Captain India, Owaissi's rant against pakistan

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Why are you Pakistanis so hyper senstive about any criticism against Jinnah?

He RAA was the instrument of Allah SWT and His Prophet SAWS.

Like Musa AS saved Bani Isra'eel from slavery in Egypt and from the tyrant Fir'aun, Quaid e Azam saved us from the same in the aftermath of the British exit.

Muslims of Spain were slaughtered and exiled from their lands by the Spanish, same for Greek Muslims, Crimean Tatars and Circassians by Russians, and Quaid e Azam saved us from all of this due to his vision from Allah swt.

He was also the student and instrument of Allama Muhammad Iqbal RAA who was the Mujaddid (renewed of faith) of his time.

Are you guys more Pakistani than you are a muslim?

We are both. By definition of being a 97% Muslim majority nation, a Pakistan and a Muslim is usually the same thing.

Maybe the word you are seeking is Mu'min (true believer,) for which the decision lies solely with Allah SWT.

 

[Crusher]

This "niyola" faced gangu always speaks sh1t against Pakistan, I don't know what is this gangu's problem with Pakistan, Pakistan is an independent state and has the right to make any official statement or comment on any international issue including the discrimination of gangu muslim by the BJP/RSS gangu gangs and government of india. Pakistan as a state is not answerable to this POS gangu awaisi.

 

[The_Showstopper]

There is a difference between debating and criticizing. Yes Pakistanis do debate over Jinnah but we do not criticize him like this Owaisi guy...
If a Pakistani criticizes Jinnah's two nation theory then by definition he/she isnt a Pakistani.

As for u guys criticizing Gandhi...burning him or shooting him symbolically...that's not our problem. U guys can mock and disrespect a man who worked hard for ur independence...but that's not part of our upbringing.

Does debate not include criticism? Critizing Gandhi doesn't mean burning him or shooting him symbolically. That's an insult. Gandhi is criticized for his upper caste attitude, mysogny without burning him or shooting him symbolically. You can do the same with Jinnah, you can question his idea behind creation of Pakistan, debate on where he went wrong and what he could have done better, Was his idea of seperate nation good enough? All of this should be discussed by you guys but you seldom do that.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Owaisi is an agent of BJP. During the rule of BJP his wealth has increased many folds. BJP and Owaisi throwing derogatory remarks at each other are friendly banters but they are ally from behind. He is known as Katua in India for past some years by the BJP opposition parties. Which means he cuts BJP oppositions' votes and significantly weaken them in places while he himself cant win in those places. For example he is to contest in Bengal to weaken Trinamul, Left and Congress. Which will give advantage to BJP, to achieve its NRC adventure. This shows the pattern dictated by Indian deep state, which is to divide Indian Muslims into Shia/Sunni and empower Shias. ie Subramaniam Swami.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Does debate not include criticism? Critizing Gandhi doesn't mean burning him or shooting him symbolically. That's an insult. Gandhi is criticized for his upper caste attitude, mysogny without burning him or shooting him symbolically. You can do the same with Jinnah, you can question his idea behind creation of Pakistan, debate on where he went wrong and what he could have done better, Was his idea of seperate nation good enough? All of this should be discussed by you guys but you seldom do that.

No...debate would be something about whether Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan or an Islamic Republic(which has been discussed many times with different ppl coming to different conclusions).

Criticism can be directed either towards his personal character...or towards what he represented(his two nation theory, his ideology, actions to implement it, etc).

As for his personal character...to me at least...and my guess is for many other Pakistanis...it is not for us to judge...for we r not God. We each have our own faults. Everyone's private life is their own private matter.

That reduces the criticism to what he represented. In that case too what is there to criticize? His two nation theory? Like I said...by definition that would make one not a Pakistani...and therefore a hypocrite like Bacha Khan...he opposed Pakistan and yet remained in Pak(even though he should've left for India to live with the likes of Kalam Azad).

