What if the Subcontinent was ONE country?

[Last starfighter]

Like I said, I don't talk to terrorists and terrorist sympathizers.

So why don't you piss off to idf
Have you forgotten this is pakistan.
Pak sar zameen

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

So why don't you piss off to idf
Have you forgotten this is pakistan.
Pak sar zameen

They are suffering from an identity crisis. They want us to give them importance, but we can care less about their opinions.

Indian mindset is all about Pakistan.

Alhamdulilah we are free of these racist and supremacist insecurities.

 

[Cobra Arbok]

So your problem is from Islam. But under Muslim rulers, India was united for longer than any other religion.

when did i say my problem is islam? and no the mughals never united all of india. The only empire to unite the entire subcontinent from Afghanistan to Assam was the Hindu and buddhist Mauryan Empire. What i was saying is the reason for the two nation theory was religion. If pakistan had not accepted islam, there would be no tnt, and no partition. Ofbcourse there could be some scenario where partition occurs for some reason other than religion, but that is unlikely.

This is because British were partial to and favored India, even from Radcliffe commission, partition, and the first war up until now.

British always favored Hindus even during British rule. They blamed 1857 solely on Muslims. Stripped all Muslims of government jobs, judiciary positions, and banned our lingua franca (Farsi.) British disarmed Muslims and left Hindus and Sikhs as police and military to overlook Muslim majority populations. These same police and soldiers, under British support, took active part in massacres against unarmed Muslims during partition.

It was not luck which gave India the advantage but trickery, deceit, and manipulation of the situation. You rightfully built a statue of the most evil man in the history of Hind, Vallabhai Patel who was responsible for massacres of Muslims during partition and the years after from Punjab to Jammu Kashmir, Bengal, and Hyderabad.

We just have one word to say. Pakistan still stands as a reminder that evil can not overcome freedom and will eventually fade away. Kashmiris are the vanguard of the independent spirit of our ancestors.

so Patel did exactly what Aurangzeb, Mahamud Ghaznavi, and Ahmad Durrani did. And you should be thankful for the brtish because prior to their arrial, India was ruled by the Marathas and Pakistan was ruled bybthe sikhs. If the british had not arrived and defeated the marathas after three attempts(the marathas won the first two anglo maratha wars) you would be under sikh and maratha rule today.

I think it is split, that part of Afghanistan that is south of the Hindu Kush is geographically in India. Also the northern parts of Pakistan are in the southern part of Central Asia (geographically at least and perhaps even culturally..)

Here is a map of the Mughal Rashtra at its zenith and it basically is a map of the Subcontinent of India (save the Western Burma, and Assam).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurangzeb#/media/File:India_in_1700_Joppen.jpg

Aurangzeb's rule lasted only a couple of decades before it fell to the marathas. South India was a part of the mughal empire about as long as KP was a part of the maratha empire.

 

[Nilu Pule]

Western and Southern Indians would become a minority in their own.

1.5 pc Punjabis have promoted racism thru bollywood. I can't imagine what would have happen if all the Punjabis remained in India.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Why ponder? just look back 70 years ...

Its just a assumption no need to get serious or dive into pointless debates, we all know thats never going to happen.

 

[Nityam]

So why don't you piss off to idf
Have you forgotten this is pakistan.
Pak sar zameen

This is not pakistan. This is a online forum probably hosted in the US.

 

[hembo]

The only empire to unite the entire subcontinent from Afghanistan to Assam was the Hindu and buddhist Mauryan Empire.

Small correction. Assam was never part of any Indian empire. Neither Mauryan nor Mughal.. ever... It was a group of independent countries till Yandabo treaty in 1826. In fact the region remained unconquered till the unexpected Burmese invasion from east in 1817, which led to British intervention and subsequent colonization post 1826.

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

It was before 1947,
Will be again after 2047....

 

[TMA]

I am guessing you don’t know much about what Pukhtoons think of this. Rather commit suicide than be considered Indian.

Pukhtoons are a solidly Muslim culture with a very strong independent spirit long before Islamization. Pukhtoons of long ago considered Indians as nothing more than slaves. The very word Hindu came to mean slave in Dari and Farsi. The same can be said of nomads and settled people of Balochistan like Baloch, Pukhtoons, Makrani, and Brahui people.

Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir were considered as Sindh by the early Muslims and even before that. This was related to the Indus River. After Islamicization, these regions became the power base and soldiers/administrators were heavily recruited from this region.

I am not even discussing the pre-Islamic era where Coterminus Pakistan was part of various empires of the Greeks, Persians, Turkic, and Iranic people while Modern India was not.

Our identity is thoroughly unique. We are descendants of the IVC and have been immortalized in world history by such literature as stories of Sindhbad, folk love tales of Punjab, and the poetry of Pukhtoons.

