Is There a Storm Brewing !

[Musafir117]

Never happens
As a famous Karachi slang.
Bhooke ne bhooke ki.........
@Areesh

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Pakistan took control of that part of Kashmir that was not under Indian control. It was under the control of ruler of Kashmir. When Indian army was sent in, Pakistan had already taken half of Kashmir.

So did IA get it back yet?

Hari Singh told you to take it all didn't he? He had the authority right? He'd just gotten going with his pogroms in J&K yet these pesky tribals interrupted his orgy. Seems like clear theft and annexation of territory promised to India. At least, this is how your defence minister interprets the matter.

So why did IA fail to deliver J&K to Hindustan? Really a bunch of ragtag tribals were enough to stop Hindustan's march to victory?

Great Maratha my arse.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

On western front , banks with INDIAN CEO have sent out letters indicating if any unusual transaction are suspected the bank accounts can be closed or denied access to for customers they have signaled changes in policy around 3 months mark around march

Indian buniyas are always planning, of course I have made 0 transactions of questionable type

Indian influence in international banks is a major financial problem

I have Pakistani Stocks so of course, I got a letter

Meanwhile, the standard chartered bank branch in Karachi keeps sending my parents letters why they are keeping (some) of their savings in Pakistan, move it overseas

All these international banks have Indian controllers stationed in Dubai bank branches and our government has no clue how these Banks influence Pakistani customer's decision where they keep their savings for retirement etc

* And then our government asks why Dollar are moving away from Pakistani Economy

We moved all cash to PAKISTANI GOVERNMENT SAVING !!! F*** FOREIGN BANK

My parents should have been thanked for keeping their saving in Pakistani Economy while bitches like Nawaz Sharif are flying first class eating cheese and grapes

Is there a storm brewing?

• We have 1 million Indian soldiers at the border
• Kashmir is under lockdown for 100+ days
• There is a financial crunch on Defence purchases
• The cost of Tomatoes "according to Pakistani media" is all-time high
• Enemy is getting brand new Mirage planes delivered to them in 365 days
• Indians are constantly on the hunt to blacklist Pakistan in FATF
• Indian warships are stationed in Oman under a defense pack with Oman
• Nawaz Sharif is eating grapes and cheese on Frist class Qatari Airlines
• Supreme court is asking why Army chief needs to be given Extention

Bilawal Kehta hai , "Jan Barish ziyada hota hai , to Pani ziyada ata hai"

 

[Zubayr]

Waiting it out is the best option for us. India cannot sustain acts of aggression in Kashmir with a tanking economy. Tables have been turned.

 

[HAIDER]

Waiting it out is the best option for us. India cannot sustain acts of aggression in Kashmir with a tanking economy. Tables have been turned.

India is systematically bring poverty and soon start confiscating prime land from the people of Kashmir. Kashmiri in US already saying that Indian govt start forcing people to sell there prime land to Indian govt or there cronies.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

So did IA get it back yet?

Hari Singh told you to take it all didn't he? He had the authority right? He'd just gotten going with his pogroms in J&K yet these pesky tribals interrupted his orgy. Seems like clear theft and annexation of territory promised to India. At least, this is how your defence minister interprets the matter.

So why did IA fail to deliver J&K to Hindustan? Really a bunch of ragtag tribals were enough to stop Hindustan's march to victory?

Great Maratha my arse.

No IA didn't get back the land yet because a ceasefire was declared in 1948 and the war came to stop. No, those weren't just a bunch of tribals but a combination of PA army and tribals. Anyway, India didn't even get into a conflict to get back lost land. Yes, IA got back a few territories but the objective was never to take back whole of Kashmir. Pakistan is more intent on taking Indian Kashmir than India is intent on taking Pakistani Kashmir. That's just because of religious affiliation. India is perfectly fine with the status quo. It's Pakistan that wants Kashmir. So, India has achieved its objective of defending Kashmir. I know Indian government says that whole of Kashmir belongs to India but I believe that those are just statements. India doesn't care about Pakistan Kashmir.

I think both countries should just focus on their own development. Pakistan isn't a country like Norway/Sweden in which people in Indian Kashmir will immediately have good life if they accede to Pakistan. Similarly, India too isn't a country like Norway/Sweden in which people in Pakistan Kashmir will immediately have good life if they accede to India. In fact, I think India should recognize that Pakistan Kashmir belongs to Pakistan while Pakistan should do the same. Both countries are just fighting for their ego while the West laughs at us. We should get over this Kashmir issue. I am all for recognizing Pakistan Kashmir. We should look at West and learn how they resolve disputes. Over here, we fight like petty children. How sad to see the oppressed people fighting each other. All invaders of subcontinent except Afghans like Turks, Uzbeks, British are living happily.

The subcontinent people are I think one of the most immature people with a lot of ego for no reason.

I won't reply to you if you abuse me again. I have never once abused anyone on PDF nor do I abuse in real life.

 

[Lemuel]

I find this thread amusing, to say the least. People seriously believe that India is planning some major invasion of Pakistani Kashmir. The fact is in this current conflict, India has already won. Modi got rid of Article 370, a longterm BJP goal, and most of the world including the UNSC supported India abd ignored Pakistan's crying. The militant groups such as JeM and LeT have suffered major casualties as a result of Indian millitary operations, and Pakistan was forced to shut down terror camps by the FATF and IMF. It is only a matter of years when normalcy will be returned to Kashmir, and Modi has it all planned out.

As to the topic of the thread, there could be a storm brewing. It is impossible to know the future. But if it comes, it will be initiated by Pakistan, because as of now, India has beaten Pakistan on all fronts(millitary, economy, and diplomacy) when it comes to Kashmir. Many Pakistani commentators and analysts have correctly observed that Pakistan and Imran Khan are in a desperate position with the Kashmir situation worsening, the economy continuing to spiral downwards, and failure to get international support. So Pakistan may very well be forced to launch a millitary attack against India.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

No IA didn't get back the land yet because a ceasefire was declared in 1948 and the war came to stop. No, those weren't just a bunch of tribals but a combination of PA army and tribals. Anyway, India didn't even get into a conflict to get back lost land. Yes, IA got back a few territories but the objective was never to take back whole of Kashmir. Pakistan is more intent on taking Indian Kashmir than India is intent on taking Pakistani Kashmir. That's just because of religious affiliation. India is perfectly fine with the status quo. It's Pakistan that wants Kashmir. So, India has achieved its objective of defending Kashmir. I know Indian government says that whole of Kashmir belongs to India but I believe that those are just statements. India doesn't care about Pakistan Kashmir.

I think both countries should just focus on their own development. Pakistan isn't a country like Norway/Sweden in which people in Indian Kashmir will immediately have good life if they accede to Pakistan. Similarly, India too isn't a country like Norway/Sweden in which people in Pakistan Kashmir will immediately have good life if they accede to India. In fact, I think India should recognize that Pakistan Kashmir belongs to Pakistan while Pakistan should do the same. Both countries are just fighting for their ego while the West laughs at us. We should get over this Kashmir issue. I am all for recognizing Pakistan Kashmir. We should look at West and learn how they resolve disputes. Over here, we fight like petty children. How sad to see the oppressed people fighting each other. All invaders of subcontinent except Afghans like Turks, Uzbeks, British are living happily.

The subcontinent people are I think one of the most immature people with a lot of ego for no reason.

I won't reply to you if you abuse me again. I have never once abused anyone on PDF nor do I abuse in real life.

Like many of your countrymen, you refer to normalcy in Kashmir and development in Kashmir like India is some maturing democratic state with a range of pleasant mid-life problems to smooth over.

What other country shamelessly rejects and rewrites its own history to exclude Mughal or Muslim elements?

What other country denies the Muslim part of its history and legacy by banding all Muslims together in a single definition of "invaders", past and present?

Kashmir cannot be swept under some carpet. It is a persistent symptom of India's ongoing illness. The people of the valley quite simply reject Hindu supremacy.

There are times when mainland India's Muslims also reject Hindu supremacy but they are few and far between for obvious reasons.

Every time we see what hindutva saffronisation has done to Muslims and even non-Muslims in India, we thank Jinnah. It is not some whim but rather based on the clear evidence of what we see in front of us.

To enforce your occupation of your part of Kashmir that you are apparently content with, your nation has committed unspeakable acts against civilians. China makes headlines for using water cannons. Saudi makes headlines for "sportwashing" its social injustices. Yet here we have a nation safe in its protected media bubble, that has annexed, systematically murdered, ethnically rebalanced, politically manipulated by fixed elections/governor imposition/arresting of elected politicians, tortured, used weapons of barbaric cruelty and psychological terror against kashmiri Muslims - all of which happens whether Pakistan gets involved or not - and seems to get away with such abuses.

You draw comparisons between the Pakistani side and the Indian side of Kashmir.

If you're an unbiased neutral minded observer, please go ahead and objectively assess whether Pakistani Kashmir or Indian Kashmir represent something closer to a peaceful democratic state that is governed in the way its inhabitants and taxpayers want it to be governed.

It is practically a no-brainer of a question. This is why India will never allow neutral observers to document the differences between Pakistani and Indian Kashmir in an objective manner. Inevitably the conclusion will be what we all know already. So you can pretend you analyse the situation objectively all you like. There is no truth to such propaganda.

The Kashmiris want nothing to do with Delhi. Maybe they want independence, maybe Pakistani rule. Either way we are happy. You have assessed Pakistanis incorrectly by your assumptions. The sooner you and others understand all this, the better off Kashmir will be.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Like many of your countrymen, you refer to normalcy in Kashmir and development in Kashmir like India is some maturing democratic state with a range of pleasant mid-life problems to smooth over.