Discussing what Jinnah could've done better...he did everything the best he could...given the circumstances. Jinnah(along with Gandhi) supported Suhrawardy's(and others') plan of an independent Bengal(not part of Pakistan). It's Congress and the British who opposed it. Had Jinnah gotten his way...there would have been no mess later. All the ethnic tensions that occurred between Bangladeshis(then east Pakistan) over language, economy, etc. that ultimately culminated into Bangladesh(1971) wouldn't have happened.

Jinnah was flexible in his two nation theory as well. All he wanted was to safeguard the rights of Muslims of the subcontinent. Initially he didn't even start out with the two nation theory. He joined Congress...and remained a part of it for some time. It is during that time...seeing and working with the leadership(that spearheaded Indian independence) that he became convinced about the idea of Muslims having a separate state...
...and rightly so...bcuz India was to become a democracy...in a democracy majority rules. That's usually fine but in this case the minority(while still technically a minority) Muslims made a huge part of the population. Moreover there are certain aspects of Islam and Hinduism that clash...like idol worship, cow slaughter, etc. One could see how conflict can arise...the answer to this by the likes of Nehru was the proposal of a secular India(with religion not being a part of the state). However that was too idealistic(as clearly evident by all the communal tensions and massacres that have occurred due to religious differences ever since). Therefore two nation theory was imperative(the best case scenario would have been to have separate independent Bengal but that option was refused). Even after all of this still in 1946 Jinnah agreed to a united India in return for more autonomy of the states that had sizable Muslim population...but it fell apart over how much representation would Congress have as compared to the representation of Muslim League.

In conclusion(there's much more but I'm cutting it short)...Jinnah tried the best that he could given the circumstances. He was willing to consider the solutions of united India, two nations(India and Pakistan), and even three nations(united Bengal). I don't think anybody in his place could do better than what he was able to accomplish for us. So as far as criticizing what he represented and his legacy...there is nothing to criticize...he was the best a nation could ask for as its founding father.

 

[SIPRA]

Does debate not include criticism? Critizing Gandhi doesn't mean burning him or shooting him symbolically. That's an insult. Gandhi is criticized for his upper caste attitude, mysogny without burning him or shooting him symbolically. You can do the same with Jinnah, you can question his idea behind creation of Pakistan, debate on where he went wrong and what he could have done better, Was his idea of seperate nation good enough? All of this should be discussed by you guys but you seldom do that.

Of course, in general, as an intellectual discourse, there should be absolutely no objection, whatsoever, to criticizing Quaid e Azam, or Two Nation "Theory", or "Fact" or "Narrative", whatever one may like to call it, or Pakistan, for that matter. But, the real question, which arises out of this thread, is that whether this criticism, which is often quite harsh and substantially divorced from the factual history of the partition, is politically beneficial or harmful for the Muslims of India. My opinion is that it is ultimately very damaging in terms of sociopolitical psychology, which, unfortunately, the Muslim political leaders of India fail to realize. Forget about it that Indian Muslims would be able to appease the elite Hindus, by adopting this course. Having said all, however, it is up to the Indian Muslims to decide, what political course suits them best. Had it been of any political benefit to the Muslims of India; I would be the first one to go for it, even, on the cost of impairing the narrative of Pakistan.

Here in Pakistan, in my own life, I have met scores of educated people, who severely bash Quaid e Azam and Two Nation Theory; but here it doesn't matter much.

Another misconception is that as if Quaid e Azam "invented" or "discovered" the "Two Nation Theory", which is totally misplaced. In fact, it was the collective political expression of the Muslims of British India, duly reflected in the elections of 1945-46. Quaid only lead this expression or movement.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Another misconception is that as if Quaid e Azam "invented" or "discovered" the "Two Nation Theory", which is totally misplaced. In fact, it was the collective political expression of the Muslims of British India, duly reflected in the elections of 1945-46. Quaid only lead this expression or movement.

