Search results

I'm not the one who started the real and fake debate, the people of Indian subcontinent have been Indian for millennia even if there was no concept of nationalism back then we can still look back into the history and say our ancestors were Indian, while you were called Indian by the outside...

refer post 91. You never know how things could have turned out in the Indian subcontinent had it not been for the British , so you can put a full stop at your speculations.

Again speculating on things which you never know how they could have have turned out. Sikkim did join the Indian Union by a popular vote incase you didn't know and they have no similarity to a tamil or a punjabi .

Those clusters could very well have formed a federation for all we know and we could have had an even bigger India, so these speculations like if my aunt had a d!ck she'd be my uncle should be put to rest.

How are you so sure what would have been the fate of India had the British not come ? There wouldn't be a Pakistan in the first place and that is for sure had it not been for the British.

Vasco de Gama was actually looking for Pakistan when he bumped into India :lol:

We know you are the best in the business of cleaning toilets and come for cheap , its a win win situation for both.

How can you say that we do employ Bangladeshis in millions to clean our latrines

Tension kisko hai , hum to aye hi yaha trolling kr k ban hone hain . :lol:

3 months ka ban de diya chakbamu , that uncouth desertfighter went abusive and I replied in kind , while i was banned for 3 months he wasn't even banned for a day, so much for impartial moderation. Not that i'm expecting it anyways on a Pakistani forum. Waise kis thread ki baat ho rhi hai ...

Bihari are martial people, they ruled over current day Pakistan for centuries, Kashmiris seldom ruled over Kashmir leave alone others, plz dont insult Biharis by comparing with Kashmiris

That was not exactly to serve the British rather promote Indian interests in SA. Which of his actions were detrimental to the National movement and unity of India ??

Not a stooge but loyalist, its political activities were not directed against the Britsh rather against the Congress.

It will not be drastically different from the one spoken in Pakistan when even Indians can understand Pakistani Urdu . I dont think any poet in Pakistan will use the word Pyar for Ishq , its not that the word Ishq is uncommon here, many others may use the word ishq for pyaar, but the number of...

Urdu is differentiated from Hindi today, in official use Hindi is much Sanskritized so much so that a common man may find it hard to understand, similarly pure Urdu is one which uses more persian words. Still Urdu spoken in UP uses less Persian/Arabic words than the one in Pakistan. What a...

To think that British did not exploit India's "faultlines" is over the top naive. There were elements on both sides Hindu and Muslims who were canon fodder for British's divide and rule policy. When i think of one such political organization the Muslim League comes to my mind

Without the Sanskrit root words there can be no Urdu . Hindustani is a dialect of khari boli and it was not as persianized as Urdu spoken in Pakistan today, what is spoken today in the Awadh region can be said close to Hindustani. Devanagri was earlier called Nagri , its more or less same...

Firstly Arabic, Persian and Turkic influence on khari boli led to the evolution of Hindustani which itself evolved from Apabhramsa, it was not Urdu back then. There was no religious anlge to the development of Hindustani, it was the the influence of Arabic,Persian,Turkic etc on local language...

Panini can never be a Pakistani that is for sure :lol: Oops you got banned, time to make another ID :enjoy:

Hindustani evolved as a dialect of Khari boli which was a succesor of Apbrhamsha which inturn evolved from Sanskrit. So where did Punjabi came from :lol: