Modi sends Envoy to Dr Zakir Naik for Safe Passage Back to India

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

I'm not surprised, a lot of these Indian Muslims still dying to prove there loyalty to the Sanghi's -- they'll spit on there own co-religious brothers and sisters.

Well let him and Modi Bop It for all I care.

EXACTLY!.......................Till very recently, within the past 9 months in fact, indian so called "Muslims" were literally worshipping the sanghis and spewing extreme hatred towards Pakistan. It's only when the sanghis started raping and murdering these plastic "Muslims" that they realized that they were too powerless to do anything about it, did they start toning down their anti-Pakistani sentiment. The worst part of this is that there are many Pakistanis on PDF that find excuses for the anti-Pakistani hatred from indian so called "Muslims".........................................

 

[Goenitz]

But no partition would also have meant Muslims would be economically and politically weaker. Most of the wealth was concentrated in Hindu and Sikh hands, especially in the parts that are Bangladesh and Pakistan now. Only the Muslim nawabs of India and a few rulers like Nawab of Bahawalpur were rich.

Muslims will be weaker in UP and Bihar, East Bengal like always.... Also in some part of Punjab... but with more provincial autonomy, it might change too.

The main reason of muslims poverty was conversion of suppressed people like peasants etc.. If you have watched some documentaries, you will know that UP, Bihar and Bangla muslims were way poorer, than Punjabis.
Also bulk of the muslims pop was in these states (UP pop= Pak pop).. so yes, overall all these factors means that muslims from these areas would have remain poor with no or less participation in provincial assembly. So separated or not, I think Muslims in other regions (KPK,Kashmir, E.Bengal, Kerala, Punjab) would have prospered.

And we might be discriminating biharis, bengalis (Muslims) etc same way like they are now being done in India

 

[Cliftonite]

Muslims will be weaker in UP and Bihar, East Bengal like always.... Also in some part of Punjab... but with more provincial autonomy, it might change too.

The main reason of muslims poverty was conversion of suppressed people like peasants etc.. If you have watched some documentaries, you will know that UP, Bihar and Bangla muslims were way poorer, than Punjabis.
Also bulk of the muslims pop was in these states (UP pop= Pak pop).. so yes, overall all these factors means that muslims from these areas would have remain poor with no or less participation in provincial assembly. So separated or not, I think Muslims in other regions (KPK,Kashmir, E.Bengal, Kerala, Punjab) would have prospered.

And we might be discriminating biharis, bengalis (Muslims) etc same way like they are now being done in India

Yeah. But Hindus got the better deal. Muslims were divided in 3 while all one billion of Hindus were concentrated in one country.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Yeah. But Hindus got the better deal. Muslims were divided in 3 while all one billion of Hindus were concentrated in one country.

Muslims are not one unified block. Pakistan is a sacred miracle for the Pakistani people. Non-Pakistani Muslims have got NOTHING to do with us. Suggesting otherwise is almost as retarded as zakir naik claiming that india will become a superpower within 2 years of 2010......... :

 

[Cliftonite]

Muslims are not one unified block. Pakistan is a sacred miracle for the Pakistani people. Non-Pakistani Muslims have got NOTHING to do with us. Suggesting otherwise is almost as retarded as zakir naik claiming that india will become a superpower within 2 years of 2010......... :

Yeah. But it's time to make something out of it instead of just empty rhetoric.

 

[PAKISTANFOREVER]

Yeah. But it's time to make something out of it instead of just empty rhetoric.

Claiming that "Muslims" have been split in to 3 different parts is not making something out of Pakistan.........

 

[Goenitz]

Though one thing is certain given the population trends. 100 years down the line, Muslims will outnumber Hindus in the subcontinent. Maybe then we can join up again lololol.

Forgot to ans that..
for 800 years of muslim pop growth and conversions, muslims are still minority.. so it won't change until 1000s+ years... according to estimate, after some 2300 years Muslims can outnumber with total indian population upto 7 billion.... (estimated according to current trend.)