Till 1830s the Ottoman judicial ad taxation systems were based on the Two Nation Theory...

"Muslims are one nation, and non-Muslims are one nation" - Hadis-i Sherif

The Kuran-i Kerim divides the mankind into two "Nations": GOD-worshipping (Muslimin) and Satan-worshipping (Mujrimin). And, this will be the fundamental arbiter on the Roz-i Hashr. Hence, the Turkish National Anthem has the following lines:

Our blood which we shed for you shall not be worthy otherwise;
For freedom is the absolute right of my GOD-worshipping nation!

For freedom is the absolute right of my ever-free flag;
For independence is the absolute right of my GOD-worshipping nation!

 

[The_Showstopper]

No...debate would be something about whether Jinnah wanted a secular Pakistan or an Islamic Republic(which has been discussed many times with different ppl coming to different conclusions).

Criticism can be directed either towards his personal character...or towards what he represented(his two nation theory, his ideology, actions to implement it, etc).

As for his personal character...to me at least...and my guess is for many other Pakistanis...it is not for us to judge...for we r not God. We each have our own faults. Everyone's private life is their own private matter.

That reduces the criticism to what he represented. In that case too what is there to criticize? His two nation theory? Like I said...by definition that would make one not a Pakistani...and therefore a hypocrite like Bacha Khan...he opposed Pakistan and yet remained in Pak(even though he should've left for India to live with the likes of Kalam Azad).

Discussing what Jinnah could've done better...he did everything the best he could...given the circumstances. Jinnah(along with Gandhi) supported Suhrawardy's(and others') plan of an independent Bengal(not part of Pakistan). It's Congress and the British who opposed it. Had Jinnah gotten his way...there would have been no mess later. All the ethnic tensions that occurred between Bangladeshis(then east Pakistan) over language, economy, etc. that ultimately culminated into Bangladesh(1971) wouldn't have happened.

Jinnah was flexible in his two nation theory as well. All he wanted was to safeguard the rights of Muslims of the subcontinent. Initially he didn't even start out with the two nation theory. He joined Congress...and remained a part of it for some time. It is during that time...seeing and working with the leadership(that spearheaded Indian independence) that he became convinced about the idea of Muslims having a separate state...
...and rightly so...bcuz India was to become a democracy...in a democracy majority rules. That's usually fine but in this case the minority(while still technically a minority) Muslims made a huge part of the population. Moreover there are certain aspects of Islam and Hinduism that clash...like idol worship, cow slaughter, etc. One could see how conflict can arise...the answer to this by the likes of Nehru was the proposal of a secular India(with religion not being a part of the state). However that was too idealistic(as clearly evident by all the communal tensions and massacres that have occurred due to religious differences ever since). Therefore two nation theory was imperative(the best case scenario would have been to have separate independent Bengal but that option was refused). Even after all of this still in 1946 Jinnah agreed to a united India in return for more autonomy of the states that had sizable Muslim population...but it fell apart over how much representation would Congress have as compared to the representation of Muslim League.

In conclusion(there's much more but I'm cutting it short)...Jinnah tried the best that he could given the circumstances. He was willing to consider the solutions of united India, two nations(India and Pakistan), and even three nations(united Bengal). I don't think anybody in his place could do better than what he was able to accomplish for us. So as far as criticizing what he represented and his legacy...there is nothing to criticize...he was the best a nation could ask for as its founding father.

That made sense... I would only say "To each his own". Your ancestors believed in Jinnah and our's believed in Maulana Azad...

You will stick to your ideas of Pakistan with greater grit because of the present situation in India and many Indian muslims are now forced to question the idea of secular India. Hope this shall pass away, the way you faced the bad phase in the early 21st century.

 

[The_Showstopper]

Of course, in general, as an intellectual discourse, there should be absolutely no objection, whatsoever, to criticizing Quaid e Azam, or Two Nation "Theory", or "Fact" or "Narrative", whatever one may like to call it, or Pakistan, for that matter. But, the real question, which arises out of this thread, is that whether this criticism, which is often quite harsh and substantially divorced from the factual history of the partition, is politically beneficial or harmful for the Muslims of India. My opinion is that it is ultimately very damaging in terms of sociopolitical psychology, which, unfortunately, the Muslim political leaders of India fail to realize. Forget about it that Indian Muslims would be able to appease the elite Hindus, by adopting this course. Having said all, however, it is up to the Indian Muslims to decide, what political course suits them best. Had it been of any political benefit to the Muslims of India; I would be the first one to go for it, even, on the cost of impairing the narrative of Pakistan.

Here in Pakistan, in my own life, I have met scores of educated people, who severely bash Quaid e Azam and Two Nation Theory; but here it doesn't matter much.

Another misconception is that as if Quaid e Azam "invented" or "discovered" the "Two Nation Theory", which is totally misplaced. In fact, it was the collective political expression of the Muslims of British India, duly reflected in the elections of 1945-46. Quaid only lead this expression or movement.

Actually the first theory of two seperate nations was devised by Hindutva ideologues and it is well recorded in the history. Yes, Indian muslims and even the rational hindus are forced to accept the narrative that Jinnah was communal. This, I believe was a way to keep the Hindu extremists in check by drawing a parellel with Jinnah and thus trying to monkey balance the concept of secularism in India.

Many Indian muslims are forced to believe that Islamic invasions were very brutal while the Hindu kings are eulogized even when they were equally brutal if not more. Take the example of Sambhaji, he was a tyrant who massacred muslims and destroyed many muslim places of worship but he is considered a Hero and anyone daring to criticize him are attacked with much ferocity.

I personally met many Indian muslims who know nothing about Jammu massacre, Hyderabad massacre, Nellie massacre, the brutal Hindu kings of Ancient and middle ages etc. Because these events are never discussed while Aurangzeb, Khilji, Kashmiri Pandits are discussed day in day out. The constant propaganda through media, movies and soap operas have made Indian muslims believe the lies that muslims of yesteryears were villains and they carry on their legacy. Even you guys never objected to constant villainization of muslim kings in Bollywood movies. Bollywood movies earn good sum in your country while depicting muslims as perenial villains. I came across the reactions of Pakistanis about the movie on Padmavati and they were cool about the Islamophobic content in the movie. These are some of the reasons why Indian muslims try to "fit in" with Hindus while being apologetic about their past. Muslims are made to feel responsible for the events of partition while the Hindus(they say) only retaliated. All of this did effect the psyche of Indian muslims and were made to believe that Pakistani muslims are responsible for their predicament. These constant hostilities with Kashmir being the focus didn't help normalize the relations either.

But I am seeing the change recently in Indian muslims who are getting to know the real history and are being more vocal about it than ever. I would attribute this to the growing educated muslim middle class.

And speaking specifically about this video, I did not find Owaisi harsh on Jinnah, though his way speaking may not be of your liking. He just said that his ancestors disagreed to the idea of 2 nation theory proposed by Jinnah...

 

[Kambojaric]

"WHY? The constitution of India gurantees we are Indian"

Beta kal constitution badal gayi to chittar parein ge tujhe. Then his lot will come running to Pakistan.

 

[ZAC1]

I see some Pakistanis having a soft heart for Indian muslims, but in reality they really deserve what is happening to them in India. This clearly shows the mentality of Indian muslims. Jinnah fought for the rights of these fks and these illiterate 3rd class citizens of India, pieces of shiats have the audacity to bad mouth Jinnah.

muslim will always sorrow... bcz of teachings we have

 

[Cookie Monster]

That made sense... I would only say "To each his own". Your ancestors believed in Jinnah and our's believed in Maulana Azad...

