far greater chance of a Pakistani Sunni-Shia civil war in the near future than there is of an Indian Hindu-Muslim civil war.

What would it prove?

That the Pakistani Shias have greater cause?

Or that Pakstani Shias have greater ability?

Either way, such civil wars never end well for the weaker side.

But end they always do.

well, i see lesser chances of shia-sunni civil war in pakistan ( many citizens united against taliban types ) but it is undeniable that south asia as a whole is a depressing region, with most people given to thinking along sectarian, ghettoized, regressive, traditional lines.

other societies changed themselves through revolution decades back and were even changed back by western forces through induced war, but most of south asia remained static, except for afghanistan and nepal.

 

[vsdoc]

well, i see lesser chances of shia-sunni civil war in pakistan ( many citizens united against taliban types )

As I said in my previous post, who has greater cause?

Who gets killed in greater numbers and regularity, specifically targeted?

Indian Muslims or Pakistani Shias?

It is a myth that the killing that is happening in Pakistan is largely sectarian-neutral.

It is not.

Whereas the killing that happens in India is largely religion-neutral. A long-term history of communal violence and riots in India since Independence reveals that Hindus and Muslims, regardless of the significant skew in numbers, are remarkably competitive when it comes to efficiency in killing the other. And the numbers are near equal, save for the few well-known and most tomtomed pogroms, where the balance tilted in favor of the majority faith.

I would be happy to dig out the seminal piece of research that bears such out in great detail, going in-depth into every riot, however small or obscure, in post Independence India (starting with the Independence/Partition rioting), the political and regional climate, the combatants and the actual triggering incident, with detailed numbers of kill scores on both sides, which I had posted here on this very forum many years ago.

So in summary, I remain confident that between the two nations, it will not be our's that would descend into civil war first.

Or ever.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I hope you and @Slav Defence realise how horribly embarrassing it is that you look in. Can't you please just ignore this? Please?

Sometimes I feel that PakDef encourages cretins from the Indian side just to show themselves and the rest of the world that we have a wide selection of such cretins. It's a very hurtful thing to do, to ridicule us by allowing these prancing pr*cks so much air time.

it justifies our 2 nation theory although ourselves we haven't faired well in recent decades since the fall of communist Afghan regime.

well, i see lesser chances of shia-sunni civil war in pakistan ( many citizens united against taliban types ) but it is undeniable that south asia as a whole is a depressing region, with most people given to thinking along sectarian, ghettoized, regressive, traditional lines.

other societies changed themselves through revolution decades back and were even changed back by western forces through induced war, but most of south asia remained static, except for afghanistan and nepal.

the main reason is Pakistan army that discourages sectarianism
both India and Pakistan have had much better record in shia sunni relations for centuries which is affected now due to Middle eastern funding and the talks of Daesh (ISIS).

I agree there is a chain reaction and other communities and faiths are also finding their own excuses.. but hope that we will resolve it . I still live in a world thinking that no matter how much bad blood we have for each other (HIndu-Muslim in general) we will never reach the depth of levels of hatred shown in the middle eastern people for each other.. you get the taster in their posts .. they wont settle for anything less than complete annihilation of each other.

 

[graphican]

Fully support India to be a Hindu Country.

 

[vsdoc]

I still live in a world thinking that no matter how much bad blood we have for each other (HIndu-Muslim in general) we will never reach the depth of levels of hatred shown in the middle eastern people for each other.. you get the taster in their posts .. they wont settle for anything less than complete annihilation of each other.

I do too.

We (my people) lived through a period where our land was taken over by racial foes (far pre-dating Islam or Shia-on-Sunni angst). In fact foes might be a sugar-coated way to describe a race that was always considered by the Persians to be an inferior civilization and people.The "lizard eater" barbs stem from there btw.

That is not the case with Muslim Persian on Zoroastrian Persian.

Or Hindu South-Asian on Muslim South-Asian.

The racial angle is taken out. And the hatred comes from different ideologies within the same blood.

Of course, it probably does not hold good for your (and Desert's) people. Or Jana and Taimi's. But you get the idea.

The middle east is a heavily ancient racial conflict. Religion and sectarianism just was the latest veneer to get painted over ancient fault lines of race and tribe.

So I agree. Like in all our wars to date, there is always going to be some holding back from all out blood letting (or baby belly slitting as our friend Oscar would like to put it as).

Cheers, Doc

 

[haviZsultan]

it justifies our 2 nation theory although ourselves we haven't faired well in recent decades since the fall of communist Afghan regime.


the main reason is Pakistan army that discourages sectarianism
both India and Pakistan have had much better record in shia sunni relations for centuries which is affected now due to Middle eastern funding and the talks of Daesh (ISIS).

I agree there is a chain reaction and other communities and faiths are also finding their own excuses.. but hope that we will resolve it . I still live in a world thinking that no matter how much bad blood we have for each other (HIndu-Muslim in general) we will never reach the depth of levels of hatred shown in the middle eastern people for each other.. you get the taster in their posts .. they wont settle for anything less than complete annihilation of each other.

We recently killed Malik Ishaq. With that animal dead I hope sectarianism goes to hell. For me a shia is my brother as is anyone else in the Pakistani state. I am not against Hinduism. I simply do not like these bakhts. They want to impose their ideology over others just like the Taliban.

 

[vsdoc]

@Irfan Baloch @Oscar @SarthakGanguly @Bang Galore @Joe Shearer

Did you guys know that in the 19th century in British Bombay, there were two pretty bloody riots between the Parsis and Muslims of Bombay?