 

[Cliftonite]

Forgot to ans that..
for 800 years of muslim pop growth and conversions, muslims are still minority.. so it won't change until 1000s+ years... according to estimate, after some 2300 years Muslims can outnumber with total indian population upto 7 billion.... (estimated according to current trend.)

Muslims in subcontinent grew from 24% in 1947 to 33% today. 92 million Muslims out of a total population of 390 million in British India.

Today 600 million Muslims out of a total population of 1.8 billion people in South Asia. Muslims grew by a rate of 7, Hindus by 4.

And it's just been 73 years. I'm talking 100 years in the future.

 

[-=virus=-]

Is that meant to be an insult? Are you saying that we should be embarrassed/ashamed of the fact that we used to be Indians (debatable) and Hindus?

just banter, I mistyped there too.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

The pig faced dr naik is an anti-Pakistani dog. His comments against Pakistan are straight from the rss hindu handbook. He deserves what he gets from india.

he is also pro Al Qaeda as well. and justified Osama Bin Laden

 

[Goenitz]

Muslims in subcontinent grew from 24% in 1947 to 33% today. 92 million Muslims out of a total population of 390 million in British India.

werid things...
this report says in 200 years it can equalise (not in 2300 years)... but it won't happen...

sorry it wasn't 2300 years after but in 2281

 

[peagle]

@waz @Areesh @fitpOsitive
So I think he is rights as in united India, the resources will be more and may be attention towards economy and poverty will be a priority as the military budget will be way less..
Some muslims pockets (Bengal, assam, KPK, Balochistan etc) will ensure that Dehli cannot go alienating muslims totally.. any fascist regime also means that all the minorities are together so better resistance.

Remember Quaid didn't want partition (till 1945 Simon commission)if Nehru had agreed on more provincial autonomy. (Still india is quasi-federall rule though.)
As Congress didn't agree so Quaid went for partition. (Do you know Sheikh Mujeeb demanded way less provincial autonomy than in 18th amendment? ) Anyway, feared by that Muslims can be sidelined in a federal structure, Quaid opted for partition (Abdul Kalam regretted later for his thoughts in his books)

Anyway, creation of Pakistan is a political thing. People can criticise it, But now it is a done thing so everyone should accept it. Plus current Modi regime proves that it is better we have it.
But it is not a holy/fundamental thing of Islam that questioning it makes you kafir etc. It is not a God-given khilafah...
Again he is a religious leader and not a political person so he may have a bad taste in that.
so may be Zakir is inspired by this video..

There is no historical nation called India or by any other name, it was a fictitious reality created as a British colony. So the logic is baseless and empty. South Asians had thousands of years to come up with a single entity or even a single language, they didn't because they are all different, just like Europe. South Asia, like Europe is a loose cultural grouping, nothing more, nothing less.

If we take facts in their most simple forms, and create a reality without understanding its full ramifications, you invite more trouble and a bloodbath. Lets not forget India exists only because it has created enemies for its populous to hate, namely China and most especially Pakistan. Even Obama in his recent book stated that the easiest way for India to create national unity is to nurture hatred for Pakistan.

Take Pakistan out of the picture, and for a moment imagine a united South Asia, in the form of a nation state called India, and you have nothing to hold these dozens of ethnic groups with distinct histories, cultures and languages together. Just like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union, they would disintegrate, and in that disintegration you would create a bloodbath. In 1947 the people did not have access to guns and bombs, beside the killings only happened because the independence process was rushed, not because it was a forgone conclusion.

Such a disintegration, in the modern age, with guns and bombs, I cannot even imagine how many would die, and how many countries would be created, all those countries hating each other, we would be in a nightmare far worse then one can imagine. To top it all, you would have a China as the sole billion plus nation, imagine that, a superpower with capabilities and an ego many times larger then America. I assure you, it wouldn't be pretty.

Please, before we start presenting alternate realities, and create imagined presents, lets look at the picture holistically, it is not such a pretty picture.

 

[Goenitz]

Please, before we start presenting alternate realities, and create imagined presents, lets look at the picture holistically, it is not such a pretty picture

if there is hatred then tehre will be bloodbath... point is not different ethnicities but the hatred.. which is based on religion, sect, creed and cast.
However, local body system would ensure integrity. Even english fight over a match between LFC and MANU... so sentiments can erupt in a fight..

