"We will treat only Hindus, not Muslims"

[Kamikaze Pilot]

The Congress created Bangladesh.

Kargil did not happen under the Congress.

And it wasn't the Congress who nearly folded on Kashmir. It was a soft sanghi in his advancing years ...

The Congress is there. Wounded and bleeding.

Which is when predators are at their finest.

A little patience.

Iss baar ban mat hona. Aur thoda kaam se break lo. Mujhe ek hafte ka timepass chahiye.

- PRTP GWD

 

[Ace of Spades]

Only a peculiarly low kind of character would take advantage of the open-hearted nature of a people to do them harm. That is a most offensive allegation, couched though it is in conciliatory language.



Then you have fundamentally misread the situation. Consider the following:

• Indians of my sort are not against Pakistan, they are against Pakistani adventurism.
• We are not against Pakistanis, we are against those elements in the Pakistani state that would lose their living if an anti-India narrative withers away.
• We are also against those elements in Pakistan that are regressive, just as we are against those same elements in Indian society; my personal view is that these regressive elements in Pakistan have to be sorted out by Pakistanis themselves, and that we will do no good by commenting. We should confine ourselves to comment only about India's own progress or lack of it.

You really don't seem to have a clue as to where we are coming from.



No bluff involved, simply inept analysis on your part.


Rather reminding our friendly Pakistanis to be aware. As what you are doing reminding your bhagats and sanghis to be aware.

To analyse it let's step back, i won't go in to historical context of things, what's your personal stance on kashmir. No beating around the bush, i know the princely states, i know the nitty gritties, i know the pacts that were signed and all the mumble jumble of historical contexts. So not that, but your personal stance.

 

[padamchen]

I met Pakistani Hindus from Sindh in Dubai and my sindhi friends in Mumbai, 2 of their wives are from Sindh moving in the 90s. They said there is a serious security threat for hindus especially women in Sindh. These are educated, well off people and one can imagine the plight of poor rural hindus.
I support CAA whole heartedly, paritition is meant to be complete. Hindus are welcome in India from Pakistan and Bangladesh. These hostage population theories are silly.

Did the security situation suddenly become bad now?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

I met Pakistani Hindus from Sindh in Dubai and my sindhi friends in Mumbai, 2 of their wives are from Sindh moving in the 90s. They said there is a serious security threat for hindus especially women in Sindh. These are educated, well off people and one can imagine the plight of poor rural hindus.
I support CAA whole heartedly, paritition is meant to be complete. Hindus are welcome in India from Pakistan and Bangladesh. These hostage population theories are silly.

The Sindhi Hindus who left Sindh when Pakistan was made left electively. No one forced them out. Actually, they had quite a nice life in Sindh as the British had made them rich landowners and industrialists by favoring them over the masses of poor Muslim Sindhis, who remain poor to this date.

This was the opposite of the situation in Junagarh and surrounding regions where Muslim land-owners and royal families, like Bhuttos, lived on mass labor of Hindu peasantry.

So the two ruling classes swapped and there you have it.

I heard Hindu Sindhis in India have a very high status in society and tend to be wealthy, so much so that other Indians believe all Sindhis to be lavishly rich.

 

[vegav]

You are judging them by caste. I was guessing they are Dalits, but I don't know because Christians are a bit different looking than Muslims in Punjab. They tend to be darker and have smaller noses.

I think the difficulty you are having is accepting that when they become Christians, they become a community separate from any caste as you may know it. Same for Muslims in Punjab, our family names become tribal identities like Pukhtoons and Baloch, instead of social class.

We freely intermarry with each other in Pakistan, regardless.



Honestly, you cannot tell Parsis apart from Muslims, even by name as many Pakistani Muslims have Persian origin names and blood too.

I don't know details about Parsis as I am from Punjab, which has mostly Christian minorities and Sikhs.

You will have to ask people from Karachi.



Your information about Palestine is eschewed toward Israeli propaganda. The Grand Mufti was a single actor, who approached all European leaders, not just Hitler. He did not have much power himself, but he was trying to stop unbridled Jewish settlement in the Holy Land. He saw the disaster that was happening to his people. His prediction came true.

British and Nehru/Gandhi really blotched the partition for Pakistan. We got the raw end of the deal. We lost 1/2 Kashmir and Jammu demography was altered forever. We lost 1 million people in Punjab and 14 million we had to absorb as refugees. East Pakistan was ripe for separation.

This was not what Quaid wanted, and still the partition is unfinished as Delhi riots and Kashmir lockdown show.

Why are there advertisement in the newspapers asking for sweepers and janitors only from the Christian community? Christian valmikis were janitors in 1947 also, I haven't heard any record which said they followed muslims from east punjab into west Punjab. Nonetheless.

