At least one country is trying to listen to its 'Father of the Nation' - Ashok Swain

[Thamizh Puli]

It was Muslim majority before the pogroms launched by Hari Singh in 1947.

You may also be wrong about Ladakh. I believe it is Muslim majority (Shia).


And which interpretation of such laws prohibits the things Jinnah said? Would Hindus not be allowed to have a Mandir in a genuine Islamic state (note I am not endorsing the common misconception that Pakistan is regarded as an Islamic state)?

the very fact that this change to islamic state took place via constitution shows it is not his vision.
sure 'a' mandir or even 2 or 3 or 10 will be 'allowed'. that's unavoidable tokenism. Will the 100's of temples that were the way of life that have now been completely built over, and the lands that these temples owned, be turned over? It is not feasible whether Pakistan or India. And in a constitutionally islamic state, it is even less feasible.

I don't understand your comment about not endorsing the common misconception ....what do you mean?

 

[masterchief_mirza]

"As for being Muslim majority before 1947...looking towards the past and trying to correct it doesn't really work. It's the same reasoning they are giving for Babri Masjid..."

I'm talking about 1947. Massacres in 1947 that cheated a community out of its destiny. The world was post ww2 and fast approaching an era of universal human rights. How is this era in human history remotely comparable to a time centuries prior? Ev

the very fact that this change to islamic state took place via constitution shows it is not his vision.
sure 'a' mandir or even 2 or 3 or 10 will be 'allowed'. that's unavoidable tokenism. Will the 100's of temples that were the way of life that have now been completely built over, and the lands that these temples owned, be turned over? It is not feasible whether Pakistan or India. And in a constitutionally islamic state, it is even less feasible.

I don't understand your comment about not endorsing the common misconception ....what do you mean?

So you believe Pakistan is an Islamic state and I don't. That answers both your enquiries.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ne...osition-of-sharia-law-in-country-1679705.html

Please stop believing propaganda about pakistan coming out of Lal masjid.

 

[SIPRA]

So you believe Pakistan is an Islamic state and I don't. That answers both your enquiries.

Pakistan is defacto a quasi-secular state. It cannot, in any terms, be called an Islamic State, merely on account of certain religious provisions, most of which are superficial, redundant and superfluous, in any case.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

If u can't put aside ur nationalistic bias
...then there's no point in debating on a Pakistani forum...bcuz no agreement would occur...ever.
If u can't put it aside...why would u expect Pakistanis to put it aside? And hence the debate would be dictated by nationalistic feelings rather than being objective and dictated by using reasoning and logic.

I personally can put aside nationalistic feelings and use logic. If I could make changes and create a perfect world...I would give Junagadh to India(regardless of how the Nawab felt) and I would give Kashmir to Pak(regardless of how the Raja felt)...bcuz religion was the very basis on which division occurred...and so it was JUST and RIGHT that the areas who had that MAJORITY went to that respective state(Hindu majority with India and Muslim majority with Pak).

As for u mentioning Kashmir valley...it's not just the valley that has Muslim majority. All of Indian Kashmir has a Muslim majority. Jammu has Hindu majority, whereas Ladakh has Buddhist majority. So in a PERFECT WORLD if the territories were rightly divided along religious lines and not have conflict...only Jammu goes to India. Kashmir would go with Pak and Ladakh to China.
See this map
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jammu_and_Kashmir_religions.png

depending what century and decade you start with as baseline, the same logical process will yield different results. That's why when it comes to reviewing history, if we do such review to understand the why of the present it is useful; but of we do such review to recreate the past or to avenge past wrongs we end up with bizarre results - such as some fringe groups assuming interest (" I am the community of such and such ...").

Also the partition was not doling out territory by religion - note there was no Christian, zoroastrian, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish divisions. Partition was demanded only for muslims.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I will further add that since you mentioned the theoretical scenario of thousands of mandirs, theoretically Pakistan can become many things in the future. Even if thousands of mandirs come into being, one thing Pakistan will not be allowed to become is a Hindutva/Brahmin dominated state. This kind of state inherently, by definition, oppresses muslims, hence the function of Pakistan as a safe haven for Muslims would be voided.

The abrogation of 370 also removes this sense of safety from Hindutva for Kashmiris that Pakistan eternally enjoys. That's why Pakistanis fully understand the fear that must be pervading throughout the homes of Kashmiris as we speak.

The contemporary accounts of the build up to Hari Singh's pogroms in Jammu are eerily similar to Modi's actions in Kashmir: disarming Muslim soldiers, curfews, media blackouts, house arrests of influential persons...

