Akhand Bharat possible, will be good for Pakistan, says RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat

[El Sidd]

Most Indians want status-quo. We know the difference between dreams and reality. We may want to dream of an alternate reality where the partition and bloodshed would not have happened. But much water has flown through Ganga and Jhelum since then and there is no going back. It is better to aim for a France-Germany kind of model, bitter WW2 enemies but best of friends now. Realistically, without war, neither India can gain more land nor Pakistan. And there are no victors in war but only dead bodies.

India needs to prove that it can manage the vast brainwashed population from waging war on Pakistan.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

The only major unfinished business I hear is Kashmir, so lets dig up previous about to reach agreements and try to agree upon something mutually desirable.
In an ideal world, Kashmiris should have been left to decide to their own fate. Sheikh Abdullah was the leader of Kashmiris in 1947 and wanted Independence or merger with India. Pakistanis acted in haste and tried to force merge Kashmir with them. Kashmir lived in peace with India till 1980s. After that, ugly Indian domestic politics coupled with fighters free from fighting with Soviets fuelled the urgency. Later, Kashmir Pandits were driven out. So the situation is not now which could have been when plebiscite was first promised.

for fucks sake. stop beating around the bush. who decides what happens with Kashmir? Kashmiris or everyone else? dont give me this ideal world crap.

 

[magra]

India needs to prove that it can manage the vast brainwashed population from waging war on Pakistan.

There is a difference between the talk of waging war (for domestic votebank politics) and actually initiating war.
1947-48 --> Pakistanis initated war when trying to force merge Kashmir
1965 --> Pakistan opted for a military solution of Kashmir and started your operation
1971 --> India had to enter to solve the refugee crises on its eastern border
1999 --> Musharraf started the conflict by crossing LoC

When has India actually waged war? India wants status-quo. We have proven this repeatedly. After winning 1971, we released the PoWs and the captured land without forcing a Kashmir settlement because we wanted a status-quo even then.

for fucks sake. stop beating around the bush. who decides what happens with Kashmir? Kashmiris or everyone else? dont give me this ideal world crap.

Why are you using profanity? Do you have a logic reply to what I said? Repeating the question does not make sense. Please make more effort.

 

[El Sidd]

There is a difference between the talk of waging war (for domestic votebank politics) and actually initiating war

Not to the ones facing that war or rhetoric. What do you want that you instigate a billion people against us and we should tolerate it as internal consumption? How is that fair to Pakistan?

When has India actually waged war? India wants status-quo. We have proven this repeatedly. After winning 1971, we released the PoWs and the captured land without forcing a Kashmir settlement because we wanted a status-quo even then.

You are a stagnant barely a nation, no wonder you worship status quo.

Pakistanis are not living dead to turn a blind eye to genocide and tyranny.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

There is a difference between the talk of waging war (for domestic votebank politics) and actually initiating war.
1947-48 --> Pakistanis initated war when trying to force merge Kashmir
1965 --> Pakistan opted for a military solution of Kashmir and started your operation
1971 --> India had to enter to solve the refugee crises on its eastern border
1999 --> Musharraf started the conflict by crossing LoC

When has India actually waged war? India wants status-quo. We have proven this repeatedly. After winning 1971, we released the PoWs and the captured land without forcing a Kashmir settlement because we wanted a status-quo even then.

ever asked yourself why Pakistan fights India for Kashmir? ever asked yourself why India does lockdowns in all of Kashmir? why?

Why are you using profanity? Do you have a logic reply to what I said? Repeating the question does not make sense. Please make more effort.

from now on i am going to treat you like a child. who owns the clothes you are wearing right now? me? or you?

 

[N.Siddiqui]

There is a difference between the talk of waging war (for domestic votebank politics) and actually initiating war.
1947-48 --> Pakistanis initated war when trying to force merge Kashmir
1965 --> Pakistan opted for a military solution of Kashmir and started your operation
1971 --> India had to enter to solve the refugee crises on its eastern border
1999 --> Musharraf started the conflict by crossing LoC

When has India actually waged war? India wants status-quo. We have proven this repeatedly. After winning 1971, we released the PoWs and the captured land without forcing a Kashmir settlement because we wanted a status-quo even then.

Agree with you India has never started a war....

In 1971(much before the fall), it started a campaign of deceit and deception, sponsoring and financing the Mukti Bahnis(close to 3 hundred thousand were armed and trained)...And India believe that when espionage, duplicity works...why there has to be a war. Chanakya neeti, isn't it.

It did the same deceit and deception in Sri Lanka arming and sponsoring the Tamil Tigers, the LTTE...Sri Lanka will never forget and forgive the killing of close to 3 hundred Sri Lankans by India's terror.