You will stick to your ideas of Pakistan with greater grit because of the present situation in India and many Indian muslims are now forced to question the idea of secular India. Hope this shall pass away, the way you faced the bad phase in the early 21st century.

Right but just the fact that these tensions and killings along religious lines are occuring...doesn't it automatically mean that Maulana Azad, Nehru, etc. were too naive to think no religious tensions would occur and ppl would just get along? It's not really a new phenomenon either that just came about recently...it has only picked up speed. There have been other instances...just off the top of my head gujarat riots and Babri masjid incidents come to mind...not to mention all that has gone on in IOK. Clearly it was too idealistic to think no such problems would occur. I would like to know ur opinion on it.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Actually the first theory of two seperate nations was devised by Hindutva ideologues and it is well recorded in the history. Yes, Indian muslims and even the rational hindus are forced to accept the narrative that Jinnah was communal. This, I believe was a way to keep the Hindu extremists in check by drawing a parellel with Jinnah and thus trying to monkey balance the concept of secularism in India.

Many Indian muslims are forced to believe that Islamic invasions were very brutal while the Hindu kings are eulogized even when they were equally brutal if not more. Take the example of Sambhaji, he was a tyrant who massacred muslims and destroyed many muslim places of worship but he is considered a Hero and anyone daring to criticize him are attacked with much ferocity.

I personally met many Indian muslims who know nothing about Jammu massacre, Hyderabad massacre, Nellie massacre, the brutal Hindu kings of Ancient and middle ages etc. Because these events are never discussed while Aurangzeb, Khilji, Kashmiri Pandits are discussed day in day out. The constant propaganda through media, movies and soap operas have made Indian muslims believe the lies that muslims of yesteryears were villains and they carry on their legacy. Even you guys never objected to constant villainization of muslim kings in Bollywood movies. Bollywood movies earn good sum in your country while depicting muslims as perenial villains. I came across the reactions of Pakistanis about the movie on Padmavati and they were cool about the Islamophobic content in the movie. These are some of the reasons why Indian muslims try to "fit in" with Hindus while being apologetic about their past. Muslims are made to feel responsible for the events of partition while the Hindus(they say) only retaliated. All of this did effect the psyche of Indian muslims and were made to believe that Pakistani muslims are responsible for their predicament. These constant hostilities with Kashmir being the focus didn't help normalize the relations either.

But I am seeing the change recently in Indian muslims who are getting to know the real history and are being more vocal about it than ever. I would attribute this to the growing educated muslim middle class.

And speaking specifically about this video, I did not find Owaisi harsh on Jinnah, though his way speaking may not be of your liking. He just said that his ancestors disagreed to the idea of 2 nation theory proposed by Jinnah...

Most educated Pakistanis who have read history and read the news...do realize the propaganda that goes on in India about demonizing Muslim rulers while portraying Hindu rulers as heroes. U might see Pakistanis say something on forums like PDF...or comment elsewhere but only in a personal capacity. The reason why they don't criticize or oppose it as a group...on any platform...is mainly bcuz it's not really too much of our concern. It's not our country and not our ppl that are effected by it. The few times Pakistan has said anything that remotely applies to Indian Muslims...ppl like Owaisi emerge out of the woods for their 2 minutes of fame or as u said "to try to fit in". That only makes Pakistanis care even less the next time something like that happens.

As for Indian Muslims feeling obligated to "fit in"...I personally don't see a way where all of sudden it will become a utopia...hatred is really hard to wash away...
...and when u consider the extremist Hindutva mindset that has crept in to the Indian government that only does more propaganda to cater to its RSS kind of audience...u can see how it seems almost impossible to scrub the hate and tensions out of the society(along religious lines). So idk what the Muslims of India hope to accomplish by trying to "fit in".

