What's new

Are you Hindu first or Indian first?

Indian Army chooses not to see.

But it sees everything.

The muslims who fight alongside us are brothers in arms.

But it does not negate what I said.
 
Indian Army chooses not to see.

But it sees everything.

The muslims who fight alongside us are brothers in arms.

But it does not negate what I said.

Indian Establishment for the whole see all Indians irrespective of thier religion as Indians and whoever have gone stray try to bring them back irrespective of thier religion.
 
Well if mosques are not religious symbols then why do Muslims go mad over Babri Masjid? And why would a Pakistani go mad for Babri Masjid? Babri Masjid was demolished because it was built over a Hindu temple which is the religious symbol of Hinduism so can't Muslims agree to worship in another mosque other than that place?
Mosques are religious worship places for Muslims where Muslims bow in front of Allah not for any mughal/arab or anyone who built it. Muslim can pray in any mosques

I did bring this point simply because you were all claiming to be Indian first before Hindu. If you were Indian first then demolishing this mosque din't make any sense from Indian nationalist point of view and you would have let this Mosques stay there for Indian Muslims but you took revenge for Hinduism which suggest you are Hindu first and Indian later. Actions speak louder than words.

There would be no clashes between Muslim and Hindus if they were thought themselves Indian before Hindu or Muslims so reality is different my friend. People have deep love and emotional attachment for their beliefs and they even kill their country men for this otherwise why take a revenge of Hindu from a Muslim when they both Indians. This revenge or picking side suggest love for religion stronger than love for country man :)

Taj Mahal is national property and the Mughal royal families people are Indian citizens.
Point was if Babri mosques is symbol of Invasion then so were tajmahal and those others historical buildings built by inavders

I cannot answer the poll.

I see no difference between being Indian and being Hindu. Because we are quite simply a Hindu nation state, a land of Hindus.
I don't know why those who say we are Indian first and Hindu later don't disagree with you :D Difference is very simple to understand if you look at this word "Hindu" in its religious sense instead of geographic definition and get this in your head that Hindu and Abrahamic faiths are two different set of beliefs so followers of Abraham faith can be Indian but not Dharmic Hindu. You have this flaws definition of Hindu but at least you are honest unlike others who say Indian first but their opinions imply something else :P
 
Point was if Babri mosques is symbol of Invasion then so were tajmahal and those others historical buildings built by inavders

Taj Mahal was constructed by Shajahan and mother of Shajahan was Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani alias Manmati Baiji Lal Sahiba.

Babri Masjid issue has much to do with post cold war atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
They are very basic questions.

They cannot be more core to a nationalist.

Will you kill your Muslim brother for me a kaffir? Or will you "choose" not to fight.
Muslims in past fought wars with their own blood relatives or tribes because they were at the side of aggressor and oppressor . God want you to pick the right side of justice no matter who is at other end while a blind nationalist will go for even wrong things as long as it bring material benefit or political interest to their country that's where nationalism or blind love for country clash with love for God/religion so its not brother thing because Islam ask you to criticise your own brother if he is oppressor

Taj Mahal was constructed by Shajahan and mother of Shajahan was Taj Bibi Bilqis Makani alias Manmati Baiji Lal Sahiba.
oh Bhi Babar also built this mosques for Indian Muslim..no? or he just built it for himself :D
 
Mosques are religious worship places for Muslims where Muslims bow in front of Allah not for any mughal/arab or anyone who built it. Muslim can pray in any mosques

I did bring this point simply because you were all claiming to be Indian first before Hindu. If you were Indian first then demolishing this mosque din't make any sense from Indian nationalist point of view and you would have let this Mosques stay there for Indian Muslims but you took revenge for Hinduism which suggest you are Hindu first and Indian later. Actions speak louder than words.

There would be no clashes between Muslim and Hindus if they were thought themselves Indian before Hindu or Muslims so reality is different my friend. People have deep love and emotional attachment for their beliefs and they even kill their country men for this otherwise why take a revenge of Hindu from a Muslim when they both Indians. This revenge or picking side suggest love for religion stronger than love for country man :)

Babri mosque was built on a place sacred for Hindus, so Muslims can pray some other place, even Hindus can help them build it somewhere else :)
 
Babri mosque was built on a place sacred for Hindus, so Muslims can pray some other place, even Hindus can help them build it somewhere else :)
Unacceptable. Babri Masjid was NEVER used as a mosque. But the Muslims have a problem with its destruction because it means the symbolic end of the centuries of Islamic humiliation of Hindus.
 
thats a great post by a great lady .. thanks

but the fact is there is no concept of nationhood in islam but brotherhood and thats the main reason why most pakistanies consider them as muslims first and pakistani later

but the question is why pakistanies think what indians should think and what not ?

here is the case of pakistanies naiveli asking indians = are-you-hindu-first-or-indian-first as to them bieng a muslim first and pakistani later is a fact of life and they tend to think what they beleve holds true for every other race/nation round the globe

one of the reason why they also think all those who are friends with pakistan should be unfriendli towards india :coffee:
First of all this article was written by Indian Muslim and he was sharing his experience about Hindus asking him whether he is Muslim first or Indian so he did asked same questions from Indian Hindus and gave many examples where HInuds proved themselves Hindu before Indians . Why you are bringing Pakistani in it just because i posted this article :D

here is another one

To be a Muslim in India - The Express Tribune

In India, the Muslim lives on sufferance. It is the Hindu who has freedom to attack India and its culture, its vulgarity. The Muslim who objects to something, no matter that it is obvious and visible, must qualify his argument.

