What's new

The pain of partition

There is no pain of partition on this side of border, some great great great sacrifies YES. you guys can always breakaway from shining hell and join real heaven PAKISTAN.
 
.
Now I won't comment what is heaven what is hell as its matter of individual's perception.:enjoy:
 
.
Those people who relatives in India are mostly muhajirs, they should have never moved to pak as its not their ancestral land, they belong in bihar and other jungles, and since they have relatives they should move to India As this land is our ancestral land soon to be pakafghania.
 
.
There is no pain of partition on this side of border, some great great great sacrifies YES. you guys can always breakaway from shining hell and join real heaven PAKISTAN.

With due respect I dun agree with this..with current hindu population of 80 million and combined muslim population of bangladesh,pakistan and indian muslims of arnd 50 million it was no problem for muslims to rule subcontinent for ages again like they did before britshers owing to coward nature of vegetarian hindus as compare to meat eating brave muslims..Muslims ruled subcontinent would have been a superpower given the combined resources of subcontinent.Lots of resources were wasted to mutual distrust and wars induced by US and EU arm sellers.
Hindus claimed to be living in this area for thousand of years and relatively new muslims ruled them for over a thousand years ,ruling them again wouldnt have been a issue at all...
 
.
Why do you people say Pakistan was partioned from India, it was British India, the land up to lahore has two or three times part of India, India was never a one nation.

Read the following 2 links regarding India being the successor state. The UN decided on this issue when Pakistan approached it and then India and Pakistan both agreed on it. I think it was Nehru who made it sure to fight it out in UN that India becomes a successor state and that Pakistan is a part of the country that broke away.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:E6NwvECZSJQJ:untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_149_add1.pdf+&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgewOmRoohH_cuIIF-7qSCsWeOGAxRveorDXH5U0MlBm2rvTQHY1qEPwBLk2X-hWnB2M_sICTFvlvl2QM7KmqNqXluLDPGHWlqg112szeaFxhh18Rz3XisvytKwed9ytszMuy0m&sig=AHIEtbTw81TN0V53ihe8qdHap9Bf_jfoEw

From the document:
"1. The new Dominion of India continues as an original Member State of the United Nations with all rights and obligations of membership.
"2. Pakistan will be a new non-member State. In order for it to become a Member of the United Nations, it would have to apply for admission pursuant to Article 4 of the Charter, and its application would be handled under the pertinent rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

India-Pakistan State Succession Scenario- A Precedent - Author - Divyam Agarwal
 
. .
Read the following 2 links regarding India being the successor state. The UN decided on this issue when Pakistan approached it and then India and Pakistan both agreed on it. I think it was Nehru who made it sure to fight it out in UN that India becomes a successor state and that Pakistan is a part of the country that broke away.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:E6NwvECZSJQJ:untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_149_add1.pdf+&hl=en&gl=in&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgewOmRoohH_cuIIF-7qSCsWeOGAxRveorDXH5U0MlBm2rvTQHY1qEPwBLk2X-hWnB2M_sICTFvlvl2QM7KmqNqXluLDPGHWlqg112szeaFxhh18Rz3XisvytKwed9ytszMuy0m&sig=AHIEtbTw81TN0V53ihe8qdHap9Bf_jfoEw

From the document:
"1. The new Dominion of India continues as an original Member State of the United Nations with all rights and obligations of membership.
"2. Pakistan will be a new non-member State. In order for it to become a Member of the United Nations, it would have to apply for admission pursuant to Article 4 of the Charter, and its application would be handled under the pertinent rules of procedure of the General Assembly and the Security Council.

India-Pakistan State Succession Scenario- A Precedent - Author - Divyam Agarwal

Pakistan's ancestors, the Muslim dynasties that ruled India for ten centuries (nearly 1000 years), brought culture, scientific information, aesthetics and religious tolerance to India. Even today in India the highest form of speech is one that goes back to Muslim cultural influence. Native Indian dresses and fashion were replaced by the more regal Muslim dressing styles & modern fashion, and the artistic legacy of Islam in India is sealed forever with the Taj Mahal and countless palaces and forts.

In its early years, the Indian subcontinent "cinema and film" identified itself with the dynastic Muslim ruling culture, traditions and most films linked Indian social norms to the Islamic Muslim influence in living, speech, action and style.

The biggest evidence of Islam's tolerance in India is that the region has a majority "Hindu population" today despite nearly 800-1000 years of direct Islamic rule, where Muslim rulers accommodated the subcontinent citizens & refused to forcibly convert them.

Lastly, India was never a single country, it was a subcontinent. You can thank the British rule of 180 years for your independence, and naming it "INDIA" on 1947, otherwise the Indians were still under foreign rule of Islamic Empire for the past 1,000 years. Pakistan don't grudge you the right to live in your land, since you have you culture, traditions,
religious ideology and identity all too separate from us. AND Indian shouldnot grudge us too.

brilliantly put by one of my brothers in the other forum.
 
.
^^^^^

India was always India, right from the greek days we were called India. We got independence from British in 1947.

Pakistan however was created in 1947, nobody had heard the word pakistan until then, same as nobody had hard heard the word bangladesh until 1971.

If you say India was created in 1947, then by the same logic Pakistan was created in 1971.

I guess this is with regard to un membership only nothing more.

Its United NATIONS, nothing less.
 