 

[The_Showstopper]

Right but just the fact that these tensions and killings along religious lines are occuring...doesn't it automatically mean that Maulana Azad, Nehru, etc. were too naive to think no religious tensions would occur and ppl would just get along? It's not really a new phenomenon either that just came about recently...it has only picked up speed. There have been other instances...just off the top of my head gujarat riots and Babri masjid incidents come to mind...not to mention all that has gone on in IOK. Clearly it was too idealistic to think no such problems would occur. I would like to know ur opinion on it.

Tell me, didn't Pakistan face problems in its years of existence? You had social frictions amongst you like Shia-Sunni enemity, Ahmaddiya issue, religious extremism etc and some of them still exist. Jinnah dreamed of a euphoric state, the "new madina" in his own words. So, did that happen? Can I tell that Jinnah was wrong? All countries have problems, you had your share in the early part of 21st century and we are facing problems now. Ideally Modi and Shah should have been sent to gallows for their role in 2002, but Congress wasn't sincere in their acts.

Most educated Pakistanis who have read history and read the news...do realize the propaganda that goes on in India about demonizing Muslim rulers while portraying Hindu rulers as heroes. U might see Pakistanis say something on forums like PDF...or comment elsewhere but only in a personal capacity. The reason why they don't criticize or oppose it as a group...on any platform...is mainly bcuz it's not really too much of our concern. It's not our country and not our ppl that are effected by it. The few times Pakistan has said anything that remotely applies to Indian Muslims...ppl like Owaisi emerge out of the woods for their 2 minutes of fame or as u said "to try to fit in". That only makes Pakistanis care even less the next time something like that happens.

As for Indian Muslims feeling obligated to "fit in"...I personally don't see a way where all of sudden it will become a utopia...hatred is really hard to wash away...
...and when u consider the extremist Hindutva mindset that has crept in to the Indian government that only does more propaganda to cater to its RSS kind of audience...u can see how it seems almost impossible to scrub the hate and tensions out of the society(along religious lines). So idk what the Muslims of India hope to accomplish by trying to "fit in".

So when those educated Pakistani muslims still watch these movies and give business to them, Aren't they encouraging the producers? You do understand the kind of influence bollywood has in many parts of the world. So if you don't to counter them, you are letting them propage their views which will only harm you. Foreigners don't see Indian muslims as seperate entity, I am an Indian when I am out of India and they distinguish me based on my religion. But they recognize Pakistan as an Islamic state and its citizens are automatically recognized as muslims. So when a commoner in a foreign country watches the islamophobic content of bollywood, he would think of it as muslim atrocity, not as Indian muslim atrocity.

Indian muslims are trying to fit in, the same way as Muhajirs are trying to assimilate. Majority always tries to engulf and influence. When you see, constant vilification of Islamic history of India, many try to distance themselves from it, So is the case with many Indian muslims.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Tell me, didn't Pakistan face problems in its years of existence? You had social frictions amongst you like Shia-Sunni enemity, Ahmaddiya issue, religious extremism etc and some of them still exist. Jinnah dreamed of a euphoric state, the "new madina" in his own words. So, did that happen? Can I tell that Jinnah was wrong? All countries have problems, you had your share in the early part of 21st century and we are facing problems now. Ideally Modi and Shah should have been sent to gallows for their role in 2002, but Congress wasn't sincere in their acts.

Yes Pak has faced it's fair share of problems...and there will be problems going forward too...however u must consider what the topic of the discussion is...which is TWO NATION THEORY.

U could bring in things like religious extremism, shia/sunni tensions, and ahmadi stuff but that's like comparing apples and oranges. It's like if u were telling me about Nehru's "secular united India" concept and I started bringing up India's farmers committing suicide. Jinnah wasn't trying to solve the problem of shia/sunni conflict...he was trying to safeguard the rights of Muslims that were soon about to become a minority...and would've been led by a Hindu majority. In that regard I think his solution was a realistic one while the one backed by Maulana Kalam was idealistic.