There is no Israeli propoganda. The grand Mufti was anti Jewish( he had a right to be) and hence sided with the Axis powers. The bosniak muslims also sided with the Ustashe Croats and genocides Serbs in the Balkans. That issue carried on right until 1991 in the Yugoslav Civil war. While Serbs did have anti Semitic feelings, the bosniaks were not their friends too.

Also Germany was building relationship with Turkey right since the last days of the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk also had relations with Nazi Germany. Palestinians many of them were anti British and pro Germany.

The Sindhi Hindus who left Sindh when Pakistan was made left electively. No one forced them out. Actually, they had quite a nice life in Sindh as the British had made them rich landowners and industrialists by favoring them over the masses of poor Muslim Sindhis, who remain poor to this date.

This was the opposite of the situation in Junagarh and surrounding regions where Muslim land-owners and royal families, like Bhuttos, lived on mass labor of Hindu peasantry.

So the two ruling classes swapped and there you have it.

I heard Hindu Sindhis in India have a very high status in society and tend to be wealthy, so much so that other Indians believe all Sindhis to be lavishly rich.

I am saying what they told me. I strongly advocate total population transfer between Pakistan and India especially of non muslims of Pakistan and Bangladesh. But it is their wish.

 

[Kamikaze Pilot]

I heard Hindu Sindhis in India have a very high status in society and tend to be wealthy, so much so that other Indians believe all Sindhis to be lavishly rich.

It is because of their high IQ and hardwork. I am a fan of Sindhi community.

@Daghalodi

- PRTP GWD

 

[vegav]

Did the security situation suddenly become bad now?

It was always problematic. But my friend said one more thing which was that there is no business class in Sindh or even punjab much like we have. So the businessmen make good money and don't have to fight hard like in India. So ultimately, they chose money over security. It was all good until the kidnappings started and they started emigration to the western countries with the support of sindhi diaspora.

 

[padamchen]

• We are also against those elements in Pakistan that are regressive, just as we are against those same elements in Indian society; my personal view is that these regressive elements in Pakistan have to be sorted out by Pakistanis themselves, and that we will do no good by commenting. We should confine ourselves to comment only about India's own progress or lack of it.

Non Muslim Indian "But paradigm"

Textbook.

To analyse it let's step back, i won't go in to historical context of things, what's your personal stance on kashmir. No beating around the bush, i know the princely states, i know the nitty gritties, i know the pacts that were signed and all the mumble jumble of historical contexts. So not that, but your personal stance.

 

[vegav]

The Congress created Bangladesh.

Kargil did not happen under the Congress.

And it wasn't the Congress who nearly folded on Kashmir. It was a soft sanghi in his advancing years ...

The Congress is there. Wounded and bleeding.

Which is when predators are at their finest.

A little patience.

Bangladesh was always going to happen. It was impossible for the 2 Pakistan's to be one country, Indra Gandhi did what anyone would have done.

Kargil happened under BJP also created a situation which sent Nawaz Sharif to Saudi Arabia and exposed Pakistan for their designs.

Congress did do one great thing, they messed up Srilanka, rigged elections in Kashmir and helped Late General Hamid Gul to bring mujahideen and militancy to Kashmir, interfered with the supreme court judgement on Shah Bano and opened the locks of Ramjanmanhoomi and the rest is history.

 

[padamchen]

It was always problematic. But my friend said one more thing which was that there is no business class in Sindh or even punjab much like we have. So the businessmen make good money and don't have to fight hard like in India. So ultimately, they chose money over security. It was all good until the kidnappings started and they started emigration to the western countries with the support of sindhi diaspora.

So why now.

Why not till 65 when borders were still really soft.

You're a smart guy. Im sure you see where I'm going with this.

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Why are there advertisement in the newspapers asking for sweepers and janitors only from the Christian community? Christian valmikis were janitors in 1947 also, I haven't heard any record which said they followed muslims from east punjab into west Punjab. Nonetheless.

Lahore absorbed most of those refugees, that is why it has a high Christian population. Most people of Lahore are originally from East Punjab, and mostly the former Muslim majority areas that Radcliffe gave to India.

If you ask around, you can find the origin of anyone in Pakistan. Christians are very open about these sorts of things.

Hindu and Sikh mobs, filled with religious fury and brainwashing that they are avenging 1,000 years of Muslim rule slaughtered defenseless Muslims (Shia, Sunni, Ismaili alike,) Ahmadiyyas were not spared either, and neither were Christians. All were seen as foreigners.

Everyone had to run for Pakistan, there was no other way. Even innocent Hindus and Sikhs accused of helping Muslims or being partial to Muslims were killed in the most brutal fashion.

