An Indo-Arab blunder?

[SamantK]

If there was no India as a country how can Pakistan be part of it ?

If the only evidence that one can furnish are origin myths extracted from religion how am I the one in a state of identity crisis ?

Clearly we're going to go in circles & you're going to continue on with your wise-crack patronizations without providing a shred of evidence beyond Hindu religious texts so - Good Day....I'm Done !

We also call ourselves Bharat, your grouse is with the Hindu religion and it can be seen.

We do not have a problem what you call yourself now, Arabs or anything. There is no evidence needed to say we called this land Bharat including yours before 1947. You can find me evidence which did not but you can only talk about religion.

 

[Arya Desa]

First 3 divorces are necessary:

1) Arabs need to divorce our relationship with us from that with Israel
2) Arabs need to divorce our relationship with us from that with pakistan
3) We need to divorce our relation with Arabs from that with pakistan

With these 3 divorces in place, Indo-Arab relations will know no bounds.

 

[Sam.]

First 3 divorces are necessary:

1) Arabs need to divorce our relationship with us from that with Israel
2) Arabs need to divorce our relationship with us from that with pakistan
3) We need to divorce our relation with Arabs from that with pakistan

With these 3 divorces in place, Indo-Arab relations will know no bounds.

I didn't understand a thing

 

[Arya Desa]

I didn't understand a thing

Relationships should be bilateral and not take into account a 3rd party.

 

[INDIC]

Paksitan was part of this land and hence it would be India if not for some people who did not want to be ruled by Hindu Baniya

There was no other justification other than this, not about the history nor that they were not part of India, religion and so called religious freedom nothing else. You can twist it any way you like but all this BS of India not being a country and Pakistan not part of India was simply an invention of identity crisis Pakistanis face to this day.

The reason is now Pakistanis find two nation theory insufficient to assert an non-Indian Pakistani identity, so they will parrot the theory Pakistanis only similar to 3% Indians. BTW @Armstrong what make Punjabi similar to Pashtuns, I don't find anything common in Pashtun and Punjabi in culture, language and history. Ask any Indian Punjabi if he really believe himself similar to any Pashtun.

 

[Sam.]

Relationships should be bilateral and not take into account a 3rd party.

You could have said this before

Yes i agree

The reason is now Pakistanis find two nation theory insufficient to assert an non-Indian Pakistani identity, so they will parrot the theory Pakistanis only similar to 3% Indians. BTW @Armstrong what make Punjabi similar to Pashtuns, I don't find anything common in Pashtun and Punjabi in culture, language and history. Ask any Indian Punjabi if he really believe himself similar to any Pashtun.

O bhai esse accha to diwar mai sir mar le

Or Desi chada and mauj kar

 

[Arya Desa]

Ask any Indian Punjabi if he really believe himself similar to any Pashtun.

No. We don't like goats that much.

You could have said this before

Yes i agree

Nope. The original way was more romantic.

 

[INDIC]

We also call ourselves Bharat, your grouse is with the Hindu religion and it can be seen.

We do not have a problem what you call yourself now, Arabs or anything. There is no evidence needed to say we called this land Bharat including yours before 1947. You can find me evidence which did not but you can only talk about religion.

Bharat, India and Hind are same thing, first is native and last two are foreign names. The people of East of Indus who converted to Islam still refer his land as Hind and Hindustan. Allama Iqbal wrote numerous poems in the praise of the land of Hind and Hindustan.

 

[INDIC]

You have always 'believed' it yourselves & thus written poems about it - How can I refute such an argument exuding historical evidence with its every syllable ?

Thank You for your corrections - I'll take my leave now !

Chicha, what do you mean by historical evidence.

 

[al-Hasani]

I didn't understand a thing

I did not understand anything of that either. He is talking like the Arab world and India have no cooperation at all which is totally false.

I suggest you read this post of mine that received 11 thanks, mostly from fellow Indian compatriots of yours.

I know that you are a simple-minded anti-Arab troll (observed your posts but did not comment on them until now so I know this to be the case for a fact) but India's trading balance with the Arab world is one of biggest overall and the biggest Indian diaspora in the world is found in the Arab world and the Indians in the Arab world contribute to most of the remittances sent to India from abroad.