Even if let's say for argument's sake...that a "united secular India" could work where everyone lived in harmony...
...from where things are right now in India...can u see a way back to the utopia that never was?

So when those educated Pakistani muslims still watch these movies and give business to them, Aren't they encouraging the producers?

U can't expect me to speak for others nor do I have the power to guide their actions. If some Pakistani watches that crap then yes indeed he is a small part of it...however I do not watch such stuff(or any Bollywood movies for that matter).

You do understand the kind of influence bollywood has in many parts of the world. So if you don't to counter them, you are letting them propage their views which will only harm you.

Even if we wanted to...Pakistan cannot stop India(or any country for that matter) from making movies...whatever the propaganda shown in it. In the west(I live here)...Muslims are shown in a bad light in general...and yet nothing can be done about it. Any condemnation falls on deaf ears bcuz the ppl are much less interested in reading something like
..."At the UN, Jordan condemned the Islamophobic nature of the program that aired in the US"...instead they would be watching that program on something like Fox News.

Then there are things like freedom of speech that protect these kinds of Islamophobic media outlets from any legal actions...here's one really good example below...I request u watch both parts...they are not too long and very informative.

Other than that the only option left would be to issue threats to forcefully end something...which I do not condone. Not only would it not solve anything...it would make Muslims look bad. All the Islamophobes would be like "see that's what Muslims are like".

Therefore I don't think Pakistan...or Pakistani Muslims can put a stop to Indian propaganda or any country's propaganda. At best it could be a financial boycott at the country level...but that too wouldn't matter much since their audience is largely Indian. Even with just an Indian market these Bollywood producers will remain profitable.

Foreigners don't see Indian muslims as seperate entity, I am an Indian when I am out of India and they distinguish me based on my religion. But they recognize Pakistan as an Islamic state and its citizens are automatically recognized as muslims. So when a commoner in a foreign country watches the islamophobic content of bollywood, he would think of it as muslim atrocity, not as Indian muslim atrocity.

TBH a large amount of ppl easily believe what they see...the ones who are better informed...tend to be that way bcuz they take their time to study/research on their own. This is from first hand experience of living a large part of my life in US. An average American doesn't have the faintest clue about Muslim countries, the varied cultures(Indian Muslims, Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc.), Islam, the complex geopolitics of the middle east, etc. They are told something simple like "we(US) are gonna go kill terrorists that want to harm America"...and the ppl simply support it.

Bollywood films don't really have much influence outside of Asia(India, Pak, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc). For the average person outside of that region...their Islamophobic views will remain(or dissipate) regardless of bollywood films...due to other factors like their own understanding and the media in their respective region.

To summarize...
1) Pakistan alone cannot control what propaganda India or other countries spit out.
2) Bollywood movies and other Indian propaganda sells like hotcakes in India...and that market is large enough for it to be profitable.
3) Islamophobia outside of the subcontinent is largely due to other factors and Bollywood films hardly count in playing a part in it.

Indian muslims are trying to fit in, the same way as Muhajirs are trying to assimilate. Majority always tries to engulf and influence. When you see, constant vilification of Islamic history of India, many try to distance themselves from it, So is the case with many Indian muslims.

Muhajirs may have tried to assimilate early on...but that is no longer the case. What u maybe referring to is just idiotic propaganda of MQM to gather support. They have long tried to play the Muhajir card for their own influence and power.

Tell me what would be the concept of a Muhajir in today's Pakistan? A "muhajir" by definition is someone who has done "hijrat" from one place to another. It applied to the ppl who migrated from India to Pakistan...that was in 1947...and then continued afterwards for a little while. That was roughly 70 years ago...a majority of those muhajirs are no longer with us...even a newborn who was brought to Pak by his parents would be an old man in his 70s today. The progeny of those muhajirs are by definition no longer muhajirs(since they are no longer migrants). So I don't understand exactly what the issue is with that other than just typical greed/political power BS.