Take a look at the images of that unnecessary bloodbath, then you can imagine the thoughts going through everyone's mind.

There is no Israeli propoganda. The grand Mufti was anti Jewish( he had a right to be) and hence sided with the Axis powers. The bosniak muslims also sided with the Ustashe Croats and genocides Serbs in the Balkans. That issue carried on right until 1991 in the Yugoslav Civil war. While Serbs did have anti Semitic feelings, the bosniaks were not their friends too.

Also Germany was building relationship with Turkey right since the last days of the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk also had relations with Nazi Germany. Palestinians many of them were anti British and pro Germany.

You are wrong about this and you have the timeline of Ottomans and Atatürk confused as well. Please go visit the Middle East section and ask some of our Arab and Turkish brothers to educate you.

This is off topic and we are losing focus.

 

[vegav]

So why now.

Why not till 65 when borders were still really soft.

You're a smart guy. Im sure you see where I'm going with this.

I agree with you. The rich and educated migrated as and when they can. They also didn't care much about their lower caste counterparts and sought their own safety. But the CAA and NRC is most applicable to the Bangladesh than Pakistan. I will recommend lower class Hindus of Sindh to convert to Islam to have better human rights if not come to India.

Lahore absorbed most of those refugees, that is why it has a high Christian population. Most people of Lahore are originally from East Punjab, and mostly the former Muslim majority areas that Radcliffe gave to India.

If you ask around, you can find the origin of anyone in Pakistan. Christians are very open about these sorts of things.

Hindu and Sikh mobs, filled with religious fury and brainwashing that they are avenging 1,000 years of Muslim rule slaughtered defenseless Muslims (Shia, Sunni, Ismaili alike,) Ahmadiyyas were not spared either, and neither were Christians. All were seen as foreigners.

Everyone had to run for Pakistan, there was no other way. Even innocent Hindus and Sikhs accused of helping Muslims or being partial to Muslims were killed in the most brutal fashion.

Take a look at the images of that unnecessary bloodbath, then you can imagine the thoughts going through everyone's mind.



You are wrong about this and you have the timeline of Ottomans and Atatürk confused as well. Please go visit the Middle East section and ask some of our Arab and Turkish brothers to educate you.

This is off topic and we are losing focus.

The same mayhem happened in west Punjabi cities also and was super brutal, especially in Gujranwala,.Lahore and Rawalpindi. Sikhs got.massacred massively especially.

 

[padamchen]

I agree with you. The rich and educated migrated as and when they can. They also didn't care much about their lower caste counterparts and sought their own safety. But the CAA and NRC is most applicable to the Bangladesh than Pakistan. I will recommend lower class Hindus of Sindh to convert to Islam to have better human rights if not come to India.

Agree about Bangladesh with you.

Thats a whole different quagmire there.

 

[vegav]

Lahore absorbed most of those refugees, that is why it has a high Christian population. Most people of Lahore are originally from East Punjab, and mostly the former Muslim majority areas that Radcliffe gave to India.

If you ask around, you can find the origin of anyone in Pakistan. Christians are very open about these sorts of things.

Hindu and Sikh mobs, filled with religious fury and brainwashing that they are avenging 1,000 years of Muslim rule slaughtered defenseless Muslims (Shia, Sunni, Ismaili alike,) Ahmadiyyas were not spared either, and neither were Christians. All were seen as foreigners.

Everyone had to run for Pakistan, there was no other way. Even innocent Hindus and Sikhs accused of helping Muslims or being partial to Muslims were killed in the most brutal fashion.

Take a look at the images of that unnecessary bloodbath, then you can imagine the thoughts going through everyone's mind.



You are wrong about this and you have the timeline of Ottomans and Atatürk confused as well. Please go visit the Middle East section and ask some of our Arab and Turkish brothers to educate you.

This is off topic and we are losing focus.

I am.indeed wrong about Ataturk but....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Turkish_Treaty_of_Friendship

 

[Joe Shearer]

I second this.

If anyone has any doubt, check Shashi Tharoor on Al Jazeera. You will become aware how much more dangerous these Hindu chauvinists are than Hindutva cadres of RSS.

They present a different face to the West of peace, yoga, nonviolence, Gandhi, etc., while to Pakistanis and Indian Muslims, it is open season to show their fangs.

Congress is much more dangerous, they have kept Kashmir at a standstill for 70+ years and deceived us to let our guard down.

There is no more comical sight than those who stick horns and attach a tail to an ordinary, necessary horse, and insist on calling it a dragon.

If the urgings of your inner being lead you to being unpleasant, be unpleasant. Please do not concoct ridiculous reasons to be unpleasant.