History wasn't written by Pakistanis.
But Pakistan studies was. That is where all this is coming from. Not "History". You don't study history in your schools, you study a concoction called Pakistan studies, which is a mumbo jumbo of various events pieced together and not "History" as it is know to the rest of the mankind.
Clutching at straws? Female infanticide, female featal abortion, caste discrimination, class divide, rural poverty, farmer suicide, religiously motivated violence, forced convesions, erosion of minority's culture and language, separtist movements in a dozen states i.e. naxalites, maoists, khalistanis, seven sisters, kashmir etc, 40 percent of land not under the govt's writ, hundreds of millions malnourished and on the brink of starvation, religious hindutva extremism, sangh parivar violence and xenophobia, dalit subjugation and murder, rape and plunder common, bomb blasts in every major city, civil/police corruption, majority without sanitation forced to defecate in the streets, lingual and state prejudices and hatred, half the country detests hindi and its speakers.....do you want me to find more straws? What happens when all these straws come together, is you get a very big stick to beat ignorant Bhaaratis.
Again more of the same mindset (filled with prejudice). India may have most of these in some measure, but the picture is not as bad as you would like to see through the jaundiced eye.
India is making progress, rapidly, on all fronts. We have Dalit chief ministers who may even become PM, presidents. Affirmative action is quite strong for the backwards and Dalits. Things will take time to correct themselves, but the positive direction is unmistakable.
Except to those who don't want to see.
For the likes of you, Pakistan is lower than India on HDI index. That doesn't give me any pleasure to say, but you can surely take a look at home first if and when you happen to visit your country the next time.
You won't be needing our help for that, you are doing pretty well even without us.
We are and there is a long way to go. The world is taking notice and awaiting India's long awaited arrival on the global stage with bated breath.
Kashmir is not a play thing that you think you have a right over. The people have the right to be governed how they choose. You fear losing kashmir, because you know it will cause a domino effect, and your precias Akhand Bharat Dream will be lost forever.
Read the history of Kashmir. It has always been the Pushtuns who have raped Kashmir for a long time. Even now, the fundamentalists have driven the Kashmiri Pundits from their ancestral homes by threatening them from mosque loudspeakers and asking them to leave their women folk behind.
Not the best expression of the people's will. Anyway 1 billion Indians' will is more important than a few disaffected militants in the valley. They have been and will be taken care.
What did you expect to find in the time of Mahabharat, a pre tectonic plate crashing map? when Africa, Asia, and Australia were one landmass.
Of course the friggin map will be the same. The point is, did you have one ruler uniting this huge area of the subcontinent in the map?
The map you gave me, and the map I will provide below, actually proves my point. There were dozens of kingdoms in bharat, not one. The kingdom whose story is retold in the Mahabharat Epic is the kuru kingdom, and the two main cities of the protaganists are indraprastha and hastinapura...if you look closely at the map, one is on the yamuna, and the other is on the ganga...the land is the doab region, i.e. the land around and between the two rivers. are you seriously telling me, that the mahabharat conflict was about the whole of bhaarat indo pak subcontinent? it obviously wasn't, and you need to check your historical facts again, or buy a dvd of mahabharat.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/EpicIndia.jpg
AS you can see above, during the time of mahabharat, India was far from united.
There were literally dozens of completely independant, warring kingdoms. Hardly the dream of magnificence that people like you want to recreate.
Doesn't matter. They all shared the same culture and civilization.
The Indian civilization and there was always the realization that they are one nation.
Your civilisation remained intact after 700 years of muslim rule, so how can you make this claim? Your whole existence, and your coming on this forum is a proof agaisnt your claims...If bharat civilisation had been lost under the conquering arabs,turks,afghans then what is bhaarat today, an arabic/turkish country?
Egypt still has the oldest churches and oldes sect on earth, the coptic christians. They are thriving. As are the christians in syria, and palestine the birthplace of jesus. Facts do not bear out your criticism.
Yes, most Persians adopted Islam a couple of centuries after they were conquered, but so did genghiz khan's granchildren after having conquered and massacred muslim kingdoms and destroying the baghdad kalifat. Would you say that the conquering Mongols were also forced to convert? Considering what Bhaaratis consider forced conversions, what with the recent hoopla about christian converts, it seems for you all conversion is forced. You still have not grasped the concept of freedom of choice in religion.
However, you still see that the persians have not lost their culture, and language. In fact, under muslim rule it has indeed blossomed. Until colonial times, Khurasaan and Iran were the tourist destinations of the world.
It was the strength of the Indian civilization that it survived during that dark period. It doesn't prove the so called tolerance of the barbaric invaders. At the maximum they wanted to preserve their empire.
When you talk about he concept of freedom of choice in religion, I can only laugh. Zaziya seems to be a great example of the freedom it seems. Hellfire for all those who don't pray in a particular way is another. Murder for apostasy is obviously about freedom of choice. I can give any number of examples to prove the shallow ground you are on.
One example will suffice here.
When a Muslim army invaded a town, they would not allow anyone to convert to Islam for three days. During these three days they could kill as many men as they liked, pillage their properties, then rape and enslave their women and children. Only after a town had been decimated and all the young women and children that could be sold as slaves were captured would the brutal campaign of Islamization, with its brutal mandate that all must convert or die, began. However the Jews and the Christians were given protection to live provided they pay a penalty tax called Jizyah and enter into dhimmitude. Dhimmi means protected. But the dhimmis had to pay a hefty jizyah for their protection. This Jizyah was the source of livelihood of the Muslims who through it were able to live like parasites off the labor of the dhimmis. The following Hadith, reported by Bukhari, records the source for this practice based on the admonitions of Muhammad toward the dhimmi:
Narrated Juwairiya bin Qudama At-Tamimi:
We said to 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, oh Chief of the believers! Advise us." He said, "I advise you to fulfill Allah's Convention (made with the Dhimmis) as it is the convention of your Prophet and the source of the livelihood of your dependents (i.e. the taxes from the Dhimmis.) " Volume 4, Book 53, Number 388:
Muslim countries are the worst culprits in the freedom of choice. Look at the Taliban, look at the enforcers of virtue and preventers of vice everywhere there is an Islamic society.
Let me give a few examples of this tolerance in the Indian context:
Mahmud Gazhani destroying Somanath and countless other temples, being the "But-Shikan par excellence", murderer of at least 2 million people in what is now called Pakistan and Northern India is revered as an Islamic hero. What would you think if there was a "Mosque-slayer par excellence" in other religions and he was revered the same way. And they still claimed to be "peaceful and tolerant".
Alauddin Khilazi destroying a Rajput kingdom because he wanted to rape the queen, resulting in the Jauhar (self immolation) of thousands of women in the palace. There were countless other such Jauhar by the brave Rajput women to protect their honor against invading Muslims. You won't find a single reference to that before the Muslim invasions of India, no one had been that barbaric! For these barbarians, the loot, rape and plunder was always part of warfare. In fact the very reason they went to war.
Abdali desecrating the Golden temple by cutting cows in the temple.
Timur Lame's genocide, making mountains of skulls.
Nadir Shah's genocide.
The forced conversion in Kashmir and elsewhere and the barbaric murder of Sikh Gurus for opposing them. Remember the barbaric way Guru Teg Bahadur was killed in Delhi's Chandani Chowk.
Even Akbar had 15000 civilian Rajputs murdered after a conquest.
I can go on and on...
That blot has given you everything from the blouses that women wear under their saris, to the chakra that is in your national flag. From the Taj mahal to the red fort. From monotheism to an egalitarian ideal. From the musical instruments brought by the tajiks and afghans, to the words of urdu that you plaguarise and name them hindi films/songs.
You will have to get rid of a lot of things to remove this blot. Maybe even change yourselves, as this blot has also given you the name Hind, India, which is an Arabic word for the subcontient.
Uniting Bhaarat is like cultivating on the ocean. Only two regimes have been successful in doing that in the past, That of Shahanshah Aurungzeb Alamgir, and the British Empire. As you know, both were "non brahmanic" regimes, and even these didn't last long. Who says you will succeed where they failed?
I repeat myself again, Bhaarat is not meant to be one country. It has since time immemorial been a whole contient of seperate countries. Don't try to swim upstream and leave this failed experiment to the side, before it consumes you and it is too late.
Dig Vijaya
If the USA builds a few new buildings in Pakistan after occupying it for 700 years, create a few burger chains et al, would you be very happy with that?
All this is such useless logic! Invaders to a country are never welcome, even if they bring something with them. That is why Spain got rid of every last Muslim as soon as they got free.
Why do you think every region (Spain, Turkish empire, many in India) that have been ruled by Muslims so anti-Islam? Do they remember that as a good period of their history? NO.
Even China, Korea and Japan have anti-Muslim feelings even though they have nothing much to do with Islam. They were not even occupied and ravaged as the other regions were.