But see local system of UK.. how much councils are powerful so people don't hate London.. like in Pak karachi, and else blame Islamabad even after 18th amendment.. we need more provinces..

Similarly, more local power means harmony. You know in dehli riots, mostly people were outsiders.
UP has 220 million pop. The strong centre means, it is alienated from grassroots and work for majority for votebank and not issues.. (UP example)

So like EU localised division of power, despite having an area like India, a single country could have been formed.

But main thing is hatred.. which is based on religion, language (Sir sayyad said that after 1867 banaras riots), forefathers, food, clothing means a ticking time bomb... @jamahir @xeuss

 

[peagle]

Though one thing is certain given the population trends. 100 years down the line, Muslims will outnumber Hindus in the subcontinent.

A very unlikely scenario,
there would have to be a massive reduction of Hindu population, and a continuous increase in Muslim population across all countries, even then it is unlikely.

Taking mean estimates, with expected population stabilisation in each country.

India, 1800 million, Muslims 18%
Bangladesh is hard to guess because they are experiencing very good results in population control
230 million, Muslim 90%
Pakistan, projections by most estimates vastly underestimate the future population, I can provide greater reasoning if you wish about my estimates.
400+ million, Muslim 96%
Nepal, 40 million, Muslim 5%
Sri Lanka, 25 million, Muslim 10%

Total 2495 million
Muslim 324+207+384+2+3 = 920 about 37%, if we push it to 40 or even 45%, it still wouldn't be close to a majority.

I am happy to justify the figures regarding Pakistan and India, if you wish, as they are the largest constituent population groups.

Rest of your statement was great, totally agree.

 

[peagle]

if there is hatred then tehre will be bloodbath... point is not different ethnicities but the hatred.. which is based on religion, sect, creed and cast.
However, local body system would ensure integrity. Even english fight over a match between LFC and MANU... so sentiments can erupt in a fight..

But see local system of UK.. how much councils are powerful so people don't hate London.. like in Pak karachi, and else blame Islamabad even after 18th amendment.. we need more provinces..

Similarly, more local power means harmony. You know in dehli riots, mostly people were outsiders.
UP has 220 million pop. The strong centre means, it is alienated from grassroots and work for majority for votebank and not issues.. (UP example)

So like EU localised division of power, despite having an area like India, a single country could have been formed.

But main thing is hatred.. which is based on religion, language (Sir sayyad said that after 1867 banaras riots), forefathers, food, clothing means a ticking time bomb... @jamahir @xeuss

I am sorry to say, but, your statement consist of nothing but,
assumptions, presumptions, ifs and buts, it contains no reasoned argument, you have only presented disjointed set of examples that have no meaning with one another, but you are trying to prove "hate", based on "religion, sect, creed and cast", but your statement does not make a coherent argument.

Firstly, I would like you to present a more coherent reasoned statement,
Secondly, I will present a basic answer to you premise, that somehow you can get rid of hate with a magic wand.

The distrust of other, and affiliation with one own is a natural human trait, it has always existed, still exists and always will exist. Before you go analysing hatred, please, it is important to recognise that fact. The creation of India and Pakistan was not based on hatred, where have you created this logic from, its is simplistic to the extreme. You place far too much emphasis on "hate" and fail to recognise the realities of life.

English local government system has done nothing except provide a basic local government system, it has played no part in controlling so called "hate", the two things have no links whatsoever. It has been around for centuries, throughout that period there have been many issues of every kind, they were not controlled by local governments, but effective recognition of problems, and taking remedial actions, it has been a long process, not an overnight magic wonder, as you state.

I am sorry to say, but, I think you are massively confused or ill-informed. The Nazis ideology was based on race not "religion, sect, creed and cast", the American civil war had nothing to do with those 4 examples, nor did the break up of the Soviet Union, there are endless examples where " religion, sect, creed and cast" did not play a part.

I think it is important to recognise facts for what they are by looking at history holistically, rather than picking and choosing before forming disjoined conclusions, it results in weak arguments and an incomplete picture of history.