What other country shamelessly rejects and rewrites its own history to exclude Mughal or Muslim elements?

What other country denies the Muslim part of its history and legacy by banding all Muslims together in a single definition of "invaders", past and present?

Kashmir cannot be swept under some carpet. It is a persistent symptom of India's ongoing illness. The people of the valley quite simply reject Hindu supremacy.

There are times when mainland India's Muslims also reject Hindu supremacy but they are few and far between for obvious reasons.

Every time we see what hindutva saffronisation has done to Muslims and even non-Muslims in India, we thank Jinnah. It is not some whim but rather based on the clear evidence of what we see in front of us.

To enforce your occupation of your part of Kashmir that you are apparently content with, your nation has committed unspeakable acts against civilians. China makes headlines for using water cannons. Saudi makes headlines for "sportwashing" its social injustices. Yet here we have a nation safe in its protected media bubble, that has annexed, systematically murdered, ethnically rebalanced, politically manipulated by fixed elections/governor imposition/arresting of elected politicians, tortured, used weapons of barbaric cruelty and psychological terror against kashmiri Muslims - all of which happens whether Pakistan gets involved or not - and seems to get away with such abuses.

You draw comparisons between the Pakistani side and the Indian side of Kashmir.

If you're an unbiased neutral minded observer, please go ahead and objectively assess whether Pakistani Kashmir or Indian Kashmir represent something closer to a peaceful democratic state that is governed in the way its inhabitants and taxpayers want it to be governed.

It is practically a no-brainer of a question. This is why India will never allow neutral observers to document the differences between Pakistani and Indian Kashmir in an objective manner. Inevitably the conclusion will be what we all know already. So you can pretend you analyse the situation objectively all you like. There is no truth to such propaganda.

The Kashmiris want nothing to do with Delhi. Maybe they want independence, maybe Pakistani rule. Either way we are happy. You have assessed Pakistanis incorrectly by your assumptions. The sooner you and others understand all this, the better off Kashmir will be.

It's Pakistan that rewrites its history books not India. It's not me saying but your own newspaper Dawn which is saying that.
https://www.dawn.com/news/672000
https://www.dawn.com/news/1125484

Regarding Indian history textbooks, nowhere is it mentioned that Muslims are bad or anything. In fact, we are also taught about Mughals, Lodhi dynasty,etc. Since I belong to Maharashtra, I was taught more about Marathas as well. But people from other parts of India don't even know too much about Marathas. Similarly, I didn't know too much about Ahom kings or Rajput kings from history text books. Of course, we are also taught about the Maurya empire, Gupta empire, Magadha empire, Nanda dynasty, Shatavahanas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Chola empire, Vijaynagar empire, etc. There is no bias in our history textbooks. That's why when I talk to Pakistanis, I feel that Indians know more about history than Pakistanis and this mostly because Pakistanis look from religious lens where only Muslims are glorified. For example, in this thread or some other thread, I asked all the people whether they can name one Pakistani-born ruler owing allegiance to Pakistani land who has ruled over large swathes of land. No one could answer. But there are a few dynasties but Pakistanis might not mention it simply because they were Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There was the Hindu Shahi dynasty, Buddhist Shahi dynasty, then the Sikh empire under Ranjit Singh. No Pakistani mentioned these rulers who were son of soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Shahi
https://historypak.com/hindu-shahi-dynasty/
https://www.sikhnet.com/news/shahis-punjab-kabul-last-native-rulers-punjab-medieval-ages
A small quote from the above link: 'The Shahis were the last native rulers of Punjab till Sikhs captured the Lahore and Sirhind province in 1765.'

So you guys are being taught false history where you guys think that 'you' ruled India for hundreds of years when in fact you were ruled over more by foreigners than Indians.

Regarding Partition, I agree with you when you thanked Jinnah. Partition was a must as Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. Gandhi and Nehru were too naive when they thought that they can have a United India. Either Hindus should be in majority or Muslims should be in majority.

Regarding Kashmir, my opinion doesn't matter much. I will not outright deny that IA are saints. But even PA are not saints. Who can forget 1971 atrocities of PA? Ask the Bangladeshis themselves. PA is also committing atrocities in Balochistan. Do you know Balochistan didn't want to merge with Pakistan? So will just give up Balochistan now? India can't give up Kashmir because if India gives up Kashmir, other provinces will start asking for independence. Simple as that. Now regarding Kashmiris being treated badly. IA will of course kill terrorists who will attack them. That's their job.