Yeah I know. They can hate it all they want. But geography is apolitical. What is the definition of Subcontinent of India? A British colonial one? A Mughal one? A ancient Persian Empire one? A Dharmic one?
Geography is apolitical. We can go by rivers instead, so that only Eastern Pakistani is in India....?

I also don't like the arrogance shown by various Muslim dynasties towards the native peoples in India (Subcontinent) and I do not like the geographic term Hindu being now solely used as a religious term.

It is this sort of arrogance that prevented India (Subcontinent) from becoming majority Muslim. It was only due to men like Moinuddin Chisti (may God be pleased with him)(Orthodox Sufis) that many Indians accepted Islam..

 

[Cat Shannon]

It will be a night mare. someone has to rule, RULE a vast empire like that. but it will be an empire indeed.

InshAllah, once pakistan tires to do something funny like kargil under a prepared armed forces under a BJP govt with a man like Modiji in future, we shall take back that piece of kashmir which is rightfully ours.

It was before 1947,
Will be again after 2047....

oh, we will have enough stuff prepared for you, "pakistani military prefessional" LoL..welcome to India. we specialize in your kind and hunting them down. BTW, anything you do in kashmir in xx47, you will lose that azad piece of province too. to us. yes. you will, zanab! contrary to the propaganda slash mood on PDF. . trust me.

why in 2047 ? project azm will start flying then ?

 

[prashantazazel]

It would be much more powerful.
But of course, people with their "diverse" and backward cultures would keep creating trouble.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Did not know this. Source please?

...
Jinnah told Mountbatten on 1 November that he “could not accept a formula if it was so drafted as to include Hyderabad.”

However, precisely around this time, Hyderabad emerged as a divide between Nehru and Patel as well. Nehru was obsessed with Kashmir. Patel’s concern was to secure Hyderabad. Chaudhri Mohammed Ali narrates the parleys on 8 and 27 November in his memoirs. On 8 November, “I was told that Mountbatten and Sardar Patel agreed to such a plan, but not Nehru, and I was advised to see him” which he did; in vain[29]

The formula of 27 November – which prompted Jinnah’s Notebook entry three days later – envisaged that “a plebiscite should be held in Junagadh to decide its future.” But Nehru was set against a plebiscite, he writes and proceed to record “In one of the discussions between the two Prime Ministers, at which Patel and I were also present, Liaquat Ali Khan dwelt at length on the inconsistency of the Indian stand with regard to Junagadh and Kashmir. When Liaquat Ali Khan made these incontrovertible points, Patel could not contain himself and burst out ”Why do you compare Junagadh with Kashmir? Talk of Hyderabad and Kashmir, and we could reach an agreement….Patel’s view at this time and even later was that India’s effort to retain Muslim majority areas against the will of the people was a source not of strength but of weakness to India. He felt that if India and Pakistan agreed to let Kashmir go to Pakistan and Hyderabad to India, the problems of Kashmir and of Hyderabad could be solved peacefully and to the mutual advantage of India and Pakistan.” There was a second round of talks between the two Prime Ministers in Lahore on 8 December, but they also produced no results, Nehru even backed out of the agreed proposal for a joint request to the UN to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir.[30]

Prof. R.J. Moore points out that Mountbatten’s proposal of 1 November “conceded most of his (Jinnah’s) demands” and “by refusing to probe the possibilities of diplomacy Jinnah overplayed his hand.”[31]

On 27 November 1972, President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto told a tribal jirga at Landikotal that India’s first Home Minister and Minister of States, Sardar Patel, had, at one stage, offered Kashmir to Pakistan in exchange for Junagadh and Hyderabad. But, he added, Pakistan “unfortunately” did not accept this offer with the result that it not only lost all the three native States but East Pakistan as well. He was right. Patel publicly confirmed his offer in his speech at a rally in Junagadh on 13 November while there was time for Pakistan to accept it. Patel said that Pakistan raised Junagadh as a counter to Kashmir. “Our reply was that we would agree to Kashmir if they agreed to Hyderabad. Pakistan, however, pointed out that they had no say in the matter. Nevertheless, whenever Hyderabad had been in difficulties, there is always a trek of the leaders of the Iteehad-ul-Muslemin to Mr. Jinnah.”[32]

...

http://www.criterion-quarterly.com/bilateral-negotiation-on-kaskmir-unlearnt-lesson/

 

[Darth Vader]

Pakistani Muslims wouldnt be able to
EAT BEEF ,
Celebrate EID ,
BE MUSLIMS

@Imran Khan would be RAJ KUMAR ? dont remember any other indian name

 

[Imran Khan]

Pakistani Muslims wouldnt be able to
EAT BEEF ,
Celebrate EID ,
BE MUSLIMS

@Imran Khan would be RAJ KUMAR ? dont remember any other indian name

i will migrate to somewhere else then may be some island where beef alcohol and dance allowed

 

[Darth Vader]

i will migrate to somewhere else then may be some island where beef alcohol and dance allowed

Yeah and they will let you Migrate