 

[Thamizh Puli]

so playing out that theoretical scenario you describe, thousands of temples could only come back if the Pakistani population becomes Hindu at dramatic rates. SO the constitution of Pakistan prevents such social and religious change by insisting on Islamic state of Pakistan.

In other words:
in the past, Pakistan took specific action to call itself islamic state.
In its present state, it wants to continue being called Islamic state though not turn islamic (no sharia)
In future however it wants to prevent change back of its populace away from islam (signified by 1000's of temples)

Sounds quite committed to being an Islamic state
-------------------------------------------------------------------

as to muslims of Kashmir feeling 'safe' - there are 200+ million muslims all over India. What is so special about a small slice of them in Kashmir?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
as to sense of security muslims enjoy in Pakistan - sure but will your ahmadi sects agree what that statement?

 

[sohail.ishaque]

Hazrat Quaid e Azam was the greatest thing that happened to our Nation in the recent time.

 

[Cookie Monster]

depending what century and decade you start with as baseline, the same logical process will yield different results. That's why when it comes to reviewing history, if we do such review to understand the why of the present it is useful; but of we do such review to recreate the past or to avenge past wrongs we end up with bizarre results - such as some fringe groups assuming interest (" I am the community of such and such ...").

That's why I said things can't be settled if u keep looking at the past to solve them. The baseline for India/Pak is the partition. Anything before that doesn't work.

Also the partition was not doling out territory by religion - note there was no Christian, zoroastrian, Jain, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish divisions. Partition was demanded only for muslims.

I wrote right there that "in a perfect world"...
The point is to divide up the territory that yields the least conflict in terms of things like communal tensions along religious lines(a big theme of problems in the subcontinent). So that's why in that theoretical scenario...I lumped Ladakh with China.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

That's why I said things can't be settled if u keep looking at the past to solve them. The baseline for India/Pak is the partition. Anything before that doesn't work.

I wrote right there that "in a perfect world"...
The point is to divide up the territory that yields the least conflict in terms of things like communal tensions along religious lines(a big theme of problems in the subcontinent). So that's why in that theoretical scenario...I lumped Ladakh with China.

for you 1947 seems to be a fair baseline. But why do you expect everyone else to accept that?

sidepoint - China won't admit they are Buddhist

 

[masterchief_mirza]

so playing out that theoretical scenario you describe, thousands of temples could only come back if the Pakistani population becomes Hindu at dramatic rates. SO the constitution of Pakistan prevents such social and religious change by insisting on Islamic state of Pakistan.

In other words:
in the past, Pakistan took specific action to call itself islamic state.
In its present state, it wants to continue being called Islamic state though not turn islamic (no sharia)
In future however it wants to prevent change back of its populace away from islam (signified by 1000's of temples)

Sounds quite committed to being an Islamic state
-------------------------------------------------------------------

as to muslims of Kashmir feeling 'safe' - there are 200+ million muslims all over India. What is so special about a small slice of them in Kashmir?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
as to sense of security muslims enjoy in Pakistan - sure but will your ahmadi sects agree what that statement?

Call it whatever you like. It is a citadel of faith, open to all faiths or none as far as I am concerned. No mullahs have ever been in charge of our nation, luckily for India. Its prime directive is to keep Muslims safe from Hindutva's eternal inferiority complex over India's Mughal history. Even now, in the modern world we live in, where all over the world responsible nations find ways to reconcile with difficult history rather than erasing it, Brahmins are burned by the very word "Mughal". I tell you this from experience. It's pathetic. Beyond words.

Go back far enough, Brits were raped and pillaged by Vikings and Romans. I don't see modern Brits ranting about destroying every road or aqueduct built here or erasing Viking place names and replacing them with something anglosaxon or eradicating Roman Catholic legal code contributions to avoid reminders of the "time of slavery".

This inferiority complex would have enslaved all Muslims in the subcontinent if it wasn't for Pakistan. Hindutva lives in a bubble, sustained by bizarre logic, a lack of reason and unlikely bedfellows from overseas whose agendas happen to align by way of happenstance.

Pakistan will not be permitted to be governed by anyone sympathetic to the very antithesis of Pakistan. Hinduism can and should very much flourish in Pakistan. I hope it does as much as any other faith. But Hindutva will be stopped dead in its tracks.

As for Indian Muslims, they have no protection from Hindutva, hence they simply fear for their kids' safety if they dare agitate against RSS. Kashmiris felt safe only because of 370. Now that's gone.

"Not my India" screamed Abdullah Snr as he was betrayed by the Indian nation he had so dutifully served all these years. Those three words tell you everything you need to know. If the vassal in chief is not safe , what chance does the average kashmiri have?