There is no exploitation of Kashmiris on the economic front. In fact, the Indian gov spends a lot for Kashmir. Kashmiri students are given reservations in Indian universities. There were a few Kashmiris in our university as well who didn't necessarily deserve our university but got through because of reservation. Now, all of them are working in some or other MNC. Kashmiris actually migrate to other parts of India for jobs or to set up business. There is no opposition to them. They are not mistreated in Kashmir as well. Kashmir Police are Kashmiri themselves. The only problem they have is with Army presence. Other than that, there is no discrimination. Kashmiris only demand for independence because of religious affiliation. There is hardly any exploitation on economic front unlike the economic exploitation of Balochistan. Kashmiris themselves manage all the hotels in Kashmir where foreign tourists stay. Tell me about some economic reason why Kashmiris should ask for freedom. It's just religious affiliation and the social media propaganda done by Pakistan.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...with-only-1-of-population/article14506264.ece

Again I say this: both India and Pakistan should accept each other's Kashmir and put this topic to rest. There is a lot of false propaganda on social media both in India and Pakistan.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It's Pakistan that rewrites its history books not India. It's not me saying but your own newspaper Dawn which is saying that.
https://www.dawn.com/news/672000
https://www.dawn.com/news/1125484

Regarding Indian history textbooks, nowhere is it mentioned that Muslims are bad or anything. In fact, we are also taught about Mughals, Lodhi dynasty,etc. Since I belong to Maharashtra, I was taught more about Marathas as well. But people from other parts of India don't even know too much about Marathas. Similarly, I didn't know too much about Ahom kings or Rajput kings from history text books. Of course, we are also taught about the Maurya empire, Gupta empire, Magadha empire, Nanda dynasty, Shatavahanas, Rashtrakutas, Chalukyas, Chola empire, Vijaynagar empire, etc. There is no bias in our history textbooks. That's why when I talk to Pakistanis, I feel that Indians know more about history than Pakistanis and this mostly because Pakistanis look from religious lens where only Muslims are glorified. For example, in this thread or some other thread, I asked all the people whether they can name one Pakistani-born ruler owing allegiance to Pakistani land who has ruled over large swathes of land. No one could answer. But there are a few dynasties but Pakistanis might not mention it simply because they were Hindus/Buddhists/Sikhs? There was the Hindu Shahi dynasty, Buddhist Shahi dynasty, then the Sikh empire under Ranjit Singh. No Pakistani mentioned these rulers who were son of soil.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_Shahi
https://historypak.com/hindu-shahi-dynasty/
https://www.sikhnet.com/news/shahis-punjab-kabul-last-native-rulers-punjab-medieval-ages
A small quote from the above link: 'The Shahis were the last native rulers of Punjab till Sikhs captured the Lahore and Sirhind province in 1765.'

So you guys are being taught false history where you guys think that 'you' ruled India for hundreds of years when in fact you were ruled over more by foreigners than Indians.

Regarding Partition, I agree with you when you thanked Jinnah. Partition was a must as Hindus and Muslims cannot live together. Gandhi and Nehru were too naive when they thought that they can have a United India. Either Hindus should be in majority or Muslims should be in majority.

Regarding Kashmir, my opinion doesn't matter much. I will not outright deny that IA are saints. But even PA are not saints. Who can forget 1971 atrocities of PA? Ask the Bangladeshis themselves. PA is also committing atrocities in Balochistan. Do you know Balochistan didn't want to merge with Pakistan? So will just give up Balochistan now? India can't give up Kashmir because if India gives up Kashmir, other provinces will start asking for independence. Simple as that. Now regarding Kashmiris being treated badly. IA will of course kill terrorists who will attack them. That's their job.

There is no exploitation of Kashmiris on the economic front. In fact, the Indian gov spends a lot for Kashmir. Kashmiri students are given reservations in Indian universities. There were a few Kashmiris in our university as well who didn't necessarily deserve our university but got through because of reservation. Now, all of them are working in some or other MNC. Kashmiris actually migrate to other parts of India for jobs or to set up business. There is no opposition to them. They are not mistreated in Kashmir as well. Kashmir Police are Kashmiri themselves. The only problem they have is with Army presence. Other than that, there is no discrimination. Kashmiris only demand for independence because of religious affiliation. There is hardly any exploitation on economic front unlike the economic exploitation of Balochistan. Kashmiris themselves manage all the hotels in Kashmir where foreign tourists stay. Tell me about some economic reason why Kashmiris should ask for freedom. It's just religious affiliation and the social media propaganda done by Pakistan.
https://www.thehindu.com/news/natio...with-only-1-of-population/article14506264.ece

Again I say this: both India and Pakistan should accept each other's Kashmir and put this topic to rest. There is a lot of false propaganda on social media both in India and Pakistan.

You should refrain from deciding for yourself what Pakistanis know or think or believe. Your entire post and most of your posts are littered with bias and conjecture and assumptions on what you think Pakistanis are and aren't. No need to keep trying to present yourself as some articulate balanced individual.

You're quoting Dawn like it is a mouthpiece for Pakistan.

To generally respond to your biased and tainted assertions about religious lens this and Islamic perspective that, you ought to be very clear: Pakistanis are more than proud of Pakistani heritage pre or post the Islamic republic. Pakistanis are proud of the sons and daughters of Pakistani land and of Pakistani culture regardless of religion. Numerous non-muslims have done wonders for the republic of Pakistan. So quit brainwashing yourself on what you believe Pakistanis think.. Indeed, many members here rail against the very concept of "India" when your Gangadeshi nation has nothing to do with the Indus Valley. Like FYROM usurping Macedonian history and laughably claiming affiliation with Alexander the Great, so too does the Gangadeshi nation lay false claim to the great Indus Valley Civilisation.

Hindustani narratives and propaganda pollutes the popular discourse like no other nation's in history because of one thing and one thing only: sheer weight of numbers of bhakts with internet access and free time. Truth can be documented and counternarratives submitted, yet here we remain, trapped in denial-land, where India treats Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Muslims awesomely well and anyone who complains is apparently fed Pakistani propaganda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/blogs-trending-35709930

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-46015589

Welcome to denial-land, where the great builders of an empire, the ones who set the Indian nation on its trajectory are denied their rightful legacy as builders, and instead are reduced to some roving band of raiders, looters and occupiers.

Modern Indian Hindus should learn to be grateful to their Mughal ancestors.

 

[Soumitra]

You should refrain from deciding for yourself what Pakistanis know or think or believe. Your entire post and most of your posts are littered with bias and conjecture and assumptions on what you think Pakistanis are and aren't. No need to keep trying to present yourself as some articulate balanced individual.

You should refrain from deciding for yourself what Indians know or think or believe. Your entire post and most of your posts are littered with bias and conjecture and assumptions on what you think Indians are and aren't. No need to keep trying to present yourself as some articulate balanced individual.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You should refrain from deciding for yourself what Indians know or think or believe. Your entire post and most of your posts are littered with bias and conjecture and assumptions on what you think Indians are and aren't. No need to keep trying to present yourself as some articulate balanced individual.

Except that I didn't decide anything on behalf of Hindustanis. Hindustanis themselves demonstrate regularly what they think, believe in and aspire to, not least by electing a genocide suspect as prime minister along with his cabinet composed of other genocidists, criminals and suspected terrorists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragya_Singh_Thakur

Not forgetting the customary affiliation with rape and crimes against females..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...-cases-show-modis-bjp-has-a-rape-problem/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjp-mp-sakshi-maharaj-wishes-rape-accused-kuldeep-sengar-after-denouncing-attack-on-unnao-rape-survi-2144607?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

That's the awesome thing about democracy shining Bollywood land India, where basic internet trolls like me don't need to prove or speculate or postulate anything. You vote these scumlords into power to lead you and spend your tax money. What I say or don't say on some internet forum has zero relevance.

Carry on.

 

[Soumitra]

Except that I didn't decide anything on behalf of Hindustanis. Hindustanis themselves demonstrate regularly what they think, believe in and aspire to, not least by electing a genocide suspect as prime minister along with his cabinet composed of other genocidists, criminals and suspected terrorists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragya_Singh_Thakur

Not forgetting the customary affiliation with rape and crimes against females..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com...-cases-show-modis-bjp-has-a-rape-problem/amp/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ndtv.com/india-news/bjp-mp-sakshi-maharaj-wishes-rape-accused-kuldeep-sengar-after-denouncing-attack-on-unnao-rape-survi-2144607?amp=1&akamai-rum=off

That's the awesome thing about democracy shining Bollywood land India, where basic internet trolls like me don't need to prove or speculate or postulate anything. You vote these scumlords into power to lead you and spend your tax money. What I say or don't say on some internet forum has zero relevance.

Carry on.

You calling someone a terrorist does not make them one.

And good to admit that you are a pathetic internet troll whose opinion does not matter

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

You should refrain from deciding for yourself what Pakistanis know or think or believe. Your entire post and most of your posts are littered with bias and conjecture and assumptions on what you think Pakistanis are and aren't. No need to keep trying to present yourself as some articulate balanced individual.

You're quoting Dawn like it is a mouthpiece for Pakistan.

To generally respond to your biased and tainted assertions about religious lens this and Islamic perspective that, you ought to be very clear: Pakistanis are more than proud of Pakistani heritage pre or post the Islamic republic. Pakistanis are proud of the sons and daughters of Pakistani land and of Pakistani culture regardless of religion. Numerous non-muslims have done wonders for the republic of Pakistan. So quit brainwashing yourself on what you believe Pakistanis think.. Indeed, many members here rail against the very concept of "India" when your Gangadeshi nation has nothing to do with the Indus Valley. Like FYROM usurping Macedonian history and laughably claiming affiliation with Alexander the Great, so too does the Gangadeshi nation lay false claim to the great Indus Valley Civilisation.

Hindustani narratives and propaganda pollutes the popular discourse like no other nation's in history because of one thing and one thing only: sheer weight of numbers of bhakts with internet access and free time. Truth can be documented and counternarratives submitted, yet here we remain, trapped in denial-land, where India treats Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Muslims awesomely well and anyone who complains is apparently fed Pakistani propaganda.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/blogs-trending-35709930

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-asia-india-46015589

Welcome to denial-land, where the great builders of an empire, the ones who set the Indian nation on its trajectory are denied their rightful legacy as builders, and instead are reduced to some roving band of raiders, looters and occupiers.

Modern Indian Hindus should learn to be grateful to their Mughal ancestors.

If Pakistan is so proud of its non-Muslim heritage, why couldn't one Pakistani mention about the Hindu Shahi dynasty, Buddhist Shahi dynasty and Sikh empire when I asked you guys about son of soil Pakistani rulers? I don't blame you. You are just not taught about non-Muslim history. Tell me about the dynasties that ruled over Pakistan pre-arrival of Islam other than the Indus valley civilization. And one of the main reasons you are taught about Indus valley civilization is because there is no strong evidence that they were Hindus. If there was an evidence that they were Hindus, I am not sure whether you might have been taught even that. I see many Pakistanis saying that IVC was no way related to Hinduism. It's kind of a justification for admiring it and claiming it as their own.

Regarding Indus valley civilization, India rightly claims its association with Indus valley civilization. Why? Because culture is the same. You calling me Gangadeshi clearly shows your frustration as well.

You can't deny that invaders were raiders, looters and occupiers. I am a Maratha but I can easily say that Marathas did a lot of injustice during their raids. They were brutal and were mostly after only extracting 'chauth' i.e tribute. But I rarely see Pakistanis talking about brutality of invaders even though Pakistanis themselves were one of the biggest victims as well. You just can't deny that the invaders were absolutely brutal on the local populace.


Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:

“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”


Will Durant argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):

“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:

“From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”


A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests

The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns : “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”


In the contemporary record – ‘ Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.


The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.


This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”

imur was a Turkic conqueror and founder of the Timurid Dynasty. Timur’s Indian campaign (1398 – 1399 AD) was recorded in his memoirs, collectively known as ‘Tuzk-i-Timuri.’ In them, he vividly described probably the greatest gruesome act in the entire history of the world – where 100,000 Hindu prisoners of war in his camp were executed in a very short space of time. Timur after taking advice from his entourage says in his memoirs :

“they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.

“In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword’

Timur thereupon resolved to put them to death. He proclaimed :

“throughout the camp that every man who has infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din Umar, a counselor and a man of learning, who, in all his life had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives“.

During his campaign in India – Timur describes the scene when his army conquered the Indian city of Delhi :

“In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.

“They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground….All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.”

The Mughal emperor Babur (who ruled India from 1526 -1530 AD) writing in his memoirs called the ‘Baburnama’ – wrote : ” In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been Daru’l-Harb (nation of non-muslims) for years was made into a Daru’l-Islam (a muslim nation).”

In Babur’s own words in a poem about killing Hindus (From the ‘Baburnama’ ) he wrote :

“For the sake of Islam I became a
wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a martyr
Thank God I became a Killer of
Non-Muslims!”

The atrocities of the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan (who ruled India between 1628 – 1658 AD) are mentioned in the contemporary record called : ‘Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori’ and goes on to state : “When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus…The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts….Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars (Noblemen)”

The Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India in 1757 AD and made his way to the holy Hindu city of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus and birthplace of Krishna.

The atrocities that followed are recorded in the contemporary chronicle called : ‘Tarikh-I-Alamgiri’ :

“Abdali’s soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives…Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.

“It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people…All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared.”


And I'm not saying all this. Historians as well as Muslims chroniclers themselves proudly write this.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

You calling someone a terrorist does not make them one.

And good to admit that you are a pathetic internet troll whose opinion does not matter

Who said "pathetic"?

Please don't project your insecurities onto others.

If Pakistan is so proud of its non-Muslim heritage, why couldn't one Pakistani mention about the Hindu Shahi dynasty, Buddhist Shahi dynasty and Sikh empire when I asked you guys about son of soil Pakistani rulers? I don't blame you. You are just not taught about non-Muslim history. Tell me about the dynasties that ruled over Pakistan pre-arrival of Islam other than the Indus valley civilization. And one of the main reasons you are taught about Indus valley civilization is because there is no strong evidence that they were Hindus. If there was an evidence that they were Hindus, I am not sure whether you might have been taught even that. I see many Pakistanis saying that IVC was no way related to Hinduism. It's kind of a justification for admiring it and claiming it as their own.