Pakistan played major role in LTTE defeat: Sources

Pakistan's supply of high-tech military equipment and positioning of some of its highly trained army officers in Sri Lanka played a key role in the ultimate defeat of Tamil Tigers, Pakistani media has claimed.

www.business-standard.com

And it is doing the same terror support to proxies in Afghanistan who were causing a wave of terror in Pakistan...now contained and decimated....


There are other neighboring countries like Nepal, BD too who has suffered from this India's hegemony.

Is India really behind Nepal's economic blockade?

What has sustained the four-month occupation of the Maitreyi bridge on the India-Nepal border? On a recent January day, people on either side of the line shared their answers.

scroll.in

 

[magra]

Not to the ones facing that war or rhetoric. What do you want that you instigate a billion people against us and we should tolerate it as internal consumption? How is that fair to Pakistan?

You are a stagnant barely a nation, no wonder you worship status quo.

Pakistanis are not living dead to turn a blind eye to genocide and tyranny.

I agree that the rhetoric might sound scary to Pakistanis and may further fuel your hatred. Hopefully, the war rhetoric will go down if more agreements like the recent ceasefire come. Lets aim for solving Kashmir issue (Vajpayee - Musharraf agreement).

If it makes you happy thinking of us as a stagnant nation, then so be it. We intend to expand upward (space exploration) rather than sideways (capturing land).
I do not like some of the anti-minority politics of the BJP and you may call it tyranny in the extreme sense. But genocide? come on. You do know that the defintion of genocide is something other than what you see on ground. Once Kashmir is solved, anti-minority politics will also lose value.

 

[Silverblaze]

ever asked yourself why Pakistan fights India for Kashmir? ever asked yourself why India does lockdowns in all of Kashmir? why?

You are wasting your time with this hindutvadi.

Anyways, our answers to the hindutvadis should be precise.

They have no legal or moral right on Kashmir and even Hyderabad and Junagadh and Manavdar.

They have forcibly captured 500 princely states.

It was india's pet hari singh that broke the standstill agreement when he began a crack down on a non communal agitation in Poonch and started to appoint Prime ministers and military chiefs from india and subsequently massacred muslims in Jammu with full support from hindutvadis in Delhi led by Patel well before the so called Pakistani invasion.

While blaming Pakistan for the invasion, they invaded Hyderabad and massacred its inhabitants.

 

[magra]

ever asked yourself why Pakistan fights India for Kashmir? ever asked yourself why India does lockdowns in all of Kashmir? why?



from now on i am going to treat you like a child. who owns the clothes you are wearing right now? me? or you?

I already answered the reason why Kashmir issue has festered. Had Pakistan not acted in haste in 1947, all of Kashmir would have been one conflict free zone and would have been Switzerland of the south.

Sure, you can treat me with whatever age but I do expect reciprocal respect. BTW, as per you, gaali dena baddappan hai?

 

[El Sidd]

Lets aim for solving Kashmir issue (Vajpayee - Musharraf agreement).

Pirouz has been declared a traitor by Islamic Republic's Supreme Court.
That agreement is not acceptable to Pakistanis. It was a dictators opinion.

I agree that the rhetoric might sound scary to Pakistanis and may further fuel your hatred

Hatred? Pakistanis have survival at stake here. Self defence is not hatred.

genocide? come on.

Kashmiris, belonging to any demographic, share this sentiment for the Indian state. Be it the Pandits or the Muslims.

 

[magra]

You are wasting your time with this hindutvadi.

Anyways, our answers to the hindutvadis should be precise.

They have no legal or moral right on Kashmir and even Hyderabad and Junagadh and Manavdar.

They have forcibly captured 500 princely states.

It was india's pet hari singh that broke the standstill agreement when he began a crack down on a non communal agitation in Poonch and started to appoint Prime ministers and military chiefs from india and subsequently massacred muslims in Jammu with full support from hindutvadis in Delhi led by Patel well before the so called Pakistani invasion.

While blaming Pakistan for the invasion, they invaded Hyderabad and massacred its inhabitants.

Hello sir, you can talk to me directly too. I dont bite.
What as per you is the definition of hindutvadi? I can then tell you whether I am one or not.
Hari Singh signed Kashmir to India, so legally we have the right. Sheikh Abdullah also was leaning towards India, so again morally we had the right.

Hyderabad & Junagarh were surrounded by India on all sides. Even if they had merged with Pakistan, it would not have been a sustainable solution. I am using the same argument Pakistanis give about Bangladesh. So prove me wrong on your own logic.
What is Manavdar?

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

I already answered the reason why Kashmir issue has festered. Had Pakistan not acted in haste in 1947, all of Kashmir would have been one conflict free zone and would have been Switzerland of the south.

who own the clothes you are wearing? me or you?