Also most of the nearly 200 million Indian Muslims have close religious and cultural ties to the Arab world and many of them also have Arab ancestry. They are your compatriots too.


Well de facto the Arab world (all 22 Arab countries) are boycotting Israel and have no relations but that is not entirely true as most countries have relations with Israel indirectly.

It's just that many outsiders think that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (armed conflict) includes all 22 Arab countries which is a ridiculous assumption. Even the so-called Israeli-"Arab" wars only involved 3-4 Arab countries.

Also this article makes it seem like there is no relations with India and the Arab world which is totally false. Al-Ahram is a well-known Arab nationalist newspaper and thus focuses a lot on the Palestinian issue and views foreign relations from that perspective.

Foreign relations of the Arab League - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For God's sake India has even an observer status in the Arab League together with states like Brazil and Venezuela due to those two countries large Arab diasporas (in total about 20 million Arab Latin Americans or so).

Also I believe that the Arab world should sit and discuss with Israel directly by developing real diplomatic ties as that approach might be more fruitful to end the conflict peacefully than the current approach which has given nothing. It is in the interest of both the Arab world and Israel.

The same can be said about Pakistan and India.

@Arya Desa

 

[Sam.]

Anyway did I really say anything wrong? I mean what is exactly the difference between Pakistani and Indian Punjabis and Sindhis for instance?

There is no cultural difference other than religion. Besides the passport they carry. On all other fronts I would struggle to set them apart.
I don't know how that makes Pakistanis Indian or Indians Pakistanis.

I was very specific in my examples.

Besides honestly speaking then Arabs and other Middle Eastern people tend to group all South Asians together at first sight at least until they learn about all the differences. I imagine that the same is the case with people from the ME in South Asia overall. At least at first sight too.

@levina @ranjeet



I hope that you are both doing well. I am preparing to break today's fast. Going to eat at a local Arab restaurant in 1 hour time or so. I am extremely hungry. It's been a long, humid, sunny and warm day today in Copenhagen. Anyway this is not the topic.

That video is great anyway.

Good video

Few highlights from video
1) Girls looks maal ( looking to visit S.A. soon)
2)Didn't have that image of saudis in my mind ( I can say there was no image at all from personal POV)
3)They all look exciting and friendly
4)Their statement were so political so it seems less real

So far only image i have of SA is good on the aspect of development but lots of their law on based of religion and too much restriction ( as i heard from friend who visited Saudis )

As for Anti-Arab stand well we are Anti-#

# = Anti India (Whoever they are)

 

[KingMamba]

Brace up Mambyyy....

View attachment 38297



This letter is dated 1333, by lord Macaulay.
And in the first few lines you will see the name INDIA.
That should prove my point that Pakistan didnt exist prior to the independence decalration in '47.I am not saying this to hurt your ego, its just a fact. The present day Pakistan or states of Baluchistan,Sindh, parts of punjab were all part of India.

Jangli???

The letter that I have posted proves you wrong...once again.

The letter you provided is a known forgery no such speech exists in the records of the British parliament when he was supposed to have given the speech he was actually still in India, a quick google search and you would have found many history forums that discuss as much in a lot more detail aunty, besides it still disproves nothing that I stated either way.

 

[Sam.]

The letter you provided is a known forgery no such speech exists in the records of the British parliament when he was supposed to have given the speech he was actually still in India, a quick google search and you would have found many history forums that discuss as much in a lot more detail aunty, besides it still disproves nothing that I stated either way.

You guys stay away from this thread and take your bantering on another thread.

Thank you

 

[Levina]

The letter you provided is a known forgery no such speech exists in the records of the British parliament when he was supposed to have given the speech he was actually still in India, a quick google search and you would have found many history forums that discuss as much in a lot more detail aunty, besides it still disproves nothing that I stated either way.

Words ...words and more words.
Show me the proof.

 

[KingMamba]

Did not know you were weak in geography as well?
Does Indus not flow in India?
If it does, it is an Indian river.

If India wants to put up a dam on the river Indus, it can. That should answer the questions.

About 2-3% of the river passes through Ladakh. Which we don't consider India anyway lol and besides, About the same percentage originates in China in Western Tibet so I guess since Chinese can dam it as well it is a Chinese river.