.
With due respect I dun agree with this..with current hindu population of 80 million and combined muslim population of bangladesh,pakistan and indian muslims of arnd 50 million it was no problem for muslims to rule subcontinent for ages again like they did before britshers owing to coward nature of vegetarian hindus as compare to meat eating brave muslims..Muslims ruled subcontinent would have been a superpower given the combined resources of subcontinent.Lots of resources were wasted to mutual distrust and wars induced by US and EU arm sellers.
Hindus claimed to be living in this area for thousand of years and relatively new muslims ruled them for over a thousand years ,ruling them again wouldnt have been a issue at all...


Mate if you dint know there are a lot oh Hindus who eat non veg to and can you explain this logic that you hold about people who eat veg and non veg.
 
. .
Can you tell us when the Indian sub continent was one nation?

Can you tell me when one was the last time current India was a one nation, forget the land of current day Pakistan.

Can you tell me how is someone from Calcutta related or linked to lets say someone in north India punjab.

Can you tell what does a pukhtoon racially share with Indian, racially or culturally apart from conquerer and conquered relationship, and why would they want to be part of India?.

Obsession of Indians with Pakistan and and Pakistanis is unbelievable, Pakistan should join with its natural cousin and brother Afghanistan.

Indians are dravidians, i see no comparison between them and indo aryans , so much for one nation.


Firstly, India was never a nation made for a specific race, ethnicity or religion. Let me say that I as a Punjabi have more in common with someone from North East India or Indian Bengalis and Tamils than some so called blood brothers in Pakistani Punjab. Partition happened not on the basis of race/ethnicity, but religion. That is why when partition happened, Bangladesh was also a part of Pakistan, but sadly you guys for some reason hated their ethnicity.

Secondly, Afghans never conquered present day India, they conquered present day Pakistan and part of North-West present day India, so the Conqueror-Conquerred relationship that you keep referring to is between Muslim invaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as I know, Pakistan has always been land of the enslaved, name me one Muslim Pakistani (Punjabi/Sindhi/Balochi) that even rules Pakistan, much less India.
 
.
Pakistan's ancestors, the Muslim dynasties that ruled India for ten centuries (nearly 1000 years), brought culture, scientific information, aesthetics and religious tolerance to India. Even today in India the highest form of speech is one that goes back to Muslim cultural influence. Native Indian dresses and fashion were replaced by the more regal Muslim dressing styles & modern fashion, and the artistic legacy of Islam in India is sealed forever with the Taj Mahal and countless palaces and forts.

In its early years, the Indian subcontinent "cinema and film" identified itself with the dynastic Muslim ruling culture, traditions and most films linked Indian social norms to the Islamic Muslim influence in living, speech, action and style.

The biggest evidence of Islam's tolerance in India is that the region has a majority "Hindu population" today despite nearly 800-1000 years of direct Islamic rule, where Muslim rulers accommodated the subcontinent citizens & refused to forcibly convert them.

Lastly, India was never a single country, it was a subcontinent. You can thank the British rule of 180 years for your independence, and naming it "INDIA" on 1947, otherwise the Indians were still under foreign rule of Islamic Empire for the past 1,000 years. Pakistan don't grudge you the right to live in your land, since you have you culture, traditions,
religious ideology and identity all too separate from us. AND Indian shouldnot grudge us too.

brilliantly put by one of my brothers in the other forum.

1000 years? LOL - the Mughals were around from 1520 to about 1750 and even then they never controlled all of India. And Akbar was an adherent of Din-e-Elahi; not of Islam. How did you guys regularly come up with the 1000 years?
 
.
With due respect I dun agree with this..with current hindu population of 80 million and combined muslim population of bangladesh,pakistan and indian muslims of arnd 50 million it was no problem for muslims to rule subcontinent for ages again like they did before britshers owing to coward nature of vegetarian hindus as compare to meat eating brave muslims..Muslims ruled subcontinent would have been a superpower given the combined resources of subcontinent.Lots of resources were wasted to mutual distrust and wars induced by US and EU arm sellers.
Hindus claimed to be living in this area for thousand of years and relatively new muslims ruled them for over a thousand years ,ruling them again wouldnt have been a issue at all...

Say whatever you want, when South Asian Muslims like you and Zaid Hamid claim they ruled India, I consider it as stupid and deluded a statement as if Indian Christians started claiming they ruled all of us for 250 years.
 
.
Firstly, India was never a nation made for a specific race, ethnicity or religion. Let me say that I as a Punjabi have more in common with someone from North East India or Indian Bengalis and Tamils than some so called blood brothers in Pakistani Punjab. Partition happened not on the basis of race/ethnicity, but religion. That is why when partition happened, Bangladesh was also a part of Pakistan, but sadly you guys for some reason hated their ethnicity.

Secondly, Afghans never conquered present day India, they conquered present day Pakistan and part of North-West present day India, so the Conqueror-Conquerred relationship that you keep referring to is between Muslim invaders from Afghanistan and Pakistan. As far as I know, Pakistan has always been land of the enslaved, name me one Muslim Pakistani (Punjabi/Sindhi/Balochi) that even rules Pakistan, much less India.


True. They were ruled by Hindus, then my Arabs/Afghans, then by Sikhs, then by the British and now by the Americans. The area which currently forms Pakistan has never enjoyed any real freedom.
 
.
Say whatever you want, when South Asian Muslims like you and Zaid Hamid claim they ruled India, I consider it as stupid and deluded a statement as if Indian Christians started claiming they ruled all of us for 250 years.
One of the best reply mate.....
 
.
Back
Top Bottom