Hello sir, you can talk to me directly too. I dont bite.

you dont bite. you just beat around the bush. you talk peace, but deny justice. moo me ram ram, bagal me churi.

 

[Maira La]

British was not the first to unite the subcontinent. Mauryan empire did it first in the recorded history. Mughals did it too. Marathas were almost able to achieve the same when British finally defeated them. Apart from political boundaries, culturally there has always been a strong bond. If we meet in western countries, there is an instant connect between us irrespective of political boundaries here. People from Nepal to Tamil Nadu have similar mythologies surrounding Lord Ram. So, it was not an unnatural union. Although, I am happy that Indians found a better glue to stick together due to common hatred of the British rule. We now realize that united we stand, divided we fall. So we will never be divided again, and solve our problems without breaking apart.

I am not talking about adding any country. I already mentioned that there is no going back. I am saying we can aim and hope for a France-Germany type friendship model in the future.

Kashmir is a topic which needs a lot more explanation so will do in a different post.

Maurya is overrated. The fan maps in Google and Wiki are overexaggerated. Also Mauryans killed more Indians (aka Akhand Bharatis) in human history than any other emperor. You cannot assume continuity with an empire that had no vision of Akhand anything. Also they were extremely short lived.

Maratha was not even close to conquering entire subcontinent. You forget that the subcontinent was full of other powerful states, like Nizam right next to them, or the Sikhs in the North. They were not the only ones filling the vacuum left by Mughals. Maratha also got a very good beating at the hands of Afghans, so British were not the only ones to humiliate them.

Also, why are you people so obsessed about some sort of 'union' with Pakistan? I don't see this obsession with regards to Myanmar or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. You are too obsessed with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because you darkies fancy Caucasian people? I think some recent news articles gives us some idea about what you really want:

‘Marry fair Kashmiri women now’: BJP MLA after Article 370 repeal

In a video clip that has gone viral on the social media, the lawmaker from Khatauli was seen speaking at a function organized on Tuesday to celebrate the revoking of the special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

www.hindustantimes.com

BJP Workers Excited to Marry Fair Girls From Kashmir, Says UP MLA

Vikram Singh Saini echoed the view that several right-wingers have expressed on social media. None of them, though, seemed concerned about what Kashmiri women may want.

thewire.in

@PAKISTANFOREVER @Indus Pakistan Hoping you people are aware of this psychology ^^.

 

[PakistaniAtBahrain]

Hari Singh signed Kashmir to India, so legally we have the right. Sheikh Abdullah also was leaning towards India, so again morally we had the right.

Hyderabad & Junagarh were surrounded by India on all sides. Even if they had merged with Pakistan, it would not have been a sustainable solution. I am using the same argument Pakistanis give about Bangladesh. So prove me wrong on your own logic.
What is Manavdar?

look at this munafiq. the ruler of Kashmir chose India, so Kashmir should be part of India. but when the ruler of Junagarh chose Pakistan, he says it should be part of India.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Maurya is overrated. The fan maps in Google and Wiki are overexaggerated. Also Mauryans killed more Indians (aka Akhand Bharatis) in human history than any other emperor. You cannot assume continuity with an empire that had no vision of Akhand anything. Also they were extremely short lived.

Maratha was not even close to conquering entire subcontinent. You forget that the subcontinent was full of other powerful states, like Nizam right next to them, or the Sikhs in the North. They were not the only ones filling the vacuum left by Mughals. Maratha also got a very good beating at the hands of Afghans, so British were not the only ones to humiliate them.

Also, why are you people so obsessed about some sort of 'union' with Pakistan? I don't see this obsession with regards to Myanmar or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh. You are too obsessed with Pakistan and Afghanistan. Because you darkies fancy Caucasian people? I think some recent news articles gives us some idea about what you really want:

‘Marry fair Kashmiri women now’: BJP MLA after Article 370 repeal

In a video clip that has gone viral on the social media, the lawmaker from Khatauli was seen speaking at a function organized on Tuesday to celebrate the revoking of the special status to Jammu and Kashmir.

www.hindustantimes.com

BJP Workers Excited to Marry Fair Girls From Kashmir, Says UP MLA

Vikram Singh Saini echoed the view that several right-wingers have expressed on social media. None of them, though, seemed concerned about what Kashmiri women may want.

thewire.in

@PAKISTANFOREVER @Indus Pakistan Hoping you people are aware of this psychology ^^.

Too be honest, you can't blame the indians. indians are the most hideously ugly and physically repulsive race on the planet. When you see how abnormally ugly indian women are you can understand why indian males drool over Kashmiri or non-indian women in general.

indian women are.......