Regarding Indus valley civilization, India rightly claims its association with Indus valley civilization. Why? Because culture is the same. You calling me Gangadeshi clearly shows your frustration as well.

You can't deny that invaders were raiders, looters and occupiers. I am a Maratha but I can easily say that Marathas did a lot of injustice during their raids. They were brutal and were mostly after only extracting 'chauth' i.e tribute. But I rarely see Pakistanis talking about brutality of invaders even though Pakistanis themselves were one of the biggest victims as well. You just can't deny that the invaders were absolutely brutal on the local populace.


Dr. Koenraad Elst in his article “Was There an Islamic Genocide of Hindus?” states:

“There is no official estimate of the total death toll of Hindus at the hands of Islam. A first glance at important testimonies by Muslim chroniclers suggests that, over 13 centuries and a territory as vast as the Subcontinent, Muslim Holy Warriors easily killed more Hindus than the 6 million of the Holocaust. Ferishtha lists several occasions when the Bahmani sultans in central India (1347-1528) killed a hundred thousand Hindus, which they set as a minimum goal whenever they felt like punishing the Hindus; and they were only a third-rank provincial dynasty.

He also writes in his book “Negation in India”:

“The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter.”


Will Durant argued in his 1935 book “The Story of Civilisation: Our Oriental Heritage” (page 459):

“The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 AD to 1700 AD. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period.”

Alain Danielou in his book, Histoire de l’ Inde writes:

“From the time Muslims started arriving, around 632 AD, the history of India becomes a long, monotonous series of murders, massacres, spoliations, and destructions. It is, as usual, in the name of ‘a holy war’ of their faith, of their sole God, that the barbarians have destroyed civilizations, wiped out entire races.”


Irfan Husain in his article “Demons from the Past” observes:

“While historical events should be judged in the context of their times, it cannot be denied that even in that bloody period of history, no mercy was shown to the Hindus unfortunate enough to be in the path of either the Arab conquerors of Sindh and south Punjab, or the Central Asians who swept in from Afghanistan…The Muslim heroes who figure larger than life in our history books committed some dreadful crimes. Mahmud of Ghazni, Qutb-ud-Din Aibak, Balban, Mohammed bin Qasim, and Sultan Mohammad Tughlak, all have blood-stained hands that the passage of years has not cleansed..Seen through Hindu eyes, the Muslim invasion of their homeland was an unmitigated disaster.

“Their temples were razed, their idols smashed, their women raped, their men killed or taken slaves. When Mahmud of Ghazni entered Somnath on one of his annual raids, he slaughtered all 50,000 inhabitants. Aibak killed and enslaved hundreds of thousands. The list of horrors is long and painful. These conquerors justified their deeds by claiming it was their religious duty to smite non-believers. Cloaking themselves in the banner of Islam, they claimed they were fighting for their faith when, in reality, they were indulging in straightforward slaughter and pillage…”


A sample of contemporary eyewitness accounts of the invaders and rulers, during the Indian conquests

The Afghan ruler Mahmud al-Ghazni invaded India no less than seventeen times between 1001 – 1026 AD. The book ‘Tarikh-i-Yamini’ – written by his secretary documents several episodes of his bloody military campaigns : “The blood of the infidels flowed so copiously [at the Indian city of Thanesar] that the stream was discoloured, notwithstanding its purity, and people were unable to drink it…the infidels deserted the fort and tried to cross the foaming river…but many of them were slain, taken or drowned… Nearly fifty thousand men were killed.”


In the contemporary record – ‘ Taj-ul-Ma’asir’ by Hassn Nizam-i-Naishapuri, it is stated that when Qutb-ul- Din Aibak (of Turko – Afghan origin and the First Sultan of Delhi 1194-1210 AD) conquered Meerat, he demolished all the Hindu temples of the city and erected mosques on their sites. In the city of Aligarh, he converted Hindu inhabitants to Islam by the sword and beheaded all those who adhered to their own religion.


The Persian historian Wassaf writes in his book ‘Tazjiyat-ul-Amsar wa Tajriyat ul Asar’ that when the Alaul-Din Khilji (An Afghan of Turkish origin and second ruler of the Khilji Dynasty in India 1295-1316 AD) captured the city of Kambayat at the head of the gulf of Cambay, he killed the adult male Hindu inhabitants for the glory of Islam, set flowing rivers of blood, sent the women of the country with all their gold, silver, and jewels, to his own home, and made about twentv thousand Hindu maidens his private slaves.