Usually, the qualification demanded is that he show himself as patriotic. In India, this is a term which comes out of the negative sentiment. To be a patriotic Indian, one is not required to be taxpaying, law-abiding, well-meaning or philanthropic. Patriotism is demonstrated through hating a particular country. The reason the Indian Muslim lives on sufferance is also rooted in this.

You see, the Muslim is guilty of the original sin, by voting for Pakistan in the 1945-46 elections. He divided Mother India and his generations must carry this burden of Adam.

Shahrukh Khan said this: “I sometimes become the inadvertent object of political leaders who choose to make me a symbol of all that they think is wrong and unpatriotic about Muslims in India. I have been accused of bearing allegiance to our neighbouring nation rather than my own country. This, even though I am an Indian whose father fought for the freedom of India. Rallies have been held where leaders have exhorted me to leave and return to what they refer to as my original homeland.”

He should have prefaced his remarks (which I find ordinary, inoffensive and accurate) as follows: “I don’t like Pakistan. My fans are mostly Hindus, whom I love more than Pakistanis.”

Having said this, he would not have offended us, no matter what he then unburdened.

Like children who need a pacifier, the Muslim offering opinion on prejudice must hold out this lollipop to Indians, whose natural view of him is coloured by his religion. At all points, he must remember this and mumble an Apologia Pro Vita Sua.

In not doing this, and I’m surprised he didn’t because he should know a thing or two about Indian public opinion, Shahrukh Khan opened himself to an attack which goes in this fashion: “Aren’t you grateful, are you not satisfied, that we gave you — you Muslim! — such fame, such success? You didn’t whine about this then, did you? Now, the Pakistanis are lecturing us because of your remarks. You should be ashamed.”

The self-congratulatory assumptions we make about ourselves — secular nation! World’s largest democracy! — are not particularly reflected outside of the Constitution. We should think about that.

On Nidhi Razdan’s show on NDTV on the night of January 29, I was on a panel, discussing Narendra Modi as a prime ministerial candidate. In the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) corner was a woman called Meenakshi Lekhi. Midway through the discussion, she asked a soft-spoken man, Najib Jung, vice chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia, if he thought Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan.

Why did she bring this up? I don’t know, and there was no occasion to. But it was dropped in casually because it’s the natural thing to say to a Muslim here — hey, are you guys Pakistan-lovers? Tell us the truth, now.

As a writer, I can imagine the pressure on Muslim writers who are aware of India and the space they operate in. MJ Akbar wrote an unthinking paean to the BJP’s idiocy after Pokhran, and I suspect that wasn’t because he’s a fan of nuclear weapons. It’s all quite frightening, or should be. It doesn’t surprise me at all.

In India, it has always mattered who says something. What is said depends not on the intellectual content but which side it has blown from.

How it is said is also always more important than what is said because the Indian is easily offended. Ashis Nandy shouldn’t have assumed that he could be subtle and clever only because it was the anglicised middle class he was speaking to at Jaipur.

They are cut of the same cloth as other Indians. Quick to emotion, barely literate about anything whether their own culture or the West’s, and powered on and on by an asinine media.

Published in The Express Tribune, January 31st, 2013.
 
oh Bhi Babar also built this mosques for Indian Muslim..no? or he just built it for himself :D

Mosques were already there in India even before the invasion by Babur and its not allowed in Islam to built masjids illegally.


Structure of old Cheraman Masjid , the first masjid of India.
1024px-Cheraman_juma_masjid_Old.jpg
 
Babri mosque was built on a place sacred for Hindus, so Muslims can pray some other place, even Hindus can help them build it somewhere else :)
Muslims can or still praying in different mosques but how you will justify demolishing of this mosque from Indian point of view..forget a moment that you are Hindu. Think yourself just Indian and then justify this destruction of mosque
 
Unacceptable. Babri Masjid was NEVER used as a mosque. But the Muslims have a problem with its destruction because it means the symbolic end of the centuries of Islamic humiliation of Hindus.

In reality is there is nothing like that which you are trying to say . Hindus and Muslims have co existed in India way before the invasions of Ghori, Ghaznavi and Babur.
 
Muslims can or still praying in different mosques but how you will justify demolishing of this mosque from Indian point of view..forget a moment that you are Hindu. Think yourself just Indian and then justify this destruction of mosque

Babri Masjid issue has more to do with Cold war politics.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom