Jinnah insisted on partition, declined offer to become India PM

[MultaniGuy]

That is what you want to believe..to prove the existence of your nation is not pointless.

Name one right Pakistan's majority Muslim community receives from its constitution, that India's minority Muslim community does not from its constitution.

You can give me your bullshit when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of India and not just President.

Then I will believe India is a secular country.

Till then India is a country run by the Hindu majority.

 

[Corona]

I can understand why Nehru wasn't too attached to the idea of separating power into 3 provinces. The provinces, created to parry power between three vastly disproportionate populations will only increase the insecurities among them. It becomes an us versus them thing. Perhaps what happened to West and East Pakistan would've been repeated on a much more massive scale, this time dragging India into it too.

Unity cannot be compromised, nor can it be subject to clauses and agreements. Either all parties accept it unanimously or there is no unity to be had there. Better to let go those who are adamant to leave and take care of those who want to stay.

 

[MultaniGuy]

That is what you want to believe..to prove the existence of your nation is not pointless.

Name one right Pakistan's majority Muslim community receives from its constitution, that India's minority Muslim community does not from its constitution.

Even your beloved newspapers say that the Muslim community has it worse than the Dalit community.
So don't talk trash here, you will be caught.

Condition of Muslims worse than Dalits': Heptullah
APRIL 19, 2007 00:00 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 20:39 IST

• 
  SHARE ARTICLE
• Photo: Subir Roy
  
  Special Correspondent
  
  `Sachar report has exposed the real face of secularism'
  
  Heptullah says she could not do much for uplift of Muslims `The socio-economic condition of Muslims is known to all'
  
  LUCKNOW: Bharatiya Janata Party MP and the former Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, said the Sachar Committee report on the status of Muslims had exposed the real face of secularism.
  
  She said it had also brought to the fore the role played by the parties which harped on secularism.
  
  Addressing a press conference, Ms. Heptullah said the condition of Muslims after over 50 years of Independence was worse than that of the Dalits. She said the Muslims should have progressed accordingly but unfortunately, that had not been the case.
  
  Recalling her days in the Congress, Ms. Heptullah held herself also responsible for the plight of Muslims as she could do nothing much for them. Had she held a more responsible position she would have contributed towards the uplift of the Muslims, she said.
  
  The BJP MP said though the Sachar panel report could not be disputed but there was no need to constitute the commission as the socio-economic and educational condition of the Muslims was known to every one. She added that their condition had deteriorated.
  
  Ms. Heptullah said the larger issue was development and progress of the country.
  
  On Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's statement on the division of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, Ms. Heptullah remarked that she came from a family which was opposed to the partition of India.
  
  
  http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...rse-than-Dalits-Heptullah/article14751786.ece

 

[Osiris]

You can give me your bullshit when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of India and not just President.

Then I will believe India is a secular country.

Till then India is a country run by the Hindu majority.

In India all minorities including Muslim can hold any post in India, where as your country treats its minorities like second class citizens, do you even constitutionally allow any of your christian or a Hindu or a Sikh to prime minister, president or even army chief?

 

[MultaniGuy]

That is what you want to believe..to prove the existence of your nation is not pointless.

Name one right Pakistan's majority Muslim community receives from its constitution, that India's minority Muslim community does not from its constitution.

Oh, I do not need your approval to know that the creation of Pakistan was the right thing to do for the Muslim community's interests.

The creation of Pakistan happened for a lot of good reasons.
Muslims who did not want to be a minority in their lands.

So Muslim ideology could be protected.

So Muslim interests could be protected in South Asia.

There are also many other reasons as well like so that Muslims could advance economically, get education, etc.

 

[Corona]

You can give me your bullshit when a Muslim becomes Prime Minister of India and not just President.

Then I will believe India is a secular country.

Till then India is a country run by the Hindu majority.

I could ask the same about Pakistan, since Pakistan was created as a nation for minorities oppressed in India.
Your line of thinking is that for Muslims to be free, there has to be a Muslim leader, ruling a Muslim country, with Muslim majority. That is not political talk, that is religious talk.
Personally, I don't give a hoot about the religion of my PM as long as the priorities are in order.

 

[MultaniGuy]

In India all minorities including Muslim can hold any post in India, where as your country treats its minorities like second class citizens, do you even constitutionally allow any of your christian or a Hindu or a Sikh to prime minister, president or even army chief?

You dolt, we don't claim to be a "secular country."

We claim to be an "Islamic Republic."

Islam says minorities are supposed to be treated with justice, however we will not be ruled by someone who comes from the minority, that would be unfair to the majority.

 

[Osiris]

Even your beloved newspapers say that the Muslim community has it worse than the Dalit community.
So don't talk trash here, you will be caught.

Condition of Muslims worse than Dalits': Heptullah
APRIL 19, 2007 00:00 IST
UPDATED: SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 20:39 IST

• 
  SHARE ARTICLE
• Photo: Subir Roy
  
  Special Correspondent
  
  `Sachar report has exposed the real face of secularism'
  
  Heptullah says she could not do much for uplift of Muslims `The socio-economic condition of Muslims is known to all'
  
  LUCKNOW: Bharatiya Janata Party MP and the former Deputy Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, Najma Heptullah, said the Sachar Committee report on the status of Muslims had exposed the real face of secularism.
  
  She said it had also brought to the fore the role played by the parties which harped on secularism.
  
  Addressing a press conference, Ms. Heptullah said the condition of Muslims after over 50 years of Independence was worse than that of the Dalits. She said the Muslims should have progressed accordingly but unfortunately, that had not been the case.
  
  Recalling her days in the Congress, Ms. Heptullah held herself also responsible for the plight of Muslims as she could do nothing much for them. Had she held a more responsible position she would have contributed towards the uplift of the Muslims, she said.
  
  The BJP MP said though the Sachar panel report could not be disputed but there was no need to constitute the commission as the socio-economic and educational condition of the Muslims was known to every one. She added that their condition had deteriorated.
  
  Ms. Heptullah said the larger issue was development and progress of the country.
  
  On Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's statement on the division of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh, Ms. Heptullah remarked that she came from a family which was opposed to the partition of India.
  
  
  http://www.thehindu.com/todays-pape...rse-than-Dalits-Heptullah/article14751786.ece

https://nation.com.pk/17-Dec-2017/m...etter-condition-than-pakistan-taslima-nasreen

 

[MultaniGuy]

https://nation.com.pk/17-Dec-2017/m...etter-condition-than-pakistan-taslima-nasreen

Taslima Nasrin has never been to Pakistan so she cannot comment. lol.

She bases her opinions on what she has heard.

So your article flops as well.

I could ask the same about Pakistan, since Pakistan was created as a nation for minorities oppressed in India.
Your line of thinking is that for Muslims to be free, there has to be a Muslim leader, ruling a Muslim country, with Muslim majority. That is not political talk, that is religious talk.
Personally, I don't give a hoot about the religion of my PM as long as the priorities are in order.

Produce a Muslim Prime Minister and then I will believe you.

Till then, all your talking is just "hocus-pocus" or rubbish.

 

[Osiris]

You dolt, we don't claim to be a "secular country."

We claim to be an "Islamic Republic."

Islam says minorities are supposed to be treated with justice, however we will not be ruled by someone who comes from the minority, that would be unfair to the majority.

So basically, you on a whole are a hypocritical society, when you are in minority, you claim we should rule the majority, then only you will accept, you are being treated fairly.

But when you are in majority, you claim, we will not let any one from minority rule us, because that would be unfair to the majority!

I guess even maggots have better morals than you.

 

[Qasim Amin]

BS! Jinnah only wanted more rights for muslims when he rose to power! He only ‘insisted’ for partition when Hindus became hostile to muslims! Understand history you third class man. When there were unification plans launched the Muslim league accepted it and it could keep India unified but the CONGRESS refused it! Especially your Nehru and Ghandi!

 

[Indus Pakistan]

I think Cabinet mission Plan was about 10 years.

Yes, if the plan had been adopted we would still have got Pakistan or whatever name you care to give it. But the trajectory would have been differant. We are talking here about what was not what could have been. The fact is Jinnah accepted the three block plan and Nehru declined leading to 1947 partition.

However beyond that there is one glaring fact. Even if Jinnah had remained a loyalist of the Congress and 1947 had nopt happened the fact is and this is incontrevertible. The north west was too Muslim dominant and had too large a population. These demograhic facts would have torn India apart at some time. Consider this fact. The tiny Kashmir valley with a population less then Lahore city is at present garrisoned by over half a million indian soldiers, yes 500,000. Kashmiri's are not known for being militaristic. Can you imagine what number of en India would have needed to keep North West Frontier Province [today 30 million], Balochistan [today 10 million], Punjab [todayt 100 million] pacified? Can you imagine the impress of 200 million muslims of what is now Pakistan roaring away? And you know these regions have a history of conflict. In addition good chunk of the British Raj military was recruited from what is now Pakistan. I won't even go into the huge Muslim majority in the east of what become Bangladesh.

The fact is chunks of India would have broken off as is the history of South Asia. The unity brought about by British Raj was a exception rather then a normative.

 

[MultaniGuy]

So basically, you on a whole are a hypocritical society, when you are in minority, you claim we should rule the majority, then only we will accept, we are being treated fairly. But when you are in majority, you claim, we will not let any one from minority rule us, because that would be unfair to the majority!

Watch your language you idiot or indiot.
Let me remind you this is a Pakistani forum and not Bharat Rakshak.

You Indians claim to be a secular country. So you should allow a minority to appear as the Prime Minister.

We Pakistanis do not claim to be a secular country.

I fail to see the hypocrisy here.

I never said that when Muslims are a minority they should rule the majority you idiot.

I said if you Indians claim to be a secular nation then produce a Muslim Prime Minister like you produced a Sikh Prime Minister.

Till then Indian secularism is all hogwash.

Secondly, why should we allow an Islamic Republic to be ruled by a non Muslim?

That would be illogical and asking a communist to be the leader of USA.

 

[Qasim Amin]

So basically, you on a whole are a hypocritical society, when you are in minority, you claim we should rule the majority, then only you will accept, you are being treated fairly.

But when you are in majority, you claim, we will not let any one from minority rule us, because that would be unfair to the majority!

I guess even maggots have better morals then you.

Its not hypocritical when its true! Islam protects all minorities when Muslims are the rulers. But at the time of 1947 we had hindu majority RSS and Congress who didn’t speak for the minorities. Only for unified India but not talking about the future of minorities.

Watch your language you idiot or indiot.
Let me remind you this is a Pakistani forum and not Bharat Rakshak.

You Indians claim to be a secular country. So you should allow a minority to appear as the Prime Minister.

We Pakistanis do not claim to be a secular country.

I fail to see the hypocrisy here.

I never said that when Muslims are a minority they should rule the majority you idiot.

I said if you Indians claim to be a secular nation then produce a Muslim Prime Minister like you produced a Sikh Prime Minister.

Till then Indian secularism is all hogwash.

Secondly, why should we allow an Islamic Republic to be ruled by a non Muslim?

That would be illogical and asking a communist to be the leader of USA.

Very true. But we should ignore this indiot because a donkey never gets clever no matter how many times you make him learn.

 

[Corona]

So basically, you on a whole are a hypocritical society, when you are in minority, you claim we should rule the majority, then only you will accept, you are being treated fairly.

But when you are in majority, you claim, we will not let any one from minority rule us, because that would be unfair to the majority!

I guess even maggots have better morals than you.

Yeah you've summed up his outlook perfectly.