This ruler once asked his spiritual advisor (or ‘Qazi’) as to what was the Islamic law prescribed for the Hindus. The Qazi replied:

“Hindus are like the mud; if silver is demanded from them, they must with the greatest humility offer gold. If a Mohammadan desires to spit into a Hindu’s mouth, the Hindu should open it wide for the purpose. God created the Hindus to be slaves of the Mohammadans. The Prophet hath ordained that, if the Hindus do not accept Islam, they should be imprisoned, tortured, finally put to death, and their property confiscated.”

imur was a Turkic conqueror and founder of the Timurid Dynasty. Timur’s Indian campaign (1398 – 1399 AD) was recorded in his memoirs, collectively known as ‘Tuzk-i-Timuri.’ In them, he vividly described probably the greatest gruesome act in the entire history of the world – where 100,000 Hindu prisoners of war in his camp were executed in a very short space of time. Timur after taking advice from his entourage says in his memoirs :

“they said that on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and foes of Islam at liberty.

“In fact, no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword’

Timur thereupon resolved to put them to death. He proclaimed :

“throughout the camp that every man who has infidel prisoners was to put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death. 100,000 infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasir-ud-din Umar, a counselor and a man of learning, who, in all his life had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives“.

During his campaign in India – Timur describes the scene when his army conquered the Indian city of Delhi :

“In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers.

“They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground….All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.”

The Mughal emperor Babur (who ruled India from 1526 -1530 AD) writing in his memoirs called the ‘Baburnama’ – wrote : ” In AH 934 (2538 C.E.) I attacked Chanderi and by the grace of Allah captured it in a few hours. We got the infidels slaughtered and the place which had been Daru’l-Harb (nation of non-muslims) for years was made into a Daru’l-Islam (a muslim nation).”

In Babur’s own words in a poem about killing Hindus (From the ‘Baburnama’ ) he wrote :

“For the sake of Islam I became a
wanderer,
I battled infidels and Hindus,
I determined to become a martyr
Thank God I became a Killer of
Non-Muslims!”

The atrocities of the Mughal ruler Shah Jahan (who ruled India between 1628 – 1658 AD) are mentioned in the contemporary record called : ‘Badshah Nama, Qazinivi & Badshah Nama , Lahori’ and goes on to state : “When Shuja was appointed as governor of Kabul he carried on a ruthless war in the Hindu territory beyond Indus…The sword of Islam yielded a rich crop of converts….Most of the women (to save their honour) burnt themselves to death. Those captured were distributed among Muslim Mansabdars (Noblemen)”

The Afghan ruler Ahmad Shah Abdali attacked India in 1757 AD and made his way to the holy Hindu city of Mathura, the Bethlehem of the Hindus and birthplace of Krishna.

The atrocities that followed are recorded in the contemporary chronicle called : ‘Tarikh-I-Alamgiri’ :

“Abdali’s soldiers would be paid 5 Rupees (a sizeable amount at the time) for every enemy head brought in. Every horseman had loaded up all his horses with the plundered property, and atop of it rode the girl-captives and the slaves. The severed heads were tied up in rugs like bundles of grain and placed on the heads of the captives…Then the heads were stuck upon lances and taken to the gate of the chief minister for payment.

“It was an extraordinary display! Daily did this manner of slaughter and plundering proceed. And at night the shrieks of the women captives who were being raped, deafened the ears of the people…All those heads that had been cut off were built into pillars, and the captive men upon whose heads those bloody bundles had been brought in, were made to grind corn, and then their heads too were cut off. These things went on all the way to the city of Agra, nor was any part of the country spared.”


And I'm not saying all this. Historians as well as Muslims chroniclers themselves proudly write this.

So why the inferiority complex? Superior nations wiped the floor with inferior nations routinely until recent history, even up until ww2. No such concept as universal human rights existed until the mid 20th century.

In England, there is no drama about Vikings and Romans even though they brutally occupied and slaughtered their way through these lands. English people are just far too mature to hold entire races and legacies on some eternal pedestal of shame. Do you know what they did to the angles and the Celts??

Still, I don't see people demanding York be stripped of its Viking name and Viking history being erased.

The mughals were one of many many nations who plainly wrecked the inferior feudalistic gold-hoarding animistic societies of the time all over the subcontinent. These city states couldn't mount a reasonable defence against most invaders. Mughals seized an opportunity. If they hadn't, someone else would have. Do you not realise this harsh truth? So why selectively curse the mughals?

Intriguing how you contradict yourself routinely btw, by saying at times you have nothing against the Mughal aspect of your history then almost moments later, spewing drivel about why you clearly have a problem with them.

The whole Hindustani mentality needs a paradigm change.

Hindus wiped out Buddhists from the subcontinent. When mughals came along, it was entirely in keeping with the Hindu concept of karma.

Hindutva complains about Muslims being invaders, as though aryans themselves weren't invaders. As though Hindus in general didn't wage war against one another. As though countless Hindus didn't ally with the Muslim armies against other Hindus. Sometimes Hindus allied with mughals to fight against muslim enemies of both.

It is Hindutva that reduces your history to this bizarre and inaccurate dichotomy, either muslim or Hindu with no room for both.

If you are truly as rational and free from bias as you pretend to be, you should reflect on these matters.