What you say about ahmadis is spot on. I feel revulsion whenever I hear of their persecution. Treason and treachery must not be tolerated and anyone, ahmadi or not, guilty of undermining the state should be punished. But no innocent ahmadi should be persecuted.

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Pak/India could've been like US/Canada...or any other example of friendly nations with a similarity in culture. The problem arose due to Kashmir. India took Junagadh even though the Nawab ceded to Pak...India cited the Hindu majority as the reason for it. When Pak did the same with Kashmir...India turned around and cited that the Raja of Kashmir ceded to India...ignoring that Kashmir has a Muslim majority.

This is another topic that requires its own long discussion...so I'm not gonna go into details here and derail it. The point is that India in its hunger for territory invented a reason for continued hostilities. Hatred already existed between the two due to mass killings on both sides in 1947...India made sure that it will last by creating a conflict(over Kashmir).

Kashmir, at least the Valley, and half-of-Jammu should have gone to Pakistan. This would have saved a lot of unnecessary wars. Ladakh and half-of-Jammu could have stayed with India. The bigger problem was that because of the obstinacy of Gandhi, cooler heads were not allowed to take leadership regarding Partition from the Hindu side. It would have been a perfectly reasonable solution if there was Complete Transfer of Populations along with Pakistan getting Kashmir Valley,part-Jammu. Pakistan jumped the gun by trying to invade something that would have gone to it anyways within a decade. Many Hindus would have accepted a slightly smaller India if that meant a Muslim-free India

 

[Cookie Monster]

for you 1947 seems to be a fair baseline. But why do you expect everyone else to accept that?

sidepoint - China won't admit they are Buddhist

Go back and read what the context was. The guy I was talking to...wanted a way where India/Pak partition could've ended up in a way where they both were like Canada/US...

...as in somewhat of a shared culture and cordial relations. To this I replied that it could've been so had there not been a continued reason for conflict. India didn't accept Junagadh's Nawab's decision about ceding Junagadh to Pak...on the grounds that it has Hindu majority. Then turned around and ignored that Kashmir has Muslim majority...accepting Raja Hari Singh's ceding of Kashmir to India. In conclusion my argument to him was that our continued animosity is due to partition being a botched operation...which can be discussed in a more relevant thread instead of derailing this one.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

you say no mulah ever ruled Pakistan but overlook what drove the need for such a dramatic thing as changing the name of the country to islamic state. and then not to forget 'accomplished' under non-mullahs such as gen.non-mullah.zia ul haq.

sure there are brahmins who'd love to undo the islamic invasion but there are brahmins who coudln't care less. I think the population of brahmins in India is hardly 3 to 5 %. May be you mean Hindus.

just like I am sure there are misconceptions about how radical a majority of Pakistanis are among non-Pakistanis, you have to provide for a similar if not worse level of misconception over the Indians. Because I have seen in the past and in the present, huge huge clusters of hindus and muslims live in close quarters without acrimony.

that's why any riot makes the news. imagine what has to become ground reality if a communal riot no longer makes he news

 

[Cookie Monster]

Kashmir, at least the Valley, should have gone to Pakistan. This would have saved a lot of unnecessary wars. Ladakh and Jammu could have stayed with India. The bigger problem was that because of the obstinacy of Gandhi, cooler heads were not allowed to take leadership regarding Partition. It would have been a perfectly reasonable solution if there was Complete Transfer of Populations along with Pakistan getting Kashmir Valley. Pakistan jumped the gun by trying to invade something that would have gone to it anyways within a decade. Many Hindus would have accepted a slightly smaller India if that meant a Muslim-free India

It was ur leaders that wanted a "secular" India...not ours. So a complete transfer of population for u couldn't have happened since there was no argument/advocacy of such from ur side. And yes Kashmir should've gone to Pak and still should. Jammu can go to India.

As for jumping the gun...there's no such thing as jumping the gun. The Raja was trying to remain independent instead of choosing India or Pak. This was not an option...all princely states HAD to pick one or the other.

 

[Thamizh Puli]

Go back and read what the context was. The guy I was talking to...wanted a way where India/Pak partition could've ended up in a way where they both were like Canada/US...

...as in somewhat of a shared culture and cordial relations. To this I replied that it could've been so had there not been a continued reason for conflict. India didn't accept Junagadh's Nawab's decision about ceding Junagadh to Pak...on the grounds that it has Hindu majority. Then turned around and ignored that Kashmir has Muslim majority...accepting Raja Hari Singh's ceding of Kashmir to India. In conclusion my argument to him was that our continued animosity is due to partition being a botched operation...which can be discussed in a more relevant thread instead of detailing this one.

ok if it was for that specific context where baseline was stipulated to 1947.