In 19th century Bombay, Parsis and Muslims fought each other on the streets on two separate occasions but eventually buried the hatchet and moved on. In 2013, we are still grappling with the problem of devising measures to prevent riots. By A.G. NOORANI

IN 2013, it seems unthinkable. But in the 19th century, Parsis and Muslims attacked each other ferociously in the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai), in 1851 and in 1874. The communal grouping calls for qualification. On the Muslim side, the charge was led by Arabs and the Siddies, who had come from Janjira. On the Parsi side, the rioters came from humbler vocations. On both sides, responsible leaders sought energetically to cool tempers.

The gory episodes not only divided the two communities but also the press run by Europeans. The Bombay Gazette, edited by James Mackenzie MacLean, was openly pro-Parsi. The Times of India attacked The Gazette for its stand while sparing neither the authorities nor the Muslims nor the Parsis. All were agreed that the police were sorely remiss.

The clashes seem incredible today because the social conditions have changed radically. The Parsis no longer dwell in the localities in which they lived then. They have moved on and are much reduced in number. But there are some constants: the wealth, the spirit of enterprise and the philanthropy. Descendants of the great families still pride themselves on their ancestry.

Bombay was then a rowdy and corrupt place. In 1863 the Gaekwad of Baroda distributed £2,400 to the European and Marathi newspapers, The Gazette included. Clashes between Governors and Chief Justices were common. Bribery was rampant (J.R.B. Jeejeebhoy; Bribery and Corruption in Bombay; 1952; published by the author—a splendid work).

A Goan, Govind Narayan (1815-1865), came to Bombay in 1824 and soon established himself as an author. Murali Ranganathan has translated from Marathi into English his informative biography of the city (Govind Narayan’s Mumbai; Anthem Press, India, 2012). Faced with the menace of stray dogs, the government decided to kill them but relented when, in 1830, a deputation of eminent citizens asked that the dogs be captured and released elsewhere. Heading them was Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, Baronet, who was a city father of colossal stature. The reprieve did not last long.

Story of two riots | Frontline

 

[haviZsultan]

@Irfan Baloch @Oscar @SarthakGanguly @Bang Galore @Joe Shearer

Did you guys know that in the 19th century in British Bombay, there were two pretty bloody riots between the Parsis and Muslims of Bombay?

In 19th century Bombay, Parsis and Muslims fought each other on the streets on two separate occasions but eventually buried the hatchet and moved on. In 2013, we are still grappling with the problem of devising measures to prevent riots. By A.G. NOORANI

IN 2013, it seems unthinkable. But in the 19th century, Parsis and Muslims attacked each other ferociously in the streets of Bombay (now Mumbai), in 1851 and in 1874. The communal grouping calls for qualification. On the Muslim side, the charge was led by Arabs and the Siddies, who had come from Janjira. On the Parsi side, the rioters came from humbler vocations. On both sides, responsible leaders sought energetically to cool tempers.

The gory episodes not only divided the two communities but also the press run by Europeans. The Bombay Gazette, edited by James Mackenzie MacLean, was openly pro-Parsi. The Times of India attacked The Gazette for its stand while sparing neither the authorities nor the Muslims nor the Parsis. All were agreed that the police were sorely remiss.

The clashes seem incredible today because the social conditions have changed radically. The Parsis no longer dwell in the localities in which they lived then. They have moved on and are much reduced in number. But there are some constants: the wealth, the spirit of enterprise and the philanthropy. Descendants of the great families still pride themselves on their ancestry.

Bombay was then a rowdy and corrupt place. In 1863 the Gaekwad of Baroda distributed £2,400 to the European and Marathi newspapers, The Gazette included. Clashes between Governors and Chief Justices were common. Bribery was rampant (J.R.B. Jeejeebhoy; Bribery and Corruption in Bombay; 1952; published by the author—a splendid work).

A Goan, Govind Narayan (1815-1865), came to Bombay in 1824 and soon established himself as an author. Murali Ranganathan has translated from Marathi into English his informative biography of the city (Govind Narayan’s Mumbai; Anthem Press, India, 2012). Faced with the menace of stray dogs, the government decided to kill them but relented when, in 1830, a deputation of eminent citizens asked that the dogs be captured and released elsewhere. Heading them was Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, Baronet, who was a city father of colossal stature. The reprieve did not last long.

Story of two riots | Frontline

Nice information doc. So it proves that no community is immune to... immune to well being barbarians and killing on the basis of their faith.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

We recently killed Malik Ishaq. With that animal dead I hope sectarianism goes to hell. For me a shia is my brother as is anyone else in the Pakistani state. I am not against Hinduism. I simply do not like these bakhts. They want to impose their ideology over others just like the Taliban.

I agree
the nawaz league and specially Shabaz sherif vindicated himself by ordering the elimination of the entire bloodline of this serial killer who openly bragged his murders and his victims included even judges, witnesses, policemen and lawyers.

the police "encounter" had such an impact that it shrank the leadership of ASWJ in their holes which is political face of the sectarian terrorists. there was not even a half hearted protest let alone blocking the roads and shouting murder and chaos. some analysts suggested that they had parted ways with more violent sectarian terrorists but that's not true since it was ASWJ which frequents Red Mosque and agrees with its support for ISIS and TTP.


Indian right wing parties have a case in point and an example in Pakistan which they must not follow because the impact will be 5 or 10 folds bad. if they keep their rhetoric to mere words and speeches then it will be less hurtful than actually putting them into action by lynching beef eating Indians and torching churches and mosques etc.